1 Peter: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2: Chapters 3-5 9780567710604, 9780567710628, 9780567710611

Citation preview

The INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY

on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments GENERAL EDITORS

STUART WEEKS Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew in the University of Durham

AND

C. M. TUCKETT Emeritus Professor of New Testament in the University of Oxford Fellow of Pembroke College

CONSULTING EDITOR

G. I. DAVIES, F.B.A. Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Studies in the University of Cambridge Fellow of Fitzwilliam College

FORMERLY UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF

J. A. EMERTON, F.B.A., C. E. B. CRANFIELD, F.B.A. and G. N. STANTON General Editors of the New Series S. R. DRIVER A. PLUMMER C. A. BRIGGS Founding Editors

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY

ON

1 PETER in 2 Volumes BY

TRAVIS B. WILLIAMS AND DAVID G. HORRELL Professor of Religion at Tusculum University, USA Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Exeter, UK

IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME 2 Commentary on 1 Peter 3–5

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2023 Copyright © Travis B. Williams and David G. Horrell, 2023 Travis B. Williams and David G. Horrell have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN:

HB:

978-0-5677-1060-4

ePDF:

978-0-5677-1061-1

Series: International Critical Commentary Typeset by Duncan Burns Printed and bound in Great Britain To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

CO N T E N T S TO V O L U ME I I General Editors’ Preface vii Preface ix Maps Map 1: The Roman Provinces of Asia Minor (late first century CE) xv Map 2: The Road Network in Asia Minor xvi Abbreviations xix Second Major Section of the Letter-Body (2.11–4.11) (continued) Instructions to Wives and (More Briefly) to Husbands (3.1–7) Summary Instructions to All, and Supporting Scriptural Quotation (3.8–12)

3 79

Suffering for Doing Good, and Being Ready to Give an Account (3.13–17)

117

Christ’s Suffering, Proclamation to the Imprisoned Spirits, and Vindication (3.18–22)

185

Excursus: Preaching to the Spirits in Prison 215 Exhortation to Keep Away from Sin and a Past Way of Life, for Judgment Will Come (4.1–6)

295

Instructions on Life within the Christian Community (4.7–11)

359

vi

CONTENTS TO VOLUME II

Third Major Section of the Letter-Body (4.12–5.11) Sharing the Sufferings of Christ and Glorifying God ‘as a Christian’ (4.12–19)

411

Instruction to Elders and to the Whole Community (5.1–5)

495

Depending on God and Resisting the Devil (5.6–11)

555

Letter Closing and Final Greetings (5.12–14)

607

Bibliography657

G E NE R A L E D ITO R S’ PR EFACE

Much scholarly work has been done on the Bible since the publication of the first volumes of the International Critical Commentary in the 1890s. New linguistic, textual, historical and archaeological evidence has become available, and there have been changes and developments in methods of study. In the twenty-first century there will be as great a need as ever, and perhaps a greater need, for the kind of commentary that the International Critical Commentary seeks to supply. The series has long had a special place among works in English on the Bible, because it has sought to bring together all the relevant aids to exegesis, linguistic and textual no less than archaeological, historical, literary and theological, to help the reader to understand the meaning of the books of the Old and New Testaments. In the confidence that such a series meets a need, the publishers and the editors are commissioning new commentaries on all the books of the Bible. The work of preparing a commentary on such a scale cannot but be slow, and developments in the past half-century have made the commentator’s task yet more difficult than before, but it is hoped that the remaining volumes will appear without too great intervals between them. No attempt has been made to secure a uniform theological or critical approach to the problems of the various books, and scholars have been selected for their scholarship and not for their adherence to any school of thought. It is hoped that the new volumes will attain the high standards set in the past, and that they will make a significant contribution to the understanding of the books of the Bible. S. D. W. C. M. T.

PR E FA C E

The commitment to write this commentary dates back to 2004, when the late Graham Stanton—whose generous and gracious presence is much missed—invited one of us (David Horrell) to take on this project. Graham expressed the hope that it might be completed within seven years, or ten at most, but the distractions of other projects and commitments, together with the sheer mass of material to consider, has led to considerable delay. Indeed, I (David) found myself overwhelmed at the scale of the task, and in 2012 invited Travis Williams, who had completed his PhD on 1 Peter with me at Exeter in 2010, to join me as co-author. Having developed our perspectives on 1 Peter in collaboration, and having both published quite extensively on the letter, it seems a good fit to combine our efforts in producing this commentary. We have drawn on our earlier publications where relevant, particularly in the Introduction. We have both worked hard over many years to complete the project: an initial exegesis of Chapters 1–3 was undertaken by David Horrell, Chapters 4–5 by Travis Williams, and the introduction was divided between us. We subsequently undertook our own independent exegesis of the sections covered by the other author and then merged them together such that the commentary in its entirety reflects both of our work. However, despite the shared and collaborative labour, I (David) would like to put on record that much of the work in recent years has been done by Travis: I would never have managed to bring the work to completion on my own. Much of the detailed grammatical analysis, references to primary texts, and extensive engagement with scholarly literature is due to his prodigious labour (hence he is named as first author). The resulting work is very long, especially for a text that runs to only 105 verses. But there are reasons for the length and detail. First, a commentary is not intended to be read like a monograph (we pity any reviewers) but to serve as a reference work, and (in the case of the ICC) as a compendium of scholarship and information about the text that will endure for some years. We have tried

x

PREFACE

to ensure that anyone consulting this commentary for information about any of the words or phrases within the text, even short or apparently insignificant ones, will find material to inform their interpretation—something that is not always the case, even with the largest commentaries. Second, commentaries on biblical texts are part of an extended scholarly conversation—indeed, a conversation that, as the turn to Wirkungsgeschichte has rightly highlighted, goes back to the earliest years of the text’s reception and interpretation. As time goes along, the breadth and depth of that conversation gets steadily greater, and exponentially so in recent years. Yet as Markus Bockmuehl has remarked, in a discipline overwhelmed by ‘the sheer flood of both printed and electronic publication’, there is a tendency to engage only the most recent works of scholarship: ‘It is considered an embarrassment if a dissertation fails to engage with a relevant work published eighteen months ago. The entire nineteenth century, however, can be disregarded with impunity’.1 But whereas many commentaries restrict their engagement to the works of recent decades, we have tried to engage with the full history of critical scholarship, for reasons that will be noted immediately below. We have of course been unable to interact with commentaries that have appeared very recently, notably Ruth Anne Reese, 1 Peter, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), Pheme Perkins, Eloise Rosenblatt, and Patricia McDonald, 1–2 Peter and Jude, Wisdom Commentary 56 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2022), and Christoph G. Müller, Der Erste Petrusbrief, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022). We have only been able to add minimal engagement with the new edition of Karen Jobes’ commentary (where this is done, it is distinguished from other references by the addition of the date, 2022). We would like to thank Baker Academic for providing us with a pre-publication copy of Craig Keener’s commentary, which enabled us to engage with this work much more than would otherwise have been possible.

1

  Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word, 37 and 34 respectively.



PREFACE 

xi

There are several specific features of the commentary to which we would like to draw attention, in the hope that this prefatory orientation will help readers to maximize the benefit of their engagement with it. •

•

In terms of format, while remaining within the conventions of the ICC, we have tried to set out our work in a way that facilitates readers’ use of it, depending on their specific interests. Each section of text opens with an Initial Bibliography of works specifically related to the passage, followed by detailed notes on the Text. A short Introduction explains the literary form and key features of the section of the letter, while the Exegesis contains the detailed analysis. Finally, a Summary section draws together key points, offering a wider (and theoretically informed) analysis of the text’s message, strategy and significance. Throughout we have made extensive use of footnotes, aiming thereby to make the main text more readable than it would be if primary and secondary references were liberally scattered in brackets throughout the text, as one sometimes encounters in commentaries. A complete bibliography lists all the works referred to. Multiple entries by the same author are ordered by date. (We have not included indexes, since their scale would make them unwieldy and therefore largely unhelpful, and also because readers are most likely to use the commentary to find information relating to a specific word or passage in 1 Peter, which can easily be located.) We engage in close detail with the textual variants, not only as a means to ascertain as far as possible the initial text but also because they are often interesting in their own right as examples of reception and interpretation (one example is the marginal summaries that appear in P72). Even the most detailed previous commentaries often omit to mention many significant variants, yet we have been able to benefit for the first time from the enormous labour contained in the Editio Critica Maior (and now represented in NA28) and from the insights of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) employed in producing this resource, even if we have at a few points differed from the judgments represented in the ECM.

xii

•

•

•

•

PREFACE

We offer a detailed level of grammatical analysis, something again that is relatively lightly covered even in the major commentaries, though the recent works of Dubis and Forbes, focused specifically on grammar, have been a valuable resource for our own work, even at the points where we differ from their judgments. As noted above, we have sought to engage as thoroughly as possible with older as well as more recent commentary literature. In part, the older literature is significant simply as a part of the history of the letter’s reception and interpretation, but it is also important in helping to gain critical perspective on contemporary positions, some of which have acquired a near consensus status that engagement with older perspectives helps to unpick and to challenge (for example, on approaches to the suffering or persecution evident in the letter). Rediscovering older perspectives and theories helps to clarify the range of interpretative options and, at times, to inform a move away from the more recently popular views. Resources such as the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG), online databases of papyri, inscriptions, etc., have also allowed us to extend the range of primary data used to inform an interpretation of the text. Using such resources only adds to our admiration for those earlier scholars, such as Hort, who pursued their work with such deep learning, unaided by the ability to search through thousands of documents with the click of a mouse (they worried only that mice might chew up their notes!). The resources now available offer the opportunity to move beyond the recycling of primary sources identified by earlier commentators, or scholars writing for the TDNT, and to bring new data to the table. In something of a departure from the ICC tradition, but in a way reflective of the contemporary discipline of biblical studies, we have also drawn on a range of theoretical perspectives—from social psychology, postcolonial theory, and so on—to illuminate the author’s message and strategy, and to help us understand the ways in which the letter contributes to the making of emerging Christian identity. The brief Summary at the close of each section of exegesis offers readers an overview, informed by such perspectives, and we



PREFACE 

•

xiii

hope will prove valuable to those who want to enrich their understanding of the letter without engaging in the minutiae of the detailed exegesis. All of this work, in many cases building on our earlier published research, has, we hope, offered a range of new perspectives on the letter, on topics including the imperatival participle, the nature of suffering and persecution, the meaning and function of ‘doing good’, the identity-defining significance of the letter’s strategy, and the letter’s stance towards resistance and survival.

It remains to offer our heartfelt thanks to all those who have supported and enabled this work, whether in their professional or personal capacities. We will forbear repeating our specific thanks to all those named in our previous works on 1 Peter, though the research presented there has shaped the present work too. We would, however, like to thank Bradley Arnold and Wei Hsien Wan, who helped us very considerably by checking a wide range of primary and secondary sources cited in the exegesis of Chapters 1–3. We are very grateful to Stephen Mitchell, for permission to draw information from the maps in his magisterial volumes on Anatolia, and to Sue Rouillard, of the University of Exeter, for drawing the maps presented here. We would also like to express our grateful appreciation to all the staff (esp. Lelia Dykes) who facilitate access to library resources, not least inter-library loans, at our own institutions and at other libraries we have been able to use at Cambridge University, the Wissenschaftlich-Theologisches Seminar, University of Heidelberg, the Faculty of Theology at the University of Mainz, the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at KU Leuven, Vanderbilt University, and Emmanuel Christian Seminary. Also deserving of very sincere thanks are all those who have helped to see this complex manuscript through the production process, especially our typesetter/copy-editor, Duncan Burns. David Horrell would like to thank his Exeter students and colleagues, particularly Louise Lawrence and Francesca Stavrakopoulou, for frequent (but friendly and supportive) teasing at every mention of 1 Peter and the unfinished commentary. Perhaps at last they will stop! He would also like to express profound gratitude to Carrie, Emily and Cate, for so much more than words could ever

xiv

PREFACE

convey and for being the people at the centre of his world. Emily and Cate endured most of his inaugural lecture (on 1 Peter) at the tender ages of six and three—rescued for some playtime after forty minutes or so by the always heroic Dan Morgan—so this work has been at the fringes of their consciousness for much of their lives! Travis Williams would like to thank everyone at Tusculum University—both colleagues and students—for their generous support of this project from the beginning. But above all, he would like to extend the deepest and most heartfelt debt of gratitude to Amy, Bryce, Trent, and Callan. For the past ten years, they have sacrificed so that this work could become a reality. In the process, they have been his strength and support, and they will forever be his love and joy.

150km

A

Ancyra

PAMPHYLIA

A NI

Amisus

Sinope N

Provincial boundaries c.70-110CE Annexed to Galatia c.70-112CE

SYRIA

C A P PA D O C I A

G A L AT I A

TUS

Map 1. The Roman Provinces of Asia Minor (late first century CE)

0

Y

PISIDIA

LYDIA

ASIA

BITH

Nicomedia

ND

N PO

Heracleia

Byzantium

BI

Nicomedia

T

N HY

IA

Prusias

Claudiopolis

Nicaea

Flaviopolis

TRO AS

Iuliopolis

MY SIA

Ancyra AEO LIS

P HRYGIA

Pergamum

ASIA

G A L AT I A

LYDIA

Smyrna

Sardis

Acmonia Synnada

IO NIA

Antioch Antioch

PAR OREIU S

Ephesus

Apamea Laodicea Iconium

CARI A P ISIDI A

LYCAONIA

Isinda

PAMPHYLIA

Perge

LYC IA

I S AURI A

Side CI LI CI A

MA RE

0

ME INT DI E TER RAN EAN 150km

Map 2. The Road Network in Asia Minor

RNUM SEA

Sinope

AN

D

PONTUS

N

Pompeiopolis Amisus Neoclaudiopolis PAP HLAGONIA

Gangra

Trapezus P ON T U S P O L E M O N I A C US

Amaseia P ON T U S GA L AT IC U S

Zela

Neocaesareia

Comana

Nicopolis

Sebastopolis

ARMENIA MINOR

Tavium Sebasteia

C A P PA D O C I A Caesareia

Germaniceia Anazarbus Tarsus

CILICIA PEDIAS

SYRIA

TR ACH EIA

Seleuceia

Provincial boundaries c.70 -110 CE Antioch

Provincial boundaries operative before or after c.70-110 CE

Roads designed for wheeled traffic

Cities

Roads designed for pack animals

A B B R E V IAT IO N S

All references that fall within the sphere of biblical studies are abbreviated according to The SBL Handbook of Style for Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). Abbreviations for the epigraphic evidence follow (with some alterations) Pierre Roussel, et al., eds., Supplementum epigraphicum graecum (Lugduni Batanorum: Sijthoff, 1923–), and the papyrological evidence is listed according to John F. Oates, et al., eds., Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html, January, 2022. AE Agora XXI

AMP ASV BDAG

BDF

BGU BRG

Cagnat, René, et al., ed. L’Année épigraphique: revue des publications épigraphiques relatives à l’antiquité romaine. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1888–. Lang, Mabel, ed. The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 21: Graffiti and Dipinti. Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1976. Amplified Bible American Standard Version Bauer, Walter. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Edited by Frederick W. Danker, based on Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Edited by Kurt and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised from the 9th–10th German edition, incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 15 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895–1983. Blue Red and Gold Bible

xx CCAG CEB CEV CGCG

Ch.L.A. Chrest.Mitt. Chrest.Wilck. CID CIG CIIP

CIJ

CIL CIRB CJB CMRDM

ABBREVIATIONS Kroll, Wilhelm, et al, ed. Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum. 12 vols. Brussels: Lamertin, 1898–1953. Common English Bible Contemporary English Version Boas, Evert van Emde, Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker, ed. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Bruckner, Albert, et al, ed. Chartae Latinae Antiquiores. Dietikon-Zurich: Graf, 1954–1998. Mitteis, L. and U. Wilcken, ed. Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, II Bd. Juristischer Teil, II Hälfte Chrestomathie. Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1912. Mitteis, L. and U. Wilcken, ed. Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I Bd. Historischer Teil, II Hälfte Chrestomathie. Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1912. Rougement, Georges, et al. ed. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes. 4 vols. Paris: de Boccard, 1977–2002. Boeckh, Augustine, ed. Corpus inscriptionum graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1828–1877. Cotton, Hannah M., et al. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae: A Multi-Lingual Corpus of the Inscriptions from Alexander to Muhammad. Volume 1: Jerusalem. Part 1: 1 – 704. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Frey, Jean-Baptiste, ed. Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum: recueil des iscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère. 2 vols. Rome: Pontificio Istituto di archeologia Cristiana, 1936–1952. Revision of vol. 1: Baruch Lifshitz, Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D. New York: KTAV, 1975. Mommsen, Theodor, et al., ed. Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Berlin: Reimer, 1853–. Struve, Vasilii V., ed. Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani. (Russian) Moscow: Nauka, 1965. Complete Jewish Bible Lane, Eugene N., ed. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Menis. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 19/1–4. Leiden: Brill, 1971–1978.

CPR CRF C-S

CSB Darby DLNT Douay-Rheims ECM

ECM (Part 2)

EHV ERV ESV FD III Geneva GIMB GNT Goodspeed Graffites d’Abydos GVI GW HCSB

ABBREVIATIONS 

xxi

Wessely, Carl, et al, ed. Corpus Papyrorum Raineri. Vienna: Hollinek, 1895–2011. Ribbeck, Otto, ed. Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1897. The Crosby-Schøyen Codex MS 193 (ECM, Sahidic Coptic ms sa 31). Published as The Crosby-Schøyen Codex MS 193 in the Schøyen Collection. Edited by James E. Goehring. CSCO 521. Leuven: Peeters, 1990. Christian Standard Bible Darby Translation Disciples’ Literal New Testament Douay-Rheims Bible (1899) Aland, Barbara, et al., ed. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior IV Catholic Letters, Parts 1: Text. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013. Aland, Barbara, et al., ed. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior IV Catholic Letters, Parts 2: Supplementary Material. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013 Evangelical Heritage Version Easy-to-Read Version English Standard Version Bourguet, Émile, et al, ed. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie. Paris: de Boccard, 1929–1976. Geneva Bible (1599) Newton, Charles T., ed. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1874–1916. Good New Translation The New Testament: An American Translation. Edited by Edgar J. Goodspeed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923. Perdrizet, Paul and Gustave Lefebvre, ed. Les Graffites grecs du Memnonion d’Abydos. Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1919. Peek, Werner, ed. Griechische Vers-Inschriften. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955. God’s Word Translation Holman Christian Standard Bible

xxii I.Ankara

I.Apameia IAph2007 I.Arykanda I.Asklepieion

I.Beichtinschriften I.Délos I.Didyma I.Eleusis

I.Eph. I.Erythrai

IG IGBulg

ABBREVIATIONS Mitchell, Stephen, and David French, ed. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra), vol. 1: From Augustus to the End of the Third Century AD. Vestigia 62. Munich: Beck, 2012. Corsten, Thomas, ed. Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und Pylai. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 32. Bonn: Habelt, 1987. Reynolds, Joyce, Charlotte Roueché, and Gabriel Bodard, ed. Inscriptions of Aphrodisias (2007), available . Şahin, Sencer, ed. Die Inschriften von Arykanda. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 48. Bonn: Habelt, 1994. Peek, Werner, ed. Inscriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Band 60, Heft 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1969. Petzl, Georg, ed. Die Beichtinscriften Westkleinasiens. Bonn: Habelt, 1994. [= Epigraphica Anatolica 22 (1994): v–xxi, 1–178]. Durrbach, Félix, et al, eds. Inscriptions de Délos. 7 vols. Paris: Champion, 1926–1972. Rehm, Albert, ed. Didyma, II. Die Inschriften. Berlin: Mann, 1958. Clinton, Kevin, ed. Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme. 2 vols. in 3 parts. Vivliothēkē tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Hetaireias 236 and 259. Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens, 2005–2008. Wankel, Hermann, et al., ed. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11.1–17.4. 8 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1979–1984. Engelmann, Helmut and Reinhold Merkelbach, ed. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 1–2. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1972–1973. Kirchhoff, Adolf, et al, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin: Reimer/De Gruyter, 1873–. Mihailov, Georgi, ed. Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae. 5 vols. Serdicae: Academia Litterarum Bulgarica. Institutum Archeologicum, 1958–1997.

IGLPalermo IGLSyr IGRR IGTh

IGUR I.Iasos I.Kalchedon

I.Knidos I.Labraunda

I.Leros

IMC Catania

IMEG

ABBREVIATIONS 

xxiii

Manni Piraino, Maria T., ed. Iscrizioni greche lapidarie del Museo di Palermo. Sikelika, Serie Storica 6. Palermo: Flaccovio, 1973. Jalabert, Louis, et al, ed. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1929–2009. Cagnat, René, et al., ed. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 4 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927. Baillet, Jules, ed. Inscriptions grecques et latines des tombeaux des rois ou Syringes à Thèbes. 3 vols. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, Mémoires publiés par les membres 42. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1920–1926. Moretti, Luigi, ed. Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae. 4 vols. in 5 parts. Rome: Istituto Italiano per la storia antica, 1968–1990. Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Iasos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 28.1–2. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1985. Merkelbach, Reinhold, Friedrich Karl Dörner and Sencer Şahin, ed. Die Inschriften von Kalchedon. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 20. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Knidos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 41. Bonn: Habelt, 1992. Crampa, Jonas, ed. Labraunda. Swedish Excavations and Researches, III,1–2. Greek Inscriptions. 2 vols. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, series in 4°, V, III,1-2. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1969–1972. Manganaro, Giacomo. ‘Le Iscrizioni delle isole Milesie’. Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 41–42 (1963– 1964): 293–349. Korhonen, Kalle, ed. Le iscrizioni del Museo Civico di Catania. Storia delle collezioni — Cultura epigrafica — Edizione. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 121. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 2004. Bernand, Étienne, ed. Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine. Recherches sur la poésie épigrammatique des Grecs en Égypte. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 98. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1969.

xxiv I.Mylasa I.Nikaia

IosPE II

I.Pal. Tertia

I.Pergamon I.Perge I.Pessinus I.Pisidia

I.Priene I.Prusa I.Rhod. Peraia I.Sardis

ABBREVIATIONS Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Mylasa. 2 vols. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 34–35. Bonn: Habelt, 1987–1988. Şahin, Sencer, ed. Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 9–10.3. 4 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1979–1987. Latyshev, Basilius [Vasilii], ed. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, vol. 2: Inscriptiones regni Bosporani Graecae. St. Petersburg: Iussu et Impensis Societatis Archaeologicae Imperii Russici, 1890. Meimaris, Yiannis E. and Kalliope I. KritikakouNikolaropoulou, ed. Inscriptions from Palaestina Tertia. 2 vols. Meletēmata (Kentron Hellēnikēs kai Rōmaikēs Archaiotētos) 41. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2005–2008. Fränkel, Max, ed. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. 2 vols. Altertümer von Pergamon 8.1–2. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1890–95. Şahin, Sencer, ed. Die Inschriften von Perge. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn: Habelt, 1999. Strubbe, Johan H. M., ed. The Inscriptions of Pessinous. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 66. Bonn: Habelt, 2005. Horsley, G. H. R. and Stephen Mitchell, ed. The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia, including texts from Kremna, Ariassos, Keraia, Hyia, Panemoteichos, the Sanctuary of Apollo of the Perminoundeis, Sia, Kocaaliler, and the Döşeme Boğazi. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 57. Bonn: Habelt, 2000. von Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller, ed. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906. Corsten, Thomas, ed. Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 39–40. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1991–1993. Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften der Rhodischen Peraia. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 38. Bonn: Habelt, 1991. Buckler, William Hepburn, and David Moore Robinson, eds. Sardis, VII. Greek and Latin Inscriptions, Part I. Leiden: Brill 1932.

IScM

I.Sestos I.Side I.Sinope I.Stratonikeia ISV I.Smyrna I.Tralleis IvP JCSCS JHS JUB Kaibel, EG KJV Knox

LB LEB Lindos LSJ

ABBREVIATIONS 

xxv

Pippidi, Dionisie M., et al, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. 5 vols. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1983–2000. Krauss, Johannes, ed. Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 19. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. Nollé, Johannes, ed. Side im Altertum. Geschichte und Zeugnisse. 2 vols. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 43–44. Bonn: Habelt, 1993–2001. French, David H. The Inscriptions of Sinope. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 64. Bonn: Habelt, 2004. Şahin, M. Çetin, ed. Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 21–22.1–2. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1982–1990. International Standard Version Petzl, Georg, ed. Die Inschriften von Smyrna. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 23–24,1–2. 3 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1982–1990. Poljakov, Fjodor B., ed. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36. Bonn: Habelt, 1989. Fränkel, Max, ed. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. 2 vols. Altertümer von Pergamon 8.1–2. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1890–1895. Journal of the Canadian Society for Coptic Studies Journal of Hellenic Studies Jubilee Bible 2000 Kaibel, George, ed. Epigrammata graeca ex lapidbus conlecta. Berlin: Reimer, 1878. King James Version The Holy Bible: A Translation from the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals. Translated by Ronald Knox. London: Burns & Oates, 1945–1949. Living Bible Lexham English Bible Blinkenberg, Christian, ed. Lindos. Fouilles et recherches, 1902–1914. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1931–1941. The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek–English Lexicon

xxvi MAMA

Message MEV MHT MM

Mounce NAB NASB NCB NCV NET NewDocs NIV NJB NKJV NLT NLV NMB NOG NRSV NTE O.Berenike

O.Bodl. O.Cair.

ABBREVIATIONS Keil, Josef, et al., eds. Monumenta asiae minoris antiqua. Journal of Roman Studies Monographs. 10 vols. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1928–. The Message Bible Modern English Version Moulton, James H., Wilbert F. Howard, and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906–76. Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914–1929. Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament New American Bible New American Standard Bible New Catholic Bible New Century Version New English Translation New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. North Ryde, NSW: Eerdmans, 1981–. New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New King James Version New Living Translation New Life Version New Matthew Bible Names of God Bible New Revised Standard Version New Testament for Everyone Bagnall, Roger S., et al, ed. Documents from Berenike. 2 vols. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 31, 33. Brussels: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth 2000–2005. Tait, John G., et al, ed. Greek Ostraca in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Various Other Collections. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1930–1964. Gallazzi, Claudio, Rosario Pintaudi and Klaas A. Worp, ed. Ostraka greci del Museo Egizio del Cairo. Papyrologica Florentina 14. Florence: Gonnelli, 1986.

O.Camb.

O.Claud.

O.Did. O.Douch. O.Edfou. OGIS

O.Heid. OJB O.Krok.

O.Leid.

O.Masada

ABBREVIATIONS 

xxvii

‘Ostraca in the Cambridge University Library’. Pages 153—73 in Greek Ostraca in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Various Other Collections. Edited by J. G. Tait. Egypt Exploration Society, Graeco-Roman Memoirs 21. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1930. Binger, Jean, et al, ed. Mons Claudianus: Ostraca Graeca et Latina. 4 vols. Documents de Fouilles 29, 32, 38, 47. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1992–2009. Cuvigny, Hélène, ed. Didymoi. Une garnison romaine dans le desert Oriental d’Égypte, II: Les Textes. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 2012. Cuvigny, Hélène and Guy Wagner, ed. Les ostraca grecs de Douch. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1986–2001. Bruyère, Bernard, et al, ed. Tell Edfou. 3 vols. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1937–1950. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae: Supplementum sylloge sinscriptionum graecarum. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel. Reprinted by Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1960. Armoni, Charikleia, James M. S. Cowey, and Dieter Hagedorn, ed. Die griechischen Ostraka der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung. Heidelberg: Winter, 2005. Orthodox Jewish Bible Cuvigny, Hélèlne, ed. Ostraca de Krokodilô, vol. 1: La correspondance militaire et sa circulation. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 51. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 2005. Bagnall, Roger S., Pieter J. Sijpesteijn, and Klaas A. Worp, ed. Greek Ostraka: A Catalogue of the Greek Ostraka in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden, with a Chapter on the Greek Ostraka in the Papyrological Institute of the University of Leiden. Zutphen: Terra, 1980. Cotton, Hannah M., and Joseph Geiger with J. David Thomas, ed. Masada II. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports: The Latin and Greek Documents. Masada Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989.

xxviii O.Mich. O.Narm.Dem. O.Petr.Mus.

O.Stras.

OTP O.Trim. O.Wadi.Hamm. O.Waqfa. O.Wilck. P.Abinn. P.Alex.Giss. P.Amh.

P.Ant. P.Apoll.

ABBREVIATIONS Amundsen, L., ed. Greek Ostraca in the University of Michigan Collection, Part I: Texts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1935. Bresciani, Edda, Sergio Pernigotti, and Maria Carmela Betrò, ed. Ostraka demotici da Narmuti I. Quaderni di Medinet Madi 1. Pisa Giardini, 1983. Funghi, Maria S., Gabriella M. Savorelli, and Cornelia Römer, ed. Ostraca greci e bilingui del Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology. Papyrologica Florentina 42. Firenze: Edizioni Gonnelli, 2012. Viereck, Paul, ed. Griechische und griechischdemotische Ostraka der Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek zu Strassburg im Elsass. Berlin: Weidmann, 1923. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Bagnall, Roger S., et al, ed. Ostraka from Trimithis. New York: New York University Press, 2012–2016. Kayer, François, ed. ‘Nouveaux textes grecs du Ouadi Hammamat’. ZPE 98 (1993): 111–56. Cuvigny, Hélèlne, Adel Hussein, and Guy Wagner, ed. Les Ostraca grecs d’Aïn Waqfa (Oasis de Kharga). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1993. Wilcken, Ulrich, ed. Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien. Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1899. Bell, H. I., et al, ed. The Abinnaeus Archive: Papers of a Roman Officer in the Reign of Constantius II. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Schwartz, Jacques, ed. Papyri variae Alexandrinae et Gissenses. Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1969. Grenfell, B. P. and A. S. Hunt, ed. The Amherst Papyri, Being an Account of the Greek Papyri in the Collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney, F.S.A. at Didlington Hall, Norfolk. 2 vols. London: Quaritch, 1900–1901. Roberts, C. H., et al, ed. The Antinoopolis Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1950–1967. Rémondon, Roger, ed. Papyrus grecs d’Apollônos Anô. Documents de fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 19. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1953.

P.Bad. P.Berl.Möller P.Berl.Sarisch.

P.Berl.Zill.

P.Bingen

P.Brem. P.Cair.Masp.

P.Cair.Mich. P.Cair.Preis.

P.Cair.Zen.

P.Charite P.Col. P.Coll.Youtie

ABBREVIATIONS 

xxix

Spiegelberg, Wilhelm, et al, ed. Veröffentlichungen aus den badischen Papyrus-Sammlungen. Heidelberg: Winter, 1923–1924. Möller, Sigurd, ed. Griechische Papyri aus dem Berliner Museum. Gothenburg: Elanders, 1929. Sarischouli, Panagiota, ed. Berliner griechische Papyri, Christliche literarische Texte und Urkunden aus dem 3. bis 8. Jh.n.Chr. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1995. Zilliacus, Henrik, ed. Vierzehn Berliner griechische Papyri. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum XI,4. Helsingfors: Societas scientiarum Fennica, 1941. Melaerts, Henri, ed. Papyri in Honorem Johannis Bingen Octogenarii. Studia Varia Bruxellensia ad Orbem Graeco-Latinum Pertinentia 5. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2000. Wilcken, Ulrich, ed. Die Bremer Papyri. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1936. Maspero, Jean, ed. Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. 3 vols. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1911–1916. Riad, Henry and John C. Shelton, ed. A Tax List from Karanis (P.Cair.Mich. 359). Bonn: Habelt, 1975–1977. Preisigke, Friedrich, ed. Griechische Urkunden des Aegyptischen Museums zu Kairo. Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Strassburg 8. Strassburg: Trübner, 1911. Edgar, Campbell C., ed. Zenon Papyri: Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. 5 vols. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1925–1940. Worp, Klaas A., ed. Das Aurelia Charite Archiv. Zutphen: Terra, 1980. Westermann, William L., et al, ed. Columbia Papyri. New York: Columbia University Press, 1929–1998. Hanson, Ann Ellis, ed. Collectanea Papyrologica: Texts Published in Honor of H. C. Youtie. Papyrologische Text und Abhandlungen 19–20. Bonn: Habelt, 1976.

xxx P.Congr.XV.

ABBREVIATIONS

Bingen, Jean and Georges Nachtergael, ed. Actes du XVe Congrès International de Papyrologie: Bruxelles—Louvain, 29 août–3 septembre 1977, II: Papyrus inédits. Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1978. P.Corn. Westermann, William L. and Casper J. Kraemer, ed. Greek Papyri in the Library of Cornell University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1926. P.Diog. Schubert, Paul, ed. Les archives de Marcus Lucretius Diogenes et textes apparentés. Bonn: Habelt, 1990. P.Dion. Boswinkel, Ernst and Pieter W. Pestman, ed. Les archives privées de Dionysios, fils de Kephalas: P.L. Bat. 22: textes grecs et démotiques. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 22A–B. Leiden: Brill, 1982. P.Dubl. McGing, Brian C., ed. Greek Papyri from Dublin. Bonn: Habelt, 1995. P.Dura Welles, ed. C. Bradford, Robert O. Fink, and J. F. Gilliam, ed. The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters, Final Report V, Part I: The Parchments and Papyri. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. P.Eleph. Rubensohn, Otto, ed. Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen in Berlin: Griechische Urkunden, Sonderheft. Elephantine-Papyri. Berlin: Weidmann, 1907. P.Enteux. Guéraud, Octave, ed. ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣ: Requêtes et plaintes adressées au Roi d’Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1931. P.Erl. Schubart, Wilhelm, ed. Die Papyri der Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen. Katalog der Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen, Neubearbeitung III/1. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1942. Peterse-Luschan, RLMK Petersen, Eugen A. H. and Felix von Luschan. Reisen in südwestlichen Kleinasien, vol. 2: Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratis. Vienna: Gerold, 1889. P.Fay. Grenfell, Bernard P., Arthur S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth, ed. Fayûm Towns and Their Papyri. GraecoRoman Memoirs 3. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1900.

P.Flor.

P.Freib. P.Fouad.

PG P.Gen. P.Giss.

P.Giss.Apoll. PGM

P.Grenf. P.Gurob. P.Hamb. P.Herm. P.Hever

ABBREVIATIONS 

xxxi

Vitelli, Girolamo, and Domenico Comparetti, ed. Papiri greco-egizii, Papiri Fiorentini. Supplementi Filologico-Storici ai Monumenti Antichi. 3 vols. Milan: Hoepli, 1905–1915. Aly, Wolfgang, et al, ed. Mitteilungen aus der Freiburger Papyrussammlung. 3 vols. Heidelberg, Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1914–1927. Bataille, André, et al, ed. Les Papyrus Fouad. Textes et documents / Société royale égyptienne de papyrologie 3. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1939. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca Nicole, Jules, et al, ed. Les Papyrus de Genève. Geneva: Bibliothèque publique et universitarie, 1896–2010. Eger, Otto, Ernst Kornemann, and Paul M. Meyer, ed. Griechische Papyri im Museum des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen. Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1910–1912. Kortus, Michael ed. Briefe des Apollonios-Archives aus der Sammlung Papyri Gissenses. Giessen: Universitätsbibliothek, 1999. Preisendanz, Karl, et al., ed. Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. 2nd ed. Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973–1974. Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt, eds. New Classical Fragments and Other Greek and Latin Papyri. Greek Papyri 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. Smyly, J. Gilbart, ed. Greek Papyri from Gurob. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co., 1921. Meyer, P. M., et al, ed. Griechische Papyrusurkunden der Hamburger Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek. Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1911–1998. Rees, Bryan R., ed. Papyri from Hermopolis and Other Documents of the Byzantine Period. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1964. Cotton, Hannah M. and A. Yardeni, ed. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites, with an Appendix containing Alleged Qumran Texts. The Seiyâl Collection 2. DJD 27. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.

xxxii P.Hib.

Phillips P.Iand. P.Kellis P.Laur. P.Leid. P.Leid.Inst. P.Lille P.Lips P.Lond. P.Lund. P.Mert. P.Mich. P.Mil. P.Mil.Vogl. P.Oslo P.Oxy.

ABBREVIATIONS Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt, and E. G. Turner, ed. The Hibeh Papyri. Graeco-Roman Memoirs 7, 32. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1906–1955. J.B. Phillips New Testament Kalbfleisch, Karl, et al, ed. Papyri Iandanae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1912–1938. Worp, Klaas A., et al, ed. Papyri from Kellis. Oxford: Oxbow, 1995–2007. Pintaudi, Rosario and Gerald M. Browne, ed. Dai Papiri della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. 5 vols. Florence: Gonnelli, 1976–1984. Leemans, Conrad, ed. Papyri Graeci Musei Antiquarii Lugduni-Batavi. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1843–1885. Hoogendijk, Francisca A. J. and Peter van Minnen, ed. Papyri, Ostraca, Parchments and Waxed Tablets in the Leiden Papyrological Institute. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Jouguet, Pierre, et al, ed. Papyrus grecs. Paris: Leroux, 1907–1929. Mitteis, Ludwig and Ruth Duttenhöfer, ed. Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906–2002. Kenyon, Frederic G., et al., ed. Greek Papyri in the British Museum. 7 vols. London: British Museum, 1893–1974. Wifstrand, Albert, ed. Aus der Papyrussammlung der Universitätbibliothek in Lund. Lund: Gleerup, 1934–1952. Bell, H. Idris, et al, ed. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the Collection of Wilfred Merton. London: Walker, 1948–1967. Edgar, C. C., et al, ed. Michigan Papyri. 19 vols. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1931–1999. Calderini, Aristide and Sergio Daris, ed. Papiri Milanesi. Milan: Società Editrice Vita e Pensiero, 1928–1966. Vogliano, Achille, et al, ed. Papiri della R. Università di Milano. Milan: Instituto Editoriale Cisalpino, 1937–2001. Eitrem, Samson and Leiv Amundsen, ed. Papyri Osloenses. 3 vols. Oslo: Dybwad, 1925–1936. Greenfell, Bernard P., et al., ed. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1898–.



ABBREVIATIONS  P.Oxy.Hels. P.Paris

P.Petaus P.Petr.

P.Petra P.Prag.

P.Princ. P.Rain.Cent.

P.Rein. P.Ross.Georg. P.Ryl.

P.Sarap.

PSI

xxxiii

Zilliacus, H., et al, ed. Fifty Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1979. Letronne, Antione J., Wladimir Brunet de Presle, and Émile Egger, ed. Notices et textes des papyrus du Musée du Louvre et de la Bibliothèque Impériale. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1865. Hagedorn, Ursula, et al, ed. Das Archiv des Petaus. Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1969. Mahaffy, John P., and J. Gilbart Smyly, ed. The Flinders Petrie Papyri, with Transcription, Commentaries and Index. Cunningham Memoirs 8, 9, 11. Dublin: Academy House, 1891–1905. Frösen, Jaakko, et al, ed. The Petra Papyri. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research, 2002–2007. Pintaudi, Rosario, Růžena Dostálová, and Ladislav Vidman, ed. Papyri Graecae Wessely Pragenses. Firenze: Edizioni Gonnelli, Firenze: Gonnelli, 1988–1995 Johnson, Allan C., et al, ed. Papyri in the Princeton University Collections. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1931–1942. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer: Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Vienna: Bruder Hollinek, 1983. Reinach, Théodore, et al, ed. Papyrus grecs et démotiques recueillis en Égypte. Paris: Leroux, 1905. Zereteli, Gregor, et al, ed. Papyri russischer und georgischer Sammlungen. Tiflis: Universitätslithographie, 1925–1935. Hunt, Arthur S. and Colin H. Roberts, ed. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1915–. Schwartz, Jacques, ed. Les archives de Sarapion et de ses fils: une exploitation agricole aux environs d’Hermoupolis Magna (de 90 à 133 p.C.). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1961. Vitelli, G., et al, ed. Papiri greci e latini. Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana per la ricerca dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto. Florence: Tipografia E. Ariani, 1912–.

xxxiv P.Sijp.

P.Sorb. P.Soter. P.Stras. P.Tebt.

P.Tor.Choach.

P.Turner

P.Wilcken P.Wisc. P.Yadin

P.Yale

ABBREVIATIONS Sirks, Adriaan J. B. and Klaas A. Worp, ed. Papyri in Memory of P. J. Sijpesteijn. American Studies in Papyrology 40. Oakville, CT: American Society for Papyrologists, 2007. Cadell, Hélène et al, ed. Papyrus de la Sorbonne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966–1994. Omar, Sayed, ed. Das Archiv des Soterichos. Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1979. Preisigke, Friedrich, ed. Griechische Papyrus der Kaiserlichen Universitäts- und Landes-bibliothek zu Strassburg. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1912–1920. Grenfell, Bernard P., et al, ed. The Tebtunis Papyri. 4 vols. London: H. Frowde (vols. 1–2); New York: Oxford University Press (vol. 3); London: British Academy and the Egypt Exploration Society (vol. 4), 1902–1976. Pestman, Pieter W., ed. Il Processo di Hermias e altri documenti dell’archivio dei choachiti, papiri greci e demotici conservati a Torino e in altre collezioni d’Italia. Turin: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, Soprintendenza al Museo delle antichità egizie, 1992. Parsons, Peter J., et al, ed. Papyri Greek and Egyptian Edited by Various Hands in Honour of Eric Gardner Turner on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Egypt Exploration Society, Graeco-Roman Memoirs 68. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1981. Wilcken, Ulrich, ed. Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, Band 1, Historischer Teil. Zweite Hälfte: Chrestomathie. Leipzig: Teubner, 1912. Sijpesteijn, Pieter J., ed. The Wisconsin Papyri. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1977. Lewis, Naphtali, Yigael Yadin, and Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri. Judean Desert Studies 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Oates, John F., et al, ed. Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. New Haven, CT: American Society of Papyrologists, 1967–2001.

RECAM II

RPC I

RPC II

RSV SB SEG SGDI SIG3 Stud.Pal. TAM TDNT

Tempel von Dakke III

ABBREVIATIONS 

xxxv

Mitchell, Stephen, ed. Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor, II: The Ankara District, the Inscriptions of North Galatia. British Archaeological Review International Series 135. Oxford: British Archaeological Review, 1982. Burnett, Andrew M., et al., ed. Roman Provincial Coinage: vol. 1: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 B.C.–A.D.69). London/Paris: British Museum Press/Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1998. Burnett, Andrew M., Michel Amandry, and Ian Carradice, ed. Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. 2: From Vespasian to Domitian (A.D. 69-96). London/Paris: British Museum Press/Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1999. Revised Standard Version Preisigke, Friedrich, et al, ed. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1915–. Roussel, Pierre, et al., ed. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Lugduni Batanorum: Sijthoff, 1923–. Collitz, Hermann, et al, ed. Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften. 4 vols. in 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1884–1915. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. 3rd ed. 4 vols. Leipzig: Apud S. Hirzelium, 1915–1924. Wessely, Carl, ed. Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde. Leipzig: Avenarius, 1901–1924. Kalinka, Ernst, et al, ed. Tituli Asiae Minoris. Vienna: Alfredi Hoelder/Academiam Scientiarum Austriacam, 1901–2007. Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Ruppel, Walter, ed. Der Tempel von Dakke, III: Die griechischen und lateinischen Inschriften von Dakke. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte. Les Temples immergés de la Nubie. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1930.

xxxvi Tit. Calymnii

Tit. Cam.

TLNT UPZ WEB Weymouth Williams Wycliffe YLT

ABBREVIATIONS Segre, Mario. ‘Tituli Calymnii’. Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente 22–23, n.s. 6–7 (1944–1945 [1952]): 1–248. Segre, Mario and Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. ‘Tituli Camirenses’. Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente 27–29, n.s. 11–13 (1949–1951): 141–318. Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Wilcken, Ulrich, ed. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (ältere Funde). 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1927–1957. World English Bible Weymouth New Testament Williams New Testament Wycliffe Bible Young’s Literal Translation

S E C O N D MA JO R SE C TI ON O F T H E L E T T E R -B O DY (2.11–4.11) ( con ti n u ed )

I N S T R U C T IO N S TO WIV ES AND ( M O RE B R IE F LY ) TO H U SBANDS (3.1–7)

Initial Bibliography David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter, SBLMS 26 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1981); Michal Bar-Asher Siegal and Michal Beth Dinkler, ‘Citing Sarah in the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature’, ETL 96 (2020): 443–57; Alicia J. Batten, ‘Neither Gold nor Braided Hair (1 Timothy 2.9; 1 Peter 3.3): Adornment, Gender and Honour in Antiq�uity’, NTS 55 (2009): 484–501; Betsy J. Bauman-Martin, ‘Women on the Edge: New Perspectives on Women in the Petrine Haustafel’, JBL 123 (2004): 253–79; Jennifer G. Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives, LNTS 442 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2011); Nicholas T. Bott, ‘Sarah as the “Weaker Vessel”: Genesis 18 and 20 in 1 Peter’s Instructions to Husbands in 1 Pet 3:7’, TJ 36 (2015): 243–59; Jeannine K. Brown, ‘Silent Wives, Verbal Believers: Ethical and Hermeneutical Considerations in 1 Peter 3:1-6 and Its Context’, WW 24 (2004): 395–403; Norbert Brox, ‘ “Sara zum Beispiel…”: Israel im 1.Petrusbrief’, in Kontinuität und Einheit. Für Franz Mussner, ed. PaulGerhard Müller and Werner Stenger (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1981), 484–93; Greg Forbes, ‘Children of Sarah: Interpreting 1 Peter 3:6b’, BBR 15 (2005): 105–109; Giuseppe F. Ghiberti, ‘Le “sante donne” di una volta (1Pt 3,5)’, RivB 36 (1988): 287–97; Carl D. Gross, ‘Are the Wives of 1 Peter 3.7 Christians?’, JSNT 35 (1989): 89–96; David G. Horrell, ‘Fear, Hope, and Doing Good: Wives as a Paradigm of Mission in 1 Peter’, EstBib 73 (2015): 409–29; Mark Kiley, ‘Like Sara: The Tale of Terror behind 1 Peter 3:6’, JBL 106 (1987): 689–92; Troy W. Martin, ‘The TestAbr and the Background of 1Pet 3,6’, ZNW 90 (1999): 139–46; Kelsi Morrison-Atkins, ‘Worn Stories: (Ad)dressing Wives in 1 Peter’, in Dress in Mediterranean Antiquity: Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, ed. Alicia J. Batten and Kelly Olson (London: T&T Clark, 2021), 289–99; Janette H. Ok, ‘You have become children of Sarah: Reading 1 Peter 3:1–6 through the Intersectionality of Asian Immigrant Wives, Patriarchy, and Honorary Whiteness’, in Minoritized Women Reading Race and Ethnicity: Intersectional Approaches to Constructed Identity and Early Christian Texts, ed. Mitzi J. Smith and Jin Young Choi, Feminist Studies and Sacred Texts (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2020), 111–29; Jeremy Punt, ‘Subverting Sarah in the New Testament: Galatians 4 and

4

1 PETER

1 Peter 3’, in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, vol. 2: Exegetical Studies, ed. Craig A. Evans and Danny Zacharias, LNTS 392 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 155–74; Caryn Reeder, ‘1 Peter 3:1–6: Biblical Authority and Battered Wives’, BBR 25 (2015): 519–39; Fika J. van Rensburg, ‘Sarah’s Submissiveness to Abraham: A Socio-Historic Interpretation of the Exhortation to Wives in 1 Peter 3:5–6 to Take Sarah as Example of Submissiveness’, HTS 60 (2004): 249–60; Dorothy I. Sly, ‘1 Peter 3:6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus’, JBL 110 (1991): 126–29; Elizabeth Smith, ‘Himations and Fancy Hairdos: A Note on 1 Peter 3.3’, JSNT 42 (2019): 237–41; Aída Besançon Spencer, ‘Peter’s Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3:6’, BBR 10 (2000): 107–19; Magda Misset-van de Weg, ‘The Sarah Imagery in I Peter’, in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, ed. Leonard V. Rutgers, Pieter W. van der Horst, and Henriëtte W. Havelaar, CBET 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 111–26.

Text Ὁμοίως(a) γυναῖκες γυναῖκες,, ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἀνδράσιν, ἵνα καὶ εἴ τινες ἀπειθοῦσιν(b) τῷ λόγῳ, λόγῳ, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται 2 ἐποπτεύσαντες(c) τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν. ὑμῶν. 3 ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν(d) καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος, κόσμος, 4 ἀλλ᾿ ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πραέως καὶ ἡσυχίου(e) πνεύματος ὅ ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ πολυτελές. πολυτελές. 5 οὕτως γάρ ποτε καὶ αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς(f) θεὸν ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτὰς ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἀνδράσιν, 6 ὡς Σάρρα ὑπήκουσεν(g) τῷ Ἀβραὰμ κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι καὶ μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν. πτόησιν. 7 Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ,, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις(h) γυναικείῳ χάριτος(i) ζωῆς εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι(j) τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν. ὑμῶν. 1

(a) In NA28/USB5, the article (αἱ) is present before γυναῖκες, which is supported by many important MSS (P72, ‫א‬2, C, Ψ, 5, 33, 323, 436, 623, 1243, 1735, 1739, 1852, 2344, 2541, 2718, Byz). Apart from this weighty external testimony, proponents have defended the reading by claiming that the omission of the article was intended to highlight the use of γυναῖκες as a vocative (so, e.g., Huther 149; Schlosser 179 n. a; Forbes 98; see also Metzger, TCGNT, 620). But this argument is difficult to sustain given that the articular nominative was sometimes used as a vocative in the NT (see MHT 1:70; Robertson, Grammar, 465; also on 2.18), such that αἱ γυναῖκες could have served to denote direct address. Further, the same manuscripts that omit the



3.1–7

5

article at 3.1 (P81, ‫*א‬, A, B, 81)1 include it at 2.18 (οἱ οἰκέται), and only two omit it at 3.7 (P81vid, B). A more weighty consideration is that the anarthrous reading is the lectio difficilior, the article being introduced by scribes on the basis of the parallel in 2.18, as well as in 3.7, and the article used later in 3.1 (τῶν γυναικῶν). (It might be possible to argue the contrary case, based on the author’s tendency to use the article in these direct addresses, as at 2.18 and 3.7, but this makes the omission here difficult to explain.) The article should therefore probably be omitted, as in the texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and NA24 (cf. Kühl 186 n. 1; Monnier 139 n. 1; Knopf 121; Lenski 127; Michaels 154 n. a; Wagner–Vouga 102; this is given as an alternative text in ECM). (b) There is variation in both the content and arrangement of the text at this point. Some witnesses replace the conditional element with a relative pronoun: καὶ οἵτινες ἀπειθοῦσιν (81, 1729, 1881, 2147, etc.; cf. 206, 1505, 1799, syp, which also omit καί). Others retain the condition, but omit καί (P81vid, B, 1448*, 1611 syh co). Most manuscripts read καὶ εἴ τινες ἀπειθοῦσιν (P72, ‫א‬, A, Ψ, Byz), although some important witnesses have the order of the first two terms reversed: εἰ καί τινες ἀπειθοῦσιν (C, 323, 424, 1243, 1739, 1852). (c) A few ancient witnesses (P72, ‫*א‬, 442, 1243, 1739, samss, bo, Did) have the present tense ἐποπτεύοντες, which may represent the husbands’ observation of their wives’ pure lives as contemporaneous with their conversion. But since this reading was perhaps influenced by the same form in 2.12, the aorist form (supported by ‫א‬2, A, B, C, Ψ, 81, 1852, Byz, etc.) is to be preferred here (cf. Achtemeier 205 n. 2; Elliott 559). (d) Based on the fact that τριχῶν (‘hair’) is omitted in P72, C, Ψ, 1852, Clement, and some Latin and Coptic versions, it is not read in the text of Lachmann. The omission, as Michaels suggests, ‘could reflect a certain confusion of ἐμπλοκή with ἐμπλόκιον, used in the LXX to refer to jewelry made of twisted gold’. If this was the case, ‘ἐμπλοκῆς καὶ περιθέσεως would then be read with χρυσίων: “the fashioning and putting on of gold ornaments” ’ (155 n. c). But regardless of how the omission arose, the presence of τριχῶν in the initial text does not seem to be in any serious doubt. (e) These words are variously spelt and ordered in the Greek MS tradition: the TR and Majority Text reading (τοῦ πρᾳέος καὶ ἡσυχίου) is that of A, C, Ψ, etc., while Westcott-Hort follow B and the Bohairic tradition with τοῦ ἡσυχίου καὶ πραέως (cf. Lachmann: τοῦ ἡσυχίου καὶ πρᾳέος). The reading here, adopted in the text of Tischendorf and NA28, is supported by P72, ‫א‬2, K, L, 049, etc. 1   Achteiemer (205 n. 1; cf. also Schreiner 165 n. 163) claims that ὁμοίως is lacking in some manuscripts, in particular B. But there is no indication of this, either in ECM or from photographs of B. It seems that he may have confused the omission of ὁμοίως with the omission of αἱ.

6

1 PETER

(f) Two textual questions arise in this prepositional phrase. The first is whether it is best, with the TR and Majority Text, to read ἐπί (‫א‬, 5, 436, 623, 2464, 2541, Byz), or to follow the texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and NA28 in reading εἰς (P72, A, B, C, Ψ, etc.). Both prepositions are found with ἐλπίζω in the NT (εἰς: John 5.45; 2 Cor 1.10; ἐπί: Rom 15.12; 1 Tim 4.10), and 1 Peter only uses ἐλπίζω one other time (see 1.13: ἐλπίσατε ἐπί), which makes it difficult to establish intrinsic probability. As such, it is probably best to default to the much stronger external support for εἰς (cf. Huther 149). An equally difficult question is whether to include the article (τόν) before θεόν. ECM provides both readings, although the weight of the external testimony tends to favour its absence. (g) Both the texts of Lachmann and Westcott-Hort read the imperfect ὑπήκουεν (cf. also Kühl 190–91 n. 3) rather than the aorist ὑπήκουσεν. But aside from its limited textual support (B, Ψ, 0142*, 69, L590), the imperfect most likely represents a grammatical improvement (pace Achtemeier 205 n. 6; Donelson 88 n. g, who understand it as the more difficult reading) designed to stress the constancy of Sarah’s obedience to Abraham (cf. de Wette 35; Monnier 147 n. 1; Spicq 122). (h) The nominative form of the participle (συγκληρονόμοι, spelt συνin some manuscripts), which became the reading of the TR, Griesbach, Lachmann, and the Majority Text, is found in a number of ancient witnesses (A, C, Ψ, 5, 81, 436, 1735, 2541, Byz, co, Hier) and has been adopted by a variety of commentators throughout the years (e.g., Bengel 64 n. 1; Keil 108; Bigg 155; cf. Reicke, ‘Gnosis’, 297–98). In this case, the reference of the clause (ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοι χάριτος ζωῆς) would be to the husbands, and the participial phrase ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν would be connected to the preceding.2 According to this reading, ‘the reason why the husband ought to give honour to the wife, is derived from the fact, that God also gives honour to the man, as to an heir’ (Bengel 64; original emphasis). However, many more commentators (e.g., Benson 242; Steiger 2:163–64; Bloomfield 715; Mason 415; Wohlenberg 91), and particularly within recent scholarship (e.g., Michaels 155 n. d; Achtemeier 205–206 n. 8; Elliott 580; Donelson 89 n. m; Schlosser 179 n. e), prefer the dative, συγκληρονόμοις, which is found in NA28. In this reading, the ὡς-clause would refer to the wives, changing the basic motivation for the husbands to display honour toward their wives. The basis would be the wives’ position as co-heirs in the inheritance of salvation. Preference should be given to the dative (spelt συν- in some cases), which not only possesses stronger external support (P72, P81, ‫א‬2, B, 623, 1739, 1852, itar, t, vg, syrp, arm, eth, etc.), but also accounts for transcriptional probability (viz. the fact that the transition from the singular ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει to the plural συγκληρονόμοις may have caused problems for scribes, see Metzger, TCGNT, 620–21). 2   Pace Pott 103–104, who interprets the nominative reading as equivalent to εἰσι γὰρ συγκληρονόμοι, sc. αἱ γυναῖκες (‘for your wives are joint-heirs’).



3.1–7

7

(i) There are several forms of this phrase in the textual record (see ECM 154). Some witnesses (‫א‬, A, 5, 623, 2464, syh) add ποικίλης before χάριτος (which Hofmann, 109, considers authentic; cf. also Grotius 90), perhaps under the influence of 1 Pet 4.10. P72 (cf. also syp) adds αἰωνίου after ζωῆς, a spiritualising clarificatory addition. Others make the genitive ζωῆς into an adjectival participle, χάριτος ζώσης, ‘living grace’ (K, 424, pc). (j) In place of ἐγκόπτεσθαι (‘to be interrupted’), the TR reads ἐκκόπτεσθαι (‘to be cut off’), which finds support in a few important MSS (P72, C, K, L, Ψ, 424, 1852, 2344, 2464). Although one could argue that ἐκκόπτεσθαι is the more difficult reading, in that it represents a significantly heightened threat, Bloomfield points out that it is probably ‘too strong for the occasion, since the jarrings arising from want of due respect and kind attention would not, in the case of religious persons, be such as to utterly cut off all family and social prayer’ (716; original emphasis; cf. Bengel 64; Hofmann 111; Kühl 194 n. 2; Wohlenberg 93). This would suggest that the change arose due to a transcriptional error rather than as an interpretative alteration.

Introduction The household code material (on which see the Introduction to 2.18–25) continues with instruction to wives, followed by a much shorter instruction to husbands. Both exhortations are marked with the same introductory ὁμοίως, indicating the continuation of and comparison with what has preceded. The teaching given to wives follows a similar pattern to that given to slaves: first comes the instruction to be subordinate (3.1), second a comment on the kind of conduct that is pleasing to God (3.2–4), and third a precedent and motivation for the behaviour that is encouraged, here based on the example of holy women of old, particularly Sarah (3.5–6).3 The basic character of this material is similar to that in the other NT household codes, where wives are urged to be submissive on the basis that this is the kind of conduct approved by God (Eph 5.22–24; Col 3.18). Nonetheless, the particular explanation and motivation for this conduct given in 1 Peter has its own distinctive features, and the space given specifically to the required conduct of wives is also distinctive.4 And just as the instruction given to house  Cf. Michaels 155.   In Col 3.18–4.1, the instruction to wives and to husbands is equally balanced in length, while the instruction to slaves is the most extended. In Eph 5.21–6.9, the husband–wife relationship is discussed at length through the parallel with Christ and the Church (5.25–33). 3 4

8

1 PETER

hold slaves seems to regard them as in some ways paradigmatic for the whole community, so the instruction given specifically to wives instantiates the headline exhortation about doing good in 2.12 and closely anticipates the more general exhortation given in 3.13–17 (for the precise parallels, see Introduction to 3.13–17). The instruction to husbands is, unsurprisingly, rather different to that given to wives, but also provides reason and motivation for the pattern of conduct required. Unlike Ephesians and Colossians, the instruction to husbands is not to ‘love’ their wives (cf. Eph 5.25; Col 3.19) but concerns the manner in which they are to ‘live with’ them. Exegesis 1 Ὁμοίως γυναῖκες, γυναῖκες, ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἀνδράσιν, The opening adverb (ὁμοίως) indicates that this new section of instruction is closely related to what has preceded. It is not as clear which of the several possible antecedents are intended through this comparative form. Some connect the form to the previous section (2.18–25), arguing that the conduct expected of wives is the same as that expected of slaves.5 It has become more popular to view ὁμοίως as linking this section more broadly with the responsibilities of those in the various positions of the established social order (cf. 1 Pet 2.13, 17). Just as slaves are expected to show deference to divinely sanctioned institutions by submitting to their masters, so too wives demonstrate their acceptance of the will of God by submitting to their husbands.6 Yet, given the closely parallel use of the same adverb in 3.7 (and 5.5), it is probably best to take ὁμοίως somewhat more loosely as a transitional and connective term.7 The address to γυναῖκες is a direct appeal, similar to the address to οἱ οἰκέται in 2.18, though here the anarthrous form reflects a true vocative form, rather than the nominative used for vocative at 2.18 (and 3.7). Even if we accepted the article here too (see Text at 3.1 n. a), the parallel with 2.18 indicates that it would still be

  E.g., Wand 89; Grudem 135. Cf. also Bauman-Martin, ‘Feminist Theologies of Suffering’, 73. 6   See Selwyn 182; Kelly 127; Elliott 553; Watson 72. Cf. also Slaughter, ‘Submission of Wives’, 67–69; Aageson, ‘1 Peter 2.11–3.7’, 44; Chia, ‘Irresistible Beauty’, 2. 7   Cf. Pott 93–94; Michaels 156–57; Hillyer 92; Schlosser 180; Schreiner 165. 5



3.1–7

9

a nominative used with vocative force.8 Further, if ὁμοίως is a broad connective, the specific instruction given to the wives (viz. subordination) indicates that in this case the expected and approved pattern of behaviour is indeed closely parallel to that required of slaves. As in 2.18, the participle (ὑποτασσόμεναι) here carries independent imperatival force (see Excursus: Imperatival Participles in 1 Peter).9 Those to whom the wives’ subordination is due are τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν. In classical Greek, the adjective ἴδιος carried a reflexive meaning, describing something that was private or peculiar to oneself. By the Hellenistic period, it came to be used with a possessive force.10 There is debate, however, over whether the form weakened to the point of losing its reflexive sense altogether, making it the equivalent to a possessive pronoun.11 If the adjective is no longer emphatic, then the Petrine author would simply be employing ἴδιος (rather than ὑμῶν) for the purpose of variety   Pace Steiger 2:140. Against the use of αἱ γυναῖκες (accepting the article) as a nominative for a vocative, some point out that τῶν γυναικῶν appears in the second half of the verse instead of ὑμῶν, which might have been expected if the wives were being directly addressed. However, the second-person pronoun (ὑμῶν) does appear in the following verse, and in 3.7, where it is used to address husbands (cf. Johnstone 194). The second-person verb in 3.6 (ἐγενήθητε) provides further indication that wives are being addressed in a direct manner. The supposed disjunction between third-person forms and second person is less harsh than might be supposed. It follows in part from the nominative-plus-participle form of address: in 2.18–20 there is also a mix of third-person (ὑποφέρει τις) and second-person (ὑπομενεῖτε) forms. Therefore, it is unnecessary to conjecture that v. 1 ‘may be a quotation from an earlier written or oral source’ (Selwyn 183; cf. Achtemeier 210–11). 9   As in 2.18, Achtemeier regards this participle not as imperatival but as ‘instru� mental, showing the means by which the wife is to fulfill those commands [in 2.17]’ (209; cf. also Spencer, ‘Peter’s Pedagogical Method’, 111; Vahrenhorst 132). For a critique of this, see Exegesis at 2.18. 10   See MHT 1:87–90; 3:191–92; Robertson, Grammar, 691–92; BDF §286. 11   According to Deissmann, by the Hellenistic period this reflexive sense had generally faded. He notes, ‘Exegetes have, in many places, laid a stress upon the ἴδιος which, in the text, does not belong to it at all. In consideration of the very widely extended use of the exhausted ἴδιος in the post-classical age, it will, in point of fact, be the most proper course in exegesis always to assume it primarily as most probable, and to take ἴδιος in the old sense only when the context absolutely requires it’ (Bible Studies, 124). Moulton argues strongly against this assertion, however, claiming that ἴδιος still maintained some of its reflexive sense despite the weakening that occurred (see MHT 1:87–90). 8

10

1 PETER

(‘your husbands’; cf. NRSV, CJB, NAB, ERV, GNT, NCV). If the reflexive sense is still present, then he would be laying greater stress on the individualised nature of the wives’ subordination (‘your own husbands’; cf. NIV, ESV, NET, CEB, NASB, HCSB).12 The decision is difficult given that ἰδίοις, when modifying ἀνήρ or γυνή as a reference to one’s marital partner, displayed both an emphatic sense and a purely possessive force without any discernible reflexive sense.13 What tips the scales slightly in favour of the former in v. 1 is the fact that the reflexive meaning is usually evident from descriptions of situations that run counter to the normal operations of a marriage. In these cases, the emphasis is placed on the unique nature of the relationship. With the present usage, no such circumstances are apparent, and thus it should simply be translated, ‘your husbands’, though without losing sight of a certain focus thus conveyed.14 As with a possessive pronoun, ἰδίοις serves a delimiting purpose, making it clear that the author is concerned specifically with the relationship between wives and their husbands—not with a general subordination of women to men.15 What exactly the author intends this ‘subordination’ to involve is open to discussion (see further Summary below): an awareness that husbands’ behaviour, to which   Many earlier interpreters claimed that the adjective ἴδιος is intended to emphasise chastity, reminding the wives that their commitment ought to be to their husbands—even ones who are unbelievers—and that they should avoid the temptation to build relationships with other men in the Christian community (e.g., Calov 1495; Benson 235; Steiger 2:141–43; Bloomfield 714; Fausset 507; Usteri 123–24; Fronmüller 52; Monnier 139–40). 13   Reflexive emphasis: Diodorus Siculus 16.14.1; 32.10.5; Gr. Apoc. Ezra 3.12; Dorotheus, Fragmenta Graeca, p. 342; Josephus, Ant. 8.368; War 1.483; Plutarch, Pel. 35.7; Curios. 14 (Mor. 522B); Quaest. conv. 2.1.10 (Mor. 633F); Dio Chrysostom, Or. 74.18; Cyranides 3.9; Acts Thom. 96.2; 134.2; Acts Phil. 81.4; Mart. Pet. Paul 10.3; Acts Pet. Paul 31.2. Possessive: Diodorus Siculus 1.64.11; 17.84.5; Josephus, War 2.237; Jan. Jam. A 1.65; Plutarch, Cor. 36.4; Athenaeus, Deipn. 6.75 (Kaibel); Acts Thom. 13.4; 82.3; 101.4; 134.3; Mart. Pet. 5.3; Mart. Pet. Paul 37.4. 14   Cf. Alford 356; Kelly 127. 15   So Keil 103; Bigg 150–51; Selwyn 182; Beare 153; Achtemeier 209; Senior 81. Even if ἴδιος carries no special reflexive force, it should perhaps be attributed some significance: it appears to be part of an established phrase in the household-code traditions (cf. Eph 5.22; Titus 2.5; also 1 Cor 14.34), indicating the specific focus on the wife–husband relationship. 12



3.1–7

11

wives might ‘submit’, could include physical, emotional, or sexual abuse seems at least hinted at in v. 6, with its reference to possible ‘terrors’ that might be faced (cf. also 2.18–20).16 Even if the author expects Christian husbands not to act in such ways (see 3.7), the relationships in view here at least include non-Christian husbands (see below). On the other hand, the letter suggests that ‘submission’ has its limits and that devotion to Christ and the way of life that this entails is not to be compromised, even in the face of threats (see on 2.13–17; 3.13–17; 4.15–16). ἵνα καὶ εἴ τινες ἀπειθοῦσιν τῷ λόγῳ, λόγῳ, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς ἄνευ λόγου κερδηθήσονται Unlike the instructions in Colossians and Ephesians, here a definite purpose (ἵνα) is given for such subordination. It represents a missionary motivation: to win over any husbands who are not Christians. A historical question that arises from this aim is, how common were such ‘mixed’ marriages? Beare appeals to the combination of εἰ + the indefinite pronoun to diagnose the situation. This construction often functions as the equivalent of a relative pronoun, ‘whoever’ (see Matt 16.24; Luke 9.23; 1 Tim 3.1),17 including twice in 1 Peter (cf. 4.11bis). As such, Beare claims that the phrase should be rendered, ‘any who disobey’ or perhaps even, ‘those who disobey’. What he concludes from this is that ‘[t]here is no suggestion that these are exceptional cases; the implication of the whole passage, on the contrary, is that the women whom he is addressing are nearly all married to pagan husbands’.18 The argument offered by Beare is impeded by a significant oversight, however. While εἰ followed by the indicative (ἀπειθοῦσιν) introduces a first-class condition, which is assumed true for the

  See Corley, ‘1 Peter’, 352–53; Punt, ‘Weaker Vessel’, 47.   BDAG 279. 18   Beare 153. Others have similarly concluded that the majority of the women addressed in this verse found themselves within ‘mixed’ marriages (e.g., Kelly 128, 132; Craddock 52; Schlosser 181; cf. Davids, ‘Silent Witness in Marriage’, 226 n. 11; Dinkler, ‘Sarah’s Submission’, 9; Ok, ‘Children of Sarah’, 113). Based on the fact that ‘considerable space is devoted to advice to women married to non-Christians’, Dowd concludes that this ‘may suggest that such mixed marriages were common’ (371). 16 17

12

1 PETER

sake of the argument,19 the overall tone of the clause is shaped by the insertion of καί, which carries an intensive force (‘even’; cf. Geneva, Tyndale, NRSV, ESV).20 This combination indicates that ‘the supposition is considered improbable. With καὶ εἰ the truth of the principal sentence is stoutly affirmed in the fact of this one objection. It is rhetorically an extreme case.’21 Consequently, the Petrine author does not imply that marriage to a non-believer was by any means the norm in the churches.22 What this grammatical construction suggests is that only some of the wives in the Christian communities were in this situation. This grammatical assessment is confirmed by contextual considerations in v. 7, where it is assumed that Christian husbands will have Christian wives (see Exegesis at 3.7). The ‘missionary’ motivation for subordination, of course, applies only in such cases, which thus form something of a focus in these verses (esp. vv. 1–2). Yet the instruction to be subordinate, as well as the injunctions about pure conduct and the motivating example of Sarah, apply equally to all wives.23 The situation of a ‘mixed marriage’ would, however, be one of particular difficulty (cf. also 1 Cor 7.12–16).24 Wives and slaves who converted to Christianity were especially prone to suffer hardship and accusation: slaves from perverse and unjust masters (2.18), wives from non-Christian husbands who might be angered at their wives’ refusal to follow the 19   See on 1.6; also Dubis 85. This does not necessarily mean that ‘the inter�rogative particle εἰ states a fact here, not a hypothetical possibility’, as argued by Achtemeier (209). 20   Cf. BDAG 495 §2.b. 21   Robertson, Grammar, 1026. Cf. Paley, Greek Particles, 31; Burton, Moods and Tenses, 113. A similar usage is found in Galen, In Hippocratis librum primum epidemiarum commentarii iii, vol. 17a, p. 95 (Kühn): διὸ καὶ εἴ τινες ἐθεραπεύθησαν, ὑπέστρεφον αὖθις. 22   See Plumptre 121; Grudem 137; Schreiner 165; cf. also Slaughter, ‘Winning Unbelieving Husbands’, 199. 23   Pace Achtemeier 209–210, who argues that ‘the conduct of wives with non-Christian husbands is the chief concern of the author here’. This, along with his interpretation of 3.7, enables Achtemeier to make the questionable claim that this passage (vv. 1–6) says ‘nothing… about the general status of women within the Christian community, or within Christian marriage’ (208), but that v. 7 indicates the ‘equality between men and women inherent within the Christian community’ (219). See further Exegesis on 3.7. 24   On the destabilising affects of inter-religious marriage in the Greco-Roman world and its application to 1 Peter, see El Mansy, ‘Interreligiöse Ehen’, 155–78.



3.1–7

13

social norms of the day and conform to the religious practices of the head of the household.25 Indeed, it may be that the reason why wives are depicted as having this ‘missionary’ opportunity to win over their unbelieving husbands is that the opposite scenario was much rarer, since if a male head-of-household converted, the wife and other household members would most likely be expected to do so as well.26 The non-Christian husbands are described as ‘those who disobey the word’ (ἀπειθοῦσιν τῷ λόγῳ), a phrase already employed to depict unbelievers in 2.8. As it does elsewhere in the letter, λόγος stands for the Christian gospel (see 1.23; 2.8; cf. also 4.17: τῶν ἀπειθούντων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ). The language of disobedience, rather than that of trust or belief, conveys the sense that this is a culpable refusal to accept the message and to live in conformity with its demands.27 The means by which these husbands may potentially be won over is fronted for emphasis in the phrase:28 διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς, that is, through the pattern of conduct, the way of life (on ἀναστροφή, see Exegesis on 1.15) displayed by their wives. This is, then, a specific example of the hope expressed in 2.12, that the ἀναστροφὴ καλή of the Christians will (eventually) win outsiders over. Indeed, there are a number of close parallels between 3.1–2 and 2.12.29

25   Cf. Plutarch, Conj. praec. 19 (Mor. 140D); Tertullian, Ux. 2.4–5; Apuleius, Metam. 9.14. See further Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 81–105; Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 317–22. Note the depictions of Christian wives in this situation who leave their husbands, in Justin Martyr, 2 Apol. 2; Acts Pet. 34. See also Exegesis at 3.6. 26   Though the case of Philemon, whose slave Onesimos did not convert until he later met Paul (see Phlm 10–11), would seem to suggest that this did not always take place. 27   It is, however, far less certain whether this implies ‘not only absence of belief but active opposition to the Christian faith’ (Achtemeier 210; cf. also Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 99, who cites Acts 14.2; 19.9; and Rom 15.31 as instances where ἀπειθέω is used of those who represent active opposition). The language of obeying/disobeying the gospel seems rather to be established as a more general way to refer to unbelievers, who are frequently labelled and experienced as opponents (cf. Rom 1.5; 15.31). 28   So Dubis 85. 29   See Elliott 560, who notes the elements of slandering/disobeying, observing conduct, and glorifying God/being won; cf. also Horrell, ‘Fear, Hope, and Doing Good’, 419.

14

1 PETER

That this implies a focus on the wives’ conduct or behaviour, rather than on any verbal proclamation or argument, is made explicit in the phrase ἄνευ λόγου, a play on the word λόγος, which has just appeared in the previous clause.30 Occasionally, λόγος is treated as a definite noun (‘without the word’; cf. KJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, NMB) and assigned the same meaning as the earlier usage: the gospel.31 In this case, the verse would appear to suggest two alternative methods of conversion: through the verbal proclamation of the Christian gospel and through the active demonstration of the faith unaccompanied by any verbally articulated message, ‘without the gospel’, as it were. A number of objections have been raised against this position, although few possess much substance.32 Where this view runs into the most significant obstacle is on a contextual level. The verse does not assume that faith could be generated apart from an awareness and understanding of the Christian message, the λόγος of the good news, which the author presumes to have been crucial in the readers’ own conversion (1.12, 23–25). In this particular case, the wives’ husbands may also be presumed to have some awareness of the Christian message; hence the description of them as ‘disobedient to the word’ (3.1). For this reason, some understand the two uses of λόγος as an example of the rhetorical technique known as antanaclasis, which involves the repetition of a word or phrase with different meanings assigned in each instance.33 The first instance represents a technical usage (the gospel), while the second reflects a more ordinary sense (a spoken utterance).   See Michaels 157–58: ‘Those who are impervious to the proclaimed word of the Christian gospel can and will be changed by the unspoken testimony of their own devoted wives’ (158). 31   So, e.g., Sadler 111; Bigg 151; Knopf 122. 32   Some challenge this view on grammatical grounds, noting that the second usage lacks the article (see Wiesinger 202; Johnstone 195; Witherington 162). But as the object of a preposition, even an anarthrous form could function as a definite noun (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 247). Others find this explanation theologically problematic, contrasting this view with Paul’s emphasis on the necessity of oral proclamation and reception in the process of faith (cf. Rom 10.14, 17). To alleviate this problem, they seek to define κερδηθήσονται not as conversion to Christianity, but as the preparation for faith (see Calvin 95; Beza 571). In the Syriac translation, this difficulty is resolved by translating the phrase as though it read ἄνευ κόπου (‘without work/toil’) instead of ἄνευ λόγου. 33   See Bengel 62; Alford 356; Hart 63; cf. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 293. 30



3.1–7

15

The nature of this spoken utterance—or, the lack thereof—is generally connected to the wives’ expected responsibilities; nevertheless, questions surround the type of communication being excluded and the extent to which this instruction is applied. Some argue that the point is to emphasise the need for wives to be silent.34 This is consistent with a widespread cultural value in antiquity, where silence was one of the prescribed virtues of women, an idea that is reproduced in some early Christian sources (e.g., 1 Cor 14.34; 1 Tim 2.11–12; 1 Clem. 21.7).35 The missionary strategy here, as more generally in the letter, would thus be one that depends primarily on the practice of a ‘way of life’ that is ‘good’, rather than on verbal proclamation (cf. 2.12).36 With a slightly different focus, others take the prepositional phrase as an attempt to exclude persistent, unwanted proselytising attempts on behalf of a Christian wife, efforts that might exacerbate tensions and reinforce the husbands’ disobedience to the word.37 The point, it is argued, is that the wives’ conduct would carry greater weight than their words in the effort to bring their husbands to faith.38 The same emphasis on actions over against (merely) words is reflected in a variety of ancient authors who commend the former as providing stronger testimony to a given point than the latter.39 Another interpretation is also possible, although it is rarely considered within scholarship. The combination of ἄνευ + λόγος is found elsewhere in Hellenistic literature. Whether it was used 34   E.g., Feldmeier 178; Donelson 90. According to Schott (178), ἄνευ λόγου modifies ἀναστροφῆς, adding further specificity to the type of conduct envisioned for these wives, namely, they are to remain silent. With most interpreters, however, it is better to connect the prepositional phrase with the verb κερδηθήσονται, so that it specifies how an unbelieving husband might be won over. 35   See the ancient references detailed below in Exegesis at v. 4. 36   See further Tàrrech, ‘Mission according to the New Testament’, 231–47. 37   E.g., Benson 236; Perkins 57. 38   Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.19.123.2: ‘The wise woman, then, will first choose to persuade (πείθειν) her husband to be her associate in what is conducive to happiness. And should that be found impracticable, let her by herself earnestly aim at virtue, gaining her husband’s consent in everything (πάντα τῷ ἀνδρὶ πειθομένη), so as never to do anything against his will, with [the] exception of what is reckoned as contributing to virtue and salvation’ (trans. Wilson). 39   See, e.g., Euripides, El. 893; Xenophon, Mem. 3.11.10; Cyr. 3.3.39; Plato, Menex. 244a; Dinarchus, Demosth. 17; Diodorus Siculus 8.12.9; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.58.3.

16

1 PETER

frequently enough to form a recognised idiom is debatable;40 one particular context in which it appears, however, is noteworthy. In connection with a trial scene, it is occasionally used to describe the absence of proper legal procedure. More specifically, it refers to situations where verdicts were rendered ‘without defence’.41 What makes this usage significant is that λόγος is also employed later in the epistle to designate a formally articulated defence (cf. 1 Pet 3.15; 4.5). If this is what the author had in mind—and it would be difficult to argue that this is anything more than a possibility—it would indicate the hope that husbands would be won over without argumentation and dispute. Regardless of how this question is resolved—and the best solution might be a combination of the first two positions (or perhaps even all three)—the instruction to wives is consistent with (and not an exception to) the stress elsewhere in the letter on ‘doing good’ and following an appropriate way of life as the primary responsibility towards outsiders and unbelievers, with verbal testimony or defence given only when sought (3.15).42 Indeed, despite the wives keeping silent, the author’s hope, and the purpose for their pattern of conduct, is that the husbands may be gained for the Christian faith: κερδηθήσονται.43 The use of the future indicative in place of the aorist subjunctive, as represented in the present instance, is not found in classical Greek and only occasionally in the Hellenistic   It is occasionally used to describe something that is irrational or consistent with natural impulses (Alcinous, Didaskalikos 4.8; Plutarch, Them. 2.5; Galen, De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis 4.2.12; 4.3.6). Justin Martyr employs the term to describe those who lived before the time of Christ and who acted wickedly, killing those who lived ‘reasonably’ (1 Apol. 46.4). 41   See Isocrates, Antid. 15.173; Demosthenes, Aristocr. 76; Cassius Dio 46.20.3. 42   Pace Brown, ‘Silent Wives’, 395–403, who argues that the wives’ conduct in this regard is not intended to be paradigmatic but exceptional. See further Horrell, ‘Fear, Hope, and Doing Good’, esp. 418–29; Tàrrech, ‘Mission according to the New Testament’, 231–47. 43   It is difficult to estimate how often this goal was achieved. In a few cases, we know of situations where a Christian wife was able to convert her children (e.g., Jerome, Ep. 107; Augustine, Conf. 9.19–22). But successful attempts of wives seeking to convert their unbelieving husbands were much less common. From evidence collected over the first four centuries of Christian history, MacDonald notes that ‘an overtly hostile reaction from the husband was more common than a change of heart’ (Early Christian Women, 201). 40



3.1–7

17

period.44 It seems to convey a stronger sense of expectation than had the subjunctive been employed.45 The verb κερδαίνω is used in a variety of contexts to describe the achievement of some type of gain.46 This might include a military victory resulting in the capture of a city (Josephus, War 5.74) or a business transaction that generates large profit (Menander, Dysk. 720) or the attainment of honour and fame within a given social community (Pindar, Isthm. 5.27). At times, the benefit achieved is not the result of what one has accumulated, but from what one has been spared.47 In literature outside the NT, the advantage that is procured relates to impersonal objects, whether that be money, reputation, or goods. But within the earliest Christian communities, the term κερδαίνω came to be used for the winning of someone’s favour or restoring proper relationships within a social group (Matt 18.15; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.1.10; Epiphanius, Pan. 3.49.4.5). By extension, it was also employed with a distinctively missional sense of winning someone to the Christian faith; that is, securing their conversion (1 Cor 9.19–23).48 As often in 1 Peter, the author’s stance reflects at the same time both a conformity to cultural expectations—the quiet propriety of wives (see also on v. 4)—and a 44   See Winer, Grammar, 360–61; Burton, Moods and Tenses, 86–87; BDF §369(2). The use of the future indicative for the aorist subjunctive here is noted by various interpreters (e.g., Bigg 151; Michaels 157; Dubis 85; Achtemeier 210 n. 65). There are a few examples of this in the NT (Luke 20.10; John 7.3; Gal 2.4), most frequently in the book of Revelation (3.9; 6.4, 11; 8.3; 9.4, 20; 13.12; 14.13; 22.14). 45   Cf. Masterman 119. On the sense conveyed by the future, see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 415. 46   TDNT 3:672–73; TLNT 2:159–60. 47   E.g., great evil (Philemon, Frag. 92 [Kock]); a burdensome wife (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.37). 48   Since there is no comparable usage of κερδαίνω prior to the NT, Daube (‘κερδαίνω as a Missionary Term’, 109–20) argues that this meaning was drawn from proselytizing terms found in rabbinic Judaism. But the evidence that he adduces is unconvincing. Not only does he concede that ‘[n]o Rabbinic parallels have so far been adduced’ (109)—and thus he is forced to build his case on possibility and conjecture—but he also acknowledges a significant ‘gap’ in his argument, viz. that the phenomenon he traces out in rabbinic literature involved the winning back of straying Israelites rather than the winning over of Gentiles (117). It is much more likely that this missional sense developed in early Christian circles as an extension of the term’s semantic range (cf. Davids 116 n. 3).

18

1 PETER

somewhat more subversive edge, in the open anticipation that wives may succeed in changing their husbands’ convictions and affiliations.49 2 ἐποπτεύσαντες τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν. ὑμῶν. The actions that may be able to bring about this conversion of unbelieving husbands are now further specified. As in 2.12, the influence of the Christian pattern of life occurs when it is observed. The verb ἐποπτεύω is employed again to depict this process of careful inspection (see on 2.12). But whereas in 2.12 the participle was used in the present tense, here it is aorist (ἐποπτεύσαντες), suggesting an action antecedent to the hoped-for conversion.50 This might suggest either a causal relationship (‘because they observe’; cf. CEV, GNT)51 or a temporal sequence (‘once they have noticed’).52 Achtemeier is perhaps right to see both dimensions here, though with an emphasis on the temporal.53 The means by which the conversion may occur has already been described with the διά clause in v. 1; here it is the observation of the wives’ conduct (ἀναστροφή; see above, and on 1.15) that is the crucial element. The specific type of behaviour the author envisions is dependent upon how certain interpretive questions are resolved, including the meaning of ἁγνός, the object of φόβος, and the function of the prepositional phrase. 49   On the subversive nature of the attempt by Christian women to evangelise their unbelieving husbands, see Brown, ‘Silent Wives’, 400; Johnson Hodge, ‘ “Holy Wives” in Roman Households’, 1–24; Punt, ‘Subverting Sarah’, 171. 50   Cf. Johnstone 196; Masterman 119; Hiebert 197–98; Michaels 158; cf. Chia, ‘Irresistible Beauty’, 3. Most translations do not convey this, rendering the parti�ciple as if it were present (‘when they see…’; cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJB, ESV). Some commentators question whether the present/aorist distinction can be pressed (e.g., Schreiner 169 n. 179). 51   E.g., Selwyn 183; Grudem 138; Dubis 86. Closely related and almost indistin� guishable in this case, some suggest that the participle denotes the means by which conversion would occur, ‘by observing’ (NLT; so, e.g., Hiebert 197). In this way, the clause functions as ‘an epexegesis of the previous statement of instrumentality, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀναστροφῆς’ (Johnstone 195–96; cf. Huther 154). 52   E.g., Michaels 158. Most translations render this clause as though it denoted contemporaneous action: ‘while they observe’ (Geneva, KJV, BRG, RGT) or ‘when they observe’ (NET, NRSV, ESV, NIV, LEB, HCSB, ISV, NAB). 53   Achtemeier 210: ‘While the participle… carries a causal force, the emphasis here is probably to be seen rather on the temporal: subsequent to the husband’s seeing his wife’s exemplary behavior, he will be won to her faith’.



3.1–7

19

The adjective ἁγνός denotes conduct that is pure and holy, though it can be used of women in particular to indicate the virtue of being ‘chaste’.54 In Jewish and Christian literature, it frequently describes the undefiled sexual character of a virgin.55 As a result, a few interpreters have argued that sexual purity is in view here;56 yet there is no reason to restrict the meaning in this way. Though sexual propriety would be included, the pattern of conduct being urged upon the wives requires their subordination, modesty, meekness and silence (see vv. 3–4). In 1 Peter, ἁγνός ‘is virtually synonymous with “holy” ’ (see 1.15–16, 22; 3.5),57 and thus indicates the character of the Christian ἀναστροφή in general. Just as in the case of the slaves (see Exegesis at 2.18), the object of ‘fear’ (φόβος) is uncertain. Among an earlier generation of commentators, the predominant view was that φόβος referred to the respect or deference that wives were expected to show toward their husbands (cf. Eph 5.33).58 For support, attention was drawn to the parallel instructions in 2.18, where slaves are told to submit to their masters ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ (‘with all deference’). Few adopt this interpretation today, however.59 The vast majority of interpreters now understand φόβος as a reference to the wives’ reverence toward God (cf. ERV, NCV).60 This finds support from elsewhere in the letter: 1.17 and 2.17 indicate that the proper object of such fear is 54   Cf. BDAG 13; LSJ 12; MM 5. Originally a cultic word, denoting that which belongs to divinity, it came to acquire a moral sense (not unlike the word ἅγιος). See, e.g., Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 7.119, which describes good people who ‘make sacrifice to the gods and keep themselves pure [ἁγνός]; for they avoid all acts that are offences against the gods’ (trans. Hicks [LCL]); P.Oxy. I 41, a report of a public meeting where the citizens’ acclamations include the cry: ‘true and trusty counsellors, true and trusty strategi!’ (ἁγνοὶ πιστοὶ σύνδικοι, ἁγνοὶ πιστοὶ σ̣τρ̣ α ̣ ̣τ[̣ ηγο]ί [trans. Hunt and Edgar, LCL]). 55   See 4 Macc 18.7; Sib. Or. 2.312; 8.358; Jos. Asen. 15.1; 19.2; Philo, Ios. 43; Spec. 1.107; 2.30; Praem. 159; 2 Cor 11.2. 56   E.g., Erasmus 678; Grotius 87; Benson 237; Marshall 101. 57   Elliott 560. 58   E.g., Benson 237; Hensler 128; Steiger 146; de Wette 33; Fausset 507; Alford 356; Plumptre 122; Usteri 125; Johnstone 196; Huther 154; Monnier 141. 59   Recent advocates include: Brox 143; Slaughter, ‘Winning Unbelieving Husbands’, 206. The most thorough defence of this view is found in Sylva, ‘Interpreting 1 Peter 3.2’, 144–47. 60   While this view was not as popular among an earlier generation of scholars, there were still some who adopted it (e.g., Jachmann 150; Weiss 314; Fronmüller

20

1 PETER

God alone. In 2.18, however, as we saw, a reference to the slaveowner seems more likely (see on 2.18). Yet the phrasing here is significantly different: in 2.18 ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ was placed between the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι and the object of that submission (τοῖς δεσπόταις); here ἐν φόβῳ is placed within the phrase referring to the wives ‘pure conduct’ (τὴν… ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφήν). Moreover, in the following verses the focus is placed on the divine perspective on the wives’ actions (ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ πολυτελές, v. 4), and they are expressedly told not to fear anything that might intimidate them (μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν, v. 6), which would include their husbands. It seems most likely then that here the primary referent for their reverent or ‘fearful’ conduct is God, though the lack of clear specification makes it difficult to be sure, and it may be that the term is simply used in a more general way, indicating the importance of respectful conduct (cf. on 3.16). But how does this holy conduct relate to the reverence that is to be shown towards God? Some contend that ἐν φόβῳ modifies the adjective ἁγνός,61 in which case the preposition would likely function instrumentally or causally: ‘conduct made pure by fear/ reverence’.62 It seems more natural, however, to connect the prepositional phrase with ἀναστροφήν.63 This construction (article + prepositional phrase + attributive adjective + substantive) is relatively common in Greek literature,64 often appearing in some of the better writers. When it occurs, the prepositional phrase always modifies the substantive rather than the adjective, and there is no indication that the construction is used differently here. Many modern translations render the prepositional phrase as though it were an adjective: ‘respectful and pure conduct’ (cf. ESV, NRSV, NAB, NASB, NET, NIV). In most cases, the construction requires translating the prepositional phrase as though it were a relative 52; Kühl 187; Bigg 151; Hart 63; Blenkin 67). Because of the uncertainties surrounding this question, some maintain that φόβος includes both the fear of God and the reverence for one’s husband (e.g., Reicke 101). 61   E.g., Kühl 187; Richard 128; Donelson 88 n. c. 62   See Moffatt 130; Best 125; Richard 128; Watson 73. 63   Cf. Wiesinger 203; Alford 356. 64   See, e.g., 2 Macc 4.14; 3 Macc 6.6; Sib. Or. 5.214, 494; Let. Aris. 37, 99; Aristob. 5.4, 7; Dem. 2.1; Philo, Opif. 99; Cher. 70; Sacr. 45; Det. 6; Post 28; Josephus, Ant. 7.151; War 2.198; Life 85; Ag. Ap. 1.1, 27, 116, 125; 2 Tim 1.5; Titus 1.9; Mart. Pol. 8.1; Acts John 39.2; Acts Thom. 132.2; et al.



3.1–7

21

clause,65 which in the present verse might be rendered, ‘after they have observed your pure conduct that is carried out in reverence (to God)’. As such, it denotes the manner (i.e., reverently) in which this lifestyle of devotion should be carried out.66 3 ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος, κόσμος, Just as v. 2 gave a somewhat fuller indication as to the kind of conduct that might win over disbelieving husbands (v. 1) once it is observed—it is to be done ἐν φόβῳ, and should be ἁγνός in character—so vv. 3–4 spell out in much more detail what the author has in mind by way of ‘pure conduct that is carried out in reverence (to God)’. These two verses are not straightforward syntactically. The first difficulty concerns the relative pronoun ὧν with which the verse begins.67 Its antecedent is clearly the wives who are addressed in the previous verse (ὑμῶν, v. 2). Identifying its function is more challenging. Consistent with the use of the copula εἶναι and a predicate genitive in classical and Koine Greek,68 some consider that ὧν, which is thought to carry a possessive force, is the predicate of the imperative, with the subject being ὁ… κόσμος.69 The sense would be, ‘let not external adornment… be yours’ (cf. RSV). Arising from this construal, the contrast of the passage would then be between the external decoration of the body (v. 3) and the inner person (v. 4).

65   A parallel is found in 2 Macc 6.23, where Eleazar, explaining his refusal to eat pork, refers to ‘the excellent conduct which he maintained from his youth’ (τῆς ἐκ παιδὸς καλλίστης ἀναστροφῆς). 66   This interpretation is similar to the one suggested by Johnstone (196), who posits a local function: surrounded by or pervaded by reverence. Some translations render the phrase ‘pure behaviour coupled with fear/reverence’ (cf. KJV, NMB, ASV, BRG), as though ἐν φόβῳ represented a quality that should accompany pure conduct. This is slightly wide of the mark. 67   It is rare to find an imperative (ἔστω) situated within a relative clause (ὧν) as it is here (see Robertson, Grammar, 949). Yet, the Petrine author does this on multiple occasions (cf. also 5.9, 12). 68   On this construction within classical Greek, see Jelf, Grammar, §518. On this construction within the Koine period, see Buttmann, Grammar, 162–63; Robertson, Grammar, 497–98. 69   So, e.g., Steiger 2:150; Jachmann 150; Huther 154; Bigg 151; Lenski 129; Achtemeier 213 n. 111; Richard 130–31; Donelson 90–91; Schlosser 188.

22

1 PETER

Where this interpretation proves problematic, however, is in v. 4,70 for it seems to imply that the ‘inner person’ (ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος) is not something naturally possessed by all people.71 Given that it is difficult to interpret the sentence as it currently stands, it is perhaps best to imagine an ellipsis, with κόσμος being supplied from the predicate of the third-person impersonal imperative (ὁ… κόσμος) and being modified by the relative ὧν, which functions as an objective genitive (‘adorn yourselves’).72 In this case, the sense would be: ‘let your adornment not be the outward adornment of elaborately braided hair…’ (cf. KJV, ASV, NAB, MEV, BRG, LEB).73 The same implied noun (κόσμος) and imperative (ἔστω) would also make sense of the compact ἀλλά with which v. 4 begins: ‘but let your adornment be the inner person…’. According to this rendering, the contrast is between inappropriate (v. 3) and appropriate (v. 4) types of adornment.74 The pattern of

  If this interpretation is applied in v. 4, it would result in the following reading: ‘let not external adornment… be yours, but let the hidden person of the heart… be yours’. As a possessive genitive, ὧν would thus indicate that ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος (i.e., the inner self) might not necessarily be possessed by each Christian wife. In defence of this interpretation, Huther slightly revises the sense conveyed by the predicate genitive. He argues that it means, ‘ “whose business let it be,” i.e. who have to occupy themselves with’ (154; original emphasis). In other words, the instructions would be for the wives not to occupy themselves with costly apparel and fancy hairstyles, but to focus on the beautification of their inner selves. This meaning makes much more sense of v. 4 than a simple possessive idea. The question is whether the predicate genitive with εἶναι can sustain such nuance. When the genitive pronoun is employed in this construction (as it is here), it normally denotes possession, ownership, or inclusion (see Luke 20.14; Acts 1.7; 1 Cor 3.21; 6.19; 2 Tim 1.15), not the focus of one’s efforts. 71   Cf. Hofmann 100; Dubis 86–87. 72   Similarly, Pott 95; Hottinger 121; de Wette 33; Alford 356–57; Wiesinger 203, Schott 179; Hofmann 100; Michaels 159; Goppelt 221 n. 24; Dubis 86–87; cf. Mills, ‘Clause Patterns’, 140 n. 117; Chia, ‘Irresistible Beauty’, 3. Among English translations, compare Geneva and Tyndale (whose appareling/whose apparel); see also NJB, NAB. Opponents of this interpretation could argue that it creates an unnecessary repetition of κόσμος, but that is the point of ellipses. They are an economical means of avoiding what is superfluous or repetitive by excluding words/phrases that can be supplied from the context. 73  The fully articulated sentence in Greek would thus read, ὧν (ὁ κόσμος) ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος. 74   Cf. Senior 82; Feldmeier 180; Vahrenhorst 135. 70



3.1–7

23

contrasting first a negative and then a positive is a frequent feature of the author’s style (cf. 1.12, 14–15, 18–19, 23, etc.). The negative description of the things that should not (οὐχ)75 be characteristic of those who are embodying τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφήν is framed by the key noun and its article ὁ… κόσμος, which is reminiscent of the complex arrangement of classical Greek.76 The word κόσμος here does not carry its common meaning, ‘world’, but rather the sense ‘adornment’ (hence, the English ‘cosmetic’), used in particular in relation to the topic of women and their attire and their qualities (see below).77 The first word describing the forms of adornment to be rejected is ἔξωθεν (‘external’), a clear contrast to the ‘inner’ qualities that will be extolled in v. 4. By the Koine period, the ending -θεν, which earlier denoted the location from which something derived, had lost much of its original force, and ἔξωθεν had essentially become equivalent to the ἔξω.78 In this case, the adverb functions like an adjective, 75   Given that the particle is negating an imperative (ἔστω), it would have been more natural to expect μή instead of οὐ. The present construction is used because it is related not to the verb, but to a word/phrase that is placed in antithesis to another (Porter, Idioms, 282). Had μή been employed, the emphasis would have been placed on both halves of the antithesis; whereas with οὐ the emphasis falls on the second half, which is introduced by ἀλλά (see Buttmann, Grammar, 352; cf. Robertson, Grammar 947, who notes that with the use of οὐ, ‘the force of the negative is given to [the contrast] rather than to the mode’). 76   Cf. MHT 1:236. 77   See BDAG 561 §1; LSJ 985 §2; MM 356. See, e.g., Diodorus Siculus 20.4.5: τῶν γυναικῶν τὸν κόσμον περιείλετο (‘[he] stripped the women of their jewels’; trans. Geer [LCL]); Plutarch, Conj. praec. 26 (Mor. 141E). Given this established usage, it is unlikely that there is a play on the two meanings of κόσμος in this verse, ‘ornaments’ and ‘world’ (see Bigg 152). As Bigg notes, however, the Latin mundus was used in a similar way, as in Livy 34.7.8–9, where there is a pun on the double meaning: ‘elegance of appearance, adornment, apparel [munditiae et ornatus et cultus]—these are the woman’s badges of honour [haec feminarum insignia sunt]; in these they rejoice and take delight; these our ancestors called the woman’s world [mundum muliebrem]’; trans. Sage [LCL]). Cf. Dig. 34.2.25.10– 12, where mundus is used in connection with women’s toilet equipment: it seems a distinction is made here between jewellery (ornamenta—such as earrings, gold, gems, etc.) and toilet equipment (mundus—such as mirrors, jars, perfumes, perfume bottles, etc.). 78   See Winer, Grammar, 592; Buttmann, Grammar, 70. This is evident in Mark 9.21 where the preposition ἐκ is added to the adverb παιδιόθεν (‘from childhood’) to strengthen the sense of derived origin (see MHT 2:164).

24

1 PETER

‘external adornment’ (cf. Demosthenes, Cor. 9; Plato, Pol. 307e; 4 Macc 6.34; Josephus, Ant. 14.477). Three particular forms of external adornment are then listed: ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων. In each case, they are presented in the form of a genitive singular noun (denoting a form of adornment epexegetically related to the noun κόσμος) and a genitive plural noun, related to its preceding singular noun, resulting in a threefold usage of similar ending sounds.79 Because the head nouns were all formed from verbs (ἐν + πλέκω; περί + τίθημι; ἐν + δύω), they ‘imply the labour bestowed on dress’:80 braiding, wearing, and putting on. It is difficult to determine the particular significance that should be attributed to the use of καί to separate the first two pairs, with ἤ before the third. The same change occurs in a few other NT lists (e.g., 1 Cor 5.10; Eph 5.3–4; 1 Tim 2.9). It may be, as Johnstone conjectures, that ‘the gold ornaments…were for the hair, and therefore the first two specifications went closely together’.81 Another possibility is that the Petrine author perceived ‘bodily adornment as made up of two divisions, viz. elaborate arrangement of the ornament which belongs to the body itself, the hair, and expensive arraying of the body with materials from without,—the subdivisions of this array being put disjunctively by “or” ’.82 The first pair is the ‘braiding of hair’ (ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν)—with ‘hair’ in the plural, as one would expect (cf. Matt 3.4; John 12.3; Rev 1.14; 9.8). In terms of its referent, the noun ἐμπλοκή can describe any type of entanglement in which an entity is intertwined with another.83 Here it depicts the weaving together of threads of hair to create an attractive design.84 Martin has suggested that ἐμπλοκή 79   Cf. the threefold auditory patterns in 1.4 and 1.19. On the construction of the pairs here, see Michaels 160; Dubis 87. 80   Bengel 62. Cf. Alford 357; Monnier 143; Goppelt 221. 81   Johnston 199. 82   Johnston 199. 83   LSJ 546; BDAG 324. It is used in a variety of ways: to represent methods of building a palisade that involves overlapping stakes and their cords (Polybius, Hist. 18.18.11, 15), the interconnection of geographical regions (Strabo, Geogr. 13.4.12), the interweaving of materials in a crown (Aristonicus, De signis Iliadis 13.756), and even a scuffle between two men (P.Ryl. II 150). 84   Cf. Strabo, Geogr. 17.3.7, where the customs of the Maurusians, a large and prosperous Libian tribe, are detailed. Strabo notes that even though these people live a nomadic lifestyle, ‘they beautify their appearance by braiding their hair



3.1–7

25

is a hairpiece or headband, with the genitive modifier (τριχῶν) denoting the material out of which the item was made, ‘headband made of hair’.85 From this perspective, what the Petrine author has in mind is an embraided coiffure known as the orbis comarum. This elaborate style, which arose during the Flavian dynasty (such that it can, according to Martin, help to date 1 Peter’s composition),86 involved ‘a large pile of braided braids on the top or back of the head’, whose size and design often required the natural hair of the woman to be ‘supplemented with braided animal or other human hair attached with needle and thread’.87 But as carefully as this position is argued, it is difficult to be confident that such a specific hairstyle is in view here.88 The (κόμης ἐμπλοκῇ), growing beards, wearing golden ornaments (χρυσοφορίᾳ), and also by cleaning their teeth and paring their nails’ (trans. Jones [LCL]). Similar references where ἐμπλοκή describes the braiding of hair include: Nicolaus, Frag. 8 (Müller); Suetonius, Περὶ βλασφημιῶν, preface; Aelius Herodianus, Περὶ Ἰλιακῆς προσῳδίας, 3,2, p. 75 (Lentz); Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.11.105; cf. IG V,2 514 (τὰς τρίχας ἀμπεπλεγμένας); IG V,1 1390 (τὰς τρίχας ἀνπεπλεγμένας). 85   Martin, ‘Dating First Peter’, 301–304. A similar interpretation is followed by Smith, who maintains that the Petrine author’s criticism may specifically be levelled against ‘the infulae and vittae with which Roman women supposedly adorned themselves during ritual’ (‘Fancy Hairdos’, 237–41, quote on 238). But this suggestion is subject to the same critique as Martin’s proposal. 86   See Introduction: Date. 87   Martin, ‘Dating First Peter’, 306, 307, respectively. On the purchasing of extra hair by Roman women, see Martial, Epig. 6.12; 9.37; 12.23. 88   There is a twofold problem with the method by which Martin reaches his conclusion. The first involves lexical transfer: Martin’s conclusion derives primarily from literary references to a related term (ἐμπλόκιον). While it is true that ἐμπλόκιον denotes an accessory that is clasped onto a woman’s head (see Jos. Asen. 10.16; Athenaeus, Deipn. 13.43; Basil of Caesarea, Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam 3.128), the same has not been demonstrated for the term ἐμπλοκή. In this case, the endings of the two terms are significant. The -ιον suffix on the former reflects the material substance that is formed out of the denominative noun (see MHT 2:343); that is, ἐμπλόκιον represents the plaided hair-piece that results from ἐμπλοκή (‘braiding’). What is more, among those uses of ἐμπλόκιον that describe a hair accessory, there are no instances where the pin, clasp, or band is made of hair. The few places where the material make-up of such accessories is mentioned indicate that they consist of gold, precious stones, and other such items (see LXX Exod 35.22; Num 31.50; Plutarch, Phoc. 19.4). Consequently, τριχῶν—much like the two other genitive modifiers (χρυσίων and ἱματίων)—is best understood as an objective genitive (‘braiding hair’). The second problem involves a confusion of the whole for an individual part: Martin treats ἐμπλοκή as a technical designation

26

1 PETER

description is simply meant to dissuade women from seeking to adorn themselves through elaborate hairdos.89 A comparative summarising description, with πλοκή rather than the compound form, is found in Ps.-Lucian. After reflecting on a few of the ways that women, with the help of their attendants, attempt to beautify themselves, he observes that ‘the dressing of their hair (ἡ πλοκὴ τῶν τριχῶν) consumes most of their time’ (Amores 40). Rather than designating a particular coiffure with defined characteristics, this portrayal serves as a heading to introduce all of the ways that women dress their hair, including the use of hair dyes, perfumes, curling methods, and styling techniques. The second pair is, literally, the ‘putting on of gold things’ (περιθέσεως χρυσίων).90 Earlier, the Petrine author described the redemption of the Anatolian believers, stressing that the process did not involve a monetary payment of gold coinage (cf. Plato, Resp. 336e; Galen, Περὶ Ἀλυπίας, 40), but the blood of Christ (1 Pet 1.18). The ‘gold’ (χρυσίον) in question is not coined gold, but gold jewellery worn by women.91 The final pair is again expressed concisely: the ‘wearing of clothes’ (ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων) evidently signifies not merely the wearing of garments, but the use of clothing to adorn one’s appearance. Normally, the term ἱμάτιον would be accompanied by an adjectival modifier describing the type of clothing that was in view. This might include the colour of the garment, its quality, or its condition.92 But even without such a clue, for a particular coiffure with specific characteristics, and in this way, he draws more from the term than its lexical meaning will allow. The specific hair style that Martin identifies (orbis comarum) would certainly be one example of the type of hairdos that would have been prohibited by the verse, but it does not exhaust the referent. 89   While it was expected that elite, wealthy women would have elaborate hairstyles (Lucian, Imag. 5), many ancient writers denounce such extravagance (e.g., Perictione, Περὶ γυναικὸς ἁρμονίας [Stob. 4.28.19 p. 688]; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 7.117; Juvenal, Sat. 6.495–511; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11). 90   With regard to the use of the noun περίθεσις, Bigg comments that ‘[o]rnaments of gold were worn round the hair (in the shape of golden nets), round the finger, arm, or ankle’ (152). 91   Cf. Aristophanes, Ach. 258; Demosthenes, 1 Aphob. 10, 13; Spud. 11; [Neaer.] 46; Diodorus Siculus 12.21.1; Plutarch, Tim. 15.10; Arat. 19.1; Hermogenes, Περὶ στάσεων, 12 (Rabe). 92   Colour: χρυσός, ‘golden’ (Isocrates, Areop. 54); μέλας, ‘black’ (Xenophon, Hell. 1.7.8); βαπτός, ‘bright-coloured’ (Aristophanes, Plut. 530); καρύκινος, ‘dark-red’ (Xenophon, Cyr. 8.3.3); λαμπρός, ‘bright’ (Epicharmus et Pseude�picharmea, Frag. 277); λευκός, ‘white’ (Plato, Crito 44b); πορφύρα, ‘purple’



3.1–7

27

its association with other fine apparel is sufficient to indicate that elegant clothing is in view (cf. Demosthenes, Mid. 25; Diodorus Siculus 30.16.1). Hence, many translations add some appropriate adjective: ‘gorgeous apparel’ (Tyndale) or ‘fine clothes’ (NAB).93 Among Greek and Roman women with sufficient means to engage in these forms of adornment, such practices were evidently common. Ovid, for example, describes the various ways in which a woman’s hair might best be presented, while cautioning against extravagant displays of wealth (such as wearing precious stones for earrings or gold sewn into one’s garment).94 Criticism of such practices among ancient writers (including among Jews and Christians) indicates both their prevalence and also the ideal of modesty and restraint, invoked by the author here.95 For example, Plutarch expresses the ideal in a way notably similar to 1 Peter: “Adornment” (κόσμος), said Crates, “is what adorns”; and what adorns a woman is what makes her better ordered (κοσμιω­ τέραν)—not gold, nor emerald nor scarlet, but whatever gives an impression of dignity (σεμνότης), discipline (εὐταξία), and modesty (αἰδώς) (Conj. praec. 26 [Mor. 141E]; trans. Pomeroy).96 (Polybius, Hist. 16.6.7). Quality/condition: μοχθηρός, ‘tattered’ (Cratinus, Frag. 207); καθαρός, ‘good’ (Aristophanes, Av. 974); ῥαγέντων, ‘torn’ (Xenophon, Cyr. 1.6.16); σεμνός, ‘fine’ (Aristophanes, Plut. 940); διαφερόντων, ‘fancy’ (Plato, Phaed. 64d); καλός ‘beautiful’ (Epictetus, Diatr. 1.18.13). Some even include designations related to the gender of those for whom the garment was intended: γυναικεῖος, ‘feminine’ (Lysias, In Eratosthenem 19). 93   Cf. also RSV, NRSV, NJB, etc. Among recent translations, ESV follows KJV in a literal translation that does not add any such qualifier. 94   Ovid, De art. amat. 3.133–41, 43: ‘’Tis with elegance we are caught (Munditiis capimur): let not your locks be lawless: a touch of the hand can give or deny beauty. Nor is there but one form of adornment (Nec genus ornatus unum est): let each choose what becomes her, and take counsel before her own mirror. An oval face prefers a parting upon the head left unadorned: the tresses of Laodamia were so arranged. Round faces would fain have a small knot left on top of the head, so that the ears show. Let one girl’s locks hang down on either shoulder; … Let another braid her hair like girt up Diana (Altera succinctae religetur more Dianae)’ (trans. Mozley and Goold [LCL]). 95   See further Batten, ‘Neither Gold nor Braided Hair’, 484–501. For visual depictions of such wealthy women’s adornment, see further Fittschen, ‘Courtly Portraits of Women’, 42–49; Stout ‘Jewelry as a Symbol’, 77–100; Dioxiadis, Mysterious Fayum Portraits. 96   See also Plutarch, Conj. praec. 48 (Mor. 145E–146); Dio Chrysostom, Or. 33.48–51; Seneca, Helv. 16.4; Ben. 7.9.4–5; Juvenal, Sat. 6.457–63; Epictetus,

28

1 PETER

Winter has drawn attention to the emergence of so-called new women from the first century BCE onwards—women who, at least in the eyes of their critics, adorned themselves elaborately and were sexually promiscuous—and has argued that this is a relevant background for understanding the instructions to women and wives in the Pauline communities (especially the Pastoral Epistles).97 If a similar background is in view in 1 Peter, then this author might also be reacting against the (potential) influence of these new values on the wives of the Christian communities. However, it is perhaps more likely, as Batten notes, that these letters are ‘simply echoing the longstanding male emphasis upon female modesty and place in the domestic realm’.98 In Jewish tradition, similar criticism of ostentatious female attire is expressed (e.g., T.Reu. 5.1–6; Philo, Sac. 21; Virt. 39–40). As Selwyn notes, all the various features mentioned in 1 Peter are also present in ‘the fine satire’ of Isa 3.16–24, which is situated in the context of a scathing critique on the display of wealth acquired at the expense of the poor (see Isa 3.11–26).99 In early Christian literature, there is an especially close parallel in 1 Tim 2.9–10.100 Enchir. 40. Cf. Menander, Gnomai 92: γυναικὶ κόσμος ὁ τρόπος, οὐ τὰ χρυσία. In a discourse on how women should study philosophy, Musonius comments, ‘she must, I mean, be pure in respect of unlawful love, exercise restraint in other pleasures, not be a slave to desire, not be contentious, not lavish in expense, nor extravagant in dress’ (οἵαν καθαρεύειν μὲν ἀφροδισίων παρανόμων, καθαρεύειν δὲ τῆς περὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἡδονὰς ἀκρασίας, μὴ δουλεύειν ἐπιθυμίαις, μηδὲ φιλόνεικον εἶναι, μὴ πολυτελῆ, μὴ καλλωπίστριαν, Frag. 3.25–28; trans. Lutz). For comparable statements from a Pythagorean community, see Elliott 563–64 with n. 174. 97   Winter, Roman Wives; cf., earlier, Bassler, ‘The Widows’ Tale’, 23–41. 98   Batten, ‘Neither Gold Nor Braided Hair’, 497 n. 73. It is noteworthy and particularly relevant in this context that a woman who dressed modestly was thought to be a reflection of her husband’s influence: ‘How modest she is in her attire, how moderate the number of attendants, how unassuming when she walks abroad! This is the work of her husband who has fashioned and formed her habits; there is glory enough for a wife in obedience’ (Pliny, Pan. 83.7; trans. Radice [LCL]). 99   Selwyn 183. Cf. Spicq 118. This is not to claim, however, that the present verse represents an allusion to Isa 3.18, where some of the same root words are found (pace Egan, Scriptural Narrative, 155–57). 100   1 Tim 2.9–10: γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν,



3.1–7

29

Further, the church fathers show considerable interest in the theme of women’s attire. In fact, Elliott understands this text in 1 Peter, in particular, to establish ‘an authoritative prohibition of external adornment for Christian women’.101 This is somewhat too blunt a statement, however. Tertullian, who discusses these issues at length, is concerned to put limits around how far women (and men) should adorn and groom their appearance, without wishing to argue that one should be entirely unconcerned about such things.102 Facial make-up and hair-dye, for example, are prohibited (Cult. fem. 2.5–6). Nevertheless, outright prohibition of all forms of ‘external’ adornment is not necessarily the author’s intention.103 It is also worth considering what this text implies about the socio-economic status of the wives addressed. For some, this echo of ‘conventional sentiments concerning appropriate attire… reveals little or nothing about the actual social status of the wives addressed’.104 Others, however, take a different view, suggesting that it implies ‘that the Christian communities included among their members women of wealth and position’.105 It may be too much to presume that the women addressed here are among those who may be described as wealthy, or of high social status. But we δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν (‘women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God’, NRSV). 101   Elliott 565, with nn. 175–76; similarly Kelly 129; Goppelt 220 with n. 20. 102   Tertullian, Cult. fem. 2.8 (addresses men rather than women, arguing that they too should be modest in grooming and attire); also De. orat. 20. Among other authors, see Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11; Cyprian, De habitu virg. 8 (which cites 1 Tim 2.9 and 1 Pet 3.3–4 in support). 103   So Achtemeier 212 with n. 106. One argument that is sometimes used to demonstrate that the Petrine author’s intention was not the outright prohibition of the types of external adornments mentioned in v. 3 is the final activity: the putting on of clothes. Interpreters reason that if the braiding of one’s hair and the wearing of jewellery are to be excluded, then it would also imply that women are to avoid wearing clothes (see Plumptre 122; Bennett 223; Grudem 140; Dubis 87–88). But if, as we have pointed out above, a reference to ἱμάτιον without a further descriptive modifier can refer to decorative or elaborate clothing based on its association with other types of elaborate decor, then this argument becomes moot. 104   Elliott 564; similarly, Michaels 172; Goppelt 221; Bénétreau 171. 105   Beare 155; similarly, Mason 413; Moffatt 130; Best 125; Hiebert 199; Achtemeier 212; McKnight 184; Prigent 88. Some make the claim that ‘the congregations addressed included a number of well-off women’ (Kelly 129). But

30

1 PETER

should not entirely dismiss the socio-economic relevance of these verses: it would seem reasonable to assume, as Jobes suggests, that ‘at least some’ of those addressed ‘actually have enough wealth to make this instruction meaningful’,106 which implies the ‘middling’ socio-economic groups with some surplus resources above those necessary for subsistence.107 4 ἀλλ᾿ ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πραέως καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος ὅ ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ πολυτελές.. πολυτελές By contrast (ἀλλά), the kind of adornment that should rightly characterise the Christian wives is now described.108 Opposite to external forms of beautification, this concerns ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος. Most note a connection to the Pauline (and deutero-Pauline) phrase ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος (cf. Rom 7.22; 2 Cor 4.16; Eph 3.16), with some suggesting that the Petrine author has adapted this earlier concept from the writings of Paul.109 Others, however, insist that the use of κρυπτός—where ἔσω would have provided a more natural contrast with ἔξωθεν—reveals the lack of literary dependence.110 Given the author’s familiarity with the Pauline corpus, which is established through other connections,111 most are hesitant to identify a specific amount or percentage, resigning themselves to the likelihood that some women fell into this category (see Davids 117–18; Feldmeier 180; Schreiner 172 n. 195). 106   Jobes 204. Cf. Watson 74, who concludes that ‘[t]he presence of this instruc�tion indicates that some women in these churches have the luxury goods to dress in the manner described’, noting that ‘[i]t is not just a foil for moral instruction…, for good rhetoric typically has relevance to the audience addressed’. See also Batten, ‘Neither Gold nor Braided Hair’, 497. 107   See further discussion in Horrell, ‘Aliens and Strangers?’, 176–202; idem, Becoming Christian, 100–132, esp. 122–29; Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 96–127; also Introduction: Socio-Economic Status. 108   Just as in the case of v. 3, an ellipsis has occurred (see Exegesis at 3.3). As such, the subject and imperatival verb must be supplied from the previous clause. In its fully articulated form, the Greek text of vv. 3–4 would thus read, ὧν (ὁ κόσμος) ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος, ἀλλ’ (ὧν ὁ κόσμος ἔστω) ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος… (cf. Pott 96). 109   See Mason 413; Johnstone 200. Cf. also Foster, ‘Literary Relationship’, 430. 110   So, e.g., Selwyn 184; Best 125; Achtemeier 213. 111   See Introduction: Sources, Traditions, and Affinities.



3.1–7

31

the former is at least a possibility, though the verbal connections are not strong. The question is what the Petrine author conveys with this language. Some propose that ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος is the new spiritual life and virtues of the Christian who has been regenerated by the Spirit.112 In this way, the contrast is not merely between the inner person and the outer person, for even unbelievers possess the former. At issue is the transformed inner person, which is to be on display in the lives of Christian women. The drawback with this view is that it seeks more from the designation ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος than the phrase actually allows: references to regeneration and the Holy Spirit are absent from this context. Most therefore understand ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος as a reference to a person’s inner character and disposition, represented by his or her thoughts, emotions, and intentions, which only become visible through the display of words and actions. Further specification about this inner person is provided by the genitive modifier καρδίας. Given popular Jewish and Christian conceptions about ‘the heart’ being the seat of the emotional, volitional, and intellectual life of humans, many take the genitive appositionally, in which case the hidden person would be equated with the heart.113 Another possibility, which only represents a slight variation, is to interpret καρδίας as denoting the location in which the hidden person is situated and from which it manifests itself (cf. Mark 7.20–23).114 This construal is consistent with references in other Jewish and Christian literature, where the heart is the place that secret things are hidden (Deut 15.9; T.Reu. 1.4; 1 Cor 14.25; Pol. Phil. 4.3).115

  See Gerhard 327; Fronmüller 52; Alford 357; Johnstone 200.   E.g., Steiger 2:150; Fausset 507; Huther 155; Keil 104; Kühl 188; Weiss 314; Hiebert 200; Bénétreau 172; Dubis 88; Forbes 100. 114   Various names have been given to this genitive function. Some describe it as a genitive of place (Wallace, Grammar, 124–25), while others prefer the designation, possessive genitive (Johnstone 200–201; von Soden 149; cf. Knopf 124; Kelly 129). Still others use the label genitive of quality (Schott 180). All, however, seem to understand the καρδία as the place where ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος resides (see Plumptre 123; Bennett 224; Witherington 164; Donelson 91). 115   Note that Heikel (‘Konjekturen zu einigen Stellen’, 316–17) changes the genitive (καρδίας) into a dative of relationship. 112 113

32

1 PETER

Regardless of which of these options is adopted, it is important to note that, grammatically, ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος is the ornament with which these women are to clothe themselves (‘let your adornment be ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος κτλ.’) rather than the substance that is being adorned (‘let ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος be adorned with’; cf. NMB).116 This is evident from the antithesis (v. 3), wherein the external appearance of the women is not receiving adornment, but is itself that adornment (ὁ ἔξωθεν… κόσμος).117 As such, ‘a gentle and quiet spirit’ (πραῢ καὶ ἡσύχιον πνεῦμα) is not merely a decorative embellishment of the inner person. So what then does it mean for wives to adorn themselves with inner character? A clue is found in the prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πραέως καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος. It is possible that ἐν functions as an adverbial modifier of the understood imperative (ἔστω),118 although perhaps a slightly stronger case could be made for the preposition serving as an attributive modifier of the nominal phrase ὁ κρυπτὸς ἄνθρωπος.119 Understood this way, ἐν could be translated as, ‘with’, denoting accompanying virtues (cf. NRSV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, CEB).120 Accordingly, two forms 116   Pace Bengel 62, who argues, ‘This hidden man is not the ornament itself, but is adorned by the ornament: the ornament itself is that which is incorruptible, etc., whence those women are so adorned whose hidden man rejoices in such a spirit’. 117   Although, as we noted above, the matter of (im)proper ‘adornment’ (κόσμος) governs both halves of the antithesis, there may also be something of a contrast between external adornment and the ‘real’ person conveyed by the decision to refer here to the ἄνθρωπος, as opposed to the κόσμος (cf. Michaels 160), though the author in effect is now talking about the proper way in which the self should be displayed. 118   So, e.g., Schott 181; Huther 155. 119   Against an adverbial function, it should be noted that when ἔστω contains an explicit subject and predicate, as here, any prepositional phrases generally modify the predicate (see Josephus, Ant. 4.271; Jas 1.19; 2 Clem. 12.4). Against an attributive function, one could argue that the repetition of the article might have been expected to signal such a usage (hence, ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ). But, as noted by Johnstone (202), while attributive modifiers were normally marked by the article, this was not always the case. At times, the article was simply not repeated (e.g., Rom 6.4; Eph 2.15; Col 2.14). For more on this construction, see Winer, Grammar, 169; Buttmann, Grammar, 91. 120   Both Achtemeier (213) and Donelson (91) describe the usage as a ‘dative of accompaniment’, although this label confuses the distinction between a simple case construction and a case governed by a preposition (see Wallace, Grammar, 360–62).



3.1–7

33

of adornment would be in view: wives should strive to clothe themselves with the inner person as well as a gentle and quiet spirit. The difficulty with this interpretation is that it leaves ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος without any specification as to how this manner of adornment is expressed.121 A more likely construal would be to interpret ἐν as denoting mode or sphere (‘found in, expressing itself in’), wherein the prepositional phrase marks how or where the inner disposition of these women is manifest.122 By displaying a gentle and quiet spirit in their words and actions, they reveal the quality of their character. The specific function of ἀφθάρτῳ poses somewhat more difficulty. It is possible to understand ἀφθάρτῳ as a masculine attributive adjective qualifying an implied κόσμῳ (‘incorruptible adornment’; cf. ASV, WEB).123 This would work well in terms of the contrast with the ἔξωθεν κόσμος of the previous verse; yet to posit the elision of another κόσμος might be slightly excessive. Alternatively, the adjective could function as a neuter substantive, equivalent to ἀφθαρσία (‘incorruption’, ‘imperishability’; cf. Geneva, Douay-Rheims),124 which is how the form φθαρτός is used earlier in the epistle (see 1 Pet 1.18). When employed in this way, the neuter adjective denotes an abstract quality that would not otherwise be communicated by the noun.125 In this case, it would place greater emphasis on indestructibility and endurance. This incorruptibility is further specified by the phrase τοῦ πραέως καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος, which may be taken to stand in an epexegetical or appositional relationship to ἀφθάρτῳ (‘consisting of a gentle and quiet spirit’)126 or as a subjective genitive (‘a gentle and   See Forbes 101.   So, e.g., Mason 413; Selwyn 184; Dubis 88. 123   As interpreted, e.g., by Bloomfield 715; Hofmann 101; Elliott 565. Most modern translations render ἀφθάρτῳ as an attributive adjective, supplying a substantive like ‘quality/character’ (NASB, CEB, HCSB, LEB, CJB) or ‘beauty’ (NRSV, NIV, ESV, NAB, NET). 124   So, e.g., Johnstone 201; Huther 155; Bigg 152; Blenkin 67; Selwyn 184; Beare 155; Michaels 161; Goppelt 222 n. 29; Achtemeier 213; Dubis 88. On the substantival use of the adjective, see Goodwin, Grammar, 204; Winer, Grammar, 738–43; BDF §263. 125   See Jelf, Grammar, 111; Robertson, Grammar, 654. 126   Cf. Achtemeier 214 (‘appositional… and further defines what the author means by the “secret person” ’); similarly, Kelly 130; Michaels 161; Dubis 88. 121 122

34

1 PETER

quiet spirit is incorruptible’). Either way, the point is the same: a gentle and quiet spirit is indestructible, and thus the beautification of one’s inner character through the focus on such a disposition is far more valuable than the outward ornamentation of fine clothing or fancy hairstyles. It is generally recognised that the mention of πνεῦμα in this verse is not a reference to the Holy Spirit.127 Rather, as most commentators agree, it refers to ‘one’s disposition, frame of mind, way of relating to and dealing with the outer world’ (cf. 1 Cor 4.21; Gal 6.1).128 This frame of mind is one that is ‘gentle and quiet’. The adjective πραΰς (or πρᾶος),129 when used to describe people, is widely regarded as a virtue in the Greco-Roman world: it denotes someone who is ‘moderate’ or restrained, gentle or mild, ‘often used for the quiet and friendly composure which does not become embittered or angry at what is unpleasant’, notably among the moral philosophers.130 Epictetus, for example, refers to the person who, having grasped the right teaching, is ready to live ‘with a light heart and an obedient disposition; with a gentle spirit awaiting anything that may yet befall (πάντα [τὰ] συμβαίνειν δυνάμενα πρᾴως ἐκδεχόμενον), and enduring that which has already befallen’ (Diss. 4.7.12). It is also used of the readiness to bear insults or injustice (Musonius, Frag. 10.25–26; 10.37–41).131 127   Some have claimed that the Holy Spirit is in view here (e.g., Steiger 2:153; Best 125–26; Schelkle 89–90). But, as Kelly points out, there are a couple of considerations that make this interpretation problematic: ‘(a), since this gentle spirit is commended as pleasing to God, it can hardly be the divine Spirit; and (b) in the next verse the OT heroines, who had not received the Spirit in baptism, are held up as models in respect of this very characteristic’ (130). 128   Witherington 164. 129   The genitive form used in v. 4 (πραέως) represents an older, alternative form to πραέος (see Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, 87; BDF §46[3]). The latter, which is absent from biblical and related literature, is first attested in the fifth-century BCE comic Lysippus (Fragmenta Eif. 1–2 [Meineke]). It only appears a handful of times in Greek literature prior to 1 Peter, although it is still more common than πραέος, which is first attested in Ps.-Aristotle (Physiogn. 808a [Bekker]) in the third century BCE. 130   TDNT 6:645; see further 645–51. Cf. also TLNT 3:160–71. 131   Musonius, Frag. 10.37–41: ‘I might mention many other men who have experienced insult… who… very meekly bore their wrong (ἀλλὰ πάνυ πρᾴως ἐνεγκόντες τὴν ἀδικίαν αὐτῶν). And in this they were quite right’ (trans. Lutz). Frag. 10.25–26 is quoted in the main paragraph below.



3.1–7

35

In this way, it is comparable with the Latin clementia, which Seneca urges upon Nero as an appropriate quality for a leader (Seneca, De clem.).132 Although both πραΰς (cf. 3.16) and clementia, and the related adjectives, bear some similarity with what we might term ‘humility’, it is necessary to distinguish them from ταπεινοφροσύνη and ταπεινός, which, as a form of social self-lowering are seldom, if ever, seen as virtuous in pre-Christian sources.133 In Jewish sources, too, πραΰς denotes a valued quality, not least among revered leaders and ancestors such as Moses (Num 12.3 LXX; Sir 45.4; Josephus, Ant. 3.97.5) and David (Ps 131.1 LXX), or as a characteristic of the ideal ruler (Ps 44.5 LXX). Jesus likewise depicts himself as πραΰς (Matt 11.29; cf. Matt 21.5; 2 Cor 10.1), and Paul presents the desirable demeanour as that of a πνεῦμα πραΰτητος (1 Cor 4.21; Gal 6.1). In early Christian lists, such as Gal 5.23; Eph 4.2; Col 3.12; Titus 3.2 (cf. also Jas 1.21; 3.13), πραΰτης is listed as a virtue.134 From such material, it is clear that being πραΰς was widely valued as a quality for both men and women, and does not constitute a specifically feminine virtue, even if its forms of appropriate social expression vary according to one’s social and gendered position. Things are somewhat similar with ἡσύχιος, which can also be presented as a quality expected of men as well as women. Musonius, for instance, urges the philosopher to endure adversity with moderation and quietness, combining the same two terms found here in 1 Peter: πρᾴως δὲ καὶ ἡσύχως ὄισει τὸ συμβάν (Frag. 10.25–26: ‘Rather he will gently and silently bear what has happened’ [trans. Lutz]). And Christians in general can be urged to live ‘quietly’ (1 Thess 4.11; 2 Thess 3.12; Did. 3.8; Herm. Mand. 8.10; cf. 1 Tim 2.2). Indeed, early Christian writings not infrequently combine the two terms found here in 1 Pet 3.4 in ways that indicate their ideal quality for all Christians (e.g., 1 Clem. 13.4; Barn. 19.4; Herm.

  See Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 183–85.   See further Horrell, Making of Christian Morality, 152–56; Guttenberger, Status und Statusverzicht. 134   It continues to be presented as a key virtue in post-NT literature (sometimes linked with ‘quietness’), e.g.: 1 Clem. 13.4 (quoting Isa 66.2) (πραῢν καὶ ἡσύχιον); 21.7; 30.8; Did. 3.7; Barn. 19.4 (Ἔσῃ πραΰς, ἔσῃ ἡσύχιος); Herm. Mand. 11.8: ‘the one who has the spirit that comes from above is meek, gentle, and humble (πραΰς ἐστι καὶ ἡσύχιος καὶ ταπεινόφρων)’. 132 133

36

1 PETER

Mand. 5.2.3; 6.2.3; 11.8).135 It is therefore correct and significant to stress that these are not generally depicted as virtues for women alone.136 Nonetheless, quietness or outright silence is particularly expected of women, just as subordination is expected of wives to husbands but not vice versa. Sophocles’ saying, ‘silence makes a woman beautiful’ (γυναιξὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει, Ajax 293; trans. Lloyd-Jones [LCL]) is described as already hackneyed.137 Centuries later, Plutarch would express much the same sentiments: ‘… womankind keeping at home and keeping silence (σιωπῆς). For a woman ought to do her talking either to her husband or through her husband (δεῖ γὰρ ἢ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα λαλεῖν ἢ διὰ τοῦ ἀνδρός), and she should not feel aggrieved if, like the flute-player, she makes a more impressive sound through a tongue not her own’ (Conj. praec. 32 [Mor. 142D]; trans. Babbitt [LCL]).138 Among Jewish sources, Sirach describes a silent wife (γυνὴ σιγηρά) as a gift from the Lord (Sir 26.14).139 In the Pauline literature, the silence of women is required in meetings of the assemblies (1 Cor 14.34– 35; 1 Tim 2.11–12), and in 1 Clement the demeanour expected of wives is described in terms very similar to those here—though how similar depends on a crucial textual variant (21.7: ‘let them [sc. τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν] exhibit the innocent will of their meekness (τῆς πραΰτητος); let them manifest the gentleness of their tongues through their silence [or through how they speak: διὰ τῆς σιγῆς/φωνῆς]’).140   Cf. Michaels 162; Elliott 566.   A point stressed by Michaels 162. 137   Cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1260a 30, which reflects almost the exact same saying. See also Elliott (559) for similar and other references on women’s silence. 138   These sentiments from the Greek East are echoed in the Latin West as well. See Valerius Maximus, Fac. Dict. 3.8.6: ‘What has a woman to do with public assemblies? If the custom of our country be observed, nothing (si patrius mos servetur, nihil). But when domestic peace and quiet is tossed upon the waves of sedition, the authority of ancient custom gives way (priscae consuetudinis auctoritas convellitur). And that which violence compels avails more than what modesty persuades and directs’ (trans. Speed). 139   On women’s proper demeanour more broadly, see Philo, Spec. 3.171–174. 140   Translated adapted from Ehrman (LCL), who lists the variants and prefers φωνῆς, as in A (the earliest Greek MS of 1 Clement, ca. fifth century); σιγῆς is read by H, the other Greek MS, as well as by the translational versions, including a Coptic MS of around the fourth century, and preferred by Lake (LCL). 135 136



3.1–7

37

It is this particular kind of disposition that is precious in God’s sight: ὅ ἐστιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ πολυτελές (cf. 1 Sam 16.7). The relative ὅ could have as its antecedent the neuter adjective ἀφθάρτῳ,141 but given the abstract nature of this term and its distance from the relative pronoun, this is unlikely. Many recent commentators prefer to interpret the whole of the preceding phrase in v. 4 as the antecedent.142 In this case, what God views as ‘very precious’ (πολυτελής) is the effort that Christian women exert to properly adorn their inner lives. While this is possible, the proximity of πνεύματος makes it ‘the more natural alternative’.143 According to this interpretation, the object of God’s positive evaluation (i.e., what God views as very precious) is the achievement of a meek and quiet πνεῦμα. The difference between these options is a matter of emphasis: the former focuses on the attempt to attain a particular goal, while the latter focuses on the goal itself. By describing a meek and quiet spirit as πολυτελής (‘very precious’, ‘costly’; cf. Mark 14.3), the author indicates its high value,144 perhaps in a certain ironic contrast to the costly external adornments mentioned in the previous verse (cf. 1 Tim 2.9: ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ). The phrase ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, which is first attested in the LXX, can carry a few different meanings. It can denote geographical proximity to God, often in connection with angels who stand before the divine presence (T.Ab. A 4.5; LAE

141   A view that was occasionally posited among earlier commentators (e.g., Bengel 63; Pott 97; Steiger 2:152–53; Schott 182; Knopf 125). 142   This view was rare prior to the twentieth century (although, see Grotius 88; Benson 239; Monnier 146), though it has become the most popular interpretation within more recent scholarship (e.g., Michaels 162; Goppelt 223 n. 38; Achtemeier 214; Elliott 567; Donelson 88 n. e; Schreiner 173; cf. Chia, ‘Irresistible Beauty’, 5). 143   Kelly 130. Among an earlier generation of critical scholars, this was the most widely accepted view (see, e.g., Jachmann 151; Wiesinger 206; Alford 357; Usteri 127; Johnstone 203; Huther 156; Keil 105; Kühl 189). 144   The term is used to describe any number of expensive or costly items, including clothing (T.Jud. 26.3; Diodorus Siculus 17.35.5; Philo, Sacr. 21; Dorotheus, Fragmenta Graeca, p. 410 [Pingree]; Josephus, Ant. 3.78; Plutarch, Mulier. virt. 23 [Mor. 259C]), food (Xenophon, Mem. 1.6.9; Diodorus Siculus 1.84.5), wine (Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.30; Wis 2.7), or precious stones (1 En. 18.6; T.Job 28.5; Let. Aris. 60; Jos. Asen. 2.7). Since a woman’s πνεῦμα is not measured in monetary terms, the word here carries a sense of perceived importance or estimated significance. See further TLNT 3:134–35.

38

1 PETER

34.1; Luke 1.19; Rev 8.2). Occasionally, it is used to depict God as a witness to a given statement or event (2 Cor 4.2; Gal 1.20; 2 Tim 2.14). In this instance, it is used to mark out God as the one who evaluates the moral acceptability of the words and deeds of humans. Normally, when this usage occurs, some term of approval or disapproval is provided: εὐθής (T.Ash. 1.2); βδέλυγμα (Jos. Asen. 8.7; Luke 16:15); δίκαιος (Acts 4:19); ἀπόδεκτος (1 Tim 5.4); καλός (Pol. Phil. 6.1). The use of this phrase in v. 4 makes clear that the primary reference point for determining the value of this pattern of behaviour is God’s perspective (cf. παρὰ θεῷ in 2.4, 19), since this is the only valid and ultimate basis for judging what is properly good or bad conduct (cf. 4.19). As noted above, this priority of God’s evaluation suggests that the more ambiguous phrase ἐν φόβῳ (3.2) should also probably be taken as a reference to a fearful reverence towards God as a motivation for good behaviour. There is, however, a certain irony in the author’s description of this approved pattern of conduct as ‘hidden’ and ‘precious in God’s sight’—an ‘inner’ adornment in contrast to that which is externally visible—in that it is presented as a mode of behaviour that may potentially win over unconverted husbands and so must be visible and recognisable. Although a contrast—in the syntactically convoluted sentence covering vv. 3–4—is drawn between external adornment and the inner person, both are forms of ‘adornment’ (κόσμος, see on v. 3): what is crucial is not that one is visible and the other hidden, but rather that one involves an attempt to display status or worth through physical beautification while the other entails displaying the virtues of an exemplary character.145 And although these virtues are conventionally valued—there is little if anything that might be 145   Other ancient authors set up a similar ‘dichotomy between the passing materi�ality of luxury and the beauty of modesty, which lasts eternally’ (Morrison-Atkins, ‘Worn Stories’, 292). A case-in-point is Seneca, in a letter of consolation to his mother, who writes, ‘You never defiled your face with paints or cosmetics; you never liked clothes, which showed the figure as plainly as though it were naked; your sole ornament has been a consummate loveliness which no time can impair, your greatest glory has been your modesty. You cannot, therefore, plead your womanhood as an excuse for your grief, because your virtues have raised you above it; you ought to be as superior to womanish tears as you are to womanish vices’ (Helv. 16; trans. Stewart).



3.1–7

39

deemed ‘counter-cultural’ here—the determining priority is God’s perspective, a priority which, at least potentially, provides a measure that is independent from that of the wider society in which the Christians live (cf. on 2.17). 5 οὕτως γάρ ποτε καὶ αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς θεὸν ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτὰς ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἀνδράσιν, The author now turns to an illustration of the pattern of conduct he has been commending, introduced with γάρ. This conjunction signals the way in which what follows will serve as ‘a motivational ground for the exhortations in verses 1–4’.146 The adverb οὕτως has a referential quality and could be either anaphoric (referring to what has preceded) or cataphoric (referring to what follows).147 In this case, it most likely points forward (as in 2.15),148 specifically to the phrase ὑποτασσόμεναι τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν. This is an exact repeat of the phrase in v. 1, indicating that the ancient exem�plars fulfilled precisely the pattern of conduct that the author now advocates: ποτέ indicates the reference to the past, as in 2.10 and 3.20, while the καί, used here adverbially to mean ‘also’, emphasises the connection being drawn between the instruction to wives now and the behaviour of others in the past.149 The subject of the comparison is the ‘holy women’ of the past. Based on the presence of the article, it appears that a definite group is in view,150 and the description of them as αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς θεόν points to the matriarchs of Israel’s history, who, like the readers of the letter, directed their hope towards God (cf. 1.3, 13, 21). Given the following reference to Sarah, it is perhaps specifically ‘the honored matriarchs of the family of Abraham that are implied’151—Sarah,

  Dubis 89. Cf. also Schlosser 184.   Among an earlier generation of commentators, it was common to interpret οὕτως anaphorically (see, e.g., Wiesinger 206; Fausset 507; Alford 357; Huther 156; Keil 105; Usteri 128; Johnstone 204; Kühl 190; Monnier 146). This view is occasionally found among more recent commentators as well (e.g., Kelly 130–31; Grudem 141; Hiebert 202; cf. Michaels 163, who suggests that the οὕτως ‘resumes vv 1–4 in their entirety’). 148   Cf. Mason 414; Elliott 570; Dubis 89. 149   On καί here, see Dubis 89. 150   Cf. Michaels 163; Watson 75. 151   Elliott 570; cf. also Ghiberti, ‘Le “sante donne” ’, 293. 146 147

40

1 PETER

Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah152—though the group in mind may be broader or at least somewhat less defined, especially in light of the various characters sometimes mentioned.153 In either case, it represents the first time that the designation is employed for a group of Israelite women. The use of this label would continue only occasionally thereafter, being adopted by a handful of Christian authors throughout the centuries that followed.154 Particularly important to the Petrine author is the fact that these women are ἅγιαι, indicating that they exemplify the character required also of the letter’s recipients (1.15–16). Many contend that the reason why this group is considered ‘holy’ is because they belonged to the chosen people of God,155 in which case the term would carry a cultic, rather than an ethical, sense.156 But while it is true that the plural form of ἅγιος is regularly used

152   There are various places where these matriarchs are grouped together. They (along with Zipporah, the wife of Moses) are described as ἀρεταί (‘virtues’) by Philo (Cher. 41; cf. Post 62). In the story of Joseph and Aseneth, the young virgin Aseneth is described ‘as tall as Sarah, and as beautiful as Rebecca, and as fair as Rachel’ (1.8). Some rabbinic texts, drawing on passages such as Gen 49.26, Num 23.9, and Deut 33.15, give honorific descriptions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as mountains and their four wives as hills (for a list of references, see Syrén, Blessings in the Targums, 58–60, 135–36). Later materials describe Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah as matriarchs (Gen. Rab. 58.4; cf. Cant. Rab. 6.4.2, where Zilpah and Bilhah are listed alongside Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah). Epiphanius lists these four women (along with Jochabed and Miriam) among the ‘holy women’ (αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες) who have inherited the kingdom (Pan. 1.379), although he only includes Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah elsewhere (Tractatus de numerorum mysteriis [PG 43:512]). In the writings of other church fathers, only Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel are listed together (Amphilochius, In mulierem peccatricem, 114 [Datema]; John Chrysostom, Pecc. [PG 51:361, 367]). 153   In 1 Clem. 55.3–6, for instance, Esther and Judith are exemplars of courage and humility. 154   Cf. Epiphanius, Pan. 1.379; Didymus, Comm. Ps. 20–21, p. 23; Amphilochius, Contra haereticos, 1034 [Datema]. The group to whom this label (ἅγιαι γυναῖκες) is more commonly applied is the women followers of Jesus (Origen, Fr. Luc. 170; Gregory Thaumaturgus, In annutiatiunem sanctae virginis Mariae [PG 10:1156]; Epiphanius, Pan. 3.482). Other groups are similarly designated as ‘holy’ in Jewish and Christian writings (see Schlosser 189). 155   E.g., von Soden 150, Blenkin 67; Moffatt 132; Kelly 130; Beare 156; Best 126; Arichea–Nida 92; Bénétreau 173; Hiebert 202; Achtemeier 214; Prigent 89. 156   See Schelkle 90.



3.1–7

41

as an attributive modifier to describe a group that holds a privileged position in the economy of God,157 this does not exclude any reference to the group’s high moral character. Since the letter specifically encourages its readers to ‘be holy’ (ἅγιοι… γενήθητε) in all of their conduct (ἀναστροφή, 1.15), the ethical dimensions of the title αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες are likely intended to receive some emphasis.158 The participle αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι functions substantivally, further defining αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες. Although such a construction can diminish the aspectual force of a participle,159 in this case the present tense likely carries a durative sense, marking out the persistence of hope.160 The idiom ἐλπίζειν + prepositional phrase (‘to hope in [someone or something]’) derives from the LXX, where it is commonly employed to communicate the expectation that people should place their trust in God, rather than alternative sources of power or deliverance. Generally, the idea is conveyed by ἐλπίζειν

  E.g., holy archangels (1 En. 9.4); holy watchers (1 En. 15.9); holy angels (Tob 11.14; 1 En. 20.2–7; 21.5, 9; 22.3; 23.4; 24.6; 100.5; T.Ab. A 16.9; LAE 7.2; 35.2; 42.2; Hist. Rech. 14.3; 17.5; 20.4; Mark 8.38; Luke 9.26; Rev 14.10; Herm. Vis. 3.4.1; Herm. Sim. 5.5.3bis; Acts Phil. 137.1); holy blessed ones (Hist. Rech. 19.8); holy prophets (Luke 1.70; Acts 3.21; 2 Pet 3.2); holy apostles (Eph 3.5; Mart. Pet. Paul 63.1; Acts Pet. Paul 85.1–2; 87.1; 88.1; Mart. Andr. B 11.1); holy presbyters (Ign. Magn. 3.1); holy chosen ones (Mart. Pol. 22.1); holy fathers (Acts Pil. 25.1; 26.1). Aside from referring to a specific group whose individual members are unnamed, this construction also designates a plurality within the larger group. For instance, it is used to describe more than one holy apostle (Mart. Pet. Paul 1.0; 67.1; Acts Pet. Paul 1.0; Acts Pet. Andr. 1.0; Acts Barn. 2.1). 158   See further Ghiberti, ‘Le “sante donne” ’, 294–95. Others have similarly stressed the title’s connection to the group’s high moral character (e.g., Richard 132; Elliott 570; Schreiner 174). 159   Some grammarians have questioned whether substantival participles commu� nicate the original aspectual force associated with their tense form (e.g., Evans, Verbal Syntax, 132, 231). But there is sufficient evidence from the NT that some aspectual force is expressed through the various forms (see Wallace, Grammar, 619–21; Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 37–47). 160   Cf. Alford 357; Beare 156; Grudem 141; Achtemeier 215 n. 133; Schlosser 184. For the sake of comparison, some envision it as equivalent to αἳ ἤλπιζον (Johnstone 205). 157

42

1 PETER

ἐπί + accusative,161 but alternative forms are found.162 The use of εἰς as the prepositional modifier is not altogether unusual, although it is much less common.163 Its usage can be attributed to the encroachment of εἰς on the territory of other prepositions,164 and so there does not appear to be any discernible difference in meaning. As Michaels notes, faith and hope are closely associated in 1 Peter (esp. 1.21),165 though the choice of hope as the single focus here places greater stress on the future orientation of their disposition. A continuity with Israel’s past is thus implied: just as the prophets (with ‘the spirit of Christ’ in them) testified in advance to the good news about Christ (1.10–12), so the holy wives of old placed their hope in the same God who has now, from the author’s perspective, brought that hope to life (1.3), even if its eschatological fulfillment is still awaited. A crucial link with vv. 3–4 is made with the description of these wives as those who ‘used to adorn themselves’ (ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς),166 reinforcing the impression that the essential theme of vv. 3–4 is the contrast between two kinds of adornment, and showing that the practice of subordination to husbands is precisely a form of such (proper) adornment (κόσμος). Where questions arise are with how to best relate this statement to the participial phrase that follows. It has been suggested that ὑποτασσόμεναι functions as an imperatival participle, in which case v. 5b would be parallel to v. 1 and connected closely to v. 6: ‘submit to your own husbands 161   See Buttmann, Grammar, 175–76. Examples include: Pss 41.6[5]; 55.5[5]; Isa 25.9; 2 Chr 13.18; 2 Macc 2.18; Pss. Sol. 17.3; Philo, Det. 138; Praem. 14; 1 Tim 4.10; 5.5; 1 Clem. 12.7; Did. 4.10; Barn. 16.1; 19.7; Mar. Pet. 7.9; Acts Pet. Paul 58.1. The popularity of this construction explains the variation in the manuscript record at this point (see Text at 3.5 n. f). 162   Two other constructions are known: ἐλπίζω + dative (T.Job 37.5; Matt 12.21) and ἐλπίζω ἐν + dative (2 Kgs 18.5; Ps 26.3; Hos 10.13; Jdt 9.7; T.Job 37.1; 1 Cor 15.19; Phil 2.19). 163   Cf. John 5.45; 2 Cor 1.10; Ign. Phld. 5.2; 11.2; Barn. 16.1; Acts Thom. 88.1, 6; 117.4. 164   On the use of εἰς in places where ἐπί would have been expected in the classical period, see Robertson, Grammar, 596; BDF §207(1). 165   Michaels 163. 166   The reflexive notion is expressed by the active verb in connection with the reciprocal pronoun. While in the classical period this sense was frequently communicated by a verb in the middle voice (see Wallace, Grammar, 413–14), the reflexive active was still employed as it is here (Smyth, Grammar, 391).



3.1–7

43

as Sarah obeyed Abraham’.167 Others have proposed a circumstantial function (‘adorn yourselves while being subject’). In this way, ‘subjection accompanies adornment with a humble and quiet spirit, but is not restricted to it’.168 The most natural way to understand the participial function, however, appears to be instrumental: the clause explains how these matriarchs adorned themselves in the past (‘by submitting to their husbands’; cf. NRSV, ESV, NET, GNT, CEV, LEB).169 6 ὡς Σάρρα ὑπήκουσεν τῷ Ἀβραὰμ κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα Sarah, wife of Abraham, is now presented as a specific and named example (introduced with ὡς) of the approved pattern of conduct. In a sense, Sarah provides a paradigm of the conduct expected of wives, just as Jesus provided a paradigm of that required of slaves in 2.21–25. It is somewhat striking that the author uses the verb ὑπακούω, having consistently employed ὑποτάσσω to denote the required attitude of slaves to masters, and wives to husbands. In the household codes of Col 3.20, 22 and Eph 6.1, 5, ὑπακούω is used of children’s relationship to their parents, and slaves’ to their masters, but not that of wives to husbands.170 Here, the terms appear to carry the same basic sense as ὑποτάσσω.171 Sarah’s submission was ‘to   This proposal was set forward in an earlier work by Schlosser (‘1 Pierre 3,5b–6’, 409–10), but a number of objections have been raised against it (see Michaels 164). In his more recent treatment of this passage, it appears that he has moved away from the view (see Schlosser 93–94, 178). 168   Watson 75. 169   Cf. Achtemeier 215; Donelson 88 n. f; Dubis 90; Forbes 101; Schreiner 174–75. While allowing for the possibility of an instrumental use of ὑποτασσόμεναι, Wallace suggests that the participle may denote result (Grammar, 639; cf. Wiesinger 206 and Huther 157, who argue that the participial phrase represents the proof that this adornment had taken place). 170   Similar sentiments on the responsibility of wives toward their husbands are echoed in other literature as well. Josephus, claiming to quote Scripture, says, ‘ “A woman is inferior to a man in all things”; therefore, let her obey (ὑπακουέτω) him’ (Ag. Ap. 2.201). Philo claims that one of the injunctions given by Moses was that ‘wives should serve (δουλεύειν) their husbands’ (Hypoth. 7.3). 171   This usage is not completely out of the ordinary. While lexical distinctions are drawn between these terms (e.g., Diodorus Siculus 3.49.3), they can be used synonymously as well (see Ignatius, Epistulae interpolatae et epistulae suppositiciae (long recension), 11.5.4; Irenaeus, Haer. frag. 9; Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 1.8; Hesychius, Lexicon s.v. Υ §283). 167

44

1 PETER

Abraham’ (τῷ Ἀβραάμ), her husband, compliance shown by her calling him κύριος.172 Since there is no christological allusion or parallel (contrast Eph 5.22–33), the phrase serving simply to illustrate the way wives should defer to their husbands, it is probably better to translate κύριος as ‘master’ (cf. NIV, GNT, NLT, NCV) or ‘sir’ (cf. Geneva),173 rather than ‘lord’ (cf. KJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, CEB) or even ‘Lord’ (cf. NMB, RGT).174 What is unique about this depiction of the relationship between Sarah and Abraham is that it represents one of only two instances where the Petrine author alludes to narrative material from either the Jewish scriptures or the literature that derived from them (cf. also 1 Pet 3.20),175 rather than citing specific phrases or sentences from this source material. But exactly how, in relation to which sources, and how far the author of 1 Peter is influenced by postbiblical interpretative traditions, is much more open to discussion. The key biblical text where one finds this use of κύριος is Gen 18.12, in which Sarah, on hearing the news that she is to bear a son to Abraham, laughs and says ‘my master is old’ (ὁ δὲ κύριός μου πρεσβύτερος).176 Her obedience, then, is only implied in the use of the term κύριος (‘master’), and this was a customary form of address, rather like ‘sir’ (cf. Gen 18.3).177 Nowhere here (or elsewhere in Genesis) is Sarah explicitly said to ‘obey’ Abraham. 172   The participle καλοῦσα is identified as attendant circumstance by Dubis (90), making it coordinate with the main verb; hence, ‘Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him master’ (cf. NRSV, NIV, NCV, CEV). But attendant circumstance participles rarely follow the main verb, and they are usually in the aorist tense (see Wallace, Grammar, 642). It seems better, therefore, to understand καλοῦσα as a participle of means (Achtemeier 215 n. 139; cf. Forbes 102: participle of manner); in other words, Sarah displayed her obedience by calling Abraham, ‘master’. 173   Beginning in the first century, the vocative form of κύριος became a popular term of address in the Greek world. It was used for family members, friends, and even for those in positions of subordination (see further Dickey, ‘Greek Politeness’, esp. 5–7). 174   Michaels (165) puts a capital letter and quotation marks around ‘Lord’; NAB also places ‘lord’ inside quotation marks, misleadingly suggesting some special significance to the term. 175   Cf. Davids, ‘Second Temple Traditions’, 411–12. 176   The allusion to this passage is questioned by Spencer (‘Peter’s Pedagogical Method’, 113), who argues that the Petrine author is referring to Gen 12.11–20. 177   See further BDAG 576 §2.a; MM 365, who note that it could be applied ‘as a courteous appellative’ to various ‘near relatives’.



3.1–7

45

On the contrary, in Gen 16.2 Abraham is actually described as obeying Sarah (ὑπήκουσεν δὲ Αβραμ τῆς φωνῆς Σαρας).178 The difficulty with assigning Gen 18.12 as the source text for this reference is that in the context Sarah is hardly a model for submission.179 In actuality, her actions reflect disbelief in God in that she laughs upon hearing that she and Abraham will conceive a child in their old age (18.12); then, to compound the problem, she lies to God when questioned about her laughter (18.13–15). As a result of these contextual factors, connections with other passages have also been made. Some contend that the author is drawing from Genesis 12 and 20.180 In these passages, Sarah follows Abraham to Egypt and complies with his instructions to pretend to be his sister so that his life might be spared before Pharaoh and Abimelech. What is appealing about this proposal is that the intertextual allusion parallels the experience of the Anatolian women very closely: just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, despite the questionable nature of his actions and the danger into which they placed her, these Christian wives are expected to submit to their unbelieving husbands regardless of the risk. In this way, Sarah is depicted ‘not just as a model of obedience but as a model of those wives who obey their spouses in an unjust and frightening situation in a foreign land/ hostile environment’.181 However, the lack of specific allusions to these other texts and stories—a problem that is often dismissed too quickly—makes this proposal difficult to accept to the extent of seeing Sarah as a model in these other respects, though the silence of Genesis concerning any fear on Sarah’s part may have struck the author as significant (see below).182   See also Gen 21.12. The present verse is a significant one in debates between evangelical complementarians and egalitarians. For example, Grudem (‘Wives Like Sarah’, 197–98), a complementarian, sees 1 Peter’s instruction as rooted in Genesis; whereas for Davids (‘Silent Witness’, 231–34), an egalitarian, the Petrine author’s appeal does not derive from Genesis, but follows contemporary Jewish interpretation of Genesis, especially in the Testament of Abraham. 179   Cf. Küchler, Schweigen, Schmuck und Schleier, 68. 180   So, e.g., Gunkel 276; Wohlenberg 90; Windisch 67; Schneider 77; see also Besançon Spencer, ‘Peter’s Pedagogical Method’, 114–16; van Rensburg, ‘Sarah’s Submissiveness’, 253, 257; Bott, ‘Sarah as the “Weaker Vessel” ’, 243–59; Khobnya, ‘Missional Lens’, 12. 181   Kiley, ‘Like Sara’, 692; original emphasis. 182   Achtemeier 215–16, briefly notes the ‘lack of evidence’ as a problem. 178

46

1 PETER

Studies of later interpretative traditions may hold more promise, though in some cases these can only be illustrative of the contemporary perspectives, not influences on the author of 1 Peter. Sly, for example, examines how Josephus and Philo handle the traditions about Abraham and Sarah to illustrate the way in which men— embarrassed by some aspects of the biblical stories—selectively interpreted the texts. Their omission of details that did not seem appropriate, Sly maintains, might suggest a similar strategy on the part of the author of 1 Peter.183 Others point to interesting facets of the way that Jewish rabbis interpreted Gen 18.12, which provides a useful point of comparison.184 In most instances, rabbinic interpretation displays a keen attentiveness to the details of the text. As such, interpreters seek to explain the discrepancies that arise in context.185 Others use the scriptural reference somewhat more freely, disregarding the broader narrative in Genesis. Interestingly, in one such occurrence, the interpreter draws attention to the honour Sarah showed to Abraham in calling him ‘lord’.186   Sly, ‘1 Peter 3:6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus’, 126–29.   For a discussion of the rabbinic interpretations of Gen 18.20, see Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 103–105; idem, ‘Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter’, 94; Manns, ‘Sara, modèle de la femme obéissante’, 65–73; Bar-Asher Siegal and Dinkler, ‘Citing Sarah’, 449–53. 185   Appeal is made to this verse in a talmudic saying attributed to Rabbi Ishmael (first–second century). Stressing the importance of maintaining peace (cf. Ps 33.15, cited in 3.11), he notes, ‘Great is peace, for even the Holy One, blessed be he, changed the wording for the sake of peace’ (b. Yebam. 65b; trans. Neusner). In justification, he cites the difference between Gen 18.12 and 18.13. What is noted is that the thought Sarah expressed (together with her laughter) about Abraham’s age (Gen 18.12) was passed on rather differently by God, who conveyed this to Abraham as a remark about Sarah’s own old age (Gen 18.13). Other rabbinic texts address a different discrepancy created by Gen 18.12. According to Gen 17.17, Abraham also laughed when God revealed the plan to provide the couple with a child in their old age; yet Abraham was not chastised like Sarah. To explain this situation, rabbis proposed that in 18.12 the change from ‫‘( בקרוביה‬to her relatives’) to ‫‘( בקרבה‬to herself’) was introduced by the translators of the LXX (see Gen. Rab. 48.12; b. Meg. 9a; ’Abot R. Nat. B 37; y. Meg. 1.9). Still, other rabbinic literature attempted to explain the statement, ‘my lord is old’ (‫)ואדני זקן‬. According to rabbi Judah, who followed Rabbi Simon, the meaning is that Abraham ‘is virile, yet impotent’ (Gen. Rab. 48.17; trans. Freedman). 186   In the sixth/seventh-century midrash Tanḥ. Chayei Sara, a statement about Abraham’s old age (Gen 24.1) leads to a comment from Rabbi Joshua ben Nehemiah, who proposes four causes of premature agring: fear, grief caused by 183 184



3.1–7

47

As Martin notes, the depiction of Abraham and Sarah in the Testament of Abraham, a text probably dating from around the first century BCE to the first century CE,187 may indicate how later Jewish traditions about Abraham influenced the author of 1 Peter’s view of the couple.188 The most significant point of connection is that Sarah repeatedly calls Abraham κύριος (e.g., T.Ab. A 5.12–13; A 6.2–8). She also obeys his instruction (B 4.1–3), though the explicit language of obedience is not used.189 Other motifs pointed to by Martin are that Sarah is depicted as mother of the elect (T.Ab. A 3.6; 7.8; cf. the reference here to the Christian wives as Sarah’s daughters) and that a connection is made between lack of fear and good deeds (T.Ab. A 16.4–5, 17.6–8; B 13.1–3, 18–20 [ms. E]; cf. also v. 13).190 While these interpretative traditions are illuminating, it remains entirely plausible that the author’s comment is essentially derived from Gen 18.12, albeit read somewhat against the grain of that text, and its broader literary context.191 The author’s only specific illustration of her ‘obedience’, after all, is ‘calling him κύριος’, and a general impression of Sarah as an exemplary and obedient wife can certainly be derived, as Kiley suggests, from Genesis 12 and 20 and elsewhere (e.g., 18.6). Though her obedience is not explicitly mentioned, she is depicted as subordinate to Abraham’s decisions children, a wicked wife, and wars. Proof from the biblical text is provided for each of these. Related to the third contributing factor, mention is made of Solomon and the fact that his wives turned his heart away from God (cf. 1 Kgs 11.4). In contrast, however, the text records that ‘Abraham’s wife honored him and called him “my lord”, as is said: “And my lord is old” (Gen 18.12)’ (29a; trans. Berman). 187   On the date of the Testament of Abraham, see Allison, Testament of Abraham, 34–40. 188   Martin, ‘Background of 1 Pet 3,6’, 139–46. Others have similarly claimed that this reference indicates that the author of 1 Peter had at least been influenced by (the traditions associated with) the Testament of Abraham (e.g., Davids, ‘Second Temple Tradition’, 412–13; Watson, ‘Body and Abuse’, 278 n. 39). 189   Martin, ‘Background of 1 Pet 3,6’, 142. 190   Martin, ‘Background of 1 Pet 3,6’, 142–45. In all these texts, the theme is that of death, and how death comes differently to those with good deeds than to those with bad deeds, inducing fear in the latter. 191   See further Misset-van de Weg, ‘Sarah Imagery in I Peter’, 111–26. Cf. Allen, ‘Genesis in James, 1 and 2 Peter’, 157–58: ‘even if Gen. 18:12 is the source of the allusion, Peter has given it a very particular nuance and reworking that effectively removes it from the original Genesis context’.

48

1 PETER

(e.g., Gen 12.1–5) and her obedience in response to his requests seems to be presumed (e.g., Gen 12.11–20; 18.6). Yet, even if the Petrine author is alluding to a specific passage from the Jewish scriptures, what must not be discounted is the possibility that oral and written traditions about Sarah extant at the time may have influenced how Genesis was read.192 That the author shares with the Testament of Abraham and other Jewish sources a tendency to accentuate Sarah’s deference to Abraham, while ignoring aspects of the Genesis narratives that point in the other direction (Gen 16.2), is unsurprising, though critically important to recognise. This is consistent with the diversity of interpretative use made of Sarah during the Second Temple period.193 ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι καὶ μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν. πτόησιν. In the following phrase, linked to what precedes by a relative pronoun (ἧς), the wives in the Christian assemblies addressed by the author are depicted as Sarah’s children. Sarah is remembered in later rabbinic materials as the mother of women proselytes.194 The term used here is the generic τέκνα, not θυγατέρες (‘daughters’), as some translations have it, choosing to convey the fact that the   This point is made by Davids, who claims that for the Petrine author ‘the Sarah of Genesis and the Sarah of Second Temple literature (perhaps the Testament of Abraham) were one and that he could not think (in that when he lived one more recalled and thought about the text rather than unrolled a scroll to read the text) about a narrative in the Tanak without implying the narrative amplifications current in his own age’ (Davids, ‘Second Temple Tradition’, 412–13 n. 8). 193   Philo, for example, sees Sarah as an example of ‘paramount virtue’ (Leg. 3.244–45; Cong. 71–82; Mut. 149–50) and emphasises the fact of Abraham’s obedience to her in Gen 16.2 (Cong. 63.3–5; 68; Cher. 7–9), though in these instances, as Sly points out, Sarah is effectively allegorised as a representative of wisdom (and virtue), obeyed as such (see Sly, ‘1 Peter 3:6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus’, 127–28). Elsewhere, Philo depicts her as one who demonstrates ἐγκράτεια, ‘self-mastery’ (see Niehoff, ‘Mother and Maiden’, 420–21), as a deferential wife who displays appropriate φίλανδρος, ‘love for one’s husband’ (Abr. 245–46, 253; see Livneh, ‘Jewish Traditions’, 536–49), and even with a few royal connotations (see Tervanotko and Uusimäki, ‘Sarah the Princess’, 117–22). 194   See Montefiore and Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology, 573–74, citing Pesiq. Rab. 180a; Tanḥ. 54b; and on Sarah’s role in appealing to women converts, see Ginsberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:203 with sources cited at 5:215 n. 42. 192



3.1–7

49

specific group addressed is female.195 The author’s choice of τέκνα may, however, reflect the sense that what he intends to express—an identity as offspring of Sarah and a duty to do good and not be afraid (cf. 3.14)—applies to all Christians, albeit in ways appropriate to their specific identity and position (cf. Gal 4.26–31).196 Some confusion surrounds the relationship between the aorist verb ἐγενήθητε and the two present tense participles (ἀγαθο­ ποιοῦσαι and φοβούμεναι) that follow. To alleviate the seeming lack of temporal continuity between these verbal forms, ἐγενήθητε is occasionally understood as a gnomic aorist (‘you are children of Sarah…’; cf. NIV, CJB, ESV, NLT, MEV, NAB).197 But postulating this rare usage is unnecessary. As most commentators agree, the verb probably refers to a past event,198 specifically the point of conversion or baptism—though there is no explicit allusion to baptism here.199 Diagnosing the specific function of ἐγενήθητε requires a closer look at the force of its participial modifiers, and scholarship has been divided over this issue. The disagreement is due in part to the range of what is grammatically possible, but also to the difficulties and ambiguities of language that relates to identity. 195   Among older translations: Wycliffe, Geneva, Tyndale, KJV, Douay-Rheims, LutherBibel (1912). Among recent translations: CJB, NIV, EHV, NRSV (a change from RSV), LutherBibel (1984), GNT, LB, Message, NLT. 196   Cf. Michaels 166: ‘Nothing in this statement applies exclusively to women’. Similarly, Best 127; Achtemeier 217. See also Ok, ‘Children of Sarah’, 118–19. 197   Beare 156. 198   From the ingressive nature of this lexical form (‘you have become’), some have deduced that the women in question had not previously been considered the children of Sarah, and thus could not be Jewish (so, e.g., Benson 240; Bengel 63; Wiesinger 207; Schott 185; Huther 157 n. 2; Windisch 67; Hiebert 203). There is perhaps some merit to this argument, although it is difficult to know how the Petrine author would have perceived the pre-conversion state of ethnic Jews, not least given his silence on these issues (see Exegesis on 2.9–10). Since much is left unstated in the letter, one should be hesitant to press the language of ‘becoming’ too far (cf. Selwyn 185). 199   Cf. Kelly 131; Goppelt 225; Elliott 573; Dubis 91 (though neither Elliott nor Dubis specifically relates conversion to baptism). On the older view of 1 Peter as a baptismal document, see Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure. Michaels (166) points to other aorist passives in the household-code section (and elsewhere), which probably also point back to the time of conversion: ἐκλήθητε (2.21; 3.9), ἰάθητε (2.24), ἐπεστράφητε (2.25), also ἐλυτρώθητε (1.18).

50

1 PETER

Some interpreters contend that the wives’ entrance into a new identity as children of Sarah precedes the actions communicated by the participles and that the latter flow out of the former. The differences arise in the specific understanding of this connection. It is possible that the participles denote the result of the women’s new identity (‘You have become the children of Sarah with the result that you are now doing good’).200 Similar to this, although focusing on intention rather than outcome, is the function of purpose (‘You have become the children of Sarah in order to do good’).201 In both of these cases, good deeds are expected from those who are children of Sarah. Such a telic function is certainly possible, although it might have been more naturally represented by future-tense participles.202 When present participles are employed with a telic function, the sense of purpose is usually influenced by their lexical forms.203 Finally, some contend that ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι and φοβούμεναι function independently of the verb ἐγενήθητε and, like other participles in the epistle, carry an imperatival force (‘You have become the children of Sarah; so do good and let nothing frighten you’).204 The difficulty with this interpretation is that such an independent usage of the participle should only be posited when there are no finite verbal forms in the near context for it to modify.205 In this case, however, it is much more natural to view the participles as adverbial modifiers of ἐγενήθητε. Alternatively, the actions communicated by the participles may contribute in some way to the women’s entrance into this new identity. This is the implication present in an instrumental interpretation (‘You became the children of Sarah by doing good’; cf. ISV, GW, TLV).206 The drawback of this suggestion is that it would 200   E.g., Steiger 2:156; Schott 185; Wohlenberg 89; Hiebert 204; Elliott 573; Powers 109–10. Forbes advocates for participles of result, while also arguing that the participial forms carry an imperatival force (102–103; cf. idem, ‘Children of Sarah’, 103–107). 201   E.g., Martin, ‘Background of 1 Pet 3,6’, 143–44; Senior 83. 202   See Porter, Idioms, 192. 203   See Wallace, Grammar, 636. 204   E.g., van Unnik, ‘Good Works in 1 Peter’, 93–94; Best 127; Michaels 166–67; Forbes 102–103; cf. also Spicq 122. 205   See Robertson, Grammar, 946, 1133–34; Brooks and Winberry, Syntax, 138. 206   Those who adopt this interpretation include: Wordsworth 58; Plumptre 124–25; Bigg 153; Knopf 129; Donelson 88 n. h; Ostmeyer 65.



3.1–7

51

create an implausible temporal sequence, particularly with regard to the second participle (φοβούμεναι). Rather than facilitating one’s becoming a daughter of Sarah, withstanding intimidation is an obligation to be pursued as a Christian (see also 3.14). Along these same lines, a temporal interpretation has also been suggested (‘You have become the children of Sarah when you do what is right and are not intimidated’; cf. NAB, NET, HCSB, CEB).207 But this rendering is equally problematic in that it does not fit well with the image of ‘becoming’ children, as if such an identity could come and go. The most common interpretation, and the one that is preferred here, is the conditional function (‘You have become the children of Sarah if you do good and do not fear intimidation’).208 With the introduction of a conditional element, it means that ἐγενήθητε is most likely a proleptic aorist, that is, an aorist indicative used to represent ‘an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed’, which occurs in the apodosis of an implicit or explicit condition.209 In such constructions, ‘[t]he speaker/writer… looks at the occurrence from a future viewpoint—when the condition has been fulfilled—and this change of viewpoint influences him towards the aorist indicative, though from the normal referencepoint the action is still future’—or at least, conditional upon the requirements continuing to be fulfilled.210 Since this interpretation is often misunderstood (and sometimes even misrepresented), further explanation is required. Objections have been raised against a conditional interpretation on two fronts.211 Based on the future orientation of most apodoses,   So Achtemeier 205.   E.g., Pott 99; Alford 358; Mason 414; Johnstone 206; Lightfoot 116; Beare 157; Kelly 131; Goppelt 224; Brox 141; Dubis 91–92; Schreiner 177–88; Keener 240; cf. Mills, ‘Clause Patterns’, 143. This interpretation is also reflected in a number of translations, including ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, CEV; similarly, with ‘as long as’ (Tyndale, KJV). 209   Wallace, Greek Grammar, 563; cf. Richard 134. Many older commentators understood the form in a similar way. They argued that ἐγενήθητε stands in the place of the future tense ἔσεσθε (for a list of those who adopted this view, see Steiger 2:156). On the proleptic aorist, see BDF §333(2); MHT 3:74; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 84–85 (§257–58); Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 269–74. 210   Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 269. 211   See Achtemeier 216 with n. 147; Forbes 102. 207 208

52

1 PETER

some believe that a conditional reading would require the women’s identification as the children of Sarah to be a future event rather than a description of their conversion: if you do good and do not fear intimidation, then you will become children of Sarah. Others raise theological concerns, noting that a conditional interpretation appears to base the women’s identity as children of Sarah on their actions, rather than upon the grace and call of God.212 Both of these issues are resolved, however, if we recognise that the relation of the protasis to the apodosis in a conditional sentence can be construed in more ways than just cause–effect. The two halves can also relate to one another as evidence–inference (cf. Rom 8.17; 1 Cor 15.44). When this occurs, ‘the speaker infers something (the apodosis) from some evidence. That is, he [or she] makes an induction about the implications that a piece of evidence suggests to him [or her].’213 Understood in this way, the good deeds and lack of intimidation displayed by the women (evidence) demonstrate that they have become children of Sarah (inference).214 So, rather than being merely a description of consequence (i.e., purpose, result), the construction also carries a conditional sense: identity as Sarah’s children is displayed by exhibiting a pattern of behaviour like hers, and, by implication, depends upon continuing to display such conduct.215 This interplay 212   Some, perhaps in an attempt to resolve this issue, have suggested that the whole clause ὡς Σάρρα… τέκνα should be taken as a parenthesis. As a result, the participles would modify the verb ἐκόσμουν in v. 5, making them parallel to ὑποτασσόμεναι (see Bengel 63; Hensler 152; Knopf 129–30). The problem is that ‘such a construction is very awkward, making [the Petrine author] lose the thread of his argument in a pair of badly entangled illustrations’ (Michaels 166). 213   Wallace, Grammar, 683 (original emphasis). 214   Although arguing against a conditional function, Goppelt reaches a similar conclusion, insisting that the participles ‘express… a demonstration of this relationship to Sarah’ (224; original emphasis). Others have taken a similar view (e.g., Wiesinger 207; Schrage 98; cf. Schäfer, ‘Die Verheißung an Sara’, 76). 215   The sense of connection between kinship and conduct here is therefore closer to that expressed by Philo than Goppelt (224 n. 42) suggests. See Philo, Virt. 206–207: those among the Jews, Abraham’s offspring, who fail to reproduce the virtues of their ancestors (αἱ τῶν προγόνων ἀρεταί) and are thus ‘denied any part in the grandeur of their noble birth (εὐγενεία)’ (trans. Colson [LCL]); cf. also Virt. 195: ‘kinship is not measured only by blood (τὸ συγγενὲς οὐχ αἵματι μετρεῖται μόνον), but by similarity of conduct and pursuit of the same objects’ (trans. Colson [LCL]).



3.1–7

53

between identity and ethics is comparable to that found in Paul; conduct that conforms to identity not only reflects but also affirms and maintains that identity. Conversely, certain behaviours imply a loss of that identity (cf. 1 Cor 5.1–13).216 The two forms of conduct that qualify one as a daughter of Sarah represent key themes that are picked up elsewhere in the epistle. ‘Doing good’ (ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι) is a Leitmotif of the letter’s exhortation and instruction (see Excursus: ‘Doing Good’ and the Strategy of 1 Peter).217 For the author, it denotes the way of life appropriate for all Christians, though what is specifically required depends in part on one’s particular position and role.218 In this instance, the specific emphasis is on the wives’ subordination to their husbands, just as for slaves it was subordination to their owners. The second phrase that identifies Sarah’s children is μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν. It is possible that Sarah is still in the author’s mind here,219 at least if silence on the part of Genesis can be given any significance: no fear on Sarah’s part is mentioned in the two accounts in Genesis when she is given over to other men on account of her husband’s passing her off as his sister—all in an effort to protect himself (Gen 12.11–20; 20.1–28).220 From what is not said in these texts, one can see the basis for a depiction of her as someone who did not fear any terror. It is also interesting, in view of 1 Peter’s depiction of ‘fear’ as appropriately directed towards God alone (2.17), to note how Sarah is recorded as being afraid of YHWH, when he reacts to her words about her and her husband’s age (Gen 18.15 LXX: ἐφοβήθη γάρ).221

  See further Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 100–104, 155–67; idem, ‘Particular Identity and Common Ethics’, 197–212. 217   Cf. also Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, esp. 163–273. 218   Some have argued that the Petrine author is specifically referring to benevo� lence (see Oecumenius [PG 119:545–48]; Grotius 89). But there is nothing in the immediate context that would indicate that ἀγαθοποιεῖν should be limited to a specific referent, much less this referent. 219   Against the way the passage is read by some commentators (e.g., Elliott 574: this phrase ‘has no relation to the story of Sarah and Abraham’; cf. Kelly 132; Michaels 166; Goppelt 225 n. 51). 220   Cf. Kiley, ‘Like Sara’, 689–92. 221   Among other qualities, Philo presents Sarah as an example of wisdom and virtue, as such ‘free from all womanish feelings’ (παντὸς ἀπηλλαγμένον θήλεος πάθους, Mut. Nom. 261, trans. Colson and Whitaker [LCL]) and displaying joy (Mut. Nom. 264–265; Abr. 205–207; Spec. Leg. 2.54–55). 216

54

1 PETER

Nonetheless, it is Prov 3.25 LXX (οὐ φοβηθήσῃ πτόησιν) that provides the immediate source of the author’s phrase.222 Not only are these the only two biblical texts where the noun πτόησις occurs,223 but Proverbs 3 is also cited again in 1 Pet 5.5. In 1 Peter, it is only here and in 3.14 that ‘fear’ appears in a negative sense as something to be avoided, and in both cases the phrase is drawn from a scriptural source.224 Moreover, in both instances the depiction is accentuated with some further vocabulary. Here the double negative μή… μηδεμίαν adds emphasis; μηδεμίαν in particular, added to the phrase from Prov 3.25, underlines the insistence that there is nothing at all of which they should be terrified.225 The accusative πτόησιν can be understood in two ways (cf. also 3.14). It could express a subjective (or passive) sense, denoting an internal anguish caused by frightening circumstances (‘do not be afraid with any fear’; cf. KJV, CEB, MEV, BRG).226 This is how the term is commonly used in its limited number of occurrences in antiquity. It describes an unrestful state of excitement or agitation (Plato, Symp. 206e; Prot. 310d; Aristotle, Gen. an. 774a; Clearchus, Frag. 24; Agatharchides, De mari Erythraeo 5), often with negative connotations, representing an inferior quality arising from within one’s soul that needs to be removed (Plato, Crat. 404a; Anachar­sidis, Epistles 4) or an outwardly displayed vice that represents an outflow of one’s character (Plutarch, Rect. rad. aud. 6 [Mor. 40C]; Curios. 2 [Mor. 516A]). Sometimes πτόησις is employed in connection with other forms of terror and amazement that overtake large crowds of people (Diodorus Siculus 20.66.4; Philo, Her. 251; Plutarch, Is. Os. 14 [Mor. 356D]). What is more, in the LXX, the verbal form (πτοέω) is consistently used as a 222   While not denying the use of Prov 3.25, Egan has proposed that the words of the Petrine author here also represent a subtle allusion to Isa 54.1, 4 (Scriptural Narrative, 159–64), though the evidence for this connection seems somewhat contrived. 223   Elliott (574) also cites Sir 50.4 and 1 Macc 3.25; but in these texts the nouns are different, πτῶσις in Sirach and πτοή in 1 Maccabees, the former of which is fairly common (37 times) in LXX. 224   Michaels 167; cf. Selwyn 185. 225   Dubis 92. Cf. Porter, Idioms, 283, who notes that in this case ‘there may be clause and word negation, or two instances of word negation’. 226   So, e.g., Steiger 2:157–59; Selwyn 185; Beare 157; Michaels 167; Achtemeier 216 n. 155. It is also represented in BDAG 895.



3.1–7

55

synonym for φοβέω.227 If this is the meaning here, then πτόησις would be a cognate accusative that is conceptually (rather than lexically) related to the verb,228 its presence being required by the qualifying attributive adjective μηδεμίαν.229 Alternatively, πτόησις could also be taken in an objective (or active) sense, describing an external source of fear (‘do not be afraid of any intimidation’; cf. NAB, EHV, LEB, JUB).230 In this way, the two concepts (πτόησις and φόβος), while sharing many similarities, would nonetheless be distinguished, and the accusative πτόησιν would simply be a direct object. Elsewhere, distinctions are occasionally drawn between these two roots, particularly in instances where φόβος was thought to cause or in some way contribute to πτόησις (Diodorus Siculus 20.66.3; Josephus, War 1.591; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.10.5). The term’s usage in Prov 3.25, which is echoed in the present verse, provides the strongest support for an objective meaning. In Proverbs, the addressee is counselled against fear of the coming terror (πτόησιν ἐπελθοῦσαν), suggesting that a concrete threat is in view (cf. 1 Macc 3.25: ἡ πτόη ἐπέπιπτεν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη). The Petrine author’s point, then, is not that wives should never be afraid, but rather that they are not to fear any intimidation, threats, or acts of violence they might experience from their husbands.231 This intimidation might range from physical or sexual abuse to threats 227   See Deut 31.6; Jer 1.17; 23.4; 26.27; Ezek 3.9; 1 Chr 22.13; 28.20; 2 Chr 20.15, 17; Jdt 16.11; cf. also 1 En. 21.9. The reverse construction (i.e., the verb πτοέω modified by the accusative φόβον) is also occasionally found: μὴ πτοούμενοι τὸν φόβον τοῦ Θεοῦ (Physiologus 3); ταῦτα οὖν εἰρῆσθαί μοι δοκεῖ πρὸς τοὺς ἐπτοημένους τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰδουμαίων (Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 1.80). 228   Many grammarians have taken πτόησιν as cognate accusative in this passage (e.g., Buttmann, Grammar, 148; Winer, Grammar, 281; Robertson, Grammar, 479; Wallace, Grammar, 189–90; Young, New Testament Greek, 18). 229   On this function of the cognate accusative, see Winer, Grammar, 280–81; BDF §153(1). 230   So, e.g., Alford 358; Johnstone 207; Huther 158; Kühl 194; Monnier 149; Bigg 154; Goppelt 225 n. 50; Dubis 92. 231   Cf. Johnson Hodge, ‘ “Holy Wives” ’, 10; Ok, ‘Children of Sarah’, 113. Alter�natively, Hunt understands the obedience that is expected of these wives (v. 6a) as ‘relate[d] to a wife’s willingness to continue to bear children for her unbelieving husband’, which, in turn, means that ‘the fears would be of disabilities or death from childbirth’ (535). It seems unnecessary, however, to limit the subordination

56

1 PETER

of divorce or legal denunciation.232 Such instructions are significant in that Christian women married to non-Christians were particularly likely to arouse their husbands’ indignation if they withdrew from forms of household and religious observance that they might now regard as idolatry (cf. 4.3, and above on 3.1). The combination of phrases here once again illustrates that ‘doing good’—though it includes conventional practices such as wifely subordination—is not seen as a mere accommodation to whatever those in authority require, nor is it any kind of remedy for social conflict as though good deeds would preserve these women from ill-treatment.233 7 Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεσ­ ἀσθενεσ­ τέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ, γυναικείῳ, Finally, and much more briefly, the author addresses husbands. Since the original form of the epistle would have contained little to no punctuation, modern interpreters are left to divide up the sentence according to its proper sense units. In this instance, some place a comma after γνῶσιν, which results in both ὡς-clauses modifying ἀπονέμοντες: ‘live together according to knowledge, showing consideration for the woman as the weaker vessel’.234 While συνοικέω can be used absolutely, as this interpretation suggests (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 1.93.4; 4.168.2; Sir 42.9; Philo, Sacr. 133), the term is normally modified by a dative that denotes the one with whom the marital relationship is shared.235 Here a dative of Sarah to childbearing. Appeal is made to the matriarch to support a much broader form of obedience (3.1–5). 232   On the potential abuses that threatened women in the Greco-Roman world, see Reeder, ‘1 Peter 3:1–6’, 527–29; cf. also Clark, ‘Hierarchies of Domestic Violence’, 117–26; Fitzgerald, ‘Domestic Violence in the Ancient World’, 111–15; Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 317–22. For examples of such threats, see Tertullian, Ux. 2.4–6; Justin Martyr, 2 Apol. 2. 233   As Achtemeier (217) comments, ‘the wife is to do what is appropriate for her as a Christian even within the confines of a marriage to a non-Christian husband, a husband who may use fear and intimidation in the attempt to compel activity inappropriate for her as a Christian’. 234   So, e.g., Luther 152; Calvin 99; Grotius 89; Estius 535; Bigg 155; Hart 65; Recike 100, 137 n. 28; Kelly 132; Donelson 89 n. l. This division of the sentence is also reflected in a number of translations (KJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, ESV, NIV). 235   In place of the dative, the same sense is occasionally communicated through μετά + genitive (1 Esdr 8.67; Sir 25.16).



3.1–7

57

object is available in the noun σκεύει (see below). What is more, the use of an expressed object for συνοικέω is consistent with the instructions directed towards each of the other groups in the Petrine Haustafel, which involve a way of relating to another group (slaves to masters, wives to husbands). For these reasons, it is more natural to place a comma after γυναικείῳ, thus dividing the two ὡς-clauses between the participial phrases: ‘live together according to knowledge with the female vessel as the weaker (one)’.236 As with the address to slaves (and possibly wives too, depending on the text-critical decision taken, see Text at 3.7 n. a) the article οἱ indicates that ἄνδρες is strictly a nominative, but used with vocative force and effectively a direct address (note the second person pronoun [ὑμῶν] at the end of the verse).237 Once again ὁμοίως serves to mark the transition to the next group in the list (cf. also 5.5).238 In this case, it is especially clear that the adverb cannot convey the sense ‘in the same way’ (despite the rendering of some modern translations, e.g., NIV, HCSB, ERV, NASB, GNT, EHV, NET, LEB), as if the point were that slaves, wives, and husbands should all adopt the same pattern of (submissive) behaviour: the verb here is not ὑποτάσσω but συνοικέω (see on 3.1). Comparable with the instructions to slaves and to wives, here too the injunction takes the form of an imperatival participle.239 They are instructed 236   Cf. Jachmann 152; Fausset 507; Alford 359; Huther 159–60; Hiebert 206. This division of the sentence is also reflected in a number of translations (NET, EHV, GNT, HCSB, NASB, NCV). 237   Cf. the second-person verbs in 1 Pet 2.20, 3.6; and the second-person pronoun in 3.2. 238   Cf. Michaels 167; Elliott 574. Some claim that ὁμοίως marks a contrast, ‘on the other hand’ (Grotius 89; Estius 535; Pott 101; Jachmann 152). 239   Some commentators connect συνοικοῦντες to the imperative of 1 Pet 2.13 (ὑποτάγητε πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει διὰ τὸν κύριον) as though it were another application of submission to human institutions (so, e.g., Hofmann 106; Keil 107; Masterman 122; Wand 92; Frankemölle 54; Richard 136; Hunt 535; cf. Bott, ‘Sarah as the “Weaker Vessel” ’, 243; Nugent, ‘ “Weaker Sex” ’, 8–9). Others link the participle to the series of commands in 2.17, claiming that it indicates how the obligations are to be met (so, e.g., Hart 64; Knopf 129; Achtemeier 217; Vahrenhorst 140 n. 380). The suggestion has also been made that a finite imperative—most likely an equative verb—must be supplied (so, e.g., Monnier 150; cf. Buttmann, Grammar, 293). However, if one recognises the participle’s rare, but established, independent function (see Excursus: Imperatival Participles in 1 Peter), these (strained) solutions become unnecessary.

58

1 PETER

to ‘live together’ with their wives, a far cry from instructions on household management in other Greek and Roman authors who expected that a husband would keep his wife in subordination (see Aristotle, Pol. 1259a; Martial, Ep. 8.12; Tacitus, Ann. 3.34).240 The verb συνοικέω, which occurs only here in the NT, can refer more generally to persons or groups dwelling in proximity to one another (Sophocles, Oed. tyr. 57; Thucydides 2.68.5; Herodotus, Hist. 4.148.1; Philo, Sacr. 3), but it is more commonly used with reference to the marriage relationship. This is how it is frequently employed in the LXX (Gen 20.3; Isa 62.5; 1 Esd 8.67; 2 Macc 1.14; Sir 25.8, 16; 42.9), where it also includes sexual relations (Deut 22.13; 24.1; 25.5; Sir 42.10).241 Although it is not necessary to restrict the meaning to conjugality as some have suggested,242 the sexual relationship of the husband and wife is most likely included in what the author depicts as ‘living together’, not unlike contemporary English uses of that compound verb.243 In this way, the term should be viewed in its widest possible reference, including all of the responsibilities of married life. The husbands’ responsibility of ‘living with’ their wives is to be done κατὰ γνῶσιν. Commentators are divided over the identification of the specific content of this γνῶσις (‘knowledge’) and the way it is appropriated. Some take γνῶσις as representative of a general sensitivity to God’s will that is available to those who have been enlightened by the Christian gospel.244 But without   See further Christensen, ‘Balch/Elliott Debate’, 187.   The only exception in the LXX is Wis 7.28. The same focus is evident in the papyri (see MM 611). There is a wider range of uses in Greek literature (see LSJ 1721), but these include references to the marriage relationship (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 1.37.12; 1.91.27; 1.93.14; 1.110.4; 1.173.22; 1.196.11, 19, 25; 2.92.5; 3.31.3, 5, 9, 16; 4.168.9). 242   So, e.g., Wordsworth 58; Demarest 152; Maunoury 190 (mentions the marriage bed); Blenkin 68; Leaney 44; Stibbs–Walls 127–28; Barbieri 61; Hunt 535. This approach toward the meaning of συνοικέω stretches all the way back to some of the earliest Christian interpreters (e.g., Jerome, Jov. 1.4; Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 147.2). It should be noted that among those who emphasise that the sexual relationship is in view, it is generally acknowledged that the term also broadly covers the whole of the marital relationship (see Kelly 132, 134; Hillyer 98; McKnight 186). 243   So, rightly, e.g., Selwyn 186; Michaels 168. 244   So, e.g., Schott 187–88; Brückner 68; Cranfield 91; Spicq 123; Kelly 132; Beare 157; Bénétreau 175; Achtemeier 218; Boring 127; Senior 83; Watson 76; Schreiner 181. 240 241



3.1–7

59

some further elaboration, the lack of the article before γνῶσις weighs against this hypothesis.245 The prepositional phrase, literally ‘according to knowledge’, denotes the standard by which a husband should carry out marital responsibilities. Nevertheless, since κατά is regularly employed with an anarthrous substantive to denote an adverbial expression, it may be best to translate the prepositional phrase accordingly: ‘live together wisely/considerately’ (cf. RSV, JUB, LEB, MEV).246 Yet, even this explanation requires further nuance to fully reflect the content of γνῶσις. The specific understanding that the author has in mind, the type that is to guide the way husbands relate to their wives, is delineated in the ὡς clause that follows.247 That is to say, their understanding, or consideration—a way of acting based on the information the author is about to convey—should be based on the fact that the wife is the ἀσθενέστερον σκεῦος. At times, confusion has surrounded the word σκεῦος—not least because of the influence from its disputed usage by Paul in 1 Thess 4.4.248 When it is used in a literal sense, it denotes an instrument or equipment (e.g., jar, utensil, ship, etc.) employed for a given purpose, whether it be religious, military, nautical, agricultural,   See Reicke, ‘Die Gnosis der Männer’, 299–300.   This is the approach adopted by numerous commentators (e.g., Wiesinger 209; Hofmann 107; Keil 107–108; Huther 159; Elliott 575; Schlosser 186). 247   Cf. Dubis 93–94, though he sees the ‘knowledge’ in view as ‘that contained in the two ὡς constructions’, following Selwyn (186). The second ὡς clause relates to the injunction ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν, rather than to συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν, though these two aspects of the marital relationship cannot be entirely separated here. 248   A close connection between these passages is often imagined, with some claiming that the Petrine author had 1 Thess 4.4 in mind when he composed this verse (see Beare 157; cf. TDNT 7:367) or even that Silvanus, the one presumed by many to be the amanuensis of 1 Peter (see Introduction: 1 Peter was Composed by Peter through an Amanuensis), employed the same term here that he used in 1 Thessalonians, a letter of which he served as a co-author (see Selwyn 187). In either case, the meaning of σκεῦος in that letter would play an important role in understanding its usage here. Yet, while the connection with other (deutero-) Pauline letters such as Romans and Ephesians is highly likely (see Introduction: Pauline Traditions), there is little to support the idea that the Petrine author was familiar with 1 Thessalonians, and one shared term is not sufficient to establish such a connection. Neither can this similarity be explained by the influence of Silvanus, who likely represents a fictional creation of the pseudonymous author rather than the actual amanuensis of the letter. 245 246

60

1 PETER

etc.249 This meaning came to be extended figuratively, as a reference to humans whose lives are used for specific purposes (Polybius, Hist. 13.5.7; T.Naph. 8.6; LAE 16.5; Acts 9.15; Mart. Andr. A 5.1). Within some Jewish sources, ‫‘( כלי‬vessel’), the Hebrew equivalent of σκεῦος, occasionally denotes a person’s wife.250 This may derive from the notion that women were receptacles of male seed, an idea that was common in antiquity (see Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.3.19.1; Lucian, [Am.] 19; cf. also Sir 26.12). While a few commentators have assigned the same meaning here,251 the problem is that the comparative adjective (ἀσθενέστερος) implies that the man is understood as a σκεῦος as well, making a more general reference most likely.252 It was common for σκεῦος to represent the physical body (Apoc. Sedr. 11.2, 6; 2 Cor 4.7).253 Indeed, other early Christian texts use   TDNT 7:358–67; BDAG 927–28.   See, e.g., B. Meg. 12b (with parallel in Midr. Esth. 3.13); b. B. Meṣ. 84b (with parallels in Midr. Qoh 11.2; b. Sanh. 22b; y. Šabb. 10.5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11.24); cf. also m. Ketub. 3.4–5; b. Ned. 20b; b. Pesaḥ 112a–b; b. Šabb. 152a. One major drawback with using this evidence is the inability to determine whether the Anatolian audience would have been familiar with this Semitic idiom. This is important because the specific use of σκεῦος as equivalent to ‘wife’ is unattested in Greek literature prior to the composition of 1 Peter (see Bassler, ‘σκεῦος’, 55; Elgvin, ‘ “To Master His Own Vessel” ’, 610; Smith, ‘1 Thessalonians 4:4’, 70). The closest parallels in Greek are a reference from Plutarch (Conj. praec. 3 [Mor. 138E], who compares marriage partners to vessels, and from Chariton (Chaer. 1.14.9), wherein Callirhoe is sold as a slave and laments her status as a vessel, which could involve a role as a concubine (cf. 1.12.9; 2.1.5; 3.1.6). 251   E.g., Beza 572; Bengel 64; Barnes 163; Bennett 226. Cf. Selwyn 187: ‘The “vessel” here thought of is the whole personality of the wife regarded as a representative of her sex. We might translate the phrase “rendering chivalrous respect to the woman in them, as the weaker sex” ’. 252   What is more, as we will argue below, it is likely that σκεῦος is modified by γυναικεῖος, which would make the meaning ‘wife’ redundant (hence, ‘female wife’). 253   The term σκεῦος can also refer to specific parts of the body, sometimes being employed as a euphemism for genitalia (see Antistius Vetus, Anth. plan. [Anthologica Graeca] 16.243.4; Aelian, Nat. an. 17.11; cf. also the Latin equivalent [vas]: Plautus, Poen. 863; Petronius, Satyr. 24.7; Augustine, Civ. 14.23; Nupt. 2.5.14). It is even possible that the Hebrew term ‫‘( כלי‬vessel’) is employed in this way. In 4Q416 2 ii 21, a fragmentary manuscript from Qumran, we find, ‫‘( וגם אל תקל כלי חיקכה‬And also do not treat the vessel of your bosom with contempt’; on the restoration and meaning of this text, see Strugnell, ‘More on Wives and Marriage’, 537–47; Elgvin, ‘ “To Master His Own Vessel” ’, 604–19; 249 250



3.1–7

61

the term to denote the place in which the πνεῦμα dwells (Barn. 7.3; 11.9; Herm. Mand. 5.1.2).254 As such, it is tempting to see a connection with the ‘meek and gentle πνεῦμα’ of v. 4, dwelling in the woman’s σκεῦος, though it is probably unlikely that this slightly distant connection is in the author’s mind at this point.255 Instead, emphasis seems to be placed not so much on the body of the woman (whether as a receptacle of male seed or as a dwelling place for the divine spirit), but on her function. As a σκεῦος, she (as well as her husband) is an instrument designed for divine usage. The nature of his function as a ‘tool’ of God is further explained by the surrounding modifiers. Most English translations render the term γυναικεῖος as ‘wife’ (cf. NRSV, NIV, NET, NASB, NAB, HCSB, ESV).256 This reflects not only a substantival usage but also a function that equates the adjective with the nominal form. The difficulty with this interpretation is that no other instances have been produced in which γυναικεῖος is employed as the equivalent of the noun γυνή. With this in mind, it is important not to confuse the meaning of a particular term with the intended referent of the broader phrase. Rather than narrowly defining γυναικεῖος as a reference to specific Smith, ‘4Q416 2 ii 21’, 499–504). Based on examples like these, Bott (‘Sarah as the “Weaker Vessel” ’, 252–54) has proposed reading ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει in 1 Pet 3.7 in a similar way. But various considerations make this suggestion problematic, not the least of which is the fact that σκεύει is likely modified by τῷ γυναικείῳ not ἀσθενεστέρῳ. Even if ἀσθενεστέρῳ were connected to σκεύει (‘weaker vessel’) and γυναικεῖος were taken to mean ‘the female’ (as Bott interprets it), the presence of ὡς presents a serious challenge. As it is commonly understood, the comparative particle probably denotes a direct comparison (‘who is…’). Applied to the interpretation of Bott, the comparative clause would result in the identification of women with genitalia rather than expressing the ‘inferior’ genitalia that women possess. (It is possible to construe the ὡς-clause with συνοικοῦντες, but the result would not be much better: ‘live with the female as you would live with weaker genitalia’.) 254   Cf. BDAG 927 §3; Selwyn 187; Michaels 169. 255   So, e.g., Michaels 169. 256   A specific reference to the ‘wives’ of these Christian men has been defended by various interpreters as well (e.g., Elliott 575, 578; Dubis 94–95; Forbes 104). It is interesting to note that some lexica have allowed for the possibility that the substantival use of γυναικεῖος is equivalent to γυνή (see Robinson, Lexicon, 167; Wahl, Clavis novi testamenti philologica, 89). However, they provide no comparative examples for this usage.

62

1 PETER

members of a group (viz. the ‘wives’ of these Christian men), the adjective is sometimes thought to represent a gendered class, ‘the woman’ or ‘the female’.257 Grammatically, this interpretation is consistent with the fact that the articular form of the neuter singular adjective sometimes represents an abstract concept,258 a usage for which the Petrine author displays some proclivity elsewhere (1.7 [τὸ δοκίμιον]; 3.4 [τὸ ἄφθαρτον]).259 Taking this idea further, it has even been suggested that the adjectival form is used to address more broadly the way in which men are to relate to all the female members of their household.260 But while this interpretation better accounts for the semantic nuance created by the adjectival form, it leaves the relationship with σκεῦος unexplained. Perhaps a better way to interpret this difficult sentence is to take γυναικείῳ as an adjectival modifier of σκεύει, with the ὡς-clause having been moved forward in close connection with κατὰ γνῶσιν, to which it is conceptually related: ‘live together with the female vessel as the weaker (one)’.261 Not only is the same type of construction found earlier in the epistle at 1 Pet 1.19, where the ὡς-clause is transposed beside τιμίῳ αἵματι, but this 257   See, e.g., Bengel 64; Mason 415; Grudem 143; Michaels 168; Hiebert 206; Richard 136; Senior 83–84; Jobes 207; Witherington 166 n. 331; cf. also Punt, ‘Weaker Vessel’, 48; Khobnya, ‘Missional Lens’, 13; Kolade, ‘ “The Weaker Vessel” ’, 124. In some instances, this interpretation has led scholars to the incorrect conclusion that γυναικείῳ is in apposition to συγκληρονόμοις (so, e.g., Kelly 134, followed by Bott, ‘Sarah as the “Weaker Vessel” ’, 251 n. 29). 258   On the use of the articular form of the neuter singular adjective to denote an abstract concept, see Winer, Grammar, 294–95; Robertson, Grammar, 654; BDF§ 263(2). 259   It should be pointed out, however, that the use of the neuter adjective for abstract concepts in 1 Peter, as is usually the case with other examples of the same construction (BDF§ 263[2]), both involve a genitive modifier for further explication. This is not the case in the present instance. 260   This interpretation has only been defended on a few occasions (see Reicke 102; Danker 147; Achtemeier 217; Jobes 207). However, συνοικέω usually relates to marital relationships (see above) and to this point, the Haustafel has focused on specific reciprocal relationships: slave–master, wife–husband. A broader instruction to men thus seems out of place (cf. Brox 147 n. 474). 261   So, e.g., Johnstone 210; Bigg 154; Schlosser 192. Similarly, some treat γυναικείῳ as though it is in apposition to σκεύει, resulting in the translation, ‘as with the weaker vessel, the feminine one’ (Keil 108; Huther 161; Elliott 576). The problem is that this interpretation leaves συνοικοῦντες without an object (see Dubis 94).



3.1–7

63

interpretation is also consistent with the normal use of γυναικεῖος. The adjective communicates that which belongs to or relates to a woman. In a culture where strong lines were drawn between the roles and expectations assigned to each gender, γυναικεῖος distinguishes not only the specific form of women (Acts Phil. 95.5), but also the clothing and decorations with which they adorned themselves (Aristophanes, Thesm. 852; Xenophon, Mem. 2.7.5; Jdt 12.15; Philo, Sacr. 21; Post. 166; Josephus, Ant. 1.250), the way they spoke and the conversations in which they engaged (Josephus, Ant. 17.121; 18.255), the work they performed (Herodotus, Hist. 4.114.3), and even the character traits they displayed, which were usually portrayed negatively (Pindar, Frag. 123; Thucydides 2.45.2; Philo, Congr. 180; Spec. 1.108; Josephus, Ant. 15.44). What is especially noteworthy is that instruments or tools (σκεύη, a term that comes under the category of σκεῦος) could also be demarcated for specific genders, such that some might be designated for or used principally (or exclusively) by men, while others were thought to be ‘feminine’.262 From this perspective, husbands and wives represent different types of tools, although each are able to be used for the purposes of God. But even though the wife might be an instrument of God just like her husband, there are clear distinctions between these marital partners. Most notably, the feminine tool is ‘weaker’ (ἀσθενέστερος).263 262   For σκεύη designated for men, see Josephus, Ant. 4.301: μήτε γυναῖκα ἀνδρικῇ σκευῇ χρῆσθαι (‘do not let women use male equipment’). For σκεύη designated for women, see Pollux, Onom. 10.127: τῶν δὲ γυναικείων σκευῶν κτένιον (‘a comb from among the female utensils’); John Chrysostom, Subintr. 9: καὶ γὰρ σκεύη γυναικεῖα ἐκδοῦναι οὐ παραιτήσονται (‘these men will not avoid devoting themselves to female paraphernalia’). The lexicon of Hesychius notes that καλαθίσκος describes ‘a form of dance and a female tool by Menander’ (εἶδος ὀρχήσεως. καὶ σκεῦος γυναικεῖον παρὰ Μενάνδρῳ) (Lexicon, s.v. Κ §392). Similarly, the term κάλαθος is defined as ‘a female tool for the storage of wool’ (γυναικεῖον σκεῦος εἰς ἐρίων παράθεσιν) (Lexicon, s.v. K §393). Recognition of this gendered focus of γυναικεῖος makes it unnecessary to see in this term ‘sexual and procreative overtones’ (as suggested by Bott, ‘Sarah as the “Weaker Vessel” ’, 252 and Kolade, ‘ “The Weaker Vessel” ’, 126). 263   Nugent (‘ “Weaker Sex” ’, 10) maintains that an ἀσθενέστερος σκεῦος ‘might simply be a fragile piece of pottery that warrants special care, like a family heirloom’, which would mean that ‘Peter is not instructing his audience to think of women as being weaker. Rather, he is holding up how households treated precious vessels as a model for how husbands ought to treat their unbelieving spouses’ (cf.

64

1 PETER

The idea that women were weaker than men was common in the ancient world.264 Plato, for example, declares that ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ ἀσθενέστερον γυνὴ ἀνδρός, ‘yet for all the woman is weaker than the man’ (Resp. 455E; trans. Shorey [LCL]; cf. Leg. 781A–B; Thucydides 2.45.2; P.Oxy. II 261).265 In comparison with the rather all-encompassing view of their weakness expressed by Plato, it is notable that the author of 1 Peter seems to relate this relative ‘weak� ness’ specifically to physical strength, rather than to all aspects of women’s characteristics (cf. Musonius, Frag. 4.53–55, who limits weakness to women’s physical strength),266 though even to this extent one should note that the view is, as Kelly comments, ‘only partially correct’.267 At times, women in antiquity were able to use this stereotype to their own advantage, particularly in legal cases where emphasis was laid on their frailty, to gain sympathy from an official.268 While one might find some moral worth in the Petrine

JUB: ‘as unto a more fragile vessel’; see also GNT, ISV). The problem with this assessment is twofold. First, the Petrine author employs the comparative form (-τερος) of the adjective (‘weaker’), indicating that he intends to distinguish the husband from the wife. If his purpose were to stress the precious nature of the wives, the simple adjective ἀσθενής (‘weak’) would have been employed. Second, while the range of ἀσθενής can extend to a large number of physical, emotional, and moral limitations, one could question whether it would be an author’s first choice to describe the fragility of a precious piece of pottery. A more appropriate alternative might have been θρυπτικός or εὔθρυπτος, which describe something that is able to be broken or crushed easily. 264   Cf. also Kelly 133; Michaels 169; Elliott 576–78. 265   Among Roman writers and moralists, see Tacitus, Ann. 3.33.10–12: ‘Weakness and a lack of endurance were not the only failings of the sex (non imbecillum tantum et imparem laboribus sexum): give them scope, and they turned hard, intriguing, ambitious’ (trans. Jackson [LCL]; cf. also Cicero, Mur. 27.3–4). In Jewish texts, too, similar views are presented: Let. Aris. 251 describes the female sex as ‘bold, positively active for something which it desires, easily liable to change its mind because of poor reasoning powers (διὰ παραλογισμοῦ), and of naturally weak constitution (καὶ τῇ φύσει κατεσκεύασται ἀσθενές)’ (trans. Shutt; cf. Philo, Ebr. 55; b. Šabb. 33b). 266   Cf. Achtemeier 217; Kelly 133 (‘no innuendo of moral or intellectual inferiority’). 267   Kelly 133. A supposed lack of bodily strength did not prevent some women from physical altercations, however (see, e.g., P.Oxy. II 324; SB X 10239). 268   In one case from Oxyrhynchus, a woman named Aurelia sought assistance from the praefect in response to dishonest overseers (P.Oxy. I 71). She reminded the praefect of the help that he had previously given to women ‘because of their



3.1–7

65

injunction to husbands to treat their wives with due understanding or consideration, this remains a patronising and patriarchal viewpoint, based on a presumption of superior male strength.269 ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν. ὑμῶν. It is difficult to determine whether the second participle, ἀπονέμοντες, is imperatival, like συνοικοῦντες (cf. NET, CEV, NIV, NASB), or subordinate in a circumstantial or adverbial relationship to συνοικοῦντες (cf. NRSV, ESV, LEB, NAB).270 The closely parallel structure of the two phrases συνοικοῦντες… ὡς and ἀπονέμοντες… ὡς, which Elliott takes as a basis for regarding the second as subordinate and adverbial in relation to the first, perhaps more likely indicates that both participles are imperatival.271 Husbands must accord their wives honour (τιμή),272 another instance of ‘honour–shame’ vocabulary in this letter,273 and natural weakness’ (διὰ τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἀσθενές) and then later appealed to the fact that she was ‘a weak and widowed woman’ (γυνὴ ἀσθενὴς καὶ χήρα). Also from Oxyrhynchus is the petition of a woman who appointed her grandson as her legal representative in a legal matter ‘because of female frailty’ (διὰ γυναικείαν ἀσθένειαν) (P.Oxy. II 261). In this instance, however, there may have been substance to the claim, given that the woman was likely elderly. 269   As in 1 Peter, other ancient expressions of gender difference, even when tending to a more positive appreciation of women, express notions of male superiority. See e.g., Xenophon, Sym. 2.9: ‘As Socrates looked on he remarked: “This girl’s feat, gentlemen, is only one of many proofs that woman’s nature is really not a whit inferior to man’s, except in its lack of judgment and physical strength” ’ (trans. Todd [LCL]). These views continued through late antiquity as well (see Beaucamp, Le statut de la femme a Byzance, 11–16; Clark, Women in Late Antiquity, 56–62). 270   Elliott takes it as part of ‘a subordinate adverbial phrase explaining how husbands are to live considerately with their wives’ (578–79); while Achtemeier (218) interprets it as circumstantial. 271   So, e.g., Goppelt 226 n. 2; Dubis 95; cf. Le Roux, ‘1 Peter as Subversive Text’, 2. Michaels assigns the participle an imperatival force (167), although translates ‘must know how to live… showing her respect’ (154), making the second participle effectively subordinate to the first and implying a sense of circumstance or means. 272   It is necessary to supply an indirect object to complete the thought of ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν. This could either be αὐταῖς (Bloomfield 715) or γυναι­ κείαις (Dubis 95). 273   Cf. Elliott, ‘Disgraced yet Graced’, 166–78.

66

1 PETER

one indication of why the headline imperative of 2.17 might be seen as an appropriate way to encapsulate Christians’ responsibility in all their relationships (see on 2.17).274 In relation to each of the imperatival participles, the ὡς-clause provides a basis and motivation for the required conduct. The first requirement is that husbands live with their wives in a manner that acknowledges their relative physical weakness. The second is that husbands bestow honour upon their wives, ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς. As an additive, καί connects this ὡς-clause with the previous one (i.e., just as the wives are the weaker vessel, so they are also joint-heirs), although not necessarily as coordinate ideas.275 In this construction (ὡς καί), the conjunction carries an ascensive force (‘even as’),276 being used to provide a final, emphatic point of comparison.277 Understood in this way, it is not just that wives are to be honoured by their husbands; the emphasis is laid on the

  Brown (‘Silent Wives’, 400–401) suggests that this strikes ‘a countercultural chord’, but cites only general sources on honour/shame along with one text from Philo that states that ‘woman is not equal in honour with man’ (QG 1.27)—which does not, of course, deny that she is worthy of honour. Suggesting that both husband and wife should honour each other, within the context of a relationship in which the woman is expected to be submissive and obedient to the man, is conventional. See further below. 275   Cf. Schott 190; Dubis 95. Even when ὡς καί is preceded by another ὡς-clause (e.g., 2 Macc 2.8; Jos. Asen. 8.1; Heb 13.3; Josephus, Ant. 14.254), the two are not strictly coordinate (i.e., ‘like this… and like this’). This sense is more often communicated as ὡς… καὶ ὡς (e.g., Gen 13.10; Num 18.30; Ruth 4.11; T.Jud. 19.4; 4 Bar. 1.2; Rev 14.2). 276   This construction is very common (Judg 9.48; 2 Chr 32.19; Tob 5.15; Prov 17.18; Job 33.6; Gr. Apoc. Ezra 1.19; T.Levi 13.9; T.Sol. A 9.2; Let. Aris. 267; LAE 16.3; Hist. Rech. 20.2; 4 Macc 9.10; Pss. Sol. 17.30; Ps.-Hec. 2.1; 5.1; Matt 6.12; Acts 17.28; 1 Cor 9.5; 2 Pet 2.2; Rev 18.6; 2 Clem. 14.2; Ign. Eph. 21.1; Barn. 10.3; Mart. Pet. Paul 39.4; Acts Andr. Mth. 14.9). Jobes argues that the ascensive function of καί in this construction could be used to support the notion that the wives in question are unbelievers. Translating ὡς καί, ‘as even a coheir’, she argues, ‘This would then indicate that the husband is to treat his wife as if she were a sister in Christ’ (208). In this way, the construction would suggest that the women did not yet possess such a privileged position, but that the husbands were responsible for treating them as though they did. The problem is that this interpretation introduces a conditional idea (viz. ‘as if they were co-heirs’) that is not present in the construction ὡς καί. More generally, the view that the wives mentioned in this verse are unbelievers is problematic (see n. 288). 277   See Robertson, Grammar, 1181; Wallace, Grammar, 670. 274



3.1–7

67

specific reason and basis for this: they are to be honoured even as co-heirs.278 The verb ἀπονέμω occurs only here in the NT, although it is not altogether uncommon elsewhere. It denotes the distribution or assignment of a given entity to someone. This might involve the allotment of property (Artap. 3.4; Philo, Fug. 88; Plutarch, Alex. 15; Josephus, Ant. 5.91) or the allocation of roles, responsibilities, or positions (Polybius, Hist. 5.69.5; Diodorus Siculus 11.72.3; Philo, Ios. 98; Mart. Pol. 10.2). Commentators have previously suggested that ἀπονέμω involves the reciprocation of that which is due to someone. Applied to the present verse, this would seemingly dignify the position of the wife by suggesting that she is deserving of a certain amount of honour.279 This interpretation arises out of the ἀπό-prefix, which commonly has the effect of restoring back something through the action of the verb.280 But while it is true that some uses of ἀπονέμω carry a reciprocal notion, particularly those that involve the bestowal of benefits (and sometimes, punishments) on deserving candidates (e.g., Antiphon, De choreuta 9; Isocrates, Areop. 21; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.41.5; Philo, Opif. 143; Acts Pet. Paul 50.4), it is difficult to apply this meaning in every case (e.g., Plato, Pol. 280d; Philo, Deus 37). When reciprocity is intended, sufficient contextual clues are usually provided.281 The use of ἀπονέμω with τιμή, a common idiom in the ancient Greek world, would seem to imply reciprocity, for the expression is used in connection with inequitable social relationships, where a display of praise and adulation is provided for services rendered.   Rather than merely searching for a parallel with the previous ὡς, this καί represents a thematic additive used to confirm the proposition that wives should be honoured. It does so, however, by highlighting a unique or exceptional form of this action. On this discourse function of καί, see Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 99–100; Runge, Discourse Grammar, 337–48. 279   E.g., Monnier 151; Hiebert 207; Schlosser 192. 280   See MHT 2:298. BDAG seems to assume this sense for ἀπονέμω, claiming that the term means, ‘to grant that which is appropriate in a relationship’ (118). 281   Cf. 1 Clem. 1.3: ‘For you did all things without partiality, and you lived by the ordinances of God, submitting to your leaders and displaying appropriate honour (τιμὴν τὴν καθήκουσαν ἀπονέμοντες) to the elders among you’, where the participle καθήκουσαν indicates that the elders were deserving of the honour afforded to them. 278

68

1 PETER

In these instances, honour is bestowed on benefactors and heroes (Lycurgus, Oratio in Leocratem 51; Diodorus Siculus 2.34.5; cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1163b), kings (Josephus, Ant. 20.60), and the gods (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1160a; Diodorus Siculus 1.14.2; Philo, Spec. 1.65). At times, however, the expression represents the respect displayed toward one of a lesser social rank (Josephus, Life 422).282 It is related to this latter usage that the Petrine author employs the idiom to describe a husband’s responsibilities toward his wife.283 Since men were normally the primary recipients of τιμή,284 especially men in senior positions (cf. 1 Clem. 1.3; 21.6; Did. 4.1), it was more common for wives to honour their husbands (see Esth 1.20 LXX).285 Nevertheless, reference is also made to the honour bestowed upon one’s wife (Xenophon, Hier. 3.4; Chariton, Chaer. 3.2.7); in fact, Philo (Abr. 253) uses this exact expression. Describing how Abraham removed himself from all contact with Hagar following her pregnancy, Philo notes that this was done ‘because of his natural self-restraint and the honour that he bestowed on his wife [i.e., Sarah]’ (διά τε φυσικὴν ἐγκράτειαν καὶ τὴν τιμήν, ἣν ἀπένεμε τῇ γαμετῇ).286 Plutarch speaks of the ‘honour’ (τιμή) that both partners show to each other (Conj. Praec. 36 [Mor. 143C]) and that they share all things in common (Conj. Praec. 34   Pace Cranfield 91, who argues that ‘honour has much the same force as be in subjection to’ in 1 Pet 2.13 and 17 and thus concludes that ‘husbands are also called to Christian subordination of self in relation to their wives’. See also n. 274. Ascribing honour did not represent subordination, as is clear in the Josephus text cited at this note (Titus was not submitting to Josephus). 283   Since τιμή may occasionally be used to denote monetary compensation (see Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 5.72; Sir 38.1; 1 Tim 5.17), the task of the husband has sometimes been connected to the provision of material needs such as nourishment and clothing. This interpretation was most commonly adopted among an earlier generation of commentators (e.g., Hammond 412–13; Macknight 472–73; Doddridge 205; Demarest 153; Fronmüller 54). 284   Cf. Nicolaus, Frag. 128, which describes the unusual situation in which the ‘Lycians honoured (τιμῶσι) women more than men’; see also Plutarch, De proverbiis Alexandrinorum, Frag. 10. 285   See also Ps-Ignatius, Epistulae interpolatae et supositiciae 9.9.1, though this is unlikely to be authentic. 286   The need for a husband to honour his wife is later echoed in various Christian writings (e.g., Sent. Sextus 503: τιμάτω μὲν ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν γυναῖκα ὡς προστάτιν, ‘let a husband honour his wife as a patron’; cf. also John Chrysostom, Hom Gen. [PG 53:357]). 282



3.1–7

69

[Mor. 143A]), while also reinforcing the patriarchal expectations of the husband’s superior position in marriage (Conj. Praec. 33 [Mor. 142E]).287 The comparative image used to represent how (ὡς) husbands should honour their wives is connected to the cultural practice of inheritance: the wives are ‘co-heirs’ (συγκληρονόμοι) with their husbands of God’s blessings. (Note that there is nothing to indicate that the wives are not themselves also Christians.288) Elsewhere in   In light of this evidence, it is unnecessary to interpret the injunction ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν (τῷ γυναικείῳ) as a ‘revolutionary’ notion (pace Le Roux, ‘1 Peter as Subversive Text’, 2; cf. also Schultz, Los destinatarios’, 145, who similarly claims, ‘El matiz de la carta, que marca la diferencia con los valores de la época, está precisamente en el reconocimiento del honor de la esposa, el cual por sí mismo no era relevante a los ojos de la sociedad, puesto que lo que realmente primaba era cómo las actitudes de ella aportaban o perjudicaban la reputación del marido’). 288   While the vast majority of commentators assume that a Christian wife is in view here, there are some who raise the possibility that the instructions could also be directed towards a husband with an unbelieving wife (e.g., Bengel 64; Mason 414; Jobes 207–208; cf. Schroeder, ‘Once you were no people…’, 56; Nugent, ‘ “Weaker Sex” ’, 9). The strongest defence of this view is provided by Gross, ‘Are the Wives of 1 Peter 3.7 Christians?’, 89–96. He notes, first and foremost, that it is not sufficient to simply argue that most women would have converted with their husbands, since the letter itself (cf. 1 Pet 3.1–2) attests to the fact that some women at this time made decisions about religious practice independently of their husbands. But the heart of his argument lies in the structure of the passage. He points out that most Haustafeln address the reciprocal relationships of domestic pairs: wives/husbands, children/fathers, and slaves/masters. Since the letter has already addressed slaves with unbelieving masters and women with unbelieving husbands, he contends that Christian husbands with unbelieving wives would naturally be the topic of v. 7. As we have discussed, however, the instructions to slaves and to wives do not focus exclusively on unbelieving masters/husbands, but on all masters/husbands: good and bad, believing and unbelieving. While we cannot assume that a wife would always have converted to the religion of her husband (cf. 1 Cor 7.14), this would have likely been the most common situation. A more explicit indication—such as we find in 3.1 regarding husbands—would have been necessary to point to ‘unbelieving wives’ as the referent here. Support for the Christian commitment of these wives is provided by the fact that they are described as συγκληρονόμοι χάριτος ζωῆς with their husbands. In order for these wives to be considered unbelievers, it would require us to conclude that (1) all people indiscriminately receive some type of inheritance (κληρονόμος), (2) God’s χάρις is distributed to all people, and (3) ζωή merely represents human existence. Yet, all of these interpretative possibilities are contradicted by the use of the same terms in 1 Peter. 287

70

1 PETER

1 Peter συν- compounds (in 5.1, 13) ‘serve to link the author and his congregation to the recipients of the letter’, but here the συν- word seeks ‘to foster unity among the recipients themselves’.289 This substantival adjective, which is first attested in the writings of Philo (Spec. 2.73; Leg. 28–29, 67, 75, 87), is predominantly employed by Christian authors,290 having been adopted as one of their collective designations (Acts John 106.2; Acts Pet. Andr. 2.1). Normally, the adjective συγκληρονόμος is followed by a genitive that specifies either what was inherited (Eph 3.6; Heb 11.9) or the one with whom the inheritance is shared (Liv. Pro. 4.17; Rom 8.17).291 In this case, the former is specified by χάριτος functioning as an objective genitive. To further delineate the nature of this shared inheritance, the author elaborates with another genitive modifier. Most commentators agree that ζωῆς is an appositional or epexegetical genitive, which indicates that the gracious gift inherited by Christian husbands and wives is life itself.292 Similar to the following use of ζωή in v. 10 (a quotation from Ps 33 LXX), the ‘life’ in view is most likely the eschatological or eternal ‘life’ that

289   Michaels 170. Bruckner (68) incorrectly supposes that the συν- prefix indicates that the wives are joint-heirs with one another. 290   Occasional references are found in contemporary papyrological (P.Brem. 4) and epigraphic (SEG 8:91) sources. Related to the latter, Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 88–89) references a funerary inscription from Ephesus as a close parallel to 1 Pet 3.7, albeit with the word συγκληρονόμος being used in a physical rather than a spiritual sense. In the original publication (GIBM 633), the inscription reads: Τούτου τοῦ μη[η]μείου δεξὶον μέρος ἐστιν Κ. Οὐμφοθληΐου Βάσσου καὶ Εὐτυχίδος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Δημοτέλους σ[υγ]κληρονό[μου αὐτ] οῦ (‘The right-hand portion of this tomb belongs to C. Umphuleius Bassus and to Eutychis, the daughter of Alexander, son of Demoteles, his co-heir’). Deissmann draws particular attention to the likelihood that the two persons mentioned were husband and wife. After closer examination, however, the inscription should more likely be restored as: Δημοτέλους [καὶ] κληρονό[μων αὐτ]οῦ (see I.Eph. 1633). 291   The dative is also used to denote the co-heir of the inheritance (Philo, Spec. 2.73; Herm. Sim. 5.2.7–8, 11). 292   E.g., Windisch 68; Spicq 124; Kelly 134; Beare 158; Michaels 170; Achtemeier 218; Elliott 580; Dubis 96; cf. Punt, ‘Weaker Vessel’, 53 n. 6. Some take ζωῆς as an objective genitive: ‘the grace that bestows life’ (Hiebert 207; cf. Grotius 90, who understands the construction as communicating the same sense as χάρις ζωποιοῦσα, ‘grace which makes alive’). Alternatively, Erasmus (679) interprets χάριτος ζωῆς as the equivalent of χάριτος ζώσης (‘living grace’), which is reflected in some manuscripts.



3.1–7

71

is part of their anticipated salvation (cf. 1.3–5, 9–10, etc.).293 These nuances risk being missed if we simply render χάρις as ‘gift’ here,294 or translate the phrase as a whole as the equivalent of χάρισμα ζωῆς (‘gracious gift of life’).295 As elsewhere in the letter (esp. 1.10, 13), χάρις likely stands as shorthand for all that the Christian good news promises, the living hope of which salvation and heavenly inheritance (κληρονομία) is the outcome (1.3–5, 9–10). This declaration is often seen as highly significant. According to Elliott, ‘[t]he expression “co-heirs of the grace of life”… states the basis on which a Christian marital ethic is primarily founded’.296 Achtemeier even finds in it a declaration of the ‘essential equality between men and women inherent within the Christian community’; that is, ‘as heirs of grace, men and women stand on the same level’.297 By seeing 3.1–6 as concerned specifically with relations between wives and non-Christian husbands, and appealing here to Gal 3.28, he is able to claim that 1 Peter (and 3.7 in particular) reinforces the ‘equality’ enjoyed by women in the ‘Christian situation’, contrasted with their situation in the ‘secular culture’.298 As attractive as such a reading might be, it is an apologetic and unconvincing interpretation of this text, which does not escape the patriarchal constraints of its context as much as Achtemeier would like to suppose.299 The author clearly declares that wives, as well as 293   Pace Bott, ‘Sarah as the “Weaker Vessel” ’, 254–55, who denies an eschatological reading of this language in favour of an influence from Gen 18, which provides the ‘promise of progeny as an act of grace’ (255). Cf. also Howe, ‘God’s Grace’, 434, who defines ζωή as the Christian life. 294   Dubis 96: χάρις ‘simply means “gift” here’. 295   This is how the phrase is understood by some commentators (e.g., Macknight 474; Fronmüller 54; cf. Beare 158) as well as some ancient translations (e.g., Syriac). A few modern translations express this same idea (NAB, NRSV, NIV; cf. NJB: ‘the generous gift of life’). 296   Elliott 579. Cf. Levasheff, ‘Contrasting Visions’, 266: ‘the assumption is that their relationship as siblings in God’s household supersedes the rights a husband would claim over his wife’. 297   Achtemeier 219 and 218, respectively. See also above n. 23. 298   Achtemeier 208 and 218, respectively. 299   Equally unconvincing is Harink’s reading of 3.1–7 as depicting a ‘domestic revolution’ (86; see 86–89); similarly, Yoder, Politics of Jesus, 163–92, who sees the NT household codes as promoting a form of ‘revolutionary’ subordination (followed by Nugent, ‘ “Weaker Sex” ’, 8, and Le Roux, ‘1 Peter as Subversive Text’, 1).

72

1 PETER

husbands, are participants in the salvation that God has promised and provided in Christ. Both are equally heirs of the eschatological life to which their hope is directed. But there is nothing here about any broader or socially embodied equality, and the preceding instructions about the subordination required of wives to husbands, whether those husbands be Christian or not, indicates the particular pattern of social relationship the author affirms. To the extent that the author urges consideration for the weaker vessel and honour on the basis of sharing in the promise of salvation, he does present a moderate form of patriarchy, infusing it with love (cf. Eph 5.25–33).300 But it is wishful thinking to see in this an expression of ‘the essential incompatibility of the Christian ethos with that of secular culture’:301 as we have shown above, expressions of consideration, mutual sharing, and honour for the wife were commonly made alongside reiteration of the expectations that the husband would lead and that the wife would be submissive. This pattern of behaviour on the part of the husbands is urged for a purpose (expressed with εἰς plus the articular infinitive): εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν. The verb ἐγκόπτω conveys the sense of hindering or blocking someone from going on their way or achieving their purpose (cf. Acts 24.4; Rom 15.22; Gal 5.7; 1 Thess 2.18). As with the word ζωή, the reference to prayer may anticipate the quotation from Psalm 33 (LXX) that follows in 3.12, already reflecting its influence, although the word there is different (δέησις). The notion that proper conduct and a disciplined attitude is important to prayer is also suggested in the only other use of προσευχή in 1 Peter (4.7). It is evident that the author regards a husband’s duty to treat his wife properly as important if prayer is to have integrity and to work effectively; more broadly expressed, the principle is that proper conduct in relationship

  Cf. Theissen’s description of ‘love-patriarchalism’ (Liebespatriarchalismus), drawing on the work of Troeltsch, as he finds it in Paul: ‘This love-patriarchalism takes social differences for granted but ameliorates them through an obligation of respect and love, and obligation imposed on those who are socially stronger. From the weaker are required subordination, fidelity, and esteem’ (Social Setting, 107). 301   Achtemeier 218. For a broader assessment of the parallels between early Christian and Stoic teaching, which resists any unwarranted expressions of Christian superiority, see Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity. 300



3.1–7

73

to others is essential for a right relationship with God (cf. Matt 5.23–24; 18.19–35; Luke 11.4).302 Commentators have speculated about the nature of the potential hindrance. Some envision a situation in which believers continue to offer prayers, but their entreaties would be impeded from reaching God.303 Others claim that the prayers in some way become marred by the accusations of the wife and thus reach God in a form that is ineffectual.304 How one answers this question depends, to a large extent, on whose prayers are being affected. The reference to ‘your’ (ὑμῶν) prayers could be those of the husbands within the community, or it could more broadly refer to the prayers of husbands and wives together.305 In favour of the latter, one might note that a normal part of early Christian practice was for husbands and wives to engage in prayer as a couple, sometimes in connection with the temporary abstinence from sexual relations (1 Cor 7.5; cf. T.Naph. 8.8). More pertinent to this specific case, the letter later goes on to warn the entire audience about the importance of devotion to prayer (1 Pet 4.7: νήψατε εἰς προσευχάς). The plural form of προσευχή, which appears in 3.7 and 4.7, might also suggest that more than just the effectiveness of an individual’s communication with God is at issue. As Michaels notes, the plural seems to indicate ‘that Peter has in mind not the act of praying or “prayer” as a concept, but specific prayers uttered on specific and regular occasions in the home and

302   This proper treatment, however, entails acknowledging the wife’s physical weakness and status as co-heir of salvation. It is hardly the author’s point that ‘men who transfer cultural notions about the superiority of men over women into the Christian community lose their ability to communicate with God’ (Achtemeier 218). 303   So, e.g., de Wette 37; Wiesinger 212. 304   So, e.g., Hofmann 111–12. 305   Commentators have been evenly divided over this issue for some time. Those who advocate that the prayers are of the husbands include: Steiger 2:173; Wiesinger 212; Mason 415; Bigg 155; Kelcy 67; Grudem 145; Davids 123 n. 20; Brox 149; Achtemeier 218; Black 91–92; Warden 163–64; Witherington 167; Donelson 95; Schlosser 187; Schreiner 183 n. 255; cf. Lovik, ‘Ancient House Codes’, 62. Those who argue that the prayers of husbands and wives together are in view include: Benson 242; Alford 359; Plumptre 126; Selwyn 186; Beare 158; Mounce 45; Schelkle 92; Michaels 171; Goppelt 228; Richard 138; Elliott 581; Mazzeo 120; Feldmeier 183.

74

1 PETER

in the congregation’.306 These considerations are consistent with the ‘hinderance’ involving the social relationship between the husband and wife: the author would be assuming ‘that husband and wife pray together, and that lack of attention to each other or to the hope they share will hinder their common life of prayer’.307 On the other hand, one could argue that husbands (ἄνδρες) are specifically addressed in this section, indicating that they are the intended target of this warning. The passive form of the infinitive (ἐγκόπτεσθαι) could also be read as indicating that the hindrance comes in the form of God’s refusal to listen to their prayers,308 though this is hardly decisive. A few verses later, when the author mentions (quoting Ps 33 LXX) that God’s ears are open to the prayers of the righteous, while God’s face is against those who do evil (3.12), this could be taken to imply that a husband’s failure to fulfil the responsibilities detailed in v. 7 would negatively impact his prayers; however, there is no clear indication that the psalm quotation is specifically directed in this way. This interpretation might also be strengthened by noting the tendency in other early Christian literature to focus the duty of prayer specifically on the men of the community (1 Tim 2.8–11, a passage with many parallels to this section of 1 Peter) or to address the men of the community implicitly or explicitly as those who fulfil the exhortations given (e.g., 1 Clem. 1.3–2.3).309 Yet, given the direct address to both slaves and wives here (2.18; 3.1), this general point is less telling. In the end, it may not be possible to draw a strong line of separation between these two options. If a husband was not properly honouring his wife, this, the author is clear, would impact his own prayers, as God would not listen to them (cf. 3.12), but it would also be disruptive to the kind of harmony presumed as necessary to pray together as a couple or household.

  Michaels, ‘Finding Yourself an Intercessor’, 242.   Michaels, ‘Finding Yourself an Intercessor’, 243. 308   So, e.g., Grudem 145; Achtemeier 218 n. 178; Senior 84; Watson 77. 309   Here in 1 Clement, unlike 1 Peter, it is ‘you (men)’ who (inter alia) teach the women to be respectful and submissive and also ‘stretch out your hands [in prayer] to the almighty God’ (1 Clem. 2.3). 306 307



3.1–7

75

Summary As in other NT examples of household code instruction, wives (like slaves) are urged to be subordinate. Husbands are also given responsibilities, though much less space is given to outlining and justifying these. The perceived need for women to be subordinate to their husbands, and to display a meek and quiet disposition, has a particular purpose in the context of a ‘mixed’ marriage, where it may, the author suggests, exercise a missionary purpose. However, it is a pattern of conduct the author regards as appropriate for all wives, as the use of the example of ‘holy women’ from Israel’s past indicates. These precursors, Sarah in particular, are said to epitomise the very conduct now urged upon the Christian wives, who demonstrate and maintain their identity as Sarah’s daughters insofar as they display the same character and deferential behaviour. As for husbands, they are urged to live with their wives in light of the knowledge that women are physically weaker—though the author does not say exactly what this implies in terms of patterns of conduct—and to honour their wives since they are also inheritors of eschatological life. There are some aspects of this instruction that suggest limits to the conformity to social expectations that wives might be pressured to follow. In particular, the insistence that they should not fear any intimidation suggests that their commitment to do what is urged in the letter as both their wifely and (more generally) their Christian duty is not to be compromised by threats or punishment from their husbands or others. And the husbands’ treatment of their wives is to be shaped by the convictions expressed in v. 7, and by the overall goal of not hindering their prayers. Yet this is hardly countercultural teaching, nor does it reflect or express a conviction about the essential equality of women and men.310 Whatever we might wish, this is patriarchy: a moderate, considerate form of patriarchy, but patriarchy nonetheless. The instruction to particular groups—slaves, wives, and husbands—conveys in part what the author regards as ‘doing good’ for such specific groups of people. In a sense, this illustrates how 310   As noted by Ok, the Petrine author’s ‘advice to wives reflects a strategy that both complies with and challenges dominant Greco-Roman cultural expectations and values for women’ (‘Children of Sarah’, 113).

76

1 PETER

the letter’s vision of doing good is, and is not, aligned with what is conventionally accepted as good. The defining perspective is God’s, and this means that Christians should do God’s will whatever the threats or intimidation to do otherwise. At some points (see, e.g., on 2.17) this may represent resistance to societal expectation, as it may for wives who reverence Christ (cf. 3.15) rather than the gods traditionally honoured in their household.311 Yet the author’s sense of what God regards as good also includes patterns of behaviour—notably the submission of slaves and wives—that conform to the patriarchal expectations of ancient society. It is clear that this behaviour has a missionary purpose in some cases—explicitly that of wives with non-Christian husbands. Nevertheless, it is less easy to discern whether the promotion of this pattern of conduct reflects any apologetic purpose, as Balch has argued.312 Clearly the author hopes that good conduct on the part of Christians will eventually be recognised by their non-Christian contemporaries (2.12; 3.16), but he seems equally aware that such conduct, or aspects of it, may lead to intimidation and suffering, and that recognition of its goodness may not come until the final time of eschatological reckoning. Some feminist scholars have exposed the dangers of the ethic presented here, which can be taken to indicate that a Christian wife’s duty is to submit meekly and quietly to her husband, and to endure mistreatment—just as slaves are urged to do (2.19–20) and as Sarah also did. Corley, for example, has shown how such teaching can be (and sometimes is) used to counsel women to remain in violently abusive situations.313 It is difficult to deny that the author valorises the patient bearing of unjust suffering. And while this may be a pertinent and encouraging survival strategy in situations where critical challenge to injustice is out of the question,314 it is important   Cf. Michaels 171: ‘That such submission [on the part of wives] is only “up to a point” is not stated in so many words, but this is clearly implied. Complete deference ordinarily meant wholehearted acceptance of the husband’s religion.’ 312   Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive. See also the defence and development of his perspective in debate with Elliott in Balch, ‘Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter’, 79–101. 313   Corley, ‘1 Peter’, 349–60; see also Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience. 314   Note the important hermeneutic point raised by Aageson, ‘1 Peter 2.11–3.7’, 37: ‘When 1 Peter is heard by those with social status, power, and perhaps wealth, and who are not clearly separated from their wider culture by sectarian boundary 311



3.1–7

77

to acknowledge that as part of its afterlife, such a text may be used to legitimate and prolong situations of suffering. Rather than implausibly attempting to depict this as a revolutionary, radical, or ‘counter-cultural’ text that teaches the equality of men and women, it is more convincing—exegetically as well as ethically—to acknowledge its ancient patriarchal character, and the risks inherent in its ongoing treatment as authoritative scripture.315

markers, it invariably will be heard differently than the original audience would have heard it’. 315   See also Elliott’s (585–99) lengthy hermeneutical reflections on the difficulties raised by 3.1–7.

S U MMA RY IN ST R U C T IO N S TO ALL, A N D S U P P ORT IN G SC R IPT U R AL QUOTATI ON (3.8–12)

Initial Bibliography Wilhelm Bornemann, ‘Der erste Petrusbrief—eine Taufrede des Silvanus?’, ZNW 19 (1919–20): 143–65; Sean M. Christensen, ‘Solidarity in Suffering and Glory: The Unifying Role of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter 3:10–12’, JETS 58 (2015): 335–52; Patrick T. Egan, ‘Did Peter Change Scripture? The Manuscript Tradition of Greek Psalms 33–34 and 1 Peter 3:10–12’, in Die Septuaginta—Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte: 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22.–25. Juli 2010, ed. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund, WUNT 286 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 505–28; Michael L. Gilmour, ‘Crass Casualty or Purposeful Pain? Psalm 34’s Influence on Peter’s First Letter’, WW 24 (2004): 404–11; Eric James Gréaux, ‘The Lord Delivers Us: An Examination of the Function of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter’, RevExp 106 (2009): 603–13; Susanne Luther, Sprachethik im Neuen Testament. Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief, WUNT 2/394 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 171–84; John Piper, ‘Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9–12’, NTS 26 (1980): 221–31; Fika J. van Rensburg, ‘No Retaliation! An Ethical Analysis of the Exhortation in 1 Peter 3:9 Not to Repay Evil with Evil’, in Animosity, the Bible, and Us: Some European, North American, and South African Perspectives, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Fika J. van Rensburg, and Herrie F. van Rooy, GPBS 12 (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 199–230; Mary H. Schertz, ‘Nonretaliation and the Haustafeln in 1 Peter’, in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, Studies in Peace and Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 258–86; Susan A. Woan, ‘The Psalms in 1 Peter’, in The Psalms in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 213–29; idem, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter, with especial focus on the role of Psalm 34’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Exeter, 2008); Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts, JSPSup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 270–90.

80

1 PETER

Text Τὸ δὲ τέλος πάντες ὁμόφρονες, ὁμόφρονες, συμπαθεῖς συμπαθεῖς,, φιλάδελφοι φιλάδελφοι,, εὔσπλαγχνοι, ταπεινόφρονες(a), 9 μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ εὔσπλαγχνοι, κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας, λοιδορίας, τοὐναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦντες, εὐλογοῦντες, ὅτι(b) εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε, ἐκλήθητε, ἵνα εὐλογίαν κληρονομήσητε. κληρονομήσητε. 10 ὁ γὰρ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθὰς παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν(c) ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη(c) τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον, δόλον, 11 ἐκκλινάτω δὲ(d) ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν, ἀγαθόν, ζητησάτω εἰρήνην καὶ διωξάτω αὐτήν· 12 ὅτι ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ εἰς δέησιν αὐτῶν, αὐτῶν, πρόσωπον δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας κακά. κακά.(e) 8

(a) Following texts from the Byzantine tradition, the TR reads φιλόφρονες (‘friendly, kind’), which was advocated by some earlier commentators (e.g., Benson 244; Bloomfield 716; Demarst 158). In a few MSS, both terms are included (L, 254, 378, 2544, pc), a reading whose originality is contemplated by Hofmann (113). It is possible, as Achtemeier (220 n. 2) and Green (101 n. 93) have suggested, that the variant arose from the influence of the previous φιλάδελφοι, although the evidential basis for this hypothesis (viz. shared φιλ-) is rather slim. (b) Many Greek MSS (5, 623, 1611, 2492, Byz), followed by the TR and Majority Text, add εἰδότες before ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε. Since this perfect participle normally functions causally, the addition would indicate that the basis for the instructions on non-retaliation should have already been familiar to the readers (‘because you know that…’). Against this addition, however, is the almost unanimous testimony of the earliest manuscripts (P72, P81, ‫א‬, A, B, C, K, Ψ) and versions (lat, co, syh, aeth). (c) In some instances, the pronoun αὐτοῦ is added after γλῶσσαν (‫א‬, 5, 2344, 2464, 2541vid, Byz, lat, sy, co) and in others after χείλη (69, 307, 436, 642, 1448, Byz, lat, syp, co). These additions are reflected in the text of the TR and Majority Text. Nevertheless, strong external evidence (P72, P81vid, A, B, C, K, Ψ, etc.) lends support to their omission. In both cases, assimilation to the LXX may be the explanation (cf. Green 101 n. 95), as the source text contains a personal pronoun (σου) after each term. Alternatively, the additions may simply reflect a stylistic impetus to add the possessive pronoun. (d) The particle δέ is omitted in the majority of manuscripts, including ‫א‬, C2, Ψ, 323, 436, 623, 1735, 1739, 2464, 2541, etc., and this is the reading found in some early text forms (e.g., TR; Griesbach; Tischendorf). While the external evidence is relatively balanced (although Elliott, 613, describes the inclusion as possessing ‘weightier manuscript witnesses’), with support for δέ provided by P72, A, B, C*, 81, 1243, 1852, 2718, etc., internal considerations tend to favour the particle’s inclusion (cf. Huther 150). The omission may have been influenced by the LXX, which lacks the particle here (see Kühl 200



3.8–12

81

n. 1; Monnier 156–57 n. 1; Wohlenberg 97 n. 23; Achtemeier 220 n. 7), or it is possible that a scribe failed ‘to discern the subtle change in focus between verses 10 and 11’ (Dubis 102). (e) This LXX quotation is continued in a number of later Greek MSS, though in slightly varied forms (for the full list, see ECM 158–59). Most common is τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς (206, 378, 429, et al.). Only 2243 follows LXX Ps 33.17 exactly: τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν. It is striking that almost all these variants (except 2243), which clearly represent secondary additions, strengthen the sense of threat expressed in the psalm, replacing τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν with αὐτούς.

Introduction Just as this major section of ethical instruction began with a general appeal to all the readers (2.11–12) and then presented instruction on relationships to those in authority, again applicable to all the readers, so it comes to a close with generalising exhortations addressed to everyone in the Christian assemblies. These instructions are hardly a summary of the preceding sections of specific directives to slaves, wives, and husbands (see below), though they do serve to draw this major section to a close. The injunctions presented do not recapitulate the major features of the instruction from 2.13–3.7 but more obviously draw on early Christian teaching—particularly in the form found in Rom 12.9–18 (see below): there is a similar progression, with instruction given first in relation to conduct among Christians (3.8; Rom 12.3–13) and then to conduct with unbelievers and enemies (3.9; Rom 12.14–21).1 The parallels are especially close in v. 9, and may reflect the influence of Romans on 1 Peter.2 This general instruction in vv. 8–9 is followed by a lengthy 1   Cf. Michaels 175; Elliott 606. Achtemeier (221) is more cautious about any such ‘shift of focus’. 2   See Introduction: Pauline Traditions. The parallels are also set out by, e.g., Michaels 174; Goppelt 230; and Elliott 602. The alternative explanation is the influence of shared Christian tradition, as argued by Selwyn (408–14), and followed by many commentators since, for whom direct Pauline influence is seen as unlikely due to ‘the limited overlap of vocabulary, and the different order in which the elements are treated’ (Achtemeier 221; cf. Schlosser 197; see further Horrell, Becoming Christian, 12–20). Among those who deny dependence are: Jobes 214; Schreiner 184 n. 259. Those who explain it by shared tradition include: Kelly 135; Best 129; Michaels 174–75; Achtemeier 221; Elliott 602; Jobes 214; Witherington 168; Donelson 96.

82

1 PETER

quotation from Ps 33.13–17 LXX, the longest scriptural quotation in the letter, and arguably in a pivotal position.3 As well as reiterating key ideas from vv. 8–9, this quotation also points forward to the material to follow in 3.13–4.6, where suffering and vindication are prominent themes.4 Exegesis 8 Τὸ δὲ τέλος πάντες ὁμόφρονες, ὁμόφρονες, συμπαθεῖς συμπαθεῖς,, φιλάδελφοι φιλάδελφοι,, εὔσπλαγχνοι,, ταπεινόφρονες εὔσπλαγχνοι ταπεινόφρονες,, The opening words of this verse signal the transition to a kind of conclusion, not of the letter as a whole, but of the preceding section of ethical instruction. Some have argued that the construction τὸ δὲ τέλος draws this portion of the letter to a close by way of summary, similar to the classical Greek expression, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ (or in Latin, in summa).5 If this were the case, πάντες would be limited to the groups that were just addressed (slaves, wives, and husbands). It is more likely that the construction functions as an adverbial accusative (‘finally’).6 In classical Greek, this idea was more commonly communicated by τέλος δέ (Thucydides 8.92.4; Euripides, Bacch. 1104; Herodotus, Hist. 1.214.2; Xenophon, Hell. 5.3.6), but in the Koine period, the current form is occasionally represented (Diodorus Siculus 19.76.2; 20.66.3; Arius Didymus, Liber de philosophorum sectis, p. 69,1 [Mullach]). 3   As argued by Woan, ‘Psalms in 1 Peter’; idem, ‘Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter’; see further below. 4   Cf. Michaels 174. A chiastic structure is suggested by some: Best (129) mentions the careful structure of 3.8–12, claiming that ‘the themes of verses 8, 9 re-appear in reverse order in verses 10–11 in the quotation from Ps. 34:12–16’ (cf. Bauckham, ‘James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude’, 312). Achtemeier (221) finds this evidence ‘possible, but not compelling’; the verbal links are insufficiently precise to be confident about such a chiastic structure here. 5   This is the position taken by a number of commentators (e.g., Erasmus 679; Grotius 90; Wolf 131; Bloomfield 716; Bennett 227; Monnier 153; Mitchell 263; Blenkin 69; Wand 94; Holmer–de Boor 116; David 124; see also Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 88). Some read the construction as the equivalent of κατὰ τὸ τέλος, ‘in the last place’ (see Pott 105; Macknight 475). 6   Cf. Alford 359; Johstone 214; Huther 164; Bigg 156. It is similar to Paul’s uses of τὸ λοιπόν (Phil 3.1; 4.8; 2 Thess 3.1), ‘but with a stronger note of finality’ (Michaels 176). On this usage, see further Winer, Grammar, 288; Robertson, Grammar, 486–88; BDF §160; BDAG 998 §2.b.



3.8–12

83

After the previous sections addressed to specific groups, πάντες indicates that this concluding exhortation is addressed to everyone within the community (as in 1 Pet 5.5b). What follows is a string of adjectives, all in the nominative plural and listed asyndetically, denoting qualities the readers should display, and pertinent particularly to their relationships with one another, within the network of Christian community. Consistent with the directives that have preceded, an imperatival sense seems to be communicated, although through slightly different syntax. In this case, the adjectives require an ellipsis of a finite imperative to produce volitional force.7 One could supply a second-person verb such as γίνεσθε (cf. Matt 24.44; Rom 12.16; Eph 4.32), ἔσεσθε (cf. Matt 6.5; 1 Pet 1.16),8 or ἔστε (cf. 3 Bar. 16.1; T.Naph. 2.9; 1 Clem. 45.1),9 or perhaps even ὄντες as an imperatival participle.10 The actual words chosen by the author are rather unusual—all but one of them is a hapax in the NT, and the exception occurs in only one other place—but the qualities they encapsulate are recognisable and prominent in early Christian moral teaching (cf. the unusual use of ἀδελφότης to denote the community of Christian ἀδελφοί in 2.17). The adjective ὁμόφρων had a very early origin, stretching all the 7   This is an important distinction that is not always drawn by commentators. Michaels, for instance, claims that the adjectives ‘are imperatival in the same way that participles have functioned as imperatives in 2:18–3:7’ (176). Since he contrasts this view with that of Selwyn (188), who posits an understood ὄντες functioning as an imperatival participle, it would appear that Michaels imagines the adjectives as carrying an independent verbal force. This assessment is problematic, in that adjectives do not possess a verbal element like participles, and thus, one must assume the presence of an elided verbal form. Consequently, there is a danger in referring to ‘imperatival adjectives’ (Davids 124; Goppelt 232; cf. Bénétreau 193; Watson 80; cf. Christensen, ‘Solidarity in Suffering’, 337: ‘adjectives with imperatival force’), if no further explanation is given. 8   Elliott (601) proposes supplying either ἔσεσθε or γίνεσθε; cf. also Luther, Sprachethik im Neuen Testament, 171. 9   Most grammarians assume that ἔστε is the elided form in 1 Pet 3.8 (see MHT 1:180; Robertson, Grammar, 945; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 130; BDF §468[2]), a conclusion that is shared by many Petrine interpreters as well (e.g., Monnier 153; Dubis 97; Schreiner 185). 10   So, e.g., Selwyn 188. Others suggest that ὄντες should be supplied in this instance, although rather than assigning it an imperatival force, they suggest that it performs an adverbial function in connection with the imperatives of 1 Pet 2.17 (see Alford 360; Achtemeier 222; cf. Vahrenhorst 142 n. 388).

84

1 PETER

way back to the time of Homer (Il. 22.263), although it only appears sporadically throughout the centuries. It describes the harmonious relationship of individuals who are united in thoughts, feelings, or purpose (Hesiod, Theog. 60; Homeric Hymns, In Mercurium 195; Theognis, Elegiae 1.80; Strabo, Geogr. 6.3.3).11 The virtue that it represents was highly valued within society, even appearing in the commendation of the deceased on Greek epitaphs (MAMA IV 133; IG II2 13448). This type of concord might be reached by members of the civic community (I.Mylasa 605; CIRB 147) or within smaller social groups such as households (Pindar, Ol. 7.7; Ps.-Clement, Hom. 12.5.6; 15.1.2).12 The term captures in one word a quality of agreement and unity of mind that is frequently urged by Paul, albeit using different terms (e.g., Rom 12.16 [τὸ αὐτό… φρονοῦντες]; 15.5; 1 Cor 1.10; Phil 2.2; 4.2). Also unique in the NT is the adjective συμπαθής, which refers to the sympathetic understanding that develops out of a shared bond or experience.13 This quality often develops within close familial relationships, such as that between siblings (Plato, Frag. 192; 4 Macc 13.23bis) or between a mother and her child (4 Macc 15.4; Josephus, War 6.211). It is also cultivated over time in the loving affection of one’s spouse (Euripides, Frag. 164; Josephus, War 1.442; cf. Plutarch, Conj. praec. 20 [Mor. 140E]). Nevertheless, other forms of association can equally create this sense of compassion, such as the response of rulers toward their subjects (Josephus, Ant. 13.233; 19.330; OGIS 456; SB V 8393) or the affections of body parts towards one another (Epicurus, Epistula ad Herodotum 63). Although it is not limited to the pity shown to those who are suffering, it is often employed to denote the feelings of anguish over the hardships of others (Polybius, Hist. 5.63.3; Diodorus   See LSJ 1228; BDAG 710; TLNT 2:580–82. The nature of this agreement in 1 Pet 3.8 is disputed among commentators. While some argue that the word refers to unified sentiments and dispositions that are necessary for the operation of the Christian community (Macknight 474–75; Bigg 156), others claim that this unity includes beliefs and opinions (Mason 416). 12   In ancient political discourse there was a strong value placed upon ὁμόνοια or concordia (see further Kramer, ‘Quid valeat ὁμόνοια’; Skard, Zwei religiöspolitische Begriffe; Moulakis, Homonoia). As to the emphasis on ὁμόνοια in early Christian congregations, see Welborn, ‘On the Discord in Corinth’, 85–111; Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation; Bakke, Concord and Peace. 13   See further TDNT 5:935–36; TLNT 3:321–23. 11



3.8–12

85

Siculus 17.69.4; Dionysius of Halicarnasus, Ant. rom. 5.36.3 Philo, Legat. 273). Since συμπαθής represents the kind and compassionate treatment of others in circumstances where an alternative response might have been expected (Josephus, Ant. 19.330; Philo, Moys. 2.228; Spec. 4.202), it is sometimes associated with ἔλεος (Polybius, Hist. 2.56.7; cf. Diodorus Siculus 12.24.5; Plutarch, Vit. pud. 18 [Mor. 536A]).14 Insofar as συμπαθής indicates the value of sharing with others in their suffering and hardship we may note a connection with 1 Peter’s frequent use of πάσχω to denote the sufferings of Christ and of Christians, but an etymological connection should probably not be stressed. The adjective φιλάδελφος, which is also a NT hapax, represents the act of ‘having affection for an associate’, a sibling in either a literal or an extended and transferred sense.15 This form of loving-kindness was considered a great virtue in the ancient world (Xenophon, Mem. 2.3.17; Plutarch, Frat. amor. 18 [Mor. 489A]), and its demonstration served to enhance one’s reputation (2 Macc 15.14; Plutarch, Sol. 27.7; Luc. 43.4).16 In discussions of morality, φιλάδελφος is regularly connected with other positive character qualities,17 extending not only to the human level, but also to the   While the adjective does not appear elsewhere in the NT, the cognate verb συμπαθέω is used in Heb 4.15 to describe Jesus’ ability to sympathise with human weaknesses, and in Heb 10.34 of Christian sympathy for those in prison. In 1 Cor 12.26, Paul employs the closely related συμπάσχω to depict the solidarity of the members of the community in sharing one another’s sufferings, as well as one another’s joys (συγχαίρω). A similar pattern of relationship is urged in Rom 12.15, though in somewhat different vocabulary (‘rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep’). 15   BDAG 1055. The term also functions as a title among various rulers in the Greek and Roman world (see Strabo, Geogr. 12.3.41; 14.1.24; 14.3.6; SEG 39:1705; IG XII,4 2:983; TAM III,1 9; IGUR I 9). It was also a common name among the general populace (O.Mich. 181; P.Mich. III 210; XI 622; P.Petaus 64; P.Tebt. II 335; P.Wisc. II 69 [verso]; IG V,1 509; I.Didyma 106; MAMA VII 217; I.Smyrna 443a). 16   This quality is also employed in epitaphs to commend the character of the deceased (SEG 20:522; 20:536; 26:1157; CIJ I 125). 17   Cf. 4 Macc 15.10: ‘For they were just (δίκαιοί), self-controlled (σώφρονες), courageous (ἀνδρεῖοι), lofty-spirited (μεγαλόψυχοι), full of brotherly love (φιλάδελφοι) and of such love for their mother (φιλομήτορες) that they obeyed her and kept the ordinances even unto death’ (NETS); Epictetus, Diatr. 3.3.10: ‘Your brother will have the greater part of the estate in land. Let him have as much as he chooses. Will he then have a greater share of modesty (αἰδήμονος), 14

86

1 PETER

relationships among the gods (Plutarch, Frat. amor. 1 [Mor. 478B]). What φιλάδελφος often entailed was an effort to seek the wellbeing of one’s sibling, even to the point of self-sacrifice.18 Further insight into the meaning of the adjective can be gained through the related noun φιλαδελφία, which is used in 1 Pet 1.22 and elsewhere in the NT to encapsulate the nature and demand of love for fellowChristians (Rom 12.10; 1 Thess 4.9; Heb 13.1; 2 Pet 1.7). Since the designation of Christians as siblings (ἀδελφοί) is so firmly established, particularly in the Pauline letters,19 it is unsurprising that the duty of love for one another—such a prominent feature of early Christian moral instruction—should be expressed in terms drawn from the realm of family and sibling relationships.20 More distinctly Christian virtues are expressed in the last two items. The verb σπλαγχνίζομαι and its cognates are seldom used outside Jewish or Christian Greek sources with this particular sense of pity or compassion.21 The adjective εὔσπλαγχνος, which is rare of fidelity (πιστοῦ), of brotherly affection (φιλαδέλφου)?’ See also Xenophon, Mem. 2.3.17. The term is occasionally contrasted with negative qualities as well (Speusippus, Epistula ad Philippum regem, p. 11 [Bickermann and Sykutris]). 18   Two examples provide some insight into how φιλάδελφος was displayed in the ancient world. The first involves Attalus and his brother Eumenes. Knowing that his brother was grieved by the fact that his statues and honorary inscriptions had been removed by the Peloponnesians, Attalus made an attempt to have his brother’s honours reinstated. In this way, Attalus would ‘not only be conferring a very great favour on his brother, but would give the Greeks by this action a signal proof of his brotherly love (τὸ φιλάδελφον) and nobility of sentiment’ (Polybius, Hist. 27.18.3; trans. Paton [LCL]). Another example is provided by Oxathres, the brother of Darius the Persian. During Darius’ battle with Alexander the Great, Oxathres noticed Alexander riding toward his brother unimpeded. In response, Oxathres ‘was seized with the desire to share his brother’s fate’ and as a result, he attacked Alexander ‘thinking that this demonstration of brotherly love (τὸ φιλάδελφον) would bring him high renown among the Persians’ (Diodorus Siculus 17.34.3; trans. Oldfather [LCL]; cf. also 33.14.5). 19   See further Horrell, ‘From ἀδελφοί to οἶκος θεοῦ’, 293–311; Aasgaard, Christian Siblingship in Paul; and on the further developments, idem, ‘Brothers and Sisters in the Faith’, 285–316. 20   See further Furnish, Love Command; Söding, Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus; Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 156–64. 21   See LSJ 732. This is not to imply that such a meaning is only found in Jewish (or Christian) thought. See, e.g., New Docs 3:84, where σπλάγχνον is discussed. Horsley argues against the view of MM that the use of the verbal form of this noun as ‘compassion’ is a distinctively Hebraic idea. He points to an inscription from Kalindoia (SEG 28:541), which reads, τοῦ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τόδε σᾶμα καὶ



3.8–12

87

outside of Jewish and Christian sources, is found in the medical texts of Hippocrates describing healthy bowels (Prorrh. 2.6, 11). Elsewhere, such strong internal organs are thought to be necessary for athletic success (Philostratus, Gymn. 33, 35). Based on the established idea that the σπλάγχνα, the intestines or guts (cf. 2 Macc 9.5–6; 4 Macc 10.8; Acts 1.18;), were the seat of a person’s emotions and feelings (cf. Pss. Sol. 2.14; 2 Cor 6.12; 7.15; Phlm 12), this word-group came to represent the display of those feelings and emotions; hence, εὔσπλαγχνος took on the meaning, ‘compassionate’ or ‘tenderhearted’.22 It is often closely connected to God’s mercy and willingness to forgive sin.23 The same kind of attribution is later made to Jesus in early Christian texts (Acts John 33.2; 107.1; Hippolytus, Antichr. 3). The adjective is even employed as one of the titles by which he was extolled, ‘the Compassionate One’ (Acts Thom. 122.2; 160.8). Using related vocabulary, Hermas refers often to the ‘compassion of the Lord’ (ἡ πολυσπλαγχνία τοῦ κυρίου, Vis. 1.3.2; cf. 2.2.8; 3.13.3; 4.2.3; Sim. 5.4.4; 5.7.4). But it was not only God and Jesus who are εὔσπλαγχνος; this same virtue is also expected from their human followers (T.Sim. 4.4; Eph 4.32; 1 Clem. 54.1). It is especially important for leaders

ἡρώων ἀνάθημα ἐστὶ καὶ ἁ σπλάγχνων σύνθετος εὐγένεια (‘This tomb and dedication [worthy] of the heroes belongs to the same man as does his nobility compounded of compassion’; trans. Horsley). See also the request to the prefect of Alexandria, Gaius Tyrranius: διὸ ἀξιοῦμέν [σε] τὸν πάντων σωτῆρα καὶ ἀντιλήμπτορα ὑπὲρ σπλάγχνου (‘Therefore, we consider [you] worthy as the savior and helper of all because of [your] compassion’, BGU IV 1139). 22   TDNT 7:548–59; TLNT 2:273–75; BDAG 413. This sense in cognates of the word emerges strongly in early Christian literature and is particularly prominent in the Synoptics, where all twelve NT occurrences of the verb σπλαγχνίζομαι are found, as a depiction of Jesus’ compassion for those he encounters (e.g., Matt 9.36; Mark 1.41; 6.34 par.; Luke 7.13). Similarly, σπλάγχνα comes to designate the feelings of affection or compassion which are, and should be, held towards fellow Christians (e.g., Phil 1.8; 2.1; Col 3.12; 1 John 3.17; Herm. Sim. 9.24.2). 23   See, e.g., Pr Man 7 (= Ode 12.7 LXX): ‘you are Lord Most High, compas�sionate (εὔσπλαγχνος), slow to anger and abounding in mercy and repenting at ills of human beings’ (NETS). Cf. also Gr. Apoc. Ezra 1.10; Apoc. Sedr. 15.1; T.Zeb. 9.7; 1 Clem. 29.1; Justin Martyr, Dial. 108.3; Ps.-Hippolytus, De consummation mundi, 35, 49. This virtue was thought to be possessed by other deities as well. In an inscription to Leon, one of the Gigantes born to the goddess Gaia, we read the following request: δέξε με τῖ σῖ εὐσπ[λαγχνίᾳ, ‘listen to me in your benevolence’ (MAMA I 253).

88

1 PETER

in the Christian church, as it is included as one of the character qualities that must define both deacons (Pol. Phil. 5.2) and presbyters (Pol. Phil. 6.1). The earliest attestation of ταπεινόφρων can be found in Prov 29.23 (LXX), where it refers to an act of humility that stands in contrast to prideful arrogance. In early Christian writings, the adjective is used in much the same way (cf. Barn. 19.3; Ign. Eph. 10.2). Not only is this unassuming disposition thought to improve the community dynamic (1 Clem. 19.1), it is even viewed as a mark of a Christian (Herm. Mand. 11.1). The noun ταπεινοφροσύνη occurs several times in the NT,24 particularly in the Pauline tradition, where it clearly denotes an attitude of humility that is significant within early Christian morality, seen as imitating the disposition of Christ himself (Acts 20.19; Eph 4.2; Phil 2.3; Col 3.12; 1 Clem. 30.8; 44.3).25 Philippians 2 may well hold a place of special influence in terms of establishing this concept as one of the central virtues of the Christian tradition,26 and again there is a parallel to 1 Pet 3.8 in Rom 12.16. This commendation of humility differs from the broader perspective of the Greek (and Roman) world, where ταπεινόφρων describes (negatively) someone who is base or mean-spirited.27 It should be noted that being ταπεινός could be positively as well as (more commonly) negatively valued in pre- and non-Christian sources, particularly when it concerns being appropriately humble before God/the gods, or before rulers and superiors.28 The Jewish   For a discussion, see Feldmeier, ‘Demut als Schlüsselbegriff’, 251–57.   The positive valuation of humility, without using the noun itself, is also evident elsewhere (e.g., Matt 18.4; 23.12//Luke 14.11//18.14). 26   See Horrell, Making of Christian Morality, 143–58; cf. also Becker, Paul on Humility, 51–87. 27   LSJ 1757. See Plutarch, Tranq. an. 17 (Mor. 475E): ‘Fortune, in fact, can encompass us with sickness, take away our possessions, slander us to people or despot; but she cannot make the good and valiant and high-souled man base or cowardly, mean (ταπεινόφρονα), ignoble, or envious’ (trans. Babbitt [LCL]; cf. Alex. fort. 4 [Mor. 336E]). Cf. also Iamblichus, Protrepticus, p. 115 (Pistelli). 28   See TDNT 8:1–4; Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 182 with n. 229. For example, in Xenophon, Ages. 11.11, being ταπεινός is clearly commendable, but the practices in view are those of what we would probably call modesty: simplicity of dress, limitation of one’s own needs, and generosity towards friends. An example where ταπεινός means something like obedience or submission to authority is found in Isocrates, Nic. 56 (cf. also Plato, Leg. 716a; Aeschylus, Prom. 24 25



3.8–12

89

scriptures also endorse this kind of humility, which may be contrasted with pride or impiety (e.g., LXX Pss 17.28; 33.19; Prov 3.34 [quoted in 1 Pet 5.6]; 16.2), though here too, as in the NT, the more negative sense of ταπεινός as afflicted or downtrodden is also evident, sometimes as a position that explicitly brings mercy or rescue by God (e.g., LXX 1 Sam 18.23; Ps 9.39; Amos 2.7; Jdt 9.11; 1 Macc 14.14). However, in terms of moral values, it seems that social humility—specifically the humility (ταπεινοφροσύνη) of lowering or abasing oneself for the sake of other (lower-status) people—is not presented as a virtue in the traditions of Greek and Roman ethics and may be a distinctive innovation, or at least emphasis, of early Christianity.29 In light of this contrasting valuation of being ταπεινός, Christians were sometimes ridiculed for practicing this virtue.30 All of these qualities, which the readers are urged to embody, ‘foster the mutual affection and commitment of the believers to one another and thus promote the social solidarity and cohesion of the community as a whole’.31 Rather than harmony within the domestic household as such—between slaves and masters, wives and husbands—it seems that it is the Christian assemblies and the relations among their various members that are primarily in view.32 320; Plutarch, Adul. amic. 19 [Mor. 60F]). Cf. 1 Clem. 56.1 for this sense in Christian literature. On this issue, see further the detailed studies of Rehrl, Problem der Demut, and Guttenberger, Status und Statusverzicht, esp. 77–80. 29   See further Horrell, Making of Christian Morality, 152–56; Becker, Paul on Humility; Wengst, Humility, 4–15; Guttenberger, Status und Statusverzicht, 77–84. There has been more disagreement about the extent to which this notion finds precedents in pre-Christian Jewish tradition. See for example, the contrasting arguments of Dawes, ‘ʾANAWA in Translation and Tradition’, 38–48; idem, ‘Humility’, 72–75 and Dickson and Rosner, ‘Humility as a Social Virtue’, 459–79, who argue, against Dawes, that social humility as such is not evident in pre-Christian Jewish sources. 30   Cf. Origen, Cels. 6.15: ‘Celsus, in the next place, as one who has heard the subject of humility (ταπεινοφροσύνης) greatly talked about, but who has not been at the pains to understand it, would wish to speak evil of that humility which is practised among us, and imagines that it is borrowed from some words of Plato imperfectly understood’ (trans. Crombie). 31   Elliott 606. 32   To this extent the ‘social strategy’ of the author is focused on communal solidarity and cohesion, as Elliott (Home for the Homeless) argues, rather than on accommodation to broader social expectation (pace Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 81–116).

90

1 PETER

Also striking is the extent to which the qualities promoted here are expressed, albeit with somewhat different vocabulary, in Rom 12.10–16, as we have noted above. Only εὔσπλαγχνος finds no close parallel. The parallels are even closer in the following verse. 9 μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδο­ λοιδο­ ρίας,, τοὐναντίον δὲ εὐλογοῦντες, ρίας εὐλογοῦντες, The appeal now switches back to the participial form and most likely shifts the focus, albeit not exclusively, to relationships with those outside the Christian community,33 from where slander, accusations, and threats of violence are depicted as originating. It is an exhortation to non-retaliation, which likely began with the historical Jesus. But as with most dominical sayings, the instructions were not transmitted in a singular form. The earliest echo is preserved in the writings of Paul. As it relates to the present verse, many have noted the strikingly close similarities with Rom 12.17 and 1 Thess 5.15.34 ὁρᾶτε μή τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινι ἀποδῷ (1 Thess. 5.15) μηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἀποδιδόντες (Rom. 12.17) μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ (1 Pet 3.9)

The verbal parallels are precise, particularly between 1 Pet 3.9 and Rom 12.17, and in both these places a focus on relations with outsiders is apparent. Other forms of this tradition are recorded in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt 5.38–48; Luke 6.27–38), which is the source from which many believe it is derived.35 But 33   Rather than viewing 1 Pet 3.8 as focused on intra-communal relationships (with a shift taking place at v. 9), some have suggested that this entire section (3.8–12) as well as the previous one (3.1–7) could relate to the various ways that ‘Christians are to engage with outsiders’ (du Toit, ‘Negotiating Hostility’, 231; cf. Winter, Seek the Welfare, 21). 34   Cf. also 1 Cor 4.12: λοιδορούμενοι εὐλογοῦμεν, διωκόμενοι ἀνεχόμεθα (‘when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure’); Diogn. 5.15: λοιδοροῦνται, καὶ εὐλογοῦσιν· ὑβρίζονται, καὶ τιμῶσιν (‘they are reviled, yet they bless; they are insulted, yet they show respect’). 35   See, e.g., Luther, Sprachethik im Neuen Testament, 175. Others project the origins of this tradition more broadly. For instance, Piper claims that ‘the wording μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ was taken from the early Christian paraenetic tradition which had adopted it from Hellenistic-Jewish tradition’ (‘Hope as the Motivation’, 220; followed by van Rensburg, ‘Ethical Analysis’, 224–25).



3.8–12

91

the precise linguistic parallels listed above are absent from these Synoptic versions.36 Indeed, the versions preserved in the Synoptic Gospels reveal considerable variation, indicating the diverse forms in which this paraenesis was transmitted. While this instruction may thus find its origin in Jesus’ teaching or early Christian paraenesis based on it,37 the close verbal similarities between the versions in Paul’s letters and 1 Peter are striking, particularly given the variation from the dominical traditions on this topic. Not only do Rom 12.17 and 1 Pet 3.9 contain exact verbal parallels, but their correspondence also includes the use of ἀποδιδόντες as an imperatival participle, a grammatical function that is quite rare in the Koine period.38 The best explanation of this evidence is that the paraenetical tradition 1 Pet 3.9 reflects Pauline influence, with Paul’s letter to the Romans quite possibly being one of the channels through which this teaching was known to the author of 1 Peter,39 whether through a Roman context or not.40 When the saying is presented in 1 Peter, no attempt is made to connect the teaching to Jesus. The Petrine author merely adopts the Pauline formulation, including its anonymity.41 Although this is sometimes interpreted as evidence against the letter’s authenticity,42 we should   The closest linguistic parallel in the Gospels is Luke 6.27–28: ‘Love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you! Bless those who curse you (εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς)! Pray for those who abuse you!’ 37   Cf., e.g., Selwyn 189; Kelly 136–37; Michaels 175; Achtemeier 225 n. 67; Forbes 108; Schreiner 186; see also Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus, 255–56. 38   Most commentators correctly take ἀποδιδόντες and εὐλογοῦντες as imperatival participles (e.g., Bénétreau 195; Elliott 606; Dubis 98; Schlosser 194; although, cf. Achtemeier 223). The rarity of this usage is consistent with the type of similarities that most strongly favour literary dependence (see Williams, ‘Intertextuality and Methodological Bias’, 180). 39   While this view is a minority position within recent scholarship, it was much more widely accepted within a previous generation (see, e.g., Plumptre 127; Johnstone 216–17; Hart 65; Blenkin 70). 40   See further Introduction: Place of Origin. 41   Whether Paul himself received this paraenesis as the words of Jesus is debated. After comparing Rom 12.14–21 with 1 Pet 3.9–19, 1 Thess 5.12–22, and the Gospel traditions, Jacobi (Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus, 48–122) argues that it is possible Paul understood himself to be merely passing along early Christian tradition. 42   See Beare 160: ‘It is most remarkable that even in such a passage as this, where the teaching is most distinctly that of Jesus Himself (Matt. 5:43–48), the Christian teacher makes no appeal to the words of his Master, while the words of 36

92

1 PETER

be hesitant to draw such conclusions in light of recent studies on the development of tradition and its impact on those who contribute to it.43 The specific construction that is used to encourage non-retaliation is ἀποδιδόναι (with accusative) + ἀντί (with genitive),44 which is only found in a few other places throughout Greek literature.45 It represents the exchange of one thing for another. What the readers might potentially receive in this process is described as κακός, a term that could refer to evil motives or acts, or perhaps even evil acts deriving from evil motives.46 As Shaw describes it, this represents ‘a summons to actively absorb evil, thus preventing its perpetuation’.47 Non-retaliation constitutes general Christian teaching, applicable in all kinds of situations, but here most likely alludes to the forms of mistreatment and hostility that the readers are encountering. It is also notable that κακός occurs three times in the quotation of Psalm 33 (LXX) that immediately follows, suggesting once again that this scriptural quotation connects closely with the themes the author wishes to highlight (cf. also 1 Pet 2.1, 16). As well as the general instruction not to return evil for evil, a somewhat more specific form of non-retaliation is then mentioned: (μὴ ἀποδιδόντες) λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας. The noun λοιδορία occurs elsewhere in the NT only at 1 Tim 5.14, although the vocab� ulary particularly recalls the depiction of Jesus’ non-retaliation in 1 Pet 2.23: ὃς λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει, which again the Pauline Epistles are taken up almost verbatim… Is this remotely conceivable in such a one as St. Peter, to whom, after all, we must be indebted at least as much as to any single man for such knowledge of our Lord’s saying as we possess?’ (160–61; cf. Boring 128). 43   For a review, see Williams, History and Memory, 221–41. 44   Cf. Polyaenus, Strategemata 5.11: οὐ κακῷ κακὸν ἠμυνάμην, ἀλλ᾿ ἀγαθῷ κακόν (‘I have not retaliated evil with evil, but evil with good’). 45   See Demosthenes, De pace 10; 1 Macc 16.17; Ptolemaeus, De differentia vocabulorum, p. 401 (Heylbut); Lucian, Sat. 5; Aelius Aristides, Λευκτρικὸς εʹ (ὑπὲρ μηδετέροις βοηθεῖν), p. 471 (Jebb); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.20.128. This same terminology, (μὴ) ἀποδιδόναι κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ, is repeated in some ancient Jewish (Apoc. Sedr. 7.9; Jos. Asen. 23.9; 28.4, 14; 29.3) and early Christian (Pol. Phil. 2.2; Acts John 81.3; Acts Phil. 131.4; 135.1; 137.1; Acts Thom. 58.4) literature as well. 46   Cf. BDAG 501. See further Lofthouse, ‘Poneron and Kakon’, 264–68. 47   Shaw, ‘Called to Bless’, 164.



3.8–12

93

summarises the kind of behaviour evident in the Gospel traditions of Jesus’ trial, but without precise verbal parallels. The term λοιδορία, which is commonly associated with curses (Sir 29.6) and slander (Philo, Flacc. 33; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.219), describes reviling or insulting speech that arises out of enmity and hatred (Prov 10.18; Josephus, Ant. 16.363). At times, the severity of this verbal abuse even rose to a level that was met with a form of punishment which stopped just short of death (Josephus, Ant. 13.294).48 As elsewhere in the epistle, this vocabulary hints at the kinds of verbal accusation and slander the readers were prone to encounter (cf. 1 Pet 2.1, 12; 3.16; 4.4, 14). Yet this does not necessarily mean that the forms and contexts of suffering were limited to such informal encounters; verbal assault could be closely connected with physical abuse49 or even the basis for judicial trials, where accusations and rumours of various kinds of wicked practices formed part of the general social prejudice to which Christians were subject.50 It might be best in this instance, with many older commentators, to view the two terms (κακός and λοιδορία) as intended to mark comprehensiveness, such that they cover any evil in the form of words or deeds.51 The Jewish scriptures similarly teach that one should resist the temptation to revenge (Lev 19.18; Prov 20.22; 24.29; cf. Deut

  See TDNT 4:293–94; TLNT 2:407–409.   In an ancient deposition from Egypt (246–221 BCE), a witness recounts seeing a woman named Athenaïs insulting (ἐλοιδόρει) another woman named Chrysis. After Chrysis laughed at this verbal abuse, Athenaïs got up from where she was seated and approached Chrysis directly. As the two were face to face, Athenaïs grabbed the linen tunic that Chrysis was wearing and violently ripped it in two (κ[αὶ ὃν ἐνε]δεδύκη χιτῶνα λινοῦν ἐπιλαβομένη διέρρηξε̣ν)̣ , presumably leaving Chrysis in a state of nakedness (P.Hib. II 200). Cf. also P.Enteux 25 (222 BCE), where a father issues a complaint to King Ptolemy about his son, noting, ὅταν ποτέ μοι ἀπαντήσῃ λοιδορεῖ με τά αἴσχιστα, καὶ ἀποβιαζόμ[ενος] (‘whenever we meet, he insults me in shameful ways and violently abuses [me]’). Similar connections between insult/argument (λοιδορία/λοιδορέω) and physical altercation are common (see, e.g., P.Enteux. 72, 79; P.Teb. I 44). 50   See further Introduction: Socio-Historical Context. 51   See the comments of the medieval exegete, Nicholas of Lyra: ‘non reddentes malum pro malo in factis injuriosis, nec maledictam pro maledicta in verbis contentiosis’ (Textus biblie, 220r). Cf. also Bengel 65; Mason 416; Johnstone 217; Lumby 121. 48 49

94

1 PETER

32.35), though prayers expressing the desire for vengeance and for God’s destruction of the wicked are also found, notably in the Psalms (e.g., 69.20–29; 139.19–22; 140.10–12; cf. 2 Pet 2.3–22; Jude 5–19). An attitude of love for neighbour and hatred for enemy may be found in the Qumran literature (1QS 1.9–10; 9.21–22), such as is rejected in Matt 5.44//Luke 6.27, but one should resist any easy Christian caricature that contrasts a Jewish focus on revenge with a Christian focus on forgiveness; the contemporary Jewish parallels to the stance of non-retaliation should also be noted.52 Moral philo­ sophers also emphasise the value of resisting the urge to respond to injury by retaliation.53 What differentiates Christian teaching on this subject then is not simply non-retaliation, but the idea that Christians should seek the good of those who are attempting to harm them.54 Instead of either of these forms of retaliation—τοὐναντίον marks an emphatic contrast55—what should characterise Christian response is blessing, again expressed with an imperatival participle (εὐλογοῦντες).56 But what specifically does this command entail? In its classical usage, εὐλογέω describes the act of speaking well of someone or something (Euripides, Suppl. 927; Sophocles, Oed. col. 720; Isocrates, Evag. 5; Aristophanes, Eq. 565).57 The 52   E.g., CD 9.2–8; 1QS 10.17–21; 11.1–2; T.Benj. 5.4; T.Jos. 18.2; Jos. Asen. 23.9; 28.4, 14; 29.3; 2 En. 50.3–4; Josephus, Ant. 2.5.1; b. Šabb. 88b; b. Ber. 10a. See further Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 34–173, with 270–90 on 1 Peter’s ethic of non-retaliation; and Davis, Lex Talionis, 37–100. 53   E.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 3.12.10: λοιδορούμενος ἀνέχεσθαι, ἀτιμασθεὶς μὴ ἀχθεσθῆναι, ‘to endure when you are reviled, not to be disturbed when you are insulted’ (trans. Oldfather [LCL]); 3.21.6; Enchir. 10; Musonius, Frag. 10. On Socrates’ teaching on non-retaliation, see Plutarch, [Lib. ed.] 14 (Mor. 10C–D); Xenophon, Cyr. 3.1.38. 54   See Davids 126. 55   The form τοὐναντίον represents an example of crasis, wherein the article (τό) merges with the adverb ἐναντίον creating an adverbial construction (Robertson, Grammar, 208). When it is used with the conjunction δέ (see 3 Macc 3.22; Philo, Det. 55; Josephus, Ant. 18.24; War 1.569), it marks an especially strong contrast to the contrary (Louw–Nida, Lexicon §89.134). 56   Some English versions translate 1 Pet 3.9b as though εὐλογοῦντες were a substantive (εὐλογία): ‘on the contrary, repay with a blessing’ (NRSV; NIV, NAB, HCSB, NCV). A better rendering would be, ‘on the contrary, bless’ (cf. RSV, NET, ESV). 57   LSJ 720; cf. BDAG 408; New Docs 4:151–52.



3.8–12

95

opposite of rendering praise was slander or blame (Plato, [Min.] 320e; Polybius, Hist. 1.14.4; cf. Polybius, Hist. 12.5.3: ὀφείλω μᾶλλον εὐλογεῖν Λοκροὺς ἢ τοὐναντίον). A particular emphasis in Jewish and Christian literature, rooted in the Hebrew Bible and its ancient cultural context, is the notion of ‘blessing’—closely connected with its antonym, ‘cursing’—as an invocation that brings favour (or harm) upon the subject, ‘performative utterances… believed to have efficacious effect’.58 Such blessings and curses may therefore be used both as liturgical formulae and as magical incantations, addressed to YHWH (or other deities), sometimes with an apotropaic purpose.59 In the Hebrew Bible, this process, which is described by the verb ‫‘( ברך‬to bless’), commonly took place through prayer, invoking God to act favourably on behalf of the designated party.60 When the term ‫ ברך‬is translated in the LXX, it is normally rendered by the verb εὐλογέω. While there are instances in which the verb is employed in a way that is similar to its classical usage (‘praise’),61 it often conveys this religious sense. God regularly blesses the people of God by acting on their behalf (Gen 12.2–3; Deut 2.7; Josh 24.10; Judg 13.24; 2 Sam 6.11), and people bless one another, by petitioning God to bestow kindness and favour (Gen 24.60; 27.27–29; 48.15–16;

  Quick, ‘Blessings and Curses’, online (n.p.).   See Smoak, Priestly Blessing, 6–7. On the ancient practice of cursing, see Kitz, Cursed Are You! 60   The verb ‫ ברך‬can also mean to kneel, and it may be that there was originally an association between kneeling and receiving a blessing, or offering God a blessing (cf. BDB §1475; TWOT §285). For instance, at the dedication of the temple, the following is recorded of Solomon: ‫ויברך על ברכיו נגד כל קהל ישראל ויפרש‬ ‫כפיו השמיםה‬, ‘he knelt on his knees in the presence of the whole assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands toward heaven’ (2 Chr 6.13, NRSV). 61   This is evident in the praising of individuals, usually for their accomplished deeds (e.g., 2 Sam 6.20; 14.22; Prov 31.30; Jdt 15.9–10; Tob 7.6). The meaning assigned to εὐλογέω in these passages is deduced either from the social situations that are involved or the accompanying commendation that is delivered. One could also make the case that a similar meaning is present when εὐλογέω is used to describe human efforts to ‘bless’ God (Gen 24.48; Judg 5.2, 9; 1 Chr 29.10, 20; 1 Esd 4.58, 62; 9.46; Neh 8.6; 9.5; Ps 65.8; 95.2; 144.1–2; Isa 12.1; 38.18–20; Jer 4.2; Tob 4.19; 8.15; 10.14; 1 Macc 4.55; 2 Macc 3.30; Sir 39.35; Wis 3.1). Rather than requesting favourable action, this ‘blessing’ involved acclamation of benefits received or of the divine character. 58 59

96

1 PETER

Num 6.22–26; 22.6; 1 Sam 2.20; 26.25; 1 Kgs 1.47; Tob 10.11).62 The use of εὐλογέω in early Christian literature displays a similar range of meaning.63 Consistent with this established invocatory meaning, most commentators suggest that the instruction to bless one’s opponents involves petitioning for God’s favour towards them.64 Envisaging this simply as prayer or petition may be too restrictive, however, especially given the correlative conjunctions (μή… δέ), which indicate that the contrast is between ἀποδιδόντες (repaying) and εὐλογοῦντες (blessing). This may suggest that a wider range of responses is in view,65 including not only verbal utterances (such as petitioning God), but also acting benevolently towards those who harm or abuse them.66 In any case, we should avoid a modern assumption that sees a prayer or invocation as ‘mere’ words: invoking blessing (or curse) upon someone was itself seen as a potentially powerful act. ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε, ἐκλήθητε, ἵνα εὐλογίαν κληρονομήσητε. κληρονομήσητε. The reason (ὅτι) given for this non-retaliatory pattern of conduct is related to the expectations arising from the readers’ divine ‘calling’. Previously, the author explained that the call of God, which transferred the readers into a new existence awaiting their 62   In the Jewish scriptures, the responsibility of blessing the people of Israel is assigned to the priests (Num 6.22–27; cf. 2 Chr 30.27). This consideration, in connection with 1 Peter’s description of the readers as a ‘priesthood’ (2.5, 9), has been used to explain why the author exhorted his audience to ‘bless’ in this situation (see Best 130; cf. Schelkle 94; Davids 126). But the connection is probably indirect at best (so Michaels 178; Achtemeier 224 n. 57). 63   Examples that reflect more of the classical sense, ‘to praise’, include: Luke 1.64; 2.28; 24.53; 1 Cor 14.16; Jas 3.9; Mart. Pol. 14.2–3; Acts Paul Thec. 24.1–2. Examples that reflect the religious sense found in the LXX, ‘to bless’, include: Luke 2.34; Heb 11.20–21; 1 Clem. 30.8; Herm. Vis. 1.3.4; Prot. Jas. 2.4; 6.2. 64   So, e.g., Demarest 158; Bloomfield 716; Brückner 70; Best 130; Hillyer 105; Prigent 94; Donelson 99; Schreiner 187. Support for this view is provided by Johnstone (217), who argues that from a grammatical perspective εὐλογοῦντες is set as the antithesis of λοιδορίας, and as such, the instructions to bless one’s enemies only relate to verbal actions (e.g., prayer). 65   Cf. Hiebert 214. 66   Others have similarly advocated for interpreting εὐλογοῦντες more broadly to include both words and actions (e.g., Huther 165; Fronmüller 58; Selwyn 190; Stibbs–Walls 130).



3.8–12

97

future hope (cf. 1 Pet 2.9; 5.10), involved a life of holiness (1.15) and the endurance of undeserved suffering (2.21). Further information about this ‘call’ is now provided. What it entails is determined by the referent of the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο and the function of the following ἵνα-clause. It is possible that the pronoun is cataphoric (or prospective), referring to what follows. As such, ἵνα would function epexegetically, further delineating the meaning of τοῦτο; hence, ‘bless those who abuse you with their actions and their words, because you have been called to inherit a blessing’.67 According to this interpretation, the decision of Christians to bless their persecutors flows out of (and is a response to) the blessing that awaits them in the future.68 Support for this view derives from the use of the same construction in 1 Pet 4.6, where τοῦτο points forward to an epexegetical ἵνα.69 The alternative, which is perhaps a better approach, is to interpret the demonstrative pronoun as anaphoric (or retrospective), referring back to the previous clause. In this case, the ἵνα would denote purpose, but it could do so in two ways. One possibility is that the ὅτι-clause represents a parenthetic aside, in which case ἵνα expresses the purpose of the injunction to bless one’s persecutors: ‘bless those who abuse you with their actions and their words (for you were called to bless them) so that you may receive a blessing’. Thus, the act of blessing one’s enemies is performed with one’s own benefit in mind, namely, the reception of a heavenly blessing.

  Numerous commentators have adopted this position (e.g., Calov 1498; Pott 106–107; Hensler 141–42; Wiesinger 214; Schott 193–94; Alford 360; Johnstone 217–18; Huther 165–66; Blenkin 70; Selwyn 190; Reicke 105; Kelly 137; Schelkle 94; Davids 126–27; Bénétreau 195; Clowney 141–42; Goppelt 234 n. 15; see also Robertson, Grammar, 699). 68   Inherent within this logic may be the idea that non-retaliation is consistent with God’s treatment of Christians: God made believers heirs of a promised inheritance while they were enemies, and believers should treat their enemies the same way (see Johnstone 218), though this invokes a Pauline theme (Rom 5.10) not explicitly evident in 1 Peter. It may be that what is intended to motivate the readers toward non-retaliation is their confidence in the work of God to bring them to their final inheritance (see Piper, ‘Hope as the Motivation of Love’, 224). 69   This construction (i.e., εἰς τοῦτο followed by an epexegetical ἵνα) is found in other parts of the NT as well. See John 18.37; Rom 14.9; 2 Cor 2.9; Eph 6.22; Col 4.8; 1 John 3.8. 67

98

1 PETER

Another option, which is more satisfactory than the first, is to connect the ἵνα-clause with ἐκλήθητε such that the purpose for which the audience was called by God was to grant them a divine inheritance: ‘bless those who abuse you with their actions and their words, for you were called to bless them so that you might receive a blessing’.70 In this interpretation, the emphasis is placed upon the divine economy: not only is the need to bless one’s persecutors inherent within God’s call to salvation, but this act is the means through which believers would receive their final inheritance. Regardless of which clause the ἵνα modifies, on this view the inheritance of God’s final blessing is conditional upon how one responds to the abuse of others (cf. the conditionality implicit in 1.17). Like the previous proposal, support for this interpretation is found in a parallel construction. Earlier in the letter (2.21), the demonstrative pronoun (τοῦτο) points back to the previous clause. In that verse, the example of Christ provided a motivational exemplar of the pattern of doing good, even when enduring suffering. Here the promise of inheriting blessing provides a motivation for responding to evil and slander with blessing. More firm support derives from the following scriptural quotation (3.10–12), which relates a similar contingency about the inheritance of God’s blessings. Through the redactional efforts of the Petrine author, this passage is made to support the idea that the inheritance of eschatological life is dependent upon how one responds to attacks.71 70   A large number of commentators have subscribed to this position as well (e.g., Grotius 91; Benson 245; Macknight 475; Steiger 2:177; de Wette 38; Mason 416; Monnier 155; Knopf 134; Michaels 178; Achtemeier 224; Elliott 609; Jobes 218–19; Donelson 97 n. c; Schlosser 195; Schreiner 187; cf. van Rensburg, ‘Ethical Analysis’, 226 n. 61; Christensen, ‘Solidarity in Suffering’, 344–45). The most thorough argument for this position is Piper, ‘Hope as the Motivation of Love’, 224–29. 71   Piper, ‘Hope as the Motivation of Love’, 226–28. Despite this evidence, one factor that leads some away from this interpretation are the perceived theological implications, which appear to make salvation contingent upon performing certain duties. The author’s point, however, is not ‘that Christians earn a blessing by blessing others, but [that] they are in jeopardy of losing their blessing if they do not live up to their calling and bless those persecuting them’ (Watson 81; cf. also Achtemeier 224; Witherington 169). This is a significant distinction. Throughout the epistle, while salvation is the ‘gift’ (χάρις) of God, and a secure hope (1.3–5), it is portrayed as a future reality that requires a commitment to the ‘good way of life in Christ’ (3.16) and the endurance of unjust suffering. It would



3.8–12

99

What is less clear is whether τοῦτο refers specifically to the act of blessing (εὐλογοῦντες), or whether its antecedent should be taken as the whole of the preceding phrase. The close verbal correspondence between εὐλογοῦντες and ἵνα εὐλογίαν κληρονομήσητε suggests that the former sense is more likely: you have been called to bless, so that you may inherit blessing.72 Nonetheless, the positive injunction to bless is of course closely tied up with the prohibition on retaliation. To describe this as a calling (ἐκλήθητε), given the pattern of use of that verb elsewhere in 1 Peter and in the NT more generally, is to allude to the call of God by which the readers have come to be God’s chosen people, and thereby also to have the responsibilities to holy living that such an identity entails (cf. 1.15; 2.9, 21; 5.10).73 The second person plural form also indicates a direct address to the recipients of the letter. The final phrase gives the purpose of this calling (ἵνα). The verb κληρονομήσητε (again indicating a direct address to the recipients) echoes the theme of inheritance (κληρονομία), signalled as a basic designation of the Christians’ hope in 1.4 and reiterated in 3.7, where wives and husbands are described as co-inheritors (συγκληρονόμοι). While the inheritance was paralleled with ‘living hope’ and ‘salvation’ in 1.3–5, and described as ‘the grace of life’ in 3.7, here, to fit with the injunction to bless, it is εὐλογία (‘blessing’).74 The specific idea of inheriting blessing is paralleled in Heb 12.17, where it is Esau’s loss of his father’s blessing that is used as an illustration of the need for holy living and the lack of an opportunity to repent (cf. Gen 27.30–41). not be unusual, then, for the author to emphasise the need for a certain pattern of conduct in relation to suffering and hostility in order attain the promised inheritance. 72   So, e.g., Elliott 610; Dubis 99. 73   The only ‘ordinary’ use of καλέω in 1 Peter is at 3.6, where Sarah ‘calls’ Abraham master (elsewhere in the NT, e.g., 1 Cor 10.27). For ‘the call of God’, see, e.g., Rom 9.24; Gal 1.6; 1 Thess 4.7. For discussion of καλέω in relation to conversion, see Exegesis at 1.15. 74   Based on the connection with the verbal form (εὐλογοῦντες) in the previous clause, Johnstone (218–19) suggests that the active sense of εὐλογίαν is in view (cf. Heb 6.7; Jas 3.10). Rather than translating the verse, ‘so that you might inherit a blessing’ (cf. NIV, NAB, HCSB, NRSV, ESV, NET), which would describe a gift that is the fruit or outcome of God’s blessing, the sentence is best rendered, ‘so that you might inherit blessing’ (cf. Darby; see also NMB, RGT), which stresses God’s continuous and eternal activity to work favourably on behalf of the people of God.

100

1 PETER

Just as the inheritance of Esau was obtained during his lifetime, Grudem has argued that the blessing described in 1 Pet 3.9 refers to benefits that Christians receive in the present life as a result of their commitment to avoid retaliation.75 Such blessings are thought to include the needs of God’s people being met or their prayers being answered. This interpretation follows from two considerations. First, the subsequent scriptural citation from Ps 33.13–15 LXX (Eng. 34.12–14) originally referred to blessings achieved during one’s lifetime: the psalm describes how God rewards those who avoid evil and seek what is good, stating that they will be delivered from need and affliction.76 Second, the letter refers to various ways that believers’ conduct might impact their present lives (e.g., hindrance of prayers, 1 Pet 3.7).77 In the end, however, this proposal is difficult to accept. Simply because the Petrine author cites Psalm 33 LXX, does not mean that he also adopts all of the assumptions underlying the original worldview of that text (as 1.10–12 makes clear). Working from an apocalyptic perspective, he redacts the passage to align with his own views about the rewards of the afterlife (see further below). One of these views relates to the eschatological inheritance (κληρονομία) of Christians, which he claims is currently being kept in heaven, awaiting the final revelation of Christ (1.4). Since the focus here is on what will be inherited (κληρονομήσητε), the ‘blessing’ clearly has an eschatological resonance. The calling of the Christians to respond to their enemies with blessing will be rewarded in a corresponding way with a future blessing. 10 ὁ γὰρ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθὰς παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον,, δόλον To further support, motivate, and conclude the preceding exhortations (γάρ), the author presents a lengthy quotation from scripture, the longest such quotation in the letter. Coming as it does at a 75   Grudem 148–49. See also McKnight 201–202; van Rensburg, ‘Ethical Analysis’, 226 n. 63. 76   Cf. Benson 245, who notes that if the inherited ‘blessing’ describes eternal life, which is generally understood to be the referent, then ‘it will be difficult to connect this with the following verses, which seem evidently to speak of temporal blessings’. 77   For a full list, see Grudem 149.



3.8–12

101

central (arguably pivotal) place in the letter, and touching upon so many themes that are key to the author’s argument, it may be seen as an especially important and influential quotation. This is particularly the case when it is recognised that Psalm 33 (LXX) as a whole is about the sufferings of the righteous78 and their promised rescue and vindication and as such has obvious christological resonance too.79 We have already noted various verbal connections between this quotation and the preceding verses. This does not mean, however, as Bornemann argued,80 that the psalm influences the content of 1 Peter throughout (though see Summary below).

78   Beyond simply comparing the situation of the Anatolian readers with the words of trouble and deliverance expressed in Ps 33 (LXX), the Petrine author may be attempting to shape the identity and actions of his readers by interpreting their story in light of the earlier narrative of David. According to the superscription on this psalm, which would have been part of the background against which these words were understood—the historical validity of the claim having no bearing on the ancient interpretation—it was composed during the time that David fled to the Philistines in an effort to avoid the murderous attempts of King Saul (Ps 33.1 LXX). When understood from the perspective of narrative transport theory (see Green and Brock, ‘Role of Transportation’, 701–21; idem, ‘In the Mind’s Eye’, 315–41), this story (as recorded in 1 Samuel) would have provided the Petrine author with a model for approaching turbulent situations: in the same way that David approached difficulties and exile by turning to God for deliverance, the Anatolian readers must trust that faithfulness to God—including not retaliating against their persecutors—will turn out for their salvation (see further Shaw, ‘Called to Bless’, 166–68; cf. also Hockey, ‘Resilience in 1 Peter’, 104–105, who appeals to the narrative that the readers are expected to ‘inhabit’). One clue that this may have been the author’s intention is his use of the ‘sojourning’ theme to frame the letter (cf. 1.1; 5.13). This language reflects an idiosyncratic interpretative move by LXX translators (as noted by Jobes 220; cf. also Woan, ‘Use of the Old Testament’, 142–43). When rendering the Hebrew noun ‫‘( מגורות‬fears’, Ps 34.5) into Greek, they employed the term παροικιῶν (Ps 33.5 LXX) rather than the more conventional φόβων. As such, the psalm declares that David was delivered from all of his sojourning. The letter of 1 Peter makes a similar promise of deliverance to its readers, who are in the midst of sojourning (see Christensen, ‘Solidarity in Suffering’, 349–51). 79   For more on the important influence of Ps 33 (LXX) with regard to the formu� lation of the Petrine author’s view of suffering and his response to it, see Eriksson, Psalm 34 in the Hebrew Bible, 111–20; Zwemstra and Cornelius, ‘Die kommunikatiewe funksie(s)’, 325–44; Woan, ‘The Psalms in 1 Peter’, 213–29; idem, ‘The Use of the Old Testament’; Hauge, ‘Reading 1 Peter in Light of Psalm 34’. 80   Bornemann, ‘Der erste Petrusbrief’, 143–65.

102

1 PETER

Ps 33.13–17 (LXX) τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὁ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπῶν ἡμέρας ἰδεῖν ἀγαθάς; παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσάν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη σου τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον. ἔκκλινον ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποίησον ἀγαθόν, ζήτησον εἰρήνην καὶ δίωξον αὐτήν. ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ δικαίους, καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ εἰς δέησιν αὐτῶν. πρόσωπον δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας κακὰ τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν.

1 Pet 3.10–12 ὁ γὰρ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθὰς παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον, ἐκκλινάτω δὲ ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν, ζητησάτω εἰρήνην καὶ διωξάτω αὐτήν· ὅτι ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ εἰς δέησιν αὐτῶν, πρόσωπον δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας κακά.

The quotation follows the LXX relatively closely, with only minor variations. (Note that 1 Clem. 22.2–8 quotes an even more extensive portion from the same source, but has a more formal introduction [22.1] and follows the LXX more precisely.) In place of the opening question of the psalm (τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος), the text in 1 Peter begins with a γάρ, a rather minimal marker of a quotation.81 It serves to integrate the citation into the logical structure of the passage, indicating that it provides some explanation or support for what has preceded.82 The opening participial phrase is thus turned 81   Witherington lays great emphasis on the fact that the author does not intro� duce this quotation with a formal citation marker. From this consideration, he deduces that the audience must have originated from a Jewish background, since ‘the force and authority of [the citation] would be missed by a largely pagan audience’ (169). Further, after exploring other ways that Ps 33 (LXX) is employed in the epistle, he notes, ‘Many of these echoes and allusions would have been lost on a formerly pagan audience, though some God-fearers may have picked up an echo here and there’ (170). Where this line of argumentation runs into problems is in the variegated nature of citation formulae used by the Petrine author (see Introduction: Old Testament/Jewish Scriptures and Traditions). While he employs informal markers such as διότι (1.24–25), καί (2.8), and ὅτι (4.8; 5.5), he also employs more direct formulas like διότι γέγραπται (1.16) and διότι περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ (2.6, 7). Just as it would be unwise to interpret the direct formulae as evidence of a Gentile readership who was unfamiliar with the Jewish scriptures, it would be equally insecure to deduce a Jewish audience from the informal markers. 82   Some connect the quotation with the immediately preceding clause εὐλογίαν κληρονομήσητε (e.g., de Wette 38; Monnier 156), and others with the admonition



3.8–12

103

into a description, the subject of the imperative παυσάτω.83 Rather than the two substantival participles (θέλων and ἀγαπῶν) from the LXX, in 1 Peter the latter is an infinitive (ἀγαπᾶν), which is joined by καί in a parallel relationship to ἰδεῖν. The order of the LXX phrase ἡμέρας ἰδεῖν is also reversed in 1 Peter such that the noun and adjective are placed together (ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς). Various explanations have been proposed to account for these differences. Some think that they may be due to liturgical or catechetical sources being employed,84 but few have been convinced by this proposal. Others suggest that the variations can be attributed to the fact the author was working from an alternative version of the Greek scriptures.85 The difficulty with assessing this suggestion, however, is the lack of a critical edition of the Psalter from which to trace the transmission history of the passage. Nevertheless, certain considerations weigh against this hypothesis, including the fact that when Psalm 33 LXX is quoted elsewhere, the text is very consistent.86 What is more, the variations found in 1 Peter are not repeated anywhere else. This evidence might seem to support another proposal that is occasionally set forward, namely, that the author was quoting from memory.87 But this, too, is problematic given the types of changes that are made.88 In light of the internal εὐλογοῦντες (e.g., Alford 360). It is more likely that the scriptural quotation serves as the ground for the exhortations in the two preceding verses (see, e.g., Wiesinger 215; Schott 195; Johnstone 219; Huther 167; Bigg 156; Dubis 100). 83   Cf. Elliott 611; Dubis 101. 84   Selwyn 25. More specifically, he argues that Ps 34 (and Prov 3) ‘may well have been used at a very early stage… in the teaching of the primitive Church’ (414; cf. Davids 128; Goppelt 236), though this is difficult to substantiate. The only other direct quotation of this psalm in the NT is John 19.36, so it does not appear that its christological potential was widely perceived. 85   E.g., Bloomfield 716; Michaels 180; cf. Donelson 100, who allows this as a possibility. The fullest argument for this position can be found in Egan, ‘Manuscript Tradition’, 505–28. 86   Other quotations of this LXX psalm include: 1 Clem. 22.2–8 (citing Ps 33.11–17, 19); Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 9.88.1 (citing Ps 33.13); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.17.109 (citing Ps 33.12–13); Origen, Cels. 6.54 (citing Ps 33.12–15); Comm. Matt. 15.10 (citing Ps 33.13–15); Eusebius, Praep. ev. 12.18.5 (citing Ps 33.12–15). 87   E.g., Achtemeier 225–26; Senior 90; cf. Schreiner 188, who sees this as a possibility. 88   Elsewhere, when using the verb παύω, the Petrine author employs a genitive modifier to complete the idea (4.1: πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας), which is consistent

104

1 PETER

evidence,89 it is most likely that the differences can be attributed to the intentional, editorial activity of the Petrine author.90 The changes may be a deliberate attempt to improve the style of the LXX,91 or they might simply be an attempt to better align the syntax of the citation with the flow of the present argument. The only change of any real substance is the transformation of the participle ἀγαπῶν into an infinitive (ἀγαπᾶν). This not only smooths out the difficulty of the Septuagintal reading by creating with the standards of classical Greek. In the present verse, however, he repeats the common Hellenistic construction παύω + ἀπό, which is more often found in the LXX. If a lapse in memory caused accidental alterations, one might have expected this to be a point where the author would have defaulted to παύω + genitive modifier, although this is difficult to prove conclusively given that one use of the construction hardly establishes a stylistic preference. 89   Two pieces of internal evidence could be cited. The first is the insertion of conjunctions. Elsewhere, the Petrine author adds conjunctions at the beginning of a citation, to clarify the relationship of the quoted material to the wider context (1.24; 4.8, 14; 5.5), and also within the quote itself, as a way to clarify its specific point (2.25; 4.14). The fact that the conjunctions (γάρ, δέ, ὅτι)—which are absent in Ps 33.13–17 (LXX)—play a similar role here suggests that they are due to the Petrine author. A second consideration is the shift from second person singular imperatives (παῦσον, ἔκκλινον, ποίησον, ζήτησον, δίωξον) to third person singular imperatives (παυσάτω, ἐκκλινάτω, ποιησάτω, ζητησάτω, διωξάτω). Egan (‘Manuscript Tradition’, 511) claims that if this change were made by the Petrine author, it would have resulted in second person plural imperatives. But this would not have been possible given that the subject is singular (ὁ θέλων). On the contrary, the fact that a change was made away from the second person singular imperative to the much less common third person singular imperative is consistent with the use of the same form elsewhere in 1 Peter (cf. 3.3; 4.15–16). 90   So, e.g., Schutter, Hermeneutic, 144–45; Woan, ‘Psalms in 1 Peter’, 220; Jobes, ‘Septuagint Textual Tradition’, 327. 91   Beare argues that the text of the LXX has been ‘skillfully re-phrased in a better Greek style’ (161). While he admits that ‘the crude barbarity of the Alexandrian version has not been wholly surmounted’, Beare nonetheless believes that ‘it has at least been greatly softened’ (161). This hypothesis is then used to argue that the mother tongue of the Petrine author must have been Greek (cf. Elliott 612). Along similar lines, but reaching a very different conclusion regarding authorship, Bigg proposes that Peter’s interpreter, ‘who wrote better Greek than the LXX. as a rule, may have been influenced by the feeling that ὁ θέλων ζωήν could carry no meaning to Greek ears’ and so changed the text accordingly (157). The question that remains is why only certain improvements were made, while other potential alternations (e.g., παύω + genitive) were not.



3.8–12

105

two parallel infinitive clauses,92 it also introduces a slightly different meaning to the sentence: whereas the psalmist was concerned with ὁ θέλων ζωήν (‘the one who desires life’), the Petrine author describes ὁ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾶν (‘the one who desires to love life’).93 But what is actually meant by the phrase ἀγαπᾶν ζωήν? Similar language appears in a few other places, and it usually relates to preserving one’s physical existence.94 What distinguishes this usage is the addition of θέλω,95 which creates the sense, ‘the one who desires ἀγαπᾶν ζωήν’.96 The author thus describes a state that can only be reached by maintaining a specific code of conduct: it comes about by turning away from evil to seek peace and goodness. In this way, one could render ἀγαπᾶν as ‘to enjoy’,97 although ‘to love’ would work just as well. Regardless of which of these translations is adopted, the focus of the Petrine author is not simply on the blessings that are received, but on the quality of the experience generated by it. 92   While some view the LXX text as less awkward than that in 1 Peter (e.g., Alford 360; Michaels 179), it is equally plausible to interpret these differences as clarifying the whole phrase, given the lack of conjunction between the two parallel participial phrases in the LXX. Cf. Selwyn 190, who responds to Alford’s suggestion that 1 Peter’s changes render the text ‘hardly intelligible’ by insisting that ‘it is far from unintelligible’ and indeed has some logic to it. 93   The Syriac version, along with a few older commentators (e.g., Grotius 91; Fronmüller 58), divide up the sentence differently. By placing the comma after ζωήν (instead of after ἀγαπᾶν), they adopt the reading, ‘the one who desires life and loves to see good days’. 94   E.g., Prov 16.17 (with Origen, Exp. Prov. [PG 17:196]); Sir 4.12. In a letter supposedly written by Alexander the Great, he warns King Porus of India, ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶς καὶ θέλης τὴν ζωήν σου, δός μοι χαράτζιον καὶ δῶρα, ‘if you love and value your life, give to me taxes and gifts’ (Ps.-Callisthenes, Historia Alexandri Magni, Recensio φ 209 [Veloudis]). 95   Cf. Ps.-Athanasius, Liber de definitionibus (PG 28:541): Ἓν δὲ φυσικὸν θέλημα ἔχομεν πάντες, τὸ ἀγαπᾷν τὴν ζωὴν, ἤτοι τὴν ἀθανασίαν, ἣν ἐλάβομεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ‘We all have one natural desire: to love life, which is truly immortality, which we acquired from the beginning’. 96   Some older translations—Wycliffe, Darby, Douay-Rheims, KJV—render the sentence, ‘he that will love life’, which could be problematic if ‘will’ is mistakenly understood as a reference to future life. On whether this verse refers to the present or future life of Christians, see below. 97   So, e.g., Macknight 475; Demarest 159; Hofmann 116; Marshall 110; Dubis 100. Some translate ἀγαπᾶν as, ‘to choose’ (Kelly 138; Michaels 180; Hillyer 105); yet this misses the point that ζωή (‘life’) and ἡμέραι ἀγαθαί (‘good days’) are rewards to be experienced.

106

1 PETER

All agree that in the original context of Psalm 33 (LXX), ζωή (‘life’) and ἡμέραι ἀγαθαί (‘good days’) refer to the experience of comfort or plenty during one’s lifetime. But how are these concepts used in 1 Peter? Some argue that the meaning assigned to these terms by the Petrine author is the same as the psalmist, with both referring to the present life.98 The problem is that it would seem to be contradicted by the current experience of the readers. Prior to the time of 1 Peter, the concept of ἡμέραι ἀγαθαί (‘good days’) rarely appears in the ancient source materials; but when it does occur, the meaning is relatively established. The phrase describes a life marked by positive features such as financial security, longevity, a good reputation, freedom from disaster, and so on.99 As much as the benefits of the new Christian existence may have been experienced by the readers of 1 Peter, it would be difficult to characterise their situation as ‘good days’. For this reason, the majority of interpreters today understand ζωή (‘life’) and ἡμέραι ἀγαθαί (‘good days’) as references to the blessed existence that 98   While this position is not as common in recent scholarship (although it has been defended by some: Mounce 49; Richard 141; van Rensburg, ‘Ethical Analysis’, 228), it was very popular among an earlier generation of commentators (e.g., Benson 246–47; Wiesinger 216; Schott 195; Alford 361; Usteri 137; Huther 167; Williams 47; Kühl 199–200; Bigg 157; Mitchell 264; Wand 94). A more nuanced position is defended by Christensen. He argues that ‘Peter… utilize[s] the original sense of the present blessing of Ps 34:12, with both the future inheritance and the present blessing of new life in Christ held together, functioning as co-motivators to live out the ethics of the future blessing now’ (‘Solidarity in Suffering’, 344). 99   In the singular form (ἡμέρα ἀγαθή), the phrase emphasises the special quality of the day itself (1 Sam 25.8; Esth 9.19, 21–22; 1 Macc 10.55; Sir 14.14; T.Ash. 4.4; cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 7.70). But the plural (ἡμέραι ἀγαθαί) represents an extended period of prosperity and enjoyment. This is the case in 1 En. 102.9, where it describes the time of pleasure experienced by sinners. As part of a warning to this group, the author states, ‘Therefore, (what you do is) steal and sin and rob and acquire possessions and see good days (ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς)’. The same type of usage appears in secular literature as well. In his catalogue of dreams and their interpretations, Artemidorus Daldianus writes, ‘Among people who are observed in dreams, those who are very pleasant or very friendly to the observers bring about good days (ἀγαθὰς ἡμέρας) to come, even if they do not recognize them’ (Onir. 4.8; trans. Harris-McCoy). It is not until a few centuries after 1 Peter that the phrase is used to describe a future, heavenly existence (see Origen, Fr. Eph. 27; Hom. Ps. 5.9).



3.8–12

107

awaits Christians in the eschatological future.100 The interpretative basis for this view lies in the mention of ‘life’ (ζωή) just a few verses earlier in 3.7, where most agree that it describes the eternal life that will be received at the revelation of Christ.101 But, here too, interpretative questions arise. Based on the premise of this scriptural citation, the Petrine author is led to conclude that the proper conduct of his readers should alleviate conflict with agitators (v. 13). Such a deduction only makes sense if the audience’s present experience is under consideration in the present verse. In recent discussions, some have begun to question whether strong lines of separation should be drawn between the present and future life of believers. While acknowledging that the verse has an eschatological dimension, they also stress that many benefits are made available to Christians through their new birth experience (1.3, 23). Further, they acknowledge that God works in the present to bring Christians a foretaste of the blessings that await them in the future.102 As a result, ζωή is interpreted as including both the benefits associated with Christian life in the present as well as the rewards that await them in the future.103 Proponents of this interpretation are probably correct that ζωή (‘life’) and ἡμέραι ἀγαθαί   E.g., Reicke 105; Kelly 138; Beare 161; Wheaton 1243; Best 131; Schelkle 95; Michaels 180; Knoch 94; Davids 128; Brox 155; Elliott 612; Senior 90; Feldmeier 187; Watson 81; Schreiner 189. This view was occasionally espoused by earlier interpreters as well (e.g., de Wette 38; Plumptre 127; Johnstone 220; Monnier 156; Hart 66; Knopf 135). 101   See Moffatt 137; Cranfield 96; Schrage 100. The discussion of inherited blessing (v. 9), which gives rise to this quotation, is also used to support a future reading of ζωή and ἡμέραι ἀγαθαί (see Schlosser 196). An eschatological reading of this passage is found in some rabbinic literature (see Tanḥ. Lev 14.2). Yet appeal could be made to the same psalm as a way to explain more immediate blessings and punishments (e.g., Lev. Rab. 16; Tanḥ. Lev 14.2; see further Piper, ‘Hope as the Motivation’, 226 n. 59; Christensen, ‘Solidarity in Suffering’, 342–43). 102   In the present, the addressees have been able to ‘taste’ that the Lord is good (2.3) and have been granted a new, privileged identity (2.5, 9). Even when they are distressed by suffering, they can rejoice, and are still blessed because the spirit of God rests upon them (4.13–14). However, the full joy awaits the fulfillment of their eschatological hopes (see on 1.6–9, for the future reading of these references to rejoicing). 103   E.g., Hillyer 102; Goppelt 236–37; Achtemeier 226; Boring 129; Jobes 223–24; Donelson 100; Forbes 110; Vahrenhorst 144–45; cf. also Schwank, ‘L’Epître (1 P 3,8–15)’, 20. One early proponent of this view was Fausset (508). 100

108

1 PETER

(‘good days’) should not be confined either to the present or to the future. Elsewhere in the letter there is a sense that the benefits and joys of the future are already felt, if only partially, in the present (1.8–9)—which is clearly a time of ‘blessing’, even in suffering (3.14). This ‘both–and’ or ‘now-but-not-yet’ perspective may also enable the author to preserve the meaning of the scriptural text— with its reference to those who seek ‘good days’ here and now—but also to recognise the situation of the audience, whose difficulties seem to be exacerbated by following the ethics prescribed in the scriptural text (see below; note esp. the tension between vv. 13 and 14) and for whom the fulfillment of the promise remains a largely eschatological hope. In the LXX, the third-person question τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος and opening articular participle (ὁ θέλων) are awkwardly followed by a series of five second-person imperatives (παῦσον, ἔκκλινον, ποίησον, ζήτησον, δίωξον)—a juxtaposition also present in Hebrew (see below). In every case, beginning here with παυσάτω, the author changes these to third-person imperatives, giving a smoother flow to the whole sentence. To cohere with this change, he also drops the σου which follows both γλῶσσαν and χείλη in the LXX (following the Hebrew ‫ לשונך‬and ‫)שפתיך‬.104 Again, these minor changes are most plausibly seen as editorial alterations to smooth the flow of the quotation. The same is the case with the changes that we shall note in the following verses.105 The focus of the imperatives fits closely with the author’s concern with avoiding inappropriate and sinful speech. Most immediately, this recalls the exhortations of v. 9, but it also finds close verbal parallels with the exhortation of 2.1, the exemplary behaviour of Christ in 2.22, and the following instruction about appropriate verbal response in 3.15–16. The two phrases in the second half of the verse express the same idea in parallel, using broadly synonymous terms, as is common in the Hebrew parallelism reflected in this literary style.

  Some MSS add the third person possessive (see Text at 3.10 n. c).   Achtemeier (225–26) is cautious on this point, suggesting the influence of quoting from memory. Michaels believes the author is ‘working with a different Greek rendering of the psalm’ (180). Elliott rightly thinks in terms of ‘Petrine modifications of the LXX psalm text’ (611). 104 105



3.8–12

109

11 ἐκκλινάτω δὲ ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν, ζητησάτω εἰρήνην καὶ διωξάτω αὐτήν· The following part of the quotation also encapsulates concisely and precisely the author’s key message about conduct: the need to avoid what is evil and to do what is good. Again, the quotation has verbal and substantial connections both backwards and forwards in the letter (e.g., 2.12–16, 20; 3.6, 13–17; 4.15, 19). Apart from changing the second-person imperatives of the LXX to third-person imperatives (see on v. 10 above), the only other difference from the LXX text is the introduction of δέ following ἐκκλινάτω, a change which again improves the style and also seems to signal a development in the argument, ‘shifting from addressing sins of speech to addressing sins in general’.106 The injunction to ‘seek peace and pursue it’ (ζητησάτω εἰρήνην καὶ διωξάτω αὐτήν) uses nearly synonymous verbs in parallel. Indeed, the whole quotation is full of the kind of parallelism typical of Hebrew poetry. The second verb intensifies the sense of the first; διώκω can be used of more negative kinds of chasing after someone or something (e.g., hunting, persecuting or prosecuting them)107 as well as of more worthy kinds of ‘pursuit’.108 Apart from the formulaic peace-greetings at the beginning and end of the letter (1.2; 5.14), this is the only mention of peace in the letter, so this particular part of the quotation does not resonate explicitly with a favourite theme of the author’s to the extent that other parts do.109 A focus   Dubis 102. On the use of δέ in this way, see also Dubis 13–14.   E.g., 1 Cor 15.9; Gal 1.13 (on Paul’s violent persecution of the church). See further LSJ 440; BDAG 254. 108   E.g., conveying a similar idea to this verse, see Rom 14.19. 109   Du Toit places considerable emphasis on the commands to pursue peace and to avoid retaliation, claiming that it undermines the notion that good works might reflect resistance on the part of the Petrine author (‘Negotiating Hostility’, 230–32). From our perspective, however, this argument is not entirely persuasive. Part of the problem is that du Toit does not differentiate between the impact of the good works motif in the overall social strategy of 1 Peter and the singular expressions of good deeds through which that strategy is lived out. Related to the latter, it should be noted that not every good work was subversive (e.g., the use of one’s spiritual gifts, 4.10–11; see further Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 257–60). Even in instances where the call to ‘do good’ facilitated resistance, such undertakings were not openly antagonistic. The acts themselves represented behaviours that society normally acknowledged with approval (e.g., subordination to the emperor, 2.13). It was the Petrine author’s articulation of how and why those duties were to 106 107

110

1 PETER

on peace, both within and beyond the Christian communities, is prominent elsewhere in the NT, not least in Romans 12 (esp. v. 18), where so many close parallels with the paraenesis in 3.8–9 are found (see also Matt 5.9; 2 Cor 13.11; 1 Thess 5.13; 1 Clem. 19.2; 20.10– 11).110 Moreover, and despite the lack of precise verbal parallel, this phrase may nonetheless be seen to encapsulate well the author’s social-ethical teaching: that Christians should, so far as possible, be unprovocative, non-retaliatory, quiet doers of what is good, who hold resiliently to what is right, in as polite a way as they can.111 12 ὅτι ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ εἰς δέησιν αὐτῶν,, πρόσωπον δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας κακά. αὐτῶν κακά. The final section of the quotation gives a reason why the preceding instructions should be heeded. In order to signal this logical connection, the author adds an introductory ὅτι, not present in the LXX (except as a textual variant).112 This is the only variation from the LXX in this verse. All three phrases lack a verb, though either εἰσιν or ἐστιν is clearly implied. Each phrase conveys a broadly comparable idea, using an anthropomorphic reference (eyes, ears, face) to indicate something of God’s attentiveness to humans.113 There is a be performed that subtly undermined the hegemonic discourse of existing social and political structures. One must therefore distinguish the individual expressions of good works from the way those acts are interpreted within the aims of 1 Peter: while a good deed in and of itself may not be subversive, the Petrine author’s strategic re-orientation of the standards and motives of that same good deed nonetheless results in an overall strategy of (polite) resistance. Another limitation of du Toit’s argument is that he draws too sharp a dichotomy between subversion and non-retaliation, without acknowledging that overlap is possible. The type of polite resistance that we have sketched in 1 Peter would (simultaneously) qualify as both subversion and non-retaliation (cf. the non-violent protests of the civil rights movement in America). For instance, a Christian slave who refused to worship his master’s gods might be beaten. In response, s/he could choose not to reciprocate through anger and aggression (i.e., non-retaliation), while still declining to pour out sacrifices (i.e., subversion). 110   On this theme, see further Swartley, Covenant of Peace. 111   Cf. Goppelt 237, who sees v. 11b as expressing ‘the core of his parenesis… In the midst of manifold conflicts the proper course is to seek peace.’ See also Michaels 180–81. 112   See Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, 130. 113   Elliott puts it well: ‘The combination of eyes, ears and face describes the full awareness and attentiveness of God to those who do right and those who do wrong, the divine blessing of the former and the divine opposition to the latter’ (615).



3.8–12

111

close verbal parallel between the first and third phrases, in the use of ἐπί, though the force of God’s attention is very different in each case. The first two phrases express something of the positive attention God pays to the righteous (δικαίους). Elsewhere in 1 Peter, δίκαιος appears only twice, once in a quotation from Prov 11.31 (4.18) and once in relation to Christ (3.18; cf. also δικαίως of God the judge in 2.23). However, identifying the readers with the righteous of the psalm also finds resonances in the uses of δικαιοσύνη in 2.24 (τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν) and 3.14, where the reference to suffering διὰ δικαιοσύνην may pick up the preceding vocabulary of the quotation.114 In the psalm, κύριος renders ‫ יהוה‬and thus represents God. It is difficult to determine whether the author retains that sense, or effectively reinterprets κύριος as a reference to Christ. Commentators are divided on the matter.115 There is nothing here to indicate explicitly such a shift of focus from the original quotation, and the established use of the phrases ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου and πρόσωπον κυρίου in the LXX to refer to the oversight and presence of God, not least in conveying blessing (Num 6.25–26; Zech 8.21–22) or punishment (Lev 17.10; 20.3, 5, 6), might suggest that this remains the focus here.116 However, it is worth noting that this image could be picked up christologically, as in 2 Cor 4.6 (‘the glory of God ἐν προσώπῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ’), which might suggest that the author’s focus has shifted here too, something that would cohere with uses of κύριος elsewhere in the letter (1.3, 25; 2.3, 13; 3.15). Besides these, the only other reference is 2.13, which is more ambiguous, but may well be christological in focus (see ad loc.). These distinctions are hard to make, however, not least because the NT texts themselves do not always make neat distinctions between God and Christ (and Spirit) (see, e.g., 1 Cor 2.12–16; 2 Cor 3.16–18).

  Cf. Michaels 181.   Those who take κύριος to refer to Jesus: Mason 417; Michaels 181; Dubis 103; Watson 82; Schreiner 191 n. 285. Those who understand it as a reference to God: Alford 361; Hart 66; Achtemeier 227; Elliott 615. 116   Cf. Selwyn 191 and Achtemeier 227, though both refer only to the πρόσωπον κυρίου, for which see, e.g., LXX Gen 3.8; Num 17.11, 24; Judg 5.5; 1 Sam 1.14; 21.7; Pss 95.13; 96.5; Jon 1.3. For the ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου, see, e.g., LXX Deut 11.12; 2 Sam 11.27; 15.25; 1 Kgs 22.43; 2 Kgs 3.2, 18 (and very frequently in 2 Kings); Ps 32.18; Prov 15.3. 114 115

112

1 PETER

As noted above, the phrase ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου is common in the LXX, especially in 2 Kings, where the formulaic report is that each ruler’s actions were good or bad ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς κυρίου (2 Kgs 3.2, 18; 13.2, 11, etc.). Close parallels to the idea expressed here from Ps 33.17 LXX are found in Ps 32.18 (οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτόν) and Prov 15.3 (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου σκοπεύουσιν κακούς τε καὶ ἀγαθούς). Indeed, this latter phrase encapsulates well the entire thought of this verse. In such phrases, as here, there is no direct explanation of what the implications are of God’s eyes being ‘upon’ someone, but it is clear that divine observation will correlate in some way, perhaps in the future, with judgment based on what has been observed (cf. 2.12, and the ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς). References to the ὦτα κυρίου are somewhat less frequent (see LXX 1 Sam 8.21; 2 Sam 22.7; Pss 17.7; 129.2; Neh 1.11; Isa 5.9; Odes 10.9; cf. Jas 5.4), though appeals to God to listen and hear, particularly prayers and requests (commonly in the Psalms), convey the same idea, albeit without the specific anthropomorphism (e.g., Neh 1.6; Pss 4.1; 16.1; 38.13; 101.1). Eyes and ears are combined in a plea for God’s attention to the requests of his people in 1 Kgs 8.52 (LXX). The term δέησις is commonly used to denote such prayers and requests, sometimes in parallel with προσευχή (cf. 3.7), indicating their overlapping meanings (e.g., Pss 16.1; 38.13), though δέησις specifically refers to (urgent) requests or pleas.117 Again, the phrase itself does not specify what follows from God’s ears being directed towards (εἰς) the requests of the righteous, but it is clearly implied, as elsewhere, that God’s ‘hearing’ of their prayer indicates a benevolent attention to their situation.118 Even when suffering adversity and hostility, the readers should entrust themselves to God’s care and justice (cf. 4.19; 5.5), as Christ did (2.23). Regarding the third and final phrase, most agree that the particle δέ signals some type of contrast;119 nevertheless, identifying precisely the antithetical elements has been controversial. A large   BDAG 213.   Cf. Dubis 103. As Dubis also points out, εἰς and ἐπί function similarly here, both translating the Hebrew ‫אל‬. 119   Reading the δέ adversatively seems more logical here than taking it to introduce ‘the next step in the argument’, as Dubis (104) suggests. 117 118



3.8–12

113

number of interpreters locate the contrast in the repetition of the preposition ἐπί. In the original Hebrew, different prepositions (‫אל‬ and ‫ )ב‬are used to describe how the eyes and face of the Lord relate to the righteous and evil-doers respectively, whereas the Greek version uses the same term (ἐπί) with differing meaning, in a kind of paronomasia. The first instance would then denote the locality of the benevolent gaze (‘the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous’), while the second would describe opposition (‘the face of the Lord is against those who do evil’).120 Another possibility is that the contrast is found in reference to the countenance of the Lord: on this view, the term πρόσωπον, which is sometimes employed to express God’s unfavourable or threatening disposition (Num 16.46; Pss 17.9; 54.22[21]; Jer 4.26), portrays the Lord’s wrath toward sinners.121 This is contrasted with the positive attention (with eyes and ears) shown to the righteous. Others think that the key contrast is between the δίκαιοι (‘the righteous’) and ποιοῦντες κακά (‘those who do evil’).122 Ultimately, it seems unnecessary to limit the contrast to only one of these antitheses, but the contrasting disposition of the κύριος towards the two types of people, with their diametrically opposed characteristics, seems clear, and is signalled as such by the δέ. After references to the eyes and ears of the κύριος, the final such reference is to the πρόσωπον κυρίου (as noted above, a very common way to refer anthropomorphically to God’s presence). The directedness of the eyes and ears of God towards the righteous and their prayers implies—without explicitly stating—concern and care. Here, the attention of God’s face against (ἐπί) those who do evil implies that they will not get away with such transgression of the divine will, and as such conveys some sense of threat. (Note again Prov 15.3, quoted above, which implies both the positive 120   See, e.g., Grotius 92; Benson 248; Demarest 160; de Wette 39; Monnier 158; Blenkin 70; Michaels 181; Hiebert 217–18; Dubis 104; Forbes 111. Others are sceptical about whether ἐπί can carry such a meaning (see Steiger 2:181; Usteri 136). 121   This view is espoused primarily by older commentators (e.g., Bengel 66; Bloomfield 716; Demarest 160; Wiesinger 218–19; Schott 198; Huther 168; Hart 66). For more early proponents of this view, see Steiger 2:181. 122   So, e.g., Keil 114; Kühl 200–201; Elliott 615. Alternatively, Johnstone (224) suggests that the contrast is left unstated by the omission of the final clause which would stand in contrast to the Lord seeing and hearing the righteous.

114

1 PETER

and negative aspects of God’s observing of human conduct.) The description ποιοῦντας κακά resonates with, and perhaps influences, the author’s terminology elsewhere, with the contrast between κακοποιέω and ἀγαθοποιέω (2.12, 14–15, 20; 3.17; 4.15, 19). The vocabulary and sentiments of the psalm, as we have seen, echo both before and after this central quotation in the letter. It is important to notice where the author chooses to end the quotation from Psalm 33 (LXX). The phrases quoted have clearly implied that the Lord’s attention conveys care and concern for the righteous, but a threat of judgment and reckoning for those who do evil. In spite of their present experiences of affliction and hardship, then, the Lord’s attention and care are devoted to the righteous, while God opposes the wicked (cf. 5.5). Yet the psalm from which the author is quoting continues immediately—as some later MSS of 1 Peter did, following the LXX source (see Text at 3.12 n. e)—with the phrase τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν (‘to destroy the remembrance of them from earth’, NETS). Given the closeness with which the author has followed the source text, and the fact that the differences are best seen as deliberate alterations and improvements, it is most likely that the decision as to where to end the quotation is also a conscious and deliberate one.123 Occasionally, this omission is explained in relation to the passage’s intended targets. For those who identify the phrase ποιοῦντες κακά as including both outside antagonists and erring members of the Christian community,124 the inclusion of this word of final condemnation might suggest that the latter would suffer the same fate as the former, and the author wants to avoid threatening Christians with God’s wrath.125 However, since the author elsewhere seems deliberately to include his addressees within the scope of God’s judgment, in ways that serve to warn them too, stressing the importance of continuing in their ‘good’ way of life (1.17; 4.17), it is more likely that the omission is indicative of a certain ‘reluctance 123   It is surprising that Elliott (614–16), gives so little attention to this point, mentioning only that ‘certain manuscripts’ extend the quotation ‘secondarily’ (614). The same goes for Achtemeier 220 n. 8; 227 n. 89. 124   Some Petrine interpreters include both sinful Christians and unbelievers in the designation ποιοῦντες κακά (e.g., Kelly 138; Goppelt 237; cf. Schutter, Hermeneutic, 147). 125   So, e.g., Davids 128; Achtemeier 227 n. 89; Watson 82; Forbes 111.



3.8–12

115

to fasten in detail on the fate of the ungodly’.126 While expressing God’s (implicit) opposition to those who do evil, the author chooses not to specify their final fate. Such a tendency is also evident elsewhere in the letter. In 1.17 the author insists that God is an impartial judge, such that the readers should conduct themselves ἐν φόβῳ; in 2.8 the question about whether stumbling is permanent or fatal is simply not posed (contrast Rom 11.11); in 2.12 it is left unspecified whether the Christians’ critics, who come to glorify God on the final day, do so as part of a process of judgment or of conversion leading to salvation. In 3.18–20 and 4.6 the possibility of post-mortem salvation is implied (see ad loc.), and in 3.16, 4.5, and 4.18 the outcome of judgment for the unrighteous and impious is again left unspecified, even if there is some implicit threat that their prospects are not positive. Moreover, the express purpose of the Christians’ humble testimony and good behaviour is that unbelievers may realise their error and acknowledge God (2.12; 3.1–2, 15–16; cf. 2 Pet 3.9). There are no grounds for assuming that the author of 1 Peter is what we would call a ‘universalist’, but neither should we assume, as commentators too often do, that he clearly envisages a final and enduring condemnation of those who are currently ‘disobedient’.127 What is striking is that there is a deliberate reticence about specifying either kind of outcome, and it is that reticence that we should notice. Summary In bringing this major section (2.11–3.12) of ethical instruction to a close, the author first provides a concise list of qualities that encapsulate what is required for peaceable relationships within the Christian communities. He then indicates the duty to respond peaceably to evil and slander—primarily from outsiders—with blessing and not retaliation. Despite the largely unique vocabulary of v. 8, both verses draw on early Christian tradition and, in particular, reflect the influence   Michaels 182; cf. Hiebert 217.   E.g., Elliott 734 (on 4.6), rejecting the idea that there is any basis for ‘a reference to the universality of salvation’ in 1 Peter: ‘Adversaries… will be held accountable… It is believers, however, whether alive or dead, who will enjoy eternal life.’ 126 127

116

1 PETER

of Romans 12. The focus of the exhortations once again indicates something of the author’s social strategy: to foster the harmony and solidarity of the Christian ἀδελφότης and to encourage the display of peaceable, non-violent, and non-retaliatory engagements with outsiders, even and especially when those engagements are initiated by hostility and accusation on the part of outsiders. However, in view of a tendency to regard this non-retaliatory ethos as radical and counter-cultural,128 we should note that it was also commended by some of the moral philosophers (notably Musonius, Frag. 10) as well as in Jewish sources (see above, p. 94, with nn. 52 and 53). The practice of non-retaliation can lead vulnerable people to greater suffering in relationships of domination, abuse, and violence; but famous modern examples from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr. also indicate that such a stance cannot simply be characterised as acquiescence to the status quo. The lengthy quotation from Ps 33.13–17 (LXX) brings this section appropriately to a close, expressing as it does many of the author’s key themes and exhortations. Indeed, the resonances of the vocabulary of the quotation with what has preceded in 2.11–3.9 suggests some influence in shaping the author’s terminology and concerns. Yet as well as drawing to a close this large section of instruction, the quotation also serves to point forward to the verses that follow. Again, verbal resonances indicate how the particular concerns dealt with in 3.13–17 find points of connection in the words of Psalm 33 (LXX). Indeed, even where there are few verbal connections—as in the injunction to ‘seek peace’—the words of the psalm encapsulate well some of the central concerns of the letter. The psalm may have been particularly appealing to the author due to the resonant connections between the suffering righteous of the psalm, and his depiction of Christ as the exemplary innocent sufferer, both of which undergird his exhortation and encouragement to readers who currently suffer unjust afflictions. Indeed, it is interesting to note the inclusion of Psalms 34–35 (LXX 33–34) in the Bodmer Codex containing 1–2 Peter and Jude (= P72), suggesting that some early readers found shared significance among these texts.129   E.g., Harink 92, et passim.   See Introduction: Text; further, Horrell, Becoming Christian, 45–73.

128 129

S U F FE R IN G FO R D O IN G GOOD, A N D B E I NG R E A D Y TO G IV E AN ACCOUNT (3.13–17)

Initial Bibliography Marie-Louise Gubler, ‘Rechenschaft über die Hoffnung. Eine Auslegung von 1 Petr 3.15’, Diakonia 34 (2003): 126–28; Rainer Kampling, ‘Bekenntnisrede. Zur Funktion und theologischen Bedeutung des öffentlichen Zeugnisses (1Petr 3,15f)’, in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis. Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief, ed. Thomas Söding, SBS 216 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), 165–76; Ariane Keller De Rham, ‘1 Pierre 3,13–18: N’ayez crainte!’, Lire et Dire 88 (2011): 38–48; Charles Kuykendall and C. John Collins, ‘1 Peter 3:15a: A Critical Review of English Versions’, Presbyterion 29 (2003): 76–84; Jean-Luc Marion, ‘Apologétique et apologie’, Comm 39 (2014): 9–17; J. Ramsey Michaels, ‘Eschatology in I Peter III.17’, NTS 13 (1967): 394–401; Fika J. van Rensburg and Steve Moyise, ‘Isaiah in 1 Peter 3:13–17: Applying Intertextuality to the Study of the Old Testament in the New’, Scriptura 80 (2002): 275–86; Peter R. Rodgers, ‘The Question of 1 Peter 3:13’, Filología Neotestamentaria 31 (2018): 111–18; Katharina Schmocker, Elpis oder Hoffnung. Eine zukunftsgerichtete Auseinandersetzung mit dem Anspruch in 1 Petr 3,15 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1998); Ferdinand Staudinger, ‘Verantwortete Hoffnung (1 Petr 3,15)’, in Weihbischof Dr. Alois Stöger: Exeget zwischen Bibelkommission und Offenbarungskonstitution, ed. Ferdinand Staudinger and Heinrich Wurz (St. Pölten: Staudinger, 1990), 113–22; Travis B. Williams, ‘Reading Social Conflict through Greek Grammar: Reconciling the Difficulties of the Fourth-Class Condition in 1 Pet 3.14’, Filología Neotestamentaria 26 (2013): 119–60.

Text Καὶ τίς ὁ κακώσων ὑμᾶς, ὑμᾶς, ἐὰν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ γένησθε(a); ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε(b) διὰ δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι(c). τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε(d), 15 κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν(e) ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος,, 16 ἀλλὰ(f) μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου, ἐλπίδος φόβου, συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν, ἀγαθήν, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλεῖσθε(g) καταισχυνθῶσιν οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες ὑμῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν(h). 13 14

118

1 PETER

κρεῖττον γὰρ ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, εἰ θέλοι(i) τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ,, πάσχειν ἢ κακοποιοῦντας. θεοῦ κακοποιοῦντας. 17

(a) Various forms of this clause appear in the MS tradition (see ECM 158–59). Witnesses are divided over the category of condition employed in the text. While the third-class condition is best represented, some employ a different particle (εἰ: B, 049, 93, pc) or contain a verb in an alternate mood (Ψ: ἐστε; P72, ‫*א‬: γένεσθε; B: γένοισθε). These changes most likely arose either as a way to present the conditional idea with more certainty (i.e., to portray the readers as seeking good) or in conformity with the conditional sentence in v. 14. The most important difference involves the substitution of μιμηταί for ζηλωταί in the Byzantine tradition, a reading frequently defended in earlier scholarship (e.g., Jachmann 155; de Wette 39; Bloomfield 717; Wiesinger 220; Hofmann 116). Those who advocate this reading normally take ζηλωταί as a gloss brought into the text from Titus 2.14 (ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων). However, the weight of the MS evidence is clearly against this suggestion (ζηλωταί: P72, ‫א‬, A, B, C, Ψ, 81, 623, 1739, 1852, etc.). Numerous explanations could be given for the rise of μιμηταί, whether it be through the influence of 3 John 11, μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν (cf. Alford 361; Johnstone 227), or because of ‘the bad political connotation’ of ζηλωταί (Michaels 183 n. a; Achtemeier 228 n. 2; Forbes 113). Perhaps the most convincing is that it arose from the articular τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, which was taken as a masculine noun referring to either God or Christ and which thus led scribes to view μιμηταί as a more appropriate head noun (cf. Plumptre 128; Huther 150; Kühl 202). (b) Although the optative is securely attested in the earliest and most important MSS (including P72, ‫א‬, A, B, C, 5, 33, 1739, et al.) and is the established Byzantine reading, some MSS replaced πάσχοιτε with the indicative πάσχετε (Ψ, and many minuscules, including 61, 206, 252 et al.) or the subjunctive πάσχητε (43, 330, 1501, 2344). These changes indicate a sense that the optative was both uncommon and somewhat odd here (see Exegesis at 3.14). (c) ‫א‬, C, and a few minuscules supply ἐστε after μακάριοι (cf. arm, geo, slav), indicating what was taken to be the mood and tense of the implied verb and thus clarifying the verbless phrase. The addition, however, is doubtless secondary (cf. Schlosser 200 n. c, who proposes it may have arisen through the influence of Matt 5.11). (d) The words μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε are omitted in P72, B, L, also in C-S and some Latin texts. This shorter reading should be taken seriously (cf. Bethge, ‘Der Text des ersten Petrusbriefes’, 262), not simply because of the weight of these early witnesses, but also because a very plausible explanation could be offered for the addition: ‘They might conceivably have been inserted in a scribal attempt to complete the LXX quotation by linking the preceding words from Isa 8:12 with the allusion to 8:13 which immediately follows’ (Michaels 183 n. b). On balance, though, their inclusion in the initial text seems more likely. This is based on the strength of the MSS support (‫א‬, A, C, Ψ, 81, 1739,



3.13–17

119

1852, Byz, Clem) in combination with a situation that lends itself to homoioteleuton, the scribe’s eye having skipped from the ending of φοβηθῆτε to the same four letters at the end of ταραχθῆτε (cf. Metzger, TCGNT, 621). (e) The TR and Majority Text read θεόν here on the basis of P and many later minuscules (81, 323, 436, 623, 1735, 2344, 2541, 2718, Byz). However, much stronger support is provided for Χριστόν (P72, C-S, ‫א‬, A, B, C, Ψ, 1739, 1852, latt, sy, co, Clem). Despite this disparity, Howard (‘Tetragram and the New Testament’, 80–81) has argued for the priority of the former. His case rests on the hypothesis that the original Isaiah text contained the Tetragrammaton (hence, ‫ יהוה‬δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἁγιάσατε). Accordingly, when κύριον eventually replaced the divine name, it provided an opportunity for scribes to identify Χριστός as κύριος. The problem with Howard’s proposal is that it assumes a uniform treatment of the divine name in the manuscripts of the LXX (as noted by Jobes 233–34), which is contradicted by the evidence. Given the weight of the external testimony, it is difficult not to take θεόν as secondary, with scribes perhaps being influenced by the clear sense of κύριον in the quotation from Isa 8.13 (cf. Huther 150; Achtemeier 228 n. 4; Schreiner 197 n. 308). If this is correct, however, it represents an interesting scribal decision, wherein the preference to conform the text to the LXX overrides the christological emphases that are present elsewhere in the text of 1 Peter (see Text at 1.19 n. d; 2.3 n. f). (f) Ἀλλά is omitted in many later MSS (including K, L, P, but not in P72, as Elliott 629, incorrectly states) and is the established reading of the Majority Text. However, it is present in P72, ‫א‬, A, B, C, Ψ, and many minuscules and is undoubtedly to be accepted here. The omission is probably to be explained by ‘scribal misunderstanding of this less common use of ἀλλά’ (Dubis 112): scribes may have viewed a contrast—the function generally performed by the conjunction—as inappropriate to the flow and sense of the sentence and thus omitted it. (g) A longer phrase is found in some MSS. One strand of texts reads, καταλαλοῦσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν, ‘they malign you as evildoers’ (‫א‬, A, C, K, P, 049, 81, 93, 424, etc.). Another, represented in the TR of Stephanas and Scrivener as well as in the Majority Text of Robinson-Pierpont, employs the subjunctive form of the verb: καταλαλῶσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν (L, 323, 436, 623, 1243, 1735, 2344, 2464, 2541, 2718, etc.). While some earlier commentators defended the longer reading (e.g., Schott 207 n. 1; Hofmann 119; Keil 118–19; Huther 151), most now recognise that the shorter (found in P72, B, Ψ, 1739, 1852, and C-S) is to be preferred. The longer reading was most likely prompted by the phrasing of 1 Pet 2.12 (cf. Wohlenberg 102 n. 46; Feldmeier 192–93; Donelson 103 n. i) and perhaps its use of a rare passive form as well (cf. Elliott 630). (h) The closing phrase (τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν) has been subject to considerable variety in the textual tradition (see ECM 162–63). Support for the current reading is provided by ‫א‬2, A, C, P, Ψ, etc., with the

120

1 PETER

only variation in P72, K, L, 0142, etc. being to reverse the order of ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ. (i) Similar to v. 14, a few minuscules replace the unusual and somewhat surprising optative mood with either the indicative θέλει (e.g., 61, 365, 1241, 1735, et al.) or the subjunctive θέλῃ (1729).

Introduction Although these verses are generally taken as the beginning of a new sub-section of the letter (3.13–4.11), it is important also to notice how they remain tightly connected with what has preceded (a connection signalled by the καί). There are verbal connections not only with the quotation from Psalm 33 (LXX),1 but also with earlier parts of the instruction, particularly in the important words κακός and ἀγαθός (and their various compounds). There are notable parallels with the instruction given to wives in 3.1–6 as well (with the important exception of the instruction to be submissive, though a general call to this effect is made in 2.13). As Elliott notes, ‘[t]he behavior earlier urged of wives is now required of the entire community’.2 The significant parallels may be set out as follows: Theme concern with good ‘conduct’ ‘fear’ as a positive disposition focus on the heart

1 Pet 3.1–6 ἀναστροφή (3.1, 2) ἐν φόβῳ (3.2)

ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος (3.4) the value of τοῦ πραέως καὶ gentleness ἡσυχίου πνεύματος (3.4) hope αἱ ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς θεόν (3.5) doing what is good ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι (3.6) instruction not to be μὴ φοβούμεναι afraid μηδεμίαν πτόησιν (3.6)

1 Pet 3.13–17 τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν (3.16) καὶ φόβου (3.16) ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν (3.15) πραΰτητος (3.16)

τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος (3.15) ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (3.17) μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε (3.14)

1   As Michaels (184) notes: ‘The writer now brings the Scripture quotation of vv. 10–12 directly to bear on the situation of his readers’. 2   Elliott 619, with parallels listed in n. 230. See in more detail, Brown, ‘Silent Wives’, 396–97; Horrell, ‘Fear, Hope, and Doing Good’, 419–20.



3.13–17

121

Another notable comparison with what has preceded is the way in which exhortation to a pattern of conduct (3.13–17) is followed by the example of Christ (3.18–22), as in 2.18–25.3 Also of central influence in this particular passage, especially in vv. 14–15, is a quotation from Isa 8.12–13, as well as certain sayings from the Gospel traditions.4 Despite its important points of connection, both forwards and backwards, these four verses do form something of a unit, indicated by a number of marks of inclusio: κακώσων//κακοποιοῦντας (vv. 13, 17), ἀγαθοῦ//ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (vv. 13, 17), πάσχοιτε// πάσχειν (vv. 14, 17), as well as the unusual occurrences of the optative πάσχοιτε//θέλοι (vv. 14, 17).5 Furthermore, this passage is one in which the author’s central message—about the need to do good despite hostility and accusation—is very much to the fore. This does not mean, however, that the ‘main section’ of the letter begins here; that would be to downplay too much the importance of what precedes in 2.11–3.12.6 One new issue treated in this portion of the letter is ‘the need for Christians to be ready to give a public defense of their faith’.7 With this focus, 3.13–17 deals with the way in which Christians are to respond to suffering, in public and judicial contexts, a focus that is also treated in the first part of the final main section of the letter (4.12–19). Exegesis 13 Καὶ τίς ὁ κακώσων ὑμᾶς, ὑμᾶς, ἐὰν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ γένησθε; γένησθε; The καί with which this verse opens is not merely a linking copulative (omitted in some translations, e.g., NIV, NASB, CEB);8 it also carries some significance. Dubis suggests that it ‘introduces   Cf. Achtemeier 228–29; Elliott 619.   So Michaels 184. 5   On this ‘threefold inclusion’, see Elliott 619. 6   E.g., Achtemeier (229) sees here ‘the core of the author’s message’, following Kelly 139, who regards 3.13–end as ‘the main section of the letter’. Goppelt (238) opposes this idea, suggesting that the key theme here, ‘suffering as a result of social discrimination’ stands in a related polarity to the other key theme, treated previously, that of ‘just conduct in society’. 7   Achtemeier 229. 8   This interpretation was espoused by a few early commentators, who claimed that καί displays no connection with what precedes but marks a new thought (see Beza 573; Leusden 492; Monnier 159; cf. Jachmann 154). 3 4

122

1 PETER

a second motivational ground [after vv. 10–12] for verses 8–9’.9 Most recent commentators, however, take it more plausibly to indicate the drawing of some inference from what has preceded in vv. 10–12: ‘If God is on the side of the righteous and against those who do evil, what harm can possibly come to those who do good?’10 This inferential sense is perhaps best conveyed by the translation ‘then’ or ‘so’ (cf. CSB, NTE).11 The inferential question relates to the potential threat (using the rare future tense participle, κακώσων)12 facing those who pursue good works: ‘Who then will harm you if you become zealous to do good?’ Such a question may seem naïve in light of the repeated indications in the letter that suffering is already the experience of at least some of the readers and that they will likely continue to experience such hostility at the hands of their contemporaries (e.g., 1 Pet 1.6; 2.19; 3.6; 4.4, 12–19; 5.9–10).13 For this reason, many commentators have attempted to explain the referent of κακόω as   Dubis 105. Alternatively, Huther (168–69) claims that the present verse adds another reason for the exhortation to do good (v. 11): God is gracious towards the good while punishing the evil (v. 12); and those who do good will not be harmed (v. 13). 10   E.g., Michaels 185; Black 95–96; Wagner–Vouga 112. Due to the distance between the two, it would be incorrect to think that the author is drawing an inference from the responsibilities of governors (‘to punish evildoers and praise those who do good’) mentioned in 2.14, as suggested by some (e.g., Keating 83; Ostmeyer 69; cf. also Keener 257–58). 11   See Winer, Grammar, 545; BDF §442.2. For parallel uses, see Mark 10.26 and Luke 10.29. Recently, Rodgers has proposed taking this one step further claiming that ‘the Καὶ at 3:13 is not simply transitional or inferential, but actually signals the technique of stringing quotations together with the result that they mutually interpret each other (Gezera Shewa)’ (‘Question of 1 Peter 3:13’, 113; original emphasis). More specifically, he contends that τίς ὁ κακώσων ὑμᾶς in 1 Pet 3.13 is an echo of Isa 50.9. 12   There are only thirteen future-tense participles in the NT (see Wallace, Grammar, 567 with n. 3). To this list Dubis (106) adds Rom 8.34, though there is debate over whether the future tense (κατακρινῶν) or the present tense (κατακρίνων) was intended. 13   Other Christian writers, in fact, state the opposite. Cf. Acts 14.22: ‘strength� ening the souls of the disciples and encouraging them to continue in the faith, they said, “It is necessary (δεῖ) for us to enter into the kingdom of God through many persecutions (διὰ πολλῶν θλίψεων)” ’; 2 Tim 3.12: ‘Indeed, all (πάντες) who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (διωχθήσονται)’. 9



3.13–17

123

something other than persecution.14 The term is often read as though it were intended to contrast the threats facing the readers’ physical bodies with the lack of vulnerability of their immaterial soul:15 while the antagonists might cause bodily injury, they could never ‘harm’ the true self of the believer, the inner person of their soul (cf. Wis 3.1–4; Philo, Spec. 3.99; Matt 10.28).16 Similarly, the temporal threat of persecution can be set over against the eternal reward of faithfulness. According to this line of interpretation, enemies might cause the readers to suffer in the present, but this will not ultimately jeopardise a Christian’s status and eschatological inheritance as God’s chosen people (cf. Rom 8.31–39).17 These interpretations introduce further problems into the discussion, however. In the classical and Koine periods, when κακόω is used with reference to persons, it normally describes the act of mistreating or inflicting injury upon someone.18 This most commonly involved suffering related to one’s physical body. Similarly, in the LXX, the term is often connected with situations where violence or mistreatment commonly occurred, such as the institution of slavery (Gen 16.6; Exod 1.11; Sir 7.20), political domination (2 Macc 5.22; Jdt 11.1), and in relation to the marginalised of society (Exod 22.21; Job 22.9). Outside of the occurrence in 1 Peter, the verb appears elsewhere in the NT only in Acts, but here again it refers to the   Those who adopt this position often translate the question of v. 13 as, ‘Who, then, is able to really harm you?’ (cf. Weiss 317; Kühl 201; Bigg 157; Cranfield 97–98). 15   See, e.g., Usteri 137; Knopf 137; Wand 97; Stibbs–Walls 133; Kelly 140; Beare 163; Schelkle 100; Brox 157; Feldmeier 193; Prigent 96; Witherington 176. Some have specifically cautioned against this reading, however. Boring notes that this ‘kind of spiritualizing dualism in which the believer withdraws into the recesses of one’s own heart, while turning the world over to the powers of evil, is precisely what the social ethic of 1 Peter wants to avoid’ (130). 16   Similar sentiments are even found among Greek writers, e.g., Plato, Apol. 41d: οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνδρὶ ἀγαθῷ κακὸν οὐδὲν οὔτε ζῶντι οὔτε τελευτήσαντι, οὐδὲ ἀμελεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν τὰ τούτου πράγματα (‘no evil can come upon a good man, whether in life or after death, nor is his cause neglected by the gods’). 17   See, e.g., Best 131–32; Hillyer 107; Miller 259–60; Achtemeier 230; Elliott 620; Senior 97; Green 113; Powers 116; Watson 85; Schreiner 193; cf. Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium, 182–85; Miller, ‘Use of 1 Peter 3:13–17’, 198. 18   LSJ 864; TDNT 3:484. 14

124

1 PETER

suffering of the Hebrews in Egyptian bondage (Acts 7.6 [quoting Gen 15.13], 19) and to the ill-treatment and malice shown towards Christians in various places (Acts 12.1; 14.2; 18.10). From this, we would not want to deny, as some are prone to do, that κακόω could be used to denote internal distress, for such a usage is found in a number of other places.19 Nor would we reject the possibility that κακόω might represent eschatological ruin.20 This, too, seems to be well within the term’s semantic range.21 What must be stressed, however, is that the present verse provides no indication that κακόω means anything other than suffering experienced in the body. It is evident in the connection between v. 13 and v. 14: both the conjunction used to connect the two verses (ἀλλά) and the conditional element (εἰ καί + optative) employed in v. 14a indicate that the latter serves as a qualification of the comprehensive statement   There are various instances in which ‘harm’ is brought to the inner self. The term κακόω is used in connection with ψυχή, ‘mind’ or ‘soul’ (Num 29.7; 30.14; T.Sim. 3.4; Josephus, Ant. 15.158, 251; Plutarch, Per. 34.3; Cons. ux. 6 [Mor. 610B]; Porphyry, Christ. Frag. 69; cf. Philo, Agr. 152); καρδία, ‘heart’ (Eccl. 7.22; Sir 3.26); ἧπαρ, ‘liver’ (T.Sim. 4.1); and συνειδός, ‘conscience’ (Mart. Andr. A 18.3). 20   Nevertheless, it is important to consider how one reaches this conclusion. It would be a mistake, for instance, to interpret the future-tense participle κακώσων as an indication that the harm ‘probably refers to judgment day’ (Schreiner 193). It is true that this participial form denotes a future time; yet, this future reference is relative to that of its principal verb (see Robertson, Grammar, 877; Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 29–31). Since the verb γένησθε is an aorist subjunctive, some claim that it indicates a past time, ‘if you might have become’ (Alford 361; Davids 129). But the aorist subjunctive encodes perfective aspect, not necessarily past time, and within conditional sentences, this form normally has a future referent (cf. Matt 4.9; John 5.43). The point in this verse is to encourage the readers toward zealously pursuing good works in a way not previously attempted. As such, γένησθε denotes a future contingency (‘if you become zealous to do good’). All that can be deduced from the tense of the participle κακώσων, then, is a general temporality: it occurs after the readers begin to do good (which is true for all of the interpretations under discussion). 21   Although the parallel is not exact, the use of κακόω in 4 Macc 4.1 does reflect a similar usage to the one espoused by those who interpret the verb as eschatological ruin. In this verse, it states that ‘despite all manner of slander (διαβάλλων), Simon was not able to harm (οὐκ ἴσχυσεν κακῶσαι) Onias’. Even though the ‘harm’ in question relates to the compromising of Onias’ position within the religio-political hierarchy, it stands in contrast to the verbal attack that Onias received. 19



3.13–17

125

found in the former.22 If such a relationship exists between the two verses, then for continuity’s sake, the referent of ὁ κακώσων (v. 13) must be the same as πάσχοιτε (v. 14a). Further, since πάσχω is used elsewhere in 1 Peter to denote verbal or physical abuse under� gone during one’s lifetime (cf. 2.19, 20, 21, 23; 3.17, 18; 4.1bis, 15, 19; 5.10), then it is only natural to interpret κακόω as describing the same experience.23 So why then does the author make such a statement, if suffering is being experienced by, or is at least threatening, his audience?24 Occasionally these words are understood as indicating an optimism that the letter’s social strategy would be effective: if the readers practice good works, it will relieve much—although, perhaps, not all—of the tension with outsiders.25 This assumption is grounded in the expectation ‘that even among the pagans there is a general consensus of right and wrong that recognizes the goodness of Christian behavior to some extent’.26 In this way, the question of v. 13 functions like a proverbial statement, echoing a common sentiment that a good life will normally result in peace and social harmony.27 But while it is true that the reduction of social tension 22   Cf. Jobes 227; Dubis 106; Forbes 113. For further explanation and defence of this connection, see Exegesis at 3.14. 23   A particularly close parallel is found in Isa 50.9 LXX: ἰδοὺ κύριος βοηθεῖ μοι· τίς κακώσει με (‘Behold, the Lord helps me; who will harm me?’). 24   According to Liubinskas, the rhetorical question raised in v. 13 along with the use of the optative in v. 14 are closely related to the threat of retaliation mentioned in 3.9–12. In particular, these verses are thought to ‘suggest that there are some members of these communities who are in fact engaging in retaliation. Thus, what follows is an implicit warning to stop’ (‘Who’s Stumbling?’, 231). Since, however, 1 Peter is a circular letter addressed to a variety of Christian communities across Asia Minor, both their experience(s) of persecution and their response(s) to it would have been quite diverse. It is perhaps unwise, therefore, to postulate specific reactions within the Anatolian communities on the basis of mirror-reading. 25   Those who espouse this view include: Windisch 69; Holmer–de Boor 122; Davids 129–30; Hiebert 222; McKnight 212–13; Skaggs 48. Cf. also Souček, ‘Das Gegenüber von Gemeinde und Welt’, 201; Kelhoffer, Persecution, Persuasion, and Power, 118–19. 26   Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 173; cf. Marshall 113–14. 27   See Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 11.18.4: τί γάρ σοι ποιήσει ὁ ὑβριστι­ κώτατος, ἐὰν διατελῇς εὐμενὴς αὐτῷ (‘for what will the most insolent person do to you, if you remain well-disposed toward him’); Plato, Resp. 351d: ἡ δὲ δικαιοσύνη ὁμόνοιαν καὶ φιλίαν (‘righteousness begets agreement and

126

1 PETER

might have been possible if the ethical standards prescribed by the Petrine author were entirely congruent with those espoused by non-believers, the problem was that certain commitments emphasised by the author did not align with the common standards of the wider society (e.g., refusal to ‘revere’ the emperor, or to follow the religious practices of one’s husband), and it was these that likely caused serious conflict. For this reason, the author stresses that good works often cause suffering (2.20; 3.16–17). Given that the author considers the potential of righteous suffering elsewhere in the epistle, it is better to interpret this rhetorical question in connection with the ethical strategy of 1 Peter. Throughout the letter, the Petrine author goes to great lengths to demonstrate the need for good works. The conclusion that is drawn in 3.13 is intended to help persuade readers toward that ultimate end. It does so by drawing a conclusion from the scriptural text that extends beyond the psalmist’s own declarations. In the larger context of the psalm that is quoted, the psalmist anticipates deliverance ‘from’ the suffering that overtakes him. This is evident from the construction that is employed (Ps 33.18: ἐκ πασῶν τῶν θλίψεων αὐτῶν ἐρρύσατο αὐτούς, 20: ἐκ πασῶν αὐτῶν ῥύσεται αὐτούς). While ῥύομαι + ἐκ can denote removal from something before it becomes an experienced reality (see 2 Tim 4.17), in this passage it reflects deliverance or separation from something that was a present experience at the time of removal (cf. Rom 7.24; Col 1.13), as indicated by Ps 33.20a (‘many are the afflictions of the righteous’). The Petrine author, on the other hand, interprets the psalm as implying that those who live a life marked by good conduct will be spared from suffering. In this way, the optimism with which he approaches the topic of unjust suffering goes beyond that of the psalmist. Since he is not forced into this conclusion by the scriptural citation, it seems that he has purposefully moved the discussion in this direction. The decision to draw such an interpretative conclusion from the psalm allows the Petrine author to introduce a worst-case scenario that is actually not as bad as some might have imagined. What v. 14 will suggest is that even if Christians do experience persecu�tion when they live righteously, they receive God’s blessing. As the friendship’). Cf. also Sir 7.1: μὴ ποίει κακά, καὶ οὐ μή σε καταλάβῃ κακόν (‘Do not practise evil, and evil will not overtake you’).



3.13–17

127

author now begins to address the question of suffering more fully, this strategy represents a less direct way of introducing the topic. By removing the sting of persecution, he also eliminates the one thing standing between his audience and a Christ-like existence: fear of persecution and death (3.14b). This is the intended outcome that the argument has been driving towards all along. If the Christian life—whether lived out in suffering or in peace—is comprehensively more rewarding than a life lived in sin, then there is no reason to fear those who wish to do believers harm. Regardless of their experience, Christians find themselves in a privileged position. Knowing this, the readers are free to live out their lives under the lordship of Christ, despite the trials that may result (3.15–16). The conclusion that no one will cause the audience harm is predicated on a third-class condition, with ἐάν plus the subjunctive (γένησθε), depicting something ‘uncertain… but still likely’.28 The implicit exhortation is that the readers be(come) τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταί. Interpreting ζηλωτής in light of its Jewish background, Martin has suggested that the phrase ‘refers to the ardent adherence to one’s religious tradition’.29 In support, he draws on similar uses from the NT, where the Jewish people are described as being ‘zealous’ for the Torah (Acts 21.20; cf. 2 Macc 4.2). Paul identifies himself in this way, recounting how he was ‘zealous’ for the traditions of his ancestors (Gal 1.14; cf. Acts 22.3). Some have seen here an allusion to the movement identified as that of the ‘Zealots’ that sought to restore the religious and political life of their people by expelling Rome from the province of Judaea (cf. Luke 6.15; Acts 1.13).30 From this evidence, Martin concludes that ζηλωτής is intended to emphasise the religious (rather than the moral) commitment of the readers. Contributing further to this interpretation is   Wallace, Grammar, 696; cf. Porter, Idioms, 261–63. The use of γίνομαι here is equivalent to εἰμί and does not necessarily imply that the readers are not already committed to what is good (see Michaels 185). 29   Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 287; cf. van Unnik, ‘Redemption in 1 Peter I 18–19’, 65–66. 30   Reicke argues that this term calls to mind the Jewish ‘zealots’ of the early 60s CE, the timeframe he suggests for 1 Peter. He, therefore, concludes that ‘the author undoubtedly has in mind these Jewish fanatics and warns against their terroristic methods’ (107, cf. also xvi–xxii; cf. Benson 249). As Elliott bluntly remarks, however, this ‘is pure speculation that finds no support in this text or its wider context’ (621). 28

128

1 PETER

the genitive modifier τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, which Martin understands as a euphemistic description of God (‘the Good One’).31 Accordingly, the condition upon which the readers would avoid harm is if they became zealous for God. But by examining one term in isolation from the other, the case that Martin presents is not entirely convincing. Had the author wished to instruct his audience to be(come) zealous for God, a much simpler description would have been τοῦ θεοῦ ζηλωταί, a phrase which is found elsewhere (cf. Acts 22.3).32 The use of τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ as a reference to God would have been confusing given that such a title is nowhere else employed for the divine,33 and that ἀγαθός 31   See Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 288. Others have similarly taken the articular adjective ἀγαθός as a masculine form and thus as a reference to God (e.g., Macknight 476; Doddridge 208; Bengel 66). A few have even connected the designation to Christ (Weiss, Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, 213; cf. Wordworth 59 and Masterman 126, who are open to this possibility depending on the textual reading). 32   The same phrase is also found in secular literature as well. When the term ζηλωτής appears, it generally denotes one who emulates or follows another. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.38: ‘it stands to reason that practically all the kings among Greeks or barbarians who have proved themselves not unworthy of this title have been disciples and emulators of this god [i.e., Zeus] (τοῦ θεοῦ τούτου μαθητάς τε καὶ ζηλωτάς)’ (trans. Cohoon [LCL]); Epictetus, Diatr. 2.14.13: ‘in everything he says and does, he must act as an imitator of God (ὡς θεοῦ τοίνυν ζηλωτήν)’ (trans. Oldfather [LCL]). 33   Martin (Metaphor and Composition, 288) cites Rom 5.7 as an example of this usage (see further idem, ‘The Good as God’, 55–70). The lynchpin of Martin’s argument in that verse is the presence of the article before ἀγαθός (which is absent before δίκαιος). A closer look, however, seems to suggest that the progression (μόλις… τάχα) of Paul’s argument is grounded in the quality or value of the object of sacrifice. In other words, sacrificing one’s life for a ‘good man’ is seen as more plausible than simply for a ‘righteous man’. The idea of sacrificing one’s life on behalf of another was a possibility discussed in the literature of the ancient world (cf. T.Ash. 2.3; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.7.3; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 7.12; John 15.13). Often there was some (justifiable) reason for this type of sacrifice, usually a close or intimate relationship with the one sacrificing themselves, such as a friend, relative, patron/benefactor (cf. Ps.-Demetrius, Epistolary Types 21; Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 4.7.5). Based on these considerations, the article before ἀγαθοῦ is most likely meant to denote a familiar class or category of persons (see Moule, Idiom Book, 111; Wallace, Grammar, 233). As such, it refers to an elite member of society (commonly referred to by the interchangeable designations εὐεργέτης or ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, see I.Smyrna 616) who performed civic benefaction (cf. Clark, ‘Good and Just’, 128–42).



3.13–17

129

was just employed in the scriptural citation (v. 11) to denote a moral quality. It is more likely, then, that τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ should be understood as neuter (‘the good’). This designation could potentially still carry religious connotations, though it is important to consider how and when the term is used in connection with ἀγαθός. While similar collocations appear occasionally in Jewish literature,34 this exact phrase is employed in Greek inscriptions honouring civic benefactors.35 Scattered throughout the epigraphic record are injunctions to become ζηλωταί τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ/τῶν ἀγαθῶν. One example is found in an honorary decree recognising the benevolent practices of a wealthy citizen from Acraephia named Epaminondas: …wherefore after such acts it is right that good men (τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν) of such magnanimity and patriotism receive recognition in the form of honors and grants. For all these reasons the archons, councilors and demos decided to praise (ἐπ̣αινέσαι) the aforesaid man Epaminondas for the intense goodwill he has had for his ancestral city and magnanimity toward the Boeotian League, for with the embassy he was helping also his ancestral city; secondly, to honor him with a gold crown and a bronze portrait, to good fortune; and thirdly, that those who shall afterwards be appointed agonothetae at the games to be carried out by them call him on each occasion to a front seat like the other benefactors (εὐεργέτας), so that with these things being so accomplished our city may appear grateful to its benefactors and many may become emulators of his good deeds when the previous good deeds for the city receive recognition (πολλοί τε ζηλ{ηλ}ωταὶ γείνων[τ]αι τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῶν εἰς τὴν πόλιν μαρτυρουμένων τῶν πρώτων)… (IG VII 2712, ll. 87–100)36

  See Sir 51.18: ‘For I intended to practice her [i.e., wisdom], and I sought the good (ἐζήλωσα τὸ ἀγαθόν), and I will not be ashamed’. Cf. also 11Q5 21.15: ‫קנאתי בטוב‬, where ‫ טוב‬means ‘pleasure’. 35   This connection appears to be recognised by Danker, who argues (seemingly on this basis) that, ‘First Peter calls on the addressees to identify with the contemporary culture in “zeal for the good” ’ (‘Sociological Perspective’, 86). 36   Trans. adapted from Oliver, ‘Epaminondas of Acraephia’, 235–36. Cf. also SEG 19:834; IosPE I2 53. 34

130

1 PETER

In addition to this example where the positive form of the adjective ἀγαθός is used in connection with ζηλωτής, similar variations in the inscriptional record also appear with some frequency. For instance, on a few occasions, ζηλωτής is employed with the superlative form of ἀγαθός (‘emulate the noblest qualities/deeds’),37 while it appears much more frequently with the superlative form of καλός.38 Using this same formula, reference is also made to the emulation of good deeds without specific mention of the ἀγαθός. In other words, rather than stating that the intention of an honorary decree was to encourage others to become emulators of good deeds (πολλοί τῶν ἀγαθῶν ζηλωταὶ γίνωνται), inscriptions often make reference to good deeds indirectly: e.g., ἕτεροι ζηλωταὶ τῶν ὁμοίων γίνωνται (‘so that others might emulate the same qualities/ deeds’).39 Two things become clear from this evidence. First, when used in connection with the ζηλωτής in the Greek world, the adjective ἀγαθός (‘good’) usually referred to positive material contributions toward one’s fellow citizens. In the case of Epaminondas, the munificent pattern that others were encouraged to follow included the funding of numerous festivals and banquets, the performance of civic magistracies, the repair of a large dike which protected the city, and even the undertaking of an embassy to the emperor on behalf of the Boeotian League. Second, the language indicates not so much a concern about the enthusiasm   IG XII,7 231; Ramsay, ‘Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor’, 300–302 (§24).   I.Sestos 1: ‘ …therefore, in order that all might know that Sestos is hospi�table to men of exceptional character and ability (τοὺς καλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν τιμῶν), especially those who from their earliest youth have shown themselves devoted to the common good and have given priority to the winning of a glorious reputation, and that the People might not appear remiss in their gratitude, and that also all others, as they see the People bestowing honors on exceptional men (τοῖς καλοῖς καὶ ἀγαθοῖς), might emulate the noblest qualities (ζηλωταὶ μὲν τῶν καλλίστων γίνωνται) and be moved to arête, to the end that the common good might be advanced as all aim ever to win a reputation for doing something beneficial (καλῶν) for our home city… ’ (ll. 86–92; trans. adapted from Danker, Benefactor, 95). Cf. also I.Eph. 6; IG XII,Sup 249, 553; Cousin and Diehl, ‘Cibyra et Eriza’, 334–40 (no. 4); Petersen–Luschan, RLMK 19; IG II2 1028; IG XII,7 232–234; IG XII,9 236; I.Mylasa 109; I.Iasos 98; I.Priene 110. 39   Cf. IG XII,9 234, 236, 239, 899; I.Délos 1507–1508, 1520–1521; I.Sardis VII 4; IG VII 411; IG II2 1006, 1039, 1043, 1343; IG IV 558; TAM II 168; I.Perge 14, 23; IG X,2.1 4; I.Pergamon 253; I.Leros 3. 37 38



3.13–17

131

with which one approaches a task or commitment (‘zealous to do good’) but more about following a particular standard (‘emulate the good’)—although eagerness and zeal would likely contribute toward becoming an imitator. When applied to the use of τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταί in 1 Peter, it seems that the phrase τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταί should be interpreted in light of the prominence attributed to terminology related to ‘doing good’ and performing ‘good works’. Elsewhere, we have discussed how this language, which was often used to represent the activities of the wealthy and privileged, was appropriated and transformed by the Petrine author. Rather than defining the ‘good’-ness of actions based on what they contributed to the civic community, the ‘good’ in 1 Peter represents thoughts or acts that are positively evaluated by God. Within this context, the term ζηλωτής most naturally reflects a moral or ethical commitment.40 The question that is asked of the readers in v. 13 is, who will harm them if they emulate the good conduct that the letter prescribes, particularly since those who practice such deeds are the very ones whom God protects (vv. 10–12). 14 ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι μακάριοι.. Having assured the readers that harm will not come to those who eagerly pursue good, the author immediately addresses the possibility that suffering might nonetheless be inflicted upon them. As such, v. 14a serves as a qualification of the more general, allencompassing statement found in v. 13.41 This is apparent from the presence of ἀλλά, which signifies that the rule in v. 13 (doing good results in the avoidance of harm) is not without exceptions. While harm is ordinarily avoided through proper conduct, this may not always be the case. Verse 14a acknowledges these exceptions and then spells out the consequences of the rule’s contradiction. The idea seems to be as follows: ‘the one who maintains good conduct will not be harmed, but if this does occur…’.   Even within a Jewish context, this terminology can carry moral (and not strictly, religious) connotations (see Josephus, War 4.161). 41   Those who interpret κακώσων (v. 13) as a reference to either internal injury or a type of eschatological ruin (see Exegesis at 3.13) generally understand v. 14a as a restatement or a further explanation of the previous verse (see, e.g., Michaels 185; Feldmeier 194; Schreiner 194). 40

132

1 PETER

The conditional element in v. 14a also reveals its role as a qualification. Elsewhere, when this same construction (εἰ καί + optative) appears, it normally serves to qualify a general principle or a seemingly unswerving promise.42 This is due to the fact that καί is located within the conditional element (‘even if’).43 Philo’s explanation of the relationship between virtuous living and bodily ailment provides a very close parallel both grammatically and conceptually: Therefore, [Moses] says that to those who practice virtue and who make the sacred laws their chief concern in the words and deeds of their lives, both privately and publicly, [God] will grant freedom from sickness in every (ἅπαν) respect. But even if any ailment should arise (εἰ δὲ καὶ γένοιτό τις ἀσθένεια), it will not be for the sake of injuring them but to remind the mortal that he is mortal… (Praem. 119).

Even though Philo states unswervingly that virtuous living would prevent all (ἅπαν) sickness and disease, he is able to turn back around and offer a qualification to this (seemingly) inflexible principle.44 This is exactly how 1 Pet 3.14a functions in its present context. Following on the heels of the confident assertion in v. 13, the verse describes the possibility and result of the principle’s violation. In both Philo and 1 Peter, there is a reason why this type of language must be used: it flows from a desire not to contradict the promises of Scripture, despite its seeming contradiction in everyday life. The prospect of suffering is depicted by a (partial) fourth-class condition (εἰ + πάσχοιτε in the protasis).45 Among grammarians,   E.g., Isa 49.15 (LXX); 4 Macc 14.17; Let. Aris. 297; Philo, Post. 115; Praem. 119; Leg. 3.176; Fug. 160; Mos. 1.68; Legat. 117, 192, 339; Josephus, Ant. 2.326; 15.36, 101, 164, 277, 284bis; War 2.443; 3.44, 298. 43   See Hart 66: ‘The addition of καί implies that the contingency is unlikely to occur and is best represented by an emphasis on should’. 44   Cf. Isa 49.15 (LXX): ‘Will a woman forget her child so as to show no mercy to the offspring of her womb? But even if a woman might forget these (εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐπιλάθοιτο ταῦτα γυνή), yet I will not forget you, says the Lord’; Let. Aris. 297: ‘Therefore, it is not proper to lie concerning the public records; but even if I were going to transgress in a certain area (εἰ δὲ καί τι παραβαίην), it would not be in such a holy matter as this’. 45   During the Hellenistic period, the optative was on the decline, and many of its duties began to be encroached upon and even taken over by the subjunctive (see 42



3.13–17

133

this construction is generally thought to indicate a future contingency with a possible or, in many cases, only a remote chance of fulfillment (e.g., ‘if this could happen’).46 As such, it seems to imply not the reality of suffering, but merely the remote possibility. Such an interpretation, of course, would be contrary to the commonly agreed upon situational background of the letter’s readers.47 Various proposals have been made to reconcile these differences. One approach has been to explain the condition’s function in light of the unpredictability that results from an encyclical address.48 Since the recipients were spread over a large geographical area, it is said that one group might not find itself in the exact same circumstances as another. Furthermore, the suffering faced by these Christians was not of a continual nature. In this situation, the optative is thought to express the fact that they ‘live in an environment charged with suspicion and hostility, which has erupted and can erupt into violence and persecution at any time’.49 The fourth-class condition thus allows the author to address a diverse readership, which is experiencing a variegated set of trials and tribulations. Another view, which is sometimes combined with the previous approach, is to describe the use of the fourth-class condition as a part of the author’s rhetorical and tactful attempt to prevent any further grief for his audience.50 That is, he seeks to describe their Jannaris, Greek Grammar, 450, 462). As a result, there are no complete fourthclass conditions (i.e., εἰ + optative in the protasis along with ἄν + optative in the apodosis) in the NT, although some incomplete constructions (either protasis or apodosis) do appear. Yet this designation is employed to maintain continuity with the terminology found in modern grammatical works. 46   See Robertson, Grammar, 1020–22; BDF §385(2); MHT 3:122–24; Porter, Idioms, 263–64; Wallace, Grammar, 699–701. Cf. also Roberts, ‘Use of Conditional Sentences’, 230–48. 47   See Introduction: Socio-Historical Context. For a fuller treatment of this issue, see Williams, ‘Reading Social Conflict’, 119–60. 48   So, e.g., Kelly 141; Brox 158; Grudem 176–78; Jobes 227–28; Green 114; Witherington 177–78; Dubis 107; Vahrenhorst 147; Schreiner 195; cf. also Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake’, 439; Légasse, ‘La soumission aux autorités’, 395 n. 2; Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 217 n. 281; Dubis, Messianic Woes, 74–75. 49   Achtemeier 230–31; cf. Boring 131; Black 96; Schlosser 201; Miller, ‘Use of 1 Peter 3:13–17’, 199. 50   So, e.g., Best 132; Goppelt 241; Eve 1267; Witherington 177–78; Forbes 114; Doriani 136; Cf. also Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §323; Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake’, 439; Starwalt, ‘1 Peter’, 618–19.

134

1 PETER

sufferings in an indirect manner, because he considers that they do not need any further reminder of its stark reality. In this way, Goppelt suggests that the author ‘emphasizes the openness of the situation in order to protect the Church from fatalistic resignation and to encourage it toward a positive form of conduct in the sense of the principle advanced in 2:12’.51 While these solutions have seemed to carry the day in recent discussions, they are inadequate explanations of the problems that surround the use of the fourth-class condition. The proposals arise not out of the immediate context or even out of a close examination of the semantics of the condition, but out of general assumptions regarding the descriptions of suffering found elsewhere in the epistle. As a result, the grammatical form is assigned its meaning in light of what many perceive to be clear contextual indicators.52 When assessing the degree of probability represented by the condition, some argue that it indicates that suffering is possible, but by no means inevitable;53 hence, many choose to stress the   Goppelt 241.   See, e.g., Brox 158; Green 114; Schreiner 194–95. Some grammarians have also reconsidered the semantics of the fourth-class condition based on the dramatic shift in the usage of the subjunctive and the optative during the Koine period. One example is Boyer, who uses this consideration to challenge the validity of the distinction between moods in conditional sentences. The problem, according to Boyer, is that the degree of potentiality covered by the third-class condition spans the entirety of the spectrum from certainty to impossibility. That is, it covers not only its customary functions from the classical period (i.e., a more probable future contingency) but also the tasks once performed by the fourth-class condition (i.e., a less probable future contingency). Consequently, he would say, ‘degree of potentiality is a factor within all moods, but it is not a distinguishing factor between the moods… The mood used does not in any sense indicate how confident one can be that something will or will not happen’ (‘Third [and Fourth] Class Conditions’, 171; original emphasis). The problem with Boyer’s approach is that he attributes little to no value to a consciously selected form (for critique, see Wallace, Grammar, 700). What is not taken into account is that this overlap took place in only one direction—the subjunctive encroached upon the duties of the optative. This did not annul the optative’s meaning when it was employed. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be the case: the distinct characteristics of this usage actually became more pronounced. 53   Cf. Steiger 2:185: ‘εἰ with the optative, puts the case as quite possible’. Others also stress the fact that the fourth-class condition describes suffering that is genuinely possible but by no means inevitable (e.g., Monnier 160; Holmer–de Boor 122; Davids 130; Bénétreau 198 n. 1; Hiebert 223; Boring 131; Senior 94; Jobes 227–28). 51 52



3.13–17

135

uncertainty communicated by the condition.54 Others place much greater emphasis on the condition’s fulfillment, even going so far as to claim that it represents a likely occurrence.55 Many of the suggestions made about the fourth-class condition are difficult to sustain, however. Within classical Greek, this construction indicated a future contingency whose fulfillment was considered more remote than had the third-class condition been employed.56 Although the optative—and thus the fourth-class condition—was on the decline during the Koine period (as the subjunctive was encroaching upon many of its duties), when it was employed, it appears to have signalled a notable shift from what would have been communicated by a more elastic form (i.e., the subjunctive). The meaning that it conveyed is what set it apart from other moods, namely, its denotation of a more remote sense of possibility. In this way, the meaning of the fourth-class condition in the Koine period should mirror classical usage very closely. Verification of this grammatical hypothesis is afforded by the use of the fourth-class condition in comparative literature as well as by an examination of the immediate context. In contemporary Jewish and Christian literature, this protasis (εἰ + optative) conveys a future contingency whose fulfillment ranges between uncertainty

54   Cf. Blenkin 72: ‘εἰ with an optative expresses a contingency which is regarded as being quite uncertain’. See also Best 132; Knoch 96–97; Brox 157–58; Witherington 177; Green 114; cf. Charles, “Volonté de Dieu”, 377–78. Based on the use of the optative for prayers and requests, some have even claimed that the optatives in the present verse and in v. 17 ‘point less to what is possible than to what is desirable, namely, upright behavior even if it leads to suffering’ (Elliott 622; cf. Osborne 219). 55   Based on the consideration that ‘the phrase εἰ καί (“even if”) can describe a condition either already fulfilled or most likely to be’, Achtemeier argues that, ‘the optative πάσχοιτε (“you suffer”) has an implication here other than remote potentiality’ (230). He suggests, instead, that the optative is employed to describe a ‘sporadic reality’ (231). In support of his thesis that εἰ καί can denote either a condition that has already been fulfilled or one that is likely to be fulfilled, he provides numerous scriptural examples. What Achtemeier overlooks, however, is that it is the conditional particle plus the verb that gives a conditional sentence its meaning or sense. Every example he produces is constructed with an indicative verb (i.e., the protasis of a first-class condition). By its very nature this construction conveys the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. This, of course, is a completely different type of conditional sentence altogether. 56   See Schwyzer, Grammatik, 686.

136

1 PETER

and improbability.57 This provides a range within which to interpret the construction in the present verse. Based on the adversative ἀλλά and the use of καί within the conditional element, we have argued above that v. 14a is intended to serve as a qualification of the general claim made in v. 13. This is crucial for diagnosing the meaning of the fourth-class condition. If the Petrine author desires v. 13 to possess any sort of validity, the condition must communicate a future contingency with only a remote chance of fulfillment (‘Even if you happen to suffer for righteousness—and it is not likely that you will—you would be blessed’). Were the condition to function otherwise, the effect of v. 13 would be lost; the author would be responsible for a clear contradiction within the space of two verses. So, despite the tendency to read the condition otherwise, we cannot force a different meaning on the usage in v. 14a, even if it appears to contradict our understanding of the epistle’s broader context.58 57   In the NT, there are only three instances of this particular construction (aside from those in 1 Peter) that function as genuine conditions. But even among these examples, two are more or less stereotypical parentheses (1 Cor 14.10; 15.37). So the only genuine parallel is found in Acts 24.19, where the condition presents an improbability. The LXX contains approximately twenty-five occurrences of εἰ + optative, with a large percentage coming from the Atticistic 4 Maccabees. Of these, only seven function as genuine conditions. The scale of potentiality found within these examples spans from uncertainty (1 Sam 24.20[19]; Job 20.23; 4 Macc 12.4) to high improbability (Isa 49.15; 4 Macc 14.17) and even to the hypothetical (Job 6.2; 34.14). Turning to extra-biblical literature, we find the same type of pattern. Twenty-six examples appear in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha, with the large majority (22 occurrences) being found in the Letter of Aristeas. But again, not all are used conditionally. Approximately eighteen are employed in this manner (Sib. Or. 4.171; Let. Aris. 189, 190, 191, 197, 205, 207bis, 211, 212, 224, 232, 244, 246, 248, 258, 263, 297). All of these except one denote a sense of uncertainty. However, this number can be misleading. For sixteen of the eighteen occurrences appear in the same formula. If these examples are viewed as one collective voice, the numbers would be much more uniform—two examples of uncertainty (Sib. Or. 4.171; evidence from the Letter of Aristeas) and one example of improbability (Let. Aris. 297). The Apostolic Fathers yield substantially fewer examples. In this corpus there are seven instances of εἰ + optative; however, only two function as genuine conditions. Of these, one seems to be consigned to the realm of uncertainty (Herm. Sim. 9.12.4), while the other is closer towards improbability (Diogn. 2.10). 58   It is unnecessary, however, to suggest that 1 Peter is a composite document, with the latter half (1 Pet 4.12–5.14) addressing a situation where persecution was a painful reality and the former half (1 Pet 1.1–4.11) describing a situation where suffering was only a possibility (see Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and



3.13–17

137

What is important to recognise—especially as it relates to the function of the letter’s good works motif—is that this passage does not indicate any kind of naivety on the part of the Petrine author. It is not as though he expects the good deeds of his audience to fully and finally alleviate the conflict in which they are involved.59 Rather, the passage is simply a way of helping the readers properly respond to the challenging reality of their current experience. The purpose of v. 14a is to help uphold the ethic that is encouraged throughout the epistle (viz. doing good and performing good works) by maintaining the optimism of v. 13 (thereby preserving the neces� sity of good works as spelled out in vv. 10–12) and by establishing the value of righteous suffering (and thus the need for righteousness). This strategy is intended to persuade the readers to embrace a life of good works at all costs and in the face of any opposition. The author makes clear that he is not referring to just any form of suffering, but specifically suffering for doing what is right (cf. 2.20). Here, διά indicates the cause or reason for such suffering. This represents a marked departure from how the same language is employed elsewhere. Normally, in the ancient Greek world, when something occurred διὰ δικαιοσύνην, it involved a positive outcome generated by one’s quality of character.60 In this case, the opposite outcome is expected: δικαιοσύνη generates suffering. This is an indication that the Petrine author is using the term in a way that differs from how it would have been defined in the wider society. Structure). The portrayal of righteous suffering as a remote possibility does not reflect a correspondence with the actual experience of the author (pace Wallace, Grammar, 484); instead, it is part of the author’s paraenetic strategy (see Exegesis at 3.13). 59   The passage thus runs counter to the interpretation adopted by Kelhoffer, who proposes that the good deeds of Christians are viewed as a viable solution to persecution: ‘At the time of the letter’s composition, the addressees had not yet taken the author’s advice of persisting in doing good and by such a faithful witness trying to win over their oppressors. By following this advice, the author opines that there is only a minimal chance of facing further hardships’ (Persecution, Persuasion, and Power, 119). Understood from this angle, Kelhoffer thus describes the author’s strategy of good works as ‘an audacious, if not naïve, optimism’ (110). 60   Plutarch describes how Callicratidas was ‘worthy to compete with the most eminent Greeks because of his righteousness (διὰ δικαιοσύνην), magnanimity, and valour’ (Lys. 7.1; cf. Herodotus, Hist. 7.164.2; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.14.109). Similarly, Ps.-Clement, Hom. 9.22.5 refers to being ‘honoured because of righteousness (διὰ δικαιοσύνην)’ (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.291).

138

1 PETER

The term δικαιοσύνη was originally used in Greek literature to describe the fulfilment of one’s duties with regard to the laws and customs of society, particularly as it related to justice or fairness in a judicial context. But eventually it came to be employed as a more general term of virtue to describe the performance of one’s duties, whether they be political, social, ethical, or religious.61 While δικαιοσύνη in 1 Peter reflects the concept of a faithful commitment to a set of given standards, what distinguishes its meaning from secular uses is the source for defining standards (and thus, the standards themselves). In 1 Peter, it is God who defines what is ‘right’ or ‘proper’, not societal rules and customs. In contrast to the writings of Paul, the use of δικαιοσύνη here does not refer to a declaration of one’s right standing before God, via faith in Christ, which represents a death to sin and enables a life of holiness.62 As elsewhere in the epistle (2.24 is an exception, with close Pauline parallels), the δικαιο- word group is the equivalent to ἀγαθο- word group.63 This is evident from their parallel uses elsewhere (e.g., δίκαιος, 1 Pet 3.12//ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν, 3.11; δίκαιος, 4.18//ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ, 4.19). In the present verse, the connection between vv. 13 and 14 indicates that δικαιοσύνη carries the same meaning as τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταί. It is difficult to capture the nuances of the word in an English translation. The term is commonly rendered ‘righteousness’ (NAB, NASB, RSV, ESV, HCSB). But this has the potential to confuse the situation, especially given that it is also commonly used for the same term in Pauline literature, where it carries a different meaning. Some translations are closer to the mark when they render the phrase, ‘suffer for doing what is right’ (NRSV; cf. NIV, NET). But even this does not fully capture the notion   See TDNT 2:192–93.   There is no need to import any Pauline concepts, as is attempted by Best, who states, ‘their suffering is not suffering in general but that which comes because they are Christians, i.e., because they have the gift of righteousness (Rom. 3:20–5:21) and therefore strive after righteous living’ (132–33). On the other hand, it would be incorrect to conclude that the different meanings assigned to δικαιοσύνη here and in the Pauline corpus ‘adds to the evidence throughout the letter illustrating the Petrine author’s independence from the formulations of Paul and his sphere of influence’ (Elliott 536). It is possible to borrow from or to be influenced by a source without the wholesale adoption of all its perspectives and idiosyncrasies. 63   Cf. Hiebert 224; Elliott 622; Donelson 104; Schreiner 195. 61 62



3.13–17

139

that this is a pattern of right-living arising from an obedient relationship to God. A paraphrase might be necessary to accurately capture the meaning of the phrase: ‘but even if you should suffer because of your commitment to living in the way that God defines as good, then you are blessed’. What the text thus makes clear is that pursuing ἀγαθός, while it may include patterns of behaviour widely accepted and recognised as good, may also entail actions that are the cause of hostility and suffering.64 In such cases, the author insists, the readers are μακάριοι (‘blessed’). This represents one of two makarisms in the epistle (cf. 4.14). Such formal pronouncements of good fortune can be found as far back as the time of Aristotle (Rhet. 367b), but the influence on the Petrine author likely derives from the teachings of Jesus (cf. Matt 5.3–12//Luke 6.20–23).65 Both times in 1 Peter, blessedness is pronounced upon those who suffer. No verb is supplied (as also in 4.14), but some form of εἰμί is implied, and the present (rather than future) is most likely (again as in 4.14), probably in the indicative mood (i.e., ἐστε, cf. Text at 3.14 n. c).66 Here there is an echo of the beatitude from Matt 5.10, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης (cf. also Matt 5.11//Luke 6.22; Jas 1.12; also Pol. Phil. 2.3). Indeed, it is most plausible to see this phrase as an adaptation of this dominical saying.67 Again, 64   Some Petrine interpreters are hesitant to attribute a causal link between good works and suffering, but this is one of the clear instances where doing good is shown to generate persecution (cf. Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, esp. 255–57; Holm, ‘Holy Engagement’, 112). 65   Earlier examples in Jewish literature are also known (e.g., Dan 12.12; Sir 25.7–10; Tob 13.14; 1 En. 58.2; 4Q525). 66   For an implied present, see, e.g., NIV, NRSV. For the future, see, e.g., RSV, ESV. What the mood would have been is more difficult to determine. Wallace (Grammar, 484) assumes an optative or subjunctive (‘you would be blessed’), but notes the possibility of an indicative ἐστε (700 n. 41), as in some MSS, and notes that tenses in other such conditional phrases in the NT are sometimes mixed (484; e.g., Acts 24.19). Caragounis (Development of Greek, 182, 186–88) argues for the indicative, as does Dubis (107–108). 67   See Introduction: Jesus-Traditions and Gospel Materials. It is impossible to determine how the author knew of this saying, though it is entirely plausible that he knew some of the Gospel traditions through their circulation and preservation in Christian communities. There is no good reason to see such echoes as indications that the author was Peter the disciple, eyewitness, and auditor of such sayings (cf. Best 133).

140

1 PETER

it is difficult to render μακάριοι except with the rather traditional term ‘blessed’; its meaning overlaps with εὐλογέω and εὐλογία (note the parallel uses in Luke 1.42, 45) and thus recalls 1 Pet 3.9.68 Translations such as ‘count yourselves happy’ (REB; cf. Tyndale, KJV)—highlighting the term’s connection with notions of happiness—lose the sense of the bestowal of divine favour that is often implied, not least here, in biblical uses of the term.69 τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, ταραχθῆτε, The second half of the verse is a quotation of Isa 8.12 (LXX), drawn significantly from just before one of the ‘stone’ citations used in 2.8 (Isa 8.14), suggesting some independent interest in this text, since Isa 8.12 is not cited or echoed elsewhere in the NT. (Indeed, the quotation continues into the next verse, which draws more selectively from Isa 8.13.) There are only two differences from the LXX text: 1 Peter has αὐτῶν for the LXX’s αὐτοῦ; and instead of the emphatic double negative οὐ μή the epistle contains the single negative to express the prohibition μὴ φοβηθῆτε.70 The first of these variances is the most significant, not least since it takes us to the heart of one of the main interpretative difficulties in this verse, namely, how to understand the genitive αὐτῶν, and the nature of the accusative τὸν φόβον. Most assume that the Petrine author is responsible for altering the text, whether this was in an effort to represent the threat as universal, to connect the pronoun to the enemies mentioned later in v. 16, or simply to clarify the   Michaels 186.   See, e.g., Deut 33.29; 2 Chr 9.7–8; Tob 13.10–16; Matt 11.6; Luke 14.15; John 20.29; Rom 14.22; Rev 1.3; 22.14. For discussion of uses, see TDNT 4:362– 70, esp. 367–70; TLNT 2:432–44. 70   Achtemeier claims that the subjunctive verbs are employed rather than the imperative in this instance ‘[b]ecause Hellenistic Greek does not tolerate a negative command in the aorist’ (231 n. 43). But aorist prohibitions, while not common, are used in the NT (Matt 6.3; 24.17, 18; Mark 13.15bis, 16; Luke 17.31bis) as well as in other early Christian literature (e.g., 1 Clem. 56.5; Mart. Pol. 4.3; Did. 14.2; 16.1; Herm. Mand. 12.4.6, 7; 12.6.1, 2; Gos. Thom. 2; Acts Pil. 4.2; Acts Paul Thec. 24.1; Acts John 114.1; Acts Phil. 1.3). The reason why the subjunctive is used here is because it represents the form of prohibition in which φοβέω most commonly appears (cf. LXX Num 14.9bis; Deut 1.29; Josh 1.9; 2 Sam 13.28; Neh 4.8; et al). The force of this construction is equivalent to an imperative prohibition (see Wallace, Grammar, 469). 68 69



3.13–17

141

referent in the absence of λαός.71 But with some representatives of the LXX containing the plural αὐτῶν, it is possible that such was the source-text used by the Petrine author.72 We must therefore be careful not to read too much into the variation. The Hebrew phrase ‫ את מוראו לא תיראו‬is generally taken to mean, ‘do not fear what it [sc. this people] fears’, with the antecedent to the third-person singular suffix being the collective singular noun ‫‘( עם‬people’).73 What the people of Jerusalem feared in the context was the alliance between Aram and Israel, which threatened to overtake them if Judah did not join the coalition. Some suggest that the use of the singular αὐτοῦ in the LXX was intended to be read as an objective genitive, standing in place of the subjective genitive found in the Hebrew text.74 According to this interpretation, the Greek translators have shifted the object of fear from the people of Jerusalem (‘do not fear what they fear’) to the king of Assyria (‘do not fear him’). The use of the plural αὐτῶν in 1 Peter is then thought to represent a return to the Hebrew. However, it seems more likely that the LXX itself follows the Hebrew closely. In this instance, the singular αὐτοῦ is employed because of the collective nature of the antecedent ὁ λαὸς οὗτος (‘this people’), and it functions as a subjective genitive comparable to the Hebrew: ‘do not fear what it [this people] fears’ (NETS). Determining the sense of the genitive αὐτῶν in 1 Peter is equally difficult. It could be taken in a subjective sense, with slight variations arising from different interpretative emphases. If αὐτῶν is understood as an active subject, then the construction would describe a situation where opponents were working to create fear in the readers (‘do not be affected by the fear they seek to inspire in you’).75 Since, 71   Universal threat: Schwank, ‘L’Epître’, 26. Connect the enemies to v. 16: Michaels 186. Clarification: Dubis 108–109. Alternatively, Schreiner (196) suggests that the change might have been made unintentionally, resulting from a lapse in the author’s memory. 72   Cf. Arichea–Nida 105. On the textual witnesses for the plural αὐτῶν, see Ziegler, Isaias, 151. 73   Cf. also, e.g., RSV, NIV, ESV, et al. 74   So, e.g., Kelly 141–42; Beare 163–64; Best 133; Michaels 186; Goppelt 242 n. 19. 75   This view was popular among an earlier generation of scholars (e.g., de Wette 40; Fausset 508; Alford 362; Plumptre 129; Usteri 138; Bennett 231; Monnier 160; Blenkin 72), although it is only occasionally espoused today (see, e.g., Senior 94).

142

1 PETER

in this case, fear originates with the antagonists, some describe the usage as a genitive of source (i.e., fear that originates with them).76 Others focus on the instrument that opponents use to cause fear (i.e. intimidation, threats, harassment), and render the prohibition, ‘do not fear their threats’ (cf. KJV, NKJV, NASB).77 If, on the other hand, αὐτῶν is understood as a passive subject, then the construction focuses on the fears that are possessed by the persecutors: ‘do not fear what they fear’ (cf. NRSV, NIV, HCSB).78 The idea would be that wider society fears suffering in the form of harassment, shame, and even death, and based on the assumption that Christians share the same trepidations, opponents will try to use these threats to quell the movement.79 Alternatively, the pronoun αὐτῶν could be interpreted as an objective genitive (‘do not be afraid of them [i.e., your persecutors]’; cf. RSV, NET, ESV).80 This sense seems to be the most satisfactory. It coheres well with the references elsewhere in the letter, where the author insists that only God is to be feared (2.17) and urges wives not to fear the terrors with which others might threaten them (3.6). In the more immediate context, the exhortation not to be afraid of others anticipates the reference to their accusers in v. 16.81 While the author could have written μὴ φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς to convey this meaning unambiguously, it is important to recognise that he is quoting, and thus uses the phrasing of his source.82 In this case, 76   The first to use this designation was Achtemeier (232 n. 45), although others have since adopted it (e.g., Watson 85; Schreiner 195 n. 303). 77   So, e.g., Macknight 477; Barnes 168; Bigg 158; Hart 67; Schelkle 100 n. 1; Hiebert 225; Brox 155; Jobes 229; Feldmeier 194. 78   So, e.g., Demarest 163; Mason 418; Hillyer 110; Bartlett 291; Waltner 121; Harink 93; Dubis 108. 79   It has also been proposed that the object of the Gentiles’ fear was their deities and the imperial powers represented by the emperor cult (Schmidt, Mahnung, 260; cf. also Mede, Texts of Scripture, 28). In this sense, the passage is encouraging fear and worship of the true God instead. 80   This view has found the widest support within scholarship. It is defended by a number of interpreters (e.g., Schott 203; Hofmann 117; Johnstone 232–33; Keil 116; von Soden 152; Masterman 127; Selwyn 192; Cranfield 99; Kelly 142; Beare 164; Michaels 186–87; Davids 130–31; Marshall 114; Bénétreau 199; Elliott 624; Donelson 102 n. d; Schlosser 201–202; Forbes 114–15; cf. van Rensburg and Moyise, ‘Isaiah in 1 Peter 3:13–17’, 279–80; Langford, Defending Hope, 110–11). 81   Cf. Michaels 187. 82   Selwyn 192.



3.13–17

143

φόβον is best understood as a cognative accusative (lit. ‘do not be afraid with fear of them’).83 Since it has a genitive modifier, it represents a more emphatic construction.84 15 κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ὑμῶν, The opening word of this verse continues the quotation from Isa 8.12–13, which runs τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται σου φόβος. The author inserts δέ after κύριον, thus marking more explicitly a contrast with what has preceded. But his most significant change is the replacement of αὐτόν with τὸν Χριστόν, altering the LXX original such that κύριον (rendering ‫ יהוה‬in the Hebrew) becomes part of an explicitly christological phrase. There is disagreement about the relationship between the two accusatives κύριον and Χριστόν. Some interpret κύριον as the direct object of the verb, with Χριστόν in simple apposition to it: ‘but in your hearts sanctify Christ, the Lord’ (cf. NEB, JB, ESV, CEB).85 Such a construction helps to further clarify who is meant by Χριστόν (cf. Luke 2.11; Rom 16.18; Col 3.24). In doing so, it holds out significant christological implications, for it identifies Christ with κύριος, a designation used frequently for YHWH in the Jewish scriptures. The main argument set forward in support of this position is the construction’s original function in Isaiah, where both the Hebrew text and the LXX are taken to represent appositional structures.86   Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 478. This usage may indicate a Semitic influence, although it is also found in Greek writers as well (see Plato, Prot. 360b: οἱ μαινόμενοι τοὐναντίον αἰσχρούς τε φόβους φοβοῦνται). 84   See BDF §153(1); Wallace, Grammar, 189. 85   So, e.g., Huther 171; Kühl 203; Bennett 231; Monnier 161; Bigg 158; Schneider 80; Spicq 130; Kelly 142; Schelkle 100; Knoch 92; Goppelt 242 n. 20; Brox 155; Elliott 625; Jobes 229; Dubis 110; cf. also Kuykendall and Collins, ‘1 Peter 3:15a’, 80–82; Kampling, ‘Bekenntnisrede’, 172 n. 32; Miller, ‘Use of 1 Peter 3:13–17’, 201–202. Some older English translations reflect such an interpretation (e.g., Wycliffe, Douay-Rheims). This is particularly the case of those that were translated from the TR, which reads κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν (e.g., Geneva, KJV, Darby). 86   Sometimes interpreters point out analogous uses to defend this position (see Huther 171). They note that the construction κύριος ὁ θεός (‘the Lord God’) is prevalent throughout the LXX, and they observe that within the NT, Χριστός 83

144

1 PETER

But while this is true of the former, the syntax of the latter is just as ambiguous as that in 1 Peter and could be interpreted either as an appositional construction or as an object–complement.87 Elsewhere in the LXX, when κύριον and αὐτόν appear as double accusatives, they function within an object–complement relationship (Gen 27.37; Ps 104.21; cf. 1 Macc 9.25); thus, the Petrine author would not have been forced to read the terms as appositional. Ultimately, however, this point is moot, since the author alters the text of the LXX, when necessary, to suit his own purposes. In the previous verse, he changed the function of αὐτῶν from a subjective to an objective genitive, and here he adds τὸν Χριστόν (along with the contrastive particle δέ) to make a christological point. As such, the construction should be interpreted in light of the message of 1 Peter. The evidence, while not overwhelming, is slightly stronger in favour of a double accusative object–complement construction: ‘sanctify Christ as Lord’ (cf. ASV, NRSV, NAB, NET, NIV, NASB, NLT).88 According to this interpretation, Χριστόν functions as the direct object while κύριον complements the object by expressing something about it. Since not every verb can take complementary accusatives,89 it is important to first note that ἁγιάζω is among those that can. In fact, this construction occurs in two other places in the LXX.90 What is significant about these instances is that they is used in apposition to κύριος (Luke 2.11; Rom 16.18; Col 3.24; cf. also Barn. 12.11; Acts Phil. 79.2). But this does not provide proof of the construction’s function here; it merely establishes it as a possibility. 87   As pointed out by Forbes 115. 88   So, e.g., Schott 203–204; Fausset 508; Alford 362; Masterman 127; Selwyn 192; Best 133; Achtemeier 232; Donelson 102–103 n. g; Osborne 219; Watson 85; Schreiner 197. 89   See Goetchius, Language, 141. For a list of verbs that take object–complements, see Wallace, ‘Object–Complement Construction’, 96 n. 23. 90   Cf. Exod 29.27: ἁγιάσεις τὸ στηθύνιον ἀφόρισμα (‘you will set apart the breast as a wave offering’); Lev 27.14: ὃς ἂν ἁγιάσῃ τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ ἁγίαν τῷ κυρίῳ (‘whoever consecrates his house as holy to the Lord’). Without taking these examples into account, Kuykendall and Collins (‘1 Peter 3.15’, 80 n. 6) seem to cast doubt on the possibility that the verb ἁγιάζω could take a complementary accusative. They note that Wallace (Grammar, 183 n. 24) offers no other examples where the verb is used with a double accusative construction other than 1 Pet 3.15.



3.13–17

145

represent the only other examples where ἁγιάζω is modified by double accusatives. Although this might not be enough to establish a pattern of object–complement usage, it is noteworthy. One piece of evidence that does point towards an object–complement construction is the article before Χριστόν.91 Used throughout the epistle as a proper name, the substantive Χριστός is found exclusively in an anarthrous form (1 Pet 1.1, 2, 3bis, 7, 11bis, 13, 19; 2.5, 21; 3.16, 18, 21; 4.1, 11, 14; 5.10, 14), except for the two instances where the article is required to maintain concord with its head noun (4.13; 5.1).92 If the construction is taken appositionally, the article serves no discernible purpose, given that Χριστόν is already definite.93 The best explanation, then, is that the articular   Sometimes this argument is thought to be weakened by the fact that the anarthrous form of κύριος is employed for YHWH in the LXX (see Kuykendall and Collins, ‘1 Peter 3.15a’, 81; Dubis 110). The problem is that Kuykendall and Collins, from whom this argument derives, seem to have misunderstood the semantics of this construction. When it comes to identifying the structural parts of an object–complement construction, they claim that ‘the way we know which is the object and which is the complement is that the object is definite (τὸν Χριστόν) and the complement is not (κύριον)’ (81). But it is not the term’s definiteness that determines its function. The identification of individual components within this construction is facilitated by criteria that are similar to those used to distinguish the various components in a subject–predicate nominative construction (see Wallace, Grammar, 184). Only after identifying the role of each component can the question of a term’s definiteness be considered. Within this structure, objects can range from indefinite to qualitative to definite. Thus, there is no reason why κύριον could not be both the object of a double accusative construction and a definite noun (‘the Lord’). In fact, this exact usage appears elsewhere in the NT (Rom 10.9; 1 Cor 12.3; Phil 2.11; cf. also Acts Phil. 24.7, 8; 25.4). 92   Pace Schweizer 70, who claims that the article is employed in each of these instances because the author was using Χριστός not as a proper name (‘Christ’) but as a title (‘the messiah’). 93   Lenski claims that ‘[b]ecause [κύριος] is a name for God in Isa. 8:13, Peter must add τὸν Χριστόν since he refers “the Lord” to Christ’. That is, ‘[t]he article must be used to indicate that Χριστόν is a second name and thus an apposition, for Κύριον Χριστόν would be a unit designation, “Lord Christ” ’ (149). He is correct that such a ‘unit designation’ is normally represented by an anarthrous construction (cf. Rom 1.6; 1 Cor 1.3; 2 Cor 1.2; Gal 1.3; Eph 1.2; Phil 1.2; 3.20; 1 Thess 1.1; 2 Thess 1.1, 12; 3.12; Phlm 3; Jas 1.1), which would rule out the transla�tion, ‘fearfully obey the Lord Christ’. But had an appositional construction been intended (i.e., ‘fearfully obey the Lord, namely, Christ’), a more natural construction would have been τὸν κύριον Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε (cf. Acts 1.21; 11.17, 20; 91

146

1 PETER

form is used to indicate that Χριστόν is the direct object in a double accusative construction.94 So what does this construction indicate about the relationship between κύριον and τὸν Χριστόν? The fact that the complement (κύριον) appears before the object (Χριστόν) suggests that κύριον falls within the range of qualitative-definite.95 If it is qualitative, then it describes Christ as one who is in a position of authority (‘lord’, ‘master’);96 on the other hand, if κύριον is definite, it connects Christ very closely with ‘the Lord’ (i.e., YHWH). It is difficult to decide between the two options, as a convincing case could be made for either interpretation. In favour of interpreting κύριον as definite is the fact that the term was originally part of the quotation from Isa 8.13, where it referred to YHWH. Elsewhere, the Petrine author picks up scriptural quotations that similarly refer to YHWH as κύριος and applies them to Christ (2.3; cf. also 1.25). Grammatical considerations may provide additional support. In a few other instances, (Ἰησοῦς) Χριστός is placed in a predicative relationship with (ὁ) κύριος. When the complement appears before the object, the complement tends toward more definiteness (cf. Rom 10.9; 1 Cor 12.3; Phil 2.11; Acts Phil. 24.7, 8; 25.4). When it is placed after the object, however, it is qualitative (cf. 2 Cor 4.5). The order in 1 Pet 3.15, therefore, could indicate that κύριον is definite, ‘the Lord’.97 16.31; 20.24; 28.31; Rom 13.14; 1 Cor 11.23; Eph 1.15; 1 Thess 4.2; Phlm 5) or perhaps even τὸν κύριον τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε (cf. Col 2.6). 94   In the NT, there are other examples where the article is used with proper nouns to denote the object in an object complement construction (see, e.g., Matt 3.9; 21.26; Luke 3.8). 95   See Wallace, Grammar, 185. 96   As defined by Slaten, ‘A qualitative noun is a noun (in Greek always anarthrous) whose function in the sentence is not primarily or solely to designate by assignment to a class but to describe by the attribution of quality, i.e., of the quality or qualities that are the marks of the class designated by the noun. The effect is to ascribe to that which is modified the characteristics or qualities of a class and not merely to ascribe to it membership in that class’ (Qualitative Nouns, 6–7). 97   This is the argument made by Wallace, ‘Object–Complement Construc�tion’, 109–11. Others have similarly claimed that this construction represents the identification of Christ with YHWH (see Stibbs–Walls 135; Davids 131; Marshall 115; Hiebert 226; Jobes 229; Green 115–16), although not always with the same grammatical nuance.



3.13–17

147

Nevertheless, a slightly more convincing case can perhaps be made for interpreting κύριον as a qualitative noun. While it is true that the original quotation from Isaiah refers to YHWH, the Petrine author also uses κύριος to refer to Jesus Christ as ‘our κύριος’ (1.3), and using the same object–complement structure, notes that Sarah obeyed Abraham by calling him κύριος (3.6). A reference to Jesus as ‘lord’ (i.e., in a position of authority) would be consistent with the author’s usage, and with early Christian declarations of commitment (Acts 2.36; Rom 10.9; 1 Cor 12.3; Phil 2.11). Also important is the fact that the author is drawing from a source-text. While he is not opposed to altering scriptural citations through additions and omissions, he rarely changes the word-order. By maintaining the original order in this instance, it allows him to preserve the scriptural echo while adding christological resonance (as in 2.3). Finally, a qualitative usage fits best with a context focused on the fear that could compromise a Christian’s dedication. Within an environment where deities98 and emperors99 were revered by the title κύριος, the 98   On the use of κύριος for ancient deities, see Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 353–55; Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 95–98. Examples of this phenomenon include: Sarapis: P.Oxy. I 110; XXXI 2592; LII 3693; PSI XV 1543. Mandoulis: IGRR I 1339, 1346, 1347, 1351. Bes: OGIS 759; Graffites d’Abydos 386, 481, 499, 506, 580. Asclepius: IGBulg III,1 1101, 1118, 1132, 1200, 1240. Sobek/Soukos: OGIS 655; SB III 6940. Hermes: IGRR I 1367; OGIS 207. Hera: IGBulg IV 2044, 2132, 2146. Dionysus: IGBulg IV 2026, 2195; V 5684. Apollos: IGBulg V 5287, 5622, 5652; et al. For more inscriptional and papyrological evidence, see Zeller, ‘Kyrios’, 492–97; Belayche, ‘Kyrios and despotes’, 87–115. 99   Regardless of when 1 Peter was written, by the middle of the first century CE, κύριος had become a common title for the Roman emperor. Nero: IG VII 2713; Forrest, ‘Inscriptions of Chios’, 203 (no. 7); Bataille, Les inscriptions, no. 175; SB III 6837, 6838; SEG 8:500; O.Petr.Mus. 145, 185, 187; O.Wilck. 771. Vespasian: Chr. Wilk. 295; O.Bodl. II 1176; O.Edfou. I 39; O.Wilck. 450, 773; SB I 4586. Titus: O.Bodl. II 608, 609, 674, 963, 1148; O.Heid. 43, 44, 164, 165, 167, 168; O.Wilck. 452; SB VI 9604; IGRR I 1151. Galba: O.Wilck. 21. Domitian: Tempel von Dakke III 33; SEG 28:758; IGRR I 1244, 1337, 1345; SIG3 821E; BGU XI 2033, 2121; P.Flor. I 86; PSI III 203; O.Bodl. II 498, 510; O.Cair. 52, 104; O.Camb. 31, 76; O.Heid. 49, 170; O.Leid. 81a; O.Stras. I 97; O.Wilk. 35, 43, 458; P.Hamb. I 60; P.Laur. II 21; P.Prag. I 36; P.Sarap. 29; P.Turner 18; SB XIV 12169; cf. Suetonius, Dom. 13.2: dominus et deus noster, ‘our Lord and our God’; Martial, Epig. 8.2.5–6: omni terrarium domino deoque, ‘the Lord and God of the whole world’. Literary texts written shortly after 1 Peter reveal how such popular perceptions were represented: Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.12 (ὁ παντῶν κύριος καῖσαρ, ‘Caesar, lord of all’); Mart. Pol. 8.2 (κακόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν, κύριος Καῖσαρ, ‘what

148

1 PETER

Petrine audience is encouraged to confirm their allegiance to Christ, declaring him to be their κύριος. The stress would thus fall on their acclamation of Christ’s position of authority and status rather than on their doctrinal identification of him as divine, as YHWH. But this leaves us with the question of how the action prescribed by the verb ἁγιάζω relates to the previous verse. As stated earlier, the particle δέ was inserted by the Petrine author to mark a contrast.100 Verse 15a serves as an oppositional alternative to the previous verse (v. 14b), where the Petrine author instructs his readers to avoid fearing their enemies. The verb ἁγιάζω, which is also part of the quotation from Isa 8.13, is used only here in 1 Peter. However, similar ‘holiness’ terminology appears elsewhere in the letter, mostly to indicate the readers’ status as holy people (2.5, 9; 3.5), though this itself is bestowed by the (Holy) Spirit (1.2) and is expressly a characteristic and a vocation based upon the holiness of God (1.15–16). The verb is first attested in the LXX, where it usually translates the Hebrew verb ‫‘( קדש‬to be holy’). Outside of Jewish and Christian sources, the verb itself only appears on a few occasions.101 In Isa 8.13, ἁγιάζω renders the hiphil form of ‫קדש‬, which means ‘to consecrate’ or ‘to make holy’.102 As it relates to the use of the verb in 1 Pet 3.15, most understand ἁγιάζω as a recognition or acknowledgment of a holiness that is already possessed by Christ (‘revere as holy’), since it is assumed that he does not need to be made holy.103 The drawback of this standard interpretation is that it neglects two important aspects that distinguish the current usage. First, in the present verse, ἁγιάζω takes an object–complement. This harm is there in saying, “Caesar is lord”?’). See further Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 355–67; Prümm, ‘Herrscherkult und Neues Testament’, 3–25, 129–42, 289–301; van Henten, ‘Rulercult’, 711–16. 100   Cf. Elliott 625, who, however, thinks it ‘more likely’ that it marks ‘ “the Christ”… as appositive to and explanatory of kyrion’. 101   E.g., PGM IV.522; CCAG VII 178.1, 27; Anecdota Graeca p. 328 (Bekker); cf. Hermetica I 32 (συναγιάζειν); PGM IV.1191–92 (καθαγιάζειν). In the Greek world, the more common term for making something sacred (usually through sacrifice) was ἁγίζω (see Sophocles, Oed. col. 1495; Aristophanes, Plut. 681; see further LSJ 9). 102   See HALOT 1073. 103   So, e.g., Selwyn 192; Hunter 129; Kelly 142; Best 133; Beare 164; Schelkle 100; Bénétreau 199; Achtemeier 232; Richard 149; Prigent 97; Witherington 178; Vahrenhorst 147–48.



3.13–17

149

construction, as we have discussed, involves predication (i.e., something is assigned to a particular classification). In both of the other instances where ἁγιάζω takes an object–complement, it describes the designation of the object for a special purpose or status, which is represented by the complement (Exod 29.27; Lev 27.14). Here, the positional status that must be ascribed to Christ is κύριος. When employed with this term, ἁγιάζω functions similarly to verbs of making or appointing. A close parallel is found in the accusation levelled against Archelaus following the death of Herod. After Archelaus is described as one who had previously usurped the throne of his father, it is stated, ‘Now, he comes seeking a shadow of that kingdom to rule, whose substance he had already seized for himself, and so has made Caesar lord (ποιῶν… κύριον Καίσαρα), not of things, but of words’ (Josephus, War 2.28).104 But given the specific lexical meaning of ἁγιάζω, this parallel does not fully capture the semantics of the present construction.105 The second aspect that distinguishes the present usage is the fact that humans are the subjects who perform the action of the verb ἁγιάζω. This is different from most uses of the verb in the LXX, where persons and ritual items are the object of ἁγιάζω, and as a result, they are made holy by God. To understand the proper nuance of this construction, we must consider the evidence from the LXX where God is the object of ἁγιάζω and humans are the subject. Although this usage is relatively uncommon,106 it is possible to   There are other instances as well in which κύριον is used as the complement in an object–complement construction to represent the positional status appointed to someone/thing (e.g., Philo, Cher. 73; Acts 2.36; Josephus, Ant. 5.234; 8.221; War 1.458, 537; Ign. Eph. 6.1; Did. 4.1; 11.2). In other places, the same construction is employed to mark the verbal declaration of one’s lordship (e.g., Philo, Mut. 19; Sobr. 53; Post. 138; Matt 22.43, 45; Mark 12.37; Luke 20.44; Rom 10.9; 2 Cor 4.5; 1 Pet 3.6; 2 Clem. 4.1; Barn. 12.11; Mart. Mt. 6.5). 105   A parallel that may capture the meaning somewhat more closely is Philo, Spec. 1.300: ταῦτα δ᾿ ἐστὶν ἀγαπᾶν αὐτὸν ὡς εὐεργέτην, εἰ δὲ μή, φοβεῖσθαι γοῦν ὡς ἄρχοντα καὶ κύριον (‘And these [i.e., the simple and easy things God requires of people] are, to love God as benefactor, and if not, to at least fear him as ruler and lord’). Here, the object of the double accusative construction is understood (αὐτόν) with κύριον functioning as the complement and φοβέω as the verb. 106   Commentators occasionally note the rarity with which God functions as the object of ἁγιάζω (see Green 115; Schlosser 202), but this construction is not pursued beyond the comparative instances listed in TDNT (viz. Num 20.12; 27.14; Isa 29.23; see TDNT 1:111). 104

150

1 PETER

construct a general sense of its meaning. The act that is described flows out of an experience where the power of God is displayed through mighty works. This, in turn, is intended to lead people to reverence and fear God (Isa 8.13; 29.23). When God’s people perform this action toward God, it is visible to other nations (Ezek 20.41; 28.25; 36.23; 38.16; 39.27). For this reason, it is commonly expressed as parallel with terms like δοξάζω, ἐνδοξάζομαι, and μεγαλύνω (see Lev 10.3; Ezek 28.22; 38.23; Sir 36.3). Where the breakdown often occurs is when God is treated as common or profane (cf. Lev 22.32), and the people of God fail to carry out this act by refusing to follow divine commands (Num 20.12, 13; 27.14; Deut 32.51). Thus, bound up in this specific use of ἁγιάζω are notions of fear, glorification, and obedience, which makes it difficult to fully capture in a single interpretative gloss.107 One possible rendering might be, ‘show that you set Christ apart through your reverent devotion to him as lord’. Such ‘reverent devotion’ towards God in the Jewish scriptures was primarily expressed in visible acts through which God was magnified in the eyes of the nations. In this case, however, devotion to Christ is depicted as an inward commitment (cf. 1 Pet 1.22; 3.4).108 It is notable that the author does not continue the quotation from Isa 8.13, since καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται σου φόβος could have formed an apposite counterbalance to the injunction not to fear ‘them’ (v. 14). This may in part be because it is God, rather than Christ, whom he sees as the proper object of φόβος (cf. 1.17; 2.17). The phrase ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν does not come from the quotation, but reflects the author’s deliberate specifying of the nature of this obligation. Focusing on this phrase, Carter argue that the Petrine author encouraged his readers to ‘go all the way’ in accommodating to, and participating in, the imperial cults, retaining only a hidden, 107   Over the years, interpreters have emphasised certain individual nuances. Some, for instance, suggest that the command means to maintain trust and confidence in the power of Christ (Calov 1500; Bloomfield 717; Grudem: 152–53). Others argue that it is the equivalent of glorifying Christ (Grotius 92; Wordsworth 59). Still, others claim that the instructions are synonymous with fearing Christ (Guttenberger, Passio Christiana, 29). All of these explanations are true to some degree, but they remain incomplete. 108   See also Seneca, Frag. 123: ‘Temples are not to be built to Him with stones piled up on high; He is to be consecrated by each man in his own breast’ (in suo cuique consecrandus est pectore)’ (in Lactantius, Inst. 6.25).



3.13–17

151

inner stance of resistance.109 But the idea that the audience could participate in cultic worship of the emperor while still maintaining proper reverence for Christ (secretly, in their hearts) is hard to sustain (see Exegesis at 2.17; also 4.16).110 While the author does not here promote proactive confrontation—or what, in social-scientific terms, we might call self-stigmatisation—he does advocate a more ‘quiet’ and reactive stance, that exhibits Christian distinctiveness and resistance only when explicit pressure or demands to do otherwise are applied.111 Why, then, does the author focus on inner devotion? The answer relates to ancient perceptions of the heart as the location of a person’s inner life. This phrase (ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις [μου/σου/ὑμῶν], or its singular equivalent), which is frequently employed in Jewish and Christian writings, marks out the place where emotions resided (2 Sam 6.16; Pss 12.3[2]; 93.19; Barn. 2.8), where a person’s innermost thoughts were contemplated (Deut 8.17; 1 Sam 27.1; Ps 13.1; Isa 49.21; Luke 12.45; Rev 18.7), where one’s deepest intentions dwelled (2 Sam 7.3; 2 Kgs 10.30; Ezra 7.10), and even where sins were conceived (Gen 6.5; Ps 57.3[2]; Prov 26.24; Zech 8.17; Matt 9.4; Acts 5.4; Jas 3.14). It is true that devotion to God could express itself inwardly through private songs or prayers (1 Sam 1.13; Ps 4.5[4]; Jdt 13.4; Col 3.16; Acts Andr. Mth. 8.9), but the use of the phrase in v. 15 is not intended to represent a private dedication to Christ that goes unexpressed outwardly.112 This is immediately 109   Carter, ‘Going All the Way?’, 28: ‘Prioritizing the heart’s commitment to “Christ as Lord” allows the letter’s hearers to engage in the publicly conformist and submissive behavior of cultic participation without compromising loyalty to God. They can be seen to be compliantly honorable in culturally determined ways while reverencing and expressing loyalty to Christ as Lord in their hearts.’ 110   See further Horrell, ‘Between Conformity and Resistance’, 111–43; idem, Becoming Christian, 211–38; Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 245–73. 111   See further Horrell, ‘Leiden als Diskriminerung’, 119–32; idem, Becoming Christian, 164–210; Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 185–244. 112   Kayalaparampil (‘Christian Suffering in I Peter’) argues that the focus on reverencing Christ in one’s heart ‘suggests regulations during persecution not to assemble in a common place for worship’. As such, he believes that ‘Christians are exhorted to enjoy the living presence of Christ in their hearts’ (17). While such threats could have possibly arisen, this is unlikely to be what is intended here. The exhortation is not related to the indwelling of Christ in a person’s heart (pace Mason 418 and Blenkin 72), but to a decision that then serves as the basis for their outward defence of the faith.

152

1 PETER

evident in the second half of the verse, where the readers are told that they must be ready to give a defence to those who ask about their ‘hope’ (v. 15b). In this way, the author contrasts an entirely inward or concealed form of reverencing Christ with a deliberately public declaration or practice.113 The reason why an inward commitment is mentioned is because this is the foundation for maintaining allegiance and dedication. In the heart is where doubts and fears arise (Mark 11.23; Luke 24.38; Herm. Vis. 3.4.3; Herm. Mand. 9.5; cf. 2 Cor 5.12), but also where sincere belief is generated (Rom 10.9; cf. Acts Phil. 25.4) and decisions and commitments are made (Ezra 7.10; Dan 1.8; Luke 21.14; Acts 7.39; 1 Cor 7.37). By first pledging their allegiance to the lordship of Christ, they will be ready to undertake the next command. Indeed, the remainder of the verse points precisely to such possibilities and contexts, and outlines positively a stance that is one of readiness to respond (ἕτοιμοι ἀεί), if and when someone enquires (παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς).114 ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, ἐλπίδος, The lack of a connecting conjunction has led some commentators to interpret v. 15b as subordinate to the imperative ἁγιάσατε in v. 15a. According to this construal, the participle ὄντες must be supplied in connection with the adjective ἕτοιμοι (cf. 2 Macc 11.9; Acts Phil. 138.10).115 In this case, the phrase is taken to denote the means by which the command in v. 15a is to be fulfilled. This proposal is not   The phrase itself is paralleled in Luke 21.14, in a context where the threat of trials and interrogations is the topic (cf. Michaels 187). Indeed, the whole passage in Luke 21.12–19 is pertinent, though as Holloway (Coping with Prejudice, 203–204) points out, the author of 1 Peter seems uncomfortable with the idea of relying on inspiration at the time, ‘and urges his readers to prepare for their defenses beforehand’ (204). 114   On this ‘passive’ rather than ‘active’ approach to mission, see Tàrrech, ‘Mission according to the New Testament’, 231–47. Cf. also Bennett 231: ‘The Epistle does not direct the Christians to initiate evangelistic work; it constantly implies that there was a keen popular interest in Christianity’, though this ‘interest’ might be negative in intent. 115   So, e.g., Alford 362; Mason 418; Johnstone 235; Achtemeier 233 n. 54; Richard 149; Schreiner 198; cf. Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 174; Kampling, ‘Bekenntnisrede’, 171–72; Mills, ‘Clause Patterns’, 153. A few translations render v. 15b as subordinate to the previous sentence (e.g., ASV, NASB, ESV). 113



3.13–17

153

without problems, however. Logically, it is difficult to understand how a public defence of one’s faith might serve to accomplish an action that takes place ‘in the hearts’ of individuals. As we have demonstrated above, the internal commitment of believers is preparatory for carrying out their public defence.116 Even more significant is the imbalance this construal would create in the remaining structure of the passage, particularly with regard to the ἀλλά that follows in v. 16.117 In light of these considerations, a more likely alternative is to supply an imperatival form (γίνεσθε118), which would create paratactic coordination between v. 15a and 15b (‘fearfully serve Christ… be ready’) through asyndeton.119 This interpretation is consistent with the author’s earlier omission of an imperatival form in the same adjectival construction (3.8).

  Proponents of this construal of the syntax would therefore be on firmer ground by interpreting the understood ὄντες as a participle of result (as suggested by Mason 418). Nevertheless, this interpretation is still hindered by the structural problem it creates. 117   The presence of ἀλλά in v. 16 requires an accompanying verbal form to provide structural balance. The question is, what two verbal ideas does it connect? Those who supply the participle ὄντες in v. 15 also find it necessary to insert an additional imperatival form in v. 16 to connect with the prepositional phrase μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου. But aside from being unnecessary, the introduction of such a finite verbal form creates problems within the structural argument (see Exegesis at 3.16). One way to avoid these issues would be to interpret both the understood ὄντες (v. 15) and ἔχοντες (v. 16) as adverbial participles modifying ἁγιάσατε (see Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 174–75). The question that then arises, however, is why the author would leave out the participial form in v. 15 while including it in v. 16. It cannot be explained as a simple matter of elision, given that ὄντες is regularly included in places where it functions adverbially with ἕτοιμος (cf. 2 Macc 11.9; Acts Phil. 138.10) and given the confusion that its absence creates in the present sentence. A better approach is to supply a finite imperative in v. 15 (γίνεσθε) which would be read in conjunction with another supplied finite form in v. 16 (ἀπελογήσασθε). See further Exegesis at 3.16. 118   Cf. Exod 19.15 (LXX); Num 16.16 (LXX); 1 Macc 3.58; Matt 24.44// Luke 12.40; Did. 16.1; Pass. Andr. 7.8. Other forms are possible, but much less commonly attested: ἐστε (John Chrysostom, Hom. Eph. [PG 62:170]); ἔσεσθε (Josh 8.4 LXX). For the sake of clarification, the adjective ἕτοιμος itself does not carry an imperatival force (as suggested by some, e.g., Miller, ‘Use of 1 Peter 3:13–17’, 202). 119   So, e.g., Beare 164; Hiebert 227; Elliott 626. Most English translations render v. 15b as a new, imperatival sentence (e.g., KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NAB, NIV, HCSB). 116

154

1 PETER

Although, structurally, v. 15b is not dependent upon the preceding sentence, logically, it does follow a natural progression, such that one of the arenas in which fearless allegiance to Christ is tested is through personal confrontation with detractors who demand some type of accounting of Christian actions and beliefs. In these situations, believers are told to be ready to offer a proper defence.120 The proposed range of scenarios that might give rise to such questioning have shifted over the years, depending on more general views on the nature of conflict described in 1 Peter.121 During the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries, the vocabulary in this verse (and the following one) was commonly understood to evoke the context of legal proceedings and trials.122 More recently, however, modern commentators have rightly pointed out that the language need not refer to a courtroom setting, and that such terminology could easily be read against the backdrop of informal hostility.123 Where problems have arisen is when interpreters approach the question with an ‘either–or’ mentality, and thus assume that one must choose between these options.124 Based on the broader conviction that 1 Peter deals 120   The combination ἕτοιμος + πρός describes a state of readiness for something, ‘ready for’ (Tob 5.17; Philo, Fug. 176; Ios. 254; Titus 3.1; Josephus, Ant. 13.159; War 5.113; Pass. Andr. 7.8). But since ἀπολογία denotes the act of making a defence, it is normally translated almost as a verbal idea: ‘ready to give/ make a defence’ (see NRSV, NASB, HCSB, ESV). 121   Aside from individual interpretations of the letter’s situational background, other factors have also shaped how this verse has been understood. Following the Protestant Reformation, some Roman Catholic scholars read the exhortation to ‘give a defence to everyone who asks’ as a reference to the account one is obliged to give to magistrates regarding doctrinal commitments (e.g., Hottinger 127; see Benson 252, who notes that by this injunction, ‘the generality of expositors understand the magistrates’), although others limited these duties only to the priests (Cornelius à Lapide 263–64). On this approach toward the text, see further Steiger 2:189–90. 122   Those who have read the language of this verse as a reference to legal proceedings include: Windisch 70; Margot 58; Reicke 107–108; Beare 164–66; see also Schmidt, Mahnung, 258–61. Some earlier commentators, in fact, felt the need to warn against limiting this language to legal proceedings (e.g., Huther 172: ‘To limit [the verse’s] application to a judicial examination is arbitrary, and militates against παντί’; cf. also Masterman 128). 123   See, e.g., Vahrenhorst, ‘Leiden als Gnade’, 63. 124   Cf. Kelly 142–43: ‘It is hard to decide whether the situation envisaged is a police-court interrogation or a more informal inquiry either by a hostile group or by individuals’. See further Williams, ‘Suffering from a Critical Oversight’, 271–88.



3.13–17

155

only, or primarily, with informal hostility and public criticism, many conclude that a courtroom setting is unlikely here.125 Yet, if on other grounds we consider that legal proceedings and formal accusations were plausibly part of the range of threats that the recipients of 1 Peter encountered, then the legal nuances of the vocabulary of these verses should be given due weight and in turn add further plausibility to that perspective.126 In ancient Greek, the term ἀπολογία (and the verb ἀπολογέομαι) is occasionally used to describe a defence against questions or doubts arising within an informal setting. This is how the term is employed by Lucian to represent Hesiod’s ‘defence’ of his poetry against charges of imperfections. He states, ‘if I have to come to grips with the charge (τῇ αἰτίᾳ), and make a clear defence (ἀπολογίαν ἀπολογήσασθαι), read my Works and Days’ (Hes. 6.3; cf. Plato, Prot. 359a). A similar meaning is found in P.Oslo II 51, which serves as a recommendation letter. It reads, ‘Ammonios to the most honourable Dioskoros. Greetings! Heras, who brings you this letter, is a scribe of farmers in Skandips, and he has a defence (ἀπολογίαν) to give for the delivered report’ (ll. 1–6). Further, in some epigraphic materials, ἀπολογία represents a statement of accounts which defends they way that commissioned officials managed funds (see SEG 25:501; IG VII 2426; SEG 38:380). This same ‘informal’ or non-judicial usage appears in the NT as well (1 Cor 9.3; 2 Cor 7.11; cf. also the verbal forms in Rom 2.15 and 2 Cor 12.19). The occurrences in Phil 1.7 and 1.16 are worth singling out, for Paul is there writing from prison, and thus facing the prospect of a judicial hearing, which he depicts as an opportunity for a ‘defence of the gospel’ (ἀπολογία τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). This puts an internal Christian perspective onto the defence, just as the author of 1 Peter presents it as giving an account of ‘the hope that is in you’ (see below) and urges his readers to be prepared in advance to do so.127 But despite its potential to function in informal contexts, the term ἀπολογία is more commonly used in judicial settings as a legal   E.g., Selwyn 193; Michaels 188; Achtemeier 233; Elliott 627–28.   This is noted by Charles, “Volonté de Dieu”, 387; cf. Adinolfi, ‘‘Testimoniare la speranza secondo’, 121: ‘i cristiani siano esortati a testimoniare la loro speranza oltre che in privato, anche in sede giudiziaria’. See further Introduction: Socio-Historical Context. 127   Cf. Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 203–204. 125 126

156

1 PETER

term to describe a formal defence made in response to charges of wrongdoing.128 Part of this process involved producing witnesses (μάρτυρες) who could testify on one’s behalf,129 and in the end, a person’s innocence or guilt was usually determined by a group of δικασταί (‘judges’, ‘jurors’).130 This usage is illustrated in the defence speech of fifth-century Attic orator, Antiphon. As the director of a local choir, Antiphon instructed a boy named Diodotus to be given a drink that would improve his vocal skills, but when this drink was poisoned and the boy died, Antiphon was charged with murder. Following the prosecution’s speech, Antiphon opens his defence before the Areopagus as follows: My own attitude to my defence (περὶ τῆς ἀπολογίας), gentlemen, is very different from that of my accusers to their prosecution (περὶ τῆς κατηγορίας). They, on their side, allege that their object in bringing this action is to discharge a sacred duty and to satisfy justice; whereas they have in fact treated their speech for the prosecution as nothing but an opportunity for malicious falsehood, and such behavior is the worst travesty of justice humanly possible. Their aim is not to expose any crime I may have committed in order to exact the penalty which it deserves (οὐκ ἐλέγξαντες, εἴ τι ἀδικῶ, δικαίως με βούλονται τιμωρεῖσθαι), but to blacken me, even though I am entirely innocent, in order to have me punished with exile from this country’ (Antiphon, De choreuta 7; trans. Maidment [LCL]).

Similar usages are present in the NT, as when Paul defends his ministry at judicial hearings (Acts 22.1; 25.16; 2 Tim 4.16). This meaning is also consistent with the use of the verb ἀπολογέομαι, which describes formal responses before legal authorities (Luke 12.11; 21.14; Acts 19.33; 24.10; 25.8; 26.1–2, 24). 128   Cf. Thucydides 6.53.1; Isocrates, Antid. 8; Isaeus, De Philoctemone 62; Andocides, De mysteriis 6; Xenophon, Hell. 7.3.7; Plato, Apol. 24b; Demosthenes, Cor. 2. Outside of its use in literary texts, the word ἀπολογία is also found in the documentary papyri in connection with legal disputes (see CPR XV 15; P.Bingen 78; P.Tor.Choach. 12). 129   Cf. Isocrates, Antid. 92–93; Lysias, Areopagiticus 20; Demosthenes, [Apat.] 22; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.28.1. 130   Cf. Xenophon, Mem. 4.8.4; Plato, Phaed. 69e; Lysias, Pro milite 3; Demosthenes, [Apat.] 22; Diodorus Siculus 15.10.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.4.3.



3.13–17

157

The broad parameters within which such an ἀπολογία might be given are further specified with the phrase παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον.131 It stipulates both when (ἀεί, ‘always’) and with whom (παντί, ‘everyone’)132 such interactions are expected to take place. The frequency with which this possibility might arise and its universal application have led many away from reading the verse against a judicial backdrop.133 Nevertheless, while terms like ἀεί and παντί prevent us from restricting the situation too narrowly,134 they certainly do not preclude us from also envisioning a formal defence before local and provincial courts.135 Scholarship has too often presented legal trials or informal hostility as an ‘either–or’ decision, rather than recognising the range of scenarios that are plausibly included (see above). The possibility that formal legal proceedings should be considered among the potential threats facing the readers is further supported by a closer look at the idiom λόγον αἰτεῖν.136 Some   At this point, a genitive construction (παντὸς τοῦ αἰτοῦντος) might have been expected instead of the dative. The reason for this case selection could lie in the fact that ἀπολογία is derived from a verb (ἀπολογεῖσθαι) that is usually governed by a dative (see Acts 19.33; 2 Cor 12.19). In such cases, the substantive is often modified by a dative when a genitive might have been expected (see Winer, Grammar, 264; Buttmann, Grammar, 180; Robertson, Grammar, 536–37). 132   Some translations render παντί as ‘anyone’ (RSV, NRSV, NAB, NET, ESV, HCSB, CEB). But in connection with the articular substantival participle, which normally represents a generic quality, the adjective ‘seems only to intensify or emphasize the individual of the class denoted by the participle’ (Johnston, Use of Πᾶς, 91). This represents a slightly different sense from πᾶς + an anarthrous participle (cf. Luke 6.30; see Winer, Grammar, 138). Rather than a collective sense in which all people are viewed as a whole, the present usage communicates a distributive sense focused on each individual who performs this action: ‘everyone who asks’ (ASV, KJV, NIV, NASB). 133   This is an objection raised by numerous interpreters (e.g., Bigg 158; Blenkin 73; Stibbs–Walls 135; Kelly 143; Davids 131; Brox 159; Achtemeier 233; Elliott 627; Donelson 105; Schlosser 203; cf. also Omanson, ‘Suffering’, 439; Cothenet, ‘Le réalisme’, 567). 134   Against Beare, who claims ‘the phrase παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι λόγον can only apply to a judicial interrogation’ (164; cf. also Windisch 70: ‘λόγον αἰτεῖν, gewiß auch vor dem Richter’). 135   It is strange how ‘always… to everyone’ can somehow be construed to include all people and all situations except that of a trial before the governor (cf. Ramsay, ‘First Epistle’, 287). 136   Grammarians would differ on how they label the construction αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον. It would be understood by Wallace (Grammar, 181–82) as a double 131

158

1 PETER

interpreters argue that the presence of the verb αἰτεῖν (‘to ask’), rather than a term that describes a more forceful request (e.g., κελεύειν, ‘to demand’), suggests an informal setting;137 yet λόγον αἰτεῖν is employed in both literary and non-literary sources with considerable intensity. This is especially true in cases where there has been a perceived wrong, and one party demands another party to account for their actions (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.72.4; BGU III 747; P.Stras. II 100). But even more to the point, when this collocation appears in connection with ἀπολογία, it is often to describe a person’s testimony at a judicial proceeding.138 At other times, λόγον αἰτεῖν appears in situations where the dynamics of social interaction are similar to that of a legal setting. This might involve a request to defend a specific viewpoint or course of action before a ruler (4 Macc 5.14; Nicolaus, Frag. 49 [Müller]; Josephus, Ant. 7.349; Plutarch, Pomp. 10.6) or before a group that was gathered to make a decision (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.50.3; 5.51.1; 7.21.4; 7.57.1; 9.44.3–4) or perhaps even before one’s master (Longus, Daphn. 4.19.3). Taking into account the breadth of the ancient usage, it is unnecessary to restrict this language to courtroom interrogation and to conclude that the idiom ‘would not be accusative of person (ὑμᾶς) and thing (λόγον), in which ‘the person is the object affected, while the thing is the object effected’ (181; original emphasis). On the other hand, Culy (‘Double Case Constructions’, 92–96) would suggest that ὑμᾶς was formerly an oblique case (ὑμῶν) that has advanced to the direct object position, such that the original idea would have been, ‘who asks an account from you’. The latter, in this case, seems preferable. 137   See, e.g., Selwyn 193; Stibbs–Walls 135; Elliott 627; Green 117 n. 123. 138   One example is found in the second-century CE romance novel of Achilles Tatius. In the story, Leucippe disappears, leaving Clitophon, her lover, to conclude that she must be dead. In an effort to join her in the afterlife, Clitophon decides to confess to her murder hoping that he will receive a capital sentence. During the trial, accusations are brought against Clitophon, and he is given a chance to respond. He describes the situation as follows: ‘On the following day I was taken to the court (δικαστήριον). Thersander had made a great show in his appearance against me, and had an array of no less than ten counsel, and every preparation for her defence (πρὸς τὴν ἀπολογίαν) had been made with great care by Melitte. When they had all finished their speeches, I asked to be allowed to speak too (αἰτήσας κἀγὼ λόγον)’ (Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 7.7.1–2; trans. Gaselee). Cf. also Thucydides 3.53.2; 3.61.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.11.2; 10.49.3.



3.13–17

159

used of an informal inquiry from a private person’.139 The same phrase is employed in everyday contexts in which a person makes a request of another and then expects some type of response (e.g., Plato, Pol. 285e; Aristotle, Metaph. 1012b; Polybius, Hist. 28.13.7; Plutarch, Garr. 19 [Mor. 512C]). So the wide range of possibilities encapsulated in παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς may well imply that the author envisages a variety of potential scenarios, some informal and others judicial; nonetheless, the combination of specific words and phrases often used of a legal context points us strongly in this direction. The likelihood that court proceedings are included in this exhortation is further strengthened when we consider the overall tenor of this passage. Elliott describes the situation as one that ‘involves not formal trials and the demands of official magistrates requiring evidence of nonculpability but occasions when outsiders, out of curiosity, ask for explanations of the hope that animates these believers’.140 But if the ‘defence’ (ἀπολογία) that the readers were expected to provide arose simply out of the ‘curiosity’ of outsiders, then why would there be any need to dissuade them from fear (v. 14b), to stress the need to prepare an ‘account’, and to encourage them to hold firmly to the lordship of Christ (v. 15a)?141 It would be wrong to downplay the threat that even informal conflict posed (including the possibility that, through the accusatorial process, it could later lead to judicial trial),142 but it would be equally problematic to overlook the seriousness of the threats envisioned by the Petrine author.   Beare 164. Consistent with this interpretation, some compare the language found here with λόγον (ἀπο)διδόναι, ‘to give an account’ (see Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 202–203), which often describes the response one gives within a legal setting (cf. Matt 12.36; Luke 16.2; Acts 19.40; Rom 14.12; Josephus, War 1.209; Pol. Phil. 6.2; Herm. Vis. 3.9.10; Herm. Mand. 2.5; Acts Pil. 16.7). This phrase is also used to describe the account that opponents will have to give before God during the time of judgment, a particular kind of judicial setting (1 Pet 4.5). 140   Elliott 628. 141   It is illuminating in this regard to compare a similar warning from rabbinic literature. In m. ’Abot. 2.14, the words of Rabbi Eleazar are recorded, which relate to one’s interaction with outsiders, particularly those who espouse different philosophical and theological beliefs. He notes, ‘Be vigilant (‫ )שקד‬to learn Torah so that you may know how to respond to an Epicurean’. While these instructions share a similar urgency, they do not reflect the same level of trepidation. 142   On this, see further Holloway, Coping with Prejudice. 139

160

1 PETER

The content (περί) of the response that Christians were expected to provide is described as ‘the hope that is in/among you’ (ἡ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίς).143 In this instance, Calvin understood the statement as an example of synecdoche wherein ἐλπίς is used to represent πίστις;144 but while the two terms are closely linked in the epistle, they are nonetheless distinct. Elsewhere, ἐλπίς describes the subjective assurance of future deliverance and reward (see 1.21; cf. ἐλπίζω in 1.13 and 3.5).145 It can, however, denote more than just a feeling or attitude. In 1.3, it represents the reward itself (‘inheritance’; see Exegesis at 1.3), and thus it takes on an objective sense. But here the latter usage would be somewhat difficult to sustain in light of the prepositional modifier (ἐν ὑμῖν).146 This phrase could be understood either in a distributive sense, describing the hope that is shared by the separate members of the larger Christian community (‘among you’),147 or it could be understood in a local sense, describing the hope that indwells and motivates each individual Christian (‘in you’; cf. KJV, NRSV, LEB, ESV, NASB, HCSB, CJB).148 It is difficult to render a firm conclusion either way, especially since the author employs the preposition in both senses 143   According to Balch, ‘the “apology” anticipated in 1 Pet 3:15 would assure outsiders that Christians would conform to the kind of behavior in the household demanded by society, i.e., demanded by masters, husbands, and governors’ (Let Wives Be Submissive, 92). But there is no indication that a believer who was questioned was expected to delineate the various ways that they were conforming to social norms. If anything, when Christians shared their ‘hope’, it would have fuelled their alienation from society. 144   Calvin 109; cf. also Bigg 158; Best 134; Witherington 178–79. 145   See further Schmocker, Elpis oder Hoffnung, who argues that ἐλπίς here refers to the hope for (and confident expectation of) eternal life. 146   Rather than treating ἐλπίς as a subjective attitude in v. 15, Wilson (‘Colos� sians and 1 Peter’, 6) proposes ‘a more objective notion of hope’, namely, the indwelling of Christ. But this reading seems more applicable within the deutero-Pauline literature (cf. Col 1.27: Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης; 1 Tim 1.1: Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν). Nevertheless, it would be safe to conclude that in 1 Peter, the subjective anticipation of an incomparably more rewarding future is grounded in the objective reality of Christ’s sufferings and the benefits they secured for his followers. 147   So, e.g., Selwyn 194; Best 134; Michaels 189; Achtemeier 233–34; Senior 95; Jobes 230; Witherington 179; Schlosser 207. 148   So, e.g., Cranfield 100; Kelly 143; Beare 165; Goppelt 244; Dubis 112; Forbes 116; Schreiner 199; cf. Staudinger, ‘Verantwortete Hoffnung’, 118; Miller, ‘Use of 1 Peter 3:13–17’, 203.



3.13–17

161

at different points in the epistle.149 Ultimately, there is no need to drive a strong wedge between these two meanings: hope possessed by individual members of the Christian community would also be shared among the community.150 Again, this description is taken by some to indicate ‘that the author is referring here not to formal defences before legal authorities (who would be concerned not with expectation concerning the future but culpable behavior in the present) but rather to replies to informal inquiries concerning the nature and basis of Christian hope’.151 To be sure, this description of the content of their account hardly represents the language that magistrates or governors would have used, though neither is it necessarily the language of (hostile) informal inquiries. It is the author’s terminology and reflects the prominence of hope in his notion of Christian existence (cf. 1.3, 21).152 What this language represents is a Christian perspective on what could and should characterise one’s prepared ἀπολογία.153 Indeed, other accounts and martyrologies give similar indications that Christians under trial did not simply answer the questions posed, but sought to give an account that would convey something of their own perspective and priorities (cf. Acts 26.1–23, note the reference to ‘hope’ in vv. 6–7).154 These are of course literary constructions not recordings 149   Distributive use of ἐν: 1 Pet 2.12; 4.12; 5.1–2. Local use of ἐν: 1 Pet 1.11; 3.15. 150   Cf. Osborne 219. 151   Elliott 627. Cf. also Kelly 7: ‘the surviving records of trials before Roman magistrates do not indicate that the latter were concerned with such questions [as a Christian’s hope]’. 152   Cf. Goppelt 244. 153   This is not to imply that such a defence was reserved specifically for those Christians who were well-educated or rhetorically proficient. As noted by Gubler (‘Rechenschaft über die Hoffnung’, 127), this is the task of all Christians regardless of individual competencies. 154   Cf. also Mart. Pol. 10.1: ‘But as [the governor] continued to insist, saying, “Swear by the genius of Caesar,” [Polycarp] answered: “If you vainly suppose that I will swear by the genius of Caesar, as you request, and pretend not to know who I am, listen carefully: I am a Christian. Now if you want to learn the doctrine of Christianity (Χριστιανισμοῦ μαθεῖν λόγον), name a day and give me a hearing” ’; Act. Scil. 4: ‘Speratus said [to the proconsul]: “If you will give me a calm hearing, I shall tell you the mystery of simplicity [dico mysterium simplicitatis]” ’ (trans. Musurillo); Mart. Apoll. 4: ‘Apollonius [to the proconsul]…said: “Listen to me attentively, Perennis, as I make my solemn and legitimate speech of defence (περὶ σεμνῆς καὶ νομίμου ἀπολογίας μέλλοντος ποιεῖσθαί σοι

162

1 PETER

of the actual dialogues, but whatever their historical verisimilitude, they at least give a picture of how Christians depicted their encounters with judicial authorities. 16 ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου, φόβου, συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν,, ἀγαθήν The opening ἀλλά does not mark a contrast but rather introduces and qualifies,155 with some stress, the manner in which this ἀπολογία is to be presented. Although the account to be given may be characterised by a focus on the Christians’ hope—for resurrection, vindication, and salvation—it is not to be presented with any sense of vindictiveness or counter-threat. But exactly how this occurs is shaped by two issues that impact the structure of the sentence: (1) the function of the participle ἔχοντες, which relates to the question of (2) whether there is a need to supply a finite imperative in connection with the prepositional phrase μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου. The answers given to these questions by early critical interpreters were shaped in large part by the fact that much of the exegesis from this period was based on Greek texts that not only lacked ἀλλά in v. 16, but also placed the prepositional phrase μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου with v. 15b rather than the following verse.156 In a few cases, this reading led to confusion over which party was expected τὸν λόγον)” ’ (trans. Musurillo); Letters of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne 1.9: Vettius Epagathus, having been imprisoned ‘requested a hearing in order to speak in defence (ἀπολογούμενος) of the Christians, to the effect that they were innocent of atheism or impiety’ (trans. Musurillo); Mart. Pion. 4.2: ‘So then Pionius stretching forth his hand began his speech of defence (ἀπελογήσατο) with the following words…’ (trans. Musurillo). 155   On this function of ἀλλά, see BDF §448(6). 156   Many exegetes from this period used the TR (which reflected both of these features), though the same readings were found in other Greek texts as well (e.g., Griesbach, Scrivener). A few later editions inserted ἀλλά and changed the hard stop to a comma, but still connected the prepositional phrase with v. 15 (see Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort). It was not until the Resultant Greek Text (1892) of Weymouth that ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου was included as part of v. 16. This decision was then adopted as part of the first edition (1898) of Eberhard Nestle’s text, and it was eventually included in the Nestle–Aland text used by many today. Some modern translations, however, continue to attach this clause with v. 15b (see, e.g., RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV).



3.13–17

163

to display gentleness and reverence.157 But more importantly, without the conjunction ἀλλά to provide some separation from what preceded, it forced interpreters to account creatively for the function of ἔχοντες. Some attached the participle to the imperative ἁγιάσατε (v. 15a) and made it coordinate with v. 15b.158 In this case, the command to ‘sanctify Christ’ is further specified as taking place by being ready to give a defence and by maintaining a clear conscience through appropriate conduct. Most early interpreters, however, understood ἔχοντες as subordinate to ἕτοιμοι (γίνεσθε/ ὄντες) in v. 15b, wherein it, along with the prepositional phrase μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου, provides a cautionary qualification regarding a person’s readiness for offering their defence.159 With the recognition that ἀλλά was part of the initial text (see Text at 3.16 n. f), recent scholars have acknowledged that the sentence requires some verbal form in connection with the prepositional phrase μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου. Most supply an imperative, although specific verbal forms are rarely suggested. Within both English translations and the translations provided by commentators, the injunction is commonly rendered as, ‘do it’ (cf. RSV, NRSV, NAB, NET, ESV)160 or ‘do this’ (cf. NIV, HCSB),161 indicating a link back to the act of giving a defence. The most natural form to supply, therefore, might be ἀπολογήσασθε (‘provide a defence’; cf. Cassius Dio 41.30.1).162 157   See, e.g., Twells, Critical Examination, 125: ‘The Words μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου, are the last Words in the Sentence, and therefore according to usual Construction, are most likely to be the Qualifications of the Querist. A Christian must be ready to answer every one that desires to know the Grounds of the Christian Religion, if he asks it with Gentleness and a real Sollicitude after Truth’ (original emphasis). 158   E.g., Bengel 67; Steiger 2:192; de Wette 40–41; Bloomfield 717; Monnier 163. 159   E.g., Gerhard 421; Estius 542–43; Calov 1501; Demarest 167; Wiesinger 225–26; Alford 363; Huther 172–73; Hofmann 119; Keil 118; Johnstone 238–39; Kühl 205; Knopf 140. 160   This is the translation offered, e.g., by Achtemeier 228; Bony 137; Jobes 226; Prigent 95; Donelson 102. 161   This is the translation offered, e.g., by Schelkle 99; Davids 129; Knoch 94; Hiebert 221; Goppelt 239. Similarly, some supply the phrase ‘do so’ (Michaels 183; Senior 93). 162   Cf. Frankemölle 58: ‘antwortet’; Elliott 618: ‘offer it’. See also NCV: ‘but answer in a gentle way and with respect’.

164

1 PETER

This imperative could relate to the following participle in one of two ways. One possibility that has been suggested is that ἔχοντες functions as an imperatival participle that is coordinate with the implied verb (hence, ‘offer your defence with gentleness and reverence; maintain a clear conscience’).163 This structure, in connection with ἕτοιμοι (γίνεσθε) in v. 15, would be consistent with the fact that imperatival adjectives and imperatival participles often appear alongside one another in balanced volitional clauses (Rom 12.9–19; 1 Pet 3.8–9; Heb 13.5).164 Alternatively, the participle ἔχοντες could function adverbially, denoting either the resultant situation that occurs when one offers a defence of the gospel with gentleness and reverence,165 or the further specification of how this defence is to be offered. Although the decision between the two (imperatival vs. adverbial) is difficult, the parallel structure in 1 Pet 2.11–12 suggests that the latter may have been the intended meaning. A call to respond to one’s inquisitors ‘with gentleness and reverence’ (μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου) would be applicable to any situation, but it would be particularly relevant within a legal context. Given the freedom of a governor to either condemn or acquit a Christian defendant according to his personal discretion,   So, e.g., Brox 161 n. 508; Elliott 627; Schlosser 202–203, 206; Schreiner 200 (although he notes that ‘it is technically instrumental’); cf. also Meecham, ‘Participle’ 208. Others agree that ἔχοντες has an imperatival force, but they believe that the participle derives its volitional nuance from the imperatives in the preceding verses (so, e.g., Beare 165; Dubis 113; Osborne 222). 164   However, if ἔχοντες functions as an imperatival participle, there would be no need to supply an additional verb. As the equivalent of a finite form, the participle could be modified by the prepositional phrase and express the qualification (ἀλλά) of v. 15b (hence, ‘be ready to provide a defence… but maintain a clear conscience with gentleness and reverence’). See further Excursus: Imperatival Participles in 1 Peter. 165   As suggested by Forbes 117. Claiming that ἔχοντες functions as a participle of result creates a natural sense with the finite imperative that has been supplied (ἀπολογήσασθε), i.e., providing a defence of one’s hope with gentleness and reverence will allow one to maintain a clear conscience. The only (minor) point that might be raised against this interpretation is that it makes ἔχοντες somewhat anticlimactic in that the result of making a proper defence is followed immedi�ately by the purpose (ἵνα) of making that defence. At the same time, the verse may be intended to delineate the impact on two distinct parties: while the ἵνα clause describes how such a defence will affect outsiders, the participle ἔχοντες indicates how it affects the readers. In other words, while the opponents will be shamed by such a response, the Petrine audience will have a clear conscience. 163



3.13–17

165

the manner of one’s response could be significant. While some martyrologies, both Jewish and Christian, do contain responses of a more confrontational character—as when Polycarp responds ‘You threaten with fire…for you do not know about the fire of the coming judgment and eternal torment, reserved for the ungodly’ (Mart. Pol. 11.2)166—it is notable that the author of 1 Peter avoids such explicit declarations of the fate that awaits the ungodly (see on 2.23; 3.12). Instead, he insists on an approach that echoes the disposition required of wives in 3.2–4.167 A certain ambiguity exists in relation to πραΰτης, which could be intended to characterise a person’s demeanour either towards God or towards the human inquirers who are demanding an account. Noting the parallel in 1 Pet 3.4, Michaels suggests that this is an inner attitude towards God.168 However, the ‘gentle and quiet spirit’ which wives are urged to display, and which is precious in God’s sight, is a demeanour displayed and enacted towards their husbands. By comparison, without denying that πραΰτης denotes a virtue appropriately displayed towards God, it may best be taken here as a quality that should characterise all the Christians’ relationships and specifically their disposition towards those who accuse them.169 As in 3.2, and also 2.18, there is some ambiguity about whether the φόβος that should characterise the way Christians present their ἀπολογία is meant as an attitude directed towards other people or towards God.170 Some uses of the term elsewhere in 1 Peter (esp. 1.17; 2.17) suggest that the author regards God (alone) as the proper object of such reverent ‘fear’. Moreover, just as adjacent phrases in 3.4–6 (esp. μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν) support this view 166   Cf. also 2 Macc 7.16–17, 19, 31, 34–36; Mart. Perp. & Fel. 18.8; Polycarp Phil. 2.1. See further on 2.23. 167   See Exegesis at 3.4 for a discussion of πραΰς/πραΰτης, the adjectival form appearing in 3.4, the nominal form here. 168   Michaels 189; cf. Watson 86. 169   Cf. Goppelt 244: ‘In relation to others Christians are to be “gentle”… by conducting themselves in “fear” before God, i.e., in responsibility before God and in view of God’s judgment’. 170   According to Johnstone, neither God nor society is in view. He claims that the term expresses a ‘ “reverence” of feeling and manner, such as becomes the solemn importance of the subject dealt with, and the momentous consequences which may result from the statement made’ (238).

166

1 PETER

by explicitly exhorting the addressees not to fear other kinds of threat, so here too the preceding citation of Isa 8.12 in v. 14 suggests a similar perspective (unless a more generic sense is intended; see on 3.2). Most commentators therefore conclude that φόβος means ‘fear’ of God (an interpretation made explicit by the addition of θεοῦ after φόβου in minuscule MS 321 and the Ethiopic version).171 This interpretation of φόβος is strengthened by the participial phrase that follows, which further describes the way in which this gentle and reverent defence should be made or details the outcome of such a response as it pertains to the readers:172 συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν. A decision between these two options rests, in large part, on the meaning assigned to συνείδησις, a term that is difficult to properly understand and translate. Based on the meaning in 2.19, many commentators interpret συνείδησις here in the sense of ‘consciousness’ or ‘awareness’,173 and more specifically, relate it to a proper awareness of God’s will. But the meaning in this instance (and in 3.21) is slightly different, although still closely related. In 2.19, συνείδησις is explicitly defined in relation to God with the genitive θεοῦ. When the word functions in this way, conveying a sense of consciousness,174 a genitive modifier is often present to indicate the given entity or situation about which knowledge or awareness is possessed.175   So, e.g., Bennett 232; Hart 67; Mitchell 266; Stibbs–Walls 136; Cranfield 100; Kelly 143–44; Michaels 189; Schelkle 101; Davids 132; Achtemeier 234; Miller 263; Boring 132; Feldmeier 196; Dubis 112; Forbes 117. Otherwise, some interpret φόβος as an attitude towards hostile society (Reicke 138; Jobes 231). Many English translations similarly reflect this position, rendering the term as ‘respect’ (NIV, ESV, HCSB, GNT, NET, NJB). 172   The participle ἔχοντες most likely denotes result if συνείδησιν ἀγαθήν means ‘clear conscience’. In this case, Christians avoid a guilty conscience by defending their faith with the proper disposition. On the other hand, ἔχοντες would probably express means/manner if συνείδησιν ἀγαθήν is taken as ‘consciousness’. Here, the defence of the Christian faith would require a proper awareness of who God is and what God wants. 173   E.g., Michaels 189; Elliott 629–30; Senior 96; Donelson 105; Watson 86. 174   This is not to claim that συνείδησις must to be modified by an objective genitive in order to convey the sense, ‘consciousness’ (see, e.g., P.Fouad. 28; P.Brem. 11). 175   Cf. Democritus, Fragmenta 297 (Diels and Kranz): συνειδήσει τῆς ἐν τῶι βίωι κακοπραγμοσύνης (‘conscious of the perverse life they are leading’); Chrysippus, Fragmenta moralia 178 (Arnim): τὴν ταύτης συνείδησιν (‘conscious of it’); Philo, Det. 146: οἱ συνειδήσει τῶν οἰκείων ἀδικημάτων 171



3.13–17

167

In distinction, there are some uses of συνείδησις that denote a person’s inner faculties where consciousness resides, more akin to ‘conscience’ (cf. Eccl. 10.20 LXX; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 8).176 This meaning is commonly intended when the word is modified by an adjective indicating the state or condition of one’s moral consciousness. In this case, reference is made to a ‘good conscience’ (συνείδησις ἀγαθή).177 This construction, which is found elsewhere in the NT (Acts 23.1; 1 Tim 1.5, 19; cf. also 1 Clem. 41.1),178 is closely related to a sense of awareness, in particular an awareness related to right and wrong. Nevertheless, the meaning ἐλεγχόμενοι (‘we who are convicted by the awareness of our own misdeeds’); Heb 10.2: διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἔτι συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας (‘since the worshippers would no longer have any awareness of sins’); Diodorus Siculus 4.65.7: διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν τοῦ μύσους (‘because of his consciousness of the defilement’). 176   See BDAG 967–68; LSJ 1704. 177   The participial phrase συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν could be under�stood either as a double accusative object–complement construction, ‘keeping your conscience clear’ (Beare 165; cf. NRSV, NAB, HCSB, GNT), or with ἀγαθήν functioning as an attributive adjective of the direct object συνείδησιν, ‘maintaining a clear conscience’ (Dubis 112–13; cf. NIV, ESV, NASB, NET). Ultimately, the difference between them is a matter of emphasis: in the former, the adjective ἀγαθός receives stress, while the latter highlights the noun συνείδησις. Although the former is supported by the parallel structure in 1 Pet 2.12, in this case the possessive pronoun, which would have suggested such a usage, is absent. Added to this is the fact that the phrase commonly functions in an attributive relationship. 178   Other uses of this same construction (συνείδησις ἀγαθή) include: Hippocrates, Ep. 1; Herodian, Ab excess divi Marci 6.3.4; Stobaeus, Flor. 3.24. The term συνείδησις is also modified by other adjectives as well: ἀπρόσκοπος, ‘blameless’ (Acts 24.16); καθαρός, ‘clean/pure’ (1 Tim 3.9; 2 Tim 1.3; 1 Clem. 45.7; Ign. Trall. 7.2; P.Oslo II 17; Apollonius of Tyana, Apotelesmata, p. 1383 [Nau]); καλός, ‘good’ (Heb 13.18; 2 Clem. 16.4; P.Rein. I 52); ἄμωμος, ‘blameless’, and ἁγνός, ‘pure’ (Pol. Phil. 5.3); ἄξιος, ‘worthy’ (P.Corn. 14). Achtemeier (235 n. 90) notes the parallel Latin phrase bona conscientia, which provides a helpful comparison. When speaking of the possibility of his own death, Seneca states, ‘whenever Nature demands back my breath, or my reason releases it, I shall depart, bearing witness that I have loved a good conscience and all good endeavour [testatus exibo bonam me conscientiam amasse, bona studia], that I have been guilty of nothing that impaired the liberty of any man, least of all my own’ (Vit. beat. 20.5; trans. Basore [LCL]). Here, the phrase bona conscientia seems to be understood as an awareness that one was living consistently with the values to which one subscribes. For Seneca, this involved living harmoniously with virtue (see Benef. 4.12.4; 4.21.6; Vit. beat. 19.1; Tranq. 3.4; Clem. 1.15.5; Ep. 23.7; 43.5; 97.12).

168

1 PETER

focuses less on being conscious of a moral standard and more on the condition of a person’s inner faculties that develops when that consciousness is put into service in one’s daily life. By describing the resultant state as ‘good’ (ἀγαθός), the author indicates a situation in which one’s actions align with and conform to his or her moral consciousness (cf. Heb 13.18).179 This situation contrasts with instances where a person’s words and actions ran contrary to their moral compass, leaving them with an ‘evil conscience’ (συνείδησις πονηρά: Heb 10.22; Herm. Mand. 3.4; cf. κακοῦ συνειδότος: P.Oxy. III 532), which was thought to negatively impact one’s prayers (Did. 4.14; Barn. 19.12; cf. 2 Clem. 16.4). When one developed a guilty or defiled conscience, due to corrupt thoughts or actions, it could be a source of torment (Publius Syrus, Sent. 194; Juvenal, Sat. 13; Lucian, [Am.] 49). For even though a person’s shameful deeds might be concealed from others, they were nonetheless known to the individual (see Isocrates, Demon. 16). ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλεῖσθε καταισχυνθῶσιν οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες ὑμῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν. ἀναστροφήν. The purpose (ἵνα) of making a courteous defence to those who inquire is now explained, in phrasing reminiscent of 1 Pet 2.12.180 As in 2.12, the prepositional phrase ἐν ᾧ is best taken as a form of reference—with ἐν τούτῳ implied (‘in the very matter in which’; cf. NASB)181—rather than as a temporal indicator (‘when…’).182 The relatively uncommon verb καταλαλέω (on which see 2.12) is even more unusual here since it appears in the passive form.183 In   Elsewhere, this condition was thought to be a necessary prerequisite for properly worshipping God (see 2 Tim 1.3; Heb 9.14). 180   The reference to τὴν ἀγαθὴν… ἀναστροφήν (along with the earlier participial phrase συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν) recalls τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν… ἔχοντες καλήν, and there is a very close parallel between ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλεῖσθε here and ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν in 2.12. 181   Cf. Bigg 159; Spicq 132; Kelly 144; Knoch 94–95; Davids 129; Bénétreau 202; Feldmeier 192. For a defence of this interpretation, see Exegesis at 2.12. 182   A number of commentators espouse a temporal function for the preposi�tional phrase ἐν τούτῳ: Schelkle 99; Brox 161; Achtemeier 236; Senior 176 n. 253; Donelson 102; cf. also Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 110–11; Fink, ‘Use and Significance’, 34. Some translations render it in a similar way (e.g., ESV, RSV, NRSV, GNT, HCSB, NAB). 183   The passive form of καταλαλέω is quite rare, only appearing a couple of times in secular literature (Polybius, Hist. 27.13.2; Diogenes, Testimonia et 179



3.13–17

169

this instance, the accusers are described as οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες. This word generally depicts the actions by which one dealt spitefully with another.184 On occasion, however, the meaning was limited to the use of strong language to threaten or to insult (Herodotus, Hist. 6.9; Philo, Moys. 2.199). Most modern interpreters understand this term in the latter sense, as denoting verbal abuse and malicious speech. Such an interpretation is natural given the fact that the verse also mentions the slander (καταλαλεῖσθε) that is directed toward Christians, and that ‘the object [of ἐπηρεάζοντες] is the ἀναστροφή of Christian believers, not the believers themselves’.185 What must not be overlooked, though, is that in some places such verbal assaults represent accusations of wrongdoing (Vettius Valens, Anthologies 4.22; Inf. Gos. Thom. 9.2), which require resolution through legal channels (Antiphon, De choreuta 8; Cassius Dio 28.97.3; 38.25.2; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 8.4). An illustration of this usage is provided by Cassius Dio, who describes the process by which many cases arrive in court: For there are many who, from various motives,—either because they hate others or covet their possessions, or because they want to do a favour to some one else, or because they have demanded money from some one and have not obtained it,—bring false charges against the persons concerned (ἐπηρεάζουσιν αὐτούς), pretending that they are engaged in sedition or are planning or saying something prejudicial to the ruler (52.37.3; trans. Cary [LCL]).

fragmenta, frag. 99 [Arnim]) and also in a few later Christian writings (Ephraem Syrus, Reprehensio sui ipsius atque Confessio, p. 78 [Phrantzoles]; Vita sanctae Syncleticae, line 586 [Abelarga]). See also Text at 3.16 n. g. 184   Cf. Isaeus, De Philoctemone 22; Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.31; Lysias, In Philocratem 7; Demosthenes, Chers. 29. A definition of the noun ἐπηρεασμός is provided by Aristotle: ‘spitefulness (ἐπηρεασμός) consists in placing obstacles in the way of another’s wishes, not in order that any advantage may accrue to him who spites, but to prevent any accruing to the other’ (Rhet. 2.2.4 [1378b]; trans. Freese). 185   Michaels 190. He notes further, ‘One can “denounce” someone’s conduct, but can scarcely “abuse” or “mistreat” it’. What he may be overlooking, however, is that this might be ‘[a]n abbreviated form of speech’, which means that the false accusations are being made against the readers on account of their good-in-Christconduct (see Bengel 67).

170

1 PETER

While the use of ἐπηρεάζω in v. 16 should not be limited to formal accusations made in a court-room context,186 this threat must be included alongside those expressed in more informal settings. Accusations and slander, in both informal and judicial contexts, could encourage or legitimate physical punishment (as well as other social and economic sanctions),187 whether these too were informal or legally sanctioned. Moreover, given such potential outworkings of hostility and accusation, it is entirely likely that the author regarded these as ‘threats’ to the Christian way of life. In classical literature, ἐπηρεάζω is usually modified by a dative (cf. Isaeus, De Menecle 28; Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.31; Demosthenes, Cor. 138). As a result, Bigg proposed that ἀναστροφήν should be taken as the direct object of καταισχυνθῶσιν instead of ἐπηρεάζοντες: ‘that those who revile you may be abashed by your good conversation’.188 This would represent a significant alteration, in that ‘good conduct’ would no longer be identified as the cause of persecution but as the solution. But not only is Bigg’s suggestion unnecessary, given that ἐπηρεάζω can also be governed by an accusative,189 it is unlikely, given the word order (i.e., οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες being located between καταισχυνθῶσιν 186   In the past, some have claimed that ἐπηρεάζω carries a forensic sense such that it reflects the act of bringing formal accusations against a person (so, e.g., Demarest 168; Hensler 152; cf. also Elsner, Observationes sacræ, 1:30). While recent commentators usually deny that this language refers to trials before the governor, some allow for the possibility that it might reflect situations where Christians were brought before local magistrates (see Kelly 144; Achtemeier 236–37). 187   For a depiction of the economic and social impacts that might ensue, Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 317–26; cf. also Oakes, Philippians, 89–96. 188   Bigg 159; cf. Selwyn 194; Best 134. In the passive, the verb καταισχύνω can be governed by an accusative that denotes the cause of the shaming, although this is very rare (see Isocrates, Paneg. 97: καταισχυνθέντες γὰρ Πελοποννήσιοι τὴν ἀρετὴν αὐτῶν, ‘for the Peloponnesians, put to shame by our courage…’). But, normally, this function was conveyed by the passive form of καταισχύνω + a prepositional phrase: ἐκ (Hos 4.19; Mic 7.16; Zeph 3.11), ἀπό (Jer 2.36bis; 28.17; 31.13bis; Dan 3.44), or ἐπί (Ctesias, vol. 3c,688,F, frag. 1b [Jacoby]; Jer 10.14; Diodorus Siculus 2.4.3; 19.72.7). 189   See, e.g., Antiphon, De choreuta 8; Aristotle, Pol. 1311a; Posidonius, Frag. 405 (Theiler); Nicolaus, Frag. 92 (Müller); Plutarch, Luc. 42.5; Galen, In Hippocratis aphorismos commentarii vii, vol. 17b, p. 414 (Kühn); Irenaeus, Haer. 1.1.19; Inf. Gos. Thom. 9.2; Cassius Dio 52.37.3. In the only other use of ἐπηρεάζω in the NT, it is also modified by an accusative (Luke 6.28). This parallel was taken by



3.13–17

171

and ἀναστροφήν) and the absence of the dative (ὑμῖν) that Bigg’s translation assumes. As the text stands, the cause of the persecution is specifically identified as ὑμῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν. The word ἀναστροφή is a particular favourite of the author of 1 Peter, used six times in the letter (almost half of its thirteen NT occurrences)190 to denote a pattern of conduct or way of life (see on 1.15). Also characteristic of the author is the focus on the need for Christians to do what is ‘good’ (see on 2.12; and Excursus: ‘Doing Good’ and the Strategy of 1 Peter). Distinctive and notable here is the description of the believer’s noble conduct as a way of life ἐν Χριστῷ (cf. 5.10, 14). This particular formulation is characteristic of Paul. Aside from these occurrences in 1 Peter, it is found in the NT only in the Pauline letters.191 As is often pointed out, the author of 1 Peter gives little indication here or elsewhere of the developed Pauline ideas of incorporation or participation in(to) Christ (though see 2.24).192 Yet the phrase itself seems likely to reflect direct or indirect Pauline influence; while there are wider precedents and parallels,193 the specific phraseology is distinctively Pauline, so far as our evidence allows us to conclude.194 Here in 1 Peter, the phrase seems to function as a shorthand expression more or less equivalent to ‘Christian’ (though in 5.10 and especially 5.14 it indicates, not unlike Paul, the ‘sphere’ in which Christian life and salvation is found). However, as Elliott points out, while it Michaels to suggest ‘Peter’s acquaintance with some form of the Jesus tradition in Greek’ (190). But given the prevalence of the construction ἐπηρεάζω + accusative elsewhere, this seems like an over-interpretation. 190   It occurs only twice in the LXX: Tob 4.14 and 2 Macc 6.23. 191   On the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ in Paul, see, e.g., Deissmann, Die neutestamentliche Formel; Neugebauer, In Christus; Bouttier, En Christ; Wedderburn, ‘Some Observations’, 83–97; Campbell, Union with Christ; Thate, Vanhoozer, and Campbell, ed., ‘In Christ’ in Paul. 192   Cf., e.g., Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus, 84–106, esp. 102–106. 193   E.g., in phrases such as ‘in the law’ or ‘in God’ (see Berger, ‘Zum tradition� sgeschichtlichen Hintergrund’, 403–408; Elliott 632 with nn. 247–48). Yet how close the conceptual parallels are may be questioned. Cf. also 1 Sam 23.16 (ἐν κυρίῳ); Gen 12.3 (ἐν σοί). In the NT, one may compare the Johannine language of mutual indwelling (John 14.20; 15.4–11; 17.21–26; 1 John 2.5–6, 24, 27; 4.12–16). 194   Cf. Horrell, Becoming Christian, 14–15. See also Brox 161; Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 186–87.

172

1 PETER

‘functions like the name “Christian”… “in Christ” represents a selfdesignation of the believing community, whereas “Christian” is a label originating with outsiders’.195 In the writings of Paul, the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ is employed in a variety of syntactical relationships: adverbial (Gal 2.17); adjectival (Rom 16.3); substantival (Rom 8.1); complementary to a verb (1 Cor 15.19).196 Its use in the present construction has occasionally been understood as denoting the associative context in which this good behaviour takes place. According to this interpretation, ‘good conduct flows out of and is determined by the Christian’s relationship to Christ, that is, his or her union with Christ’.197 However, the placement of the prepositional phrase in a medial position (τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν) creates a serious difficulty for this position. As it stands, ἐν Χριστῷ likely functions adjectivally, providing a second attributive modifier of ἀναστροφή (‘good-in-Christconduct’). Its inclusion marks out the unique way that the Petrine author understands good deeds. ‘This metaphor cluster’, as Howe points out, ‘constitutes a certain kind of “living space” wherein moral (and immoral) behavior is displayed and constrained’.198 What is important to recognise is how these spatial restraints shape the audience’s understanding of the type of ἀναστροφή they are expected to undertake. According to Howe, ‘The moral character the reader associates with Χριστός becomes a landmark that aids (or prompts for) recognition of Χριστός-like behavior on the 195   Elliott 632. See further Exegesis at 4.16; Horrell, ‘Label Χριστιανός’, 361–81; idem, Becoming Christian, 164–210. 196   See Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 119–20. For a fuller treatment of this issue, see Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 67–199. 197   Davids 133; cf. also Dubis 114. In defence of this interpretation, Christensen maintains that it best accounts for ‘the relational context of the citation of LXX Ps 33:13–17 in [1 Pet] 3:10–12’. More specifically, he claims that imitation ‘is explicit both in the household code and the material that follows’, noting however that ‘such imitation is sustained by a God whose presence remains with the suffering believers and whose “ears are open to the prayers” of the righteous (1 Pet 3:12)’ (‘Union with Christ’, 342). However, to find any notion of a union with Christ in 1 Pet 3.13–17 seems somewhat strained. 198   Howe, Because You Bear This Name, 233. This is explained further: ‘When the graphemes ἐν Χριστῷ prompt for these conceptual operations, everything the reader associates with Χριστός—stories of his life, his sayings, his character, even his manner of death—is potentially put into a conceptual container’ (239).



3.13–17

173

readers’ own part’.199 In other words, the ‘good’-ness of the readers’ conduct receives its form and definition not from cultural standards but from Christ.200 The purpose itself is specified in the verb καταισχυνθῶσιν, one of a number of terms in 1 Peter that resonates with the cultural vocabulary of honour and shame.201 But the use of this language raises several questions: Who is ultimately ashamed by the polite defence of Christians? When does it occur? How is it experienced? Some would say that the shaming refers to the subsequent remorse felt by governing authorities after reflecting on the innocence of Christians against whom they may have accepted legal accusations.202 Others similarly understand this shaming as an event that takes place in the present life, but they relate it to different actors and for different reasons. Interpreters occasionally posit an immediate resolution to the conflict when the charges against Christians are publicly proven to be false.203 In this case, the accusers themselves would be publicly shamed and perhaps even sentenced for false accusations.204 This shaming has also been connected to the Christians, who are said to come to the recognition that it is the   Howe, Because You Bear This Name, 239 (original emphasis).   Cf. Fausset 508; Plumptre 129; Beare 166; Achtemeier 236. See also Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 195: ‘the behavior in question is deemed good by virtue of its orientation to Christ and is only recognized as good by those who are themselves in Christ’. 201   See esp. Elliott, ‘Disgraced yet Graced’, 166–78. 202   Cf. Doddridge 209 n. e: ‘I think this is remarkably illustrated by the strain of that epistle of Pliny, in which he gives an account of his own conduct, in persecuting the Christians; by which it plainly appears that he was ashamed of what the laws required, when he considered how inoffensive their behaviour was’ (original emphasis). 203   See, e.g., Huther 173; Achtemeier 236–37; Richard 151–52. This interpreta�tion is taken one step further by Dubis, who understands the shaming of detractors not as something that is forced upon them (‘put to shame’), but as an emotional state they reach on their own (with καταισχυνθῶσιν understood as a middle form: ‘be ashamed’). Ultimately, he envisions a missiological purpose behind the Christians’ gentle and reverent defence: ‘in order that they [i.e., opponents] might be shamed in the here and now and, as a result, come to Christ’ (113; cf. Grudem 154; Vogels, Christi Abstieg, 35–36). Such a reading, however, forces a missional focus on the text where none is readily apparent. 204   Along these lines, Mason claims that the Petrine author ‘is evidently thinking of the Christian at the bar of the curator or pro-consul, and the mortification of the delator, or spy, who had given information against him’ (419). On the dangers 199 200

174

1 PETER

accusers, not themselves, who should be shamed.205 Most, however, read the verb καταισχυνθῶσιν as a divine passive (‘put to shame’), which signifies that the shaming will take place at the eschatological judgment.206 This represents a reversal of fortunes: instead of bringing shame upon the Christians, whom they accuse (cf. 2.6; 4.16: μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω), it is the accusers themselves who will be put to shame. Again, some think this language ‘argues decisively against any theory of formal trials or official Roman “persecution” as the situation envisaged in 1 Peter’.207 However, it is by no means convincing to take the language of shaming as an indication that the slander and accusation must be informal rather than judicial. To be found guilty and punished by a court—whether this entailed capital punishment or not—was clearly regarded as a verdict that brought shame upon the accused, and such shaming was sometimes emphasised and publicly enacted by degrading the victim. As Holloway remarks, ‘public shaming was… an important and well-developed part of the Roman penal system. Criminals were regularly mocked and humiliated in their deaths, and in many cases were likened to animals’.208 Thus, for a person judged and condemned by society, a death might well be described in terms of shame and ignominy, as indeed is Christ’s death (Heb 12.2). Another interesting point of consideration is the apparent contrast between the outcome depicted in 2.12—where the purpose of good conduct is that accusers δοξάσωσιν τὸν θεὸν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς—and the shaming that is described here. Noting that this ‘entire clause’ in 3.16 ‘appears to be modelled on 2:12b’, Michaels comments: ‘But they contemplate precisely opposite of making false accusations in a Roman courtroom, see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 228–29. 205   Cf. Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 195. 206   See, e.g., Best 134; Michaels 190–91; Picirilli 176; Elliott 632–33; Osborne 223; Schreiner 201–202. Cf. Watson 86, who locates the shaming in both the present life and the eschatological future. 207   Elliott 631. He depicts the implied situation thus: ‘The believers are the vic�tims not of formal judicial inquiries but of slander, denigration, insult, and public shaming’. 208   Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 225. The punishments inflicted on Christians under Nero included being dressed in animal skins, one form of public humiliation (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44).



3.13–17

175

results!’209 Yet the contrasting depictions are not necessarily contradictory. In 2.12 the eschatological perspective is more apparent, indicating that this glorifying of God is envisaged only at the point of the final divine ‘visitation’. Whether the shaming is also eschatological is less clear; it seems plausible to see the author as hoping that such shaming (and its associated change of perspective on the Christians) would occur in the here and now, not least in the context of trials where the accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Christians turn out to be false. Yet the author’s confidence is an essentially eschatological confidence: whatever happens in the ‘short time’ in which suffering remains likely (1.6), ultimately those who trust in God will be vindicated, and their accusers shamed. This does not necessarily mean that the author holds out no prospect for the conversion and salvation of such accusers (see on 2.12). Being put to shame might depict an ultimate, final fate, but it could equally denote the outcome of finding, to one’s shame, that one’s convictions and accusations about the Christians are false, an essential prerequisite, from the author’s perspective, for offering due glory to God (cf. 1 Cor 15.9–10). 17 κρεῖττον γὰρ ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, θεοῦ, πάσχειν ἢ κακοποιοῦντας. κακοποιοῦντας. This short section, dealing with issues central to the author’s concerns, is brought to a conclusion here, with various indications of inclusio (see Introduction to this section). As many have noted, γάρ indicates that the sentence serves to provide explanation and motivation for the instruction that has preceded. But to what does the particle connect, and how does the sentence continue the present line of thought? Different proposals have been made.210 The sentence that γάρ introduces relates to suffering and doing good, ideas that last appeared in vv. 13–14a, whereas the preceding two verses (vv. 15–16) encourage the readers to devote themselves to   Michaels 190.   Some connect γάρ with the idea of maintaining a clear conscience (συνεί­ δησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν) in v. 16a (Wiesinger 226; Alford 363; Johnstone 241; Huther 173), while others relate it to the command to offer one’s defence with gentleness and reverence ([ἀπελογήσασθε] μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου) in v. 16a (Goppelt 246; Watson 86). Still others claim that it connects to the injunction to ‘set apart Christ as Lord’ (κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε) in v. 15a (Keil 119). 209 210

176

1 PETER

the lordship of Christ and to blamelessly defend the Christian faith. Given this, it is difficult to identify a specific referent with which to connect the particle. Instead, the link between v. 17 and the preceding verses (vv. 14b–16) is an underlying assumption that the author makes about his instructions: if the audience is committed to following his directions, which he would define as ‘doing good’, this may lead to suffering. From this, a question naturally arises: Why would the readers set aside their fear and commit themselves to live for Christ, if it potentially leads to suffering? The present verse, which creates an inclusio with vv. 13–14a, offers a reason to further motivate this behaviour.211 This explanation comes in a proverbial form that scholars, following Zimmerli, have come to label a Tobspruch, a saying with the basic structure, ‘it is better to… than’ (κρεῖττον… ἤ).212 Zimmerli identified this form in the Wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps 118.8–9; Prov 16.19; 21.9, 19; 25.7, 24; Eccl 7.2), and there are examples in the NT (e.g., Mark 9.42–47; 1 Cor 7.9; 2 Pet 2.21).213 In relation to the specific expression of proverbial wisdom found here, some commentators also draw attention to parallels in Greek and Roman writing, particularly the notion that ‘it is a worse thing to do wrong than to be wronged’ (τὸ ἀδικεῖν τοῦ ἀδικεῖσθαι κάκιον, Plato, Gorg. 474b–c).214 Some therefore suggest that the author conveys something similar to that ‘widely accepted… common wisdom’.215 However, the precise form of the saying and   Cf. Dubis, 115: ‘a motivational ground for the preceding exhortation’.   Zimmerli, ‘Zur Struktur der alttestamentlichen Weisheit’, 192–94. 213   See further Snyder, ‘Tobspruch in the New Testament’, 117–20. Cf. also Berger, ‘Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament’, 1064, who identifies this form as a Besser-spruch. 214   Cf. also Seneca, Ep. 95.52, speaking of Nature: ‘according to her ruling, it is more wretched to commit than to suffer injury (miserius est nocere quam laedi)’ (trans. Gummere [LCL]); Musonius Frag. 3.38: speaking of the woman who studied philosophy, she ‘would be disposed to look upon doing a wrong as worse than suffering one (τὸ μὲν ἀδικεῖν τοῦ ἀδικεῖσθαι χεῖρον νομίζειν) (as much worse as it is baser), and to regard being worsted as better than gaining an unjust advantage’ (trans. Lutz); also Frag. 10 on not taking revenge if wronged (see above on 3.9). See also Plato, Gorg. 508b, 509c; Crito 49b; Aristotle, Rhet. 1364b; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.5.10; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 5.56. 215   Achtemeier 237; cf. also Brox, 162 n. 514. Elliott, more cautiously and appropriately sees the principle expressed in 1 Peter as ‘reminiscent of earlier moral sentiment’ (635). 211

212



3.13–17

177

its content correspond less precisely to this established wisdom than commentators sometimes acknowledge. The specific conviction expressed here is that it is better to suffer as someone who does good than as someone who does evil. This, as has long been recognised, is closely parallel to what the author said to slaves in 2.20 (cf. also 4.15–16).216 Traditionally, the contrast in this verse has been understood as distinguishing suffering that arises from practices that the Christian community defines as ‘good’ (particularly those that are at odds with popular sentiments) from suffering that is inflicted on account of actions that were defined as punishable offences within the legal standards of the time (cf. 1 Pet 4.15–16).217 ‘The point’, according to Achtemeier, ‘is to urge Christians to be sure that the behavior that is despised by non-Christians is good rather than evil, that is, that the vilification they receive is due to behavior in accord with the Christian faith, not behavior that even by then-current cultural standards would be deemed evil’.218 According to this interpretation, the comparative adjective κρεῖττον describes what is morally beneficial (cf. 1 Cor 7.9, 38; 2 Pet 2.21).219 Alternatively, for those who perceive a missiological aim in v. 16, it might also denote the advantage of enduring unjust suffering in that ‘it becomes a powerful form of witness, leading unbelievers to salvation’.220 Challenges have been raised against this traditional view on the basis that it turns the verse into nothing more than a truism: ‘[t]he statement that suffering for doing good is “better” than suffering for doing evil, is all too easily reduced to saying merely that   E.g., Windisch 70; Goppelt 246; Elliott 633–34.   Modern proponents of this view include: Beare 166; Davids 133–34; Goppelt 246; Brox 163; Boring 133; Senior 96; Feldmeier 197; Watson 86–87; Vahrenhorst 151; Schreiner 203. 218   Achtemeier 237. 219   Cf. de Wette 41; Wiesinger 226–27; Johnstone 242; Monnier 166. 220   Grudem 155. Others have similarly linked the benefits (κρεῖττον) of righteous suffering with the Christian mission to unbelievers (e.g., Blum 241; Hillyer 110; Marshall 117; Elliott 635; Osborne 223). Along similar lines, some have argued that the reason why righteous suffering is ‘better’ is because it helps accomplish the goal of v. 16: whereas suffering without legitimate cause may bring about the shaming of opponents, suffering for doing genuine evil only confirms their opposition (see Weiss 318; Kühl 206–207; cf. von Soden 153). 216 217

178

1 PETER

good is better than evil’.221 Building on an earlier suggestion by Geschwind,222 Michaels thus proposes an eschatological interpretation of the contrast of 3.17: ‘it is “better” to suffer in this life at the hands of the persecutors for doing good, than at God’s hand “on the day of visitation” for doing wrong’.223 In this case, ‘better’ (κρεῖττον) is understood as that which is more advantageous (cf. Phil 1.23).224 Understood in this way, the verse functions ‘as a word of assurance (i.e., remember, when you suffer, that you are infinitely better off than the evildoers who oppress you)’.225 Two points are used to support this construal. The first is the eschatological orientation of the Tobspruch within the Synoptic tradition. When the form is employed in the Gospels, it sets forth eschatological punishment as the alternative to earthly sacrifice (Matt 5.29–30; 18.8–9; Mark 9.43, 45, 47). The second is the eschatological focus of the present context. Michaels identifies the ‘evildoers’ in this verse with the opponents of Christianity, who ‘accuse’ and ‘slander’ believers. They are set in contrast to Christians, who maintain ‘good conduct’ (v. 16). This dividing line provides a point of comparison with the earlier quotation from Psalm 33 (LXX), which distinguishes between ‘the righteous’ (δίκαιος) and ‘the one who does evil’ (ποιῶν κακά, v. 12). While God looks favourably upon the former, God’s face is set against the latter. The arguments of Michaels are not altogether convincing, however.226 While the Tobspruch form in the Synoptic Gospels contrasts present and future outcomes, the same proverbial structure appears in other NT writings without an eschatological contrast (cf. 1 Cor 7.9; 2 Pet 2.21), and no such future reference characterises   Michaels 191.   Gschwind, Die Niederfahrt Christi, 101–109, 116–18. 223   Michaels 191–92. For his fuller argument, see idem, ‘Eschatology in I Peter III.17’, 394–401. This view represents a minority perspective that has gained an increasing number of advocates in recent years (e.g., Bénétreau 203; Vinson 169; Jobes 232; Green 115; Witherington 180; cf. Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 223). 224   Cf. also Steiger 2:194; Fronmüller 60. Others have similarly taken the comparative adjective to denote that which is favourable or desirable (see Hofmann 120; Keil 119; Gunkel 279–80; Knopf 142, Windisch 70). 225   Michaels 192. 226   See also Achtemeier, 237–38, who thoroughly reviews the arguments for and against this position. He also notes, against Michaels, that 3.10–12 need not have an eschatological tone (238 n. 117). 221 222



3.13–17

179

similar sayings in the Hebrew Bible. Given its range of uses elsewhere, the Tobspruch form alone, therefore, cannot be presumed to signal a contrast between earthly and eschatological realities. The eschatological context of the passage provides a slightly stronger argument, in that the final shaming of opponents has just been mentioned (v. 16). But the verse itself gives no indication that both the type of suffering (earthly vs. final eschatological) and the one(s) causing the suffering (oppressors vs. God) are distinguished here. Michaels’ thesis rests to a large degree on distinguishing the referents of ἀγαθοποιοῦντας and κακοποιοῦντας, with the former referring to the Christians and the latter to their opponents. However, both participles (ἀγαθοποιοῦντας and κακοποιοῦντας) are accusative plural, suggesting that they modify an implied ὑμᾶς,227 such that ‘doing good’ and ‘doing evil’ are two alternative ways of acting for one and the same plural subject: the readers. Contrary to Michaels’ objection, the specific point of this verse seems less obvious and more coherent with the author’s overall message than even proponents of the traditional view have suggested. Clearly the author insists—here and elsewhere (2.12– 14, 20; 4.15–16)—that it is indeed imperative that Christians are people who do what is good and do not do anything evil. What is more striking is the idea of why one might suffer. The participles ἀγαθοποιοῦντας and κακοποιοῦντας could be understood temporally, describing the conditions or circumstances under which this suffering takes place. In this case, there would be no direct link between suffering and doing good. The sentence would merely describe the preference for this coincidence rather than the other: it is better to suffer when you are doing good.228 But given that suffering is thought to occur according to God’s sovereign plan (εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ), this seems unlikely.229   Cf. Elliott 634. See also Robertson, Grammar, 1039.   This view is espoused, e.g., by Hofmann 120; Lenski 151–52; Kelly 145; Donelson 102. In the translation of Jobes (226; cf. Schott 209), the first participle is rendered temporally (‘to suffer while doing good’) while the second is taken causally (‘to suffer because of doing evil’). 229   Others interpret them as denoting means, ‘suffering by doing good’ (e.g., Bony 137; Prigent 95; Schlosser 208), while some translate them almost in a comparative sense with the participles functioning substantivally, ‘to suffer as those who do good’ (e.g., Holmer–de Boor 121; Goppelt 239; Achtemeier 228; Schweizer 66; Green 110). 227 228

180

1 PETER

It is better to understand the participles causally. In this way, they describe the reasons why suffering occurs.230 This is clearly the sense implied in v. 14 (διὰ δικαιοσύνην) and most likely forms another indication of inclusio across this short passage. Further, the same sense is evident in the parallel construction in 2.20: just as Christian slaves might endure suffering, not only when they do what are regarded as ‘bad’ things, but even when they are ἀγαθοποιοῦντες, so too Christians generally may suffer even when—and more precisely, because—they do what is good. This indicates, as noted in the comments on v. 14, that the author’s notion of what is ‘good’ does not simply conform to what was widely accepted at the time as ‘good’, as is commonly supposed. Rather, following the way of life that the author regards as ‘good’ may, in certain respects, be the cause of suffering, in the form of hostility and persecution from those outside. One important question that is not always addressed by proponents of the traditional view, however, is why the author contrasts punishment for wicked or criminal acts with unjust suffering. Does he imagine that his audience might pursue the first option?231 If not, why suggest this possibility, especially since it does not reflect the most likely alternative to suffering for righteousness—which would be conforming to the standards of society as a way to avoid suffering?232 As Vinson points out, it is odd ‘to commend suffering for the sake of righteousness as “better than” suffering because of 230   So, e.g., Johnstone 242–43; Huther 173; Holzmeister 204; Hiebert 231; Elliott 634; Dubis 115; Forbes 118. 231   Some years ago, Reicke proposed that this verse addresses the misplaced zeal of the audience ‘who tried to gain the glory of martyrdom through stubborn opposition to the power of the state’. In this way, he claimed that the statement is not a ‘tautology but a profound warning, owing to an urgent need’ (108; cf. Margot 59, who argues that the verse represents a warning against the temptation to respond to false accusations with evil). While this view has rightly been challenged, it does at least seek to explain this unusual alternative. 232   Masterman (129) set forth the possibility—although he did not pursue it— that the verse sets up a contrast between suffering for righteousness and avoiding suffering through social conformity. This would require, he notes, the interpreter to understand μὴ πάσχειν after κακοποιοῦντας; hence, ‘suffering for doing good is better than not suffering for doing evil’. The difficulty with this suggestion is that it would require defining κακοποιέω as living in a way approved by popular society. Elsewhere in the letter, however, the term κακοποιός is used to describe one who undertakes socially disapproved actions with potential legal repercussions (esp. 4.15; also 2.12).



3.13–17

181

one’s crimes, since the second sort of suffering is not supposed to be a live alternative for 1 Peter’s readers’.233 Given the exhortation not to retaliate or exact revenge (3.9; cf. 2.23), we should not too easily exclude the possibility that the author perceives the need to warn his readers against responding violently or culpably to those who might accuse or harm them. However, the often stereotypical accusations made against Christians (and other socially suspect groups),234 and the extent to which trials of Christians make reference to possible ‘associated crimes’ (Pliny Ep. 10.96.2: flagitia cohaerentia nomini),235 make it more likely (as in 4.15–16) that the contrast is primarily intended to be between suffering for exhibiting ‘the good way of life in Christ’ (3.16) and suffering on the basis of accusations of genuine or criminal wrongdoing—which, as 4.15 makes clear, should always be false (cf. also 2.20a). Paralleling the earlier part of this passage (v. 14) and in keeping with its overall thrust (see on v. 13), the optative mood is once again employed in another incomplete fourth-class condition (εἰ θέλοι) to indicate that such suffering is by no means inevitable, but only a remote possibility.236 Similar expressions are found in other literary sources, usually denoting hopeful uncertainty about an unknown outcome. Plato, for instance, describes the potential benefit of his exposition: ‘for perhaps, if god wills (εἰ θεὸς ἐθέλοι), this description, when it reaches its conclusion, might sufficiently clarify what now perplexes us’ (Leg. 799e).237 In this case, the author creates 233   Vinson 169. To explain this situation, Schreiner suggests that the danger addressed by this verse was that the ‘Christians may be apt to explain all suffering as an indication of their righteousness, when some of it may be deserved and come to them because of their sins’ (203). Whether this inclination was present is difficult to determine, and would likely depend on the nature of the ‘crime’ and its punishment. 234   Such criticisms included crimes of incest, cannibalism, murder, etc. (see Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.7.11; 5.1.14, 26; 9.5.2; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 26; 2 Apol. 12; Tertullian, Apol. 2.5; 6.11–7.5). For discussion: de Ste Croix, ‘Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?’, 20–21; de Vos, ‘Popular Graeco-Roman Responses’, 877–85; Sordi, Christians, 32–33. 235   Pliny, however, discovers nothing that is explicitly criminal in his investiga�tion of the group’s activities. See further Horrell, Becoming Christian, 183–85; Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 199–207. 236   On the meaning of the optative in the fourth-class condition, see Exegesis at 3.14. 237   Other examples of the use of this phrase include: Homer, Il. 13.743; Od. 3.228; 5.169; Aristophanes, Ran. 533; Plato, Leg. 841c; Herodotus, Hist. 3.119.6;

182

1 PETER

a pleonasm (lit. ‘if the will of God wills’),238 which effectively functions as ‘a metonomy in which God’s will stands for God himself’.239 The other occurrences in 1 Peter do not deploy the verb alongside the noun, but refer simply to the θέλημα θεοῦ. Grammatically, the clause requires an object. One could supply ὑμᾶς πάσχειν ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, with the result that the protasis reads, ‘if God wants you to suffer for doing good’. This is the interpretation advocated by Elliott, who argues that ‘the qualification… refers to suffering for doing what is right and not simply suffering per se’. He continues, ‘The point is not that God wills suffering but that God wills doing what is right rather than doing what is wrong…, even if and when this results in suffering’.240 The word order is thought to support this interpretation, presumably because ἀγαθοποιοῦντας is placed before the conditional element.241 But this argument is nullified by the fact that the infinitive πάσχειν is placed after the condition. A better alternative might be to supply ὑμᾶς πάσχειν as the object of θέλοι, in which case the protasis would read, ‘if God wants you to suffer’.242 According to this interpretation, God may or may not desire for believers to suffer in general. This is consistent Julian, Epistulae, 98. The protasis of a third-class condition (ἐὰν ὁ κύριος/θεὸς θελήσῃ) is also found: Xenophon, Cyr. 2.4.19; Sir 39.6; 1 Cor 4.19; Jas 4.15. Cf. Minucius Felix, Oct. 18.11: ‘I hear the common people, when they lift their hands to heaven, say nothing else but “Oh God,” and “God is great,” and “God is true,” and “if God shall permit” (si deus dederit). Is this the natural discourse of the common people, or is it the prayer of a confessing Christian?’ (trans. Wallis). 238   Winer, Grammar, 755. Cf. Ign. Rom. praescr.: ‘the beloved and enlightened church by the will of the one who wills (ἐν θελήματι τοῦ θελήσαντος) all things that exist’; Justin Martyr, Dial. 119.1: ‘…by the will of the one who wills (θελήματι τοῦ θελήσαντος)’; Historia Alexandri Magni 45.1 (recension E): ‘And as Alexander heard these words, he rejoiced… and said, “God desires whatsoever is willed (ὅσα θέλει ὁ θεὸς θέλημα)” ’. See also John 7.17; Eph 1.11. 239   Dubis 115. 240   Elliott 635 (original emphasis). Others have followed Elliott in reading the object as suffering for doing good (e.g., Jobes 232–33; Witherington 180; Forbes 119). This interpretation is represented in many translations as well, indicated by placing the parenthetic phrase after the statement, ‘it is better to suffer for doing good’ (cf. RSV, ESV, NET, NAB, HCSB, GNT, CEB). 241   See Arichea–Nida 109. 242   So, e.g., Johnstone 242; Huther 173; Best 135. Some translations also follow this interpretation, placing the parenthetic phrase after the statement ‘it is better to suffer’ (cf. Phillips, JB, NRSV).



3.13–17

183

with v. 13, where the section began. The insertion of this phrase into the structure of the comparison, before the infinitive πάσχειν, serves to place emphasis on the notion that suffering will only take place if it is God’s will. While this raises awkward theological questions about God’s responsibility for evil and suffering, it is clearly reflective of the conviction that God is ultimately in control of whatever happens, allowing only what accords with the divine will. Indeed, it is notable that it is precisely and only in contexts where suffering due to hostility and opposition is in view that the author invokes the notion of God’s will (2.15; 3.17; 4.2, 19).243 Summary This section of the letter encapsulates a highly significant aspect of the author’s message: the need to do what is good without fearing other humans and their reactions, to reverence Christ, and to be prepared to offer a courteous and reasoned account of the Christian ‘hope’ if asked to do so. As elsewhere in the epistle (notably 2.17), this may be seen as a stance of polite resistance, which offers a defence of the Christians’ belief and practice while avoiding vengeful or provocative assertions about the ultimate fate of their accusers. Following the extended quotation in 3.10–12, with its assertion that God’s eyes and ears are attentive to the righteous, the author stresses the importance of pursuing what is good, and refers to the chance of suffering for doing this as if it were only a remote possibility. This is understandable in the context of the main thrust of this passage, yet even the remote possibility expressed by the optative verbs is sufficient to indicate that this is a real concern for both the author and the recipients of his letter. While recent scholarship, particularly in English, has tended to interpret the language of these verses as indicating only informal expressions of hostility and opposition, there is a good deal in the specific vocabulary that suggests that judicial settings could be among the contexts envisaged. Here the Christians may find themselves required to give some account of their belief and, even if no evident wickedness is proven, they may nonetheless face the possibility of suffering.

  A point made by Vanhoye, ‘1 Pierre’, 123.

243

CH R I S T ’ S SU FF E R IN G , P R O C LAMATI ON TO T H E IMPR ISO N E D S P IRI TS, A N D V IN D IC AT IO N (3.18–22)

Initial Bibliography David Abernathy, ‘Translating 1 Peter; 3:18–22’, Notes 15 (2001): 28–46; Douglas N. Campbell and Fika J. van Rensburg, ‘A History of Interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18–22’, Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 73–96; John E. Colwell, ‘Baptism, Conscience and the Resurrection: A Reappraisal of 1 Peter 3.21’, in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.E.O. White, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, JSNTSup 171 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 210–27; Matthew R. Crawford, ‘ “Confessing God from a Good Conscience”: 1 Peter 3:21 and Early Christian Baptismal Theology’, JTS 67 (2016): 23–37; Werner Engel, ‘Christus Victor. Eine Untersuchung zu Gattung und Struktur des vorli� terarischen Christushymnus 1Petr 3,18–22’, PzB 7 (1998): 137–47; Pascale Farago-Bermon, ‘Surviving the Disaster: The Use of Psychē in 1 Peter 3:20’, in Papers Presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2011, vol. 11: Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica, Ethica, ed. Markus Vinzent, Laurence Mellerin, and Hugh A. G. Hughton, StPatr 63 (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 81–94; Heinz Giesen, ‘Hoffnung auf Heil für alle—Heilsgegenwart für die Glaubenden (1 Petr 3,18–22)’, SNTSU 14 (1989): 93–150; Friedrich W. Horn, ‘Der Beitrag des 1. Petrusbriefes zur frühchristlichen Tauftheologie’, in Beiträge zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, BZNW 163 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 409–25; Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, ‘Zur Struktur der Christus-Hymnen in Phil 2 und 1. Petr 3’, in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. Exegetische Untersuchungen Joachim Jeremias zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Schülern, ed. Eduard Lohse, Christoph Burchard, and Berndt Schaller (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 142–56; Larry Joseph Kreitzer, ‘On Board the Eschatological Ark of God: Noah-Deucalion and the “Phrygian Connection” in 1 Peter 3.19–22’, in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.E.O. White, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross, JSNTSup 171 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 228–72; Bohdan Kuryliak, ‘Methods of Interpretation: 1 Peter 3:18–22 in Historical Retrospect’, Theological Reflections: Euro-Asian Journal of Theology 21 (2018): 31–42 (Russian); Katie Marcar, ‘In the Days of Noah: Urzeit/Endzeit Correspondence and the

186

1 PETER

Flood Tradition in 1 Peter 3–4’, NTS 63 (2017): 550–66; Halvor Moxnes, ‘Because of “The Name of Christ”: Baptism and the Location of Identity in 1 Peter’, in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, Øyvind Norderval, and Christer Hellholm, BZNW 176 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 605–28; Ronald L. Nickelson, ‘First Peter 3:21, Daniel 4:14[17], and the Ordo Salutis’, SCJ 3 (2000): 229–41; Emmanuel Rolland, ‘1 Pierre 3,18–22: …c’est l’enfer!’, Lire et Dire 12 (2012): 37–48; Jacques Schlosser, ‘Déluge et typologie dans 1 P 3,19–21’, in Typologie biblique. De quelques figures vives, ed. Raymond Kuntzmann, LDHS (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2002), 177–202; P. Benedikt Schwank, ‘Des éléments mythologiques dans une profession de foi. 1 P 3,18–22’, AsSeign 14 (1973): 41–44; Isidoro Volpi, ‘La definizione del battesimo secondo 1Pt 3,20b–21’, in Alle origini del battesimo Cristiano, ed. Pius R. Tragan (Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1991), 193–241; Duane F. Watson, ‘Early Jesus Tradition in 1 Peter 3.18–22’, in James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions, ed. Alicia J. Batten and John S. Kloppenborg, LNTS 478 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 151–65; Cynthia Long Westfall, ‘The Relationship between the Resurrection, the Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison and Baptismal Regeneration: 1 Peter 3.19–22’, in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs, JSNTSup 186 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 106–35; Adrian Wypadlo, ‘Die durch das Wasser hindurch geretteten Seelen (1 Petr 3,20): Eine “Gegenprobe” zur Seelenvorstellung im 1. Petrusbrief’, TGl 106 (2016): 25–44. See also Bibliography at Excursus: Preaching to the Spirits in Prison.

Text ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν(a), δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς(b) προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί,, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι(c) 19(d) ἐν ᾧ καὶ(e) τοῖς ἐν σαρκί φυλακῇ(f) πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν 20 ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε, ποτε, ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι(g), τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί,, διεσώθησαν δι᾿ ὕδατος 21 ὃ(h) καὶ ὑμᾶς(i) ἀντίτυπον νῦν ψυχαί σῴζει βάπτισμα, βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, θεόν, δι᾿ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 22 (j) ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ θεοῦ(k) πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων. δυνάμεων. 18

(a) This phrase, as Metzger notes, is subject to a ‘bewildering diversity of readings’ (TCGNT, 622; for the evidence, see ECM 164). The text above is found in B, 69, 642, Byz. Alternatively, P72, A, and others read περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἀπέθανεν, while ‫א‬2 has the same, but with ἡμῶν. C-S offers a quite different text, suggesting a Greek Vorlage that may have



3.18–22

187

read, περὶ τῶν νεκρῶν ἀπέθανεν, περὶ/ὑπὲρ τοῦ δικαίου καὶ τῶν ἀδικῶν (see Bethge, ‘Der Text des ersten Petrusbriefes’, 263; cf. Willis, ‘Letter of Peter’, 189). Probably the most important decision is whether the initial text contained ἀπέθανεν (‘he died’), as found in the editions of Tischendorf and Lachmann (cf. NJB, CEV, NASB), or ἔπαθεν (‘he suffered’), as reflected in the TR, Griesbach, the Majority Text, and NA28 (cf. most modern translations). Most, but not all, of the witnesses to ἀπέθανεν include ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (or similar). As we have noted, this follows more closely the established forms of credal expression in the NT (see Text at 2.21 n. g). Since the author may well be using traditional christological material here, it is not entirely straightforward to determine whether he originally wrote something using the established wording (e.g., as P72), which was subsequently changed to align more closely with the style of 1 Peter, where πάσχω is a prominent term;1 or whether the author wrote ἔπαθεν, and this was amended and expanded into a more standard credal form: ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἀπέθανεν. Given the clear stylistic preference of 1 Peter, the latter seems more likely (for a fuller discussion, see Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium, 200–202), as most commentators concur (exceptions include: von Soden 152; Wohlenberg 104; Windisch 70; Fitzmyer 367; Kelly 147–48), and connects the verse more closely with v. 17 (πάσχειν).2 As Metzger notes (TCGNT, 623), ἀποθνῄσκω appears nowhere (else) in the letter (assuming we read ἔπαθεν in 2.21). (b) Again, the witnesses are divided over ὑμᾶς (P72, B, P, Ψ, 93, it65, syrp,h, arm) and ἡμᾶς (‫א‬2, A, C, K, L, 81, 1739, vg, co, Cyr). Some commentators prefer the latter (e.g., Kelly 149; Best 138; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 134–35), but the author’s style favours the former (cf. Green 118 n. 126; Schlosser 209 n. c). (c) Here, P72 adds another marginal heading: περὶ θανάτου ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ζωοποιοῦ καὶ ἀκεκλεισμένοις. This last word is of some interest in relation to textual variants elsewhere in the MS tradition (see Text at 3.19 n. f). (d) As a result of the exegetical and theological difficulties surrounding vv. 19–21 (and 4.6), a few earlier interpreters suggested that the passage might be an interpolation (with some viewing this entire section, 1 Pet 3.18–4.6, with suscipion), perhaps representing a marginal note that was eventually inserted into the text (see, e.g., Cramer, ‘Exegetica et critica’, 73–143; Meyer, Die modern Forschung, 43; Soltau, ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des 1. Petrusbriefes’, 1   As argued, e.g., by Wohlenberg 104 n. 49; Kelly 147–48; Best 137; Shimada, ‘Christological Creedal Formula’, 171–72 n. 19; Pearson, Rhetorical Properties, 162. 2   E.g., Beare 167; Michaels 195 n. a; Schelkle 102 n. 2; Achtemeier 239 n. 1, 247; Elliott 640; Jobes 258–59; Feldmeier 200; Donelson 108 n. a; Osborne 224. (Note, however, that Achtemeier 240 gives the text with ἀπέθανεν—presumably in error.) ECM (164) also gives ἔπαθεν, and does not give ἀπέθανεν the status of an alternative reading.

188

1 PETER

311–14; Völter, Der erste Petrusbrief, 9; Schmidt, ‘Zwei Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief’, 42–52). (e) There is no reason to add a conjectural emendation at this point. One such suggestion, which has a long history in critical scholarship, is to introduce Enoch as the subject of this sentence: ‘In it Enoch went and preached’ (cf. Moffatt, Goodspeed). According to this proposal, Ἐνώχ is said to have dropped out of the text after ἐν ᾧ καί, perhaps due to their similar sounds. An earlier version of this proposal—the suggestion that one letter had dropped from the opening phrase, such that ΕΝΩΚΑΙ should be restored to ΕΝΩΧΚΑΙ (‘And Enoch…’)—can be traced to the second edition of Bowyer’s Conjectures on the New Testament (1772).3 It later came to be associated with the work of Harris, who wrote in defence of the longer conjectural reading (‘Enoch in 1 Peter’, 346–49; idem, ‘Recent Emendation’, 317–20; cf. also Goodspeed, ‘Enoch in 1 Peter 3:19’, 91–92). The view itself has little to commend it, not least because it lacks any MS support and because it disrupts the flow of the sentence (see Selwyn 197–98; Beare 171). What remains valuable in such observations, however, is the connection with traditions about Enoch (on which see Exegesis below). (f) C, along with some minuscules, adds κατακεκλεισμένοις after φυλακῇ, followed by some Latin texts, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Ethiopic tradition. Although the evidence is too weak to accept this reading, it is notable that P72’s marginal summary of this unit includes ἀκεκλεισμένοις (see above), which Beare (4) suggests ‘is probably an error for κατακεκλησμενοις [sic]’. Given the scribe’s somewhat poor Greek, it seems more likely that he was aware of either a text or at least an interpretation of 3.19 that included this word, rather than using it on his own initiative, adding further evidence for its antiquity. Some later texts read ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ here (378, 614, 876, etc.), which is significant insofar as it illustrates the tendency to interpret this text as a reference to Christ’s descent into Hades. (g) Various witnesses (including C, Ψ, 81, 1739, 1852, Byz, syh, Cyril) read the feminine ὀλίγαι, which became established as the reading of the TR and Majority Text. ECM lists this reading as an alternative to the one found in the text (ὀλίγοι). This, however, represents an understandable grammatical change, bringing the word into agreement with ψυχαί, thus ‘a few souls’ (cf. Huther 151). Furthermore, the masculine ὀλίγοι, which would function independently (‘a few people’), is supported by a strong group of witnesses: P72, ‫א‬, A, B, 049, 5, 1735, 2344, lat, Origen, etc.

3   Bowyer (Conjectures on the New Testament, 324) mentions that the conjecture originated with someone else (whom he labels, ‘S’). It was later adopted in various studies and critical editions of the NT (see further Metzger, Chapters in the History, 158–59; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 143 with n. 1). On the history of the conjecture, see Harris, ‘Conjectural Emendation’, 378–80.



3.18–22

189

(h) The difficulties created by the nominative relative pronoun (ὅ) have led to variations in the textual record. Some witnesses read the genitive relative pronoun, οὗ (1127, 2544), while others reflect the dative, ᾧ (319, 642, 1609, syp). The pronoun is even omitted altogether in some MSS (P72, ‫*א‬, 2541), a reading that Tarrech (‘Le milieu’, 370 n. 234) describes as the lectio facilior. Based on the similar sounds of ο and ω as well as the fact that the dative can serve as the object of ἀντίτυπον, some have argued for the originality of the latter (e.g., Beare 174; Elliott 668–70). This view traces its origin all the way back to the earliest days of critical scholarship, where it was conjectured by Erasmus (680) and Beza (578–79; cf. also Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the New Testament, appendix p. 102). Nevertheless, the ability of the dative to ameliorate the difficulties of the passage actually speaks in favour of the nominative pronoun, the lectio difficilior (cf. Kelly 160; Davids 143 n. 45; Jobes 260; Forbes 127; Schreiner 220 n. 402; Metzger, TCGNT, 623–24). (i) C, L, 323, 436, Byz, etc. substitute ἡμᾶς for ὑμᾶς, a common alternation in the textual record of 1 Peter (see Text at 2.24 n. j). But the whole phrase is subject to a considerable variety of formulations (see ECM 167), although they are of relatively minor significance for the overall meaning. (j) While the article (τοῦ) is present in the vast majority of Greek MSS, it is absent in a few important witnesses (‫*א‬, B, Ψ). As such, it is omitted from the texts of Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort, bracketed in NA27/UBS4, and offered as an alternative reading by ECM. It is difficult to decide on the preferable reading. On the one hand, as Michaels (196 n. i) notes, other NT occurrences of the phrase have the article (cf. Acts 2.33; 7.55–56; Rom 8.34; Col 3.1; Heb 10.12; 12.2), making it more likely that it would be added to an anarthrous original to conform to standard phraseology than that it would be omitted. On the other hand, as Elliott (682 n. 341) observes, the omission could have accidentally occurred through haplography. On balance, though, the insertion of the article into an originally anarthrous phrase seems most likely (cf. Kühl 243 n. 1), especially since the author of 1 Peter not infrequently writes θεός without the article (17/34 occurrences, not including the three where there is textual uncertainty—1 Pet 2.5; 3.22; 5.5). (k) A number of Latin MSS (of A, C, T types [see VT 26/1, 149]) insert a phrase, in slightly varied forms, after θεοῦ: deglutiens mortem ut vitae aeternae heredes efficeremur (‘swallowing up death so that we might be made heirs of eternal life’, trans. Metzger), which ECM (168) renders καταβάλλων τὸν θάνατον ἵνα ζωῆς αἰωνίου κληρονόμοι γενώμεθα (cf. Harnack, Beiträge zur Einleitung, 83: καταπιὼν (τὸν) θάνατον ἵνα ζωῆς αἰωνίου κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν). Such expansions illustrate the ways in which the text was shaped by, and the vehicle for, expressions of faith. Compressed credal sections or formulae (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἀπέθανεν, κτλ., see Text at 3.18 n. a) tend to be subject to expansions, rephrasing, and a tendency to conform vocabulary to established phraseology. The compact, enigmatic, but doctrinally significant phrases in this passage also invite expansions and

190

1 PETER

glosses (see Text at 3.19 n. e). In this case, it may be possible to locate the gloss within the wider history of tradition: Michaels identifies parallels in Valentinian literature from Rome, and suggests that ‘though the variant has no claim to originality, it may reflect knowledge (in the West, possibly in Rome) of a tradition about victory over death associated with the sequence, “put to death—made alive—gone to heaven” ’ (198–99; cf. also 219).

Introduction This passage is closely connected to what precedes in 3.13–17, and serves to provide christological motivation and support for the pattern of conduct exhorted in that section. The connection is signalled not only with the opening ὅτι καί but also overlapping vocabulary such as πάσχω (vv. 14, 17, 18), δίκαιος/δικαιοσύνη (vv. 14, 18), and συνείδησις (vv. 16, 21), as well as the less surprising occurrences in both texts of ὑμᾶς, Χριστός, and θεός, the latter two terms also indicating a certain inclusio pattern in 3.18–22.4 The relationship between the two sections is similar to that between 2.18–20 and 2.21–25 and the functions of 2.21–25 and 3.18–22 are thus comparable.5 Indeed, in these verses we find the third of three main christological sections in the letter (1.19–21; 2.21–25; 3.18–22). It is striking that these three passages form something of a logical sequence as they focus in turn on Christ’s pre-existence and appearance (1.20), his suffering and death (2.21– 25), and, finally, his ascension and glorification (3.18–22). This sequential character cannot be overpressed, however: 1.21 also refers to Christ’s resurrection and glorification, while 3.18 also refers to his suffering and death. As in those other christological passages in 1 Peter, here too scholars have long suggested that traditional materials have been incorporated into the letter (see on 1.20; Introduction to 2.21–25). Many recent scholars have been more cautious about the identification and reconstruction of traditional materials, but there are good grounds for seeing traditions incorporated here, in particular with the various participles used and the nominative relative ὅς (v. 22; cf. on 2.22–24).6 The christological traditions are   Cf. Elliott 639.   Cf. Michaels 196. 6   Achtemeier 241–42, gives a longer list of features that may indicate the use of tradition. He does not find all these reasons equally persuasive, but does conclude that ‘the inclusion of traditional materials seems evident’ (242). 4 5



3.18–22

191

most evident in vv. 18 and 22, while vv. 19–21 (perhaps still using some traditional material, and certainly drawing on Jewish interpretative tradition) are concerned with the proclamation of Christ to the spirits and the correspondence between the salvation of Noah and his family and the salvation now effected through baptism. Indeed, this passage contains the only explicit reference to baptism in the letter, and thus served as a key basis for earlier theories about the letter’s origination as a baptismal homily.7 In these latter verses, and v. 19, in particular, we encounter (along with 4.6, which may or may not bear any connection to 3.19) one of the most difficult passages in the entire epistle. The (passive) participles that encapsulate the ‘story’ of Christ are first encountered in v. 18: θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι. To these may be added πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν (v. 22; cf. also v. 19). Whether or not they belonged together in some original version of the creed (so Bultmann),8 it is intriguing to add at the beginning of the sequence the passive participles (there in the genitive case) from 1.20: προεγνωσμένου… φανερωθέντος. These would provide the following skeleton of the story of Christ: προεγνωσμένος φανερωθείς θανατωθείς ζῳοποιηθείς πορευθείς

As many authors have pointed out, there is a notable similarity with the credal confession found in 1 Tim 3.16, which also uses aorist passive forms, though not participles: ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.9 It is difficult to place much confidence in the proposal that the phrases reproduced in 1 Pet 1.20 and 3.18, 22 were known to the author as a 7   See Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure. Cf. Windisch 70, for whom this passage represents ‘ein drittes, vierstrophiges Christuslied… das zugleich ein Taufhymnus ist’. 8   So Bultmann, ‘Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente’, 1–14, who argued that a single christological credal confession (Bekenntnis) underlay 1.20 and 3.18–19, 22, while a separate hymn (Lied) was adapted in 2.21–24; see above on 2.21–25. 9   E.g., Selwyn 325–26; Michaels 197–98.

192

1 PETER

single christological confession, but it does seem likely that some such established credal formulations underpin both texts, particularly here in 3.18–22. Indeed, while we may be sceptical of our ability to reconstruct or recover any such earlier formulations, it is more likely than not that the author’s words reflect the influence of the declarations of belief in Christ that were expressed in the context of early Christian worship. Exegesis 18 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν, ἔπαθεν, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων,, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ ἀδίκων The connection between this passage and what precedes is expressed by ὅτι, which is generally understood to perform a causal function,10 and possibly also serves to indicate the citation of formulaic credal material (see below), though this is by no means certain.11 But to what portion of the preceding does the particle connect? A number of recent interpreters understand the conjunction (and the passage more generally, vv. 18–22) as relating to the entire preceding section (vv. 13–17), claiming that it provides ‘a theological basis for the Christians’ resistance to present persecution, namely, the victory of the Christ upon whom they call over the forces of evil, and their own implied victory’.12 According to this interpretation, the example of Christ is used for illustrative purposes, but not simply to draw a connection with the innocent suffering of the readers (i.e. explaining that they should suffer for doing good because that is why Christ suffered). The point of comparison, these interpreters suggest, is the triumph of Christ that enables 10   See, e.g., Spicq 133; Brox 164; Achtemeier 246; Elliott 639; Dubis 115. Alternatively, there are some who understand the conjunction as a ὅτι-recitativum based on the view that the verse contains traditional elements (e.g., Vogels, Christi Abstieg, 19) and others who take it more as confirmatory, ‘indeed’ (e.g., Hensler 154). 11   Cf. Bultmann, ‘Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente’, 2, and the uses of ὅτι and διότι elsewhere in the letter to introduce scriptural quotations (1.24; 4.8; 5.5) and possibly other traditions (2.21; 4.1). 12   Achtemeier 243; cf. Demarest 172–73; Lenski 154; Kelly 146–47; Holmer– de Boor 127; Boring 133; Schweizer 73; Elliott 639; Senior 100; Forbes 121; Schreiner 205; see also France, ‘Exegesis in Practice’, 266; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 127, 158.



3.18–22

193

endurance in suffering: the reason why the readers are blessed in the midst of persecution is because the ultimate victory has already been won; that is, Christ conquered the spiritual forces that animate the opponents of Christians, and it is only a matter of time before this defeat is fully actualised for the readers. One major obstacle for this proposal is that it does not afford sufficient weight to καί, which stands in postpositive position. Most recognise that the conjunction is intended to convey an additive sense (‘also’, ‘too’),13 thus indicating a correlation between the suffering of Christ and the suffering of the readers, just as it does in the parallel use in 2.21. In light of this, it seems best to view v. 18a as supporting the claim in v. 17 that it is better to suffer for doing good than to suffer for doing evil,14 with vv. 18b/19–22 forming a digression.15 Aside from the correlative force of καί, support for this reading comes from the fact that the line of argument begun in v. 18a is later resumed (οὖν) in 4.1, where the sufferings of Christ (Χριστοῦ παθόντος σαρκί) serve as a model for the readers’ response to persecution. Accordingly, while the author takes up the victory of Christ (v. 18b–22), imitation is never far from his mind. But to which elements of Christ’s passion does the author draw a parallel? In light of the fact that the adverb (ἅπαξ) and the prepositional phrase (περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν) are both located between καί and ἔπαθεν, some argue that the most natural way to explain the syntactical arrangement is to allow καί to modify the entire statement (ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν).16 When pressed to its 13   Alternatively, Demarest (173; cf. Macknight 479; Witherington 181) inter�prets καί as conveying an ascensive force (‘even’). He contends that ‘Peter does not by using καὶ [sic] point to the likeness between our sufferings and that of Christ, but to the dignity of the sufferer: because even Christ, God-Man, suffered’ (173; original emphasis). A similar sense appears to be sought by translations that render the conjunction as a reflexive pronoun, ‘Christ himself’ (CEB, ERV, NCV), an interpretation adopted (or at least considered) by a few scholars (e.g., Moffatt 139; Hiebert 235). 14   So, e.g., Huther 174; Davids 134; Richard 153; Jobes 237; Osborne 226; Wagner–Vouga 120; cf. Thurén, Argument and Theology, 160. 15   On this digression, see Doddridge 211; Leaney 50; Beare 170; cf. also Schutter, Hermeneutic, 67. 16   See, e.g., Hofmann 121–22; Alford 363–64; Mason 419; Kühl 211; cf. Seeberg, Der Tod Christi, 303. Another possibility is to connect καί with the clause περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν, thus making ἅπαξ something that applies only to

194

1 PETER

logical conclusion, this might suggest that the Petrine author was grounding this exhortation not simply in the example of Christ, but also in a missional aim. His point would be that unjust suffering was the means through which Christ procured the forgiveness of sins for the unrighteous (including the readers), and by implication, the unjust suffering of Christians might similarly benefit the unrighteous who persecute them, if they are converted by the audience’s patient endurance (cf. 1 Pet 3.1, 15–16).17 Support for this proposal derives from the consistent use of the same construction outside the passage. Elsewhere, when a postpositive καί denotes a correlation, the point(s) of comparison normally involve(s) the entire clause, not simply one element within it18— particularly when those elements are located in a medial position (i.e., between καί and the verb).19 The important question is thus whether all of the elements in the sentence can bear the weight of a direct comparison between the suffering of Christ and the suffering of Christians. If καί is allowed to modify the entire clause (with a full correlation being drawn between the situation of believers and the suffering of Christ), then some explanation is required for the other elements in the sentence (ἅπαξ and περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν) beyond how they have traditionally been understood. Most take ἅπαξ in a theologically pregnant sense, describing a singular occurrence in the past that is in some way decisive (‘once the suffering of Christ (e.g., Wiesinger 232; Brückner 74–75; Schott 211; Huther 174; Keil 125; cf. Sieffert, ‘Die Heilsbedeutung des Leidens’, 406). This view is prone to the criticisms of both the hypotheses discussed above, however. 17   Burger 249: ‘Auch Chr[istus] ist einmal Sünden halber gestorben u[nd] sein einmaliger Tod ist uns zur Versöhnung mit Gott…, ihm selbst zu bleibender Erhöhung in göttlicher Herrlichkeit gediehen. Darum ist es uns besser (v. 17), wenn wir, zwar nicht für, aber durch Sünde anderer leiden; denn dies Leiden ist für uns vorübergehend, ein Durchgang zur Herrlichkeit, u[nd] es kann…auf die, welche uns Unrecht zufügen, eine heilsame Rückwirkung üben.’ Cf. also Vouga, ‘Christologie und Soteriologie’, 219; idem, ‘La christologie de la Première de Pierre’, 319; Wagner–Vouga 121. 18   E.g., Jdt 11.14; Luke 4.43; Acts 10.45; 11.1; Phil 2.24; Col 4.1; Ign. Symr. 4.1; Herm. Sim. 2.4; Acts Pil. 15.1; Acts Pet. Paul 84.5; Mart. Matt. 15.4. 19   Some ancient witnesses (P72, ‫א‬, 254*, 400, 1524, Cyr, vgmss, sa, aeth) remove καί in this instance. This is perhaps because this passage represents ‘a confessional statement that was frequently detached from the context’ (Feldmeier 200), but it may also be due to the fact that scribes recognised the theological difficulty created by leaving the conjunction in its current location.



3.18–22

195

for all’; cf. NRSV, HCSB, CEB, GNT).20 Commentators note that when the adverb reflects this unique sense of singularity, it often stands in contrast to things that happen repetitively or habitually.21 Unlike those occurrences, this single event has lasting significance (see Philo, Ebr. 198; T.Ab. A 20.3; Jude 3).22 A similar usage is found in Hebrews, where the one-time sacrifice of Christ is contrasted with the sacrifices undertaken according to Levitical practice, which require frequent repetition (Heb 9.26-28; 10.2). While most seek to read ἅπαξ in a comparable manner here, claiming that ‘no other sacrifices for sin are ever again necessary’,23 those who draw a comparison with the entire clause would claim that there is nothing in the immediate context that emphasises the uniqueness of Christ’s death,24 nor is there anything in 1 Peter that 20   Almost all recent interpreters adopt this view (e.g., Selwyn 195; Cranfield 101; Grudem 155; Michaels 200; Knoch 98; Hillyer 112; Brox 167; Achtemeier 246; Senior 100; Schlosser 210; cf. also Giessen, ‘Hoffnung auf Heil’, 100; Park, ‘Christology as Motivation’, 74; Rosauer, ‘Atonement Theology’, 150). 21   For more on the meaning of ἅπαξ, see TDNT 1:381–83; TLNT 1:139–42. 22   To illustrate this sense of ἅπαξ, we could point to an edict from Roman Egypt, where the prefect (Lucius Lusius Geta) declared priestly immunity from working in the fields. He promises fines and corporal punishment to ‘anyone [who] makes my once-and-for-all decisions and orders (τὰ ὑπ᾽ἐμοῦ ἅπαξ κεκριμένα ἢ προσταχθέντα) void’ (OGIS 664). The word thus indicates that the orders and decisions that were stated in the edict would be binding thereafter. 23   Best 138. While most simply claim that ἅπαξ indicates that the one-time suffering of Jesus was completely sufficient to pay the penalty of sins and thus need not be repeated (e.g., Kelly 148; Elliott 641; Bony 143 n. 1; Osborne 224; cf. Cervantes Gabarrón, ‘Sacerdocio y reino’, 602; Watson, ‘Early Jesus Tradition’, 153), some see in this passage an implicit or perhaps even an explicit contrast with the repetitive nature of the Jewish sacrificial system (e.g., Benson 256; Pott 114–15; Mitchell 268; Wand 100; Marshall 119; cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 130; against this view, see Goppelt 250 n. 12). 24   It is noteworthy that early church fathers rarely refer to the death of Christ as occurring ἅπαξ. Apart from a handful of places where the verse is specifically cited (Cyprian, Test. 2.27; Augustine, Retract. 1.41)—which do not provide any comment on the enduring value of the significance of this death—the first time that any mention is made of the death of Christ as being ἅπαξ comes from the fourth century bishop of Salamis, Epiphanius, whose focus is merely on the singular nature of this event (Epiphanius, Ancoratus 92.6; Pan. 1.3.42; 2.4.59). It would be difficult to place too much weight on this consideration, especially since it amounts to an argument from silence, but this may suggest that ancient Christian interpreters did not understand the sentence ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν as marking out the enduring significance of Christ’s death for believers.

196

1 PETER

directly challenges the adequacy of the Jewish sacrificial system. Consistent with the way in which this verse provides a point of comparison (καί) with the suffering experienced by believers, the more common definition of ἅπαξ could just as well be intended. This adverb is regularly attributed a simple numerical sense that expresses a singular occurrence in the past (‘once’; cf. NAB, NET, NIV, ESV).25 If understood in this way, the Petrine author would be emphasising not so much the unique value of Christ’s suffering, but the comparative duration: in contrast to the glory that followed, Christ’s suffering was short-lived in that he only suffered once; by extension, the persecution faced by the audience represents merely a brief obstacle that pales in comparison with the eternal reward that awaits (cf. 1.6).26 To this point, then, one could read καί as providing a correlation with the entire statement about Christ’s suffering and thus closely connecting the effects of his passion with the suffering of believers. Where this interpretation runs into problems, however, is in explaining how the comparison relates to the prepositional phrase περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. In the LXX, the singular form of this construction (περὶ ἁμαρτίας) is commonly connected with a sacrificial offering in which a supplicant makes atonement for sins that have been committed (Lev 5.6; Num 15.27; 2 Chr 29.21; Ps 39.7; Ezek 43.19). The frequency with which this formula appears indicates that it had almost taken on a technical sense, ‘sin-offering’. For this reason, many understand περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν in a similar way in v. 18.27 25   When used in this way, ἅπαξ often stands in contrast to more numerous occurrences (see Philo, Legat. 58; 2 Cor 11.25; P.Mich. III 213), or it is connected to a genitive modifier (e.g., ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ) as a way to mark out the periodic nature of the occurrence (Herodotus, Hist. 2.59; Exod 30.10; Athenaeus, Deipn. 4.27). More formulaic expressions also occur. For instance, it is common to find the idiom ἅπαξ καὶ δίς (‘once and twice’, or ‘again and again’) as representing an arithmetic meaning (1 Sam 17.39; 1 Macc 3.30; Phil 4.16), and on occasions, the formula ἅπαξ καὶ δεύτερον also appears (P.Oxy. XLI 2996; SB XXII 15560). 26   This is how the adverb was read by various commentators within an earlier generation (e.g., Jachmann 156–57; Barnes 174; Hofmann 121; Alford 364; Caffin 132; Fronmüller 63; Usteri 142; Huther 174–75; von Soden 153), although it is very rare to find any recent advocates (e.g., Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 215, 223; cf. also Davids 135, who seems to adopt this position). 27   For this interpretation, see, e.g., Picirilli 178; Keener 268; cf. also Harris, Prepositions, 183.



3.18–22

197

However, what distinguishes the present usage is that the Petrine author employs περί with a plural object (ἁμαρτιῶν). The plural form is often reserved for instances where sins are individualised (‘concerning my/your/his sins’),28 emphasising the multiplicity of someone’s misdeeds. It is rare that the plural appears without a (possessive) genitive modifier. When this occurs, it usually relates to sacrifice in a more abstract way (see Lev 16.25; Heb 5.3; 10.26; Origen, Sel. Ps. 56.10 [PG 12:1472]; Const. ap. 2.35), with περί overlapping ὑπέρ and denoting the reason why suffering took place (‘on account of sins’).29 As such, περί, in connection with the plural object ἁμαρτιῶν, most likely indicates that ‘sin was what made it necessary, and indeed made it God’s will, for Jesus to suffer’.30 Since the letter states that Christ himself committed no sin (2.22), this suffering had to be related to the sins of others, not his own. Most understand the suffering of Christ as an effort to secure forgiveness for those who were guilty of wrongdoing, a reading that is consistent with the description of Christ’s atoning death elsewhere (cf. 2.24). If this interpretation is correct, it creates a significant obstacle for taking the entire clause in a correlative sense; for, at this point, the comparison (καί) between the suffering of Christ and the suffering of the readers would break down, barring the assignment of atoning significance (and sinless perfection?) to the latter.31 28   See Lev 16.16; Deut 9.18; 1 Kgs 15.30; Tob 3.5; Sir 28.4; 39.5; Dan 4.27, 33; 1 John 2.2; 4.10; Herm. Vis. 1.2.1; 3.1.6. 29   So also Demarest 174; Johnstone 245; Huther 175; Masterman 130; Forbes 121; cf. BDF §229(1). An alternative is to interpret the preposition as denoting reference, ‘Christ suffered with reference to sins’ (so, e.g., Selwyn 196; Dubis 116). Although the prepositional phrase does on occasion convey such a meaning (LXX Lev 5.8; Num 8.8; Ps 39.7), it only functions this way when the object (ἁμαρτία) is in the singular. To illustrate the distinction, we could point to Hebrews, which also employs the same plural construction (περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν; see 5.3; 10.26). What is noteworthy about this usage is that Hebrews contains the singular form as well (περὶ ἁμαρτίας; see 10.6, 8; 13.11), indicating that the author is aware of the more technical language used by the LXX to denote a sin-offering. The departure from this conventional construction thus seems to indicate a slightly different nuance, most likely moving it closer to the meaning of ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, which is often found in close proximity (cf. Heb 5.1; 7.27; 10.12; see further Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice, 151). 30   Witherington 181. 31   One way that scholars have sought to resolve this problem is to understand the use of ἁμαρτία as an example of antanaclasis, a rhetorical technique that

198

1 PETER

This problem is further compounded by the phrase δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων,32 which is intended to further delineate the nature of Christ’s suffering. As in 2.21, the preposition ὑπέρ could indicate advantage (‘for the benefit of’) or substitution (‘in the place of’). While some deny that the preposition carries a representative function in this instance,33 most recognise that contextual factors indicate that some kind of ‘place-taking’ or Stellvertretung is involved: Christ, the righteous one, is thought to suffer in the place of unrighteous sinners.34 The basis for this decision rests on the mention of δίκαιος and ἄδικος. As Johnstone points out, ‘there appears to be scarcely full naturalness in the antithetical mention of “righteous” and “unrighteous,” unless we suppose the thought of substitution to have been actually present to the apostle’s mind’.35 What is more, the Petrine author has already mentioned that Christ ‘himself bore the Petrine author employs elsewhere in this chapter, e.g., λόγος (3.1); φόβος (3.14–16) (see Alford 364; for more on antanaclasis as a rhetorical strategy, see Ceresko, ‘Function of Antanaclasis’, 551–69; Lang, ‘Reading Luke 17.22 as Antanaclasis’, 281–302). In this way, two distinct meanings would be attributed to the phrase παθεῖν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. As it relates to Christ, the phrase would describe an atoning sacrifice that was made on behalf of the sins committed by humanity; on the other hand, it would express the fact that Christians suffer because they are accused of wrongdoing by those who oppose them. This solution is certainly possible given the earlier examples of antanaclasis, but it is questionable whether this instance would technically qualify as antanaclasis since the word ἁμαρτία is only implied through the comparison and not explicitly repeated. An alternative—which no one to our knowledge has yet suggested—might be to posit continuity between the suffering of Christ and his followers on the basis of the causal function of περί. In the same way that Christ suffered because of the sins of others, the wrongdoing of non-Christian opponents would be what gave rise to the persecution of the Anatolian readers—both in the sense that their sinful lifestyle contrasts with that of Christians, thus causing animosity, and even more directly, in the sense that the persecution itself would be defined as wrongdoing. 32   The fact that both δίκαιος and ἄδικος are anarthrous is intended to emphasise the qualitative nature of these terms (see Schlosser 225). A possible translation, which seeks to capture this sense (as well as the singular/plural contrast), is: ‘a righteous person for unrighteous people’ (cf. Moffatt 140; Forbes 122). 33   E.g., Mason 419; Masterman 130. 34   So, e.g., see Steiger 2:199–201; Demarest 174–75; Lillie 232–33; Plumptre 130; Lenski 156; Cranfield 101; Kelly 148; Grudem 156; Hiebert 237; Elliott 642; Witherington 181; Watson 88; Keener 268. 35   Johnstone 245; cf. Keil 125, who claims that ὑπέρ conveys the sense of ἀντί here.



3.18–22

199

our sins in his body on the cross’ (2.24), which explains the fact that Christ suffered ‘for’ (ὑπέρ) the readers (2.21).36 So while ὑπέρ and περί can be used interchangeably (see Eph 6.18–19),37 in this case a different nuance seems to be intended.38 The statement Χριστὸς περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν indicates that sin was the reason why Christ’s suffering was necessary, whereas δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων clarifies that this act involved a vicarious element. If the entire sentence were to be understood as a correlative, then it would require not merely that Christian suffering in some way benefits non-Christians, but that Christians suffer vicariously for their antagonistic persecutors; yet there is no clear basis to find this view suggested in the letter. With the majority of modern interpreters, therefore, it is best to connect καί only to the verb ἔπαθεν, while distinguishing the adverb (ἅπαξ) and prepositional phrase (περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν).39 In this case, the suffering of Christ contains some aspects that parallel the situation of the readers and others that are unique. Even though the pain and distress of the audience was shared by Christ, what marked out his experience from theirs is its significance: the passion of Christ represents a unique (ἅπαξ) atoning (περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν) achievement. 36   It is noteworthy that similar language (τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδίκων) is found in Diogn. 9.2, representing an elaboration on the claim that αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (‘he [God] himself gave his own son as a ransom for us’). 37   See further Moule, Idiom Book, 63; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 31 (§96); Harris, Prepositions, 35, 180, 210–11. 38   Cf. Lillie 232 n. 3; see also Robertson, Grammar, 618. The author of 1 Peter, like other ancient writers, seems to reserve ὑπέρ to refer to the persons benefitted (as later in this verse, and in 2.21), while περί marks a relation of reference (cf. Selwyn 196; Dubis 116). 39   So, e.g., de Wette 41–42; Cook 204; Reicke 109; Beare 167; Best 137–38; Michaels 201; Bénétreau 206; Achtemeier 246; Black 100; Warden 181; Vahrenhorst 152; Schreiner 206–207. Despite the fact that most commentators agree that there are both unique and parallel aspects of Christ’s suffering, few actually address the grammatical basis of this view (viz. the function of καί in relation to the other elements of the sentence) other than to say that καί marks a comparison. One of the only recent interpreters who considers this issue is Dubis. He states that ‘καί marks a thematic connection between the recipients’ suffering for doing good and Christ’s suffering for doing good’, although he is quick to clarify that ‘this connection does not involve the adverbial ἅπαξ or περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν’ (115–16). Unfortunately, he provides no evidence upon which to base this assertion.

200

1 PETER

The established form for credal declarations about the salvific death of Christ seems—at least in the Pauline letters, from which our early evidence derives—to have used the verb ἀποθνῄσκω, as in 1 Cor 15.3: Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν (cf., e.g., Rom 5.6, 8; 14.15; 1 Cor 8.11; 2 Cor 5.14–15; 1 Thess 4.14). This explains the scribal tendency to change ἔπαθεν to ἀπέθανεν here and in 2.21 (see Text at 3.18 n. a). The author repeats this credal declaration (as in 2.21) using his characteristic πάσχω (see on 2.19). Clearly, the passion and death of Christ are primarily in view here (as in 2.21–25), yet one of the consequences of this choice of verb, with its explicit focus on ‘suffering’ rather than ‘dying’, is that the parallel between the experience of Christ and that of the letter’s recipients is more closely drawn.40 It is true that the unique and vicarious nature of Christ’s death is stressed, not only by ἅπαξ but also by the following phrase δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων,41 which, as the subsequent ἵνα phrase shows, places the readers into the category of the ‘unjust’,42 recalling their status and identity prior to their conversion (cf. Rom 5.6–8). Nonetheless, the designation of Christ as δίκαιος also forms a further parallel with the identity and situation of the readers,43 as depicted in the preceding verses (δικαίους in the quotation in 3.12; διὰ δικαιοσύνην in 3.14). The purpose of this vicarious suffering περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν was that ‘you’ (ὑμᾶς; see Text at 3.18 n. b)—the author’s typical focus on the recipients of the letter—προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ. The verb προσάγω occurs elsewhere only infrequently in the NT, with the   See further Horrell, ‘Image of Jesus in 1 Peter’.   Cf. Isa 53.11; on the parallels with Isa 53, see Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 133–34. How far Isa 53 directly shapes these credal formulations is open to discussion (see Exegesis on 2.21; also Introduction at 2.21–25). 42   It is true, as others have pointed out (see Michaels 203; Achtemeier 248), that ὑμᾶς in the clause that follows places the readers within the category of ἄδικος (at least prior to their conversion). But this category should not be restricted solely to the Petrine audience, as Dalton (Christ’s Proclamation, 134) seems to do when he claims that it could not refer to the disobedient spirits in v. 19. If others are able to still join the group (cf. 3.1) and thus be transferred from one category to another, then the boundary between ἄδικος and δίκαιος must be fluid, allowing others (potentially) to be included. 43   Elsewhere in the NT, the designation ὁ δίκαιος (‘the righteous one’) is sometimes used for Christ (Acts 3.14; 7.52; 22.14; 1 John 2.1; Jas 5.6). 40 41



3.18–22

201

ordinary sense ‘to bring before’ or ‘approach’ (Luke 9.41; Acts 16.20; 27.27).44 In Greek literature, the term has a wide range of uses, including, notably, the context of royal or legal courts where someone may be ‘presented’ or brought before the king or legal official.45 Cultic connotations may also be apparent, in both Jewish and non-Jewish Greek literature; in the LXX the verb is frequently used of the bringing both of sacrificial offerings and of the consecration of priests.46 Some have therefore suggested that the image here specifically calls to mind ‘the approach of the cleansed priest to God’, picking up the idea that the readers are a ‘holy priesthood’ (2.5, 9).47 However, most commentators rightly conclude that there is little basis for seeing specifically sacrificial or priestly imagery in this instance.48 In both Romans and Ephesians (letters with significant points of verbal connection with 1 Peter) the noun προσαγωγή refers to the notion of being able to approach or have access to God (esp. Eph 2.18; cf. Rom 5.2; Eph 3.12). This richly religious (though not specifically priestly) sense seems to be evident here too, the verb expressing in a nutshell the achievement accomplished through Christ and entered through conversion. θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, σαρκί, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι· The final part of the verse comprises two participial phrases that closely parallel one another, as indicated by μέν…δέ. In this   Pace Elliott 643, who also lists Matt 18.24 (προσφέρω) and Acts 12.6 (προάγω)—both of these verbs are much more common. 45   See LSJ 1499; MM 545, with examples from the papyri including P.Ryl. II 75 (brought before [προσαχθέντων] a judge); P.Tebt II 292 (a high priest); P.Oxy. I 71 (a petition to the prefect of Egypt); also, e.g., Xenophon, Cyrop. 1.3.8 speaking of the cupbearer ‘who had the office of introducing to Astyages those who had business with him’ (ἔχων προσάγειν τοὺς δεομένους Ἀστυάγους). In the LXX, see e.g., Exod 21.6; Num 25.6; 27.5. 46   See TDNT 1:131–33. For the offering of sacrifices, see, e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 3.24: ‘The nearest of kin keep the pillar in their house for a year, giving it of the firstfruits and offering it sacrifices’ (θυσίας οἱ προσάγοντες); in the LXX Exod 29.10; Lev 1.3; 3.3; 4.14, etc. For the consecration of priests, see, e.g., Exod 29.4, 8; 40.12. 47   TDNT 1:132. This view originated with Weiss, Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, 259–60 n. 1; cf. also Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 135. The Vulgate translation suggests the readers themselves as the (sacrificial) offering: ut nos offeret Deo. A similar view is adopted by Luther (185). 48   See Selwyn 196; Michaels 203; Elliott 643. 44

202

1 PETER

construction, the first member (μέν) generally anticipates what follows either by way of contrast or escalation (hence, it is commonly understood as a concessive idea);49 thus, it is the second member (δέ) that receives emphasis.50 This is true even when the construction represents a balanced parallelism,51 with similar word order, equivalent elements in each line, and even (as here) the same cadence.52 How they are connected to the preceding clause has been variously understood; even if they are derived from pre-existing tradition, as seems likely (see Introduction to 3.18–22), they are nonetheless woven into their new literary context.53 Probably the most natural way to interpret θανατωθείς and ζῳοποιηθείς in this   So, e.g., Michaels 205; Jobes 240; Forbes 122.   See BDF §447(5); cf. Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 170, who claims that this construction ‘downgrades the importance of the sentence containing μέν’. For more on μέν…δέ constructions, see Jelf, Grammar, 464–69; Denniston, Greek Particles, 369–73; Runge, Discourse Grammar, 74–83. 51   Other examples of other balanced μέν…δέ constructions include: Gen 27.22; Prov 6.10; Job 12.11; Wis 18.7; Sus 53; Sib. Or. 4.93; 3 Bar. 9.5; T.Sim. 3.3; Artapan. 3.11; Matt 9.37; 1 Cor 1.18, 23; Phil 3.13; 1 Pet 2.4; Ign. Eph. 14.1; Barn. 8.7. 52   On the cadence of these lines, see Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 180, who points out that it is an example of homoeoptoton with terms ending in -εις and -ι. 53   According to de Wette (42; cf. also Giesen, Jesu Heilsbotschaft, 411; idem, ‘Hoffnung auf Heil’, 105), it is best to connect the participial phrases to the verb ἔπαθεν (v. 18). But while this might make sense for the first participle, the same could not be said for the second. Schott (216) claims that the participles are intended to explain ἅπαξ. It is more natural, however, for the participles to modify a finite verb. Another possibility is suggested by Elliott (644), who connects the entire construction with what follows in v. 19, reading these participles as parallel with πορευθείς. This too is problematic in that it would require θανατωθείς and ζῳοποιηθείς to modify ἐκήρυξεν, which would make little sense. Further, v. 19 is a digression away from the main thought of v. 18b, as indicated by the fact that it is a relative clause. Among many modern translations, the participles are taken to be grammatically independent from the preceding and functioning like finite verbs, ‘He was put to death… but made alive…’ (cf. NRSV, NIV, GNT, NCV, NLT). This view is defended by Michaels (203), who suggests that the phrases are only ‘loosely connected to what precedes’ (cf. Hensler 157). But even if the participial phrases were originally pre-formed tradition, they no longer function in this way when they are put into a new literary context. They are used in connection with other grammatical forms, such as the finite verb that precedes and the relative clause that follows, requiring the participles to function in traditional ways. 49 50



3.18–22

203

context is as participles of means, modifying the closest finite form, προσαγάγῃ.54 Although the specific form of the words is, as Elliott notes, ‘unique in the NT’,55 they express concisely the heart of the early Christian proclamation concerning Christ’s death and resurrection, found in various forms across a range of texts.56 The passive θανατωθείς recalls the Synoptic accounts of Jesus being sentenced to death, suggesting that those responsible for that decision and its enactment are the implied agents here (cf. Mark 14.55//Matt 26.59; Matt 27.1).57 In the cases of ζῳοποιηθείς the implied agent is God, who raised Christ from the dead (1.21). Nowhere else in the NT is ζῳοποιέω used of Christ’s being raised, for which ἐγείρω is the standard verb (as, e.g., in Rom 8.11; 1 Cor 15.20; 1 Pet 1.21). Yet ζῳοποιέω is characteristically employed (11 times in the NT) to express the making alive that is done by God, Christ, or the Spirit, in ways that often connect this eschatological gift of life with the resurrection (e.g., John 5.21; Rom 4.17 [with vv. 24–25]; Rom 8.11; 1 Cor 15.20–22). Windisch’s argument that the author distinguishes between the ‘making alive of Christ in the spirit’ and the resurrection (of his body) itself, which is not mentioned until v. 22, is unconvincing and unnecessary, premised as it is on the (unlikely) conviction that Christ’s journey to the spirits (v. 19) occurred prior to the resurrection (see below).58 The contrasting terms σαρκί and πνεύματι (cf. also 4.6) are often juxtaposed in the NT (Mark 14.38 and par.; John 3.6; 6.63; Rom 8.9; Gal 3.3; Phil 3.3; Col 2.5; 1 Tim 3.16), a practice that is rare outside of Jewish and Christian literature. Two inter-related questions shape their interpretation: the function of the datives and the referents behind the terms. These questions are significant not only for understanding how believers are brought to God (v. 18); 54   Cf. Jobes 241; Dubis 117; Rosauer, ‘Atonement Theology’, 155. See also Forbes 122, who describes the function of the participles as either causal or means. 55   Elliott 644. 56   E.g., Mark 8.31 and par.; Luke 24.7; 1 Cor 15.3–4; 1 Thess 4.14. For further examples, see Elliott 644. 57   Cf. Michaels 203; Elliott 645. 58   Windisch 71. Cf. the criticisms of Michaels (203–204) on this point. Most recent commentators agree that the resurrection is in view here (e.g., Davids 136–37; Elliott 646; Dubis 119; Schreiner 208).

204

1 PETER

but also—given the following relative clause (ἐν ᾧ) to which the latter may be connected—in explaining how Christ preached to the spirits in prison (v. 19). Many ancient, medieval, and early critical interpreters understood σάρξ and πνεῦμα as the human and divine natures of Christ, respectively.59 While the former was mortal and thus prone to death, the latter was immortal and thus experienced the preservation of life. An equally popular interpretation among earlier commentators was to take σάρξ and πνεῦμα as anthropological descriptions of two constituent parts of Christ: the former referring to his physical, material portion (i.e., his body) and the latter to his spiritual, immaterial portion (i.e., his soul).60 The point, they argued, is that while death may have affected the body of Christ, his soul was able to live (‘although his body was put to death, his spirit was made alive’; cf. CEV, NLV). Variations of these hypothesis were also common. Wanting to avoid the potentially negative theological implications of these interpretations (viz. that either the divine nature or the soul of Christ had, at some point, ceased to live), some proponents assigned the verb ζωοποιεῖσθαι the meaning ‘to be kept alive’ or ‘to be preserved’, indicating the conservation of life that was already in existence (‘though his body died, his spirit lived on’; cf. LB).61 This removed 59   E.g., Epiphanius, Haer. 69.52; Augustine, Ep. 164.17–21; Oecuminius (PG 119:555–58); Theophylact (PG 125:1231–32); Horneius 104; Bloomfield 718; Barnes 174–76; Demarest 177–89; cf. Weiss, Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, 252. A similar view has been adopted more recently by Schelkle 103–104. The interpretive justification that was commonly put forward in favour of this view was that in the NT σάρξ occasionally refers to the humanity of Christ (John 1.14; Col 1.22; 1 Tim 3.16), while πνεῦμα denotes his divine nature (John 4.24). 60   This view was particularly common among ancient interpreters: Origen, Cels. 2.43; Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 118 (PL 9:572–73); Cyril of Alexandria, Fragmenta in Epistolam I B. Petri (PG 74:1013–16). Aside from the defenders of this view listed below, other advocates include: Fausset 508; Johnstone 246–49; Kühl 216–18; Masterman 131; Hart 68; Blenkin 77. It is not as common to find modern supporters of this position, although a few commentators appear to have adopted it (e.g., Windisch 71; Spicq 135–37; Stibbs–Walls 141–42; Schrage 103; cf. Schmidt, Mahnung, 265). 61   See Pott 115; Hensler 158; Hottinger 128; cf. Horsley, On Christ’s Descent into Hell, 12–13; Hölemann, Letzte Bibelstudien, 580. As proof, attention is drawn to texts like Job 36.6 LXX where ζῳοποιέω, which translates the piel stem of ‫חיה‬ (‘to keep alive’), is thought to deny the possibility that God would preserve the life



3.18–22

205

the possible implication that the divine nature or immaterial part of Christ needed to be brought back to life. A different route was taken by a few advocates of the second view. They maintained that it was possible to retain the more common meaning of ζωοποιεῖσθαι (‘to be made alive’) by referring this revivification to Christ’s deliverance from the frailty of a mortal life to a spiritual existence.62 Those who adopted this position argued that at the very moment when Christ’s body drew its final breath, his spirit was enlivened with fresh power to undertake new activity. Various objections have been raised against these views over the years, with some arguments being stronger than others.63 Perhaps of the wicked (cf. Judg 21.14 [Vaticanus]: ἃς ἐζωοποίησαν ἀπὸ τῶν θυγατέρων Ιαβις Γαλααδ, ‘whom they preserved from the daughters of Jabesh-Gilead’). A similar usage is found in Barn. 6.17, where an infant is said to be ‘nourished’ (ζωοποιεῖται) on a diet of honey and then milk (see BDAG 432). Along with this evidence, T.Gad 4.6 (ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἀγάπη καὶ τοὺς νεκροὺς θέλει ζωοποιῆσαι) might also support this position in that the ascensive καί seems to suggest that among those to whom ζωοποιῆσαι applies, the ‘dead’ are an unusual exception rather than the standard candidates. 62   Those who adopt this position include: Bengel 68; Fronmüller 63; Plumptre 130–31; Caffin 133; Cook 204; Mason 420; Wand 100; Holmer–de Boor 129; cf. Galot, ‘La descente du Christ’, 474, 479. For a critique of this view, see Huther 179. 63   One way that recent scholars have attempted to challenge these hypotheses is through an appeal to the nature of Christ’s resurrection. Working from traditional Cartesian categories, commentators argue that the construction ζωοποιεῖσθαι πνεύματι must refer to a physical (or material) existence in which Christ was resurrected in a tangible form and not simply a spiritual (or immaterial) existence (see, e.g., Kelly 151; Michaels 205; Davids 137; Hiebert 240; Achtemeier 249; Witherington 182; Osborne 225; Schlosser 212). The basis for this view lies in the conviction that resurrection in the NT is always bodily in form (on this idea, see Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, esp. 204, 314). This understanding of the resurrected state of Christ has a significant bearing on the interpretation of v. 19: if the nature of Christ’s resurrection excludes disembodiment, then it would rule out any pre-resurrection journeys into the underworld to preach to the spirits in prison—the argument being that during the triduum mortis Christ would not have a body in which to travel and preach. But there are actually significant problems with this position: aside from the fact that early Christians debated the nature of Christ’s post-resurrection form (see Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection), this line of reasoning misconstrues ancient ontological categories. Rather than distinguishing bodies from non-bodies, all things (even spirits) had a body of some sort. What distinguished them was the type of material out of which each body was made (see Martin, Corinthian Body, 3–15). The issue, then, is not whether Christ had a body following the resurrection; instead, the more important question is the

206

1 PETER

the greatest obstacle for these theories is the inability to reconcile the descriptions of σάρξ and πνεῦμα with the common meaning of ζῳοποιέω. In Jewish and Christian literature, where this verb appears most frequently,64 the word relates either to the giving back of mortal life to someone who is deceased (Rom 4.17; Mart. Pet. 2.7; Athenagoras, Res. 3.2; Jos. Asen. 27.8; T.Gad 4.6; Acts Thom. 42.1; 47.3; cf. Lucian, Ver. hist. 1.22)65 or to the granting of spiritual life to those who are considered spiritually dead (Rom 8.11; 1 Cor 15.22; Diogn. 5.12; Acts Thom. 80.5).66 The consistency of this usage would seem to indicate that the resurrection of Christ is in view here, and if πνεῦμα refers to the divine nature or the soul of Christ, then one would have to assume that these had, in some way, experienced death. Confirmation that ζῳοποιέω refers to resurrection derives from the fact that the verb is placed in antithetical parallelism with the death of Christ.67 When such a contrast appears in early Christian literature, it normally refers to resurrection (see Rom 4.25; 8.34; 14.9; 1 Thess 4.14), and in the immediate context, such an interpre� tation makes the most sense. It allows both participles (θανατωθείς extent to which the resurrected body of Christ shared continuity and discontinuity with his earthly body. The Petrine author does not actually address this question. He simply wants to establish that, as one who had entered the spiritual realm, Christ was able to visit the spirits in prison. 64   The term also appears on rare occasions in Greek sources, where it is employed to describe the generative forces that give life to plants (Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 3.22.4; 4.6.4; 4.14.5; cf. 1 Cor 15.36) and animals (Aristotle, Gen. an. 730a; Hist. an. 555b; cf. Diodorus Siculus 2.52.7) and even to reflect the creative artistry of sculptors who designed life-like images of the gods (Euripides, Fragmenta papyracea 153). 65   Similar terminology is used to describe Asclepius’ ability to raise people from the dead. According to Diodorus Siculus, Asclepius ‘healed many sick whose lives had been despaired of, and for this reason it was believed that he had brought back to life (ποιεῖν πάλιν ζῶντας) many who had died’ (4.71.1 [trans. Oldfather]; cf. Philemon, Fragmenta 79). 66   Foundational for these ancient authors is the fact that God, as creator, is the one who makes all things alive (2 Kgs 5.7; Neh 9.6; Let. Aris. 16; Jos. Asen. 8.2, 10). See further TDNT 2:874–75. 67   An interesting admission is made at this point by Schrage (106). He concedes that the antithetical parallel was originally part of traditional material that referred to the death and resurrection of Christ; nevertheless, he claims that the Petrine author altered its meaning with the insertion of v. 19, only to come back to the resurrection in v. 21.



3.18–22

207

and ζῳοποιηθείς) to modify the verb προσαγάγῃ, denoting the means by which the readers were brought to God (προσαγάγῃ), viz. by the death and resurrection of Christ. For those hypotheses that explain ζῳοποιηθείς in ways other than the resurrection, it is difficult to account for this ultimate end. How, for instance, would the vivification of Christ’s divine nature bring them to God? And in this construal, what role does the resurrection play in salvation? Given these considerations, it seems best then to take σάρξ and πνεῦμα as related, in some way, to the death and resurrection of Christ. What they reveal about these events becomes evident through their dative cases. Throughout much of the history of interpretation, scholars have assigned σαρκί and πνεύματι similar functions.68 But recently, there has been a shift in this approach. Many have begun to read these datives in different ways. Whereas the former is usually taken as a dative of reference or sphere (see below), the latter is understood as a dative of agency,69 describing the work of the Holy Spirit in raising Christ from the dead: ‘he was put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit’ (cf. NKJV, CSB, ERV, CJB, MEV, CEB, BRG, RGT, ISV).70 Despite the increasing popularity of this   In fact, many commentators have maintained that σαρκί and πνεύματι must be assigned the same syntactical function (see, e.g., Wiesinger 234–35; Schott 216–18; Huther 176; Elliott 645; Jobes 240; Forbes 122). For the recent shift in this approach, see below. 69   Some actually interpret both σαρκί and πνεύματι as datives of agency: ‘put to death by humanity, but raised by the Spirit’ (e.g., Achtemeier 250; Harink 98; Vinson 174; Vahrenhorst 154; cf. Breytenbach, ‘Zur Rezeption von Jes 53LXX’, 271; Doering, ‘Soteriological Web’, 489 n. 73). To support this hypothesis, appeal is made to the passive voice of the participle θανατωθείς, which indicates that someone or something is acting upon Christ to cause his death. ‘Such a construal’, Achtemeier contends, ‘has the advantage of allowing us to understand Christ’s resurrection in the second member of the parallel phrase in its normal form, as a bodily resurrection, since the resurrection is being described in terms of the one who brought it about (Spirit), not in terms of the sphere within which it occurred (spirit)’ (250). While this suggestion is supported by the fact that σάρξ in 1.24 refer to humans in general, what makes it difficult to accept is that all other instances of σάρξ, including those related to Christ, refer to the human body (3.21; 4.1–2, 6; see Dubis 118), which seems more natural here given that it is contrasted with πνεῦμα (cf. 4.6). But further, as Watson (89) points out, ‘this letter credits God rather than the Spirit for raising Christ from the dead (1:3, 21)’. 70   This view was relatively common among an earlier generation of commenta�tors (e.g., Calvin 112; Beza 574; Grotius 94; Gerhard 430; Whitby 173; Benson 68

208

1 PETER

interpretation, however, it is important to point out that a number of obstacles prevent it from being an entirely persuasive option. First, the authors of the NT normally attribute the resurrection to God.71 In fact, there are no other instances that similarly detail the Spirit’s involvement in this event.72 While perhaps not ruling out the possibility, this consideration should at least make us hesitant to ascribe this task to the Spirit in this instance—at least without clear contextual support. Second, this interpretation requires assigning a different meaning to datives that are in antithetical parallelism. For some, the intuitive implausibility of reading the second line in a way that is distinct from the first might appear to be eased through a comparison with 1 Tim 3.16, where ἐν σαρκί and ἐν πνεύματι should most likely be interpreted in different ways (cf. Rom 4.25: διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν… διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν).73 But even though this example does represent a shift in the meaning of similar forms within poetic verse, it is not quite the same as the 257; Macknight 479; Doddridge 211) and some translations (e.g., Geneva, KJV). Recent advocates include: Kistemaker 140; Goppelt 253–54; Picirilli 179; Green 135–36; Powers 122; Dubis 117–18; Schlosser 226; Schreiner 209; Keener 268; cf. Feinberg, ‘1 Peter 3:18–20’, 314–30; Rosauer, ‘Atonement Theology’, 157. 71   Cf. Abernathy, ‘Translating 1 Peter 3:18–22’, 35. For the evidence, see Acts 2.24, 32; 3.15; 4.10; 10.40; 13, 30, 33, 37; 1 Cor 15.15; Gal 1.1; 1 Thess 1.9–10; cf. Rom 6.4. There are a few places where Jesus is said to have raised himself from the grave (e.g., John 2.18–19; 10.18). 72   Michaels claims that ‘the resurrection (whether of Christ or of Christians) is characteristically attributed in the NT to “spirit,” or to the Spirit of God’ (205; cf. also Brodeur, Holy Spirit’s Agency). However, none of the passages that he cites (John 6.63; 1 Cor 15.45; Rom 8.11) claims that Christ was raised by the Spirit. In Rom 8.11, it is God (not the Spirit) who is implied to be the one who raised Jesus from the dead (τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν). Even in later Christian writings, it is very rare to find any mention of the Holy Spirit playing an instrumental role in raising anyone from the dead, and these references are not specifically related to the resurrection of Christ. See, e.g., Irenaeus, Haer. Frag. 4: καὶ ὁ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ διαλυθεὶς πολλοστὸς ἠγέρθη διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ συνέχοντος τὰ πάντα (‘the grain of the wheat fallen into the ground and undergoing dissolution is wont to be raised manifold by the Spirit of God’; trans. Hebert); Ps-Gregory of Nyssa, Testimonies against the Jews (PG 46:233): ὅτι ἡ ἀνάστασις διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνεργεῖται Δαβὶδ λέγει (‘and because the resurrection is effected through the Spirit, David says…’). 73   See Wallace, Grammar, 343, who is followed by Lai, ‘Holy Spirit in 1 Peter’, 252 with n. 259.



3.18–22

209

situation here. The present verse involves antithetical parallelism through a balanced μέν…δέ construction. To establish the plausibility of two distinct functions for σαρκί and πνεύματι, proponents would need to demonstrate that the same type of syntactical variation could take place within this structure.74 Finally, had the Petrine author intended to vary the meaning of the dative in the second line of the parallel, there were several ways that a different meaning could have been communicated—none of which were employed in v. 18. One possibility would have been to insert a preposition (ἐν) before πνεύματι (cf. Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.24.146: ἐν πνεύματι τῷ ζωοποιοῦντι).75 This sometimes occurs in μέν…δέ clauses, even when it disrupts the symmetry.76 Alternatively, the author could have used contrasting prepositions in both lines (e.g., θανατωθεὶς μὲν ἐν σαρκί ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ διὰ πνεύματος). This type of variation is found in other μέν…δέ clauses within the epistle, including poetic material (see 1 Pet 1.20; 2.4). Another way that the author could have indicated a distinct function in the second line would have been through the insertion of the article before πνεύματι.77 Although this is rare in μέν…δέ 74   Οne place where the second line of a μέν…δέ construction might possibly be used in a different sense—which, to our knowledge, has not yet been discussed— is 2 Macc 15.27: ταῖς μὲν χερσὶν ἀγωνιζόμενοι, ταῖς δὲ καρδίαις πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐχόμενοι. Here, the dative χερσίν clearly denotes means (‘fighting with their hands’), describing the instrument used to fight. At the same time, καρδίαις may express sphere (‘praying to God in their hearts’), denoting the location where prayer takes place (cf. Acts Andr. Mth. 8.9: ὁ ἅγιος Ἀνδρέας ηὔχετο ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ). It is possible, however, to understand καρδίαις as an instrumental dative as well (‘praying to God with their hearts’), a sense represented in other ancient sources (e.g., Apollonius of Tyana, Apotelesmata 5: ἄνθρωπος προσευχόμενος ἐν καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ καὶ συνειδήσει ἀκουστὸς γίνεται; Ammon, De sanctis Pachomio et Theodor epistula Ammonis episcopi 34: ἐγὼ μὲν ἀγωνιῶν τῇ καρδίᾳ προσηυχόμην; Ps-Macarius, Sermones 64 [collection B] 11.3.6: προσευχόμενον τῷ θεῷ ἐν καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ; Const. ap. 2.53: δυνώμεθα προσεύχεσθαι καθαρᾷ τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ ἀρύπῳ). 75   It should be noted that elsewhere the Petrine author indicates the instrumen�tality of the Holy Spirit by ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (1.12). 76   See, e.g., Acts 1.5: Ἰωάννης μὲν ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε ἁγίῳ (cf. also 11.16); Wis 18.16: αὶ οὐρανοῦ μὲν ἥπτετο, βεβήκει δ᾿ ἐπὶ γῆς. 77   Ancient scribes took both the first (ἐν πνεύματι: P72, Cyrms) and last (τῷ πνεύματι: 61, 81, 326, 400, 1448, 1837, 2412, Cyrms, Epiph) of these routes in trying to bring clarity to the verse.

210

1 PETER

clauses, it does occur. In 2 Tim 1.10, for instance, the first stanza of this poetic verse has an articular direct object (τὸν θάνατον) while the second is anarthrous (ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν). Without any variation to indicate that the dative πνεύματι was intended to function differently than σαρκί, it seems best to conclude that the two terms are used in a similar way. How, then, are we to understand these datives, and what does their function reveal about the intended referents? Many take σαρκί and πνεύματι as datives of reference (‘with respect to the body, Christ was put to death, but with respect to the spirit, he was made alive’).78 From this perspective, the terms σάρξ and πνεῦμα are commonly explained as distinct modes of existence or states of being.79 In contrast to σάρξ, which represents a mortal existence limited by sin, disease, and death, existence in a state of πνεῦμα is marked by the working of the Spirit to overcome any limitations that characterised one’s previous state, and thus it was only to be experienced after the resurrection. This construal, however, creates a significant interpretative obstacle.80 As datives of reference, σαρκί and πνεύματι would limit the ways in which death and life were applicable to the situation of Christ, while also suggesting that there were other respects in which death and life did not apply. So, for instance, to claim that ‘Christ was put to death with respect to the flesh’, would indicate that in some respects Christ was not put to death.81 Thus, rather than 78   E.g., Selwyn 196; Best 139; Blum 242; Michaels 204–205; Clowney 157 n. 2; Hillyer 117; Hiebert 239; Miller 274; Elliott 645–47; Skaggs 51 n. 103; Watson 88. 79   Those who espouse this view include: Kelly 151; Arichea–Nida 113; Mounce 56; Davids 137; Knoch 99; Marshall 120–22; Bénétreau 207; Hiebert 239–40; Goppelt 253–54; Miller 274–75; Schweizer 72; Boring 140; Richard 158; Elliott 646–47; Senior 101; Skaggs 51; Feldmeier 201–202; Prigent 102–103; Donelson 111–12; Schlosser 212–13; Dus 174. 80   This view also runs into problems when the same meaning is applied to the spirits in prison. Given that this group is specifically referred to as πνεύματα, one would assume that they share the same mode of existence as Christ. (If they were not in σάρξ, in what other state of being would they exist?) Yet, they are clearly not in the perfected state that proponents of this view attribute to the resurrected Christ. 81   One of the few to recognise this fact is Barnes 174–75: ‘The words “in the flesh” are clearly designed to denote something that was peculiar in his death; for it is a departure from the usual method of speaking of death. How singular it would be to say of Isaiah, Paul, or Peter, that they were put to death in the flesh!



3.18–22

211

describing a transition from one state to another (i.e., a fleshly state followed by a pneumatic state), this interpretation would require Christ to be in more than one state simultaneously—in a mortal state, which was put to death, and at the same time in some other state(s), which is/are not mentioned by the Petrine author. This is a problem because no other modes of existence are indicated. Probably the most natural solution is to interpret both σαρκί and πνεύματι as datives of sphere (cf. Rom 8.9; 1 Tim 3.16), indicating the contrasting realms in which Christ’s death and resurrection occurred (‘having been put to death in the fleshly realm, but made alive in the spiritual realm’; cf. HCSB).82 Support for this reading derives from the parallel usage of σαρκί and πνεύματι in 4.6, where both describe the contrasting realms in which judgment and life are experienced. Further clues to the validity of this interpretation are found in the immediately following connection with the preposition ἐν in v. 19. If, as we will argue below, the antecedent of the relative pronoun ᾧ is πνεύματι, then a similar spatial idea is in view: Christ was put to death in the spiritual realm, and in that same spiritual realm, he also went and preached to the spirits in prison.83 Without further elaboration, it is difficult to draw too many conclusions about these contrasting realms, other than to say that they appear to represent mortal and immortal existence, respectively. The point, it seems, is to indicate that Christ was able to preach to the πνεύματα (v. 19) because he too existed in the same spiritual and immortal world.84 In what other way are men usually put to death? What was there peculiar in their case which would distinguish their death from the death of others? The use of this language, therefore, would suggest the thought at once, that though, in regard to that which was properly expressed by the phrase “the flesh,” they died, yet that there was something else in respect to which they did not die’ (original emphasis). 82   So, e.g., Fronmüller 63; Caffin 133; Keil 126; Beare 169; Schrage 106; Grudem 156; Brox 168; Osborne 224–25; cf. France, ‘Exegesis in Practice’, 267; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 141; see also Robertson, Grammar, 523. 83   This represents another argument against the theory that πνεῦμα refers to the immaterial soul of Christ. Even though a person’s spirit is the place where certain emotions and insights are experienced (see Mark 2.8; 8.12; John 11.33; 13.21), it would be highly unusual to describe Christ as going somewhere in his spirit, i.e., ἐν πνεύματι (αὐτοῦ) πορευθείς. 84   A similar claim is made by Mason 420: ‘So long as Christ… is alive in the flesh, he cannot hold converse with spirits as such; but the moment death severs flesh and spirit the spirit can deal with other spirits, which Christ proceeded

212

1 PETER

19 ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν This brief verse contains many interpretative difficulties and constitutes one of the most enigmatic verses in the letter (along with 4.6), if not the NT.85 The key questions, in brief, are these: When and where did Christ go? What did he proclaim? To whom did he preach? And what resulted from this proclamation?86 The difficulties begin with the opening words. As elsewhere in 1 Peter, the implied sense of ἐν ᾧ is difficult to determine.87 Interpreters have taken the prepositional phrase in several different ways.88 Some contend that rather than referring back to a specific antecedent, the relative pronoun stands for the whole of the preceding clause and context (viz. the putting to death and making alive of Christ)89 and thus functions either like a temporal conjunction (‘in these circumstances’, ‘on which occasion’; cf. NIV)90 or like a causal conjunction (‘for which forthwith to do’. Where he differs is in suggesting that it was the form of Christ (as spirit) that made such preaching possible. In the end, this might not be too far from the truth, for as Schweizer suggests, ‘if the sphere really controls existence, entry into the pneumatic sphere also means entry into pneumatic existence. Hence Christ, having entered into this, must Himself be called πνεῦμα’ (TDNT 6:417). 85   For summaries of the difficulties and possible solutions, see, e.g., Kelly 153; Davids 138–41. Cf. Elliott 648–50, who comments that this passage (vv. 19–21) ‘poses a staggering number of difficult questions’ (648). 86   Marshall (122–29) sets out the questions and alternatives clearly. See also Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 177–88. 87   See the earlier discussion at Exegesis on 1.6. 88   Given a plausible grammatical construal of the opening words of the verse, it is unnecessary to give serious consideration to proposed textual emendations at this point, especially without any manuscript evidence to support them (see above Text at 3.19 n. e). What these speculations do valuably indicate, however, is the proximity of the material in these verses to the traditions about Enoch (sparked in particular by Gen 5.24), which many believe are crucial for the proper interpretation of 1 Pet 3.19–20 (see below). 89   When ἐν ᾧ is understood in this way, it is thought to have a significant bearing in the interpretation of v. 18. Many scholars maintain that such a reading would, in essence, rule out any possibility that the πνεύματα in v. 19 could refer to spirits of dead humans in the underworld. Whether this is actually the case could be disputed, however. 90   E.g., Selwyn 197; Cranfield 103; Davids 138; Knoch 100; Bénétreau 207, 229–30; Brox 170; Boring 140; Elliott 652; Jobes 242–43; Prigent 104; cf. Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 103–15; Fink, ‘Use and Significance’, 35–37; Long Westfall, ‘1 Peter 3.19–22’, 130–32; Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation, 219–20.



3.18–22

213

reason’, ‘thus’; cf. NLT).91 In support, proponents point to other uses of ἐν ᾧ throughout the letter (1.6; 2.12; 3.16; 4.4) which they claim function in a similar way.92 The problem is that while in some places one could make the case that the prepositional phrase carries the force of a conjunction (esp. 4.4), the decision to adopt this interpretation arises out of a lack of viable alternatives. In this case, there is a neuter noun in the previous clause that could naturally be understood as the antecedent.93 The more plausible solution is thus to allow πνεύματι to serve as the specific and immediately preceding antecedent of the relative pronoun.94 In this case, ἐν ᾧ would be the first of a series of relative clauses in this and the following verses (v. 20 [εἰς ἥν], v. 21 [ὅ], v. 22 [ὅς]).95 However, this still leaves open the question of how to understand the preposition. In most instances, the meaning assigned to ἐν is the same as that attributed to the dative πνεύματι in v. 18. For this reason, some take ἐν instrumentally (‘by whom’; cf. CEB, ERV, NKJV), in which case πνεῦμα would refer the Holy Spirit, the agent through whom Christ made proclamation.96 This solution would be more feasible if the dative in v. 18 also functioned instru�mentally; but as we have demonstrated above (see Exegesis at 3.18), this is probably not the case. Most think it should be taken to express the sphere in which Christ made his journey (‘in which’;

  E.g., Spicq 136; Goppelt 255–56.   See Wallace, Grammar, 343, who categorizes ἐν ᾧ in 3.19 as an adverbial use of the prepositional phrase based on the claim that ‘every other time ἐν ᾧ is used in 1 Peter it bears an adverbial/conjunctive force (cf. 1:6; 2:12; 3:16 [here, temporal]; 4:4)’. 93   Cf. Hiebert 241. 94   It is interesting to note that despite interpreting the other instances of ἐν ᾧ in the letter adverbially (1.6; 2.12; 3.16; 4.4), Atkinson (‘Semantics of ἐν ᾧ’, 127–29) understands πνεύματι (functioning as a dative of reference) as the antecedent of the relative pronoun in v. 19. He notes, ‘Scholars who claim that ἐν ᾧ functions identically in 1 Pet 3.19 and in earlier instances in 1 Peter wrongly assume that ἐν ᾧ is consistently idiomatic in 1 Peter. They do not attend to the grammatical peculiarities of 1 Pet 3.18–19 compared to earlier verses’ (129). 95   A point made by Zeller, ‘Nominal unbestimmtes ἐν ᾧ’, 275 n. 36. 96   So, e.g., Achtemeier 252; Green 118; Schreiner 216; cf. Schlatter, Petrus und Paulus, 137–38; Dennis, ‘Cosmology in the Petrine Literature’, 162; Keener, ‘Posthumous Salvation’, 47. 91 92

214

1 PETER

cf. NRSV, HCSB, NASB, ESV).97 This remains the most likely solution, despite some (relatively superficial) objections that have been raised against the view.98 The postpositive position of καί indicates that it performs an adverbial function; the question is, what does it modify? It could be connected to the indirect object τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν, carrying an ascensive force and thus indicating that what stands out as unique or unusual about this preaching was the group to which it was directed (‘he preached even to the spirits in prison’).99 The implications of this interpretation are significant, for it would suggest that the spirits in question were not the only ones to whom Christ preached, that there were others who heard his message as well. This would be important especially for those seeking to explain why only a group of πνεύματα associated with Noah is singled out to receive the proclamation of Christ. What makes this interpretation problematic, though, is that to this point no other mention has   This view was adopted by nearly all early critical commentators, and it continues to be favoured among modern interpreters (e.g., Windisch 70; Kelly 152; Beare 171; Schelkle 104; Michaels 206; Achtemeier 252–53; Dubis 119; Forbes 123–24; Wagner–Vouga 123; cf. Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 62; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 144–45). 98   Selwyn objects to this interpretation based on the claim that there are no other instances in the NT in which a dative of reference is used as an antecedent of a relative clause (197, followed by Best 140; Elliott 652; Watson 89). In reality, this objection has no real substance. Grudem has suggested a few examples of this pattern elsewhere in the NT, although not all are valid in that the dative is the object of a preposition. Regardless of whether such examples can be located, however, Grudem is correct when he notes that ‘it is exegetically illegitimate to demand parallel examples, because it is so narrowly specified that one would not expect to find many, if any, examples… Nothing in the nature of New Testament Greek requires that relative pronouns only take antecedents that function in their own clauses in certain ways and not in others. Thus, Selwyn has based his exegetical judgment on an artificial distinction which has no real significance in the actual use of the language’ (228; cf. Forbes 123). 99   So, e.g., Wiesinger 237–38; Fronmüller 63; Hart 68; Wagner–Vouga 124; cf. Titrud, ‘Overlooked ΚΑΙ’, 6; Klumbies, ‘Die Verkundigung under Geistern’, 219. Even though Michaels notes that the conjunction links the participles ζῳοποιηθείς and πορευθείς, he nonetheless maintains, ‘The placement of the phrase about “the spirits” immediately after the καί suggests that the simple conjunction may do double duty: Christ went and preached “even” to the spirits who were disobedient to God in Noah’s time—i.e., he went to the most remote and unlikely audience imaginable’ (206). 97



3.18–22

215

been made of Christ’s preaching ministry, much less proclamation that was directed toward any other group.100 Another possibility is that καί could modify the main verb, ἐκήρυξεν, referring back to v. 18a (‘Christ suffered… and he also preached’).101 In this way, it would indicate that preaching represented an additional item on Christ’s salvific agenda. The problem is that this requires v. 18b (‘being put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit’) to be understood as parenthetic, which is a difficult assumption to defend. Nevertheless, a slightly different way that καί could mark a further activity in the ministry of Christ is by connecting it with the entire participial clause (τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθείς). This, in fact, seems to be the most satisfactory construal in that it allows the participles to stand in a coordinate relationship (‘he was put to death… made alive… and also went’).102 What is more difficult to discern is whether this additional activity took place after the resurrection or before (see below). Excursus: Preaching to the Spirits in Prison Andrew J. Bandstra, ‘ “Making Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison”: Another Look at 1 Peter 3:19’, CTJ 38 (2003): 120–24; William J. Dalton, ‘The Interpretation of 1 Peter 3,19 and 4,6: Light from 2 Peter’, Bib 60 (1979): 547–55; idem, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6, 2nd ed., AnBib 23 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989); John S. Feinberg, ‘1 Peter 3:18–20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State’, WTJ 48 (1986): 303–36; Rémi Gounelle, 1 Pierre 3,18–20 et la descente du Christ aux enfers, CaESup 128 (Paris: Cerf, 2004); Wayne Grudem, ‘Christ Preaching through Noah: 1 Peter 3:19–20 in the Light of Dominant Themes in Jewish Literature’, TJ 7 (1986): 3–31; Sherman E. Johnson, ‘The Preaching to the

100   The second of these proposals does offer one potential way around this objec�tion. Rather than having another group of spirits in mind, the Petrine author could be referring to the preaching undertaken by Christ during his earthly ministry: just as Christ proclaimed the gospel to sinners while on earth, he also preached to the spirits in prison following his resurrection. In this way, the author may be drawing upon the fact that the life of Christ would have been readily associated with the proclamation of the gospel. Working from this fact, he would then be moving on to explain how this ministry continued after Christ’s death. 101   So, e.g., Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 107, 113. 102   So, e.g., Caffin 134; Johnstone 282–83; Huther 184–85; Spicq 136; Kelly 152; Bénétreau 207; Dubis 119; Forbes 124.

216

1 PETER

Dead’, JBL 79 (1960): 48–51; Myong Il Kim, ‘Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison in 1 Peter 3:19’, Reform & Revival 23 (2019): 7–31; PaulGerhard Klumbies, ‘Die Verkündigung unter Geistern und Toten nach 1Petr 3,19f. und 4,6’, ZNW 92 (2001): 207–28; Charles Perrot, ‘La descente aux enfers et la predication aux morts’, in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979, ed. Charles Perrot, LD 102 (Paris: Cerf, 1980), 231–46; Chad T. Pierce, ‘Reexamining Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison: Punishment Traditions in the Book of Watchers and their Influence on 1 Peter 3:18–22’, Henoch 28 (2006): 27–42; idem, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18–22 in Light of Sin and Punishment Traditions in Early Jewish and Christian Literature, WUNT 2/305 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter III.19 and Its Context, ASNU 13 (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1946); Juan A. Santamaría, ‘Un estudio sobre la soteriología del dogma del Descensus ad Inferos: 1 Pe 3,19–20a y la tradición sobre “la predicación de Cristo en los Infiernos” ’ (Ph.D. diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität [München], 2007) A long history of debate surrounds the ‘spirits in prison’ referenced in v. 19.103 Interpreters have reached differing conclusions regarding when and where this preaching occurred, the nature of the message that was proclaimed, and even the recipients to whom it was addressed. Before moving directly into the specific exegetical questions from which these disagreements arise, this excursus offers a broad overview of the history of interpretation to gain some perspective on where the interpretative conclusions ultimately end up. We will thus trace out three broad lines of interpretation, with references being given to the various offshoots of these views. One theory, which can be traced as far back as the second century,104 maintains that between his death and resurrection (traditionally known as the triduum mortis), the immaterial soul of Christ went to the underworld where he preached to the souls of dead humans.105 Within this group, proponents are divided over what was preached and the group to whom the message was directed. The vast majority maintain that Christ proclaimed a message of

  Some of the more thorough reviews of research on this topic, see Holzmeister 306–51; Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 7–51; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 27–66; Campbell and van Rensburg, ‘History of Interpretation’, 73–96. 104   This view is first attested in Alexandria. For a discussion of the early Alexan� drian interpreters who adopted the theory, see Santamaría Lancho, ‘Un estudio sobre la soteriología’, 158–353. 105   Another group of interpreters maintains that this journey was made shortly after his resurrection in a glorified body (see, e.g., Wiesinger 236–54; Huther 179–88; Burger 249). 103



3.18–22

217

salvation to the generation of Noah that perished in the flood,106 although other recipients have also been posited.107 Many interpreters who maintain that the passage refers to Christ’s descent have been uncomfortable with the notion that salvation might be extended to the dead who did not take advantage of the opportunity to respond to that offer while they were alive. Their concerns arise from NT statements that are thought to negate the possibility of postmortem conversion (see Luke 16.26; Heb 9.27). The way that passages like these are reconciled with Christ’s ministry among the dead is through the postulation of different types of messages. According to some, Christ proclaimed a message of rescue and release for the righteous dead, whether they be the saints from Israel’s past108 or the wicked from the time of Noah who repented just before drowning in the flood waters and who thus had to wait in purgatory to remit their sins.109 Others maintain that a message of condemnation was directed at those who refused to accept the preaching of Noah.110 106   Among ancient and medieval interpreters, this view was held by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6.38–39; Origen, Princ. 2.5.3; Cels. 2.43; Athanasius, Ep. Epict. 5; Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Jo. 16.16; Comm. Luc. 4.18; St. John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa 4.29. Among more recent interpreters, this view has been espoused by Pott 116–17; Steiger 2:208–33; de Wette 42–43, 46–48; Alford 365; Plumptre 131–32; Caffin 133–34; Cook 204, 206–207; Mason 420–21; Beck 191–96; Kühl 219–33; von Soden 154–58; Monnier 173–83; Bigg 162–63; Weiss 319–20; Blenkin 77–78; Cranfield 102–104; Schneider 83–84; Spicq 136–39; Beare 171–73; Valentine 109; Schelkle 104–108; Frankemölle 59; Goppelt 255–63; Perkins 65; Feldmeier 202–206; Green 121–34; Vahrenhorst 155–59; Wagner–Vouga 124–25; cf. Galot, ‘La descente du Christ’, 471–91; König, Die Lehre von Christi Höllenfahrt; Giesen, ‘Hoffnung auf Heil’, 108–30; Külling, Vom Gericht zur Gnade, 47–67. 107   These options include: all of the wicked dead from before the time of Christ (e.g., Thompson 95; Knoch 100–103; Ostmeyer 73–74), fallen angels (e.g., Hart 68), or fallen angels and the wicked who perished during the time of Noah (e.g., Seethaler 48). 108   Among ancient interpreters, this view is represented in the Jeremiah logion [= Justin, Dial. 72; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.204; 4.22.1; 4.33.1, 12; 5.31.1]; Gos. Pet. 10.4; Easter Homily of Hippolytus (possibly). Among modern interpreters, this view is represented in Calvin 113–16; Bloomfield 718–19; cf. Schöttgen, Horae hebraïcae et taludicae, 1043; Johnson, ‘Preaching to the Dead’, 49. 109   This view was originally put forth by Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis, 541–63. It was subsequently adopted by numerous interpreters, esp. among Roman Catholic scholars (e.g., Estius 545–46; Bengel 71; Bisping 174–77; Vrede 136–38; Felten 110; Holzmeister 346–51; Heupler 623; Willmering 1179). 110   So, e.g., Calov 1505–1507; Lenski 160–69; cf. also Eckhard, Tractatus de descensus Christi; Cramer, De descensus Christ; Zezschwitz, Petri Apostoli de Christi; Frings, ‘Zu 1 Petr. 3,19 und 4,6’, 75–88.

218

1 PETER

A second explanation of the identity of the spirits in prison extends back to the time of Augustine. This theory arose out of a question posed to Augustine by Euodius, a friend and fellow bishop. Noting that the passage seemed to refer to Christ’s proclamation of the gospel in Hades, which (it was assumed) would have therefore been emptied of all its inhabitants, Euodius asked for Augustine’s interpretation of the passage.111 In his reply, Augustine noted a significant question that he had about the traditional explanation that Christ preached the gospel in Hades: If the Lord when He died preached in hell to spirits in prison, why were those who continued unbelieving while the ark was a preparing the only ones counted worthy of this favour, namely, the Lord’s descending into hell? For in the ages between the time of Noah and the passion of Christ, there died many thousands of so many nations whom He might have found in hell…. Or if he preached to all, why has Peter mentioned only these, and passed over the innumerable multitude of others? (Augustine, Ep. 164.2; trans. Cunningham). This issue did not lead Augustine to doubt that Christ actually descended into Hades following his death, for various other passages seemed to him to teach this idea (e.g., Acts 2.24, 27). What it did was provide Augustine with a basis for rejecting a universalist reading of this passage which allowed for post-mortem conversion.112 However, Euodius’ letter, as well as the indications Augustine gives about the various interpretations of the text that were current when he wrote, also show the existence of the view that this text refers to a post-mortem offer of salvation to the dead, leading (potentially at least) to the emptying of hell.113 As an alternative to this view, Augustine hypothesised   Augustine, Ep. 163 (414 CE—the letter of Euodius to which Augustine replies in Ep. 164): ‘Who are those spirits (qui sunt illi spiritus) in reference to whom the Apostle Peter testifies concerning the Lord in these words: “Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison?” giving us to understand that they were in hell (hoc inserens quod in inferno fuerunt), and that Christ descending into hell, preached the gospel to them all, and by grace delivered them all from darkness and punishment, so that from the time of the resurrection of the Lord judgment is expected, hell having then been completely emptied’ (trans. Cunningham). 112   See Augustine, Ep. 164.4. Elsewhere, the idea that all of the dead were granted spiritual life when Christ descended to Hades is described as heretical by Augustine (see De Haeresibus 79). Others had similar problems with this view (see John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 36–37 [PG 57:416]; Pope Gregory I, Epistolarum 7.15 [PL 77:859–60]). 113   Pace Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 52, who suggests that this view only emerges in ‘the writings of liberal Protestants, in the middle of the 19th century’. See further Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead, 131–33; Horrell, Becoming Christian, 96–97. 111



3.18–22

219

that the πνεύματα might refer to human beings who received the message of the gospel during their lifetimes. More specifically, he suggested that during the time when the ark was being constructed, the pre-existent Christ preached a message of salvation through Noah. Their imprisonment was thus a metaphorical way to describe their state of darkness and ignorance apart from Christ. This view, which avoided universalism and post-mortem conversion, has since been adopted (and adapted) by various interpreters.114 While this proposal was popular during the time of the Reformation, a variation was suggested by Luther. Rather than focusing specifically on the flood generation, Luther understood those who rebelled during the time of Noah as analogous to those who reject the message in the present. He allowed for a more universal message related to the redemption of humanity. That is, Luther understood this passage to teach that, after Pentecost, Christ brought/ brings a message of repentance and salvation to all individuals (Jews and Gentiles), who are in bondage to sin (cf. Isa 42.7; 49.9; 61.1), through the preaching of the gospel.115 In this way, the main clause (τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν) and the relative clause (ἀπειθήσασίν κτλ.) are thought to refer to the human race, but at different time periods. A third explanation of this passage, which has become quite popular in more recent scholarship, is that Christ preached a message of his triumph to the fallen angels and/or their demonic spirits who rebelled during the time of Noah and who were imprisoned by God awaiting judgment. This view understands the primary influence on the Petrine author to be the Watchers tradition that developed from the legend in Gen 6.1–4, especially in the literature and stories associated with Enoch (esp. in 1 Enoch), and then disseminated   Among medieval interpreters, this view was held by Bede 102–104; Walafrid Strabo, Glossa ordinaria Epist. I B Petri 3.19 (PL 114:686); Martinus Legionensis, Expos in Epist. I B Petri (PL 209:235). Among modern interpreters, this view has been held by Gerhard 466; Macknight 480–81; Besser 277–82; Webster–Wilkinson 44; Demarest 189–91; Barnes 176–79; Fausset 508–509; Hofmann 124–34; Williams 50–57; Wohlenberg 106–15; Barbieri 69–70; Grudem 203–39; Picirilli 179–83; Powers 122–24; Warden 182–87; cf. Bartlett ‘Preaching to the Spirits’, 601–21; idem, ‘Preaching to the Spirits’, 333–73; Cowles, ‘Christ Preaching’, 401–20; Kelly, Preaching to the Spirits; Feinberg, ‘1 Peter 3:18–20’, 303–36; Erickson, ‘Opportunity for Salvation’, 131–44; Skilton, ‘Some Old Problems’, 1–9; Lai, ‘Holy Spirit in 1 Peter’, 246–62. 115   Luther 188–92. It appears, however, that his view later changed, for in his commentary on Genesis he identifies these spirits in prison as the wicked who repented just prior to the flood (see Luther, Commentary on Genesis, 2:217). Others have already understood the spirits in prison to be all unconverted people who hear the message of the gospel (e.g., Grotius 94–95; Leighton 2:201–16; Brown 2:463–75; cf. also Thomas, Apostle Peter, 214, 216–17). To justify this reading, proponents commonly appeal to passages like Eph 2.17 and Acts 26.23, which indicate that Christ himself can be said to have preached even if it is through some intermediary. 114

220

1 PETER

in various forms thereafter.116 According to this story, the Watchers were a group of angels—described in Gen 6.2 as ‘sons of God’ (‫בני־האלהים‬/οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ)—who came down to earth to have sexual intercourse with human women. As a result of this union, a race of giants was born. These giants ravaged the earth, forcing God to send the angels Michael, Sariel, Raphael, and Gabriel down to remedy the situation. As punishment for their sexual exploits (as well as for introducing strange arts to humanity), the Watchers were imprisoned and held in chains. Along with this, their offspring, the giants, were slain. This was not the end of their havoc, however. The spirits that departed the bodies of the giants stayed on the earth, becoming ‘evil spirits’ and oppressing humanity thereafter. After 1 Enoch was ‘rediscovered’ in Europe during the late eighteenth century (with translations being made in the early nineteenth century), it was natural that some biblical scholars around this time would draw connections with this text. The first to identify the πνεύματα in 1 Pet 3.19 with the fallen angels described in 1 Enoch was Spitta (1890). According to Spitta, the pre-existent Christ preached to the fallen angels at the time of Noah.117 This view represented an admixture of Enochic tradition with the Augustinian hypothesis. Others, however, separated these views, claiming either that this preaching to fallen angels took place in the underworld between the death and resurrection of Christ,118 or in the heavenly realms between Christ’s resurrection and ascension to heaven.119 In support of this latter perspective some point to the depictions of the imprisoned spirits as kept in the ‘second heaven’ 116   On the use of 1 Enoch by the Petrine author, see Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation; Coblentz Bautch, ‘Peter and the Patriarch’, 19–21; Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ. The connection with the Watchers traditions is generally assumed within scholarship more broadly (see, e.g., VanderKam, ‘1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs’, 62–63). 117   Spitta, Christi Predigt an die Geister; cf. Baldensperger, Die messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen, 18. Other temporal variations of the fallen angel thesis exist as well. For instance, Fink (‘Use and Significance’, 37–38) maintained that Jesus’ spirit preached to the evil angels during the three hours when his body hung on the cross. 118   Those who have held this view include: Knopf 147–54; Gunkel 281–83; Selwyn 197–201, 314–62; Hauck 69–70; Stibbs–Walls 142–43; Margot 62; Best 139–46; Schrage 106–108; Schweizer 73–75. 119   Those who have held this view include: Fitzmyer 366–67; Kelly 152–56; Wheaton 1244; Blum 242; Davids 138–41; Hiebert 240–44; Bénétreau 230–32; McKnight 215–17; Achtemeier 245–46; Boring 140; Waltner 128; Elliott 648–50; Senior 102–104; Jobes 243–45; Hartin 42; Charles 338–41; Prigent 104–105; Donelson 112; Witherington 184–89; Keating 89–93; Schlosser 214; Osborne 225–26; Vinson 175–77; Watson 89–91; Schreiner 210–16; Keener 270–75; cf. Gschwind, Die Niederfahrt Christi; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation; Bandstra, ‘Making Proclamation’, 120–24.



3.18–22

221

(2 En. 7.1–4; 18.4). Although most claim that this involved a message of condemnation and judgment, there are some who allow for the possibility that Christ extended a message of salvation even to this evil group.120 Combinations of these views have also been suggested. Some interpreters have proposed that the πνεύματα refer to wicked humans and fallen angels.121 In such scenarios, the message of Christ could then consist of both salvation and condemnation.122 Among modern interpreters, Dalton’s work has been particularly influential (especially among commentators in English) in promoting the view that the proclamation of Christ was not to dead humans but to these imprisoned angelic spirits, and was a message delivered during Christ’s post-resurrection ascension journey, and was not a message of salvation but an announcement of Christ’s victory over all hostile powers and spirits (cf. 3.22).123

*** The immediately following words, τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν, raise questions about how we should understand the identity and location of the spirits to whom Christ made proclamation. Related to their identity, the key question is whether they are (dead) humans or rather some kind of supernatural (angelic/demonic) beings. A number of arguments have been put forward on both sides, and the evidence is somewhat more balanced than many have acknowledged. We will begin by addressing the case in favour of the fallen angels hypothesis. One consideration to which appeal is frequently made is the fact that ψυχή was the term most commonly employed for the souls of disembodied humans, whereas πνεῦμα regularly described spiritual beings such as angels or demons.124 But as important as this lexical nuance may be, it is not sufficient to rule out human souls as the intended referent here because of the overlap between these   See, e.g., Robinson 1342–43.   See, e.g., Windisch 71; Reicke 109–11; cf. Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 52–59; Hanson, ‘1 Peter 3.18–22’, 102–103; Klumbies, ‘Die Verkundigung unter Geistern’, 215–17. 122   See Klumbies, ‘Die Verkundigung unter Geistern’, 217–18. 123   Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation; broadly followed, e.g. (though sometimes without direct reference to Dalton), by Kelly 153–57; Davids 139–41; Achtemeier 254–62; Boring 137–39; Elliott 651–62; Richard 158–59; Jobes 243–45; Harink 99–101. 124   So, e.g., Davids 140 n. 35; Elliott 657; Senior 102; Vinson 175; Donelson 112. 120 121

222

1 PETER

terms: on some occasions πνεῦμα was employed to represent the soul of a deceased human in biblical125 and non-biblical126 literature as well as a variety of other ancient contexts, including magical rituals127 and funerary inscriptions.128 Some of the most interesting examples of this usage are found in the book of 1 Enoch (20.3, 6; 22.3, 6–7, 9, 11–13; 103.4), which proponents of the fallen angels view identify as the closest source or influence for 1 Pet 3.19–20.129 Consequently, the referent of πνεῦμα must be established on the basis of its function within the immediate context and not simply from lexical frequency. With reference to the use of this term in 1 Peter, some have noted that the author normally employs the designation ψυχή (rather than πνεῦμα) to describe the enduring and non-fleshly (or immaterial) life or essence of a human being (see 1.9, 22; 2.11, 25; 4.19). Yet this consideration does not rule out the possibility that the πνεύματα in v. 19 could be human souls, for the author’s choice of πνεύματα seems to have been dictated by connection with the state or sphere in which Christ went to preach to these beings. In order to minister to these πνεύματα (‘spirits’), it was necessary for Christ to pursue the task πνεύματι (‘in [the] spirit’). 125   This includes the LXX (Dan 3.86; cf. Num 16.22; 27.16) and the NT (Heb 12.23; cf. Luke 24.37, 39; Acts 23.8–9). 126   Examples include: LAE 32.4; Josephus, War 7.185; cf. also Jub. 23.31 [= 4Q176a 3 3]. 127   See IG XIV 872, which is a curse tablet that seeks to conjure the ‘demons and spirits of (dead) females and males in this place’ (δαίμονες καὶ πνεύματα οἱ ἐν τῷ [τό]πῳ τούτῳ θηλυκῶν καὶ ἀρρενικ[ῶν]); cf. SEG 53:1110. There are also magical recipes to ward off such demons and spirits (see Cyranides 72). 128   One funerary inscription states, ‘the tomb conceals his tender form, but his unfading spirit (ἀμά[ραντον πνεῦμ]α) remains there in undying light’ (CIRB 124; cf. IRT 256a; IGLSyr IV 1366). Even the immaterial portion of animals is described this way. In the fable of the wolf and the lame donkey, the latter describes how he is about to die, noting that when that happens, ‘my spirit (πνεῦμ’) will go down to Hades pain-free’ (Valerius Barbrius, Mythiambi Aesopici 2.122). 129   See, e.g., Spitta, Christi Predigt; Gschwind, Niederfahrt; Reicke, Spirits; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation. Another potential use of πνεύματα to describe human souls is found in 1 En. 9.3. While Codex Panopolitanus reads αἱ ψυχαὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (as supported by the Ethiopic version), Codex Syncellus has τὰ πνεύματα καὶ ψυχαὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ‘the spirits and souls of humans’ (cf. 9.10: αἱ ψυχαὶ τῶν τετελευτηκότων [GPan, Eth]; τὰ πνεύματα τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν ἀποθανόντων ἀνθρώπων [GSync]).



3.18–22

223

Proponents of the fallen angel view must be careful how strictly they prescribe what the Petrine author should have written, as the same type of lexical objection could be levelled against their own position. Only three verses later the text specifically refers to ‘angels’ (ἄγγελοι) as one of the groups who are made subject to Christ upon his ascension (v. 22). Since the author does not employ the term ἄγγελοι here, one could argue that angels are not the intended referent. In the end, however, it seems best to determine the identity of the πνεύματα on other evidence.130 Another related argument that is often repeated within the relevant literature is that when πνεῦμα refers to a human soul, it always contains some type of modifier that clarifies this usage (cf. Heb 12.23: πνεύματα δικαίων).131 As with the first argument, however, this line of reasoning is not without problems. It is sometimes overlooked that the use of πνεύματα in v. 19 is actually qualified: they are ‘spirits in prison’. If the designation were referring to the souls of dead humans, the modifier ἐν φυλακῇ would thus indicate that the πνεύματα are no longer connected to their bodies but are located in some type of holding site awaiting judgment or punishment. Moreover, even if this qualifier were absent, it would not be determinative for the identification of the spirits. The claim that πνεύματα can only refer to disembodied human souls when there is an adjectival or genitive modifier is demonstrably false. There are various instances in which πνεῦμα carries this meaning without any qualifying descriptors,132 and the reason why such a function is possible is because context plays an equally (if not more) important role in establishing the referent of the term.133   On the difficulties associated with using the designation πνεῦμα to identify the group in 1 Pet 3.19–20, see Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ, 184–87, 208–17. 131   So, e.g., Selwyn 198; Stibbs–Walls 143; Kelly 154; Wheaton 1244; Best 142; Michaels 207; Davids 139; Elliott 656–57; Jobes 250–51, 259; Schlosser 215; Watson 89. 132   For instance, in a tomb inscription from Naples, a request is made to Hermes, the messenger of Persephone, about the deceased. In it, mention is made of the fact that ‘all spirits’ (πνεύματα πάντα) belong to Pluto [= Hades] (IG XIV 769); yet no further qualifier is provided. What determines the referent in this case is the fact that πνεύματα is employed on a tombstone while referring to the deceased. 133   As a way to demonstrate the importance of this consideration, we might note how difficult it would be to identify πνεύματα as angels/demons if this criterion 130

224

1 PETER

Related to this consideration, it is crucial to address another potentially misleading claim. According to Michaels, in the ancient world ‘[a] human being may have a spirit…, but it is not normally said that one is a spirit, much less that a group of human beings collectively are “spirits” ’.134 Such an assessment, despite being commonly repeated in scholarship, is not quite accurate. Even in the NT, there are references to individuals as spirits.135 This is to be expected given the flexibility of the term πνεῦμα and the various states that it depicts. If a person has a spirit that departs the body at death in order to live in another location in a conscious state, then that immaterial portion could be referenced with a possessive sense (‘the spirit of so-and-so’). Concomitantly, if a group of these disembodied spirits exists in a specific location, it would be natural to describe them both with and without a possessive modifier. In this case, for instance, a group of human souls who rebelled during their lifetimes might be depicted as τὰ πνεύματα τῶν ἀπειθησάντων (‘the spirits of those who disobeyed’) and, at the same time, in a more absolute form as τὰ πνεύματα ἐν φυλακῇ (‘the spirits in prison’).136 was reversed. Scholars recognise that some type of adjunct is normally included with πνεύματα to clarify that angels/demons are in view (e.g., τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα [Matt 12.43; Mark 1.23; 7.25; Luke 4.36; Acts 5.16; Rev 16.13]; τὸ πονηρὸν πνεῦμα [Luke 7.21; 8.2; Acts 19.12, 15]). But even when seemingly ‘absolute’ uses are found, there are still contextual clues that mark out these πνεύματα as spiritual beings. For instance, in Matt 8.16, the term is employed without an adjectival modifier; yet, the fact that the immediate context states that ‘many demon-possessed people’ (δαιμονιζομένους πολλούς) had been brought to Jesus indicates that the πνεύματα are in fact demons (cf. also Luke 10.20, where the disciples were rejoicing that the ‘demons’ [τὰ δαιμόνια] had submitted to them). 134   Michaels 207 (emphasis added). 135   In Luke 24, this is how Jesus is depicted following his resurrection. When the disciples who had met Jesus on the road to Emmaus went to Jerusalem and told the eleven what they had experienced, Jesus immediately and suddenly appears in their midst. Luke records that due to their fright, ‘they assumed they were seeing a πνεῦμα’ (24.27; cf. Mark 6.49: ἔδοξαν ὅτι φάντασμά ἐστιν). But as part of Luke’s apologetic efforts to emphasise the bodily nature of Christ’s resurrection, Jesus responds to the disciples by saying, ‘Look at my hands and my feet and recognise that it is I, myself. Touch me and see, for a πνεῦμα does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have’ (24.39). 136   Dalton insists that if human souls were in view, the text would have read τοῖς πνεύμασιν τῶν ἀπειθησάντων (‘the spirits of those who disobeyed’; cf. also Kelly 154). In this way, he works from the assumption that an adjunct is necessary for πνεύματα to be identified as disembodied (human) spirits. The



3.18–22

225

A third argument that is used to support the fallen angels hypothesis is that the term φυλακή is never employed in the NT as a prison for human souls, whereas it does describe a holding place for spiritual beings (Rev 18.2; 20.7).137 This line of reasoning, too, is somewhat misleading. Nowhere is φυλακή used in 1 Enoch to describe the place where the fallen angels were incarcerated. In fact, there is some variety in how this location is portrayed.138 What is more, in 1 Enoch it is not just angels who are imprisoned—humans share this same fate (1 En. 22.1–14; cf. 10.13–14).139 This is consistent with the picture found in other Christian literature, where the souls of evil humans were thought to be imprisoned prior to judgment.140 So the fact that the πνεύματα in 1 Pet 3.19 are located in φυλακή provides no indication as to whether they might be humans or angels. text as it stands, he suggests, ‘would lead us to believe that the spirits disobeyed while they were in the condition of spirits’ (Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 164). What this argument overlooks, however, is that the particle ποτέ indicates that this disobedience was earlier, marking a temporal disconnect from their current imprisonment. 137   See Marshall 127; Achtemeier 256; Elliott 657–58; Witherington 184; Donelson 112; Watson 89–90; Schreiner 212–13; cf. Gschwind, Die Niederfahrt Christi, 85, 88; Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 53, 66–67; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 157–59. Although, cf. Ps 141.8: ἐξάγαγε ἐκ φυλακῆς τὴν ψυχήν μου (‘bring my soul out of prison’). 138   According to the Book of the Watchers, Azael is cast into ‘the desert that is in Dadouel’ (τὴν ἔρημον τὴν οὖσαν ἐν τῷ Δαδουὴλ) (1 En. 10.4), while Semiaza and his companions are bound ‘in the valleys of the earth’ (εἰς τὰς νάπας τῆς γῆς) (10.12; cf. 14.5: ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τῆς γῆς, ‘in the bonds of the earth’). Later, in the same book, these fallen angels are said to be in ‘prison’ (δεσμωτήριον) located at the ends of the heavens and earth (18.15; 21.10). In the Book of Dream Visions, Azael is hurled into an abyss (1 En. 88.1), while the watchers are cast into the chasm of the earth (88.3). Finally, in the Book of Parables, these fallen angels are said to be imprisoned in a burning valley (67.4). 139   The lot of wicked humans following death is described in other ways in the 1 Enoch tradition as well. In some cases, their souls are said to be cast into a fiery furnace (98.3; 108.3) or into Sheol (99.11; 102.6–11; 103.7–8), which is associated with punishment and distress. 140   Cf. Acts Phil. 4.2–3: ‘Then the apostle came to the corpse and said: “Rise up, young man, by the power of Jesus Christ, the son of God.” And immediately he rose up as from sleep, and looking at Philip he said, “How did the light of this man come into this place, and how did I, who had died, rise up with such great haste, and how did an angel of God come and open the prison of judgment (τὰ δεσμωτήρια τῆς κρίσεως) where I happened to be locked up?” ’ See also 2 Clem. 6.8; Herm. Vis. 1.8 (possibly); Herm. Sim. 9.28.7; Acts Thom. 57.2.

226

1 PETER

A final avenue through which the πνεύματα in v. 19 are identified as fallen angels is through an appeal to 2 Pet 2.4–5. What is important about this passage is the way that 2 Peter differs from the epistle of Jude, which served as the author’s primary sourcetext in this section (compare 2 Pet 2.1–3.3 with Jude 4–18). Rather than repeating Jude’s four examples of rebellion and condemnation, the author of 2 Peter lists two of these examples (sinful angels and Sodom/Gomorrah) while supplying two illustrations of righteousness and deliverance (Noah and Lot). The description of Noah, with its enumeration of the amount of people who were saved, is believed to be drawn from 1 Pet 3.20. If this is the case, then the reference to angels who sinned and are being kept for judgment (2 Pet 2.4) would presumably be the author’s interpretation of the spirits in prison from 1 Pet 3.19.141 Yet even though there may be some connection between these passages, the significance of this conclusion should not be exaggerated. If the author of 2 Peter did understand the πνεύματα in 1 Pet 3.19 as fallen angels, this would not substantiate the validity of that interpretation any more than Clement’s construal of this passage authenticates the descensus interpretation. At most, what 2 Peter provides is the earliest attesta�tion of the fallen angels view (ca. mid-second century CE). In the end, the evidence in favour of identifying πνεύματα as fallen angels is not as strong as many have imagined. We would argue that the case for interpreting these ‘spirits’ as the disembodied souls of humans, while not overwhelming, has slightly more to commend it.142 As with the previous position, there is some evidence that is consistent with reading πνεύματα as human souls   For the full argument, see Dalton, ‘Interpretation of 1 Peter 3,19’, 547–55; cf. Witherington 184; Abernathy, ‘Translating 1 Peter 3:18–22’, 37. Based on 2 Pet 2.4–5 and Jude 6, some have concluded that the fallen angels view ‘was widely known and generally taken for granted in the apostolic era’ (Hiebert 242–43; cf. Richard 155). But the evidence simply does not substantiate this claim. While it is possible (and perhaps even likely) that 2 Peter interpreted vv. 19–20 in this way (although, cf. Papaioannou, ‘Sin of the Angels’, 391–408, who argues that neither 2 Peter nor Jude is referring to the Watchers myth), the same cannot be said for Jude, nor is there any other ancient evidence to indicate that early Christian writers interpreted the passage in a similar manner. 142   Recent proponents of this view include: Goppelt 255–63; Perkins 65; Feldmeier 202–206; Green 121–34; Vahrenhorst 155–59; Wagner–Vouga 124–25; cf. Perrot, ‘La descente aux enfers’, 241; Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium, 225–47; Wolf, ‘Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi’, 263. 141



3.18–22

227

but would not exclude a reference to fallen angels. These considerations, therefore, must be afforded less weight than the others. The first is the fact that there was a widespread belief in Greek and Roman culture,143 in ancient Judaism,144 and in early Christianity145 that when a person died, his or her soul would depart the body and dwell in a conscious state somewhere else.146 In this way, a reference to disembodied human souls awaiting punishment would not in any way be out of the ordinary. Nevertheless, this fact does little more than establish the context of how πνεύματα could be read.147 The second consideration is marked by similar limitations. It concerns the meaning of κηρύσσω. As others have noted, in the NT this verb most commonly refers to the preaching of the gospel (e.g., Matt 4.23; Mark 1.14; Luke 9.2; Rom 10.14; 1 Cor 1.23; Gal 2.2; 1 Thess 2.9). If this is the case here, then the spirits in prison would most likely be human beings for whom this message is applicable. What must be admitted, however, is that the same verb could be (and sometimes was) used to describe the announcement of a more general message (see below). For this reason, one cannot appeal to this term to establish one interpretation over another.148   See Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism; Rohde, Cult of Souls; Bremmer, Rise and Fall of the Afterlife; Endsjø, Greek Resurrection Beliefs. 144   See Park, Conceptions of Afterlife; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life; Sigvartsen, Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Apocrypha; ibid, Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Pseudepigrapha. There may even be evidence from the Hebrew Bible that describes the ‘soul’ as a separate entity from the body (see Steiner, Disembodied Souls, who discusses passages like Gen 35.18; 1 Sam 25.29; Ps 116.7; Song 5.6; Ezek 13.17–21). 145   See Finney, Resurrection, Hell and the Afterlife; Marinis, Death and Afterlife; Rankin, Early Church and Afterlife; Figueras, Death and Afterlife. 146   It was common within a previous generation of scholarship to posit a radical difference between what was seen as a monistic view of the human being espoused in early Judaism and Christianity, and the dualistic concept popular in Greek philosophic thought (see Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul). But, as detailed in many of the works listed above, this distinction can no longer be maintained. What has been emphasised throughout more recent literature on the subject is the great diversity that existed within Jewish, Christian, and ‘pagan’ beliefs. 147   The tradition about fallen angels is also widespread in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity (1 En. 6–9, 21, 86–88; 106.13–17; Jub. 4.15, 22; 5.1; CD 2.17–19; 1QapGen 2.1; T.Reu. 5.6–7; T.Naph. 3.5; 2 Bar. 56.10–14). 148   Other arguments in support of reading πνεύματα as human (rather than supernatural) beings have also been set forward. For instance, Hunzinger draws this connection based on a reconstruction of the three stanzas of an original Christ 143

228

1 PETER

Nevertheless, other evidence seems to point more firmly in the direction that these spirits in prison were human souls. One consideration is that throughout Christian literature, the only beings to whom Christ preaches are humans.149 Nowhere else do we find any evidence of Christ delivering a message to angels.150 This fact, in and of itself, is important, but still only suggestive. We cannot rule out the possibility that v. 19 is the one place in ancient Christian writings where such a description occurs.151 But what makes this consideration somewhat stronger is the fact that the evangelisation of disembodied human souls is mentioned only a few verses later (4.6). It is possible, as many recent commentators have suggested, often following the work of Dalton, that the two passages refer to different events (see also on 4.6); but since these two closely related passages are the only places in the letter where the author mentions a proclamation to those who are not in the realm of the living human world, reading them in a consistent way is attractive. This is perhaps the strongest contextual evidence in favour of a human referent, allowing the author’s language to be interpreted within its immediate epistolary setting. Additional evidence from the letter also supports this view. First, the term (ἀπειθέω) that describes the actions of these spirits is used on multiple occasions in the letter to depict the rejection of the gospel by unbelieving humans (cf. 2.8; 3.1; 4.17). This behaviour, as discussed previously (see Exegesis at 2.8 and 3.1), represents a response to the gospel that stands opposed to the faith commitment required by God. There is no indication in 1 Peter that angels could hymn: ‘Da von Engelmächten umfassend in der dritten gesprochen wird, wird man nicht auch in der zweiten Strophen an überirdische Wesen denken dürfen, sondern vielmehr an die Verstorbenen’ (‘Zur Struktur der Christus-Hymnen’, 144). 149   As noted by Bloomfield 718. For the evidence that specifically describes Christ as the one who undertakes proclamation (using εὐαγγελίζω or κηρύσσω), see Exegesis at 4.6. 150   It is noteworthy that while the Watchers are imprisoned, Enoch delivers a message of judgment and condemnation to them (1 En. 15.1–16.4). In this way, some argue that Christ has become analogous to Enoch. This is certainly possible, but the lack of any subsequent developments of this idea among later Christian writers, especially given the influence of 1 Peter, does raise suspicion. 151   Cf. Elliott 656: ‘this Petrine text as a whole (vv 19–22) has no complete parallel in either Israelite or contemporary Christian sources and represents an original contribution of the Petrine author’ (original emphasis).



3.18–22

229

reject the gospel in this way, or even that the message would be directed toward them.152 In fact, the opposite is the case. The Petrine author indicates that angels desire to gain a better understanding of the redemption process due to the fact that they are somehow removed from it (see 1.12). Consequently, disobedience of this type seems to be reserved for humans. Second, a reference to human beings fits better with the temporal framework in which the Petrine author situates the spirits’ disobedience (v. 20). It is important to note that the genitive absolute, κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ, functions temporally, indicating that this rebellion took place at the time when Noah was building the ark (‘who disobeyed… while the ark was being built’).153 Furthermore, this disobedience seems to have occurred over an extended period of time, as indicated by the fact that it coincided with God’s patient endurance of their actions (ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακρο­ θυμία)154 and the time it took to construct the ark. This situation is consistent with Jewish and Christian traditions that maintained 152   The significance of this fact is overlooked by Prigent, who (when commenting on the use of ἀπειθέω to describe the actions of the spirits) suggests, ‘Peut-être faut-il y voir le signe indiquant qu’en s’opposant à l’évangile le monde se situe bien dans l’héritage des puissances du mal’ (105). 153   This problem is recognised by Kelly (154–55), although he argues, ‘All its force vanishes… when we notice that, because of the way the one narrative is dovetailed with the other in Gen. vi, the two events became inextricably connected in the uncritical minds of the apocryphal writers’ (155). What Kelly’s explanation does not take into account, however, is that it is not merely that the disobedience took place ‘in the days of Noah’ (ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε) but, more specifically, ‘while the ark was being built’ (κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ). Despite the variation with which the fallen angels myth was retold in our sources, in every case the building of the ark follows the angelic rebellion. As such, this chronological point is significant. 154   Marshall maintains that ‘it is not certain that verse 20 implies that God was patiently waiting for the spirits of these disobedient persons to repent’. He proposes, instead, that ‘[t]he spirits may be regarded rather as preventing other human beings from responding to God’s patience’ (127). But this would represent a very convoluted interpretation of the verse. As understood by most Christian authors, the reason why God extended patience (μακροθυμία) was to allow for repentance and salvation (cf. T.Gad 4.7; Rom 2.4; 1 Tim 1.16; 2 Pet 3.15), which is how most ancient interpreters understood the allowances granted to the flood generation (see Exegesis at 3.20). Furthermore, it is not as though God was waiting to spare rebellious angels from the flood, for ‘they surely could not be drowned’ (Bennett 236).

230

1 PETER

that Noah preached (unsuccessfully) to his contemporaries while the ark was being built (see below). The fall of the Watchers, on the other hand, occurred prior to the ark’s construction.155 In fact, in the Book of Watchers the flood is not even announced to Noah (1 En. 10.2) until God begins responding to reports of the wickedness that had been committed by the fallen angels and the violence that had ensued thereafter because of their giant offspring (9.1–11). At issue, then, is the refusal of Noah’s human contemporaries to heed his message of repentance. Over the years, various objections have been raised against the view that πνεύματα represents disembodied human souls. Some of these arguments carry more weight than others.156 One reason why this interpretation is sometimes rejected is because its earliest attestation is said to be relatively late—Clement of Alexandria (late second–early third century) being the first extant author to specifically explain v. 19–20 in this way.157 In connection with this point, opponents commonly note that Irenaeus (late second century) makes no reference to this passage when describing Christ’s descent into the underworld. Upon closer inspection, however, there are a few important considerations that make this argument less than persuasive. Using the silence of Irenaeus as a means of ruling out the deceased human view is questionable in that Irenaeus ‘simply assumes the “descent into hell” without any biblical reference (Iren, Haer 4.27.2) or he cites an apocryphal word of Jeremiah that is especially fitting   As pointed out by others (e.g., Knoch 100; Feldmeier 203; Vahrenhorst 159 n. 474). Clement presents a range of ideas on the topic (see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 95–96), but in his discussion of the proclamation to the dead in Hades (Strom. 6.6) he ponders whether the proclamation is directed only to the Jews or to all, favouring this latter interpretation and suggesting that a positive response to the gospel is possible for all (Strom. 6.6.46.3; 6.6.47.3). See also Achtemeier 254 with n. 172, though his inclusion of Kelly (153) to represent this view seems mistaken: Kelly (154) rejects the idea that the spirits represent dead humans. 156   Opponents commonly dismiss this position based on the assertion that offering the dead a second chance at salvation would run counter not only to the theology of 1 Peter but of the NT more generally (see, e.g., Elliott 661–62; Osborne 225; Schreiner 213). However, this criticism is not quite as secure as many believe. It is dealt with more fully at a later point (see Exegesis at 4.6). 157   For this objection, see Jobes 241; cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 28; Campbell and Rensburg, ‘History of the Interpretation’, 74. 155



3.18–22

231

for his explanation of the incident (Iren, Haer 4.22.1; Epid 78)’.158 What has not been established is that Irenaeus rejected this interpretation of 1 Pet 3.19–20. But even if the testimony of Irenaeus were relevant, another consideration undermines this point further, namely, that it could just as easily be reversed. Aside from perhaps the author of 2 Peter (see above), we do not have evidence (early or otherwise) of Christian writers interpreting vv. 19–20 along the lines of fallen angels in 1 Enoch.159 This is because we have very few second-century sources that actually interact with this passage.

158   Feldmeier 206. Beyond this point, Green (128 n. 158) has posed the equally important question of how much textual evidence we actually possess from before the time of Irenaeus and Clement that might speak to this issue. One composition that may provide an earlier (late first–early second century?) attestation of the descent interpretation of 1 Pet 3.19–20 is the Odes of Solomon (see Sigvartsen, Beliefs in the Pseudepigrapha, 188). It refers to Christ descending to Sheol after his death and making ‘a congregation of living among the dead’ (42.14). When these dead human souls run toward him and ask for release from ‘the chains of darkness’ (42.16), Christ places his name upon their foreheads (42.20). The difficulty that surrounds this suggestion is twofold: (a) establishing the date of the Odes of Solomon and (b) determining that the odist was influenced by 1 Peter and not another source. 159   Jobes (247) attributes this silence to the fact that 1 Enoch was lost after the second century, only to be discovered again in the late eighteenth century (cf. Hiebert 243). The difficulty with this claim is that there is ample evidence to prove that 1 Enoch was known and even viewed as scripture by Christians both prior to and subsequent to the second century. The book is cited directly in Jude 14–15 and Barn. 4.3 and 16.5–6, and its influence may be represented in 1 Clem. 20 and Apoc. Pet. 3. Other Christian authors from the second century reveal their knowledge of the traditions found in the book even without citing it directly (see Athenagoras, Leg. 24; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.15.6; 4.27.2; Epid. 18; Clement of Alexandria, Ecl. 2.1; 53.4). It is not until the early third century that we find the first reference to the fact that some Christians viewed 1 Enoch with scepticism. While authors like Tertullian (Cult. Fem. 1.3; see also Apol. 22; Idol. 4.2–3; 15.6) and Ps.-Cyprian (Ad. Novat. 16.5) held to the authenticity and authority of the work, others such as Origen reflect more uncertainty on the matter (Comm. Jo. 6.217; Cels. 5.54; cf. Princ. 4.4.8). Even as late as the fourth century, Christians continued to debate the merit of 1 Enoch, as is evident from the strong rejection that the book received in some circles (see Athanasius, Ep. fest. 39; Augustine, Civ. 15.23; 18.37–38; Jerome, Vir. ill. 4: Const. ap. 6.16; for more on the reception of 1 Enoch in early Christianity, see Lawlor, ‘Early Citations’, 164–225; VanderKam, ‘1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs’, 33–101; VanBeek, ‘1 Enoch among Jews and Christians’, 93–115). So while one could argue that early Christian writers did

232

1 PETER

Another objection that is sometimes posed is the lack of a sufficient reason why the contemporaries of Noah would be singled out to the exclusion of all other humans who lived prior to the time of Christ.160 This is admittedly an important and difficult problem, and various solutions have been suggested.161 Some have claimed that Noah was an example of a righteous person who remained faithful in the midst of opposition, just like the situation to which the readers had been called.162 Others contend that this event serves as an illustration of a general form of judgment that prefigures the eschatological judgment that awaits.163 Perhaps the best explanation is that the flood generation was referenced because of how they were perceived within subsequent traditions.164 Among all of the peoples in Jewish history, this group was singled out as possessing no hope at the future judgment.165 As v. 21 goes on to show, the author finds especial significance in the parallel between the rescue of Noah and his family, through the waters of the flood, and the rescuing of Christian believers through the water of baptism. It is also possible that this period of ancient history not want to use 1 Enoch to interpret 1 Pet 3.19–20 in light of the book’s controversial nature (although this seems a bit like special pleading), the silence cannot be attributed to the loss of the book of 1 Enoch. 160   Barnes 178. 161   The difficulty of this question is evident in the fact that some commentators have simply resigned to not fully understanding the reason why the story of Noah is brought forward at this point. They, in turn, assign it to the mysteries of God (see Alford 368; Plumptre 132–33; Caffin 134). 162   So, e.g., Lumby 140–41; Masterman 132–33. 163   So, e.g., Fausset 509; Cook 204. 164   As argued by various interpreters (e.g., Beare 172; Goppelt 259; Feldmeier 204; Vahrenhorst 155). Cf. Beasley-Murray, General Epistles, 59: ‘In the eyes of the Jews, the generation of Noah was the most wicked of all history: “The generation of the Flood has no part in the world to come and will not rise in the judgment”, runs a Rabbinic saying. Peter declares: “It’s not true! The death of Christ avails for all men of all time, even for the wickedest of all! Moreover, it was none other than the Lord Himself who proclaimed redemption to them! His pity even extends to such!” ’ 165   See, e.g., m. Sanh. 10.3a–b: ‘the generation of the flood has no share in the world to come (‫)אין להם חלק לעולם הבא‬, and they will not stand in the judgment’; cf. Tg. Ps.-J Gen 6.3: ‘None of the evil generations that will arise will be judged by the order of judgments (‫ )בסדר דיניא‬of the generation of the flood, which is to be destroyed and wiped out from the midst of the world (‫’)למובדא ולמישתציה מגו עלמא‬ (trans. Clem).



3.18–22

233

bore particular resonance for the author because of the broader way in which he understands the context faced by his addressees: like Noah and his family, Christians also represent a small and persecuted minority in the midst of an immoral society; and the rescue of Noah illustrates the promise of salvation that the author also emphasises, despite all the apparent trials and threats around. Regardless of whether or not this explanation proves persuasive, it is important to recognise that the same problem exists for those who interpret the spirits in prison as fallen angels. As Feinberg has previously asked, ‘why would Peter single out these and none others as the ones over whom victory is proclaimed by the ascended Christ? Christ is victorious over all evil angels, not just those who sinned during the days of Noah’.166 The answer that is usually provided to this question is that Christ’s proclamation assures the readers of his victory over evil spiritual forces whose influence motivates unbelievers, including those who were causing problems for the audience.167 However, it is debatable whether such an event would be as comforting as some have assumed. In this case, the preaching of Christ would ring hollow in that the angels to whom the message was directed were in prison, having already received a form of punishment from God and thus lacking any means of negatively influencing humanity.168 In contrast, the spiritual forces who were   Feinberg, ‘1 Peter 3:18–20’, 329.   See Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 187–88: ‘The writer believes that, in Jesus, God has definitely overcome these powers of evil, the powers which lie beneath the unbelieving world…. Thus the confidence of the readers, amid all their tribulations, should indeed be strengthened by these considerations. Jesus not merely died to bring them to God. As risen Lord he faced the primeval powers of evil and proclaimed to them, the original “unbelievers”, the liberation of the human race. As Noah was delivered by water from evil instigated by these fallen angels, so also will the Christian be saved by the waters of baptism’ (cf. Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ, 202–203, 237–38). 168   This is recognised by Michaels, who notes, ‘It is hard to see what effect Christ’s proclamation would have on them unless 1 Peter is proposing a quite different scenario from that of 1 Enoch, Jude, and 2 Peter…. If they are already confined to prison, it is hard to imagine what further “subjection” might mean in their case’ (208). As a result, Michaels proposes that the πνεύματα refer to the demonic spirits that arose out of the giants (1 En. 15.8–16.4) after the giants were slain by the archangel Gabriel (10.9–10). These evil spirits, in contrast to the Watchers, are allowed the freedom to roam the earth. 166 167

234

1 PETER

actually causing problems for the readers still remained a significant threat, constantly tempting Christians to abandon the faith and perhaps even inspiring human agitators towards opposition and violence (1 Pet 5.8–9). If anything, the idea of Christ proclaiming victory over a defeated foe while the real enemies were wreaking havoc would seem to generate more doubt than assurance, leaving the readers to wonder if this ‘triumph’ had been exaggerated.169 Based on all of the considerations addressed to this point, it seems best to identify the πνεύματα in v. 19 as disembodied human souls, although there is still more that needs to be discovered before this conclusion can be confirmed. A key aspect of understanding the identity of these πνεύματα involves determining where the proclamation took place. The text indicates that the spirits were located ἐν φυλακῇ. Two important and interrelated questions arise from this description: what type of location is in view, and where is this site located? Related to the former, some earlier interpreters took φυλακή as a watchtower or a place of safe-keeping in connection with the view that the spirits are the righteous saints from before the time of Christ.170 Among more recent commentators, φυλακή has occasionally been understood as a place of refuge or confinement, with earth being understood as the location where demonic spirits have found safe dwelling—at least, temporarily—after having been banished from heaven.171 The point of this proclamation then would be that ‘Christ’s victory… has threatened this domain and robbed it of its power and dominion’.172

  Another consideration is whether this emphasis on the defeat and judgment of evil spiritual powers would run counter to the way the Petrine author refuses to condemn unbelieving humans. As Feldmeier points out, ‘1 Peter admittedly does intimate judgment on unbelievers but precisely never argues for their damnation, let alone make it a general theme’ (205). 170   See, e.g., Calvin 114; Bloomfield 718; Webster–Wilkinson 43–44; cf. Horsley, On Christ’s Descent into Hell, 12. This view arose out of the combination of two interpretative conclusions: (a) that the πνεύματα were the souls of deceased humans and (b) that Christ would not visit the ungodly after their death and offer them an opportunity for repentance and salvation. 171   See, e.g., Michaels 208–209; Richard 160; Osborne 225. Two considerations have led interpreters to this conclusion: (a) the identification of the πνεύματα as evil angels; and (b) the continuation of demonic activity on earth that cannot be explained if the spirits are the Watchers who were imprisoned long ago. 172   Richard 160. 169



3.18–22

235

It is true, as these scholars have pointed out, that φυλακή was occasionally used to denote a situation other than a prison cell. In some cases, its usage involved the active protection of something or someone from the threat of danger (Xenophon, Hell. 5.4.21; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.3.4). It was also employed in medical contexts to describe the personal care and observation that one might devote to his or her condition following the treatment of a disease (Hippocrates, Int. 1). But in this particular instance, it is difficult to assign such a positive meaning in light of the fact that the defining characteristic of those who reside in it is that they disobeyed.173 It seems best therefore to attribute to the word its most common meaning: a place where someone is locked up in custody and awaiting punishment (Aristotle, Oec. 1352a; Polybius, Hist. 3.77.3; Diodorus Siculus 17.80.2; Josephus, Ant. 16.386).174 In other words, this is a holding site for the souls of disobedient humans following their death.175 But where might this ‘prison’ be located? The vague manner in which the site is referenced seems to allow for any of the numerous locations where the ancients situated the realm of the dead. Since the time of Homer, the Greeks maintained that when the soul of a human departed the body following death, it travelled to Hades   Cf. Davids 138 n. 30.   Cook (204) goes too far by claiming, on the basis of lexical considera�tions, that the use of φυλακή indicates that these spirits were ‘not in bonds or penal durance (which would be ἐν δεσμωτηρίῳ) as condemned criminals, but in custody, as prisoners awaiting their doom’. 175   This is one of the strongest objections against the Augustinian hypothesis. According to Augustine, the πνεύματα represent ‘souls which were at that time still in the bodies of men, and which, being shut up in the darkness of ignorance, were, so to speak, in prison (ignorantiae tenebris velut cacere claudebantur)’ (Ep. 164.16; trans. Cunningham). But the idea that the use of φυλακή here is meant to be taken metaphorically has yet to be demonstrated from the text. As a variation to the original Augustinian view, Grudem suggests that φυλακή does represent an actual place of punishment, but that the πνεύματα were only located there at the time of writing, not when they received the proclamation. Thus, he would translate the clause, ‘he went and made proclamation to the spirits who are now in prison’ (see Grudem, ‘Christ Preaching through Noah’, 8–9). Yet, this alternative suggestion is only slightly less problematic than the original. The difficulty is that such a temporal disjunction is not actually reflected in the text. Had this been the Petrine author’s intention, it would have been simple to write, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς νῦν ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν. 173 174

236

1 PETER

(Homer, Il. 1.4; Od. 11.150). However, conceptions of Hades developed over time—both in terms of the experiences of souls within this place and even where it was located. Many ancients believed that Hades was situated in the lower regions of the earth (Homer, Il. 23.100–101); hence, at death, the soul descended to the underworld (Homer, Il. 7.330: ψυχαὶ… Ἄϊδος δὲ κατῆλθον, ‘the souls descended to Hades’). There were others who maintained that Hades was located in the celestial realm;176 hence, at death, the soul ascended to the heavens (cf. Cornutus, Nat. d. 35: τὸν δεχόμενον τὰς ψυχὰς ἀέρα Ἅιδην… προσηγόρευσαν, ‘they called the air that receives the souls Hades’). Contributing to this perspective was the notion that the warm, fiery nature of the soul aligned in constitution with the aither, and thus like was attracted to like.177 The idea of a celestial Hades was reflected in philosophical discourse as early as the late classical period (Heraclides of Pontus, Frag. 93–96 [Wehrli]; Xenocrates, Frag. 15 [Heinze]), and its influence may also be evident in some later Jewish and Christian reflections about the afterlife.178 176   On this ancient dispute, Cicero, Tusc. 1.16–19. For a full treatment of celestial Hades, see Mihai, Mihai, ‘Soul’s Aitherial Abode’, 553–82; idem, L’Hades celeste; idem, ‘Hades in Hellenistic Philosophy’, 194–214; cf. Cumont, Lux perpetua, 189–218. 177   On this notion of like attracting like, see Empedocles, Frag. 22; cf. Homer, Od. 17.218; Aristotle, De an. 404b; Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Math. 7.116–118. 178   See, e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 107–108; b. Tamid 32b; Apoc. Paul 20–22. In his defence of the fallen angel hypothesis, Dalton (and many that follow him) maintains that this ‘prison’ is located in the heavens (Christ’s Proclamation, 177–82). The evidential basis for this claim is twofold. First, he points out how concepts of the universe evolved in antiquity, allowing for some Jews and Christians to envision heaven with multiple levels. In particular, he draws attention to 2 En. 7.1–5, which describes rebellious angels in the second heaven who are imprisoned and being punished for their sins (cf. 18.1–9, where the sins are further specified). Second, he argues that the preaching of Christ occurred sometime between the resurrection and the ascension. When these considerations are combined, Dalton is led to the conclusion that Christ must have preached to the spirits in prison during his ascent to heaven. But even though this line of reasoning has been followed by various interpreters, it is not without problems. Given that some Jewish sources locate the imprisonment of the fallen angels ‘in the valleys/depths of the earth’ (1 En. 10.12; 14.5; Jub. 5.6, 10) or ‘in darkness’ (Jude 6; cf. 1 En. 10.4) or ‘at the ends of the earth’ (1 En. 19.1; cf. 21.7–10), why give priority to 2 Enoch, particularly if 1 Enoch provides the basis of the myths that are being referenced in 1 Peter (cf. Davids 140 n. 37)? Furthermore, there is nothing in the verse that would prevent Christ from travelling to the underworld between his resurrection and ascent. The



3.18–22

237

What must be remembered, however, is that φυλακή was not intended to refer to the entire place of the dead. Instead, it is a particular location where unredeemed, rebellious human souls are held prior to judgment.179 This seems to move the description beyond general notions about the place of the dead and into apocalyptic perspectives concerning punishments that await the wicked at the eschaton. So where, then, do Jewish and Christian (apocalyptic) traditions locate the imprisonment of wicked human souls prior to judgment? Again, no singular answer exists. Within this literature there is a great deal of complexity and diversity, and in some cases, it is not always clear where certain events take place.180 Nevertheless, there are two relatively clear lines of tradition: in some texts the disembodied souls of evil humans are held in the heavens,181 while in others they are located in the underworld.182 participle used to describe these travels is merely πορευθείς (vv. 19, 22), which allows for the broadest possible number of directions. So while it is possible that the Petrine author envisioned this prison in the heavens, there is no firm evidence in the letter that points in this direction. 179   A distinction noted by others (e.g., Plumptre 132; Caffin 134; Huther 183). 180   The author of 2 Baruch envisions a situation in which the disembodied souls of the righteous (and presumably the wicked) are preserved in treasuries where they await final judgment (30.1–2), but the specific location of these chambers is not disclosed. Similarly, in 4 Ezra, the souls of the righteous are kept in angelguarded chambers (7.88–99), while wicked souls wander about in torment and misery for seven days (7.26–44, 100–101), recognising what they could have received and also what punishment awaits them (7.75–87; 9.9–12). 181   In the Testament of Abraham, the souls of humans are taken through the first gate in heaven where they are judged by Abel (A 11.1–13.5; cf. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 4.16, where the righteous souls will receive robes in the seventh heaven). Those who are driven through the broad gate (i.e., the wicked) are destroyed (A 11.11– 12), while those with an equivalent amount of good and bad deeds must await the final judgment (A 12.16–18; 14.1–15), although the nature of this waiting area is not disclosed. The Questions of Ezra reveals how the soul of a righteous person is taken by a good angel up into the upper atmosphere where they traverse the seven steps toward divinity (A 14–15), and when they arrive, they worship God (B 6). A wicked soul, on the other hand, is taken by an evil angel to the lower atmosphere where they are imprisoned (A 10, 19–21; B 6). 182   According to Ps.-Philo, the souls of the righteous will be stored away in the underworld (LAB 64.7), where they will experience peace and tranquillity while they await God’s eschatological visitation (23.13; cf. 28.10; 51.5); whereas the souls of the wicked will dwell in a place of darkness and misery (16.3; 51.5), where fire torments sinners for their evil deeds (23.6; 38.4; 63.4). A similar separation may be envisioned in the Sibylline Oracles, which describes Hades

238

1 PETER

Ultimately, it is difficult to situate the φυλακή in v. 19 within this larger tradition because the description of the Petrine author is brief and rather vague. Christ’s journey to this location is simply depicted as ‘going’ (πορευθείς). Had an alternative verb been employed (e.g., καταβάς or ἀναβάς), it may have been possible to specify the location more clearly. As it is, it seems best not to speculate. The safest conclusion is simply to say that Christ ‘went’ (πορευθείς) to the place where the disembodied souls of the wicked were being imprisoned, and he ‘preached’ (ἐκήρυξεν) to them.183 This conclusion still leaves two questions unanswered: when did this trip take place, and what was the nature of the proclamation that was delivered? Related to the former, most recent interpreters situate the preaching of Christ after the resurrection. But the exegetical basis for this interpretation is not as strong as many have assumed. The primary evidence used to support this claim are the four participles in the passage: θανατωθείς… ζῳοποιηθείς… πορευθείς… πορευθείς. These are thought to represent a chronological progression that depicts the full extent of Christ’s salvific activities from death to resurrection to ascension. In this construal, πορευθείς and a heavenly vault (2.199–200), with all of the souls of humanity being led out of the dark to judgment (2.217–218). In the Epistle of Enoch, all souls descend into Sheol, where the righteous will be grieved (1 En. 102.4–5; cf. 91.10), but the sinful will experience darkness, snares, and fire (103.7–8). The judgment of souls, according to the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, takes place in Hades. While the righteous are allowed to cross over into heaven (8.1–10.2), the wicked are forced to reside in Hades, experiencing punishment until the time of judgment (10.3–14). Similarly, in the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, the righteous souls enter into a heavenly paradise at death (6.3, 17, 21), but the wicked are punished in Hades (4.1–36), awaiting the resurrection when the final judgment will occur (1.24; 2.26; 4.36–43). According to the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the soul of a wicked person wanders in the air for three days prior to going down into Hades (4.6–7). As a variation on this tradition, in the Book of Watchers, the four holding chambers of human souls—which house both good and bad—are said to be located ‘in the West’ (1 En. 22.1–4, 8–13). 183   While the Petrine author does seem to have a concept of the Spirit of Christ working through the Hebrew prophets (see 1.11: τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ), this pre-incarnational ministry is clearly specified in the text. The same cannot be said for the notion that ἐκήρυξεν refers to the pre-existent Christ preaching through Noah, as espoused in the Augustinian hypothesis. If this were what the author intended, it is curious that this notion was not made more explicit (e.g., ἐκήρυξεν τὸ ἐν Νῶε πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ). Without further clues, the reader is left to conclude that Christ himself was doing the preaching apart from any intermediaries.



3.18–22

239

(v. 19) would represent an event that was subsequent to the resur�rection (ζῳοποιηθείς, v. 18), but prior to the ascension (πορευθείς, v. 22). Christ’s proclamation to the spirits in prison would thus have been undertaken as part of a brief stop along the way to heaven184 (‘as he went [to heaven], he preached’).185 It must be remembered, however, that v. 18 contains tradi� tional material set in a formulaic pattern (θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι), which is then carried on by a relative clause. The argument for chronological progression would be more convincing if the participles were all in balanced parallelism like those in v. 18. As it is, the fact that πορευθείς is part of a relative clause seems to disrupt any progression.186 From this same construction, one could just as plausibly interpret the preaching of Christ as an activity undertaken before he was ‘made alive’.187 This is consistent with the idea that v. 19 is ‘an addendum that had no place within the antithetically constructed confessional formula’.188 To avoid breaking up the parallelism, the Petrine author used καί to recall an intervening event. Such an interpretation would allow for the possibility that Christ’s proclamation to the spirits in prison took place prior to his resurrection while he was in a pre-resurrected state.189 Yet, without any real firm evidence on either side, it is perhaps best to leave open the question of when this preaching took place.   Since πορευθείς is used in v. 22 to describe an upward journey to heaven, the presence of the same participle in v. 19 is thought to require the same meaning (see, e.g., Forbes 125). Yet, if a trip to heaven were in view in v. 19, it is curious that the author was not explicit about this, like he was in v. 22. The inclusion of a phrase like εἰς οὐρανόν would have cleared up any confusion. 185   Some opponents of this view have argued that if πορευθείς in v. 19 were a reference to the ascension, and the author’s intention was to indicate a short excursion along the way, then the present tense might have been expected (see Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 65; Best 141). But when an aorist participle modifies an aorist verb, it often denotes a contemporaneous action (see Wallace, Grammar, 624–25), which would be consistent with this interpretation. It might be best in this instance to interpret πορευθείς as an attendant circumstance participle (‘he went and preached’). 186   Cf. Yoshihara, ‘Study of 1 Peter 3:18b–20a (Part 2)’, 204. 187   See Alford 368. 188   Feldmeier 206; cf. Best 141. 189   This would fit with the depictions in some other early Christian literature, of Christ’s proclamation to the human dead (e.g., Gos. Pet. 10.41–42; Sib. Or. 1.377– 79; 8.310–14; Odes Sol. 42.11–20; Justin, Dial. 72.4). See further Exegesis on 4.6. 184

240

1 PETER

This leaves us to address the content of Christ’s proclamation. Determining the nature of this message depends on the interpretation of the final word of the verse: ἐκήρυξεν.190 In the LXX, this term is used to refer both to religious proclamations (e.g., Exod 32.5; 36.6; 2 Kgs 10.20; 2 Chr 20.3) and to various other types of announcements and messages (e.g., Gen 41.43; Prov 1.21; Esth 6.9; 11; 1 Esd 2.1; 1 Macc 5.49; 10.63–64). In non-biblical Greek, the verb particularly denotes the activity of the κῆρυξ, and thus refers to a wide range of announcements and proclamations made by various kinds of envoys and messengers.191 As such, κηρύσσω need not necessarily refer here to an announcement of good news (contrast 4.6, which uses εὐαγγελίζω). This broad range of usage commonly serves as the basis for claims that κηρύσσω represents either a proclamation of judgment against sinful humans (i.e. a praedicatio damnatoria)192 or, more often, a message of victory over fallen angels.193 Yet establishing that a term can carry a particular meaning is not the same as demonstrating that such a function is evident in the present verse.194 It is important to account for how the word is most commonly employed in the NT and also which meaning makes the most sense in the present context. While in the NT the verb can 190   Since the subject of ἐκήρυξεν is not explicit, it would be possible—in a way that is consistent with Augustine’s view—to read the verb cataphorically, with the subject being Νῶε in v. 20 (see Morris, ‘1 Peter iii.19’, 470). Yet virtually all interpreters correctly recognise that the third person singular verb functions anaphorically, referring back to Χριστός (v. 18). This is clear not only from the fact that Christ is the subject of the previous verse, but also because of καί, which marks out an additional activity of Christ. Two other (even more remote) possibilities are mentioned by Long Westfall. She explains, ‘If the implied referent is exophoric, the context of the culture included shared traditions and literature that identified Enoch as one who preached to “spirits in prison” ’. Further, she raises ‘the possibility that the subject is intentionally unidentified to place the emphasis on the theme of the sentence which is the “spirits in prison” and to omit the actor as a relevant feature in the analogy’ (‘1 Peter 3.19–22’, 110–11 n. 22). 191   Cf. LSJ 949; TDNT 3:683–714. 192   So, e.g., Aretius 60; Wolf 143; Schott 228–31; Keil 131–32. 193   So, e.g., Davids 140–41; Marshall 128; Hiebert 244; Achtemeier 259–62; Elliott 659–62; Jobes 250; Schlosser 228; Watson 90–91; Schreiner 215; cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 154–59. 194   A related and equally important point is noted by Huther: ‘It is certainly correct… that κηρύσσειν is not in itself equal to εὐαγγελιζειν; but it does not follow that it may not be applied to a message of salvation’ (184 n. 1).



3.18–22

241

have other more general objects, as in the phrase ὁ κηρύσσων μὴ κλέπτειν (Rom 2.21) or indeed (unlike εὐαγγελίζω) have a more neutral sense of announcing, as in Rev 5.2 (cf. also Matt 10.27// Luke 12.3), most frequently it refers to proclaiming or preaching the message concerned with the kingdom of God, Christ, the ‘good news’, and so on—such objects of the message often being specified (e.g., Mark 1.14; Acts 8.5; 9.20; Rom 10.8; 1 Cor 1.23). If a message of condemnation or victory were in view,195 one would expect this to have been specified—especially since it would represent a departure from the type of message that Christ is known to have preached (and, in the case of the fallen angels view, the type of audience to whom he is known to have preached it). Additionally, the context points towards the proclamation of salvation. Only a few verses later, the gospel is said to have been proclaimed to the dead (4.6: νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη). But more immediately, the events with which this preaching is closely connected (viz. the death and resurrection of Christ) are what lead people to God (v. 18). Even the typology that is drawn in the verses that follow relates to salvation (v. 21: σῴζει).196 So although κηρύσσω can denote the proclamation on a general level, in this case it seems to be focused on the message of the gospel. 20 ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε, ποτε, ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ More information about these ‘spirits in prison’ is provided in the present verse, with the author implicitly connecting their imprisonment with disobedience. Commentators regularly note that the   One wonders why either of these messages would have been necessary. As pointed out above, a message of victory over angels who had already been punished does nothing to demonstrate the power of Christ and little to bolster the audience’s confidence in it. Likewise, a message of condemnation to those who are already reserved for damnation seems superfluous (see Wiesinger 241; Alford 367; cf. Ostmeyer 73). 196   Another potential argument that could be used to connect this preaching with the proclamation of the gospel relates to the function of καί. If this particle modifies τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν and carries an additive force (‘he preached to the spirits in prison as well’), indicating that Jesus preached both during his earthly ministry as well as after his death, then to maintain continuity it would be difficult to take ἐκήρυξεν in any other way than as an invitation to salvation. Whether or not this explanation of καί is acceptable remains to be seen, however (see above). 195

242

1 PETER

verb ἀπειθέω is used elsewhere in the epistle to denote a conscious and willing rejection of the Christian message (cf. 2.8; 3.1; 4.17); but considerably less attention has been devoted to the function of the participial form. This is surprising given that the question has a great bearing on how one identifies the spirits. Most understand ἀπειθήσασιν as an adjectival participle functioning similar to a relative clause and thus further describing the spirits (πνεύμασιν) mentioned in v. 19 (‘who were formerly disobedient’; cf. NRSV, NIV, NAB, HCSB).197 Yet, based on the absence of the article before ἀπειθήσασιν, some contend that the participle must function adverbially (modifying ἐκήρυξεν).198 This latter position has been most cogently defended by Grudem, who sets forward two grammatical arguments against an adjectival function.199 Pointing to statistics, he notes how rare it is to find an anarthrous participle functioning adjectivally in the NT. This argument is then supported by a structural observation: in the few instances when this construction does occur, ‘the anarthrous adjectival participle will follow immediately after the noun it modifies’, and only very rarely is ‘the participle separated from its antecedent by the main verb of the sentence, as it is in 1 Peter 197   One exception to this is Lenski (163–64). Even though he understands the participle as functioning adjectivally, he emphasises its predicate position and thereby denies that it shares the same referent as πνεύματι. What Lenski claims instead is that ἀπειθήσασιν provides a specific example (viz. those who rebelled during the time of Noah) from among the wider category of spirits in prison (‘he preached to the spirits in prison such as those who formerly disobeyed’ during ‘the time of Noah’). In this way, he is able to affirm that Christ preached to all imprisoned spirits and not just a particular group. But as useful as this interpretation might be in accounting for the recipients of Christ’s message, it is simply not borne out by the evidence. As a predicate participle, ἀπειθήσασιν would mark the action of the πνεύματα referenced in v. 19 (‘the spirits who disobeyed’), not a sub-group within that larger body. 198   See Achtemeier 262: ‘Grammatically, the word stands in the predicate rather than the attributive position, and so cannot rightly be rendered “who were disobedient” ’. Even those who read ἀπειθήσασιν attributively claim that it is ‘not good Greek’ (MHT 4:129; cf. MHT 3:153). 199   Grudem was not the first to make this grammatical argument, however. A similar case was laid out in great depth in the late nineteenth century (see Bartlett ‘Preaching to the Spirits’, 601–21; idem, ‘Preaching to the Spirits’, 333–73; Cowles, ‘Christ Preaching’, 401–20). The validity of this grammatical analysis was nonetheless challenged by Patton (‘Christ’s Preaching’, 460–79).



3.18–22

243

3:19–20’.200 For these reasons, Grudem sees ἀπειθήσασιν as performing a temporal function, delineating when Christ’s proclamation took place (‘when/after they were disobedient’; cf. NET).201 The significance of this interpretative decision lies in the fact that it requires situating the preaching of Christ during the time of Noah, not after his death and resurrection. But upon closer inspection, the argument of Grudem is not as convincing as it might initially seem. While he is correct that anarthrous participles in predicate position more commonly perform an adverbial function in the NT,202 it is important to recognise that they can also function adjectivally, whether as predicate participles (especially when accompanied by an εἰμί verb)203 or as attributive participles.204 He is also correct that when a finite verb separates an anarthrous participle from the arthrous substantive it modifies, the participle generally functions adverbially.205 Yet, here again, there   Grudem 234.   See Grudem 233–36. Others have taken a similar view: Johnstone 253–54, 269; Williams 56–57; Skilton, ‘Some Old Problems’, 1–2. 202   See, e.g., 1 En. 10.8; T.Reu. 4.6; T.Sim. 2.7; T.Levi 6.9; T.Iss. 3.2; T.Job 6.4; 23.1; 43.5; T.Ab. B 13.10; T.Mos. 2; Let. Aris. 4; Jub. 11.2; Jos. Asen. 24.19; LAE 27.5; Rechab. 16.1; 4 Macc 16.24; Matt 11.19; 14.31; 15.12; 16.1; 26.56; 27.27, 41; Mark 2.16; 5.30; 6.17; 12.34; 14.69; Luke 2.20; 3.19; 13.14; 16.21; 18.11, 43; John 4.54; 10.12; 19.2; 20.20; Acts 7.9, 59; 9.38; 10.25; 12.11, 21; 14.9; 16.22; 17.8; 21.26, 40; 23.18, 27; 24.22; 25.9, 12; 26.1; 28.8, 15; Rom 8.3; 1 Cor 8.7; 2 Cor 4.15; 1 Tim 2.8; Heb 9.28; Jas 1.15; 3.4; 1 Clem. 33.7; 2 Clem. 13.3; 14.3; Mart. Pol. 4.1; Barn. 2.7; Herm. Vis. 3.2; Herm. Mand. 2.6; Herm. Sim. 1.4; 3.3; Diog. 6.5. 203   See, e.g., 1 En. 16.1; T.Zeph. 1; 3 Bar. 8.1; 11.8; T.Reu. 1.2; T.Iss. 7.7; T.Naph 6.1; T. Benj. 2.5; T.Ab. A 11.10; 14.6; 16.8; T.Ab. B 9.8; 11.10; T.Mos. 6; T.Sol. A 2.1; 3.5; 13.5; Let. Aris. 83; Jos. Asen. 3.10; 10.3, 6; 20.5; Odes Sol. 12; Pss. Sol. 14.4; 17.43; Matt 8.14; 9.23; Mark 1.10; 7.30; 9.1; 11.20; Luke 1.18; 2.16; 7.10; 12.54; 17.24; 24.2; John 1.29, 32, 36, 47, 51; 5.19; 6.19; 7.32; 10.12; 19.26; 20.1, 6, 14; Acts 5.23; 7.56; 10.11; 20.12; 24.27; 2 Cor 10.10; Gal 4.4; Eph 4.16; Heb 5.14; 9.4; 13.23; 1 John 5.16; Rev 3.2; 14.1; 17.6; 19.11; Mart. Pol. 5.2; Did. 16.8; Herm. Sim. 5.3; 9.12.5. 204   See, e.g., T.Jos. 19.6; T.Job 27.1; 31.5; 40.3; Let. Aris. 93, 109, 282; Odes Sol. 10; Pss. Sol. 8.26; Ord. Levi 22, 26; Matt 27.37; Mark 5.36; Luke 16.14; John 2.9; 4.39; Acts 8.12; 21.8; Rom 16.1; 2 Cor 3.7; 11.9; 2 Tim 1.10; 1 Clem. 6.1; Ign. Mag. 9.2; Tral. 3.1; Barn. 7.2; Herm. Mand. 9.3. 205   Examples of this construction (i.e. arthrous substantive + finite verb + anarthrous participle) include: Exod 23.27; Deut 28.32; Jos 8.23; Ezra 10.1; Job 8.3; Isa 55.12; 2 Macc 4.33; 6.4; T.Benj. 8.3; T.Job 50.2; T.Mos. 9; T.Sol. A 20.16; Let. Aris. 26, 261; 4 Bar. 7.12; Demetr. 5.1; Philo, Legum. 2.70; Post. 89; Deus. 200 201

244

1 PETER

are some places where attributive participles are found in this very construction,206 which indicates that a decision must be made on considerations other than structure. An alternative is to allow the case of ἀπειθήσασιν to determine its function. According to Culy, one can identify anarthrous participles that function adverbially from those that function adjectivally based on a simple ‘rule’. Excluding genitive absolute constructions and those instances where the participle modifies an infinitive, Culy maintains that adverbial participles will only be found in the nominative case, while the oblique cases are reserved for adjectival participles.207 This would mean that the dative ἀπειθήσασιν could only function adjectivally here.208 Even if we allowed for the possibility that there might be exceptions to Culy’s ‘rule’, there are good reasons for adopting an attributive use here. Not only do a variety of considerations rule out a temporal function,209 other adverbial uses contain no more 21; Mut. 270; Acts 20.7; 22.29; Heb 11.30; Jas 2.25; Josephus, Ant. 2.130; 5.280; War 1.19; Barn. 5.10; Herm. Sim. 8.11.1; Ign. Phld. 7.1; Acts Thom. 114.1; 117.6; Acts John 13.6. 206   E.g., Philo, Conf. 136: ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ πεπλήρωται τὰ πάντα, περιέχοντος, οὐ περιεχομένου (‘But all places are filled by God, who surrounds [all things] but who is not surrounded [by anything]). Cf. also 2 Macc 12.20; Let. Aris. 295; Philo, Her. 78 (possibly); Josephus, Ant. 1.229; 3.59; 7.165; 14.126; 17.42; War 6.438. 207   See Culy, ‘Clue is in the Case’, 441–54; cf. also Decker, Reading Koine Greek, 424. 208   One might further support this conclusion with comparative uses throughout 1 Peter. While the Petrine author often includes the article before the adjectival participle (1.5, 25; 2.7; 3.5; 5.10), he does employ the anarthrous form to convey an attributive function in 4.12, and in 1.18 a similar adjectival construction is used. 209   Several considerations would appear to rule out a temporal function. First, the temporal particle ποτέ, which modifies ἀπειθήσασιν (pace Hofmann 131, who claims that the particle modifies ἐκήρυξεν), suggests that the disobedience occurred at a different time than the preaching (cf. Kühl 226). Second, the fact that the proclamation occurred ‘in (the) spirit’ (ἐν ᾧ, sc. πνεύματι) indicates that it occurred sometime after Jesus was put to death (θανατωθείς). Third, if antecedent action is intended (‘he preached after they disobeyed’), the use of a participle to denote a temporal relationship with ἐκήρυξεν seems unnecessary in that it verges on the obvious. This would have more naturally been communicated by an attributive adjective or participle (‘he preached to the disobedient spirits’). If contemporaneous action is in view (‘he preached while they disobeyed’), it seems strange that the imperfect was not employed as a way to represent a repeated action over an extended period. Finally, a temporal interpretation would require



3.18–22

245

explanatory power.210 Further, comparative uses in 1 Peter indicate that while the article is often included with the adjectival participle (1.5, 25; 2.7; 3.5; 5.10), the Petrine author does employ the anarthrous form to convey an attributive function (see 4.12; cf. 1.18, where a similar adjectival construction is used). Thus, it seems most likely that ἀπειθήσασιν functions as an attributive in this instance, further delineating which spirits the author had in mind. The disobedience of these spirits is said to have occurred ‘formerly’ (ποτε). What follows indicates the specific time intended by the enclitic particle.211 It happened ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία (‘when the patience of God waited’). As Dubis points out, the nominative phrase is a metonymy, the quality of God’s patience as the subject (ἡ… μακροθυμία) standing in effect for God, as indicated in the translation ‘God waited patiently’ an unnatural merging of two distinct situations: the time when Christ preached to these individuals in their human bodies and the later time when these individuals were disembodied souls who were imprisoned for their disobedience to the gospel message. Had this been the author’s intention, we might have expected the insertion of νῦν in v. 19 (‘the spirits who are now in prison’) to clarify the situation. 210   Some understand ἀπειθήσασιν as a causal participle (e.g., Weiss 320; Achtemeier 262; Schreiner 217; cf. Green, Grammar, 54), delineating either why Christ’s proclamation took place (‘Christ preached to the spirits in prison because they formerly disobeyed’; cf. ESV) or explaining why they were in prison. But neither of these is satisfactory. While the latter cannot be sustained due to the fact that the adverbial participle would have to relate to the action of the verb (ἐκήρυξεν) not the prepositional phrase (ἐν φυλακῇ), the causal connection between preaching and disobedience is so obvious that it does not need to be stated. Others read ἀπειθήσασιν as a concessive participle (e.g., Wiesinger 242–43), describing the potentially disqualifying circumstances that Christ overlooked when he preached to the spirits (‘…even though they formerly disobeyed’). But any potential hesitancy to preach to a rebellious group would seem unusual given early Christian tradition proclaiming that Christ willingly laid down his life for just such sinners (cf. Rom 5.8: ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν). 211   It should be noted that ποτέ modifies ἀπειθήσασιν, indicating that this disobedience occurred prior to the event described in the main clause (ἐκήρυξεν). More specifically, this combination indicates ‘as plainly as words can shew, that we are reading of some act of Christ which He then, at the time described, went and did, with reference to spirits who were, at some other time (ποτέ) specified (ὅτε), in a certain state (ἀπειθήσασι)’ (Alford 366; emphasis removed). This temporal separation creates a problem for those who hold to the Augustinian hypothesis and claim that the disobedience and preaching occurred simultaneously.

246

1 PETER

(NRSV; cf. NAB).212 The phrase itself is unusual,213 not least in the use of the verb ἀπεκδέχομαι, which in all its other NT occurrences refers to the eager expectation with which Christians (or the whole creation, see Rom 8.19) await the return of Christ and their redemption (Rom 8.23, 25; 1 Cor 1.7; Gal 5.5; Phil 3.20; Heb 9.28). Here, it presumably refers to God’s eager anticipation—the imperfect tense perhaps indicating an extended duration—of the culmination of the plan of salvation and the achievement of victory over all opposing powers (cf. 3.22).214 Yet this eagerness is combined with patience. The theme of God’s patience and forbearance—μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος—is widely expressed in the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Exod 34.6; Num 14.18; Neh 9.17; Ps 103[102].8; Jonah 4.2; Nah 1.3; cf. 2 Esdr 7.132–140). And, more specifically, it is often connected with the story of the flood. For instance, Jewish interpreters understood the ten generations between Adam and Noah as indicating God’s forbearance (m. ’Abot 5.2), and Philo took the seven days (Gen 7.4) during which God (in Philo’s view) ‘kept back the flood’ as a period of grace.215 In the NT, the idea of God’s patience is also found (Rom 9.22), specifically in connection with a kindness that leaves time for repentance (Rom 2.4). The closest parallel, however, is undoubtedly in 2 Pet 3.9, in a passage (2 Pet 3.5–15) where the themes of the flood, God’s patience, and repentance are combined, perhaps at least partly under the influence of 1 Peter.216

  Dubis 122.   Cf. Elliott 663: ‘without exact parallel in the biblical literature’. 214   The implications may be seen positively, as in Michaels’ suggestion that the verb ‘indicates not God’s eagerness to punish but his hopeful anticipation of human repentance and reconciliation to him’ (212; cf. Selwyn 201). But other motivations may also be considered, as indicated by Rom 9.22. 215   Philo, QG 2.13, where Philo gives various reasons why seven days passed after Noah entered the ark, before the flood came: for repentance of sins; to display the kindness of God; and to call to remembrance God’s creation of the world in seven days. Philo sums up his discussion: ‘He therefore holds off [ἐπέχει] for seven days in order that those who lack faith and belief may be mindful of the genesis of the world, and coming as suppliants to the Creator of all may ask for the perpetuity of His works’ (trans. Marcus [LCL]). 216   Cf. Elliott 664. 212 213



3.18–22

247

In connection with the theme of divine patience, many Jewish and Christian sources remembered Noah as one who preached a message of repentance to his contemporaries,217 proclaiming this word of warning while he constructed the ark.218 The book of Genesis does not record the duration of this construction project, although before Noah is warned about the impending flood, God states that the days of mortals will only be 120 years (Gen 6.3). While most modern interpreters understand this as a reference to the lifespan restriction of humans after the flood, Philo considered the possibility that this might be an indication of the length of time prior to the flood so as to provide an opportunity for the wicked to repent prior to the deluge (Philo, QG 1.91).219 This is consistent with the interpretation found in Tg. Onq. Gen 6.3: ‘And the Lord said, This evil generation shall not stand before me for ever, because they are flesh, and their works are evil. A term (or length) will I give them, an hundred and twenty years, if they may be converted (‫’)אם יתובון‬   See Josephus, Ant. 1.3.1; 1 Clem. 7.6; 9.4; 2 Pet 2.5; Theophilus, Autol. 3.19; b. Sanh. 108a; Gen. Rab. 30.7; Eccl. Rab. 9.16–17. Some accounts even include the content of that message (e.g., Sib. Or. 1.148–198; Pirqe R. El. 22). For more on the reputation of Noah within ancient Jewish and Christian sources, see Lewis, Interpretation of Noah; Benjamins, ‘Noah, the Ark, and the Flood’, 134–49; Peters, Noah Traditions; Lieber, ‘Portraits of Righteousness’, 332–55; Wilson, ‘Noah, the Ark, and the Flood’, 1–12. Given the popularity of Noah tradition at this time, it seems a stretch to claim that the present reference is due specifically to the influence of Isa 54.9, where Noah is merely mentioned by name (as suggested by Egan, Scriptural Narrative, 181–82). 218   This is explicitly stated in Apoc. Paul 50, where Noah declares that he preached a message of repentance despite being mocked by his contemporaries. Other sources leave the same impression. For instance, in Sib. Or. 1.125–216, even though the timeline seems to be telescoped, it is apparent that Noah preached while building the boat. In the story, the flood is God’s response to humankind’s lack of repentance to Noah’s preaching (1.128–131), yet Noah is told to quickly build the boat (1.132–133) before he begins this ministry of proclamation (1.148– 198). Furthermore, when Noah fails to convince the flood generation, God shows up and instructs him to quickly board the boat (1.199–209), which assumes that it had already been completed. Some time appears to have passed by this point as God refers back to the initial command to warn the people (1.202). 219   This idea is repeated in the Targumim on Gen 6.3 (Tg. Neof.; Tg. Onq.; Tg. Ps-J.) and in rabbinic materials (Mek. Shirata 5.38–39). Similarly, Apoc. Paul 50, claims that the building of the ark took 100 years. Other sources similarly understand any delay as a sign of God’s mercy and compassion (see Philo, QG 2.13; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 7.10). 217

248

1 PETER

(trans. Etheridge; cf. also Mek. Shirata 5.38–39). Along these same lines, 1 Peter seems to reflect a tradition in which Noah preached a message of repentance over an extended period prior to the flood.220 The legends of Genesis 6–9 were a prominent focus for early Jewish and Christian interpreters, as the legends about Enoch and the Watchers indicate, as well as references to, and discussion of, the stories about Noah. References to ‘the days of Noah’ are also found in the Gospel traditions (Matt 24.37–39//Luke 17.26–27),221 where a clear parallel is drawn, as here, between the experiences of Noah’s generation and those of the generation living in the end times.222 The genitive absolute phrase, κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ, is best understood temporally, like most NT examples of the idiom:223 ‘when an ark was being constructed’.224 In this case, the construction serves to switch the subject from μακροθυμία to κιβωτός, to which the following relative pronoun, ἥν, then refers.225 Generally, the word κιβωτός is used to denote a box or chest,226 and specifically in Jewish and Christian literature to refer either to the boat built by Noah (e.g., Gen 6.14–9.18; Matt 24.38//Luke 17.27; Heb 11.7) or to the covenant chest, or ark of the covenant   See further Marcar, ‘In the Days of Noah’, 562–66; cf. also Keener 275.   The latter appears to provide an alternative tradition to that of 1 Peter, indicating that Noah’s contemporaries had not been warned about the flood: ‘For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came (οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμός) and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man’ (NRSV). 222   It is difficult, however, to share Michaels’ confidence that the ‘phrase “in the days of Noah” may well be based on the Gospel tradition and on Jesus’ analogy between Noah’s time and the time immediately preceding the end of the age’ (211). 223   On this function, see Wallace, Grammar, 655. 224   There were multiple traditions about how the ark was ultimately constructed. In most cases, Noah was thought to be the one who built the boat (Jub. 5.21–22; Sib. Or. 1.132–133; Heb 11.7). However, in 1 En. 67.1–2, the ark is said to have been constructed by the angels. The passive participle (κατασκευαζομένης) may perhaps indicate that someone other than Noah had a part in the construction (as proposed by Donelson 113), although it could just as easily represent Noah’s efforts. 225   So Dubis 122–23. 226   LSJ 950. Cf. BDAG 544. 220 221



3.18–22

249

(e.g., Exod 25.10–22; Heb 9.4; Rev 11.19).227 In reference to Noah’s ark, however, Josephus prefers the term λάρναξ (Ant. 1.77–78, 90–95; Ag. Ap. 1.130), reserving κιβωτός for the ark of the covenant (Ant. 4.304; 6.1–19).228 Some years ago, Moffatt claimed that the reason why Noah’s ark is referenced in the letter is because of an ancient tradition that the boat came to rest in Apameia, a city in the region of Phrygia which was located in the Roman province of Asia.229 This idea was picked up and thoroughly developed by Kreitzer, who appeals to both the literary and numismatic evidence (viz. the ‘Noah coins’ from the city of Apameia Kibotos) to suggest that one of the reasons why allusion is made to Noah’s ark in this instance is to establish a local connection.230 Yet it seems unlikely that the Petrine author would appeal to the Noah story merely to create interest and appreciation from Christians in a single community within Asia Minor.

227   The reason why κιβωτός is anarthrous is hard to discern (cf. Sib. Or. 1.266; Heb 11.7). Some contend that κιβωτός was a well-known noun—due especially to its frequecy in the LXX—that did not require the article in order to be definite, hence ‘the ark’ (Wiesinger 253; Alford 365; Keil 132; Huther 186; cf. NIV, NAB, NRSV, ESV). This is possible, although the fact that the article is employed with this term in other places (e.g., 4 Bar. 7.8; Matt 24.38//Luke 17.27; 1 Clem. 9.4) speaks against it. Bengel suggests that the article’s absence is intentional, indicating that ‘[t]he expression is adapted to the mind of the unbelieving spectators’ (71). The best way to understand the construction may be as an indefinite form (‘an ark’; cf. NET, CEB, LEB, HCSB), with an emphasis being laid on the fact that the ark was a means of rescue. The idea, as suggested by Johnstone, seems to be ‘ “while an ark—a means of deliverance—was a preparing” ’ (Johnstone 285; cf. Mason 421). This explanation connects naturally with the fact of God waiting patiently in the previous clause. 228   Based on this preference, Trebilco (Jewish Communities, 224) conjectures that Josephus may have been attempting to conform the story of Noah to the Greek myth of Deucalion, a legendary character who also survived a flood. (Note that other ancient Jews and Christians also made this Noah–Deucalion connection: Philo, Praem. 23; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 2.7.2.) 229   Moffatt 142–43. Presumably, the tradition he had in mind is found in Sib. Or. 1.196–198, 261–82, which places Mt. Ararat in Phrygia. 230   See Kreitzer, ‘Eschatological Ark of God’, 228–72. While Kreitzer’s position is thoroughly and meticulously argued, his case rests upon issues that are far from settled: the date of the traditions connecting Noah’s ark with Apameia and the connection of ‘Noah’s coins’ with the biblical account of Noah.

250

1 PETER

εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι, ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, ψυχαί, διεσώθησαν δι᾿ ὕδατος Referring back to this ark (ἥν), it is noted that only a few (ὀλίγοι) were saved. By listing such a small number of survivors, one of the Petrine author’s goals, no doubt, is to drive home the point that God can and will protect the righteous, even in the midst of the most serious trials. His purposes also seem to lie in emphasising the numerical disparity between those who were righteous (and were saved) and those who were disobedient (and were drowned). This would be important to Christians who represented a small minority within Greek and Roman society. What is interesting, however, is that he chooses to specify that the few (ὀλίγοι) kept safe in the ark were eight in number, a number derived from Gen 7.13: Noah, his wife, three sons and their wives (cf. Sib. Or. 1.211).231 There is no apparent interest here in the other creatures, also saved in the ark (despite the emphasis in Gen 9.1–17 on the post-flood covenant being made with every living creature and the whole earth). Making a similar point, 2 Pet 2.5 specifically labels Noah himself as ‘the eighth’ (ὄγδοος)—a point rather obscured in most modern translations which refer to Noah being saved ‘with seven others’ (e.g., RSV, NRSV, ESV; differently KJV). Early Christians found some significance in the number eight, as the day—the first day of a new week, after the seven preceding—on which Christ arose and on which baptisms took place (see, e.g., Barn. 15.8–9).232 Justin Martyr, alluding to this passage, discusses 231   Later Christian authors would follow this trend of specifying that eight individuals were rescued in the deluge. See, e.g., Theophilus, Ad Auto. 3.19.3, 14: ‘he says that eight (ὀκτώ) persons were preserved in the ark… Therefore, all the eight (ὀκτώ) persons who were found in the ark were rescued’ (cf. Epiphanius, Pan. vol. 2, p. 74 [Holl]; Const. ap. 8.12). By specifying the number as eight, the author may wish to indicate that Noah’s sons were not polygamous (since the text of Gen 7.13 specifies only ‘their wives’), an observation owed to Siam Bhayro. On the reasons why ‘few’ may have been appropriate to cover a number roughly from three to ten, see Bishop, ‘Oligoi in 1 Pet. 3:20’, 44–45. 232   See Hillyer, ‘Feast of Tabernacles’, 69. Reicke comments rather sweepingly that ‘[i]n those days the number eight was often regarded as a symbol of completeness and perfection’ (112). Building on the symbolic significance of seven, ‘the notion gained support… that the number eight was even more important, because the sum of seven was counted as an eighth number, expressing their unity and totality’. Unfortunately, Reicke provides no supporting references here (though on the Christian evidence, see Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 140–41, and below).



3.18–22

251

the parallels between Noah and Christ, and comments: ‘For righteous Noah, along with the other mortals at the deluge, i.e., with his own wife, his three sons and their wives, being eight in number (ἀριθμῷ ὄντες ὀκτώ), were a symbol of the eighth day, wherein Christ appeared when He rose from the dead’ (Dial. 138.1; trans. Dods and Reith). Irenaeus indicates the significance of the ὁγδοάς (the number or group of eight)233 for those he regards as heretics, mentioning specifically that ‘they declare that the arrangement made with respect to the ark in the Deluge, by means of which eight persons were saved (in qua octo homines liberati sunt /ἐν ᾗ ὀκτὼ ἄνθρωποι διεσώθησαν), most clearly indicates the Ogdoad which brings salvation’ (Haer. 1.18.3; trans. Roberts and Rambaut; cf. also Haer. 1.1.3, for their interest in numbers generally). Given the fact that ὀλίγοι, while vague, would have sufficed to convey what was important (cf. Heb 11.7 and 4 Ezra 3.11, which uses ‘his household’),234 it may be too hasty to insist that ‘Peter has no interest in such symbolism here’.235 A case could be made that the number was thought to be interesting and significant.236 It is at least striking that he chooses to specify the number, without there being a clear tradition of referring to ‘eight’ (although, see Sib. Or. 1.281: ὄγδοος).237 Justin’s observation about the parallel between the eight saved in the ark and the eighth day of Christ’s resurrection would seem to be one feasible possibility, given the close parallel drawn in vv. 20–21 (using two δία phrases) between the salvation   LSJ 1196.   It is true, as Keener points out, that ‘Peter could hardly have used a number other than eight, given his source material’ (279 n. 113). However, it is not so much which number is used, but that any number is used at all. 235   Michaels 213; similarly, Best 146; Achtemeier 265. Elliott makes the point less forcefully: the author ‘uses the number eight not figuratively but literally to clarify the preceding term, few’ (666). 236   Cf. Kelly 158–59; Schlosser 229; see also Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 140–41. If the purposes of the Petrine author relate to symbolism, it would be unnecessary to claim that this represents ‘one of the many New Testament examples where seemingly minor details in the Old Testament are quoted as historically reliable’ (Grudem 162). 237   Some modern interpreters have identified a slightly more hidden numeric symbolism, maintaining that the number eight can easily be reduced to seven with the subtraction of the unrighteous Ham (cf. Gen 9.22–25). From this, results the number of perfection: seven (see Bengel 71; Fausset 509). 233 234

252

1 PETER

through water and the salvation that comes through Christ’s resurrection, and the specific designation of Noah as ‘the eighth’ in 2 Pet 2.5 (see above) would strengthen this association.238 As elsewhere in 1 Peter, ψυχή is used here to denote humans—or that core part of the human self that is enduring—in the context of their being saved or rescued (see on 1.9; cf. also Wis 14.5).239 In other NT passages, ψυχή describes individuals (Acts 2.41; Rom 13.1; Rev 16.3), and many interpret the present occurrence similarly. From this, it is claimed that ψυχή in 1 Peter represents the entire person rather than their immaterial soul. While it is true that ψυχή specifically limits the referent to human beings, thus removing any focus on the animals who were also rescued,240 there may be more to this usage than is often recognised. As pointed out by Feldmeier, this designation seems to be intentional, particularly with the story of the flood functioning as an antitype of baptism. What he proposes is that since v. 20 functions ‘as the “counter-image” to baptism in verse 21’, the presence of ψυχή ‘may allude to the “soul-salvation” that takes place there’.241 This suggestion fits well with the way the Petrine author uses ψυχή elsewhere.

238   An implicit connection between the Noah story and the resurrection of the dead is also drawn in Ps.-Philo, LAB 3.10 After recounting the flood narrative, and how God will never again destroy the earth with a flood, the writer describes how the cycles of the seasons will continue (3.9) ‘until I [sc. God] remember those who inhabit the earth, until the appointed times are fulfilled… But when the years appointed for the world have been fulfilled, then the light will cease and the darkness fade away. And I will bring the dead to life and raise up those who are sleeping from the earth’ (trans. Harrington). The text continues with God establishing his covenant with Noah. Cf. Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 141, though it is perhaps an exaggeration to say that Noah functions as ‘a symbol of the resurrection’ here. 239   The shift from πνεῦμα (v. 18) to ψυχή (v. 20), the latter of which clearly referring to human beings, is sometimes taken as proof that the ‘spirits in prison’ are angelic (rather than human) beings (see Davids 142 n. 43). By this logic, however, the ‘spirits’ cannot be angels either, because two verses later angels are specifically referred to as ἄγγελοι not πνεύματα (v. 22). 240   Cf. Farago-Bermon, ‘Surviving the Disaster’, 94: ‘As [the] object or target of salvation, it is connected with justice and to this respect involves consciousness, which primarily concerns human beings and contributes to rule out animals from the semantic field of psychē’. 241   Feldmeier 207.



3.18–22

253

What the text indicates is that these eight ‘souls’ διεσώθησαν διʼ ὕδατος. The verb διασῴζω is employed a number of times in the NT,242 to refer to healing or being made well (Matt 14.36; Luke 7.3), to ensuring safety on a journey or transfer (Acts 23.24), and, significantly, to rescue from the sea (Acts 27.43–44; 28.1, 4). These uses clearly show that there is not always any special meaning or weight conveyed by the prefixed preposition,243 though the examples in Acts244 suggest that the compound verb is especially appropriate to describe a situation of being brought safely through the threat of water. The difficulty in this particular phrase is the precise sense that should be assigned to διʼ ὕδατος. In this case, the preposition may be understood either locally (‘delivered through the waters’; cf. NRSV, NIV, NET, ESV, HCSB, NAB) or instrumentally (‘delivered by the waters’; cf. KJV, GNT, NCV).245 Scholarship is fairly divided between these options. This division may reflect the fact that the author has deliberately exploited the ambiguity of δία,246 though 242   Given the fact that Jub. 7.34 mentions Noah being ‘saved from the flood’ and that Josephus uses the verb διασῴζω, Davids is led to ‘suspect that 1 Peter may be dependent upon retellings of the story’, although he notes that this information is ‘not enough to establish that fact’ (‘Second Temple Traditions’, 414). This evidence seems like a somewhat fragile basis to draw any real conclusions about intertextual relationships, however. 243   BDAG 237; Cook ‘I Peter iii. 20’, 73–75. Achtemeier 265 n. 295, notes that the parallels to Matt 14.36 and Luke 7.3 in Mark 6.56 (Achtemeier incorrectly gives 6.50) and Matt 8.7, respectively, use σῴζω and θεραπεύω. 244   Cf. also 1 Clem. 9.4: ‘Noah, who was found to be faithful through his service, proclaimed a new beginning to the world; and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered the ark in harmony’ (διέσωσεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ δεσπότης τὰ εἰσελθόντα ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ζῷα εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν; trans. Ehrman [LCL]). 245   Other interpretations have been proposed as well. A few have assigned a temporal sense to the preposition, ‘during the flood’ (e.g., Horneius 111; Hensler 164). To alleviate the problems surrounding the prepositional phrase, Knatchbull (Annotations upon Some Difficult Texts, 294–95) has even proposed connecting δι᾿ ὕδατος to the following verse; thus, the passage is understood as follows: ‘by water, also baptism, which is the antitype, now saves you’. 246   So France, ‘Exegesis in Practice’, 273. Occasionally, commentators will combine the local and instrumental functions, claiming that the two ideas cannot be separated (see Fronmüller 64; Selwyn 202–203; Brox 176; Senior 104; cf. Harris, Prepositions, 42). According to this interpretation, ‘The source of danger was the instrument of deliverance’ (Webster–Wilkinson 44).

254

1 PETER

this may be overly subtle. For those who interpret the preposition locally,247 the flood waters represent the circumstances from which Noah and his family were delivered. It was a danger that threatened the safety of those on the ark, and thus their secure passage happened in spite of the deluge (cf. 1 Cor 3.15: αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός). Such an interpretation creates a point of comparison with baptism in the following verse: just as Noah and his family passed through the waters of the flood in order to find salvation, so too Christians pass through the waters of baptism. The main reason to favour this option is that it makes best sense in the context of the story of Noah’s ark: in Genesis the waters represented God’s punishment on humanity, from which those on the ark were spared. Furthermore, the means by which Noah and his family were saved could be understood as their entrance onto the boat (‘by entering into the ark, they were safely delivered through the waters’). On an instrumental interpretation, rather than describing the circumstances from which one is rescued, the waters of the flood are viewed as a means of salvation (cf. 1 Tim 2.15: σωθήσεται διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας).248 Although the analogy might seem slightly forced,249 it is not difficult from this perspective to see how the 247   Proponents of this view include: Doddridge 212; Hottinger 130; Steiger 2:236; de Wette 43; Demarest 193–94; Keil 132; Kühl 235; von Soden 157–58; Bigg 163–64; Knopf 155; Gunkel 283; Wand 101; Windisch 72; Hiebert 246; Goppelt 265; Achtemeier 265–66; Elliott 667; Vinson 177; Donelson 113; Watson 91; Vahrenhorst 160; Wagner–Vouga 126; Schreiner 219; cf. also Hillyer, ‘Feast of Tabernacles’, 57; Rudman, ‘Baptism of Chaos’, 398–99; Christensen, ‘Union with Christ’, 346. 248   Proponents of this view include: Pott 118–19; Jachmann 159; Alford 365; Plumptre 135; Caffin 134; Mason 422; Usteri 152; Burger 250; Johnstone 286–87; Huther 189; Masterman 133–34; Weiss 320; Blenkin 78; Lenski 169; Best 147; Michaels 213; Schelkle 108 n. 2; Jobes 252–53, 259; Prigent 106; Dubis 124; Osborne 230; Schlosser 229; Forbes 127; cf. also Porter, Idioms, 150; Macaskill, Union with Christ, 277. For a full defense of this view, see DeVivo, ‘Waters of Salvation’, 335–48. 249   Against the claim that this interpretation confuses the sense communicated by the prepositional suffix (‘safely delivered through’) and the preposition (‘by’), it should be pointed out that while διασώζειν + διά can denote the circumstances that are overcome through deliverance, the construction is used just as frequently to describe the means by which deliverance takes place. Examples of διασώζειν + διά to denote the circumstances that are overcome through deliverance include: Plato, Resp. 442c: αὐτοῦ τὸ θυμοειδὲς διασῴζῃ διά τε λυπῶν καὶ ἡδονῶν (‘his



3.18–22

255

waters on which Noah’s ark floated could be viewed as the means by which Noah and his family were rescued: the waters of the flood bore up the passengers while the rest of humanity, in all its evil and wickedness, was being drowned below.250 The main reason251 to favour the instrumental option is that it seems clearly to be the author’s perspective on the role of water in the parallel drawn immediately afterwards, in v. 21: it is the water that saves (σῴζει).252 On balance, there seems to be slightly more that can be said for the instrumental interpretation, since the author’s reason for telling the story of Noah’s rescue is to offer a typological precursor to the spirit perseveres through pains and pleasures’); Strabo, Geogr. 15.1.5: αὐτὸν καὶ στρατόπεδον διασῶσαι μετὰ νίκης διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ τόπων (‘if he himself should lead a whole victorious army safely through the same tribes and regions’); 15.2.5: εἰ δύναιτο αὐτὸς τοσοῦτο στράτευμα διασῶσαι διὰ τῆς αὐτῆς χώρας (‘whether he himself was able to safely lead his large army through the same country’); Appian, Bell. civ. 1.2.16: διὰ τῆς αὐτοκράτορος ἀρχῆς διασεσωσμένους (‘protected from a single ruler’). Examples of διασώζειν + διά to denote the means of deliverance: 1 Clem. 9.4: διέσωσεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ δεσπότης τὰ εἰσελθόντα ἐν ὁμονοῖᾳ ζῶα εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν (‘by him, the master saved the living creatures that entered into the ark harmoniously’); Diodorus Siculus 12.43.3: Βρασίδας δὲ διασεσωκὼς τὴν Μεθώνην διὰ τῆς ἰδίας ἀρετῆς καὶ ἀνδρείας (‘Brasides rescued Methana by his own valor and bravery’); Vitae sancti Phocae 4: διὰ τῶν εὐχῶν αὐτοῦ διασωθήσει σύ (‘you will be delivered by his prayers’). 250   Cf. Dubis 124: ‘Perhaps we are to understand the rising waters as lifting Noah above the level of the flood’s destruction and, as the waters recede, safely depositing him in the new world order’. See also Burger 250. 251   If the prepositional modifier διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in v. 21 is connected with σῴζει (although, see Exegesis at 3.21 for objections to this view), one could also appeal to the instrumental role of Christ’s resurrection in the salvation of the audience. Through a typological interpretation, this description would be intended to be paralleled by the way that the flood waters delivered Noah (διʼ ὕδατος). See further Colwell, ‘Baptism, Conscience and the Resurrection’, 220–21. 252   Kühl (235) objects to this view on the basis of what he sees as a breakdown in the analogy, viz. that βάπτισμα in v. 21, which stands in apposition to the relative pronoun ὅ, refers not simply to water but to a process by which water is administered to an individual. He argues that it is this process (not the water per se) that is effectual as a means of salvation, and as such, there is no reason to claim that water is performing that same function in the flood. However, such an objection overlooks the fact that ὕδωρ ‘stands for the whole action of baptism and not just for the material substance used in it’ (Best 147). As Michaels notes, the author ‘is interested in “water” in the story…because there is something he wants to say about Christian baptism’ (213).

256

1 PETER

saving effect of Christian baptism. This is therefore likely to shape the depiction of the ancient story. Regardless of how one construes δία, it is necessary to explain the other prepositional modifier, εἰς ἥν. One possibility is to understand εἰς ἥν as a ‘pregnant’ construction, in which a directional sense is present through the assumption of an elided verbal form of motion (‘[they entered] into which’).253 This reading gains some plausibility from the phrases in Gen 7.7 and Matt 24.38//Luke 17.27 (εἰσῆλθεν… εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν); but ultimately it is unnecessary in that the sentence can be explained sufficiently in other ways. A variation of this view is proposed by Cook. He points out that when εἰς is used with διασῴζω, it normally functions in a directional sense, representing an escape to a particular location (e.g., Polybius, Hist. 2.11.16; Gen 19.19; Judg 3.26; Isa 37.38; Diodorus Siculus 2.55.4; Josephus, Ant. 9.87). Based on this consideration, Cook suggests rendering the verse in a similar way: ‘into which a few, that is eight persons, came safely through water’.254 The ὕδωρ, in this case, is not taken to be a reference to the entire deluge, but to the small amount of water that had accumulated on the ground prior to entering the ark.255 Yet this

253   See Moule, Idiom Book, 68–69. This is the approach taken by a number of earlier commentators (e.g., Bengel 71; Steiger 2:236; Bloomfield 719; Demarest 192; Fausset 509; Keil 132), and it is also reflected in the translation of the Peshitta, which renders the phrase ‫‘( ܘܬܡܢܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܢܦܫܢ ܥܠܝܢ‬only eight souls entered into it’). Those who interpret δία with a local force commonly assume a participle such as εἰσερχόμενοι or γενόμενοι, which could denote means, and assign εἰς a directional sense, ‘by entering into the ark they were delivered through the waters’. Those who interpret δία with an instrumental force might assume a finite form such as εἰσῆλθον, ‘a few entered into the ark, and they were delivered by the waters’. 254   See Cook, ‘I Peter iii. 20’, 75; cf. also Grudem 161. 255   In support of this reading, Cook (‘I Peter iii. 20’, 76) appeals to a later rabbinic midrash that describes how Noah, despite building the ark, did not actually believe that a deluge would occur. He was only saved when the waters began to rise, and he was driven onto the ark (Gen. Rab. 32.6: ‘R. Johanan said: He lacked faith: had not the water reached his ankles he would not have entered the Ark’; trans. Freedman). This interpretation arose out of the order of events described in Gen 7.6–7: whereas v. 6 describes the flood waters coming upon the earth, the boarding of the ark by Noah and his family is not mentioned until v. 7. In reality, v. 6 represents a summary verse, with the floods not actually arriving until seven days after Noah entered the boat (v. 10).



3.18–22

257

represents an arbitrary limitation of the referent of ὕδωρ in a way that makes a caricature out of Noah’s deliverance.256 The best solution is to simply take the construction in a locative sense (‘in which’), despite the use of εἰς rather than ἐν.257 Such an overlap (i.e., εἰς in place of ἐν with a local sense) is common in the NT, and it occurs elsewhere in 1 Peter as well (see 5.12: εἰς ἣν στῆτε).258 The expression may be compared to Josephus’ remark on the flood, where he employs ἐν rather than εἰς to denote the location in which Noah’s salvation occurred: ‘the ark in which (ἐν ᾗ) Noah, the founder of our race, was saved (διεσώθη) when it landed on the heights of the mountains of Armenia’ (Ag. Ap. 1.130; trans. Thackeray [LCL]).259 What may have led the Petrine author to employ εἰς (rather than ἐν) in this instance is the desire ‘to avoid the possibility of an instrumental understanding of “in” (i.e., that the ark was somehow the means of salvation)’.260 21 ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, βάπτισμα, The syntax of the opening phrase of this verse is difficult. It would have been much more straightforward had it simply read, ὃ ὑμᾶς νῦν σῴζει. As it stands, the opening relative pronoun, ὅ (note the text-critical issue: Text at 3.21 n. g), may be taken to refer back to ὕδατος261 or to the entire preceding phrase (διεσώθησαν δι᾽ 256   If the verse were indicating that Noah and his family were required to pass through ankle-deep water in order to reach the ultimate destination where safety was achieved, their deliverance would not have quite the same gravity and impact on the readers. As it is, the point of the verse is to emphasise that these waters were such a grievous danger that only eight persons were able to make it through to the end. 257   So, also, Pott 118; Monnier 181; Dubis 123; Forbes 127; Schreiner 218–19. 258   For more on the use of εἰς for ἐν in Koine Greek, see Robertson, Grammar, 591–93; Regard, Contribution à l’étude des prepositions, 330–49; MHT 3:255– 56; BDF §205; Harris, Prepositions, 84–88. 259   A parallel noted already by MM 154. 260   Michaels 212. 261   So, e.g., Steiger 2:238; Jachmann 159; de Wette 43; Webster–Wilkinson 44; Wordsworth 62; Barnes 180; Alford 369; Caffin 136; Lenski 170; Windisch 71; Kelly 159; Michaels 213–14; Brox 176; Achtemeier 266; Dubis 124; Schreiner 220 n. 403; cf. Schmidt, Mahnung, 266. According to Whitby (173), the antecedent is the ark. But this proposal is not possible in that ὅ is neuter, while κιβωτός is feminine.

258

1 PETER

ὕδατος).262 On balance, it is perhaps best taken to refer to its immediate antecedent (i.e., ὕδατος), not only due to proximity, but also because the awkwardness of the resulting syntax (with βάπτισμα) explains the textual variants for the opening relative as attempts to clarify the structure. The strongest argument, however, is the fact that the relative pronoun is the subject of the verb σῴζω. If the antecedent of ὅ is the preceding phrase, rather than just ὕδατος, then the sentence would read, ‘(Noah’s) deliverance through water saves you’, which makes little sense. Modifying the relative pronoun is καί, which indicates an additional function of water (‘which also’, cf. KJV, ASV, CJB).263 Not only did water play an instrumental role in the deliverance of Noah and his family, it also plays a key function in the salvation of the readers.

262   So, e.g., Hensler 165; Hottinger 130; Kühl 236; Knopf 155; Hauck 67–68; Beare 174; Grudem 162; Hiebert 247; Goppelt 266; Elliott 670; Senior 104–105; Donelson 110 n. h; Watson 92. As an alternative to these solutions, Synge (‘1 Peter 3:18–21’, 311) proposes that vv. 19–20 could be parenthetic, in which case the relative pronoun would point back to the death and resurrection of Christ (v. 18). While this conveniently removes the theological difficulties created by claiming that water/baptism saves (σῴζει), it represents an unnatural and quite convoluted reading. 263   Cf. Plumptre 136; Cook 205; Mason 422. Although Reicke (113 with 138 n. 39; idem, Disobedient Spirits, 146) connects the relative pronoun with ὅ, he understands it as carrying a sense that is equivalent to ὅπερ or ὃ δή, ‘which very thing’, or ‘exactly this’. In this proposal, he follows the work of Cadbury (‘Relative Pronouns in Acts’, 157) on the use of the same construction in Acts. The problem is that Cadbury’s conclusions are drawn from instances where the relative pronoun is in the accusative case (not the nominative, as here), which produces a different sense. Others argue that καί should be linked with ὑμᾶς in an additive sense (‘you also’; cf. NIV), indicating that the author was identifying the readers as an additional group saved by water (e.g., Lillie 251 n. 1; Alford 369; Johnstone 290; Knopf 156; Selwyn 204; Michaels 214; Hiebert 247; Elliott 675; Dubis 124; Forbes 127; Wagner–Vouga 127). The difference between this interpretation and the one we have proposed above is minimal; nevertheless, syntax weighs against connecting the particle with ὑμᾶς. It is true that when καί carries an additive force, it is normally placed before the word it modifies. But when a relative pronoun—and in particular, a nominative subject—is involved, the particle always modifies it (e.g., Matt 27.57; Mark 15.43; Luke 10.30; John 21.20; Rom 16.7; 1 Cor 1.8; Phil 2.5; 1 Thess 2.13), even when the accusative direct object is moved forward for emphasis (see Job 30.4; Luke 7.49; Josephus, Ant. 1.138; 10.249; War 2.488; Acts Thom. 82.4).



3.18–22

259

The author’s use of ἀντίτυπος is highly significant, indicating explicitly that he sees a correspondence264 between the salvation of Noah’s family by means of water and the salvation through Christ that baptism (in water) enacts. Tertullian later develops a similar parallel, explaining ‘the imposition of the hand in benediction, inviting and welcoming the Holy Spirit’, who descended like a dove upon Christ (De. Bapt. 8.1): And this too has the support of a type which had preceded [praecedentis figurae]: for as, after those waters of the Flood, by which the ancient iniquity was cleansed away, after the baptism (so to express it) of the world, a dove as herald announced to the earth peace from the wrath of heaven, having been sent forth of the ark and having returned with an olive-leaf—and towards the heathen too this is held out as a sign of peace—by the same [divine] ordinance of spiritual effectiveness the dove who is the Holy Spirit is sent forth from heaven, where the Church is which is the type of the ark, and flies down bringing God’s peace to the earth which is our flesh, as it comes up from the washing after [the removal of] its ancient sins. (De. bapt. 8.4; trans. Evans)

The relationship is also marked by the corresponding temporal indicators, ποτέ and νῦν. The correlation between the flood and baptism is the author’s innovative contribution to early Christian typological reading of the Jewish scriptures.265 Paul’s depiction of Adam as a τύπος of Christ (Rom 5.14) and especially his depiction of the Israelites’ exodus experiences as parallels to Christian baptism and eucharist (1 Cor 10.1–11) are important precursors to this kind of Christian exegesis (note τύποι and τυπικῶς in 1 Cor 10.6, 11).266 Where disagreement arises is when it comes to explaining the meaning of ἀντίτυπος and its function in relation to other elements in the sentence. Etymologically, the term ἀντίτυπος conveys the   Cf. LSJ 165; BDAG 90.   Elliott 668: ‘the first time in Christian thought that a correspondence… is drawn between the Flood and Christian baptism and, specifically, their correspondence as events of divine salvation’. 266   The classic study of typology in the NT’s interpretation of the Jewish scrip� tures is Goppelt, Typos. For a correction of Goppelt’s views, see Ostmeyer, Taufe und Typos. Cf. also TDNT 8:246–59. 264 265

260

1 PETER

idea of striking back in retribution (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 1.67.4: τύπος ἀντίτυπος, ‘blow for blow’). In the classical world, it was commonly used in a literal sense to describe the physical characteristics of something as being firm or hard.267 This meaning could also be transferred, in a metaphorical sense, to other areas as well.268 Eventually, ἀντίτυπος came to denote a copy made in accordance with, and thus corresponding to, a model (Sib. Or. 1.33; IG XIV 1320; IGUR III 1327; Nonnus, Dion. 8.23).269 This meaning is picked up in Neo-Platonic thought, where the word was employed as a technical term to denote the world of appearances in contrast to the authentic heavenly world (Plontinus, Enn. 2.9.6; Proclus, In Crat. 129). Based on these lexical data, it would appear that the most natural meaning of ἀντίτυπος in the present verse is ‘corresponding to’ (or, as a substantive, ‘copy’). But is the term intended to carry merely a sense of representation, or does it denote a more technical meaning in which an inferior ἀντίτυπος is set in contrast to a more authentic τύπος?270 The latter is certainly reflected in the only other NT usage. In Heb 9.24, Christ is said to have entered not into an earthly sanctuary, which is simply ‘a copy of the original’ (ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν), but directly into heaven. This contrast makes it clear that ἀντίτυπος pales in comparison to a greater reality. If read along these same lines, it is perplexing that the Petrine author would 267   E.g., Hippocrates, Artic. 43; Aristotle, [Probl.] 885a; Plutarch, Crass. 24.4; Soranus, Gyn. 2.16.1; Lucian, Hermot. 33. 268   It might describe a difficult horse ride (Xenophon, De re equestri 1.4), inflexible methods (Plutarch, Virt. mor. 4 [Mor. 442C]), a harsh literary style (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 22), or even obstinate people (Plato, Theaet. 156a; cf. Philo, Her. 181). 269   In this capacity, the term was used—often as a replacement for the more common ἀντίγραφον—to describe a copy made of another letter or documentary text (P.Mich. XX 816; SB XVI 12692; P.Kellis I 31; P.Oxy. XII 1470; LXXIX 5209) or the copy of a funerary inscription that is preserved in the archive (I.Aph2007 12.322; I.Didyma 502; I.Eph. 2535). 270   Goppelt (266) argues that in v. 21 ἀντίτυπος ‘is probably being used already as a technical term’, given Paul’s uses of τύπος. But it should also be pointed out that not all Christian authors used ἀντίτυπος in a technical sense (‘antitype’). Even in later centuries the term is employed in a non-technical way, describing something that was hard or firm (e.g., Origen, Princ. 3.1.15; Hom. Jer. 6; Gos. Bart. 4.25; Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 15; Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus Macedonianos due spiritu sancta vol. 3,1, p. 92 [Mueller]).



3.18–22

261

use ἀντίτυπος to describe Christian baptism. It seems more natural that the flood waters of Noah would serve as a lesser representation pointing forward to the greater spiritual reality occurring at baptism. In fact, this is how some translations render the passage: ‘which waters prefigured baptism, which now saves you’ (cf. NAB, NET, NRSV, NIV).271 According to this interpretation, the flood provided a picture of the cleansing from sin that takes place in baptism (cf. NLT: ‘that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you’). The exegetical basis for this view lies in the variation with which Christian authors employed the term τύπος. In some instances, this word denotes an inferior copy that is modelled after something greater (Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 6.11; cf. Barn. 7.3; Did. 4.11; Ign. Trall. 3.1).272 At the same time, other authors use τύπος as the original archetype from which copies are made (Acts 7.44; Heb 8.5). Given the relationship between τύπος and ἀντίτυπος, some interpreters conclude that the latter can also represent both a copy and the original.273 This allows for the possibility that in the present verse baptism (i.e., the ἀντίτυπος) actually denotes the reality toward which the flood (i.e., the τύπος) points.274 The problem with this explanation, however, is that it derives from the use of a companion term. Virtually all of the evidence from antiquity, as we have shown, points to ἀντίτυπος being a copy, not the original.275   Cf. Prigent 107, who describes the flood as ‘l’image prophétique du baptême’.   See Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, 2:247. 273   E.g., Selwyn 298–99; Elliott 670. 274   Those who understand ἀντίτυπον in v. 21 to mean the ultimate reality that is prefigured by the flood include: Steiger 2:240–41; Alford 369; Caffin 137; Bigg 165; Leconte 81 n. c; Margot 64; Beare 174; Senior 105; Green 137; Bosetti 153; cf. also Long Westfall, ‘1 Peter 3.19–22’, 112–15. This position is clearly sketched out by Fritsch (‘ΤΟ ἈΝΤΙΤΥΠΟΝ’, 101): ‘In this case the New Testament writer, viewing the Old Testament after the Christ event, sees the deeper meaning of the Old Testament flood story in the light of the New Testament rite of baptism. The flood waters not only destroyed sinful man on earth, but were also the means of deliverance for those in the ark. It is only in the light of the antitype then that the full significance of the Old Testament type becomes clear. It may be said, therefore, that it is the antitype which determines the identity of the Old Testament type by making clear its deeper, spiritual meaning’. 275   Among early Christian writers, ἀντίτυπος is sometimes used in a technical sense to describe a copy or representation of some higher spiritual reality. In 2 Clem. 14.3, the church on earth, the body of Christ, is said to be a mere copy (ἀντίτυπος) of an authentic original (αὐθεντικός), which resides in heaven. 271 272

262

1 PETER

How, then, should we understand the verse in light of this meaning? The answer lies in the syntactical function of ἀντίτυπος within the present verse. It is important to recognise that virtually all interpreters agree that, despite its location at the end of v. 21, βάπτισμα stands in apposition to ὅ.276 This leaves us to explain how ἀντίτυπον relates to the other elements in the sentence.277 One possibility is to read ἀντίτυπον as an accusative substantival adjective in apposition to ὑμᾶς (or, perhaps even as the complement in a double accusative construction). The sentence could thus be translated, ‘water—namely, baptism—now saves you, the antitype (of Noah and his family)’.278 In this case, the correspondence drawn by the author is between the eight persons who were saved in the ark and the readers of the epistle: the Christians themselves are the antitype, with their situation having been prefigured by the small group (ὀλίγοι) of righteous individuals who were delivered on the ark. According to Irenaeus, the Valentinians described the church in a similar way: ἀντίτυπον τῆς ἄνω ἐκκλησίας (Haer. 1.5.6). In the Apostolic Constitutions, this term depicts the elements in the eucharist as representative of Christ’s body and blood (5.14; 6.30; 7.25). Cyril of Jerusalem describes baptism as an ἀντίτυπος of the suffering of Christ (Myst. 2.6). One exception to this trend of employing ἀντίτυπος to refer to an inferior representation is found in the mid-sixth century work entitled Quaestiones et responsiones by Ps.-Caesarius, where baptism is said to be an ἀντίτυπος of circumcision (146). 276   A more complicated explanation is proposed by Reicke. He devotes consider�able space to arguing for the grammatical plausibility of taking βάπτισμα as ‘an appositional antecedent drawn into the relative clause’, with ὅ functioning as a demonstrative: ‘this analogous baptism…’ (Reicke 139 n. 40 and 113 respectively; for the extended arguments, see Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 143–72). From this, he proposes the following translation: ‘Which “antitypical” baptism now saves you’ (Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 145). For the problems with this view, see Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 198–99. 277   Given the difficulties involved in explaining the relationship between ὅ, ἀντίτυπον, and βάπτισμα, Brooks (‘I Peter 3:21’, 291) has proposed an alter�native solution. He suggests taking ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον with the preceding sentence: ‘…saved through water which even in reference to you (is) a pattern. Baptism now saves, not…’ In the end, however, this rearrangement lacks persuasiveness in that it effectively severs any connection between vv. 20 and 21, leaving the reader to conjecture why baptism is connected to the flood. 278   Those who adopted this interpretation include: Selwyn 203–204; Cranfield 105–106; Dubis 125; cf. France, ‘Exegesis in Practice’, 273; Ostmeyer, Taufe und Typos, 145–48; Doering, ‘Soteriological Web’, 490.



3.18–22

263

Various objections could be levelled against this hypothesis, however. Such an interpretation requires the reader to supply crucial content to give the sentence its intended meaning. In and of itself this consideration is not sufficient to disprove the view; but the fact that simpler alternatives are available should cause us to approach this solution with suspicion. Word order speaks more strongly against this proposal, in which βάπτισμα is connected to the first word in the sentence (ὅ) despite being placed last, while ἀντίτυπον is much closer to the relative pronoun but has no relation to it. Finally, if it were the author’s intention to identify a personal referent, it would have been more natural to write, οἱ ἀντίτυποι. Another interpretative option is that ἀντίτυπον modifies ὅ as a substantival adjective functioning in apposition (‘water, as antitype, now saves you—namely, baptism’).279 In this case, the water present in the ritual of baptism is viewed as antitypical of the waters that flooded the world during the time of Noah. But while this interpretation is closer to the mark, there are still a few problems that hinder it. Grammatically, it would be highly unusual for a relative pronoun to take either an appositional modifier or adjectival modifier. In the end, those who adopt this interpretation are forced to assign ἀντίτυπον an adverbial function (e.g., ‘which, in a corresponding manner, now saves you also’). It also seems strange to claim that water, the mere object that helps facilitate baptism, would be identified as antitypical and not the actual ritual itself. Finally, by interpreting ἀντίτυπον as an antitype, interpreters are left to explain why baptism represents a lesser symbol of the spiritual reality that is the flood (see above). Given the proximity and the absence of the article, probably the most natural way to understand ἀντίτυπον is in connection with βάπτισμα, with which it most likely functions as a predicate adjective (‘now, water also saves you—namely, baptism, which is

279   Among an earlier generation of scholars who adopted the reading ὅ instead of ᾧ, this (or a variation involving ἀντίτυπον as a predicate adjective) was by far the most common interpretation (see, e.g., Benson 260; Webster–Wilkinson 44; Lillie 251; Plumptre 136; Caffin 137; Burger 250; Johnstone 289; Kühl 236). This view still has a number of advocates today (e.g., Bénétreau 210; Picirilli 183; Achtemeier 266; Feldmeier 199; Osborne 226; Wagner–Vouga 127; cf. Tarrech, ‘Le milieu’, 370).

264

1 PETER

correspondent’).280 In the end, this is not too far removed from the previous suggestion. What distinguishes it is that ἀντίτυπος is not understood as an antitype in a technical, theological sense, but simply indicates that a correspondence or likeness exists.281 Since the verse does not explicitly specify the object of comparison, we are left to assume that the resemblance lies with the waters of the flood. In both cases, water served as the means by which salvation occurs. In the antediluvian world, the wickedness and sin of humanity were destroyed as the waters cleansed the earth of evil. When the deluge had receded, Noah and his family were given a fresh start in covenant with God. It thus involved a transferal from an old world into a new world. For the Anatolian readers, water performed an analogous function: it washed away the sins of a participant’s former life and provided them with a new birth experience.282   Those who adopt this interpretation include: Michaels 213; Grudem 162; Hiebert 247; Elliott 668–69, 671; Senior 104; Donelson 110 n. h; Watson 92; Forbes 128. Some who espouse this view deny that ἀντίτυπον is an adjective and instead describe it as a predicate noun (e.g., Davids 143; Goppelt 266; Schreiner 220 n. 404). But this is technically inaccurate. The only other way that ἀντίτυπον could perform a predicate function in relation to βάπτισμα is if it were a substantival adjective in simple apposition to the noun. The problem with this suggestion, however, is that when such a construction occurs the two substantives are equivalent to a convertible proposition (see Wallace, Grammar, 94–100), which would not be applicable in this instance. While it would make sense to say, ‘baptism is antitype’, the same would not be true of the proposition, ‘antitype is baptism’. 281   Cf. Demarest 197–98. 282   While this interpretation (or some variation thereof) is fairly widespread in scholarship, there is still a great deal of confusion that surrounds it. This can be illustrated in one of the more popular renderings of the verse: ‘corresponding to this, baptism now saves you also’ (cf. ESV, HCSB, NASB, RSV). Even though this translation reflects a proper understanding of how the individual elements relate to one another, it is hampered by imprecision resulting from attempts to smooth out the difficulties of the grammar. The first problem relates to the translation of the relative pronoun. Since, on text-critical grounds, the nominative ὅ is favoured over the dative ᾧ (see Text at 3.21 n. h), it is inappropriate to translate the relative pronoun as ‘to this’ or ‘to that’; instead, it is simply, ‘which’ (or even, ‘water’). A second consideration, which ties in closely with the first, is that since ὅ is in the nominative, it is the subject of the sentence. Against the tendency of many translations (and commentators), it is best not to make baptism the subject of the sentence (‘baptism now saves you’). Despite the fact that βάπτισμα and ὅ are in apposition (and thus are equated), it appears that the author wishes to say 280



3.18–22

265

Despite the difficulties surrounding the syntax and structure of the passage, the essential point of the author is clear, as can be seen by a structural comparison of the two corresponding events, ‘then’ and ‘now’: Verse 20 ποτε ὀλίγοι διεσώθησαν διʼ ὕδατος

Verse 21 νῦν ὑμᾶς σῴζει διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

The small and beleaguered groups of Christians correspond to the few who were saved in the time of Noah. The salvation these Christians anticipate (using the more standard verb σῴζω; cf. 1.5, 9–10) corresponds to the maritime rescue of Noah and his family (for which διασῴζω is more specifically apposite; see above on v. 20). And the basis for Christian hope and salvation is Christ’s resurrection. But what this also reveals are the ambiguities and difficulties, not least connected with the important and singular reference to baptism. Despite earlier attempts to read 1 Peter in its entirety as a baptismal homily, this is the only place where the practice is explicitly mentioned, and the theory of a baptismal focus throughout has rightly been rejected.283 This reference to baptism, the only such explicit reference in the letter, is striking both in its declaration that water (i.e., baptism) ‘saves’ (σῴζει)284—a statement unique in the NT (although, cf. that it is water (i.e., the antecedent of ὅ) that saves. A final consideration, which relates more to other translations than this one, is that it is inaccurate to translate ὅ as ‘that/this water’ (NIV, NLT, ERV, ISV, NCV) or ‘those flood waters’ (CEV), as though it referred specifically to the flood waters of Noah. The relative pronoun stands in place of ὕδωρ (see above), referring to water more generally (cf. Alford 369; Huther 190). On strictly grammatical grounds, to include both a relative pronoun (‘this’) and the antecedent (‘water’) would represent an inaccurate redundancy. Furthermore, on a contextual level, it would make little sense to say that the waters of the deluge somehow saved the Anatolian readers. What he means by that is fleshed out in the other modifiers. 283   See Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure. 284   Based on the use of the present tense verb (σῴζει), some stress that baptism merely provides an entrance into a saving relationship in which one must continue to progress, rather than describing the full accomplishment of salvation (Fausset

266

1 PETER

Mark 16.16: ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται)285—and in the more expansive explanation of baptism that immediately follows. But we must take the author’s declaration as it stands, and not attempt to align it too quickly with more orthodox perspectives.286 It is clear that baptism was believed to play a key role in salvation among early Christians, particularly in connection with the forgiveness of sins (cf. Acts 2.38; 22.16). οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου Given the somewhat confused (and confusing) construction in the first half of the verse, the author proceeds with an immediate explanation. In this way, v. 21b functions as a parenthetic statement or explanatory aside. Grammatically, the construction stands in apposition to βάπτισμα, and thus the author seems intent to delineate

509; Alford 369; Caffin 137; Fronmüller 65; Hiebert 248). This is possible given that the Petrine author elsewhere describes salvation as something to be attained in the future (1.5, 9; 2.2), but the present tense might simply mark a timeless or general principle (cf. Weiss 320). 285   For a similar reference to the salvific role of baptism, see Herm. Vis. 3.3.5: ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν διὰ ὕδατος ἐσώθη καὶ σωθήσεται (‘your life has been saved and will be saved through water’; cf. Ps.-Clement, Hom. 7.8). Using the same verb (σῴζω), other NT passages state that Jesus ‘saves’ (Matt 1.21; 2 Tim 4.18; Jude 5; cf. 2 Clem. 2.7; 9.5; Mart. Pol. 9.3) or that God saves (Titus 3.5; cf. 2 Clem. 1.4, 7). Some even indicate that Christians can ‘save’ others, in the sense of having a determinative impact on whether someone achieves divine deliverance (1 Cor 7.16; 9.22; 1 Tim 4.16; Jas 5.20; Jude 23; cf. 2 Clem. 19.1). But rarely is an act or ritual said to ‘save’ anyone. The closest parallels are those instances where individuals are ‘saved’ (in the sense of being physically healed) by faith (Mark 5.34 par; 10.52 par; Luke 7.50; 17.19) or a prayer of faith (Jas 5.15). Later, 2 Clem. 14.2 indicates that the church (ἐκκλησία) saves, while the Shepherd of Hermas explains that sincerity, self-control, and not falling away from God saves (Herm. Vis. 2.3.1). 286   Sometimes this involves attempts to redefine the referent of βάπτισμα. Instead of identifying this term with the early Christian water ritual, as most commonly do, Unger (Baptism and Gifts, 129–31; cf. Chafer, ‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit’, 215) has claimed that spiritual baptism is in view. According to Nixon (‘Meaning of Baptism’, 437–41; cf. Hillyer, ‘Feast of Tabernacles’, 57), βάπτισμα refers to Christian suffering. However, such alternative identifications lack any real merit. Even those that stay somewhat closer to the text are not entirely persuasive. This is the case with the explanation of Dubis, viz. that ‘baptism here is a metonymy for the saving faith and repentance that are so closely associated with baptism’ (125; cf. Demarest 199).



3.18–22

267

the nature of baptism.287 The first clause is negative (paired with the following positive ἀλλά clause): οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου. The term ἀπόθεσις occurs in the NT only here and at 2 Pet 1.14, though the related verb ἀποτίθημι appears in early Christian paraenesis (as in 2.1), specifically to depict the transformation and reorientation that conversion should produce (e.g., Rom 13.12; Eph 4.22, 25; Col 3.8; Heb 12.1; Jas 1.21).288 But what is the purpose of this negative contrast? It depends, in large part, on the type of cleansing that is in view. Interpretations have been taken in two general directions, depending on how ῥύπος is defined. Michaels has defended the possibility that the term could function metaphorically, referring to the moral filth that marks one’s life prior to conversion (cf. 1.14; 2.1, 11; 4.2–3).289 According to this view, the verse indicates that baptism does not cleanse a person of their failings and wrongdoings; instead, as the second half of the correlative indicates, baptism presupposes that such filth has already been removed and a commitment to righteous living has been made.290 In other words, baptism is not the appropriate rite 287   While some describe the author’s purpose as providing a definition of baptism, ‘baptism is not… but is…’ (e.g., Steiger 2:241; de Wette 44; Burger 250; Johnstone 291; Best 147; Hiebert 248), others see it as explaining the purpose of baptism, ‘water/baptism saves you not as… but as…’ (e.g., Lillie 253; Huther 192; Grudem 163; Watson 92; Forbes 129). But given that this construction involves substantives (not participles—which would modify σῴζει and explain how this ‘saving’ occurred) in apposition to βάπτισμα, then it is most likely an attempt to explain the nature of baptism—although its purpose flows out of (and thus is nearly inseparable from) its definition. 288   Cf. Selwyn 204, 393–400; Elliott 677. It is, however, less obvious that such uses specifically reflect ‘the primitive Christian catechism’ (Selwyn 204) or ‘baptismal catechesis’ (Elliott 677). 289   Michaels 215–16. Others have adopted this view as well (e.g., Mitchell 269; Richard 162; Osborne 230–31; Forbes 129). 290   In what seems to be a slight alternative to this view, Jobes appears to focus on the extent to which cleansing occurs (and endures) in baptism. She maintains that the negative description indicates that ‘the baptism that saves does not remove moral filth from Christians in such a once-and-for-all way that Christians need not care about how they live after being baptized’ (254; cf. 254–55: ‘water baptism is not a “ticket to heaven” that exempts them from subsequent issues of morality’). This description implies that baptism does have some impact in absolving the sins of individuals—at least any sins that one possesses at the point when the ritual is administered. The issue is simply that the cleansing effects of baptism do not prevent the accumulation of subsequent ‘filth’ in the future.

268

1 PETER

to enact a leaving behind of sin and a purificatory cleansing of the self: repentance and the turn to righteous living are prerequisites for baptism. While this view of baptism places the Petrine author at odds with Paul, who argues that it is precisely in baptism that people ‘die to sin’ (Rom 6.1–7),291 Michaels points out a striking parallel found in Josephus’ description of John the Baptist: John, surnamed the Baptist… was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practise justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God (τὴν βάπτισιν ἀποδεκτὴν αὐτῷ φανεῖσθαι μὴ ἐπί τινων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων). They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed (μὴ ἐπί τινων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων), but as a consecration of the body (ἀλλ᾿ ἐφ᾿ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος) implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior (τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης) (Ant. 18.117–18; trans. Feldman [LCL]).

Even if there are possible queries about the authenticity of this passage,292 its depiction of what (John’s) baptism does and does not serve to do is highly significant in that it reveals that similar views were part of the theological milieu in which 1 Peter was written. The use of ῥύπος, which is uncommon in biblical Greek, occurring only here in the NT and a few times in the LXX (Job 9.31; 11.15; 14.4; Isa 4.4), also lends support to this reading. It can describe dirt or mud more generally (Plato, Parm. 130c; Diodorus Siculus 3.27.2). But it commonly depicts filth that accumulates on objects such as a cup (Ps.-Clement, Hom. 11.29.2), clothing (Homer, Od. 6.93; Appian, Bell. civ. 2.3.15), or even a human body 291   It is this departure from other descriptions of baptism, where the ritual is connected with the cleansing of sin (cf. Mark 1.4; Luke 3.3; Acts 2.38; Eph 5.26; Titus 3.5), that leads Schreiner (221–22) to reject this view. However, it is inappropriate to force conformity on the Petrine author in this instance, particularly given the unique theological perspective that he displays elsewhere and considering that the Josephus passage indicates that similar views of baptism were in existence at this time. 292   Cf. the comment of Feldman (81 n. b [LCL]), though he sees no reason to doubt it, and notes that it is generally accepted as authentic.



3.18–22

269

(Polybius, Hist. 32.2.8) over a period of time, due to remaining unwashed, or perhaps resulting from poverty or neglect (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.52.2).293 This situation was remedied by cleansing or removing the substance.294 In other instances, ῥύπος is employed metaphorically to represent moral failings or disgrace (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 8.38; Acts Phil. 119.3; Acts Thom. 144.4).295 While sometimes difficult to remove (cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.24.8), ancients were encouraged to rid themselves of such shortcomings, just like dirt on one’s clothes or body (Marcus Aurelius, Med. 7.47). For Christians, this moral filth was often thought to be washed away at baptism.296 As such, a metaphorical use of ῥύπος here would be perfectly natural. The major obstacle that stands opposed to this view, however, is the presence of σαρκός. It is not just the removal of filth that is at issue; it is filth ‘of the flesh’. As elsewhere in 1 Peter, σάρξ probably refers to the physical dimensions of human existence (4.1), life in the here and now (4.2), or to a human perspective (contrasted with a divine or spiritual one, 3.18; 4.6). Where the difficulty arises is in explaining how a metaphorical use of ῥύπος relates to σαρκός. Despite its location, the latter is most likely intended to modify the

293   It is not just soil from the ground (‘dirt’) that is described as ῥύπος. The term is also used to depict the build up of bodily fluids like earwax (see Hippocrates, De morbis popularibus 6.5.1; De humoribus 3; Arisotle, [Probl.] 960b; Rufus, De corporis humani appelationibus 223; Soranus, Gyn. 1.63.3; Galen, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facutatibus, vol. 12, p. 290 [Kühn]; Artemidorus, Onir. 1.24). 294   Various terms are employed for the removal of ῥύπος, e.g., ἀφαιρέω, ‘to remove’ (Polybius, Hist. 32.2.8); καταπλύνω, ‘to wash’ (Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 3 [Mor. 627B]); καθαίρω, ‘to cleanse’ (Homer, Od. 6.93; Dioscorides Penanius, Mat. med. 5.113.3). 295   In biblical literature, the related adjective ῥυπαρός (Zech 3.3–4; Jas 2.2; Rev 22.11) and noun ῥυπαρία (Jas 1.21) were also used in both literal and metaphorical senses, referring to physical dirt (e.g., Jas 2.2) or to moral uncleanness (e.g., Isa 4.4; Jas 1.21). Similar patterns are found elsewhere as well. For instance, ῥυπαρός is used in a literal way of dirty teeth, of sweat on the body, of a plate, of a person in general, of one’s hair, one’s appearance, of animals (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.89; 4.11.11, 12, 13, 18, 25, 28, 31; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 6.64), while it could also function metaphorically to describe the defiled state of the soul (Epictetus, Diatr. 4.11.5, 7). 296   See Barn. 11.11: ‘we go down into the water covered in sin and filth (γέμοντες ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ ῥύπου), and we come up bearing fruit in our heart’.

270

1 PETER

former.297 In this capacity, Michaels takes σαρκός as a possessive genitive, ‘not washing away the filth of the flesh’ (cf. ASV, NKJV, HCSB).298 The problem is that there is no indication in the letter that σάρξ is inherently bad or filthy, as though it were dominated by sin. What is more, it would require a somewhat odd mixture of metaphorical and literal language: the human body has moral stains that require a physical ritual (baptism) to perform a spiritual cleansing. As it stands, σαρκός is probably better understood as either an attributive genitive, ‘not washing away of bodily filth’ (cf. NET, GNT, TEV)299 or a genitive of separation, ‘not washing away filth from the body’ (cf. NRSV, ESV, NIV).300 The alternative is to interpret ῥύπος literally, with the verse describing the physical removal of dirt from the body. In this way, 297   Cf. Keil 134; Usteri 154; Johnstone 292; Kühl 237. Two alternative inter�pretations have been proposed: (a) some commentators have posited that σαρκός is a subjective genitive modifying ἀπόθεσις: ‘the flesh does not put away filth (in baptism)’ (Bengel 72; Huther 192; others allow for this possibility: Caffin 137; Blenkin 80). In support, they note that σαρκός is located prior to ἀπόθεσις and thus separate from ῥύπος. When genitives are dependent upon one another, they are usually placed in the order of dependence; on the other hand, genitives modifying the same substantive are commonly placed on opposite sides of it (e.g., 2 Cor 5.1; Phil 2.30; 1 Thess 1.3; see further Buttmann, Grammar, 155, although he ultimately attributes the location of σαρκός in v. 21 to emphasis, see p. 387). What seems to rule out this possibility, however, is that it would require σάρξ to function as the agent who acts to remove filth, a use of σάρξ that is foreign to 1 Peter (Hofmann 137). Further, even though the order is unusual, it is not without parallel. The same construction is found in Rev 7.17: ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων (‘to springs of living waters’). The fact that σαρκός is placed before ἀπόθεσις can best be explained as an attempt to add emphasis to the term. (b) Others have claimed, based on word order, that ῥύπος modifies σαρκός with the former functioning as an attributive genitive, ‘removing dirty flesh’ (see Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium, 279–91; Ostmeyer, Taufe und Typos, 154–55). This suggestion runs up against the consistent meaning that the Petrine author assigns to σάρξ. Since this term is normally defined as the body or as human existence, it difficult to see how this could be removed. 298   Michaels 215; cf. Alford 369. 299   So, e.g., Steiger 2:241; Knopf 157; Dubis 126. Support for this interpreta�tion arises from the parallel with συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς (‘good conscience’). But this evidence would be more convincing if the same order were represented in the correlative clause. 300   So, e.g., Elliott 678; cf. Wallace, Grammar, 108. This interpretation is defended on the basis that the prefix on the word ἀπόθεσις usually denotes separation (hence, ‘to remove from’).



3.18–22

271

the first half of the couplet depicts how baptism relates to the external conditions of the body, a description that stands in contrast to the internal focus that follows in the second half. Within this broad perspective, some think that the Petrine author has specific practices of filth-removal in mind. One possibility has been defended at length by Dalton, who argues that the practice in view here is circumcision, depicted as a removal of the filth of the flesh (cf. Col 2.11–12).301 The author’s point would then be that baptism is different, not a physical act comparable to circumcision. However, it is difficult to see a concern to draw such a specific contrast as pertinent to the author’s focus. As Michaels notes, ‘[he] neither disputes the claims nor repudiates the practices of others who understand themselves as “true Jews” ’;302 indeed the author’s silence on the topic of what Paul called ‘Israel according to the flesh’ (τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα, 1 Cor. 10.18; cf. Rom 9.3–8) is striking (see Summary on 2.4–10). Another possible parallel is with Jewish ceremonial washings,303 viewed as a means of purification.304 Justin Martyr places Christian baptism in polemical contrast with Jewish washings, in ways that are reminiscent of some of the language used here: As Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented (τὸ βάπτισμα, τὸ μόνον καθαρίσαι τοὺς μετανοήσαντας δυνάμενον); and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which   Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 199–206. This view has been adopted by others (e.g., Kelly 161–62; Best 147); some are more cautious, yet cite the idea approvingly (e.g., Achtemeier 269; Witherington 191). Prior to the work of Dalton, a similar suggestion was hinted at by others (e.g., Blenkin 80; Selwyn 205). 302   See further Michaels 215–16, who develops criticisms of this proposal at length (cf. also Elliott 678–79). 303   See, e.g., 1QS 3.7–9: ‘And when his flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God’ (trans. Vermes); Let. Aris. 305; Sib. Or. 3.591–93, which mentions washing done early in the morning to purify the body (ὄρθριοι ἐξ εὐνῆς αἰεὶ χρόα ἁγνίζοντες ὕδατι); Philo, Spec. 3.63; 3.205; cf. also Lev 15.7. See Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 222–29, for a general discussion of washing and immersion pools. 304   As suggested by various interpreters (e.g., de Wette 44–45; Plumptre 136; Caffin 137; Bennett 239; Hiebert 248; Donelson 114; Vinson 178). 301

272

1 PETER cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred; and, lo! the body is pure (Dial. 14.1; trans. Roberts-Donaldson).

However, while Justin Martyr’s Dialogue is explicitly set as a discussion between a Christian and a Jew, there is no indication— either here or elsewhere in 1 Peter—of any concern to distinguish the practices of the Christians from those of the Jews, or specifically to distinguish baptism from Jewish washings. Most who interpret ῥύπος literally assume a more general referent: the removal of dirt from the body.305 In the same way that the Petrine author contrasts external forms of adornment with internal adornment in 3.3–4, here the focus would be on the outward and inward effects of the ritual of baptism. It is possible that this negative clause presents what some believed to be a viable understanding of baptism, in which case the statement is intended to guard against mechanical or magical views of the ritual that assumed its efficacy was only dependent upon proper performance.306 Within the Jewish scriptures, as Nickelson points out, ‘physical filth is consistently portrayed as being parallel to sin and divine displeasure, while cleansing from this filth is concurrent with spiritual blessing’ (cf. LXX Job 9.31; 11.15; 14.4; Isa 4.4; Zech 3.3–4).307 305   So, e.g., Bigg 165; Moffatt 143; Lenski 171; Cranfield 106; Grudem 163; Davids 144; Goppelt 268; Boring 141; Elliott 678–79; Senior 105; Bony 148; Feldmeier 207; Watson 92; Wagner–Vouga 128; Schreiner 222. If this view is correct, it could (potentially) hold out clues as to the mode of baptism that the Petrine author had in mind. Over the years, however, commentators have reached opposing conclusions on this question. While Lenski denies that the verse provides any support for baptism by immersion, on the basis that ‘[t]he only persons who were immersed were those who were drowned by the flood waters’ (171), Beare argues the exact opposite, maintaining that ‘the baptism was done by immersion’, since ‘such a phrase would be meaningless in relation to a baptism by sprinkling’ (175). 306   Cf. Marshall 130: ‘He clearly does not mean this [i.e., baptism saves] in any material sense, as if an outward rite could convey spiritual salvation; or in any magical sense, as if the water possessed some spiritual power; in any automatic way, so that anybody who is baptized is saved’. Others have proposed similar views (e.g., Barnes 181; Cook 205; Davids 144; cf. Horn, ‘Der Beitrag des 1. Petrusbriefes’, 425). 307   Nickelson, ‘First Peter 3:21’, 235. Based on this connection, Nickelson argues that the intention of the Petrine author is ‘to disabuse his reader of the temptation to presume that a physical act of cleansing will automatically result in salvation in (what would later be formally called) the ex opera operato fashion’.



3.18–22

273

It is equally plausible, and perhaps even more probable, that this statement is made as a foil for the author’s more substantive point. While the statement may be quite obvious and even banal,308 it represents the general form of correlative negative–positive constructions. In such couplets, as Dubis points out, ‘the negative clause is “banal,” as a way of giving prominence to the positive clause’.309 A similar type of contrast is found in 1 Pet 1.23, where the new birth is said to have occurred ‘not from perishable seed, but from imperishable seed’. It is difficult to imagine that any members of the Christian community would have attributed their new spiritual lives to the fluids of human reproduction; instead, the perishable nature of this ‘seed’ is intended to place further emphasis on the imperishable nature of the processes by which they were born anew. In the same way, the point of this statement about physical washing is merely to prepare the readers for the next clause, which specifically explains the nature of baptism. ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, θεόν, δι᾿ ἀναστά­ σεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ In this positive depiction, contrasting (ἀλλά) with the negative clause that precedes, baptism is described in distinctive terms: συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν. Once more, this phrase is difficult to interpret. The central point is that baptism is an ἐπερώτημα (another NT hapax);310 but what exactly that means is open to some discussion. Since the term is extremely

308   As objected by Michaels (216), who claims, ‘It is unlikely that the present passage intends to say anything so banal as that baptism’s purpose is not to wash dirt off the body’. 309   Dubis 126. Cf. Lenski 171: ‘One of the commonest means of emphasizing the positive is to place it in contrast with the negative’. 310   Some have misunderstood the relationship between βάπτισμα and ἐπερώ­ τημα, claiming that the latter represents a function performed by the former (hence, baptism pledges/requests/appeals/etc.). For instance, Geiger notes, ‘One properly observes that in 1 Peter 3:21, no action is attributed to the person being baptized at all. The ἐπερώτημα is not the action of the baptized. Rather, baptism itself is described as the ἐπερώτημα. Said another way, baptism is the doer of the verbal action in ἐπερώτημα. The sacrament itself—baptism—is doing “the requesting” ’ (‘A Word about Baptism’, 207). But the fact that βάπτισμα and ἐπερώτημα are in apposition (see above) indicates not that baptism is performing the action, but that it is the action being performed (hence, baptism is a pledge/ request/appeal etc.).

274

1 PETER

rare in Jewish and Christian literature prior to this point, most look towards the verbal form (ἐπερωτάω) to provide insight into the meaning here. Throughout the NT, it is used in the sense of posing a question to someone, ‘to ask’ (e.g., Matt 12.10; Luke 3.14; John 9.23; 1 Cor 14.35). By extension, a small group of interpreters have taken ἐπερώτημα to mean an investigation into a given topic or a search for a given object, ‘inquiry after God that proceeds from a clear conscience’.311 Along these lines, it is said to describe ‘the desire of the baptized Christian who has put away his former sins to inquire further and learn more of God and His grace’.312 The difficulty with this proposal, aside from the need to stretch the meaning of the verb beyond what the evidence will allow (see below), is the fact that this action reflects the efforts of one who has already been regenerated. No longer is baptism connected to the cleansing of the soul (as indicated in v. 20); it is, instead, a way to bring the regenerate into closer fellowship with God, making baptism a maintenance ritual rather than an initiation ritual.313 Etymological considerations also weigh against this view: the -μα suffix indicates that the term denotes the result of a given action (e.g., a question) rather than the act or process itself (e.g., asking, inquiring), the latter being communicated by ἐπερώτησις.314 A second possibility, which is much more widely held in scholarship, is to interpret ἐπερώτημα as a request made with a 311   Those who adopt this view include: Steiger 2:241–44; Demarest 200; Alford 369–70; Caffin 137–38; Mitchell 269. Although few defences of this view have been offered, some have pointed to 2 Sam 11.7 (ἐπηρώτησεν Δαυιδ εἰς εἰρήνην Ιωαβ, ‘David inquired about the peace of Joab’) as a potential parallel. 312   Mitchell 269. A variation of this view was proposed by Hottinger (130), who understood ἐπερώτημα as an effort to determine whether one has a clear conscience (‘interrogating a good conscience before God’). Rather than attributing the act of interrogation to God, however, Hottinger claimed that it is the role of a priest. What is left unexplained is how such an interrogation might ‘save’ a person, particularly if the priest reached a negative verdict on an individual while conducting the investigation. 313   Cf. Johnstone 295: ‘as a definition, however informal, of baptism, “any inquiry after God” does not seem natural or specially pertinent, seeing that baptism is rather a public testimony to having already positively learned something in this sublime field of research, to having taken the first great step in the knowledge of God’ (see also Plumptre 137). 314   See MHT 2:355.



3.18–22

275

view towards receiving some benefit, ‘an appeal to God for a clear conscience’ (cf. NRSV, NAB, ESV, NASB).315 As with the previous proposal, the only real basis for this interpretation lies in the meaning of the verbal form ἐπερωτάω. But as with that suggestion, this view is difficult to defend on lexical grounds. Even though ἐπερωτάω can describe the posing of a question, only very rarely does it represent the making of a request (Ps 136.3 LXX; Matt 16.1). What is more, as Dalton has pointed out, ‘there is no example anywhere in the whole range of Greek writing where [the noun ἐπερώτημα] means “request” ’.316 Outside of biblical literature, ἐπερώτημα describes a question asked either during a formal line of interrogation in a courtroom (Thucydides 3.53.2; 3.68.1) or informally among individuals (Herodotus, Hist. 6.67.3; Epicurus, Gnomologium Vaticanum Epicurem Frag. 71; Galen, Adversus Lycum libellus, vol. 18a, pp. 227–28 [Kühn]; Herm. Mand. 11.2). It even refers to a question (or matter) that is studied or analysed by those seeking an answer (Vitae Aesopi, Vita W 119). Each of these connotations, however, is distinct from the solicitation of a service from God. Had this been the sense intended by the Petrine author, a more appropriate term could have been selected (e.g., αἴτημα, ἔντευξις).317 A final way that ἐπερώτημα has been interpreted—and one that provides the most natural background—is in connection with the examination of baptismal candidates in the early church. According to later Christian writers, those who wanted to enter into the Christian faith through the rite of baptism were first questioned, and in turn, were required to provide a response that confirmed their 315   This view was widely held among an earlier generation of commentators (e.g., Wiesinger 257–59; Schott 250–51; Hofmann 137–38; Mason 422–23; Usteri 154–55; Burger 250; Johnstone 292–97; Masterman 135; Bennett 239; Monnier 185; Bigg 165; Weiss 321; Hart 69; Knopf 158; Wand 102). Within more recent scholarship, it remains very popular, especially among German interpreters (e.g., Windisch 73; Holmer–de Boor 134; Grudem 163–64; Michaels 217; Schelkle 109; Frankemölle 60; Knoch 106; Schrage 108; Goppelt 269–71; Schweizer 75–76; Senior 105; Feldmeier 207–208; Witherington 191–92; Wagner–Vouga 118; Schreiner 222–24; Ostmeyer 75; cf. Vogels, Christi Abstieg, 39; Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium, 261–69; Abernathy, ‘Translating 1 Peter 3:18–22’, 42–44; Doering, ‘Soteriological Web’, 492–93). 316   Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 207. 317   For a further critique of this view, see Kelly 162.

276

1 PETER

commitment to Christ.318 In light of this situation, some define ἐπερώτημα as the entire process of examination, and as such, the phrase is rendered, ‘interrogation of a good conscience towards God’ (cf. ASV, Douay-Rheims).319 Other advocates of this view claim that ἐπερώτημα refers to the specific response given by baptismal candidates to this line of questioning; hence, they translate the phrase, ‘the answer of a clear conscience toward God’ (cf. KJV, NKJV, WEB).320 While the evidential basis for this interpretation is not overwhelming, support can be found in the ancient source record,321 which reveals that the term can refer both to a question that is asked as well as the response given.322 318   While the specific means of administering baptism are not clear in the NT (although, cf. later descriptions: Did. 7.1–4; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 61.2–3), allusion is made regarding the important role of confession (e.g., Acts 8.37; Rom 10.9; 1 Tim 6.12; Heb 4.14). Later Christian writers describe exactly what was professed by a baptisand prior to entering the water. The first to mention this practice is Tertullian, who notes, ‘When entering the water, we make profession of the Christian faith in the words of its rule (Christianam fidem in legis suae verba profitemur); we bear public testimony that we have renounced the devil, his pomp, and his angels’ (Spec. 4.1; trans. Thelwall). Similar statements about the confession of faith (Tertullian, Res. 48.11; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.8–9; Augustine, Catech. 26.50; Ambrose, Myst. 5.26; Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto 10.26) and the renunciation of the devil and/or demons (Tertullian, Cor. 3.2–3; Tatian, Or. Graec. 19.4; Ps.-Hippolytus, Theoph. 10; Const. ap. 7.41; Cyril of Jerusalem, Myst. 1.2, 9) are found in other writings as well. See further Whitaker, ‘Baptismal Interrogations’, 103–12. 319   Those who adopt this interpretation include: Estius 551; Benson 261; Semler 186; Pott 121–22; Augusti 244; Doddridge 212; Hensler 168–69; Wordsworth 63; Fausset 509–510; Barnes 181; Plumptre 137–38. 320   Those who adopt this interpretation include: Beza 579; Grotius 96–97; Whitby 176; Lillie 254–56; Lenski 171–72; Hiebert 249–50. Questioning the accuracy of translations like ‘answer’ or ‘response’, Nickelson proposes that ἐπερώτημα be rendered, ‘verdict’, ‘pronouncement’, or ‘judgment’. He contends that baptism is understood in this passage ‘as the response of one who has been confronted with the Christian gospel and has rendered a positive verdict as to its veracity’ (‘First Peter 3:21’, 239). 321   Prior to the discovery of much of the ancient evidence, one early proponent of this view argued that the use of ἐπερώτημα represented a case of metonymy, wherein the ‘question’ stood in place of what the Petrine author was actually describing, the ‘answer’ (see de Wette 45). 322   In the second century CE, ἐπερώτημα shows up in Athenian honorary decrees (particularly in the formula, κατὰ τὸ ἐπερώτημα), where it represents an official answer (or decree) to a request posed by a third party—who likely wanted to erect a monument to a friend, family member, or magistrate—to a higher



3.18–22

277

Over the last century, papyrological discoveries have provided fresh insight into the semantic context in which ἐπερώτημα and related terms were commonly employed.323 The verb ἐπερωτάω (along with various nominal forms that derived from it) is often found in ancient contractual agreements wherein one party provides an official response or declaration concerning an agreed upon item or action,324 and in the few instances where ἐπερώτημα occurs, it seems to function in much the same way. This is illustrated in a report of judicial proceedings from Roman Egypt dating to the mid-second century CE. In this fragmentary account, one party brings legal action against a vendor from whom they had purchased a slave girl. According to the account, the slave ran away shortly after the purchase, taking with her some of the buyer’s possessions. As such, the buyer is seeking compensation for the goods that were stolen as well as a refund on the slave. The vendor’s lawyer, on the other hand, claims that his client was not accountable for those expenses, arguing, ‘if no formal pledge has been written (μηδὲν ἐπερώτημα ᾖ ἐγγεγρα[μμένον]) in the contract, then the seller authority or governing body (e.g., IG II2 1817, 3607, 3652, 3669, 3683; cf. also I.Eleusis 490, 587, 635; see further Keil, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Areopags, 36–42; Geagan, Athenian Constitution, 45–47). It can also indicate the decision rendered by a divine being. See Dan 4.17 (Theod): διὰ συγκρίματος ιρ ὁ λόγος, καὶ ῥῆμα ἁγίων τὸ ἐπερώτημα, ἵνα γνῶσιν οἱ ζῶντες ὅτι κύριός ἐστιν ὁ ὕψιστος τῆς βασιλείας τῶν ἀνθρώπων (‘the matter is by decree of the Watchers, and the word is the decision of the holy ones, so that the living might know that the Lord is exalted over the kingdoms of humanity’); Sir 33.3 (‫)א‬: ἄνθρωπος συνετὸς ἐμπιστεύσει νόμῳ, καὶ ὁ νόμος αὐτῷ πιστὸς ὡς ἐπερώτημα δήλων (‘an intelligent person trusts in the law, and the law for that person is as trustworthy as a response from the Urim’). Cf. also IG XII,3 248. 323   For a discussion of this evidence, see TLNT 2:32–33; cf. also Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 182–86. 324   A formula that is frequently found in ancient contracts is ἐπερωτηθεὶς ὡμολόγησα, ‘when the formal question was posed, I consented’ (e.g., BGU II 373; P.Col. X 277; P.Mich. XI 609; P.Princ. II 37; P.Ryl. II 100). The meaning behind it becomes clearer when it is further elaborated in other places. A mid-third-century petition from Oxyrhynchus concerning the collection of debt is helpful in this regard. It reads, περὶ δὲ τοῦ ταῦτα ὀρθῶς καλῶς γείνεσθαι ἐπερωτηθεὶς ὡμολόγησα, ‘having been asked the formal question of whether this is rightly and fairly done, I have so declared’ (P.Mich. XI 614; cf. P.Leid.Inst. 50; P.Mich. XVIII 792; P.Wisc. II 59). So not only does this formula indicate an agreement to operate according to the stipulations of the contract, it also guarantees that the specifications have been made in good faith.

278

1 PETER

is not accountable for the repayment of the purchase price’ (P.Cair. Preis. 1). It is clear from this text that ἐπερώτημα was sometimes used with legal sense, equivalent to the Roman stipulatio (i.e., a verbal contract in which one party is asked and then affirms that they will do that to which they have obliged themselves).325 This evidence provides the specific semantic domain from which the meaning of ἐπερώτημα can be derived. Evidence that this legal sense was intended by the Petrine author can be found in the way early Christian interpreters connect ἐπερώτημα with the confession of faith made at baptism. An example is provided by Ps.-Didymus (late fourth century), who both cites this passage directly and then provides an explanation of it in his discussion of the immortalising effect of baptism. He defines the ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν as ‘the confession of the conscience which we set forth’ (τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς συνειδήσεως ἣν ἐκτιθέμεθα, De Trinitate 2.14 [PG 39:716]).326 In this way, ‘the author equates the ἐπερώτημα with the verbal assent given by the baptisand, presumably in response to the inquiry of the one administering the rite’.327 Passages like this are helpful in that they indicate that while ἐπερώτημα is probably best read in the context of the questioning of baptismal candidates, it is not meant to represent the entire proceeding; instead, the author seems to be focused on a specific time within this ceremony when the questions would be posed 325   Cf. also Cod. justin. 8.10.12.3b: ἐκ τῶν συμφώνων ἤτοι ἐπερωτημάτων. The related term, ἐπερώτησις, is employed in a similar way. See, e.g., P.Oxy. IX 1205, where ἐπερώτησις appears in a manumission document to denote the declaration or official acknowledgment that the slave had been granted her freedom. For later examples, see P.Lond. 1660; P.Cair.Masp. 67158; see also Cod. justin. 8.10.12.1a. For more on stipulatio in Roman Egypt, see Taubenschlag, Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 396–97; Yiftach, ‘Law in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, 554. 326   Another example of an early church leader interpreting ἐπερώτημα in a similar way is found in the festal letter of Cyril of Alexandria (442 CE). In it, he asks, ‘Now what does this mean: ἐκ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς εἰς θεόν ἐπερώτημα?’ To which he gives the answer, ‘(It is) the confession of faith in Christ (τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὁμολογία), which indeed we are accustomed to make among many witnesses’ (Epistulae paschales 30.3 [PG 77:976]). As discussed by Crawford (‘Confessing God from a Good Conscience’, 34), the translation of this verse found in the Peshitta, which renders ἐπερώτημα with the Aphel root of ‫ܝܕܐ‬ (a verb that describes the confession or affirmation of something), represents a similar interpretation. 327   Crawford, ‘Confessing God from a Good Conscience’, 31.



3.18–22

279

and beliefs would be affirmed.328 More than simply answering a question, the key point is that baptisands were expected to declare a certain commitment or to pledge their firm loyalty to God.329 As such, it is probably best to translate ἐπερώτημα in this verse as ‘pledge’ or ‘promise’ (cf. NIV, HCSB, NET).330 Despite the plausibility of this view, some questions still surround it, though these can be satisfactorily answered. Perhaps the most substantive331 objection relates to the dating of the ancient   During the initiation process, other ancient groups similarly required a pledge from candidates. This can be seen in the Rule of the Community: ‘every one who enters into the Council of the Community, shall enter into the covenant of God in the sight of all those who devote themselves. He shall take upon his soul by a binding oath (‫ )בשבועת אסר‬to return to the Torah of Moses, according to all which he has commanded with all heart and with all soul, according to everything which has been revealed from it to the Sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the covenant and seek his will, and according to the multitude of the men of their covenant who devote themselves together to his truth and to walk in his will’ (1QS 5.7–10; trans. Qimron and Charlesworth). 329   The individual decision-making that lies behind this personal commitment has led some to conclude that the Petrine author had only adults in mind here (cf. Stolz 127–28). Others, however, are quick to explain this language in light of the commitments made by parents on behalf of children who are baptised (see Whitby 176). 330   So, e.g., Selwyn 205–206; Spicq 141–42; Kelly 162–63; Best 148; Davids 145; Bénétreau 212; Brox 178; Achtemeier 270–71; Richard 163; Elliott 679–80; Jobes 255; Prigent 108; Green 137; Donelson 110 n. i; Dubis 126–27; Schlosser 221–22, 231; Osborne 231; Watson 92; Forbes 129–30; Vahrenhorst 162–64; Keener 282–83; cf. Smith, ‘1 Peter III 21’, 46–47; Tripp, ‘Eperōtēma (I Peter 321)’, 267–70; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 206–10; Rudman, ‘Baptism of Chaos’, 400–401. There have been small quibbles among interpreters over whether the term is closer to the Latin stipulatio (as suggested by Richards, ‘1 Peter iii 21’, 77, and most commentators) or adstipulatio (as suggested by Hill, ‘On Suffering and Baptism’, 187), but this represents a minor disagreement. 331   Other objections have been raised as well. Some have claimed that the meaning ‘pledge’ or ‘promise’ is difficult to reconcile with the prepositional modifier εἰς θεόν (see Alford 370; Michaels 217). It is true that the same phrase rarely appears with synonymous terms—the idea of the one to whom a promise/ pledge is made normally being communicated by the simple dative or by πρός + accusative. Yet similar constructions are occasionally found: Acts 26.6: τῆς εἰς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν ἐπαγγελίας γενομένης ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (‘the promise made by God to our ancestors’); Josephus, War 1.489: ἐξέφερον δὲ καὶ τὰς εἰς αὐτὴν ὑποσχέσεις (‘they also discovered the promises to him’). It is possible, then, to understand ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν as a ‘pledge to God’, and thus it is unnecessary to render the phrase ‘an assurance before God’, as though God is the one in whose 328

280

1 PETER

source materials used to support this meaning. Reichert notes that neither the interrogation of baptismal candidates nor the technical use of ἐπερώτημα to denote stipulatio can be documented prior to the second century.332 This argument is not as strong as it first appears, however. The absence of evidence related to interrogation practices of baptismal candidates in the earliest forms of Christianity does little to undermine this suggestion, since what is actually known about baptismal rituals prior to the second century is quite meagre.333 So while these later accounts cannot be taken as proof that the same practices existed in the first century, we cannot simply rule out this possibility due to the lack of evidence. Moreover, the practice in view in 1 Peter need not imply the level of procedural formality that developed later, only that the essential act of pledging one’s commitment in response to some kind of question or invitation to do so played a key role in the ritual of baptism—and given the prominence of verbal confession in the presence a promise is rendered (pace Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 186–87). Some have objected to restricting the meaning of ἐπερώτημα to a pledge on theological grounds. If this were the case, they maintain, then ‘sanctification is no more than a human work, depedent upon human effort and commitment, without any realistic reference to the resurrection power of Christ’ (Colwell, ‘Baptism, Conscience and the Resurrection’, 223; cf. Grudem 164; Dus 188–89). However, the author’s brief comments on baptism should not be judged on the grounds of theological orthodoxy; and he makes it clear elsewhere that re-birth and salvation come through God’s gift in Christ (1.3–5, 21; 5.10). 332   Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium, 266. Two other objections are raised by Reichert as well. First, she argues that the meaning ‘pledge’ deviates from standard usage in ancient contracts. In such legal settings, Reichert maintains that ἐπερώτημα stands for the whole process, both question and answer; whereas here only the answer is in view (ibid, 266). It is difficult to attribute too much weight to this argument, however, given that we are dealing not with a legal contract, but the adoption of contractual language by a letter writer to illustrate the nature of baptism. Second, she maintains that if ἐπερώτημα means ‘pledge’ or ‘promise’, then it is difficult to reconcile with the genitive modifier συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς (ibid, 266–69). But neither she, nor others who have raised this same objection (e.g., Usteri 155; Kühl 238), have provided any real basis for this claim. As explained below, both interpretations of the genitive phrase provide a sufficient sense with the meaning proposed here. 333   For more on baptism in early Christianity, see Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church; Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament; Delling, Die Taufe im Neuen Testament; Benoît and Munier, Le baptême dans l’Église ancienne; Barth, Die Taufe in frühchristlicher Zeit.



3.18–22

281

earliest sources, this seems entirely plausible (e.g., Acts 22.16; Rom 10.9; 1 Cor 12.3). A similar response regarding the dating of evidence applies to the technical use of ἐπερώτημα. It is important to note that part of the defence represented in P.Cair.Preis. 1 rests on legal precedent (ἤκουσας τοὺς ἁπλῷ χρήματι πω[λοῦντας δοῦλον… ἀν] ευθύνους εἶναι, ‘you have heard that those who sell a slave with simple money [i.e. stipulatio simplae] are not accountable’). The lawyer for the defendant in the case appeals to liability laws associated with stipulatio simplae in Roman Egypt, which must extend some years into the past if his argument is to have any merit. Given the mid-second-century date (ca. 148–150 CE) of this document, it does not seem unlikely that the term ἐπερώτημα could have been known and used in an official judicial sense in the late first century when 1 Peter was written,334 especially in light of the fact that Rome had already controlled Asia Minor for over a century by this point. The next major question concerns how the genitive noun and adjective συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς are to be understood. As noted above (see Exegesis at 3.16), commentators regularly define the noun συνείδησις in terms of an awareness or consciousness (see on 2.19; 3.16).335 Having a συνείδησις ἀγαθή would thus mean a right orientation towards God which determines a person’s disposition and conduct (cf. 1 Tim 1.5). When understood in this way, the potential functions of the genitive are clearly demarcated. If an objective genitive is intended, what is promised to God is that the individual will seek to maintain a proper way of orientating their thoughts toward who God is and what God requires. On the other hand, if the subjective genitive is intended, then this mindfulness of God is what facilitates such a pledge. Most recent commentators have favoured the objective genitive, understanding baptism as the beginning of a commitment to

334   Note that the stipulatio formula is found in documents from the Babatha archive, the earliest of which dates to 128 CE (P.Yadin I 17: πίστει ἐπηρωτήθη καὶ ἀνθωμολογήθη ταῦτα οὕτως καλῶς γείνεσθαι; cf. also P.Yadin I 18, 20–22). See further Oudshoorn, Roman and Local Law, 150–55. 335   Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 182, considers that ‘the psychologizing translation of συνείδησις by “good conscience” ’ has been ‘very misleading’ in terms of understanding this verse. Cf. also the discussion of Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 210–12.

282

1 PETER

maintaining a right moral disposition or holy way of life.336 It is clear that baptism marked a commitment to the Christian way of life, and that the author of 1 Peter emphasises the importance of the turn from an old, immoral way of life to this new one (1.14, 18; 4.2–4, etc.), described as the ‘good way of life in Christ’ (3.16). But it is less certain that the present phrase is best interpreted in this way, though the alternatives are finely balanced. Indeed, one could hardly make the commitment that baptism is here taken to represent without having the right ‘awareness of God’—a good disposition, as it were, which motivates the undertaking. A better way to understand συνείδησις might, perhaps, be as a person’s internal sensitivities to a given moral standard with the genitive functioning subjectively (‘proceeding from a clear conscience’).337 Such a reading is consistent with early Christian   Whether ἐπερώτημα is understood as a ‘request’ or as a ‘pledge’, most take the genitive modifier συνειδήσεως as an objective genitive; hence, ‘request for a good conscience’ or ‘pledge to maintain a good conscience’. One point that is commonly put forward in favour of this position is the objective function of the genitive ῥύπου (‘removal of dirt’) in the first half of this contrast (see Achtemeier 272; Dubis 126). The question is whether the οὐ… ἀλλά necessitates the elements in both couplets to function in the same way. While such balance is sometimes maintained (e.g., Matt 22.32; Mark 8.33; Rom 4.10), it is certainly not required (cf. Luke 20.21; John 8.12). In this case, the entirely different semantic domains of ἀπόθεσις and ἐπερώτημα open up the possibility that the accompanying genitives might also function in distinct ways. Recently, Mason has suggested that Hebrews, which refers to ‘hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience’ (ῥεραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς) and ‘bodies washed in pure water’ (λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ; 10.22), might help resolve the interpretation of 1 Pet 3.21. Arguing that Hebrews presents a cleansed conscience as ‘a new covenant benefit related chiefly to the activity of the Holy Spirit, as utilized in cooperative instrumentality by Jesus in his sacrifice’ (‘ “Conscience” Conundrum’, 359), he concludes that συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα refers to ‘a pledge-like commitment to God in expectation of receiving a good conscience as a benefit of the resurrection of Jesus’ (360). Nevertheless, this hypothesis provides no reason why Hebrews’ understanding of συνείδησις should be transferred to 1 Peter. 337   There are interpreters on both sides of the ἐπερώτημα debate who take συνειδήσεως as a subjective genitive. Among those who take ἐπερώτημα as a request (‘appeal addressed to God through a good conscience’; cf. NEB) are: Gerhard 473–74; Bengel 72–73; Jachmann 160; Hart 69; Michaels 216; cf. Galot, ‘La descente du Christ’, 483 n. 46. Among those who take ἐπερώτημα as a pledge (‘pledge to God proceeding from a good conscience’) are: Bruckner 80–81; Selwyn 205; Spicq 141; Kelly 162; cf. Richards, ‘I Peter iii.21’, 77; Crawford, ‘Confessing God’, 23–37’. 336



3.18–22

283

interpretation of the verse. It is significant to note that when the passage is alluded to or directly cited, ancient Christian interpreters take συνειδήσεως as a subjective genitive (see Ps.-Didymus, De Trinitate 2.14).338 This is made explicit in the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, where ἐκ is added to the phrase (‘from a clear conscience’; see Epistluae paschales 30.3; In Rom. 6.3–4; Dialogues on the Trinity 528; De adoratione 15 [PG 68:956]).339 This interpretation may also reflect the Petrine author’s further appeal to ancient contractual language. It was common in Roman contracts to state that the agreement was made bona fides (i.e., the agreement did not violate the interests of another person and was made in full disclosure of any risks that might jeopardise the purchase).340 In choosing the phrase συνείδησις ἀγαθή, the Petrine author seems to be designating the position from which the pledge was made. If this phrase is intended to function similar to such a ‘good faith’ statement—and it would be difficult to label this as anything more than a possibility—then the phrase would represent the fact that the pledge of baptismal candidates represents a genuine 338   There is a significant parallel to this use of συνείδησις in the warnings in Did. 4.14 and Barn. 19.12 (two closely related versions of the Two Ways teaching) not to come to prayer ἐν συνειδήσει πονηρᾷ (identically worded in both texts). In these instances, συνείδησις must represent either the negative disposition or guilt-ridden conscience with which one might approach prayer, not one to which they aim or commit themselves. See further Crawford, ‘Confessing God’, 27–29. 339   Such a consideration is important for addressing one of the objections commonly levelled against this view: If συνείδησις represents a person’s inner faculty responsible for moral judgments, the verse would indicate that a person’s conscience could be clear of any sense of wrongdoing before undergoing the ritual of baptism, the act which the Petrine author connects with salvation. As such, opponents claim that it would beg the question of why baptism was needed in the first place (see Schott 250; Hofmann 137–38). However, this objection has little merit when we take into account the fact that early Christians did envision the pledge of baptismal candidates as flowing out of a clear conscience. 340   Although ‘good faith’ statements are not as common in contracts from the Greek East, various examples are known. One occurrence can be found in a divorce document from the Judean desert (131 CE). In this fragmentary text, a woman named Shelamzion provides a divorce document to her former husband Eleazar. At the end, the contract states that ‘the formal question was asked and answered in good faith’ ([κ]α̣λῶ ̣ ς γείνεσθαι πίσ̣τεως ἐπηρω̣ [τημένης καὶ ἀνθωμολογημένης], P.Hever 65). Cf. also P.Yadin I 16, 20–22; P.Hever 65; SB XIV 11705; XVIII 13320; XXIV 16170, 16171; P.Dura 32; Chrest.Mitt. 171; P.Prag. I 33; P.Petra I 1; III 18, 29; V 50; P.Erl. 67.

284

1 PETER

and informed decision (i.e., without any false motives and in full awareness of the risks involved). Such an acknowledgment would be a particularly relevant reminder to those whom suffering had led to reconsider their Christian commitment. In this instance, no specifics are given as to what is pledged, and thus the reader is left to supply the content. While some view this as a weakness that undermines the validity of this position, the author’s meaning is not difficult to discern given the elements involved. Since this ‘pledge’ is made to God (εἰς θεόν),341 and since a primary focus of the letter has been the need to maintain a holy lifestyle (cf. 1.14–17; 2.1, 11–12; etc.) despite the social consequences (2.20; 3.6, 14–17; 4.19), then the promise must relate in some way to the moral (as well as religious) dimensions of the Christian life. Those who offer this pledge are agreeing to live according to God’s standard regardless of the risks. It is possible, as Crawford suggests, that this pledge could have a confessional dimension as well.342 This is at least how the statement was read in the early church. While 341   Against the vast majority of interpreters, Bigg (165) takes εἰς θεόν in connection to σῴζει rather than with ἐπερώτημα. This allows for an antithesis to be formed with εἰς ἣν [i.e., κιβωτόν] διεσώθησαν. In the same way that Noah was delivered on the ark, baptism brings the readers safely to God. However, Bigg’s objection to the traditional arrangement stems from the view that ἐπερώτημα must mean ‘request’ or ‘prayer’. As we have demonstrated above, this is not the case, and while the combination of ἐπερώτημα + εἰς might be uncommon in antiquity (see n. 331), it represents the most natural connection, particularly in light of the verbal idea that is implicit in ἐπερώτημα. In fact, this is how the phrase was understood by most early interpreters (see Cyril of Alexandria, Jo. 11.26: ‘we make the confession of faith to God [θεῷ τῆς πίστεως τὴν ὁμολογίαν ποιούμεθα], even though we are questioned by human beings [I mean those who have been appointed to the priesthood], when we say, “I believe” at the reception of holy baptism’). Nevertheless, one alternative could be mentioned. If συνείδησις is taken to mean ‘consciousness’ or ‘mindfulness’, then it might be possible to connect the prepositional phrase with συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς (hence, ‘proper mindfulness toward God’; cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 213–14, who considers but ultimately rejects this interpretation). This seems to be the way that at least one early Christian writer understood it (see Gregory of Nazianzus, In sanctum baptisma 3 [PG 36:361], who rearranges the order to make this point, ἐπερώτημα τῆς εἰς Θεὸν συνειδήσεως). The drawback to this view, however, is the separation between συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς and εἰς θεόν, which seems to rule out such a possibility. 342   See Crawford, ‘Confessing God’, 36, who notes that ‘in ps.-Didymus and Cyril correct belief becomes central, with the εἰς Θεόν clause functioning as a shorthand for the church’s creedal confession’.



3.18–22

285

the doctrinal commitments among the Petrine churches might not have been as developed as the credal statements used in later baptismal services,343 some confessional elements will likely have been involved, such as the lordship of Christ (cf. 3.15; Rom 10.9; 1 Cor 12.3). Regardless of how the genitive is understood, it is striking in this text that baptism is depicted as ‘an act directed from human beings to God… not God’s act towards them’, a formal pledge of commitment.344 As the examples above show, this characterisation of baptism coheres with, and to some degree influences, the early Christian practice wherein baptism entails a public declaration of faith and commitment. Baptism, then, is here somewhat akin to πίστις: it demonstrates a person’s entrusting and commitment of themselves to God (cf. 1.21). In this, as well as in the striking declaration that baptism ‘saves’, 1 Peter makes its own distinc�tive—though often neglected—contribution to early theologies of baptism. It is possible, as some interpreters have suggested, to take the immediately following phrase (διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) in connection with σῴζει.345 In this case, the prepositional phrase would indicate that the resurrection of Jesus Christ serves as the basis for salvation.346 While structural considerations would favour this reading, it could be challenged on other grounds. Most notably, there is a considerable distance between the verb σῴζει and the 343   Pace Plumptre 138, who argues that v. 22 represents just such a confession. He notes, ‘The parallelism between the substance of this verse and that of 1 Tim. iii. 16, and of both with the closing clauses of the second section of the Apostles’ Creed, leaves scarcely any room for doubt that we have here a precious fragment of the baptismal profession of faith of the Apostolic Church [in v. 22]… This was what the answer of a good conscience towards God involved.’ 344   Michaels 217. 345   E.g., Christensen, ‘Union with Christ’, 345. This is the interpretation reflected in many modern translations. To clarify this point, translators either set off the explanatory οὐ… ἀλλά contrast through parentheses (e.g., Geneva, KJV, BRG, JUB, HCSB) or em dashes (e.g., NASB, Mounce, NET, TLV), or they begin an entirely new sentence (e.g., NIV: ‘It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ’; cf. CEB, NLT, ERV, GNT). 346   In support of this interpretation, it is possible to appeal to an earlier reference to the resurrection in 1 Pet 1.3, where many commentators read δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as the instrument through which re-birth occurred. Ultimately, however, this reading ends up being unsatisfactory (see Exegesis at 1.3).

286

1 PETER

prepositional modifier.347 Further, early Christian interpreters rarely draw a direct link between salvation and the resurrection,348 which is particularly surprising given the importance attached to the resurrection of Jesus in the early church. An alternative349 would be to connect the prepositional phrase with ἐπερώτημα, indicating that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is ultimately what allows such a petition or pledge to be made;350 that is, only because Christ rose from the dead are people able to commit themselves to God.351 Irrespective of which structure is adopted, both of the above interpretations end up at essentially the same point. The reason for these similarities is because the Petrine author does not explicitly indicate how baptism actually ‘saves’, nor does he explain how this occurs ‘through the resurrection’. Given the Pauline characteristics of some aspects of the letter—though these should not be overemphasised—some naturally draw comparisons with descriptions of baptism and resurrection in the Pauline and deutero-Pauline 347   One could, perhaps, attribute this separation to the need to clarify the nature of baptism—the prepositional phrasing being placed at the end of the οὐ… ἀλλά contrast. Nevertheless, had the author wished to make it clear that διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ was to be read in connection with σῴζει, he could have located the prepositional phrase before the explanatory comment or even before the verb. 348   In early Christian literature, there is very little evidence where salvation (σῴζω/σωτηρία) is closely connected with the resurrection (ἀνάστασις) of Jesus. One of the few examples is found in Clement of Alexandria, Frag. 72: ἔσωσε τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως (‘he saved humanity through the cross and the resurrection’). Cf. also Origen, Hom. Jer. 2.3; Fr. Ps. 11.6. 349   Some also argue that διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ should be connected with συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς, indicating how a good conscience is achieved (e.g., Brown 547; Fronmüller 65). Nevertheless, this proposal is unlikely given that the prepositional phrase is separated from συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς by ἐπερώτημα. 350   In a slightly different direction, Hofmann (139–40) maintains that διά indicates the source of appeal for baptismal candidates who seek to have their sins forgiven. 351   E.g., Grotius 97; Pott 122–23; Hensler 169–70; Schott 251–52; Hofmann 139–40; Usteri 158; Bennett 239–40 (possibly). More recently, Schreiner seems to adopt this view as well. While not making this connection directly, he states, ‘Believers at baptism can be confident on the basis of the work of the crucified and risen Lord that their appeal to have a good conscience will be answered’ (224). In support of this reading, proponents sometimes appeal to the similar structure found in 1 Kgs 22.7 (Οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε προφήτης τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπερωτήσομεν τὸν κύριον δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (‘Is there not a prophet of the Lord here? And we will inquire of the Lord through him’; NETS), which includes the verbal form ἐπερωτάω, a reference to God as the one to whom a question is asked, and the prepositional modifier (διά) denoting the means through which inquiry would be made.



3.18–22

287

literature.352 In Rom 6.1–11, Paul describes how baptism connects believers with the death of Christ: through participation in this ritual, breaking the power of sin over them and allowing them to live in accordance with the ethical standards that match their new eschatological identity. Extending this participatory idea further, the letters of Colossians and Ephesians claim that believers have also and already shared in the resurrection of Christ as well (Col 2.12; 3.1; Eph 2.6).353 If the present verse is to be read in this way, it would indicate that baptism provides the readers access to a resurrected life. Such a connection is not explicitly made, however. A more natural explanation lies in the immediate and more remote contexts. In v. 18, the author has just stated that the death and resurrection of Christ are what bring people to God. In this way, the instrumentality of Christ’s resurrection comes into focus. It plays a crucial role in the process of salvation by connecting humans to the divine source of new life. While the resurrection makes rebirth possible, it is ultimately God who grants regeneration. As such, Christ may bring petitioners to God, but it is the power and prerogative of God to extend grace and forgiveness. Understood from this perspective, the salvific efficacy of baptism resides in its ability to connect participants to the stream of lifegiving power that resides with God.354 But beyond this, the specific role played by each instrument is unclear. At most, we can say that the resurrection makes baptism an effective means of accessing God (which is essentially the meaning generated by connecting the prepositional phrase with ἐπερώτημα). 22 ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων. δυνάμεων. The sentence continues into this verse, which concludes the lengthy syntactical unit begun in 3.18. Indeed, the mention of Christ’s 352   See Monnier 187; Blenkin 82; Davids 144; cf. Goldstein, Paulinische Gemeinde, 110; France, ‘Exegesis in Practice’, 275; Towner, ‘Resurrection in 1 Peter’, 521. 353   For Paul, on the other hand, while ‘walking in newness of life’ (Rom 6.4), empowered by the Spirit, is already a present experience, participation in the resurrection of Christ is located in the future. Cf. Rom 6.5: ‘For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will (ἐσόμεθα—future tense) certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his’ (NRSV). 354   Cf. Elliott 675–76; Schlosser 222–23.

288

1 PETER

resurrection brings the author back to the credal confession that he incorporated into v. 18. One indicator of such traditional credal material is the nominative relative pronoun ὅς, which appears in 1 Peter only at what are most probably places where such material is used (see on 2.22–24, the only other points in the letter where the nominative appears). The image of Christ’s exalted position ἐν δεξιᾷ θεοῦ is frequently mentioned in the NT (Acts 2.33; 7.55–56; Rom 8.34; Col 3.1; Heb 10.12; 12.2; cf. also 1 Clem. 36.5; Barn. 12.10). This phrase and image derive from Ps 109.1 LXX (κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου), a verse that was clearly influential on the NT writers and found to be of messianic significance (see esp. Matt 22.44//Mark 12.36//Luke 20.42–43; Acts 2.34–35; Heb 1.13).355 Rather than specify his being seated or standing in this position, the author merely states that Jesus resides (ἐστιν) there.356 The connection with the earlier credal material is particularly signalled by the participle πορευθείς (also in v. 19), which together with θανατωθείς and ζῳοποιηθείς forms a concise sequence encapsulating the narrative of Christ’s passion, resurrection, and ascension (see Introduction to 3.18–22). As we have seen, it is difficult to be sure—given the lack of explicit indication in the text—whether the journey depicted in v. 19 is a ‘descent’ of Christ (between death and resurrection), or rather a journey of ‘ascent’, but his final destination, indicated here, is arrived at through an ascension εἰς οὐρανόν, which culminates in his glorification and exaltation, and the subjection to him of all other powers (cf. 1 Cor 15.24–28; Eph 1.20–22 [see below]).357 This is described in a genitive absolute phrase, which draws on the language of Ps 8.7 (LXX), another text, like Ps 110.1 (LXX 109.1), that shapes these early christological formulations (see also 1 Cor 15.27; Eph 1.21;   Cf. also allusions to the phrase in Matt 26.64//Mark 14.62//Luke 22.69; Rom 8.34; 1 Cor 15.25; Eph 1.20; Col 3.1; Heb 1.3; 8.1; 10.12; 12.2. It is rare to find the text explicitly referenced or discussed in Jewish literature (see Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 508), though the image of an honoured or exalted figure sitting on a throne (to judge) is more common (see, e.g., Dan 7.9, 13; 1 En. 62.5 (‘that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory’); 69.29; 3 En. 10.1; T.Abr. A 13.2–4 (Abraham is ‘seated on the throne…to judge the entire creation’); Ezek. Trag. 68–89). 356   Some translations thus misconstrue the verse by rendering it as, ‘he sits at the right hand of God’ (CEV, NLT, LB). 357   On the parallels with 1 Cor 15.20–28, see Zeilinger, ‘Das “zweite Petrus­ bekenntnis” ’, 81–99. 355



3.18–22

289

esp. Heb 2.5–9). Just as early Christian references to Christ ‘at the right hand’ of God derive from Ps 110.1, so references to the subjection of all things to Christ derive from Ps 8.7.358 This scriptural background suggests that the participle is best taken in a passive (‘made subject to him’; cf. NRSV, ESV, NASB) rather than middle sense (‘in submission to him’; cf. NIV, NET, HCSB).359 This is clearly the sense in Ps 8.7 (LXX), where God (‫אדנינו יהוה‬/κύριε ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν [v. 2 MT/LXX]) is the one who acts: πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. God’s agency in subjecting all things to Christ is also clear in the other NT uses of this phrase (1 Cor 15.27; Eph 1.22). The use of ὑποτάσσω elsewhere in 1 Peter may imply a middle sense (‘subject yourselves’, or ‘be subject’: 2.13; 5.5; cf. 2.18; 3.1, 5), but these are addressed to humans whom the author hopes both can and will respond appropriately. Here the range of those being brought into subjection includes beings and powers hostile to God, such that the passive sense implying the agency of God is most likely.360 The words that the author employs to depict the range of beings and powers brought into subjection under Christ in some ways echo typical early Christian vocabulary, especially in the Pauline tradition (Rom 8.38; 1 Cor 15.24; Phil 2.9–11; cf. also Col 1.16).361 In particular, Eph 1.20–22 closely parallels this passage at a number of points:362

  Cf. Michaels 219.   While some commentators take ὑποταγέντων as middle (e.g., Michaels 219; Dubis 128), most understand it as passive (e.g., Kelly 164; Davids 129; Hiebert 251; Picirilli 185; Elliott 686–87; Keener 283). 360   Pace Dubis 128. 361   Cf. also Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1.3 (likely a Christian interpolation), where Hezekiah is handing over to his son Manasseh ‘the words of righteousness which the king himself had seen, and (the words concerning) the eternal judgments, and the torments of Gehenna, and the prince of this world, and his angels, and his authorities, and his powers…’ (trans. Knibb, OTP, who notes [p. 156 n. 1.g] that 1.2b–6a are likely a Christian interpolation). 362   On the parallels between 1 Peter and Ephesians, see further Seufert, ‘Verwandtschaftsverhältniss’, 178–97, 332–80; Mitton, ‘Relationship between 1 Peter and Ephesians’, 67–73. More recent scholarship has tended to argue against any literary connection (e.g., Shimada, ‘Is I Peter dependent on Ephesians?’, 77–106), but there seems a good deal to be said for some kind of intertextual relationship (see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 13–14; cf. also Introduction: Pauline Traditions). 358 359

290

1 PETER

Eph 1.20–22 ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν… ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις… ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος… καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ

1 Pet 3.22 διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν δεξιᾷ θεοῦ πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανὸν ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων.5

The similarities among these texts, and the triadic formulation of 1 Cor 15.24 (πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν) also indicates one distinctive (though not unique) feature of the triad in 1 Peter: the reference to angels. This has commonly been understood to strengthen the view that the πνεύματα of v. 19 are angelic beings,363 and thus that the author may be thinking particularly of demonic beings who are hostile or disobedient to God (cf. Luke 10.17–20; 2 Pet 2.4; Jude 6; Rev 12.7–9).364 Yet there is no reason to limit this reference to one group or another. If only evil angels are placed in subjection to Christ, then the passage raises more questions that it answers. Why do good angels not submit to him? Is his position not higher than theirs (cf. Heb 1.1–14)? As it is, by including all spiritual beings—both good and evil365—in this description, the author is able to emphasise the all-inclusive and universal nature of Christ’s dominion. More broadly, the reference to ‘angels, authorities, and powers’,366 as with the similar Pauline formulations noted above, indicates 363   So Elliott 688; Watson 93. However, Elliott perhaps over stresses the unique�ness of the reference to angels when he states that ‘the inclusion of angels within the triad of cosmic powers occurs only here in the NT and thus appears deliberate’ (688; original emphasis). Firstly, there is hardly an established or formulaic triadic phraseology, and, secondly, angels are included in a longer but comparable list in Rom 8.38–39. 364   As argued, e.g., by Kelly 164; Beare 176; Achtemeier 274; Donelson 115; Schreiner 225. On the opposite extreme, Lenski (174–75) claims that only good angels are in view. 365   Cf. Spicq 142–43; Osborne 232 (who acknowledges that both good and evil angels are in view, although the evil ones are emphasised). 366   Sometimes this list is thought to describe various orders or ranks of spiritual beings (see Clement of Alexandria, Adumbr. at 1 Pet 3.22). Bigg (166) suggests that the Petrine author may have intended ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων to be



3.18–22

291

something of the author’s (ancient) cosmology and also the cosmic scope that he attributes to God’s action in Christ. This cosmology is one in which the universe is populated with spiritual beings and powers, some of which oppose or rebel against God. Such beings are frequently referred to as πνεύματα or διαμόνια (e.g., Mark 3.11; Luke 10.17–20; 1 Cor 10.20–21) and may be associated with Satan—originally a member of the divine council (Job 1.6), seen as having ‘fallen’ from heaven (Luke 10.18)—the arch-opponent of God who comes to be labelled in various ways (cf., e.g., Mark 3.22–26; 2 Cor 4.4; Eph 2.2; Rev 12.9). Insofar as these are depicted as wielding power or authority they may be labelled as ἀρχαί, δυνάμεις, ἐξουσίαι, θρόνοι, κυριότητες etc. (cf., e.g., Rom 8.38; 1 Cor 15.24; Eph 1.21; 3.10; 6.12; Col 1.16). There has been much debate over the years about the precise identity of ‘the powers’ or ‘authorities’, particularly in relation to various Pauline texts (esp. Rom 13.1–7; 1 Cor 2.2–6; Col 2.15; Eph 6.12), where it is open to discussion whether these ἐξουσίαι and δυνάμεις are earthly, human rulers, or cosmic spiritual powers, or whether there is a direct connection between both earthly and spiritual powers.367 In 1 Peter—as indeed in Pauline texts such as Phil 2.9–11—it seems best to stress that the cosmic scope of God’s subjection of everything to Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15.25–28) encompasses both earthly rulers and spiritual powers. The former have clearly been in view in 2.13–17, while the latter are explicitly signalled here with the mention of ἀγγέλων, as well as by the reference to the devil in 5.8 (and possibly in 3.19, if the πνεύματα are angelic beings, not humans, though we gave reasons against this view above). Unlike some of the comparable Pauline phrases, the author here does not use πᾶς to stress the universal scope of Christ’s victory (1 Cor 15.24; Eph 1.21–22). However, there is no reason to doubt that he thinks of this victory as all-encompassing and universal. His emphasis merely falls more on the exalted position of Christ. grammatically subordinate to ἀγγέλων; hence, ‘with angels (both authorities and powers) being made subject to him’ (cf. Blenkin 83). In this way, he notes, the latter ‘probably mean the departments of nature over which the several angelic orders bear sway’ (166). However, there is no real evidence for this suggestion (see Huther 197). 367   See, e.g., Carr, ‘Rulers of This Age’, 20–35; idem, Angels and Principalities, for whom there is no clear sense of a battle against hostile spiritual powers in Paul and the NT. For a contrasting view, see Arnold, Powers of Darkness.

292

1 PETER

It is notable that this victory is depicted here as something already achieved, as in Eph 2.22 and Col 1.20; 2.15, whereas Paul and the writer of Hebrews portray this as a process that is yet to be brought to completion (1 Cor 15.24–28; Heb 2.8). This may in part reflect the influence of credal tradition, where the language of worship tends to express a more ‘realised’ perspective on salvific accomplishments.368 In spite of their present experiences, therefore, the Christians of Asia Minor are assured of Christ’s victory over those who at present seem to hold power—whether this be the governor who represents the emperor (2.14) or the spiritual powers, specifically the devil, that clearly threaten them (5.8–9). In this confident and all-embracing declaration of the enthronement of Christ, with all powers subjected to him, the author counterbalances the apparent realities of the readers’ experience—in which both earthly and spiritual powers clearly are still a vivid threat— with a heavenly perspective on the true balance of power and on the divine victory that is in process of being unveiled (cf. 1.5, 7; 2.12; 4.5, 17–19).369 Summary In this remarkable, unique, and difficult passage, the author weaves together credal material encapsulating the story of Christ from his death to his ascension into glory, ideas about the proclamation of Christ to the imprisoned spirits, and reflections on the parallels between the rescue of Noah and his family through water and the salvation of the letter’s Christian readers through the water of baptism. All of this culminates in a declaration of the subjection by God of hostile creatures and powers to Christ. The report of proclamation to the disobedient, imprisoned spirits—likely dead human beings, though possibly angelic spirits (see above)—and the depiction of the enthronement of Christ in glory serve to reveal a divine perspective on reality that stands in sharp contrast to what appear to be the earthly realities and current experiences for a small, unpopular, and harassed movement of   Cf. Schweizer, Letter to the Colossians, 86; Stettler, Der Kolosserhymnus, 342. 369   This may therefore be another indication of the broadly apocalyptic texture of the letter, on which see Webb, ‘Intertexture and Rhetorical Strategy’, 72–110. 368



3.18–22

293

messianists who suffer suspicion and criticism from those among whom they live. Their hope (cf. Rom 8.18–39) is placed in this counter-narrative, in which Christ turns out to be the victor, to whom all powers and enemies are subjugated by God. Such a hope is to some extent both an imitation of and a challenge to the narrative of imperial conquest, in which Rome’s vocation to rule, so memorably captured by Virgil, is ‘to pardon those who submit, and to subdue those who resist’ (parcere subjectiis et debellare superbos, Aen. 6.851–53). It is important to appreciate both the imitation and the challenge, when assessing how early Christian texts like 1 Peter relate to their imperial context.370 It is appealing to emphasise the ‘counterimperial’ opposition that declarations of Christ’s victory represent, not least as a way to encourage contemporary Christian resistance to modern political powers;371 but we should also appreciate the extent to which this challenge is presented, at least in part, by transposing onto Christ the same imperial achievements: subjugation of enemies, integration of many people under his rule, and so on. Recognising the latter part of the equation is important not only in helping us avoid an overly rosy interpretation of the NT’s ‘antiimperial’ stance but also in appreciating how these claims about the victory and enthronement of Christ led to the later depiction of Christ as παντοκράτωρ and also enabled future emperors precisely to rule as his earthly representative. Although it is implausible to see baptism as a major focus for the entire letter, as a previous generation of scholars proposed,372 the reference to baptism here is significant, not least the striking declaration that baptism ‘saves’ (3.21). One distinctive aspect is the typological parallel drawn with the rescue of Noah and his family through the water of the flood. Another is the description of baptism not as a means to cleanse or purify the body, but rather as a public pledge of commitment that baptisands make ‘in good faith’ to God. As such, and in the context of this particular narrative about Christ’s victorious exaltation, it has political as well as religious dimensions, 370   See the nuanced analysis of Maier, Picturing Paul in Empire; idem, ‘Colossians, Ephesians, and Empire’, 185–202. On the balance of imitation and challenge in 1 Peter, see further Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 271–73. 371   Cf., e.g., Horsley, Jesus and Empire. 372   See Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure.

294

1 PETER

not that the two can be cogently separated in the ancient context. It is the act by which people pledge their allegiance to the way of life that following Christ entails, a way that may require bearing reproach and suffering for the name of Christ, as the following chapter will go on to show (see esp. 4.12–16). Although it is implausible to see a directly intended parallel between circumcision and baptism here, there is a parallel to the extent that both function as identity-markers, indicating the people-group to which someone belongs and the commitment to a way of life that exhibits that group-identity.373

  On this point, see further Horrell, Ethnicity and Inclusion, 155–77.

373

E X H O RTAT IO N TO K E E P AWAY F RO M SIN A N D A PA S T WAY OF LI FE, F O R JU D G ME N T WIL L COME (4.1–6)

Initial Bibliography Ivan T. Blazen, ‘Suffering and Cessation from Sin according to 1 Peter 4:1’, AUSS 21 (1983): 27–50; Jon Chillinsky, ‘An Examination of 1 Peter 4:1–6’, Pittsburgh Theological Journal 7 (2016): 44–69; Heinz Giesen, ‘Christi Leiden – Voraussetzung und Bedingung christlichen Lebens und Heils auch für Verstorbene (1 Petr 4, 1–6)’, SNTSU 25 (2000): 176–218; David G. Horrell, ‘Who are “the Dead” and When was the Gospel Preached to Them? The Interpretation of 1 Peter 4.6’, NTS 49 (2003): 70–89, revised and expanded in idem, Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Chris�tian Identity, LNTS 394 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 73–99; Paul-Gerhard Klumbies, ‘Die Verkündigung unter Geistern und Toten nach 1Petr 3,19f. und 4,6’, ZNW 92 (2001): 207–28; Matthew R. Malcolm, ‘Governing Imagery and the Translation of the Words philadelphia and anachusis in 1 Peter 1.22 and 4.4’, BT (2019): 9–15; Angelika Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium: Studien zur Komposition, Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes, BBET 22 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989); Günter Röhser, ‘Sünde und “Sündlosigkeit” im 1. Petrusbrief und vergleichbaren Texten’, in Ethos und Theologie im Neuen Testament. Festschrift für Michael Wolter, ed. Jochen Flebbe and Matthias Konradt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2016), 391–414; Eduard Schweizer, ‘1 Petrus 4.6’, TZ 8 (1952): 152–54; E. A. Sieffert, ‘Die Heilsbedeutung des Leidens und Sterbens Christi nach dem ersten Brief des Petrus’, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie 20 (1875): 371–440; August Strobel, ‘Macht Leiden von Sünde frei? Zur Problematik von 1. Petr. 4,1f’, TZ 19 (1963): 412–25.

Text 1

Χριστοῦ(a) οὖν παθόντος(b) σαρκὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε,, ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ(c) πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας(d) 2 εἰς τὸ ὁπλίσασθε μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις ἀλλὰ θελήματι θεοῦ τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρόνον. χρόνον. 3 ἀρκετὸς γὰρ(e) ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος(f) (g) τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι(h) πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις,, ἐπιθυμίαις ἀσελγείαις ἐπιθυμίαις,, οἰνοφλυγίαις οἰνοφλυγίαις,, κώμοις κώμοις,, πότοις καὶ

296

1 PETER

ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις. εἰδωλολατρίαις. 4 ἐν ᾧ ξενίζονται μὴ συντρεχόντων ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς ἀσωτίας ἀνάχυσιν βλασφημοῦντες(i), 5 οἳ ἀποδώσουσιν λόγον τῷ ἑτοίμως κρίνοντι(j) ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.. 6 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, νεκρούς εὐηγγελίσθη, ἵνα κριθῶσιν μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκὶ, σαρκὶ,(k) ζῶσιν δὲ κατὰ θεὸν πνεύματι. πνεύματι.

(a) Alongside this verse, P72 includes another of its marginal summaries: περὶ χρυ πάθος ἐν σαρκί. (b) At this point, the majority of witnesses include the prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (‫א‬2, A, P, 5, 33, 81, 307, 436, 442, 642, 1448, 1611, 1735, 2344, 2492, Byz, syh, Cyril), which later became the reading of the TR and Majority Text (cf. also Griesbach). A few texts insert ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (‫[ *א‬ἀποθάνοντος], 049c, 61, 69, 1505, 1845, pc). Building on the strength of the textual record, Selwyn argues that the former was omitted early in the transmission process, ‘partly because the vicarious element of Christ’s sufferings was one which was felt to be beyond the scope of believer’s imitation, partly because… there was felt to be a discontinuity between ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν and ὑμεῖς immediately following’ (208; cf. Bloomfield 720; Hofmann 143; Stibbs–Walls 148). However, this reading, along with the other variant with ὑμῶν, is hampered by internal difficulties. First, these fuller readings are consistent with the tendency of scribes—evident throughout the textual record of 1 Peter—to make explicit that theologically pregnant ideas apply to believers, specifically those associated with confessional language (cf. Monnier 189 n. 1; Spicq 142; Donelson 118 n. b; see further Text at 2.24 n. j). Second, if the variant readings had been original, ‘no adequate reason can account for the absence of the prepositional phrase from the best representatives of both the Alexandrian and the Western types of text’ (Metzger, TCGNT, 624). These considerations, alongside the solid external support (P72, B, C, Ψ, 323, 1243, 1739, 1881, etc.), seem to tip the scales in favour of the shorter reading (cf. Achtemeier 275 n. 1; Kelly 165). (c) The majority of ancient MSS (including K, P, 2492) contain the preposition ἐν before σαρκί (cf. TR and Robinson-Pierpont). Yet, the strength of the external evidence is clearly on the side of its omission (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, C, etc.). The addition of ἐν is best explained as an attempt by early scribes to differentiate the subjects of 1 Pet 4.1a and 4.1b. By separating Christ who ‘suffered in the flesh’ (σαρκί, v. 1a) from the indefinite individual who ‘suffers in the flesh’ ([ἐν] σαρκί, v. 1b), the copyists could avoid implying that Christ was sinful (cf. Huther 199; Michaels 223 n. b). (d) Some MSS (‫א‬2, B, Ψ, 398, 1837) read the dative plural (ἁμαρτίαις) in place of the genitive singular (ἁμαρτίας), while others insert ἀπό before ἁμαρτίας (e.g., 049, 0142, 1881, pc). The case could be made that ἁμαρτίας replaced ἁμαρτίαις in conformity with the more common construction of παύω + genitive, a claim made by a few earlier commentators (e.g., Bloomfield 720; Johnston xix; Hart 70). But this would raise the question of why the genitive plural was not employed. Moreover, if ἁμαρτίαις were



4.1–6

297

original, then we are left to explain the rise of ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας, which would be difficult. Given the strength of the external evidence in favour of the genitive (P72, ‫*א‬, A, C, 1739, 2492, Byz), combined with the explanatory merit of this reading (viz. its ability to account for the addition of ἀπό), it appears that ἁμαρτίας was most likely part of the initial text. The dative ἁμαρτίαις, then, is ‘a probable assimilation to the following [ἐπιθυμίαις] (a concretization of “sinning”)’ (Elliott 715 n. 434). (e) There is a slight variation at this point in the textual record, with some witnesses adding ἡμῖν (C, P, 5, 307, 442, 1448, 2492, Byzpt) and others ὑμῖν (1175 ,*‫א‬, Byzpt bo Augpt). On internal grounds, one could make the case that ἡμῖν best explains the rise of each of the other readings. If it were original, then it is understandable that the first personal plural pronoun would have been either changed to the second person (ὑμῖν) or simply omitted altogether due to the fact that ancient copyists would have been hesitant to include the apostle Peter among those who used to commit the types of sinful activities delineated in this passage (see Bloomfield 720; cf. Steiger 2:253–54). On external grounds, however, the shorter reading is much more likely than the alternative readings (P72, ‫א‬2, A, B, Ψ, 33, 81, 323, 1739, 1881, latt, arm, syrph, sa, geo). The additions could be accounted for as another attempt to personalise and apply the message of 1 Peter to the readers (as suggested by Huther 199). (f) A secondary addition, τοῦ βιοῦ (hence, ‘time of [your] life’), is provided by a number of later MSS (K, L, P, 049, 307, 442, 642, 1448, 1611, 1735, 2492, Byzpt). This insertion may clarify the fact that the author is ‘referring to the behaviour of individuals before their conversion, not to the state of the world before the coming of Christ’ (Michaels 223–24 n. d), or it may have been ‘prompted by the foregoing verb [βιῶσαι]’, being ‘intended to explicate further the relation of vv 2 and 3’ (Elliott 720 n. 448). (g) In place of the much more solidly attested βούλημα (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, C, Ψ, etc.), many later MSS read θέλημα (P, 442, 1448, 1611, 2492, Byz). This change represents an attempt to conform the text to the author’s consistent use of θέλημα to refer to ‘will’ or ‘intention’ (see 1 Pet 2.15; 3.17; 4.2, 19). (h) The aorist infinitive (κατεργάσασθαι) is attested in some later Greek MSS (Ψ, 307, 442, 1448, 1611, 2344, 2492, Byz) and has been adopted by a few interpreters (e.g., Bloomfield 720). However, given the fact that the aorist is the prevailing form of the verb in the NT (Rom 15.18; 1 Cor 5.3; Eph 6.13; etc.), this could reflect an instinct to conform to that general tendency (so, e.g., Huther 199; Kühl 251), especially considering that the perfect (κατειργάσθαι) is well-supported here (P72, A, B, 81, 1739, pc). The following participle appears in the present tense form in ‫ א‬and a few minuscules and Coptic versions (see ECM 172), but the perfect form is clearly to be preferred (and could have easily dropped out through haplography). (i) Due to the syntactical difficulty created by the participle (see Exegesis at 3.4), some texts exchange βλασφημοῦντες for a finite verb and a copulative: καὶ βλασφημοῦσιν (‫*א‬, C*, 81, 1175, 1243, 1739, 1852, pc). In one

298

1 PETER

instance, only the copulative is added: καὶ βλασφημοῦντες (K). Stylistically, these alterations work to smooth out the syntax (cf. Spicq 146; Beare 181; Goppelt 287 n. 49), but they also reveal how the verse was read by ancient interpreters. Contrary to some modern scholars who connect βλασφημοῦντες with what follows and view it as a reproach towards God (e.g., Michaels 224 n. f, 233–34; Achtemeier 275), these scribes understood the ‘reviling’ as the denunciation of the Christians’ new lifestyle which flowed from the disassociation described in v. 4a. (j) The textual record at this point contains variation. There is some support for the reading ἑτοίμως κρίνοντι, ‘the one who readily judges’ (B, C*, [Ψ], 1448, 1852, along with a few other minuscules, see ECM 174), while there is slightly less for ἑτοίμως κρῖναι, ‘(the one who is) ready to judge’ (P72, 945, 1241, 1739, 1881). The former indicates God’s keen inclination to enact judgment, while the latter suggests that God is willing and ready to do so, perhaps in light of ‘the opportunities which He has afforded to all and their consequent responsibility in accepting or rejecting His message’ (Blenkin 93–94). The strongest external attestation is afforded to ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι, ‘the one who is ready to judge’ (‫א‬, A, C2, Byz). It is possible to suggest that scribes altered this reading due to a misunderstanding of the idiom ἑτοίμως + ἔχειν (with Michaels 224 n. g), though this seems unlikely given that it was not an altogether uncommon construction (e.g., Dan 3.15; Philo, Sacr. 63; Josephus, Ant. 3.48; 7.27; et al). A strong case can be made that ἑτοίμως κρίνοντι is the lectio difficilior (see Johnstone xix), in that nowhere else is this adverbial form used to describe how God judges, although the related adjective (ἕτοιμος) commonly portrays a readiness to render a verdict, whether the judge be God (Origen, Fr. Ps. 92 1,2; Julian, Commentarius in Job p. 114 [Hagedorn]) or a secular figure (Thucydides, Hist. 4.122.4; Demosthenes, [Dionys.] 16; Diodorus Siculus 19.51.4; John Chrysostom, Hom. Act. [PG 60:355]). One could argue, therefore, that ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι and ἑτοίμως κρῖναι represent later alterations intended to conform the language to a more popular idiom (cf. Masterman 142–43; Blenkin 93; Hart 72); they also shift the focus somewhat more towards the (eschatological and decisive) act of judgment, rather than the readiness to judge which characterises God. For these reasons, the shorter reading, ἑτοίμως κρίνοντι (listed as an alternative reading in the first edition of ECM [174], though not the second), has a good claim to be preferred. It is hard to see how and why this reading would have emerged, if the other main options had been original, but easier to see why this original phrase would have been clarified and expanded, for both syntactical and theological reasons. (k) At this point, P72 has another marginal summary, περὶ σαρκός, though this hardly offers an illuminating indication of the themes of this and the following verse (the next such marginal note appearing at v. 8).



4.1–6

299

Introduction Direct exhortation resumes in these verses, picking up the previous reference to Christ’s suffering from 3.18 but using this as a particular motivation for the readers to confirm and continue their own turn from sin, and specifically from the way of life that characterised their past. That past life is depicted here (as ‘what the Gentiles like to do’, v. 3) in a negative and stereotypical way. These verses provide one of the key internal indications that the author’s envisaged audience is predominantly Gentile, or at least, is portrayed as such (see Introduction: Ethno-Religious Identity). Their turn away from this lifestyle is said to be a cause of both surprise and hostility on the part of their contemporaries; nevertheless, the readers are encouraged with a declaration that these opponents will have to give an account to God in the final eschatological judgment, which is close on the horizon (see on v. 5). However, this is not just a fearful prospect for opponents and unbelievers, but for all people, as 1.17 has already made clear (cf. also 4.17–19). Indeed, the formulaic phrase about God’s readiness to judge ‘the living and the dead’—indicating that the judgment is all-encompassing in its scope—induces a further remark about the proclamation of the good news ‘even to the dead’ (v. 6). This final verse probably offers an explanation for how God can justly judge both living and dead, but it is among the most notoriously enigmatic and disputed verses in the letter, if not the NT, along with 3.19–20, with which it has often been linked. Taken together, 4.1–6 and 4.7–11, which draw this major section of the letter to a close, reflect again the two-way orientation of the author’s compact exhortation at 2.11–12: there is first a ‘negative’ exhortation (2.11; 4.1–6) to turn away from past ways of wickedness and sinful desires, followed by a positive exhortation to do good and to live a holy life (2.12; 4.1–7). A notable difference in this latter exhortation is that 2.12 depicts this ‘doing good’ in terms of its visibility ‘among the Gentiles’, whereas the instruction of 4.7–11 is focused on the internal relationships of the Christian community. Yet this two-way exhortation captures a key pattern in the author’s message, already encapsulated in nuce in the opening designation of the addressees as both ‘exiles’ (παρεπίδημοι) and at the same time ‘called’ (ἐκλεκτοί, 1.1; cf. 1.14–15; 2.1–2).

300

1 PETER

Exegesis 1 Χρισοῦ οὖν παθόντος σαρκὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε The οὖν with which this verse begins is clearly resumptive, most likely relating back to the suffering of Christ mentioned in 3.18.1 But, as Dubis points out, the particle does not simply resume a previous line of thought, ‘it also introduces an inference from the material in the digression’.2 The inferential nature of this verse is further emphasised by the genitive absolute construction (Χριστοῦ… παθόντος), which functions causally (‘since Christ suffered’; cf. NIV, ESV, NRSV, HCSB, NAB).3 In this way, Christ’s suffering is presented not simply as a model for the readers to follow but also as the motivation to adopt a particular mindset.4 This suffering, the readers were just informed, may have led to a grim conclusion; however, Christ was vindicated thereafter, receiving heavenly exaltation and glory. For early Christian scribes, this ‘suffering’ was taken to be focused on (or perhaps even limited to) the crucifixion of Jesus, as indicated by the inclusion of the prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν/ὑμῶν (see Text at 4.1 n. b). Nonetheless, the author does not limit the referent to this one act of suffering;5 instead, he includes all the ways that Christ suffered during his lifetime, especially leading up to his trial and execution (cf. 2.21–24). As elsewhere in the letter, the use of the term πάσχω, which commonly refers to the experience of pain and distress   As suggested, e.g., by Benson 264; Huther 201; Beare 178; Schelkle 114; Jobes 262; Feldmeier 212; Schlosser 233–34. According to Völter (‘Bemerkungen zu I. Pe 3 und 4’, 75), the verse picks up the thought of 3.17. But the linguistic similarities between 4.1 and 3.18 weigh against this suggestion. 2   Dubis 129. Cf. also van Rensburg, ‘Intersentence Relational Particles’, 297; Witherington 194. 3   Cf. von Soden 159; Monnier 190; Knopf 160; Green 119 n. 129; Osborne 233. On the various adverbial functions of the ‘genitive absolute’ construction, see Young, New Testament Greek, 159; Fuller, ‘The “Genitive Absolute” ’, 142–67 (with 1 Pet 4.1 discussed at 162). 4   It is the vindication following suffering, as described in 3.19–22, that adds extra motivation to this example (pace Michaels 225, who argues that ‘Peter is now drawing a conclusion from 3:18–22, yet the conclusion is based not on the whole passage but solely on 3:18’; cf. Hiebert 255). 5   The idea that παθόντος refers to the death of Christ is common among interpreters (see, e.g., Boring 143). 1



4.1–6

301

threatening his readers (cf. 2.19–20; 3.14, 17; 4.15, 19; 5.10), ‘permits an easier transference to the suffering of Christians’.6 This idea is taken up in the second half of the verse. It is also noteworthy that this suffering has some relation to σάρξ. The same connection is made with the readers’ suffering in the next phrase, which marks out their experience as parallel with that of Christ. Nevertheless, the mention of σάρξ is not required in either case, and thus it must provide a particular perspective on this situation. Occasionally, σαρκί is rendered as a dative of reference/ respect (‘with reference to the flesh’),7 indicating the nature of the suffering experienced by Christ. It involved physical mistreatment,8 a fact that distinguishes it from the torments that might await some in the afterlife (see, e.g., Matt 5.29–30; Luke 16.23). Such a qualification, it could be argued, would be consistent with similar types of material–spiritual distinctions in early Christian literature (cf. Matt 10.28). A slightly different alternative is to interpret the form as denoting sphere (‘in the fleshly realm’), with σάρξ representing the location or realm in which the suffering occurred (cf. CEV: ‘Christ suffered here on earth’).9 Admittedly, the difference between the two interpretations is minimal;10 but the use of the same term in the immediate context (cf. 3.18; 4.2) lends some support to the latter proposal. As a way of further connecting the situation of Christ to that of the readers, the author frontloads the sentence with an adverbial καί and an emphatic personal pronoun (ὑμεῖς). The effect is to emphasise the applicability of Christ’s suffering to his followers.   Best 150.   Cf. Keil 142–43; Mason 424; Huther 201; Elliott 712; Dubis 129; see also Le Roux, Ethics in 1 Peter, 233. This seems to be the meaning intended by Lenski (177) when he describes σαρκί as a dative of means. 8   Some translations seek to capture this notion by rendering the clause, ‘Christ suffered physically’ (CJB, GW, GNT, Phillips, NLT). Based on this understanding, Mitchell took the presence of σάρξ to diagnose the type of persecution threatening the readers, namely, physical mistreatment. He notes, ‘The bodily suffering of Christ is remembered because the writer knows that it is bodily suffering that is threatening his friends’ (271). This is probably an over-interpretation, however. 9   So, e.g., Vahrenhorst 166; Wallace, Grammar, 155. Cf. Moule, Idiom Book, 44, who describes the second use of σαρκί in this verse as a ‘metaphorically local’ use. 10   Cf. Forbes 135. 6 7

302

1 PETER

Based on the suffering of Christ, the readers are instructed to ‘arm’ themselves (ὁπλίσασθε—middle voice11) with the same ἔννοια.12 The verb ὁπλίζω, which is a NT hapax,13 was commonly used to describe the making of necessary preparations, such as the readying of ships (Homer, Od. 17.288) or the provisions for a meal (Euripides, Ion. 852). It is frequently found in connection with military activities.14 Here it is employed metaphorically to denote the adoption of certain emotional or spiritual qualities.15 Nevertheless, associations with warfare imagery are not completely excluded (cf. Pol. Phil. 4.1: ὁπλισώμεθα τοῖς ὅπλοις τῆς δικαιοσύνης; see also Eph 6.11–17).16 What exactly this preparation entails and how 11   The verb is understood as a passive by some (e.g., Schertz, ‘Nonretaliation and the Haustafeln’, 278). 12   The use of the aorist tense (ὁπλίσασθε) need not imply that ‘rather than an act to be repeated, i.e., putting armor on and off, such arming is to be a permanent state, once it is undertaken’ (Achtemeier 277 n. 19). On this grammatical fallacy, see Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 68–73. 13   A prefixed form (καθοπλίζω) appears in Luke 11.21: ὅταν ὁ ἰσχυρὸς καθωπλισμένος φυλάσσῃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν (‘when a strong person, fullyarmed, guards his palace’). Likewise, the nominal form (ὅπλον, ‘weapon’, ‘tool’) is found on occasion (see John 18.3; Rom 6.13bis; 13.12; 2 Cor 6.7; 10.14). 14   See TDNT 5:294–95. Despite the military connection, it is tenuous to think that the author chose this particular term because of the Roman military presence across Asia Minor (pace Tàrrech, ‘Le milieu’, 361). This type of language was common enough to be understood by a broad audience, regardless of whether they had direct experience of Roman soldiers. Furthermore, military preparation was not the only form of readiness that could be described by this term. 15   Cf. Sophocles, El. 995–996: θράσος αὐτή θ’ ὁπλίζῃ (‘you arm yourself with arrogance’); Sib. Or. 5.341: κακὴν ἔριν ὁπλισθέντες (‘armed with bitter strife’); Josephus, War 3.204: τὴν κοινὴν τῆς πόλεως ἀπόγνωσιν ὁπλισάμενος (‘arming himself with the common despair of the citizens’). Based on examples like these, some have claimed that ὁπλίζω + accusative was employed when the author intended the verb to be used in a figurative sense (Knopf 160; cf. Kühl 246). But even though ὁπλίζω + dative regularly describes the weapon (Euripides, Andr. 1118; Xenophon, Mem. 3.5.27; Diodorus Siculus 3.24.4; Strabo, Geogr. 15.3.19) or material with which someone was armed (Herodotus, Hist. 2.152.4; Lysias, Epitaphius 4), the accusative can function in much the same way, representing individuals who are armed (Herodotus, Hist. 2.163.1; Xenophon, Hell. 1.1.24; Lysias, In Philonem 16; Menander, Perik. 390) or the weapons they employ (Josephus, Ant. 9.221). Further, the dative occasionally denotes the state of mind with which someone is armed: ὡπλισμένην τῇ σωφροσύνῃ (Libanius, Epistle 636). 16   Other NT texts employ similar military terminology (e.g., Rom 13.12; 1 Thess 5.8; Eph 6.11).



4.1–6

303

we should define ἔννοια depends on the interpretation of the muchdisputed clause that follows. ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας While it is clear that v. 1a encourages the readers to adopt the mindset of Christ as they attempt to negotiate their conflict situation, the remainder of the verse is marked by a number of inter-related exegetical problems that make the author’s intention difficult to discern.17 The first interpretative hurdle involves diagnosing the function of ὅτι. Most scholars construe the conjunction with the imperative ὁπλίσασθε and attribute to it a causal force (‘because’, cf. NIV, NASB, NET).18 In this case, it would denote the reason why believers should arm themselves with the same mindset as Christ. To justify this reading, appeal is made to the meaning of the term ἔννοια. In the classical period, this word could describe a plan of action reached through mental processes, ‘purpose’, or the mental resolve (or commitment) towards that action, ‘intent’ (Euripides, Hel. 1026; Hipp. 1027; Isaeus 1.13).19 This sense persisted into the Koine period as well, although it was not very common.20 It is this meaning that most interpreters assign to ἔννοια in v. 1.21 In contrast, a growing number of scholars take the conjunction epexegetically (‘that is’, ‘namely’, cf. NJB, Moffatt, Mounce), 17   Due to the difficulties presented in the second half of this verse, Reiche (Commentarius Criticus, 269 n. 1) questioned its authenticity altogether, but there is no need to go to such extreme interpretative lengths to resolve these issues. 18   So, e.g., Alford 371; Beare 153; Michaels 225; Goppelt 279–80; Brox 191–92; Black 110; Elliott 714; Donelson 120; Dubis 130; Osborne 234; Forbes 135–36; Schreiner 227. A slightly distinct alternative is to take ὅτι in an explanatory sense (‘for’; cf. NAB, NRSV), in which case v. 1b ‘explains or teases out in a quasi-parenthetical manner the rationale implicit in the exhortation to take on Christ’s way of thinking’ (Senior 113). 19   Cf. LSJ 570; TDNT 4:968–71. 20   See P.Dion. 9; Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 20.9(10).3; Diogn. 8.9. It also appears in formulaic expressions, such as the construction δι᾿ ἐννοίας + ἔχω common in Josephus (cf. Ant. 3.307; 12.60; 15.165; 16.89, 179; Life 227, 282). For a fuller discussion, see Blazen, ‘Suffering and Cessation’, 30–34. 21   So, e.g., Demarest 206; Alford 371; Usteri 166; Johnstone 303. Others have proposed a variation of this view, claiming that ἔννοια denotes resolve (see Macknight 488; Michaels 225; cf. Decock, ‘Towards Maturity’, 1); thus, believers are encouraged to maintain a steadfast determination that they will suffer (even to death) just like Christ.

304

1 PETER

allowing it to explain or specify the content of ἔννοια.22 Thus, the ἔννοια that believers are expected to adopt, which also characterised Christ’s way of thinking (τὴν αὐτήν), was the notion that ‘the one who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin(ning)’ (v. 1b). The fact that ἔννοια is used elsewhere in connection with a ὅτι-recitativum is commonly mentioned in support of this interpretation.23 An example is found in the writings of Philo, which states, For which reason it is fitting that a righteous judge should have it even concealed from him who the parties to the suit are, and that he should look at the undisguised, simple nature of the transactions themselves; so as not to be liable to judge in accordance with random opinion, but according to real truth, and to be guided by such an opinion (ἔννοιαν) as this, namely, that (ὅτι) judgment is of God’ (Spec. 4.71; trans. Yonge; cf. also Praem. 42; Fug. 99).

A decision based simply on the evidence set forth in the relevant literature to this point would be difficult, as neither side has provided much that could be considered firm support. But upon closer inspection, both lexical and syntactical considerations seem to favour an epexegetical reading. To strengthen the grammatical argument made by some advocates, it is important to draw attention to the consistency in this usage. Elsewhere in Greek literature, when a ὅτι-clause follows in close proximity after ἔννοια, it (almost) invariably functions epexegetically, further delineating the content of the thought or perception.24 This consideration places the 22   This view was held by some earlier interpreters (e.g., Calvin 121; Beza 579; Gerhard 534–35; Hofmann 144; Wiesinger 262; Schott 257; Monnier 191; Hart 70), and it has begun to gain popularity in more recent discussion (see, e.g., Davids 147; Achtemeier 278; Prigent 111; Jobes 263; Schlosser 234; Watson 96; Wagner–Vouga 130; cf. Hwang, ‘Participation in Christ’s Suffering’, 137). Opponents have claimed that such an interpretation would require ταύτην ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε, ὅτι… (see Steiger 2:250; Alford 371), but the current construction is perfectly capable of communicating the same meaning. 23   Cf. Achtemeier 278; Jobes 263. 24   E.g., Plato, Leg. 657a; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1171b; Archimedes, Ad Eratosthenem methodus vol. 3, p. 92 (Mugler); Polybius, Hist. 23.10.4; Philo, Praem. 42; Spec. 4.71; Fug. 99; Strabo, Geogr. 1.1.20; Plutarch, Aem. 34.2; Cat. Maj. 2.1; Justin Martyr, 2 Apol. 5.1; Cassius Dio 52.31.8; Sextus Empiricus, Math. 8.90; Hermogenes, Περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου 1.11; Alexander of Aphrodisias, Comm. Sens. p.



4.1–6

305

burden of proof on those who would seek to interpret the conjunction otherwise. Furthermore, it is important to note that while ἔννοια can describe intentionality or purpose (see above), in the vast majority of instances it refers simply to that which takes place in the mind, the content or conclusion reached through mental processing. In this way, it can describe the product of mental processes, ‘thought’ or ‘conception’ (Wis 2.14; Philo, Opif. 36; T.Reu. 4.8; T.Zeb. 1.4; T.Jos. 9.2; Aristob. 2.3), or even the place where mental processes occur, ‘mind’ (T.Reu. 4.11). As an offshoot of this meaning, it can also refer to the accurate comprehension of thoughts, ‘understanding’ (Prov 4.1; 5.2; 8.12; 16.22; 18.15; 24.7; Philo, Opif. 49).25 The frequency with which this usage appears, combined with the established meaning of the present construction, thus leads us to assign an epexegetical function to ὅτι. In other words, ἔννοια denotes a ‘thought’ or ‘understanding’ that requires delineation through the ὅτι-clause, meaning that the statement ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας reflects Christ’s own way of thinking, a principle that informed his readiness to suffer, according to the author.

11 (Wendland); Origen, Cels. 3.40; 8.62; Porphyr, Contra Christianos (frag.) 77 (Harnack); Iamblichus, Theologoumena arithmeticae, p. 49 (de Falco); Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν p. 438 (Russell-Wilson); Zosimus, Ζωσίμου τοῦ θείου περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ ἑρμηνείας (e cod. Paris. B.N. gr. 2327, fol. 168v) vol. 2, p. 123 (Bertholt-Ruelle). A search of TLG (through ca. fifth century CE) turned up only two examples of a causal function for this construction, and in each case, there are important contextual factors that distinguished the usage from that in 1 Pet 4.1. One appears in Josephus, where ἔννοια takes on the meaning somewhat close to ‘good will’, which excludes the content of thought: καὶ παρέστησεν ἅπασιν ἔννοιαν λαβεῖν, ὅτι τῆς βασιλείας ἧς εἶχεν πολὺ μείζω καὶ λαμπρότερα κατὰ τὰς ὑπουργίας ἐπεδείκνυτο (Ant. 15.200). In the other occurrence, the content of ἔννοια is already understood: καὶ ὅλως πολλὰ τοιαῦτα λάβοις ἂν ἐκ τοῦ Κυνηγετικοῦ παραδείγματα, ἐν ᾧ δὴ καὶ φύσει τὸ κατ’ ἔννοιαν ἔχον τὴν ἡδονήν· καὶ κατ’ ἄλλα μὲν γάρ, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἔννοιαν καὶ μᾶλλον, ὅτι φύσει τὸ πρᾶγμα ἡδὺ τὸ τῆς θήρας καὶ τῇ ὄψει (Hermogenes, Περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου 2.4). 25   While most interpreters understand ἔννοια as describing the intention or desire of Christ, there are some who have adopted the meaning ‘thought’ or ‘understanding’ in 1 Pet 4.1 (e.g., Wiesinger 262–63; Schott 256; Huther 201; Grudem 166; Perkins 67; Donelson 118, 120; cf. Sieffert, ‘Die Heilsbedeutung’, 421).

306

1 PETER

The ‘thought’ or ‘understanding’ that the author attributes to Christ is focused on the connection between suffering and sin. How the Petrine author construes the relationship between these important realities depends on the referent behind ὁ παθὼν σαρκί and the meaning of the clause πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας. While most take the participle in an indefinite sense (‘whoever has suffered’, cf. ESV, CEB, GNT, NIV), thus serving as a generic designation of believers, there are a few who read the form as definite (‘the one who has suffered’, cf. NET, HCSB, NASB), referring more specifically to Christ. The importance of this question lies in the fact that it dictates the meaning assigned to the phrase πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας (and vice versa). As discussed previously, the Petrine author portrayed Christ as sinless (2.22), which limits how the last half of v. 1 can be construed. One certainly could not make Christ the referent and then consider him to have ceased from sinful activity. Likewise, if πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας must be taken as the cessation of an act in progress, then it would be difficult to identify the one who suffered with Christ. With this caveat in mind, we will turn to the case for and against Christ as the referent of ὁ παθὼν σαρκί. Here we will interact especially with the arguments set forward by Michaels, who has discussed this issue in some detail.26 He provides two claims to support the identification of Christ as the ‘one who suffered in the flesh’. First, Michaels maintains that this view provides a specific antecedent with clear parallelism (Χριστοῦ… παθόντος σαρκί [v. 1a]; ὁ παθὼν σαρκί [v. 1b]), which is thought to be lacking with a more generic referent. But one could just as easily note a parallelism between Christ (who suffered in the flesh) and the Christian (who suffers in the flesh). In the end, however, there does not seem to be a need to establish any kind of parallel in this instance. As such, the argument proves very little.

26   Michaels 226–29. Others have held this view as well (e.g., Fronmüller 73; Schrage 110; Davids 149; Richard 167–68; Skaggs 55; cf. also Strobel, ‘Macht Leiden von Sünde frei?’, 412–25; Thurén, Argument and Theology, 166; Giesen, ‘Christi Leiden’, 458–64), including some early church fathers (see Bray 111–12). Some, seeking to overcome the difficulties inherent in each position, apply the designation both to Christ and to believers (so, e.g., Boring 143; Green 135; Donelson 120; Watson 96; cf. Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 197; for a critique of this position, see Schlosser 240).



4.1–6

307

The second claim made by Michaels is that this interpretation better explains the function of the aorist participle in connection with the perfect indicative as gnomic. If ὁ παθὼν σαρκί is taken as indefinite, then the participle must be understood in a generic sense while the verb πέπαυται must be read as gnomic, both of which are rare.27 This argument is much stronger than the first and must be given due consideration. Nevertheless, it is far from determinative. While the syntactical functions that are necessary to support a generic referent for ὁ παθὼν σαρκί are admittedly uncommon, neither is so rare as to put the matter outside the realm of possibility.28 In fact, when compared with the grammatical problems surrounding the opposite position, this actually represents a very minor hurdle. Where the matter is truly settled is the meaning of the phrase πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας. This construction, as Michaels recognises, presents the most significant obstacle to interpreting ὁ παθὼν σαρκί as a reference to Christ.29 Since, according to the Petrine author, Christ ‘did not sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth’ (1 Pet 2.22), it cannot be taken to mean, ‘cease from sinning’. In order to avoid this difficulty, Michaels (following a proposal by Strobel) suggests that ‘in Greek usage the verb παύεσθαι could imply contrast not only to one’s own previous activity or behaviour, but to a whole sphere of reality in which one had previously existed and by which one had been affected’.30 The evidence used by Michaels (following

  Michaels 226; cf. also Kelly 167; Richard 167.   Related to the referent of an aorist substantival participle, Boyer goes so far as to claim that ‘the identification seems always to be specific, not general’ (‘Classification of Participles’, 166). Yet, such an all-encompassing assertion extends beyond the evidence, as plenty of examples could be listed where an aorist substantival participle takes on a generic referent (e.g., Matt 10.39; Heb 9.17; Jas 5.20; see further Wallace, Grammar, 615 n. 8). What is more, although the gnomic use of the perfect indicative is rare (BDF §344), it is still possible, especially with a generic subject (cf. Rom 14.23; Jas 2.10; 1 John 2.5). As such, the grammatical forms do not negate the possibility that ὁ παθὼν σαρκί could have a generic referent. 29   Another objection that is sometimes raised against this position is based on discourse analysis: since the author has already moved from the christological section (3.18–22) to the hortatory section (4.1–19), the most likely focus is the readers, not Christ (see Jobes 263–64). 30   Michaels 227, following Strobel, ‘Macht Leiden von Sünde frei?’, 424. 27 28

308

1 PETER

Strobel) to support this claim is somewhat tenuous;31 nonetheless, this meaning is validated by other ancient sources (see below). This evidence notwithstanding, Michaels’ defence proves to be uncompelling based on two important considerations. The first is the specific sense generated by παύω + ἁμαρτίας. Normally, one might have expected the cessation of an activity or behaviour in progress (i.e., ‘ceased from sinning’) to have been communicated through παύω + participle/infinitive,32 rather than a genitive modifier. The idiom ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτιών/(τοῦ) ἁμαρτάνειν is indeed found a number of times in later Christian writings.33 Nevertheless, παύω + genitive was commonly used to convey the same meaning.34 What is more, when παύω was modified by ἁμαρτίας, it almost invariably denoted putting an end to acts of wrong-doing or sinful behaviour that were in progress.35 The only deviation 31   The texts cited by Strobel (and Michaels) are: Plutarch, Gen. Soc. 24 (Mor. 593E); Diodorus Siculus 17.56.4; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 6.69; and Aristotle, Mir. ausc. 86. However, the validity of these parallels could be challenged, as most imply prior involvement in a given activity or emotional state. 32   As noted by Dus 196. The evidence, for the most part, does bear this out. Participle: Luke 5.4; Acts 5.42bis; 6.13; 13.10; 20.31; 21.32; Eph 1.16; Col 1.9; Heb 10.2. Infinitive: 2 Sam 15.24; Jer 28.63; 3 Bar. 1.6; LAE 27.3; Gos. Eb. 6. There does not appear to be a noticeable difference between the two (compare Gr. Apoc. Ezra 4.1 with 4.4). 33   See Ps.-Clement, Hom. 11.7.2; Origen, Fr. Jo. 135; Athanasius, Hom. Luc. 12:10 (PG 26:656); Vit. Ant. 55; Ep. Serap. 4.6.3; Ps.-Athanasius, Homilia in illud: Ite in castellum 7.6; Asterius, Commentarii in Psalmos, homily 25.31; Didymus, Comm. Zach. 4.63; Ps.-Macarius, Sermones 64, homily 42.1.2. This construction only appears once in earlier literature: Xenophon, Hell. 2.4.21: παύσασθε ἁμαρτάνοντες εἰς τὴν πατρίδα (‘stop sinning against your fatherland’). 34   Ancient authors used παύω + genitive to describe the cessation from particular emotions and/or desires (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 2.34: παύεται τοῦ πένθους Ῥουβῆλος, ‘Reuben stopped mourning’; see also Exod 32.12; Josh 7.26; Strabo, Geogr. 8.6.23; Sib. Or. 1.321; 5.199; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 6.47.2; T.Sim. 3.6; cf. Ps 36.8; Hist. Rech. 12.9). The same construction also marked the end of particular actions (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 1.174.6: Κνίδιοι…τοῦ τε ὀρύγματος ἐπαύσαντο, ‘the Cnidians stopped digging’; see also 1.74.3; Homer, Il. 7.290; Sib. Or. 5.183, 317, 386; Philo, Decal. 97), including acts of offence against God (see Sib. Or. 5.183, 317, 386; Philo, Leg. 3.77; cf. also παύω ἀπό + genitive: Isa 1.16; 1 Clem. 8.4; 22.3; Herm. Vis. 9.1). 35   See, e.g., Plato, Leg. 784c: παυόντων αὐτοὺς τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ ἀμαθίας (‘stopping them from committing error and folly’); Athenasius, Ep. Marcell. (PG 27:21): τὸ δὲ μετανοεῖν παύεσθαι τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐστίν (‘to repent means to



4.1–6

309

from this pattern is found in a homily by the late fourth-century bishop Severian of Gabala, where there are clear indications that the construction denotes the end of sin’s reign or power.36 So, barring clear and determinative contextual factors, πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας should be understood as indicating the cessation from the activity of sinning. The second consideration is the consistent meaning assigned to ἁμαρτία elsewhere in 1 Peter. Rather than describing ἁμαρτία as a power that controls human action (as appears in Paul, esp. Rom 7.7–25), the epistle regularly employs the term to refer to a concrete act of wrongdoing that runs counter to the will of God (cf. 2.22, 24bis; 3.18; 4.8), a sense that seems also to be present in 1 Pet 4.1, since the author goes on to describe various manifes�tations of sinful behaviour (4.3). This, too, supports the idea that πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας most likely carries the meaning ‘has ceased from sinning’.37 Further confirmation of this hypothesis is found in the infinitive clause that follows (εἰς τὸ μηκέτι… βιῶσαι, v. 2). Reading v. 2 as a natural continuation of the preceding clause (rather than as a parenthetical note)38 provides the result of the ‘cessation from sin’, which is a change in orientation—indicated by the temporal adverb (μηκέτι)—from a devotion to ‘human desires’ abstain from sinning’). Cf. also Origen, Fr. Matt. 567; Basil of Caesarea, Epistle 199.18; Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam 1.54; Homilia exhortatoria ad sanctum baptisma (PG 31:436); Sermones de moribus a Symeone Metaphrasta collecti (PG 32:1225); Severian of Gabala, De caeco nato (PG 59:546). 36   Severian of Gabala, Homilia de legislatore 3 (PG 56:402): Πέπαυται τοῦ θανάτου ἡ βασιλεία, πέπαυται τῆς ἁμαρτίας τὸ κράτος, πέπαυται τοῦ διαβόλου ἡ ἐξουσία (‘the kingdom has put an end to death; the power has put an end to sin; the authority has put an end to the devil’). Cf. also Origen, Hom. Jer. 2.2, although this could represent an end to sinful acts. 37   Most understand πέπαυται as a middle voice, in which case it describes the sufferer’s participation in or contribution towards the cessation of sin (‘has ceased from sin[ing]’; cf. Wagner–Vouga 131). Kelly (166) proposes that the voice should be understood as passive, with the resultant translation, ‘is freed from the domination of sin’ (cf. de Wette 49; Wiesinger 266; Alford 371; Mason 424; Fronmüller 72; Knopf 162; see also Winer, Grammar, 328). But this goes against the consistent use of παύω (in a middle/passive form) with a participial/infinitival/nominal modifier, which normally denotes the participation of the subject. 38   As suggested by Michaels 228–29. This view is shared by others as well (e.g., Goppelt 280; Craddock 65; Richard 167; see also Blazen, ‘Suffering and Cessation’, 36; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 221).

310

1 PETER

to a commitment to the ‘will of God’. Such a change would be true of Christians, but not of Christ, thus ruling out Christ as the referent behind ὁ παθὼν σαρκί. What, then, does the author mean by the statement ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας? Within the relevant literature, there are generally three lines of interpretation that attempt to explain the verse. For many, the sentence is best read against the backdrop of Jewish traditions that draw a direct causal link between suffering and sin, and from this they develop what might be described as a ‘punitive hypothesis’ (‘suffering in the body puts an end to sinful activity’; cf. NLT, GNT, Message). Within this broader approach, different nuances are defended. In connection with various ideas about suffering and martyrdom (cf. 2 Bar. 13.10; 78.6; 1 En. 67.9; 4 Macc 18.3), some understand afflictions as having a purifying effect that atones for sin.39 Others point to Jewish wisdom literature where suffering performs a disciplinary function that helps to curb sinful behaviour (Prov 3.11–12; 23.13–14; Sir 30.1; cf. Heb 12.5–11).40 In this way, it restrains the desire and tendency to commit sin and thus enables a ‘holy’ and good way of life. The problem with these proposals, however, is that they overlook a major distinction between 1 Peter and these Jewish traditions: in 1 Peter, suffering does not bring about the cessation of sin; instead, ceasing from sin actually brings about suffering, as v. 4 will again indicate (cf. 3.14–17).41 An alternative, and equally popular, approach is what might be labelled the ‘mystical union hypothesis’, which involves reading the statement in light of Pauline theology. According to this interpretation, the power of sin is broken in the lives of Christians either through the passion of Christ or through their union with him in baptism. In the case of the former, Christ is the one who suffered and thereby freed believers from the confines of sin. In the latter case, the

39   E.g., Wand 104; Selwyn 209; Best 151; cf. Strobel, ‘Macht Leiden von Sünde frei?’, 418; Millauer, Leiden als Gnade, 114–30; Vogels, Christi Abstieg, 142–59. 40   See esp. Elliott 716–17. Others have taken a similar approach to the passage, including Bigg 167; Moffatt 146; Bauer 51; Arichea–Nida 127–28; Holmer–de Boor 138–39; Frankemölle 61; cf. Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake’, 445–46. 41   Cf. Watson 96.



4.1–6

311

verse takes on a sense that is very similar to the baptismal formula in Rom 6.5–7. The idea would thus be that through their union with Christ in baptism, believers have experienced a metaphorical death in which the power of sin is broken in their lives (‘the one who has died to the flesh has put an end to sin’).42 Such a view might be attractive in light of the influence of Pauline literature on 1 Peter and the mention of baptism in the preceding verses (3.21). But it too is not entirely persuasive. One problem is that 1 Peter is concerned with the actual ‘suffering’ (πάσχω) of its readers, while Paul refers to a metaphorical ‘death’ (ἀποθνῄσκω) enacted in baptism.43 Aside from the lexical distinction, the difference between the two is evident in the fact that 1 Peter speaks of a physical suffering that takes place ‘in the flesh’ (σαρκί). The second problem in connecting this verse with Pauline baptismal theology is that Rom 6.1–11 treats sin as a controlling power from which believers have been freed (δικαιόω—Rom 6.7); yet, as we noted above, this is markedly different from 1 Peter, where sin refers to concrete acts of disobedience from which believers cease (παύω).44 The third, and perhaps most convincing, interpretation is to locate the meaning of the statement in the circumstances of the Petrine audience, in what could be labelled a ‘diagnostic hypothesis’. According to this interpretation, persecution performs a demonstrative or illustrative function; that is, unjust suffering serves as evidence of the fact that a Christian has stopped participating in sinful activities (‘whoever suffers in the body reveals that they have stopped sinning’; cf. CEV, NJB).45 The verse is not intended to indicate that all sin in that person’s life has ended. It simply means that the believer has made a break from the kinds   This is the approach taken, e.g., by Plumptre 139; Cook 209; Monnier 190; Hart 70; Blenkin 90–91; Cranfield 107–108; Leaney 58–59; Stibbs–Walls 148–49; Spicq 143–44; Kelly 168–69; Mounce 61–62; Picirilli 187; Perkins 67–68; Boring 143–44; Feldmeier 212; Prigent 116; Schlosser 235–36; Ostmeyer 77; cf. Popp, Die Kunst der Konvivenz, 351; Zeller, ‘ “Tod gegenüber der Sünde” ’, 188–90. 43   Cf. Hill, ‘On Suffering and Baptism’, 182. 44   For a fuller critique of this position, see Best 151–52 and Williams, Salvation, 212. 45   See also Schweizer 78–79; Marshall 132–34; Achtemeier 279–80; Jobes 264–65; Vinson 189; Schreiner 227–29; cf. Williams, Salvation, 212–13. 42

312

1 PETER

of sinful behaviours that were commonly practiced within society, and in doing so, ‘has most definitely acted in a way which shows that obeying God, not avoiding hardship, is the most important motivation for his or her action’.46 This interpretation not only takes into account the referent of ὁ παθὼν σαρκί and the meaning of the construction πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας, it makes sense of the verses that follow (v. 2–3), which relate how the readers are facing persecu�tion because they have withdrawn from many of the popular social activities that characterised Greco-Roman culture. What the Petrine author is doing in this view, then, is drawing a link between the readers’ holy lifestyle and their experience of persecution: their continued avoidance of the practices that the author depicts as emblematic of the ‘Gentile’ way of life will most likely lead—as it did in the life of Christ, who himself ‘committed no sin’ (2.21–24)—to further conflict and suffering in precisely the ways the following verses go on to illustrate.47 In this case, what is required of the readers is to adopt a new perspective on suffering, one that takes into account the way that it is fuelled by divinely approved Christian behaviour.48   Grudem 167.   Some might object to this interpretation based on the indication that this ‘understanding’ (ἔννοια) of the readers was shared with Christ. One potential way around this (apparent) problem would be to take ‘same’ (αὐτήν) not as a reference to a shared ‘thought’ with Christ, but as a common sentiment shared by all believers; hence, ‘arm yourselves with the same thought [that other Christians have adopted]’. Nevertheless, as Johnstone has previously pointed out, this interpretation is unlikely ‘because the exhortation would proceed without any reference at all to the first clause of the verse, with which plainly from the mode of expression it is intended to be very closely associated’ (306). Even on this basis, however, there is no real difficulty: if v. 2 continues the ὅτι clause, then the ‘under�standing’ that was possessed by Christ and that would potentially be adopted by the readers is propositional in nature. It is simply that (unjust) suffering (for doing good; cf. 2.20; 3.17) indicates a break from the sinful practices of the world and a life devoted to the will of God. As someone who suffered, yet ‘committed no sin’ (2.22) and entrusted himself to God (2.23), Christ could be consistently seen to hold this same understanding. 48   Cf. Ostmeyer, ‘Das Verständnis des Leidens’, 276: ‘Was von den Gläubigen gefordert wird, ist eine bestimmte Sicht dessen, was ihnen geschieht. Die einzige Möglichkeit, nicht mehr zu leiden, besteht darin, wieder so zu leben wie vor der Bekehrung und damit allen Anfeindungen aus dem Weg zu gehen. Wer wie die Welt ist, leidet nicht in der Welt.’ 46 47



4.1–6

313

2 εἰς τὸ μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις ἀλλὰ θελήματι θεοῦ τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρόνον It is clear that v. 2 continues the thought of the previous verse. There is some debate, however, regarding how it does so. The answer revolves around the infinitive clause, εἰς τό… βιῶσαι. Most commentators see it as providing the purpose or intended consequence of the imperative ὁπλίσασθε (v. 1a),49 with v. 1b functioning as a parenthetical statement. As such, the adoption of the same understanding as Christ is meant to lead the readers towards a life of conformity to the will of God rather than to human desires. In this case, the implicit subject of the infinitive would be ὑμᾶς (‘Arm yourselves with the same understanding… so that you might no longer live…’; cf. ASV, EHV, WEB). To make this clear, modern translations sometimes place the ὅτι-clause in parenthesis (see HCSB, NAB, NRSV). This popular reading has been challenged, however, with some suggesting instead that the infinitive modifies the immediately preceding clause, πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας.50 According to this interpretation, the purpose (or perhaps even, the result)51 of making a break with sinful behaviour is to live a life of devotion to God. Rather than the second person plural pronoun (ὑμᾶς) being implied, this would require reading the third person singular (αὐτόν): ‘the one who suffers has ceased from sinning in order that he/she might live no longer live…’ (cf. KJV, NMB, ISV, MEV, BRG).

49   Advocates of this view include: Schott 259; Usteri 171; Alford 371; Johnstone 307; von Soden 160; Best 152; Michaels 229; Picirilli 186; Brox 193; Elliott 718; Donelson 118 n. e; Vinson 189; Schlosser 236; Watson 96; Schreiner 230. 50   This view is espoused, e.g., by Huther 203–204; Kühl 250; Monnier 193; Bigg 167; Hart 70; Grudem; 167; Dubis 132; Osborne 236. Interestingly enough, de Wette (49) declares this to be the majority position in the mid-nineteenth century. 51   Regardless of what the infinitive clause modifies, most understand it as denoting purpose, which is the most common function of εἰς τό + infinitive (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 1071). However, there are a few modern translations that slightly deviate from this. Some understand the clause as denoting result (NIV, CEB, CJB, TLV; cf. also Steiger 2:252; Bloomfield 720; Plumptre 139; Bigg 167; Hart 70; Lenski 180; Hiebert 258), while others translate it as a causal idea (NJB; cf. Demarest 209). Still, others take it as explanatory in nature (NET).

314

1 PETER

The decision is a difficult one, as there is very little evidence with which to work. Cautiously, the latter interpretation is adopted here. What seems to point in that direction is the distance between the imperative and the proposed modifier, and the fact that the thought is broken up by the ὅτι-clause. If the author had meant the infinitive clause to denote the purpose of ὁπλίσασθε, he could have inserted the pronoun ὑμᾶς to clarify his intentions.52 Without such an explicit indication, the infinitive is probably best understood as a continuation of the previous line of thought. As such, the ἔννοια that the author wants the readers to adopt extends beyond v. 1b. He does not merely give the readers a new lens through which to understand their situation of suffering (viz. that persecution is the natural result of non-conformity); he also provides them with a goal towards which they should aim. Their situation of suffering not only indicates that they have ceased from the sinful practices of their contemporaries but that they have done so in order to live according to God’s will, rather than by human desires. The complex structure of this verse is marked by antithetical parallelism and several intervening modifiers between the article and the infinitive.53 At issue is how the readers are to ‘live’. In this verse, the verb βιόω refers to the type or quality of a person’s life. Although there is frequent overlap, the terms βίος/βιόω are often used in a manner that is distinct from the synonyms ζωή/ζάω. When the two are distinguished, the former denotes ‘ “life” in its appearance and manifestations’, while the latter is merely ‘the condition of being alive’.54 That a distinction is intended here is evident from   The textual record may indicate that this was the way that some ancient readers understood the passage as well (see Text at 4.2 n. e). As Dubis (133) points out, the plural pronoun (ὑμῖν or ἡμῖν) is provided as a secondary insertion at v. 3, in order to clarify the implied subject of the infinitive κατειργάσθαι, which marks the shift from the third person singular (whether at v. 1b or 1b–2). But, as he notes, ‘these variants only appear… in verse 3, not in verse 2, suggesting that the ancient scribes understood verse 2 to continue the third singular subject from verse 1’. 53   Others have commented on the elevated style of these constructions (see Selwyn 210; Achtemeier 280). The first aorist form βιῶσαι (rather than the Attic, second aorist form: βιῶναι) nonetheless represents a move away from classical norms (cf. Winer, Grammar, 101; Robertson, Grammar, 348; BDF §75). 54   BDAG 176. As Masterman describes it, ‘ζωὴ [sic] is the life by which we live, βίος the life that we live’ (139; original emphasis). An example of such a distinction is found in Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 25 (Mor. 114D): ἕως ἂν ἐκπλήσωσι τὸν ἐπικλωσθέντα τῆς ζωῆς βίον. But note also Cassius Dio 69.19.2 (‘Here 52



4.1–6

315

the fact that the author is contrasting two modes of conduct: being directed/ruled by ‘human desires’ and being directed/ruled by ‘the will of God’.55 The phrase τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκί… χρόνον conveys a sense comparable to that of the parallel phrase in 1.17, ὁ τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνος, albeit with a somewhat more individualised perspective, given the sentence’s continuation from ὁ παθών. It almost seems like τὸ μηκέτι… βιῶσαι is a superfluous, almost tautologous phrase, but it is significant in adding a focus on the (limited) time that remains.56 In this context, some suggest that it refers generally to the length of an ‘individual’s lifetime on earth, whether short or long’.57 Others see a reference to the time remaining prior to the parousia.58 But there is no need to draw a hard-and-fast line between the two. Since the author sees the return of Christ as imminent (4.7), the ‘remaining time’ for everyone is envisioned as a relatively brief period within which the Christian way of life must be lived.59 Although this life ‘in the flesh’ (ἐν σαρκί) might be represented as frail and fleeting (cf. 1.24), it is not inherently sinful in the Pauline sense (see Rom 7.5, 18, 25; 8.3–13). Instead, ἐν σαρκί is a neutral designation, referring to earthly human existence.60 Consequently, it includes both the Christian’s pre-conversion life, which lies Similis, who existed (βιούς) so-and‑so many years, but only lived (ζήσας) seven’), where the meanings are reversed. For more on these terms, see Schmidt, Synonymik, 4:40–54; Trench, Synonyms, 91–96. 55   According to Moffatt, the phrase τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ… χρόνον ‘suggest[s] that capital punishment was not expected as the normal outcome of faithfulness’ (146; cf. Bigg 167; Hiebert 259; see also Mason 424; Johnstone 307). But this is to press the phrase beyond what the context will allow. This construction simply communicates that the readers should align their actions with the will of God for however long they remain alive, whether this is for some considerable time or is shortly curtailed, by whatever cause. 56   The adjective ἐπίλοιπος is a hapax in the NT, but elsewhere it is used in connection with the terms χρόνος (e.g., I.Délos 1416; OGIS 244; Herodotus, Hist. 2.13; Isocrates, Or. 17.55; Claudius Ptolemy, Tetr. 4.10.12) and βίος (e.g., Plato, Resp. 540B.1; Lysias, Epitaphius 71.3; Plutarch, Sera 22 [Mor. 563D]; P.Petr. II 13) to denote the remaining portion of one’s time or life. Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.49.6: τὸν λοιπὸν ἐβίω χρόνον (‘he lived the rest of his time’); see also Xenophon, Mem. 4.8.8; Hippocrates, De morbis popularibus 5.1.4. 57   Michaels 229; similarly, Best 152; Witherington 196 n. 426. 58   E.g., Kelly 169; Achtemeier 281; Boring 145. 59   Cf. Watson 96–97; Schreiner 230. 60   Cf. Davids 150; Richard 168.

316

1 PETER

was marked by sinful behaviour, as well as the sphere in which they must live out the remainder of their lives, in the short period (the author presumes) prior to the coming of Christ. According to the Petrine author, Christians are not removed from—nor do they ‘die to’—this realm upon conversion (see on 2.24; contrast Rom 7.5–6; 8.4–9; 2 Cor 5.16–17). Rather, they must, while living ἐν σαρκί, no longer conform to an old pattern of life (cf. 1.14) but align their thoughts and actions with God’s will, amidst the temptations and lure of ‘human desires’. In other ancient literature, such ‘human desires’ (ἐπιθυμίαι ἀνθρώπων) could be understood in a neutral or even a positive manner (see, e.g., Alcidamas, Frag. 1; Theophrastus, De pietate, frg. 12; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.6). When ‘human desires’ are viewed negatively, some type of modifier is usually provided to indicate this perspective,61 though this is not always the case (see Aristoxenus, Frag. 38; Herm. Mand. 11.6). In the present verse, the description is itself general and neutral (ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις), but it is clear from the context that these are viewed negatively, as elsewhere in the letter (1.14; 2.11; 4.3): not only are they here contrasted with the will of God, but they also determined the sinful way of life which the readers followed prior to conversion.62 These ἐπιθυμίαι ἀνθρώπων are further delineated in v. 3. This list includes behaviours for which Jewish and Christian writers criticised, often stereotypically, the Gentiles (though ‘pagan’ writers could also express similar criticisms; see on v. 3). As noted by various commentators, the pluralised description of human desires may have been intended to contrast with the singular ‘will of God’.63 Even though θελήματι (as well as ἐπιθυμίαις) could be understood as a dative of advantage, indicating whose interests are benefited—‘to live no longer for human passions but for the will 61   See, e.g., Herm. Sim. 9.19.3: τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων; cf. also Hyperides, In Philippidem, fr. 15b7: πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμεῖν. 62   Note the adverb μηκέτι, which suggests that the readers’ conduct used to be shaped by these types of ‘human desires’. The author thus divides the readers’ lives into three time periods: (a) the time prior to their conversion, which was characterised by sinful disobedience, (b) their present Christian life, which should be characterised by obedience to God, and (c) the time following the parousia of Christ, when they will receive the full inheritance that is being guarded in heaven. 63   One of the earliest to draw this distinction was Bengel (74).



4.1–6

317

of God’ (cf. ESV, NIV, HCSB, NASB)—it is more natural to take it as a dative of standard, expressing the pattern according to which someone might conform: ‘to live not in accordance with human desires but according to the will of God’ (cf. Douay-Rheims).64 This does not necessarily mean that θέλημα θεοῦ represents a specific catalogue of behaviours that are approved by God; instead, as it does throughout the epistle (cf. 2.15; 3.17; 4.19), the phrase indicates the plans and purposes of God. While the will of God may rule out certain activities, such as those specified in v. 3, the author’s point is larger than moral conformity in relation to this or that practice. For the Petrine author, aligning one’s life with God’s will, as opposed to aligning it with human desires, means a fundamental shift in terms of the orientation that shapes and determines one’s whole way of life, even if this entails distress and suffering. 3 ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι Again, the line of thought is progressed by a conjunction whose function is debated. The γάρ could provide the reason why the recipients should arm themselves with the understanding of Christ, as specified in the injunction of v. 1.65 More likely, it serves as the justification for living according to the will of God, which is laid out in v. 2.66 Most interpreters recognise this as an ironic understatement (more specifically, an example of meiosis or litotes),67 in which the author intentionally underplays the force of his point about the ‘sufficiency’ of time in their previous lifestyle.68 Any such time is already too much; thus, the adjective ἀρκετός might be rendered ‘more than enough’. The phrase ὁ παρεληλυθὼς 64   There are a few commentators who have interpreted θελήματι and ἐπιθυμίαις as datives of advantage (e.g., Steiger 2:252; Wiesinger 266; Johnstone 308). But most read them as datives of standard (e.g., Hofmann 150; Keil 145; Alford 371; Huther 204; Monnier 194; Masterman 140; Dubis 131; Forbes 137). 65   As argued, e.g., by Johnstone 309; Achtemeier 281. 66   As argued, e.g., by Blenkin 91; Forbes 138. 67   Scholars have drawn attention to this figure of speech for centuries (see, e.g., Gerhard 539; Bengel 74; Benson 265; Demarest 210). What the author intends by this phrase is that ‘in no period of their life, ought they to have wrought the will of the Gentiles; and that whatever time they spent in so doing, was too much’ (Macknight 489). For a similar argument, see Ezek 44.6; 45.9; Matt 6.34; 10.25. 68   Cf. Wiesinger 267; Fronmüller 73; Kelly 169.

318

1 PETER

χρόνος was a common way of describing a period of time that had since passed (cf. Isocrates, Or. 4.167: ἱκανὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς [χρόνος]).69 This is to be contrasted with τὸν ἐπίλοιπον… χρόνον (v. 2b). The statement is revealing with regard to debates about the extent to which the Petrine author favours assimilation or rather distinctiveness in relation to the wider society. Having withdrawn from many of the common social practices of their culture, his audience is experiencing hostility from their ‘pagan’ neighbours (see 4.4). But the author does not prescribe a move to accommodate these broader expectations; his instructions encourage continued separation, not conformity. A further explanation of the adjective ἀρκετός (‘sufficient’) is provided by the infinitive (κατειργάσθαι), which functions epexegetically.70 Many view the perfect tense of κατειργάσθαι (along with the other perfect verbal forms: παρεληλυθώς, πεπορευμένους) as a way to signal that the readers’ former manner of life had come to an end;71 yet this conclusion cannot be made based on the tense alone.72 The implied subject of both the infinitive and the accusative participle is ὑμᾶς (hence, the accusative case of πεπορευμένους). What sufficiently marked their previous life was τὸ βούλημα τῶν 69   Cf. Melissus, Frag. 5; Demosthenes, Halon. 11; Ep. 2.16; Hyperides, Pro Lycophrone frag. Ar 12; Eudemus, Frag. 41; Josephus, Ant. 19.78. It is sometimes compared with time that is to come (e.g., Posidonius, Frag. 270: ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος καὶ ὁ μέλλων; see also Arius Didymus, Physica Frag. 26; cf. Heron, Def. 21.1). 70   This epexegetical use of the infinitive in relation to an adjective is a classical idiom that is rare in the NT (cf. Matt 3.11; Mark 10.40; 1 Cor 7.39; Jas 3.2; see further Buttmann, Grammar, 259–60; Robertson, Grammar, 1076–77). 71   See, e.g., Beare 180; Michaels 230; Elliott 720. 72   Statements such as, ‘The perf[ect tense of κατειργάσθαι] implies that the course is closed and done, and looked back on as a standing and accomplished fact’ (Alford 372; cf. also Schott 261; Lenski 181–82; Cranfield 109) read too much into the tense form. Neither the perfect tense (see Campbell, Indicative, 161–211) nor the infinitival form itself (see Robertson, Grammar, 1080–81) specifically encode for time. In this case, other factors may have contributed to the choice of the perfect tense. For example, since complementary infinitives often take a perfect tense (Luke 12.58; John 14.5; Acts 26.32; 1 Cor 2.2; Phil 3.13; Heb 4.1; etc.), it may simply be a matter of common usage. Alternatively, the fact that the author needed to maintain a temporal congruence between ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος and the readers’ prior manner of conduct may have encouraged the perfect tense (cf. John 12.18).



4.1–6

319

ἐθνῶν (‘the will of the Gentiles’).73 This reference to ‘Gentiles’ is unlikely to imply a Jewish audience for the letter, as is sometimes argued.74 While it is conceivable that the author addresses Jews who were, in his view, formerly too assimilated and integrated into the social fabric of their ‘pagan’ culture,75 it is difficult to think that he would label a Jewish readership generally as having lived in their past according to the desires of the Gentiles, especially considering the broad geographical address of the letter.76 More likely is that the designation ‘Gentile’, as elsewhere in the NT (1 Cor 12.2; 1 Thess 4.4–5), indicates the ‘pagan’ society to which the readers formerly belonged, but from which they have now been called out (cf. 1.14, 18), such that ‘Gentiles’ are now outsiders.77 In this way, the reference ‘shows again the extent to which our author has appropriated the language of Israel for the Christian community’.78 πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις ἐπιθυμίαις,, οἰνοφλυγίαις οἰνοφλυγίαις,, κώμοις,, πότοις καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις. κώμοις εἰδωλολατρίαις. The phrase τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν receives further elaboration in what follows. In this case, the adverbial participle (πεπορευμένους) describes the manner in which ‘the will of the Gentiles’ was

  Similar descriptions of Gentile customs and practices (i.e., τῶν ἐθνῶν) can be found throughout Jewish literature, some with much more negative overtones: νόμιμοι, ‘precepts’ (Lev 20.23; 1 Macc 1.14; Jer 10.3); ἀσέβεια, ‘impiety’ (Deut 9.4–5; cf. Philo, Sacr. 57: ἀνομία); βδελύγματα, ‘abominations’ (Deut 18.9; 1 Kgs 14.24; 2 Kgs 16.3; 21.2; 2 Chr 28.3; 33.2; 1 Esd 7.13); δικαιώματα, ‘statutes’ (2 Kgs 17.8; 1 Macc 1.13; Ezek 5.7); ἀκαθαρσία, ‘immorality/ uncleaness’ (1 Esd 1.47; 8.84); ἁμαρτίαι, ‘sins’ (Zech 14.19); ὁδοί, ‘way’ (Jer 10.2); πονηρία, ‘wickedness’ (T.Dan 5.8). 74   An argument used by those who envision a mainly Jewish readership (see Fronmüller 73; Bigg 168; Witherington 29–30). As Keil points out, ‘Der Gegen�satz ist kein nationaler, sondern ethische Bezeichnung des früheren Wandels im Unterschiede von dem jetzigen’ (146). 75   For examples of assimilation and accommodation among ancient Jews and early Christians, see Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 103–24, 320–35; cf. also Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 186–201. 76   Cf. Bennett 243. There is also the question of why a large number of accul�turated Jews would have abandoned their previous lifestyles upon becoming Jesus-followers (see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 95). 77   See also Vinson 190. 78   Achtemeier 281 n. 69. See also Summary on 2.4–10. 73

320

1 PETER

carried out.79 The use of πορεύομαι + ἐν is a Hebraism, where the corresponding Hebrew (‫ הלך‬+ ‫ )ב‬referred metaphorically to one’s conduct or behaviour (cf. the similar use of περιπατέω), but when translated into Greek, the words that were chosen represented a literal correspondence which was assigned the same connotation.80 What follows is a list of vices representing conduct that is unacceptable for the people of God. Examples of similar lists can be found in both Greco-Roman81 and Jewish sources,82 and scholars continue to debate which of these backgrounds most influenced the vice lists found in the NT.83 For the most part, this catalogue represents a stock denunciation of the excesses of ‘pagan’ life;84 79   Cf. Schlosser 236, who takes it in apposition to the infinitive. This view stands in opposition to the suggestion of Dubis (134) that it functions causally—presumably describing why the past time was sufficient (cf. also Alford 372). 80   As pointed out by Johnstone 310; Bigg 168; cf. also MHT 1:11 n. 2; 4:126. Other examples from the LXX include: Lev 18.4; Deut 5.33; 8.6; Judg 2.22; 1 Sam 8.5; Ps 1.1; Prov 2.13; Neh 10.30; Tob 3.5; 1 Macc 2.20; Sir 5.2; cf. also Luke 1.6; 2 Pet 2.10. 81   E.g., Aristotle, Eth. eud. 2.3.4; Plato, Gor. 525a; Cicero, Tusc. 4.12; Horace, Ep. 1.1.33–40; Ps.-Crates, Ep. 15; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.20.5–6; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 7 (Mor. 468B); Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 7.93. In a classic work on this subject, Vögtle (Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge) connected the NT vice lists to Hellenistic philosophy, and in particular, to Stoic influence. This view later was challenged by Wibbing (Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge) and Kamlah (Die Form der katalogischen Paränese), who connect both the Jewish and NT lists with dualistic thought found in Iranian religion. 82   E.g., 1 En. 10.20; 91.6–7; 2 En. 10.4–6; Jub. 7.20–21; 23.14; Wis 14.23–31; Sib. Or. 2.254–96; Apoc.Ab. 24.6–9; T.Reu. 3.2–8; T.Jud. 16.1–2; T.Gad 5.1; T.Ash. 2.5; T.Ben. 6.4; 3 Bar. 4.17; 8.5; 13.4; 1QS 4.9–11; Philo, Sacr. 32; Virt. 182. Some have connected the origin of NT vice lists to Jewish sources (e.g., Easton, ‘Ethical Lists’, 1–12). For more on Jewish vice lists, see López, ‘Vice Lists in Non-Pauline Sources’, 178–95. 83   Examples of NT vice lists include: Matt 15.19//Mark 7.21–22; Rom 1.29–31; 13.13; 1 Cor 5.10–11; 6.9–10; 2 Cor 12.20–21; Gal 5.19–21; Eph 4.31; 5.3–5; Col 3.5, 8; 1 Tim 1.9–10; 2 Tim 3.2–5; Titus 3.3; Rev 9.21; 21.8; 22.15. On NT vice lists, see further Charles, ‘Vice and Virtue Lists’, 1252–57; Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Paul, Virtues and Vices’, 608–33; López, ‘Views on Paul’s Vice Lists’, 81–97. 84   As such, there is no need to conclude that the readers were involved in illegal or suspicious practices prior to their conversion (as suggested by Reicke 118; Margot 69; cf. also Picirilli 188) or that these vices had been (or were currently being) practised in the churches (as argued by Liubinskas, ‘Who’s Stumbling?’, 218; on this point, cf. Krodel 70). Furthermore, there is no indication that these activities were ‘associated with participation in religious festivals and symposia which were rituals of solidarity for social and political elites in cities’ (Sisson,



4.1–6

321

yet many of these activities were criticised by Greek and Roman moralists as well. The formal and somewhat stereotypical nature of this polemical list, then, reveals more about the author’s view of popular social practices than the specific activities in which the readers had previously engaged.85 If nothing else, however, it does suggest a potential cause of conflict, namely, the readers’ withdrawal from common social activities, which is further specified in the next verse. Each of these vices is listed in the plural form86 and without any coordinating conjunction to connect them.87 The first term, ἀσέλγεια, is commonly employed in Jewish and Christian vice lists (Wis 14.26; T.Jud. 23.1; Jub. 4.15; Matt 7.22; 2 Cor 12.21; Gal 5.19). The failure denoted here is essentially a lack of willpower or selfcontrol to conform to accepted social standards and, as a result, it involves actions that are marked by a lack of restraint.88 This disregard for the rules of proper behaviour could be seen as displayed though aggression and violence (Isocrates, Loch. 16; Demosthenes, 1 Philip. 9; Pant. 42; Polybius, Hist. 5.11.2; Plutarch, Alc. 8.1), but other forms of violation are represented as well, including sexual pleasure (Rom 13.13; Herm. Vis. 2.2.2; Ps.-Clement, Hom. 5.22.2) and the wasting of resources (Aeschines, Tim. 95; Dio Chrysostom, ‘Rhetoric and Philosophy’, 327). There is nothing in the ancient source materials that would restrict such activities to individuals of a high socio-political status. 85   From a more theological perspective, Calvin notes that the author ‘does not give the whole catalogue of sins, but only mentions some of them’; in particular, ‘he names the grosser vices’ for illustrative purposes (123). 86   The use of the plural may seem unusual given that some of the vices repre�sent a shameful state (e.g., οἰνοφλυγία). In this case, they may denote the various forms that a particular vice could have taken (Monnier 195), or may be intended to indicate the habitual performance of the acts involved (Mason 425), or perhaps both (Johnstone 311; cf. Bigg 168). 87   Although the author could have used a καί to separate each of the words, asyndeton seems to be required—particularly given that the author is enumerating a list—in that ‘the insertion of καί each time would make the separate items too important’ (BDF §460[2]). 88   BDAG 141: ‘lack of self-constraint which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable’. See further TDNT 1:490, although Bauernfeind tends to emphasise sexual excess too much in the examples from the NT and Apostolic Fathers. Others have similarly overemphasised the sexual nature of this term in the present verse (e.g., Macknight 489; Pott 128; Huther 205; Knopf 164).

322

1 PETER

Or. 4.104). Along with this lack of self-discipline,89 the author also claims that ‘the will of the Gentiles’ is marked by ἐπιθυμίαι, a term that denotes impulses or desires (as in v. 2).90 While this word can simply mean a longing for a given entity or outcome (1 Thess 2.17; Barn. 21.7), or even a virtuous desire for a noble end (Phil 1.23),91 here, as elsewhere in the letter (1.14; 2.11; 4.2), it carries a more derogatory sense in which the desires drive one to do what is shameful or prohibited.92 Like ἀσέλγεια, this term too is found in ancient vice lists (Philo, Migr. 60; Col 3.5; Did. 5.1; Herm. Mand. 8.5). The first two failings are often viewed as distinct in some way from the three that follow.93 This second category of vices, which seems to share some associations and overlaps,94 begins with οἰνοφλυγία. This describes a state of intoxication due to the over-consumption of wine,95 sometimes discussed alongside the over-consumption of   According to Demarest (211; cf. also Bloomfield 721), the noun ἐπιθυμίαις qualifies ἀσελγείαις similarly to an adjectival modifier (‘lustful excesses’). For comparison, he points to 2 Pet 2.18: ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς ἀσελγείαις, ‘with licentious desires of the flesh’ (cf. also Jude 13). Nevertheless, this example is not exactly comparable to the current usage, where the terms are placed alongside one another in a list of vices. Furthermore, in 2 Peter ἐπιθυμίαις and ἀσελγείαις could just as easily be rendered as two separate vices, ‘with desires of the flesh and licentiousness’ (cf. HCSB, NASB, NET). 90   TDNT 3:168–71. 91   Often, the nature of ἐπιθυμίαι is dictated by the types of individuals who express them. As such, some are positive, as expressed by the ‘wise’ (Sir 3.29), ‘righteous’ (LXX Prov 10.24; 11.23), or ‘pious’ (LXX Prov 13.19); some are neutral, as expressed by the ‘needy’ (LXX Ps 9.38); and others are negative, as expressed by ‘sinners’ (LXX Pss 9.24; 111.10) or the ‘impious’ (LXX Prov 12.12; 21.26). 92   Since ἐπιθυμία could be used in both a positive and negative sense, occasionally it is accompanied by a modifier to demarcate the type of desire in question, e.g., πονηρός (Isocrates, De pace 39; Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.64; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 9.52.6; T.Reu. 4.9; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.89; 2 Clem. 16.2; Herm. Vis. 1.1.8), μάταιος (2 Clem. 19.2; Herm. Mand. 12.6.5), σαρκικός/ σάρξ (Eph 2.3; 2 Pet 2.18; 1 John 2.16; Did. 1.4; Barn. 10.9). This latter is the type of desires that marked the readers former lifestyle (1 Pet 2.11; cf. 1.14; 4.2). 93   Some view the first two as acts practised by individuals, while the next three are undertaken within groups such as voluntary associations (Bengel 74). Others contend that the first two involve impurity, while the second three relate to drunkenness (Masterman 141; cf. Johnstone 311). 94   See Trench, Synonyms, 225–28. 95   BDAG 701. Cf. Andronicus ([Pass] 5.1) who defines it as ἐπιθυμία οἴνου ἄπληστος (‘the insatiable desire for wine’); see also Philo, Spec. 1.192, who notes 89



4.1–6

323

food.96 Like any form of excessive indulgence, οἰνοφλυγία could be seen to have serious consequences such as illness (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1114a; Aretaeus, Sign. acut. 2.7.3; cf. also Polyaenus, Strategemata 2.2.7) and to lead people to act in socially offensive ways (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 19.5.2).97 How such drunkenness occurred was often related to the next vice (see Sib. Or. 8.118; Rom 13.13): κῶμοι, a term that describes excessive feastings or revelry.98 This word was not always used in a negative sense. At times, it simply described celebratory festivities without any indication of problematic over-consumption or recklessness.99 But eventually, κῶμος came to represent a time of carousal spurred on by heavy drinking (Diodorus Siculus 20.92.4; Plutarch, Am. prol. 4 [Mor. 496F]; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.13.113). The focus seems to be especially on a party’s spilling out into public spaces where inebriated participants engaged in loud and obnoxious singing, dancing, and merry-making.100 Thus, it is frequently included among the contemptible vices of the time.101 The term πότος is simply ‘a social gathering at which wine was served’.102 It could thus be used to describe a banquet or feast at which wine was consumed, without any sense of negative criticism of the nature of the event (see Gen 19.3; 2 Sam 3.20; Job 1.4; 3 Macc 7.18). But a time of feasting could easily turn into something more scandalous that οἰνοφλυγία arouses γαστρὸς ἀκόρεστοι ἐπιθυμίαι (‘the insatiable desires of the stomach’). 96   It is used in connection with various terms denoting gluttony: λαιμαργία (Philo, Somn. 2:158; Ebr. 222; Plutarch, Otho 9.4); λιχνεία (Xenophon, Lac. 5.4; Musonius Rufus, Dissertationum a Lucio digestarum reliquiae 4); γαστριμαργία (Hippocrates, Int. 6; Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1231a); πλησμονή (Polybius, Hist. 2.19.4). 97   Although this rare term does not appear elsewhere in the LXX or NT in its nominal form, the verbal cognate (οἰνοφλυγέω) is found in LXX Deut 21.20 and Isa 56.11. 98   For a fuller discussion, see TLNT 2:353–54. 99   See, e.g., Homeric Hymns, In Mercurium 481; Herodotus, Hist. 1.21; Josephus, Ant. 11.66. In particular, it was used of a festal procession following a victory at the games (Pindar, Ol. 4). 100   In this connection, the term describes a procession or celebration in honour of Dionysius (Euripides, Cycl. 497; Diodorus Siculus 17.72.4; SIG3 1078). 101   See, e.g., Isaeus, De Pyrrho 13; Demosthenes, [Euerg.] 19; Gal 5.21; Ps.-Clement, Epistulae de virginitate 1.8.2; Plutarch, [Lib. ed.] 16 (Mor. 12B). 102   BDAG 857.

324

1 PETER

or objectionable.103 For this reason, πότοι were often connected with drunkenness (Diodorus Siculus 17.72.1; Philo, Contempl. 46; Josephus, Ant. 7.134).104 The only vice not found among similar catalogues in Greek and Roman writings is εἰδωλολατρίαι (‘idolatries’), which specifically reflects Jewish and Christian perspectives. It is difficult to say whether early Christians coined the term εἰδωλολατρία,105 particularly given that the noun and its cognates are found in contemporary Jewish sources.106 But it is used very early in the Pauline (and deutero-Pauline) writings to describe the worship of idols (see 1 Cor 10.14; Gal 5.20; Col 3.5).107 The term receives special emphasis in this list due to the fact that it is placed at the end of the series and because it alone also has an adjectival modifier (ἀθέμιτοι).108 Some view the reference to idolatry as the source of the previous vices or, more specifically, the context in which these activities took place (i.e., it was in ‘idolatrous’ religious rituals that immorality and drunkenness took place).109 103   In his advice to Demonicus, Isocrates warns, ‘If possible avoid drinkingparties altogether (μάλιστα μὲν εὐλαβοῦ τὰς ἐν τοῖς πότοις συνουσίας), but if ever occasion arises when you must be present, rise and take your leave before you become intoxicated’ (Demon. 32; trans. Norlin). 104   Estius (556) thinks that πότοι represent drinking contests in which participants would compete with one another to see who could continue drinking the longest. But, as others have pointed out, it is probably best to take the term more generally to refer to banquets at which wine played a prominent role, equivalent to συμποσία (Benson 266; Macknight 489–90). 105   A claim made by Goppelt 285. 106   E.g., εἰδωλολατρία, ‘idolatry’ (3 Bar. 8.5; T.Jud. 19.1 [v.l.]; 23.1 [v.l.]; T.Benj. 10.10); εἰδωλολάτρης, ‘idolater’ (Sib. Or. 2.259; 3.38; cf. 1 Cor 5.10–11; 6.9; 10.7; Eph 5.5; Rev 21.8; 22.15); εἰδωλολατρισμός, ‘idol worship’ (3 Bar. 13.4); εἰδωλολατρέω, ‘to be an idolater’ (T.Levi 17.11). 107   See further TDNT 2:379–80. Clement of Alexandria provides the closest thing to a definition, noting ‘idolatry is an extension from the one God to many gods’ (ἡ εἰδωλολατρεία ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπινέμησις οὖσα θεούς, Strom. 3.12.89.1; cf. also Origen, Cels. 1.5). 108   Others have noted this emphasis as well (e.g., Benson 267; Best 153; Schelkle 115). Alternatively, Ewald (52) claimed that the ἀθέμιτοι εἰδωλολατρίαι was intended to be read as two independent substantives: ‘abominations and idolatries’. The problem with this suggestion is the position of καί (cf. Monnier 196), which indicates that the two terms must be understood as a unit and that they function as the conclusion of an unnumerated list (see BDF §460[2]). 109   Cf. Davids 151; Skaggs 56; Feldmeier 213–14; Donelson 122; Watson 98. If this is the case, the adjective may have been intended to indicate not just that



4.1–6

325

What makes this description of idolatry both unique and perplexing is the adjectival modifier. The combination is normally rendered in one of two ways. Some understand ἀθέμιτος to specify an act that is forbidden by law, hence ‘lawless idolatry(-ies)’ (RSV, NRSV, ESV, HCSB). Since there were clearly no legal prohibitions against idolatry in the ‘pagan’ world,110 the focus could be on regulations found in the Decalogue, which prohibit the creation and worship of graven images (εἴδωλα; see Exod 20.4; Deut 5.8; Lev 19.4, part of the Holiness Code cited earlier in the letter [1.16]).111 Yet this specifically legal interpretation is not supported by ancient usage. The adjective is commonly employed in the neuter (ἀθέμιτόν/ ἀθέμιτα) as a predicate adjective, describing a given act as unacceptable, not based on codified law, but according to generally agreed upon standards of what is and is not appropriate conduct.112 In some cases, the avoidance of a given action may stem from an awareness of the divine (Xenophon, Cyr. 1.6.6; Plutarch, Quaest. rom. 40 [Mor. 274B]);113 but even then, a determination of what is (in)appropriate is grounded not on a specific law but on perceptions of God or on interpretations of legal requirements (see Acts 10.28; Josephus, War 1.650; 4.99; Life 26; Ag. Ap. 2.119), despite the fact that this distinction tends to dissolve in practice.114 It is better, then, idolatry is at issue, but also the activities often associated with pagan religious rituals, as suggested by numerous interpreters (e.g., Bennett 243; Leaney 59; Beare 180; Grudem 169; Bénétreau 220; Senior 115; Vinson 192; Witherington 196; Schlosser 237). For a critique of this view, see Goppelt 285 n. 39. 110   Wand proposes that the designation may have been intended in an ironic way in that the Petrine author ‘describe[s] the Pagan rites by the designation which was so often given to the Christian Church, religio illicita’ (104). The proposed allusion is probably overly subtle, however, not least given the likely interpretation of ἀθέμιτος (see below). 111   See Fausset 510; Bigg 169; Mitchell 271; Wohlenberg 125–26; Picirilli 188; Miller 288; Forbes 139. According to Vahrenhorst (168 n. 514), this law relates to the way of life that is regulated by their new Christian faith. 112   BDAG 24. E.g., Euripides, Phoen. 612; Antiphon, In novercam 22; Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.9; T.Sol. A 20.4; Josephus, War 2.131; 4.205; Plutarch, Sept. sap. conv. 5 (Mor. 150F); Quaest. rom. 40 (Mor. 274B); Arrian, Anab. 7.20.4; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 9.5; Theophilus, Autol. 1.10. 113   The reprehensible nature of an act in relation to the divine (as opposed to humans) is stressed by Hensler (179). 114   It is noteworthy that when the matter relates to a specific legal regulation, this must be specified by additional descriptors; thus, in 2 Macc 6.5 it was not

326

1 PETER

to understand the adjective in a broader sense, as indicating that which is objectionable, as in ‘abominable idolatry(-ies)’ (KJV, ASV, NKJV, WEB) or ‘wanton idolatry(-ies)’ (NAB, NASB, NET). In this way, it functions as a term of derision, marking out something as repugnant or loathsome as established through custom or instinctive awareness.115 Beyond disagreement about how the adjective is to be understood, the mere fact of its presence here is something of a puzzle. As it is commonly interpreted, ἀθέμιτος is intended to add emphasis to εἰδωλολατρία. This latter term, however, is consistently employed with negative overtones throughout Jewish and Christian literature, such that the adjective seems unnecessary and redundant.116 When idolatry is criticised elsewhere in Jewish and Christian sources, the term by itself is sufficient to indicate that the practice is unacceptable (3 Bar. 8.5; T.Jud. 23.1; T.Benj. 10.10; 1 Cor 10.14; Gal 5.20; Col 3.5; Did. 3.4; 5.1; Barn. 16.7; 20.1).117 What is more, when the adjective ἀθέμιτος performs an attributive function in Greek literature, it almost never modifies a term that describes a socially/religiously censured action.118 Nevertheless, in this case sufficient to say that the sacrificial offerings that covered the altar were ‘abominable’ (ἀθεμίτοις), it was also necessary to clarify that this was forbidden ‘by the laws’ (ἀπὸ τῶν νόμων). 115   Those who espouse this view include: Best 154; Arichea–Nida 130–31; Michaels 232; Marshall 135; Achtemeier 282 n. 77; Dubis 134. 116   Cf. Goppelt 285: ‘the designation εἰδωλολατρία itself expresses the reprehensibleness of such conduct’. 117   The only other place where this combination (ἀθέμιτος εἰδωλολατρία) appears is in later Christian allusions to or citations of this passage (Theophilus, Autol. 1.14; 2.34; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.12.85.2). 118   In most cases, the term refers to neutral acts, which require a further descriptor. See, e.g., ‘act’, ‘deed’ (πρᾶξις/πρᾶγμα/ἔργον): Timaeus, Frag. 146b (Jacoby 3b,566,F); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.23.20; 6.61.1; Josephus, War 1.84; 1.659; Vettius Valens, Anthologiarum 2.41; Acts Thom. 51.1; Hippolytus, Fr. Prov. 48; Heliodorus, Aeth. 3.16.3; ‘Judean’ (Ἰουδαῖος): 3 Macc 5.20; ‘confederacy’, ‘alliance’ (συνωμοσία): Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.11.1; ‘affection’ (ἔρως): Josephus, War 4.562; ‘scent’, ‘odor’ (κνῖσα); Josephus, War 6.209; ‘marriage’ (γάμος): Ps.-Clement, Hom. 5.24.3; ‘intercourse’ (μίξις): Ps.-Clement, Hom. 6.18.1; Theophilus, Autol. 3.15; Vettius Valens, Anthologiarum 1.20; ‘desire’ (ἐπιθυμία): Ps.-Clement, Epistulae de virginitate 2.9.1; ‘custom’ (ἦθος): Vitae Aesopi 306; ‘anger’, ‘wrath’ (ὀργή, which can be both a negative emotion as well as an appropriate response to evil, see BDAG 720–21): 1 Clem. 63.2; ‘doctrine’ (δόγμα): Theophilus, Autol.



4.1–6

327

the adjective seems to be employed in order to further stress the incompatability of idolatry with the readers’ Christian commitment, and to emphasise that from this (new) perspective it is abominable and forbidden, even if the phrase then contains something close to redundancy.119 The author is not averse to using duplication, lists, or near synonyms to add weight and emphasis to a point (see, e.g., 1.19; 4.15; 5.10). 4 ἐν ᾧ ξενίζονται μὴ συντρεχόντων ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς ἀσωτίας ἀνάχυσιν βλασφημοῦντες Just as Jews across the Roman Empire varied widely in the extent to which they assimilated to the customs, standards, and expectations of Greco-Roman society, so there was variety among early Christians too, and thus—for a range of reasons—variation in the extent to which they experienced significant conflict with their friends and neighbours.120 There was evidently considerable disagreement 3.7; ‘oath’ (ὁρκωμοσία): Cassius Dio 37.30.3; ‘charge’ (ἔγκλημα): Cassius Dio 58.16.17; ‘womb’ (γαστήρ): Alciphron, Epistulae 3.42.1; ‘nation’ (φῦλον): Themistius, Εἰς Θεοδόσιον· τίς ἡ βασιλικωτάτη τῶν ἀρετῶν, p. 197 (Harduin); ‘meat’ (κρέας): 2 Macc 7.1. The only exception to this consistent usage involves the alternative form, ἀθέμιστος: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.41.1 (ξενοκτονία ἀθέμιστος, ‘abominable killing of foreigners’). One example where the form ἀθέμιτος seems to be connected to a term that only conveys a negative sense is its combination with πλημμέλημα in Martyrium Ignatii Antiocheni 11.2. But even though πλημμέλημα is regularly employed to describe a ‘fault’ or ‘sin’ (Num 5.8; Jer 2.5; Acts Thom. 117.3), it could also carry a positive meaning, ‘excellence’ (see PGL 1093). 119   Alternatively, one could argue that the adjective was included to specify the type of idolatry taking place, one that was especially abominable (a possibility considered, but ultimately rejected, by Michaels 232: ‘obviously [the Petrine author] does not imply by the adjective that other idolatrous acts exist, or can be imagined, that are not “lawless” ’). If this were the case, then it could potentially be a critique of emperor worship in particular, a form of idolatry that is subtly excluded elsewhere in the epistle (2.13–17). But it is difficult to see sufficient indication that any such specific focus is in view. 120   On the different levels of assimilation and acculturation among Jews (and Christians) in the diaspora, see Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 103–24, 320–35 and Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 186–201. On both Jewish and Christian groups in their wider social contexts, see Harland, Associations, Synagogues and Congregations; idem, Dynamics of Identity, though Harland arguably underestimates the degree of conflict evident in 1 Peter in the former work.

328

1 PETER

among both Jews and Christians about what constituted an acceptable level of accommodation to Greco-Roman society (cf. Rev 2–3). Yet, at least as the author depicts it, the situation of the assemblies addressed in 1 Peter is one in which withdrawal from social and reli� gious practices has been sufficiently apparent to generate hostility and criticism. This is evident in v. 4, where one of the primary causes of hostility and persecution is delineated. Nevertheless, in terms of understanding this depiction, as is the case at other places throughout the epistle, uncertainty arises over the meaning of ἐν ᾧ as well as the antecedent of the relative pronoun.121 While some seek to connect the pronoun with a specific word or phrase,122 most now agree that the singular ᾧ takes a conceptual antecedent in this instance.123 The specifics of this referent depend on whether the preposition denotes cause (‘because of which’; cf. NET, HCSB)124 or reference (‘with reference to which’; cf. ESV, LEB, NKJV).125 But even before this matter is settled, it is important to clarify the referent of the relative pronoun. If ᾧ is understood as recapitulating the idea that the readers had abandoned their previous way of life (‘they are astonished because/with reference to your withdrawal from pagan social practices’),126 then regardless of 121   Many translations avoid this issue by simply leaving the prepositional phrase untranslated (e.g., CEB, NAB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, WEB). 122   Some identify the antecedent with the preceding, e.g., ‘the will of God’, v. 2 (Jachmann 162); ‘the will of the Gentiles’, v. 3 (Benson 268); ‘living’, v. 3 (Burger 252; Monnier 196). Others claim that ᾧ points forward and is further delineated by the (epexegetical) genitive absolute, ‘They are surprised because of this, namely, that you no longer run…’ (e.g., Pott 129; Mason 425–26; Usteri 173). 123   On a conceptual antecedent for a relative pronoun, see Robertson, Grammar, 713–14. 124   So, e.g., Hofmann 153–54; Keil 147; Johnstone 314–15; Huther 206; Kühl 253; von Soden 160; Michaels 233; Green 119; Forbes 139. Others believe that a causal sense is in view, yet they interpret ἐν ᾧ as equivalent to an inferential conjunction, ‘therefore’ (see Brox 194; Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 111; Fink, ‘Use and Significance’, 35). This misses the point slightly, however, in that the relationship between v. 3 and v. 4 is not evidence-inference. 125   So, e.g., de Wette 50; Wiesinger 269; Fronmüller 74; Schott 264; Masterman 142; Bigg 169; Kelly 170; Davids 147; Dubis 134. 126   If ᾧ describes the readers’ abandonment of their previous way of life, then Atkinson is correct that ‘there is not a significant practical difference between Christians’ abstinence being the occasion of non-Christians’ opposition and that abstinence being the cause of the opposition’. In other words, ‘If non-Christians



4.1–6

329

how the preposition is interpreted, one is left with a tautology. For the genitive absolute (μὴ συντρεχόντων ὑμῶν), which functions causally (‘since you no longer…’),127 expresses virtually the same idea. Therefore, it is best to take the relative pronoun as simply pointing back to the fact that the readers had previously participated in the social and cultural practices of the Greco-Roman world. In this way, the prepositional phrase not only points back but also points forward, to the present situation.128 Looking back, it points to the audience’s participation in this lifestyle; had this not been the case, the surprise and eventual outrage would not have been as significant. At the same time, it anticipates a primary cause of the conflict, which is the abandonment of this way of life.129 With the referent of the relative pronoun established, it makes the function of the prepositional phrase much easier to determine. Interpreting ἐν as conveying reference/respect is not without problems;130 nonetheless, the alternative (i.e., cause: ‘because you once participated in these activities, they are astonished when you do not…’) presents somewhat greater interpretative difficulties. While the preposition ἐν is employed in connection with other synonymous terms (e.g., θαυμάζω) to denote the cause of amazement (cf. Luke 1.21), the source of amazement with a passive malign Christians when Christians abstain from certain practices, Christians’ abstinence in effect is the cause of non-Christians maligning them’ (‘Semantics of ἐν ᾧ’, 130). 127   Even if the genitive absolute is taken temporally (‘when you no longer run…’; cf. ESV, NET, GNT, LEB, NLT), it would result in virtually the same idea: it is the readers’ lack of participation that generates surprise. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that the author would want to emphasise when this astonishment occurred over why it occurred. 128   Cf. Achtemeier 283; Schlosser 242. 129   The verse in and of itself does not explicitly say that the readers formerly participated in social practices common in the Greco-Roman world. Prior involvement might be implied by the συν- compound and even the mention of the ‘same’ (τὴν αὐτήν) activities. Further emphasis is supplied by early copyists (among minuscule MSS: 206, 378, 429, 522, 614, 630, 1291, 1799, 1831, 1890, 2138, 2147, 2200, 2412, 2652), who insert αὐτοῖς to make this connection even more explicit. But the real proof of their previous involvement comes from v. 3. 130   One potential objection is why the Petrine author would have used the prepo� sition ἐν to communicate this idea when περί would have been more suitable (cf. Johnstone 315). A similar construction is found in 1 Pet 1.10: περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν προφῆται.

330

1 PETER

ξενίζω is communicated either through a simple dative (cf. Polybius, Hist. 1.23.5; 3.68.9; Origen, Cels. 7.24) or ἐπί + dative (cf. Polybius, Hist. 2.27.4; Diodorus Siculus 31.2.2; Josephus, Ant. 1.35; Athenaeus Deipn. 14.77). We were unable to find any instances of ξενίζω + ἐν with the sense, ‘astonished by’. Furthermore, when the Petrine author communicates this same idea (viz. ‘astonished/ perplexed by’) later in the epistle, the construction that is chosen is ξενίζω + dative (1 Pet 4.12).131 In light of these considerations, it seems best to take ἐν as denoting reference (‘with reference to your prior participation in these activities, they are astonished because you no longer…’). As far back as the time of Homer, the word ξενίζω referred to entertaining or showing hospitality towards a guest (Homer, Od. 3.355; Euripides, Alc. 1013). But around the second century BCE, the term began to take on an additional meaning, which was ‘to cause a strong psychological reaction through introduction of someth[ing] new or strange’.132 The strength of this reaction could range between simple perplexity arising from some novelty (Polybius, Hist. 1.23.5) to disappointed frustration (3.68.9). In v. 4, it tends toward the stronger end of the spectrum, conveying a sense of resentful disturbance. The cause of the Gentiles’ surprise is provided by the genitive absolute (μὴ συντρεχόντων ὑμῶν): ‘because you no longer run with (them)’.133 The verb συντρέχω is used elsewhere in a literal sense to describe the physical act of running with someone (Jdt 6.16; 2 Macc 3.19; Mark 6.33; Acts 3.11). As such, there is escalation: whereas v. 3 describes the readers as formerly ‘going’ (πεπορευμένους), now they are ‘running’. The literal meaning of the term is adopted by Selwyn, who proposes that ‘[t]he word exactly describes the way in which people run from all directions to see e.g. a procession pass, and suggests that the author has 131   The textual record at 1 Pet 4.12 is also noteworthy in this regard (see Text at 4.12 n. a). Rather than inserting the preposition ἐν, scribes chose ἐπί as the modifier of ξενίζω. What is more, one MS (2544) even replaces ἐν ᾧ with ἐφ’ ᾧ at v. 4. 132   BDAG 683–84; cf. TDNT 5:1–36. 133   The causal function of the participle is noted, e.g., by Dubis 135; Schreiner 232 n. 455. On the frequent use of the genitive absolute to denote cause, see Winer, Grammar, 259.



4.1–6

331

public ceremonies mainly in mind’.134 Yet, it is used metaphorically elsewhere to depict a close association with another party (cf. Ps 49[50].18; 1 Clem. 35.8; Barn. 4.2), which seems more appropriate in the present context. The picture painted by these verses, then, in rather polemical and stereotypical terms, is of ‘the life of paganism as a feverish pursuit of evil’.135 The types of activities toward (εἰς) which the readers’ previous focus was aimed are summarised by the phrase ἀσωτίας ἀνάχυσις. Sometimes the term ἀνάχυσις is used in a more passive sense of a marsh or an estuary that results from an overflow of water (Strabo, Geogr. 3.1.9); hence, it could be rendered, ‘excess’ (KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV).136 But often it refers, in a more active way, to the overflowing or effusion of rivers/seas (Aelian, Nat. an. 16.15) or even bodily fluids (Galen, Loc. aff. 8.318). Occasionally, it takes on a metaphorical sense (cf. Philo, Aet. 62), as it does in this instance. It denotes a ‘flood’ or ‘violent outpouring’137 of debauchery (cf. ESV, NET, HCSB).138 The noun ἀσωτίας was used almost as a technical term for dissoluteness and immorality, becoming a common topos in ancient literature.139 It describes the wastefulness of wealth and material resources (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 4.1–45), often connected with drinking bouts and convivial gathering (cf. 2 Macc 6.4; Eph 134   Selwyn 212–13. Similarly, some connect this ‘running’ with the celebra�tions dedicated to Dionysius/Bacchus (see Benson 268; Macknight 490; Brown 581 n. 2; Barnes 189; Perdelwitz, Mysterienreligion, 92), where votaries would rush towards the sacred rites (cf. Ovid, Metam. 3.528–530: ‘Liber [i.e., Bacchus/ Dionysius] has come, and the festive fields echo with cries. The crowd all run, fathers, mothers, young girls, princes and people, mixed together, swept towards the unknown rites’; trans. Kline). 135   Beare 181. 136   This sense is adopted by some commentators, who understand the imagery as the slough or mire left behind after water has receded (e.g., Steiger 2:255; Wiesinger 269; Demarest 214; Fausset 510; Alford 372–73; Plumptre 141). 137   Cf. Malcolm, ‘Governing Imagery’, 12–14, who claims that the aquatic imagery picks up on the earlier reference to Noah’s flood (3.20), depicting the recipients as though they are in the midst of their own deluge (see also Rudman, ‘Baptism of Chaos’, 397, 401–402; Chillinsky, ‘Examination of 1 Peter 4:1–6’, 59). 138   According to Dubis (135), ἀσωτίας should be understood as an epexgetical genitive (‘the same excess, which is debauchery’). But the verbal force implicit in the noun (a cognate of ἀναχέω, ‘to pour out’) suggests that it is more likely an objective genitive, ‘pouring out debauchery’ (so Beare 181). 139   See TLNT 1:220–22.

332

1 PETER

5.18; T.Jud. 16.1). In this way, it is a term that could aptly summarise the excessive social practices of the Gentile world, as viewed through the eyes of the Petrine author. Standing at the end of the verse, the participle βλασφημοῦντες has been understood in a variety of ways. Some take it substantivally (‘blasphemers!’), reading it as an interjection directed at those outsiders who were astonished by the readers’ behaviour.140 Others connect it with the following verse and see it as introducing the cause or reason for the divine judgment referred to there.141 These positions often lead interpreters to posit God or Jesus as the implied object of contempt;142 thus the charge is defamation of a transcendent being. More likely, however, the participle denotes the result of the Gentiles’ astonishment: they ‘slander’ or ‘revile’ Christians (hence, ὑμᾶς might be understood).143 The threat of verbal abuse is mentioned throughout the letter (cf. 2.12, 15; 3.9, 16; 4.14), and here it is natural to see the disrespectful and demeaning speech as directed (primarily) at the readers themselves (‘slander’).144 There 140   Advocates of this position include: Aretius 61; Bigg 170; Hart 71; Beare 181; Green 119. One of the main arguments for this view is the presence of the participial form along with the lack of any coordinating conjunction. It is claimed that if a verbal idea had been intended, then we would have expected καὶ βλασφημοῦσιν, a reading that is found in some witnesses (see Text at 4.4 n. i). 141   Those who defend this view include: Moffatt 149; Michaels 234; Achtemeier 284; Vinson 194. For a critique of this and the previous view, see Dubis, 135–36. 142   See, e.g., Seethaler 51; Bénétreau 220–21; Schelkle 115; Forbes 140. 143   Cf. Jachmann 162; Hensler 181; Davids 152; Schreiner 232. Strictly speaking, the participle should be in the genitive case (βλασφημούντων), in agreement with ἐθνῶν (v. 3). The nominative case represents an attaction to the finite verb ξενίζονται. 144   As most commentators have noted (e.g., Grotius 99; Barnes 189; Hiebert 263; Elliott 727; Prigent 118; Schlosser 238). Others identify the Christian religion as the target of the blasphemy (see, e.g., Hofmann 154; Cook 210; Keil 147–48). In his discussion of the basis or cause of the abuse experienced by the readers, Achtemeier notes, ‘It does not have to do with Roman concern over foreign religions and hence with any official governmental attempt to suppress the Christian religion. It has rather to do with the fact that people who have become Christians, who once took part in the cultural activities, in the “lifestyle,” of their times, no longer do so, and it is that refusal of further participation that brings abuse upon them’ (276). While it is true that the Romans did not instigate efforts to suppress the movement by actively pursuing members of the group, one cannot so easily separate the involvement of Roman governmental authorities from popular resentment. This is clear if we consider the potential threats facing the Christians



4.1–6

333

was probably no hard and fast line between the slander of Christians and the defamation of the Christians’ God,145 but even so it is clear that what is in view here is different from the modern notion of ‘blasphemy’. It would have been difficult to separate the ridicule of Christians’ faith and conduct from the source of their devotion, which was their God.146 5 οἳ ἀποδώσουσιν λόγον τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.. νεκρούς In stark contrast to the agitators’ slanderous reviling described in v. 4, the Petrine author reminds the readers of the ultimate (and imminent) outcome of this conflict. Although many translations begin this verse with an adversative conjunction, ‘but’ (ESV, GNT, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NCV), grammatically, the sentence represents a rather abrupt relative clause (cf. Rom 3.8).147 Through this construction, the author highlights the serious consequences awaiting these detractors, a final reckoning before the ultimate judge. This process is said to begin when the opponents are required to answer for their actions. As elsewhere in 1 Peter, while this certainly conveys a sense of ominous threat, there is no explicit comment on the outcome of this reckoning, or the kind of judgment that will result (cf. 1.17; 3.12; 4.17–19).

when their opponents sought resolution to the conflict. The ‘astonishment’ of the Gentiles could lead to any number of strategic responses against believers, including accusation and prosecution in a Roman court (see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 138–78). 145   Cf. Plumptre 141; Johnstone 317–18; Bennett 244; Monnier 197; Osborne 234. See also Chillinsky, ‘Examination of 1 Peter 4:1–6’, 59: ‘By verbally abusing the believers, they blaspheme the God the believers represent and by blaspheming God the believers feel the immediate ramifications’. 146   To illustrate this point, we might note the first-century CE Alexamenos graffito from Rome (see Solin and Itkonen-Kaila, Graffiti del Palatino, no. 246). This graffito sketches a mocking portrayal of a Christian standing beside a human figure with the head of a donkey who is hanging on a cross. The individual being crucified, it seems, is intended to be Jesus, and the caption reads, ᾽Αλεξαμενὸς σέβετε θεόν (‘Alexamenos worships [his] god’). In this instance, Christians are being slandered and at the same time Jesus is blasphemed (although, for an alternative reading of the graffito, see Gruen, ‘Liminal Donkey’, 492–514). 147   Others have similarly noted the sudden occurrence of the relative pronoun at this point (e.g., Blenkin 93; Bigg 170).

334

1 PETER

The idiom ἀποδίδωμι λόγον (‘to give an account’) was occasionally employed by ancient historians who set out to record certain events from the past (Polybius, Hist. 14.12.5; Diodorus Siculus 1.37.4). But it is more often used in connection with a person’s explanation of his or her actions (Euripides, Orest. 150–151; Soranus, Gyn. 1.4.3), frequently found in a forensic setting where a party is required to provide a defence or testimony (Plato, Phaed. 63E; Demosthenes, Naus. 15; Aeschines, Ctes. 21; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.27.7; Josephus, War 1.208). This is the sense with which it is employed in Christian writings, where it refers to someone’s final account before the judgment of God (cf. Matt 12.36; Heb 13.17; Herm. Vis. 3.9.10). In the present verse, it represents another example of eschatological reversal,148 contrasting present and future situations, a theme that also appears elsewhere in the letter (see 1.6; 2.12; 3.9; 5.8–11). It is to be compared with 1 Pet 3.15, where Christians are instructed, ‘always be ready to provide a defence (ἀπολογίαν) to everyone who asks you for an account (αἰτοῦντι… λόγον) of the hope that is in you’.149 While that difficult and ominous situation may face Christians in the present, soon it will be their accusers who are having to give their account before a judge. The one to whom these slanderers will have to give an account is τῷ ἑτοίμως κρἰνοντι (‘the one who readily judges’). This textual reading marks a departure from the ECM/NA28 (see Text at 4.5 n. j), which contains ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι (lit. ‘the one having readiness to judge’). When this latter reading is adopted, the infinitive is an epexegetical modifier of the adverb ἑτοίμως,150 stressing God’s preparedness to carry out judgment. While the expression ἑτοίμως ἔχειν appears only twice in the NT (Acts 21.13; 2 Cor 12.14),151 elsewhere it is a common idiom focusing on readiness for a particular task or action (Demosthenes, Cor. 161; PSI 968;

  See Elliott 729.   Cf. Mason 426; Huther 208; Weiss 323; Beare 181; Hiebert 264. 150   See further MHT 4:139. 151   The combination of ἔχω + adverb usually denotes a state or condition in which someone exists (see BDAG 422). Other examples are found throughout the NT: κακῶς ἔχειν, ‘to be sick/ill’ (Matt 4.24; Luke 5.31; cf. Xenophon, Hell. 5.3.26; P.Oxy. VI 935); καλῶς ἔχειν, ‘to be good/healthy’ (Mark 16.18; cf. Isocrates, Or. 12.200; P.Cair.Zen. V 59852). See further Moule, Idiom Book, 161. 148 149



4.1–6

335

Dio Chrysostom, Or. 72.14; P.Lond. II 361; Justin Martyr, Dial. 50.1), sometimes accompanied by a sense of willingness (cf. Josephus, Ant. 16.225; Plutarch, Cat. Min. 35.4; IAph2007 8.114). By contrast, the former reading indicates how God judges, i.e., this act is performed willingly and promptly. Although the MS evidence is fairly balanced at this point, and the meaning is not significantly impacted either way, preference should probably be given—if only narrowly—to this shorter reading. Scholarly opinion is divided over whether the judge in view is God or Jesus (though the nature of early Christian theology should not make it surprising if the distinction is not easy or clear to make).152 Proponents of the latter view often point to the phrase ‘the living and the dead’ (ζῶντες καὶ νεκροί) as the determining factor.153 The phrase became established in later Christian writings as a way to represent the totality of humanity—all people, living and dead154—and is commonly used in connection with judgment performed by Christ (Acts 10.42; 2 Tim 4.1; 2 Clem. 1.1; Pol. Phil. 2.1; Barn. 7.2; Acts John 8; Acts Andr. 12; Acts Thom. 28).155 But this is not sufficient evidence that ‘the living and the dead’ was ‘a 152   Those who identify God as the judge include: Grudem 170; Knoch 110; Marshall 136; Goppelt 287–88; Achtemeier 286; Elliott 729–30; Senior 115; Jobes 270; Donelson 123; Osborne 238; Schlosser 238. Those who identify Jesus as the judge include: Bengel 75; Jachmann 162; Burger 252; Hart 71; Selwyn 213–14; Kelly 172; Best 154; Davids 152–53; Schreiner 234. In contrast, Assaël (‘Typologie de la vie’, 297–318) argues that the judgment is not rendered by either God or Christ, but that individuals judge themselves. 153   As with other words in pairs, the anarthrous construction is employed (Robertson, Grammar, 793; cf. also BDF §254[2]). 154   Some argue that ‘the living and the dead’ refer to the spiritual state of individ� uals; hence, it is those who are spiritually alive or spiritually dead (so, e.g., Benson 269–70; Macknight 490; Bieder, Höllenfahrt Jesu Christi, 121–28). Others limit this reference only to the believers (cf. 1 Thess 4.13–17); hence, it refers to Christians who are alive and who have died (so, e.g., Schott 265–67; Spitta, Christi Predigt, 63–66). The problem with both of these proposals is that in every other place where ‘the living and the dead’ are judged, the phrase refers to those who are physically alive and physically dead, both Christians and non-Christians alike (see Kelly 171). Similar debates affect the interpretation of v. 6, on which see below. 155   Prior to 1 Peter, the only purported usage outside of Christian literature is found in a fragment of Heraclitus (Frag. 63: ἔνθα δ’ ἐόντι ἐπανίστασθαι καὶ φύλακας γίνεσθαι ἐγερτὶ ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, ‘he [i.e., god] will allow those who are there to rise and to become guardians of the living and the dead’), which is preserved by Hippolytus (Haer. 9.10) and which sounds suspiciously Christian.

336

1 PETER

traditional phrase’ by the time that 1 Peter was written or that it was ‘certainly well known to the readers’.156 While the idea of Christ as God’s agent of judgment was known prior to the letter’s composition (Rom 2.16; cf. 1 Cor 4.4–5), 1 Peter represents a very early—if not the earliest—formulation of this language, which later became a standard idiom in Christian literature.157 Elsewhere in the letter, God is the final judge (1.17; 2.23; 4.19), and this is probably what is envisioned here. 6 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, εὐηγγελίσθη, The present verse has long been recognised as one of the most difficult passages in 1 Peter.158 As such, interpreters have offered a number of ways to account for its obscurity. Suggestions have ranged from the idea that the material was drawn from an unmentioned source-text, which was only partially related to the present context,159 to the notion that the verse represents a gloss added by a later scribe.160 In the end, however, explanations like these are both speculative and unnecessary. Despite the caution with which any conclusions must be drawn, it is possible to reach a reasonable understanding through a close reading of the text. The place to begin is with the interpretative decision that most commentators share in common. It is generally agreed that the Cf. also the second-century sophist Polemon, Declam. 2.52: ὦ κοινὸν καὶ ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν κατόρθωμα (‘O success shared by the living and the dead’). 156   Pace Davids 153; cf. Schreiner 234, who suggests, ‘Perhaps Christ is to be favored slightly since he is typically designated as the judge of the living and the dead’. 157   A similar phrase appears earlier in Rom 14.9: ‘For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living (νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων)’ (NRSV). Notable differences include the reversed order of the terms as well as the absence of any reference to judgment. Still more different, though notably resonant with this language, is Jesus’ declaration that God is ‘not the God of the dead, but of the living’ (οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων; Mark 12.27//Matt 22.32; Luke 20.38). When the phrase ‘the living and the dead’ appears in later Christian texts, the form of the language and the order correspond to the use in 1 Peter. This does not necessarily prove that the idiom originated with 1 Peter, however. 158   See Selwyn 314; Spicq 147; Brox 196 (‘noch dunkler als 3,19–22’); Achtemeier 287. 159   Brox 197–99. 160   Reiche, Commentarius Criticus, 272 n. 1.



4.1–6

337

construction εἰς τοῦτο points forward, being in apposition to the ἵνα-clause that follows (‘for this reason the gospel was preached even to the dead, namely, so that they might…’; cf. Douay-Rheims, NMB, RGT).161 Further, the explanatory particle (γάρ) indicates that this verse is intended to support the statement in v. 5 concerning God’s judgment of the living and the dead. It does so through an appeal to a time when the gospel was proclaimed. While the specifics of this event (i.e., when, where, by whom and to whom) are disputed, most acknowledge that εὐαγγελίζω indicates the proclamation of the Christian message wherein the recipients are provided with an opportunity to respond.162 Beyond these details, consensus begins to dissipate. Where much of the disagreement lies—and where the meaning is most affected—is in the identity of the νεκροί (‘the dead’). Three interpretations have figured prominently in this discussion.163 The first view, which only gained limited support in previous centuries, reads νεκροί in a metaphorical or figurative sense, describing those who are spiritually dead (cf. John 5.25; Eph 2.1, 5; Col 2.13).164 161   Cf. Selwyn 214; Kelly 175; Best 155; Michaels 238; Achtemeier 286. Other examples of this same construction include Acts 9.21; Rom 14.9; 2 Cor 2.9; 1 John 3.8 (see Robertson, Grammar, 699). 162   This is the meaning regularly assigned to the verb in Christian literature (e.g., Rom 15.20; 1 Cor 1.17; 2 Cor 10.16; Heb 4.2), and it reflects the usage elsewhere in the epistle (cf. 1 Pet 1.12, 25). This is not to imply that εὐαγγελίζω (or εὐαγγελίζομαι) always functions in a technical sense. While the verbal form is not altogether common outside of Jewish and Christian sources (cf. Bowman, ‘Term Gospel and its Cognates’, 56–57), in secular literature it simply denotes the announcement of good news (see Aristophanes, Eq. 643; Demosthenes, Cor. 323; Menander, Georg. 83). This general sense is also found on occasion in the NT (1 Thess 3.6; Rev 10.7). But since the purpose (ἵνα) of preaching here relates to being able to ‘live in the spirit’, it appears that the message about Christ is in view. 163   On the history of research on this topic, see Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 51–60, who distinguishes four views, two of which are closely related (see below); Horrell, Becoming Christian, 75–77. For earlier research, see Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 7–51; Geschwind, Niederfahrt Christi, 14–96. Cf. also Marshall 136–38, who succinctly elucidates the three major options. 164   So, e.g., Bede 109; Luther 201–202; Whitby 178; Benson 270; Macknight 491; Doddridge 214; Wordsworth 64; Holzmeister 364–65; cf. also Gschwind, Die Niederfahrt Christi, 24–40; Bieder, Höllenfahrt Jesu Christ, 121–28; McCartney, ‘Use of the Old Testament’, 172. This view was also common among the earliest interpreters of the letter (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Adumbr. on 4.6; Augustine,

338

1 PETER

More specifically, this ‘spiritually dead’ theory maintains that the text refers to the proclamation of the gospel by early Christian apostles and missionaries to those who were dead in trespasses and sins. Understood in this way, v. 6 provides justification for universal judgment (v. 5) by emphasising the announcement of the gospel to sinners. The fact that good news is proclaimed in the world makes all people accountable before God. In the end, however, this view has proven to be unpersuasive to most interpreters due to the fact that νεκροί in v. 5 refers to those who are physically dead.165 Such a quick transition from a literal meaning to a figurative meaning without any notification seems unlikely.166 The second view is that νεκροί refers to those who were alive when they heard the gospel message, but who have since died. For the sake of conciseness, this interpretation may be labelled the ‘since died’ view. To properly represent this situation, the clause might be rendered, ‘the gospel was (formerly) preached to those who are now dead’ (cf. KJV, HCSB, NET, NIV, NLT, NASB, ESV, NCV). Like the former view, there is some variation within this position. It is possible, as argued by Hofmann, that the ‘dead’ in question are the persecutors of the Christians.167 Since the previous verse is focused on those who slander the audience, he claims that the point of v. 6 is to assure believers that death does not exclude their opponents from judgment, but that they will, in fact, receive the just punishment for the afflictions they have caused. Few have been persuaded by the nuance of this reconstruction, however.168 Ep. 164.21). Clement’s views on this passage are, however, somewhat diverse and not always clear; see further below and Horrell, Becoming Christian, 95–96. 165   So, e.g., Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 57; Davids 153; Goppelt 288; Brox 196. 166   In response, some have noted that the same shift occurs in the words of Jesus, ‘Let the dead bury their dead’ (Matt 8.22) and in Col 2.12–13 (see Wordsworth 64); but in both cases, the context and force of what is being said make the shift between physical and spiritual (or metaphorical) meanings much more apparent than would be the case here. 167   For a defence of this position, see Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 2:478–82. 168   Aside from problems surrounding the need for such an exhortation—both because it assumes that the readers somehow expected their persecutors’ death to exempt them from punishment and because it fails to address their current dilemma, which involves persecutors who are alive—the logic of this hypothesis is difficult to sustain. As Alford points out, ‘the number of their persecutors who



4.1–6

339

A much more popular variation of the ‘since died’ theory is to read νεκροί as a reference to those who heard the gospel and positively responded to it during their lifetimes, but who have, in the meantime, passed away.169 By all appearances (and certainly from the perspective of the opponents of Christianity), the death of believers indicated that Christians had no real advantage over their neighbours. All people—both Christians and non-Christians alike—faced the same end, which was the grave. In light of this situation, proponents of the ‘since died’ theory claim that v. 6 is intended to emphasise the promise of vindication. Despite their earthly experiences and, in particular, the death (or perhaps even martyrdom)170 of some of their number, the readers are challenged to view their situation through an alternative perspective. Viewed in this way, those who have now died are actually blessed, for even though they experienced the fate of all humans (viz. death), they will be rewarded with spiritual life after having received the gospel (cf. Wis 3.1–4). It is common for those who adopt the ‘since died’ theory to compare the author’s consolation with the apparent concern among would be amenable to punishment would… be confined to those to whom the Gospel had been preached: any who might never have heard it would, by this reasoning, escape such judgment’ (374). 169   While this view was sometimes espoused in earlier centuries (so, e.g., Calvin 126; Grotius 100; Wolf 154–56; Bengel 75–76; Hensler 182–84; Bloomfield 721; Barnes 190; Schott 265–69; Williams 60; Usteri 174–87; Keil 148–51; von Soden 160–61; Moffatt 150–51; cf. Spitta, Christi Predigt), it has become very popular in more recent scholarship, particularly within British and North American scholarship (so, e.g., Selwyn 338–39; Fitzmyer 367; Grudem 170–72; Davids 153–55; Achtemeier 286–91; Richard 173–74; Elliott 730–42; Senior 116; Jobes 270–73; Prigent 119–20; Powers 130; Donelson 123–24; Witherington 198–99; Watson 99; Osborne 234; Dus 205–207; Schreiner 234–39; Keener 309–10). Especially influential on this widespread agreement is the extended treatment of Dalton (Christ’s Proclamation, esp. 219–41), who in turn builds on the work of Spitta and Selwyn. A variation of this view has been proposed by Michaels. While he suggests that the νεκροί actually heard the gospel while they were alive, he maintains that the designation refers to ‘the righteous of Israel’s past’ who ‘are freely regarded as Christians before the coming of Christ’ (237; cf. also Lumby 158–60). 170   Among those who adopt this view, it is occasionally suggested that the author is particularly concerned to address the problem of those who have been martyred for the sake of Christ (e.g., Demarest 217–18; Johnstone 319–36; Marshall 137; see esp. Danielson, ‘Peter’s Gospel to the Martyrs’, 171–89).

340

1 PETER

some early Christians about those who had died before Christ’s return (1 Thess 4.13–18) and with those who scoff at the promise of that coming (2 Pet 3.3–13).171 But a significant obstacle for this reading is the simple, but rather crucial, fact that there is no evidence of any concern about Christians who have died before the parousia in 1 Peter.172 This is particularly important in light of the date of the letter’s composition. The theological question that 1 Thessalonians addresses (viz. whether such people have missed out on the salvation imminently expected) only makes sense in the earliest years of the Christian movement, when the death of any member of the first-generation community might be perceived as a problem.173 Even if 1 Peter were an authentic composition written in the mid-60s, it would be too late to plausibly reflect the scenario presumed by 1 Thessalonians, where the time gap between Christ’s resurrection and his parousia is believed to be so short that the deaths of even some of the first believers causes surprise and concern.174   E.g., Spitta, Christi Predigt, 63–66; Selwyn 338; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 58, 226–28; idem, ‘1 Peter 3,19 and 4,6’, 535–55; Elliott 734. 172   See Margot 71; Brox 198. Dalton admits this much, but then rather weakly suggests: ‘Yet the background is very similar’ (Christ’s Proclamation, 228). 173   Note the arguments of Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, 201–61, who contends that the situation presupposed by 1 Thess 4.13–18 must be significantly earlier than that assumed in 1 Cor 15.51–52, even though the latter still has a sense of imminent expectation (‘we will not all die…’). Lüdemann proposes ca. 41 CE as the likely date for 1 Thessalonians, thus challenging the traditional view which places it around 49–51 CE. In support of this early dating, see further Horrell, Social Ethos, 73–74. 174   The attempt of Dalton (‘Interpretation in 1 Peter 3,19 and 4,6’, 553–55) to shed light on this verse by appealing to 2 Peter’s arguments against those who live wickedly and deny the parousia faces two problems. First, just as there is no explicit concern in 1 Peter about the issue faced in 1 Thessalonians, so there is also no evident concern in the letter about the delay or non-occurrence of the parousia, although 1 Peter does express the eschatological hope that this day is near (4.7; cf. 1.5; 4.12, 17). Second, Dalton conflates two distinct problems: a concern about the fate of believers who have died prior to an expected parousia is not the same as a concern about whether this parousia is going to occur at all, in the near (or even distant) future. The former is based on the notion that someone who has died might have missed out on the salvation to be attained at the parousia; the latter does not see the death of some Christians as in itself problematic, but rather faces the obvious problem that the considerable delay of an event expected soon leads to doubts about whether it will ever materialise. One is the issue of concern in 1 Thessalonians, the other in 2 Peter; but neither is evident as a concern in 1 Peter. 171



4.1–6

341

A period of as little as ten to twenty years marks a significant extension of this timetable. But the problem is even more acute in that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous epistle written in the last quarter of the first century.175 As such, it is not early enough to be contextualised in a scenario like 1 Thessalonians. Another piece of evidence sometimes used to support the ‘since died’ theory is the voice of the verb εὐηγγελίσθη. Those who adopt this position occasionally interpret εὐηγγελίσθη as a personal use of the passive form, supplying ὁ Χριστός as the implied subject (‘Christ was preached’).176 The importance of this conclusion lies in the way it has been used to identify the νεκροί. After arguing for the personal use of εὐηγγελίσθη, with Christ as the object of proclamation, interpreters have dispensed with the idea that such preaching could (or must) have been carried out by Christ.177 This has allowed them to conclude that the agents of the proclamation must have been the apostles and other early Christian missionaries. Two considerations weigh heavily against this proposal, however. The first is the redundancy created by the interpretation. While the verb εὐαγγελίζω was often employed broadly to describe the proclamation of good news, within Christian usage the nature of   Cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 58 n. 38: ‘If 1 Peter is a late document, then it would be difficult to use 1 Thessalonians to elucidate it’. This consideration is not fully addressed by many recent advocates of the ‘since died’ theory who subscribe to pseudonymity and thus date 1 Peter in the late first century (e.g., Achtemeier 1–50 [80–100 CE]; Elliott 118–38 [73–92 CE]). 176   E.g., Calvin 125–26; Grotius 100; Bengel 75; Pott 132; Selwyn 214–15; Achtemeier 287; Schlosser 243; cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 232–33. In a few rare instances, interpreters have suggested supplying τὸ εὐαγγέλιον as the implied subject (see, e.g., Hottinger 134; Donelson 123). 177   The reasoning behind this decision is that if Christ is the content of the message, he surely could not have also been the one delivering it (for this line of reasoning, see Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 232–33). But while various scholars have denied that Christ could be both the object of proclamation and the agent who delivers the message (e.g., Jobes 271–72; Witherington 198; Schreiner 236), none has provided any reason why this possibility must be ruled out. It should be pointed out that there is some evidence in the NT of Jesus (as the subject of εὐαγγελίζω) proclaiming good news (Luke 4.18, 43; 8.1; 20.1), a usage that is found in later Christian writings as well (e.g., Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.28.165; Eusebius, Dem ev. 3.1.2; Ps.-Justin Martyr, Resurrection 10; John Chrysostom, In ascensionem [PG 52:797]; Gregory Thaumaturgus, In annuntiationem sanctae virginis Mariae [PG 10:1161]; Cyril of Alexander, Comm. Isa. [PG 70:744]; Basil, Sermon 11 [PG 31:629]). 175

342

1 PETER

this good news was specifically defined as relating to the life and death of Christ. Thus, to make ὁ Χριστός the subject of the verb is unnecessary.178 In fact, there are no other instances in Greek literature where a passive form of εὐαγγελίζω takes ὁ Χριστός as its subject. The second problem arises from general patterns of usage. Greek writers who employ the passive form of εὐαγγελίζω normally include an explicit subject.179 In the few instances where the subject is not present, it is clearly identifiable from the immediate context (see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.3.13.1; Athanasius, C. Ar. 28). This differs from the situation in v. 6, where Χριστός is too far removed to be considered the implied subject. Most interpreters, therefore, understand εὐηγγελίσθη as a rare impersonal use of the passive,180 wherein the agent of proclamation is unstated (‘the gospel was proclaimed’).181 From a discourse perspective, the author’s use of the passive form indicates an attempt to draw attention to the (imbedded) direct object (εὐαγγέλιον).182 It also marks a shift to a new topic: the νεκροί. His point is merely that ‘the dead’ had heard the message of the gospel.183 Consequently, any identification of the   Cf. Davids 154 n. 21.   E.g., Philo, Legat. 18; Jos. Asen. 19.2; Matt 11.5//Luke 7.22; 1 Clem. 42.1; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6.51.2; Hippolytus, Haer. 7.26.4; Athanasius, C. Ar. 2:39.2; Synopsis scripturae sacrae (PG 28:408); John Chrysostom, Hom. Eph. 24 (PG 62:170). 180   The rarity of this usage is sometimes the primary basis for disputing whether εὐηγγελίσθη, in fact, carries an impersonal force. It should be pointed out, however, that the infrequency of a given grammatical function, while perhaps raising suspicion when it is postulated, should not serve as a reason to rule it out completely. Even though it is widely acknowledged that the impersonal passive was not common in either classical (Gildersleeve, Syntax, 77; Smyth, Grammar, §1982) or Koine (Robertson, Grammar, 820; BDF §130[1]; pace Hwang, ‘Participation in Christ’s Suffering’, 145, who claims that ‘the impersonal passive… is fairly common in the New Testament’) Greek, it is noteworthy that εὐηγγελίσθη in 1 Pet 4.6 is assigned this function by most grammarians (see Winer, Grammar, 656; Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:123; BDF §130[1]; MHT 3:291; MHT 4:129). 181   This has been the dominant view for centuries in Petrine scholarship (see, e.g., Steiger 2:257; Jachmann 162; de Wette 50; Wiesinger 274; Schott 267; Lillie 268; Johnstone 321–22; Huther 210; Kühl 256–57; Monnier 200; Bigg 170; Lenski 185; Goppelt 288 n. 56; Elliott 732; Forbes 141). 182   This ‘passivisation’ is described by Givón, ‘From Discourse to Syntax’, 85–86. 183   See Kühl 256 n. 2. 178 179



4.1–6

343

agent of proclamation must be made on the basis of considerations removed from the verbal form. Aside from the lack of sustainable arguments in favour of the ‘since died’ view, there are some important considerations that further undermine this theory. First, it requires an unnecessary temporal variation between the verb and the indirect object, with νεκροί describing the individuals’ present state and εὐηγγελίσθη depicting their former exposure to the gospel.184 If this were the case, a more appropriate construction could have been selected (e.g., τοῖς νῦν νεκροῖς οὖσιν, ‘those who are now dead’).185 As it stands, ‘the words seem to imply that those referred to were in the condition stated at the time when the preaching took place’.186 Second, the ‘since died’ theory requires restricting the referent of νεκροί to include only a very specific group (viz. deceased Christians); yet nothing in the context indicates that such a limitation has taken place.187 As such, νεκροί should be understood in a   Cf. Caffin 171; Cook 210. Some commentators view this problem as an insurmountable objection to the ‘since died’ view. For instance, Alford proclaims, ‘If καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη may mean, “the Gospel was preached to some during their lifetime, who are now dead,” exegesis has no longer any fixed rule, and Scripture may be made to prove any thing’ (374; cf. Mason 426: ‘No one with an un-preoccupied mind could doubt, taking this clause by itself, that the persons to whom this preaching was made were dead at the time of being preached to’). Kühl (256) also forcefully argues that this view is only possible if one sets aside all the philological objections. 185   See Kühl 256; cf. Monnier 201. Alternatively, the author could have clarified that he meant deceased Christians by writing τοῖς τεθνηκόσιν (‘those who have died’) or τοῖς κεκοιμημένοις (‘those who have fallen asleep’) instead of νεκροῖς (see Bigg 171). 186   Masterman 176. An attempt to answer this objection is made by Johnstone (324–26), who provides various examples of what he claims are similar shifts in the temporal reference. But what distinguishes the present construction from the examples he provides is the lack of any contextual markers to indicate that such a shift has taken place. 187   It is interesting to note that some proponents of the ‘since died’ theory (e.g., Elliott 733–34; Schreiner 237 n. 473, 238) fault specific variations within the ‘already dead’ view for unnecessarily limiting the referent of νεκροί when they claim, for instance, that the term refers to those who died without having an opportunity to hear the gospel during their lifetime (a position defended by Best 155–57). At the same time, these interpreters claim that only a limited group among the νεκροί are included in v. 6, namely, the Christian dead, and they impose this restriction without any contextual indicators (e.g., a clarification such as οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ). 184

344

1 PETER

broad sense to describe all who are dead,188 just as it is used in the previous verse. Further, even if one could establish that a narrowing of the referent had occurred, there is no indication that the group in question was deceased Christians. These and other considerations (see below) make it difficult to endorse the ‘since died’ theory. The third and final possibility regarding the identity of the νεκροί is to connect this group to those who heard the gospel message while in the realm of the dead.189 This proposal may be designated the ‘already dead’ theory, of which there are at least two different variations: the first is that ‘the dead’ refers to all those humans who had previously lived; the second is that the dead are specifically the righteous dead of Israel’s past.190 One of the strongest arguments in favour of this position is the syntactical structure of the sentence. The postpositive placement of καί indicates that it functions adverbially,191 with the context suggesting that it conveys an ascensive force (‘even’; cf. NIV, NRSV, NAB, NASB).192 As 188   The lack of the article with νεκροῖς does not impede this consideration, as though the anarthrous form could not communicate this sense. This is evident from the previous reference to νεκροί in v. 5, where the anarthrous form is also employed. In this case, νεκροῖς most likely functions in a qualitative sense, ‘the gospel was even preached to dead people’ (cf. Caffin 171; Kühl 255; Lenski 185). However, this function cannot be stretched to mean ‘some of the dead’, as though it were intended to mark out a particular group from among those so designated (pace Lillie 270). 189   This view was widespread among earlier generations of commentators (see, e.g., Estius 558–59; Pott 131–32; Steiger 2:257–60; Jachmann 163–64; de Wette 50; Wiesinger 270–77; Alford 373–75; Plumptre 141–42; Caffin 171; Cook 210; Mason 426; Huther 208–12; Sadler 131–32; Masterman 143, 175–76; Bennett 244–46; Gunkel 285; Wand 105), and its popularity continues to the present, especially within German scholarship (see, e.g., Windisch 75; Hauck 73; Cranfield 90–91; Reicke 119–20; Spicq 146–47; Best 156–57; Beare 182; Schrage 108; Frankemölle 62–63; Schelkle 116; Knoch 110–11; Goppelt 288–91; Brox 196–201; Schweizer 80; Green 122; Feldmeier 215–16; cf. Reicke Disobedient Spirits, 202–10; Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake’, 446–48; Schweizer, ‘1. Petrus 4,6’, 152–54). 190   Dalton (Christ’s Proclamation, 51–55) distinguishes these as his first and second options in the history of interpretation (see further below). 191   See Titrud, ‘The Overlooked ΚΑΙ’, 8. 192   Cf. Alford 373; Wagner–Vouga 136. According to Dubis, καί conveys an additive force (‘also’, cf. NJB, NKJV). Its purpose, he claims, is to help ‘the recipients make a connection between the preaching of the gospel to the living unbelievers, whose negative response to Christianity and whose consequent



4.1–6

345

such, the conjuction marks something that is unexpected or out of the ordinary. Since there is no reason why an exposure to gospel preaching would have been any more unusual for those Christians who are now deceased than it would have been for those who were still alive (particularly given that there would have doubtless been significant overlap in terms of when both the living and the dead received this message),193 it is difficult to reconcile this conjunction with the ‘since died’ view. It is much more easily explained if the proclamation of the gospel were made to those who were already dead, for this situation marks a departure from the standard paradigm of evangelisation. Beyond this consideration, on a literary level the ‘already dead’ view is able to provide more continuity with the preceding sentence. Based on the presence of γάρ, it is generally agreed that the point of this verse is to support the statement in v. 5 that God stands ready to judge the living and the dead.194 According to the ‘since died’ view, v. 6 provides vindication for those who are suffering and oppressed. Yet, here again, this suggestion requires a narrowing of the focus to a specific group, raising the question of why it is necessary to provide a word of assurance about the fate of Christians who have died. The readers would be far more interested in their own vindication, because they are the ones who were experiencing conflict (cf. v. 4). It is more appropriate, destiny has just been described in the [sic] verses 4–5, and the preaching of the gospel to believers who are now dead, whose positive response to the gospel when they were alive will consequently lead to a reversal of the judgment that unbelievers had made upon them’ (137; followed by Forbes 141). The difficulty with this proposal, however, is that nothing in vv. 4–5 mentions that the gospel was preached to the unbelieving antagonists. They are merely said to have responded negatively toward the readers’ social withdrawal. Without some mention of the gospel being preached to them, it is hard to see how καί provides additional information about evangelisation. 193   To pose this question with more specificity: If two individuals—one deceased at the time of the letter’s composition, the other alive—had earlier simultaneously heard and accepted the gospel message as it was preached by a Christian missionary, in what way was the reception by the former unexpected? 194   Michaels (235) goes so far as to say that it is ‘merely a footnote to v 5’ (cf. 225: ‘a postscript’). A few alternative interpretations have been suggested. Hensler (185), for instance, relates this verse back to v. 3, while Demarest (217) refers it back to v. 1, claiming that it provides another reason why believers should adopt a particular mindset (cf. Senior 115).

346

1 PETER

therefore, to interpret this verse as a statement about the universal announcement of the gospel. As such, it answers a significant question: How can God judge those who died before the time of Christ and who thus never had an opportunity to accept or reject the gospel?195 This may seem like an irrelevant theological musing, but it actually relates directly to the readers’ situation: the author assures his audience that universal judgment will take place—and thus their detractors will be judged—by providing a justification that it can take place. In other words, the focus is on the moral propriety of God to carry out judgment:196 the reason why universal judgment can occur is because the gospel message has been made universally accessible.197 A third argument in favour of the ‘already dead’ position arises out of reception history: church fathers understood it to describe Christ’s proclamation to the dead. Our earliest evidence indicates that some Christians speculated about where Jesus went during the interim between his death and resurrection. The belief that he descended into the underworld is widespread among NT authors (cf. Matt 12.40; Acts 2.24–31; Rom 10.7; Eph 4.8–9 [possibly]). It is natural to think that Christians might also contemplate what took place there, and this is in fact the case.198 Indeed, such ideas cannot be seen as ‘alien’ to the NT and emerging only in ‘later speculations’   See Leaney 60; Margot 70.   Cf. Steiger 2:256–57; Fausset 510; Alford 373–74; Huther 208–209; Bennett 245. Some have claimed that v. 6 focuses on the reality of judgment; in other words, the judge stands ready because the gospel has been preached to everyone and nothing more remains to be completed (e.g., Bengel 75; Bigg 170). 197   It is unnecessary to pose the further question, ‘what of those who have died since the advent of Christ without hearing the gospel?’ (Achtemeier 289), because the author is not concerned with the ongoing universal inclusivity of the offer of salvation. Other NT authors are able to envisage the gospel as having been ‘fully proclaimed’ (Rom 15.19; cf. 10.18) or proclaimed indeed to ‘all creation’ (Col 1.23), thinking in terms of corporate groups or types of people without raising our (modern) questions about the possible fate of each individual at different or subsequent points in time (Rom 11.25–26). In the same way, the Petrine author primarily wishes to emphasise the extent to which the gospel was made available in order to justify the promise of a universal judgment. 198   In non-Christian writings of the time, there is a plethora of similar stories about gods/heroes who rescued individuals from the place of the dead (see MacCulloch, Harrowing of Hell, 13–20). 195 196



4.1–6

347

(see further below).199 For some, the time that Christ spent in the realm of the dead was devoted to rescuing the saints from Israel’s past.200 Others conceived the focus of Christ’s ministry more broadly, including an effort to evangelise all who were dead.201 It is in these latter texts that we find some of the earliest representations of posthumous salvation;202 it is misleading to claim, as Dalton does, that this idea only emerges in nineteenth-century liberal Protestantism.203 The reason why this larger discussion is significant is because many of these ideas and claims were made in conversation with 1 Pet 3.18–20 and 4.6. Whether these passages were 199   Pace Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 234–35: ‘the idea of preaching to souls in the world of the dead (apart from this text under discussion) is due to later speculations and has no roots in the New Testament… [T]he normal meaning of the term, “preach the gospel”, would imply the possible conversion of these souls. Such an idea is alien to the rest of the New Testament, which insists on this life as the arena where eternal life is decided’. Cf., similarly, Achtemeier 289. 200   There are a number of general statements that seem to limit Christ’s efforts to rescuing the righteous dead (Sib. Or. 8.310–311; Justin Martyr, Dial. 72.4; Hippolytus, Antichr. 26; Tertullian, An. 55.1–2; cf. also Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.3, who explains that the Marcionites, conversely, claimed that those described as unrighteous in the Jewish scriptures [e.g., Cain, the Sodomites, the Egyptians] responded positively to Christ in the underworld, while the Jewish heroes [e.g., Abel, Noah, the patriarchs] rejected him). In a few cases, however, an explanation is given of what exactly this process entailed. Irenaeus, for instance, describes how Christ proclaimed to this group ‘the remission of sins for those who believe in him’, because they had still not received the benefits of Christ’s death (cf. Epistula Apostolorum 27; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6.38–53; see also Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9.6–18, where the righteous dead are in heaven but not fully robed and crowned). 201   See, e.g., Odes Sol. 42.10–20; Gos. Pet. 39–42; Acts Thom. 156; Gos. Nic. 18–23; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6.38–53; Origen, Cels. 2.43; Princ. 2.5.3; Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Rom. 10 (PL 17:150); Ambrose, Fid. 3.14.111. Along with the idea that Christ preached the gospel to the dead, some also believed that it was necessary for the apostles to preach in the underworld (Herm. Sim. 9.16.5–7; Clement of Alexanria, Strom. 6.6.645–646). What gave rise to this notion was the realisation that many people had died between the descent of Christ and the time when different parts of the Roman Empire were evangelised. Some early church fathers, however, pushed back against the possibility of posthumous conversion (see, e.g., John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 36.3; Philaster of Brescia, Div. haer. lib. 125 [PL 12:1250–52]; Augustine, Ep. 164.4.13). 202   On this topic more generally, see Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead. 203   Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 52. See further Horrell, Becoming Christian, 75–76, 92–97.

348

1 PETER

the primary impetus for such theological developments, it is clear that they were consistently interpreted with reference to Christ’s preaching to the dead. Despite these considerations, two main objections are commonly raised against the ‘already dead’ view.204 Some claim that the idea of a ‘second chance’ at salvation runs counter to the theology of the NT and to the theology of 1 Peter, in particular.205 While it is arbitrary to limit this question to the canonical writings, as though they were written in a theological vacuum (or even because it is assumed that they take temporal priority to other early Christian literature—which is not always the case), it is important to point out that the idea of posthumous salvation is not foreign to the NT, even if some texts (notably Heb 9.27) might seem to rule it out. A text like Luke 16.26, which regards postmortem conversion as impossible (cf. LAB 33.2–3; 2 Clem. 8.1–3), reveals that this question was part of the theological environment in which 1 Peter was written.206 Other passages suggest different perspectives on the question. For example, there have been many different attempts to   Another objection that is sometimes raised against this view is that Christ could not be both the agent who proclaimed the message as well as the object of the message itself (see Kelly 173–74, whose arguments are repeated by various interpreters, e.g., Achtemeier 287; Elliott 732; Watson 99; Schreiner 236). However, all of the evidence used to support this argument is very weak: (a) If Christ is the judge in v. 5, then it would be much easier to say, ‘this is why he [Christ] preached’ (Kelly 173–74). Yet, it is unlikely that Christ is the judge mentioned in the previous verse (see Exegesis at 4.5). (b) Ordinarily, Christ is the object of the verb εὐαγγελίζω (e.g., Acts 5.42; Acts Phil. 29.3; Origen, Hom. Luc. 12; Hippolytus, Ben. Is. Jac. 114; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.4.2; Basil, Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam 11.248). While this point is accurate, it does not rule out the possibility that Christ could be the agent who makes the proclamation (see the evidence discussed above). (c) The other uses of εὐαγγελίζω in 1 Peter indicate that human missionaries were the agents who proclaimed the message (see Elliott 732). But given that human missionaries are mentioned as the agents of proclamation elsewhere in the letter, it seems strange that their agency would not be specified here (cf. Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake’, 447). 205   See Bengel 75; Hiebert 266; Achtemeier 289; Osborne 234, 238; Schreiner 236. 206   A related question, which seems to have been given much consideration, was whether interecessory prayer could (Acts Paul Thecla 28–31; Apoc. Pet. 14; Sib. Or. 2.330–338; Epistula Apostolorum 40; Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas 7–8; Apoc. El. (C) 5.29) or could not (4 Ezra 7.102–115; 2 Bar. 85.12) be made for the unrighteous who had died. 204



4.1–6

349

explain the curious practice alluded to by Paul in 1 Cor 15.29 (οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν),207 but there are good grounds on which to conclude that it is some form of vicarious baptism. In other words, the Corinthians’ baptism for the dead was a practice believed to make some difference to the fate of the dead, to effect or ensure their transfer to salvation. This is, of course, somewhat different from the notion of the dead having an opportunity to respond to the gospel—the kind of idea that may be hinted at in 1 Pet 4.6—but it is relevant enough to cast considerable doubt over the assertion that notions of post-death conversion/initiation are entirely absent from the NT. Likewise, John 5.25–29 may well indicate belief in a proclamation of Christ in the realm of the dead.208 Those who claim that the ‘already dead’ view runs contrary to the theology of 1 Peter point to a few key passages which (supposedly) contradict the notion that there could be any kind of ‘second chance’ after death: 1.3–4; 3.10; 4.5, 18; 5.8.209 These verses, however, all refer to the value of the believers’ faith, or to the need to turn from evil and do good. Nowhere does the Petrine author rule out the possibility of conversion and salvation for sinners, before or after death. Rather than declaring the fate of the believers’ opponents as sealed, he shows a certain ‘reluctance to fasten in detail on the fate of the ungodly’, apparent in 3.12, 3.16, 4.5 and 4.18.210 Most notable in this regard is 3.12, where the quotation from Ps 33.13–17 LXX omits the concluding phrase ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν (‘to destroy the memory of them from the earth’).211 The author thus exhibits a clear tendency to avoid definite statements regarding the condemnation of unbelievers. What is more, this argument fails to consider that the proclamation of the gospel in v. 6 was not an on-going activity of which the readers could (later) avail themselves; instead, it seems to have been a one-time occurrence 207   See, e.g., Rissi, Die Taufe für die Toten; DeMaris, ‘Corinthian Religion and Baptism’, 661–82; White, ‘ “Baptized on Account of the Dead” ’, 487–99; Taylor, ‘Baptism for the Dead (1 Cor 15:29)?’, 111–20; Hull, Baptism on account of the Dead. 208   Cf. also Selwyn 346–52 (though this is not his view of 1 Pet 4.6); Vogels, Christi Abstieg, 51–58; Horrell, Becoming Christian, 92. 209   See Hiebert 266; Elliott 733; Forbes 142. 210   Michaels 182. 211   See further Exegesis at 3.12.

350

1 PETER

in the past.212 If this is the case, then the only opportunity left for individuals to respond to the gospel now lies in the preaching of Christian missionaries,213 like those that converted the readers (cf. 1.12, 25). A second objection concerns the temporal relationship between the preaching of the gospel and the actions described in the μέν and δέ clauses (see further below). Since ἵνα is generally thought to denote the purpose of the main verb (εὐηγγελίσθη),214 it would seem then that evangelisation must have preceded the judgment and giving of life.215 Regardless of how one understands κριθῶσιν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί (see below), in this case the proclamation of the gospel would have to have taken place on earth during the lifetime of those in question. Nevertheless, the difficulty that this sentence— and its unavoidably difficult syntax—creates for the ‘already dead’ view is eased considerably by the widespread agreement that the μέν… δέ construction ‘indicates that the first half (μέν) is to be understood as subordinate to the second half (δέ) and hence carries

212   Cf. Valentin 112; Davids 154; Picirilli 190; Feldmeier 216. If the invitation for the dead to receive the gospel were ongoing, then we might have expected a present tense verb (εὐαγγελίζεται, ‘the gospel is preached’). Instead, the aorist εὐηγγελίσθη represents this situation in summary form, most likely as a singular, completed event in the past. As such, the form presents a problem not for the ‘already dead’ view, but rather for the ‘since died’ theory. If the author had intended to depict a situation involving the proclamation of the gospel over an extended period of time in various geographic locations to converts who had since died, then a more natural choice would have been the imperfect tense, εὐηγγελίζετο (‘the gospel was preached’; cf. Athanasius, De incarnatione contre Apollinarium libri ii [PG 26:1156]). 213   Consequently, there is no reason to claim (as do Grudem 172 and Schreiner 236–37), that the ‘already dead’ view would extinguish any motivation to maintain a holy lifestyle (since the readers could imitate the lifestyle of the ‘pagans’, thus decreasing the animosity against them, and still be provided with a second chance at conversion after death), or that it would dilute all desire for missionary activity (since opportunities for conversion would be available at a later time). 214   As a way around the chronological order that seems to be implied by this construction, Schweizer (‘1. Petrus 4,6’, 153) interprets the ἵνα-clause causally, indicating that the reason why the gospel was preached to these individuals was because of the judgment previously rendered against them (cf. MHT 3:102). But while ἵνα can, at times, express a causal idea (Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 140–41 [§412–414]), this is not the most natural function here. 215   Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 240. Cf. Stibbs–Walls 152.



4.1–6

351

a concessive force’.216 This view of the relation of the two parts of the construction may also be indicated by the choice of tenses: κριθῶσιν (aorist) and ζῶσιν (present). As the ‘background’ tense, the former is generally used of actions represented as complete, while the latter is the ‘foreground’ tense, generally used of actions represented as ongoing. A concessive reading also avoids the strange notion that the expressed purpose of the gospel’s proclamation was to produce judgment.217 Therefore, even though the two clauses are co-ordinate, syntactically, on a semantic level the former is subordinate to the latter (cf. Rom 8.10: τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην), with the meaning being equivalent to ἵνα κριθέντες ζῶσιν (‘so that even though they are judged they might live’).218 The crucial question then is whether the first half of the phrase can legitimately be taken as having occurred prior to the evangelisation. While some have argued that this question can be answered   Achtemeier 287. The concessive nature of the μέν is widely recognised among interpreters regardless of their position on the identity of the νεκροί (see, e.g., Calvin 126; Cook 210; Johnstone 322; Blenkin 95; Selwyn 215; Cranfield 110; Elliott 735; Forbes 142; cf. also Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 152–53 [§452]). Some describe the first part of the sentence as ‘parenthetic’ (Huther 211; Selwyn 215; Spicq 147), but this does not quite capture its function. In this sentence, the μέν-clause makes an allowance for a fact that seems to run contrary to the δέ-clause. As such, the former is what provides emphasis to the latter. A parenthetic function would describe an otherwise unrelated insertion. 217   This is how the relationship is understood by a few interpreters (e.g., Schott 269; Mason 426–27; Lenski 186–87), and it is reflected in many older translations as well (Geneva, KJV, Douay-Rheims, ASV). According to this reading, the focus is not on the experience of judgment in the past—whether it be death or human persecution—but on future judgment. The problem with this suggestion, as Best has pointed out, is that ‘it destroys the contrast between “flesh” and “spirit”, for to say that men are raised in the flesh means they appear at the last judgement in a “fleshy” (i.e. material) existence, whereas to live “in the spirit” does not imply a “spiritual” (i.e. non-material) existence but life in the sphere of God’s Spirit’ (157). 218   See further Kühl 258; Monnier 202; Bigg 170; cf. also Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium, 320–21. There are two reasons why the Petrine author avoids the construction ἵνα κριθέντες ζῶσιν. First, it would have been impossible given the μέν… δέ construction, which requires co-ordinating verbs. Second, the participial construction would have potentially created misunderstanding, leaving open the possibility that κριθέντες denoted means (i.e., spiritual life is reached through judgment), which the author would have wanted to avoid (cf. Steiger 2:260). 216

352

1 PETER

on the basis of the sentence’s grammatical structure, this is not the case. Since the real weight of the purpose clause falls entirely on the second part of the phrase (‘the gospel was preached even to the dead so that they might live’), the chronological relationship between evangelism and judgment cannot be established. At most, the syntax suggests that living follows evangelisation and perhaps, based on tense usage, that judgment precedes living. But these conclusions are consistent with both the ‘since died’ and the ‘already dead’ positions. The complexities of the verse raise some difficulties for all of the proposed interpretations,219 but taken together, multiple reasons combine to put most weight behind the understanding of νεκροί as a reference to those physically dead at the time they heard the good news. ἵνα κριθῶσιν μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκὶ, σαρκὶ, ζῶσιν δὲ κατὰ θεὸν πνεύματι.. πνεύματι The ἵνα-clause that follows provides two further pieces of information that help to explain this evangelisation. First, its purpose was to provide these dead individuals with life; as we have argued above, the first phrase (μέν) is concessive, while the second (δέ) carries the main focus of the ἵνα. There are a few who take πνεύματι as a dative of agency (‘by the Spirit’; cf. CEB, CJB; see also ERV: ‘through the Spirit’), indicating the one who makes this life possible.220 But no evidence is given for why it is necessary to disturb the parallelism with σαρκί,221 which clearly cannot sustain a similar interpretation. It is best, therefore, to read πνεύματι as a dative of sphere, describing the realm in which this new life is experienced (‘in the spirit’ [NRSV, ESV, NAB] or ‘in the spiritual realm’   As Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 230, rightly acknowledges.   So, e.g., Green 135–36; Dubis 139; Schreiner 238; Keener 291. 221   In support of this interpretation, Green contends that ‘we might take our cue… from 4:1–2, where Peter juxtaposes suffering “in the flesh” with living “by the will of God (σαρκί — θελήματι, sarki — thelēmati), which counters the need for simple grammatical balance’ (136). Such an argument does not reflect the type of juxtaposition that is found in 3.18 or 4.6, however. The latter two cases are part of balanced μέν…δέ clauses wherein σαρκί represents the antithesis of πνεύματι. On the other hand, the former (σαρκί and θελήματι) are not even directly contrasted. The opposite of living ‘by the will of God’ (θελήματι θεοῦ) is living ‘by human desires’ (ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις). For more evidence on why the datives should be assigned the same function, see Exegesis at 3.18. 219 220



4.1–6

353

[HCSB, ISV]).222 Further, the author refers to the standard of this life: it is ‘in accordance with God’ (κατὰ θεόν; cf. 1.15; 5.2). By this, he intends to express that this new life in the spirit is reflective of the life experienced by God; hence, these dead individuals will live ‘like (or in the way that) God lives’.223 Based upon the goal (ἵνα) for the dead to ‘live in the spirit’, some assume that this gospel proclamation generates a positive response from all who hear it, resulting in universal conversion.224 However, the author does not actually declare that all the dead will ‘live in the spirit’. He merely states that this is the purpose of the proclamation. Such action is very closely related to the idea that God’s intent is to provide for the salvation of all, a notion found in various places within the NT (John 3.17; Rom 11.25–36; 1 Cor 15.24–28; 2 Pet 3.9). For many early Christians, this latter consideration did not negate the prospect of future judgment for those who rejected the message of Jesus. In many of the early accounts of Christ’s descent, the gospel is proclaimed to all in the realm of the dead, but not everyone responds positively.225 Similarly, the author’s reference to judgment in 1 Pet 4.5 leaves open the possibility that some might not receive the message—although the extent of the response (if any) is not actually specified.226 222   Cf. Achtemeier 288; Jobes 273; Donelson 124–25; Osborne 239; Schlosser 239; Forbes 142. Others describe σαρκί and πνεύματι as datives of respect (e.g., Bénétreau 224; Goppelt 289–90; Elliott 736), which results in much the same meaning. 223   Pace Jachmann 163–64, who takes κατὰ θεόν to mean, ‘according to their divine nature’. The phrase κατὰ θεόν appears four times in the writings of Paul (Rom 8.27; 2 Cor 7.9, 10, 11) and once in the deutero-Pauline literature (Eph 4.24). It is this latter usage that is particularly instructive with regard to the meaning of the phrase. The author of Ephesians describes the new human as ‘created according to God’ (τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα), whereas the parallel construction in Col 3.10 describes being renewed κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (‘according to the image of the one who created him’), which has led many to interpret τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα to mean, ‘created in the likeness of God’. 224   E.g., Marshall 137, who views this as a reason for objecting to the ‘already dead’ view. 225   See Gos. Nic. 18.2: ‘For this reason God has sent me [John the Baptist] also to you, that I might preach how the unique Son of God is coming here [i.e., Hades], so that whoever believes in him will be saved, but whoever does not believe in him will be condemned’. Cf. Odes Sol. 42.10–20; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6.46; Acts Thom. 156; Origen, Cels. 2.43. 226   Cf. Bigg 171; Blenkin 95.

354

1 PETER

A second piece of information helps to explain this gospel proclamation by detailing in the concessive μέν clause the mitigating circumstances that could have—but ultimately did not—undermine its primary purpose. It involves judgment in the flesh κατὰ ἀνθρώπους. Proponents of the ‘since died’ view often understand κριθῶσιν as referring to the criticism and censure that Christians received from other members of society, ‘so that they might be judged according to human standards’ (NET, NIV, HCSB, NAB).227 According to this reading, ‘judgment’ is another way of describing the persecution that is being experienced by members of the Christian community (cf. 4.17: ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ).228 The point of the verse, then, would be that the experience of hostility during one’s lifetime—even if it resulted in one’s death—was not sufficient to jeopardise the spiritual (eternal) life promised in the gospel. While this interpretation is consistent with the larger situation addressed in the letter, the immediate context seems to require a different explanation. As an alternative, many take κριθῶσιν as divine judgment, in the form of the death experienced by all people, ‘so that they might be judged in the flesh as everyone is judged’ (NRSV, ESV, GNT, NASB, NLT).229 Support for this reading arises from the other references to acts of judging (κρίνειν) in 1 Peter, all of which focus on God’s evaluation of human performance, not on the expression of human decision (see 1.17; 2.23; 4.5, 17).230 This usage is especially relevant considering that the previous verse mentions God as the one who judges. But while the use of κρίνειν 227   See, e.g., Grotius 100; Hensler 183–84; Barnes 190; Selwyn 215; Blum 245; Michaels 238–40; Marshall 137; Senior 116; Jobes 273; Osborne 234–35; Watson 99. 228   Elliott (736) claims that the aorist tense of κριθῶσιν indicates that this judgment occurred prior to death. But there is nothing to support this claim grammatically and, as such, it has been challenged even by those who adopt the ‘since died’ theory (see Forbes 142). 229   So, e.g., Demarest 219–20; Bennett 245; Kelly 175; Beare 182; Goppelt 290. Alternatively, some take κριθῶσιν as describing the punishment that God meted out to the flood generation because of their wickedness (see de Wette 51; Blenkin 95; Feldmeier 216). 230   See further Exegesis at 4.17. This verse is interesting insofar as the κρίμα in view seems to be God’s eschatological judgment, even though it is being experienced as the hostility and persecution suffered by some of the believers.



4.1–6

355

represents divine rather than human activity, the qualifying dative σαρκί (‘in the flesh’) marks out this event as distinct from the final judgment of the wicked that is mentioned in v. 5.231 A clue to its meaning is found in 3.18, which contains a parallel construction (θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι). Just as Jesus was put to death ‘in the flesh’, it would seem that this judgment involves the experience of death.232 This hypothesis is confirmed by two considerations: the author is describing dead people (νεκροί) and judgment is explicitly contrasted with experiencing life (rather than another benefit, e.g., salvation, justification, etc.).233 Thus, to be judged in the way that humans are judged (κατὰ ἀνθρώπους)234 means to undergo the universal human experience: death (cf. Wis 3.2–4).235 The point, then, is that even death did not exclude these individuals from the opportunity to experience spiritual life.

  Cf. Johnstone 322; Masterman 176. Against Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 205–206, who understands this judgment as a final judgment that is awaited in the future. 232   The idea that death can serve as God’s judgment is also found in Paul: ‘For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died (κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί). But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged (ἐκρινόμεθα). But when we are judged by the Lord (κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ [τοῦ] κυρίου), we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world’ (1 Cor 11.30–32, NRSV). 233   Cf. Mason 426. Contrast this usage with John 3.17–18 and 12.47, where judgment is set in opposition to salvation. 234   The prepositional phrase κατὰ ἀνθρώπους is sometimes understood in a perspectival sense, describing the estimation of humans, ‘in the opinion/eyes of people’ (Selwyn 215; Kelly 175–76; cf. Moule, Idiom Book, 59; Harris, Prepositions, 153). Based on the parallel construction (κατὰ θεόν), however, it is probably better to understand it as marking out what is a universal characteristic of humanity, ‘according to the manner of humans’ (Steiger 2:259; Plumptre 142; Goppelt 290 n. 64; cf. Winer, Grammar, 501). Paul uses this phrase in a similar way, but only in the singular (Rom 3.5; 1 Cor 3.3; 9.8; 15.32; Gal 1.11; 3.15), whereby he individualises the human experience. By employing the plural, the Petrine author universalises human plight (cf. Ign. Trall. 2.1; Rom. 8.1). 235   Many commentators point to Wis 3.2–4 as a close parallel to this passage: ‘In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was considered to be suffering, and their going from us to be destruction, but they are at peace. For even if in the sight of human beings they were punished, their hope is full of immortality’ (NETS). Yet, while death is considered as punishment in both, the focus in Wis 3 is on the human reaction to this punishment, which is not the point in 1 Pet 4.6. 231

356

1 PETER

Summary The exhortation presented in this section begins (as in 2.21–25) by taking Christ as the exemplar and motivation for conduct: the same mental orientation should inform the readers, who suffer as Christ himself did. Their suffering demonstrates what happens to those who turn away from sin and live according to God’s will, just as Christ suffered innocently and without retaliation, entrusting himself to God. The negative description of ‘Gentile’ behaviour indicates the author’s perspective on the life that these converts have now left behind (and suggests their Gentile identity). This way of life is characterised as one of indulgent excess and immorality, culminating in the sin that underpins all the others in terms of its fundamental orientation: abominable idolatries (v. 3). Just as the addressees’ new way of life may be defined as one pursued ‘according to the will of God’ (v. 2) so, in a corresponding way, their now abandoned former life is characterised by idolatry. Because the readers once shared the way of life of their non-Christian neighbours, but do so no longer, their shift of allegiance and lifestyle is a focus for hostility and criticism, as v. 4 explains. However, the tables will be turned, and those who now express slanderous condemnation and judgment of these Christians will themselves be held to account, and will have to give their own defence before God (v. 5; cf. 3.15). This imminent eschatological judgment—which 4.17–19 suggests to be already beginning—will be encompassing in its scope, covering both ‘the living and the dead’ (v. 5). This phrase, which became established and formu� laic in Christian discourse, invites the author further to explain and justify how this can take place. More specifically, how can the readers be sure that this all-encompassing judgment of God can and will justifiably take place? This is the point that v. 6 answers, though it does so in an enigmatic way that leaves as many uncertainties as answers—at least for us.236

236   Cf. Brox 197–98, who notes how much remains mysterious to us in this verse (‘Fast alles bleibt an ihr unklar…’), but suggests that this is in part because, in distinction from the original readers of the letter, we do not know—or know only fragmentarily—the associated early Christian ideas and traditions that may have surrounded and made sense of this declaration.



4.1–6

357

As we have seen, v. 6 has generated a wide range of interpreta�tions in its history of reception, and is significant not least because it touches—or may appear to touch—upon theologically important questions about the opportunities for, and scope of, salvation, and whether these opportunities extend even to those who have already died. Most recent commentators in English have favoured the view that the verse refers to people who heard the good news while they were alive on earth, but have since died. On this view, the author is assuring them—somewhat like Paul does in 1 Thess 4.13–18—that those who have died have not missed out on their promised salvation. Yet there is no explicit sign of this concern in 1 Peter, and it seems improbable at the date when the letter was likely written. There are good reasons, instead, to see this verse as referring to a proclamation (probably by Christ) of the good news in the realm of the dead. This notion is not as alien to the NT as is often stated, and is clearly evident in other early Christian texts, even if it remains enigmatic to us. The author leaves unstated what the result of this proclamation might be, though it seems to imply the possibility of post-mortem salvation, at least for some—a topic that continued to be debated within early Christianity.237 But, as elsewhere, the final fate of the ungodly is not something on which he makes any explicit declaration. The reason for this mysterious declaration here is primarily to justify the preceding statement that God will judge both the living and the dead.

  As Augustine (Ep. 164) makes especially clear.

237

I N S T RU C T IO N S O N L IF E W I THI N T H E C H R IS T IA N C O MM UNI TY (4.7–11)

Initial Bibliography Jens Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition, WUNT 103 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 158–72; Leslie L. Kline, ‘Ethics for the End Time: An Exegesis of 1 Peter 4:7–11’, ResQ 7 (1963): 113–23; Florentino Ogara, ‘Caritas operit multitudinem peccatorum (1 Pet. 4,7b–11)’, VD 16 (1936): 129–35; A. Sisti, ‘La vita cristiana nell’attesa della Parusia (1 Piet. 4,7–11)’, BeO 7 (1965): 123–28; Ceslas Spicq, ‘Prière, charité, justice… et fin des temps (1 P 4:7–11)’, Assemblées du Seigneur 50 (1966): 15–29; Robert Vorholt, ‘ “Das Ende ist nahe” (1Petr 4,7). Eine Skizze zur Eschatologie des Ersten Petrusbriefes’, in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief, ed. Thomas Söding, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 216 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), 89–104; Travis B. Williams, ‘Delivering Oracles of God: The Nature of Christian Communication in 1 Peter 4:11a’, HTR 113 (2020): 334–53; Benno A. Zuiddam, ‘Die Woord as maatstaf: Die implikasie van Godspraak in 1 Petrus 4:11’, NGTT 55 (2014): 489–508; Benno A. Zuiddam, Fika J. van Rensburg, and Pierre J. Jordaan, ‘ΛΟΓΙΟΝ in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Christian Scholarship’, Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 379–94.

Text Πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν. ἤγγικεν. σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε εἰς(a) προσευχάς 8 πρὸ πάντων τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, ἔχοντες, ὅτι ἀγάπη(b) καλύπτει(c) πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, ἁμαρτιῶν, 9 φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ(d), 10 ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβεν χάρισμα εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦντες ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος θεοῦ. θεοῦ. 11 εἴ τις λαλεῖ, λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ·· εἴ τις διακονεῖ, θεοῦ διακονεῖ, ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός(e), ἵνα ἐν πᾶσιν δοξάζηται ὁ θεὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, αἰῶνας, ἀμήν ἀμήν..(f) 7

(a) In most MSS (P, 442, 1735, 2492, Byz), the article (τάς) is inserted before προσευχάς. This was the reading of the TR, while the present reading is supported by our earliest MS witnesses as well as some of particular significance (e.g., P72, ‫א‬, A, B, C, Ψ, 5, 33, 1739). According to Hofmann,

360

1 PETER

‘Der Artikel vor προσευχάς hat an dem νήφοντες πρὸς τὰς εὐχάς des Polykarpus [Pol. Phil. 7.2] ein ältestes Zeugnis und überhaupt so ansehnliche Beglaubigung für sich’ (166; cf. Wohlenberg 131). But given the diffe�rences between these two texts (e.g., πρός instead of εἰς; εὐχάς instead of προσευχάς), it is unsafe to use this as ‘an ancient testimony’ of the article’s authenticity in 1 Pet 4.7 (cf. Usteri 188 n. 1). Bloomfield argues that the article was original based on the (inaccurate) claim that ‘no other instance is there in the N.T. of προσευχ. in the Plural without the Article’ (722). Although the plural form of προσευχή is normally preceded by the article, there is one other instance where the article is absent (1 Tim 2.1; cf. also Philo, Legat. 134, 137, 148, 156, 191; Josephus, War 5.388; Ag. Ap. 2.10; Ign. Pol. 1.3). For this reason, some scholars have suggested that the article was a later insertion in order to bring the phrase into alignment with common usage (cf. Michaels 243). Others claim that its addition may have been influenced by the articular usage in 3.7 (cf. Huther 200; Kühl 261). Elliott is somewhat more uncertain, raising the possibility that the article ‘may have been lost through haplography resulting from homoeoteleuton’ (749 n. 511). This is possible, but it would require an extremely early omission (in order to explain the uniformity of the earliest MSS) with the original reading somehow being rediscovered in the later tradition. It is more likely that the anarthrous form represents the initial text. (b) Here P72 has another brief marginal summary: περὶ ἀγάπη. (c) At this point, the evidence is divided between the future tense καλύψει (P72, ‫א‬, P, 436, 642, 1448, 2492, Byzpt), which is the reading found in the TR and the Majority Text, and the present tense καλύπτει (A, B, K, Ψ, 81, 323, 1739, 1881, etc.). Internal considerations fail to deliver a clear solution. As others have pointed out, καλύψει could be an alteration in conformity to Jas 5.20 (see Wiesinger 281; Beare 185; Schreiner 242 n. 492; Feldmeier 217; Schlosser 245), possibly also influenced by the eschatological orientation of both texts (1 Pet 4.7; Jas 5.7–9); on the other hand, καλύπτει might just as easily be an attempt to align the text with Prov 10.12 (LXX). The only potential clue to the initial reading might be the citations of this verse that appear in the church fathers. In the earliest references to this passage, the present tense form is employed (see 1 Clem. 49.5; 2 Clem. 16.4). Even in later centuries, although the future tense is cited on occasion (e.g., Didymus, Trin. [PG 39.776.39]), it is the present form that is most common (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.12.91.3; Strom. 2.15.65.3 Quis div. 38.2; Apoc. Sedr. 1.2; Ephraem Syrus, Car. 120.8). It is hard to imagine how this could have been the case if both James and 1 Peter originally read καλύψει. (d) The majority of later MSS read the plural, γογγυσμῶν, rather than the singular, γογγυσμοῦ (P72 [erroneously written as γογυζμου], ‫א‬, A, B, C, et al.). Most recognise this as a later corruption (although the plural was defended by Bloomfield 722; cf. Hensler 191; Steiger 2:264, 268), possibly influenced by the similar language (χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν) in Phil 2.14 (see Huther 200; Kühl 262; Beare 185).



4.7–11

361

(e) There is considerable variation within the textual record at this point (see ECM 178); however, the less significant (and less likely) variants need not concern us. The two readings that stand out are: ὡς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός (‘as God supplies’) and ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός (‘which God supplies’). The former, which is found in the majority of later MSS (P, 642, 1448, 2492, Byz), appears to be the more difficult of the two. However, it could have easily arisen under the influence of the preceding occurrences of ὡς (cf. Michaels 243 n. d; Achtemeier 292; Elliott 760 n. 544). The latter contains a very strong external pedigree (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, 323, 1739, 1881, pc), and therefore can make a better claim to stand as the initial text. (f) Although the longer reading (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν) is widely attested (e.g., ‫א‬, A, B, K, L, P, Ψ), some witnesses read only εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν (P72, 5, 69, 1175, 1243, 1611, 1735, 1739, 1852, Byzpt, vgww, syp mss.h, samss, bopt). C-S is also an important early Coptic witness to this short form (4a niene6 6amhn).1 ECM (179) gives the latter as an alternative. On internal grounds, Michaels (243 n. e) accepts the longer reading and argues that the omission reflects a desire ‘to soften the liturgical force’ of this verse ‘because such qualities seemed to belong more properly to the very end of an epistle’. This suggestion may find support from some witnesses that omit τῶν αἰώνων at 4.11 but add it to the same phrase at 5.11 (e.g., 5, 1739), where it is unlikely to be authentic (see Text at 5.11 n. j). However, there are also MSS that have the longer reading in both places (e.g., ‫א‬, A, Ψ; compare the evidence from ECM 179 and 198). The combined witness of P72 and C-S points at least to a very early version which had this wording. This is also the form most likely used by the author at 5.11 (see ad loc.), where again the phrase is expanded in many of the MSS (including C-S). While the canon lectio brevior potior cannot be applied indiscriminately (see Royse, Scribal Habits, 705–36; Miller, ‘Breaking the Rules’, 82–93; Farnes, Simply Come Copying), in this case it would appear to hold true. It seems more likely that such a stock phrase was expanded into its more liturgically rich and common form than that it was shortened (for the short phrase, see, e.g., Rom 1.25; 9.5; 11.36; 16.27 [subject to the same expansion as 1 Pet 4.11 in P61, ‫א‬, A, D, P, etc.]).2

Introduction In these verses, the author draws to a close the extended section of exhortation and instruction running from 2.11–4.11. The brief doxology with which the passage concludes (v. 11) was among   See the list of Coptic variants listed by Willis, ‘The Letter of Peter’, 200 (A8).   Another text where the MSS are divided on the shorter and longer form is Heb 13.21. For the longer phrase, see e.g., Gal 1.5; Phil 4.20; 1 Tim 1.17; 2 Tim 4.18; Rev 4.10; 5.13; 7.12; 10.6; 11.15; 15.7; 19.3; 20.10; 22.5. 1 2

362

1 PETER

the features—along with a supposed difference with regard to the threat or reality of persecution—that led an earlier generation of scholars to see 1 Peter as a composite letter, with 4.12–5.11 (or 4.12–5.14) reflecting a somewhat different situation.3 However, as recent scholarship has largely agreed, such a division of the letter is unnecessary and unconvincing. The situation in view in 4.12–19 is not inconsistent with that presumed throughout the letter, and it is not unique for a letter to contain a brief doxology or prayer at points other than the letter-closing (cf., e.g., Rom 11.36; 15.13, 33; 1 Thess 3.11–13; see further on 4.11). While the exhortation in the previous section (4.1–6) focused on tensions with outsiders, these verses address internal relationships and responsibilities within the Christian communities. Both external and internal relationships are a concern elsewhere in the letter, and are sometimes woven together closely, as in 3.8–9. Indeed, the instructions here reiterate and expand some of those given in 3.8, but also display notable parallels with the paranesis found in Rom 12.3–20 and James 5.7–20 (esp. in vv. 7–9). The framing of ethical exhortations with a reminder about the nearness of the eschaton is reminiscent of Rom 13.11–14, and the instructions in vv. 10–11 recall the Pauline teaching about the χαρίσματα in Rom 12.6–8 and 1 Cor 12.4–11, as well as the division of labour between speaking and serving found in Acts 6.1–6. As elsewhere in the letter, the author likely displays here knowledge of early Christian traditions, from both Pauline and non-Pauline sources.4 Exegesis 7 Πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν. ἤγγικεν. The conjunction δέ marks a transition in the author’s thought and forms a (weak) connection with what precedes.5 Based on this   See Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure.   See Introduction: Sources, Traditions, and Affinities. 5   While the particle indicates a loose connection with the preceding (see Marshall 142; Richard 177; Jobes 275), it is unlikely that it denotes a contrast (‘but’), as suggested in some older translations (KJV, ASV, Darby, Douay-Rheims; cf. also Kelly 176), or that it should be considered a supplementary addition (Schott 278; cf. van Rensburg, ‘Intersentence Relational Particles’, 297). Instead, δέ carries a metabatic force (‘now’, cf. Geneva, RGT, HCSB, TLV, LEB), marking a transition 3 4



4.7–11

363

link, some connect v. 7a with vv. 1–6, where it is thought to form a conclusion to the discussion of universal judgment, thus leaving v. 7b to begin a new subsection.6 However, it is difficult to see how πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν forms a proper conclusion to the preceding discussion.7 It works much better as an introductory statement upon which the following paraenesis (vv. 7b–11) is grounded.8 Having just described the kinds of conduct that lead to condemnation and judgment (vv. 3–6), the author’s attention now shifts to the types of behaviour that should characterise the Christian community. The word τέλος carries a number of different meanings in the epistle—from the ‘goal’ of faith (1.9) to the ‘end/result’ for those who do not obey the gospel (4.17). Here it refers to a future point in time when the present operations of this world will be brought to a close after reaching their intended outcome.9 Like other Christian writers (cf. Acts 1.7; 3.21; 17.30; Rom 16.25; 1 Cor 10.11; 1 Thess 5.1; 2 Tim 1.9; Titus 1.2), the Petrine author appears to divide up human history into different epochs (cf. 1.20). The readers are already experiencing a period of intense trial and hostility, which marks the final phase in the eschatological timetable. This period precedes the ultimate and final consummation (cf. 4.17). As such, πάντων, which is placed in an emphatic first position in the sentence, is best understood not as masculine (‘all people’),10 but from one topic to another (cf. Keil 152; Kühl 261–62; Bigg 172; Hiebert 268; Picirilli 192). It shifts the discussion from the notion that God is ready to judge (v. 5) to the time when this event might occur (v. 7a). 6   So, e.g., Pott 132; Steiger 2:260; Hofmann 166; Holzmeister 362–70; Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 235–36. This view is found in some patristic writings as well (see Batovici, ‘Commenting on 1 Pt 4:7–11’, 165). 7   This view is also problematic in that it reads πάντων as a masculine adjective (‘all people’), an altogether difficult interpretation. 8   Cf. Green 139 n. 180. 9   Cf. Lenski 192: ‘The Greek never uses τέλος to denote a merely temporal end; τελευτή is the proper word for this idea. Even in temporal connections τέλος retains the idea of goal, not merely cessation but the conclusion.’ 10   As suggested by some interpreters (e.g., Hensler 187; Demarest 227; Reicke 121; Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 235–36). It should be pointed out that when ‘the end’ of people is mentioned in the NT, ‘the reference is always to the wicked’ (Johnstone 337 [original emphasis]; cf. 2 Cor 11.15; Phil 3.19). If this passage were describing the fate of all humankind, the author could have made

364

1 PETER

as neuter (‘all things’),11 referring to the end of this present age, which is marked by injustice and the suffering of God’s people. When Christ returns, redemptive history will come to a close and this created order will finally be subject to his rule and reign (cf. 3.22; Rom 11.36; 1 Cor 8.6; 15.27–28; Eph 1.22). Unlike some, who speculated more precisely about the eschatological timetable, the author does not attempt to date the end, nor does he suggest any specific signs that would precede (and signify) it.12 He does, however, indicate the close proximity of this final consummation using ἐγγίζω. In Greek literature, this verb is employed either to describe someone drawing near to a spatial reference point or to depict the approach of a temporal referent.13 Elsewhere in the NT, it is used with an eschatological sense to depict the nearness of God’s kingdom (Matt 3.2; 4.17; 10.7; Mark 1.15; Luke 10.9, 11). Over the years, there has been some discussion regarding the significance of the perfect tense form of this verb,14 specifically whether ἤγγικεν indicates a present reality (‘has arrived’) or a (near) future experience (‘has drawn near’). In this instance, the this clearer (cf., e.g., Eccl 7.2: τέλος παντὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). A similar idea is found in Sib. Or. 3.797: ἡνίκα δὴ πάντων τὸ τέλος γαίηφι γένηται (‘when the end of all things has come on the earth’). As it is, the meaning is similar in sense to τούτων πάντων (see Alford 375). 11   Cf. Wiesinger 279; Keil 152; Knopf 171. A few earlier commentators understood πάντων with a much more narrow referent, connecting it with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple in 70 CE (see Benson 272-73; Macknight 491; cf. also Witherington 201, who considers this possibility). Yet, it is difficult to see how this event, which was limited to a specific ethnic group and geographic location, would have provided the readers of the epistle with any motivation to live in the way prescribed in the remainder of the verse (cf. Doddridge 216; Bloomfield 721). 12   For a fuller treatment of the author’s eschatological perspective (as indicated especially in this verse), see Vorholt, ‘Eschatologie des Ersten Petrusbriefes’, 89–104; cf. also Selwyn, ‘Eschatology in 1 Peter’, 394–401. On attempts to date the eschaton by ancient Jews and early Christians, see Irshai, ‘Dating the Eschaton’, 113–53. 13   BDAG 270. 14   Various studies have been undertaken on the eschatological use of ἐγγίζω (e.g., Clark, ‘Realized Eschatology’, esp. 367–74, who argues that the verb cannot mean that the kingdom is a present experience; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 19–25, who argues against realized eschatology; Berkey, ‘Realized Eschatology’, 177–87, who argues for realized eschatology).



4.7–11

365

latter seems most appropriate (cf. Rom 13.12; Jas 5.8; see also on 1.6–9).15 Throughout the epistle the author indicates that the time between the present suffering and the future return of Christ will be relatively brief (see 1 Pet 1.5; 4.5; 5.10), which suggests that it has not yet arrived. The nearness of the end is intended not only to comfort the readers by explaining that the judgment of their detractors (v. 5) is not far away, but also to motivate them towards a particular lifestyle, approved by God, which is spelled out in the following sentence. σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε εἰς προσευχάς. προσευχάς. In 1 Peter, it is clear that eschatology was meant to undergird ethical instruction and exhortation, to provide encouragement to continue steadfastly in the ‘good’ way of life in Christ that represents God’s will (cf. 1.13; 2.12, 20; 3.4, 16). The nearness of the end does not mean that normal life can be abandoned (cf. 2 Thess 3.6–13), but rather that the demands of commitment to God can and must be sustained. Based on the nearness of the final consummation (οὖν), the addressees are instructed to ‘be self-controlled’ (σωφρονήσατε) and to ‘be sober’ (νήψατε). These terms seem to form a hendiadys, expressing one combined thought, with the prepositional phrase (εἰς προσευχάς) modifying both.16 The verb σωφρονέω may 15   In an effort to defend the veracity of the author’s claims about the timing of the end, some have sought new and innovative ways to explain the statement ‘the end of all things is near’ (see, e.g., Jobes 275–76; Witherington 200–203). In this vein, ‘the end’ is viewed, not as a reference to a future point in time, but as the final stage or period in God’s larger redemptive process. It began with the resurrection of Christ and will reach its consummation when all things are (visibly) brought under his control. The verb ἤγγικεν is thus understood as denoting a present reality (‘has arrived’), while τέλος is taken as a reference to ‘completion’ or ‘perfection’ (see Witherington 201). Nevertheless, this view is difficult to sustain, because ἤγγικεν does not denote present experience but nearness, and because ‘the end of all things’ suggests finality not an extended continuation. 16   So also Hensler 188; de Wette 51; Hofmann 166; Achtemeier 294; Jobes 277. This view is rejected by Donelson 126 n. b. In similar constructions, the prepositional phrase is only intended to modify the second imperative (e.g., Sib. Or. 8.332; T.Ab. B 1.2; Matt 21.21; Luke 6.8; Acts. Andr. Matt. 15.7). But in most cases, this is due to the fact that the imperatives represent actions that must be undertaken in sequential order. When the commands lack any consecutive relationship, then the preposition commonly modifies both forms (e.g., 1 En. 3.1; Sib. Or. 1.57; Titus 2.15; Jas 3.14).

366

1 PETER

express ‘the idea of spiritual health, a correct or appropriate way of reasoning, but also a sense of moderation, a moderation or reserve that is expressed in inner equilibrium’.17 This latter sense, with its focus on self-control, appears to be in view in here. It represents a seriousness and sensibility that stands in contrast to rash decisionmaking that results in unruly behaviour (cf. Aeschylus, Pers. 829; Philo, Spec. 4.223); thus, it is a course of action encouraged for those who have been caught up in debauchery or excess (Josephus, Ant. 1.201), or for groups who might be thought prone to such temptations (Titus 2.6; Pol. Phil. 4.3). In many ways, σωφρονέω is very similar to νήφω; the two verbs are used almost synonymously in other places (see Lucian, Nigr. 6; Libanius, Declamationes 23.1.67, where they are contrasted with drunkenness). The latter describes a mental sobriety free from the limitations of intoxication.18 Often this relates to literal inebriation caused by wine (Theognis, Elegiae 1.478; Philo, Plant. 101; Josephus, Ant. 11.42), but it can also relate metaphorically to a freedom from confusion, rashness, anger, lust, or the like (Sib. Or. 1.154; 2 Clem. 13.1). To illustrate this virtue, authors sometimes compare it to the discipline and composure exhibited by a well-trained athlete (Ign. Pol. 2.3). Together these imperatives direct the audience to approach the nearing end with a sober-minded and virtuous lifestyle.19 The aorist tense of both imperatives need not be understood ingressively (‘begin to…’), as though implying that the readers had not undertaken such actions previously,20 but simply as a way to ‘stress the urgent and decisive nature of the duties set forth’.21   TLNT 3:359; cf. TDNT 7:1097–1104. The nominal form (σωφροσύνη) was a very popular term in classical and Hellenistic Greek, serving as one of the four cardinal virtues in antiquity (see de Vries, ‘σωφροσύνη en grec classique’, 81–101; North, Sophrosyne; Rademaker, Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self Restraint). 18   BDAG 672; TDNT 4:936–39. 19   More specifically, Watson argues, ‘To be sober is not simply to be alert in light of the coming judgment. Rather, it is to be prayerfully mindful of the good news in light of this judgment, since it is the good news that enables one to live in the spirit as God does’ (‘Spiritual Sobriety’, 541). It is less likely that the author intends to convey a more narrow instruction to abstain from alcohol (pace Marshall 51, 142; see further 1 Pet 1.13). 20   See Mason 427: ‘The tense of the imperatives in the Greek carries out the notion that the persons addressed had slipped into a careless state, from which they needed an arousal’. Cf. also Caffin 172; Spicq 149; Schweizer 81; Schlosser 251. 21   Hiebert 269; cf. Lenski 193. 17



4.7–11

367

There is no indication that these commands are directed towards what the author sees as extreme or inappropriate responses— whether potential or real—to end-time expectations, as was the case in 1 Thess 5.1–11 and 2 Thess 2.1–12, 3.6–13.22 Instead, the instructions appear to be set in contrast to the types of excessive and unruly behavior that are said to characterise the Gentiles—and the readers’ former lives (cf. 1.13–17; 4.3–4).23 This is clear from the fact that the exhortations are not orientated towards ending some inappropriate reactions to the coming eschatological end, but rather towards sustaining a central practice of the Christian life (viz. prayers; cf. 3.7). In this instance, προσευχή is plural (as in 3.7) in order to indicate the various individual and collective acts of prayer;24 as such, there is no need to limit the types of prayer envisaged here to include only those supplications calling for the return of the Lord or the collective prayers undertaken by local congregations.25 Some take εἰς as carrying a consecutive force, with ‘self-control’ and ‘sobriety’ preparing the way for or resulting in prayers (‘so that you can pray’, or ‘so that you might be in the right frame of mind to pray’; cf. NIV, MEV, NCV, ISV, CEB, NLV).26 But, consistent with earlier statements about the impact of Christian behaviour on prayer (cf. 3.7), it is probably better to understand the preposition as denoting purpose and reflecting the effect that these dispositions or actions have on the spiritual lives of the readers (‘for the sake of your prayers’; cf. NRSV, ESV, NET, EHV).27 In other words, ‘self-control’ and ‘sobriety’ are essential for prayers to be genuine and effective. 22   This is the view taken by some commentators (e.g., Bennett 246; Windisch 75; Spicq 149; Kelly 177). 23   The thought is comparable to the following statement of Philo, Agr. 98: ‘self-control (σωφροσύνη), which repels evil, is a remedy and antidote for licentiousness (ἀκολασίας)’. 24   See Johnstone 340; Goppelt 296. According to some early interpreters, the plural is also thought to indicate the repetition of prayers at all customary occasions (so, e.g., Bloomfield 722; Schott 280; Huther 213; Kühl 262). 25   Prayers for the return of the Lord: Spicq 149. Prayers of congregations: Demarest 227; Fronmüller 77; Picirilli 192. 26   So, e.g., Bengel 76; Huther 213; Reicke 121, 139; Davids 156 n. 27; Senior 123; Jobes 277; Vinson 203. Among later Christian writers, sobriety and prayer was also connected. See Pol. Phil. 7.2: νήφοντες πρὸς τὰς εὐχάς (‘let us be sober with respect to our prayers’). 27   As understood, e.g., by Grudem 173; Elliott 749; Watson 102; Schreiner 240 n. 486; cf. also Winer, Grammar, 495.

368

1 PETER

8 πρὸ πάντων τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες. ἔχοντες. The paraenesis that was begun in v. 7 is continued in the present verse. Yet there is some question about how the verses are connected to one another, particularly considering the verbal forms that are used. The answer depends on the function of ἔχοντες. Some view the participle as closely connected with v. 7, continuing the thought of the two imperatives that precede it (cf. ASV, Darby).28 More specifically, ἔχοντες is understood as ‘an adverbial participle of attendant circumstance, indicating the kind of action that must accompany being of sober and sound mind’.29 However, it is probably best to attribute an independent, imperatival function to this participle (and to the one in v. 10).30 In this way, ἔχοντες offers another command that continues the exhortatory focus begun in v. 7 (‘be self-controlled and sober… maintain constant, fervent love for one another’). Support for this interpretation is found in the phrase πρὸ πάντων. Not only is this prepositional phrase   This view was common among older commentators (e.g., Wolf 156; Hofmann 167; Keil 153; Monnier 206; Knopf 172, 174). Despite its decline, it can still be found in more recent studies as well (e.g., Schelkle 118; Hiebert 271; Achtemeier 295; Green 144 n. 189; Schlosser 244 n. a; cf. Snyder, ‘Participles and Imperatives’, 195–96). According to Runge (Discourse Grammar, 224), ‘The use of a participle for ἔχοντες indicates that it is not on par with the imperatives that precede it… The use of the participle to elaborate the imperatives, versus making ἔχοντες another imperative, prioritizes the action.’ Yet, this claim not only fails to take into account that the imperatival function of the participle exhibits no recognisable distinction in force from that of a finite form (see Williams, ‘Imperatival Participle’, esp. 72–78), but it also ignores the declaration made in the verse, namely, that loving one another is to be performed ‘above all’ (πρὸ πάντων). 29   Achtemeier 295 n. 40. Alternatively, some have understood ἔχοντες as a participle of means, describing how the readers are to be self-controlled (so, e.g., Wiesinger 281; Demarest 228; Usteri 191; Kühl 262; cf. Eisele, ‘Alles in Ordnung?’, 128–29). In this way, fervent, constant love becomes a necessary prerequisite for the type of sober, self-controlled state required in v. 7. 30   See Pott 134; Hensler 189; Michaels 246; Brox 204 n. 651; Goppelt 297; Elliott 750; Senior 119; Dubis 141; cf. also MHT 1:181; 3:343; Robertson, Grammar, 946; Meecham, ‘Use of the Participle’, 208; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 377. This is one place where there is some grammatical confusion within the literature. It is common to find interpreters assigning an imperatival force to ἔχοντες, while still claiming that it is dependent upon, and deriving its imperatival force from, the imperatives in v. 7 (see Davids 157 n. 28; Picirilli 192; Donelson 127 n. c; Forbes 147; Schreiner 241) or an understood ἐστέ (Grotius 101). However, by its very definition, an imperatival participle ‘is grammatically independent of any finite verb (i.e., neither modifying any preceding or following finite form and apart from the elision of any periphrastic phrase)’ (Williams, ‘Imperatival Participle’, 59 n. 1). 28



4.7–11

369

commonly followed by an imperative (or subjunctive) in hortatory contexts,31 in this instance it serves to partition the two verses so that a new sentence is begun in v. 8, thus requiring ἔχοντες to carry out a finite function. Moreover, it is difficult to see how this action would receive proper emphasis (‘above all’), if it were merely a subordinate accompaniment to the previous commands.32 The prepositional phrase πρὸ πάντων can be used temporally, ‘before all’ (cf. Philo, Cher. 28; Col 1.17), but here it connotes a superior rank or position (‘above all’),33 marking out the significance of the directive (cf. T.Sol. 4.6; Josephus, Ant. 8.24; Did. 10.4). While it may not indicate that mutual love is more important than any other act,34 this phrase does attach special emphasis to the directive. Such care and concern for other members of these suffering communities must be undertaken (cf. 3.8, though here in 4.8 ἀγάπη is given supreme and central focus). In the construction τὴν ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ, the adjective is in predicate position, thus making the construction equivalent to a relative clause, ‘love for one another that is constant/fervent’.35 It is 31   Cf. Septem Sapientes, Sententiae, p. 216 (Mullach); Hippocrates, Ep. 17; Jas 5.12; Did. 10.4; Ps.-Clement, Ep. Jas. 8.1; 17.3. 32   The prepositional phrase πρὸ πάντων often stands at the beginning of a clause to mark out content that is especially significant. At times, it can distinguish a prominent example from among a larger group mentioned in the previous clause (e.g., T.Sol. A 4.6; Josephus, Ant. 8.24; 17.6; War 3.258). When it does so, there is a close relationship between the two clauses such that πρὸ πάντων simply represents a continuation of the preceding idea. If this is the case in vv. 7–8, then loving one another would represent an especially important example of how the readers are to be self-controlled and sober (cf. above, those who take ἔχοντες as a participle of means). It is difficult, however, to see how intra-communal love would be the most significant factor contributing to the readers’ self-control and sobriety. What makes this possibility even less likely is that the author specifies the purpose of these commands with the prepositional phrase εἰς προσευχάς, which has the force of marking them off from what follows. 33   See Porter, Idioms, 171. 34   Cf. Goppelt 297; Picirrili 192. Proof of this fact lies in the use of the prepo�sitional phrase elsewhere. In Jas 5.12, the readers are encouraged ‘above all’ (πρὸ πάντων) not to swear oaths. While such instructions are certainly important, it seems difficult to place this task above others to which the Petrine audience is exhorted. 35   Robertson, Grammar, 789. According to Demarest (228), the article denotes previous reference, harkening back to the exhortation ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς in 1.22 (hence, ‘that fervent, constant love’). But given how far back the anaphoric usage would extend, this suggestion seems unlikely.

370

1 PETER

unnecessary to read anything into the choice of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτούς instead of ἀλλήλους.36 In Greek literature, ἑαυτῶν was commonly used as equivalent to the reciprocal ἀλλήλων (see 1 Cor 6.7; Eph 5.19).37 Sometimes they appear together—as they do here (see 1 Pet 4.9 [ἀλλήλους])—in order to add variety (cf. Luke 23.12; Col 3.13). What is important to note is that this love is community-focused (εἰς ἑαυτούς) and not necessarily directed toward outsiders.38 Earlier, the readers were instructed to love one another ἐκτενῶς (1 Pet 1.22). Here the adjectival form (ἐκτενής) of the same root is used,39 and again the question is whether the term functions intensively, focusing on the quality of love (‘fervent’), or extensively, focusing on the duration of the love (‘constant’, ‘persistent’).40 The context gives few clues, and the word itself sometimes makes it difficult to separate fervency and persistence. As a result, it might be wise to allow for both nuances.41 ὅτι ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. ἁμαρτιῶν. The more difficult questions arise in the second half of the verse, where the author provides the motivation (ὅτι) for the instructions to prioritise love: ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. Attention must first be given to the source of this statement. A close parallel is found in Prov 10.12b: ‫‘( על כל־פשעים תכסה אהבה‬love covers over all offences’). Although the Petrine author frequently cites from the Greek scriptures, whether they served as his direct source in this instance is difficult to determine. The LXX version of Prov 10.12 (πάντας δὲ τοὺς μὴ φιλονεικοῦντας καλύπτει φιλία)   Pace Hart 72, who claims that the change was influenced by the ‘great commandment’: ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν (Mark 12.31; cf. 12.33). 37   This tendency is found even within classical literature (see Kühner–Gerth, Satzlehre, 1:573–75; cf. MHT 1:87; Robertson, Grammar, 690). It is also prevalent within the non-literary papyri (see Mayser, Grammatik, I2.2, 64, II.2.1, 73). 38   Cf. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 107–13, 190–209. 39   See further TLNT 1:457–61. The adjective ἐκτενής, like the adverbial form, is common within honorary inscriptions that extol the virtuous character of the honoree, being included alongside terms like πρόθυμος, εὔχρηστος, and φιλότιμος (e.g., IG XII,7 388; I.Mylasa 103; CID IV 106). 40   Some commentators understand ἐκτενής as intensive (e.g., Johnstone 343; Monnier 206; Blenkin 97; Bénétreau 241), while others take it as extensive (e.g., Kühl 263; Richard 179; Jobes 278; Forbes 146). 41   Cf. Bloomfield 722; Spicq 150; Bénétreau 241; Goppelt 297; Senior 120. 36



4.7–11

371

is significantly different. Because there is little precise repetition, apart from the verb καλύπτει, many interpreters propose that a Greek version of this proverbial statement, which antedated both NT uses (here and Jas 5.20), had circulated within Christian communities and was then adopted by the Petrine author.42 Support for this contention is normally sought in the parallel statement at Jas 5.20 (καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν), though only the two words πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν are exactly shared.43 Later Christian writings also use this same language.44 Yet it is difficult to determine whether these authors have been influenced by 1 Peter; thus, as Achtemeier points out, they ‘cannot be cited as independent evidence of its proverbial status’.45 If the author of the epistle of James was dependent upon 1 Peter,46 then suggesting that

  See, e.g., Selwyn 217; Best 159; Brox 205; Achtemeier 295–96; Boring 150. Cf. also Jobes, ‘Septuagint Textual Tradition’, 316. Earlier generations of commentators generally understood this passage as a (free) citation from Prov 10.12 (e.g., Jachmann 164; Cook 211; Burger 253; Bennett 247; Hart 72). There were a few exceptions to this trend, however. Some interpreted it as a common proverbial statement (see de Wette 52; Plumptre 144; Mason 428), although likely influenced by Prov 10.12 (see Masterman 146). 43   What reduces the significance of this parallel somewhat is the fact that the phrase πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν is a common idiom that appears elsewhere (Ezek 28.17–18; Sir 5.6; 4 Bar. 1.1, 8; cf. also Strabo, Geogr. 13.1.54; Vettius Valens 1.3). Further, there are some differences between these texts: not only does James use the future tense verb (καλύψει), instead of representing the effects of love, it describes the actions of a more personal subject (ὁ ἐπιστρέψας). 44   Cf., e.g., 1 Clem. 49.5; 2 Clem. 16.4; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.12.91.3; Strom. 2.15.65.3; Apoc. Sedr. 1.2. 45   Achtemeier 295 n. 45. One piece of evidence that might (possibly) be used to support the existence of this saying as a proverbial maxim are the remarks found in Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.12.91.3 and Didaskalia 2.3.3, where the text is introduced by φησί and λέγει κύριος, respectively. From this, one might (potentially) conclude that the phrase was regarded as an unwritten saying of Christ (Resch, Ausserkanonische Schriftfragmente, 310–11; cf. Acts 20.35); however, this evidence is very limited. 46   See Introduction: Other New Testament/Early Christian Traditions. Cf. Bigg 173: ‘If there is any connexion here between St. James and St. Peter, it is clear that the former is the borrower, for the connexion of his phrase with the verse in Proverbs can only be made clear by taking the phrase of the latter as a help. If St. Peter had not first written ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, St. James never could have said that he who converteth a sinner καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν’ (cf. also Foster, ‘Literary Relations’, 510–11). 42

372

1 PETER

the statement was a proverb in circulation within the early church would be little more than conjecture. The more likely solution may be that the Petrine author was familiar with a Greek text that differed considerably from the LXX. The versions of Aquila and Theodotion offer a closer parallel: ἐπὶ πάσας ἀθεσίας καλύψει ἀγάπη.47 If this (or some variation) were the text to which the Petrine author was alluding, then it is unnecessary to imagine that in this one unique instance he was dependent upon the Hebrew scriptural text,48 or to postulate the existence of a proverbial statement used by early Christian authors—though this latter remains possible too, given the general indications of 1 Peter’s awareness of, and indebtedness to, a wide range of early Christian sources and traditions.49 The meaning of the phrase itself also remains somewhat opaque. Although in this verse the act of showing love is generally understood to be the responsibility of humans, this ἀγάπη may be seen as rooted in God’s own prior and pre-eminent love.50 What must be determined is who receives the benefits of the ‘covering’ of sin and what exactly is envisaged in this ‘covering’. Related to the latter, it is possible to understand the idiom καλύπτειν ἁμαρτίας (‘to cover sin’) as a reference to the concealment of misdeeds. The verb does, on occasion, denote the disguising of negative emotions (LXX Prov 10.18; Josephus, War 1.468), and it even represents attempts of humans to hide personal wrongdoing (LXX Ps 31.5; cf. Prov 28.13; Josephus, War 4.644). Yet it is difficult to see how or why ἀγάπη would be depicted as ‘concealing’ its own transgressions; a different   Cf. Johnstone 343; Blenkin 97; see also Beetham, ‘Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs’, 65. For the evidence from the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, see Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 2:329. 48   As suggested, e.g., by Hensler 189; Steiger 2:265; Jachmann 164; Caffin 172–73; Hillyer 128; Witherington 204. 49   See Introduction: Sources, Traditions, and Affinities. 50   Even though ἀγάπη is an impersonal subject, it is also possible to connect it closely with divine action, by viewing interpersonal love and forgiveness as grounded in and flowing out of the love of God that covers human sins (see Alford 375–76; Selwyn 217; Reicke 122; Goppelt 298–99; Watson 103). The unspecified nature of the reference to love here might thus allow for ἀγάπη to encompass both human and divine action; but there is nothing explicit to confirm this here. By contrast, in Diogn. 9.3, when righteousness is said to ‘cover’ sins, it is clearly identified as the righteousness of Christ (ἐκείνου δικαιοσύνη). 47



4.7–11

373

idea seems to be in view. Elsewhere, this same construction refers to God’s action of forgiving the sins of people (see LXX Ps 84.3; Diogn. 9.3; Gregory of Nyssa, In sextum Psalmum 5:191 [McDonough]; Eusebius, Comm. Ps. [PG 23:276]; cf. LXX Ps 31.1), and without proper contextual indicators to point towards an alternative perspective, it seems appropriate to assume the same meaning here. The object of this forgiveness is much more difficult to discern.51 Many contend that the sins being covered are those of the one to whom love is shown.52 This ‘reconciliation’ view maintains that love overlooks and forbears the wrongs of others;53 so love shown by members of the community to one another enables sins to be covered, in the sense of not being concealed illegitimately, but of being graciously forgiven (cf. 1 Cor 13.5: ἀγάπη… οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν).54 As such, the ground for reciprocal love in the Christian community would lie in how it contributes towards interpersonal reconciliation and any perceived need to overcome conflict within the community.55 Support for this interpretation comes from the emphasis that is placed on mutuality and service in the surrounding context (εἰς ἑαυτούς [v. 8]; εἰς ἀλλήλους [v. 9]; εἰς ἑαυτούς [v. 10]) as well as its consistency with the original meaning of Prov 10.12, where love stands in contrast to the stirring up of strife.

51   Some think that the language is vague enough to allow for either of the two common interpretations, and thus they leave the interpretation open to both (see Elliott 751; Bony 157). 52   This is the most common solution among modern commentators (e.g., Cranfield 114; Schiwy 57; Grudem 173; Davids 158; Jobes 278–79; Osborne 239; Schreiner 242–43). In previous centuries, there was (generally) a division between Protestant interpreters, who adopted the ‘reconciliation’ reading (e.g., Calvin 129; Luther 204–205; Steiger 2:265–67), and Catholic interpreters, who chose the alternative (e.g., Hottinger 135–36; Jachmann 165). 53   Grotius (101) thinks that conversion is in view (cf. Jas 5.20). In other words, love works through conversion to secure a sinner’s forgiveness (see also Fausset 511, who considers it as a secondary option; Caffin 173). Similarly, Leaney (62) understands it to mean the restoration of a lapsed Christian whose sins are forgiven by God. 54   Cf. also T.Jos. 17.2: ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καὶ ἐν μακροθυμίᾳ συγκρύπτετε ἀλλήλων τὰ ἐλαττώματα (‘love one another and with patience conceal the faults of one another’). 55   Marshall points out that ‘there may be a particular relevance here in that the next verse is about hospitality’ (143).

374

1 PETER

An alternative is the ‘atonement’ view, which understands the covering of sins as a reference to the sins of the one who shows love.56 As such, love becomes a means of atoning for one’s sins and obtaining the forgiveness of God, now and in the final eschatological judgment (cf. Matt 6.12–15; 25.31–46; Luke 7.47). In this case, the reason for showing love to other members of the Christian community lies in the personal, salvific benefits it generates. The ‘atonement’ view finds support in reception history—related to the interpretation of both Prov 10.12 and 1 Pet 4.8. Although Prov 10.12 is not commonly cited in rabbinic literature, it is read in a way that connects personal atonement to one’s actions.57 Further, it is significant that most of the earliest Christian interpreters understood the proverbial saying to mean that love was an avenue for procuring God’s forgiveness of one’s own sins.58 In adopting this view, these ancient exegetes did not believe that this, in any way, took away from the soteriological implications of Christ’s sacrificial death, which the Petrine author clearly recognises (cf. 1.18–19; 2.24; 3.18). This is evident in the way they use the passage. As Downs points out, ‘several early Christian interpreters employ this text in documents that emphasize both the unique, atoning significance of the cross and the possibility of sin remission through the practice of almsgiving’.59 A second consideration that supports the atonement view is that it provides a natural reading of the passage in its immediate and more remote context. Given that the nearness of judgment has set   As suggested, e.g., by Moffatt 152–53; Windisch 75; Spicq 150; Kelly 178; Schelkle 118; Knoch 115; Brox 205; Perkins 70; cf. Kline, ‘Ethics for the End Time’, 116–17. 57   Cf. Str-B 3:766. The rabbinic interpretation is also noted by Kelly 178 and Schelkle 118. 58   See 2 Clem. 16.4; Clement of Alexandria, Quis div. 38; Didascalia apostolorum 2.3.1–2.4.3; Origen, Hom. Lev. 2.4.5; Tertullian, Scorp. 6. The future tense καλύψει, which is found in some MSS (see Text at 4.8 n. c), appears to connect the ‘covering’ to the eschatological judgment. If so, it may indicate that ancient scribes also read this formula as a reference to the (ultimate) forgiveness that a person achieved through showing love (cf. Forbes 147). 59   Downs, ‘ “Love Covers a Multitude of Sins” ’, 493–94 (original emphasis). For more on the idea that almsgiving might atone for the sins of the giver, see Garrison, Redemptive Almsgiving; Hays, ‘By Almsgiving and Faith’, 260–80; Downs, ‘Redemptive Almsgiving’, 493–517. 56



4.7–11

375

the background for these injunctions (vv. 5, 7), with the author mentioning that the readers’ opponents will have to answer to God for their immoral lifestyles, a reference to divine forgiveness fits best.60 Likewise, due to the fact that this statement serves as the ground (ὅτι) for the previous injunction to ‘maintain love that is fervent/constant’ (v. 8a), it is reasonable to assume that consid�erable importance might be attached to it.61 It would appear that the author is attempting to motivate communal love by means of the impending eschatological judgment. While this interpretation is, admittedly, not free from objections,62 in the end, it may have slightly more to commend it—but there is hardly enough clear evidence to decide either way. Although the passage as a whole is orientated towards relationships among members of the Christian communities, this phrase gives a reason (ὅτι) why love should be practised, thus motivating the conduct mandated in the preceding phrase.

  Mason 428.   Cf. Selwyn 217: ‘Our forgiveness of others’ sins… could never be the ground of fervour of charity [i.e., love], but rather its consequences: its ground must be something weightier and wider than itself’ (original emphasis). Note also the similar connection drawn by Feldmeier 218–19. 62   It has been suggested that if the Petrine author had intended to indicate that love achieves divine forgiveness, then the verb would have been placed in the middle voice (see Fausset 511; Hiebert 272). While this would not communicate the precise meaning suggested here (i.e., the middle would indicate that love covers/forgives itself, which is not the case), the point is well taken. The sense could have been more clearly communicated through the construction, διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης καλύπτονται πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν (‘a multitude of sins are covered by love’). At the same time, this would represent a further departure from the source text (Prov 10.12 LXX) and thus a loss of the scriptural echo. Another question that could be raised is whether such an individualist purpose (viz. the forgiveness of personal sins) would be given as the ground for mutual love. It should be remembered, however, that in the previous verse, self-control was motivated by the desire for effectiveness in prayers. A theologically significant objection is that this interpretation creates ‘a form of salvation by works’ (Hiebert, ‘Living in the Light of Christ’s Return’, 248) or takes away from the atonement made by Christ (Bénétreau 243–44; Achtemeier 296; Witherington 204). But, as the citations of this text in later Christian writings reveal, neither is necessarily the case (cf. Prigent 123–24). Regardless, it is important to remember that the author’s declarations do not always fit neatly into later theological schemas (as, e.g., in 3.21, where baptism ‘saves’ as a ‘pledge’ made to God; see ad loc.). 60 61

376

1 PETER

9 φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους. ἀλλήλους. Many describe the instructions mentioned in vv. 9–11 as demon�strations or concrete expressions of the love command in v. 8.63 While there may be something to this claim on a broad level, grammatically, the following simply represents further exhortations that continue the paraenesis begun in v. 7. One question concerns the implied verbal element. The ellipsis of the copula is common with adjectives, and for this reason, many assume that an elided finite imperative should be read in connection with the adjective φιλόξενοι.64 In this instance, the unexpressed verb could be the imperatival form ἐστέ or γίνεσθε or perhaps even the participle ὄντες functioning as an imperative.65 Either way, the phrase marks another command (‘be hospitable’) in the string of exhortations begun in v. 7. The adjectival form, φιλόξενος, is not altogether common in Greek literature, but the practice of hospitality is an important and popular virtue.66 Hospitality is often found within a list of other virtues (Aristotle, Virt. Vit. 1250b; T.Ab. A 4.6; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.28.23; Herm. Mand. 8.10; Claudius Ptolemy, Tetr. 2.3.19), and it

  See, e.g., Huther 215; Johnstone 346; Cranfield 114; Grudem 174; Goppelt 299; Boring 150. Consistent with this view, some assume the presence of an understood ὄντες, which functions adverbially denoting the means by which the imperatives in v. 7 are carried out (see, e.g., de Wette 53; Mason 428; Achtemeier 296; Richard 180; cf. Snyder, ‘Participles and Imperatives’, 196). 64   On ellipsis of the copula, see Robertson, Grammar, 395–96. 65   Those who supply ἐστέ include: Pott 134; Hensler 190; Elliott 751; Dubis 142; Schreiner 243 n. 499; cf. MHT 1:180; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 130. Those who supply ὄντες include: Arichea–Nida 140; Senior 120; Forbes 148. It is impossible to say for sure which of these verbal forms the author had in mind. The only place in the NT where a finite imperative is present alongside the adjective is Rom 12.16, and in this case, the verb that is employed is γίνεσθε. However, there are other known occurrences where the imperatival ἐστέ is found in connection with an adjective (cf. 1 Clem. 45.1). What should be avoided is language that implies that the adjective actually functions as an imperative apart from a verbal modifier (see, e.g., Michaels 247; Jobes 280). While a participle (as a verbal adjective) can function as an independent verbal form, an adjective cannot. 66   On the meaning and use of the term φιλόξενος, see TDNT 5:1–36; TLNT 3:454–57. Perhaps more common than the nominal or adjectival form of φιλόξενwas the use of the name Φιλόξενος. This name is found throughout the literary, epigraphic, and papyrological evidence (see Fraser et al., ed., Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, s.v. Φιλόξενος). 63



4.7–11

377

was a principal mark of civilised culture among Greeks (Polybius, Hist. 4.20.1; Diodorus Siculus 5.22.1). This was set in contrast to barbarians who were said to treat strangers with fear and hostility (Homer, Od. 6.119–21; 9.175–76; Euripides, Cycl. 125).67 The essence of hospitality (φιλοξενία) is described by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, when he refers to the Campanians’ reception of the Roman armies (15.3.5). This entailed taking the men into their homes, welcoming them with lavish tables, and entertaining them with other marks of friendship (15.3.4).68 Foreigners were thought to be protected by Ζεὺς Ξένιος (Homer, Od. 14.283–84; 2 Macc 6.2), and those who showed them inhospitality might face severe punishment (Aeschylus, Eum. 267–72). Petrine interpreters often contrast this form of personal welcome and generosity with a traveller’s stay in a public inn. Many claim that Christian hospitality was a necessity due to the fact that ancient hotels were rare and of poor quality.69 However, neither of these assumptions appears to be accurate. The availability of inns depended upon location: some places had more than others.70 But a traveller’s stay at an inn is assumed and commonplace within much ancient literature, which suggests that they were a regular feature of ancient travel.71 The standard of accommodation in some places could be low, as guests might have to withstand hard beds and bedbugs, as well as tempting women (Aristophanes, Ran. 112–115; Acts John 60; Acts Thom. 51, 53). But this is not to imply—as many commentators are in the habit of doing—that all hotels reflected

  For more on hospitality in the Greco-Roman world (especially as it was encouraged and practiced within early Christianity), see Rusche, Gastfreundschaft in der Verkündigung; Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 92–112; Koenig, New Testament Hospitality; Arterbury, Entertaining Angels. 68   In the ancient epigraphic record, it is common to find prominent individuals being recognised for entertaining citizens and strangers alike (cf. I.Stratonikeia 311, 705; IAph2007 11.5; TAM II 197; IG XII,5 721). Normally, this consisted of providing feasts for the community. But, at times, recognition could also be given to those who housed visitors (see, e.g., I.Ankara 72). 69   See, e.g., Plumptre 145; Bigg 173; Erdman 79; Moffatt 153; Wand 114; Kelly 178; Best 160; Marshall 145; Miller 304; Prigent 124; Osborne 242. 70   See Casson, Travel in the Ancient World, 200–201. 71   Cf. Aeschines, Fals. leg. 97; Plutarch, Amic. mult. 3 (Mor. 94A); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.26.166. Note, for instance, that Carura was a village (κώμη), but it is said to have multiple inns (Strabo, Geogr. 12.8.17, πανδοχεῖα). 67

378

1 PETER

these same conditions.72 By implication, then, the emphasis on the Christian duty to extend hospitality goes beyond a simple need for adequate lodging. Hospitality is frequently encouraged and commended within early Christian literature. The Synoptic mission charge (Mark 6.7–11; Matt 10.5–15; Luke 9.1–6; 10.1–12) obligates the disciples to depend on the hospitality they are offered, an obligation to which Paul makes reference in listing the ‘rights’ of an apostle, even if he has not made use of them (1 Cor 9.14–15). On various occasions, Paul commends envoys and encourages the churches to welcome them into their homes (e.g., Rom 16.2; Phil 2.29; cf. Col 4.10), just as he himself both requests and receives such hospitality (1 Cor 16.19; Phlm 22). Likewise, the book of Acts records the hospitality (using forms of ξέν-) of early believers (cf. 10.6, 18, 23, 32; 21.16). Often, the acceptance of Christian missionaries was connected with the ‘truth’ or ‘falsehood’ of their message (2 John 2.10; Did. 11.1–2; cf. 3 John 10) and the practice of hospitality is demonstrated not least by the texts that highlight the dangers of its being abused or exploited (Did. 11–13; Lucian, Peregr. 13, 16). Hospitality was thought to be the duty of all Christians (Rom 12.13), but it was specifically expected from leaders (cf. 1 Tim 3.2; Titus 1.8). The importance of showing hospitality is indicated not only in the rewards that are associated with its practice (Matt 10.40–42; T.Ab. A 17.7; 20.15; 1 Clem. 11.1; Apoc. Paul 27; Ambrose, Exp. Luc. 6.66), but also because of the potential of entertaining divine visitors (Heb 13.2; cf. Ovid, Metam. 8.613–715; Pausanias, Descr. 1.37.2). What, then, does the author mean when he encourages the readers to ‘be hospitable toward one another’? The most common proposal is that these instructions refer to the feeding and lodging of Christians from other areas who are either passing through on 72   The argument of Epictetus seems to assume that pleasant (καλός/κομψός) inns were readily available during travel: ‘Men generally act as a traveller would do on his way to his own country, when he enters a good (καλόν) inn, and being pleased with it should remain there. Man, you have forgotten your purpose: you were not traveling to this inn, but you were passing through it.—“But this is a pleasant (κομψόν) inn”.—And how many other inns are pleasant?’ (Diatr. 2.23.36–37; trans. Long). Cf. also Plutarch, Vit. pud. 8 (Mor. 532B–C), who warns against ‘stay[ing] at a bad inn (φαύλῳ πανδοκείῳ) when a better one (βελτίονος) is available simply because the innkeeper has regularly greeted us’.



4.7–11

379

their missionary travels73 or who have been driven from their homes by persecution.74 Given the large area to which this circular letter was addressed and the frequency of early missionary travels, it is very likely that some itinerant preachers would pass through these Anatolian cities, and on these occasions the admonition to show hospitality would be appropriate. Elliott argues that the carrier of the present letter would need lodging as he or she (cf. Rom 16.1–2) delivered the correspondence from city to city.75 If this is the case, it would be difficult to rule out such a responsibility as one facet of what the author is urging. But, given the language that is used here, the main focus of the author’s instructions may have been a different type of hospitality. While hospitality towards travelling missionaries is recognised as a frequent and important part of early Christian practice, and some of the injunctions to hospitality specifically mention the welcoming of strangers (Heb 13.2), some have wondered whether there might be a slightly different focus behind this instruction to ‘be hospitable towards one another’. According to Selwyn, the verse seems ‘to have a more intimate and domestic reference’ in view. In particular, he suggests that the focus is on ‘ordinary social life in the Christian communities, where constant intercourse and meeting were essential to preserve the Church’s cohesion and distinctive witness, and where the Christians’ household, in default of church buildings, were the local units of the Church’s worship’.76 Thus, φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους is understood to mean the hosting, entertaining, and feeding of others in the community, especially in the context of Christian worship.77 For support, he points to the use of the phrase εἰς ἀλλήλους (‘toward one another’), which seems to direct the   As suggested, e.g., by Wand 114; Stibbs–Walls 155; Skaggs 58.   As suggested, e.g., by Lumby 169; Monnier 208; Masterman 147. 75   Elliott 753. One problem with this suggestion, however, is that the reference to Silvanus as letter-carrier is probably fictitious (see Exegesis at 5.12). Given the way that a pseudonymous letter would have been placed into circulation (see Introduction: The Dissemination and Reception of a Pseudepigraphical Letter), it is unlikely that a single courier would have delivered 1 Peter from city to city. 76   Selwyn 218. 77   Selwyn is not the only scholar to reach this conclusion. A number of other interpreters have also argued along these lines (e.g., Best 160; Arichea–Nida 140; Michaels 247; Hillyer 126; Achtemeier 296–97; Jobes 280–81; Green 145; Donelson 129). 73 74

380

1 PETER

hospitality toward a more small-scale, reciprocal, and localised practice.78 Along with this, he notes that the passage transitions quickly into instructions on worship in individual congregations (vv. 10–11), which seems to tie the verses together in the common theme of church meetings. Without excluding the welcoming of Christian travellers as part of this exhortation, this focus on the dynamics and responsibilities of the local communities seems to make sense here. ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ. γογγυσμοῦ. The one qualification of the hospitality command is that it must be undertaken ‘without grumbling’ (Pss. Sol. 5.13; cf. Phil 2.14 [χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν]; Herm. Sim. 9.27.2 [φιλόξενοι… ἄτερ ὑποκρίσεως]). Here, the author’s rhetorical skill is on display, as the combination of terms with the same inflected endings (ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ) reflects an instance of homoeoptoton.79 The preposition ἄνευ is not used frequently in the NT, appearing only one other time outside of 1 Peter (Matt 10.29; cf. Mark 13.2 v.l.). It is equivalent to the ‘improper’ prepositions, ἄτερ and χωρίς, which mean ‘without’ or ‘apart from’.80 The term γογγυσμός is likewise rare— although not unknown (Anaxandrides, Frag. 31; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 9.37.1)—outside of biblical literature, carrying the meaning of a low grumbling which results from discontent.81 In the LXX, it is used to translate the Hebrew ‫תלנות‬, the term which represented the ‘murmuring’ of the Israelites in the wilderness (Exod 16.7–9, 12; Num 17.20, 25; cf. Sir 46.7). Yet there is no indication that the author is drawing attention back to this specific analogy.82 The word, as it is here, is sometimes employed more generally to describe basic complaints due to displeasure (see Wis 1.10–11; Acts 6.1).   An alternative explanation is offered by Hart, who claims that ἀλλήλους is used instead of ἑαυτούς ‘because the recipients of hospitality belong necessarily to other Churches’ (73; cf. Bengel 76). But given the frequent interchange between the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτῶν and the reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλων within Greek literature (see above), it is unsafe to draw such a conclusion. 79   Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 195. 80   See Harris, Prepositions, 242. According to Louw–Nida (Lexicon, §89.120 n. 22), there may be a subtle difference between these forms: ‘χωρίς differs from ἄνευ and ἄτερ in focusing upon a greater degree of separation or lack of involvement’. 81   TDNT 1:735–36; New Docs 4:143–44. 82   Cf. Michaels 248. 78



4.7–11

381

But why might the readers be tempted to grumble about hosting other members of the Christian community in their homes? The answer seems to lie in the potential difficulties and abuses that were inherent within the custom of hospitality (cf. Sir 29.23–28). For those hosting travelling missionaries, there was always the potential for (unknowingly) housing charlatans who were pretending to be itinerate preachers (cf. Lucian, Peregr. 13–16). Even if one’s guests were fellow Christians, there was still the potential for exploitation. Some might attempt to take advantage of their hosts by overextending their stay, or by requesting money or food, hence the regulations given in Did. 11.5–9. For many Christians, opening their homes to guests was difficult for any length of time due to the resources it required. Another mouth to feed would have been a heavy burden for those who were living close to subsistence level.83 10 ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβεν χάρισμα εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦντες.. διακονοῦντες From what seems to be a general reference to communal gatherings in the previous verse, the author now moves on to specifically address how Christian relationships—especially during meetings— should be conducted. Elsewhere, the adverb καθώς describes the extent or degree to which something occurs (Mark 4.33; Acts 2.4). When taken with similar references to the variegated distribution of χαρίσματα (cf. Rom 12.3; 1 Cor 12.11), some read the clause as implying that proportionality must be involved in the use of spiritual gifts (‘according to the gift[edness] one has received’, cf. ASV, CEB, NIV, NRSV, REB); that is, they should be exercised to the degree—both quality and quantity—that one has been gifted.84 Those with greater gifts may be expected to exhibit their   On the socio-economic level of the addressees, see further Introduction: Socio-Economic Status; Horrell, Becoming Christian, 100–32; Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 96–127. Illustrating the economic demands of hospitality, around the same time that 1 Peter was composed, the emperor Domitian wrote to the procurator of Syria concerning the rights of provincial cities against abuses in requisitioned transport and lodgings, and in doing so, commands that citizens not be oppressed by ξέ[νων] ὀχλήσεσιν, ‘the burden of accommodation’ (IGLSyr V 1998; cf. SB 3924). 84   Advocates of this view include: Pott 134; Steiger 2:268–69; Bloomfield 723; Demarest 229; Fausset 511; Alford 376; Kühl 264; Masterman 148; Stibbs–Walls 156; Hiebert 274; cf. also BDAG 493. Alternatively, Grudem (174) takes καθώς as denoting the manner in which the χαρίσματα were received, ‘ “in the same way 83

382

1 PETER

χαρίσματα accordingly. However, this detracts from what seems to be the central idea here: that each person has been gifted in some way and is expected to use that gift to serve others. More likely, then, καθώς functions causally (‘because/just as one has received a gift’, cf. NAB, NASB, NKJV, ESV) to describe the basis for Christian mutual service.85 Since ἕκαστος appears outside of the καθώς clause, it is possible that it functions as the subject of διακονοῦντες (‘let each one serve’, cf. NIV, Mounce, JUB).86 But it would appear that ἕκαστος has been fronted in the sentence for the purpose of emphasising that everyone receives some gift and hence carries some responsibility to use it beneficially (cf. Rom 12.3; 1 Cor 12.7; Eph 4.7).87 This consideration, in connection with the fact that the argument in vv. 7–9 has progressed through forms of direct address, probably means that ἕκαστος is the subject of ἔλαβεν88 and that the participle διακονοῦντες, like ἔχοντες in 4.8 (see above), functions independently of any finite verb and contains a direct imperatival force.89 Despite the structural and grammatical convolution, the primary thrust of the sentence is as follows: ‘serve it [i.e., the χάρισμα] to one another’.

in which” each person has received a gift (i.e. freely, out of grace, not merit)’. But if unmerited (rather than merited) service were at issue, we might have expected clearer contextual indicators, such as an adverbial modifier denoting that the service should be rendered freely (e.g., διακονοῦντες δωρεάν). 85   So, e.g., Keil 154; Elliott 753–54; Schlosser 252; Forbes 148; cf. Schröger, ‘Die Verfassung der Gemeinde’, 242. On this use of καθώς, see Robertson, Grammar, 968, 1382; BDF §453. 86   Some might point out that the third person singular form (ἕκαστος) lacks concord with διακονοῦντες. Nevertheless, the singular ἕκαστος, like collective singular nouns, commonly functions as the subject of plural verbs (see Winer, Grammar, 648). Examples include: Exod 5.4; Num 16.17; Josh 1.15; Isa 36.16; Zech 3.10; Jdt 14.2; T.Sim. 4.7; T.Zeb. 8.5; Jos. Asen. 10.8; Matt 18.35; John 16.32; Acts 11.29; Eph 4.25; Heb 8.11; Rev 2.23. See further BDAG 298; BDF §305. 87   Cf. Weiss 324; Hiebert 274. 88   E.g., Bigg 173; Knopf 174–75; Goppelt 300 n. 36; Dubis 142. 89   Cf. also Michaels 249; Elliott 754–55; Dubis 143; Schreiner 244 n. 502. As with ἔχοντες in v. 8, some interpret διακονοῦντες as an adverbial participle dependent upon the finite imperatives in v. 7 (so, e.g., Achtemeier 298; Green 144 n. 189; Schlosser 244 n. e; Vahrenhorst 176 n. 562).



4.7–11

383

The transitive verb διακονέω is modified by the accusative direct object αὐτό, whose antecedent is χάρισμα. According to Bengel,90 αὐτό is emphatic, specifying that a believer is to work within his/ her sphere of service without encroaching upon another’s territory. However, it is doubtful whether this interpretation can be maintained, particularly given that analogous (structural) examples lack any such emphasis (e.g., 1 Pet 1.12; Mark 9.18; John 21.6; Col 2.14).91 Ordinarily, we might expect διακονοῦντες to include a dative indirect object, specifying the one(s) to whom service is rendered; instead, the author employs εἰς + accusative.92 The ministry of one’s χάρισμα, the author states, is not for self-gratification or personal fulfillment, but for other members of the Christian community.93 Here, the author switches back to the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτούς (cf. 4.8) rather than the reciprocal ἀλλήλους (4.9). How this ministry is understood is, to a large degree, dependent on the meaning of the verb διακονέω. Rather than conveying any servile or undignified connotations, Collins has suggested that the διακον- word group simply expresses the idea of mediation and authorised representation. As a result, he translates the present verse as ‘communicating each gift among themselves’.94 However, this view seems unlikely given both the broader as well as the more immediate contexts.95 In this particular instance, the word’s   Bengel 77.   See Johnstone 348. 92   Although εἰς + accusative as a prepositional modifier of the noun διακονία appears occasionally in the NT (see Rom 15.31; 2 Cor 8.4; 9.1), its use with the verb διακονέω is quite rare (see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.5.41.6; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 5.10.5). 93   The prepositional phrase εἰς ἑαυτούς most likely denotes advantage, marking out those for whose benefit the service is performed (cf. Dubis 143; Forbes 148). Support for this contention is found not only in the presence of similar constructions in vv. 8–9, but also in the use of διακονέω in 1 Pet 1.12: ὑμῖν διηκόνουν αὐτά (‘they were ministering these things for you’). On the other hand, it is also possible that εἰς carries a local force, ‘among one another’ (cf. 2 Tim 1.18: ὅσα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διηκόνησεν). 94   Collins, Diakonia, 232. 95   For a general critique of Collins’ position, see Clarke, Serve the Community, 233–43; Hentschel, Diakonia im Neuen Testament, esp. 91–98. In the present context, the use of the οἰκονόμος metaphor seems to demand a sense of humble service (see below). 90 91

384

1 PETER

connection to stewardship imagery (see below), which was most commonly used in connection with those of lower social status (slaves, freedmen), seems to situate the meaning in the realm of service (hence, ‘serve one another’). The term χάρισμα derives from χαρίζομαι,96 the suffix -μα being added to the stem to denote the substantive result of the verbal action.97 So rather than being a manifestation of χάρις,98 the word more precisely represents the result of χαρίζομαι; hence, ‘something that has been graciously given’.99 This term itself is rare, appearing in only a few places prior to the time of the NT (Jub. 3.1; Philo, Leg. 3.78bis; Ebr. frag. 11; cf. Sir 30.22 [Θ]; 38.30 [Codex B]) and sporadically thereafter (e.g., Apollonius, Lexicon Homericum 110; Galen, Hipp. Art. 514). Various parallels between the discussion of χαρίσματα in Rom 12.6–8 (and 1 Cor 12.4–11) and the present verse have led many to conclude that 1 Peter was indebted to the Pauline tradition.100 Nevertheless, some remain unconvinced of this connection, focusing instead on the differences between the two, explaining the similarities through shared tradition.101 But while such differences are important for understanding the distinctive theological contribution of 1 Peter, they cannot be the primary consideration when judging literary dependence. The determining factor must be the similarities.102 96   See MHT 2:354; Louw–Nida, Lexicon, 1:569. Pace Schatzmann, Pauline Theology of Charismata, 2, who inexplicably argues that the verb χαρίζομαι derives from the noun χάρισμα. 97   Robertson, Grammar, 151; BDF §109(2). 98   As designated by some commentators (e.g., Huther 216; Beare 186; Elliott 754; Watson 104). 99   See further Turner, ‘Modern Linguistics’, 156–65; cf. also Ong, ‘Linguisti�cally Fallacious Term?’, esp. 587–88. 100   E.g., von Soden 162; Blenkin 99; Brox 207. See further Introduction: Sources, Traditions, and Affinities. 101   Elliott (754) rules out literary dependence on the basis that (a) Paul’s diverse forms of spiritual gifts have no parallel in 1 Peter, where only two divisions are listed; (b) unlike the Pauline discussion, where the χαρίσματα are given by the Spirit (1 Cor 12.7) while ultimately deriving from God (Rom 12.6), 1 Peter does not mention either the Holy Spirit or God; and (c) 1 Peter relates the χαρίσματα to the household of God, not to the body of Christ as in Paul. Others have reached similar conclusions (e.g., Wand 115; Senior 121; Prigent 126; Donelson 129). For a full defence of this position, see Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus, 158–72. 102   See Williams, ‘Intertextuality and Methodological Bias’, 178, 180; Introduction: Sources, Traditions, and Affinities.



4.7–11

385

An important consideration with regard to the literary relationships involved is the fact that aside from this instance, the term χάρισμα is used in the NT only in the Pauline corpus (e.g., Rom 1.11; 1 Cor 1.7; 1 Tim 4.14; 2 Tim 1.6).103 This consideration, in tandem with the numerous other connections to Pauline literature, is important evidence for influence. If this is the case, it is noteworthy that 1 Peter’s reception of this concept is markedly distinct from that of the Pastoral Epistles. Among some earlier commentators, it was claimed that the χαρίσματα mentioned in v. 10 were connected to church offices: the ‘gifts’ in view were received through the laying on of hands by the apostles and elders and were given so that office holders might be able to successfully discharge their duties in the church.104 For support, they pointed to references in the Pastoral Epistles, where a similar process is described (cf. 1 Tim 4.14; 2 Tim 1.6). However, important differences separate these two references to χαρίσματα, the most important being that in the Pastorals χάρισμα seems to be a gift possessed by the leadership of the church which equips them for specific responsibilities and confers authority to their position;105 whereas in 1 Peter, each (ἕκαστος) member of the community is said to possess (and is expected to serve the church with) a χάρισμα. For this reason, most tend to locate the reception (ἔλαβεν) of these gifts at conversion/baptism,106 103   On the term χάρισμα, see TDNT 9:402–406; NIDNTT 2:115–23; Wambacq, ‘Le mot charisme’, 345–55. On χαρίσματα more generally, see Brosch, Charismen und Ämter; Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt; Koenig, Charismata; du Toit, ‘Die Charismata’, 189–200; Kilgallen, ‘Reflections on Charisma(ta)’, 289–323. 104   So, e.g., Semler 207–208; Augusti 250; Jachmann 165; Masterman 148; Plumptre 145. Had this been the intention of the Petrine author, he could have communicated the idea more clearly by writing ἕκαστος ὃς ἔλαβεν (‘each who received’) rather than ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβεν. 105   This could be used as evidence that 1 Peter lacks the kind of institutionalisa�tion found in later Christian documents. Of course, some texts from later periods (e.g., 1 Clem. 38.1) also have a less institutionalised understanding of χαρίσματα than the Pastorals (see further Piepkorn, ‘Charisma in the New Testament’, 372–75; Campbell, ‘Charismata in the Christian Communities’, 7–25), so this might reveal very little. For a fuller discussion of the Pastorals’ modification of the Pauline concept, see Grau, ‘Der neutestamentliche Begriff χάρισμα’, 80–89; cf. also Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 348–49. On χαρίσματα as grace of office (Amtsgnade) in the Pastorals, see Wobbe, Der Charis-Gedanke, 67–70. 106   See, e.g., Goppelt 301. In support of this view, interpreters commonly point to the aorist tense verb, ἔλαβεν, ‘[each] has received’ (Caffin 173; Blenkin 98; Davids 160 n. 35). But while this interpretation is consistent with the aorist tense

386

1 PETER

although this timeframe could extend back further depending on how one understands the next issue. In terms of the nature of these χαρίσματα, 1 Peter appears to be much closer to the Pauline concept. Interpreters have debated whether the χαρίσματα include natural talents and capacities or whether they consist of supernatural or specifically ‘Christian’ endowments. On the one hand, we should be open to the possibility that the Petrine χαρίσματα include the types of supernatural gifts found within the Pauline communities (e.g., speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing).107 Otherwise, the use of the adjective ποικίλος would make little sense.108 On the other hand, these χαρίσματα might also include natural talents and capacities which a person possessed prior to conversion and which are thus given over to the service of God.109 Even within Pauline literature, there are indications that some gifts are better defined as ministries (or tasks) to perform—serving, giving, etc. (Rom 12.6–8)—rather than special abilities (or enablements),110 and if, as some suppose, hospitality is considered to be a χάρισμα,111 then such would be the case here as well. Given these considerations, it might be best to draw a wide net, defining χάρισμα broadly as ‘any capacity or endowment form, it is not demanded by it. One could just as easily connect the reception with any number of events or to no specific event at all (cf. Hiebert 275). 107   Bigg denies that the χαρίσματα discussed in 1 Pet 4.10–11 include the supernatural gifts delineated by Paul (e.g., 1 Cor 12.9–10): ‘Throughout the Epistle he lets fall no word to show that these extraordinary gifts of the Spirit existed among the Diaspora, or that he himself attached any importance to them’ (173–74; cf. Green 146 n. 196). However, this fact does not exclude the possibility of such gifts (see Jobes 281). 108   See Best 160. 109   As suggested, e.g., by Fronmüller 78; Lenski 196–97; Blum 246; Goppelt 301; Skaggs 59; Green 146 n. 196. A number of scholars have objected to the inclusion of natural abilities or inborn talents (e.g., Benson 276; Best 160; Davids 160; Marshall 146; Achtemeier 297 n. 83). 110   One example is found in 1 Cor 12.4–6, where χαρίσματα (v. 4) are equated with διακονίαι (‘ministries’, v. 5) and ἐνεργήματα (‘activities’, v. 6). Another instance where this functional meaning is clear is in Rom 12.8. Here, Paul includes ὁ μεταδιδούς (‘the giver’) in the list of χαρίσματα. It would be difficult to argue that ‘giving’ is a supernatural ability that is received at conversion/baptism. Rather, it seems to be a task that some members of the community are able to perform due to their financial situation. For more on χαρίσματα as ministries/ tasks, see Berding, What Are Spiritual Gifts? 111   This position is defended, e.g., by Moffatt 154; Wand 115; Windisch 76.



4.7–11

387

which can be employed for the benefit of the community’.112 Rather than specifying a considerable range of these χαρίσματα, however, as Paul does, the author of 1 Peter goes on to delineate only two key areas of ministry: speaking and serving, a twofold distinction that is reminiscent of Acts 6.2–4 (see on v. 11).113 ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος θεοῦ. θεοῦ. The next phrase indicates the manner in which this service should be carried out. The exact force of ὡς, however, requires some consideration. Within the letter it is used to introduce both comparative metaphors (5.8; cf. 1.24, in a quotation) and actual identifications, i.e., descriptions of what is, or is intended to be, the case, such as the readers’ identity as obedient children (1.14) or the emperor’s status as pre-eminent (2.13). Moreover, the distinction between these two categories is not entirely clear-cut. Here, however, it seems primarily to offer a depiction of the proper identity and (therefore) correct pattern of conduct for the addressees: ‘as good administrators/stewards…’, or even ‘like the good administrators that you are…’).114 At the same time, there is a metaphorical dimension to this depiction, since their role is depicted using the image of the οἰκονόμος, thus calling to mind the ways in which such persons operated in household and public contexts (see below). The use of stewardship imagery to describe Christian service occurs elsewhere too. As an apostle, Paul refers to himself as a ‘steward’ (οἰκονόμος) of God’s mysteries (1 Cor 4.1), and later Christian leaders are called ‘stewards’ (Titus 1.7). But the role of οἰκονόμος is not reserved here for the leadership of the communities, but refers to all believers (cf. Ign. Pol. 6.1). The fact that they are admonished to be ‘good stewards’ (καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι) of God’s grace echoes the ancient ideal of stewardship or good management. In some discussions of οἰκονόμοι, occasional reference is made to the ‘good steward’ (Xenophon, Oec. 1.2.4; Mem. 3.4.11; Aristotle, Gen. an. 744b; Diodorus Siculus 1.62.6, each using ἀγαθός), although there was some debate regarding what this meant, in particular whether a ‘good steward’ sought profitability   Kelly 179; cf. Barnes 193; Cook 212; Keil 154; Johnstone 347.   See further Hahn, ‘Charisma und Amt’, 444. 114   Cf., e.g., Wiesinger 286; Demarest 230; Alford 376; Fronmüller 78; Michaels 249. 112 113

388

1 PETER

or preservation (see Philodemus, Oec. 3a.6–14). To understand the meaning of ‘good’ stewardship in the present verse it is important to first understand the source and contexts of the image. Many have understood this ‘faithful steward’ language as hearkening back to the parable of the talents in Matt 25.14–30// Luke 19.11–27.115 But stewardship was such an important component of ancient society that we need not limit the source to a single biblical passage;116 instead, we must look more closely at the GrecoRoman context. The key is distinguishing between the function of οἰκονόμοι in private and civic settings.117 In the municipal realm, οἰκονόμοι were civic magistrates in charge of the treasury (I.Priene 83; I.Smyrna 761; I.Stratonikea 1103; cf. Rom 16.23).118 These office-bearers were normally wealthy elites (IG X,2 1 150: Ζώσιμος οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως τὸν εὐεργέτην) chosen from the higher ranks of the social order.119 However, those who served in this capacity were afforded very little administrative authority, and by the Roman period, there was hardly any process of review by which an οἰκονόμος had to give an account of his performance.120 For this

  E.g., de Wette 53; Fausset 511; Weiss 145; Usteri 193.   For an overview of the NT evidence, see Tooley, ‘Stewards of God’, 74–86. 117   On this distinction, see Goodrich, Paul as Administrator, 25–102. Another ancient background against which this imagery is sometimes read is the administration of religious cults. This view was first proposed in the various works on the subject by Reumann (‘ “Stewards of God” ’, 339–49; idem, ‘ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑ-Terms in Paul’, 147–67; idem, Stewardship and the Economy of God). However, it is not relevant in the present verse where what is specified as the objects of management are the manifestations of the beneficence of God. 118   The οἰκονόμος was one of the regular municipal offices in the civic communities of Asia Minor as well as other parts of the Greek East (see Asboeck, Das Staatswesen von Priene, 111–12). The financial responsibilities of the ‘administrator’ included the dispensing of appropriate funds to athletes, financing various celebrations, and purchasing stelae for epigraphic commemoration (I.Eph. 1448; OGIS 50; see also Holleaux, Études sur la monarchie attalide, 51–52). In this way, there is some overlap between the duties of the ταμίας (‘treasurer’) and the οἰκονόμος (see Landvogt, ‘Epigraphische Untersuchungen über den Οἰκονόμος’, 19–21). 119   In some cases, however, municipal οἰκονόμοι were public slaves in the service of the city (e.g., SEG 24:496; 38:710; 47:1662). See further Weiß, Sklave der Stadt, 50–59. 120   On the lack of imperial supervision of civic magistrates, see Jacques, Le Privilège de Liberté, 379–425. 115 116



4.7–11

389

reason, it is not likely that the civic administrator was intended as the author’s source of comparison. In the private sphere, οἰκονόμοι were mainly slaves or freedmen who served as business managers on large estates (I.Nikaia 205; IGR IV 895).121 Functioning in this capacity, οἰκονόμοι were entrusted with various resources and were given authority to command the staff who served beneath them (Xenophon, Oec. 12.3; Columella, Rust. 1.8.10; cf. CRF 45–46). Their task was to make a financial profit for their owners (Aristotle, [Oec.] 1.4.1; Varro, Rust. 1.4.1), to whom they would be required to provide an account of their actions (Luke 12.42–48; 16.1–8). After inspecting the managerial efforts of the steward, the master might issue some form of reward for loyal service (e.g., salary [P.Oxy. XLII 3048; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.42.1]; property [Varro, Rust. 1.17.5–7]), or punishment for careless disobedience (e.g., beating [Columella, Claud. 38.2; Chariton, Chaer. 3.9.5–7]; banishment [Petronius, Satry. 69]). It is this experience of accountable servitude from which the Petrine author seems to be drawing when he encourages his readers to serve like καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι (‘faithful stewards’).122 The treasure with which these ‘stewards’ have been entrusted is described as the ‘manifold grace of God’ (ποικίλης χάριτος θεοῦ). In this instance, χάριτος probably functions as an objective genitive (‘administer grace’),123 while θεοῦ is likely a genitive of source (‘grace that comes from God’).124 Since χάρις requires some 121   It should be pointed out that in the relevant literature, administrators of privately owned businesses and estates might go by a number of different titles other than οἰκονόμος (e.g., ἐπίτροπος, πραγματευτής, δούλος, χειριστής, φροντιστής, μιζοτέρα). These titles are often used interchangeably, however (see Carlsen, ‘Estate Managers’, 117–18). Moreover, while these roles were normally fulfilled by men, there are references to women performing the same tasks (e.g., I.Prusa 68; MAMA VIII 399; I.Nikaia 1466). 122   For more on roles of private administrators (including οἰκονόμοι) in the Greco-Roman world, see Aubert, Business Managers in Ancient Rome; Carlsen, Vilici and Roman Estate Managers. 123   Advocates of this interpretation include: Lenski 197; Cranfield 116; Goppelt 301. 124   Dubis (143, followed by Forbes 149) understands θεοῦ as a subjective genitive, ‘God bestows grace’ (lit. ‘God graces’). Whereas a genitive of source would emphasise God as the one with whom χάρις originates, a subjective genitive would highlight God’s active role as the one who gives χάρις. In reality, there is very little difference between them. But even though the latter finds

390

1 PETER

administration on the part of believers, what is in view here is more than simply God’s favour toward humanity. It represents tangible benefits that have been received, whether in the form of abilities or assignments (see on 1.10).125 Beyond this, however, it is difficult to define precisely, because such responsibilities are further described as ποικίλος (‘diversified’, ‘variegated’; see on 1.6). In other words, the talents of individual Christians and the tasks through which they serve the community of faith are diverse, and it is from such variety that the church benefits. Thus, in the same way that the trials that threaten the readers are variegated (cf. 1.6: ποικίλοι πειρασμοί), so are the gifts that God provides to them. 11 εἴ τις λαλεῖ, λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ. θεοῦ. The discussion of χαρίσματα now moves from general to specific. In this verse, the author divides spiritual gifts into ‘speaking’ and ‘serving’. This does not represent two examples of χαρίσματα,126 but two larger categories or classes into which all χαρίσματα might be placed. A somewhat similar twofold division of labour is described in Acts 6.1–4 (διακονία τοῦ λόγου and διακονία ταῖς τραπέζαις). The same word–deed distinction is found elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Rom 15.18; Col 3.17; 1 Thess 1.5; 2 Thess 2.17; Jas 2.12) and is commonly expressed in the ancient Hellenistic world, notably in honouring benefactors for both ‘speaking and doing’ good for a city or community.127 Structurally, εἰ introduces a first-class condition (‘if anyone’), but when combined with the pronoun τις, which functions substantivally, it becomes equivalent to an indefinite idea, ‘whoever’ (cf. NRSV, ESV, NAB, CEB, NET, ISV, NASB).128 support elsewhere in the letter (cf. 5.5: ὁ θεὸς… δίδωσιν χάριν), in this case the emphasis seems to be placed on the nature of the gift, not the process of giving. 125   A similar idea is found in a second-century CE funerary monument for Narkissos located in the province of Bithynia. This individual is said to have ‘once had many graces’ (πολλᾶς ὅς ποτ᾽ ἔχεν χάριτας). What these χάριτας were exactly is revealed in the following lines: ‘He was good and noble in all things; in his abilities he truly had the eloquence of Pylian Nestor’ (I.Sinope 170). 126   Pace Goldstein, Paulinische Gemeinde, 14. 127   See, e.g., IG II2 650; I.Iasos 66; I.ScM I 37; I.Priene 99; IG XII,9 216 et al., where encompassing both ‘speaking and doing’ represents a comprehensive effort. 128   Michaels 250; Elliott 758; Forbes 149; cf. BDAG 279.



4.7–11

391

The meaning of this verse turns on three interpretative issues: the referent of λόγια θεοῦ, the restoration of ellipsis (and how the substantive λόγια relates to that verbal form), and the nature of the comparative image (ὡς). Each will be addressed in turn. In its wider usage, λόγιον referred to a saying or pronouncement made by a deity,129 and consequently, it was often used synonymously with the term χρησμός (‘oracle’). Oracles were thought to provide supplicants with two forms of information. Some prescribed tasks to be performed or instructions to be followed.130 They might dictate everything from whether one engaged in war to whom one might marry. These duties were undertaken with the utmost seriousness and zeal by the recipients. This is clear from a phrase which frequently accompanies references to oracles. When describing why an individual or group engaged in a particular course of action, ancient authors note that the deed was performed κατά τι λόγιον (‘according to a certain oracle’).131 In other words, the directives received in an oracle were treated as instructions to be obeyed. The other function of oracles was to provide insight into future events.132 For this reason, they are often associated with prophecy. Not only could oracles be given by a prophet/soothsayer, recipients awaited and eagerly attempted to discern their fulfillment.133 The difficulty created by oracles is that they were sometimes given in an enigmatic form, and thus could be puzzling to those who received them. In some cases, this led recipients to misunderstand

129   See LSJ 1056; cf. BDAG 598. For an introduction to ancient oracles more generally, see Ruge, ‘Orakel’, 829–66; Rosenberger, ‘Oracles’, 183–87. 130   E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 19.2.1; Strabo, Geogr. 3.5.5; Pausanias, Descr. 3.16.10; Athenaeus, Deipn. 6.79 (Kaibel). 131   For examples of this phrase, see Epimenides, Testimonia frag. 1.53; Diodorus Siculus 4.65.3; 5.54.4; Polybius, Hist. 8.28.7; Strabo, Georg. 6.1.5; 13.1.53; 14.1.27; 16.4.19; Plutarch, Thes. 27.2; 32.5; Arist. 9.2; Ant. 34.1; Diogenes Laertius, Vitae 1.115; Pausanias, Descr. 1.44.9. 132   E.g., Pausanias, Descr. 2.20.10; Polyaenus, Strategemata 1.8.1; Arrian, Anab. 7.16.5; Plutarch, Lys. 22.5–6; Nic. 13.1; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 1.7. 133   On the delivery of a λόγιον by a prophet/soothsayer, see Plutarch, Aris. 9.2; Ps.-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 7.9. On the anticipated fulfillment of oracles, see Aristophanes, Vesp. 800; Diodorus Siculus 4.73.6; Pausanias, Descr. 2.7.1.

392

1 PETER

their meaning and even to act in ways that were contrary to the oracle’s intent.134 The use of λόγιον within Jewish and Christian literature is similar to that found in secular material, although with a few key developments. One important difference is the tendency to connect λόγιον with the genitive modifier θεοῦ or κυρίου, a combination that is rare outside of these texts.135 The popularity of this form reflects the influence of the LXX, where the collocation is employed with some regularity.136 In the LXX, the term λόγιον carries similar nuances to those found in Hellenistic writings. Aside from a singular instance in which it refers to human speech,137 it describes the utterances of YHWH to humans, which are often delivered through special intermediaries (e.g., Moses; prophets). Like those oracles described in secular literature, these λόγια focused on instructions or commands that the people of God were expected to follow as well as promises about their future circumstances.138 The prescriptive   For examples of the enigmatic form of oracles, see Dionysius of Halicar�nassus, Ant. rom. 1.24.1; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 1.7. For examples of misunderstanding, see Strabo, Geogr. 6.1.5; Diodorus Siculus 16.91.3; Plutarch, Pel. 20.7; Pausanias, Descr. 3.11.6. 135   For examples of λόγιον connected with the genitive modifiers θεοῦ or θεῶν, see, e.g., Aelius Aristides, Or. 50 (Jebb p. 412); Polyaenus, Strategemata 8.43.1; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 1.7; Flavius Claudius Julianus, Εἰς τὴν μητέρα τῶν θεῶν 18.30; Damascius, De principiis 1.86.10. 136   The LXX uses a few different variations of this phrase: λόγια θεοῦ (Num 24.4, 16; Ps 106.11); τὰ λόγια κυρίου (Pss 11.7; 17.31; 104.19); τὸ λόγιον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ (Isa 28.13); and τὸ λόγιον τοῦ ἁγίου Ισραηλ (Isa 5.24). The term λόγιον is also used in second-person speech directed towards YHWH (τὸ λόγιόν/τὰ λόγιά σου: Deut 33.9; Pss 118.11, 38, 41, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82, 103, 116, 133, 140, 148, 158, 162, 169–170, 172; 137.2; Wis 16.11; cf. Ps 118.123 [τὸ λόγιον τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου]) as well as third-person references (Ps 147.4: τὸ λόγιον αὐτοῦ; Isa 30.27: τὸ λόγιον τῶν χειλέων αὐτοῦ; cf. Isa 30.27: τὸ λόγιον ὀργῆς). 137   The one instance is found in LXX Ps 18.15, a passage that runs contrary to the claim of Zuiddam, van Rensburg, and Jordan that ‘while the author of λόγος could be human or divine, λόγιον was always produced in the heavenlies’ (‘Λόγιον in Biblical Literature’, 381). Aside from this example, there are also a few other occurrences in Hellenistic literature where the term is used to describe human speech. In both cases, it is connected with someone possessing extraordinary prophetic abilities (cf. T.Benj. 9.1 [Cod. Grae. 731] [oracles of Enoch]; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.24 [oracle of Apollonius]; Nicolaus, Frags. 68, line 99 [oracles of Zoroaster]). 138   Cf. Manson, ‘Some Reflections on Apocalyptic’, 143, who divides the LXX uses into four primary meanings: (a) oracular communications of God to 134



4.7–11

393

function of God’s oracles could relate to a particular task in which the recipient required specific directions (LXX Num. 24.4, 16), or it was connected to the laws that God bestowed upon the people of God within their covenantal relationship (LXX Deut 33.9; Ps 118.11). The promissory nature of divine oracles was not always spelled out in detail (though, cf. Ps 11.7 LXX), but this function is evident from the facts that recipients regularly implore God for the deliverance that has been promised, and that God is commonly praised for the assurances that are offered.139 Another important distinction among Jewish and Christian writers is the manner in which λόγια was used to describe the utterances of God in written form. On a few occasions, the term is employed in classical sources to denote a spoken utterance preserved in writing (e.g., Aristophanes, Eq. 118–122).140 But even when referring to the written form of oracles as λόγια, an important distinction was normally made between the content and the medium of communication: λόγια were thought to be contained in the books; they were not the books themselves (see Cassius Dio 57.18.4–5; Plutarch, Fab. 4.5). Among Jewish authors, λόγια could be used as a reference to oracles that had been preserved in a tangible form (Philo, Contempl. 25; Praem. 1), but on a few rare occasions, it was even employed as a synonym for the sacred writings themselves, which thereby attributed an implicit importance to the written medium along with the words that were preserved therein (see Let. Aris. 176–77; Josephus, War 6.311–13; 1 Clem. 53.1).141 After the first century CE, the term humans either directly or through a prophet; (b) divine commandments; (c) divine promises; and (d) human utterance in worship. 139   On the specific pleas for God to act ‘according to (his) λόγιόν’, see LXX Ps 118.41, 58, 76, 116, 133, 169–170. On the praise of assurance that God will act upon his promises, see LXX Pss 17.31; 104.19. 140   Throughout classical literature, references are made to ancient λόγια (e.g., Heraclides Ponticus, Fragmenta 46b.8; Euripides, Heracl. 405; Polybius, Hist. 8.28.7; Diodorus Siculus 14.56.5; 15.49.2; 15.54.1; Plutarch, Cam. 4.1; Nic. 13.1; Ps.-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3.212.4). The preservation of these oracles from antiquity obviously requires some medium of conservation. In a few cases, statements are made about oracles being remembered (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 8.141; Plutarch, Thes. 26.4), indicating that some oracles were preserved through oral transmission. In other instances, however, it would have only been natural to preserve them in writing. 141   For a discussion of these texts, see Williams, ‘Delivering Oracles of God’, 340–42.

394

1 PETER

λόγια was taken up by early Christian writers as a common way of representing both the Jewish and Christian scriptures.142 Consistent with this latter usage, some claim that λόγια θεοῦ in v. 11 refers to scripture.143 While most have confined its boundaries to the Jewish scriptures, a few have expanded the referent to include the recorded words of Jesus and the writings of the apostles as well.144 But regardless of how broadly the term is thought to apply, proponents of this view agree that the verse is intended to hold up the written word of God as the means of regulating the content of spoken communication in the church. As such, the verse sets up a recognisable standard with which the author seeks to align all communicative acts performed on behalf of the church body. Any spoken communication designed for the benefit of the Christian community must be consistent with what God has already revealed in written form. If the words that are spoken are contrary to scripture, then the χάρισμα is not being properly discharged. While some interpreters have expressed doubts about the possi­ bility that the anarthrous form would refer to scripture,145 the general 142   For a full survey of the way the term was used in early Christian literature, see Donovan, Logia in Ancient and Recent Literature, with important corrections offered by Manson, ‘Life of Jesus’, 396–99, 411–28. 143   This approach was espoused by some interpreters within an earlier genera�tion of scholarship (e.g., Wordsworth 65; Demarest 230; Sadler 134; Bigg 174–75), and it has been advocated by a few modern commentators as well (e.g., Miller 306–307; Jobes 282). One of the most recent defences of this view can be found in the work of Zuiddam, who has published various studies on the meaning of λόγια and its practical application for biblical scholarship (see Zuiddam, van Rensburg, and Jordan, ‘Λόγιον in Biblical Literature’, 379–94; Zuiddam, ‘Oracles of God’, esp. 163–76; idem, ‘Die Woord as maatstaf’, 489–508; cf. also idem, ‘Die eerste beginsels van die Woord’, 238–48). 144   Those who claim that the λόγια refer to both the Jewish and Christian scriptures include: Plumptre 146; Monnier 211. 145   See, e.g., Alford 376; Michaels 250. In this regard, opponents argue that the absence of the article indicates that the phrase should be understood as indefinite (thus, ‘λόγια of God’, rather than ‘the λόγια of God’). Elsewhere, however, this same construction (with an anarthrous λόγια θεοῦ) is employed to communicate a definite idea (see LXX Num 24.4, 16). Such a usage is consistent with Apollonius’ Corollary, which states that when both nouns in a genitive phrase are anarthrous, they normally share the same semantic force (see Wallace, Grammar, 250–52). In this case, since θεοῦ is definite, λόγια could be as well. But it would be a mistake to assume that since an anarthrous form can perform



4.7–11

395

premise that λόγια could, and often did, represent the sacred writings of Jews and Christians usually goes unchallenged. Even those who deny that λόγια represent inscripturated revelation in v. 11 regularly acknowledge that the term conveyed this meaning in other places.146 However, upon closer inspection, this interpretation is difficult to sustain. One reason is the lack of strong contextual indicators. Prior to the composition of 1 Peter, λόγια predominantly referred to spoken utterances received from a deity. The use of the term to denote written materials is only discernible because references are made to the physical nature of a written document or to the act of reading or to some connection that is specifically drawn to a collection of texts. No such clues are present in v. 11; instead, the author connects λόγια to speaking activities (εἴ τις λαλεῖ).147 a definite function, it should be understood as definite in this particular instance (as argued by Zuiddam, ‘Oracles of God’, 168). Ultimately, context must be the determining factor. 146   Aside from the occurrence in this verse, λόγιον appears three other times in the NT (Acts 7.38; Rom 3.2; Heb 5.12). The idea that Paul intends to describe the Jewish scriptures in Rom 3.2 is a common interpretation (see, e.g., Doeve, ‘Some Notes’, 111–23; Hall, ‘Romans 3.1–8’, 185; Davies, Faith and Obedience, 74). Yet there is no indication that written documents—and more specifically, a defined collection of written documents—are in view in this verse. The fact that the Jews were ‘entrusted’ (ἐπιστεύθησαν) with τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ presents no obstacle to the theory that these were spoken utterances. The same term is employed elsewhere to describe non-tangible gifts (cf. 1 Cor 9.17; Gal 2.7; 1 Thess 2.4; 1 Tim 1.11; Titus 1.3). A similar identification is sometimes made in Heb 5.12 (see, e.g., Westcott, Hebrews, 133; Spicq, L’Épitre aux Hébreux, 143; Wilson, Hebrews, 103), although without much interpretative basis. While τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ in this verse could refer to a written text, there is nothing in the context to suggest that it must be understood this way. 147   What is more, even if λόγια was intended to refer to a collection of written documents, it is far from evident that this might be canonical scripture. To claim that the Petrine author had in view a defined collection of sacred writings is to attribute a canon-consciousness that did not exist at the time when the letter was written. Recent work on the development of the canon in ancient Judaism has shown that various groups within the late Second Temple period had their own collections of authoritative writings, and it was not until the end of the first century CE that a single canon of scripture (viz. the Pharisaic canon) began to be adopted within Judaism more broadly (see Lim, Formation of the Jewish Canon). Even when Josephus refers to λόγια as a collection of sacred texts (War 6.311), he cites an utterance that is not otherwise attested in any of the writings that came to make up the standard canon of rabbinic Judaism.

396

1 PETER

Such a consideration suggests that the λόγια θεοῦ in the present verse are words from the divine that must be transmitted by human mediators.148 Another problem with interpreting λόγια θεοῦ as scripture arises when we consider the economy of the author’s language. Most recognise that the verbal element has been elided. The question is, which verb should be restored and how might the substantive λόγια relate to that form? Most interpreters agree that the omission of the main verb in the apodosis of 1 Pet 4.11a requires the inference of some form of λαλέω, likely an implicit third person imperative (λαλείτω):149 ‘whoever speaks, let him/her speak…’.150 Where debate arises is in the restoration of the elided element within the ὡς-clause. Those who understand λόγια θεοῦ as scripture often take λόγια as the subject of a third-person verb (λαλοῦσιν) implicit within the ὡς-clause: ‘whoever speaks, let him/her speak like the scriptures (speak)’.151 While this construction is possible, grammatically, there are a few considerations that weigh against it. First, this interpretation does not adequately explain the form and function of the elided element of the ὡς-clause. Scholars have noted that λόγια can function as the nominative subject or the accusative object; but in this particular context, the latter represents the more plausible option.152 More specifically, λόγια is employed as the object of an implied participle (λαλῶν): ‘whoever speaks, let him/her speak like 148   Cf. Masterman 149: ‘The thought suggested by the use of the word is that God inspires men [sic] rather than books’ (original emphasis). 149   Cf. Grotius 101; Hensler 193; Jachmann 165; Schlosser 253. Some earlier commentators claimed that the participle λαλοῦντες is to be understood, rather than the third person imperative (see, e.g., Wiesinger 286; Alford 376; Caffin 173–74; Keil 155; Huther 217; Johnstone 349; Kühl 264). If this were the case, the participle might still be assumed to have an imperatival function (Beare 196). This suggestion seems unlikely, however, given that imperatival participles tend to take the place of second-person imperatives not third-person forms. 150   According to Pott, the protasis should be read as though it were εἴ τις ἔχει τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ λαλεῖν, ‘if anyone has the gift of speaking’ (135; cf. Schott 284). But this is to add an unnecessary limitation to the text. 151   Even some who understand λόγια as spoken utterances (rather than as written revelation) interpret it as the subject of the sentence (see, e.g., Macknight 493; Barnes 194). 152   See Blenkin 100; Selwyn 219; Stibbs–Walls 156–57; Bénétreau 246.



4.7–11

397

someone speaking oracles of God’.153 The strongest support for this interpretation comes from the second half of the verse. The text reads, ‘whoever serves, let him/her serve like (someone serving) from the power which God supplies (ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός)’ (v. 11b). In this case, a participial form (διακονῶν) is required to make sense out of the ὡς clause. Given the parallel nature of these two sentences, it seems best to supply a similar form in the first half of the verse as well.154 Another factor in the restoration of elision is the wider usage of λόγιον in the Hellenistic world. While there is a very meagre amount of evidence to suggest that λόγια, in an anthropomorphised sense, represented a communicative voice that spoke to ancient listeners (which would be consistent with a nominative function for λόγια),155 in the overwhelming majority of cases λόγια were messages awaiting deliverance by ancient speakers.156 Oracles represented the transmission of divine words to human recipients.157 Their communication is sometimes specifically connected to priests or priestesses associated with a sacred site. At Delphi, for instance, divine oracles were delivered by the Pythian priestess.158 Other mediums are also known, however. Oracles might be delivered 153   Cf. Benson 277; Margot 74–75; Dubis 144; Forbes 149. Some incorrectly claim that λόγια is the direct object of the understood imperative (e.g., Beare 186; Achtemeier 299). 154   Syntactical considerations add further support to this interpretation, since it is consistent with the fact that in Koine Greek, much like in the classical period, the participle was often elided when it appeared with the particle ὡς (e.g., 1 Cor 9.26; 2 Cor 2.17; Eph 6.7; Col 3.23). See BDF §425(4); MHT 3:158 n. 1. 155   See Herodotus, Hist. 8.62: ‘the oracles say (τὰ λόγια λέγει) we must found a colony there [i.e., Siris in Italy]’; cf. also Philo, Somn. 1.166: ‘the oracle calls (εἶπε τὸ λόγιον) the grandfather the father of the one who practitises virtue’. 156   In the past, scholars have raised concerns about interpreting λόγια as a nominative subject on the basis that ‘λόγια are always things spoken (even if afterwards written down) and not things speaking’ (Selwyn 219). 157   Once an oracle had been delivered, it may have also been disseminated more broadly if it was applicable to a wider audience. This occurred especially during times of crisis when oracles were discussed and recited among those who understood their circumstances to reflect oracular fulfillment (see, e.g., Thucydides, Hist. 2.8.2; Polybius, Hist. 3.112.8; Diodorus Siculus 14.56.5; Cassius Dio 39.15.4). 158   See Pausanias, Descr. 2.20.10; Plutarch, Thes. 26.4; cf. Manetho, Frags. 54.46.

398

1 PETER

through magi, prophets, or even just learned individuals.159 The role of these intermediaries was to serve as a faithful conduit to allow the words of a god or goddess to be accurately transmitted. When it was performed correctly, recipients were able to hear from the divine realm. This is sometimes stressed by references that depict oracles as originating directly from the gods.160 Such a consideration would suggest that the λόγια θεοῦ in v. 11 are words from the divine that must be transmitted by human mediators. What remains to be considered, then, is the nature of the comparison (ὡς) represented by this verse. That is, does the author envision a direct correspondence between the image he constructs and the communicative situation within early Christian communities? Many believe that the verse sets up a hypothetical comparison: those members with communicative gifts are encouraged to carry out their tasks as though they were delivering information that came directly from the mouth of God.161 While such an approach emphasises the seriousness with which speakers should endeavour to communicate the Christian message, it equally suggests that their words are not to be taken as equivalent to the oracles of God.162 Instead, the comparative image reflects the appropriate manner in which speaking should be carried out in the church. One of the primary reasons for positing a hypothetical comparison is the fact that the instructions are framed as part of a simile (ὡς). This point is particularly stressed by Kittel, who states 159   Magi: Herodotus, Hist. 1.120. Prophets: Philo, Gig. 49; Spec. 1.315; 3.7; Mos. 2.188, 262–263; Praem. 1; Contempl. 25; Plutarch, Aris. 15.4; Philostratus, Imagines 1.4.2. Learned men: Arrian, Anab. 7.16.5. 160   E.g., Diodorus Siculus 15.74.3: ἔχων δὲ παρὰ θεῶν λόγιον (‘he had an oracle from the gods’); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.34.5: ὡς ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἔν τε Σιβυλλείοις τισὶ λογίοις καὶ ἄλλοις χρηστηρίοις ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν δεδομένοις εἰρημένον (‘like those said to be found in certain Sibylline oracles and other prophecies given by the gods’); cf. also Pausanias, Descr. 10.1.10; Polyaenus, Strategemata 4.3.27; Philostratus, Imagines 2.33.1. 161   Recent advocates of this view include: Davids 161; Hillyer 127; Goppelt 302–304; McKnight 239; Senior 121; Prigent 125–26; Powers 134; Witherington 205–206; Watson 104; Vahrenhorst 177. 162   See Schreiner 215 (1st ed.): ‘the phrase does not suggest that somehow the words spoken in church constitute revelation from God. Peter wrote so that those who speak will do so in accord with the gospel, not to suggest that the words spoken become part of the revelational deposit for believers.’ Cf. also Grudem 176.



4.7–11

399

that ‘the intentional ὡς makes it clear that in primitive Christian consciousness the term [λόγιον] was reserved exclusively for the divine Subject. There is hesitation to say that the believer utters λόγια θεοῦ. He declares ὡς λόγια θεοῦ.’163 But while the comparative particle must be taken carefully into account, such a feature is not sufficient to place the comparison into the realm of the hypothetical. This is because the basis of the association is left unstated. It is possible that the Petrine author drew on the image of communicating divine oracles because it vividly illustrated the proper approach towards speaking within a local congregation. On the other hand, it is equally possible—and we would argue that it is actually more probable—that speakers were urged to understand their communicative duties in this way because the author believed there to be a direct correspondence between their words and God’s oracles. Both of these positions represent plausible foundations from which the current comparison could have been drawn. Rather than focusing on the comparative particle, therefore, a more pertinent consideration is the parallel construction that follows.164 As in the case regarding the question of verbal elision, the second half of the verse provides a clue to the interpretation of the comparison in the first half. In v. 11b, the author instructs his readers, ‘whoever serves, let him/her serve as one serving from the strength which God supplies (ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός)’. Few would deny that an actual correspondence was thought to exist between this comparison and the situation of the Petrine audience. Instead of representing a hypothetical model that believers could only hope to emulate (i.e., as though their strength were not actually supplied by God), this visual image describes the reality in which readers found themselves. They are encouraged to carry out their ministry tasks in light of the fact that they are empowered by the divine. In the same way, it is most natural to assume a direct correspondence between the oracles of God and the speech acts that were undertaken in the Christian community.165   TDNT 4:139. Others have similarly understood the comparative particle as a means of distancing the speech acts carried out in the Christian community from the oracles of God (e.g., Davids 161; Goppelt 303). 164   Cf. Michaels 250–51. 165   Cf. Elliott 759 n. 539: ‘The point of both qualifications is that the gifts of both speech and service are supplied by God’. 163

400

1 PETER

Most of the opposition to this ‘correspondence’ view stems from the broad nature of the referent ascribed to λαλεῖ (v. 11a). It is generally agreed that ‘speaking’ in this verse refers to verbal communications involving members of the Christian community exercising their χαρίσματα for the benefit of the church body.166 The implications of this view are significant: if these communicative gifts conveyed the very words of God, then divine revelation would have been continually dispensed in the church. This presents a theological problem for some modern interpreters in that written scripture is believed to be the only source of authoritative revelation for the church.167 For others, such a scenario attributes an unnecessary supernatural power to human speech which borders on the magical.168 But the revelatory nature of speaking gifts is consistent with the theology of the Petrine author. Elsewhere in the letter, he similarly represents divine revelation being given through human channels. For instance, the evangelisation of the Anatolian readers is thought to have involved the communication of God’s word through human mediators, a process that was aided by the Holy Spirit’s transmission of the divine message to the human realm (1.23–25). What is more, according to connections drawn between γάλα (‘milk’) and the gospel of Christ (see Exegesis at 2.1–3), the author understood the word of God that was originally proclaimed to the readers as one-and-the-same substance with the message that fuels the 166   See Donelson 130; Watson 104. Many claim that the speaking is restricted to authoritative instruction given by prophets and teachers in public assemblies (e.g., de Wette 53; Doddridge 217; Fausset 511; Mason 428; Kelly 180; Michaels 250; Senior 121; Schlosser 249–50). Yet this seems too restrictive. A clue to the referent is found in the separation of χαρίσματα into two divisions: speaking and serving. The ‘speaking’ gifts mentioned in Pauline and post-Pauline literature include prophesying (Rom 12.6; 1 Cor 12.10, 28; Eph 4.11), teaching (Rom 12.7; 1 Cor 12.28; Eph 4.11), speaking/interpreting tongues (1 Cor 12.10, 28), exhorting (Rom 12.8), and evangelising (Eph 4.11). There is no reason why any of these χαρίσματα would be excluded from the purview of the Petrine author here (cf. Plumptre 146; Cook 212). 167   See, e.g., Grudem 176: ‘this cannot mean, “as claiming that the words he speaks are God’s own words”, because that would only be true of Scripture, not of every word spoken during a church meeting’. 168   See, e.g., Goppelt 304: ‘Such ideas identify human speech in an almost magical way with the word of God’.



4.7–11

401

spiritual growth of his audience (2.1–3). The idea that divine speech is transmitted through human agents is not therefore unusual for our author. It is a small step, then, to claim that the exercise of communicative χαρίσματα might involve the actual transmission of divine words or oracles. Just as the readers had earlier received the word of God from missionaries who spread the gospel across Asia Minor, so also they are encouraged to continue longing for the same word of God that was regularly proclaimed to them within their Christian congregations. While we can only speculate about exactly what kind of message and content was conveyed—there is no direct listing of the types of verbal proclamation (e.g., prophecy, teaching, exhortation, etc.) such as are found in the Pauline letters—what seems clear is that when group-members presented such speech in the community meetings, they were (thought to be) communicating the very words of God. Thus, there is a direct correspondence between the comparative image (i.e., one who delivers oracles from God) and the ministry of those who exercised speaking gifts within the Anatolian congregations. When Christians rendered service to the community through various forms of verbal communication, they were (understood to be) dispensing divine revelation.169 εἴ τις διακονεῖ, διακονεῖ, ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός. θεός. The structure in this half of the verse is the same as that in the first: the indefinite εἴ τις (‘whoever’) functions as the protasis of a firstclass condition, with an ellipsis of an imperative (διακονείτω) in the apodosis, along with an implicit participle within the ὡς clause (διακονῶν). Noteworthy is the fact that the author uses the term διακονέω as the second category under which the χαρίσματα are grouped. The same word is employed in v. 10 as the readers are exhorted to serve (διακονοῦντες) one another with spiritual gifts. A similar variation is found in the Pauline discussion of χαρίσματα. There Paul refers to the specific spiritual gift of διακονία, ‘service’ (Rom 12.7), while he also uses this same term in a broad sense to describe the gifts in general (1 Cor 12.5). The ‘ministry’ depicted here need not be limited to specific tasks such 169   Advocates of this view include: Kelly 180; Holmer–de Boor 150–51; Michaels 250–51; Schelkle 120; Donelson 130.

402

1 PETER

as caring for the poor and sick, nor should it be considered a reference to office-bearers (διάκονοι).170 Instead, it is a reference to all non-speech-related gifts of practical service.171 The comparative phrase (ὡς) describes the manner in which such service is to be undertaken and enabled. The term ἰσχύς means ‘power’ or ‘strength’, focusing on the capacity or ability to act or function effectively.172 It is common within earlier Greek literature but is less prominent in later Hellenism. This is in marked contrast to its presence in Jewish writings, where it is frequently employed (esp. in the LXX). Here God is said to possess unrivalled ἰσχύς (Deut 3.24; Job 36.22; Pss. Sol. 2.29), which is often on display as God leads the people of God in triumphs over their enemies (Exod 9.16; Num 14.13; Judg 6.12; cf. Josephus, Ant. 6.142). This power is thought to be imparted to God’s people on various occasions, especially in times of difficulty and peril (1 Sam 2.10; Ps 28.11; Isa 40.29; Bar 1.12; Sir 17.3). In this passage, Christian service is sourced in (ἐξ), and thus should proceed from, the strength of God. It is God that ‘supplies’ (χορηγεῖ) them with the power for their tasks.173 The author’s choice of words is once again instructive. He draws on a term (χορηγέω) that originally referred to performing the public liturgy of chorus director (χορηγός), in which capacity one would furnish the money necessary for choral productions at civic festivals.174 Later it came to be used for the act of supplying funds for any type of endeavour, especially of benefactors providing for their communities.175 The

  Those who limit ‘ministry’ to specific tasks include: de Wette 53; Huther 217; Mason, 428; Schröger, ‘Die Verfassung der Germeinde’, 242. Those who view this as a reference to office-bearers include Michel, TDNT 5:151. Nor should the verb διακονέω be limited to mean serving in an official capacity as a deacon in the church (pace Benson 278; Doddridge 217; Hottinger 137; Demarest 231–33). 171   Cf. Brandt, Dienst und Dienen im Neuen Testament, 125–32. 172   TDNT 3:397–402. 173   While we would have expected an accusative relative pronoun (ἥν) as the direct object of χορηγεῖ (cf. Dubis 144; Schlosser 253), the genitive case of the relative pronoun ἧς is explained by its attraction to its antecedent ἰσχύος (see Robertson, Grammar, 512, 716; Wallace, Grammar, 338–39; Porter, Idioms, 251–52). 174   See Hilhorst, ‘Termes chrétiens’, 30–31. 175   The choregic inscriptions from the ancient world were collected and discussed by Brinck, ‘Inscriptiones Graecae ad choregiam pertinentes’, 71–274. 170



4.7–11

403

generosity and munificence of human beings are often depicted in the LXX using this language (cf. 1 Kgs 5.1; 1 Macc 14.10; 2 Macc 3.3; 3 Macc 6.30, 40). But in this case, it speaks of God’s provision (cf. 2 Cor 9.10; see also the compounded form ἐπιχορηγέω, Gal 3.5; Col 2.19; 2 Pet 1.11). Its use in connection with the following reflection on God’s δόξα (‘glory’, ‘reputation’) suggests that the Petrine author wants to portray God as the ultimate benefactor of these communities and thus as the source of the gifts which the members may offer to one another.176 ἵνα ἐν πᾶσιν δοξάζηται ὁ θεὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, αἰῶνας, ἀμήν ἀμήν.. The purpose (ἵνα) of the two preceding exhortations on the way in which gifts are to be exercised (v. 10a–b) is that God might receive glory (δοξάζηται). While the adjective πᾶσιν could be understood as masculine, ‘in (or, by) all people’, referring to the agents of glorification, namely, the ἕκαστος in v. 10,177 it is more likely neuter (cf. 1 Cor 10.31),178 referring more generally to God’s glorification ‘in all things’, or perhaps more specifically, ‘in all these things’ (that is, in the exercise of the χαρίσματα within the Christian community).179 Being placed at the end of the clause and connected with δοξάζηται,180 the prepositional phrase ‘through Jesus Christ’ describes the means (διά) by which God can be glorified, with the name Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ serving as ‘a metonymy for Jesus’ work, which makes it possible for the recipients to glorify God through their speaking and serving’.181

  Cf. Danker, Benefactor, 332; Horrell, ‘Gift and Grace in 1 Peter’, 164–65.   This view was popular within earlier scholarship (e.g., Calov 1517; Gerhard 627; Hottinger 137). Note that Steiger (2:271) says that most interpreters during his time considered πᾶσιν to be masculine. 178   Cf. Hensler 194; Usteri 195; von Soden 162; Beare 187; Schelkle 120; Hiebert 277. 179   See Pott 136; Augusti 250; Schott 285. Alternatively, Lenski (199) suggests that ἐν πᾶσιν be understood as, ‘in every respect’ (cf. BDAG 783). In this translation, the focus is placed on the individual ways or details in which God receives glory, which contrasts with the more holistic viewpoint (‘in all things’) of the other rendering. 180   According to Hofmann (170), the prepositional phrase διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ should be connected with the relative clause that follows. 181   Dubis 145. 176 177

404

1 PETER

The final phrase (‘to whom is/be glory…’) appears to represent an early liturgical formula, which perhaps served to conclude Christian worship (Rom 16.27; Heb 13.20; Rev. 1.6; 5.13; 1 Clem. 20.12; 50. 7). In some NT doxologies, the copula is absent (e.g., 2 Cor 1.3; Eph 1.3), thus creating debate regarding whether to supply an indicative (ἐστίν) or an optative (εἴη).182 But in this instance, it is clearly a declarative statement, indicated by the presence of the indicative ἐστιν (cf. Rom 1.25; 2 Cor 11.31; see also Rev 4.11; 5.12), and as such, it should be translated, ‘to God is/ belongs glory’, not ‘to God be the glory’.183 The praise and adoration reserved for the divine is grounded in God’s eternal glory and power, as the relative clause (‘to whom…’) provides the basis for the preceding statement.184 Both δόξα and κράτος are common elements in NT doxologies (1 Tim 1.17; 6.16; Jude 25; Rev 4.9, 11; 5.13; 7.12), but they appear in combination only here and in Rev 1.6. These abstract nouns are articular, as are most substantives in doxologies (although cf. Luke 2.14; 1 Tim 1.17; Jude 25). This, according to some, is to convey solemnity.185 However, it is better to view these articles as particularizing and more closely defining the quality of the nouns:186 the only ‘glory’ and ‘power’ worth consideration as such belong to God. The phrase εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας indicates Hebrew influence,187 with the plural being employed for a concrete subject to denote something that is long or wide.188 It carries the meaning, ‘eternally’/‘forever’, and even without the attached genitive τῶν αἰώνων (see Text at 4.11 n. f), emphasises the unending nature of these traits. The extended form (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν) is frequently employed in doxologies (Gal 1.5; Phil 4.20; 1 Tim 1.17; 2 Tim 4.18; Heb 13.21).

  See Robertson, Grammar, 396, in connection with Winer, Grammar, 733.   Most translations (e.g., NRSV, NAB, NET, ESV) and commentators (e.g., Kelly 182; Blum 247; Davids 162; Forbes 150) render the clause as a declarative (‘to God is/belongs glory’), although some do supply the optative form, ‘to God be the glory’ (cf. KJV, NIV, CEB, CJB; see, e.g., Charles 347). 184   Cf. Johnstone 351; Huther 218. 185   So, e.g., Monnier 213. 186   As argued, e.g., by Forbes 150. See also Wallace, Grammar, 226. 187   MHT 3:25. 188   BDF §141(1); Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 3 (§7). 182 183



4.7–11

405

Since the relative pronoun ᾧ could have either God or Jesus as its antecedent, some debate has surrounded the one to whom this doxology is addressed.189 Many scholars seek to connect the δόξα and κράτος with Jesus.190 They point out that Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is not only the closest antecedent to the relative pronoun, but that doxological praise directed to Jesus is consistent with the glory ascribed to him elsewhere in the NT (e.g., 2 Tim 4.18; 2 Pet 3.18; Rev 1.6). Some even suggest that such an interpretation prevents the prepositional phrase διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ from being an unnatural interruption by allowing a new thought to develop.191 Despite these considerations, a slightly stronger case can be made for an address to God.192 Not only is God the one towards whom similar doxological statements in the epistle are directed (cf. 1 Pet 2.12; 5.11193), but the link-word connection between δοξάζηται and δόξα suggests that God is the intended target of praise. To these considerations, one might add the fact that there is a certain awkwardness to ascribing glory to God through Jesus to Jesus, as the other interpretation requires.

  According to Fitzmyer (368), the doxology is addressed to both God and Jesus. In this way the relative pronoun serves double duty (cf. Boring 152, who argues that ‘1 Peter’s theocentric Christology collapses the figures of “God” and “Christ” into each other’, and as a result, ‘one should not attempt to distinguish them’). This suggestion, however, appears to be somewhat strained. 190   So, e.g., Steiger 2:271–72; Sadler 134; von Soden 162; Hart 73; Bennett 248; Blenkin 101; Selwyn 220; Michaels 253; Marshall 144–45; McKnight 239; Jobes 283; Green 146 n. 197. 191   The thought, according to Steiger, is as follows: ‘It is only through the media�tion and help of Christ that God can be glorified in us and our actions… ; hence to him in reality belongs the glory which arises from these, and the power over us and all things throughout all ages’ (2:272; original emphasis). One might respond to this suggestion by pointing out that the phrase διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is common before doxological closing formulae (Rom 16.27; Heb 13.20; 1 Clem. 20.12; 50.7; 58.2; Did. 9.4). As such, the prepositional phrase is an interruption—although one which early Christians thought necessary—within theocentric doxology. 192   So, e.g., de Wette 53; Wiesinger 289; Schott 286; Windisch 76; Kelly 181–82; Best 161; Davids 162; Achtemeier 299; Elliott 762; Donelson 127 n. l; Schlosser 250–51. 193   According to Jobes (283), the doxology in 1 Pet 5.11 is directed towards Christ, but the nominative θέος at the beginning of v. 10 makes this unlikely (see Exegesis on 5.11). 189

406

1 PETER

Finally, it should be noted that the presence of a doxology at this point in the letter does not suggest anything about the composite nature of 1 Peter, as though 1.1–4.11 were originally separate from what follows. Aside from the numerous problems surrounding earlier partition theories,194 we might note that doxologies regularly appear within documents (e.g., Rom 11.36; Gal 1.5; Eph 3.21; Rev 1.6; 5.13; 7.12) as well as at the end (Rom 16.27; Jude 25; 2 Pet 3.18; cf. 1 Clem. 65.2). Further, one need not interpret ἀμήν as an end to an earlier document, for only rarely did letters (or sermons) conclude with such an affirmation.195 In the Hebrew Bible, the adverb ‫‘( אמן‬truly’, ‘surely’) is used when one affirms the validity of a curse or declaration (Num 5.22; Deut 27.15–26; Jer 11.5), where one accepts a command (1 Kgs 1.36) or announcement (Jer 28.6), or as part of doxologies (Ps 106.48).196 Ordinarily, the LXX translates this term as γένοιτο, but in a few cases it is transliterated as ἀμήν (1 Chr 16.36; Neh 5.13; 8.6). This Greek rendering is picked up in some later Jewish writings (Tob 8.8; 3 Macc 7.23; 4 Macc 18.24; Odes Sol. 12.15; 14.28, 35), and the word eventually makes its way into Christian writings. In the NT, ἀμήν commonly functions as an asseverative particle in the Gospels, placed before a strong declaration of Jesus (e.g., Matt 5.18; Mark 8.12; Luke 18.17). It is also employed as an expression of faith following words of praise (Rom 1.25; 9.5), prayers (Rom 15.23; 1 Cor 14.16; Gal 6.18), and, most frequently, at the end of doxologies (e.g., Rom 11.36; Phil 4.20; 1 Tim 1.17; Heb 13.21; 2 Pet 3.18; Rev 1.6).197

  See further Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure.   See Best 161; Goppelt 307. Even among later Christian letters from Egypt, it is rare to find ἀμήν as a concluding affirmation. One of the few examples comes from a fourth-century Christian letter, which closes by stating, ‘I pray for your health in the Lord God. Emmanuel is my witness. Amen.’ (P.Oxy. VIII 1162; cf. also P.Oxy. LVI 3857). And here it is probably used to affirm the validity of the statement about praying for recipient’s health, rather than as some type of formal conclusion. 196   HALOT 64. 197   In Christian inscriptions from later centuries, ἀμήν is similarly used at the end of funerary epitaphs (IG II2 13365; I.Tralleis 238; I.Smyrna 564), prayers (I.Iasos 421; IAph2007 1.193; SEG 14:705; I.Eph. 3136), and doxologies (SEG 12:458). 194 195



4.7–11

407

Summary This collection of summary instructions, which brings this section of the letter to a close, sets exhortation in the context of imminent eschatological hope. Not only does such expectation offer an assurance that the time of suffering will be brief and that the joy of the promised salvation will soon be experienced (1.6–8; cf. 4.17–19), but also provides a motivation to pursue the demanding and committed pattern of life to which the author calls his readers, and in which he calls them to endure (cf. 5.8–11). The focus here is not on their responsibilities towards those outsiders who accuse or abuse them, but towards other members of the community. Elliott’s view of the author’s strategy—‘to strengthen the solidarity of the Christian brotherhood [sic]’—is certainly evident, and the intensity of love that the author calls for among the community members is one clear indication of this focus on internal bonds.198 These internal bonds and commitments encompass more than the local Christian community, even if its primary focus remains there, as the exhortation to hospitality (‘towards one another’—not non-Christian outsiders) indicates. The most extended section of the exhortation concerns the manner in which the community members are to exercise their gifts towards one another. While strongly reminiscent of Paul’s discussion of the same topic, the gifts are not enumerated or detailed here (contrast Rom 12.6–8; 1 Cor 12.4–10) but divided simply into the two broad categories of ‘speaking’ and ‘serving’ (reminiscent of Acts 6.1–4). In each case, whoever exercises their gift does so in a way which is actually (rather than simply hypothetically, ‘as if’) fundamentally related to God: as conveying God’s words or oracles (for speech), and as operating in the strength God supplies (for service). This passage (4.10–11) also adds significantly to our understanding of χάρις in 1 Peter.199 As we have seen elsewhere (see on 1.10, 13), the primary focus is on God’s ‘gift’ of salvation through Christ. But just as ancient gift-giving or benefaction typically assumed some kind of appropriate response (also denoted χάρις), so too in this letter a certain pattern of conduct on the part of domestic   Elliott, ‘1 Peter, its Situation and Strategy’, 78.   On which see further Williams, ‘Reciprocity and Suffering’, 421–39; Horrell, ‘Gift and Grace in 1 Peter’, 157–76. 198 199

408

1 PETER

slaves (and, by extension, all Christians), is expected as their demonstration of χάρις—shown in doing good and enduring unjust suffering, as Christ did (see on 2.19–20). In 4.10–11 we see another facet of the relationality and reciprocity that χάρις initiates and sustains: God’s χάρις enables concrete acts of giving and serving (χαρίσματα) among members of the communities. Moreover, the proper exercise of these acts of χάρις within the communities— that is, in ways that emphasise their essential relation to God (ὡς λόγια θεοῦ… ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός)—serves as a means to return glory and honour to the primary gift-giver, God. Despite a long theological tradition of seeing χάρις as specifically concerned with the unique and undeserved gift of God in Christ, here (as in Paul) it denotes (like πίστις, mutatis mutandis) a much richer network of social bonds and reciprocal relationships, initiated and sustained by the generous benefaction of God, to whom the ultimate power and glory therefore belongs.200

200   On the dynamics of gift and grace, specifically as related to the interpretation of Paul’s letters, see Barclay, Paul and the Gift, and Barclay, Paul and the Power of Grace, the latter of which extends the analysis of social relationships within the earliest Christian communities. For a study of πίστις that emphasises its role, as ‘trust’, in networks of social (and human–divine) relationships, see Morgan, Pistis and Fides.

TH IR D MA JO R S E C T I ON OF T H E L E T T E R -B O DY (4.12–5.11)

SHARING THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST AND GLORIFYING GOD ‘AS A CHRISTIAN’ (4.12–19)

Initial Bibliography James Barr, ‘‫—בארץ‬μόλις: Prov. xi.31, I Pet. iv.18’, JSS 20 (1975): 149–64; Jeannine K. Brown, ‘Just a Busybody? A Look at the Greco-Roman Topos of Meddling for Defining ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος in 1 Peter 4:15’, JBL 125 (2006): 549–68; Mark Dubis, Messianic Woes in 1 Peter: Suffering and Eschatology in 1 Peter 4:12–19, SBL 33 (New York: Peter Lang, 2002); Katherine M. Hockey, ‘1 Peter 4.16: Shame, Emotion, and Christian Self-Perception’, in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, ed. Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce, and Francis Watson, LNTS 565 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 27–40; Paul A. Holloway, ‘Nihil inopinati accidisse – “Nothing unexpected has happened”: A Cyrenaic Consolatory Topos in 1 Pet 4.12ff’, NTS 48 (2002): 433–48; David G. Horrell, ‘The Label Χριστιανός: 1 Pet. 4:16 and the Formation of Christian Identity’, JBL 126 (2007): 361–81, revised and expanded in Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity, LNTS 394 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 164–210; Dennis E. Johnson, ‘Fire in God’s House: Imagery from Malachi 3 in Peter’s Theology of Suffering (1 Pet. 4:12–19)’, JETS 29 (1986): 285–94; James A. Kelhoffer, ‘Improvising Two Different Responses to Persecution: First Peter’s Innovations and Relationship to the Corpus Paulinum’, in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes, ed. David S. du Toit, BZNW 200 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 263–80; Kelly D. Liebengood, The Eschatology of 1 Peter: Considering the Influence of Zechariah 9–14, SNTSMS 157 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 105–74; Emilie T. Sander, ‘ΠΥΡΩΣΙΣ and the First Epistle of Peter 4:12’ (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1966); William L. Schutter, ‘1 Peter 4:17, Ezekiel 9:6, and Apocalyptic Hermeneutics’, in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, vol. 26, ed. Kent H. Richards (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 276–84; Bernhard Schwank, ‘Le “chrétien normal” selon le Nouveau Testament. 1 P 4,13–16’, AsSeig 14 (1973): 26–30; Michael P. Theophilos, ‘Κτίστης (1 Peter 4:19) in Light of the Numismatic Record’, in Biblical Greek in Context: Essays in Honour of John A. L. Lee, ed. James K. Aitken and Trevor V. Evans, BTS 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 191–205; François Vouga, ‘Le Jugement de Pierre (1 P 4,12–19)’, in Le jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, II: Mélanges offerts à Jacques Schlosser, ed. Claude Coulot and Denis Fricker, LD 198 (Paris: Cerf, 2004), 335–51.

412

1 PETER

Text Ἀγαπητοί,, μὴ ξενίζεσθε(a) τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασμὸν Ἀγαπητοί ὑμῖν γινομένῃ ὡς ξένου ὑμῖν συμβαίνοντος, συμβαίνοντος, 13 ἀλλὰ καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν χαίρετε, χαίρετε, ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ χαρῆτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι. ἀγαλλιώμενοι. 14 εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, Χριστοῦ, μακάριοι μακάριοι,, ὅτι τὸ τῆς δόξης(b) καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται(c).(d) 15 μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς ἢ κλέπτης ἢ κακοποιὸς ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος(e)· 16 εἰ δὲ ὡς χριστιανός(f), μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι(g) τούτῳ τούτῳ.. 17 ὅτι ὁ(h) καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ· θεοῦ· εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἀφ᾿ ἡμῶν(i), τί τὸ τέλος τῶν ἀπειθούντων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ;; 18 καὶ εἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται, εὐαγγελίῳ σῴζεται, ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται; φανεῖται; 19(j) ὥστε καὶ οἱ πάσχοντες κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (k)πιστῷ κτίστῃ παρατιθέσθωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ(l). 12

(a) At this point, a few manuscripts (e.g., P72, 0142, 467mg, 996, 1661, 1848, 2423*) supply ἐπί, the preposition that is commonly used with ξενίζω to denote the cause of astonishment (cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.35; Diodorus Siculus 31.2.2; Athenaeus, Deipn. 14.77). Yet this is clearly a secondary addition to account for the rare causal function of the dative (on this rare occurrence, see MHT 3:242; cf. Mayser, Grammatik, II 2 284). (b) Following δόξης, some ancient witnesses include καὶ (τῆς) δυνάμεως (αὐτοῦ) (‫*א‬, A, P, 33, 81, 1241, 1611, 1739, 1881, Ath, Thdrt, Antioch, arm, aeth, slavCh,D,M); thus, ‘the Spirit of (his) glory and power, namely, the Spirit of God’. C-S (and other Coptic MSS) also support a reference to the power of God here (m_n_ t2om m_pnoute), though not in precise correspondence with the wording of the Greek MSS.1 This range of evidence is relatively strong and has been convincing to a few commentators (e.g., Hensler 200; Kelly 186; Beare 192), while others have found it difficult to reach a final conclusion (see Huther 200; Kühl 267).2 Nevertheless, the omission finds support in a number 1   Cf. Willis, ‘First Letter of Peter’, 202 (A4–5); Bethge, ‘Der Text des ersten Petrusbriefes’, 264, who gives various suggestions for the Greek Vorlage of C-S at this point. According to Bethge, the witness of C-S ‘zeigt, daß ein Wortlaut von 1Petr 4,14b mit δύναμις/δυνάμεως (τοῦ θεοῦ) weitaus älter ist, als es bislang deutlich war’ (264), though he accepts that the shorter text attested to by P72 et al. is to be preferred. 2   Another way of resolving the difficulties inherent in the verse is to envision textual interpolation—whether it be καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ or καὶ τό (as suggested by Hart 74 and Windisch 77) or τὸ τῆς δόξης (as proposed by Wohlenberg 137 and Spicq 156). However, these suggestions flounder on the lack of any MS evidence.



4.12–19

413

of weighty sources (e.g., P72, B, K, L, Ψ, Byz, Clem, Cyr), and as Metzger notes, ‘the fact that those that have the addition present it in somewhat different forms [see ECM 182], sufficiently condemns all of them as homiletic supplements to the original text’ (TCGNT 624–25; cf. Johnstone 361). The additions likely arose due to the convoluted construction of the sentence (see Exegesis at 4.14), possibly drawing from the language of the earlier doxology in 1 Pet 4.11 (cf. Blenkin 104). (c) Several variants surround the reading ἀναπαύεται (supported by ‫*א‬, B, P, 307*, 436, 1448, 1739v.l. vid, Byzpt, Clem). Evidence is divided between the perfect tense ἀναπέπαυται (5, 33, 307c, 442, 642, 1175, 1739txt, 2344, Byzpt, Cyr) and the compound forms ἐπαναπαύεται (A, Ψ, 81, 1243, 1611, 1735, 1852, 2492) and ἐπαναπέπαυται (P72, ‫א‬2). The perfect tense form could be explained as an attempt to emphasise the enduring presence of the Spirit, though it might equally be thought to fit less smoothly into the sentence (given ὀνειδίζεσθε, and the present sense of μακάριοι, with ἐστε added in a few minuscules) and could thus represent a lectio difficilior. The Latin translations generally support the present, but the Coptic, including C-S, support the perfect.3 The perfect is given as an alternative reading in the first edition of ECM (183), as it could conceivably have slipped into the present form through haplography (αναπεπ- > αναπ-). The source text in Isa 11.2 (LXX) has the future ἀναπαύσεται, which could perhaps more easily suggest the author’s use of the present text, since the future prediction of Isaiah becomes a present reality here. However, the decision remains finely balanced. The issue of the compound forms is also difficult. Some earlier commentators attributed it to the influence of Luke 10.6 (see Huther 200; Kühl 268 n. 3). Michaels would rule out ἐπαναπαύεται (as well as ἐπαναπέπαυται) because such compound forms ‘are more commonly used when the verb is followed by the preposition ἐπί’ (257 n. b). Yet an examination of the evidence reveals that there is no disparity between the use of ἐπί with the compound (e.g., Num 11.25–26; 2 Kgs 2.15; Mic 3.11; Ezek 29.7) and non-compound (e.g., Gen 29.2; Jdt 10.21; Prov 21.20; Isa 14.1) forms. In fact, the latter seems to be more common (especially in earlier literature). Therefore, in a decision between ἀναπαύεται and ἐπαναπαύεται, one could make the case that the latter is the lectio difficilior and thus best explains the rise of all other readings. This conclusion is tempting, but it is still difficult to go against the early (and strong) evidence in support of ἀναπαύεται (cf. Achtemeier 303; Elliott 783 n. 588), in which case the alternative forms would represent attempts ‘to strengthen and clarify the form ἀναπαύεται’ (Metzger, TCGNT, 625). (d) After ἀναπαύεται, a number of ancient witnesses (K, L, P, Ψ, 1448, 1611, Byz; see also syh**, samss, boms) read, κατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται, κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάζεται (‘he/it is blasphemed by them, but glorified by you’). Scholars are divided over the object of ridicule, with some pointing 3

  Cf. Bethge, ‘Der Text des ersten Petrusbriefes’, 264.

414

1 PETER

to πνεῦμα (Lillie 291–92; Beare 192; Michaels 265; Goppelt 325 n. 35) and others claiming ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ (Augusti 252; Jachmann 167; Keil 158; Kelly 188; Schelkle 124 n. 2) or more simply, Χριστός (Bengel 78; Macknight 495). Apart from this interpretative issue, considerable debate has surrounded the authenticity of this reading. Some have viewed it with suspicion, although they are unwilling to rule it out altogether (e.g., Steiger 2:279–80; Brown xxv n. 1; Fronmüller 82; Huther 200, 222). Others have taken up its defence, arguing that it presents the most likely reading.4 This claim is built upon a few considerations. Externally, the reading finds considerable support, some of which is relatively early (e.g., Cyprian, OL). Internally, the μέν… δέ construction is consistent with the writing style found elsewhere in 1 Peter (cf. 2.4; 3.18; 4.6), and the absence of the clause could be explained as an accidental omission due to parablepsis (-εται… -εται).5 However, this evidence has not convinced most interpreters.6 When assessing the reading’s external merit, the crucial issue is not so much where it is present, but where it is absent. Its omission is supported in our best and earliest majuscule MSS (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, 049), in many minuscules (33, 81, 323, 1739, 1881, 2492), and a variety of ancient versions and church fathers (vg, sams, bo, syp,h, arm, geo, aeth, Clem, Cyr, Thdrt). Such early and widespread testimony could only be adequately accounted for if the reading were lacking in the initial text. Furthermore, on an internal level, the clause—whose ‘vocabulary and style are not so distinctively Petrine as to require that the same author wrote it’ (Davids 168 n. 11)—ultimately disrupts the flow of the author’s argument (cf. Schott 292). As such, it appears to be a gloss of a later copyist (cf. Lumby 186). It may indicate that such revilers are thought to be sinning against the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 3.29; Luke 12.10; Feldmeier 223), or this may be the scribe’s way of reconfiguring ‘the text such that the vice list following the connective μὴ γάρ in verse 15 now refers to persecutors of Christians in contrast to the Christians in verse 16’ (Knight, ‘Reading between the Lines’, 904). (e) The word ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος (‫א‬, B, 33, 81, 1175) is unusual, and consequently has led to numerous variant forms within the textual record:   E.g., Bloomfield 724; Hofmann 173–74; Michaels 265–66; Rodgers 166–67; cf. also Rodgers, ‘Longer Reading’, 93–95; Ross, ‘Further Unnoticed Points’, 220. 5   Rodgers (‘Longer Reading’, 93–95) finds further support in the claims that the statement represents an allusion to Isa 52.5 (LXX): τάδε λέγει κύριος. δι᾿ ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (cf. also Blenkin 103). However, the connection between the two texts (as well as the conclusion that Rodgers draws from it, viz. that the persecutions represent Jewish conflict) seems tenuous (see Jobes 296). 6   See, e.g., Achtemeier 303; Elliott 782 n. 587; Jobes 296; Dubis 151; Green 150 n. 3; Schlosser 256 n. c; cf. also Fascher, Textgeschichte als hermeneutisches Problem, 87–88; Moral, ‘Crítica textual de I Ptr. 4,14’, 45–77. 4



4.12–19

415

ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος (323, 623, 1241, 1611, 1739, 2464, Byz), ἀλλότριος ἐπίσκοπος (A, Ψ, 69, 2492), ἀλλοτρίοις ἐπίσκοπος (P72). The Latin versions give curas alienas agens (K and A) and alienorum adepetitor (T and V; see VT 26/1, 163). This variety reveals the difficulty experienced by early interpreters in attempting to grasp the meaning of this obscure term. (f) P72 omits the ὡς before χριστιανός, a small change, but one which may, as Beare suggests, alter the sense from ‘but if anyone should suffer as a Christian’ to ‘but if a Christian should suffer’.7 This is perhaps one tiny indication that the label ‘Christian’ has, by the time of this manuscript’s production, become a standard (insiders’) designation for members of the Christian movement, rather than an outsider’s (accusatory) label, as at the time of 1 Peter’s production. Itacism, as often, affects the spelling of χριστιανός here (e.g., ‫*א‬: χρηστιανος; B: χρειστιανος; C-S: xrhstianos. P72, despite its frequent and varied itacisms, has χριστιανός). Although itacisms are unfortunately not listed in ECM (cf. NA27), they are significant insofar as they indicate the pronunciation customs that help us understand not only variations in spellings but also certain wordplays (e.g., see 2.3). (g) In place of ὀνόματι (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, Ψ, 33, 81, 323, 614, 1241, 1505, 1739, latt, sy, co, arm, geo, aeth, Cyr), some—mostly Byzantine (P, 049, Byz, slav)— witnesses read μέρει. The clause is thus often rendered, ‘in this matter’ or ‘on this behalf’ (cf. KJV, NKJV, JUB, NMB, BRG, RGT, WEB). This reading was defended by most earlier interpreters (e.g., Augusti 252; Hensler 205; Hottinger 140; Steiger 2:281; Jachmann 167; Bloomfield 724–25; Schott 293; Hofmann 177–78), and it has found a small group of supporters in more recent discussions (e.g., Michaels 257 n. e, 269–70; Richards 194–95; cf. Picirilli 200; Vahrenhorst 183). But it was not until μέρει was adopted by the editors of NA28/ECM that its authenticity was widely considered.8 This change from NA27 is one of a relatively small number of such changes (see Introduction: Text) and the most weighty and significant. The primary basis for preferring μέρει is that it is thought to be the lectio difficilior when contrasted with the theologically pregnant term ὀνόματι (cf., e.g., Michaels 257 n. e). Further, it is argued that ὀνόματι could have arisen on multiple occasions through the independent efforts of unrelated scribes (see Mink, ‘Was verändert sich in der Textkritik’, 60–62; idem, ‘Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition’, 43–46; Wasserman, ‘Criteria for Evaluating Readings’, 599–603). This conclusion has faced significant resistance within recent scholarship, however (see, e.g., Kok, ‘What’s in the Name?’, 1–10; Rodgers, ‘1 Peter 4:16 in Nestle 28’, 167–74; Knight, ‘Reading between the Lines’, 899–921).

  Cf. Beare, ‘Text of 1 Peter’, 255.   Prior to this, the variant μέρει received no mention in UBS4 or Metzger’s TCGNT, and was swiftly dismissed by major modern commentaries (e.g., Achtemeier 303–304 n. 6; Brox 222; Elliott 796). 7 8

416

1 PETER

It is difficult to go against the extremely strong external support for ὀνόματι. But if this reading is to be retained, some plausible explanation must be offered as to how the reading μέρει arose. One proposal was made by Kelly, who assumes ὀνόματι to be original and is concerned to show how the reading μέρει elucidates the meaning of the phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ.9 He argues that the phrase is an idiomatic use of ὄνομα meaning ‘in this capacity’ or ‘on this account’, as in Matt 10.41–42 and Mark 9.41 (Kelly 190–91). He also points to similar instances where ὀνόματι means ‘on the ground that’ or ‘in the category of’ (cf. P.Oxy. I 37 [49 CE]; Josephus, Ant. 12.154) and where, in the context of accountancy, ὄνομα bears the sense ‘account’ (Kelly 191; cf. LSJ 1232). Bigg (180) also notes the comparable Latin phrase in hoc nomine, sometimes used in ledgers to mean ‘on this account’. Thus, the meaning of the idiom in 1 Pet 4.16, he argues, may be ‘in this capacity’ or ‘on this account’, and the variant ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ would indicate how some Greek scribes understood the phrase.10 While these suggestions do not necessarily offer the best way to interpret the phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ (see Exegesis at 4.16), they do provide one possible explanation as to how the reading μέρει could have arisen: some scribe or scribes clarified the meaning by substituting μέρει for ὀνόματι.11 Alternatively, Knight has defended the reading ὀνόματι based on what he sees as a misunderstanding surrounding the meaning of μέρος. What he has demonstrated is that μέρος was commonly used to denote the ‘lot’ or ‘fate’ of believers, including the eschatological reward of those who have been martyred (‘Reading between the Lines’, 901–903). With reference to transcriptional probability then μέρος may have seemed an equally (if not, more) suitable or pregnant term, especially in later centuries when the name ‘Christian’ was not a pejorative designation but one that had long been a common label for believers. What is more, Knight (‘Reading between the Lines’, 905–21) has also shown that the stemmatic relationships generated by the CBGM have been skewed by the fact that corrected readings are not factored into the equation and that the assessment is based on the Catholic Epistles as a whole without accounting for the relative qualities of individual 9   Against the assertion of Michaels (269), Kelly is not exactly the only modern commentator to take the reading μέρει ‘seriously enough to offer an explanation of how it came into being if it is not original’. His comments on the textual issue itself are very brief, and are anticipated in the (also brief) comments of Selwyn, on which see n. 10 below. 10   Kelly 191. Cf. Selwyn 226, who comments that the variant with μέρει ‘has little authority and looks like a gloss’, though he also cites a suggestion of E. H. Blakeney that ‘the gloss may nonetheless be instructive, and point to the correct translation being “on his account” ’. 11   Others have argued that the reading μέρει arose from the influence of a similar construction in 2 Cor 3.10 and 9.3 (cf. Huther 200; Keil 160 n. 1) or ‘out of scribal discomfort over the shift in the referent of ὀνόματι in verse 14 (where it refers to Χριστός) to its referent in verse 16 (Χριστιανός)’ (Dubis 153).



4.12–19

417

books. When the CBGM is adjusted accordingly, Knight demonstrates that μέρος could have arisen on multiple occasions through mere coincidence. This gives further weight to ὀνόματι. Michaels (270) may be right that the change to μέρει is harder to imagine than a change from μέρει to ὀνόματι, but the lectio difficilior principle alone cannot always be decisive, particularly in a situation where the textual evidence weighs heavily in the opposite direction.12 Since there are feasible explanations for the substitution of ὀνόματι by μέρει, and much stronger MS support for ὀνόματι, this latter reading should be maintained (cf. Wagner–Vouga 148). (h) The article (ὁ) before καιρός is absent from the text of Tischendorf, and it is placed in brackets by Westcott-Hort. This is representative of certain MSS (‫א‬, Α, 33, 81, 307, 436, 642, 1852, 2344) in which the article is lacking. Michaels (257 n. f; cf. Usteri 201 n. 1) argues for its omission on the basis that scribes would have more likely added than removed it. Others have defended the authenticity of the article based on what is perceived to be a slightly stronger external pedigree (P72, B, Ψ 323, 623, 1243, 1735, 1739, 2464, 2718, Byz) and on the basis of intrinsic probability (Knopf 184; Wohlenberg 141 n. 39; Elliott 797 n. 618), with advocates pointing out that the anarthrous καιρός appears three other times in 1 Peter (1.5, 11; 5.6). With internal and external considerations so evenly divided, it is difficult to decide between the options (cf. Schlosser 256 n. f), and perhaps both should be given as alternatives. Ultimately, any difference in meaning would be slight. (i) In place of ἡμῶν (supported by P72, ‫א‬2, A*, B, Ψ, 33, 81, 1739, 1881, Byz, syh, arm, geo), some witnesses support the reading ὑμῶν (‫*א‬, Ac, 5, 69, 623, 1241, 1661, slavCh,M; Achtemeier 304, erroneously lists the reading as ὑμῖν). This change is due, perhaps, to the fact that the Petrine author has used the second person plural throughout the section (cf. Michaels 257 n. g; Schlosser 256 n. g). (j) At this point, P72 gives its final marginal summary note: περὶ θυ κτείστῃ. (k) The majority of later MSS have the comparative particle ὡς before πιστῷ κτίστῃ (5, 69, 323, 1611, Byz, along with a few versions), a reading that eventually made its way into the TR and Majority Text. The earliest witnesses, on the other hand, omit it (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, Ψ, Ath, Cyr). Scribes may have been prone to excise the particle in order to alleviate the difficulty it causes (see Bloomfield 725). But it is equally likely that they could have added the particle given its consistency with Petrine usage (see Kühl 273 n. 1). In the end, the strong external testimony for the omission weighs in its favour. 12   Michaels 270: ‘It is hard to believe that they [sc. later copyists] would sacrifice the theological richness of the “name” in favor of such a colourless word as μέρος… merely to clarify the meaning for their readers’. We need to bear in mind, though, that the referent of ὄνομα here is not Χριστός but Χριστιανός, so the theological resonances are less pertinent, and the desire to clarify what was taken as an idiom might well be of some influence.

418

1 PETER

(j) A number of ancient sources contain the plural ἀγαθοποιΐαις (P72, A, Ψ, 81, 436, 442, 1243, 1735, 1739, 2344, 2492, lat, syp), a reading adopted by Lachmann and a few commentators (e.g., Wohlenberg 142 n. 42) and listed as an alternative reading in the first edition of ECM (187). External support for the singular is almost as formidable as for the plural (‫א‬, B, 69, 307, 1448, 1611, 1852, Byz, syh, co). On internal grounds, the former seems to have a slight advantage: if ἀγαθοποιΐαις were original, it is difficult to explain why it was changed to the singular. The reverse (i.e., a change from singular to plural) is easier to account for: either as an attempt to focus on the multiplicity and individuality of good deeds, or in conformity with the plural subject and object of the sentence, οἱ πάσχοντες… αὐτῶν (see Michaels 257 n. h). For this reason, the singular is to be preferred.

Introduction Just as the concluding doxology of 4.11 marks the end of a section within the letter, so too the direct address with which v. 12 opens indicates the beginning of the final main section of the letterbody. Here the author returns to the subject of trials and suffering, depicting the recipients’ situation as a ‘fiery trial’. Despite some earlier commentators taking this vivid language as an indication that this section of the letter addressed a different situation, and was written later than the earlier portions, or perhaps written in light of new information that had arrived, more recent scholarship is very largely in agreement that there are no grounds here for a literary partition of the letter (see Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure). The reality—or, at least, the real threat—of hostility and suffering has been present throughout the letter (1.6; 2.19–20; 3.14–17), even if the topic receives its most extended and vivid treatment here. As the writer ‘gathers together his message’,13 he reiterates and emphasises the exhortations of the epistle as a whole. In this particular section, the themes of 1.6–8 and 3.13–17 are to the fore,14 while 5.1–6 will return more to the topic of internal relationships that were the main concern of 4.7–11.15   Kelly 184.   Cf. Michaels 258. 15   Michaels (257) sees vv. 12–19 as a ‘digression’, though this is challenged by Boring (153). Given the transition from internal relationships to external hostility there is certainly a shift of focus, though it may be better to see this in terms of the various strands of earlier topic and exhortation that are revisited in this concluding section from 4.12–5.11. 13 14



4.12–19

419

In terms of the literary structure and content of this section, there are some notable parallels with 3.13–17, though there are also points of uniqueness and distinctive interest. The literary structure of the two passages, as Michaels notes, is broadly comparable, with a central admonition (3.14–16; 4.15–16) framed by consolation and assurance (3.13, 17; 4.12–14, 17–19).16 Notable overlaps of content include the use of the beatitude form (3.14; 4.14); in this particular section we find some of the closest literary echoes of Jesus/Gospel traditions in the letter (esp. 4.14//Matt 5.11; see Introduction: Sources, Traditions, and Affinities). Even these consolatory parts of the passage are presented in exhortatory form: ‘do not be surprised’ (v. 12), ‘rejoice’ (v. 13), ‘let those suffering… entrust themselves’ (v. 19). But the central instruction here concerns the way in which suffering might legitimately be encountered. Reiterating an earlier theme of the letter concerning the need to do good, and the value of suffering unjustly (rather than deservedly; cf. 2.11–12, 19–20; 3.17), the author stresses that the recipients must not come to suffering because of genuine wrongdoing (v. 15). But if they suffer ‘as a Christian’ (v. 16), that is no cause for shame, but a means to glorify God. This use of the distinctive label Χριστιανός is especially significant, not least given the rarity of the term in the NT (elsewhere only Acts 11.26; 26.28; see further on 4.16 and Summary below). Finally, this suffering is framed as part of the eschatological judgment, which is clearly already underway—another sign of the imminent eschatological outlook of the letter. Exegesis 12 Ἀγαπητοί Ἀγαπητοί,, μὴ ξενίζεσθε τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν γινομένῃ ὡς ξένου ὑμῖν συμβαίνοντος, συμβαίνοντος, The designation ἀγαπητοί is a term of affection that marks a close relationship among members of the Christian community.17 It is probably too much to say that it makes for a more forceful appeal 16   Michaels 258. The consolatory character of 1 Peter is analysed and empha�sised by Holloway, Coping with Prejudice. 17   This vocative is found throughout the NT epistles (Rom 12.19; 1 Cor 10.14; 15.58; 2 Cor 7.1; 12.19; Phil 2.12; 4.1; Heb 6.9; Jas 1.16, 19; 2.5; 2 Pet 3.1, 8, 14, 17; 1 John 2.7; 3.2, 21; 4.1, 7, 11; Jude 3, 17, 20; singular: 3 John 2, 5, 11), though it is not as frequent as the familial designation ἀδελφοί, which is especially common in the Pauline letters.

420

1 PETER

in this instance.18 But what is clear is that it marks a transition into a new section with a change in subject matter. This is not an indication of literary partition (as though 1 Pet 4.12–5.14 represents a second correspondence), for the same designation appears in 2.11 where none posits a separation.19 The correlative construction μή (v. 12)… ἀλλά (v. 13) sets out two contrasting responses to the present conflict. What the author wants his readers to avoid is a reaction that views persecution with astonishment or surprise (something of a contrast to the fourth-class condition in 3.14, though that declaration was immediately followed by an indication that suffering might indeed occur). By using the term ξενίζειν (‘to be surprised’),20 he harkens back to 4.4, where another type of astonishment was mentioned: non-Christians are ‘surprised’ (ξενίζονται) that the readers no longer join them in the same types of activities that marked their pre-conversion lifestyle. While it is natural, for the author at least, that unbelievers would be surprised by such changes in practice and allegiance, Christians should anticipate hostile responses to their faith. With regard to this ‘surprise’, some have pointed to the Gentile identity of the recipients, arguing that a previous lack of persecution (compared, for example, to the experience of many Jews) would have made the experience unfamiliar and difficult to bear.21 Yet we should guard against any premature conclusions about how the readers were actually responding to the situation, simply on the

  As suggested by Feldmeier, Die Christen als Fremde, 148, and Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 200. 19   On the unity of the epistle, see Introduction: Genre, Structure, and Literary Integrity. 20   The term should not lead one to conclude that the situation had come ‘as a paralysing shock’ or that the readers exhibited ‘a numb inability to understand why they should become the victims of such an assault’ (pace Beare 189). 21   So, e.g., Windisch 77; Stibbs–Walls 159; Kelly 184; Best 162; Elliott 774; Donelson 134. Some, in fact, have even used the ‘surprise’ of the readers as evidence that the recipients were from a pagan background, since a Jewish audience may have previously suffered under the Romans (Margot 76; on the suffering of the Jews, see van Unnik, ‘Redemption’, 66–67). Others have claimed that this represents a warning against Gnostic teaching, which encouraged followers of Jesus to avoid martyrdom by complying with the desires of their persecutors (see Wordsworth 65). 18



4.12–19

421

basis of the language itself.22 Moreover, the size and diversity of the audience would have most likely generated a variety of responses (just as the experience of Jews in wider society varied greatly).23 But the most important reason to avoid such a conclusion is the standard nature of this consolatory topos. In antiquity, the notion that ‘nothing unexpected has happened’ was a common strategy to alleviate grief,24 advocated most famously by the Cyrenaics.25 Thus, it could be applied to any group undergoing a difficult experience. If there was any perplexity on behalf of the readers, it would have more than likely stemmed from an expectation that Christian experience should be free from conflict.26 The author’s point, then, is that if such an opinion were held, it would run contrary to the early Christian understanding of the inevitability of suffering (e.g., 1 Thess 3.3; 2 Tim 3.12; 1 John 3.13; cf. Matt 10.24–25; John 15.18–21; 16.1–4, 33). With the rare causal dative, πυρώσει, ‘because of the fiery trail’ (cf. Polybius, Hist. 1.23.5; 3.68.9),27 the reason for the readers’ 22   Contrary to what some have assumed, the grammar cannot be marshaled to support this contention. For instance, some want to read μή + present imperative as denoting the cessation of an activity currently in process, ‘stop being surprised’ (Spicq 154; Hiebert 283; Witherington 211; Schlosser 258; cf. MHT 1:125). But this represents an outdated understanding of prohibitions in ancient Greek (see Huffman, Verbal Aspect Theory; cf. also Louw, ‘Greek Prohibitions’, 43–57). 23   As Witherington points out, ‘Surprise would be a normal response of Gentiles who are not used to suffering for their faith, but it no doubt would also be the response of Diaspora Jews who have Hellenized and are doing their best to fit in with their cultural environment’ (211; original emphasis). 24   The idea that one should expect difficulty and misfortune was commonly employed as a consolatory strategy in the ancient world (see, e.g., Plato, [Ax.] 370A; Ovid, [Cons. ad Liv.] 397–400; Seneca, Polyb. 11.1; Helv. 5.3; Philo, Spec. 2.87; Plutarch, Virt mor. 10 [Mor. 449E]; Tranq. an. 17–18 [Mor. 476A, D]; [Cons. Apoll.] 21 [Mor. 112D]; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 8.45). 25   See Holloway, ‘A Cyrenaic Consolatory Topos’, 433–48; idem, Coping with Prejudice, 214–22. Cf. also Graser and Stenschke, ‘Coping with Discrimination’, 104–105. On the Cyrenaic theory of consolation, see Cicero, Tusc. 3.31.76: ‘the Cyrenaics think it is sufficient to show that nothing unexpected as happened (nihil inopinati accidisse)’ (cf. 3.23.55). 26   So, e.g., Huther 219 n. 1; Fausset 511; Bennett 249. In contrast, Schott (288) claimed that the audience had interpreted the persecution to mean that something was deficient in their faith and thus their salvation was insecure. 27   As noted by Demarest 239. See further Robertson, Grammar, 532; BDF §196. We might have expected ἐπὶ τῇ πυρώσει (Grotius 102) or ἐν τῇ πυρώσει (Pott 137).

422

1 PETER

(potential) astonishment is clear: the perplexity stems from the πύρωσις that is said to be ἐν ὑμῖν, ‘among you’ or ‘in your midst’.28 Elsewhere, the term πύρωσις refers to the process of burning with fire (Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 5.9.1; Josephus, Ant. 1.203; Rev 18.9, 18), and when related to the human body it can describe inflammation (Plutarch, Adv. Col. 6 [Mor. 1110b]; Dioscorides Pendanius, Mat. med. 2.124.1) or fever (Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 2.240; Hippocrates, Loc. hom. 27). By extension, the form was employed metaphorically to denote ‘an intense degree of some painful occurrence or experience’.29 This might involve strong, ‘burning’ desires (Scholia in Aristophanem [plutum] 974), or a painful, distressing situation (Diogn. 16.5). Related to this latter usage, the verbal cognate (πυρόω) is commonly used with reference to God testing and refining the people of God (Pss 16.3; 25.2; 65.10; Jer 9.6; Jdt 8.25–27; cf. Herm. Vis. 4.2.4; Mart. Pol. 15.2).30 Authors who employ the term in this way often draw upon a metallurgical sense of refinement achieved from a time of testing (see Amos 4.9; Prov 27.21; cf. Hesychius, Lexicon s.v. Π 4477). The most detailed study of πύρωσις in its present context was conducted by Sander, who proposed that by the time 1 Peter was written the term had lost the metallurgical sense, and instead carried a technical meaning, referring to ‘the end-time trial or 28   Cf. Keil 156; Monnier 214. Some translations render ἐν ὑμῖν as ‘upon you’ (cf. ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, WEB), which could suggest that the ‘fiery trial’ is equally affecting all members of the group. Had this been the author’s intention, the preposition ἐπί might have been the more appropriate choice. While the point of the prepositional phrase is not to show that the πύρωσις is affecting only certain members of the community (as suggested by de Wette 53; Johnstone 354; Lenski 202; Hiebert 284), from a purely practical standpoint, the conflict probably did affect some believers more than others. The prepositional phrase seems merely to indicate that the πύρωσις is in the midst of the group and thus had the potential to impact anyone (see Wiesinger 291). 29   BDAG 900. 30   Since the verbal cognate (πυρόω) can be used figuratively to denote ‘burning’ internal feelings such as anger, grief, or desire (see 3 Macc 4.2; SB III 6646, 6659), one could argue that πύρωσις refers to an intense grief felt by the audience (cf. 1 Pet 1.6: λυπέω). Thus, ἐν ὑμῖν would be read as ‘in you’ or possibly ‘in your hearts’. But since, only a few verses later, the prepositional phrase is employed with a distributive sense in the same type of construction (see 1 Pet 5.2: τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον, ‘the flock among you’), it is probably best to understand its meaning here in a similar way (‘the fiery trial that is taking place among you’).



4.12–19

423

ordeal which is expected before the final consummation and revelation of glory’.31 This is seen most clearly, according to Sander, in the use of ‫‘( מצרף‬test’, ‘trial’) within the literature from Qumran.32 In the case of 1 Peter, however, she maintains that this techni�cal eschatological significance of the term was not fully grasped by a second-century redactor of the letter, and consequently the explanatory phrase πρὸς πειρασμόν was added.33 While Sander is correct to stress the importance and technical nature of this ‘time of fiery trial’ (‫ )עת המצרף‬within the literature of the DSS (cf. 4Q171 i 2 18; 4Q174 i 3 1), she fails to establish a direct link with the use of ‫ מצרף‬at Qumran.34 At most, we can say that around this time there was a common tradition that the final consummation would involve trials and tribulations for the people of God, an idea picked up and developed by both the Petrine author and the authors of the Scrolls. What is more, there is no reason to abandon the refinement imagery of πύρωσις in the present verse, as Sander suggests. The reference to ‘gold tried by fire’ in 1 Pet 1.7 indicates that a metallurgical meaning likely stands behind the use of the term in this context.35 Thus, πύρωσις ‘serves as a graphic 31   Sander, ‘ΠΥΡΩΣΙΣ’, xxvi; see also Hillyer 134–35; Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 202–203. Cf. Liebengood, Eschatology, 141, who argues that ‘the notion of purification, while not entirely absent from 4.12, does not appear to be the primary aim of the fire imagery’; instead, he suggests that ‘the emphasis in 4.12 is on the inevitability of the fiery testing, as well as its authenticating or verifying purpose’. 32   Cf. CD 20.27; 1QS 1.17; 8.4; 1QM 16.15; 17.1, 8–9; 1QHa 6.15; 13.18; 4Q525 2 ii 3–5. On the use of ‫ מצרף‬within the Dead Sea Scrolls materials, see Dimant, ‘ “The Crucible of Tests” ’, 161–74 (Hebrew). 33   Sander, ‘ΠΥΡΩΣΙΣ’, xvi. Although in agreement with Sander on various points, Dubis challenges this aspect of her treatment, arguing instead that πύρωσις is used as a technical term in 1 Pet 4.12 (Messianic Woes, 82–85). However, it is difficult to be confident that the Petrine author is employing the term in any kind of technical fashion, as though the word alone connoted eschatological woes (for a critique of Dubis’ position, see Klausli, ‘Messianic Woes’, 203–207). 34   See Michaels 260–61. Cf. Goppelt 314 n. 5, who notes that ‘the word itself has a different meaning in the two contexts: While in Qumran it is a technical term for “purification,” in I Peter, as in Prov. 27:21, it is a figure of speech that needs explanation as πειρασμός, which is never the case in the Essene texts’. 35   As noted by various interpreters (e.g., Doddridge 217; Steiger 2:273–74; Fausset 511; Watson 110; cf. also Johnson, ‘Fire in God’s House’, 287–89). In contrast, Joseph raises the ‘possibility that 1 Peter’s reference to “fiery ordeals” (4.12) are an allusion to the story of Dan. 3’ (Narratological Reading, 106 n. 44).

424

1 PETER

comprehensive image for all of the hostility, slander, and abuse directed against the faithful and the suffering it has caused’.36 The eschatological setting within which this testing is to be read is later described in vv. 17–18. According to the Petrine author, there is benefit to the readers’ present suffering. As in other places where the word appears, πύρωσις is accompanied by another term or phrase that specifies the purpose(s) of the ‘fiery trial’ (cf. Prov 27.21 [δοκίμιον]; Did. 16.5 [δοκιμασίας]): it is for the purpose (πρός) of ‘testing’ (πειρασμός) the people of God.37 But who is responsible for this test? Since the devil is later portrayed as a roaring lion, prowling around for Christians (1 Pet 5.9), some associate the testing with his evil forces.38 This is consistent with other Jewish and Christian literature, where the devil is portrayed as the agent of humanity’s temptation (cf. Jub. 10.8; T.Job 3.3; Matt 4.1; 6.13; 2 Clem. 18.2; Mart. Pol. 2.4; Herm. Mand. 4.3.6; 12.5.4). Nevertheless, since the purpose of these trials is the creation of a more refined faith (cf. 1 Pet 1.6–7), the one ultimately behind the test seems to be God (cf. vv. 17–19).39 This is consistent with other references to God’s act of ‘testing’ by fire.40 There has been some confusion over the function of the participial construction γινομένῃ ὡς ξένου ὑμῖν συμβαίνοντος. Due   Elliott 772. Contrary to the opinions of some (e.g., Demarest 239–40; Beare 190; Boring 156; Schlosser 269; cf. Thurston, ‘Interpreting First Peter’, 176), there is no reason to view this language as related to or reminiscent of the fire in Rome (64 CE) and the consequential burning of Christians by Nero (see Barnes 195). Likewise, there is no evidence, as Selwyn (221, 439–58, following Carrington, Primitive Christian Catechism, 51–54) proposes, to suggest that there is an underlying ‘persecution form’ behind this text (cf. Best 161). This is merely traditional language by which ancient Jews and Christians described trials and tribulations. 37   The dative ὑμῖν could be connected with γινομένῃ (Elliott 772); however, this creates too much redundancy with the ὑμῖν that follows. Consequently, most connect the pronoun with πειρασμόν (e.g., Achtemeier 306; Dubis 147), in which case it functions as a dative of advantage, almost equivalent to the possessive genitive ὑμῶν (cf. Herodotus, Anab. 4.6.16; Aeschylus, Suppl. 278; see Simonson, Grammar, 148; Smyth, Grammar, 342). It thus creates the sense, ‘your testing’. 38   E.g., Davids 165 n. 3; Green 155. Cf. Kuhn, ‘πειρασμός – ἁμαρτία – σάρξ’, 202–203; Liebengood, Eschatology, 129–30. 39   See Klein, Bewährung in Anfechtung, 362–65. 40   E.g., Ps 66[65].10; Prov 17.3; Zech 13.9; Sir 2.1–6; Wis 3.5–6; 1QM 16.15; 17.1; 1QHa 13.18; cf. 1 En. 108.8–14; 1 Cor 3.13. 36



4.12–19

425

to the fact that γινομένῃ lacks the article, some have understood it to as modifying ξενίζεσθε and relating a causal sense: ‘do not be surprised by the fiery trial among you, because it has come to test you’.41 A number of problems prevent this reading, however.42 Other commentators argue that γινομένῃ is a predicate—‘do not be surprised that the fiery trial among you is taking place to test you’ (NET, Mounce, NCB, CEV, NAB)—so that the object of their astonishment was that the trial had come to test them.43 Against this is the fact that the purpose of the trial was not what had astonished them, but the trial itself.44 Most rightly understand the participle as carrying an attributive function (with τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει), ‘the fiery trial that is occurring among you’.45 This means that the fiery trial was not merely a threat awaiting the readers in the (immediate) future, as suggested by some translations,46 but was a frightening reality in their lives.47 The comparative particle ὡς introduces an ellipsis: ‘do not be surprised (as you would be surprised) if something strange were happening to you’. Attached to the genitive absolute, the construction conveys the subjective motives of the main verb (cf. 2 Cor   So, e.g., Bigg 176; Forbes 154.   This interpretation creates an awkward break in the sentence: ‘do not be surprised about the fiery trial because it has come to test you, as if something strange were happening’. Moreover, the reason why the audience should not be surprised is given in the following verses. Finally, the lack of the article need not prevent an attributive reading (cf. BDF §269[1]; see further Exegesis at 3.20). 43   As suggested by Johnstone 354, who points to a similar usage in John 2.9: τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον, ‘the water, which had now become wine’. 44   Cf. Alford 377; Blenkin 102. 45   E.g., Demarest 240; Cook 212; Dubis 147. Thus, the more natural order would be: τῇ πυρώσει (τῇ) γινομένῃ ἐν ὑμῖν πρὸς πειρασμὸν (ὑμῶν), see Field, Notes on the Translation, 239. Cf. Bloomfield 724, who suggests a slightly different construction. 46   ESV: ‘Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you’ (see also KJV, HCSB). Cf. Bengel 77, who attributes to γινομένῃ a temporal function, ‘when it takes place’. 47   Related to the reality of persecution, scholars sometimes make unwarranted claims based on the tense of verbal forms in this verse. For instance, Lenski (201) used the switch from aorist imperatives in the previous section to present imperatives here to conclude that ‘Peter is no longer speaking of sufferings such as his readers had already experienced and of which there would naturally be a continuance but of impending sufferings that would be far more severe’. Other scholars commonly explain the present tense of the participles as representing an ongoing problem (e.g., Kelly 185; Hiebert 284; Achtemeier 305; Elliott 774). 41 42

426

1 PETER

5.20; 2 Pet 1.3).48 The Petrine author is fond of the genitive absolute (cf. 3.20; 4.1, 4; 5.4, 10), with συμβαίνοντος in this instance functioning conditionally. As the subject of the participial clause, ξένου represents something that is strange or surprising.49 Deriving from the same root as ξενίζω found earlier in the verse, this adjective creates a redundancy that lays strong emphasis on the notion that suffering might be unexpected. For some, the presence of this term (συμβαίνω) marks a comparison between the providential working of God’s will (γινομένῃ… πρὸς πειρασμόν) and chance happenings (συμβαίνοντος).50 But the use of συμβαίνω elsewhere weighs against this suggestion. In other literature, it would be a stretch to posit the meaning ‘blind chance’; in fact, one could argue that in many places there are connotations of God’s providence.51 Thus, the variation between γινομένῃ and συμβαίνοντος appears to be merely stylistic. The threefold repetition of the pronoun ὑμῖν is ‘a clear example of Asiatic reduplication for the sake of emphasis’.52 13 ἀλλὰ καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν χαίρετε. χαίρετε. By way of the adversative conjunction (ἀλλά), the author now relates the appropriate reaction to the difficult situation. Rather than responding with surprise or perplexity, they are to rejoice (χαίρετε). This represents a tradition that developed within Second Temple Judaism, which regarded suffering as a means of divine testing and which should thus be met with joy.53 The basis for this joy is also the eschatological hope of future reward, beyond death, as is commonly depicted in the NT (see Matt 5.10–12; Luke 6.22–23; Rom 8.17;   See Jelf, Grammar, §701; Buttmann, Grammar, 318; MHT 3:158.   TLNT 2:555–60. 50   This comparison was proposed by a number of earlier interpreters (e.g., Bengel 77; Alford 377; Blenkin 102). 51   E.g., Did. 3.10: ‘Accept as good the things that happen (τὰ συμβαίνοντά) to you, knowing that nothing transpires apart from God’. Cf. also T.Sim. 2.13; Pr. Jos. 2.1–2; Ezek. Trag. 83–84; Barn. 19.6. 52   Witherington 211; cf. Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 203. 53   See 2 Macc 6.28–30; 4 Macc 7.22; 9.29; 11.12; Jdt 8.25–27; Tob 13.13–14; Wis 3.4–6; 2 Bar. 48.48–50; 52.5–7; 54.16–18. In later rabbinic writings, we find similar instructions to rejoice in suffering. What is often different in these instances is the basis for rejoicing: suffering is often thought to have atoning effects (for the evidence, see Montefiore and Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology, 541–55). See also Goppelt 316–21. 48 49



4.12–19

427

2 Tim 2.11–12; Heb 10.32–36; 11.26; 13.13–14; cf. also 2 Macc 7.14, 23). We should be wary, however, of comments that dubiously seek to draw some distinction between a Christian joy that is depicted as presently accessible, contrasted with the solely future joy anticipated by the Jewish martyrs.54 As 1.6–9 makes clear, for 1 Peter too the joy of the present is an anticipation, in a context of pressure and difficulty, based on a future hope. This rejoicing is qualified in an important way. The adverbial phrase καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν indicates something about how or why the readers should rejoice. The adverb καθό, which illustrates the comparatively elevated stylistic abilities of the Petrine author,55 is most often understood to denote the degree or extent to which something occurs (‘insofar as’, ‘to the extent that’, cf. NAB, NASB, NET).56 Interpreted in this way, it indicates either that the degree of the readers’ rejoicing is proportionate to the extent of their suffering (i.e., those suffering the most should rejoice the most),57 or that the readers’ experience of rejoicing is dependent upon the nature of their suffering (i.e., whether their suffering represents the same type and proceeds from the same cause as that of Christ).58 At times, however, the notion of extent or degree naturally merges into cause or ground (‘since’, ‘inasmuch as’, cf. KJV, ASV, NIV).59 If the adverb functions this way, the meaning is that the   See, e.g., De Villiers, ‘Joy in Suffering’, 69; Nauck, ‘Freude im Leiden’, 76–77. 55   MHT 3:320. Some understand the adverb as ‘an abbreviated form of καθότι’ (Forbes 155; cf. Grotius 102); it seems instead to represents a compound form of κατά + ὅς (see Hoogeveen, Greek Particles, 206; cf. LSJ 855; BDAG 493). 56   Those who adopt this meaning include: Steiger 2:276; Knopf 179; Wohlen� berg 135; Selwyn 221; Hiebert 285; Senior 128; Jobes 285; Vinson 210. This meaning is common in the ancient world (e.g., Lysias, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ καταλῦσαι τὴν πάτριον πολιτείαν Ἀθήνησι, 5; 2 Cor 8.12; Diodorus Siculus 31.16.1; Josephus, Ant. 16.26; I.Erythrai 122). 57   So, e.g., Demarest 241–42; Lenski 203; Grudem 178; Witherington 212. At the heart of this command would be an effort to console the readers, particularly those in serious distress. But some have taken the converse of this statement as a warning to anyone seeking to avoid suffering, viz. those who do not suffer have no basis for rejoicing in the present and thus little assurance of further rejoicing in the future (see Achtemeier 306). 58   So, e.g., Cook 213; Marshall 15; Richard 190. 59   See BDF §456(4). Examples of καθό denoting cause/grounds include: 1 Esd 1.48; Polybius, Hist. 15.23.10; Philo, Plant. 87; Decal. 64; Josephus, Ant. 2.208; 2.560; P.Ryl. II 119; Ps.-Clement, Hom. 12.27.3. 54

428

1 PETER

basis for the readers’ rejoicing lies in the fact that they are presently sharing in the sufferings of Christ.60 While either interpretation is possible, the latter seems more likely on two accounts: it is more natural to provide the grounds for rejoicing, especially since it is such an unnatural reaction to suffering, and nowhere else does the Petrine author draw distinctions with regard to the future rewards of Christians based on the amount they suffer. Regardless of which interpretation is adopted, the rejoicing to which the readers are exhorted is connected in some way with suffering. More specifically, it relates to τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήματα (‘the sufferings of Christ’). The precise meaning of this phrase is debated. Some contend that τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήματα refers to the messianic woes,61 a time of great trials and suffering among God’s people prior to the advent of the messiah.62 Within Jewish literature from the Second Temple period, there is no expectation that the messiah would be included in this suffering; instead, he was expected to bring deliverance from it. Following Jesus’ death and resurrection, these ideas were reconceptualised by Christians so that the sufferings of the messiah inaugurated a time of eschatological distress in which his followers would suffer as well.63 Read in this way, Χριστοῦ would function as an attributive genitive (‘messianic sufferings’), with the referent being broadened to include both Jesus and his followers.64 60   As argued, e.g., by Pott 137–38; Goppelt 315 n. 8; Bénétreau 250; Elliott 774; Osborne 248; cf. Manns, ‘Souffrances et joie’, 273. According to Fronmüller (81) καθό denotes both the reason for rejoicing as well as its measure. 61   E.g., Leaney 64; Best 162–63; Arichea–Nida 147; Hillyer 135; Miller 312; Osborne 248; Schlosser 258–59; cf. Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 201–203; Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 244–52; Dubis, ‘ “Sufferings of the Messiah” ’, 85–96; idem, Messianic Woes, 96–104. Cf. also Louw–Nida, Lexicon, §24.78. 62   Cf. Ezek 38–39; Dan 7.21–27; 12.1; Joel 2; Hab 3.3–16; Zeph 1–3; Zech 11–14; T.Levi 10; T.Dan 5; 2 Esd 5.1–13; 6.18–24; 13.16–52; 2 Bar. 29.2; Mark 13; 2 Thess 2.3–12; Rev 6–18. Within rabbinic literature, ‫‘( חבלו של משיח‬birthpangs of the messiah’) was a technical phrase used to describe this period (see examples in Dubis, Messianic Woes, 6–13). 63   See Mark 8.31; 9.31–34 par; 13.7–27 par; Luke 24.45–46; John 16.20–24, 32–33; Rom 8.18–25; 1 Thess 1.10; 5.1–3; 2 Thess 2.3–12. 64   Although one should probably not build too much on the syntax of the verse, the use of κοινωνέω + dative might weigh against this interpretation. When κοινωνέω is modified by a genitive, it often denotes ‘participation’ in



4.12–19

429

In support of this view, proponents point to the eschatological context in which this statement appears as well as the articular form τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Related to the latter, it is claimed that the article reflects a shift from the proper name, ‘Christ’ (cf. 1.19; 3.16; 4.1), to a title, ‘the messiah’ (cf. HCSB, TLV, CJB, ISV, NTE).65 But neither this point nor the former require the phrase to be read as a reference to the messianic woes.66 What is more, the use of the same phrase in 1 Pet 5.1 (cf. 1.11: τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα), which depicts the author’s bearing witness to Christ’s suffering and death, indicate that Χριστοῦ is better understood as a subjective genitive (‘the sufferings that Christ experienced’).67 What, then, is the nature of this ‘fellowship’ in Christ’s sufferings? It is important to recognise the rarity of this vocabulary. The only other NT author who refers to τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (‘the sufferings of Christ’; 2 Cor 1.5) and who describes believers’ ‘fellowship’ (κοινωνία) in them (Phil 3.10; cf. 2 Cor 1.7) is Paul. As such, it is difficult to deny Pauline influence at this point.68 At the same time, it is also important to note 1 Peter’s departure from the Pauline formulation of suffering. Whereas Paul describes how believers, as members of the body of Christ, share in his suffering as a result of their baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 8.17; 2 Cor 1.5–7; 4.10; Phil 3.10), the Petrine author does not develop his description of suffering in light of a mystical or baptismal union with Christ. That is, nowhere does he portray their suffering as being experienced ‘in Christ’ (ἐν Χριστῷ), despite certain activities (cf. 2 Macc 14.25; Ps.-Hec. 6.5; Diodorus Siculus 5.49.6); whereas a dative modifier frequently pushes the meaning more towards the idea of ‘associate with’ or ‘share in’ (cf. 4 Bar. 8.7; Rom 15.27; Mart. Pol. 17.1; see Winer, Grammar, 250–51). The latter would point away from understanding τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήματα as the messianic woes in which Christians participate. 65   See Best 163; Schlosser 259; cf. Dubis, Messianic Woes, 99–100. 66   While Χριστός is commonly anarthrous in 1 Peter (mostly due to its juxtapo� sition with Ἰησοῦς), it is articular in 3.15, where it is clearly a name rather than a title. In this verse, the article’s presence is likely due to Apollonius’ Canon more than anything else (see Wallace, Grammar, 239–40). 67   Cf. Millauer, Leiden als Gnade, 102, followed by Achtemeier 306 n. 33. 68   Others have similarly noted the influence of Paul here (e.g., Schelkle 123; Knoch 125; Feldmeier 224; Witherington 212; Vahrenhorst 180). Some, however, question whether dependence on Paul can be established at this point (see Kelly 186; Best 162).

430

1 PETER

his use of the stereotypical Pauline phrase elsewhere (cf. 3.16; 5.10, 14).69 As it stands, the statement κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν need only indicate that the readers are experiencing the same type of distress endured by Christ. For this reason, many interpreters, often attempting to avoid any participatory notions, have read this verse in light of the imitation language found elsewhere in the epistle (2.21; 4.1).70 Yet care must be taken not to merge participatio into imitatio too quickly. An important distinction lies at the heart of these notions. Placed in the indicative (κοινωνεῖτε), the fact of their shared experience with Christ is assumed. What remains to be seen, and what is thus addressed by the Petrine author through appeal and exhortation (ἐπακολουθήσητε, 2.21; ὁπλίσασθε, 4.1), is how they will respond to this situation of suffering. Thus, the imitation of Christ through the non-retaliatory endurance of unjust suffering is the author’s hoped-for response from a group of readers who are currently sharing the same misfortunes as Christ. ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ χαρῆτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι.. ἀγαλλιώμενοι The purpose (ἵνα)71 of this present rejoicing is the attainment of future joy.72 Standing in postpositive position (cf. Mark 11.25; 69   Cf. Goppelt 314–15. There are many commentators who have read the state�ment κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν in a corporate manner (e.g., Demarest 242; Plumptre 147; Blenkin 102; Wand 118; Spicq 155; Schweizer 86–87; Boring 156). That is, rather than viewing the suffering in question as resulting from one’s allegiance to Christ or as corresponding to the experiences of Christ, they understand the Christian readers as participating in Christ’s suffering through their membership in the body of Christ. In such a position, his suffering is their suffering, just as their suffering is his suffering. 70   E.g., Benson 282; Barnes 195; Alford 378; Davids 165–66; Schreiner 253 n. 18. 71   Some read ἵνα as indicating the ground or basis for rejoicing: ‘rejoice (now) that you will rejoice (in the future)’ (Bengel 77; Alford 379). Others understand it as denoting result, such that future rejoicing is merely the consequence of present suffering (Gerhard 654; Pott 138; Hensler 199; Picirilli 198; Hiebert 285; cf. Watson 110), thus removing any notion of conditionality or causation. 72   Most correctly understand the ἵνα-clause as modifying χαίρετε (see Wiesinger 293; Mason 429; Kühl 267 n. 2; Knopf 179). Some deny this, however, claiming instead that it must be taken with κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ



4.12–19

431

Rom 8.17; 1 Tim 5.20), καί functions adverbially,73 indicating that the attitude with which believers respond to suffering impacts whether they will rejoice in the future; that is, only by finding joy in their present distress will they eventually rejoice with exceeding joy thereafter.74 But the author’s point here appears to be more than a conditionality. As Forbes notes, what this verse seems to indicate is that ‘a proper perspective on suffering in the present enables one to endure and hence not succumb to external pressure’.75 The specific basis of this future rejoicing is not stated,76 although when it will occur is specified: ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει. Already in the letter, mention has been made of this time of eschatological revelation (cf. 1.7, 13). As it does in those instances, here it refers to the parousia.77 Further information about this event is now provided, with the author noting that it in some way involves δόξα (‘glory’): it is the final revelation τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. This could be taken as an objective genitive (‘the revelation of his glory’),78 in which case we learn that not only will Jesus bring ‘grace’ to his followers when he appears (1.13), but also his full glory and splendour παθήμασιν (e.g., Hensler 198; Schott 289; Beare 191; cf. Hottinger 137). In this way, the ἵνα-clause provides ‘an inherent compensation’ for Christian suffering (Beare 191; cf. Best 162). In other words, present suffering serves as the channel (or perhaps the condition) through which future joy is reached. Yet, the placement of χαίρετε in an emphatic position at the end of the phrase, and thus between κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν and the following ἵνα-clause, weighs against this reading. 73   See Titrud, ‘Overlooked ΚΑΙ’, 8–9. 74   Cf. Huther 219; Monnier 215; Weiss 326; Achtemeier 306; Donelson 135. 75   Forbes 155; cf. Vinson 211. 76   Ordinarily, when χαίρω is modified by ἐν, the preposition indicates the ground or basis for rejoicing, ‘rejoicing in/because’ (T.Levi 18.5; Luke 6.23; 10.20; Phil 1.18; 3.1; 4.4, 10; Col 1.24; Herm. Sim. 1.11; Mart. Pet. Paul 37.2; Acts Phil. 88.7; 135.6; Acts Thom. 58.5; 77.3). Applied to this verse, it would mean that the revela�tion of Christ is the basis for future rejoicing. But since χαίρετε is used absolutely (‘rejoice’) in the first half of the sentence, and given the chronological distinction that is being drawn (present vs. future), ἐν most likely carries a temporal function, ‘so that you might rejoice when…’ (see Johnstone 357). 77   Some suggest the possibility that this might refer to the ‘great joy to be received by the spirit of every good man [sic], immediately on its entrance into the intermediate state’ (Doddridge 218; original emphasis). Others connect it to the present experience of the readers, with the glory of Christ being revealed through the readers’ suffering (so Parker, ‘Eschatology of 1 Peter’, 30). 78   So, e.g., Dubis 148; Forbes 155.

432

1 PETER

will be displayed. Alternatively, δόξης could be understood as an attributive genitive (‘his glorious revelation’), with emphasis being placed on the splendid nature of the event itself.79 The former is perhaps more likely, given the possessive adjective αὐτοῦ and the statements elsewhere in the letter about the giving of glory to Christ (1.21; cf. 1.11)—though glory is also ascribed to Christians themselves (1.7; 5.1, 4), and most often directly to God (2.12; 4.11, 16; 5.10)—but either way, the interpretation will not be greatly impacted. The addition of the participle of manner (ἀγαλλιώμενοι) following the main verb χαρῆτε is meant to intensify the description of the future joy that will be experienced at the second coming (‘so that you might rejoice with exultation’).80 Compared to their present rejoicing (χαίρετε), their experience in the future will be marked by exceedingly more joy (cf. 1.8). Since similar language is found elsewhere, scholars have posited a number of potential sources. Hillyer, for instance, claims that the background of this terminology can be found in the Aqedah.81 Others believe that it originated as a dominical saying, preserved most closely in Matt 5.11–12.82 Specifying the origins of this statement in a particular source is somewhat difficult, given that these verbs appear together in a variety of different places (Ps 95.11–12 LXX; 1 En. 104.13; T.Levi 18.5, 14; T.Job 43.15; 4 Bar. 6.20; Matt 5.12; John 8.56; Rev 19.7; Prot. Jas. 17.2; cf. also 1 Pet 1.8: ἀγαλλιᾶσθε χαρᾷ). But given the close verbal 79   In support of this interpretation, it might be noted that the genitive δόξης is frequently employed in similar constructions, e.g., τότε καθίσει ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, ‘then he will sit on his glorious throne’ (Matt 25.31; cf. Matt 19.28; Acts 7.2; Rom 8.21; 1 Cor 2.8; see further Wallace, Grammar, 87). The Petrine author also uses the same type of construction elsewhere in the letter (e.g., 1.14: τέκνα ὑπακοῆς), though this is a distinct formulation indicating an essential quality of those described as such (see on 1.14). 80   Cf. Lenski 204; Selwyn 222; Davids 167 n. 8; Picirilli 198; Donelson 133 n. d. It is more common to find these verbs placed in synonymous parallelism, ‘rejoice and be glad’ (e.g., 1 En. 104.13; T.Job 43.15; Matt 5.12; Rev 19.7; Mart. Pet. Paul 64.1; Acts Phil. 3.6) or for one verb to be used with a cognate accusative/dative, ‘rejoice with joy’ (e.g., Matt 2.10; John 3.29; 1 Pet 1.8; Acts Paul Thec 20.2). In this case, the participle may have been selected to emphasise the act of rejoicing more than the feeling itself. 81   Hillyer, ‘Servant of God’, 154. 82   See, e.g., Johnstone 357; Hart 74; Michaels 262; Elliott 777; cf. Gundry, ‘ “Verba Christi” ’, 343.



4.12–19

433

echoes of Matt 5.11 in the following verse (see below), it seems likely that this dominical saying is also the most direct influence here (Matt 5.12: χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε). 14 εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, Χριστοῦ, μακάριοι μακάριοι.. Following the exhortation to rejoice in suffering due to the future exultation that will result, the author’s thought now moves to the present benefits of persecution, where he supplies his readers with an example of what it might look like to share in Christ’s sufferings.83 Using a first-class (εἰ) conditional sentence, the possibility (but not necessarily the reality) of the audience’s oppression on account of their allegiance to Christ is considered,84 and they are assured of the reward that such an experience would entail. Using the predicate adjective μακάριοι and an implied copula (ἐστε), the apodosis of this condition sentence describes the outcome of unjust reproach as blessedness (μακάριοι). There are a number of verbal overlaps with the dominical saying in Matt 5.11 (cf. Luke 6.22): μακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς… ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ. There the verb ἐστε is included, the sense of possibility is conveyed by ὅταν, and the reason of allegiance to Christ is expressed (Jesus being the speaker) in the phrase ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ. The same verb is also used to represent the hostility (ὀνειδίζω). These similarities suggest that some form of this saying was known to the author of 1 Peter (though not necessarily in exactly its Matthean form, nor directly from Matthew’s Gospel) and is echoed here.85   Von Soden 163; Grudem 179.   We must avoid translating the protasis as ‘when’ or ‘since’, as preferred by a number of interpreters (e.g., Caffin 174; Cook 213; Beare 191; Michaels 263; Bénétreau 252; Achtemeier 307; Black 121; Green 150; Witherington 213; Donelson 133 n. e; Vinson 213; Osborne 249). Likewise, it would be an error to say that ‘[t]he form of speech denotes that they were so reproached’ (Mason 429, original emphasis; cf. Masterman 152; Wand 118). Interpretations like these both distort the rhetoric of the author and misrepresent the semantics of the Greek construction. The first-class condition merely assumes the truth of the protasis for the sake of argument (as correctly noted by Grudem 179 n. 1; Schreiner 254 n. 20). 85   Given the verbal correspondence, most interpreters conclude that the Petrine author is echoing this saying of Jesus (so, e.g., Lenski 207; Selwyn 222; Best 163; Brox 215; Elliott 776–78; Schreiner 255). While a few have claimed that the similarities are evidence that the Petrine author was directly dependent upon the Gospel of Matthew (see Metzner, Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums, 34–38; cf. Beare 191), the majority have reached the more likely conclusion that the Gospel 83 84

434

1 PETER

The word ὀνειδίζω indicates the verbal nature of this abuse. In the Jewish scriptures, this term is commonly employed to depict the harassment of God’s people (LXX 1 Sam 17.10; 2 Kgs 19.4; Ps 73.10; Isa 37.17; Pss. Sol. 2.19), an understanding that Christians later applied to the mistreatment of Christ (Mark 15.32; Rom 15.3; Inf. Gos. Thom. 8.2). Commentators have assigned varying degrees of strength and severity to ὀνειδίζω in this instance. Descriptions range from mild-natured verbal harassment through social rejection to the shouts of an angry mob.86 Lexically, ὀνειδίζω carries two basic senses:87 (1) to mockingly deride or insultingly taunt someone for the purpose of humiliating or disgracing them (LXX Pss 41.11; 101.9; Zeph 2.8); and (2) to blame or scornfully reproach someone for a real or perceived fault (Aesop, Fab. 9.2; T.Jud. 13.3; Diodorus Siculus 17.4.8). From a purely lexical standpoint, then, ὀνειδίζω merely signifies verbal assault. Yet a proper diagnosis of the nature of the implied persecution must also consider the historical circumstances of such criticism, asking about the contexts in which it may have taken place as well as how easily verbal animosity could have escalated into more dangerous threats.88 Significantly, this type of reproach was not limited to informal contexts; at times, the same verb is also connected to accusations of crimes that brought with them legal penalties.89 In other words, the indications in 1 Peter that the mode of Matthew and 1 Peter have drawn independently on these traditions. Perhaps the statement in v. 14 represents an adaptation of the Q logion used by Matthew and Luke (cf. Millauer, Leiden als Gnade, 157; Schröger, Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief, 186), but there is no way to confirm this with any certainty. 86   Those who understand ὀνειδίζω as consisting of mocking reproach include: Bigg 177; Elliott 779; Forbes 156; Schreiner 254. Those who understand ὀνειδίζω as consisting of a rejection by society include Davids 167. Those who understand ὀνειδίζω as involving the loud cries of angry mobs include Beare 191. 87   See further BDAG 710; TDNT 5:239–40; TLNT 2:585–87. 88   Cf. Masterman 153: ‘ὀνειδίζεσθε does not suggest judicial procedure, but rather the kind of popular hostility that might easily lead on to official action’ (see also Feldmeier 225). 89   Cf. Lysias, In Epicratem 16: ‘So now, gentlemen of the jury, after condemning Epicrates you must sentence him to the extreme penalty… For you are well aware that by your verdict you merely disgrace the guilty (ὀνειδίζετε τοῖς ἀδικοῦσιν), but that by your sentence you exact vengeance for the crimes that they commit’ (trans. Lamb; cf. Isocrates, Callim. 57; Bus. 38; Lysias, In Nicomachum 30; Demosthenes, Mid. 120; Eub. 30).



4.12–19

435

of hostility was primarily verbal does not—as is often claimed— demonstrate that the persecution was merely informal and never legal, nor that concrete punishments never followed.90 In the combination of ὀνειδίζω + ἐν, which some view as a Hebraism,91 the function of the preposition is somewhat difficult to explain using traditional categories. Occasionally, ἐν is understood as denoting sphere, in the sense that the suffering in question is that which takes place within the domain in which Christ exercises authority;92 in other words, what is disqualified is any suffering that is brought about by the wrongdoing of the audience (cf. 4.15). An alternative, and in this case probably a more likely solution, is to take the preposition causally, indicating the reason for the hostility.93 But despite the widespread acceptance of this view, it does represent an unusual construction in that when ‘cause’ is communicated with the same verb elsewhere, other prepositions are employed (e.g., περί + genitive [3 Macc 7.8]; διά + accusative [Sir 41.7] or, in one case, even the simple accusative [Wis 2.12]). One reason for this formulation may be that the Petrine author is adapting the dominical saying also found in Matt 5.11 (see above). Yet whereas the tradition in Matthew encourages followers to rejoice in unjust suffering due to their heavenly reward (Matt 5.12), the blessedness in 1 Peter is manifest by the presence of God’s   See further Introduction: Socio-Historical Context.   According to MHT 4:130, the use of ἐν has been influenced by the preposition ‫ ;ב‬whereas Spicq (TLNT 2:585 n. 1) sees the influence of ‫ל‬. Elsewhere, when modifying ὀνειδίζω, the preposition ἐν indicates means (e.g., 2 Kgs 19.23; Zeph 2.8; Pss. Sol. 2.19; Demetrius, Eloc. 289), sphere (e.g., Arrian, Anab. 3.30.5; Justin Martyr, Dial. 37.2; Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.74 [Kaibel]; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 2.44), and time (e.g., Theophilus, Autol. 36). 92   Achtemeier 308 n. 54; cf. also Liebengood, Eschatology, 142 n. 156. A similar proposal is presented by Dubis, who understands the preposition’s function of denoting sphere ‘in the sense that one operates with a certain status of identity as a result of the name that one bears’ (149). Consequently, he translates the protasis, ‘If you are reviled as ones bearing Christ’s name’ (145). But even though this interpretation is ultimately not too far from the causal sense adopted by most interpreters, it represents a somewhat convoluted path to reach this point. 93   Along with being reflected in the vast majority of commentaries (e.g., Pott 138; Demarest 243; Keil 157; Usteri 197; Michaels 264; Elliott 779; Schlosser 260), this is the interpretation represented in most translations, which render the construction ‘because of the name’ (NIV, NLT, CEB, NCV) or ‘for the name’ (ESV, NAB, NET, NRSV). 90 91

436

1 PETER

Spirit, which rests on those who have been reproached (see below). The focus on the ὄνομα Χριστοῦ is comparable with other places where NT authors (including Matthew) describe the reason why the followers of Jesus should expect to suffer, using a variety of similar ὄνομα expressions.94 This is not to say that the Petrine author was intending to communicate the exact same idea as found in these other Christian texts. A clue to his intentions may be provided by the earlier usage of the idiom ἐν ὀνόματι τινος. In the Jewish scriptures, the expression ‫‘( בשם יהוה‬in the name of YHWH’) took on almost a technical sense, describing YHWH as the authoritative basis upon which certain actions were performed.95 This formula was subsequently rendered ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου (or θεοῦ) in the LXX (1 Sam 17.45; 1 Kgs 8.44; Ezra 5.1; Ps 128.8; Mic 4.5), where it carries a similar meaning. Early Christian authors continued to use this idiom, although Jesus came to be their regular source of authority (Acts 16.18; Eph 5.20; Col 3.17; 2 Thess 3.6; Ign. Pol. 5.1). What is unique about v. 14 is that the construction involves the (passive) reception of hostility from those who do not recognise the authority of Christ, and herein may lie the nuance of the Petrine author. A statement such as εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἕνεκεν Χριστοῦ could have been (mis)understood as referring to suffering experienced merely because of who Christ was and what he did; but by representing the readers’ situation according to this common idiom (ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ), the author emphasises the audience’s identification with Christ (cf. Mark 9.41: ἐν ὀνόματι ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστε). Rather than arising out of the past fact of Christ’s life, suffering is experienced 94   Examples include: διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου (Matt 10.22; 24.9; Mark 13.13; Luke 21.17; John 15.21), ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός (Luke 21.12), and ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος (Acts 5.41; 9.16; 21.13). More broadly, the connection between the vocabulary of reproach (ὀνειδίζω, κτλ.) and the name Χριστός is similar to Ps 88.51–52 (LXX): ‘Remember, O Lord, the reproach (ὀνειδισμοῦ) against your slaves, which I bore in my bosom, from many nations, with which your enemies reproached (ὠνείδισαν), O Lord, with which they reproached (ὠνείδισαν) what had been exchanged for your anointed (χριστοῦ)’ (NETS); cf. also Heb 11.26, τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ—nevertheless, this passage is probably not a source of influence here (pace Johnstone 359; Windisch 77). 95   See Brongers, ‘Die Wendung bᵉšēm jhwh’, 1–20; cf. also Boehmer, Das Biblische “im Namen”; Jacob, Im Namen Gottes. Related to this idea, some Petrine interpreters compare ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ to the rabbinic idiom, ‫לשם‬, ‘for the name of’ (so, e.g., Kelly 186; Davids 167 n. 9; Bénétreau 251; Goppelt 322–23).



4.12–19

437

because the readers have made their allegiance to Christ, an otherwise rejected authority in wider society, and are now identified with his name. In other words, ‘believers appear as the servants of Christ, who act in his name, who are therefore treated by others, loved, or persecuted and reviled, consequently in a derivative manner’.96 ὅτι τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται. ἀναπαύεται. The causal conjunction (ὅτι) introduces the reason why the readers are blessed when they are reproached. Most understand the author as providing some type of scriptural backing at this point. While there is no explicit citation marker, the verbal parallels suggest a deliberate allusion to Isa 11.2 (LXX): ἀναπαύσεται ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ.97 What makes the statement difficult is the presence of the second τό.98 Had this element been omitted, the meaning would have been easily discerned, ‘the spirit of glory and of God’ (cf. the similar structure in 2 Macc 4.1; T.Job 40.13; Josephus, Ant. 4.98).99 As it stands, a few different interpretations are possible.100 The phrase could function as a hendiadys, with both parts expressing a single idea.101 In this case, it could be understood 96   Steiger 2:277 (original emphasis). Cf. Lenski 205, who notes that the opponents display animosity toward Christ and his gospel of salvation, and by extension, they are hostile towards those who are associated with him. 97   Most interpreters acknowledge this allusion (e.g., Schweizer 87; Prigent 130; Vahrenhorst 181). One exception is Pryor (‘First Peter and the New Covenant’, 49), who proposed a link with the descent of God upon Mt. Sinai. Such a view is difficult to sustain, however. 98   Some have found the syntax so difficult that they have raised the possibility that the original wording of the text may have been lost in transmission (so, e.g., Wand 119; Windisch 76; Kelly 187). Cf. also Warden 246, who claims that the ‘article came into the text inadvertently by an early copyist’. 99   This is the translation proposed by Davids (167–68; followed by Schreiner 255–56). He argues that ‘[t]he neuter article before “of glory” (τῆς δόξης) appears to make the most sense if it anticipates “Spirit” (also with a neuter article—καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα), which follows after the “and” ’ (167 n. 10). However, this anticipatory use of the article before τῆς δόξης would create an unnecessary redundancy and thus cannot be sustained. A singular occurrence of the article at the beginning of the construction (τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα) would have been sufficient to communicate the sense suggested by Davids. 100   Cf. the concise overview of options listed by Dubis (148). 101   So, e.g., Bengel 77; Bloomfield 724; Arichea–Nida 149; Hillyer 135; Elliott 782; Senior 129; cf. Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 208; see also BDF §442(16). This view is considered a viable possibility by Schlosser (270).

438

1 PETER

as ‘the glorious Spirit of God’ or ‘the Spirit of the glorious God’ (cf. NLT, CEV, Goodspeed). A second option is that the dual articles could represent two distinct subjects (linked by a conjunctive καί) of the verb ἀναπαύεται.102 Understood in this way, the construction could be an example of periphrasis, with τὸ τῆς δόξης being understood as a circumlocution for ἡ δόξα (hence, ‘the [divine] Glory and the Spirit of God’).103 The specific referent of this ‘glory’ is most often taken to be the Shekinah that marks YHWH’s presence in the temple and with the people of God in the Hebrew Bible, itself a kind of circumlocution for God. The author’s point, then, would be that the very presence of God stands alongside the readers during times of suffering as well as the Spirit of God.104 A slightly different alternative is to take the phrase τὸ τῆς δόξης as anaphoric, referring back to the eschatological glory mentioned in v. 13.105 Read in this way, the audience is comforted to know that when persecution arises, they will not 102   Problems surround both variations of this view. In the case of the first option, there are two issues: not only is this kind of periphrasis unknown in the NT (see Winer, Grammar, 136), but ‘[t]he motive… for this curious periphrasis, alleged to be reverence, is odd in view of the writer’s readiness to speak of the divine glory elsewhere’ (Kelly 187). With regard to the second option, the substantival use of the neuter article with a genitive modifier is admittedly a common idiom in ancient Greek (see Radermacher, Grammatik, 115). Yet, as Robertson points out, even though the article stands alone, ‘the ellipsis is usually very plain, as is shown by the gender and number as well as the context’ (Grammar, 767; cf. T.Jud. 20.1; 1 John 4). The fact that no particular term presents itself as the obvious substantive to be understood with the genitive τῆς δόξης suggests that the proposal may need to be reconsidered (unless δόξα itself is used substantivally as a circumlocution for God). 103   So, e.g., Erasmus 682; Plumptre 148; Wohlenberg 136–37; Selwyn 222–23; Best 164; Osborne 249; on this construction, see Matthiae, Greek Grammar, 1:490–91. This is also how the text was read by Tertullian, Scorp. 12. As a variation of this view, some understand τὸ τῆς δόξης as a personal appellation (‘the Spirit of the Glorious One and of God’), referring to Christ (cf. John 1.14; Jas 2.1), the glorious presence of the divine among humans (e.g., Hammond 422; Bengel 77; Augusti 251; Ewald 57; Hunter 143; cf. Wand 119; Picirilli 198). 104   Hofmann (173) suggested the possibility of inserting ὄνομα before the genitive modifier, ‘the name of glory’ (cf. Blenkin 106). This would create a construction that was common in Jewish literature (cf. Pss 72.19; 79.9; Neh 9.5; Dan 3.52; Jdt 9.8; 1 Macc 14.10; 3 Macc 2.9). Nevertheless, the author could have easily included ὄνομα at this point, if that had been his intention (see Usteri 198). 105   So, e.g., Achtemeier 309.



4.12–19

439

only be provided with the Spirit of God, but they will also (in some sense) experience the eschatological glory that awaits them more fully in the future.106 Syntactically, the best option,107 perhaps, is to connect both articles with the same subject (πνεῦμα) and to interpret the καί epexegetically, ‘the Spirit of glory, namely, the Spirit of God’ (cf. NRSV, NET, NCV, CEB).108 This represents a slight variation of the view that was just mentioned. The difference is one of emphasis. Rather than comforting the readers with the knowledge that they would experience eschatological glory in addition to the presence of God’s Spirit, here the point is that the Spirit itself is that promised glory. Having mentioned the ‘reproach’ that the audience faced (v. 14a), the author contrasts this experience with a description of the Spirit that is pertinent to their situation (v. 14b)—and one that echoes promises elsewhere in the letter that the readers can anticipate ‘glory’ after enduring suffering (1.7; 5.1, 4). Hence, what they will receive in these instances is τὸ (πνεῦμα) τῆς δόξης, a designation not unlike other references to the Spirit wherein a specific (and relevant) characteristic or quality takes precedence (cf. John 14.17: ‘Spirit of truth’; Rom 1.4: ‘Spirit of holiness’; Heb 10.29:

106   One drawback of this view (in addition to the objections raised above, see n. 102) is that it leaves the reader without any explanation as to how this would occur or what it would involve. Will this glory be experienced as a feeling or emotion, or will it involve something more concrete? How much (or what level) of this glory should be expected? Would the effects fade after the initial experience, or would they endure throughout the duration of a Christian’s lifetime? 107   This is consistent with the way the article can be used with several attribu� tives. Normally, when several attributives modify a noun, they might be placed before or after it, with the article being repeated when necessary to avoid ambiguity (see MHT 3:186–87) or to provide emphasis (see Robertson, Grammar, 785). Admittedly, it is rare to find all of the attributives being placed before the noun and the article being repeated (although, cf. Luke 1.70 [A C]). Comparable constructions do exist in Greek literature, however: Thucydides 1.126.4: ἐν τῇ τοῦ Διὸς τῇ μεγίστῃ ἑορτῇ (‘on the great festival of Zeus’); Plato, Resp. 8.565D, περὶ τὸ ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἱερόν (‘concerning the temple of Zeus in Arcadia’). Although neither of these examples has an intervening καί, as Johnstone points out, the conjunction in v. 14 ‘is obviously… quite natural’ (360). 108   This is the interpretation adopted by most commentators, e.g., Lillie 290; Knopf 180–81; Kelly 187; Schelkle 124; Michaels 264; Hiebert 287–88; Goppelt 323; Miller 315; Richard 191; Dubis 150; Watson 111; cf. also MHT 3:187.

440

1 PETER

‘Spirit of grace’).109 At the same time, it would still allow for the possibility that reference is being made to the divine presence as ‘the Glory’ or Shekinah here. To avoid any type of confusion by the use of this description,110 τὸ (πνεῦμα) τῆς δόξης is further defined as none other than ‘the Spirit of God’.111 Since the clause is also a reference to Isa 11.2 (LXX), it is important to consider how the Petrine author adapts and employs this scriptural allusion. Prior to the time of the letter’s composition, the Isaianic passage was being read messianically in some Jewish circles (4Q161 8–10 15–29; Pss. Sol. 17.21–46) and perhaps also in some early Christian traditions (see Matt 3.16; John 1.32; cf. Eph 1.17). In this instance, the Petrine author reshapes his source in three important ways:112 (a) the future tense verb ἀναπαύσεται is changed to the present tense ἀναπαύεται (or, the perfect tense ἀναπέπαυται, see Text at 4.14 n. c), showing that the ‘predic�tions’ of Isaiah were thought to be fulfilled within the experiences of the Christian community; (b) in Isa 11.2 (LXX), the one upon whom the spirit comes to rest is an individual (αὐτόν), namely, the ‘shoot/staff from the stump of Jesse’ (11.1); whereas in the present instance a corporate entity is in view (ὑμᾶς), namely, the Christian community;113 and (c) to the designation πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ in 109   See Mason 429. Cf. Bigg 177: ‘Δόξα is here selected as the attribute of the Spirit, because of the preceding ὀνειδίζεσθε: the Spirit turns reproach into glory’. 110   Cf. Fronmüller 82. Such analysis need not imply that this was the composi�tional order, especially since the Isaian source text (see below) contains the phrase πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ. Marshall (154) suggests: ‘It seems probable that Peter started to write simply “the Spirit of God” but then decided to bring in the idea of glory, and so produced a slightly awkward phrase’. It is, however, difficult to be confident about the sequence of the author’s compositional process. 111   For more on this designation, see Moral, ‘Sentido trinitario de la expresión’, 169–206. 112   See Schutter, Hermeneutic, 153–54; Liebengood, Eschatology, 143–44. Note that these most likely represent changes made by the Petrine author rather than his use of a different Greek Vorlage (see Vahrenhorst, ‘Die Text der Septuaginta’, 261–62). 113   According to Mbuvi, a similar type of corporate referent is in view in 1QS 4.3–8. Even though various texts from Qumran apply Isa 11.1–2 (or more broadly, 10.33–11.5) to an eschatological messianic figure who would defeat his enemies and rule with righteousness (see 4QpIsaa 8–10 iii 15–26; 1QSb 5.22–26; 4Q285 7; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17.34–42; Gen. Rab. 2.4), in this case ‘the linguistic correspondences of the adjectives that define the spirit (wisdom, understanding, counsel,



4.12–19

441

Isa 11.2 (LXX), the Petrine author adds the genitive modifier τῆς δόξης, so that the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of glory. Some read the Spirit’s resting upon believers in connection with the anticipated restoration from exile and the eschatological filling of God’s new spiritual temple with his Shekinah (see above). From this perspective, the presence of the Spirit is not a temporary ministry that assists believers in times of persecution; instead, this verse is understood to refer to the permanent indwelling of God’s temple community.114 The language of the verse, however, weighs against this construal. When ἀναπαύω is used with ἐπί + accusative it normally describes a temporary period of rest or relaxation (Ezek 31.13; 4 Bar. 7.12; Josephus, Ant. 3.61), although strong contextual indicators could suggest otherwise (cf. Acts John 82). But more importantly, if the Spirit is the permanent possession of God’s temple community, then it turns the conditional sentence into a truism: the readers would be blessed regardless of whether or not they were reproached. To read a permanent indwelling of believers into the present verse is either to force a Pauline understanding upon Petrine thought or to unnecessarily press each and every aspect of the community– temple analogy (1 Pet 2.5; 4.17) in places where it is not in focus. This is not to deny the importance of the Spirit in 1 Peter, nor is it to question the scriptural metaphors on which the author is drawing in other passages. It is simply to say that the present verse focuses on the benefits that the Spirit provided in specific conflict situations.115 Comparable are those situations in the Jewish scriptures where the Spirit comes to rest upon certain individuals and thus empowers justice, etc.)’ indicate that ‘the Qumran community understood the promises that would have been applicable to the Messiah to also apply to itself’ (Temple, Exile and Identity, 117 n. 250). A similar exegetical manoeuvre occurs in the Aramaic Levi Document (3.5–6), where messianic attributes are applied to priests (see Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 214–15). 114   Those who adopt this understanding of the Spirit’s enduring presence include: Benson 284; Bénétreau 252–53; Miller 315–16; McKnight 250; cf. Johnson, ‘Fire in God’s House’, 290–91; Dubis, Messianic Woes, 125–29; Mbuvi, Temple, Exile and Identity, 118. Others have also connected the imagery of the Christian community as God’s spiritual temple with the indwelling of God’s Shekinah (see, e.g., Blenkin 105–106; Grudem 180). 115   Cf. Doddridge 218 n. e; Beare 192; Goppelt 324; Schlosser 261.

442

1 PETER

them for particular tasks.116 In this way, it is possible that the reference harkens back to the Gospel tradition, where Jesus promises his followers that the Spirit would speak through them during times of persecution (cf. Matt 10.19–20; Mark 13.11; Luke 12.12). The Spirit thus represents a blessing to those who experience persecution and suffering because it is in those instances that it provides strength and assistance,117 connecting the recipient to God’s glory (cf. Sifre Deut 6.5 §32).118 15 μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς ἢ κλέπτης ἢ κακοποιὸς ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος. ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος. With the γάρ that begins the sentence, the author does not indicate the reason or basis for the preceding verse (‘because’, ‘for’; cf. ASV, WEB);119 instead, this verse serves as an inferential statement that provides an important caveat (‘but’, ESV, NAB, NRSV, NET; ‘however’, HCSB, NLT).120 Suffering does bring certain blessings, but only if it originates from an appropriate source; approved forms of suffering arise out of one’s commitment to Christ and not out of any act of wrongdoing. The μή… δέ construction in vv. 15–16 spells out positive and negative examples of each. In the present verse, the author lists four instances of wrongdoing, for which suffering does not procure blessing. All these potential reasons for suffering are ones that the recipients should strenuously avoid.

  See Num 11.25 (LXX): ‘And the Lord came down in a cloud and spoke to him and took away some of the spirit that was upon him (παρείλατο ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ) and put it upon the seventy men who were elders. Now as the spirit rested upon them (ἐπανεπαύσατο τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς), they also prophesied’ (NETS); cf. 2 Kgs 2.15. 117   Note the textual variant: καὶ (τῆς) δυνάμεως (αὐτοῦ), see Text at 4.14 n. b. 118   Suffering is, therefore, not a demonstration of the Spirit’s presence, as though reproach proves that Christians possess the Spirit (pace Windisch 77; Witherington 213). 119   As suggested by some interpreters (e.g., Bengel 78; Demarest 247–48; Lillie 292; Fausset 511; Mason 430; Lenski 207; Achtemeier 309). 120   Cf. Grotius 104; Johnstone 362; Dubis 151; Forbes 157. After employing the second-person imperative throughout most of this section, it is noteworthy that the author now transitions into a more individualised form of appeal using τις + the third-person singular imperative πασχέτω: ‘let none of you suffer…’ (von Soden 162; Monnier 218). 116



4.12–19

443

The comparative particle (ὡς) that stands at the front of this list is not intended to represent either the nature of the suffering experience (i.e., ‘Do not suffer the types of punishment faced by a murderer’) or the accusatorial process (i.e., ‘Avoid being accused of being a murderer’). Christians could not control the false accusations levelled against them by their opponents, nor could they alter the punishments that awaited if those accusations were accepted by legal authorities. Its function is to warn the readers to avoid the reality behind these charges.121 Thus, it means, ‘let no one suffer because they are a murderer’.122 Noteworthy is the fact that ‘these terms attribute an identity to the person’. That is, the author ‘does not say on account of murder, theft, or doing evil. The focus is identity demonstrated in behaviour.’123 This is the backdrop against which he will subsequently attempt to re-shape his audience’s views on what it means to suffer as a Χριστιανός (v. 16). It is difficult to discern why the author warned the readers about these particular vices, although the most likely explanation is their common inclusion within stock lists of immoral acts (though this does not apply to the fourth item).124 Both the first (‘murderer’) and second (‘thief’) type of misconduct involve acts that are forbidden in the Decalogue (Exod 20.13, 15; Deut 5.17, 19; cf. Philo, Decal. 170–71; Spec. 3.83–143; 4.1–40), and they are proscribed in

121   See Jobes 289: ‘Some of his readers may have been accused of various kinds of evildoing (2:14–15), and for that reason it is very important that they not be found in fact to be what they have been accused of being’. Cf. also Benson 285; Barnes 196; Knox, ‘Pliny and 1 Peter’, 188. 122   Cf. Huther 222; Kühl 269. 123   Hockey, ‘1 Peter 4.16’, 34. 124   Most interpreters explain this verse along the lines of traditional vice lists (so, e.g., Kelly 189; Michaels 266; Davids 169 n. 12; Goppelt 326; Perkins 72; Boring 158–59; Elliott 784; Donelson 136; Schreiner 257). There are some who believe that the warning represents a genuine concern on behalf of the author that such crimes were potential threats for his audience (see Sadler 136; Mitchell 276; Schiwy 59; Schelkle 124; Achtemeier 311; Watson 111; cf. Best 164). In support, they point to the fact that some early Christians did commit crimes both before (1 Cor 6.9–11) and after their conversion (Clement of Alexandria, Quis div. 42; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.18.9). Nevertheless, there is no other indication in the letter that the author is concerned about such a possibility; as such, these crimes appear to have been selected merely as a contrast to suffering ‘as a Christian’ in v. 16.

444

1 PETER

Christian writings as well.125 In the Roman legal system, a murderer (φονεύς) was generally punished by death or exile (see Dig. 48.8; Cod. justin. 9.16), with the sentence being dependent upon the circumstances and the social statuses of the parties involved.126 Much more legal discussion was afforded to the question of what actions constituted theft (see Dig. 47.2). Whether one was punished as a ‘thief’ (κλέπτης) depended upon issues related to ownership and usage (e.g., borrowing vs. stealing) of goods as well as the nature of the crime.127 The term κακοποιός appears frequently in astrological contexts, where it refers to stars or planets that exert an unfavourable influence, often in contrast to ἀγαθοποιός (cf. Serapion, Frag. 8,4, p. 228 [Boudreaux]; Vettius Valens, Anth. 2.10.16). Some early Christian writers translate the term as maleficus (Tertullian, Scorp. 12; Cyprian, Test. 3.37), which could, on occasion, carry the special meaning, ‘magician’ (see Lactantius, Inst. 2.16.4; Jerome, Expl. Dan. 2.2; Cod. theod. 9.16.4). This connection is also evident in a second century BCE Greek papyrus (PSI I 64), which juxtaposes κακοποιά with φάρμακα φίλτρα (‘magic charms’). It is on the basis of this evidence that some interpreters have assigned the term a more specialised meaning, ‘magician’ 125   Cf. Matt 19.18//Mark 10.19//Luke 18.20; Rom 13.9. Christian texts that prohibit or censure murder include: Matt 15.19//Mark 7.21; Rom 1.29; Jas 2.11; Rev 21.8; 22.15; Did. 2.2; Barn. 19.5; Acts John 36.3. Christian texts that prohibit or censure theft include: John 10.1, 8, 10; Rom 2.21; 1 Cor 6.10; Eph 4.28; Did. 2.2; Acts John 36.4; Acts Pet. Andr. 5.3; Acts Thom. 58.3. 126   According to Aelius Marcianus, a third-century CE Roman jurist, ‘The penalty of the lex Cornelia [first century BCE] on murderers and poisoners is deportation to an island and the forfeiture of all property. However, nowadays capital punishment is customary, except for persons of a status too high to be subject to the [modern] statutory punishment; those of lower rank are usually either crucified or thrown to the beasts while their betters are deported to an island’ (Dig. 48.8.3.5; trans. Watson). Cf. Mark 15.7 and Acts Pil. 9.1, where the crime for which Barabbas had been condemned was murder. 127   In many cases, there were no set penalties for particular acts of theft. For instance, when discussing robbers, the second/third-century CE jurist Ulpian wrote that they ‘are normally condemned to forced labor, whether in perpetuity or for a limited period’. Yet, for those of a higher social status who commit the same crime, there is no specified punishment. Ulpian notes, ‘For them, no particular penalty is prescribed by imperial rescripts, and so their punishment is a matter for the discretion of the person conducting the cognitio, once the investigation is completed’ (Dig. 47.18.1.1; trans. Watson).



4.12–19

445

or ‘sorcerer’ (cf. NEB).128 Yet, given the fact that the word is used elsewhere in 1 Peter to describe one who performs socially unacceptable acts (cf. 1 Pet 2.12, 14; 3.16), it is best to treat the term in a more general way. Following two specific crimes, perhaps κακοποιός is employed as a catch-all for any other deeds of misconduct (‘evildoer’, cf. NASB, HCSB, CEB, NAB, ESV, CJB, NKJV). But while the referent should remain broader than φονεύς or κλέπτης, it is important to remember that in 1 Pet 2.14 the term extends to criminal activities, as the author indicates that the governor is sent ‘for the purpose of punishing evildoers’ (εἰς ἐκδίκησιν κακοποιῶν).129 The focus, then, seems to be on acts that made one liable to legal punishment.130 Thus, it is best to translate κακοποιός as ‘criminal’ (cf. NRSV, NET, NIV, GNT).131 Understanding the referent of the fourth and final term, ἀλλοτ­ ριεπίσκοπος,132 is somewhat more complicated. The present verse represents the word’s first known occurrence in Greek literature, perhaps suggesting that it was coined by the Petrine 128   So, e.g., Holzmeister 384; Knopf 181; Selwyn 225; Windisch 77; Bauer 109–10; cf. van Unnik, ‘Good Works in 1 Peter’, 96 n. 29; Bauer, ‘Aut maleficus’, 109–15. Some lexical works even assign this meaning in 1 Pet 4.15 (e.g., Souter, Pocket Lexicon, 122; LSJ 862; cf. MM 317). 129   Note the connection between the governor and the punishment of κακοποιοί in other literature: ‘The Jews answered and said to the governor [i.e., Pilate], “Unless this man were an evildoer (κακοποιός) we would not have delivered him to you” ’ (Acts Pil. 3.1). Cf. also Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3.13, where those who were crucified were ἄνδρες κακοποιοί. 130   Cf. Schutter, Hermeneutic, 16 n. 74. Holloway argues that ‘the term κακοποιός must be the Greek equivalent of malus homo [“bad man”]’ (Coping with Prejudice, 68), finding support in the language of Mark 15.14 and John 18.30. From this he concludes, ‘To be slandered as a κακοποιός… is to be accused of being a malus homo, a truly ominous charge that adduces the governor’s imperial mandate [Dig. 1.18.3, 13] and places Christians at odds not only with public opinion but with Roman rule’ (68). 131   Pace Marshall 154, who claims that such a translation ‘possibly restricts the range too narrowly by using such a strong word’. Most translations render κακοποιός as ‘evildoer’ (NAB, NASB, NKJV, ESV, HCSB). While this is etymologically accurate, it does not fully capture the specific Petrine usage. 132   An alternative spelling is known as well: ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος (see BDF §124). To explain this, it has been suggested that ‘the retention of the ο was normal in freshly coined words at a rather later period than that of the NT books’ (MHT 2:272). The form with the elided ο has thus been understood as the ‘more correct form’ (Winer, Grammar, 124 n. 1).

446

1 PETER

author.133 This makes it difficult to ascertain the precise meaning.134 What complicates the situation further is that the only other uses of ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος do not appear until the fourth and fifth centuries (in Christian sources potentially influenced by 1 Peter).135 Etymologically, the term is a compound, deriving from ἀλλότριος (‘belonging to another’) and ἐπίσκοπος (‘one who watches over’). The compound form may reveal a sense of overstepping one’s bounds. But in what ways, and in what areas? The term has been assigned numerous meanings, based on the variety of spheres of influence that might be involved in such boundary-crossing. Since ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος is connected here with crimes that would have resulted in legal reprisal, many have restricted the referent to more serious offences. Some interpret ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος as describing illicit economic behaviour.136 As   Others have noted the possibility that the term originated with the Petrine author (e.g., Plumptre 149; Bigg 177; Moffatt 158; Beare 193; Hillyer 136; Elliott 785). Michaels, on the other hand, denies this possibility based on the fact that none of the later uses were ‘directly dependent upon 1 Peter’ (267). What must be taken into account, however, is that the word only appears in later Christian writings, and it does not seem to have gained wide popularity. The combination of these facts speak in favour of its origin in 1 Peter. 134   The textual record reveals that early interpreters shared the same confusion, for there have been various attempts to reconfigure the word to make more sense (see Text at 4.15 n. e above). 135   The term is employed twice by Epiphanius, a fourth-century bishop of Salamis. One occurrence is part of an explanation of 1 Cor 2.10–11. In an attempt to prove that the Spirit does not search the depths of God, he asks, ‘For where does he search the depths of God? On what basis? Answer, O fool! As a busybody? As a meddler (ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπον)? As one longing for things that are not his? By no means!’ (Anc. 12.5). The second is part of a discussion about the rights of Jesus. As God, Epiphanius points out, Jesus was not meddling in matters that did not belong to him when he abolished the Sabbath. For he notes, ‘No one destroys the work of another unless he is one who takes someone else’s property, a meddler (ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος), the kind of person who asks for punishment’ (Pan. 66.85.6). It also appears in the writings of the fifth-century theologian and philosopher, Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite, who addresses the problem of those who interfere in matters that are above their rank. After giving the examples from the Jewish scriptures (Uzziah and Saul), he states, ‘But everyone who meddles in the affairs of another (ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος) is repudiated by the word of God, and each person should be in the rank of their own service’ (Ep. 8.1). 136   Proponents of this view include: Calvin 137; Beza 583; Horneius 133; Estius 566–67; Usteri 199–200; Reicke 124–26; Frankemölle 65; Knoch 126–27; Brox 133



4.12–19

447

one who seeks his or her own financial interests or who covets what others have, this type of person could become entangled in specific misdeeds such as embezzlement or fraud.137 Others conclude that political actions are involved.138 In this case, the misconduct might consist of various activities designed to undermine governmental structures or operations, for example, ‘spy’ (Phillips), ‘rebel’ (CEB), ‘informer’ (JB, NJB), or ‘revolutionary’ (Moffatt, Goodspeed). Nonetheless, while each of these offences might be forbidden under the broad umbrella of ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος, there is no reason to restrict the term’s meaning to such specific transgressions. As a result, most interpreters conclude that the term refers simply to one who meddles in the affairs of others (e.g., ‘busybody’, cf. NKJV,

219–20; Achtemeier 310–13; Prigent 131; cf. Bauer, ‘Aut maleficus’, 109–15. Aside from the mention of κλέπτης earlier in the list (see BDAG 47), support for this position is drawn from the fact that the Vulgate renders ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος as alienorum appetitor (‘one who covets what belongs to others’), while the Latin texts K and A translate the term curas alienas agens (‘one who takes care of the affairs of others’, see Thiele, Lateinischen, 76; cf. Duplacy and Amphoux, ‘A propos de l’histoire du texte’, 168), which is understood either as a broker who embezzles funds that have been placed in his/her trust or one who (illegally) handles the distribution of money by a political candidate once he/she has achieved public office. It appears that in early Christianity some believers were vulnerable to the crime of embezzlement, indicated both by specific examples (Herm. Sim. 9.26.2) as well as frequent warnings against/denials of it (cf. Mark 10.19; 1 Cor 6.7–8; Tertullian, Apol. 44.2–3; Aristides, Apol. 15.4). 137   Along similar lines, Erbes (‘Was bedeutet ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος 1 Pt 4,15?’, 39–44; idem, ‘Noch etwas zum ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος 1 Petr 4, 15’, 249) interprets the term as referring to an errant bishop who neglects his duties and misappropriates the funds of others. This interpretation arose by equating ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος with πονηρὸς ἐπίσκοπος, which is understood as one who oversees the goods of others in an improper fashion (‘Was bedeutet ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος 1 Pt 4,15?’, 41). However, the problem, as Elliott (786) has pointed out, is that this represents a reversal of the semantic situation involving similar compounds. He notes, ‘in analogous composite constructions the prefixed allotrio- refers to the object of the term that follows, not the subject. Thus allotriepiskopos would rather have a sense similar to episkopos allotriōn (lit. “an overseer of others or the affairs of others”)’ (original emphasis). 138   Proponents of this view include: Hammond 422–23; Doddridge 218–19 n. f; Demarest 248–49; Knopf 181–82; Moffatt 158; Lenski 208; Windisch 77; Schneider 92 (who thinks it is possible); Beare 193; Feldmeier 226–27; cf. Hilgenfeld, Historisch-kritische Einleitung, 630–31 n. 1; Bischoff, ‘Ἀλλοτρι(ο)επίσκοπος’, 271–74; Schmidt, ‘Zwei Fragen’, 26–29.

448

1 PETER

CEV; ‘meddler’, cf. ESV, NIV; ‘mischief-maker’, cf. RSV, NRSV),139 without defining the nature of such interference.140 Aside from etymological considerations, further support for this conclusion comes from the repetition of the comparative particle. Most acknowledge that the second occurrence of ὡς distinguishes ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος in some way from the previous three vices. But there has been some confusion about how it does so.141 As numerous interpreters have pointed out, the list of proscribed activities appears to have a declining effect. In other words, it represents ‘a vice list of perpetrators who are positioned in a descending order insofar as gravity of social injury and disruption are concerned’.142 The purpose of the second comparative particle in this structure is to separate ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος into a different class or category.143 Not only are the readers forbidden to place themselves in situations where they would (justifiably) receive the punishment for murderers, thieves, or other types of criminals, they are not even to allow themselves to suffer for less severe infractions. From this, some commentators have understood the distinction as one of culpability and punishment: whereas the first three terms represent 139   Proponents of this view include: Steiger 2:280–81; Bloomfield 724; Davids 169; Bénétreau 253–54; Schweizer 87–88; Waltner 140; Elliott 785–88; Jobes 289; Donelson 133 n. j; Osborne 246; Schlosser 271–72; Schreiner 258–59. 140   Those who attempt to further specify the nature of this meddling usually focus on the boundaries that distinguished Christians from non-Christians. For some, overstepping these limits would have involved openly and contemptuously repudiating pagan customs (so, e.g., de Wette 54; Fausset 511; Lillie 293; Johnstone 363; Hart 74–75). This type of behaviour might be displayed, for instance, by Christians spitting upon or blowing out the flames on the altars of pagan temples (Tertullian, Idol. 11; Ux. 2.5). For others, it might represent over-zealous efforts to convert their neighbours (Selwyn 225; Elliott 788). 141   According to one reading, the repetition of the comparative particle signifies that ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος summarises all possible forms of misconduct as ‘a comprehensive et cetera’ (Bigg 179). Others have suggested that ὡς demarcates the one offence towards which the audience may have been especially prone (see, e.g., Lillie 293; Kelly 189; Elliott 785; Richard 192–93). Ultimately, it is important not to draw too strong a demarcation between these offences, especially considering that another ὡς follows in v. 16, which is intended to contrast suffering ‘as a Christian’ with these four vices understood collectively (cf. Schlosser 271). 142   Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 209. See also Charles 350; Witherington 214; Osborne 249. 143   Cf. Alford 379; Cranfield 121; Spicq 157; Schreiner 258.



4.12–19

449

legal offences, the final term indicates merely a social transgression.144 Yet, while this type of distinction seems clear-cut based on modern legal systems, in the Roman provinces of Asia Minor jurisprudence was much more complicated: the accusatorial process (the usual means by which Christians came to judicial attention) was a means by which various kinds of grievances and claims could be brought.145 The author assumes that persons who participate in these proscribed acts will experience some type of ‘suffering’. The question is, what type of suffering is envisioned in the verb πάσχειν? Normally, interpreters seek to answer this question on the basis of previous usage. Blenkin points out that elsewhere in the epistle the term ‘is an inclusive word, and can denote any form of violence, buffetings, insults, slander, boycotting, without necessarily implying organized legal persecution such as torture and execution’.146 On a general level this statement is true; nevertheless, it is imperative to consider the author’s specific focus in v. 15. In this verse, the Petrine author assumes that each shameful deed would lead to suffering: ‘let none of you suffer (πασχέτω) as a murder, or a thief, or an evildoer, or even as a mischievous meddler’. It would be implausible to think that the ‘suffering’ experienced by murderers and thieves would involve anything other than a judicial sentence. But it is also important to remember that, according to the Petrine author (2.14), ‘evil-doers’ (κακοποιόι) are susceptible to being punished by the Roman governor. So even though acts like these were viewed with contempt by the general populace, there is more than just popular resentment at stake. Thus, the most natural setting against which to understand the verb πάσχειν in v. 15 is a courtroom.147

  See, e.g., Lumby 189–90; Wand 119; Selwyn 225; Michaels 268.   See further Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, esp. 170–71, 227–29; Horrell, Becoming Christian, 189–90. 146   Blenkin 106 (original emphasis). Cf. Bigg 177: ‘the verb does not define the nature of the suffering nor the manner, whether by legal process of otherwise, in which it is inflicted’ (see also Stibbs–Walls 161; Hiebert 289). 147   Pace Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 93: ‘Apart from the references to murderers and thieves, nothing in this passage points explicitly to the realm of legal proceedings’. Others, however, have been open to the possibility that a judicial background might stand behind this verse (see, e.g., Thurén, ‘1 Peter and the Lion’, 146). 144 145

450

1 PETER

The question is, would an ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος have faced the same types of repercussions as these criminals, especially given that it is distinguished from the others in the list? At times, NT authors warn their readers against the vice of meddling or being a busybody (2 Thess 3.11–12; 1 Tim 5.13–14). Elsewhere, we find Epictetus strongly defending Cynic philosophers against just such a charge.148 From this, it is clear that meddling in the affairs of others was not a commendable pursuit in the Greco-Roman world. But the seriousness of being accused as a ‘busybody’ or ‘meddler’ and its subsequent repercussions are often underappreciated.149 In his treatise On Being a Busybody (Περὶ Πολυπραγμοσύνης), Plutarch connects the practice with κακοήθεια (‘bad disposition’, 1 [Mor. 515D], 6 [518C]) and ἐπιχαιρεκακία (‘spite’, ‘malignity’, 6 [Mor. 518C]). He even goes on to place them in the same category as a despised informant (συκοφάντης, 16 [Mor. 523A–B]; cf. Aristophanes, Plut. 907–913) and an adulterer (μοιχός, 8 [Mor. 519B]). So while not a legally defined criminal act, meddling in the affairs of others was a serious offence in the Greco-Roman world.150 The stigma of this offence must be read against the backdrop of judicial processes operative in the Roman provinces of Asia Minor. It is crucial to recognise that the governor had the freedom and jurisdiction to punish according to his own personal discretion, even outside the parameters of clearly defined criminal acts.151   Using similar language to that found in 1 Pet 4.15, Epictetus attempts to show that the Cynic is not a meddler, because he ‘has made all [humanity] his children’ and ‘in that spirit he approaches them all and cares for them all’ (Diatr. 3.22.81; trans. Oldfather [LCL]). He thus concludes by saying, ‘That is why the man who is in this frame of mind is neither a busybody (περίεργος) or a meddler (πολυπράγμων); for he is not meddling in other people’s affairs (οὐ γὰρ τὰ ἀλλότρια πολυπραγμονεῖ) when he is overseeing (ἐπισκοπῇ) the actions of men, but these are his proper concern’ (Diatr. 3.22.97; trans. Oldfather [LCL]). 149   See Brown, ‘Just a Busybody?’, 549–68. The concept of meddling is discussed under a number of Greek terms, including περίεργος (and its verbal cognate), πολυπραγμοσύνη (and its cognates), φιλοπραγμοσύνη, and ἀλλοτ­ριο­ πραγμοσύνη. 150   As Brown has noted, ‘To interfere outside of one’s assigned sphere of activity is no small transgression. Instead, it merits severe censure because it disrupts the ordained order of the sociopolitical realm’ (‘Just a Busybody?’, 562). 151   Hence, the author can include ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος in the list of offences that could/would be punished (‘if anyone suffers…even as a mischievous meddler’). 148



4.12–19

451

This does not mean that an ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος would necessarily face capital punishment; at the same time, such an escalated sentence could happen if a governor was so inclined. Therefore, even if the author is purposefully drawing a distinction between more serious (φονεύς; κλέπτης; κακοποιός) and less serious (ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος) offences through the use of a second ὡς, the possibility of formal punishment for each of these ‘crimes’ would have been evident. Consequently, ‘to suffer’ (πάσχειν) in this passage seems to refer to punishment inflicted upon guilty parties by the administrative authorities. A setting of judicial hearings and sentences up to capital punishment are implicit within the author’s language. This is an especially important consideration when approaching the following verse. 16 εἰ δὲ ὡς χριστιανός, χριστιανός, μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, αἰσχυνέσθω, The contrastive conjunction (δέ) marks a shift from the types of offences for which believers should be ashamed to suffer (v. 15) to an acceptable offence for which suffering would be praiseworthy (v. 16). Again, the possibility of suffering is posed by another firstclass condition,152 although in this instance the verbal element has been elided. Achtemeier raises the possibility of supplying the verb ὀνειδίζεσθε, based on syntactical, thematic, and lexical similarities with v. 14.153 However, this suggestion is ruled out by a few considerations: (a) ὡς χριστιανός is a continuation of the types of categories listed in v. 15 (ὡς φονεὺς ἢ κλέπτης ἢ κακοποιὸς ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος), implying that πάσχει should be understood

Treatment of the early Christians illustrates this degree of gubernatorial power: even if precedent, process, and imperial approval are important, governors had significant freedom to pursue and punish cases, as Pliny’s famous letter (Ep. 10.96) indicates. See further Introduction: Socio-Historical Context. 152   Just as in the case of the conditional sentence in v. 14, many interpreters incorrectly remove any conditional element from εἰ and translate the particle as ‘since’ or ‘when’ (e.g., Achtemeier 313; Senior 130; Witherington 215–16). 153   The parallels cited by Achtemeier (313) include: (a) the use of εἰ in the protasis (incorrectly labelled as the apodosis by Achtemeier) of both verses; (b) the similarity between ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ (v. 14) and ὡς χριστιανός (v. 16); (c) the relationship between δόξα (v. 14) and δοξάζω (v. 16); and (d) the connection between not being ashamed (μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, v. 16) and being blessed (μακάριοι, v. 14).

452

1 PETER

as the elided form;154 (b) the second person plural ὀνειδίζεσθε would lack concord with the singular χριστιανός; and (c) the correlative μή… δέ construction, which is begun in v. 15 and completed in v. 16, reveals that the two verses should be understood in connection with one another (rather than connecting v. 16 with v. 14). The potential situation that is considered then is whether any of the readers might suffer ὡς χριστιανός. Over the years, there has been significant debate surrounding the meaning of the clause (πάσχειν) ὡς Χριστιανός, ‘to suffer as a Christian’. Many scholars—attempting to read the statement in accord with an ‘unofficial’ form of persecution—associate this suffering with the popular stigmatisation of the early Christian communities (cf. 1 Pet 4.2–3). As such, it is taken to mean, ‘suffering as the result of upholding Christian values’155 or ‘[suffering] for living in word and deed consistently with the gospel of Jesus Christ’.156 Yet, there is an alternative, and perhaps more convincing, way to understand this construction.157 In the context of 1 Peter and the suffering of early Christians, the phrase seems to mean, ‘to suffer (simply) for being a Christian’, relating the problem directly to the legal status of the readers’ Christian identity. It assumes that members of these communities could potentially be prosecuted simply for adherence to the Christian faith, thus implying that Christianity had become (effectively) criminalised. Such a reading is common among classical scholars and church historians, who often appeal to this text as proof of the effective illegality of Christianity during the late first century CE.158 But few Petrine interpreters have been willing to entertain the 154   According to Jachmann (167), the aorist subjunctive (πάθῃ) should be supplied. But since the present indicative is employed in the parallel conditional sentence in v. 14 (ὀνειδίζεσθε), the same should be the case here, although with a third-person verb (πάσχει) to support the elided subject, τις ὑμῶν (see Pott 140; Hensler 205; de Wette 54; Hiebert 290; Senior 130–31; Schlosser 272). 155   Richard 194. 156   Jobes 290. Cf. Watson 111: ‘for preaching and living the gospel’. 157   For a fuller discussion of this issue, see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 275–95. 158   E.g., Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, 80; Keresztes, ‘Imperial Roman Government’, 256, 280; Vittinghoff, ‘ “Christianus sum” ’, 346 n. 91; Molthagen, ‘Die Lage der Christen’, 445–51; et al. One church historian who is opposed to this reading is Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History, 60–63.



4.12–19

453

possibility that this passage describes the profession of Christianity as a punishable offence. What often impedes the interpretation of this passage is a false distinction between ‘informal (public) hostility’ and ‘official (state) persecution’ that fails to consider adequately the nature of the (accusatorial) processes by which Christians generally came to trial in the first three centuries CE.159 At issue is whether v. 16 marks a description of Christians suffering for the Name alone (nomen ipsum); that is, whether believers could be punished in a Roman courtroom simply for bearing and confessing the name Χριστιανός. Thus, the question is not whether Christians were the target of (proactive) imperial persecution (wherein Christianity was deemed illegal through an imperial edict) prior to the time of Decius (249–251 CE).160 What matters is whether Christianity was a punishable offence at the tribunal of the Roman governor during the late first century CE and whether the author considers the potential for such punishment in v. 16. We would argue that both of these questions should be answered in the affirmative.161 In this passage, there are several features that suggest that the readers might experience a more escalated form of persecution in a judicial setting, wherein the outcome would be similar to other (capital) crimes. As such, the author’s words imply that at the time of the letter’s composition adherence to the Christian faith could be

159   See further Williams, ‘Suffering from a Critical Oversight’, 271–88; Horrell, Becoming Christian, 183–97; cf. also Introduction: Socio-Historical Context. 160   This is the question that most recent interpreters have sought to deny or disprove (see, e.g., Knoch 127; Brox 220; Elliott 789–94; Witherington 215). 161   It is a relatively uncontroversial claim that during the second and third centu� ries CE, the label Χριστιανός served as an indicator of one’s guilt in a Roman court of law (see, e.g., Pliny, Ep. 10.96; Mart. Pol. 10.1; 12.1; Justin Martyr, 2 Apol. 2; Acts of Justin and his Companions; Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs; Pass. Pert. 6), demonstrating that Christianity was effectively illegal (see further Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 179–210). What many Petrine interpreters have overlooked, however, is that the same legal situation existed in the late first-century provinces of Asia Minor (see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 176–97; Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 210–36; for a summary of this evidence, see Introduction: Socio-Historical Context), which means that if 1 Peter is a late first-century document (see Introduction: Date), this was the legal context in which it was composed. As we will demonstrate, specific evidence from v. 16 supports this interpretation.

454

1 PETER

treated as a punishable offence.162 There are several factors which suggest that Χριστιανός in v. 16 is a designation that made the bearer liable to judicial punishment, despite there being no law against Christianity: the origins of the label Χριστιανός, the fact that suffering ‘as a Christian’ is compared with punishment received for committing criminal acts, and the close similarities between the depiction in 1 Peter and the earliest external account of the trial and punishment of Christians in Pliny’s letter (Ep. 10.96). The designation Χριστιανός is a title commonly employed in the works of the Apostolic Fathers (Did. 12.4; Ign. Eph. 11.2; Magn. 4.1; Rom. 3.2; Pol. 7.3; Mart. Pol. 3.2; 10.1; 12.1–2), and by the mid-second century CE it appears to be a (or the?) standard selfdesignation used within Christian communities (Diogn. 1.1; 2.6, 10; 4.6; 5.1; 6.1–9).163 But its origins stretch back into the first century CE, probably sometime in the late 50s or early 60s. The title is a Latinism, with the Greek ending –ιανός rendering the Latin –ianus (cf. Caesarianus, Pompeianus).164 Over time, as Roman influence spread across Hellenistic areas, Latinisms began to find their way into the Greek language. This suffix is one such example.165 Formations like this generally derive from a proper name or title, denoting the followers, supporters, adherents, or partisans of a person (e.g., Ἡρῳδιανοί; Καισαριανοί).166 Attached to the term Χριστός, the suffix conveys the basic sense of ‘followers of Christ’ or ‘members of the Christ-party’.167   There have been some recent interpreters who have recognised this point (e.g., Schlosser 262–63), and even those who strongly oppose this conclusion still acknowledge the basic meaning of the construction (see Kelly 192: ‘In so far as court cases are in view, the words are of course consistent with Christianity being the charge’). 163   For a full treatment on the term Χριστιανός in 1 Pet 4.16, see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 165–76. 164   See, e.g., Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:193; Coultre, ‘De l’étymologie du mot “chrétien” ’, 188–96; cf. also Cadbury, ‘Names for Christians’, esp. 384–85. 165   On the formation –ιανός, see Hahn, Rom und Romanismus, 263(9); cf. also BDF §2(5). 166   See Bickerman, ‘Les Hérodiens’, 193; Rowley, ‘Herodians in the Gospels’, 26. For many examples, see Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:193. 167   Cf. Lucian, Alex. 25, 38; Peregr. 11–13, 16; see also Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Suetonius, Nero 16.2; Pliny, Ep. 10.96–97. 162



4.12–19

455

The Latin influence of the suffix is one indication that the name originated outside of the Christian community, most likely through the Christian interaction with (non-Jewish)168 outsiders.169 Support for a non-Christian origin also derives from the Lukan description found in Acts 11.26. There it is stated, ‘it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called (χρηματίσαι) Christians’. Although the verb χρηματίζω is in the active voice, this form is regularly used in the naming or identifying of others; hence, it is best understood to mean, ‘they were called Christians [by others]’.170 More difficult to decide is whether the title was coined by members of the general populace,171 or, as many propose, within the circles of Roman administrative officials.172 Beyond the etymological evidence for a connection with Latin-speaking circles, it should be noted that the verb χρηματίζω (Acts 11.26) often carries official or judicial connotations (e.g., Philo, Legat. 346; Polybius,   In the book of Acts, it is recorded that Jewish opponents labelled Jesusfollowers as ‘the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24.5). Some have argued that the name Χριστιανός could not have arisen from within Jewish circles because no Jewish group would refer to an opposing sect as ‘followers of the messiah’, in that it would undermine their own position (see Johnstone 364; Davids 169–70 n. 15; Elliott 790; Witherington 215; Donelson 137). 169   Within the earlier discussion of this topic there were some who maintained that the title originated with the Christians themselves (e.g., Bickerman, ‘Name of Christians’, 109–24; Moreau, ‘Le nom des Chrétiens’, 190–92; Spicq, ‘Ce que signifie le titre’, 68–78; Lifshitz, ‘L’origine du nom’, 65–70). However, the earliest Jesus followers referred to themselves as the ‘brothers’ (Acts 14.2; 15.1, 3, 22), as ‘the saints’ (Matt 27.52; Acts 9.13, 32; Rom 1.7; 1 Cor 6.1), and as ‘those of the way’ (Acts 9.2; 19.9; 24.22). 170   Cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.157: ‘And the Roman emperors also, who from their birth are called by (χρηματίσαντες) other names, are called Caesars, receiving this title from their princely office and rank, and do not keep the names by which their fathers called them’ (trans. [slightly adapted] Thackeray [LCL]). See also Philo, Deus 121; Plutarch, Mulier. virt. 9 (Mor. 248D); P.Oxy. III 505; et al. 171   As suggested by Elliott 790. 172   This view has been suggested, e.g., by Paribeni, ‘ “Sul” origine’, 37–41; Peterson, ‘Christianus’, 355–72; Taylor, ‘Why Were the Disciples?’, 75–94. More recently, Townsend (‘Who Were the First Christians?’, 212–30) has proposed a variation of this theory, in which the name arose due to outsiders’ confusion over the (internal) language of early Jesus followers. According to Townsend, when uninitiated observers heard Jesus’ followers use the genitival formula οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ to describe themselves (cf. 1 Cor 15.23; Gal 5.24), they mistakenly relayed the name back to Roman authorities as Χριστιανοί. 168

456

1 PETER

Hist. 30.2.4; Josephus, War 2.488; Origen, Cels. 2.1). Similarly, Luke’s use of πρώτως (‘the disciples were first called Christians’) might also convey a legal or juristic sense, as in legal documents indicating that something is now being recorded that will henceforth have force.173 Finally, as Taylor points out, ‘in the non-Christian first-century sources, the names Christ and Christian are invariably associated with public disorders and crimes’.174 In the end, it is difficult to be certain about the term’s circle of origins, but a good case can be made for the view that Χριστιανός originated (as a Latinism) in the sphere of Roman administration, arising from the encounter between Christianity and the imperial regime. If this is the case, it holds out important implications for understanding the nature of suffering described in v. 16: ‘The phrase ὡς Χριστιανός, then, in this passage almost certainly signifies the literal ground of accusation; it is not simply that the persecuted, though tried on a variety of charges, felt within themselves… that they were suffering “as Christians” ’.175 In other words, the origins of the label Χριστιανός suggest a hostile, external, Roman context that included judicial accusation (cf. Acts 26.28) in which (as we shall see further below) the name itself was the ‘crime’ for which Christ-followers were judged.176 Another indication that (πάσχειν) ὡς Χριστιανός should be read in light of the effective illegality of Christianity is the contrast drawn with the list of vices mentioned in v. 15. As with the refer�ence to suffering as a ‘murderer’ or a ‘thief’ (v. 15), the use of ὡς   See Peterson, ‘Christianus’, 68; cf. Botermann, Judenedikt, 157–58.   Taylor, ‘Why Were the Disciples?’, 84. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.64: ‘when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians (τῶν Χριστιανῶν), so named from him, are not extinct at this day’ (trans. Whiston). Although most scholars dispute the authenticity of the entirety of the Testimonium Flavianum, some nucleus—including at least his crucifixion and the existence of his followers—is likely original (see Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 225–36). 175   Beare 193; cf. Johnstone 364. 176   In dealing with the legal significance of Χριστιανός, Caulley (‘The Title Christianos’, 193–206) does not allow for the proper import and weight of this designation within the first century CE. He instead assigns the escalation of tensions surrounding the title Χριστιανός to the second century CE. 173 174



4.12–19

457

before Χριστιανός signifies that ‘Christian’ marks a known and identifiable group associated with deviance and criminality. This language finds many parallels in later Christian writings, where believers were charged merely for professing the Christian faith.177 For instance, Justin Martyr (1 Apol. 7.4) requests of the emperor that ‘the deeds of all those who are accused to you be judged, in order that each one who is convicted may be punished as an evildoer (ὡς ἄδικος), and not as a Christian (ὡς Χριστιανός)’ (trans. Roberts–Donaldson).178 It is therefore clear that ὡς Χριστιανός represents the charge against them (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.33; 6.41.21–22; Passion of Theodore of Perge in Pamphylia 2.12). But should these later Christian martyrdom accounts inform our understanding of 1 Pet 4.16? Again, the discussion turns back to v. 15. One key is the author’s juxtaposition of (πάσχειν) ὡς Χριστιανός with suffering the consequences of legally punishable offences. Such a connection would imply that the profession of Christianity made one liable to the same kinds of punishments 177   According to Jobes, when 1 Peter was composed, ‘[t]he mere fact of being a Christian was apparently not yet widely perceived as evil, much less illegal…. Christianity was still new enough that it was effectively on trial by Greco-Roman society to see if and how it would match the cultural and social values of the polytheistic, pluralistic first-century Roman world’ (226–27). Not only does this discount the author’s social creativity in reappropriating a stigmatised label (see below), it also does not consider how this term (Χριστιανός; ‘the Name’) was employed elsewhere. 178   Cf. Justin Martyr, 2 Apol. 2:10–16: ‘He [i.e., the husband of a Christian wife] persuaded a centurion—who had cast Ptolemæus into prison, and who was friendly to himself—to take Ptolemæus and interrogate him on this sole point: whether he were a Christian (εἰ Χριστιανός ἐστι)? And Ptolemæus, being a lover of truth, and not of a deceitful or false disposition, when he confessed himself to be a Christian (ὁμολογήσαντα ἑαυτὸν εἶναι Χριστιανόν), was bound by the centurion, and for a long time punished in the prison. And, at last, when the man came to Urbicus, he was asked this one question only: whether he was a Christian (εἰ εἴη Χριστιανός)? And again, being conscious of his duty, and the nobility of it through the teaching of Christ, he confessed his discipleship in the divine virtue… And when Urbicus ordered him to be led away to punishment, one Lucius, who was also himself a Christian, seeing the unreasonable judgment that had thus been given, said to Urbicus: “What is the ground of this judgment? Why have you punished this man, not as an adulterer (μοιχόν), nor fornicator (πόρνον), nor murderer (ἀνδροφόνον), nor thief (λωποδύτην), nor robber (ἅρπαγα), nor convicted of any crime at all (ἁπλῶς ἀδίκημά τι πράξαντα ἐλεγχόμενον), but who has only confessed that he is called by the name of Christian (ὀνόματος δὲ Χριστιανοῦ προσωνυμίαν ὁμολογοῦντα)?” ’ (trans. Dods and Reith).

458

1 PETER

as these criminal indictments.179 Many, however, have attempted to circumvent the implications of this connection. Some point to the less serious nature of being an ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος: if this were merely a practice leading to some social criticism or harassment, then we need not view identification as Χριστιανός as a legally culpable act either.180 Yet, as we have demonstrated above (see Exegesis at 4.15), being accused as an ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος could have led to court cases and significant penalties. One must consequently remain balanced in the conclusion that is reached. To claim that (πάσχειν) ὡς Χριστιανός ‘must refer to legal penalties as much as in the case of the thief or murderer’, because ‘[t]he parallelism of the Greek absolutely demands it’,181 is to place too much emphasis on the comparison. At the same time, when combined with the focus on the name Χριστιανός, a strong case begins to mount. It becomes clear that the Name itself is the basis for punishment. A final area that adds further confirmation to this analysis concerns the significant parallels between the depiction in 1 Pet 4.15–16 and that in Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan (Ep. 10.96).182 Many recent commentators deny any close similarities. Elliott, for example, insists that ‘the situation described by Pliny bears no substantive resemblance to the situation portrayed in 1 Peter… the Pliny–Trajan exchange has no bearing on the import of the label “Christian” in 1 Peter’.183 Clearly the depictions are different, one being an insider’s perspective, the other an outsider’s; nevertheless, the parallels are significant.184   Cf. Lenski 209: ‘When Peter now says: “but if (anyone suffers) as a Chris�tian,” he certainly means, “suffers for his Christianity as for a crime, suffers at the hands of the government” by being denounced to the authorities (2:12) as a κακοποίος, “a bad actor” (criminal)’. 180   As Best notes, ‘Since not all the categories of verse 15 are criminal we are not compelled to assume that the suffering referred to here is punishment enforced by a court of law or that it involves the death penalty’ (165; cf. Blenkin 106; Elliott 788). 181   Wand 119 (emphasis added). 182   For more on Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan, see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 183–97; Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 199–210. 183   Elliott 792. Cf. also Heemstra, Fiscus Judaicus, 96. 184   For more detailed analysis, see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 183–91; Cook, Roman Attitudes, 138–240; Engberg, Impulsore Chresto, 173–206; Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 199–210. 179



4.12–19

459

First, Pliny’s letter reports that Christians are coming to the governor’s attention due to accusations (some named on anonymous pamphlets) brought by members of the public—indicating that ‘informal’ (verbal) hostility and judicial procedure go hand-inhand (as 1 Peter’s depictions also suggest) through the accusatorial process. Second, Pliny investigates the possibility that Christians may be guilty of various crimes (cf. v. 15), but finds none to be evident; he then proceeds to punish and execute purely on the basis of confession of Christianity. Indeed, the ‘name’ Christian is specifically the focus, as it is here in v. 16. Pliny asks the accused if they are Christiani (Ep. 10.96.3) and proceeds on the basis of the nomen ipsum, requiring any who deny this identification to prove their innocence by invoking the (Roman) gods and making an offering to the emperor’s statue (actions that 1 Pet 2.17 and 4.3 would rule out). Some of the reasons given to distinguish the two situations also prove insubstantial: the possible difference in date (Pliny’s letter dating from ca. 111–112 CE) is relatively unimportant, since it is plausible that the kind of scenario Pliny describes could have taken place in earlier decades—despite Pliny’s report that this is his first experience of Christian trials, he mentions some Christians who report abandoning their faith some twenty years previously (see Ep. 10.96.1, 6).185 There are good reasons, then, to see the two sources as depicting broadly similar settings, in which the accusation of being Χριστιανός/Christianus forms a central concern. While Pliny is concerned to ascertain whether someone is, or is not, a Christian, and to punish or release them accordingly, the author of 1 Peter is concerned to instruct Christians regarding how they should respond in such a situation. The verb αἰσχύνω can describe a situation in which one has their social status devalued within a given group or community, ‘dishonoured’ (Homer, Il. 18.180; T.Zeb.

185   Elliott suggests a key difference in 1 Peter’s description of the suffering as ‘shame’ (v. 16): ‘If being a Christian were itself a crime, then its consequence would be legal punishment, not shame (v 16a)’ (794; cf. Bigg 180; Davids 170). Yet, as Holloway remarks, ‘public shaming was… an important and well-developed part of the Roman penal system. Criminals were regularly mocked and humiliated in their deaths, and in many cases were likened to animals’ (Coping with Prejudice, 225). The punishments inflicted on Christians under Nero included being dressed in animal skins, one aspect of their shaming (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44).

460

1 PETER

3.7; Acts Thom. 28.3),186 or it can reflect the emotional feeling of one who experiences such a diminishing of their sense of honour, ‘to be ashamed’ (Isocrates, Antid. 101; Herodotus, Hist. 1.10.2; T.Jud. 14.5; 2 Cor 10.8; Josephus, Ant. 1.9). Since the imperative form is employed, suggesting that the audience has some choice in fulfilling this command, the latter seems to be in view here. The apodosis of this conditional sentence thus completes the author’s thought with an exhortation: if the readers should have to suffer ὡς Χριστιανόι, they must not to be ashamed.187 It seems then that the immediate threat from which the Petrine author is seeking to guard his audience is a particularly negative emotional reaction: shame.188 Some interpreters point to the use of the verb αἰσχύνεσθαι (‘to be ashamed’) as proof that Christianity was not a punishable offence at the time of the letter’s composition.189 On the basis of what they consider to be a somewhat mild reaction to the present danger, they contend, ‘if the immediate prospect is execution,   The role of social valuation in shaming or being shamed is evident in a first-century BCE marriage contract from Egypt. As it specifies the duties of the husband (Philiskos) and wife (Apollonia), it states, ‘it shall not be lawful for Apollonia to spend the night or day away from the house of Philiscus without Philiscus’ consent or to have intercourse with another man or to ruin the common household or to bring shame (αἰσχύνεσ̣θ[̣ αι]) upon Philiscus in anything that causes a husband shame (αἰσχύνειν = αἰσχύνην)’ (P.Tebt. I 104; trans. Grenfell and Hunt; cf. P.Eleph. 1). In this case, shame arises from any act that diminishes or compromises the honourable status of Philiskos within society. 187   According to Hockey (‘Christian Self-Perception’, 34), ‘the “misdeed” the author is encouraging his hearers not to be ashamed of is their association with Christ’; that is, ‘it is their allegiance to Christ, rather than their suffering, that is potentially shameful’. From our perspective, the opposite seems to be the case: at issue is suffering for one’s allegiance. This is evident in the fact that the protasis, which derives its verbal form from the verb in v. 15 (εἰ τις ὑμῶν πάσχει, see above), poses the question of suffering (‘if you suffer as a Christian’) and not simply allegiance (‘if you are a Christian’). What is more, the shame experienced in the previous sentence (v. 15) arises not simply from performing the misdeeds in question, but from experiencing the social correction meant to change the behaviour (i.e., it is not being a busybody that causes shame but having that publicly acknowledged and then receiving the penalty for it). 188   As defined by some ancient moralists, shame involves φόβος ἀδοξίας, ‘the fear of dishonour’ (Andronicus, [Pass.] 3). Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 2.6.2: λύπη τις ἢ ταραχὴ περὶ τὰ εἰς ἀδοξίανφαινόμενα φέρειν τῶν κακῶν, ἢ παρόντων ἢ γεγονότων ἢ μελλόντων (‘a kind of pain or uneasiness in respect of misdeeds, past, present, or future, which seem to tend to bring dishonor’; trans. Freese). 189   See, e.g., Bigg 180; Kelly 192; Achtemeier 314; Elliott 795; Donelson 137. 186



4.12–19

461

shame hardly seems the appropriate emotion’.190 However, this fails to appreciate both the cultural importance of shame (the counterpart of honour, cf. 1.7) and also, as noted above, the place of shaming in the process of legal punishment.191 In terms of the more immediate threat, shame negatively impacts a person’s self-perception, particularly within a culture where honour and shame are key values. In such an environment, social evaluations dictate how persons value themselves.192 Shame is thus much more than a subjective feeling of embarrassment or deep regret; it is a powerful social force that dictates how people act. As such, this immediate threat is closely connected to the ultimate threat: apostasy.193 The Petrine author anticipates that the pressure arising out of the negative response that Christian experience within society might cause them to rethink their allegiance to Christ.194 This stereotypical language, therefore, is concerned both to reinforce a sense of positive identity and value in owning the label ‘Christian’ and also (thereby) to counter any risk of apostasy (cf. Mark 8.38//Luke 9.26; Rom 1.16; 2 Tim 1.8, 12, 16; 2.15).195   Best 165.   Furthermore, not all Christians who were charged as such necessarily received the death penalty. In some cases, governors refused to render condemnation (cf. Tertullian, Scap. 4.3; 5.1; Lucian, Peregr. 14), and in instances where Christians were condemned, the governor was free to choose from a variety of different punishments (see Tertullian, Apol. 12.3–5). Moreover, even though the readers’ emotional response is not the author’s primary focus, there is still an aspect of public humiliation that was part and parcel to Roman jurisprudence (see Greenidge, Infamia). 192   For a helpful discussion of the way that shame relates to (and can negatively impact) personal identity, see Hockey, ‘Christian Self-Perception’, 27–40; cf. also deSilva, ‘Turning Shame into Honor’, 160–64. 193   Others have similarly recognised that apostasy is at issue here (see, e.g., Moffatt 158; Schrage 115; Brox 221–22; Prigent 132; Schreiner 260). For a fuller discussion, see Dubis, Messianic Woes, 135–39. 194   Against the suggestion of Green, who claims that ‘the present imperative with μὴ [mē] implies that what is already occurring should be stopped’ (Vox Petri, 314), the syntax of this verse provides no indication that the readers had been shamed or ashamed to this point. This represents an earlier view of Greek prohibitions that has since been disproven (see McKay, ‘Imperatival Constructions’, 201–26; Wallace, Grammar, 714–17). 195   As noted by Hockey, the strategy with which the Petrine author addresses shame and suffering is nothing less than a challenge to the underlying norms and values that have informed the readers’ prior worldview. She notes that, ‘by 190 191

462

1 PETER

What is noteworthy is that apostasy is precisely what Pliny hopes to bring about by the promise of release for any who deny—there and then—that they are Christians; this practice seems a key point for which he hopes for Trajan’s approval (duly received, see Ep. 10.97) in his letter.196 Here, a denial of the label ‘Christian’ in view of such threats (cf. 5.8–9)—a ‘name’ that brings shame in the eyes of accusers, but is a positive identification from the author’s perspective—would therefore be perfectly consistent with the escalated setting of conflict proposed above. δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ. τούτῳ. Rather than abandoning the faith because they have been subject to persecution simply for being Christians, the author completes the positive contrast of the μή… δέ construction with the exhortation, ‘let him/her glorify God…’. What is interesting is the verbal mood that is employed: the imperative rather than the indicative. In other words, ‘His emphasis is not on what will objectively be the case (i.e., that Christians will be vindicated) but on what his readers’ attitude should be subjectively when faced with verbal abuse and physical danger’.197 The author has previously referred to the glory due to God on the day of judgment (2.12) and the glory that God receives through the faithful service of Christians who employ their spiritual gifts (4.11). What is involved in God’s glorification here is bound up in the prepositional modifier. According to the author, this glorification is to take place ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ. Following the ECM, the text in NA28 reads μέρει (KJV: ‘on this behalf’; Luther: ‘in solchem Fall’) instead of ὀνόματι at this point; however, the latter represents a superior reading (see Text at 4.16 n. g). The ‘name’ in question is not Χριστός, as argued denying shame the author is refusing to allow this cultural framework to provide the standard for the believers’ behaviour and identity. The result is that the negative opinion of the hostile other is devalued and the supporting norms are torn down’ (‘Christian Self-Perception’, 36). Rather than allowing the negative response of outsiders to shape their actions, the readers are eventually encouraged to continue doing good—as defined according to the standards of God (see Excursus: ‘Doing Good’ and the Strategy of 1 Peter)—while trusting that future rewards will outstrip any current disadvantages (v. 19). 196   See further Horrell, Becoming Christian, 195; Barnes, ‘Legislation against the Christians’, 36 with n. 49. 197   Michaels 269.



4.12–19

463

by some, but Χριστιανός, although the two are obviously related etymologically.198 This is evident from the fact that Χριστιανός is the nearer antecedent, which is significant given the use of τούτῳ (‘this [name]’). Using this textual basis, interpreters have reached widely divergent conclusions with regard to the function of the preposition ἐν in 4.16. Four possibilities remain viable options. The prepositional phrase is occasionally understood idiomatically, ‘in this capacity’, or ‘on this account’.199 This usage is virtually equivalent to the reading ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ found in later manuscripts, perhaps suggesting that some Christian scribes understood the construction in this way. The problem is that the earlier mention of the name Χριστιανός indicates that ὄνομα is not merely an idiomatic expression, but that it functions literally, as a reference to a specific name. Alternatively, one could take the preposition instrumentally, ‘by this name’ (cf. CJB, Goodspeed).200 In light of the fact that 198   Those who claim that the ‘name’ refers to Χριστός include: Masterman 156; Bénétreau 254; Schweizer 88; Vinson 216; Osborne 250; Dus 240–41. Those who claim that the ‘name’ refers to Χριστιανός include: Caffin 175; Kelly 190; Beare 193; Goppelt 328; Senior 131; Dubis 153. Departing from both of these possibil� ities, Hillyer notes that ‘name’ often functions as a reference to the presence of God in the Jewish scriptures (cf. Deut 12.11; Ps 74.7; Isa 18.7; Jer 7.10–14). He proposes that the expression ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ ‘may therefore be intended to convey the meaning “the divine presence is evident in your lives, and you can rejoice in relying on the presence of God being with you through whatever suffering you may face on account of your faith” ’ (132). 199   Proponents of this view include: Kelly 190–91; Donelson 133 n. k; cf. Osborne, ‘Christian Suffering’, 220–21. Support for this interpretation is found in the use of ἐν (τῷ) ὀνόματι (Mark 9.41) or simply ὄνομα (P.Oxy. I 37) as equivalent to ‘on the ground’ or ‘on the basis’ (see BDF §397[3]; Moule, Idiom Book, 79). A similar periphrastic use is found in ancient accounting language, where ἐν (τῷ) ὀνόματι τινος represents a given person’s account (P.Oslo III 107; P.Tebt. II 327; SB XVI 12241; Stud.Pal 20; P.Oxy. XLV 3242; Chrest.Mitt 229; see further LSJ 1232). Among classical writers, this idiom also appears, with (ἐν τῷ) ὀνόματι meaning, ‘under the heading’ (see Herodotus, Cyr. 6.4.7; Thucydides 4.60.1), like the Latin phrase in hoc nomine, sometimes used in ledgers, etc. (Bigg 180). 200   Advocates of this view include: Davids 170 n. 17; Knoch 123; Brox 222; Goppelt 328 n. 47; Elliott 796–97. In support of this reading, Elliott (796) has pointed out that the verb δοξάζω is modified by an instrumental ἐν elsewhere (cf. John 13.31, 32; 17.10; Rom 15.6; 1 Cor 6.20), and he notes that the preposition commonly performs this same function throughout 1 Peter. Neither of these points is necessarily determinative for the preposition’s function in v. 16, however.

464

1 PETER

outsiders have assigned the followers of Jesus with a contemptuous label (Χριστιανός) meant to shame them, the readers are nonetheless encouraged to ‘turn even this instrument of reproach into a means of glorification’.201 This reading is consistent with the fact that the Petrine author encourages his readers to embrace the title Χριστιανός (see below). But since there is no further delineation of how this label might be employed as a means of glorifying God, it ultimately results in an abstract exhortation leaving the audience without a specific course of action. It is also possible to interpret the preposition as denoting sphere, ‘in this name’ (cf. ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV).202 In this case, the context in which believers should seek to bring glory to God is in their Christian faith.203 It is difficult, however, to see how the name Χριστιανός represents any type of environment or sphere in this sense. To claim that it denotes the entirety of one’s Christian faith requires reading a considerable amount into the construction. The final option, which seems to work best in this context, is to read the construction causally, ‘because of this name’ (cf. NRSV, NET, TEV, NAB, NCV).204 Taken in this way, the fact that the readers have been given the derogatory label Χριστιανός is understood as a basis for glorifying God. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the phrase ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ in v. 14 is also understood   Elliott 797.   Proponents of this view include: Selwyn 225; Spicq 158–59; Schelkle 122; Marshall 155; Achtemeier 314–15; Dubis 153; Forbes 160. The only real defence of this reading is provided by Forbes (160), who focuses on the implications with reference to the meaning of δοξαζέτω. He maintains that if the preposition is understood as either instrumental or causal, then the exhortation to glorify God would be carried out through praise or through an attitude of thankfulness. This type of response, he maintains, stands opposed to an alternative that arises from interpreting the preposition as denoting sphere, wherein glorifying God might involve more concrete actions, such as a non-retaliatory response toward suffering (2.23; 3.9), a public acknowledgment of one’s faith (3.15), or the performance of good works (2.12). Forbes opts for the latter because he claims ‘this epistle has such a strong ethical focus that it is difficult to imagine the author thinking of glorifying God merely in subjective terms’ (160). Ultimately, however, it is unnecessary to separate the two, as though they were mutually exclusive (see below). 203   See Achtemeier 315. A slight alternative to this is suggested by Grudem, who claims that the phrase ‘seems to have the sense “acting in Christ’s name, as the one who represents Christ to others” ’ (180). 204   Advocates of this view include: Huther 223; Johnstone 365; Jobes 285, 290; Schreiner 261; cf. Thurén, Argument and Theology, 72. 201 202



4.12–19

465

causally. Given the similar structure (suffering/being reviled + ἐν ὀνόματι) and parallel nature of the constructions, it would appear that both are meant to be read in the same manner.205 A causal usage also accords best with the author’s argument in vv. 12–19.206 The admonition to ‘glorify God’ relates back to the implied warning against apostasy (μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω),207 and thus should be read in contrast to it. It also stands in line with previous references to ‘glorifying God’ (2.12; 4.11), which clearly involve the ascription of praise and adoration. As such, these instructions consist of extolling God for the privilege of bearing the name ‘Christian’, not just through one’s inner feelings, but through a firm commitment to the faith and its concomitant lifestyle. What this construction reveals is that the use of the term Χρισ­ τιανός performs a significant function within the social strategy of 1 Peter.208 Social psychologists have noted that ostracised groups commonly reappropriate stigmatised labels as an act of social 205   Note the potential echo of this verse in Pol. Phil. 8.2: ἐὰν πάσχομεν διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, δοξάζωμεν αὐτόν (‘if we suffer because of his name, let us glorify him’). If Polycarp is alluding to 1 Pet 4.16, then it is instructive that he uses διά + accusative to denote the cause of suffering, which would reveal how he understood the function of ἐν. 206   In this section, the author’s aim is to help his audience re-evaluate their suffering in an effort to redirect their emotions and ultimately to persuade them to undertake the ethic to which he calls them (viz. good works), despite the negative consequences. The entire argument drives towards v. 19 (ὥστε καί), where they are encouraged to entrust themselves to God ‘by doing good’ (ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ). Such a request would understandably be difficult to accept given that the good works they are called to undertake were the very things that often caused or further exacerbated the conflict (cf. 2.20; 3.14, 16). For this reason, the author spends seven verses reshaping their perspective on their affliction: the persecution they face is neither unexpected (v. 12) nor shameful (v. 16) but should be embraced with joy (v. 13) due to its positive effects (vv. 12–13, 17) and the blessing that it brings (v. 14). Thus, the name from which this persecution stems (i.e., Χριστιανός) should be a reason for glorifying God. 207   Grudem, arguing against a causal interpretation of ἐν, maintains that ‘the disciplining process of God’s judgment (v. 17, which begins with “for”) is a good reason to live generally in a way that glorifies God, but not nearly as clear a reason to praise God that one bears the name “Christian” ’ (181). The warning of judgment, however, is not simply about how a person is living; at issue is whether believers remain in the faith. 208   For more on how the author uses the stigmatised label Χριστιανός to shape the readers’ social identity, see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 197–210; Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 235–37.

466

1 PETER

creativity.209 In this case, Χριστιανός is more than a label of social deviance. As we have demonstrated, the name served as the crucial indication of one’s legal guilt, and its embrace could potentially bring with it a significant penalty. The name, the nomen ipsum, thus becomes the crux at which the contrasting verdicts of shame and punishment vs. honour and glorification of God are opposed. Our author’s exhortation at this point thus marks a significant moment in the history of the development of Christian identity, specifically in an often hostile environment (see further Summary below). 17 ὅτι ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ. θεοῦ. The use of the particle ὅτι clearly indicates that what follows seeks to provide motivation for the preceding exhortations. While some take it as modifying v. 16 and others connect it with the entire preceding section (vv. 12–16), it is probably best to understand the causal conjunction as providing a justification for vv. 15–16.210 This is due to the ‘tight conjunction of these two preceding verses via their chiastic negative–positive construction’.211 Without a copula, it is possible to supply ἐστιν (or perhaps, πάρεστιν)212 and understand καιρός as the predicate nominative, ‘it is the time’ (cf. NIV, ESV, NAB, NASB, NET), or one could insert ἥκει (or perhaps, ἤγγικεν) and treat καιρός as the subject, ‘the time has come’ (cf. NRSV, NKJV, HCSB, GNT, NLT).213 Since τοῦ ἄρξασθαι functions 209   There are many historical and contemporary examples of labels that began as derogatory slurs being revalued and reclaimed by group members, in a kind of polemical assertion of positive group-identity (see Galinsky, et al., ‘Reappropriation of Stigmatizing Labels’, 221–56; cf. Tajfel and Turner, ‘Social Identity Theory’, 20). On 1 Peter’s response to stigmatisation more generally, see Gabriel, ‘Ausstieg aus der Majoritätsgesellschaft’, esp. 55–62. 210   Those who attach ὅτι with v. 16 include: Kelly 192; Hiebert 291; Achtemeier 315. Those who connect it with the entire preceding section (vv. 12–16) include: Mason 430; Grudem 181; Marshall 156; Goppelt 329; Elliott 797. Those who read the conjunction with vv. 15–16 include: Burger 254; Michaels 270; Schreiner 261. 211   Dubis 153. 212   This reading was proposed by some earlier commentators (e.g., Pott 141; Hensler 205; de Wette 55), although it was rejected by others (see, e.g., Wiesinger 301; Keil 160; Johnstone 366). 213   Commentators are divided over these interpretative possibilities, with some defending the former (e.g., Selwyn 226; Michaels 270; Goppelt 329; Witherington 216; cf. Robertson, Grammar, 395) and others advocating the latter (e.g.,



4.12–19

467

epexegetically in this instance,214 the former might provide a better sense. This ‘time’ (καιρός) cannot straightforwardly be identified with the ‘last time’ (καιρὸς ἔσχατος) of salvation mentioned in 1.5 or the time of the readers’ exaltation (5.6): these refer to the ultimate future vindication of God’s people, whereas what is evidently in view here is a time of judgment and suffering that marks the beginning of the end. Nonetheless, this καιρός is also to be seen as the eschatological end-time, but the events described are those that take place at its beginning (τοῦ ἄρξασθαι…) rather than at its culmination. Elsewhere in 1 Peter, God is portrayed as the judge before whom all people will soon give an account (1.17; 2.23; 4.5). In this instance, we learn that while the judgment of unbelievers still awaits, God’s κρίμα has already begun in the church.215 With the suffix –μα (which normally denotes the result of a verbal action, hence ‘judgment’),216 the term κρίμα might appear to suggest that the readers’ suffering is being equated with punishment related to God’s condemnatory verdict, a sense which the word often conveys (cf. 2 Pet 2.3; 1 Clem. 51.3).217 Yet, in Koine Greek, nouns ending in

Senior 131; Schlosser 264). Another alternative is offered by Green, who suggests reading ὁ καιρός as the subject of an implied ἐστιν, with the prepositional phrase functioning as its object: ‘Because the proper commencement of the judgment is from the house of God’ (Grammar, 39; cf. also Bloomfield 725). 214   See Forbes 161. The construction τοῦ + infinitive originally began ‘as a pure adnominal genitive’ (MHT 1:216; cf. 1 Cor 16.4) and it ‘most frequently occurs with words of time, fitness, power, authority, need, etc.’ (Robertson, Grammar, 1076; cf. Votaw, Infinitive, 15–16). This use of the infinitive to further clarify or explain a substantive is very ancient (Monro, Grammar, 154; Goodwin, Syntax, 305–306) and marks ‘a higher stratum of Koine [Greek]’ (BDF §400). 215   Arichea–Nida are incorrect to locate τὸ κρίμα in the imminent future, translating the phrase ‘God will soon begin to judge people’ (152). 216   See MHT 2:355. 217   According to Lenski, τὸ κρίμα refers to the verdict, not the act of judging (210; cf. Wordsworth 65; Demarest 253). But to circumvent the problem of God’s condemnatory verdict falling on faithful believers, he suggests that ‘Peter is speaking about the verdict on the enemies of God’s house’ (211). In this way, the opponents of Christianity are seen to be calling down the divine verdict upon themselves because of their hostility (cf. Hofmann 180–81). The problem is that the syntax (ἄρχω + ἀπό) suggests that ‘the house of God’ is included in the group upon which τὸ κρίμα falls.

468

1 PETER

–μα and –σις are often confused.218 At times, therefore, κρίμα can function similarly to κρίσις, describing the act or process of judging (cf. Acts 24.25; Heb 6.2; Rev 20.4).219 This appears to be the case here, for the author gives every indication that the readers’ suffering is undeserved (even if it happens in accordance with God’s will).220 Consequently, it is not that God’s judgment has been rendered and that the affliction the readers are experiencing is divine retributive punishment; instead, the persecution facing the readers is part of God’s process of judicial evaluation, which has already begun with the ‘chosen ones’ and it will continue as God eventually moves to the unbelieving world. With the construction ἄρχω + ἀπό (cf. Matt 20.8; Luke 14.18; 24.27; John 8.9; Acts 8.35), the author marks the starting point of this evaluative process (τὸ κρίμα): it begins at ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ. This indicates, as Achtemeier puts it, that ‘the present suffering of the Christians is not so much a harbinger or proleptic participation as it is part of [the judgment]’.221 The phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ is often taken as an allusion to Ezek 9.1–6.222 In this passage, God’s judgment falls on the people of Israel. The executioners are told to cut down anyone without the saving mark on his/her forehead, and most importantly, they are ordered to begin at God’s sanctuary (Ezek 9.6: ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων μου ἄρξασθε… ἔσω ἐν τῷ

  As pointed out by Alford 379 and Johnstone 370.   BDAG 567. 220   Some go to great lengths to explain how κρίμα can mean ‘judgment’ in this passage. Lillie, for instance, offers the following explanation: ‘In general it may be said that all suffering is occasioned by sin, and that what good men even unjustly suffer at the hands of the wicked is, viewed under another aspect, but a righteous chastisement of their own sinful imperfections’ (295). However, a considerable amount of interpretative gymnastics is required to reach such a conclusion. 221   Achtemeier 315. 222   See esp. Schutter, ‘1 Peter 4:17, Ezekiel 9:6’, 276–84; cf. also Moffatt 159; Spicq 160; Kelly 193; Grudem 182; Marshall 156; Knoch 128; Richard 196. This common view was challenged years ago by Selwyn (St. Luke, the Prophet, 141–46), who proposed that ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου harkens back to 1 En. 91.13, which refers to a house being built for the Great King. According to Selwyn, the Petrine author understood believers to be this spiritual house that God would soon complete. Such a connection seems unlikely, however. The present verse shows no concern for the building process, and in 1 Enoch the righteous are the ones who are given judgment over the wicked (cf. Blenkin 109–10 n. 1). 218 219



4.12–19

469

οἴκῳ, LXX; ‫הבית לפני … וממקדשי תחלו‬, MT).223 The connection between the two passages is not altogether strong.224 If the author is alluding to Ezekiel, the echo is faint, and the notion of judgment is very different. A conceptual parallel that is commonly suggested is Mal 3.1–5,225 where God’s eschatological judgment is portrayed as a refining fire. But, again, the conceptual parallels might just as easily be explained as the result of shared tradition, not necessarily from direct dependence on Malachi. So while the idea that judgment begins with the people of God derives from the Jewish prophets (Isa 10.11–12; Jer 25.28–31; Ezek 9.5–6; Mal 3.1–6; cf. 2 Bar. 13.8–10; T.Benj. 10.7–10), it is unlikely that the Petrine author is alluding to any particular prophetic passage; instead, he is simply drawing from this wider tradition and adapting it for his own purposes.226 Whether or not this sentence represents an echo of a specific passage from the Jewish scriptures, it still leaves open the question of whether the phrase ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ finds its source referent in the Jewish temple/sanctuary or in the communal image of the household (more generally, both οἶκος and ‫ בית‬can be used of either a building or a human group, as in members of a ‘household’). While most scholars prefer the former, some have insisted on reading οἶκος in a domestic sense and assigning it a familial meaning, ‘household of God’ (cf. NRSV, NIV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NASB, NLT).227 In the NT, the phrase is used to refer both   It is interesting to note that at Ezek 9.6 the versions of Aquila and Theodotian read ἀπὸ τοῦ ναοῦ μου instead of ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων μου. 224   See Elliott 798–800, who lists a number of discontinuities between the two passages (cf. also Senior 132). A further objection, raised by Jobes (292), is the lack of correspondence between the context of the original citation and the situation of the readers. She notes that ‘when Peter quotes OT passages elsewhere in the letter and applies them to his readers, he consistently preserves the original context (e.g., Ps. 33 LXX; Isa. 53)’. Such would not be the case in this instance, however: in Ezekiel God’s judgment was due to the sins of the people, whereas in 1 Peter the suffering was the result of faithfulness to God (cf. Witherington 216 n. 506). 225   See esp. Johnson, ‘Fire in God’s House’, 291–93; cf. Selwyn 226; Spicq 160; Grudem 182; Marshall 156; Schreiner 262. 226   Cf. Beare 194. 227   For a defence of this view, see Elliott 798–800; cf. Bigg 181; Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 144. 223

470

1 PETER

to the temple/sanctuary (e.g., Mark 2.26//Matt 12.4//Luke 6.4; cf. Barn. 16.1) and to the community of God as ‘household’ (1 Tim 3.15; Heb 10.21[?]; cf. Herm. Sim. 9.13.9; 9.14). It is not altogether clear therefore which sense is most likely here. Τhe consistent referent in LXX uses of the phrase ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ/κυρίου is the temple/sanctuary,228 such that one could make the case that the temple provides the most likely image. However, it is also evident, as noted above, that in the NT the phrase can also be used to refer to the community, and, moreover, that this community can be depicted as a building or temple, as indeed it is in 1 Pet 2.4–5 (cf. also 1 Cor 3.16).229 As we have seen in 2.4–5, the image in 1 Peter is more likely that of a temple than that of the house(hold) as such—it is, after all, a place where a priesthood offers sacrifices (2.5)—but this temple is indeed the collective body of community members. When God begins this judicial evaluation, therefore, the process begins from the ‘temple’ in which God’s presence dwells,230 namely, the Christian community—as is also evident from the following description, ἀφ᾿ ἡμῶν. The Petrine author does not focus on signs that indicate the nearness of the end; instead, suffering is taken to indicate that the end-time has arrived.231 This idea has probably been drawn from the common tradition of Judaism and earlier Christian materials. In the Hebrew Bible, God’s judgment of the people of God (apart from God’s judgment of the nations) is often traced back to the violation of covenant faithfulness (e.g., Ezek 9.6; Jer 32.29; Isa 10.11–12; Mal 3.1–6). Over time, affliction experienced by God’s people came to be understood as possessing a purifying effect that cleansed the people of sin (2 Macc 6.12–15). In the context of eschatological judgment, divine disciplining (or training) was actually thought to protect the elect against the impending destruction of God’s 228   Among many examples, see, e.g., Judg 18.13; 2 Sam 12.20; 2 Chr 3.3; 23.3; Ps 42.4; Ezra 1.4; Neh 6.10. 229   On the parallels, notably in the DSS, to this idea, see Exegesis on 2.4–5. 230   Contrary to the assumption of some interpreters, this passage gives no indication either that the Jerusalem temple was still standing (so Wiesinger 301; Alford 379) or that it was in serious danger of being destroyed (so Benson 287; Bloomfield 725; Michaels 271). 231   Cf. Rom 8.18, 22; 1 Cor 7.26; Phil 1.29–30; 1 Thess 3.3–4; 5.3; 2 Thess 1.4–10; 2 Tim 3.1, 12; Heb 13.13; Rev 2.10; 3.10; 12.1–8.



4.12–19

471

enemies (2 Bar. 13.9–11; 1 Cor 11.31–32). There is no indication that sin is the cause of God’s judgment in the present verse. In fact, as indicated in the previous section (1 Pet 4.1–6), their suffering had arisen precisely because they refused to participate in evil. This provides the Petrine author with the opportunity to take the tradition in a slightly new direction: the readers’ present suffering is (somehow) both the test itself and (if the earlier imagery of being refined is to inform our reading of this verse) the refinement for some future evaluation.232 εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἀφ᾿ ἡμῶν, ἡμῶν, τί τὸ τέλος τῶν ἀπειθούντων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ. εὐαγγελίῳ. Beginning with the present sentence and continuing through v. 18, the author provides a parenthetic elaboration meant to drive home the point of the previous clause.233 The primary train of exhortation is resumed in v. 19. Using an a fortiori argument,234 the author emphasises the severity of the situation awaiting those outside the community of faith in hopes of motivating the readers to continued faithfulness within the group. His argument is that the experience of persecution may seem difficult, but it is nothing compared with the fate of unbelievers. Structurally, the apodosis of this first-class   Vouga takes a different approach to this passage. He suggests that ‘la théol�ogie du jugement ne réside ni dans le rappel d’une échéance finale menaçant les chrétiens de plus près que les incrédules, ni dans un propos consolateur mettant en balance les souffrance présentes avec le sort malheureux qui attend certainement ces derniers. Elle fait au contraire apparaître l’enjeu révélateur de la dissidence obéissante des croyants. Le sens est alors le suivant: il importe que les fidèles tiennent bon dans les épreuves qu’ils rencontrent, parce que la confrontation pacifique avec la société païenne est le lieu dans lequel Dieu engage une procédure de vérité avec le monde païen’ (‘Le Jugement’, 344). This interpretation, however, too strongly emphasises the author’s desire to convert antagonists (cf. 3.1–2) without fully reconciling the fact that the letter also acknowledges future recompense for those who stand against the community of faith (cf. 2.12, 15; 3.16). 233   See Best 165. 234   Cf. Plumptre 150. This line of reasoning is as follows: if x is true, then how much more obviously is y true (cf. Rom 5.9–11; 9.21; Heb 10.28–31). Examples of this form of argumentation are provided by Quintilian (Inst. 5.11.9). A similar kind of reasoning was known among the rabbis as qal wahomer, ‘light and heavy’ (see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud, 18). Others describe the argument as a conclusio a minori ad maius (Wiesinger 302; Keil 161; Johnstone 370). 232

472

1 PETER

condition echoes the previous clause,235 with the shift from ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ to ἀφ᾿ ἡμῶν marking the author’s inclusion of the recipients within the ‘house of God’. The thought climaxes with the apodosis (in which the verb ἔσται must be supplied), where the author enquires about the end or outcome (τέλος) of those outside the Christian community. Based on the fact that the ‘beginning’ (represented by πρῶτος and the elided ἄρχεται) mentioned in this verse refers to the onset of God’s evaluative process of judgment during which Christians face persecution, Mason argues that the term τέλος must refer not to the ominous end that awaits those who do not believe (in contrast to the reward of those who obey the gospel), but to the completion of God’s judgment process.236 But while the correlation between πρῶτος and τέλος may seem to point in this direction, the further elaboration of this question in v. 18 indicates that the outcome of judgment is primarily in view.237 Drawing on the text of scripture, he asks, ‘what will happen to the ungodly?’, a question that relates to the final outcome of non-believers, not the end of the process of judgment (although temporally these overlap). This use of τέλος to denote the end of a person’s existence, in the sense of their ‘fate’, is found elsewhere in Christian literature (cf. 2 Cor 11.15; Phil 3.19; Acts Thom. 12.1; 79.5). The rhetorical question that is posed (‘what will be the end for those who disobey the gospel of God?’) is consistent with the author’s habit of implying, but not detailing or specifying, the 235   It is necessary to supply τὸ κρίμα ἄρχεται to the protasis in order to fill out the idea (cf. Hensler 207; Jachmann 167; Burger 254), which raises the question of why πρῶτον has been included. One explanation is provided by de Wette (55), who suggests that the Petrine author has combined two expressions: εἰ δὲ ἀφ᾿ ἡμῶν τὸ κρίμα ἄρχεται (‘if the judgment begins with us’) and εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἡμεῖς κρινόμεθα (‘if we have been judged first’). An alternative, and more likely, solution is that πρῶτον functions pleonastically (‘it begins first’), intensifying the understood ἄρχεται (see Huther 224–25; Weiss 327). For an alternative (although much more convoluted) reconstruction, see Schott 295. 236   Mason 431; cf. also Schott 295. 237   See Johnstone 371, who notes that ‘through the intensity of his emotion at this point, Peter has in his rush of thought laid on τέλος a double burden,—his thought fully exhibited being something like this, “If the beginning of judgement, in God’s dealings with His own people be so severe as you are now experiencing, what will the end of it be, when those who are disobedient to the gospel shall meet their end?” ’.



4.12–19

473

punishment of non-believers (cf. 1 Pet 2.8, 12; 3.12, 16; 4.5).238 Elsewhere, those who are antagonistic toward or flatly reject the Christian message are said to ‘disobey the word’ (1 Pet 2.8; 3.1; cf. Rom 2.8). Here their fault is described as ‘disobeying the gospel of God’ (οἱ ἀπειθοῦντες τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ). This description refers to hostile neighbours and persecutors,239 and it stands in sharp contrast with other statements in the letter which reveal that the readers have displayed obedience to Jesus Christ and the truth (cf. 1.2, 14, 22). What has been disobediently rejected by these non-Christians is the ‘gospel of God’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ). In ancient Greek,240 εὐαγγέλιον (sometimes written as εὐανγέλιον in secular sources) could refer to the reward given to a messenger who brings a positive report (Homer, Od. 14.152, 166) or a sacrificial offering made as a result of glad tidings (Isocrates, Areop. 10; Menander, Perik. 993), but more commonly, it denotes a message of good news (usually brought from another location).241 This good news might consist of 238   It may be telling that the author chooses not to elaborate on the judgment of unbelievers in this instance. By describing the specific types of torments and punishments to which outsiders would be prone (e.g., Apoc. Pet. 6–12 [Eth]), he could have added further substantiation to his claim that the pain of future judgment would far exceed the readers’ present suffering. When one compares the exhortation in 2 Thess 1.5–10, the silence is even more pronounced. There the author encourages his readers, God will ‘repay with affliction those who afflict you’ (v. 6, NRSV) and then describes Jesus as returning ‘in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus’ (v. 8, NRSV). Unbelievers, it is said, ‘will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might’ (v. 9, NRSV). 239   There is no indication that the author is singling out unbelieving Jews (cf. T.Benj. 10.6–11) through this designation (as suggested by Benson 288; Macknight 497; Kühl 272). 240   The use of εὐαγγέλιον in the LXX—though it is relatively infrequent, the verbal form appearing more often—mirrors that of the Greek world more broadly. The term, which only appears in the plural form (though the closely related feminine noun εὐαγγελία does appear in the singular), denotes a message of good news (2 Sam 18.20, 25–26; 2 Kgs 7.9) as well as the reward given to one who brings such glad tidings (2 Sam 4.10; 18.22). 241   See further TDNT 2:707–37; TLNT 2:82–92. A vast amount of secondary literature could also be cited: e.g., Zondervan, ‘Het woord “Evangelium” ’, 187–213; Burrows, ‘Origin of the Word’, 21–33; Schniewind, Euangelion; Frankemölle, Evangelium.

474

1 PETER

some personal benefit, such as a victory in the contests (Diodorus Siculus 15.74.2) or a marriage agreement (Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 5.12.3), or, as it did very often, the term might be related to favourable outcomes in war (Xenophon, Hell. 1.6.37; I.Eph. 1448; Plutarch, Ages. 33.4; Appian, Bell. civ. 3.13.93; Polyaenus, Strategemata 1.44.1; Philostratus, Gymn. 7) or to the rise of a new ruler (Aeschines, Ctes. 160; Josephus, War 4.618; SB I 421).242 It is this latter context that many consider to have most influenced the NT use of εὐαγγέλιον. Various scholars have claimed that the word carries strong political overtones, particularly related to the emperor and his cult.243 Whether or not the Christian use of εὐαγγέλιον is directed implicitly, or polemically, at imperial propaganda, the word is employed numerous times throughout the NT (Matt 4.23; Mark 1.14; Acts 15.7; Rev 14.6). Unlike the secular usage, where the term most commonly appears in the plural form (εὐαγγέλια), NT

242   The famous Priene inscription is particularly relevant with regard to the celebration of the rise of a new ruler. In this decree from the Asian League (ca. 9 BCE), the inscription records a proposal by Paulus Fabius Maximus, proconsul of Asia, who suggested that the beginning of the year should be moved to coincide with the birthday of Augustus. It reads, ‘Augustus, whom she [i.e., Providence] has filled with arete for the benefit of humanity, and has in her beneficence granted us and those who will come after us [a Savior (σωτῆρα)] who has made war to cease and who shall put everything [in peaceful] order; and whereas Caesar, [when he was manifest], transcended the expectations of [all who had anticipated the good news (εὐανγέλια)], not only by surpassing the benefits (εὐεργέτας) conferred by his predecessors but by leaving no expectation of surpassing him to those who would come after him, with the result that the birthday of our God (θεοῦ) signalled the beginning of Good News (εὐανγελίων) for the world because of him…’ (I.Priene 105; trans. Danker; cf. IG XII,6 1:7). 243   One of the first to draw a connection between the presence of εὐαγγέλιον in Christian texts and its use in imperial propaganda was Deissmann (see Light from the Ancient East, 370–72; cf. also Strecker, ‘Evangelium Jesu Christi’, 188–92; Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, 216). Some have nevertheless resisted this interpretation. Bultmann, for instance, argued, ‘the wide-spread view that “evangel” is a sacral term of the emperor-cult cannot be maintained’ (Theology of the New Testament, 1:87). For a more recent critical appraisal of the extent to which NT (specifically Pauline) vocabulary may be read as deliberately and polemically parallel to the language of the imperial cult, see Barclay, Pauline Churches, 363–87.



4.12–19

475

authors use the singular exclusively.244 It is found most frequently in Pauline literature, representing a defining theme in the apostle’s theological vocabulary.245 Nevertheless, this terminology seems to have been present in Christian parlance even before the ministry of Paul,246 as is evident in his claims to have merely passed along the εὐαγγέλιον that he had received from others (1 Cor 15.1–5). What is distinctive about the Pauline usage is the word’s dynamic meaning, denoting both the content of the good news (1 Cor 9.14, 18; 15.1; 2 Cor 11.4, 7; Gal 1.6; 2.2; 1 Thess 2.9) as well as the act of proclamation (Rom 10.16; 1 Cor 4.15; 9.14; 2 Cor 2.12; 8.18; Phil 2.22; 1 Thess 3.2). In the description of the εὐαγγέλιον here, it is clear that the content of the gospel is focused on the Christ-event—Christ’s appearance, suffering, death, resurrection and glorification—and the salvific implications for humanity (cf. 1 Pet 1.10–12). At the same time, this εὐαγγέλιον is something that can be disobeyed (τῶν ἀπειθούντων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ). This disobedience is elsewhere connected with the good news as ‘word’ (λόγος, 3.1; cf. 1.23–25, with λόγος and ῥῆμα), which may also allude to verbal proclamation of the Christian message, suggesting that a dynamic usage similar to Paul’s may also be present here. 244   It is difficult to know how much, if anything, to make of this distinction. Some have pressed the difference to a considerable degree. For instance, Lohse claims, ‘In the Emperor cult the term εὐαγγέλιον was used in the plural to announce special events of redeeming relevance in the life and work of the ruler, whereas in Christian use the word is found only in the singular, emphasizing the once for all relevance of Christ’s death and resurrection’ (‘Eὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ’, 129; cf. also Dechow, ‘The “Gospel” and the Emperor Cult’, 76–78). But there is considerable variation among (and even within) the ancient sources in terms of the use of the plural and singular forms. 245   See further Molland, Das paulinische Euangelion; Bonsirven, L’evangile de Paul; Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium; idem, ‘The Pauline Gospel’, 149–72; Fitzmyer, ‘The Gospel in the Theology of Paul’, 339–50; Jervis and Richardson, ed., Gospel in Paul; Twelftree, Gospel according to Paul. 246   Scholars disagree over whether the use of εὐαγγέλιον (and εὐαγγελίζεσθαι) arose from within the earliest church in Judea, and perhaps even with Jesus himself (as suggested, e.g., by Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium, 209–44, who points to Matt 4.23; 9.35; 11.5 [//Luke 7.22]; 16.13; 24.14; Mark 1.14; Luke 4.18; Rev 10.7; 14.6) or in the Hellenistic church (as suggested, e.g., by Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 4).

476

1 PETER

The Petrine author adds the genitive modifier θεοῦ, creating an expression that appears elsewhere in the NT (Mark 1.14; Rom 1.1; 15.16; 2 Cor 11.7; 1 Thess 2.2, 8–9). Occasionally, this is under�stood as an objective genitive (‘good news about God’), indicating that God is the content of this good news proclamation.247 A similar function is reflected in the comparable construction, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom 15.19; 1 Cor 9.12; 2 Cor 2.12; 9.13; 10.14; Gal 1.7; Phil 1.27; 1 Thess 3.2), where Christ is the one whose life and death constitute the focus of apostolic preaching (cf. on 1.25). But in the narrative world of 1 Peter, Christ is the principal agent (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Pet 2.5; 4.11) through whom the plans and purposes of God come to fruition—not only ransoming the readers through his sacrificial death (1.1.18–20; 3.18), but serving as a pattern of endurance in unjust suffering for them to follow (2.21– 25). As such, he is the focus of the gospel message (cf. 1.10–12). God, on the other hand, is the one who commissioned the work of Christ (1.3) and thus who ultimately receives glory (2.12; 4.11, 16). For this reason, most take θεοῦ as a genitive of source/origin (‘good news sent from God’; cf. GNT).248 Placed in attributive position, the genitive indicates that God is the one from whom this good news originates, which brings with it significant implications: by rejecting the gospel message, non-believers have actually rejected God, an act depicted as one of disobedience. 18 καὶ εἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται. σῴζεται. The author further elaborates his thought on the fate of the wicked through a direct citation of Prov 11.31 (LXX).249 The only   So, e.g., Elliott 801–802; Dubis 155.   So, e.g., Demarest 254; Johnstone 371; Hiebert 293; Picirilli 201; Schlosser 273; Forbes 161. In general, when combined with εὐαγγέλιον in other places throughout the NT, many describe the genitive modifier θεοῦ as either a subjective genitive, ‘God has announced good news’ (see BDAG 403; MHT 3:211) or a genitive of source/origin, ‘the good news originates with God’ (BDF §163). 249   Best (‘I Peter II 4–10’, 272–73) disputes whether this should actually be considered a quotation: ‘Since there is no indication that Peter is quoting at this point, not even an introductory γάρ, it may be that iv 18 should not be regarded as a formal quotation’. He suggests instead that it may simply be a case where ‘Peter uses O.T. words and clauses to advance his argument’ (cf. Calvin 140; Hiebert 293). This proposal is difficult to sustain in light of the precise correspondence between Prov 11.31 and the present verse, and given that the author does 247 248



4.12–19

477

difference is the omission of the particle μέν before δίκαιος.250 In the MT, the verse originally represented a qal wāḥômer argument: if God punishes even the righteous, how much more will God punish the wicked. The LXX maintains the basic sense of the verse, although with one important modification. By translating the pual verb ‫‘( ישלם‬he/she is repaid’) as σῴζεται and reading μόλις for ‫‘( בארץ‬in the land’),251 the proverb is taken out of realm of the present life and applied to the afterlife. Elsewhere in Proverbs, the translators of the LXX stress the salvation of a righteous person who walks in wisdom (Prov 6.5; 10.25; 15.24, 27; 28.26; 29.25; cf. 19.7). The Petrine author now applies this thought to the present eschatological context. The substantival adjective δίκαιος (like ὁ ἀσεβής and ἁμαρ­ τωλός) reflects a generic or representative category.252 In the mind of the Petrine author, the designation refers to one who belongs to ‘the house of God’ (v. 17), one whose prayers are heard by God because he/she does good (3.11–12). The etymological connection between the word μόλις (which is synonymous with the adverb μόγις)253 and the noun μόγος (‘toil’, ‘trouble’) is reflective of the meaning of the term. This adverb can relate the rarity with which something might occur (e.g., Sir 21.20; Josephus, Life 173) or a not always provide an introductory formula for scriptural citations and allusions, though quotations are sometimes introduced formally (1.16; 2.6) or more minimally (1.24; see Introduction: Old Testament/Jewish Scriptures). 250   The particle is supplied by P72 and in the citation of Maximus Confessor (see ECM 185). 251   There are various suggestions regarding how the LXX translation developed and whether it accurately reflects the sense of the Hebrew. On the μόλις for ‫בארץ‬ exchange, Barr (‘Prov. xi.31, I Pet. iv.18’, 149–64, followed by McCartney, ‘Old Testament’, 97–98) suggests that the LXX translators either read a particular letter in a different way (e.g., ‫ אוץ‬instead of ‫ )ארץ‬or simply rearranged the Hebrew consonants to form a different word (e.g., ‫ בצר‬or ‫)בצרא‬. From an alternative perspective, Dubis (Messianic Woes, 166–68) suggests that the LXX translators actually captured the essence of the Hebrew text by choosing to translate ‫ בארץ‬as μόλις: ‘Since the righteous suffer God’s punitive recompense even in the land (i.e., in the place of God’s blessing), the righteous thus suffer God’s punitive recompense even in the best of circumstances. From this point it is a small step to say that the righteous only barely escape God’s retribution’ (166; original emphasis). 252   Robertson, Grammar, 763; MHT 3:13, 22. See further Holzmeister, ‘De “plurali categoriae” ’, 68–95. 253   See TDNT 4:735.

478

1 PETER

circumstance that is beyond ordinary expectation (e.g., Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 2.26.1). In the present context, this ‘difficulty’ is related in some way to ‘salvation’. Most recognise that the reason why salvation proves to be ‘difficult’ relates in some way to humanity rather than the power and capacity of God.254 The use of μόλις is commonly understood as reflecting the difficulties inherent in the process by which salvation is achieved (cf. HCSB, NASB);255 that is, the suffering and trials that are part and parcel of the Christian life represent a great struggle that must be endured in order to reach final salvation.256 In this case, the author’s argument is that if Christians experience difficulties, despite placing their trust in God and devoting themselves to the service of God, much more severe suffering awaits those who reject God.257 Thus, the appeal of the Christian faith is not that its members escape affliction; it is that they are ultimately delivered (σῴζεται) from the more terrible wrath of God’s judgment.258 An alternative is to interpret μόλις as describing the small margin by which deliverance is secured (‘barely saved’, cf. CEB, NAB, NET, NLT; ‘scarcely saved’, cf. KJV, RSV, ESV).259 According to   One of the few interpreters to connect this ‘difficulty’ with the purpose and power of God is Best, who claims that the construction μόλις σῴζεται ‘emphasises the greatness of God’s effort in saving them’ (166; cf. Prigent 133). 255   Cf. Bénétreau 257: ‘Molis, “avec peine”, n’implique pas l’incertitude du débouché, mais la difficulté du chemin qui y conduit’. As a way to capture this sense, Arichea–Nida suggest the following translations, ‘ “there will be difficulties for good people before they are saved” or “good people will encounter troubles before they are saved” ’ (153). 256   This is the interpretation of μόλις adopted by most commentators (see, e.g., Bigg 181; Mitchell 277; Blenkin 110; Selwyn 226; Elliott 803; Donelson 134 n. l; Osborne 246). It is consistent with the gospel tradition, where Jesus stresses how difficult it is to achieve salvation for various reasons (Matt 7.14; Mark 10.23–26 par; 13.19–22). 257   Cf. Cranfield 122: ‘what is said is a warning that it is no use seeking an escape from the present sufferings of persecution by apostasy, because that would be simply a case of “out of the frying-pan into the fire” ’. 258   Against some earlier commentators (e.g., Benson 289; Macknight 497), this ‘salvation’ has nothing to do with the physical deliverance from the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. 259   So, e.g., Mason 431; Huther 225–26; Lumby 194; cf. also Goppelt 333: ‘the author may have been thinking about the possibility of failure (cf. 5:8f.) that accompanies the serious testing of faith that suffering under the pressure of society brings’. 254



4.12–19

479

this reading, the author’s argument is as follows: if the righteous are delivered by the skin of their teeth, then the ungodly, who have rejected the gospel and so put no time or effort into the worship and service of God, have little chance of salvation. As is the case with the previous interpretation, σῴζω represents deliverance from God’s impending judgment that will soon come to pass.260 The structural parallelism in vv. 17b and 18 would seem to support the former interpretation.261 Both verses use the trials and difficulties experienced by the righteous to contrast the ultimate fate of the wicked, with the connective conjunction καί marking them in a coordinate relationship. In this way, scriptural support reinforces and further confirms the previous line of argument.262 Hence, v. 18 also works from the same type of a fortiori argument as v. 17: the relationship between the protasis and apodosis is thus ground-inference.263 At the same time, the construction in question (i.e., μόλις used as an adverbial modifier of σῴζω) seems to support the latter view. When this expression is found elsewhere, it reflects an attempt to represent the tension in a given situation and the uncertainty involved in a positive outcome. It might relate to an escape from shipwreck (Aesop, Fab. 223; Euripides, Hel. 412; Strabo, Geogr. 6.2.11; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 2.11.10), or any number of other dangerous situations.264 In each case, this construction is primarily intended to describe the narrow margin through which 260   It is probably best to treat σῴζεται as a gnomic present (cf. Forbes 162), since it is drawn from a proverb and represents a commonly accepted fact concerning a generic subject. This need not take away from the consideration that the salvation in view will occur in the eschatological future. It is merely to allow the language its proper expression and force. Thus, in the same way that εἰ should not be translated ‘since’ (as done by many commentators), it would be better not to translate σῴζεται as ‘he will be saved’ (pace Alford 380). On the gnomic present, see Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 208–17. 261   According to Osborne (‘L’utilisation des citations’, 71), the conditional state�ment in v. 18 answers the question posed in the previous verse; but the structure of the two passages suggests otherwise. 262   See Brox 223; Achtemeier 316–17. 263   Cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 319. 264   See, e.g., Theocritus, Id. 15; T.Ab. A 11.12; Josephus, Ant. 8.377; Plutarch, Ti. C. Gracch. 12.5; Brut. 51.4; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 40.12; Galen, De rebus boni malique suci, vol. 6, p. 751 (Kühn); Artemidorus, Onir. 5.82; Herodian, Ab excess divi Marci 4.4.4; Cassius Dio 80.19.4; Passio sanctorum Philetaeri et Eubioti 4.

480

1 PETER

deliverance was achieved.265 This is not to deny that the process of deliverance might also involve some difficulty. For instance, when this expression is used to depict a person’s survival from shipwreck, the situation also involves a considerable amount of effort on the part of the one who was delivered, such as tossing over cargo to keep the ship afloat or swimming to shore amidst the tempest. But whether or not such struggle is involved, the language tends to focus on the fact that life was almost lost. In the end, it is difficult to know for sure how the Petrine author intended the adverb to be construed, particularly since he simply transposed the clause in question from his source text. But it seems most plausible to see the quotation of v. 18 as deliberately reinforcing the logic of v. 17 (cf. 1.15–16, where the scriptural quotation follows and reinforces in a similar way). ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται. φανεῖται. Both ἀσεβής and ἁμαρτωλός are generic terms that denote a particular category of people (cf. Rom 4.5). Each represents one whose behaviour violates, or does not measure up to, the standards and norms (whether they be cultic or moral) prescribed by God. The combination is a regular occurrence in Jewish and Christian literature. When they appear together, the focus is often placed on the future judgment that such a person will experience. A parallel is found in Ps 1.5 (LXX), which states, ‘the impious (ἀσεβεῖς) will not rise up in judgment (κρίσει), nor sinners (ἁμαρτωλοί) in the council of the righteous’ (NETS; cf. Pss 1.1; 57.11; Sir 12.6; 41.5; 1 En. 3.6; T.Jud. 25.5; 1 Tim 1.9). As well as their broad equivalence in such poetic parallelism, the overlap between the two is apparent from the fact that they are occasionally depicted as one group, ‘godless sinner’ (1 En. 1.9; Jude 15). In this particular case, the

265   The only instance where a similar expression represents an individual actively participating in a difficult process in order to achieve deliverance is found in a text from Philo, who describes dangers involved in chariot racing. He notes, ‘as a chariot driver might be pulled into ravines or pits by his chariot, making it hard to manoeuvre, from which it is difficult to escape (μόλις ἔστι σῴζεσθαι)’ (Spec. 4.79). In this case, however, a slightly different construction is employed, and the middle form of the verb is used (in contrast to most other instances where the passive form is found).



4.12–19

481

construction ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλός—with the second designation being anarthrous—indicates, according to the Granville Sharp rule, that the two nouns refer essentially to the same single category of person, though the identification of the two descriptors should not be pressed too far.266 Much uncertainty surrounds the author’s rhetorical question, particularly concerning whether it reveals anything about the fate of unbelievers. The expression ποῦ φανεῖται is often taken as an idiomatic way to ask what will become of someone or something (cf. NRSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB). Dubis suggests that φαίνω should be read more literally, with the question being, more specifically, where someone or something will appear (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NAB).267 Read in conjunction with a similar question posed in 1 En. 38.2 (‘where [will be] the dwelling place of the sinners’), one might conclude that the godless and sinful would be annihilated.268 For, according to the Enochic parable, ‘the sinners are judged for their sins, and from the face of the earth they are driven’ (trans. Nickelsburg and Vanderkam; cf. 1 En. 45.4–6). Elsewhere, the ἀσεβεῖς are said to be destroyed in judgment (Sib. Or. 2.254; 1 Clem. 57.7). If this is the conceptual background from which the author draws the question, then the expected answer would be that sinners will appear nowhere; they will have no part in the eschaton.

266   Based on this construction and rule, some claim that ἀσεβής and ἁμαρτωλός refer to the same person, thus equating their identity (see, e.g., Alford 380; Caffin 176; Picirilli 201; Dubis 156; Forbes 162). Since these are generic terms, however, it is a broad category that is implied (on the applicability of Sharp’s rule in this verse, see Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon, 114 n. 29, 123 n. 67). Some go in the opposite direction, drawing key distinctions between the two terms. Grotius, for instance, claims that ἀσεβής is one who does not acknowledge and reverence God, while ἁμαρτωλός is one who is unjust toward other people (105; cf. Plumptre 151). The grammatical construction does not suggest that such distinctions are being stressed here. 267   Dubis, Messianic Woes, 167–68; cf. Goppelt 333 n. 58. Like most future middle forms (Jannaris, Historical Greek, 441), φανεῖται carries a durative force (see MHT 1:150; Robertson, Grammar, 871). 268   This is the conclusion reached by some early commentators (e.g., Wiesinger 303; Huther 226), although it is strongly opposed by others (e.g., Barnes 199; Kühl 273).

482

1 PETER

Other texts, however, speak of the ἀσεβεῖς experiencing the punishment of an eternal, fiery torment (T.Zeb. 10.3; Mart. Pol. 11.2; cf. 2 Pet 3.7; Diodorus Siculus 4.74.2). For this reason, some commentators seek to emphasise the negative undertones of this question, focusing on the destructive aspect of God’s punishment.269 Ultimately, it is impossible to determine how the Petrine author envisioned the final destiny of unbelievers. Aside from this instance in which he poses the question without actually providing an answer, he gives very few details elsewhere in the epistle concerning the punishment of the wicked following the final judgment—and deliberately so, it would seem (see Exegesis on 3.12). Therefore, it would be unwise to speculate. 19 ὥστε καὶ οἱ πάσχοντες κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ It is generally agreed that ὥστε functions like a simple inferential particle,270 drawing the entire section (4.12–19) to a close through a summation or inference. But the nature of this conclusion depends on how one construes καί. Some have suggested that the particle modifies παρατιθέσθωσαν, in which case the imperative would be understood as parallel with δοξαζέτω in v. 16. According to this interpretation, not only should believers glorify God in the context of the conflict they face, they must also entrust themselves to God’s care.271 What makes this proposal difficult to sustain is the distance between the two imperatives.272 It is hard to imagine that readers would have made such a connection with a word so far removed.

  See Demarest 254, whose comment is notably hyperbolic: ‘It is not possible for human language to imply more clearly the certain and awful damnation of the ungodly and vile sinner—and especially the vile persecutors’. Cf. also Hofmann 182; Keil 162. 270   Moule, Idiom Book, 144: ‘ὥστε is also, in certain contexts, simply an inferential particle as if ὥς τε, meaning and so, accordingly, etc.’ (original emphasis). One of the contexts in which this meaning occurs is when ὥστε is used with an imperative (cf. 1 Cor 3.21; 15.58; Phil 2.12; see further Buttmann, Grammar, 243–44). 271   This interpretation has only been advocated by a handful of commentators (e.g., Bigg 181–82; Blenkin 110; Elliott 805; Schlosser 273; cf. Keil 162; Wohlenberg 142). 272   Cf. Hiebert 294. 269



4.12–19

483

A much more popular interpretation is to read καί in combination with ὥστε, providing strength or emphasis to this inferential form (‘so then’).273 This is the most common rendering among modern Bible translators, who generally leave the particle untranslated (cf. NRSV, NIV, NET, NAB, ESV, HCSB). What stands in the way of this hypothesis, however, is the common function of ὥστε καί. When the same construction is employed elsewhere, the particle is almost invariably used to provide an additional point of focus rather than to strengthen ὥστε (see, e.g., LXX Esth 7.8; 2 Macc 4.3; 4 Macc 4.25; Artap. 3.10; Acts 5.15; Gal 2.13; Mart. Pol. 19.1).274 In this case, then, it is best to understand καί as modifying the subject οἱ πάσχοντες and carrying an ascensive force (‘also’, ‘even’; cf. LEB, NASB, NTE, WEB).275 Read in this light, its purpose would be to distinguish between readers who are, at the moment, suffering and those who are not, with the assumption being that ‘while people exempt from suffering will naturally commit themselves to God, those who suffer should do so too, for their suffering is providentially ordained’.276 By way of paraphrase,   Those who have adopted this view include: Huther 226; von Soden 164; Monnier 224; Selwyn 226; Beare 195; Hiebert 294; Michaels 272–73; Achtemeier 317; Donelson 134 n. m; Dubis 157; Forbes 162–63; Schreiner 264 n. 72. 274   Fronmüller claims that in the NT καί ‘is never used to strengthen ὥστε’ (83; cf. Keil 162; Kühl 273). But a search of just a few corpora has turned up some potential examples of this function (see Philo, Sacr. 116; 1 Cor 7.38; Josephus, Ant. 7.85). So while this construction is rare, it may occur on occasion. But even beyond establishing that καί is sometimes used to strengthen ὥστε, what proponents of this view must demonstrate is that this function is the most likely option in the present context. Given that the usual meaning of this combination provides a satisfactory reading, the burden of proof rests on those who challenge the ascensive view. 275   This view was very common among an earlier generation of interpreters (e.g., Bengel 79; Macknight 497; Steiger 2:285; Wiesinger 304; Demarest 256; Lillie 299; Fausset 512; Hofmann 182–83; Fronmüller 83; Usteri 203–204; Masterman 157; Knopf 185–86; Lenski 213), but it has not been as popular recently (although, see Kelly 194; Knoch 129; Goppelt 334 n. 59; cf. Mills, ‘Clause Patterns’, 180 n. 172). 276   Kelly 194 (emphasis removed). With a slightly different emphasis, Alford (380) suggests that καί is not intended to distinguish those who are suffering from those who are not (‘even those who are suffering…’), but as an additive (‘as well as all other persons who are suffering’). 273

484

1 PETER

the sentence might thus be rendered, ‘let them also who suffer, because God wills it, commit their souls, with no less confidence and restfulness than those believers who for the time are preserved from suffering, to a faithful Creator’.277 In the context, οἱ πάσχοντες refers not to those who experience general forms of suffering (e.g., death of family member, sickness, etc.), or those who suffer due to what the author sees as genuine wrongdoing (cf. 2.19–20; 4.15–16), but those who suffer because of their commitment to Christ in a hostile world. This suffering is said to take place κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ. The prepositional modifier could denote the underlying cause behind the suffering: God’s sovereign purposes (i.e., ‘those suffering because God wills it’).278 Understood in this way, the readers’ present trials are connected with the eschatological judgment by which God (purposefully) tests and refines the people of God (cf. 1.8). On the other hand, the focus could be on the manner in which believers experience conflict: ‘obedience to God can entail innocent suffering as a consequence and… such suffering is part of a larger divine purpose’.279 Like the pattern set down by Christ, suffering that aligns with God’s will is that which is undeserved, provoked only by one’s commitment to God. Given the immediate, as well as the wider, contexts of this verse, it is difficult to choose between the two. Elsewhere in the epistle, τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ is used with reference both to a standard of conduct expected from believers (4.2) and to God’s sovereign plans and purposes (2.15; 3.17). In this case, therefore, suffering ‘according to the will of God’ probably includes the ideas both of   Johnstone 373.   Advocates of this view include: Wand 120; Goppelt 334; Grudem 184–85; Boring 160; Schreiner 264. A potential objection to this interpretation is that it ultimately represents a truism: if God is sovereign, then all suffering—both that of Christians and non-Christians—is under God’s control. As a way to offset this difficulty, Johnstone suggests that κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ is merely ‘an additional thought, brought in, parenthetically almost, to show clearly the basis on which the precept of the verse rests’. Consequently, he renders the verse, ‘Those among you who suffer,—and this, let these sufferers remember, because God wills that they should suffer’ (375). 279   Elliott 804. Other advocates of this view include: Davids 173; Senior 133; Jobes 295. 277 278



4.12–19

485

divine purpose and of behavioural expectation;280 such suffering can only fully be described as ‘according to God’s will’ when it is recognised as such, and therefore borne without retaliation, complaint, and with quiet endurance in continuing to do good, as the following phrase will reiterate (cf. 2.19–20, 23; 3.6, 17). πιστῷ κτίστῃ παρατιθέσθωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ.. ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ What this group of suffering Christians is instructed to do is to entrust their ψυχαί to God. Consistent with their approach throughout the letter, most commentators understand ψυχή in this instance as a reference to the entire person and not just one’s immaterial soul (hence, ‘entrust their lives’ [CEB, NTE, ERV, NLT] or ‘entrust themselves’ [NRSV, HCSB, CJB, NIV]). But, as we have indicated elsewhere (see Exegesis at 1.9), the Petrine author seems to work from an anthropological perspective in which the ψυχή is not simply to be identified with the (whole) person, but represents the inner, enduring person—the very life, or ‘soul’—in contrast to the fleshly body (cf. esp. 2.11), such that what is to be entrusted specifically to God is their ‘souls’ (cf. ASV, NASB, ESV, BRG, NAB, EHV, ISV, NET).281 This fleshly body– enduring soul distinction may be a key to fully understanding the exhortation toward entrustment. The verb παρατίθημι has a variety of meanings.282 In the middle voice, it is used, as it is here, to describe the depositing of a valuable possession with another for safekeeping (Xenophon, [Ath.] 2.16; Tob 1.14; 1 Tim 1.18).283 In the literary and documentary evidence, this can cover the entrustment of various types of   Cf. Forbes 163.   Others have reached similar conclusions (e.g., Beare 195; Goppelt 334; Feldmeier 229). 282   See TDNT 8:162–64. 283   LSJ 1327. By way of illustration, a third-century BCE papyrus letter records a business transaction involving a certain set of dishes. Nikon writes to Zenon with the following explanation: ‘We have written to Artemidorus, the steward, asking him to give you the money from the dishes that we deposited (παρεθέμεθα) with him, or the dishes themselves if we have not sold them’ (P.Mich. I 14). Similar references are found in bills and accounts from this period (e.g., BGU I 4; O.Mich. I 56; P.Mich. I 79). 280 281

486

1 PETER

valuables, including the lives of individuals (see Diodorus Siculus 16.2.2; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.22).284 A few have suggested that the use of παρατίθημι echoes the words of the Jesus on the cross, as recorded in Luke 23.45.285 Others consider that the author is directly drawing upon Ps 30.5 (LXX), the text that is alluded to in the Gospel passage.286 While it is difficult to prove either of these connections by the presence of a single verb, a similar idea is certainly present here. The readers are being asked to entrust their ψυχαί to God, despite all inclinations to retain control that are fuelled by the instinct for self-preservation. This brings us back to the body–soul distinction. At some points in the letter ψυχή may simply indicate a human life (e.g., 3.20, although cf. the discussion there), but elsewhere it seems clearer that the term points specifically to the essential and enduring part of the human person, that ‘life’ that will endure to salvation (1.9, 22; 2.11, 25). Suffering and punishment may destroy the body, and bodily suffering might still lie ahead, but the soul may nonetheless confidently be entrusted to God (cf. Matt 10.28), and this is what the author appeals to the readers to do.287 As an encouragement toward this end, the author reminds them of who it is that would be in control of their priceless deposit: πιστὸς κτίστης.288 The term κτίστης289 was a common designation of one 284   A comparable expression as that found in v. 19 is represented a few times in Homeric writings, describing pirates who hazard their lives (ψυχὰς παρθέμενοι), see Homer, Od. 3.74; 9.255; Homeric Hymns 454; cf. also Tyrtaeus, Frag. 12 (West). 285   So, e.g., Caffin 176; Cranfield 123; Stibbs–Walls 164; Witherington 217; cf. Gundry, ‘ “Verba Christi” ’, 343–44. 286   So, e.g., Kelly 195; Davids 173; Schlosser 273–74. For more on the recep�tion of Ps 31.6 [LXX 30.5], see Dochhorn, ‘Das Kreuzeswort Jesu in Lk 23,46’, 468–91. 287   Cf. Johnstone 376: ‘in the interests of their spiritual welfare much bodily suffering might still be before them, and it might be, a martyr’s death. Meantime the ψυχαί, placed in God’s keeping, would be absolutely safe, and through the sufferings of the body would grow in beauty and energy’. 288   Schertz finds here a potential connection with κτίσις in 2.13 and wonders ‘whether the author of 1 Peter is indulging in some irony’. At issue, she notes, is the fact that ‘[t]he creations are subject to the Creator to whom the Christians entrust themselves’ (‘Radical Trust’, 441). 289   There has been some disagreement over the accentuation of this term. It appears as κτιστής in some Greek texts (e.g., Knapp, Griesbach) and as κτίστης



4.12–19

487

who founded a city, not in the sense of creating habitable space, but in organising all of the essential areas of social life within a community (Plutarch, Cam. 1.1; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.39; Appian, Hist. rom. [Basilica] 2.1).290 By the Hellenistic period, it had become an honorary title associated with a ruler or elite citizen who served as a benefactor of a community, appearing frequently in conjunction with the epithets ‘saviour’ and ‘benefactor’ (IGRR IV 1354; IG XII, Suppl. 40; TAM V,2 918).291 The idea communicated by this language is that the κτίστης had rescued the group and (re-)founded it through his/her exemplary service.292 As such, the word became a common designation attributed to the Roman emperor: ‘The council (honours) emperor Caesar, the divine son of the god Augustus, saviour and founder (κτίσταν) of the city’ (I.Knidos 42).293 When the term appears in Jewish and Christian literature, it often focuses on God’s role as creator of the world.294 Although NT authors use the participial form (ὁ κτίσας) to refer to God as ‘creator’ (Matt 19.4; Rom 1.25; Eph 3.9; Col 3.10), this is the only occurrence of κτίστης.295 But it is not just the fact that God is the ‘founder/creator’ that is intended to motivate the readers; it is God’s faithfulness (πιστός) in this capacity that is most significant. This qualifier indicates in others (e.g., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort). By way of analogy with terms like γνώστης and κλάστης, most prefer the latter accentuation (see Winer, Grammar, 57–58; Robertson, Grammar, 231). 290   On the use of κτίστης in the Greco-Roman world, see Prehn, ‘κτίστης,’ cols. 2083–2087. Cf. also Leschhorn, Gründer der Stadt, esp. 346–86; Hanges, Paul, Founder of Churches, 47–67. 291   This meaning is commonly found on Greek coins of the period. For the numismatic evidence, see Theophilos, ‘ΚΤΙΣΤΗΣ (1 Peter 4:19)’, 193–98. 292   Other Christians connected these titles with God. See 1 Clem. 59.3: ‘You alone are the benefactor (εὐεργέτην) of spirits and the God of all flesh, looking into the depths, scanning the works of humans; the helper of those who are in peril, the saviour (σωτῆρα) of those in despair; the creator (κτίστην) and guardian of every spirit’ (trans. Holmes). 293   The term is also used to describe the activities of the gods, emphasising their role in the creation or founding of particular phenomena (cf. Diodorus Siculus 5.74.6 [medical art]; PGM IV.591 [light]; V.248 [drugs and letters]). 294   E.g., Jdt 9.12; 2 Macc 7.23; 4 Macc 5.25; Sir 24.8; Sib. Or. 1.158; 8.440; Let. Aris. 16; Pr. Jac. 1.2; Philo, Ebr. 42; Spec. 1.30, 294. There are a few places where the term focuses on one who founds a group or city (Philo, Somn. 1.76; Flacc. 46; Josephus, Ant. 1.214; 20.173; War 2.266; Life 37; Ag. Ap. 2.39). 295   Regarding the –της suffix attached to a nomen agentis, see MHT 2:364–65.

488

1 PETER

that the power inherent in acting as κτίστης will be steadfast in its application towards the readers, rather than being arbitrary or unreliable.296 The idea of God as ‘faithful creator’297 (cf. 1 Clem. 60.1) is not common within ancient Jewish and Christian literature; nevertheless, the point of emphasis behind this designation seems clear enough: ‘Because God is the Creator, he has the power to sustain; because God is faithful, believers have reason to trust’.298 Given the author’s tendency to portray God as the ultimate benefactor whose munificence (χάρις) has been poured out upon Christians (see on 1.10), it is also tempting to see the designation as echoing the popular propaganda that surrounded the Roman emperor.299 Earlier in the epistle, the author draws a subtle distinction between God and the emperor, stating that God should be feared, while the emperor must be honoured (2.17). Prior to that, he relativised the authority and status of the emperor by describing him as merely a ‘human creature’ (ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις, 2.13). Thus, as the one who laid the foundations of the world (1.20) and continually lavishes benefits upon its people, this verse indicates that it is God (not the emperor) who is the truly reliable and powerful κτίστης. 296   Some connect the use of κτίστης to ideas about new creation. For instance, Dubis suggests that the term ‘does not look back to the first act of creation so much as it does to God’s ultimate creative act, namely, the establishment of the eschatological order’ (Messianic Woes, 175; cf. Schweizer 89; Green 161; Schlosser 274). But the lack of any other new creation language or ideas in this context speaks against this proposal. 297   Since the designation πιστὸς κτίστης is formulaic, the lack of the article need not suggest an indefinite idea, ‘a faithful creator’ (see BDF §257[3]; cf. Winer, Grammar, 151). In light of the Christian understanding that there is only one creator of all things (cf. Acts 4.24; Heb 2.10), it is possible to translate the phrase, ‘the faithful creator’. On the other hand, the author may have intentionally selected an anarthrous construction to stress the qualitative nature of the substantive (cf. Lenski 214). 298   Elliott 806. 299   Consider the following inscription from the city of Tlos in Asia Minor: Τλωέων οἱ νέοι καὶ ἡ γερουσία Καίσα[ρα] θεὸν Σεβαστὸν τὸν κτίστην παντὸς [τοῦ] [κό]σμου, ‘The neoi and the gerousia of Tlos (honour) the divine Caesar Augustus, founder of the entire world’ (TAM II 556; cf. SEG 23:609; 36:1092). The connection with Roman imperial power is also noted by Green, who suggests: ‘Peter may be engaging in a soft polemic against Roman hegemony, embodied in Rome’s rulers, who were acclaimed with the title of “founder” or “creator.” Imperial accomplishments measured in the founding of a city or extension of an empire are puny in comparison with the awesome work of God’ (161; cf. Theophilos, ‘ΚΤΙΣΤΗΣ [1 Peter 4:19]’, 204).



4.12–19

489

While the designation πιστὸς κτίστης provides the motivation for entrusting one’s ψυχή to God, the verse concludes by delineating the particular way in which this should take place. The specifics are determined by the function of the prepositional phrase ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ, which is placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis. Some understand the preposition as carrying a temporal (or attendant) force, ‘while doing good’ (cf. NRSV, ESV, HCSB, MEV, EHV).300 If this is the case, it indicates that entrusting one’s ψυχή to God and doing good are two separate and unrelated acts. On this reading, what is not disclosed is the nature of this ‘entrusting’: how it occurs and what is involved remains unstated. With this consideration in mind, a more plausible option is to view the preposition as indicating the means: ‘by doing good’ (cf. CEB, GNT, CJB).301 Rather than encouraging two distinct acts, the verse specifies a primary course of action along with how it is to be carried out.302 In other words, entrusting one’s ψυχή to God is an active (not a passive) process that is accomplished by the performance of good deeds, an ongoing commitment to doing what is good— already a prominent theme of the letter (cf. 2.12, 14–15, 20; 3.6, 17; Excursus: ‘Doing Good’ and the Strategy of 1 Peter). What, then, was involved in ‘doing good’? In Greek literature, the term ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ is rare, being confined mainly to astrological texts that describe the favourable influence of heavenly bodies.303 However, it is found occasionally in Jewish and Christian writings with an ethical sense, denoting actions that reach a certain standard of moral quality (T.Jos. 18.2; 1 Clem. 2.2, 7; Clement of Alexan�dria, Strom. 6.7.60). In this case, it is difficult to narrow the referent   As adopted, e.g., by Skaggs 68; Dubis 157.   As adopted, e.g., by Leaney 66; Arichea–Nida 153; Frankemölle 65; McKnight 252; Jobes 295; Green 161; Donelson 134 n. p; Schreiner 265. 302   In contrast, Michaels argues that the author provides the readers with two main commands: ‘first, entrust your lives to God, for he is faithful and you will be saved; second, be sure always to do good. Although the first is not to be equated with the second (as in the translation, “by doing good”), neither is the second subordinate to the first (as the translation, “while doing good,” might suggest)’ (274; cf. Brox 223). This view is also reflected in some translations, which render the prepositional phrase as a separate imperative, ‘those who suffer should commit themselves and continue to do good’ (cf. RSV, NIV, NLT, CEV). 303   E.g., Serapion, Fragmenta vol. 8,4, p. 231 (Boudreaux); Dorotheus, Fragmenta Graeca, p. 373 (Pingree); Vettius Valens, Anth. 4.11.97; 6.6.30; Claudius Ptolemy, Tetr. 1.18.5; 4.7.5. See further TLNT 1:1–4. 300 301

490

1 PETER

to any one particular activity.304 These good deeds would have included providing love and service to fellow believers, as specified in 4.7–11, and fulfilling certain responsibilities within civic and household structures (2.13–3.7), and within the church (5.1–5). But the immediate context also indicates that this ethic was closely related to the believers’ response toward the conflict in which they were entangled. Doing good meant avoiding any activity that rose to the level of criminality or even social deviance (4.15), while faithfully bearing all suffering that resulted (merely) from one’s Christian confession without retaliation or vengeance (cf. 2.20; 3.13–17; 4.16). This relationship between entrusting one’s ψυχή to God and doing good provides an important clue as to the nature of good works. It suggests that ‘doing good’ might further exacerbate the conflict (hence, the need to entrust one’s ψυχή to God), rather than alleviate it.305 It is therefore difficult to conclude that the author’s sense of ‘doing good’ was conformity to widely accepted cultural standards of behaviour.306 Although these acts may be praiseworthy in God’s sight, it would appear that at least some of them could be a cause of hostility or conflict with wider society (see further Excursus: ‘Doing Good’ and the Strategy of 1 Peter). The exhortation is for the readers to continue ‘doing good’ despite the persecution that may well ensue,307 all of which indicates that one is trusting in the plan and power of God. 304   Some limit these good deeds to the love and service to the community of faith (e.g., Cranfield 123; Spicq 161–62); others confine them to praiseworthy conduct within relevant social structures (e.g., Goppelt 336; Schlosser 267; cf. Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 216). But Bénétreau (258) is correct that the term is much more encompassing than these views allow (cf. also Vinson 220). 305   See Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 254–60. Cf. Donelson 139: ‘This call to keep doing good requires an enormous trust in God. They must believe that God is both able and faithful. And more than believing, they must keep “doing good” no matter what the social consequences.’ 306   Interpreters commonly claim that the goodness of these deeds will be positively acknowledged by outsiders (e.g., Davids 173; Perkins 74; Richard 199; Prigent 134). 307   Since good works are expected from those who are suffering, one might see this as further support for the view that the extent of the readers’ suffering had not reached the climactic point of martyrdom (cf. Best 166; Kelly 191–92). However, martyrdom would only ever have been a threat and a possibility, the ultimate end to which informal hostility, formal accusation, and judicial trial could lead.



4.12–19

491

Summary This opening section of the final main part of the letter body (4.12–5.11) is vivid and climactic, reiterating but also extending the author’s treatment of key themes in the letter: unjust suffering and its place in an eschatological context, where the joy of salvation can be anticipated, and the exhortation to continue in loyal devotion to God, doing what is ‘good’ despite the suffering that may result. First, the section is framed (vv. 12–13, 17–19) by the setting of suffering in an eschatological context. As in 1.6–9, trials—here vividly depicted as a ‘fiery’ test—are part of what must occur in the present, encompassed within God’s will, part of what it means to follow in Christ’s footsteps (2.21). Indeed, such suffering is a sharing in Christ’s sufferings, and thus is a sign of blessing and a cause for joy, an anticipation of the much greater joy (1.8) that will soon arrive with the final eschatological revelation of Christ’s glory (cf. 1.11). This glory is not only Christ’s but also something in which Christians will share (1.7; 5.1, 4). Of particular significance in this passage is the occurrence of the term Χριστιανός, not only because of its rarity within the NT (only here and Acts 11.26; 26.28) but also—and more importantly— because of its treatment here. Like other accusations of criminality or deviance, this label too might be directed at the letter’s recipients, perhaps in the context of public hostility but also in a courtroom setting, such as that which Pliny describes. While Pliny condemns any who refuse to renounce this name, offering pardon as an incentive to recant, the author of 1 Peter insists that it should be boldly affirmed. While punishment of Christians indicates that they are judged to be worthy of society’s disgrace, the author insists that owning this name is no shame, but on the contrary a means to offer glory to God. This marks a significant moment in the history of the term, and of the making of Christian identity more generally.

Community members would more likely have suffered in lesser ways, but with the potential for escalation. One reason the author uses the term πάσχω frequently, and instead of ἀποθνῄσκω (e.g., 2.21) is precisely because it encompasses all forms of suffering, up to and including death. The exhortation to continue steadfastly in doing good remains relevant, then, even if martyrdom is a possibility, especially since this ‘doing good’ includes precisely the loyal commitment to Christ (see 3.15–16) that persecution and trials seek to destroy.

492

1 PETER

The name Χριστιανός most likely originated as an outsiders’ label (see Exegesis at 4.16), although it is here claimed as something that insiders may acknowledge with positive affirmation. This may be seen—in terms drawn from Social Identity Theory—as an act of social creativity: as many other groups have done throughout history, here too the author takes a negative outsider label and claims it as a positive self-designation, to be worn, we might say, with polemical pride.308 We soon see a further step in the process with Ignatius, who, intent on pursuing the route to his martyrdom, expresses the desire not only to be called a Christian but to be one (μὴ μόνον καλεῖσθαι Χριστιανούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἶναι, Magn. 4.1; cf. Rom 3.2). The term is clearly on the way to being used by insiders as a ‘true’ designation of what they really are, and thus on the way to becoming their standard label of self-identification.309 Insofar as the name itself, the nomen ipsum, is effectively criminalised— a procedure the emperor Trajan affirms in his response to Pliny’s letter (Ep. 10.97)—this deliberate affirmation of the name marks a further point of resistance and challenge in the author’s navigation of Christian existence in a hostile empire. It is also striking in this passage that suffering (and, specifically, the unjust suffering of Christians) is seen as part of the eschatological divine judgment, albeit only its opening phase. This is striking not least in terms of the theological issues it raises, with its implication that even this unjust suffering—which is explicitly not a just recompense for wrongdoing or sin (cf. 2.12, 19–20; 3.13–17; 4.15–16)—is both a sign of divine judgment and in accordance with God’s will. Here, and not for the first time (3.17), the author seems to imply that the recipients’ suffering is part of God’s will. As with other aspects of the letter’s strategy, this can be problematic, not only in attributing to God the desire that some people suffer, but also in encouraging those who do suffer unjustly to accept their lot as part of what God has determined for them. Such a theological perspective, as discussed in connection with the household code material in 2.18–3.7, at least risks being used to legitimate suffering, and to instruct those who are suffering in abusive and exploitative   For this argument in detail, see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 197–210.   Cf. Lieu, Image and Reality, 29: ‘the epithet “Christians”… has become his [sc. Ignatius’] most favoured name for believers and a designation of honour which represents the goal of their individual and corporate existence’. 308 309



4.12–19

493

structures and relationships to remain quietly and patiently in their place, assured of salvation for their souls in the end. It is, however, also possible to see the author’s strategy as one that has positive value, at least as a survival strategy, for those who have little or no power over the circumstances and structures in which they find themselves. First, the recipients are assured that their suffering is no accident, nor even something resulting from the control or power of their accusers, but rather something that falls within the sovereign will of their God. Second, this unjust suffering is given value and meaning within a theological—or, better, christological—schema, in which bearing unjust suffering indicates that one is following in the steps of Christ, imitating him in bearing suffering so as also to imitate him in sharing glory. Third, then, the unjust suffering is placed within an eschatological narrative in which it has both significance (4.17) and also brevity: salvation will soon arrive, and with it great joy and relief. Finally, the very basis on which these people are judged as worthy of condemnation and shame—their sharing the name of Christ, and specifically the label ‘Christian’—is revalued as a positive self-identification, and a means of bringing glory to God (vv. 14–16). Here most clearly the strategy reveals a central feature of the author’s concern: to provide the readers with positive reason and firm assurance such that they continue steadfastly in their allegiance to Christ (cf. 3.14–16). Given this key concern, it is also noteworthy, and theologically significant, that the author does not detail or specify the fate of the ungodly, a silence notable elsewhere in the letter too (2.12; 3.12). It is clear enough that the setting of the recipients’ suffering within an eschatological scenario—as the opening phase of the final divine judgment (v. 17a)—is taken as an ominous indication as to the fate of ‘ungodly sinners’ (vv. 17b–18). But what exactly that fate will be, and how far salvation even for the ungodly is possible (cf. 2.12; 4.6), remains unstated. There is perhaps some theological wisdom here, leaving such matters to the judgment of God, and a restraint that Christians down the ages have not always exercised.

I NST R U C T IO N TO E L DERS A N D TO T H E WH O L E C O MMUNI TY (5.1–5)

Initial Bibliography Elena Bosetti, Il Pastore: Cristo e la Chiesa Nella Prima Lettera di Pietro, RivBSup 21 (Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1990); Dennis R. Edwards, ‘Guarding the Flock: Shepherding in the Jesus Way according to 1 Peter’, in Living the King Jesus Gospel: Discipleship and Ministry Then and Now, ed. Nijay K. Gupta et al. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2021), 80–96; John H. Elliott, ‘Ministry and Church Order in the NT: A Traditio-Historical Analysis (1 Pt 5, 1–5 & plls.)’, CBQ 32 (1970): 367–91; idem, ‘Elders as Leaders in 1 Peter and the Early Church’, CurTM 28 (2001): 549–59; J. Rendel Harris, ‘The Religious Meaning of 1 Peter V.5’, Exp 8/18 (1919): 131–39; Chloe Lynch, ‘In 1 Peter 5:1–5, Who Are the πρϵσβύτϵροι and What Is Said about their Role?’, ExpTim 123 (2012): 529–40; Johann Michl, ‘Die Presbyter des ersten Petrusbriefes’, in Ortskirche, Weltkirche: Festgabe für Julius Kardinal Döpfner, ed. Heinz Fleckenstein (Würzburg: Echter, 1973), 48–62; Wolfgang Nauck, ‘Probleme des frühchristlichen Amtsverständnisses (I Ptr 5,2f.)’, ZNW 48 (1957): 200–20; Kalevi Silvola, ‘ “Kristuksen kärsimysten todistaja” 1 Pt 5:1’, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 83 (1978): 416–23; Bernhard Riggenbach, ‘Die Poimenik des Apostels Petrus (I Petri 5,1–5) nach ihrer geschichtlichen und praktischen Bedeutung’, Schweizerische theologische Zeitschrift 7 (1889): 185–95; Ceslas Spicq, ‘La place ou le rôle des Jeunes dans certaines communautés néotestamentaires’, RB 76 (1969): 508–27.

Text 1

Πρεσβυτέρους οὖν(a) ἐν ὑμῖν παρακαλῶ ὁ(b) συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ(c) παθημάτων παθημάτων,, ὁ καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός(d)· 2 ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπισκοποῦντες(e) μὴ ἀναγκαστῶς(f) ἀλλ ἀλλ’’ ἑκουσίως κατὰ θεόν(g), μηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς ἀλλὰ προθύμως, προθύμως, 3 μηδ᾿ ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων ἀλλὰ τύποι γινόμενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου(h) 4 καὶ φανερωθέντος τοῦ ἀρχιποίμενος κομιεῖσθε τὸν ἀμαράντινον τῆς δόξης στέφανον. στέφανον. 5 ὁμοίως ὁμοίως,, νεώτεροι,, ὑποτάγητε πρεσβυτέροις· νεώτεροι πρεσβυτέροις· πάντες δὲ ἀλλήλοις(i) τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε, ἐγκομβώσασθε, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς(j) ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται,, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. ἀντιτάσσεται χάριν.

496

1 PETER

(a) There is some variation in the textual record at this point (see ECM 187). In a few instances, the article, τούς, appears alongside the inferential conjunction, οὖν (‫א‬, Ψ, 5, 307c vid, 436, 1175, 1611, 1735, samss, Cyr). The authenticity of this combination has been entertained by a few interpreters (e.g., Keil 163–64; Elliott 811 n. 635), but it most likely represents a later conflation. In other witnesses, οὖν stands either by itself (P72, A, B, pc) or is missing entirely (1505, 1852, 1890, 2138). The former reading is reflected in many early textual editions (e.g., Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott-Hort, Weiss) as well as NA27. In other later witnesses, τούς stands alone (e.g., 33, 69, 81, 323, 1243, 1739, 2344, 2718, Byz, geo, slav, Did). While the first edition of ECM retains the reading οὖν (and without the article), a change has occurred in the second edition (as well as in NA28), such that the text now reads τούς instead of οὖν, thus aligning with the TR and Majority Text. But while this reading has been defended by some earlier interpreters (e.g., de Wette 56; Wiesinger 307) and is thought to be confirmed by the CBGM (e.g., Strutwolf, ‘Scribal Practices’, 156–59), the difficulty of seeing any obvious causal connection with the preceding sentence probably explains why οὖν might be omitted (see Michaels 276 n. a; Schreiner 266 n. 80; cf. Riggen� bach, ‘Die Poimenik’, 185), and the article (τούς) is easily accounted for as an attempt to add further precision to the specification of πρεσβυτέρους, ‘the elders who are among you’ (see Forbes 165). Hence, οὖν likely represents the earliest attested text (cf. Steiger 2:286–87; Hofmann 185; Kühl 274; Wohlenberg 143 n. 45; Kelly 196; Achtemeier 320; Green 162 n. 25; Schlosser 275 n. b). (b) In place of the article (ὁ), some witnesses (P, 436, 1243, 2492, syh, samss) read ὡς, which makes the intended sense more explicit: ‘I exhort elders as a fellow elder…’ (cf. RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV).1 It is this reading that is advocated by Elliott, who argues that ὡς was probably ‘lost at an early stage through haplography’ (816 n. 645). But given the overwhelming weight of the MS evidence (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, Ψ, K, 33, 81, 1739, 1881, Byz) and the fact that the article is the lectio difficilior, this position is difficult to sustain (cf. Achtemeier 320 n. 2). (c) At this point, P72 reads θεοῦ instead of Χριστοῦ. This might represent simply a confusion between nomina sacra (reading ΘΥ instead of ΧΥ). On 1   C-S offers a singular text here, which uniquely omits the equivalents for ἐν ὑμῖν and ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος—a highly significant reference to ‘Peter’s’ status—thus offering a reading equivalent to Πρεσβυτέρους οὖν παρακαλῶ καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων (5parakalei 2e n_nepresbuteros auw m_mnt're n_m_ok_s\ m_pex_\s)\ . The most likely explanation is that it represents an omission through haplography, due to the two occurrences of πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros). See Willis, ‘Letter of Peter’, 204, and Bethge, ‘Der Text des ersten Petrusbriefes’, 264–66, for the text and discussion of the reasons for the omission.



5.1–5

497

the other hand, other unique readings in P72 lead one to wonder whether the scribe might be intentionally seeking to emphasise the divinity of Christ (see Horrell, Becoming Christian, 60). (d) C-S, again, has a singular reading: oikonomos (found in only one other Coptic MS, the ninth century Morgan MS 572, see Willis, ‘The Letter of Peter’, 142, 206; Bethge, ‘Der Text des ersten Petrusbriefes’, 266). While this reading would imply a striking image of Peter’s role, it most likely reflects an unintentional alteration (transcribing οἰκονόμος for κοινωνός) either in C-S or already in the Greek Vorlage (cf. Bethge, ‘Der Text des ersten Petrusbriefes’, 266). (e) There are a few important witnesses that lack the participle ἐπισκοποῦντες (‫*א‬, B, 323, sa [including C-S], aeth, AnastS, Did), a reading that came to be reflected in the texts of Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort. Nevertheless, the external pedigree for its inclusion is strong (P72, ‫א‬2, A, P, Ψ, [33], 69, 81, 945, 1241, 1739, Byz, lat, [syp], bo [sed ε-πευοντες 614, 630, 1505 pc syh]). Some have been reticent about going against such early and formidable witnesses as ‫ *א‬and B (so, e.g., Knopf 189; Mitchell 270; Cranfield 127; Spicq 164; Schelkle 128–29 n. 4; Richard 206; Feldmeier 230).2 But the participle ἐπισκοποῦντες has early and widespread attestation. Furthermore, the presence of alternative forms of ἐπισκοποῦντες within the MS record (see ECM 188–89) lends support to the claim that the participle was part of the initial text. On a stylistic level, its presence creates a somewhat awkward redundancy following the main verbal form ποιμάνατε, opening up the possibility that the participle was deliberately omitted (see Metzger, TCGNT, 625). So despite the connection between the present verse and 1 Pet 2.25, the participle’s presence would create a more difficult reading. Yet, even if ἐπισκοποῦντες was not originally omitted for stylistic purposes, ecclesiastical conviction could have just as easily given rise to its excision: later copyists who were uncomfortable with assigning the duties of an overseer to the elders may have intentionally dropped the reading (cf. Jerome’s mention of the reading ἐπισκοποῦντες in connection with a dispute over church hierarchy, Ep. 146.1). On balance, then, the word should probably be retained (cf. Michaels 276 n. b; Goppelt 343–44 n. 17; Elliott 824 n. 665; Jobes 310; Donelson 142 n. e; Schlosser 275 n. d; Schreiner 270 n. 97). (f) After μὴ ἀναγκαστῶς, the Latin versions (S, T, V) add further regulations for ecclesiastical oversight: non in avaritia neque in dominatione fratrum (‘not greedily nor lording it over the brothers’; VT 26/1, p. 169). Such expansions of instruction regarding the proper exercise of leadership and office are unsurprising given the pertinence of the topic within church life.

2   As Michaels (276 n. b) observes, B offers ‘a remarkably short text throughout vv 1–4 (omitting κατὰ θέον in v 2 and v 3 in its entirety); so B’s witness should be used with caution’.

498

1 PETER

(g) The phrase κατὰ θεόν is omitted in numerous ancient witnesses (B, 307, 642, 2492, Byz, syp), and has therefore been considered a later addition by some (e.g., Huther 228; Kühl 276 n. 2). However, the prepositional phrase is attested by P72, ‫א‬, A, P, Ψ, C-S, and many minuscules (including 33, 69, 1739, 2412) and should be retained (cf. Johnstone xx; Selwyn 230). It was perhaps omitted because scribes found it difficult to understand its precise sense or significance (cf. Metzger, TCGNT, 625–26) or because they viewed it as disrupting the balanced phrasing with the pairs of contrasting adverbs: μὴ ἀναγκαστῶς ἀλλὰ ἑκουσίως, μηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς ἀλλὰ προθύμως (cf. Michaels 277 n. c). (h) The entire verse is omitted in B. Some MSS (049 and many minuscules) read γενόμενοι. After ποιμνίου, the Latin S text adds a further expansion: in operibus bonis in omni conversatione quae secundum deum, ‘in good works and in all your interaction, according to the will of God᾽ (VT 26/1, 169), again showing the tendency for such instruction on leadership to be expanded (see Text at 5.2 n. f). (i) Considerable variation exists at this point in the text. A few witnesses read ἐν ἀλλήλοις (P72, 442, 621), while many minuscules add ὑποτασσόμενοι after the pronoun (P, 5, 307, 436, 642, 1448, 1611, 1735, 2492, Byz), a reading defended by some (e.g., Reiche, Commentarius Criticus, 277–79; Bloomfield 727). The latter may have been influenced by Eph 5.21 (ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ; see Knopf 192) or by the problem created from ἐγκομβώσασθε + ἀλλήλοις (see Exegesis at 5.5). Preference, in this case, is to be given to the shorter reading (so, e.g., Wiesinger 319; Wohlenberg 149; Blenkin 116), which has much stronger external support (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, 33, 1739, etc.). (j) The article is absent in a few manuscripts (P72, B, 33, 630, 1718), and thus is doubted by some (e.g., Kühl 278). In support of its inclusion, Michaels notes that ‘[n]owhere else in 1 Peter does θεός stand in the nominative case without the article’ (277 n. e). While this criterion provides only limited points of comparison (1.3; 4.11; 5.10), broadening it to focus on all uses of θεός in 1 Peter reinforces the judgment; the tendency of the Petrine author supports the article’s inclusion here (see Text at 2.5 n. e).

Introduction With its opening appeal (παρακαλῶ; cf. 2.11), this section is marked as a distinct piece of exhortation. The instruction is directed first (vv. 1–4) towards those in a position of leadership, labelled ‘elders’ (v. 1); the author, as ‘Peter’, here notably aligns himself with these leaders by describing himself as a co-elder, part of an authorial self-description that is of considerable significance, perhaps suggestive of a testimonial character to the letter at this



5.1–5

499

point (v. 1; see below). The instruction to elders itself is detailed in vv. 2–3, while v. 4 provides a motivation to follow it, with an implicitly conditional structure: if you do this (shepherd the flock properly), you will receive this reward. More briefly, the author then turns to instruct the remainder of the congregation—depicted as ‘junior’ in relation to the ‘elders’—about the need for submission to their leaders (v. 5a). Finally, the passage expands its focus to give instruction about the responsibilities of all members to one another without distinction (v. 5b).3 Many have seen a link between this section of instruction and the household code of 2.18–3.7, suggested by the pairing of ‘older’ and ‘younger’ here, and more specifically the repetition of the adverb ὁμοίως (3.1, 7) and the verb ὑποτάσσω, which runs like a connecting thread from 2.13–3.6 (specifically in 2.13, 18; 3.1, 5).4 Given the incorporation of instruction to both senior and junior persons (as well as to both parents and children) within other NT and early Christian household code materials, this is a plausible connection,5 reinforced by the similarity of language that connects 5.1–5 with 2.18–3.7.6 However, attempting to identify a more precise source or tradition from which both sections of 1 Peter derive is an uncertain and inevitably speculative exercise.7 If the author were drawing from a single catalogue of duties or form of   On the structure, see Weidner 170–71.   E.g., Kelly 204; Michaels 277–78 (though he sees stronger connections with 4.7–11); Elliott 812; Schlosser 276; cf. Bosetti, Il Pastore, 45; Prostmeier, Handlungsmodelle, 453–57. For arguments against this view, see Achtemeier 330–31. 5   See, e.g., 1 Tim 5.1–6.2; Titus 2.1–10; 1 Clem. 1.3; 21.6–8. For parents and children within the household code instruction, see Eph 6.1–4; Col 3.20–21. 6   Elliott’s (810) claim that this instruction has a ‘natural place’ in 1 Peter, since the letter ‘portrays the entire community as a household and adapts this household management tradition as well’, reflects his overemphasis on the household model within the author’s strategy. 7   Munro, Authority of Paul and Peter, 45, identifies vv. 1–5 as a later pastoral stratum that found its way into the letter sometime between 90 and 140 CE, based on the fact that the passage represents a different ecclesiastical organisation than that reflected in 4.7–11 (45, 50–51; cf. Schröger, ‘Die Verfassung der Gemeinde’, 239–52, who also perceives two distinct church structures). In his criticism of Munro’s theory, Campbell (Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 217) correctly notes, ‘No textual witnesses support Munro’s hypothesis which… unconvincingly renders 1 Pt. a complex puzzle ingeniously fit together by an unknown redactor’. 3 4

500

1 PETER

community code in both places, it seems hard to see why he would dissect it in the way he has.8 As Elliott remarks, ‘the content and form of the traditions possibly adopted here are still open to debate. There is no single source that combines all of the elements found here.’9 Also notable are some parallels in topic and focus with 3.8 and 4.7–11.10 Just as 4.12–19 reiterated, emphasised, and developed some of the themes from earlier in the letter (notably 3.13–17), so too this section extends the scope of earlier instruction on internal relationships within the community. But while the earlier portion of the letter gave instruction to the whole community and focused on mutual responsibilities and the proper use of gifts in service to one another (4.7–11), here the distinction between leaders and others, ‘senior’ and ‘junior’, is key, with the appeal for subordination to the elders. However, the appeal for ‘humility’ towards one another (v. 5) recalls the general instruction of 3.8 and coheres with the earlier exhortations to mutual love and hospitality (4.8–9). This appeal for humility, and especially the scriptural quotation with which it is supported (v. 5b), also link on into v. 6, such that some have divided the structure differently (e.g., taking vv. 6–7 as part of this section,11 or v. 5b with what follows12). But there are good grounds to find the logical division at the end of v. 5 (see Exegesis below).13

8   For such proposals, see, e.g., Boismard, ‘Liturgie [2]’, 179–80; Kelly 204 (‘5a is a detached fragment of the community code paraphrased in ii.13–iii.9’); Goldstein, Paulinische Gemeinde, 17; Elliott, ‘Ministry and Church Order’, 389; Brox 234. For arguments against such single-source theories, see Achtemeier 330–32; cf. Senior 141, who notes that ‘such a “cut and paste” approach seems unlikely’; Elliott 810 n. 634, for criticisms of Boismard’s earlier source theories. 9   Elliott 811. For example, Elliott also notes points of contact in this passage with Mark 10.42–45 and par. (830–31) and John 21 (823) suggesting the use of those traditions here (see further Elliott, ‘Ministry and Church Order’, 367–91). Cf. also Brox 227; Achtemeier 321. 10   The similarities with 4.7–11 are noted but perhaps over-stressed by Michaels (277). 11   So Brox 225. 12   E.g., Elliott 845–46. 13   Cf. also Achtemeier 320 with n. 8, though his reference (in n. 8) to Brox (225) seems somewhat mistaken: Brox includes v. 7 within this passage too (‘den V 7 muß man dann ebenfalls hinzunehmen… weil mit V 8 eine deutlich andere Tonart der Paränese einsetzt’).



5.1–5

501

Exegesis 1 Πρεσβυτέρους οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν With the conjunction οὖν, the author begins the transition into a new section. Commentators have often viewed the particle with perplexity, particularly as it is thought to expresses a relationship to the preceding section.14 This difficulty led some early scribes to omit the conjunction altogether (see Text at 5.1 n. a). Various explanations of the connection have been proposed. Some consider that this section relates to the preceding ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ in 4.19, providing a specific example of doing good.15 Others contend that the connection is influenced by Ezek 9.5–6, which is said to have shaped the author’s thought since 4.17 and which describes suffering beginning with the leaders (πρεσβύτεροι).16 Ultimately, we are not constrained to join the two sections in any inferential manner (i.e., ‘therefore’; cf. HCSB, CEB, EHV, NASB, CJB, LEB), as the conjunction may simply be marking a transition to a new idea (‘now’; cf. NRSV, ERV, NCV).17 If there is any   Cf. Spicq 163; Elliott 811.   E.g., Alford 381; Plumptre 152; Cook 215; Huther 230; Johnstone 378; Weiss 328; Beare 197; Donelson 143. Rather than connecting this section to the preceding verse, Martin (Metaphor and Composition, 257; cf. also von Soden 164–65) suggests that the parallel lies with 4.13, which not only refers to sharing in Christ’s suffering (κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν [4.13]; μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων [5.1]), but also to the revealing of Christ’s glory (ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ [4.13]; ὁ καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός [5.1]). While such parallels are present, it would be difficult to say that they gave rise to the conjunction, especially given its distance from 4.13. As Green points out, ‘this would not account for the whole of vv. 1–5, and particularly not for the added instruction to elders (vv. 2–3) and Peter’s address to the younger people and to all in v. 5’ (162). 16   E.g., Blenkin 111; Michaels 277–79; Grudem 185–86; Boring 162; Richard 203; Jobes 300; Dubis 159; cf. Schutter, Hermeneutic, 78–79. A further indication of this connection, according to some, is the reference to the νεώτεροι in v. 5, a term that is closely associated with the νεανίσκοι (Ezek 9.6); see Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 216; Dubis 163–64. 17   See further Robertson, Grammar, 1191; BDAG 736–37. Others have reached a similar conclusion (e.g., Hoffmann 185; Lenski 216; Knoch 130; Goppelt 340 n. 4; Schlosser 269; see also Thurén, Argument and Theology, 69). It has been pointed out by Elliott (‘Ministry and Church Order’, 371) that other Christian letters also conclude with instructions for church leaders (1 Cor 16.15–16; 1 Thess 5.12–15; Heb 13.7, 17), which could indicate that the author was simply transitioning to the final section of his correspondence. 14 15

502

1 PETER

association between the two, it is very loose (cf. 1 Cor 8.4).18 The most logical connection might be the need for strong leadership in a situation of suffering: ‘The inner logic of the connection is that given the crisis the community faces—with the need for discipline and fortitude in dealing with a hostile environment and the responsibility to maintain mutual love within the community—it is crucial that it have the support of authentic and understanding leaders’.19 But the section addresses more than just the leadership. To this suggestion, therefore, we might add the proposal of Green, who claims that 1 Pet 5.1–5 draws out the implications of the different and difficult world in which the readers now live (4.12–19), specifying how community members must relate to one another in light of this new reality.20 These connections, however, remain somewhat vague and tenuous. The specific group towards whom the following instructions are addressed are the πρεσβύτεροι (‘elders’), a term that can refer either to older members of the congregations (cf. John 8.9; Acts 2.17) or to a specific leadership group within the churches (cf. Acts 14.23; 1 Tim 5.17–19). It is unnecessary to draw too strong a distinction between these uses,21 because in the ancient world age (‘seniority’) often conferred status and qualification.22 This is not to discount the role that experience—which regularly came with age—may have

18   See Brox 225. Cf. Monnier 226: ‘οὖν commence un nouveau développement qui est sans lien avec le précédent’ (see also Hofmann 185, who points to Matt 7.12 and 1 Thess 4.1 as other examples where οὖν is used as a way to simply continue an admonition). 19   Senior 137; cf. also Mason 432; Lumby 201–202; Arichea–Nida 156; Davids 174–75; Witherington 225; Osborne 253; Watson 115; Forbes 166; Schreiner 266. In a similar way, Keil (164) claims that οὖν marks a movement from general admonitions to specific exhortations for individual groups within the community. 20   Green 162–64. 21   It is not always easy to communicate this fact in translation; thus, πρεσβύτεροι is either rendered ‘elders’ (NIV, ESV, NRSV, NET, HCSB, NASB) or ‘church leaders’ (cf. CEV, GW, CJB, Message, NLV). 22   Against those who claim that the use of πρεσβύτεροι in v. 1 refers to those who hold official positions of authority, while in v. 5 the same term simply refers to those who are of an advanced age (see, e.g., Bengel 80; Selwyn 227; Cranfield 124; cf. Achtemeier 322–23). On the use of ideologies of age as a means of legitimating the authority of the ‘old’, see further Barclay, ‘Neither Old Nor Young?’, 225–41.



5.1–5

503

played in the undertaking of such leadership roles.23 Nonetheless, given the instructions that follow (1 Pet 5.2–4), it is clear that the group’s positional function is the author’s primary concern. The term πρεσβύτερος was common within Hellenistic society, appearing as a designation for members of local voluntary associations such as the gerousia and as a title of civic and religious officials within a local community.24 Likewise, during the Second Temple period, πρεσβύτεροι functioned as a recognised group of leaders within the Jewish community (cf. Ezra 10.8; Jdt 6.16; 1 Macc 12.35; 2 Macc 13.13; Josephus, Ant. 13.428). In the Gospels, the πρεσβύτεροι are one of the groups (along with the Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, and scribes) with which Jesus comes into conflict (see Matt 16.21; 21.23; 26.3; etc.). There is no mention of elders within the undisputed Pauline letters; yet Acts claims that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in each church they founded (14.23; cf. 20.17).25 By the late first and early second centuries the function of πρεσβύτεροι within leadership structures is widely attested across Asia Minor (Acts 20.17; 1 Tim 5.17–22;   As Lynch points out, ‘over time these Christian elders may have encompassed not only those who were chronologically older but also those who were older “in faith” ’ (‘1 Peter 5:1–5’, 531). 24   An example is found in a fragmentary inscription from an ancient village just outside of Ephesos, which records a foundation (i.e., a group formed to cultivate the memory of the deceased through rituals and ceremonies performed at the tomb) of an association of Heroists established by Pelops to honour the memory of his family. While the first part is broken off, the inscription includes a penalty that specifies fines levied in the event that the tomb is violated or if the terms of the foundation are broken. In this case, payment is made to the gods as well as the leaders of the city: the gerousia. The inscription reads: ‘…if anyone tries, the decree written contrary to this foundation shall be invalid, and the man who does this shall pay 10,000 denarii for the adornment of the goddess Artemis and of the Sebastoi, and another 10,000 denarii for distribution to the elders (πρεσβ[υτέροις]); these sums shall be exacted by the archons of the subsequent year and by the paraphylax’ (I.Eph. 3334; trans. Jones). For more evidence from the Hellenistic world, see Deissmann, Bible Studies, 154–57, 233–35; Hauschildt, ‘Πρεσβύτεροι in Aegypten’, 235–42; Campbell, Elders, 67–98. On the development of this term within the Greek world, see Guerra y Gómez, Episcopos y Presbyteros. 25   On eldership in early Christianity, see Harvey, ‘Elders’, 318–32; Powell, ‘Ordo Presbyterii’, 289–328; Karrer, ‘Das urchristliche Ältestenamt’, 152–88; Campbell, Elders. 23

504

1 PETER

Ign. Magn. 2.1; Trall. 3.1; Phld. 1.0; Pol. Phil. 1.0), Macedonia and Achaia (Pol. Phil. 5.3; 1 Clem. 44.5; 47.6; 54.2; 57.1), and Rome (Herm. Vis. 2.4.2, 3). Noting the connection between age and status, Campbell seems correct in proposing that elder rule in the early church reflected ‘a form of leadership that was collective and representative, with an authority derived from their seniority relative to those they represented, whether household, clan, tribe or nation’. Thus, the designation ‘elder’ was ‘a term of honour for those whose power was based on relationships that already existed, rather than a precise office, entered through appointment, election or ordination’.26 From the limited evidence available in the letter, we cannot draw any definitive conclusions about the level of development in the organisational structure of the Petrine churches.27 The author’s failure to mention deacons (διάκονοι) could be indicative of an earlier period prior to the developed systems reflected in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3.1, 8; 5.17; Titus 1.5–9) and the letters of Ignatius (Magn. 6.1; 13.1; Trall. 2.1–3; Phld. 10.2; Pol. 6.1);28 at the same time, other lower positions of authority may have been simply omitted due to the author’s two-fold (age-related) scheme: elder–younger. Further, the fact that Paul addresses overseers (ἐπίσκοποι) and deacons (διάκονοι) in his letter to the Philippians (1.1) suggests that organisational structures in the early churches may not have developed in a clearly sequential process, and in any case, the use of established words to describe such roles means that the transition from informal designation (elder, overseer) to formal office (presbyter, bishop) is difficult to discern. It is also possible to conclude that the governing structure represents an earlier and less developed form than the type of a monarchical episcopate advocated by Ignatius during the second century CE.29 The letter’s pseudonymous character might temper   Campbell, Elders, 238.   For more on the church structure of the Petrine congregations, see Michl, ‘Die Presbyter des ersten Petrusbriefes’, 48–62; Elliott, ‘Elders as Leaders in 1 Peter’, 549–59. On the development of leadership patterns in the early Christian movement more generally, see Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns’, 309–37. 28   Along similar lines, Brox (227) notes that spiritual gifts (4.10–11) are mentioned separately from this discussion of leadership, suggesting a lack of organisation. 29   Cf. Cothenet, ‘La Première Epître de Pierre’, 149. 26 27



5.1–5

505

this deduction somewhat: a less-developed structure could reflect an attempt to establish verisimilitude.30 Nonetheless, given the distinctions drawn (in the name of Paul) in 1 Tim 3.1–13, the use of the terminology of oversight (ἐπισκοποῦντες, v. 2) to describe the role of the elders suggests that the threefold order of ministry— bishop, elders, deacons—evident in Ignatius does not yet exist in such a formalised or clear-cut manner. One piece of evidence commonly used to draw conclusions about the development of ecclesial structure is the anarthrous form of πρεσβυτέρους.31 Some have claimed that at the time πρεσβύτερος was already considered a proper noun (‘the elders’) and thus did not require the article.32 Others read the anarthrous form (in combination with the prepositional modifier, ἐν ὑμῖν) as a reflection of the author’s uncertainty about the governmental structure of specific congregations; that is, the construction is taken to indicate that the Petrine author ‘does not take for granted that all of the congregations to which he is writing are necessarily ruled by elders’.33 To properly capture this perspective, the phrase might be translated, ‘(if there are) any elders among you’. Neither of these 30   While verisimilitude would be important for any pseudepigraphon, an equally important consideration would be whether the instructions were applicable to the intended audience, which might suggest that the ecclesiastical structure presented in 1 Peter was indeed representative of the situation in churches throughout late first-century Asia Minor. 31   This is not always taken to indicate anything of significance about the development of leadership structures, however. Some attribute it to the author’s style (e.g., Johnstone 378; Monnier 226; cf. Schlosser 284, who claims that it is meant to emphasise identity). 32   E.g., Wiesinger 307; Huther 230. The opposite conclusion is reached by Keil (163–64), who claims that the anarthrous form is best explained ‘daraus, daß obwohl in der Regel Männer höheren Alters Gemeindevorsteher waren, doch πρεσβύτερος noch nicht stehender Titel derselben geworden war, wobei das Alter nicht weiter in Betracht kam’. 33   Michaels 279; cf. Achtemeier 323; Witherington 225; Vahrenhorst 186 n. 601. Various interpreters have understood the article’s absence as leaving the command open-ended and thus allowing it to be applied by those who qualify under such a designation, ‘any who are elders’ (e.g., Alford 381; Usteri 205; Knopf 187; Blenkin 112; Lenski 215; Hiebert 299). Read in this way, the exhortation makes no claim or assumption about whether ‘elders’ would be present in every community. The view of Kühl marks a median position between these two, in that he reads the language as reflecting uncertainty, while at the same time implying the likely presence of elders: ‘dass Petrus keine genauere Kenntniss von

506

1 PETER

positions is entirely convincing, however.34 Rather than indicating anything specific about congregational organisation, the absence of the article likely reflects the term’s qualitative force (‘elders’; cf. NASB, LB), that is, its focus on ‘class traits’,35 which might perhaps be further emphasised by its placement at the beginning of the sentence and its differentiation from νεώτεροι below.36 In other words, the use of the anarthrous form indicates that the exhortation is directed at those who possess the characteristics or qualities of ‘elders’ (whether it be that they meet a given age requirement, that they function in a recognised position of authority, or, as in this case, a combination that constitutes their ‘seniority’).37 παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων,, ὁ καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης παθημάτων κοινωνός Before conveying his specific instruction, which he does (again [cf. 2.11]) with the language of appeal and exhortation (παρα­ καλῶ) rather than direct command,38 the Petrine author takes the opportunity to describe himself using three identity markers. The dem verfassungsmässigen Bestande der Gemeinden hatte, das Vorhandensein von Presbytern in den Gemeinden jedoch annehmen zu können meint’ (275; cf. Schott 299–300). 34   Against the latter position, some have noted that the author addresses the γυναῖκες of the community using an anarthrous construction (1 Pet 3.1; see Text at 3.1 n. a), even though there would be no doubt about their presence in every community (see Bigg 183). Others have made similar points about the anarthrous nature of νεώτεροι in v. 5 (see Davids 175 n. 2; Elliott 813; cf. Lynch, ‘1 Peter 5:1–5’, 531). However, these objections are not relevant in that, as nominatives functioning as vocatives, the article relates to them differently than it does in the case of πρεσβυτέρους, which is a direct object. It is sufficient, instead, to note that this proposal assumes a meaning that extends beyond what the construction will allow. 35   Wallace, Greek Grammar, 244. 36   It is possible that the prepositional phrase ἐν ὑμῖν adds to this qualitative sense. Rather than portraying these elders as ‘mere officials’ (Hart 76) who preside over the congregations, they are portrayed as ‘among’ their congregations (cf. 1 Clem. 1.3: τοῖς παρ’ ὑμῖν πρεσβυτέροις) in the same way that their congregations are ‘among’ them (1 Pet 5.2: τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον). 37   For a definition of qualitative nouns, see Exegesis at 3.15. 38   This is common in NT letters (e.g., Rom 12.1; 1 Cor 1.10; 2 Cor 10.1; Heb 13.22; Jude 3). This language expresses a central feature of the letter’s character, as indicated by 1 Pet 5.12 . The ‘mildness’ of the language should not however



5.1–5

507

first is that of a συμπρεσβύτερος.39 This term appears to have been quite rare in the Greek world, appearing only a few times in contemporary documentary evidence to describe one who belongs to a larger group of ‘elders’.40 The word was later adopted and employed by subsequent generations of Christians (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.16.5; Epiphanius, Ancoratus 1.4.3). The force of συμπρεσβύτερος in this particular context is contested. Some believe that it is a modest title (compared with ἀπόστολος, 1.1) intended to establish a sympathetic connection with the Anatolian leadership.41 This assumes that the shift from ἀπόστολος to (συμ-)πρεσβύτερος marks a decrease in status indication; but such may not be the case. Since πρεσβύτερος seems to have been one of the designations by which the apostles were known (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.4),42 the attribution συμπρεσβύτερος might communicate little in the way of a status be overemphasised, as when Barnes notes, ‘The language which Peter uses is not that of stern and arbitrary command; it is that of kind and mild Christian exhortation’ (200). As the examples listed above indicate (esp. 2 Cor 10.1; Jude 3), the language can be used with some exhortatory weight, ‘urging’. On the meaning and force of παρακαλῶ, see Bjerkelund, Parakalô. 39   Some commentators have understood the article (ὁ) before συμπρεσβύτε­ ρος as pointing to a well-known object (‘the fellow-elder) in the same way that it does in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1 (so, e.g., Bigg 186; Wand 122). This, it is suggested by Doering (‘Author Construction’, 656), is the author’s way of ‘retain[ing] an element of prominence and authority’: while he shares in the position of πρεσ­βύτερος, he still holds preeminence as ‘the co-elder’. Such an interpretation is possible, although it may read too much into the article, which might simply connect the two substantives (συμπρεσβύτερος and μάρτυς) in a close relationship. 40   Even though many, including recent commentators (e.g., Goppelt 341; Elliott 816–17; Forbes 166; Schreiner 268), claim the word was coined by the Petrine author, Doering (‘Author Construction’, 653) has drawn attention to a use of the term in a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (dating 80/81 CE, and published in 1976): P.Oxy. XLV 3264 (πρὸς τ̣ὸ̣ ἐπιδοθὲν Κλαυδίωι Ἡρακλείωι στρ̣α̣τηγῷ ὑπό τε ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν συνπρεσ[β]υ̣τέρων ἀναφόριον). The word is also found in a later papyrus (P.Laur. IV 190) and in two later inscriptions from Asia Minor (RECAM II 329; MAMA VII 88). 41   E.g., Knopf 188; Windisch 78–79; Kelly 198; Grudem 186; Davids 176. Others have claimed that the description of ‘Peter’ as a συμπρεσβύτερος was intended to display his qualification to exhort the elders of the communities (so Elliott 816; Doering, ‘Author Construction’, 654). But the apostolic qualifications of ‘Peter’ would have been sufficient for this task. 42   See Campbell, ‘Elders of the Jerusalem Church’, 511–28.

508

1 PETER

shift on the part of ‘Peter’.43 It is perhaps best to view this language as representing an attempt to create a sense of solidarity with the leadership of the church.44 One way that this could occur is through the elasticity of πρεσβύτερος. The author’s point would be that ‘Peter’, like many of those who hold positions of authority in the Anatolian congregations, is a senior figure, perhaps also advanced in years.45 In addition, it may also be that the author wants to show that, like these elders, ‘Peter’ is one who proclaims Christ’s suffering and shares the glory that awaits (on which see below). In fulfilling this purpose, however, it also (implicitly) attributes a sense of power and authority to the elders of local Anatolian communities as their roles in the communities, since closely aligned with—and may even be seen as an extension of—‘Peter’s’ apostolic authority.46   Early Christian authors used analogous συν– compounds to depict their relationship with one another: σύνδουλος (Col 1.7; 4.7; Ign. Eph. 2.1; Magn. 2.1; Phld. 4.1); συνεργός (Rom 16.3, 9, 21; 2 Cor 8.23; Phil 4.3; 1 Thess 3.2; Phlm 1, 24); συστρατιώτης (Phil 2.25; Phlm 2). The author of 1 Peter also employs a number of compound words with συν, e.g., συνοικοῦντες, συγκληρονόμοις (3.7), συντρεχόντων (4.4), συμβαίνοντος (4.12), and συνεκληκτή (5.13). 44   According to Brox (228–29), the use of συμπρεσβύτερος represents the one occasion wherein the pseudonymous author lifts the veil of pseudonymity to identify with his readers as their fellow elder (cf. Feldmeier 232; see also Schmidt, Mahnung, 282–83; Schreiber, Begleiter durch das Neue Testament, 67). The problem with this assessment, as Elliott (817) notes, is that Brox fails to explain why such a revelation would be made here when the author goes to great efforts to conceal his identity elsewhere in the epistle. What is more, as Söding (‘Grüße aus Rom’, 20–21) points out, the designation συμπρεσβύτερος is connected closely with the title, μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, which is intended to point to the apostle Peter. Alternatively, some have appealed to this designation to argue for the authenticity of the letter on the basis that ‘a forger would most certainly have stressed apostolicity otherwise there would be little purpose in using Peter’s name, so that the omission is actually favorable to Petrine authorship’ (Polkinghorne 596; cf. Hiebert 300; Jobes 300–301; Witherington 226; Green, Vox Petri, 72 n. 207). Yet, if the author’s strategy is to use the apostleship of ‘Peter’ to confer a sense of authority upon these elders, then this designation would be a natural option. The alternative (i.e., to designate the elders with apostolic language) may have been considered too much of a stretch. 45   So, e.g., Green, Vox Petri, 301–302. 46   Cf. Boring 165: ‘it is not a matter of the apostle condescending to the level of the elders, but rather a claim that the presbyters represent apostolic authority’. See also Schiwy 61; Prigent 136; Michl, ‘Die Presbyter’, 60; Bosetti, Il Pastore, 200–201. 43



5.1–5

509

The second way that the author identifies himself is as μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων. This designation stands in close connection to the first, as μάρτυς is united with συμπρεσβύτερος under a singular article, connected by καί.47 Much like the situation with συμπρεσβύτερος, the meaning of μάρτυς is disputed; but in this case, disagreement arises due to the term’s lexical range. The term most commonly described one who testified to a given fact because he or she possessed some information pertinent to the situation.48 Naturally, such ‘witnesses’ were employed in legal contexts. They often observed the drawing up of a legal arrangement (e.g., adoption, will, contract) and were thereby able to testify to its validity if needed at a later time.49 As such, one’s ability to testify usually derived from observation or experience.50 But when the term is used among NT authors, it normally has a much more

47   At times, this construction is pressed beyond what the grammar will allow in order to support different meanings of μάρτυς. Various interpreters have assumed that the shared article indicates that the συμ– prefix of συμπρεσβύτερος is also to be applied to the noun μάρτυς: ‘Peter’ is a fellow πρεσβύτερος and fellow μάρτυς (e.g., Bennett 252; Michaels 280; Davids 177 n. 8; McKnight 259 n. 5; Richard 204; Jobes 301; Witherington 227). From this, it is concluded that μάρτυς cannot refer to ‘Peter’s’ role as eyewitness. Yet, had this been the case, the author could have written ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ συμμάρτυς (cf. Plato, Phileb. 12b; Ep. 2 [312a], where the latter term is used). Moving in an opposite direction, others claim that the construction represents a subset relationship: ‘the one among the συμπρεσβύτεροι who witnessed the sufferings of Christ’ (Alford 381). In this case, ‘Peter’ is an eyewitness among a group of elders. Neither of these proposals is supported by the syntax, however. The construction merely indicates that both substantives refer to the same person (see further Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon). 48   On the meaning of μάρτυς, see further TDNT 4:474–508; TLNT 2:447–52. 49   Ordinarily, the more witnesses that could attest to a given situation, the greater the chances that it would be confirmed (see Deut 17.6–7; cf. Matt 18.16; 2 Cor 13.1; 1 Tim 5.19; Heb 10.28). For this reason, many contracts in the ancient world have multiple μάρτυρες listed, often with specific information about them (e.g., location, occupation, family relation, appearance) so that they could later be identified (see, e.g., P.Col. III 54; Chrest.Mitt. 283; P.Hib. I 96; P.Mich. I 66; P.Tebt. I 104; SB V 7532). 50   See Lev 5.1; Num 5.13; Jer 39.25; 1 Tim 6.12. In Jewish and Christian litera�ture, since God sees and knows all that occurs (cf. Josephus, War 1.595; Sib. Or. 21.4), God is the ultimate witness to whom individuals sometimes appeal (Gen 31.44; 1 Sam 12.5; 20.23, 42; Wis 1.6; Rom 1.9; 2 Cor 1.23; Phil 1.8; 1 Thess 2.5, 10).

510

1 PETER

dynamic sense, focusing on the act of proclamation.51 Rather than stressing what the followers of Jesus saw or heard (‘you witnessed’), μάρτυς is more often employed to represent their task of spreading the testimony about Christ (‘you are witnesses’, Acts 2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 13.31; or ‘you will be witnesses’, Acts 1.8; 22.15). Eventually, Christians began to use μάρτυς to describe an ultimate act of testimony, the forfeiture of one’s life out of devotion to Christ, ‘martyr’ (Acts 22.20; Rev 2.13; cf. Mart. Pol. 2.2; 14.2; 15.2; 17.3; 19.1; Sib. Or. 2.46).52 Based largely on the fact that Peter was one of the most prominent disciples of Christ, some conclude that the apostle’s observational role as an eyewitness of Christ’s suffering is being emphasised through the use of μάρτυς (‘I myself have seen Christ’s sufferings’; cf. Phillips, LB, ERV, NCV).53 The most common objection raised against this view is the fact that the Gospel traditions concerning the death of Jesus do not portray Peter as an eyewitness to the crucifixion.54 One could counter this argument by pointing out that Peter was present for the key moments leading up to the cross, including Jesus’ agony in the garden (Mark 14.32–42 par.), his betrayal by a close friend (Mark 14.43–50 par.), and the false witnesses of his trial (Mark 14.53–72 parr.).55 The major problem is that early Christian tradition remembered Peter (along with the rest of the disciples) as having abandoned Jesus at his arrest, and even 51   See further Burnier, La notion de témoignage; Michel, ‘Zeuge und Zeugnis’, 15–31; Trites, Concept of Witness. 52   On this development, see Kattenbusch, ‘Der Märtyrertitel’, 111–27; Günther, ΜΑΡΤΥΣ; idem, ‘Zeuge und Märtyrer’, 145–61; Brox, Zeuge und Märtyrer; Trites, ‘Μάρτυς and Martyrdom’, 72–80. 53   E.g., Bloomfield 726; Bennett 252; Bigg 186–87; Selwyn 228; Cranfield 125; Reicke 129; Schelkle 128; Clowney 198; Picirilli 204; Hiebert 301; Miller 332–33; Skaggs 69; Charles 352; Schreiner 268; cf. Trites, Concept of Witness, 213–17; Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 219 n. 84. 54   See Smith, Petrine Controversies, 154. According to Mark (and Matthew) only the women saw Jesus’ death (Mark 15.40–41//Matt 27.55–56), though Luke adds to this a vague reference to ‘all who had known him’ (πάντες οἱ γνωστοὶ αὐτῷ). In all three accounts, however, it is noted that they watched ‘from a distance’ (ἀπὸ μακρόθεν). John has three women standing near the cross, along with the beloved disciple (John 19.25–27). 55   Furthermore, nothing in these texts prevents us from entertaining the possibility that Peter might have seen the crucifixion from a distance (cf. Luke 23.49). See further Schelkle 128; Miller 70; Jobes 301.



5.1–5

511

denying him to preserve his own life.56 Thus, while it might have been possible to appeal to Peter as an eyewitness to the ‘sufferings’ of Jesus (defined more generally), one wonders whether the rhetorical cost would have been worth the reward—especially given that an emphasis on Peter’s observational role in the sufferings of Christ would have produced little in the way of persuasive effect at this point.57 It is more common, therefore, to find interpreters who consider that μάρτυς in v. 1 is intended to stress the testimonial character of ‘Peter’, indicating that he was one who bore witness to the sufferings of Christ.58 As Doering notes, this may be taken in two different ways, either as a testimony in word, that is, in preaching or proclamation, or as a testimony in deed or act, through Peter’s own sharing in Christ’s sufferings.59 The second phrase may hint in the latter direction, where Peter is said to be ὁ κοινωνός of the glory about to be revealed. Given that the designation (ὁ κοινωνός) relates to sharing in the glory that awaits the readers (cf. 4.13), μάρτυς appears to describe the author’s participatory experience in suffering. In other words, ‘Peter’ is presented as having shared the sufferings of Christ, whether in the persecution he faced during his lifetime (cf. Acts

56   Cf. Boring 166; Elliott 819; Feldmeier 233. Some who defend the letter’s authenticity think that the apostle Peter is using his failed experience as an eyewitness of Christ’s suffering as an illustration of failure and restoration (see Grudem 186; Lamb, ‘Saint Peter as “Sympresbyteros” ’, 189–207). 57   Cf. Feldmeier 233. Had the focus been on ‘Peter’s’ eyewitness observance of Christ’s sufferings, it would have perhaps been more natural, as noted by Bony (172), to have chosen a term like αὐτόπτης (Luke 1.2) or ἐπόπτης (2 Pet 1.16). These terms, in fact, are sometimes contrasted with μάρτυς, the former focusing on the observation of a situation, with the latter stressing the testimony given about it (see Josephus, War 6.134; Plutarch, Ages. 14.1; Eusebius, Theoph. Frag. 3; John Chrysostom, Ascens. 26; Theodoret, Interpretatio in xii prophetas minores [PG 81:1980]). 58   E.g., Kelly 198–99; Best 168; Michaels 280–81; Achtemeier 323–24; McKnight 259 n. 6; Elliott 818–19; Green 165; Watson 116. It is also possible to combine these meanings: ‘Peter’ bore witness to the sufferings of Christ because he was a witness of the sufferings of Christ (see Huther 231; Weidner 167). 59   Doering, ‘Author Construction’, 659–60. The former possibility is argued by Elliott (819), taking μάρτυς to refer to ‘Peter as one who in his preaching witnessed to the reality of Christ’s having suffered, died, and having been resurrected and glorified’. Elliott also rejects the idea that the sense of μάρτυς as ‘blood-witness’ is present in 1 Peter.

512

1 PETER

5.18, 40–41; 12.3–11) or in his eventual martyrdom.60 From this experience, which would have been especially relevant to these readers, he provides a kind of ‘practical testimony’.61 Read in the context of the letter’s pseudepigraphic character, this language has been understood as an ex eventu prophecy whereby ‘Peter’ predicts (or, in effect, indicates) his own death and subsequent glorification.62 Whether or not such a testamentary reflection was intended, this meaning would have no doubt resonated among later readers who knew about Peter’s martyrdom.63 This interpretation is strengthened by comparison with the similar vocabulary used to describe Peter’s death in 1 Clem. 5.4 (οὕτω μαρτυρήσας; see further below). That the sense of ‘bearing witness’ in 1 Clement goes beyond enduring suffering and points to death is confirmed by 60   Some interpreters read this verse as a reference to the persecution that Peter faced as a disciple of Jesus (e.g., Brox 229–30; cf. Riggenbach, ‘Die Poimenik’, 186; Baumeister, Die Anfänge der Theologie, 209). Others find a specific reference to Peter’s martyrdom (e.g., Leaney 69; Feldmeier 233; cf. Popp, ‘Theologie der Anerkennung’, 188). 61   Using the designation of Doering, ‘Author Construction’, 659. Others have also understood μάρτυς to contain a participatory element (e.g., Wiesinger 308; Johnstone 380–81; Masterman 159; Mitchell 279; Davids 177; Marshall 161; Donelson 144; Vinson 229). Cf. Steetskamp, Autoschaft und Sklavenperspektive, 109–10: ‘Damit lädt der Text die Leserinnen und Leser ein, 5,1 als Rückblick auf das Martyrium des Apostels Petrus zu verstehen, das auf der Schwelle vom 1. zum 2. Jh. zur Enzyklopädie der frühen Christenheit gehörte. Erst das Wissen der Adressaten um das Martyrium des realen Petrus macht die Qualifizierung des expliziten “Petrus” als μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, Zeuge der Leiden Christi, überzeugend, denn der Vorwurf Jesu an Petrus in Gethsemane, nicht eine Stunde mit ihm wachen zu können (Mt 26,40), die Verleugnung Jesu während der Befragung Jesu durch den Sanhedrin (Mt 26,69–75) und seine Abwesenheit bei der Kreuzigung würde die Darstellung eines noch lebenden Petrus als Passionszeugen eher unglaubwürdig machen’ (original emphasis). 62   So, e.g., von Soden 165; Knopf 188–89 (possible); Masterman 159; Leaney 69; cf. Beare 198; Donelson 142 n. b. See also Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium, 543, on how this reference could work in a pseudepigraphical writing. 63   On the possibly testamentary character of 1 Peter at this point, see Doering, ‘Author Construction’, 660–61 (with n. 75, for the suggestion that the letter may fit the testamentary type, in relation to the classification of pseudepigraphical letters by Bauckham, ‘Pseudo-Apostolic Letters’). Cf. Eve 1269: ‘if Peter was known to have been martyred this would strengthen the appeal to the elders to suffer likewise’. By the early second century, the tradition about Peter’s death was widespread: John 21.18–19; 1 Clem. 5.4; Ascen. Isa. 4.2–3; Ignatius, Rom. 4.3; Apoc. Pet. 14.



5.1–5

513

the parallel description of Paul as ‘bearing witness before the rulers (μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων)’, thus being ‘set free from this world and transported up to the holy place’ (1 Clem. 5.7).64 Finally, as a further description of ‘Peter’s’ identity, the author includes the designation ὁ καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός, a phrase that echoes the language of Rom 8.18 (τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς; cf. also Gal 3.23).65 Depending on how we construe the phrase, this may enhance the sense of mutuality between ‘Peter’ and his fellowelders, and/or indicate something unique about ‘Peter’s’ experience and position. The article is repeated as a way to mark off this title from the previous two (and also to clarify which substantive the genitive modifies).66 So, rather than serving its usual conjunctive purpose, the placement of καί in postpositive position indicates that it functions adverbially.67 In this case, it marks a progression in which the final descriptor is elevated and emphasised: not only does ‘Peter’ share with these elders the role of leadership and the experience of suffering (in his case, already to the point of death), he also participates in the anticipated eschatological glory. Lexical considerations further inform our understanding of the clause. As Campbell points out, ‘the primary idea expressed by κοινωνός and its cognates is not that of association with another person or other persons, but that of participation in something in   Cf. Bockmuehl, Remembered Peter, 126: ‘For both apostles the aorist participle used [in 1 Clem. 5] of their definitive “witness”… is evidently understood to imply their demise’. 65   Michaels attributes these similarities to shared tradition on the basis that ‘Peter’s present infinitive (ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι) appears to represent a more vulgar idiom than Paul’s aorist’ (282; cf. also Davids 177 n. 10). But during the Koine period μέλλω is used much less frequently with the aorist infinitive (cf. Acts 12.6; Rev 1.19; 3.2, 16; 12.4) than with the present infinitive (see Robertson, Grammar, 857), which could mean that the Petrine author was merely updating the rare construction. Hence, this verse seems to indicate some Pauline influence (cf. Chase, ‘First Epistle of Peter’, 788; Foster, ‘Literary Relations’, 427; see also Weiss, Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, 423, who proposes that the literary relationship is reversed). 66   Instead of reading the article (ὁ) at this point, Hofmann (186) accentuates the form differently, claiming that ὅ (which he takes as equivalent to δι᾽ ὅ, ‘for this reason’) should be understood. For a critique, see Keil 165 n. 1. 67   On the postpositive position of καί, see Titrud, ‘The Overlooked ΚΑΙ’, 8–9. On the adverbial function of καί, see Heckert, Discourse Function, 71–90; Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 99–106. 64

514

1 PETER

which others also participate’.68 A genitive modifier in connection with κοινωνός often denotes a fellow participant (cf. Isa 1.23 LXX; 1 Cor 10.20), but since it is employed with an idea or experience (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.177), here it describes the author as ‘one who shares/will share in the glory’. What is left unstated is the one(s) with whom ‘Peter’ shares this experience. Is it his fellow elders or Christ (or both)? The answer depends on the meaning of ‘glory’. What, then, is the δόξα (‘glory’) to which the author refers, and when is it experienced by ‘Peter’? For some, the reference to δόξα is related to the lifetime of the apostle Peter, who was given a special preview of Jesus’ glory upon the mount of Transfiguration (cf. 2 Pet 1.16–18).69 Others think that ‘Peter’ is speaking beyond the grave (giving a kind of testamentary character to the letter at this point [see n. 63 above]) as one who has died and therefore already shares in the promised eschatological glory.70 In both of these cases, ‘Peter’s’ experience of glory—at least in the present—is shared not with the elders, but with Christ.71 Slightly differently, some claim that the verse indicates that ‘Peter’ has already begun participating in the glory that awaits the readers (‘one who shares in the glory’; cf.   Campbell, ‘ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ and Its Cognates’, 353.   Various interpreters have held this view (e.g., Bede 114; Webster–Wilkinson 48; Clowney 198; Charles 352; cf. Burton, Greek Testament, 504; Ramsey, Transfiguration of Christ, 42; Green, Vox Petri, 72–73; see also Boobyer, ‘Indebtedness of 2 Peter’, 43, who claimed that the author of 2 Peter read v. 1 in this way), but it was defended at length by Selwyn (228–29). Although Selwyn’s presentation is intriguing, strong objections remain. First, it is difficult to know exactly what kind of development the story of the Transfiguration has undergone and whether the language used in the present verse would have immediately invoked an episode from Peter’s life (see Best 169). Second, one could make the case that the historical Peter merely observed the glory at the Transfiguration, but he did not actually participate in it (see Hiebert 302). Finally, the experience of glory is mentioned after the sufferings of Christ and in connection with the future revelation of God, which does not suggest a past experience of the apostle (see Grudem 186–87). 70   So, e.g., von Soden 165; Knopf 189; Windisch 79; Beare 198; Frankemölle 67 (possible); cf. Bosetti, Il Pastore, 197–98; Doering, ‘Author Construction’, 661–62. 71   In support of this view, some claim that if ‘Peter’ were participating with the elders, the term συγκοινωνός (cf. Phil 1.7) would have been expected (see Bigg 187; Blenkin 113). However, while συγκοινωνός would have made the situation clearer, the uncompounded form (κοινωνός) could just as easily communicate a shared experience with the elders. 68 69



5.1–5

515

NRSV, NET, REB).72 It is also possible, however, to interpret this as ‘Peter’s’ anticipation of the experience of glory in the future (‘one who will share in the glory’; cf. NIV, NLT, NCV).73 According to this reading, δόξα represents the eschatological reward that Christ brings to believers at his second coming (cf. 1.5; 4.13).74 As such, the ones with whom this glory will be shared are his fellow elders.75 The economy of language makes it difficult to choose between these options and to discern what it implies about ‘Peter’ at the point in time when the author writes. This is another place where the verse can be read on two levels. On one level, the pseudonymous author leaves the construction vague enough to allow ‘Peter’ to connect with the leaders of these Christian communities through a shared expectation: despite their present suffering, all Christians— including ‘Peter’—await the experience of glory that will soon be revealed at the eschaton and in which Christ already shares (cf. 1.7, 11, 21). As such, the ‘glory’ encompasses Christ, Peter, the elders, and indeed all Christians (cf. 2.21; 4.13; 5.9–10).76 The description of Peter thus, to some extent, places him alongside other believers, and specifically the other elders. But it also suggests a second level of reading that distinguishes ‘Peter’: unlike them, he ‘has already arrived at the glory that is however yet to be revealed to all’.77 This interpretation is further strengthened by the collocation of similar vocabulary in 1 Clement’s description of Peter, ‘who… bore up under hardships… many times; 72   In support of this reading, Johnstone (381) postulates that ὤν is understood as part of the first clause (‘who am’). 73   See, e.g., Barnes 201; Goppelt 342; Schreiner 269. Among this group, some argue that the δόξα refers to the promise of exaltation/glorification given to Peter by Jesus in John 23.36 or perhaps Matt 19.28 (see Fausset 512; Alford 381; Caffin 206; Johnstone 381; Bigg 187; Hart 76). 74   Those who adopt this interpretation often assume the presence of the future participle ἐσόμενος, ‘one who will share’ (see Pott 144; Hottinger 141), which indicates that the expectation of future glory is conceived with certainty (Hensler 215–16; de Wette 56; Cook 215). 75   As a mediating position, some understand δόξα as a reference to ‘Peter’s’ current participation in the glory that belongs to the life of the Spirit (cf. 4.14: τὸ τῆς δόξης πνεῦμα), which represents a foretaste of the glory to come (e.g., Benson 293–94; Demarest 262). In this case, his experience is shared with his fellow elders. 76   Cf. Achtemeier 65; Feldmeier 94. 77   Doering, ‘Author Construction’, 661, original emphasis.

516

1 PETER

and having thus borne his witness [οὕτω μαρτυρήσας] he went to the place of glory [τόπον τῆς δόξης] he deserved’ (1 Clem. 5.4; trans. Ehrman [LCL]).78 Taken together, then, the depiction of ‘Peter’ as μάρτυς and as κοινωνὸς τῆς δόξης may suggest that his exemplary witness has already culminated in his death. For readers who knew of the death of the historical Peter, ‘Peter’ thus speaks as one who already partakes of the glory soon to be revealed, and can thus give further assurance as to the outcome of faithful endurance through suffering even to death. 2 ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ θεοῦ In the previous verse, only the initial form of the exhortation (παρακαλῶ) is directed toward the πρεσβύτεροι. The content of this paraenesis (i.e., the action to which they are exhorted) is now specified. Rather than continuing the thought by way of a complementary infinitive, the specifics are indicated through a finite imperative (ποιμάνατε).79 Some earlier translations rendered the verb, ‘feed (the flock)’ (Wycliffe, Geneva, KJV, Douay-Rheims).80 The vocabulary of John 21.15–17 (on which see below) may be an influence here, where the focus on feeding is both expressed in the vocabulary of Jesus’ instructions and also arises from the wider setting of the ‘breakfast’ meal. But this (mis)translation could be understood as limiting the command to an overly narrow referent, namely, providing spiritual sustenance to the Christian community through the ministry of teaching and instruction.81 It is better to translate the exhortation, ‘tend (the flock)’ (cf. ASV, NRSV, NAB)   Cf. Doering, ‘Author Construction’, 660.   At times, special reference is made to the aorist tense of the imperative ποιμάνατε, with some contending that it brings a special sharpness and force (e.g., Alford 381; Johnstone 382; Picirilli 204; cf. also MHT 3:77; BDF §337[2]). Yet this claim is based on a now outdated notion of aspectual function in Greek (see further Porter, Verbal Aspect, 335–61; Campbell, Non-Indicative Verb, 79–100). This same misunderstanding has led others to posit an ingressive idea, such that tending the flock is something that needs to be started by the elders (as suggested by Kelly 199–200; Spicq 166; Goppelt 343; Davids 178; Forbes 167). 80   Had this been the author’s intention, it might have been more natural to employ the verb βόσκω. Cf. Trench, Synonyms, 85: ‘Βόσκειν… is simply “to feed”: but ποιμαίνειν involves much more; the whole office of the shepherd, the guiding, guarding, folding of the flock, as well as finding of nourishment for it’. 81   An example of one who unnecessarily limits this command is Luther, who claims that ‘to feed them is nothing else but to preach the Gospel, whereby souls 78 79



5.1–5

517

or ‘shepherd (the flock)’ (cf. ESV, NASB, HCSB). This allows for a more holistic description of the elders’ task, including not only teaching, but also leading, guiding, defending, and even rebuking the ‘flock’ (ποίμνιον).82 Pastoral imagery is prevalent in the Hebrew Bible, attributed in large part to the fact that the people of Israel were part of an agrarian society in which sheep and other livestock played an important role. Given this experience, the shepherd (ποιμήν) is normally portrayed in a positive light. In fact, within the Jewish scriptures shepherd imagery is widely used to depict the loving care of God for the people of God.83 The influence of this portrayal is evident during the Second Temple period—despite Hellenistic and Roman influences—as Jewish writers continue to make similar appeals to this imagery (cf. Sir 18.13; Philo, Agric. 51; Virt. 58; Mos. 60–62; 4Q504; CD 12; 2 Bar. 77.13–16). The shepherd metaphor is also appropriated in Greek and Roman literature (Suetonius, Tib. 32.2; Plutarch, Def. orac. 19 [Mor. 420B]). Since the image involved protection and nurture for those under one’s care (Xenophon, Cyr. 8.2.14; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.44), kings and heroes were sometimes described as ‘shepherds of the people’.84 Nevertheless, these portrayals stand in contrast to the general perspective on shepherds in the first-century, urban environments to which 1 Peter is addressed.85 There, shepherds were commonly perceived are nourished, made fat and fruitful,—since the sheep thrive upon the Gospel and the word of God’ (221; cf. Schreiner 269–70). 82   There is no indication that the cognate accusative (ποιμάνατε τό… ποίμνιον) has any special emphasis here (see Young, New Testament Greek, 18). 83   See Gen 48.15; 49.24; Pss 23[22]; 28[27].9; 74[73].1; 77.20[76.21]; 78[77].52–55; 79[78].13; 80.1[79.2]; 95[94].7; 100[99].3; Isa 40.10–11; 49.9–13; 63.11; Jer 23.1–3; 31.10; Ezek 34.31; Mic 2.12–13; 4.6–8; 7.14–15. Within the Hebrew Bible, others are also depicted using the same imagery, including the Israelite leadership (Num 27.17; 1 Sam 21.8; 2 Sam 5.2; 7.7–8 1 Kgs 2.17; Ps 78.70–72; Isa 56.11; Jer 2.8; 3.15; 10.21; 22.22; 23.1–4; 25.1–4; 25.34–36; 50.6; Ezek 34.2–10; Zech 10.3; 11.5–8) and Gentile rulers (Isa 44.28; Jer 6.3; 12.10; 25.34–36; 49.19; 50.44; Nah 3.18), although they do not always carry out their duties in a praiseworthy manner. See further Gan, The Metaphor of Shepherd; cf. also Bosetti, Il Pastore, 227–58. 84   See Haubold, Homer’s People, 17–20. For a complete list of references in Homer, see Ibid, 197. 85   For a fuller treatment of shepherds in the Greco-Roman world (including their social rank, responsibilities, etc.), see Huebner, Papyi and the Social World, 115–34.

518

1 PETER

as marginal members of society who were violent and difficult to control.86 Following the precedent set in the Jewish scriptures, the authors of the NT employ the shepherd metaphor in a positive way. Jesus’ messianic role was interpreted as that of the true shepherd who would gather the flock of God.87 The author has already used this imagery of Christ in 2.25 (cf. also 5.4). Those who served in the church were therefore thought to be carrying on the shepherding duties of Christ; hence the use of ποιμήν within early Christian literature (Eph 4.11; Ign. Phld. 2.1; Rom 9.1; Herm. Sim. 9.31.5–6; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3.23–27). A particularly significant parallel in this regard is John 21.15–17, where Jesus charges Peter, via his repeated question as to whether Peter loves him, to feed and shepherd his sheep.88 There is some literary variation among Jesus’ three questions and exhortations, perhaps most relevantly the variation between the instruction to ‘feed’ (βόσκε) in the first and third expressions, and to ‘shepherd/ tend’ (ποίμαινε) in the second (the same verb as used here).89 This distinctively Johannine story places Peter in the role of shepherd, while here that responsibility is placed, by ‘Peter’, onto those who share leadership as ‘co-elders’, suggesting a certain sharing of Peter’s implied authority here.90 Based on the shepherd imagery, the antithetical parallels (μή[δε]… ἀλλά) in vv. 2–3, and the directives given to church leaders, scholars have suggested that source materials lie behind these instructions. In his study of the instructions to the ‫מבקר‬ (instructor/overseer) at Qumran (see esp. CD 13.7–12), Nauck noted the close association between shepherding and oversight which is 86   E.g., Sophocles, Oed. tyr. 1030; Livy 1.4.9; 1.40.5–7; 5.53.8–9; Seneca, Ep. 47.10.7. Some Jewish texts acknowledge the disreputable position of shepherds in society (e.g., Philo, Agr. 61); others indicate the same ideological disdain (Midr. Ps 23.2). 87   Matt 9.36 [//Mark 6.34]; Matt 10.6; 15.24; 26.31 [//Mark 14.27]; John 10.1–18; 21.15–19. See further Tooley, ‘Shepherd and Sheep Image’, 15–25; Chae, Eschatological Davidic Shepherd. 88   On the parallels, see Elliott, ‘Ministry and Church Order’, 383–84; Edwards, ‘Guarding the Flock’, 86. 89   There is also variation in the description of the people (‘lambs’, ἀρνία [v. 15]; ‘sheep’, πρόβατα [vv. 16 and 17]), and, famously, in the verbs for ‘love’ (ἀγαπᾷς in vv. 15 and 16; φιλεῖς in v. 17). 90   Cf. Bockmuehl, Simon Peter, 130.



5.1–5

519

shared by early Christian traditions—and specifically here in the combination of ποιμάνατε and ἐπισκοποῦντες. He suggested therefore that the office of bishop in early Christianity found its Vorbild in the office of overseer from Qumran.91 It is, however, difficult to be confident of any direct connection or tradition-historical link, though the analogy is significant. As often, it is easier to say that the author of 1 Peter was influenced by a range of Jewish and early Christian traditions than it is to identify precisely which traditions these are and any direct source(s) used by the author. This is especially the case here in vv. 1–5, given the range of traditions surrounding the image of a shepherd, including many involving the apostle Peter.92 Further, the types of contrasts found in vv. 1–5 are typical of the style of 1 Peter.93 From this brief statement, we learn two things about the ‘flock’ (ποίμνιον). First, the possessive genitive (θεοῦ) indicates that it ultimately belongs to God, not the elders. Likewise, it later becomes clear that the elders/shepherds serve under the authority of Christ, the ‘chief shepherd’ (ἀρχιποίμην, 5.4). This hierarchy provides important perspective for those who possessed authority to lead and direct the Christian communities, both relativising but also bolstering their authority. Second, the prepositional phrase ἐν ὑμῖν defines more specifically which flock the elders are instructed to shepherd.

91   See esp. Nauck, ‘Probleme des frühchristlichen Amtsverständnisses’, 207: ‘In der Frage des Ursprungs des urchristlichen Bischofstitels und Bischofsamtes dürfen wir zuversichtlicher urteilen, daß das Vorbild im Aufseheramt der jüdischen Sekte zu sehen ist’. Others have reached similar conclusions. For instance, Brown argues, ‘in Christian communities the custom of having presbyters or elders, which derived from the Synagogue, was reshaped and modified by the example of another institution taken over from sectarian Judaism, namely, the more direct role of the supervisor’ (Priest and Bishop, 68–69; cf. also Campbell, Elders, 155–59). 92   See Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter in the New Testament, 139–47. Commentators who espouse Petrine authorship often connect these words back to John 21.15–17 (see, e.g., Johnstone 382; Masterman 160; Plumptre 152; cf. also Gundry, ‘ “Verba Christ” ’, 341–42; idem, ‘Further Verba’, 216–18; Tenney, ‘Some Possible Parallels’, 97–98). But whether there is enough evidence to draw such a connection is questionable (see Best, ‘Gospel Tradition’, 97–98). In any case, a link between traditions about Peter is not evidence that the historical Peter wrote the letter. 93   See Achtemeier 326.

520

1 PETER

A few earlier commentators understood this phrase adverbially, as though it denoted the manner in which the shepherding was carried out: ‘tend the flock of God in as much as it is within you’.94 But this interpretation is difficult to sustain given the placement of the prepositional phrase between the article and the substantive. The attributive position is common in 1 Peter, indicating that the prepo�sition modifies ποίμνιον. Furthermore, if it was meant to denote manner, we might have expected an alternative construction, such as τὸ καθ’ ὑμᾶς (cf. Rom 1.15) or τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν (cf. Rom 12.18).95 Most, therefore, attribute a local force to ἐν ὑμῖν, indicating that the elders’ oversight is to be exercised within those communities located proximate to them, ‘the flock of God among/around you’ (cf. NET, NASB, HCSB, ESV).96 There are some who seek to add further specificity to this local meaning, arguing that the phrase indicates—based on the analogy of εἶναι or κεῖσθαι ἔν τινι—the sphere of the elders’ influence and authority, ‘the flock of God under your care’ (cf. NRSV, NIV, NLT, NCV).97 In this way, the phrase ‘denotes that part of the flock committed to a particular elder’s care’.98 Support for this interpretation is sought in the following verse, which instructs elders not to lord it over the ‘portion’ (κλῆρος) of the flock that they have been assigned. But the need to posit analogous forms—which are lacking in the present verse—is indicative of the fact that ἐν ὑμῖν cannot   E.g., Erasmus 683; Calvin 145; Aretius 65 (possible); Augusti 255.   As pointed out previously by others (e.g., Gerhard 710; Wiesinger 310; Lillie 305). 96   E.g., de Wette 56; Alford 381–82; Caffin 206; Knopf 189; Schiwy 61; Windisch 79; Hiebert 303; Elliott 824; Schlosser 279; Vahrenhorst 188. One objection that is commonly raised against this interpretation comes by way of analogy with v. 1 (see further Hofmann 187; Beare 199). It is possible, many contend, for the Petrine author to address the elders (i.e., the subgroup) within the larger community (v. 1), but impossible to assign ἐν ὑμῖν a local meaning in v. 2, as if the flock (i.e., large group) were within the group of elders (i.e., the subgroup). This, however, confuses two different senses. While ἐν ὑμῖν in v. 1 situates a smaller group within a larger corporate body, the same phrase in v. 2 denotes proximity to a particular object (cf. John 12.35). 97   E.g., Macknight 501; Bengel 80; Steiger 2:288; Jachmann 169; Huther 232; Hofmann 187; Keil 165–66; Lenski 217; Beare 199; Achtemeier 325; Prigent 138. Others extend the meaning by emphasising the geographic focus: ‘the flock that is in your lands’ (Grotius 106; Benson 294; Pott 144). 98   Cranfield 127; cf. Achtemeier 325. 94 95



5.1–5

521

function in this way,99 and the simple local force is to be taken as what is conveyed. ἐπισκοποῦντες μὴ ἀναγκαστῶς ἀλλ’ ἀλλ’ ἑκουσίως κατὰ θεόν, θεόν, μηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς ἀλλὰ προθύμως The author further explains how the command to ‘tend/shepherd the flock’ is to be carried out by way of the participle ἐπισκοποῦντες (‘by overseeing’; on the text-critical issue see Text at 5.2 n. e).100 The verb ἐπισκοπέω is found only occasionally in our literature, usually carrying a sense close to that of σκοπέω, viz. paying attention to someone/thing (Deut 11.12 LXX; Heb 12.15; Josephus, War 5.503). In certain instances—as it does here—this word was given a more specific nuance, focusing on one’s responsibility to care for the needs of others (cf. 2 Chr 34.12 LXX). It was eventually employed by Christian authors to denote service in church leadership (Herm. Vis. 3.5.1; cf. Ign. Rom. 9.1). Because ἐπίσκοπος and ἐπισκοπέω are derived from the same root, and because πρεσβύτεροι are entrusted with the task of ‘oversight’ (ἐπισκοποῦντες), many have identified elders and overseers as synonymous positions in the form of church organisation represented here.101 Following closely after the participle are three antithetical parallels used to illustrate the character of pastoral ‘oversight’—both in terms of negative abuses and positive ideals. The three warnings   Cf. Kühl 276. Note that Winer (Grammar, 481 n. 1) describes this as only a remote grammatical possibility. 100   Most similarly view ἐπισκοποῦντες as denoting means (e.g., Elliott 824; Senior 139; Jobes 304; Vinson 231; Watson 117; cf. Lynch, ‘1 Peter 5:1–5’, 535). According to Forbes, the participle ‘express[es] the manner in which the flock is to be shepherded’, but at the same time he contends that the form ‘also has derived imp[eratival] force by its dependence on the imp[erative] ποιμάνατε’ (168). However, this represents a confusion of the imperatival function of the participle (which is independent) with the adverbial function (which is dependent). It would thus be more precise to describe ἐπισκοποῦντες as potentially performing an attendant circumstance function (as argued by Dubis 160; cf. Achtemeier 325), yet this participle does not possess any of the common structural and semantic markers that indicate such a usage (see Wallace, Grammar, 640–45). 101   E.g., Demarest 263; Plumptre 153; Caffin 206; Selwyn 230; Schreiner 270; cf. Cothenet, ‘La Première Epître’, 149. For a full defence of this position, see Merkle, Elder and Overseer, esp. 115–17. 99

522

1 PETER

probably do not represent specific problems within the Petrine congregations, but reflect dangers to which all elders would have been exposed as a result of their position.102 Broadly comparable (and more extended) concerns about the qualities and practices of leaders are expressed elsewhere, notably in 1 Tim 3.2–10 and Titus 1.5–10.103 First, the oversight of God’s flock should be performed ‘willingly’ (ἑκουσίως), not ‘under compulsion’ (ἀναγκαστῶς).104 The adverb ἀναγκαστῶς is rare prior to its appearance in 1 Peter (found only in Plato, [Ax.] 366a), although its related adjectival form (ἀναγκαστός) appears on a few occasions (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 6.58; Josephus, Ant. 18.37; Plutarch, Garr. 2 [Mor. 503A]), most commonly in the work of Epictetus.105 It refers to an obligatory action undertaken out of compulsion. The need for such an injunction is more understandable when two underlying factors are considered. One factor is that there is evidence from the early church that some elders were selected or appointed to their tasks (cf. Acts 14.23; Titus 1.5; 1 Clem. 42.4; 44.3). If this is the situation presupposed here, it would explain how elders could potentially perform their service ‘unwillingly’.106 The other factor—and this may be the more prominent aspect, particularly if elders often represented the ‘senior’ figures in the community—is that the ‘task [of elders] in relation to the congregation was linked with many personal and substantive hardships and exposed them to special danger in the public domain’.107 It would be   Cf. Bosetti, Il Pastore, 215.   The qualities expected of the ἐπίσκοπος in 1 Tim 3.1–7 also find close secular parallels in Onosander, De imperatoris officio 1.1, where the qualities to be sought in a military general are listed. 104   Such a warning is not found in other advice on ecclesiastical responsibilities, although the language is comparable to the antithesis found in Phlm 14: μὴ κατὰ ἀνάγκην… ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον (cf. 1 Cor 9.17). 105   See Diatr. 1.17.27; 2.5.8; 2.15.1; 3.24.3; 4.1.58, 78; 4.4.33. Epictetus also employs the two related forms, the adjective ἀνανάγκαστος (Diatr. 1.6.40; 1.17.21, 23, 27; 2.5.8; 2.15.1; 2.19.29; 2.23.42; 3.3.10; 3.5.8; 3.24.69) and adverb ἀναναγκάστως (Diatr. 3.24.39). 106   For a later example of one who attempted to avoid ordained service in the church, see John Chrysostom’s work On the Priesthood, which explains the difficulty of the task and thus why Chrysostom avoided it. 107   Goppelt 345; cf. Hart 76; Moffatt 163; Davids 179; Boring 170; Bosetti 203–204. An important point of clarification is made by Mason: ‘He is not treating 102 103



5.1–5

523

understandable that some elders might be hesitant to serve, given that Christian leaders were often targeted during times of conflict (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.28; 8.2.5). These same conditions are assumed elsewhere within early Christian literature, as stress is placed on the importance of leadership roles (cf. 1 Tim 3.1) and the attitude with which they should be undertaken (cf. Heb 13.17). Rather than being constrained to lead the congregations out of a sense of obligation, the elders were expected to approach their roles ‘willingly’. The term ἑκουσίως is used with somewhat more frequency than its antonym, ἀναγκαστῶς. It describes an action (or disposition) that is not governed by compulsion or coercion (Ps 53.8 LXX; 4 Macc 8.24), with stress often being placed on the fact that the action was informed by both intention and deliberation (2 Macc 14.3; Heb 10.26; Josephus, Ant. 4.251; Philo, Leg. 1.99). As such, it became an ideal word to describe the attitude by which one faced hardship or loss (Dan 4.6 LXX; 4 Macc 5.23). The willingness of elders to exercise oversight within the community is further qualified by the phrase κατὰ θεόν, which should be understood in close connection to the adverb ἑκουσίως.108 It represents the author’s emphatic means of underlining the fact that such ‘willingness’ is in accordance with (κατά) the will of God.109 of the motives which should lead a man to accept the position. He speaks to persons who already hold the office, and urges them not to leave the flock, like hirelings, when they see the persecution coming on’ (433; original emphasis). 108   Cf. Michaels 284; Elliott 829; see also Lynch, ‘1 Peter 5:1–5’, 536 n. 103. According to Jobes, the prepositional phrase is set ‘in contrast to overseeing the church according to the norms of society or the dictates of Roman rule’ (305). But her interpretation assumes that κατὰ θεόν modifies ἐπισκοποῦντες (cf. also Green 166 n. 35; Forbes 168), which is difficult to sustain in light of its location within the μή… ἀλλά construction. Rather than taking κατὰ θεόν as specifying how elders should oversee the church, it is better to understand it as indicating something about the nature of the elders’ willingness to serve (see Lenski 219; Richard 207). 109   Others have similarly understood the phrase as equivalent to κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (e.g., Pott 145; Caffin 206; Keil 166; Huther 233; Grudem 188; Waltner 157; Dubis 161), a usage that is reflected elsewhere (Rom 8.27; 2 Cor 7.9–11). An alternative is to take κατά as denoting a model to be followed, ‘like God does’ (cf. 1 Pet 4.6). Based on this interpretation, some view the phrase as setting out a pattern of willing oversight, whether it be following the example of God (e.g., Johnston 384; Mitchell 279–80; Masterman 161; Hiebert 304) or Christ (e.g., Bennett 252–53; cf. Bigg 188). The former (i.e., equivalent to κατὰ

524

1 PETER

The second antithesis relates to the motives behind an elder’s service. The task of overseeing the church, the author states, should be carried out ‘eagerly’ (προθύμως) and not ‘with a desire for dishonest gain’ (αἰσχροκερδῶς). The adverbial form αἰσχρο­ κερδῶς only appears here in Koine literature; yet its adjectival form (αἰσχροκερδής) is included within various vice lists (Philo, Sacr. 32; Claudius Ptolemy, Tetr. 3.14.15; cf. T.Jud. 16.1 [αἰσχροκερδία]) as well as within the qualifications for ecclesiastical positions (cf. 1 Tim 3.8 [μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς]; Titus 1.7). At the heart of its meaning is a base and ignoble desire that will do anything for—and is only quenched by—money,110 a trait that was scorned by both Christians and pagans alike (cf. Euripides, Andr. 451; Aristophanes, Pax. 623). The need to avoid greedy and dishonest financial gain is a fairly standard warning in the early church, especially as it pertains to Christian leadership (Acts 20.32–35; 1 Tim 3.3, 8; Titus 1.7; Did. 15.1; Pol. Phil. 5.2; 6.1). But despite the common parlance, there does seem to be a real risk motivating this counsel. The Didache (11.1–13.7) warns against communities being taken advantage of by leaders (travelling prophets and teachers, in particular) who demand money, food, or lodging.111 Perhaps in part as a way of avoiding the risks associated with itinerant prophets and teachers, it further recommends the appointment of ἐπίσκοποι and διάκονοι (Did. 15.1–2).112 But resident elders could also potentially exploit τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ) seems to provide the best sense, however: God’s desire for willing service is more relevant in this situation than the divine willingness to serve. 110   See TLNT 1:45–48. This is clear from the definition of αἰσχροκέρδεια provided by Theophrastus. He describes it as ‘the desire (ἐπιθυμία) for shameful gain’ (Char. 30.1). He then illustrates the character of an avaricious person with numerous examples: ‘When he sells wine, he will sell it watered down to his own friends. He will seize the opportunity of taking his boys to the play, when the lessees of the theatre grant free admission…. If a friend, or a friend’s daughter, is to be married, he will go abroad a little while before, in order to avoid giving a wedding present’ (Char. 30.5–6, 19; trans. Jebb). 111   From a somewhat different perspective, although addressing the same issue, Lucian’s satirical account of Peregrinus describes his time as a Christian preacher and the gullibility of Christians who supplied his material needs (Lucian, Peregrinus 13, 16). 112   See further Horrell, ‘Leadership Patterns’, 320–21.



5.1–5

525

their congregations. Not only did some elders receive compensation for their services (1 Tim 5.17–18; cf. the financial or material support of apostles: 1 Cor 9.3–12; Gal 6.6; Phil 4.10), they may have been responsible for the oversight and management of the general funds of the entire community (Acts 5.1–5; 11.30; 1 Cor 16.1–2; 2 Cor 9.1–5). If these practices were also true in the communi� ties addressed by 1 Peter,113 then the elders could potentially make financial gains from their position of leadership (cf. Pol. Phil. 11.1– 4; Titus 1.11).114 Instead of being motivated by what might be gained from their position, elders are expected to carry out their tasks ‘eagerly’. The term used here, προθύμως, denotes a willing eagerness to engage in noble pursuits.115 In some cases, it refers to the ardent zeal by which one approached a task;116 hence, it is commonly employed in military contexts to refer to the commendable efforts of soldiers of war (cf. Polybius, Hist. 1.30.11; Diodorus Siculus 20.7.3; cf. 4 Macc 16.16). If this is the case in the present verse, then it would emphasise the strident effort and determination by which the elders were to fulfill their responsibilities. However, προθύμως also contains another nuance that might be more prominent in v. 2. In many honorary inscriptions from the Hellenistic world, the term describes the manner in which a prominent individual performed an act of generosity for the community.117 This meaning best explains the use   Some think that v. 2 indicates that elders received compensation for their services (e.g., Cook 216; Sadler 141; Bigg 188; Mitchell 280), while others understand it to mean that they performed the duties of treasurer of church funds (e.g., Blenkin 114). 114   If the elders were likely to have represented the senior figures in the community, male heads of household (so the thesis of Campbell, Elders), their position of relative socio-economic power enhances their ability to mistreat or exploit other members of the community, and their more elevated economic position does not by any means prevent them from being tempted to benefit financially from their role. 115   Only rarely is προθύμως used to describe an eagerness to partake in pursuits considered evil or disgraceful by a given author (e.g., Philo, Virt. 205; Josephus, War 2.624). 116   See TDNT 6:694–700. 117   See TLNT 3:180–84. In Pessinus (Galatia), for instance, a certain Theodotos is honoured for his service in various positions in the city, as well as ‘eagerly (προ[θύμ]ως) fulfilling all liturgies from his own means’ (I.Pessinus 13; cf. I.Iasos 54; IG II2 554; I.Smyrna 579II). 113

526

1 PETER

of the term in the present context, wherein προθύμως is contrasted with a self-motivated greed. 3 μηδ᾿ ὡς κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων ἀλλὰ τύποι γινόμενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου Continuing the μή(δε)… ἀλλά pattern from the previous verse, the author now provides a third set of antitheses. The form by which this contrast is conveyed is different, however: in place of adverbs, the author here employs two participles (κατακυριεύοντες and γινόμενοι). For some, these forms carry an imperatival force, ‘do not lord it over… but be examples’ (cf. NRSV, CEV, NAB, EHV, NET, GNT).118 Others treat the participles as adverbial modifiers of the imperative ποιμάνατε (v. 2): like ἐπισκοποῦντες, they are said to further indicate the manner or means by which elders are to shepherd the flock (cf. CEB, NASB, NLT).119 Neither of these views proves to be completely satisfactory. Structurally, it is best to treat the participial clauses within the antithetical parallelism that the author began in v. 2. Without any indication that he has moved away from this structure, we must view κατακυριεύοντες and γινόμενοι as modifying ἐπισκοποῦντες and thus continuing the explanation of how elders are to exercise authority within the church. Furthermore, it is necessary to give due weight to the particle ὡς.120 In this case, it most likely modifies both participles.121 As elsewhere in the epistle, it functions comparatively, using a person or object to create an analogous point of reference   E.g., Michaels 285; Forbes 169.   E.g., Achtemeier 327; Donelson 142 n. g. 120   Contrary to the suggestion of Michaels, we cannot say that ‘ὡς has little effect on the meaning’ and that it only ‘contributes to style and sound by echoing the -ὡς [sic] endings of the four preceding adverbs in v 2’ (285). 121   Cf. Dubis 161. Based on the fact that ὡς is not repeated before the second participle (γινόμενοι), Schlosser argues that ‘il paraît indiqué de ne pas mettre les deux participes sur le même plan’ (286). He therefore takes the first half of the antithesis in a comparative sense, with the participle κατακυριεύοντες functioning substantivally, and the second half in an adverbial sense, with the participle γινόμενοι explaining how elders’ responsibilities of the tending the flock are carried out (cf. Hoffmann 188). But the use of ὡς need not indicate that it only applies to the first element. While the particle is often repeated in similar constructions (e.g., Plato, Ep. 346b; Aristotle, Metaph. 1041a; 1058a; Diodorus Siculus 32.4.4; Philo, Spec. 2.122; 3.53; Eph 5.15; 2 Thess 3.15; 1 Pet 2.16; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 18.14), this is not always the case (see Plato, Phaed. 77e; 118 119



5.1–5

527

(cf. 1 Pet 1.14, 19; 2.2, 5, 11).122 The particle, therefore, requires both participles to function substantivally (‘as those who…’), representing two opposing approaches towards congregational leadership: one that exercises oversight by domineering and another that leads by example. What the elders are to avoid is leading their flocks in a dominant and authoritarian manner.123 The term that is selected to represent this mode of leadership (κατακυριεύω) is rare in the NT (cf. Matt 20.25//Mark 10.42; Acts 19.16), and this—along with other features—suggests that the tradition recorded in Mark 10.42–45 (par. Matt 20.25–28//Luke 22.25–27) may be an influence here.124 While this prefixed form is used in secular sources (e.g., Diodorus Siculus 14.64.1), it is found most often in Jewish (and Christian) literature, referring to the subjection of a particular people or land (LXX Gen 1.28; 9.1; Num 21.24; 32.22, 29) and to the mastery of spiritual forces in the world (T.Naph. 8.6; T.Benj. 3.3; LAE 14.2). Based on the prefix κατα–, many contend that the word is more intense than the simple κυριεύω, carrying with it a sense of hostility and oppression.125 But this judgment cannot be made on the basis of form alone.126 While κατακυριεύω can depict harsh Aristotle, Metaph. 1084b; Phil 2.12; Phlm 14; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 66.9). As this evidence reveals, the repetition of the particle varies even within a given author’s writings. 122   The KJV renders the clause, ‘neither as being lords over’ (cf. also Geneva, NKJV), which could be understood to imply that elders are not given authority over their congregations. But rather than warning against the exercise of power, the construction prohibits a domineering type of leadership. 123   See Kühl 277; Knopf 190. 124   So, e.g., Elliott 830, who notes, along with the parallels in language, the contrast between negative and positive, and the comparison with Jesus as role model, drawn implicitly here in the following verse. On the parallels between the Gospel traditions and 1 Peter, see Introduction: Jesus-Traditions and Gospel Materials. 125   E.g., Calvin 145; Fronmüller 86; Schott 304; Caffin 207; Huther 234; Monnier 231; Plumptre 154; Hiebert 305; Donelson 142 n. g. 126   See Clark, ‘Meaning of [κατα]κυριεύειν’, 100–105, who argues that the κατα– prefix does not have a perfective sense and thus should not be translated ‘to lord it over’ (cf. also Usteri 213). After a survey of the term’s lexical forms κυριεύω and κατακυριεύω, he concludes, ‘from Septuagint to Byzantium, in private documents on papyrus and in formal essays, both secular and religious, we find the meaning of [κατα]κυριεύειν to be consistent, “to rule over, to be lord over,” with shades of meaning influenced by the context’ (103).

528

1 PETER

and oppressive rule (LXX Pss 9[10].31[10]; 118[119].133), it can equally be employed to describe the rule of God, which is marked by justice and mercy (LXX Ps 71[72].8; Jer 3.14). Moreover, when Jesus instructs his disciples about rule and authority within the believing community, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels use the terms κυριεύω (Luke 18.25) and κατακυριεύω (Matt 20.25//Mark 10.42) interchangeably.127 The decision regarding the specific shade(s) of meaning must therefore be based on contextual considerations. Here, the form of leadership is contrasted with ‘being examples’ (τύποι γινόμενοι), which one could legitimately set in opposition to either a harsh domineering form of leadership or simply any exercise of rule. But given that the author has just drawn on a very negative characteristic in the previous antithesis (αἰσχροκερδῶς, v. 2), it seems appropriate to expect a similarly negative connotation for the term κατακυριεύω in the present verse.128 While it is clear that the author warns the elders against abusing their authority, it is not as clear whether the author has a specific action in mind. At issue is the term κλῆρος. Throughout Greek literature, the word describes a specially marked object (e.g., rock, stick, pottery) that helped to decide particular plans of action or to determine between varying options, hence ‘lot’ (Euripides, Iph. aul. 1198; Aristotle, Pol. 1300a.19; Josh 18.10; Acts 1.26). By extension, it was also used to refer to that which was assigned by lots or allotment, ‘portion’, ‘share’ (Herodotus, Hist. 2.109; Thucydides 3.50.2; Deut 11.31 LXX; Col 1.12). The difficulty comes in identifying the referent behind the word in this instance. Over the years, scholars have offered many different suggestions.129 Building on its common usage as an allotment or portion, 127   It is on this basis that some commentators have claimed that the term simply forbids the elders from ruling over the Christian community more generally (see Hottinger 141; Steiger 2:289; Jachmann 169; Johnstone 385–86). 128   Cf. Schlosser 287. According to Tàrrech (‘Le milieu’, 358–59), this language was meant to call to mind the overseers of large estates who exercised harsh rule among the rural laborers. While this situation would certainly provide imagery of a domineering form of rule, there is no need to limit the language to one particular setting. The readers could envision any number of hierarchical relationships in their everyday lives. 129   For a list of the different referents that have been proposed by scholars, see Nauck, ‘Probleme des frühchristlichen Amtsverständnisses’, 210 and Schröger, Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief, 118.



5.1–5

529

Hoffmann understood κλῆρος in v. 3 as a reference to estates belonging to the elders themselves (‘not like those who exercise control over their own estates’). The point, he argued, is that the elders are not free to do with the church as they please, as though they exercised the right of possession.130 Another proposal, set forth by Wohlenberg, focused on the offerings that the Israelite tribes contributed to the Levites. According to Wohlenberg, the κλῆρος mentioned in 1 Pet 5.3 refers to the money donated by members of the congregations and presided over by the elders.131 A third possibility connects the κλῆροι with the allotment of clerical positions in the various congregations. At a later point in the history of the church, the term κλῆρος came to refer to one who held ecclesiastical office (Hippolytus, Trad. ap. 19; cf. Tertullian, Mon. 12.2–3 [clerus]), as opposed to the ‘laity’ (1 Clem. 40.5). Upon this basis, some have concluded that the warning against domineering is directed at elders who were responsible for assigning the positions of lower ranking clergy (‘lording over the clergy’; cf. Wycliffe, Douay-Rheims; see also Vulgate: dominantes in cleris).132 Although these are interesting and imaginative solutions, they all focus too heavily on the use of κλῆρος in outside sources (and at later points in the history of the church) without giving proper attention to the immediate context. Here, κλῆρος (v. 3a) is parallel to ποίμνιον (v. 3b), suggesting some correspondence in meaning. In this case, both refer to groups of people, a usage found elsewhere.133   Hoffmann 188. In Greek literature, κλῆρος commonly refers to a piece of land or an estate belonging to an individual or group (e.g., Homer, Il. 15.498; Herodotus, Hist. 1.76.1; Pindar, Ol. 13.62). What makes this suggestion difficult to sustain is that it requires interpreting κατακυριεύοντες more generally as a word describing how estate-owners operate, while applying γινόμενοι directly to the elders themselves. 131   Wohlenberg 147. Others similarly understand the term to refer to church property (e.g., Whitby 181; Dodwell, Dissertationes Cyprianicae, 1–2; cf. Schleusner, Novum Lexicon, 1:924). For a critique of this view, see Wolf 163–64. 132   So, e.g., Schwank 100; Nauck, ‘Probleme des frühchristlichen Amtsverständ� nisses’, 210–12; cf. Kelly 202–203. Noteworthy in this instance, however, is the fact that Hippolytus—the source upon whom this theory is built—strictly forbids ‘elders’ (πρεσβύτεροι) from ordaining other clergy. He believed that this was the duty of the ‘bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος) alone (see Trad. ap. 3.5; 9.7). Further, no other leadership positions are mentioned here, indicating that it represents an earlier development in church government. 133   Cf. Deut 9.29 (LXX): καὶ οὗτοι λαός σου καὶ κλῆρός σου (see also Esth 13.16[4.17h]). This parallel could be taken to indicate that the author envisions the 130

530

1 PETER

With the majority of interpreters, therefore, it is probably best to understand κλῆρος as the individual Christian communities for which the various elders have responsibility.134 While the plural form carries a distributive sense (i.e. ‘referring to the various individual churches that the elders in various locations serve’135), it seems unsafe to draw too many conclusions about the structure envisioned (e.g., one elder assigned to each house church; multiple elders ruling over a single congregation; one elder overseeing multiple congregations; etc.).136 Pressing this language too far might imply a more organised or formalised ecclesial structure than likely existed at this point. The point of this negative warning then is this: ‘The elders, as the leaders of the church, necessarily possess a kind of κυριότης over it; but they are not to exercise this in a manner opposed to the character of Christian life in the church (which would be a κατακυριεύειν)’.137 As in the Jesus-tradition likely echoed here (Mark 10.42–45), the instruction does not prohibit the exercise of leadership or the desire for eminence in the community (‘whoever wishes to become great among you…’ [Mark 10.43 and par.]) but insists that this is Christian communities as God’s (hence, an understood τοῦ θεοῦ) estate that has been entrusted to the elders who work it as servants (‘God’s heritage’; cf. Geneva, KJV). This is the interpretation adopted by many earlier commentators (e.g., Calvin 145; Beza 584; Grotius 107; Benson 296–97; Bloomfield 726; Barnes 202; Fausset 512; Bigg 188). Βut, as Blenkin points out, ‘in this case we should have expected the singular’ (114). 134   So, e.g., Mason 433; Lenski 219–20; Spicq 168; Windisch 79; Brox 232; Achtemeier 328; Elliott 831; Senior 140; Jobes 306. The one drawback of this interpretation is the lack of parallel uses in the NT. One place where a similar meaning might be found is Acts 17.4, which states, ‘some of them were persuaded, and προσεκληρώθησαν to Paul and Silas’. If the verb is understood as a genuine passive, then it could be rendered, ‘they were allotted to Paul and Silas’; however, it is more likely that it carries a middle force, ‘they joined with Paul and Silas’. 135   Dubis 162; cf. Knopf 190; Wand 123. Others claim that the plural indicates a partitive notion, referring to the specific portions within the Christian community over which elders exercised authority (see Cranfield 130; Best 170; Blum 250). 136   According to Boring, ‘the picture seems to be that each presbyter has pastoral responsibility for a particular “congregation,” that is, a small house-church, which in their totality made up the one church in a given locality, which would have a plurality of presbyters’ (170; cf. Goppelt 347). The language, however, is vague enough to allow for any of the structures listed above (cf. Tàrrech, ‘Le milieu’, 360; Craddock 75; note the uncertainty of Schreiner 272). 137   Huther 235. Cf. Matt 20.25–28; 2 Cor 1.24.



5.1–5

531

exercised in an exemplary and Christ-like way (note the reference to the reward that will be obtained by elders [v. 4, see below]). Rather than leading as ones who harshly dominate their congregations, elders are expected to be examples. In an attempt to stress the distinctive meaning of γινόμενοι, some assign the participle an ingressive force, ‘becoming’ (cf. CEB, TLV, CJB).138 Without denying the distinction between γίνομαι (which often denotes entrance into a state or being) and εἰμί (which is often a more static term),139 there seems to be little difference between γινόμενοι and ὄντες in this instance. At times, γίνομαι can be used very similarly to εἰμί (cf. Matt 10.16; Luke 20.33; John 1.6; Acts 5.24), and since γινόμενοι is functioning as a substantival participle, the stress seems to be placed on the existing role that elders are meant to embody, ‘as ones who are…’. What the elders are expected to be are ‘patterns (τύποι) for the flock’. The word τύπος, which appears 15 times in the NT, contains many possible nuances.140 In its most basic sense, it represents a mark made by pressing or striking an object (Euripides, Hipp. 862; Plato, Theaet. 192a), and from this, it came to be used for statues or sculptures, that is, objects formed to represent or resemble another entity (Amos 5.26; Josephus, Ant. 1.310). In the ethical sphere, τύπος focused on the emulation of another’s character or actions.141 One could either be a model of virtue (IGLSyr I 1) or vice (4 Macc 6.19; 1 Cor 10.6). Thus, NT authors commonly stressed the need for Christian leaders to be proper moral examples for their communities to follow (cf. Phil 3.17; 2 Thess 3.9; 1 Tim 4.12; Titus 2.7). The sense of the present verse connects to the Jesus tradition in two ways. First, it echoes similar instructions given by Jesus to his followers found in Mark 10.42–45 (//Matt 20.25–28//Luke 22.25– 27). The disciples are warned against ‘domineering’ (κατακυριεύω) others as is done by Gentile rulers, and they are told instead to

  E.g., Alford 382–83; Fausset 512.   See Schmidt, Synonymik, 2:530–32. This distinction is evident in a common funerary epigraph: οὐκ ἤμην ἐγενόμην οὐκ εἰμί, ‘I was not. I was. I am not’ (see IG XIV 1201, 2190; SEG 9:878; 34:1222; 50:578; MAMA VIII 353; I.Perge 440). 140   For more on this term, see TDNT 8:246–56; TLNT 3:384–87. 141   On the nature of emulation represented in this term, see Lee, ‘Words Denoting “Pattern” ’, 166–73; cf. also Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 308–31 (who addresses the use of various terms of imitation). 138 139

532

1 PETER

become ‘servants’ (διάκονοι) and ‘slaves’ (δοῦλοι) of all. Second, the author earlier used Jesus’ example of enduring unjust suffering as a ‘pattern’ (ὑπογραμμός) for all believers to follow (1 Pet 2.21). Now, he informs the elders, as those who lead the flock (ποίμνιον) of God, that they are also expected to become models—implicitly, as the following two verses make clearer, of Christ-like sacrifice and humility. The repetition of ποίμνιον (see v. 2a) offers a point of inclusio that ties this exhortation to the elders (vv. 2–3) together. 4 καὶ φανερωθέντος τοῦ ἀρχιποίμενος κομιεῖσθε τὸν ἀμαράντινον τῆς δόξης στέφανον The καί that begins this verse is generally thought to convey a consecutive force (‘and so’; cf. Matt 23.32; Phil 4.7, 9), such that it connects the exhortation to shepherd the flock (v. 2–3) with its intended result (v. 4).142 But there may be more to the connection than is acknowledged by this interpretation. Given the overall structure of the surrounding verbal elements, the author seems to have created a conditional idea.143 Although conditional sentences in Greek are generally formed explicitly using formal structure markers (e.g., εἰ or ἐάν in the protasis), they can also be conveyed implicitly using alternative constructions. One such construction involves the imperative + καί + future indicative.144 In this case, the imperative ποιμάνατε (v. 2) contains an implicit conditional sense and thus forms the protasis. The καί in v. 4 connects the imperative with the future indicative κομιεῖσθε, which forms the apodosis. The meaning seems to be: if you shepherd the flock of God by exercising oversight in the proper way, then you will receive a crown.145   While more recent commentators rarely comment on the particle, within older scholarship καί was regularly ascribed a consecutive force (e.g., Pott 147; Wiesinger 315; Demarest 264; Lillie 309; Fronmüller 87; Fausset 512; Alford 383; Johnstone 387; Huther 235; Kühl 277–78). 143   Others have similarly noted that a conditional sense appears to be in view here (e.g., Achtemeier 329; Forbes 169). 144   See Robertson, Grammar, 948–49; Boyer, ‘Classification of Imperatives’, 38–40; Wallace, Grammar, 489–92; Fantin, Greek Imperative Mood, 293–307. An example of a conditional imperative is John 2.19: ‘Destroy (λύσατε) this temple and (καί) in three days I will raise it (ἐγερῶ)’ (cf. Matt 7.7; 8.8; John 1.39; Eph 5.14; Jas 4.7, 8, 10). 145   It should be noted that the imperative does not lose its injunctive force, despite its conditional function (see Wallace, Grammar, 490). In fact, the use 142



5.1–5

533

After the instructions outlined in vv. 2–3, then, this verse provides a motivation for following them. Before detailing the nature of the elders’ reward in the apodosis, the author inserts a genitive absolute (φανερωθέντος τοῦ ἀρχιποί­ μενος) to provide a temporal framework: their reward will be received ‘when the chief shepherd is revealed’. Noteworthy is the fact that φανερόω, used here of Christ’s second coming (cf. Col 3.4), was earlier employed of Christ’s first advent (1 Pet 1.20; cf. 1 Tim 3.16; Heb 9.26; Barn. 6.7). This same variation can be found in 1 John, where the term represents both the first (3.5, 8) and second advent (2.28; 3.2). More specifically, the one whom the elders should expect is the ἀρχιποίμην (‘chief shepherd’), a NT hapax (cf. Heb 13.20, ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ μέγας). Although the use of this term was somewhat rare, with the discovery of a wooden mummy-label from Egypt146 and the occasional reference in the non-literary papyri to those who served in the occupation of ἀρχιποίμην,147 its pre-Christian origin is now established.148 The ἀρχι- prefix denotes primacy in rank and of the imperative communicates something that a formal condition could not. It relates the contingency of the reward, while still issuing a firm exhortation to undertake the task. 146   See the discussion in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 97–99. Further evidence of the pre-Christian origin might perhaps be provided by the word’s appearance in T.Jud. 8.1 (whose date and history of composition is a matter is some dispute), where Hirah the Adullamite is said to be a chief herdsman (ἀρχιποίμενα) who oversees many cattle (κτήνη πολλά). Similarly, in the Symmachus version of 2 Kgs 3.4, the word ἀρχιποίμην is employed to translate the Hebrew ‫‘( נקד‬shepherd’). 147   See P.Lips I 97; P.Prag. II 126; PSI IV 286; SB I 3507, V 8087, 9908, VIII 9909, 9912, XXII 15339. For more on this term, see TLNT 1:206–208. Prior to these discoveries, the word was sometimes thought to be the invention of the Petrine author (see, e.g., Plumptre 155; Cook 216; Mason 433). 148   Another context in which ἀρχιποίμην appears is in connection with functionary positions of the Dionysian mysteries. In an inscription from an association of winners at the sacred contests, the term is used as a title for one of the members (SEG 53:866; cf. 19:782). By comparison, it seems that ἀρχιποίμην was thus similar to the title ἀρχιβουκόλος, ‘chief herdsman’ (see Bosnakis and Hallof, ‘Inschriften aus Kos I’, 207), which is a designation commonly found within lists of Dionysian functionaries (e.g., IvP II 485–488; IGUR I 160; IGBulg III,1 1517; SEG 29:1264; 40:1136). However, this connection alone is not sufficient to connect 1 Peter with the mysteries (pace Perdelwitz, Mysterienreligionen,

534

1 PETER

authority,149 referring to one who was in charge of other herdsmen. His role in this capacity—as suggested by references to those functioning in such an occupation within the non-literary papyri— involved important administrative duties, including oversight of the other shepherds and the ultimate responsibility for livestock entrusted into his herdsmen’s care. According to this hierarchical structure, the elders within the Petrine communities possess a derivative authority.150 They function as under-shepherds of Christ. This relationship also implies their responsibility to act—to exercise their leadership—in a way that coheres with the example of Christ (cf. 2.21–25). In this way they will exercise their function as τυποί. If they exercise proper oversight of the flock under their care, the elders are assured that they will be appropriately rewarded. The so-called ‘Attic future’151 verb κομίζω is a word often used in connection with recompense (1 En. 100.7; 2 Cor 5.10; Barn. 4.12), including both reward (2 Macc 8.33; Eph 6.8; Heb 10.36; 11.39; 2 Clem. 11.5) and punishment (Ps 39.16 LXX; 3 Macc 1.3; Col 3.25). The recompense in this instance comes in the form of a ‘crown’ (στέφανος). Various types of crowns are known in the Greco-Roman world.152 A crown of gold was commonly worn by a person of high rank, whether a divine being (PGM IV.698, 1027), a king/ruler (2 Macc 14.4; Jos. Asen. 5.6; Josephus, War 7.105), or a high priest (Zech 6.11; 1 Macc 10.20; Josephus, Ant. 3.172), and is often referenced in connection with other adornments such as purple robes or jewellery. While ideas about ruling and reigning with Christ were part of early Christian tradition (2 Tim 2.11–12; Rev 5.10; 20.4–6), it seems unlikely that the specific notion of ruling/reigning is the point 100–101). The present usage appears in the context of shepherding the flock of God, and is most naturally connected with those who actually performed this occupational function, not an honorary title of a local association member. 149   BDF §118(2). Feldmeier claims that the prefix ἀρχι– also has a formative value; that is, Christ ‘is the epitome, “archetype” of every office of shepherd as of an alternative “serving” way of dealing with the power entrusted to one over other people’ (236; cf. Vahrenhorst 191). 150   As emphasised by Calloud–Genuyt 208–10. 151   See Buttmann, Grammar, 37; Robertson, Grammar, 355. 152   See further Deubner, ‘Die Bedeutung des Kranzes’, 70–104; Blech, Studien zum Kranz; Bergman, Der Kranz des Kaisers. For a list of some of the primary source evidence, see Keener 371.



5.1–5

535

of reference in this instance.153 Crowns were also given to members of the community who distinguished themselves in notable ways, such as in athletic competitions (cf. 1 Cor 9.25). Large numbers of inscriptions from across the Greek East record the ceremonies at which prominent citizens were rewarded with—among other things (e.g., statues, front-row seats at the spectacles, citizenship, etc.)— golden crowns for their service to the community.154 According to some interpreters, it is this public recognition of benefactors that lies behind the imagery of the verse.155 Another type of crown from the ancient world was much more fragile, lacking the material endurance of gold. Often στέφανοι were wreaths of leaves or flowers that had been woven together. On certain occasions, these festal crowns were distributed at meals and celebrations (Sir 32.2; Jdt 15.13; Wis 2.8), and some have even speculated that the crown metaphor in v. 4 may reflect a view of the future age as a banquet at which Christians are honoured by God.156 Most, however, attribute this imagery to the awards given to the winners of athletic competitions, whether they be runners, wrestlers, or the like (T.Job 4.10; Philo, Migr. 133-34; Mut. 44; Tatian, Or. Graec. 23.1; Aelian, Var. hist. 9.31), or to victorious military leaders who received praise and admiration following triumphs in war (Pliny, Nat. 15.5; Martial, Ep. 2.2).157 In recognition of their achievements, a simple crown of foliage was placed upon their heads. Given that the στέφανος envisaged in v. 4 is likely 153   Pace Besser 370–71, who is one of the few to connect this crown with the royal inheritance of believers. 154   I.Iasos 153; SEG 4:184; OGIS 299; I.Erythrai 111; I.Arykanda 34. Along these lines, Usteri speculated that these στέφανοι may refer to ‘die Kränze…, mit denen Personen, welche sich in den θίασοι oder ἔρανοι der Griechen als Chargirte [sic] hervorgethan, ausgezeichnet wurden’ (215; cf. von Soden 165). Few have followed his proposal, however. 155   See, e.g., Moffatt 165; Best 171; Schlosser 287; cf. also Wolff, ‘Himmlisches Erbe und Herrlichkeitskranz’, 353. 156   See Hart 77; cf. Ropes, Epistle of St. James, 152, who argues that there is ‘no need of introducing any reference to the use of wreaths as prizes in the Greek games’. Instead, he suggests that the idea is ‘of a mark of honour to be given by the Great King to his friends’. 157   See Feldmeier 237; Schreiner 273. Some interpreters focus exclusively on the athletic background (e.g., Cranfield 131; Stibbs–Walls 168; Schweizer 92; Skaggs 70; Bony 173), while others stress the military context (e.g., Tàrrech, ‘Le milieu’, 364–68).

536

1 PETER

made of amaranth (see below), and considering that it is a reward (κομιεῖσθε) received by the elders on the condition that they fulfill their duties of shepherding the flock (see above), it seems best to view this στέφανος as a victory crown. Two qualifiers are used to describe this crown more fully. The first is the adjective ἀμαράντινος. While there are some who claim that this term is a derivative of the adjective ἀμάραντος and is thus equivalent to the earlier use of the same word in 1 Pet 1.4,158 most contend that the adjective was formed from the substantival ἀμάραντος, meaning ‘made of amaranth’.159 There are a few reasons for this conclusion. First, adjectives ending in –ινος generally denote the material out of which something is made.160 The adjectival suffix of ἀμαράντινος thus indicates that the focus is on material makeup, requiring a substantive point of reference (viz. amaranth). Second is the rarity of both ἀμάραντος (1 Pet 1.4) and ἀμαράντινος (5.4). Since neither term is found elsewhere in the NT and only occasionally in secular literature, there would seem likely to be a reason why the author employed two different forms in this brief epistle. The most natural conclusion is that he intended to use the words in different ways.161 Finally, and most importantly, there is the connection between amaranth flowers and the crowns worn in the Greco-Roman world. The amaranth was a flower whose dark red colour, it was claimed, did not fade.162 According to Pliny the Elder, the flower bloomed in August and lasted through the autumn; thus, he notes, ‘[i]ts special characteristic is implied in its name [ἀμάραντος: formed by ἀ, ‘not’ + μαράινεσθαι, ‘to fade’], given to it because it will not wither’ (Nat. 21.23; trans. Rackham [LCL]). Aside from being used in medicinal remedies (Ps.-Galen, De succedaneis liber vol. 19, 158   E.g., Steiger 2:291; Jachmann 169–70; Fronmüller 87; Barnes 202; Monnier 232; Goppelt 349 n. 33. This interpretation is represented in most modern translations, which render the construction, ‘unfading crown’ (see HCSB, NASB, ESV, NAB). 159   E.g., Bloomfield 726; Schott 306; Keil 167; Selwyn 233; Prigent 139. This also appears to be the way that the adjective was understood by Clement of Alexandria, who writes, ‘the beautiful crown of amaranth (ὁ καλὸς τοῦ ἀμαράντου στέφανος) is laid up for those who have lived out their (Christian) citizenship well’ (Paed. 2.8.73). 160   See MHT 2:359. 161   Cf. Alford 383; Johnstone 388. 162   Cf. Elliott 835: ‘the unfading flower symbolizing permanence’.



5.1–5

537

p. 742 [Kühn]), the amaranth was one of the favourite flowers out of which crowns/garlands were made (see Pliny, Nat. 21.23; Dioscorides Pedanius, De materia medica 4.57.1; Artemidorus Daldianus, Onir. 1.77). It provided a natural choice because of its durability, as indicated by a passage from Philostratus: ‘the Thessalians first customarily used amaranth crowns (στεφάνους ἀμαραντίνους) for mourning in order that, even if the wind delayed the ship, they would not wear crowns that were wilted or past their season’ (Her. 53.9; trans. adapted from Maclean and Aitken).163 The type of crown that the Petrine author envisions, therefore, is one made up of amaranth flowers. Although most scholars recognise this point, the interpretative implications drawn are sometimes wide of the mark. Perhaps being too heavily influenced by the words of Paul,164 scholars commonly state that the verse is meant to set up a contrast between the unfading crowns given to Christians and the perishable crowns received in ‘pagan’ athletic events and military triumphs.165 Such an interpretative deduction may be unjustified, however, given the use of amaranth crowns in the ancient world (see above). It seems rather that the author is simply claiming that elders would receive the best type of (victor’s) crown available at the time. Aside from being described as amaranthine in its make-up, the στέφανος that will be received by faithful elders at the eschaton is also said to be a ‘crown of glory’ (στέφανος δόξης). In this case, it is probably best to view δόξης as an appositional/epexegetical genitive, ‘crown, which is glory’ (cf. CJB),166 despite the insistence 163   Likely echoing the language of 1 Peter, later Christians used this same meta�phor. See Acts Thom. 158: ‘whereas you received a crown of thorns (ἀκάν­θινον στέφανον) for us, let those who love you be crowned with an amaranth crown (στέφανον… ἀμαράντινον)’; SEG 41:1671 (Byzantine funerary epigraph): ἀμαράντινον στέφανον ἔλαβεν. 164   See 1 Cor 9.25: ‘Every athlete must exercise self-control in all things; they do so in order to receive a perishable crown (φθαρτὸν στέφανον), but we an imperishable (ἄφθαρτον) one’. Note, however, that Paul (1) directly contrasts the ἄφθαρτον στέφανον with one that is φθαρτός and (2) uses the form ἄφθαρτος with the adjectival suffix –ος (whereas 1 Peter employs the adjectival suffix –ινος to denote the material of out which something is made). 165   See Davids 182; Hillyer 143; Schreiner 273. 166   So, e.g., Webster–Wilkinson 49; Huther 235; Masterman 163; Weiss 329; Knopf 191; Blenkin 129; Lenski 221; Spicq 169; Knoch 133; Bénétreau 271; Elliott 835; Donelson 142 n. k; cf. also Robertson, Grammar, 498; Young, New

538

1 PETER

of some to interpret it as an attributive genitive, ‘glorious crown’ (cf. TEV, NCV, GNT, Mounce).167 Within ancient Jewish literature, the metaphorical use of crown imagery is very common. In fact, the same phrase, ‘crown of glory’ (στέφανος δόξης), is found twice in the LXX (Jer 13.18; Lam 2.15), although without the same eschatological connotations. Often crowns are used as metonyms of cause and effect, wherein they are the source or cause of the term in the genitive: Isa 28.1 (ὁ στεφάνῳ τῆς ὕβρεως), 5 (ὁ στέφανος τῆς ἐλπίδος); Prov 16.31 (στέφανος καυχήσεως); Sir 15.6 (στέφανος ἀγαλλιάματος). But within apocalyptic discourse, the reception of a ‘crown’ is a traditional theme used to depict eschatological reward.168 Thus, in T.Benj. 4.1, which provides a close parallel to the Petrine language, we find the exhortation: ‘Imitate his [i.e., the good man’s] compassion with a good mind, so that you may also wear crowns of glory (στεφάνους δόξης)’ (cf. 1QS 4.7–8; T.Levi 8.2; 2 Bar. 15.8). Early Christian literature reflects similar ideas about the conferral of crowns at the eschaton (2 Tim 4.8; Jas 1.12; Rev 2.10; 2 Clem. 7.3; Mart. Pol. 17.1; 19.2). This promise of the Petrine author is consistent with the hope of exaltation and glory found throughout the letter: just as Christ received glory after suffering in the flesh (1.11, 21; 4.13), so also elders, along with the entire believing community (1.7; 4.14; 5.1, 10), will receive the glory that awaits in heaven. 5 ὁμοίως ὁμοίως,, νεώτεροι νεώτεροι,, ὑποτάγητε πρεσβυτέροις Following the instructions to elders, the author now turns to address people designated as νεώτεροι. Two points about this verse are relatively straightforward. First, ὁμοίως marks the transition to the next group addressed in a series, as it does at 3.1 and 3.7. While the adverb suggests that there is something comparable about the successive pieces of exhortation, it cannot—as at 3.7—convey the sense that the νεώτεροι are to behave ‘in the same way’ as the Testament Greek, 39. Two considerations support this interpretation: (1) among other instances in the NT where στέφανος has a genitive modifier, the relationship is usually epexegetical (cf. 2 Tim 4.8; Jas 1.12; Rev 2.10; see also Mart. Pol. 19.2); and (2) elsewhere in 1 Peter, the reward that believers are anticipating at the eschaton, which was also given to Christ after his suffering (1.11, 21), is δόξα (1.7; 4.13; 5.1). 167   So, e.g., Benson 299; Barnes 202; Wand 124; cf. also MHT 3:213. 168   See further Schrage 118; Boring 171.



5.1–5

539

πρεσβύτεροι, since these latter are to exercise oversight, while the νεώτεροι are to be submissive.169 The nature of the connection will become clearer once we determine the group under consideration. Second, the νεώτεροι are expected to ‘be subject’ to the πρεσβύτεροι. Elsewhere, the author employs this same verb (ὑποτάσσω) to denote the subordinate relationship between two parties within an ordered structure—whether it be Christians to the authorities (2.13), slaves to masters (2.18), wives to husbands (3.1, 5), or spiritual powers to Christ (3.22). While this much is reasonably clear, the identity of this group is difficult to determine. As with many interpretative problems in 1 Peter, it has generated a variety of suggestions.170 One possibility, which has been defended at length by Elliott, is that the νεώτεροι are new converts or neophytes in the faith, who have recently undergone the rite of baptism.171 Aside from lexical parallels drawn from Hellenistic usage,172 evidence from Qumran (1QS 6.13–23; CD 13.7–13) and the NT (1 Cor 16.15–16; 1 Tim 3.6) is used to illus�trate similar distinctions that were made between senior members of a group and those who were recent initiates. The problem with this suggestion, however, is that the presence of a seniority hierarchy in early Christianity does little to prove that νεώτεροι can or does represent new converts to the faith. Had this been the author’s 169   Macknight (502) suggests that the connection made by ὁμοίως relates not to analogous duties (because the responsibilities of πρεσβύτεροι consist of ruling, while those of the νεώτεροι involve subordination), but on analogous rewards; in other words, the νεώτεροι—like the πρεσβύτεροι—have the opportunity to receive a crown of glory. 170   Much of the debate could be alleviated on the assumption that the author has drawn from traditional materials which addressed the subordination of various groups within the church (cf. Brox 234–35; Feldmeier 237–38); however, we will work from the present text (see above for discussion). 171   See Elliott 836–40; idem, ‘Ministry and Church Order’, 375–86; cf. also Grappe, Images de Pierre, 117. 172   Elliott (838–39, referencing MM) cites an inscription from third-century BCE Ptolemais that refers to οἱ νεώτεροι καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι π[ολῖτ]αι (OGIS 48) and claims that a distinction is made between those recently introduced into the city (οἱ νεώτεροι) and the rest of the citizen body (οἱ ἄλλοι π[ολῖτ]αι). But a closer look at the entire inscription reveals that the νεώτεροι were actually young men from the community who became incensed by a decision concerning the selection pool for the council and law courts (presumably because they were not included). As the further modifying phrase indicates, the ἄλλοι π[ολῖτ]αι refers to those who were chosen (ο[ἱ] αἱρο[ύμενοι]).

540

1 PETER

intention, we might have expected some further modifier, such as ἐν τῇ πίστει (cf. Herm. Vis. 3.5.4: νέοι εἰσὶν ἐν τῇ πίστει) or the actual term νεόφυτος, ‘recent convert’ (1 Tim 3.6). Over the years, some have suggested that νεώτεροι is a titular designation representing a group who functioned as junior officers in the church, ranking below the elders and possibly representing an early form of deaconate.173 A number of arguments have been offered in support of this view. First, the use of the adverb ὁμοίως suggests that the author is referencing two recognisable groups within the churches (cf. 3.7), and since πρεσβύτεροι refers to those holding official positions of church leadership, it is natural to assume that the νεώτεροι functioned in a similar capacity. Second, a passage from Pol. Phil. 5.3 seems to support this interpretation. Polycarp offers words of exhortation to both deacons (5.2) and elders (6.1); but situated directly between these injunctions is a similar word of instruction to the νεώτεροι (5.3).174 Third, the existence of analogous groups within the early church is postulated on the basis of Acts 5.6 and 10, wherein the νεώτεροι/νεανίσκοι carry out the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira for burial.175 173   So, e.g., Bloomfield 727; Schott 306–308; Cook 216–17; Ewald 61; Fausset 513; Kühl 278–79; Moffatt 165; Holzmeister 392; Schwank 102; Bosetti 208; cf. Weiss, Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, 344–45. As a slight alternative to this view, Hillyer claims that the νεώτεροι represent ‘those more recently appointed to the office of elder. They are warned not to let their new position go to their heads, but to be prepared to bow to the experience and guidance of “those who are older,” senior in experience’ (141). 174   This evidence should be tempered somewhat given the nature of Polycarp’s directives. In his letter (Phil. 4.2–6.1), he offers instructions for a number of different groups within the church: wives (γυναῖκες), widows (χῆραι), younger women (παρθένοι), young men (νεώτεροι), deacons (διάκονοι), and elders (πρεσβύτεροι). When he addresses the male groups (young men, deacons, and elders), he uses direct address (nominative for vocative); yet the female groups (younger women, wives, and widows) are spoken about using the third person accusative—as in 1 Clem. 1.3; 21.6–7 the direct addressees are men, who take responsibility for teaching and disciplining other groups. Polycarp may therefore have addressed the νεώτεροι directly simply because they were a male group. His instructions to the young women (παρθένοι) also appear between those to the deacons and the elders. 175   In a similar connection, Braun (Qumran und das Neue Testament, 1:147), draws a parallel between the νεώτεροι mentioned in this verse and the neophytes within the community of the yaḥad who were permitted to bury the dead because of their lesser degree of ritual holiness (cf. CD 6.16–21; 12.17–18).



5.1–5

541

Upon closer examination, however, none of these points provides firm evidence for an established ministerial or ecclesial position. The absence of νεώτεροι from specific references to early Christian leaders (e.g., Ign. Magn. 6.1; Trall. 3.1; Phld. praescr.; Pol. 6.1) and from instructions concerning Christian leadership (1 Tim 3.1–13) raises doubt about the likelihood of the term referring to one such position. Furthermore, when νεώτεροι are mentioned, they appear alongside—not in place of—the office of deacon (Pol. Phil. 5.2–3) and in connection with other sub-groups in the church, defined by gender or social position rather than by ecclesial office, including women and slaves (Titus 2.1–10; 1 Clem. 1.3; 21.6). With a slightly different nuance, some have compared the νεώτεροι in v. 5 with analogous groups in the Greco-Roman world, viz. the associations or guilds of νέοι.176 Across the Greek East (and especially in Asia Minor), we find numerous examples of organised groups of younger men (e.g., ἡ σύνοδος τῶν νεωτέρων, IGRR I,5 1328; cf. I.Smyrna 208–209; TAM V,1 91) who functioned as influential bodies within the larger civic environment. Known by the title οἱ νέοι (or οἱ νεώτεροι), these young men were clearly demarcated by their age, activities, and affluence. They were males between twenty and thirty years of age (SEG 47:393), constituting some of the wealthier members of society, who participated in the activities of the gymnasium (e.g., exercise, contests, etc.).177 But, here again, while the linguistic similarities are admittedly noteworthy, the designation νεώτεροι alone is not a sufficient basis upon which to draw a correlation.178 In order to make such a proposal viable, one 176   E.g., Monnier 234–35; Hart 77; Spicq 170–71; cf. also Spicq, ‘La place ou le rôle des Jeunes’, 518–27. 177   See Forbes, Neoi; Kennell, ‘Who Were the Neoi?’, 217–32. An inscription from Hypaepa (Asia) reveals that some ancient Jews belonged to analogous groups: Ἰουδαίων νεωτέρων (CIJ 755). Several Jewish names are found on lists of ephebes as well (see Robert, ‘Un corpus des inscriptions juives’, 85–86). 178   It should be pointed out that the designation νεώτεροι was not reserved only for young men who participated in the gymnasium. At various points in antiquity, authors used οἱ νεώτεροι (often as a term of derision) to refer to persons or groups who departed from traditional ways of doing things or who introduced new ideas that were claimed to be innovative. Aristarchus is known for grouping together various post-Homeric poets and referring to them in this way (see Römer, Die Homerexegese Aristarchs, 109–22; Severyns, Le cycle épique, 31–92). The same is true of Alexander of Aphrodisias, who compared the Stoics with earlier

542

1 PETER

would need to explain why such an association of younger males would have formed across the churches of Asia Minor—especially if they were not serving in some official capacity (see above). Although some have attempted to connect the νεώτεροι with specific groups in the church or within Hellenistic society, a much more common approach has been to identify these simply as the younger men of the church.179 Proponents of this view contend that the meaning of πρεσβύτερος has shifted slightly from its earlier usage in vv. 1–4. No longer does πρεσβύτερος refer to a position of leadership in the church; the focus in the present verse is rather on members of advanced age,180 a shift in focus allowed by the term’s elasticity (viz. that it can refer to both natural age and official position). The question raised by this proposal, however, is why the author would specifically address a group of young males at this point when his focus until now had been on the entire ‘flock of God’. Consistent with common warnings in the ancient world regarding the lack of temperance and control among youth (cf. Polybius, Hist. 2.21.2; Titus 2.6), the answer most commonly given is that younger men would have been more inclined to rebel against authority.181 As a way of avoiding a sociological generalization, this hypothesis is strengthened by appeal to the conflict between νέοι and πρεσβύτεροι in the ancient world (e.g., Polybius, Hist. 4.53.6–9; Plutarch, Agis. 6.1–2).182 Even firmer support is provided by an appeal to similar examples in the early church (e.g., 1 Clem. 3.3). Yet none of this evidence is grounded in the text itself. As a circular

Aristotelian thought (see Kieffer, Galen’s Institutio Logica, 130–33; Mueller, ‘Greek Mathematics’, 58–59). Cf. Cicero, Att. 7.2, who uses the label for modern Latin poets whom he disdains. 179   So, e.g., Lillie 312–13; Keil 167–68; Blenkin 115–16; Selwyn 233; Grudem 192–93; Davids 183–84; Frankemölle 67–68; Knoch 134; Richard 209; Dubis 163–64; Schlosser 283; cf. Barclay, ‘There is Neither Old Nor Young?’, 235. 180   See Hofmann 190–91; Usteri 216–18; Leaney 70; Stibbs–Walls 169. In support, advocates point to the fact that in 1 Timothy the author alternates between the use of πρεσβύτερος to refer to the natural age of an individual (5.1) and an official ecclesial role (5.17). 181   See de Wette 57; Schelkle 130; Schreiner 274. 182   For more specific examples from across the Greek and Roman world, see Bertman, Conflict of Generations.



5.1–5

543

letter, 1 Peter could not address such a specific problem in any one particular congregation, and the letter contains no hint that it seeks to address the tendencies of young men more generally. Therefore, we are left without any adequate explanation for the sudden introduction of an age- and gender-defined group.183 Perhaps the most satisfactory view, which has been adopted by various commentators over the years, is to interpret νεώτεροι as a reference to all of the members of the Christian community who were not presently in the position of πρεσβύτερος.184 In other words, the author sets up a two-tiered structure by which to address the congregations: those who functioned as leaders in a position of seniority (πρεσβύτεροι) and everyone else, effectively those who are by comparison junior (νεώτεροι). This language was presumably applicable to the situation because many of the leaders (‘elders’) were also some of the older members of the Christian communities (the English ‘seniority’ can likewise encompass the dimensions of both age and relative position).185 The benefit of this construal is that it maintains consistency in the meaning of πρεσβύτερος: after discussing the responsibilities of elders who function in a position of authority, it would be difficult to assume that the author quickly shifts the meaning of πρεσβύτερος to focus only on the age of those so designated; the ‘elders’ to whom submission is due are those who hold leadership positions in the Christian community. This view also fits best with the preceding admonitions. The adverb ὁμοίως connects the exhortation in v. 5 with those in vv. 1–4, which address a group of church leaders whose responsibilities for shepherding the entire congregation are delineated; correspondingly (ὁμοίως), the present verse   As an alternative to this view, some argue that νεώτεροι refers to younger men within the congregations, but that πρεσβύτεροι still refers to the leaders of the Christian communities (see Bigg 130; Lenski 221; Leconte 115; Beare 175). While this proposal avoids the sudden shift in the meaning of πρεσβύτεροι, it leaves open the question of why the author would single out one particular group (‘younger ones’) within the congregations (cf. Hofmann 191). 184   So, e.g., Wiesinger 317–18; Alford 383; Windisch 79; Reicke 130; Michaels 288–89; Goppelt 350–51; Achtemeier 331–32; Senior 141; Jobes 307; Green 169; Donelson 142–43 n. l; Osborne 254; Watson 118; Vahrenhorst 192; cf. Michaelis, Das Ältestenamt der christlichen Gemeinde, 125–26. 185   See further the thesis of Campbell, Elders. 183

544

1 PETER

must address the rest of the church membership, describing their responsibilities toward the elders.186 In the same way that the duties of husbands and wives are presented reciprocally (3.7 [ὁμοίως]; cf. 1 Cor 7.3), so also are those of elders and their flock. Two objections have been raised against this view, as represented in Elliott’s discussion. First, it is noted that ‘such a collective use of neōteroi would be without parallel in the NT’.187 While this may technically be true, this objection fails to account for the fact that such a function requires a particular semantic situation—one that is absent in other NT usages. When the plural form (νεώτεροι) is used elsewhere in the NT, it normally represents one group among several—including older men, older women, younger women, and so on—within the church (cf. 1 Tim 5.1–2; Titus 2.1–6). The same goes for 1 Clem. 1.3 and Pol. Phil. 5.3, where younger men and younger women are differentiated. But outside the NT, the word also appears in contexts in which a dichotomous contrast is set up, without specific consideration for age and gender.188 Although the term νεώτεροι ordinarily refers to a group of young males, in certain instances, age becomes pronounced with gender being inclusive (Thucydides 7.29.4; Lysias, In Andocidem 32; LXX Exod 10.9; Josh 6.21; Isa 20.4; Philo, Leg. 2.97). In other cases, gender is prominent while age limits are blurred (Thucydides 5.75.1; Antiphon, De choreuta 22; Xenophon, Hell. 3.3.8; Plato, Apol. 30a).189 So here the gender connotation seems absent (no corresponding address to women being given here), and the distinction is effectively between the ‘senior’ leaders and the ‘juniors’, which is everyone else. The second objection is that ‘this theory would not fit the present context, since it is v 5b that first introduces an appeal to “all” (pantes) members of the community’, suggesting that ‘all community members’ cannot be in view here.190 Nevertheless, νεώτεροι   Cf. Benson 300; Lumby 214.   Elliott 838. This argument is made by others as well (e.g., Johnstone 390; Forbes 170). 188   Sometimes 1 Clem. 3.3 (οἱ νέοι ἐπὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, ‘the young against the old’) is cited as an example of such a usage (see Achtemeier 332 n. 159); but, in this instance, the author probably only includes the groups involved in the referenced conflict not the entire congregation. 189   Earlier in the epistle, the Petrine author creates a similar dichotomy when he alternates between wives (3.1) and husbands (3.7). See Boring 172. 190   Elliott 838. For a similar objection, see Schott 307, and Kühl 278. 186 187



5.1–5

545

does not refer to ‘all’ members of the community, only to those who are not elders.191 For this reason, it is perfectly natural to find an all-inclusive exhortation directed to all believers (1 Pet 5.5b) immediately after the instructions directed towards the two separate groups: elders (5.1–4) and non-elders (5.5a). πάντες δὲ ἀλλήλοις τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε While it seems clear enough that the author’s exhortation in the first half of the verse is directed toward the νεώτεροι (v. 5a), even if their identity is difficult to discern, the structure of the sentence becomes more complicated in the second half of the verse. This difficulty is created by ἀλλήλοις in connection with ἐγκομβώσασθε. Since the middle voice of the verb has a reflexive sense (‘clothe yourselves’), some contend that the dative ἀλλήλοις, which communicates a reciprocal idea (‘one another’), cannot modify the verb in a plausible manner.192 Consequently, they connect πάντες δὲ ἀλλήλοις with the preceding, and ἀλλήλοις is then thought to modify an understood ὑποτάγητε.193 According to such an arrangement, a mutual submission is encouraged in the verse: ‘In the same way, the younger should submit to the elders; and all of you (submit) to one another’ (cf. Eph 5.21; 1 Clem. 38.1).194 While this sentence arrangement is possible (cf. Rom 12.10; Phil 2.3), connecting πάντες δὲ ἀλλήλοις with the preceding is problematic in that it would leave the following sentence without

  As pointed out by Alford (383).   One of the fullest articulations of this argument is provided by Hofmann (191–92; cf. Witherington 230–31), who denies that ἀλλήλοις could simply be understood as a dative of reference (‘clothe yourselves with humility with reference to one another’), as it is commonly interpreted. For a response to this objection, see Keil 168. 193   This interpretation, which is represented in the text of Mill, has been adopted by a few commentators over the years (e.g., de Wette 58; Hofmann 191–92; Burger 256; Huther 236–37; Fronmüller 89; Sadler 143; Hart 77; Wohlenberg 149; Picirilli 207; Witherington 230–31; cf. also Cook 217; Schelkle 130–31 n. 2). An alternative way of alleviating this difficulty is represented by many ancient witnesses, which insert ὑποτασσόμενοι after ἀλλήλοις: ‘all of you clothe yourselves with humility by submitting to one another’ (see Text at 5.5 n. i). 194   This interpretation is found in a number of English translations that are based either on the TR or a similar text form (cf. Tyndale, Geneva, Matthew’s, KJV, BRG, NMB, JUB, NKJV, MEV, RGT). 191 192

546

1 PETER

any connective particle.195 The Petrine author does, at times, begin new paragraphs in this manner (1.22; 2.13; 4.12), but here the line of thought is too closely connected. Furthermore, this construction creates an awkward redundancy: Why would the author instruct the νεώτεροι to submit to the elders, if he immediately follows this appeal by a general exhortation for all members to submit to each other? Contrary to the claims of some, an adequate sense can be provided for the dative.196 One possibility, as Dubis suggests, is to interpret ἀλλήλοις as an adjectival modifier of ταπεινοφροσύνην rather than connecting it with ἐγκομβώσασθε.197 Most, however, read the dative as an adverbial modifier,198 its emphatic location being attributed to the shift from the ‘elders’ as the object of subjection to ‘others’ as the ones who are impacted by humility. The question is whether ἀλλήλοις should be understood as a dative of reference or a dative of advantage.199 Possibly the best solution is to allow for both senses in the present case: such humility is expressed ‘towards’ one another (reference), but this does not preclude the fact that it is ‘for the benefit’ of each party involved (advantage).   As noted by Johnstone 392; cf. also Kelly 205; Hiebert 309. Another argument that tends to weigh against the retrospective structure is pointed out by Elliott (846). He notes that the ‘compositional pattern’ mirrors earlier paraenesis, wherein an address to specific groups (1 Pet 2.8–3.7) is followed by an exhortation to everyone (3.8–9). 196   Cf. Usteri 219–20. 197   Dubis 164–65. This consideration, however, does not fully alleviate the difficulty. From a search of TLG, no other instances were produced in which ταπεινοφροσύνη + dative expressed the idea of humility being shown ‘for’/ ‘towards’ someone else. The verb ταπεινοφρονέω likewise turned up no evidence of such a usage. 198   According to Beare, ‘ἀλλήλοις should be taken closely with πάντες rather than with the verb. Set thus in juxtaposition at the beginning of the clause, the two words have the effect of a motto which is to guide all their conduct. “All for one another” is to be the watchword; “all for each and each for all” ’ (202). However, this suggestion is unnecessary and tends to make the sentence even more convoluted. 199   Those who understand ἀλλήλοις as a dative of reference include: Lenski 222; Kelly 205; Goppelt 352 n. 40; Achtemeier 333 n. 174; Elliott 847; Dubis 165; Forbes 174. Those who understand ἀλλήλοις as a dative of advantage include: Wiesinger 319; Alford 384; Kühl 279; Masterman 165; Knopf 192; Blenkin 116; Selwyn 234. 195



5.1–5

547

The word ἐγκομβόομαι, which is a derivative of κόμβος (‘knot’, ‘band’), is another one of the rare terms employed by the Petrine author. Because the verb only appears in a couple of fragmentary texts (Apollodorus of Carystius, Frag. 4 [Kock III 281]; Epicharmus, Frag. 7 [Kaibel 92]), interpreters often look to the nominal form for its meaning.200 As a nomen actionis from the verb κομβόω, the substantive ἐγκόμβωμα is used on occasion with reference to an outer garment or apron that was tied around a person in order to protect his or her undergarments. Due to the fact that it is found in connection with clothing worn by slaves (Pollux, Onom. 4.119) and shepherds (Longus, Daphn. 2.33), commentators sometimes ascribe a sense of humility or debasement to the verb.201 In fact, many scholars claim that the imagery alludes to John 13.3–5, in which Jesus humbly removes his outer garments (τὰ ἱμάτια) and wraps himself in a towel (λέντιον διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν; cf. Vita Aesopi 1.61: περιζωσαμένη λέντιον) in order to wash his disciples’ feet.202 Others go in the opposite direction, assigning the term a more positive sense (‘adorning’). A comparable usage of τὰ ἐγκομβώματα is found in the Symmachus version of Isa 3.20, wherein the term depicts fancy jewellery.203 But from what little evidence we possess, it seems safest to avoid both extremes—especially given that the word is not used exclusively in either type of context. At most, ἐγκομβόομαι seems to describe the process of fastening or tying something, usually of

  An example of this approach is provided by Fritzsche, ‘Ejusdem de loquutione Petrinâ’, 259–75, who offers a thorough examination of the term, but is ultimately influenced heavily by the related nominal forms. 201   See, e.g., Grotius 108; de Wette 58; Steiger 2:293; Lumby 214–15; Barnes 203; Mason 433–34. 202   This view is maintained by a variety of commentators (e.g., Lumby 215; Moffatt 165; Cranfield 132; Margot 85; Kelly 206; Best 172; Bénétreau 274; Miller 352; Skaggs 71). 203   Based on the fact that Hesychius (Lexicon s.v. Κ §3438) equates κομβώσασθαι with στολίσασθαι and ἐγκεκόμβωται with ἐνείληται, Bigg understands the Petrine usage as applied to the ‘putting on garments of a certain amplitude and dignity’ (191; cf. Calvin 148). See also Harris, ‘Religious Meaning of 1 Peter V.5’, 131–39, who claims that the term refers to the rope which was knotted around the waist in religious dress (cf. Brox 236, who considers the idea of similar liturgical dress). 200

548

1 PETER

a garment of clothing.204 Rather than locating it in relation to any specific image from the ancient world, it is easier to assume that the language represents traditional Christian paraenesis that employs clothing imagery to depict the adoption of proper attitudes and behaviour (cf. Rom 13.12; Eph 6.11, 14; Col 3.12; 1 Thess 5.8). It is noteworthy that Ps-Clement employs the term ἐγκομβόομαι in a similar way, representing the metaphorical clothing in Christian virtue (ὁ τοιοῦτος τὴν ἁγνείαν ἐγκομβοῦται ἐν τῷ ἁγνῷ φόβῳ κυρίου, Epistulae de Virginitate 1.3.5). The virtue they are to wrap around themselves is ταπεινοφρο­ σύνη (‘humility’). Within the Greco-Roman world, being ταπεινός was not generally considered to be virtuous or honourable.205 The ταπεινο– word group was ordinarily used to describe something or someone that was weak, poor, or just generally held in low esteem (Herodotus, Hist. 7.14; Isocrates, Nic. 42; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.42.2). A negative sense closer to the English ‘humiliated’ or ‘lowly’ can also be found in NT literature (e.g., 2 Cor 12.21; cf. 10.1; 11.7; Jas 1.9). The ancient evidence is mixed and nuanced, however, and some more positive examples should be noted; ‘humility’ before the gods or rulers could be seen as morally appropriate (e.g., Isocrates, Nic. 56), and the word could be positively used in a way akin to the English ‘modesty’ (Xenophon, Ages. 11.11).206 Within Christian circles, however, the lowly, humiliating death of Christ, which served as an example to his followers (cf. 1 Pet 2.21), led this concept to be reevaluated, such that the idea of ‘social humility’—lowering oneself in service to others, even those of

  See further TDNT 2:339; TLNT 1:404.   The negative connotations of the ταπεινο– word group within Greek literature have long been noted by biblical scholars (see, e.g., Harnack, “Sanftmut, Huld, und Demut”, 119; Dihle, ‘Antike Höflichkeit’, 184–85; van Unnik, ‘Zur Bedeutung von ταπεινοῦν τὴν ψυχήν’, 250; Wengst, Humility, 4–15; Guttenberger, Status und Statusverzicht, 77–84). 206   Cf. also Plato, Leg. 4.716a; Aeschylus, Prom. 320; Plutarch, Alc. 6.5. On these nuances and positive associations, see further Rehrl, Das Problem der Demut, 32–33, 38–41, 45–54; Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 182–85. In the same way, the use of the ταπεινο- word group in the NT is more nuanced than simply a transformation from a negative to a positive connotation (see Leivestad, ‘Ταπεινός’, 36–47; Levko, ‘Word tapeinos in the New Testament’, 284–88). 204 205



5.1–5

549

equal or lower social status—came to be a virtue.207 These shifting perspectives appear to have given rise to the Christian use of ταπεινοφροσύνη, a form that is not found prior to the first century.208 In the NT, this term is included lists of other moral virtues (Eph 4.2; Col 3.12; cf. 1 Clem. 30.8; 44.3), describing a positive sense of humility in which one puts others ahead of oneself (Phil 2.3; cf. Herm. Sim. 8.7.6). The Pauline tradition, and Phil 2.3 specifically, appears to stand at the origin of this development in vocabulary and significance.209 It is this meaning that seems to be intended here. ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν.. χάριν The scriptural justification for clothing oneself with humility is given by way of a ὅτι-clause, a construction that the author uses elsewhere to introduce the theological grounds for moral exhortation (cf. 2.21; 3.18; 4.8). The reason why ταπεινοφροσύνη is expected from all members of the Christian community is because the ‘humble’ (ταπεινοί) are those who, according to the Jewish scriptures, receive God’s blessing. This scriptural axiom comes from Prov 3.34.210 As is customary in the epistle, the form of the

  On the meaning of the ταπεινο– word group within early Christian literature, see TDNT 8:1–26; TLNT 3:369–71. For more on the transformation of the concept of ‘humility’, see Gilen, ‘Demut des Christen’, 266–84; Wengst, Humility; Horrell, Making of Christian Morality, 143–58; Becker, Paul on Humility. 208   Among contemporary writers, the same word describes a fault of a person, namely, meanness or cowardice (Josephus, War 4.494; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.24.56). Outside of these examples, however, the term ταπεινοφροσύνη is found almost exclusively within Christian literature. It would thus appear that ‘early Christians… needed a noun for the corresponding virtue that did not have the pejorative meaning attached to ταπεινότης’ (James, ‘Productivity of the Suffix -σύνη’, 277), and so they frequently came to use ταπεινοφροσύνη. 209   See further Horrell, Making of Christian Morality, 148–49, 156–58; Becker, Paul on Humility, 51–87, 103–15. The idea of virtuous humility is of course also strongly rooted in the Gospel traditions (e.g., Matt 18.4; Mark 9.35; Matt 23.12// Luke 14.11//18.14) but the specific noun ταπεινοφροσύνη appears only in the Pauline letters and in texts arguably influenced by the Pauline tradition (Acts 20.19; 1 Pet 3.8). 210   Although this proverb is not cited in other Jewish writings prior to the time of 1 Peter, it is referenced in Jas 4.6 and a number of ante-Nicene fathers (see Beetham, ‘Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs’, 55–56). 207

550

1 PETER

text cited here derives from the LXX rather than the Hebrew Bible. The meaning of the latter is only slightly different, however.211 The citation of the proverb is exact, except for the fact that ὁ θεός is substituted for κύριος. It is possible that this change was made to clarify that God is the source of χαρίς (consistent with 2.20; 4.10; 5.10, 12), because the Christian readers would have associated κύριος with Christ (as at 1.3; 2.3; 3.15).212 The opposite change is made at 1.25, where the author replaces θεοῦ with κυρίου, perhaps to indicate that the ‘word’ proclaimed is about Christ (cf. 1.10–12). But the fact that the same reading of the Prov 3.34 text occurs elsewhere (1 Clem. 30.2; Ign. Eph. 5.3) may suggest that it had become part of early tradition, possibly representing one form of the LXX text. Since the exact form of this scriptural quotation also appears in Jas 4.6, questions also arise concerning their literary relationship (see below). In Greek literature, the word ὑπερήφανος was used both positively and pejoratively, describing something or someone whose status was evaluated more highly than that of others.213 In some cases, it could be employed as a term of praise and adulation (e.g., Plato, Symp. 217E; Plutarch, Ages. 34.7; P.Oxy. III 530), but more often than not it came to represent one who took pride in their power and self-sufficiency. Such an attitude was looked upon with disfavour because it led the person into competition and conflict with both humans and the gods. For this reason, a ὑπερήφανος person was commonly assigned to divine judgment (Herodotus, Hist. 7.10E.1; Diodorus Siculus 6.7.1–4; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 1.2.1). These same sentiments are echoed in Jewish literature as well (LXX Isa 1.25; 2.12; 13.11; Zeph 3.6; Pss 93.2; 122.4; Job 38.15; 40.12; Pss. Sol. 2.31). But while there was a general agreement among Jews and Gentiles regarding their disdain for pride and

211   The Hebrew text reads, ‫‘( אם ללצים הוא יליץ ולעניים יתן חן‬Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he shows favor’, NRSV). In the LXX, the word ‫‘( לץ‬scorner’) is ordinarily translated as either λοιμός, ‘pestilent person’ (Pss 1.1; 19.25; 21.24; 22.10; 24.9) κακός, ‘evil one’ (Prov 9.7–8; 14.6) or ἀκόλαστος, ‘undisciplined one’ (Prov 19.29; 20.1; 21.11). Only one other time is ὑπερήφανος employed (Isa 29.20). 212   As suggested, e.g., by Hart 77; Best 172; Jobes 309. 213   For more on the meaning of this term, see TDNT 8:525–29; TLNT 3:390–95.



5.1–5

551

arrogance, this did not translate into the praise of the ‘humble’. Among many Greeks and Romans, to be included among the ταπεινοί would have been equally dishonourable (see above).214 Such a designation was associated with something or someone of low esteem (Plutarch, Cic. 10.5; Lucian, Cal. 24) and even of servile status (Xenophon, Mem. 3.10.5; Plato, Leg. 6.774c). Within ancient Judaism, however, God was thought to be particularly attuned to the cause of the ταπεινοί (LXX Isa 25.4; Ps 9[10].38–39[17–18]; Jdt 9.11; 1 Macc 14.14).215 With little to no power or influence, their hope was grounded in God’s future efforts to reverse their fortunes (LXX 1 Sam 2.7–8; Ps 18[17].27; Ezek 17.24; 21.26; Job 5.11; Sir 11.1). Just as in 1 Peter, the ταπεινοί are thus set in opposition to the ὑπερήφανοι (Ps 17.28 LXX; cf. Let. Aris. 263). The depiction here is not of God as an indiscriminate or universal benefactor; God does not give to those who are noble or of high status. Instead, χάρις is given specifically to the ‘humble’ (ταπει­ νοί).216 This provides some indication as to how the author perceives God’s χάρις, not only as a gift to believers in Christ (particularly in situations of suffering), but also as the source of the gift-giving that then flows out into inter-human relationships.217 In the original context of the quotation, this designation primarily indicates those who are appropriately humble before God, contrasted with those who are scornful (‘scoffers’, ‫ )לצים‬or proud (ὑπερήφανοι). That 214   It is interesting to note that Origen (Cels. 3.63) seems to think that Christian morality is consistent with pagan virtue, as he compares the following injunction (‘be humbled under God’s mighty hand’) with the teachings of Plato, who states that ‘the good and virtuous person walks humbly and orderly’ (ὁ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς πορεύεται ταπεινὸς καὶ κεκοσμημένος). 215   See esp. Wengst, Humility. 216   As noted above, the focus on (social) humility as a virtue is a distinctive emphasis of early Christian ethics; likewise, a notable focus of the early Christian understanding of χάρις is that it was given to those who were undeserving or (as here) lowly in status. For further discussion of the topic, see Barclay, Paul and the Gift. The conventions and canons of virtue and reward are recast (cf. Green 171) by the orientation towards ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1.3), ‘the God of every grace’ (5.10) as the supreme benefactor, judge, and arbiter of reward and punishment. 217   In the original context, the verb δίδωσιν conveys a gnomic sense, indicating that it is a general or timeless fact that God acts to bestow χάρις on the humble. The depiction of χάρις in 1 Peter, however, is multi-faceted, involving networks of relationship established by gift-giving (see on 1.10 with p. 423 n. 361).

552

1 PETER

sense is also given prominence in 1 Peter with the juxtaposition of 5.5 and 5.6. The structure is best taken with a minor subsection break between vv. 5 and 6 (see Introduction to 5.1–5), since the exhortation in 5.5 is to social humility among the members of the community, motivated and supported by this scriptural quotation. The next verse, while verbally linked to this one via the continued theme of humility, shifts the focus to the need for humility before God. Summary The instruction given to ‘elders’ here—a group that probably represents ‘senior’ figures within the communities, who bear authority and exercise a role of leadership—is striking and significant in a number of ways. First there is the connection drawn with ‘Peter’, the named author, who stands in solidarity with these leaders as a co-elder, implying that his role and authority are shared with them. Peter is also depicted in ways that likely suggest his having borne witness through his death, which means that he already shares the glory that the readers anticipate. Second, the direct instructions to the elders use pastoral imagery, already common in the Jewish scriptures (viz. that of shepherd and flock) to depict their responsibilities. This establishes a connection between their role and Christ’s, depicted as shepherd in 2.25 (as well as 5.4), and also with the depictions of both Jesus (as good shepherd) and Peter (commissioned to ‘feed my flock’) in John’s Gospel. These traditions may shape the authorial depiction here as well as the exhortations given to elders as shepherds of the flock. The various warnings about how the elders should, and should not, exercise this responsibility are expressed in a characteristic negative-positive form (‘not this, but that’; cf. 1.14–15, 23; 3.9) and echo the kinds of characteristics urged upon leaders elsewhere in early Christian literature. Finally, with another indication of the author’s eschatological expectation, the elders/shepherds are promised a reward for good service, ‘when the chief shepherd appears’ (5.4). This depiction of Christ builds on the shepherd imagery, and establishes a hierarchy of shepherds, within which the elders perform their role. Corresponding instruction, though much briefer, is given to the rest of the community, depicted as ‘junior’ in relation to those who are ‘elders’ (v. 5a). Several features of the instruction occur also in



5.1–5

553

the household code section of 1 Peter (see Introduction to 5.1–5). Notably these ‘junior’ members of the congregation—everyone who is not an elder—are urged to ‘be subordinate’, repeating a central verb from the earlier instruction. Unlike the domestic code in 1 Peter, however, here more instruction is given to the superordi�nate group (the elders) and only very brief instruction to those who are to be subordinate, which represents a reversal of the pattern in 2.18–3.7. While the instruction has to do with what we might term ecclesial order, rather than order in the domestic sphere, it similarly insists on this relationship of subordination. Given the detailed instructions to elders—as with the much briefer instructions to husbands (3.7)—this hierarchy is evidently meant to operate in a considerate and benevolent way, but it is nonetheless a hierarchy which, as such, may invite contemporary critique.218 This hierarchy is mollified further by the final exhortation, supported by a scriptural quotation, and addressed to everyone, elder and junior alike, to demonstrate humility towards one another. This kind of social humility is a distinctive emphasis in early Christian ethics, with the specific noun used here, ταπεινοφροσύνη, emerging within the Pauline tradition (notably Phil 2.3) and coming to represent a Christian virtue. This pattern of self-lowering, other-regarding relationships is clearly intended to encompass all relationships within the Christian communities, but, as with the call to mutual submission in Eph 5.21, it is not, for the author, incompatible with relationships of superiority and subordination.

  See, e.g., the critique of 1 Peter’s kyriarchal ideology in Bird, Abuse, and Fiorenza, 1 Peter. 218

D E PE N D IN G O N G OD A ND R E S IST IN G T H E DEVI L (5.6–11)

Initial Bibliography Annang Asumang, ‘ “Resist him” (1 Pet 5:9): Holiness and Non-Retaliatory Responses to Unjust Suffering as “Holy War” in 1 Peter’, Journal of the South African Theological Seminary 11 (2011): 7–46; Dominique Charles, ‘ “Votre adversaire le diable rôde comme un lion rugissant” (1 P 5,8)’, RevBib 120 (2013): 405–22; Sebastian Fuhrmann, ‘The Devil as (Convicted) Prosecutor: Some Ideas on the Devil in 1 Peter and Hebrews’, IDS 50 (2016): 1–4; R. P. E. Golebiewski, ‘Dieu nous console dans l’épreuve (1 P 5,6–11)’, AsSeign 57 (1965): 17–23; David G. Horrell, Bradley Arnold, and Travis B. Williams, ‘Visuality, Vivid Description, and the Message of 1 Peter: The Significance of the Roaring Lion (1 Peter 5:8)’, JBL 132 (2013): 697–716; Troy W. Martin, ‘Roaring Lions among Diaspora Metaphors: First Peter 5:8 in Its Metaphorical Context’, in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes, ed. David S. du Toit, BZNW 200 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 167–79; Florentino Ogara, ‘Adversarius… diabolus tamquam leo rugiens’, VD 16 (1936): 166–73; Boris A. Paschke, ‘The Roman ad bestias Execution as a Possible Historical Background for 1 Peter 5.8’, JSNT 28 (2006): 489–500; P. Benedikt Schwank, ‘Diabolus tamquam leo rugiens (1 Petr 5,8)’, Erbe und Auftrag 38 (1962): 15–20; Lauri Thurén, ‘1 Peter and the Lion’, in Evil and the Devil, ed. Erkki Koskenniemi and Ida Frölich, LNTS 481 (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 142–55.

Text Ταπεινώθητε οὖν ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ, θεοῦ, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ ἐν καιρῷ(a), 7 πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν,, ὅτι αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμῶν. αὐτόν ὑμῶν. 8 νήψατε νήψατε,, γρηγορήσατε(b). ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος ὡς λέων ὠρυόμενος περιπατεῖ ζητῶν (c) καταπιεῖν·· 9 ᾧ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ(d) τῇ πίστει εἰδότες(e) καταπιεῖν τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων τῇ ἐν κόσμῳ(f) ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι ἐπιτελεῖσθαι(g). 10 ὁ δὲ θεὸς πάσης χάριτος, χάριτος, ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν Χριστῷ(h) ὀλίγον παθόντας αὐτὸς καταρτίσει, καταρτίσει, στηρίξει στηρίξει,, σθενώσει σθενώσει,, θεμελιώσει(i). 11 αὐτῷ (j) τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας , ἀμήν ἀμήν.. 6

556

1 PETER

(a) Attached to the phrase ἐν καιρῷ, some witnesses contain a modifier that delineates the specific time of exaltation. Most in this category read ἐν καιρῷ ἐπισκοπῆς, ‘at the time of visitation’ (A, P, Ψ [+ ὑμῶν], 5, 33, 436, 442, 1735, 2344), although a few later minuscules replace ἐπισκοπῆς with ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι αἰῶνι (876, 1832, 1890, 2138). These readings represent later additions that arose either through the influence of parallel texts (cf. 2.12)1 or through the scribal discomfort with the absolute function of ἐν καιρῷ (Dubis 166). (b) Following the two imperatives, many ancient sources include ὅτι (P72, ‫א‬2, Ψ, 5, 33, 442, 1175, 1243, 1448, 1611, 1739, 1852, Byzpt; cf. latt, sy, co). Despite its early pedigree and the possibility of explaining its omission through haplography resulting from homoeoarcton (see Elliott 853), this causal conjunction most likely represents a scribal attempt to make clearer and more explicit the connection between the imperative and indicative elements of the sentence (cf. Usteri 223 n. 1; Achtemeier 335). The omission is supported by ‫*א‬, A, B, K, P, 049*, 0142, 0206, many minuscules, some Syriac Peshitta MSS and the Slavonic version, as well as by C-S. It is notable that in other places too, ὅτι followed by ο ‘caused textual confusion’ (4.17; 5.5; Michaels 292 n. c). (c) Most modern editions read τινα at this point, although variations abound in the textual record with regard to both the function of τινα and its accompanying verbal form (see ECM 194–95). Three options present themselves in the MS tradition: (1) Numerous witnesses, including a large number of early church fathers, understood τινα as an accented interrogative pronoun (τίνα), modifying the subjunctive verb καταπίῃ, ‘seeking whom he might devour’ (P72, A, 436, 642, 2492, lat).2 This reading was adopted by a variety of earlier commentators (e.g., Usteri 223 n. 1; Wohlenberg 152 n. 72; Windisch 80; Selwyn 237–38). Some have dismissed this suggestion on the assumption that it would have arisen only after the Greek text had received accentuation and thus could not have been representative of the initial text. But it would be a mistake to think that the earliest Greek text, even in a scriptio continua form, would have been without some diacritical marks to clarify ambiguous words (see Heilmann, ‘Reading Early New Testament Manuscripts’, 183–88). (2) Other witnesses take τινα as an indefinite pronoun, modifying the infinitive καταπιεῖν, ‘seeking someone to devour’

1   Most suggest derivation from 1 Pet 2.12, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς (see Usteri 221; Huther 228; Kühl 279, Metzger, TCGNT, 626), while Michaels (292 n. a) proposes the influence of the phrase ἐν καιρῷ ἐπισκοπῆς αὐτῶν in Jer 6.15 (LXX) or Wis 3.7. 2   A future indicative form of this verb (καταπίει) is also well-represented (e.g., 0142, 33vid, 1448, 1735, 2344, Byzpt). But it appears to be a secondary derivation from the subjunctive form, likely arising as a result of itacism.



5.6–11

557

(‫א‬2, P, 5, 81, 307, 442, 1243, 1611, 1739, 1852, Byzpt).3 With relatively strong external support, this reading is found in NA28/ECM and has been advocated by a number of recent interpreters (e.g., Schelkle 132 n. 1; Kelly 210; Goppelt 361; Elliott 858–59; Schlosser 289 n. c). (3) In some witnesses, the pronoun is altogether omitted before the infinitive καταπιεῖν, ‘seeking to devour’ (B, Ψ, 1175, 2718, Hierpt, Or). Although it lacks strong external support, this reading has found a handful of supporters over the years (e.g., Blenkin 119; Beare 205; Michaels 292–93 n. e; Achtemeier 335 n. 6). Against this view, one could point to the fact that the position of the pronoun is consistent throughout the textual record, and that no alternative forms appear in place of τινα, which would have been expected if scribes were inserting a term to complement καταπιεῖν (see Burer et al., New Testament, 877–78). Most, however, will acknowledge the difficulty of an absolute use of καταπιεῖν (cf. Metzger, TCGNT, 626), with scholars being forced to conclude that it represents the lectio difficilior. With this assumption, it is easy to explain the insertion of τινα and thus the first two readings. Further support for the omission of τινα might also be found in the Coptic versions, as in C-S, which, instead of the pronoun, contains the reading n_net_m_yuxh (= τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν).4 Such a translation may indicate a similar (and independent) tendency to smooth out the absolute use of the infinitive, although using a different form. The omission, then, might be the most likely option, although the limitations of our knowledge at this point must be acknowledged. Any of these readings should be regarded with a considerable degree of tentativeness. (d) P72 reads ἑδραῖοι, perhaps a deliberate change: ‘the substitution of a second- or third-century purist for the unusual stereoi’, which often has pejorative connotations in Greek usage (‘stiff, stubborn’).5 (e) P72 (and a number of minuscules) add ὅτι here (as also above: see Text at 5.8 n. b). (f) P72, ‫*א‬, and B contain the article τῷ before κόσμῳ (given as an alternative reading in the first edition of ECM 195). While the article might have been added for stylistic reasons, it is also possible that it was omitted in order to avoid ‘the mistaken impression that ὑμῶν, “your,” belonged with κόσμῳ, “world,” rather than with “brotherhood” ’ (Michaels 293, n. g, citing BDF §284[1]). It may be relevant to note that the other occurrences of κόσμος in the letter are anarthrous (1.20; 3.3). 3   An alternative to this solution is provided by Johnstone (401–402; cf. Alford 385), who suggests the reading ζητῶν τίνα καταπιεῖν, ‘seeking whom to devour’ (cf. KJV, Douay-Rheims, ASV). This construction has been challenged on syntactical grounds (see Keil 169), but it does find parallels elsewhere in Koine Greek (for examples, see Radermacher, Grammatik, 181; cf. also BDF §368). 4   Willis, ‘Letter of Peter’, 210 (B11–12). 5   Quinn, ‘Notes on the Text’, 247. Cf. LSJ 1640 §2.

558

1 PETER

(g) Due to the confusion caused by the sentence structure of 1 Pet 5.9b, there is a considerable amount of textual variation at this point in the MS tradition (see ECM 196). The reading ἐπιτελεῖται only finds support in P72, yet the prominence and date of this witness demand that it be taken seriously. In fact, it was argued by Quinn (‘Notes on the Text’, 247–49), that P72 did in fact contain the original reading. What Quinn suggests, however, is that the word should be separated to read ἐπεὶ τελεῖται (‘because it [the fellowship] is being perfected’).6 Such a proposal, while innovative, only compounds the existing problem arising from the difficult sentence structure. In his reconstructed text, Quinn is forced to assume the elision of εἶναι, with ἀδελφότητι functioning similarly to the object in a double accusative object–complement construction (‘realizing that… your Christian brotherhood has like sufferings’). The problem is that this is an impossible construal given the dative case of ἀδελφότητι (on double case constructions, see Culy, ‘Double Case Constructions’, 82–106). A reading that contains much weightier external support is ἐπιτελεῖσθε (‫א‬, A, B*, K, 0206, 33, 614, 630, 1505, al). But despite its external strength, it nonetheless appears to be an attempt to smooth out the difficulty of the present sentence. The infinitival form ἐπιτελεῖσθαι (B2, P, Ψ, 1739, Byz) is able to make the strongest claim to being part of the initial text, for it is the lectio difficilior and thus able to explain the rise of all other readings (Achtemeier 335 n. 11; Schreiner 282 n. 144). (h) At this point, most witnesses contain the name Ἰησοῦ after Χριστῷ (P72, A, P, Ψ, 5, 33, 81, 307, 436, 442, 642, 1175, 1243, 1448, 1735, 1739, 1852, 2344, 2492, Byz, latt, syh**, bo). The strength of this testimony formed the basis of the NA27 reading (although Ἰησοῦ was placed in brackets). The reading ἐν Χριστῷ (NA28/ECM) only finds a modest amount of external support (‫א‬, B [ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ], 0206vid, 1611, 2412, syh). Nevertheless, the shorter reading appears to be the more likely given that there is a marked ‘tendency of scribes to add rather than omit sacred names’ (Metzger, TCGNT, 627), a fact that is evident at other places in the textual record (see ECM 112, 181) including the expansive reading of 720 at this very point: διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (‘through his son, Jesus Christ’). (i) The verbs here appear in a considerable variety of forms (see ECM 197). A number of witnesses contain the optative form of the verbs, in some cases with each verb (614, 630, 1448, 1611, pc) and in others just with καταρτίσαι 6   ECM (196) gives the reading of P72 as ἐπιτελεῖται, which is possible, given the scribe’s tendency towards various forms of itacism. However, the text reads ΕΠΕΙ [line break] ΤΕΛΕΙΤΑΙ, where ΕΠΕΙ ends an unusually short line (18 letters, whereas most are around 20–25 letters, and some as long as 30), suggesting the possibility that the scribe understood ΕΠΕΙ as a conjunction not a prefix, and read the verb ΤΕΛΕΙΤΑΙ. This might be how the scribe of P72 understood the purpose of suffering in the world, but it is difficult—pace Quinn—to accept this as the likely initial reading.



5.6–11

559

(K, L, P, 049, al). This reading—in connection with ὑμᾶς, which appears in many of these same manuscripts—reflects a later liturgical context, possibly influenced by similar uses of the optative, for example, Rom 15.13; 1 Thess 5.23; Heb 13.21 (see Huther 229; Kühl 282–83). Other witnesses lack one or other of the verbs (P72, 81, 1175, and syp lack σθενώσει; A, B, Ψ, and vg lack θεμελιώσει). While a few interpreters have understood θεμελιώσει as a later addition (e.g., Fausset 513; Johnstone xxi; Moffatt 168; Selwyn 241), the term was more likely omitted as a result of the similar ending of each successive verb (cf. Beare 207; Goppelt 366 n. 35; Metzger, TCGNT, 627). The list of four future-tense verbs (καταρτίσει, στηρίξει, σθενώσει, θεμελιώσει), which provides the best reading, is supported by ‫ א‬and numerous minuscules (including 33, 436, 442, 1243, 1739*, 1852, 2344). (j) The tendency for liturgical and doxological phrases to be expanded is evident here. The majority of witnesses (including ‫א‬, P, syh, bo) read ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος or some variation. The shorter text is attested by P72 (without the article), A, B, Ψ. Many MSS also give the longer phrase τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (‫א‬, A, Ψ, 0206, 81, 323, 623, 1243, 1739, 1852, Byz, latt, sy, sa, boms); the shorter form is found in P72, B, 307, pc, bo, arm. Cf. also on 4.11.

Introduction This final section of the letter-body, after which come just the closing and final greetings (vv. 12–14), offers a powerful and vivid set of exhortations that should be seen as important in relation to the overall message of the letter. Rhetorical analysis might identify this as the peroratio of the letter, which ‘sums up the rhetor’s arguments and seeks to sway the emotions of the hearers towards the orator’s view’,7 but epistolary analysis can also indicate that letter-endings are an important place to reiterate and emphasise key points that convey the letter’s central message (see Summary below).8 The opening of the sub-section is verbally and thematically connected with the scriptural quotation given in v. 5, but it is probably stretching the degree of connection too much to claim that ‘this section is a loose commentary on Prov. 3:34 LXX, quoted in 7   Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 9, though he sees the peroratio more broadly as 4.12–5.14 (199). According to Aristotle, the peroratio (or ἐπίλογος) serves four purposes: ‘to dispose the hearer favorably towards oneself and unfavorably towards the adversary; to amplify and depreciate; to excite the emotions of the hearer; to recapitulate’ (Rhet. 3.19.1; trans. Freese; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 6.1). 8   See Weima, Neglected Endings; idem, ‘Sincerely, Paul’, 307–45. Schreiner (283) comments: ‘as the letter concludes, crucial terms used previously are reprised to remind readers of the letter’s central themes’.

560

1 PETER

verse 5’.9 Likewise, some have seen these verses as a continuation of the preceding instruction on the relation between elders and their congregations;10 but again the indications of such specific thematic continuation are missing.11 The content moves from an exhortation about humility and trust towards God (vv. 6–7) to a warning about the threat of the devil (v. 8) and the need firmly to resist him, in solidarity with the suffering Christian community throughout the world (v. 9). The ability to mount this resistance is then underscored with an emphatic assertion that God will keep those who are called firmly in place (v. 10), an affirmation that appropriately concludes with a brief doxology (cf. 4.11). One significant feature of this paragraph is the close parallels between 1 Pet 5.5b–9 and Jas 4.6b–10, beginning with an identically worded quotation from Prov 3.34 (close verbal parallels are underlined; similarities in theme or vocabulary have dotted underlining): 1 Peter 5.5b–9

James 4.6b–10

ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. 6 Ταπεινώθητε οὖν ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ ἐν καιρῷ, 7 πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, ὅτι αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμῶν. 8 νήψατε, γρηγορήσατε. ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος ὡς λέων ὠρυόμενος περιπατεῖ ζητῶν τινα καταπιεῖν· 9 ᾧ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει εἰδότες τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων τῇ ἐν κόσμῳ ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι ἐπιτελεῖσθαι.

ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. 7 ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ θεῷ, ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν· 8 ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐγγιεῖ ὑμῖν. καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, ἁμαρτωλοί, καὶ ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, δίψυχοι. 9 ταλαιπωρήσατε καὶ πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε. ὁ γέλως ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος μετατραπήτω καὶ ἡ χαρὰ εἰς κατήφειαν. 10 ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς.

  Watson 119; cf. McKnight 275.   So Calvin 148; Bengel 81. 11   Those in favour of a new paragraph here include Steiger 2:295; Bloomfield 727; Johnstone 395–96; Goppelt 355–56; Vinson 236. 9

10



5.6–11

561

Aside from the scriptural quotation, the precise verbal parallels are relatively few, but nonetheless striking (and exact). The material follows a somewhat different order: in James the exhortation to be humble before the Lord, in order to be lifted up (v. 10), comes at the end of the passage, forming an inclusio with the comparable opening injunction to submit to God (v. 7); the instruction to oppose or resist the devil comes as part of this opening injunction. However, the parallels in the content of the instruction, following the shared scriptural quotation, are substantial: humble oneself before God, in order to be lifted up by him, and resist the devil. The core elements of this instruction are precisely shared: 1 Peter Ταπεινώθητε… ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ ὁ διάβολος… ᾧ ἀντίστητε

James ταπεινώθητε… καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς. ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ

A key question, then, is how best to explain these parallels. One older suggestion is that 1 Pet 5.5b–9 contained an early baptismal hymn based on the same tradition shared with James.12 However, there is no substantial evidence to indicate ‘hymnic’ material here,13 and the baptismal connection drawn in the past with 1 Peter has rightly fallen out of favour.14 Most scholars have concluded that both James and 1 Peter were drawing on shared traditions which circulated in the early church.15 Michaels suggests that ‘it is possible to imagine as a common source a couplet… (a) “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.” (b) “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you”.’ He concludes, however, that it is ‘equally plausible’ that the two passages ‘are simply independent reflections on Prov 3:34 LXX, with no additional common source’.16

12   See Boismard, ‘Liturgie baptismale II’, 177–79; idem, Quatre hymnes baptismales, 133–63. 13   As Elliott (849 n. 731) notes, ‘there are no traces of hymnic or liturgical structure (such as parallelism, rhythm, or relative clauses)’. 14   See Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure. 15   So, e.g., Selwyn 417–18; Kelly 206; Arichea–Nida 164; Goppelt 354; Michaels 293–95; Schelkle 131; Davids 186 n. 1; Knoch 135; Marshall 168; Hiebert 310–11; Brox 236; Achtemeier 333; Boring 174; Richard 214–15; Elliott 849 n. 731; Bosetti 209; Donelson 147; Watson 119. 16   Michaels 294.

562

1 PETER

This seems highly unlikely, given the precise correspondences of wording (which do not derive from the scriptural quotation). Indeed, this seem like an instance where scholars can be too reticent to acknowledge a literary connection, despite the levels of precise correspondence being comparable with those that would commonly be judged to exhibit clear evidence of a literary allusion to Jewish scripture.17 As we have already seen,18 there are strong reasons to see a literary relationship of some kind between 1 Peter and James; the question concerns the nature of that relationship. Commentators have been fairly divided on this issue, with decisions being shaped not only by the points of literary connection but also from theories about the date and provenance of the letters.19 Given the uncertainty of the latter, this can easily become a precarious or circular mode of reasoning. As noted in the Introduction (Other New Testament/Early Christian Traditions), there are some grounds to see James as conflating material from 1 Peter, which would give literary priority to 1 Peter—although it is difficult to establish the direction of literary influence with any certainty. Exegesis 6 Ταπεινώθητε οὖν ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ, θεοῦ, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ ἐν καιρῷ The inferential conjunction, οὖν, links this section with what has preceded. This connection is evident both on a lexical level, where ταπεινόω in v. 6 echoes back to the ταπεινός in v. 5, and on a rhetorical level, where the progression of the author’s logic is also clear: the readers should be humbled (v. 6) because such are the ones whom God rewards (v. 5), or, as Hart puts it, ‘obey in order that the promise… may be fulfilled for you’.20 Consistent with the function of some aorist passive verbs, most commentators and virtually all modern translations treat ταπεινώθητε as though it 17   See further Williams, ‘Intertextuality and Methodological Bias’, esp. 171–78; Introduction: Sources, Traditions, and Affinities. 18   See Introduction: Other New Testament/Early Christian Traditions. 19   Some argue that 1 Peter copied James (e.g., Steiger 2:295–96; Plumptre 156; Monnier 236–37; Masterman 165; Blenkin lviii–lix; Witherington 233 n. 560, 243–44). Others argue that James copied 1 Peter (e.g., Bigg 191–92; Wand 25; Beare 202; cf. Foster, ‘Literary’, 512; Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone, 210, 225–26). 20   Hart 78.



5.6–11

563

conveys a middle, reflexive sense, ‘humble yourselves’ (cf. KJV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB).21 As justification, some point to the fact that within Koine Greek the morphology of passive verbs (-θηmorpheme) had begun to replace middle forms, with the result that passive endings came to represent both middle and passive meanings.22 Yet, if the author’s desire were to communicate this idea, he could have more naturally employed the middle form of the verb (cf. Ps 34.14 LXX) or the active with a reflexive pronoun (cf. Matt 18.4; 23.12; Luke 14.11; 18.14; 2 Cor 11.7; Phil 2.8).23 In this case, the rare passive imperative form, ταπεινώθητε (cf. Jer 13.18), seems to be intentional,24 meaning ‘be humbled’.25 ‘The reference is not to a state of mind but to a condition that is the result of an action’.26 This is consistent with the use of the passive form of ταπεινόω in similar idioms from the LXX: ταπεινοῦσθαι ἀπὸ προσώπου θεοῦ (2 Chr 33.12; 34.27) and ταπεινοῦσθαι ἐναντίον κυρίου/θεοῦ (2 Chr 33.23; 34.27; Ezra 8.21; Dan 10.12; cf. Esth 6.13). 21   One of the few exceptions is the Douay-Rheims translation, which renders the sentence, ‘Be you humbled therefore under the mighty hand of God’ (cf. also GW, NOG, OJB). 22   See Hensler 223; Alford 384; Huther 238; Kühl 280; Monnier 237; Dubis 166; cf. also Winer, Grammar, 327; Young, New Testament Greek, 136. On the evolution of middle and passive voice morphology in the Greek language, see Chatzidakis, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, 194–200; Caragounis, Development of Greek, 152–53. 23   It is noteworthy that when 1 Pet 5.6 is echoed in later Christian literature, it is these constructions that often replace the initial reading. The active form with a reflexive pronoun is found in the Ep. eccl. apud Lugdunum et Viennam 2.5 (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.2.5): Ἐταπείνουν ἑαυτοὺς ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα, ‘They humbled themselves under the mighty hand’ (cf. Origen, Cels. 3.63; Comm. Matt. 16.8; Fr. Luc. 44). The middle form is present in Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.115: ταπεινοῦμαι ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν τοῦ Θεοῦ χεῖρα (‘I humbled myself under the mighty hand of God’). 24   Cf. Golebiewski, ‘Dieu nous console dans l’épreuve’, 18: ‘Il y a là qu’une nuance d’ordre grammatical. Accepter les humiliations et épreuves imposées par les circonstances, accepter même hostilité, calomnies, dénonciations (1 P 1,6–7; 2,12; 3,16; 4,14), c’est consenter à suivre le chemin par lequel Dieu veut nous faire passer et par lequel Il a fait passer son Fils (2,21–24)’. 25   Cf. Macknight 503; Demarest 269; Selwyn 235; Boring 174; Elliott 850. The Vulgate also renders the verb as a genuine passive (humiliamini). Even though Wiesinger understands ταπεινώθητε as a passive, he translates the form, ‘Werdet niedrig’ (322). 26   Witherington 236.

564

1 PETER

In both expressions, the verb conveys a passive meaning.27 More­ over, when this same construction (i.e., passive form of ταπεινόω + ὑπό with the accusative) appears elsewhere, it denotes a passive idea: ‘And their enemies oppressed them, and they were brought low under their hands (ἐταπεινώθησαν ὑπὸ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν)’ (Ps 105.42, NETS; cf. Gen 16.9). ‘The point’, as Achtemeier so aptly notes, ‘is not that Christians have a choice of whether they humble themselves; that happens to them simply because they are Christians. The point is rather that the Christians are to acknowledge that such status conforms to God’s will and to accept it for that reason, since it is the path God wishes Christians to take.’28 The agency (ὑπό) through which this humbling is administered is described as ‘the hand of God’ (ἡ χείρ τοῦ θεοῦ),29 an expression mainly found in Jewish and Christian literature.30 Through synecdoche, the phrase commonly represents the providential care and powerful protection of God (Deut 2.15; Philo, Somn. 2.265).31 On a number of occasions, the hand of God is further qualified as a ‘mighty hand’ (χεὶρ κραταιά). This occurs most often in association with the exodus from Egypt, wherein God’s power is displayed in the rescue of the Hebrew people (e.g., Exod 13.3; Deut 4.34;   Arguing for a middle sense for the passive form, Schlosser (294) lists examples from the LXX in which he claims the passive form of ταπεινόω carries a reflexive meaning (Gen 16.9; Lev 23.29; Ezra 8.21; Sir 12.11; 18.21; 34.26 [which he lists as 24.26]; Jer 13.18; Dan 10.12). Yet, in each case, the evidence is disputable; in fact, one could argue that a better case could be made for understanding these as passives. 28   Achtemeier 338. Cf. Steiger 2:296: ‘To be humbled under it means, to consider its actions as always right and gracious, to receive from it every thing without murmur or disdain, in a word, to sanctify the Lord’ (cf. Whitby 182). 29   The accusative χεῖρα is not the plural form (pace Plumptre 156). Some manuscripts (including ‫א‬, A, B) append a –ν on the end of the term (a reading found in the text of Tischendorf), but this is not altogether unusual for a third declension singular noun ending in –α or –η (cf. John 20.25 v.l.; Prot. Jas. 15.4; 23.2). On this formation, see further Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 157–58; Psichari, Essai sur le Grec, 164–70; MHT 2:129–30. 30   Outside of Jewish and Chritian literature, there are a few examples of the phrase χεὶρ κραταιά (see Euripides, Herc. fur. 964; Cratinus, Frag. 8; Oppianus, Cynegetica 2.129; Quintus, Posthomerica 1.592). 31   Particularly prominent in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 7.6, 9, 28; 8.18, 22, 31; Neh 2.8, 18), it is used to describe how God rescues the people of God from harm (Sib. Or. 3.795; 3 Bar. 0.2), even sparing them from death (T.Ab. A 18.7). 27



5.6–11

565

5.15; Ps 135.12; Jer 30.21; Bar 2.11). Without this specificity, the expression can also denote the general protection of God (Ps 9.33; 1 Esd 8.60). It is from this perspective that some read the description in v. 6. Given the consolatory nature of 1 Peter, the expression is understood as representing God’s protective shelter (cf. Luke 1.51), in which readers should find solace amidst suffering.32 But the description of God’s ‘mighty hand’ represents more than just protection; at times, it indicates the power and fury by which God disciplines. In Ezekiel, God warns those who stray to other gods: ‘I will bring you out from the peoples and take you in from the countries, where you were scattered in them, with a strong hand (ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ) and with a raised arm and with out-poured wrath. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and I will execute judgment against you there, face-toface’ (Ezek 20.34–35, NETS). In the same way, Job portrays his afflictions as God’s judgment upon him: ‘you fell upon me without mercy; with a strong hand (χειρὶ κραταιᾷ) you have scourged me’ (Job 30.21, NETS). Based on passages like these, many interpreters emphasise the judgmental aspect of the expression ‘mighty hand of God’, connecting it with the persecution that the audience is experiencing.33 The point, then, is that the readers should allow suffering to perform its intended function, viz. shaping believers in accordance with the cruciform pattern of Christ with a view towards their ultimate glorification. This seems natural given that the situation of suffering is earlier described as God’s judgment (1 Pet 4.17). As the motivation to humbly and submissively accept suffering, the author follows this exhortation with the prospect of future reward.34 The subject of the verb ὑψώσῃ could (technically) be either θεός or χείρ. Although modern translations almost unanimously   So, e.g., Mason 434; Mitchell 281. Cf. Elliott 850, who argues that ‘the point of vv 6–7 is more consolatory than admonitory’, and on this basis, he suggests that the expression ‘is meant to recall the exodus and the analogous great acts of deliverance by God’s “powerful hand”… as well as his power to protect and sustain his people’. Yet, only two verses later, the audience is warned about the devil whom the author strongly admonishes them to resist (vv. 8–9). Consolation and exhorta�tion/admonition are woven together in these verses (cf. v. 9). 33   So, e.g., de Wette 58; Demarest 269; Barnes 203; Fausset 513; Johnstone 396; Bigg 192; Blenkin 118. 34   Rather than denoting result (as suggested by Pott 148), ἵνα is best understood as an indication of purpose, ‘be humbled so that…’ (cf. Dubis 166; Forbes 175). 32

566

1 PETER

adopt the former reading, something could be said for the latter. It would add a more vivid sense to the expression35 in that the same ‘mighty hand’ that brings judgment would also bring vindication.36 The exaltation (ὑψόω) of the humble (ταπεινός) was a common theme in Jewish and Christian literature.37 It was often envisioned as part of a reversal of fortunes, with those high in status being brought low and those low in status being raised high. In a literal sense, the verb ὑψόω describes the physical raising up of something from a lower position (Gen 7.17; 2 Kgs 2.13; 1 Macc 12.36); but, metaphorically, it involves enhancing someone’s honour, position, or status (T.Jos. 1.7; 2 Cor 11.7; Did. 3.9). Here, the term is used in this latter sense. What (specifically) this entails depends on when it occurs. In Jewish and Christian literature, the phrase ἐν καιρῷ is often accompanied by a genitive (ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ, Luke 8.13) or adjectival (ἐν καιρῷ πονηρῷ, Ps 36.19) modifier. Consistent with this tendency, some scribes add ἐπισκοπῆς, ‘at the time of visitation’ (see Text at 5.6 n. a). The absolute use of ἐν καιρῷ is common in classical literature, referring to a specific point in time that is opportune or appropriate: ‘words are physicians of ailing wrath if salve is applied at the proper time (ἐν καιρῷ)’ (Aeschylus, Prom. 380–82; cf. Arrian, Anab. 4.15.5; Plutarch, Alc. 27.7). This same meaning occurs in Jewish and Christian works as well (cf. Isa 50.4; Philo, Mut. 174; Matt 24.45//Luke 12.42).38   As pointed out by Hensler (223). Cf. Doddridge 223: ‘Perhaps by this expression, the apostle may intend to remind them, that the hand of a righteous Providence was concerned in those events which were owing to the wickedness of men; so far concerned, as to overrule them, and render them instrumental and subservient to the accomplishment of his own wise designs’ (original emphasis). 36   Cf. Keil 168; Huther 238; Bony 175. But ultimately the force of the sentence remains very similar regardless of whether θεός or χείρ is taken as the subject, because χείρ is a synecdoche for θεός. 37   See Ezek 21.31; Let. Aris. 263; Matt 23.12; Luke 1.52; 14.11; 18.14; Jas 4.10. Even in secular writings, similar ideas are represented (see Septem Sapientes, Apophtegmata 3.11: τὰ μὲν ὑψηλὰ ταπεινοῦν, τὰ δὲ ταπεινὰ ὑψοῦν), with ‘exalting’ and ‘humbling’ being viewed as opposite extremes (Polybius, Hist. 5.26.12; Plutarch, Frat. amor. 15 [Mor. 485E]; Cleomedes, Caelestia 2.5). 38   Citing two uses from Sirach (19.9; 39.34), Dubis contends that this expression denotes the duration of time over which something occurs, ‘in due course’ (167). Both of these examples, however, could be taken to mean, ‘at the appropriate time’. 35



5.6–11

567

But when is the appropriate time? The Petrine author does not explicitly specify.39 As a result, the phrase has been interpreted to include both a present and future deliverance: ‘whether in this life or in the life to come’.40 Nevertheless, with the end soon approaching (1 Pet 4.7), and the final judgment already beginning (4.17), it is most likely that καιρός contains the same eschatological connotations that it does in other parts of the NT (e.g., Matt 8.29; Mark 13.33; Luke 21.8; 1 Cor 4.5). Earlier the author referred to ‘the last time’ (καιρὸς ἔσχατος), when salvation would be revealed (1 Pet 1.5). This phrase probably carries the same referent, indicating the parousia of Christ and the day of judgment and reckoning41 when believers will receive their inheritance from God (1.4–5), variously described as consisting of honour, glory, grace, blessing, and salvation (1.7, 9, 13; 3.9; 5.1, 4). 7 πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, αὐτόν, ὅτι αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμῶν The language of this verse is similar to the Gospel tradition in which Jesus exhorts his followers to avoid anxiety (Matt 6.25–34), and for this reason, some contend that the passage contains an allusion to a dominical saying.42 This is possible; but more than likely, it echoes Ps 54.23 LXX [MT 55.23], which reads, ἐπίρριψον ἐπὶ κύριον τὴν μέριμνάν σου, καὶ αὐτός σε διαθρέψει (‘Cast your worry upon the Lord, and he will sustain you’).43 Whether or not the Petrine author has the complete verse in mind is uncertain,44 although it is clear that the source has been altered to fit the

  Grudem 194; cf. Hiebert 312.   Richard notes that ‘the author is intentionally vague to express the optimism that, after a while (see v. 10), there will be a change in the community’s fortune’ (216 [emphasis added]; cf. Marshall 169). 41   Cf. Spicq 173; Schelkle 131; Goppelt 337; Feldmeier 244. To make this clear, some MSS add ἐπισκοπῆς (‘at the time of visitation’), see Text at 5.6 n. a. 42   E.g., Cranfield 134; cf. also Maier, ‘Jesustradition im 1. Petrusbrief’, 102. 43   As noted by others (e.g., Spicq 173; Schrage 119; Knoch 136; Brox 225; Schlosser 294). Given the similarities with Wis 12.13 (ᾧ [i.e., θεῷ] μέλει περὶ πάντων) in the second half, some have proposed that a connection lies there as well (e.g., Richard 216; cf. Davids 188 n. 7). 44   Hart (78) insists that the last clause ‘because he cares… ’ is substituted for καὶ αὐτός σε διαθρέψει (Ps 54.23 [MT 55.23]). 39 40

568

1 PETER

immediate context.45 There are some small changes, such as the use of the plural forms of address (ὑμῶν) and the substitution of the pronoun for κύριον. Relating more to the actual substance of the verse, special emphasis seems to be placed on μέριμνα (‘worry’), a word that describes feelings of anxiousness and unease associated primarily with their situation of suffering.46 Here, it is moved forward in the sentence and accompanied by the emphatic πᾶς. This particular construction (πᾶς modifying an articular, singular substantive) denotes the entirety or totality of something.47 So the notion is that all anxiety (as a sum total) is handed over to God, preventing further worry in the future. The most notable difference between this verse and the sourcetext is the shift from the finite imperative (ἐπίρριψον) to the participle (ἐπιρίψαντες). Some make very little of this change, for they understand ἐπιρίψαντες to be one of the many imperatival participles in the epistle.48 As such, it represents the second exhortation of the section: ‘be humbled… cast your cares’ (cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV). But since the participle can easily be connected to 45   These differences are not reflected in any of the other known Greek texts of Ps 54.23 (see Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 2:180), suggesting that they can be attributed to the Petrine author (cf. Vahrenhorst, ‘Der Text der Septuaginta’, 262–63). 46   The range of meaning for the word μέριμνα is broader than simply ‘worry’ or ‘anxiety’ (see further TDNT 4:589–93). At times, it represents careful thought and reflection that is devoted toward a particular task (see Prov 17.12; Let. Aris. 271). This is undesirable when it becomes all-consuming, leading to detrimental effects (1 Macc 6.10; Sir 42.9). The problem in such instances, at least according to Jewish and Christian authors, is usually that those who are anxious are not entrusting their situations to God. Sometimes the term in 1 Pet 5.7 is translated rhythmically (‘casting all your cares on him because he cares for you’; cf. KJV, NKJV, NET, HCSB), though this potentially confuses the lexical nuances of μέριμνα and the verb μέλει. 47   See MHT 3:200; Moule, Idiom Book, 93–94; BDAG 784. The articular μέριμνα is taken by Alford (385) to indicate an act that was present within the community rather than one that was merely potential; however, this represents a strained interpretation. 48   So, e.g., Perkins 79; Elliott 851 Watson 120; Keener 352. Some understand ἐπιρίψαντες as dependent upon ταπεινώθητε, yet still carrying an imperatival force (e.g., Jobes 313; Donelson 148 n. c; Dubis 167; Forbes 175). For the problem with this understanding of the imperatival function, see Excursus: Imperatival Participles in 1 Peter.



5.6–11

569

a finite verb, an imperatival usage is improbable.49 Moreover, had this been the author’s intention he could have employed the finite form, especially considering that he quotes from Ps 54.23 (LXX) where the finite imperative appears.50 This, in fact, is what some ancient witnesses do, replacing the participial form with a finite imperative.51 Others view ἐπιρίψαντες as an adverbial participle of means, explaining how to be humbled under the mighty hand of God (‘by casting your cares’, cf. NET).52 Although closer to the mark, certain considerations make this interpretation problematic as well. One is the fact that, in connection with ταπεινόω, the means by which a person is brought low is normally communicated by ὑπό + genitive.53 Further, a participle of means would make more sense if ταπεινώθητε were a reflexive middle (‘humble yourself’), specifying how this command were to be carried out. But with ταπεινώθητε being interpreted as a passive (see above), the participle of means is not appropriate, for the passive verb assumes an outside force (viz. the hand of God) acting upon the readers and bringing them low.

49   Winer, Grammar, 441–42; Robertson, Grammar, 946. The participle ἐπιρίψαντες was originally understood as imperatival by Moulton (‘Characteristics of New Testament Greek’, 445). But he later changed his view, admitting that ‘the participle… goes closely with ταπεινώθητε’ (MHT 1:181 n. 2). 50   Contrary to the claim of Michaels (296; cf. also Davids 187 n. 6), the participle’s adverbial function has nothing to do with the fact that it is aorist tense rather than present. Imperatival participles are found in both aorist and present tenses (cf. P.Hib. I 78; P.Petr. I 19bis). Furthermore, since the perfect tense is used for the independent proper participle (cf. P.Tebt. I 14), it is possible that it could be found in this tense as well. 51   The finite form is represented in some minuscules (61, 326, 1175, 1837, 1874), at least one church father (Antioch), and a few ancient versions (syp, arm, geo, aeth). 52   E.g., Johnstone 397; Moffatt 166; Kelly 208; Michaels 296; Bénétreau 275; Grudem 195; Davids 187; Knoch 136; Black 134; Senior 146; Green 179; Powers 149; Warden 274; Vahrenhorst 195; Schreiner 278; cf. also Wallace, Grammar, 340, 630. A slight alternative is suggested by Dus (261 with n. 7), who reads ἐπιρίψαντες as a causal participle. 53   See 2 Macc 8.35; Josephus, Ant. 4.128; 19.278; Plato, Resp. 553c; Aristotle, Rhet. 1389a–b; Diodorus Siculus 18 (preface); Strabo, Geogr. 7.3.12; 8.3.30; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 49.10.

570

1 PETER

In the end, the best option is to understand ἐπιρίψαντες as a participle of result: ‘be humbled under the mighty hand of God… with the result that you cast your worries upon God’.54 This act represents the (intended) outcome of the readers’ acknowledgment that their present trials ultimately originate in the will of God. Upon recognition of this fact—the source of their humbling—they will be positioned to better respond to the negative emotions that arise from these circumstances, entrusting themselves to God (cf. 2.23; 4.19). In other words, the response to suffering is facilitated by the identification of its source, from which their hope of exaltation also comes. The verb in question (ἐπιρίπτω or ἐπιρρίπτω) describes the tossing or throwing of an object (Polybius, Hist. 10.13.9; Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.13; Josephus, War 4.332). By extension, it can metaphorically depict the hurling of accusations (Diodorus Siculus 13.73.3) or the throwing out of opinions (Aristotle, Metaph. 986a). The latter kind of notion—objects of thought or emotion, rather than physical objects—is clearly in view here, although few commentators attempt to unpack this metaphor: how does one cast his/her anxiety upon God?55 A clue might be found in the Shepherd of Hermas, which also alludes to this psalm to describe how one finds spiritual renewal through faith in God’s deliverance during trials and difficulties. In that text, casting one’s anxiety on the Lord represents the opposite of becoming indifferent and apathetic;56 it involves trusting in the power of God rather than alternative means   Cf. Fausset 513; Cranfield 134; Mounce 87; Feldmeier 244.   Since ἐπιρίψαντες is in the aorist tense, some regard it as involving a oncefor-all act by which Christians unload their burdens upon God (e.g., Schott 310; Fausset 513; Alford 385; Caffin 208; Masterman 166). It is better, however, to understand the aorist as representing the act as whole. On this basis, one could make the case that the tense form rules out certain acts commonly associated with casting one’s worries upon God, including personal prayer, which would be a repeated action taking place across a prolonged duration (and hence, would have likely been represented by the present tense form). While this is possible, it may be an over-interpretation of the tense. 56   See Herm. Vis. 3.11.3: ‘For just as old people, no longer having any hope of renewing their youth, look forward to nothing except their falling asleep, so also you, being weakened by the cares of this life, gave yourselves over to indifference and did not cast your concerns on the Lord (οὐκ ἐπερίψατε ἑαυτῶν τὰς μερίμνας ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον)’ (trans. Holmes). 54 55



5.6–11

571

of deliverance.57 In the same way, the Petrine author seems to be saying that the humble recognition of God’s control in their lives, including the times of difficulty and suffering, should result in the readers’ further dependence on God.58 By conducting themselves in such a manner, they are offered the promise of eschatological exaltation. The reason (ὅτι) why the Petrine readers can confidently cast their anxiety upon God is because of God’s concern for them. Literally translated, the clause reads, ‘it is a concern to him about you’. This construction (μέλει + dative of person + περί) is found only a few times in the NT (Matt 22.16//Mark 12.14; John 10.13; 12.6; cf. Wis 12.13; Ign. Smyrn. 6.2), but it is a relatively common idiom throughout Greek literature (Isocrates, De pace 110; Polybius, Hist. 6.13.4; Diodorus Siculus 29.29.1; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.13.18). In some cases, Greek writers drew a distinction between περί and ὑπέρ with verbs of caring.59 But the same construction (μέλει + dative of person + preposition) appears elsewhere with ὑπέρ replacing περί without any noticeable difference.60 In both cases, the idiom communicates a person’s concern about someone/thing. The concern that God has for the people of God is occasionally set in opposition to the dealings of other gods in different religious systems, especially those in the Greek and Roman worlds.61 However, while it may be observed that in classical Greek myth ‘the gods take only a sporadic interest in mortals’ (see Eusebius, Praep. ev. 5.34),62 there are often cases in which the gods’ concern (μέλει) with certain affairs or persons was expected (cf. Theognis, Elegiae 1.1048; Aeschylus, Cho. 780). They concerned themselves with the safety of particular lands and peoples (Euripides, Andr.

  See Herm. Vis. 3.12.4: ‘ “You deserved to escape it,” she said, “because you cast your cares on God (τὴν μέριμνάν σου ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν ἐπέριψας) and opened your heart to the Lord, believing that you could not be saved by anything except the great and glorious Name’ (trans. Holmes). 58   Cf. Barnes 203: ‘we may look to him for grace and strength, and may feel assured that he will enable us to bear all that is laid upon us’. 59   See Winer, Grammar, 466 n. 4. 60   See Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.18.2; Ephrem the Syrian, In illud 5.20; cf. also Demosthenes, Mid. 37; Aelian, Var. hist. 14.1. 61   Cf. Stibbs–Walls 171; Hillyer 145. 62   Lefkowitz, Greek Gods, 24. Cf. Graves, Greek Gods, 14. 57

572

1 PETER

1251; Phoen. 1198), and they were interested in justice (Sophocles, Phil. 1036; Plato, Leg. 871c). At times, the gods are portrayed as intimately invested in the lives and affairs of human beings. In one instance, when the slave Habrocomes is miraculously spared from various forms of execution, it is assumed that ‘the gods were looking after him (αὐτοῦ μέλει θεοῖς)’ (Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 4.2.10). Likewise, in philosophic discourse, Marcus Aurelius could emphatically state, ‘the gods do exist, and they are concerned with humanity (μέλει αὐτοῖς τῶν ἀνθρωπείων)’ (Med. 2.11; cf. Cicero, Nat. d. 1.2). Nevertheless, one ancient view in which 1 Peter’s words do stand in stark contrast is that of the Epicureans, who believed that while the gods existed, they were indifferent to the human condition (Cicero, Nat. d. 1.41, 44). An interesting parallel to the Petrine language, in fact, is found in the works of Galen. In summarising the theistic perspectives of the Epicureans, he notes, ‘In their view… the gods do not care anything about us’ (τοῖς θεοῖς οὐδὲν ἡμῶν μέλει) (Galen, Nat. fac. 2.29 [Kühn]; cf. Oenomaus, Frag. 12). According to Epicurean thought, this lack of concern stemmed from the gods’ self-sufficiency and happiness.63 Verses 6–7 thus exhibit a broadly comparable structure, which may help us to summarise their force and intention. Each opens with an implicit reference to the situation of difficulty and suffering in which the readers find themselves—depicted as being humbled and as a cause of anxieties and concerns—but then moves to a positive indication of God’s purpose and disposition towards them. Accepting their humbling, even humiliation, ultimately serves the purpose (ἵνα) of their exaltation, while casting their anxieties onto God makes sense because of (ὅτι) God’s positive care for them.

63   In Epicurean thought, god is ‘a blessed and indestructible being, overflowing with good things and free of any share of what is bad, is completely preoccupied with the continuance of his won happiness and indestructibility and so is not concerned with human affairs (ἀνεπιστρεφές ἐστι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων). For he would be wretched, like a workman or builder, if he undertook burdens (ἀχθοφορῶν) and felt concern (μεριμνῶν) for the creation of the cosmos’ (Plutarch, [Plac. philos.] 1.7.7 [Mor. 881B]; trans. Usener). For more on the gods’ lack of concern with human affairs in Epicurean philosophy, see Plutarch, Pyrrh. 20.3; Tertullian, Apol. 47; Seneca, Ben. 4.4.1; Cicero, Pis. 25.59.



5.6–11

573

8 νήψατε νήψατε,, γρηγορήσατε γρηγορήσατε.. ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος ὡς λέων ὠρυόμενος περιπατεῖ ζητῶν καταπιεῖν Following closely on the heels of the command to humbly accept the situation of suffering, the Petrine author now issues a series of warnings that instruct the readers how to navigate the present danger. Underlying these admonitions is the ancient rhetorical technique of ἔκφρασις, ‘a descriptive speech that vividly brings the subject shown before the eyes’ (Theon, Prog. 118.6).64 This visual image is strategically placed in the closing section of the letterbody as a way to encapsulate an important and central aspect of the letter’s overall message,65 and it is moved along rapidly through the sentence’s asyndetic structure. The juxtaposition of the imperatives νήψατε and γρηγορήσατε without a coordinating conjunction creates a ‘terseness and swiftness of movement’;66 moreover, the lack of a causal participle (e.g., ὅτι) before ὁ ἀντίδικος ‘makes the appeal livelier and more forcible, leaving the obvious connexion [sic] to be filled up by the reader’.67 The verb νήφω—also used in 1.13 and 4.7—describes a mental state of alert, often in contrast to drunkenness (see on 1.13). A related meaning is conveyed by γρηγορέω, which represents a

64   According to Feldmeier, the fact that the Petrine author waits until the end of the letter to mention the devil ‘zeigt schon an, dass der Teufel eine Ercheinungsweise des Bösen unter anderen ist, und zwar keineswegs die wichtigste’ (‘Euer Widersacher, der Teufel’, 66; original emphasis). However, the placement of this material is probably not intended to diminish the importance of the devil, but to accentuate it. While rhetorical analysis of NT letters has perhaps tended to direct scholars’ attention to the opening thesis (propositio) as key to understanding the main goals and focus of a communication, the closing summary (peroratio) is equally important in that the author draws together and highlights their central points and arguments. In this case, the peroratio represents what the Petrine author ‘most wanted his audience to remember, what he wanted to leave ringing in their ears’ (Witherington 234). 65   See Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion; cf. Innocenti, ‘Towards a Theory of Vivid Description’, 355–81. For a fuller treatment of this topic in relation to this verse, see Horrell, Arnold, and Williams, ‘Visuality, Vivid Descrip�tion’, 697–716. 66   Winer, Grammar, 674; cf. Robertson, Grammar, 428. 67   Alford 385. The aorist tense of the two verbs, in and of itself, is not ‘programmatic, setting a course of action to be continued from this point on’ (Achtemeier 340 n. 60; cf. Michaels 297; Osborne 261).

574

1 PETER

readiness that stands opposed to a state of slumber.68 In the case of both intoxication and sleep, a person’s ability to properly respond to danger is impeded.69 According to Gospel traditions (Mark 14.34–38), Peter was told to stay awake (γρηγορέω) while Jesus prayed about his cup of suffering. Some therefore posit a connection between this event and the present verse.70 The language might be more easily explained through the adoption of early catechetical tradition;71 but even this may be assuming too much. Although the combination of these terms is rare in ancient Jewish and early Christian sources—the only other instance being 1 Thess 5.6 (‘let us not sleep as others do, but let us keep alert and be undistracted [γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν]’)—they are used together elsewhere to represent a state of alertness and sobriety which is unimpeded by any distractions or outside influence, whether it be weariness, sleep, alcohol, and so on. Advice that sounds very similar to that in 1 Pet 5.8 is given by Julian the Apostate to the Cynic Heracleion: ‘The one who slumbers is often deceived; be awake and alert (νῆφε καὶ γρηγόρει), so that the flatterer who deceives through the frankness of a friend might not escape your notice’ (Or. 7.233).72 The reason why vigilance is required is because of the opposition of their ‘adversary, the devil’. Commonly employed in the legal realm (P.Ryl. II 65; P.Oxy. I 37), the word ἀντίδικος can denote an opponent in a lawsuit, whether the defendant (Antiphon, 68   See BDAG 207–208. The verb represents a formation that occurred in Hellenistic Greek, deriving from ἐγρήγορα, the perfect tense of ἐγείρω. 69   Feldmeier 244: ‘Whoever is drunk or sleeps has lost reference to reality, cannot perceive threatening danger, and has forfeited the ability to judge with respect to phenomena; such a one takes the imaginary at face value, is easy to deceive, and therefore is also helpless and vulnerable’. 70   E.g., Besser 389; Moffatt 167; Cranfield 135. 71   As suggested, e.g., by Achtemeier 340 n. 62; cf. Golebiewski, ‘Dieu nous console dans l’épreuve’, 20. The fact that these verbs are combined only here and in 1 Thess 5.6 within the NT was one of the factors that led Selwyn (452) to conclude that both 1 Peter and 1–2 Thessalonians drew from an early catechetical tradition, which he describes as ‘a homiletic and hortatory document for use by evangelists and teachers in their work of strengthening the faith of the infant Christian communities’ (18). Yet given the combination of these terms elsewhere (see above), this connection is insufficient to indicate a common source. 72   Plutarch relates the story of how the Syracusans were criticised for ‘not comprehending that they had merely exchanged a stupid and drunken tyrant for a watchful and sober master (ἐγρηγορότα καὶ νήφοντα δεσπότην)’ (Dion 34.3; trans. Perrin [LCL]; cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 7.5.20).



5.6–11

575

Against the Stepmother 1.2) or the plaintiff (Lysias, Or. 7.13). For this reason, commentators sometimes posit a judicial referent here (cf. Matt 5.25; Luke 12.58; 18.3).73 But in the present context, the word more likely carries a broader meaning, referring to one who stands in an adversarial relationship;74 as it often does in the Jewish scriptures, it describes someone who opposes the people of God (Isa 41.11; Jer 27.34; Esth 8.11). Standing in apposition and further defining ‘the adversary’ is the noun διάβολος.75 The term is sometimes used adjectivally to describe engagement in slander (cf. Menander, Frag. 878 [Kock]; Philo, Sacr. 32), though it is unlikely that it performs an adjectival function here (i.e., ‘your slanderous opponent’). Not only is it in a predicate relationship with ὁ ἀντίδικος, but also by the first century διάβολος had taken on an almost technical sense as a title of the leader of the demonic forces who opposed the purposes and people of God, ‘the devil’ (Matt 4.1; John 13.2; Acts 10.38; Eph 6.11; Heb 2.14; 1 John 3.8; Rev 2.10).76 73   See Schott 311–12, who concludes from this passage that the devil forces God to render condemnatory judgment on Christians who have forfeited salvation (cf. Leaney 70–71; Picirilli 209 [possible]; see also Hölemann, Letzte Bibelstudien, 586–87). 74   Cf. Burger 256; Kühl 281. In support of this position, some appeal to the presence of the article (ὁ) before διάβολος in P72 (and also present in 0206vid, 33, AnastS, Or), which they take to indicate that the term was understood substantivally at a very early stage (see Elliott 853; Charles, ‘Votre adversaire le diable’, 409; Fuhrmann, ‘Devil as Prosecutor’, 2). Yet the addition of the article would convert the construction from a second predicate construction (article–noun– adjective) to a second attributive construction (article–noun–article–adjective). In other words, the inclusion of the article before διάβολος would actually support an attributive (not a substantival) function. 75   Various ways have been proposed to explain the fact that διάβολος is anarthrous. According to Middleton (Greek Article, 431), ἀντίδικος should be understood as though it were an adjective (cf. ἐχθρός in Matt 13.28), with the resultant translation, ‘your opposing evil spirit’ (cf. Hensler 225; Webster– Wilkinson 50; see also BDF §268[2]; MHT 3:206). Closer to the mark is the assessment of Robertson (Grammar, 794–95), who interprets διάβολος as a monadic noun (i.e., one-of-a-kind) which does not require the article to be definite (cf. Wallace, Grammar, 249). Regardless of the reason, all acknowledge that διάβολος is definite, ‘the devil’ (cf. Acts 13.10; Rev 20.2). 76   In the LXX, διάβολος renders the Hebrew ‫( שטן‬Job 1.6–7; 1 Chr 21.1; Zech 3.1–2). On the development of the concept of the devil/Satan within ancient Judaism and early Christianity, see Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan; Kelly, Satan; Stokes, The Satan.

576

1 PETER

The author’s brief mention of the devil here is consistent with his portrayal in other Jewish and Christian literature, specifically as a ravenous lion. As a lion, the devil is first said to be ‘roaring’ (ὠρυόμενος). Drawing on lions’ hunting techniques, Schwank points out that lions often roar to stir up panic in their prey.77 Similar imagery can be found in the story of Joseph and Aseneth. Praying for the protection of God, Aseneth says that ‘the wild ancient lion’ (ὁ λέων ὁ ἄγριος ὁ παλαιὸς) pursues her; this refers to the ‘devil’ (διάβολος) who is trying ‘to devour’ (καταπιεῖν) her (12.9). In this situation, she seeks God because he is τῶν διωκομένων ὑπερασπιστὴς καὶ τῶν θλιβομένων βοηθός (‘the protector of the persecuted and the helper of the oppressed’, 12.11).78 By way of simile (ὡς), the target domain (the devil) is compared to and understood in terms of the source domain, a ‘roaring lion’ who is ‘seeking someone to devour’. With such a vivid and visual description—the depictions of the sound and movement of a powerful and dangerous predator creating a strong image in the mind’s eye—the present verse sets the scene for the important instructions that follow. To explain the author’s source of reference for this leonine imagery, most look to the Jewish scriptures.79 This strategy is certainly appropriate given the frequency with which leonine imagery appears,80 particularly with reference to the enemies of God’s people (cf. Ps 17[16].12; Ezek 22.25).81 The reason for 77   Schwank, ‘Diabolus tamquam leo rugiens’, 15–20, with further supplement and correction offered by Thurén, ‘1 Peter and the Lion’, esp. 147–50. 78   While some have raised the possibility that the Petrine author may have been influenced by this ancient Jewish romance (e.g., Achtemeier 341 n. 74; Charles, ‘Votre adversaire le diable’, 415), these verbal similarities are not sufficient to lead us to such a conclusion. Not only is this language commonly employed to describe the consumption of food by animals (see below), but the pre-Christian date of Joseph and Aseneth is far from established. 79   E.g., Kelly 209–10; Michaels 298; Bénétreau 276–77; Goppelt 360; Brox 238; Achtemeier 341; Elliott 856–58; Keener 385. Alternatively, Perdelwitz (Mysterienreligion, 101–103) suggests that the leonine imagery is connected to the lion-drawn chariot driven by the Phrygian mother goddess Cybele (cf. Beare 205, who is sympathetic to this view). There is little, if anything, to support such a proposal, however. 80   For a discussion of the leonine imagery in the Hebrew Bible, see Martin, ‘Roaring Lions’, esp. 171–77. For leonine imagery in other ancient Jewish sources, see Charles, ‘Votre adversaire le diable’, 415–21. 81   Lions are also associated with royal ideology, being connected with the line of Judah (Gen 49.9–10) and David’s descendants (Ezek 19.1–9), and thus they



5.6–11

577

this preference was the ferociousness of the creature. According to Proverbs, the lion is the ‘mightiest among wild animals and does not turn back before any’ (30.30). Within this prominent theme from the Hebrew Bible, some point to the language of Ps 21.14 [MT 22.13] and Job 1.7 as the more specific referents of the Petrine author.82 In the former, the psalmist’s enemy is described as a ‘ravening and roaring lion’ (λέων ὁ ἁρπάζων καὶ ὠρυόμενος); in the latter, God asks the διάβολος where he has been, and he answers, ‘I have come after traveling around (περιελθών) the earth and walking about (ἐμπεριπατήσας) what lies under heaven’ (cf. Job 2.2). What is often overlooked in the search for the intertextual background is the wider Greco-Roman world in which the readers lived,83 a world that was inundated with visual representations of leonine imagery.84 This was particularly the case throughout the Greek East. The archaeological record has produced numerous leonine figures as decorative images on ancient buildings. Examples include lion-headed waterspouts, sculptures of reclining lions, and a figured pilaster capital with a tiny putto hunting a lion.85 Statues of lions were another form of decoration scattered around temples and other public buildings.86 They were particularly prevalent on ancient sepulchres. In fact, it has been noted that ‘of all the sculptured animals that adorned Greek cemeteries in the classical periods, Attic lions are best known’.87 Lions also feature on monumental commonly decorated royal architecture (1 Kgs 7.29, 36; 10.19–20; cf. Ezek 1.5, 10; 41.18–19). Later, Christians used leonine imagery for their messianic king as well (Rev 5.5). 82   See Bigg 192; Hart 78; Blenkin 119. 83   Cf. Thurén, ‘1 Peter and the Lion’, 144: ‘by depicting this vivid image before the eyes of his audience, the author refers not only to religious traditions but also to their previous knowledge concerning lions’. 84   On lions in the art of the ancient world, see Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life, 61–69 (with figs. 16–21); Müller, Löwen und Mischwesen. On lions in general, see Keller, Die antike Tierwelt, 24–61. 85   For lion-headed waterspouts, see Erim, ‘De Aphrodisiade’, 240 with plate 66, fig. 21; Mellink, ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, 456 with plate 61, fig. 20. For sculpture of a reclining lion, see Mellink, ‘Archaeology in Anatolia’, 126, fig. 23. For figured pilaster capitals, see Dillon, ‘Figured Pilaster Capitals from Aphrodisias’, 755, fig. 25. 86   Lethaby, ‘Greek Lion Monument’, 37–44; Butler, ‘Excavations at Sardes’, 475, fig. 4. 87   Vermeule, ‘Greek Funerary Animals’, 49. Examples of lions as decorative images at ancient sepulchers include Ramsay, ‘Study of Phrygian Art’, 350–82;

578

1 PETER

reliefs found in conjunction with ancient inscriptions. The theatre in Hierapolis, for instance, contained two reliefs depicting venationes.88 Other examples feature such acts as a man holding a whip and training a lion, and gladiatorial combat with lions and lionesses.89 Beyond the representations found on public structures, leonine imagery also featured in domestic spaces. Images of lions frequently appear in skillfully constructed mosaics in the homes of wealthy citizens.90 In these complex pieces of art, the lion is often represented as fiercely attacking other animals or as battling a human hunter. In addition, representations of lions appear on everyday objects

Bean, ‘Notes and Inscriptions’, 57, figs. 15–16; Buckler et al., ‘Monuments from Iconium, Lycaonia and Isauria’, 31–33 with plates III–IV, figs. 10–15. 88   Winter, ‘Sculpturen’, 63–65 (nos. 12–13). Similar friezes are found on the theatre at Sagalassos (see Sear, Roman Theatres, 44). 89   Robert, Les gladiateurs, 87–90 (no. 25, man spearing a lion), 155–56 (no. 125, man holding whip and training a lion); I.Eph. 1670 (lions attack men during a wild beast hunt); I.Side 111–12 (gladiatorial combat along with lions and lionesses). 90   Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, figs. 9 (Pella, fourth cent. BCE), 70 (Tibur, first cent. BCE or early second cent. CE), 84 (Nenning, early third cent. CE), 99 (Rudston, late third–early fourth cent. CE), 104 and 105 (Acholla, mid-second cent. CE), 135–137 (Piazza Armerina, early fourth cent. CE), 147 (Tellaro, mid- to late fourth cent. CE), 194 (Antioch, 450–469 CE), 196 (Apamea, mid-fifth–early sixth cent. CE), 213 (Madaba, mid-sixth cent. CE), 221 (Khirbet et-Mafjar, ca. 724–743 CE), 241 (Nea Paphos, late second–early third cent. CE), 312 (Kephallonia, third cent. CE). Lion standing or walking as main figure: figs. 190 (Antioch, fifth cent. CE), 254 (Rome, ca. 25–64 CE), 281 (Ostia, late fourth–early fifth cent. CE). Lion depicted with other animals: figs. 22 and 24 (Alexandria, third cent. BCE), 47 (Praeneste, late second cent. BCE), 79 (Saint-Romain-en-Gal, early third cent. CE), 82 (Orbe, early third cent. CE), 83 (Cologne, ca. 220 CE), 91 (Corinium, early fourth cent. CE), 92 (Woodchester, early fourth cent. CE), 108 (Thysdrus, mid-second cent. CE), 112 (Thuburbo Maius, mid- to late fourth cent. CE), 114 (La Chebba, mid-second cent. CE), 205 (Ma‘on-Nirim, early sixth cent. CE). Lion in zodiac: figs. 202 (Hammath Tiberias, late fourth cent. CE), 203 (Beth Alpha, ca. 518–527 CE). Dunbabin provides pictures of hundreds of mosaics from around the Greco-Roman world, with the dates of those containing images of lions ranging from the fourth century BCE to the eighth century CE. Only a few, however, are located in Asia Minor. Yet, given the prevalence of the image across such a vast temporal and geographical landscape, we might assume that leonine imagery frequently appeared in mosaics from Asia Minor as well. In order to know for sure, we must wait for the completion of the newly commissioned series Corpus of the Mosaics of Turkey (Bursa: Uludag University Press, 2009–).



5.6–11

579

such as signet rings,91 silver amulet necklaces,92 medallions,93 stamp seals,94 balance weights,95 mirrors,96 vases,97 and lamps.98 Small lion figurines were even used as children’s toys.99 What is more, leonine imagery extended beyond the items themselves to the coins with which they were purchased.100 The prevalence of leonine imagery in the Greco-Roman world is clear, but more specific associations were likely to be evoked for the readers. During the Roman period, lions were most commonly 91   See New Docs 3:50–51, which discusses an example of a gemstone used in a signet ring (first cent. CE) that contains a carving of a lion pouncing onto the back of an antelope. Cf. Evans, ‘Ring of Nestor’, 8–10, 25–26, 65–66, plate 1, figs. 3–5; plate 4, figs. 1–2. 92   Sgourou and Agelarakis, ‘Jewellery from Thasian Graves’, 345, fig. 34. From an earlier period, see Curtis, ‘Ancient Granulated Jewelry’, 63–85. 93   Alexander the Great on horseback spearing a lion: Toynbee, ‘Greek Imperial Medallions’, 65–73, plate III, fig. 5. 94   Mellink, ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’ (1964), 158; idem, ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’ (1966), 144. 95   Balance weights in shape of couchant lions: Mellink, ‘Archaeology in Anatolia’, 120. 96   Heracles and the Nemean lion: Richter, ‘Ancient Plaster Casts’, 369–77, plate 92, fig. 20. Young girl standing on the back of a couchant lion: idem, ‘Archaic Greek Mirror’, 337–44. 97   Richter, ‘New Early Attic Vase’, 372, fig. 1. 98   Crawford and Greaves, ‘Brass Lamp from Sardis’, 291–94; Grandjouan, Terracottas and Plastic Lamps, plate 31, figs. 1089–91; Perlzweig, Lamps of the Roman Period, plate 21, figs. 968–87, plate 38, figs. 2410–16. 99   Mellink, ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’ (1958), 95; van Minnen, ‘House-to House Enquiries’, 227–51, plate XIII,b. Children’s toys: Grandjouan, Terracottas and Plastic Lamps, 28 with plate 19, fig. 790. 100   Examples of (mostly) first-century CE Anatolian coinage with the imprint of a lion include: RPC I 2088 (Heraclea, reign of Augustus?: Heracles strangling a lion), 2524 (Metropolis, reign of Augustus?: Cybele seated with lion), 2710 (Miletus, reign of Claudius: lion standing below a star), 2717 (Miletus, reign of Nero: lion standing below a star), 2904 and 2910 (Laodicea, reign of Tiberius: wolf or possibly a lion seated with double axe in wreath), 3502 and 3505 (Galatia, reign of King Amyntas: lion walking), 3520 (Cremna, reign of King Amyntas: forepart of a lion), 3550 (koinon of Galatia, reign of Tiberius: lion walking), 3845 and 3849–51 (Commagene, reign of Antiochus I: lion walking); RPC II 706 (uncertain city in Bithynia, reign of Vespasian: Heracles wrestling with a lion), 1150/1 and 1150/5 (Miletus, reign of Domitian?: lion standing), 1154 (Miletus, reign of Domitian?: lion walking), 1157 (Miletus, reign of Nero-Trajan?: lion, with head turned back, walking).

580

1 PETER

associated and most widely recognised in connection with the games and executions that took place in the arena (or theatre). This is evident from the numerous descriptions we find in the literary sources. Of all the animals known to the Greeks and Romans, lions were probably the most feared,101 and for that reason they were one of the most anticipated attractions at the Roman games. The sequential order of these spectacles was well known (Seneca, Ep. 7.4): animal hunts/fights during the morning, criminal executions at midday, and gladiatorial contests in the afternoon. Thus, crowds expected the lion to play a major role in the games, and they were rarely disappointed when it did. The report of one onlooker is representative of the admiration afforded to these animals: There were there many savage wild beasts, brutes remarkable for their huge size, and all of uncommon appearance or unusual ferocity. But beyond all others… did the vast size of the lions excite wonder, and one of these in particular surpassed all the rest. This one lion had drawn to himself the attention and eyes of all because of the activity and huge size of his body, his terrific and deep roar [terrificoque fremitu et sonoro], the development of his muscles, and the mane streaming over his shoulders. (Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. 5.14; trans. Rolfe [LCL]; cf. Martial, Ep. 8.55)

This admiration was fuelled by the lion’s performance. One fact in which crowds revelled was that seldom did a victim survive an attack.102 What is more, the sight of a lion feasting on human flesh was apparently pleasing to many spectators (Cassius Dio 60.13.4).103 This certainly would have been true in Smyrna, where an angry crowd ‘cried out and asked Philip the Asiarch to let a lion loose upon Polycarp’ (Mart. Pol. 12.2; trans. Ehrman [LCL]).

  This explains why, for instance, the emperor Nero had a lion trained so that he could (pretend to) fight and kill the animal in the arena (Suetonius, Nero 53; cf. Statius, Silv. 2.5.25–27). By slaying such a ferocious beast, his reputation as a valiant warrior would be established. 102   Apuleius, Met. 4.13; although cf. Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att. 5.14; Seneca, Ben. 2.19.1. 103   The admiration in which these animals were held was only heightened by their unpredictability and savagery (note, e.g., Martial, Ep. 2.75 [an angry lion killed two young arena attendants]; cf. Plutarch, Brut. 8.6–7; Martial, Spec. 10). 101



5.6–11

581

So, even though leonine imagery does appear in the Hebrew Bible and other Second Temple literature,104 the most likely source of the readers’ exposure to this image would have been the numerous and variegated visual media across which it appeared in first-century Anatolia. Further, given the popularity of the spectacles that took place in the arena (or theatre) and the prominent role that wild animals (especially lions) played therein, the reference to a ‘roaring lion’ who is ‘prowling around, seeking [someone] to devour’ (περιπατεῖ ζητῶν καταπιεῖν) would most naturally be associated with the animals of the venationes and the ad bestias executions. What is more, when this imagery is understood in conjunction with the vulnerable situation of the addressees (viz. the effective illegality of Christianity), the close association between lions and the spectacles of the arena would have naturally led the audience to connect the language not with potentially threatening wildlife,105 but with the threat that may have been facing some of the recipients: damnatio ad bestias in the arena/theatre.106 Since this vivid depiction is explicitly a simile (ὡς), and since human agents might be presumed to be involved in enabling and enacting the devil’s threats,107 we cannot restrict the implications of the verse to a scenario in which the devil is literally embodied as a lion facing a Christian in the arena. Nevertheless, because the image clearly relates to the hostility and suffering that the recipients face, the warning suggests a social situation in which there was   Though only here in the Bible, according to Elliott (856), is the comparison between the devil and a lion made. For a discussion of leonine imagery in Jewish sources, see, e.g., Goodenough, Pagan Symbols in Judaism, 1:29–86; Strawn, Leonine Image and Metaphor; idem, ‘Leonine Imagery in Early Jewish’, 37–74. 105   Pace Tàrrech, ‘Le milieu’, 343: ‘La situation décrite dans la métaphore du lion possède toute sa force, si on l’inscrit dans une zone montagneuse et escarpée (les montagnes du plateau et leurs alentours dans l’Anatolié centrale), où les centres de population ne sont pas nombreux et sont isolés des villes et des grandes routes commerciales’. 106   Others have reached similar conclusions (e.g., Paine 1452; Raymer 856; Paschke, ‘Roman ad bestias Execution’, 489–500; Witherington 235; cf. also Dus 265, who allows for the possibility that this threat involves accusations in a Roman courtroom). On the execution of Christians in the arena, see Février, ‘Les chrétiens dans l’arèna’, 265–73. 107   As Demarest notes, ‘The head lion is put, by synecdoche, for all who follow him’ (272; original emphasis). 104

582

1 PETER

a plausible fear that human agents might threaten the Christians, thereby carrying out the will of the devil.108 Does this represent merely the hostility of friends and neighbours with whom the audience had been formerly associated (cf. 1 Pet 4.1–6), some of whom may have even brought charges against the readers?109 Or does the author also include representatives of the Roman state (e.g., governor, emperor)?110 Some have sought to distance the passage from the latter possibility. Achtemeier, for instance, is quick to assert that the Petrine author ‘avoids any direct identification of the devil with the power of Rome, such as found in Rev 17:3–14’; instead, he suggests that ‘the threat remains social, not governmental’.111 This assessment, however, misconstrues the nature of the conflict in which the readers are involved (see Introduction: Socio-Historical Context). Persecution often consisted of the popular animosity and informal antagonism that the general populace displayed toward the readers; but through the accusatorial process this could easily lead to the involvement of governmental officials who acted as representatives 108   Cf. Schwank, ‘Diabolus tamquam leo rugiens’, 17; Asumang, ‘Reponses to Unjust Suffering’, 26. 109   Some have identified the private accusers who had brought (false) charges against Christians as the agents of the devil (see, e.g., Masterman 168; Bennett 245; cf. von Soden 166). More specifically, Benson (304) identifies this group as unbelieving Jews. Although Fuhrmann (‘Devil as Prosecutor’, 1–4) reads the reference to the devil against the backdrop of the judicial system in the Roman provinces, he nonetheless avoids connecting this legal activity with human beings; instead, he claims that the point is that the devil ‘is waiting for the opportunity to bring forth a substantiated claim, because he fears the punishment if he is convicted as a calumniator’ (4; original emphasis). However, we should not limit this image to a heavenly courtroom where the devil accuses believers before God. The fact that the activity of the devil involves some form of persecution by human agents is indicated by the reference to τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων in the following verse (see Selwyn 237). 110   The phrase περιπατεῖ ζητῶν (‘prowling around, seeking’) is understood by Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, 281, 290) as a reference to the Roman State’s activity of seeking out Christians for persecution. But this represents a legal situation far removed from the time of 1 Peter (see Introduction: Socio-Historical Context). 111   Achtemeier 341 n. 79; cf. also Masterman 168; Bauer 61; Best 174; Elliott 860; Charles, ‘Votre adversaire le diable’, 411; Carter, Restored Order, 137, 159–60 n. 20.



5.6–11

583

of Rome.112 The vivid depiction of the roaring lion will have conjured up the image of a specific and deadly threat that may have faced the Christians—condemnation ad bestias—but it stands also for the whole range of ways in which their commitment to their faith may have been attacked. Indeed, regardless of the agent(s) involved, the particular threat that seems to be of concern is turning aside from a commitment to Christ.113 The devil is described here as ‘seeking to devour (καταπιεῖν)’. The verb καταπίνω adds to the visual element. It represents the swallowing or consumption of food or drink, commonly with reference to the feeding of an animal.114 In this case, prey that has been ‘devoured’ represents someone who has apostatised because of the threat of persecution. A similar description is given of a member of the churches of Lyons and Vienne who had originally denied the faith in the face of persecution; this one is said to have been ‘consumed’ (καταπίνω) by the devil (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.25). The devil is said to have played a similar role in Smyrna, where Christians endured various forms of torture. According to the Smyrnean church, these afflictions came ‘in order that the devil might, if possible, lead them to a denial of the faith (εἰς ἄρνησιν) by unceasing punishment’ (Mart. Pol. 2.4; cf. Rev 2.10). 9 ᾧ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει In light of the very real threat of apostasy (viz. that threats of punishment will entice Christians to abandon their commitment to 112   See Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 138–76; Horrell, Becoming Christian, 183–97. 113   Cf. Oropeza, Churches Under Siege, 127–29. Where Oropeza is less convincing is in forcing a decision between a literal background of ad bestias executions and a metaphorical reference to the devil as a threat to the readers’ faith. In doing so, he fails to see that the threat of damnatio ad bestias was not merely a physical threat; the whole point was to force Christians to apostatise (cf. Mart. Pol. 11.1: ‘The proconsul said, “I have wild beasts [θηρία], and I will cast you to them if you do not repent [μετανοήσῃς]” ’; trans. Ehrman [LCL]; cf. Tertullian, Apol. 2.10). 114   Fish: Jonah 2.1; Tob 6.2; T.Jud. 21.7. Birds: Aesop, Fab. 144; Josephus, Ant. 2.246. Snake: Mart. Andr. A 16.5. Wolf: Aesop, Fab. 161. Lions: Origen, Mart. 33; Physiologus [redactio tertia quae vocatur pseudo-Basiliana] 1; Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 2.26.

584

1 PETER

Christ; cf. 3.13–17), the Petrine author encourages his readers to stand firm against the forces that oppose them, forces that are represented in the supernatural figure of the devil. The relative pronoun ᾧ is the dative direct object of the imperative ἀντίστητε, referring back to the ‘devil’ in the previous verse.115 Within Jewish and Christian literature, various strategies are proposed with regard to one’s engagement with the devil and the temptations and afflictions he brings. According to the Testament of Naphtali, good deeds are what sends the devil to flight: ‘If you work that which is good (ἐὰν ἐργάσησθε τὸ καλόν), my children, both people and angels will bless you; and God will be glorified among the nations through you, and the devil will flee from you’ (8.4; cf. T.Ash. 3.2). In the Shepherd of Hermas, believers are repeatedly warned not to fear the devil (Mand. 7.2; 12.4.6–7; 12.6.1–2; cf. 12.5.2). Here the devil is to be ‘resisted’ (ἀντίστητε).116 By resisting the devil, the readers are actually opposing all efforts to conform them to socially accepted and imperially inspired social norms—which would include acts of apostasy proscribed, at least implicitly, elsewhere in the letter: worshipping the emperor (2.17), following ‘the will of the Gentiles’ in idolatry (4.3). Many view the letter’s socio-political and ethical stance as one of assimilation or accommodation, but depending in part upon one’s identification of the agents of the devil (see Exegesis on 5.8), a clear sense of defiance and resistance play an important role in the author’s social strategy.117 Nowhere is this clearer than here, where resistance is imperative as the primary combative strategy against the devil.   This structure (viz. an imperative within a relative clause) is found elsewhere in 1 Peter (cf. 3.3; 5.9, 12). On this construction, see Robertson, Grammar, 949. 116   While this strategy is encouraged elsewhere (cf. Eph 6.11–13; Jas 4.7; Herm. Mand. 12.5.2, 4; see also Acts Pil. 21.1, where Satan is commanded by Hades to resist [ἀντίστηθι] the Lord), it need not imply a connection with pre-baptismal catechesis (pace Carrington, Primitive Christian Catechism, 52–55, followed by Selwyn 238; Leaney 71; Kelly 210–11; Blum 252), a hypothesis based on the fact that in Ephesians, James, and 1 Peter ἀνθίστημι is used figuratively to denote resistance to the devil (with διάβολος only appearing in this context for each author). The renunciation of Satan was prescribed in later baptismal rituals (Hippolytus, Trad. ap. 21.9; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. myst. 1.2–9), but the evidence for any baptismal association in the present epistle is lacking (see Introduction: Genre, Literary Integrity, and Structure). 117   See further Horrell, ‘Between Conformity and Resistance’, 111–43; idem, Becoming Christian, 211–38. 115



5.6–11

585

Along with resisting the devil, the author prescribes standing firm in the faith (στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει). In this instance, it is reasonable to treat στερεοί as a predicate adjective of an unexpressed copula.118 The nature and function of the elided form is more difficult to discern. At this point, scholars commonly insert the participle ὄντες and assign it an adverbial function (e.g., means), ‘resist the devil by standing firm in the faith’ (cf. EHV, NCV).119 On the other hand, one could just as easily assign the participle an imperatival function, or better yet, insert a finite imperative such as ἐστέ (cf. Rom 12.16) or γίνεσθε (1 Clem. 45.1). This same implied construc�tion is found elsewhere in the epistle (cf. 3.8). Understood in this way, two exhortations are intended: ‘resist the devil; stand firm in the faith’ (cf. HCSB, CEV, NLT).120 Even on this reading, however, the relationship between the two can still be understood as one of instrumentality: resistance is facilitated through solidifying one’s faith commitment. The term στερεός is most often used of substances that are firm or solid, such as rocks/stones (Isa 5.28; 1 En. 22.1; PSI III 171) or towers (Herodotus, Hist. 1.181.3). It is employed elsewhere in the NT to contrast solid food with the liquid nourishment of milk (Heb 5.12, 14; cf. Diodorus Siculus 2.4.5; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.16.39). By extension, it also takes on a figurative sense when describing human character.121 The sphere122 in which this firmness is displayed is explained as ἡ πίστις, which can be understood in one of two ways. 118   Another possibility is that στερεοί is a substantival adjective by which the audience is being directly addressed, ‘Resist the devil, you who are firm in the faith’ (see Achtemeier 342, who notes that στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει could be in apposition to the subject [‘you’] of the imperative ἀντίστητε; cf. Goppelt 362; similarly, Senior 147, who views resistance as possible ‘because they are “solid in faith” ’). But given that a firm faith is something that is encouraged in the letter rather than something that is assumed, this is not a likely solution. 119   E.g., Steiger 2:303; Bloomfield 728; Moffatt 168; Arichea–Nida 168; Davids 191; Marshall 171; McKnight 278; Richard 219–20; Donelson 150; Watson 121; Dubis 169; Vahrenhorst 197; cf. Byrley, ‘Persecution and the “Adversary” ’, 98 n. 69. 120   E.g., Michaels 300; Schreiner 281. 121   TDNT 7:609–14. 122   Most recognise that πίστει is a dative of sphere (e.g., Keil 170; Weiss 330; Kühl 281; Osborne 262; cf. Winer, Grammar, 270; Robertson, Grammar, 523) or reference (e.g., Alford 385; Lenski 226). A few, however, have interpreted the form as an instrumental dative, ‘firm through the faith’ (so, e.g., Pott 150; Hensler 228). Even further removed is the view of Bengel (82), which connects τῇ πίστει

586

1 PETER

It is possible to take it in an objective sense of the body of doctrines and convictions that motivate Christian belief and practice, ‘firm in the faith’ (cf. HCSB, CEB, NIV, ISV, MEV).123 This represents what came to be a common usage in the NT (cf. Gal 1.23; Eph 4.5; Phil 1.27; Col 1.23; 2.7; 1 Tim 4.1; 5.8). One could also construe the term in a subjective sense of the personal commitment or trust exhibited by Christians, with the article functioning like a possessive pronoun, ‘firm in your faith’ (cf. NET, LEB, ESV, NASB, GNT, NRSV).124 It is this latter sense that seems most appropriate, particularly because πίστις is used throughout 1 Peter to represent the readers’ personal commitment, or entrusting of themselves, to God (1.5, 7, 9, 21; cf. 1.21 [πιστός εἰς θεόν]; 1.8; 2.6, 7 [πιστεύω]). Nevertheless, the difference between these two options is minimal; both understand the author to be encouraging the readers towards sustained commitment in the midst of their present trials. εἰδότες τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων τῇ ἐν κόσμῳ ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι ἐπιτελεῖσθαι In this latter part of the verse, the Petrine author offers encouragement and consolation to the readers based on the universality of suffering and persecution. He reminds them that the struggles they face are not unique to them but are shared by other believers around the world. A number of interpretative issues make the specifics difficult to reconstruct, however. This is particularly so given the fact that each of the questions is interrelated. One place to begin is with the infinitive ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, whose meaning largely turns on whether the form is understood as middle or passive. According to some interpreters, the infinitive must be in the middle voice due to the function of the participle εἰδότες.125 They to ἀντίστητε (‘resist… by your faith’) rather than with στερεοί. The word order weighs against this suggestion, however. 123   Advocates of this view include: Demarest 273; Bigg 193–94; Mitchell 282; Selwyn 238; Lenski 226; Picirilli 210; Osborne 262. The interpretative basis for this view is the presence of the article with πίστις. 124   Advocates of this view include: Plumptre 157; Caffin 208; Masterman 169; Kelly 210; Achtemeier 342; Elliott 860; Donelson 150. 125   Huther (241) argues for the middle voice while still supporting the traditional reading of οἶδα + the infinitive (‘considering that the same sufferings are accomplishing themselves in the brethren’). Cf. MHT 3:55, who understands ἐπιτελεῖσθαι as a middle with an active sense (‘to pay in full’).



5.6–11

587

contend that οἶδα + the infinitive cannot mean ‘know that’, for they point out that this idea is communicated by οἶδα + ὅτι (cf. 1 Pet 1.18); instead, they propose that the construction carries its usual meaning, which is, ‘know how to’.126 This would require τὰ αὐτά to be taken as the objective of the infinitive ἐπιτελεῖσθαι rather than its subject and the dative τῇ… ἀδελφότητι to be dependent upon τὰ αὐτά (hence ‘the same sufferings as [or: with] the brotherhood’). Where these scholars are divided is over the resultant meaning of ἐπιτελέω, with some arguing that the verb simply refers to the fulfillment of a religious duty127 and others claiming that it implies the payment of taxes.128 Regardless of the option that is adopted, the author’s point, according to this interpretation, is that the readers’ firm stance against the devil is grounded in their knowledge of how to carry out or complete (or pay for) the same types of suffering as those experienced by other Christians around the world: ‘stand firm in the/your faith because you know how to carry out the same sufferings as the brotherhood around the world’. With most interpreters, however, it is probably best to understand οἶδα + infinitive as denoting indirect discourse, ‘know that’ (cf. KJV, NAB, ESV, NIV, HCSB, NRSV).129 While it is true that this construction normally means, ‘know how to’,130 there are a few instances where it functions as an equivalent to οἶδα + ὅτι.131 A   Cf. Hofmann, 196; Burger 256; Bigg 194; Beare 206; Best 175.   So, e.g., Beare 206. A similar proposal is suggested by Brown (‘1 Peter v.9’, 450) who claims that the verb should be understood in a sacrificial sense (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 2.63; 4.186), thus being translated, ‘knowing how to bring to (sacrificial) perfection, for (the benefit of) your (whole) brotherhood which is in the world, the same things in the way of sufferings (as they bear)’. 128   Those who understand ἐπιτελέω as denoting the payment of taxes include: Hofmann 196; Fronmüller 91; Bigg 194; Hart 78; Mitchell 282; Moffatt 168; Wand 125; Hunter 156; Best 175; cf. also Steiger 2:304; Bloomfield 728. In support, they point to Xenophon, Mem. 4.8.8 (τὰ τοῦ γήρως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, ‘to pay the tax of old age’) and Apol. 33 (τὸν θάνατον ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, ‘to pay the tax of death’). Alternative renderings of these passage are possible, however. 129   Cf. Selwyn 238; Schreiner 282. 130   So, e.g., Gen 25.27; 1 Sam 16.16; 2 Chr 2.6–7, 13; Eccl 4.17 [MT 5.1]; 6.8; Isa 42.16; 53.3; Sib. Or. 2.80; Matt 7.11//Luke 11.13; Luke 12.56bis; Phil 4.12bis; 1 Thess 4.4; 2 Pet 2.9. See further Krüger, Griechische Sprachlehre, 220; Robertson, Grammar, 1045, 1103. 131   Examples include: Luke 4.41; Jas 4.17 (possibly); 1 Clem. 62.3; cf. 1 Clem. 43.6 (πρόοιδα + infinitive); cf. BDF §397(1). 126 127

588

1 PETER

defence of this interpretation is offered by Michaels, who argues that if the former proposal is adopted, the dative ἀδελφότητι is left without adequate explanation.132 Commentators are forced to connect the dative with τὰ αὐτά and translate the phrase, ‘the same suffering as the brotherhood’, an interpretation that is objectionable in his opinion. Even though this function of ἀδελφότητι would not be as unusual as Michaels suspects, given that in similar semantic situations the point of comparison is often placed in the dative case,133 the former proposal nonetheless lacks persuasiveness. The most significant objection is that it assumes the readers already know how to carry out their sufferings (‘since you know how to’).134 One could potentially argue that their knowledge was informed by the previous section of the letter (esp. 4.12–19). But even this is not satisfactory, since the author’s instructions are not yet complete: the resistance and firm stance to which they are called in the present verse is part of the explanation on how they are to respond. With οἶδα + infinitive denoting indirect discourse (‘know that’), τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων can be interpreted as the accusative subject of the passive infinitive ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. It is clear that τὰ αὐτά functions as an identical adjective used substantivally (‘the same’). What is not so apparent is the meaning of the genitive modifier τῶν παθημάτων. This construction is unusual (lit. ‘these same of sufferings’) and has consequently generated a diversity of opinions. There are some who have understood the phrase as 132   See Michaels 300–301. For a further critique of the former proposal, see Kühl 281–82 n. 1. 133   A parallel usage comes from 1 Cor 11.5, where a woman who prays or proph� esies with her head uncovered is said to be ‘one and the same as one who has her head shaved (τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ)’. Furthermore, numerous examples can be found in connection with the comparative adjective ὅμοιος. In Matt 11.16, we read, ‘But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children (ὁμοία ἐστὶν παιδίοις) sitting in the marketplaces’ (cf. Matt 13.31//Luke 13.19; John 8.55; Gal 5.21; 1 John 3.2; Jude 7). 134   It has been suggested that εἰδότες may be imperatival (see MHT 4:128; cf. Forbes 178, who claims that it is causal with an imperatival force), a proposal that is hardly justifiable. Not only can the participle be connected with a finite verb (either ἀντίστητε or the elided copula with στερεοί), adverbial perfect participles most commonly denote a causal relationship (Wallace, Grammar, 631). This is especially the case with the perfect-tense participles of οἶδα (cf. Matt 22.29; Mark 6.20; Luke 8.53; 9.33; Acts 2.30; Rom 5.3; 6.9; 13.11; 2 Cor 1.7; 4.14; Gal 2.16; Eph 6.8–9; Phil 1.16, 25; Col 3.24; Phlm 21; Jas 3.1; 2 Pet 1.14; Rev 12.12).



5.6–11

589

meaning ‘the same sufferings’ (cf. NAB, WEB, ERV, NKJV, JUB, HCSB).135 If this had been the author’s intention, however, he could have simply written τὰ αὐτὰ παθήματα.136 In contrast to this view, Achtemeier argues that an epexegetical genitive (‘the same burdens that consist in suffering’) is ‘a less forced construal’.137 Yet Achtemeier neither provides support for this contention, nor does he acknowledge that the semantic situation behind the present construction is somewhat different from what is normally expected with the expexegetical genitive.138 The most natural way of interpreting the genitive is with a partitive sense, ‘the same kinds of sufferings’ (cf. NRSV, NIV, ESV, TLV, LEB, NET, NCV).139 Various examples from other Greek literature confirm the meaning of such a construction.140 Consequently, the author stresses the individual nuances of suffering, acknowledging the variegated experiences of believers (cf. 1.6: λυπηθέντας ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς). The verb ἐπιτελεῖσθαι is commonly understood as being goalorientated, as though this suffering were the fulfilment of God’s larger plan.141 While the divine role in the readers’ present suffering 135   E.g., Pott 150; Johnstone 402; Masterman 169; Monnier 240; Goppelt 363 n. 22. 136   To account for this difficulty, Johnstone explains the genitive by noting, ‘It seems as if the apostle, having it in his mind to say “close resemblances, counterparts, of your sufferings,” suddenly, to bring out the similarity with intensity, substituted “the identical,” “the self-same,”—but finished the construction as if he had said “counterparts” ’ (402). But this seems like special pleading. 137   Achtemeier 342; cf. Beare 206; Dubis 170; Vahrenhorst 197 n. 652. 138   On the relationship between the head noun and epexegetical genitive modifier, see Wallace, Grammar, 95–100. 139   Cf. Caffin 208; Blenkin 121; Lenski 226; Michaels 301; cf. Robertson, Grammar, 502, 505, 687; BDF §164. 140   See, e.g., Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis topicorum libros octo commentaria, p. 541 (Wallies): φησὶν οὖν τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν προβλημάτων τοῖς μὲν ἐρωτῶσί τε καὶ βουλομένοις δεικνύναι χαλεπὰ καὶ δύσδεικτα (‘therefore, the same kinds of problems are raised by those who question and those who want to demonstrate things that are difficult and hard to prove’); cf. also Biton, Κατασκευαὶ πολεμικῶν ὀργάνων καὶ καταπαλτικῶν 3; Galen, In Hippocratis librum de officina medici commentarii iii vol. 18b, p. 809 (Kühn); Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis analyticorum priorum librum i commentarium p. 318 (Wallies); Porphyry, Εἰς τὰ ἁρμονικὰ Πτολεμαίου ὑπόμνημα, p. 36 (Düring). 141   See, e.g., Benson 305; Fausset 513; Cook 218; Masterman 169; Stibbs– Walls 173; Holmer–de Boor 175; Bénétreau 278; Hiebert 316; Miller 365–66; Senior 148; Skaggs 72. Some are even more specific, claiming that this fulfilment

590

1 PETER

is mentioned in other places (1 Pet 3.17; 4.17, 19), whether this conclusion can be drawn simply from the verb ἐπιτελέω is open to debate. It is true that the term can be understood in connection with the divine, providential arrangement of circumstances.142 But this usage normally requires some specification that God is the one who is bringing about this objective (Pss. Sol. 6.6; cf. Dan 11.16), or even that a predetermined plan is involved (Let. Aris. 72). Without further contextual clues, it is best to simply understand the word as denoting the end of an event or process (cf. Philo, Spec. 3.72; Josephus, Ant. 13.83). It is noteworthy that in a place where the author could have chosen a more common designation like ἀδελφοί, he again opts to employ the term ἀδελφότης (cf. 2.17). While the use of this term to denote a group is not common outside of Christian circles,143 with this particular usage perhaps originating here (see Exegesis at 2.17), it was adopted by Christians to stress the mutual affection and fellowship shared by those in the believing community (cf. 1 Clem. 2.4; MAMA IV 37[1]). In both Christian and non-Chris�tian literature, ἀδελφότης conveys a sense of mutuality. What the readers share with ‘their siblings’ in this instance is the experience of suffering. As a modifier of the infinitive ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, scholars sometimes assign ἀδελφότητι the function of personal agency, ‘by the brotherhood’ (cf. ESV, HCSB, NASB, NKJV).144 The problem is that this usage is very rare in ancient Greek (esp. in the NT), with the meaning more often being communicated by ὑπό + genitive.145 While it does occur on occasion (e.g., Luke 23.15; Jas 3.7),146 the relates to the messianic woes in which the people of God suffer as part of God’s pre-determined, eschatological purposes (Moffatt 168; Best 175; cf. Dubis, Messianic Woes, 70–71). 142   See BDAG 383. 143   See LSJ 21; further on 2.17. 144   E.g., Achtemeier 343; Elliott 862; Donelson 149 n. l; Dubis 170; Forbes 178. 145   See BDF §191; Wallace, Grammar, 163–66. 146   Other examples are commonly mentioned in the literature (e.g., Matt 6.1 [πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς]; 23.5 [πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις]). But these are better interpreted in an alternative manner. As Zerwick notes, ‘The dative in such expressions as γνωσθῆναί τινι, ὀφθῆναί τινι, θεαθῆναί τινι is not conceived as a dative of agent, but as a simple dative object to a verb with ‘deponent’ sense (‘appear’ to someone, etc.)’ (Biblical Greek, 21 [§59]; cf. Buttmann, Grammar, 187).



5.6–11

591

associated passive verb is normally in the perfect (or pluperfect) tense and often with verbal adjectives ending in –τός or –τέος.147 A more likely alternative, then, is that ἀδελφότητι functions as a dative of reference/respect (‘with regard to the brotherhood’), or as a dative of disadvantage (‘against the brotherhood’).148 This ‘brotherhood’ is further described as ‘throughout the world’,149 with the prepositional modifier (ἐν κόσμῳ) being placed in a medial position. The preposition ἐν carries a locative sense. But rather than describing a specific location within which this community of siblings resides (‘in the world’), it probably functions distributively, describing the extent of this locality, ‘throughout/around the world’ (cf. ESV, NET, CJB, ISV, NIV).150 According to some commentators, the term κόσμος is best understood in a Johannine sense (John 8.23; 13.1; 15.18–19; 16.33; 18.36; cf. also 1 Cor 3.19; Gal 6.14), meaning the sphere which is under the domain of Satan and which is therefore at enmity with God.151 In this view, suffering is depicted as the natural lot of all believers while they live out their lives in the evil world system. If this is the author’s point, however, it is very subtle, as no other evidence in the epistle

  See Smyth, Grammar, 343–44.   Dative of reference/respect: Alford 386; Caffin 208; Kühl 282; Michaels 301; Elliott 862. Dative of disadvantage: Monnier 240; Weiss 330; Knopf 195; Selwyn 239; Kelly 211; Davids 193 n. 23; Goppelt 363 n. 22; Schlosser 296; cf. MHT 3:238. 149   On the basis of the pronoun’s placement after the term ‘world’ (ἐν κόσμῳ ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι), Moule argues that the sentence should read ‘the brotherhood (brothers) in your world’ rather than ‘your brothers in the world’ (Idiom Book, 168). However, other examples of the possessive pronoun indicate that it can be placed before the word it modifies (e.g., Matt 5.20; Mark 10.43; Luke 12.30; John 13.14; Rom 14.16). Beyond this, Moule’s proposal makes it sound like the Petrine author is distancing himself from the readers in an important way; whereas he elsewhere attempts to stress their shared experiences (cf. 5.1). 150   As pointed out by Keener (389 n. 83), when this sense is intended, authors ordinarily add the adjective ὅλος as a way to clarify the meaning (cf. T.Sol. 5.7; Matt 26.13; Rom 1.8; Col 1.6; 1 Clem. 59.2). The unusual nature of the construc�tion has led some to ponder whether this might be a shorthand way to describe the provinces in contrast to Rome (see Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 160, followed by Hillyer 150). 151   As suggested, e.g., by Bengel 82; Hottinger 144; Fausset 513; Blenkin 121; Leaney 71; Beare 206; Blum 252; Miller 365; cf. also Borchert, ‘Conduct of Christians’, 460. 147 148

592

1 PETER

expresses this same idea.152 Moreover, this interpretation provides an unsatisfactory link to the preceding exhortation. The inevitability of suffering is a weak basis (causal εἰδότες) upon which to encourage resistance to the devil. Most, therefore, have understood κόσμος in a geographical sense, meaning the physical place of inhabitation (cf. 2 Macc 3.12; Matt 4.8; 1 Cor 14.10; Josephus, Ant. 10.205).153 In the mind of the author, this likely represented the area around the Mediterranean that was under Roman dominion.154 What this means is that the author’s consolation is grounded in the fact that the Anatolian Christians were not the only ones facing persecution; their experience was shared by believers ‘around the world’. For many, this verse holds out important implications for the nature of persecution in 1 Peter. In and of itself, the fact that Chris� tian communities spread out over such a vast geographical expanse like Asia Minor might simultaneously have been affected (or at least threatened) by conflict arising from outside sources suggests that the problem may have been more serious than the informal popular hostility experienced by the earliest Pauline communities (cf. 1 Thess 2.14). Further, when we consider that this problem appears to have a worldwide (ἐν κόσμῳ) extent, many would argue that a strong external stimulus—more than simply harassment and discrimination—had to be driving this situation. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the situation reflects a time in which the Christian faith had officially been proscribed through legal sanctions and therefore that the Roman government was actively pursuing its members.155 While this assessment may be inaccurate in that no formal edicts were passed against Christianity until   See Kelly 212.   This is not to suggest, however, that the Petrine author is contrasting the earthly situation of his readers with their Christian brothers and sisters in heaven (pace Steiger 305; Demarest 273). 154   Cf. Elliott 863; Prigent 142; Osborne 262. 155   E.g., Salder 145; Gunkel 291; Windisch 80; cf. also Hauck 80. What is often overlooked by these interpreters is how this verse functions within the author’s rhetorical and sociological purposes. The present verse is a consolatory attempt to strengthen a fragile community. A common technique within Cyrenaic consolatory forms was to emphasise that others had suffered similarly (see Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 222, 231; cf. also Exegesis at 4.12). One example of this strategy is found in Seneca’s letter of consolation to Polybius, in which he writes, ‘A man… will find the greatest comfort in the thought that what has befallen himself was 152 153



5.6–11

593

the third and fourth centuries,156 it does at least demand a proper appreciation for the seriousness of the situation, which likely went beyond the informal popular hostility often seen as the primary kind of ‘suffering’ depicted in 1 Peter (see Introduction: Socio-Historical Context). The situation described in Pliny’s famous letter (Ep. 10.96; see on 4.16) indicates how, particularly after the legal precedent set by Nero’s persecution in the mid 60s, public hostility could lead to formal accusations, judicial processes, and executions. Even if these outcomes were occasional and sporadic, the threat that they might occur, and the negative stereotypes and prejudice with which Christians were so often depicted, were an enduring and widespread feature of early Christian existence.157 10 ὁ δὲ θεὸς πάσης χάριτος, χάριτος, ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν Χριστῷ Structurally, vv. 10–11 function as the conclusion of the body of the letter (and the peroratio). Having just instructed the readers on their responsibilities during this time of conflict, the author now shifts his focus (δέ)158 onto what God will do.159 This, of course, is grounded in what God has already done. Two descriptions are given. First, God is ὁ θεὸς πάσης χάριτος, an expression that is unique in the suffered by all who were before him and will be suffered by all who come after him’ (Seneca, Ad. Poly. 1.52; trans. Basore [LCL]; cf. Ep. 107). 156   Those who believe that 1 Peter reflects only ‘unofficial’ persecution commonly point out that no formal actions were taken against the Christians until the time of later emperors such as Decius or Diocletian (see Achtemeier 344; Eve 1269; cf. Schreiner 282–83). But this should not lead us to discount the significant threats faced by Christians due to the effective illegality of the faith. 157   See esp. Holloway, Coping with Prejudice. 158   Some assign the particle δέ an adversative force, ‘but’, ‘however’ (e.g., Johnstone 404; Hart 79; Arichea–Nida 170; Grudem 198; Elliott 864; Feldmeier 251; Forbes 179). In this way, ὁ θεός (v. 10) is set on opposition to ὁ ἀντίδικος (v. 8), with the author’s point being that even though the devil has assailed the readers, God has called them into his eternal glory. The problem is that this requires taking v. 9 as a parenthetic statement, an interpretation for which there is no evidence. As it is, the particle is best understood as a transitional marker (cf. Plumptre 158; Hiebert 317). 159   Cf. Cranfield 136: ‘The Christian message is not just exhortation to resist, to watch, to be sober, etc. If that were all, and if everything depended on us, on our resistance and watchfulness and sobriety, it would indeed be a poor prospect for us.’

594

1 PETER

NT.160 In other biblical (and related) literature, the characteristics or qualities of God are often specified in a genitival form,161 but this does not appear to be its function in the present instance.162 When such descriptions occur, the writers’ aim is not simply to provide a fuller picture of God’s characteristic features (although this may be part of it); their purpose is to draw out the implications of God’s character for the readers, such that the qualities of God extend to the readers in ways specifically orientated to their situation and needs. Such phrases stress the fact that God is the source or origin of these blessings (cf. 2 Cor 1.3: θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως [‘God of all consolation’]; and Jdt 9.14: θεὸς πάσης δυνάμεως καὶ κράτους [‘God of all power and strength’]; cf. 13.4). Similarly, as Feldmeier notes, ‘1 Peter has as it were defined God as the origin of all grace’,163 a quality that the author sees as especially relevant to the letter’s appeal for patient endurance under suffering. Most translations render the phrase with a collective sense, ‘all grace’ (cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, NET, NASB, ESV). With an abstract noun, the adjective πᾶς does at times function in this way (cf. Eph 1.8; Jas 1.2), but these are exceptional instances. Had this been the author’s intention, πάσης τῆς χάριτος would have been the more natural construction (cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 4.5.30). Consistent with the article’s absence,164 the focus seems to be more individualised, ‘every favour/benefit’ (cf. Diodorus Siculus 10.16.3; 2 Cor 9.8; Plutarch, Cat. Min. 18.3; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 18.7). This is 160   In this grammatical construction, the nominative substantive θεός functions as the logical (although not the syntactical) subject of the sentence, but it is replaced by the syntactical subject (αὐτός) later in the sentence (see Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 14). For the discourse function of this construction, see Runge, Discourse Grammar, 287–313. 161   Examples include: ἀγάπη (2 Cor 13.11), ἀλήθεια (1 Esd 4.40; Ps 30.6 [31.5]; 2 Clem. 19.1), βοήθεια (Ps 61.8 [62.7]), δικαιοσύνη (Ps 4.2[1]; Mal 2.17; Pss. Sol. 8.26; T.Jud. 22.2), δόξα (Ps 28[29].3; 1 En. 25.7; Acts 7.2), εἰρήνη (T.Dan 5.2; Rom 15.33; 16.20; 2 Cor 13.11; Phil 4.9; 1 Thess 5.23; Heb 13.20), ἐλπίς (Rom 15.13), παράκλησις (Rom 15.5), σωτηρία (1 Chr 16.35; Pss 17.47 [18.46]; 50.16 [51.14]; 87.2 [88.1]; 1 Clem. 18.14), ὑπομονή (Rom 15.5). 162   Against Achtemeier (344 n. 119; cf. also Johnstone 405), who understands χάριτος as a genitive of quality, it is preferable to interpret this as a genitive of product, i.e. God produces every χάρις (cf. Dubis 171) or perhaps even as a genitive of content, i.e., God who is full of χάρις. 163   Feldmeier 251. 164   See Robertson, Grammar, 771.



5.6–11

595

important given that the readers might be tempted to view their present situation and the troubles that surround them as evidence of God’s disfavour.165 In what follows (v. 12), the author will attempt to redefine the nature of χάρις. By establishing that God is the author of χάρις, he begins to move in that direction. The second way that God is described is as ‘the one who called’ (ὁ καλέσας)166 the readers ‘into his eternal glory’ (εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ δόξαν). This represents one of the many ways that God has bestowed χάρις upon the audience. Elsewhere, the author refers to the ‘call’ of God as a past event that transferred the readers from the realm of darkness into the realm of light (1 Pet 2.9); that is, they gained entrance into a saving relationship with God. However, as those who have received God’s call, certain expectations or requirements are now held out for the readers, including a life of holiness (1.15) and the faithful endurance of unjust suffering (2.21; 3.9). By standing firm and maintaining their commitment to Christ, they are guaranteed final salvation. This future deliverance is described here as the experience of and sharing in God’s ‘eternal glory’.167 It represents the ultimate aim or goal (εἰς) for which the readers were originally ‘called’. With the prepositional phrase ἐν Χριστῷ standing at the end of the clause, it is difficult to determine conclusively what it modifies.   As noted by Blenkin 121.   Monnier notes that ‘[l]’article répété avant le participe indique la qualité que l’on souligne dans le sujet’ (242). 167   Although most translations simply render the genitive αὐτοῦ as a possessive (‘his glory’), Dubis (171) suggests that it could be understood as a subjective genitive (‘the eternal glorifying of you’). This view finds support in the fact that the readers, much like Christ, to whom their situation is compared (cf. 1.11, 21; 4.13), were encouraged to expect their earthly sufferings to be followed by heavenly δόξα (see 1.7; 5.1, 4). But since the description of God in v. 10a serves as the basis for God’s efforts to support the followers of Christ in v.10b, αὐτοῦ most likely functions as a genitive of source (‘the glory that emanates from God’). The primary reason for stressing the ‘eternal’ (αἰώνιος) character of this glory lies in the past more than the future. That is, even though God’s δόξα will extend forever into the future (and by extension, will be experienced by Christians eternally— note the contrast between the eternal nature of glory and the ‘brief’ [ὀλίγος] time of suffering), what ultimately assures the audience that they will eventually experience δόξα is the fact that it has been possessed by God from eternity past. Since God is the one towards whom all δόξα is directed (2.12; 4.11, 16), God is thus the one who is able to distribute δόξα to believers. 165 166

596

1 PETER

It is possible that it functions adjectivally in conjunction with δόξαν, specifying that such glory is only available to those who are ‘in Christ’.168 Implicit in this construal might be the close connection between suffering and glory: those who wish to share in the latter must, in union with Christ, be willing to participate in the former. Elsewhere, the author closely connects Χριστός and δόξα (cf. 1.7, 21; 4.11, 13; 5.1, 4), and the word-order would favour this interpretation. Nevertheless, if this were the author’s meaning, it could have been more clearly communicated by the repetition of the article (τήν) before ἐν Χριστῷ (cf. Rom 3.24; 8.39; 1 Cor 4.17; Gal 1.22; 1 Tim 1.14; 3.13; 2 Tim 1.1, 13; 2.1, 10; 3.15).169 Many interpreters, instead, connect the prepositional phrase with καλέσας (cf. 1 Cor 7.22: ὁ ἐν κυρίῳ κληθείς),170 whether with an instrumental sense, ‘who called you by/through Christ’, or with an associative sense, ‘who called you who are in union with Christ’.171 This adverbial use of ἐν Χριστῷ is much more common in Pauline writings, although the distance in this case is still problematic. Perhaps we should be cautious—as others have warned—about assuming too much specificity at this point. Rather than modifying any one specific term (whether καλέσας or δόξαν), it might

  So, e.g., Jachmann 172; de Wette 59; Hofmann 197–98; Burger 256; Bigg 194–95; Brox 239–40; Skaggs 73; Schlosser 292; Keener 390; cf. Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, 186; Christensen, ‘Union with Christ’, 342–43. Another proposal that has not gained any real traction in the literature has been suggested by Reicke (139 n. 48), who assigned the prepositional phrase a local sense and connected it with the participle παθόντας, ‘suffer for a short time in Christ’ (cf. Wycliffe). If this were the case, however, we would have probably expected the prepositional phrase to appear after the participial phrase (cf. Hensler 229). 169   This argument has been made by numerous commentators (e.g., Michaels 302; Achtemeier 345 n. 126; Forbes 179). Yet, as Dubis points out, ‘[t]his is not conclusive… due to the crowding created by both αἰωνιον and αὐτοῦ between δόξαν and its definite article’ (171). 170   See Calvin 152; Bengel 82; von Soden 166; Monnier 242; Knopf 196; Kelly 212; Goppelt 365 n. 29; Schreiner 283. 171   Instrumental: Bloomfield 728; Michaels 302; Knoch 139; Achtemeier 345. Associative: Schott 317; Mason 435; Plumptre 158; Elliott 865. Both instrumental and associative: Osborne 263. Among these options, the instrumental interpretation seems least likely. The Petrine author normally employs διά to denote instrumentality or agency (e.g., 1.5, 12; 3.1, 20; 5.12), even with reference to the work of Christ (1.3, 21; 2.5; 3.21; 4.11). 168



5.6–11

597

be best to read ἐν Χριστῷ in connection with the entire phrase.172 The resultant sense would thus be that the entirety of one’s Christian life—from past calling to future glory—is understood to be ‘in Christ’. This would be coherent with the distinctively Pauline flavour of the phrase, the occurrence of which is often seen as one sign of Pauline influence on 1 Peter (see Introduction: Pauline Traditions). ὀλίγον παθόντας αὐτὸς καταρτίσει, καταρτίσει, στηρίξει στηρίξει,, σθενώσει σθενώσει,, θεμελιώσει Following this extended nominal phrase, the author now makes one final reference to the suffering of his audience, assuring them of future deliverance. The term ὀλίγος can denote a lack of extent or magnitude (T.Gad 4.6; Luke 7.47; Eph 3.3) as well as the brevity of a period of time (T.Job 40.4; Acts 14.28; 1 Clem. 23.4). For this reason, some understand its present usage as a reference to both the degree (‘a small amount’) and duration (‘a short time’) of suffering.173 But the focus here seems to be on the latter, as suggested by the similar terminology in 1.6 (ὀλίγον ἄρτι…) and by the contrast with the ‘eternal’ (αἰώνιος) glory in the immediate context.174 The basis for this claim about the brevity of suffering is the author’s imminent eschatological expectation.175 With this reference to a ‘brief’ period of suffering the author thus creates an inclusio, harkening back to the earlier mention of similar ideas at the beginning of the letter. It is clear that the participle παθόντας conveys a temporal force, with its antecedent being the earlier ὑμᾶς. But to what are these words connected? And is the temporal force past or present tense?

172   Cf. Wand 126; Selwyn 240; Davids 195. See also Best 176: ‘It is only because of God’s activity in and through Christ that they can be called to be members of his people and eventually participate in his glory’. 173   As suggested, e.g., by Macknight 505; Webster–Wilkinson 50; Barnes 206; Caffin 209; Cook 218; Golebiewski, ‘Dieu nous console dans l’épreuve’, 22. 174   Cf. Plumptre 158; Jobes 315–16; Vinson 242. 175   Boring 177–78: ‘The “little while” refers neither to the brevity of human life in general nor to the author’s hope that the social situation will soon change and Christians can live a more trouble-free life, but to his conviction of the nearness of the eschatological consummation of God’s purpose’ (cf. also Davids 194).

598

1 PETER

Some connect the participial phrase with the preceding καλέσας,176 in which case ὀλίγον παθόντας functions almost like a condition of their calling:177 ‘who called you into his eternal glory, presupposing that you first suffer for a brief period’. Those who adopt this interpretation generally understand the following verbs (καταρτίσει, στηρίξει, σθενώσει, θεμελιώσει) as a reference to the alleviation of suffering prior to God’s final deliverance at the eschaton. In other words, it is ‘the author’s hope that the heightened tensions between Christians and non-Christians in Asia Minor will cease or be reduced in the not-too-distant future’.178 Support for this position may be found in the placement of the participial phrase before the pronoun αὐτός. With the pronoun marking the resumption of the prior dislocated nominative,179 it serves as a line of demarcation in the sentence, connecting ὀλίγον παθόντας with what precedes. Moreover, it is consistent with the author’s style, as elsewhere he places participles at the end of the clause (cf. 2.19; 4.4).180 Others seek to justify this interpretation from the meaning of the four finite verbs, arguing that they must 176   So, e.g., Steiger 2:307–308; Jachmann 172; de Wette 59; Wiesinger 331; Lillie 329; Fronmüller 91; Keil 172; Usteri 225–26; Masterman 170; Knopf 196; Lenski 228. Some translations render the verse in a way that is consistent with this interpretation, although without making it explicit (e.g., NIV: ‘And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast’; cf. Douay-Rheims, ASV, NKJV). 177   As Fausset put it, ‘suffering, as a necessary preliminary to glory, was contemplated in God’s calling’ (513; original emphasis). 178   Richard 222; cf. Benson 306–307; Mason 435. Along these same lines, Goppelt (365) interprets the aorist participle (παθόντας) with a present force (cf. Luther 236; Semler 241). As such, the future verbs describe the strengthening that will allow the readers to withstand the attacks of the devil that are presently being experienced (‘while you are suffering, God will restore’). 179   Most contend that the pronoun αὐτός is emphatic, ‘himself’ (e.g., Cranfield 136; Spicq 176; Best 176; Achtemeier 345). Yet, given the earlier dislocation of the nominative clause (ὁ θεός κτλ.), the resumptive pronoun is primarily used as a frame of reference for processing purposes (see Runge, Discourse Grammar, 297–301). That is, since the dislocation is complex enough to generate confusion about where it ends, the pronoun is used to mark the transition between the end of the dislocation and the beginning of the main clause (Dubis 172; cf. Knopf 196). 180   As pointed out by Blenkin 122.



5.6–11

599

refer to acts that are performed in the present, while suffering was still the current experience of the readers.181 What makes this interpretation difficult to accept is that the letter does not make any other reference to an intermediate time between the present conflict and the future eschatological deliverance wherein the conflict with outsiders will cease; instead, it consistently indicates that only the eschaton will bring relief from suffering (1 Pet 1.6–7, 13; 4.5, 7, 13). Furthermore, those who adopt this reading are not entirely consistent in the meaning they assign to the construction. Given that this syntax would technically indicate that God called the readers into his glory following a brief time of suffering (rather than prior to it), further nuance is sometimes added.182 As Huther notes, ‘παθόντας is to be joined with καλέσας κ.τ.λ…. but in such a way that in sense it does not apply so much to καλέσας, as to the obtaining of the δόξα of God’.183 This means that it is not the calling that is preceded by suffering but the experience of God’s glory. Nevertheless, this solution is ultimately unsatisfactory, since παθόντας is taken to modify an idea that is unexpressed by the author (viz. the experience of glory) rather than the explicit verbal element of the sentence.

181   A number of commentators make this point (e.g., Alford 386; Johnstone 405; Burger 256). 182   It might be possible to explain the forms as they are, however. Aorist substantival participles often convey an antecedent temporal reference (see Boyer, ‘Classification of Participles’, 166; Campbell, Non-Indicative Verbs, 41–44), due in many cases to the lexical nuances of the verb (e.g., πέμπω). But there are instances where the form represents present time (Matt 23.21–22; Gal 3.13; 1 Pet 4.1; 1 John 5.4). Many of these are similar to conditional ideas, where the participle is the subject of a future tense verb (Matt 21.44//Luke 20.18; Mark 16.16; John 16.2; Rom 10.5; Gal 3.12; Jas 5.20). In Rev 18.8, the present and future time is blurred such that the participle seems to represent forthcoming events. If ὁ καλέσας is assigned a similar meaning in v. 10 (‘the one who calls’), then it would better account for the temporal difficulties: God’s call, which was first experienced in the past, continues even now to draw the readers towards their ultimate vindication. Before this final salvation is achieved, though, a brief period of suffering is required. 183   Huther 242; cf. Kühl 283; von Soden 166. According to Hofmann, ‘Er schließt dieses aoristische Participium so an, wie wenn εἰς τὸ δοξάζεσθαι vorhergegangen wäre’ (197).

600

1 PETER

There are two alternative approaches that present more convincing solutions. First, one could understand παθόντας as an adverbial participle denoting time and connect it with the four (future-tense) verbs that follow: ‘after you have suffered for a brief period, God will restore, support, strengthen, and establish’ (cf. NRSV, HCSB, CEB, ESV, NAB, EHV, GNT).184 In this view, divine aid represents the final glorification and perfection that believers will experience at the return of Christ.185 Although this does not preclude the possibility that God might provide some level of assistance to help Christians persevere through trials in the present (cf. 4.14),186 the full and final realisation of this promised restoration will only be achieved at the eschaton. Another possibility is to interpret παθόντας as an adjectival participle functioning in an attributive relationship with ὑμᾶς. In this case, the temporal relationship between the participial phrase and the four future-tense verbs is irrelevant. The participle merely serves as an elaborative aside that acknowledges the readers’ suffering: ‘the God of every benefit, who called you into his eternal glory in Christ—you who have suffered briefly—he will restore…’ (cf. Wycliffe, DLNT).187 Although this interpretation is rarely discussed in scholarship, if Culy is correct that adverbial 184   E.g., Best 175; Achtemeier 345; Jobes 316; Schlosser 292–93; Schreiner 284. This meaning is evident in the punctuation of the texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Westcott–Hort, who place a comma after ἐν Χριστῷ [Ἰησοῦ]. This serves to separate ὀλίγον παθόντας from what has preceded (cf. NA28 where this punctuation has been removed). Furthermore, many of these early texts contain the personal pronoun ὑμᾶς following the verb καταρτίσαι [NA28 = καταρτίσει]. This allowed interpreters a natural way to connect ὀλίγον παθόντας with what follows. 185   An objection commonly raised against this view is that the divine action represented by the four finite verbs best reflects assistance given to those who are in the midst of suffering, rather than the final transformation of believers. Nevertheless, since the Petrine author expects Christ to return soon (4.7), the restorative act of God that is portrayed by these verbs would be directed at those who are experiencing persecution. As such, the final consummative deliverance would be just as relevant—if not more relevant—for these marginalised readers as the restoration of peace with their Anatolian neighbours prior to the parousia. 186   Some have suggested that the future-tense verbs may reflect a sense of inaugurated eschatology wherein ‘the strength that is available now begins a process that will continue until consummation at the return of Christ’ (Osborne 263; cf. Davids 195; Watson 122). 187   So, e.g., Mills, ‘Clause Patterns’, 191 n. 189.



5.6–11

601

participles only appear in the nominative case (see Exegesis at 3.20),188 then the accusative παθόντας would have to be understood in this way. Using a series of four nearly synonymous verbs, the nature of this deliverance is now expressed. The first two forms end in an –ιζω suffix, which often denotes action. The term καταρτίζω can refer to the restoration of something to its previous condition. It is used to describe the cleaning and mending of nets undertaken by fishermen (Matt 4.21; Mark 1.19). In a figurative sense, it can also depict the spiritual restoration of one who has been previously entangled in sin (Gal 6.1; cf. 2 Cor 13.11). If this is the meaning intended here, it would suggest that the hurts or bruises that the Christians have experienced during the present conflict will be remedied by God, who restores them through his grace.189 Alternatively, the κατα-prefix can also indicate a perfective force190 such that the focus is not on restoring something to its previous condition but causing it to be in a perfect or ideal condition. Hence, in Luke 6.40, a disciple is said to be like his teacher when he has been ‘fully trained’ (κατηρτισμένος), or in Heb 13.21, one is able to do the will of God only after becoming ‘complete’ (καταρτίσαι) in everything that is good. This is the more likely meaning in the present context,191 with the term indicating the final completion of the salvation that was begun when they were given new birth. The second verb, στηρίζω, carries the basic meaning of firmly establishing something in a particular place.192 This could be a stone that has been fixed on the earth (Hesiod, Theog. 498) or a rainbow that has been fixed on a cloud (Homer, Il. 11.26). During the Hellenistic period, the term began to take on a figurative sense, referring to a steadfast and firm commitment (cf. Apollonius of Rhodes, Argon. 4.816; Diogenes Laertius 2.136). This usage was extended further in the LXX, where it took on a religious and moral dimension: a strong and persevering commitment which represents 188   See Culy, ‘Clue is in the Case’, 441–54; cf. also Decker, Reading Koine Greek, 424. 189   This is how the term is understood by some interpreters (e.g., Mason 435; Mitchell 282; Selwyn 240). 190   Robertson, Grammar, 606; cf. MHT 1:115–18. 191   Cf. Monnier 242; Hiebert 319. 192   See further TDNT 7:653–57; TLNT 3:291–95.

602

1 PETER

faithfulness (1 Sam 26.19; Sir 6.37). While such resolution seems possible to generate oneself or to confer to others (Luke 22.32; Rom 1.11; Jas 5.8), this inward support is often said to come from God (1 Macc 14.14; Pss. Sol. 16.12; 2 Thess 3.3), as is the case in the present verse. While the final two verbs carry virtually the same meaning as the previous two, they are distinct in that they end in an –οω suffix. These types of contract verbs are often factitive; that is, by attaching the –όω suffix to a noun or adjective, the verbal form denotes the resultant state that has been created by the action of the verb.193 In this way, they focus on a change that has taken place. The first of these contract forms is the verb σθενόω, which means ‘to strengthen’. This word is a NT hapax,194 although its substantival form (σθένος) is used with much more frequency, as is the related form σθένω.195 The final verb that is included in this list is θεμελιόω, a more well-known term in biblical literature. As with the first verb, it contains both a literal meaning and a figurative extension. While it can denote the provision of a material basis or structure, ‘lay a foundation’ (Job 38.4; Sir 50.2; Matt 7.25), in some places it takes on a metaphorical sense, describing the secure establishment of a person’s inward life (cf. Eph 3.17; Col 1.23; Herm. Vis. 1.3.2). This latter meaning is the one used in v. 10. It is true that each of these verbs would address the comfort and strength needed by a beleaguered group of Christians in the midst of persecution. But ultimately, the meaning of each term is of secondary importance in comparison to their cumulative effect. Similar language appears in other Christian letters, but the verbal form that is employed is the voluntative optative (‘may God…’), expressing a wish or prayer on behalf of the recipients (cf. 1 Thess 5.23–24; 2 Thess 2.16–17; Heb 13.20–21). In contrast, the author may have intended to accentuate the certainty of God’s acts by stating them in the form of a promise, ‘God will…’196 This is confirmed by the forceful accumulation of near synonymous verbs,   See further Tucker, ‘Greek Factitive Verbs’, 15–34; cf. also Smyth, Grammar, 245 (§866). 194   The claim by Achtemeier that the term ‘appears only here in Greek literature’ (346) is technically inaccurate, for it is also referenced in the lexicon of Hesychius. 195   LSJ 1595. 196   As suggested by Bénétreau 279. 193



5.6–11

603

connected by asyndeton, which represents the author’s rhetorical attempt ‘to emphasize absolutely the incontestable intention of God to vindicate the presently harassed readers’.197 11 αὐτῷ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, αἰῶνας, ἀμήν The promise of God’s future work of strengthening and establishing the people of God leads the author into praise.198 The form of this doxology is similar to the one found in 4.11, although slightly abbreviated. Unlike the earlier form, it lacks an explicit verbal element, and the object of praise is limited to God’s ‘power’ (κράτος), leaving aside the reference to δόξα. Furthermore, unlike the previous doxology in 4.11, there is little debate in the present instance about the one to whom the praise is directed. Most agree that it is addressed toward God,199 since αὐτῷ finds its most natural referent in θεός (v. 10). For the elided verb, one could possibly supply an imperative (ἔστω) or an optative (ἔιη; cf. NRSV, ESV, NAB, NIV), but most likely the indicative (ἐστίν; cf. HCSB, NET, NCV) is implied based on its presence in 4.11.200 In connection with the equative verb, αὐτῷ functions as a dative of possessive, ‘κράτος belongs to him’ (for a similar construction, cf. Luke 8.42) and is fronted for emphasis. English versions are divided over the translation of the term κράτος. Some render it as ‘power’ (NRSV, CEB, NIV, CJB, GNT, NET, LEB), while others opt for ‘dominion’ (KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NAB). The latter represents the exercise of God’s ruling authority over the world, whereas the former focuses   Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 227. He notes that the stylistic device of accumulation is particularly appropriate at the end of the peroratio (cf. Cicero, De or. 36.127). The amassing of terms brings the argument to a climax (see Longinus, Subl. 12; Quintilian, Inst. 8.4.26-27), with asyndeton giving the feel that they are even more numerous (cf. Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.50). 198   The doxological structure of 1 Peter is unique among NT writings. As Schmidt notes, ‘1Petr der einzige neutestamentliche Brief ist, der (nach dem Präskript) mit einer… Eulogie statt der ansonsten häufigen Danksequenz beginnt und (vor dem Eschatokoll) mit einer Doxologie endet’ (Schmidt, ‘Die Doxologien’, 384; original emphasis). 199   One exception is Jobes, who argues that ‘the shorter doxology of 1 Pet. 5:11 clearly ascribes glory to Christ’ (283); yet, later in her discussion of this doxology, she notes that, ‘Peter ends his epistle by confessing that to God alone belongs eternal might’ (317). 200   So, e.g., Johnstone 407; Blenkin 123; Michaels 304. 197

604

1 PETER

mainly on the strength possessed by God that allows the freedom of action. With the temporal limits of this κράτος being specified, it would appear that God’s ruling authority is in view: the ‘dominion’ of God lasts forever (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας). This marks the only occasion in the NT in which κράτος is employed alone in a doxology.201 The appropriateness of this word of praise goes beyond simply the assurance that God possesses the strength to deliver the readers from trials, as is promised in v. 10. It also places God in competition with rival powers. For many inhabitants of the Roman world, it was the traditional gods who exercised eternal dominion (εἰς αἰῶνα τὸ κράτος τῶ̣ ν κυρίων, TAM III,1 876; cf. I.Perge 284). But by this time, Roman dominion was becoming more and more established (Sib. Or. 12.34; Josephus, Ant. 16.38; Cassius Dio 2.11.12; 37.20.5; IG II2 4705). In fact, one papyrus (P.Oxy. I 41) from later centuries refers to the eternal dominion of the Romans (τοῖς [Ῥωμαίοις] εἰς [ἐ]ῶνα [= αἰῶνα] τὸ κράτος). Within this environment, the claim that the Christian God alone possesses sovereign rule represents a challenge to the existing realities. With the current conflict pressing the audience into difficult decisions about conformity to the standards and practices of the Roman world, a world that seems firmly in the control of their agitators, the author assures them that it is God who reigns, and that soon God’s power and dominion will be revealed for what it is. Summary The closing section of the letter-body is an important place where we may expect to find some kind of climactic emphasis on aspects of the letter’s main message, a reiteration of important themes, and key exhortations to the audience. And indeed this section of the letter reiterates some significant motifs—God’s calling (1.1, 15; 2.9, 21; 3.9), God’s gift/grace (1.10, 13; 2.19–20; 4.10), the promise of glory (1.7, 11, 21; 4.13–14; 5.1, 4), an assurance that the time of suffering will be brief (1.6). It also introduces a vivid image that generates a key exhortation (vv. 8–9; see below) and leads to a special note of assurance (vv. 10–11). 201   Cf. 1 Tim 6.16 (τιμὴ καὶ κράτος); 1 Pet 4.11 (ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος); Jude 25 (δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία); Rev 1.6 (ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος); 5.13 (ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος).



5.6–11

605

The opening passive imperative calls for an acceptance of being humbled, even humiliated, by God’s mighty hand, just as earlier parts of the letter have indicated that accepting suffering, even unjust suffering, as part of God’s will, and entrusting oneself to God, are crucial expectations (2.20–23; 3.14–17; 4.19). But this expectation also comes with an assurance that the purpose of this humbling is eventual exaltation, and that God cares for them, such that their anxieties—not least about the suffering they may endure—can be cast upon him (vv. 6–7). The vivid depiction of the devil as a roaring lion creates a compelling and powerful image of the threat that the addressees face, and stresses the need for preparedness and vigilance (v. 8). The specific image chosen indicates both the extreme end of the physical threats they may conceivably fear (viz. condemnation to the beasts in the arena) and also the various pressures and hostilities that may threaten their faith and commitment. There is clearly the real danger, even the likelihood, of suffering, but the greater danger, in the author’s view, is that they may be ‘devoured’ by their opponent, apostasising from Christ. The key imperative here is therefore to ‘resist’ (v. 9), which resonates with a further imperative in the closing greetings: to ‘stand firm’ (v. 12)—even if suffering or even death results. The fact that others throughout the Roman Empire share the same experience is a message of solidarity and of consolation (v. 9). We may therefore see these imperatives as important aspects of the letter’s main message. The letter body opened with the imperative to ‘hope’ in the ‘grace’ that would be brought to fruition at the final revelation of Christ (1.13). This orientation towards the final promised salvation (cf. 1.9–10) is key to enduring the challenges and demands of the present. So too is resistance and endurance, which are key imperatives of this closing section. Overall, we might encapsulate the letter’s key message: hope, resist, and stand firm, despite threats and suffering, for a glorious salvation stands near at hand. The four near-synonymous future-tense verbs in v. 10 convey an emphatic sense of assurance that God will strengthen and establish the addressees such that they are fit and able to enjoy the eternal glory that is promised. There is a certainty in God’s power and ability to achieve this, though of course it also requires their firm resistance to the threats that surround them.

606

1 PETER

All this is relevant to our assessment of the letter’s socio-political and ethical stance, often seen as one of assimilation and accommodation, with no clear indications of any hostility or opposition towards Rome. It should be clear from these verses that, on the contrary, resistance is a key part of the author’s message, and equally clear that the theological, political, spiritual, and ethical dimensions of this resistance cannot be separated. Threats to their faith in Christ, emanating from ‘the devil’, are equally threats of abuse and punishment, whether emanating from a hostile populace or ultimately from Roman officials. And maintaining loyalty to Christ, and to the way of life to which they are called, requires an abandonment of the ‘Gentile’ way of life, with what the author regards as its idolatry and licentiousness (4.2–4), and a carefully measured acceptance of the structures of Roman rule—submitting to the emperor and his governors, except insofar as worship might be required (see on 2.13–17). This limited acceptance might itself be counted by their accusers as culpable resistance, but while it is to be explained with courtesy and moderation, devotion to Christ is not to be compromised (3.14–16). For ultimately the author asks his readers to accept, acknowledge, and live (or die) by a worldview that conflicts with that of Rome: eternal dominion (κράτος) belongs to their God, and it is this God who will establish and complete their secure future.

L E T T E R CL O SIN G A N D F IN A L GREETI NGS (5.12–14)

Initial Bibliography Judith K. Applegate, ‘The Co-Elect Woman of 1 Peter’, NTS 38 (1992): 587–604; Dan Batovici, ‘Mark, Peter’s Son, and the Reception of 1 Peter’, in Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Geert Van Oyen, BETL 301 (Leuven: Peeters, 2019), 431–42; Armin D. Baum, ‘ “Babylon” als Ortsnamenmetapher in 1 Petr 5,13 auf dem Hintergrund der antiken Literatur und im Kontext des Briefes’, in Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte, ed. Stefan Heid (Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 180–220; Michael Durst, ‘Babylon gleich Rom in der jüdischen Apokalyptik und im frühen Christentum. Zur Auslegung von 1 Petr 5,13’, in Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte, ed. Stefan Heid (Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 422–43; Giorgio Fedalto, ‘Il toponimo di 1 Petr. 5,13 nella esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea’, Vetera Christianorum 20 (1983): 461–66; Joel B. Green, ‘Embodying the Gospel: Two Exemplary Practices’, Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care 7 (2014): 11–21; Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, ‘Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes’, in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburstag am 16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern, ed. Henning G. Reventlow (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 67–77; Bene­ detto Prete, ‘L’espressione ἡ ἐν βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή di 1 Pt. 5,13’, Vetera Christianorum 21 (1984): 335–52; E. Randolph Richards, ‘Silvanus Was Not Peter’s Secretary: Theological Bias in Interpreting διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα in 1 Peter 5:12’, JETS 43 (2000): 417–32; Carsten Peter Thiede, ‘Babylon, der andere Ort: Anmerkungen zu 1 Petr 5,13 und Apg 12,17’, Bib 67 (1986): 532–38; Klaus Thraede, ‘Ursprünge und Formen des “Heiligen Kusses” im frühen Christentum’, JAC 11 (1968): 124–80.

Text Διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ(a), ὡς λογίζομαι, λογίζομαι, δι᾿ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ(b) εἰς ἣν στῆτε(c). 13 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι(d) συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου. μου. 14 ἀσπάσασθε (e) (f) ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης . Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ(g). 12

(a) The reading τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ has been subject to considerable alteration in word order and even content (one MS [1831] describes Silvanus as πνευματικός rather than πιστός, see ECM 198). The text of Lachmann

608

1 PETER

omits the article before πιστοῦ (cf. 1505, 2805). But the form given here is very strongly supported (P72, ‫א‬, A, B, etc.). (b) Several important MSS lack the article before θεοῦ (P72, Ψ, 33, 81, 323, 442, 945, 1175, 1241, 1243, 1739, 1881, 2344, pc). Nevertheless, the evidence is much easier to explain if the article was part of the initial text (as supported by ‫א‬, A, B, Byz). Building on (although not mentioning) Apollonius’ Canon, Michaels correctly notes that ‘the omission probably took place because the accompanying χάριν, “grace,” had no article’ (305 n. a). (c) In place of the aorist imperative (or subjunctive) στῆτε (supported by P72, ‫א‬, A, B, al), the majority of later MSS read the perfect indicative ἐστήκατε. This reading is found in the TR and Majority Text, and consequently, it influenced many early commentators (e.g., Benson 309; Fronmüller 95; Usteri 227–28; Hofmann 199; cf. also Frankenmölle 70). The strongest defence was provided by Wiesinger (337–39), whose case was grounded on the fact that the readers were already in the ‘grace’ about which the author writes and that the former (στῆτε) would not fit well in the present context (cf. Bloomfield 729; Huther 229). Yet both of these arguments actually lend support to the imperative as the more difficult reading (see Alford 387). The shift to a declarative form is representative of scribal discomfort with an imperative verb in a relative clause. Similar changes occur in other witnesses: ἐστε (1505, syh), στήκετε (2464), and αἰτεῖτε (Ψ). But this use of the imperative in connection with a relative pronoun is a mark of Petrine style; the author employs the same construction on a few different occasions (cf. 1.6; 3.3; 5.9; see Robertson, Grammar, 949). Thus, the imperative is clearly to be preferred (cf. Windisch 81; Cranfield 138; Michaels, 305 n.c; Elliott 879) and interpreted as such rather than as equivalent to a hortatory subjunctive (as suggested by Goppelt 373; cf. BDF §377). (d) Some witnesses (‫א‬c, 88, 326, 1845c, 2805, syp) add ἐκκλησία after Βαβυλῶνι, an attempt to clarify the referent here. A few later minuscules read Ῥώμῃ in place of Βαβυλῶνι (1611c, 1890, 2138). (e) Rather than ἀγάπης (strongly attested by P72, ‫א‬, A, B, Ψ, and most minuscules), 0142, some minuscules (5, 88, 436, 623, 642, 1735, etc.), and a few versions (vg, syp, arm) reflect the reading ἁγίῳ, no doubt under the influence of the more established Pauline phrase (see Rom 16.16; 1 Cor 16.20; 2 Cor 13.12; 1 Thess 5.26). (f) This entire closing phrase is singularly omitted in P72. Quinn suggests that the conclusion of a text ‘was peculiarly susceptible to addition, conflation, normalization, and such pious tumescence [!] as the scribe might feel moved to add as he completed his task’ (‘Notes on the Text’, 244).1 He 1   One example is found here in Latin texts of the T type, which follow the ‘holy kiss’ with gratia domini cum his qui vocant Iesum Christum in perpetuitate, before continuing pax vobis as in the Greek text. See VT 26/1, 185.



5.12–14

609

proposes, therefore, that the original letter ended, as does P72, at ἀγάπης, with the additional phrase originating ‘in the liturgical assembly which attached it very early to the public reading of the letter’. He goes on to argue, ‘The scribe of P72 had before him an exemplar that retained the original “short ending.” Since he himself was not producing a book for public reading, he had no qualms about ending the letter in the short form he had before him. The scribes of the great uncials, copying books for use in public worship, were not so free from the pressure that current practice exerted’ (246). This suggestion is consistent with the fact that, generally, scribes tended to expand rather than shorten their texts, with deliberate omissions— particularly those that include a large amount of material—not being very common (although, cf. Royse, Scribal Habits, 705–36; Farnes, Simply Come Copying). However, this singular reading is a precarious basis for such an argument; and the attestation of the concluding phrase in C-S, as well as the uncial and minuscule MSS, must be given its due weight. It would be unusual to end an early Christian letter without some such greeting (cf. Davids 205 n. 17), and Quinn’s argument—that the scribe of P72 did not consider himself to be producing a book for public reading—could equally explain why the final greeting was omitted (for further critique, see Royse, Scribal Habits, 590–92). It should also be noted that P72 adds its own distinctive blessing of peace at the end of the letter, after the subscription (see Text at Inscriptio/ Subscriptio). (g) The external evidence is somewhat divided over whether Ἰησοῦ should be included (‫א‬, P, 5, 81, 307, 436, 442, 642, 1175, 1243, 1448, 1611, 1735, 1739, 1852, Byz, vgcl, syh, samss, bo) or omitted (A, B, Ψ, 33vid, 2344, 2492, vgst.ww, syp, sams, bomss) following Χριστῷ. As a result, ECM, whose text contains the latter, offers the former as an alternative reading in the first edition (201). Supporting the former, C-S is unique at this point, pex_s_ i_s_ pen`oeis (‘Christ Jesus our Lord’). Given the tendency to expand at such points (see above on 5.10), the shorter text is to be preferred (cf. Keil 175; Schlosser 297 n. c). Many of these same MSS also add ἀμήν to the end of the letter, an emendation consistent with later liturgical purposes.

Introduction The final verses of the letter contain a short explanation of the reason for writing, which includes a significant summary exhortation (v. 12), along with closing greetings (vv. 13–14). Following White, Martin identifies two characteristics of v. 12 that suggest it may be seen as the closing of the letter body: the ‘disclosure formula’, which explains the motivation for writing (δι᾽ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, κτλ.); and the ‘statement of responsibility’, which makes

610

1 PETER

a ‘basic request’ of the readers (εἰς ἣν στῆτε).2 Martin then identifies vv. 13–14a as the section of greetings, with v. 14b the Christianised form of ‘the farewell’.3 Given the brief doxology that concludes the letter body at 5.11, vv. 12–14 seem to form a distinct final part of the letter. But Martin is right to distinguish v. 12 from vv. 13–14, noting the explanatory and exhortative func�tion of v. 12 in comparison to the greeting and farewell formulae of vv. 13–14. Our author thus broadly follows the conventional pattern for letters of the time: most Greek letters concluded with some type of greeting directed to the recipient and their household or relevant associates, followed by a health wish for the recipient (‘take care of your health’), which was sometimes combined with a word of farewell (ἔρρωσο or εὐτύχει; cf. 2 Macc 11.21; 3 Macc 7.9; Acts 15.29).4 However, such conventions and formulae were somewhat loose and varied;5 ‘there was no single or rigidly established pattern used to close a letter’. Instead, the lack of uniformity indicates ‘a number of diverse stock phrases and expressions from which a letter writer could choose, depending on his own personal style or the requirements of the epistolary situation itself’.6 Early Christian authors shaped ancient epistolary conventions according to their particular needs and purposes: although greetings are usually included,7 the health wish and farewell are often absent, or recast in Christian formulations. Furthermore, various conventions may be added by Christian writers. These include: an exhortation to exchange a holy kiss,8 a benediction involving grace, 2   Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 72–73; see White, Form and Function, 25–31. 3   Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 75–78. 4   See Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity, 39. 5   As Francis has pointed out, ‘many Hellenistic letters of all types have no closing formula whatsoever; they just stop’ (‘Form and Function’, 125). More generally, Stowers (Letter-Writing, 20) remarks that ‘opening and closing formulas seem to have been of little interest to the ancients when they reflected on letter writing’. 6   Weima, Neglected Endings, 28. 7   Cf. Rom 16.3–16, 21–24; 1 Cor 16.19–20; 2 Cor 12.12; Phil 4.21–22; Col 4.10–17; 2 Tim 4.19, 21; Titus 3.15; Phlm 23–24; Heb 13.24; 2 John 13; 3 John 15. 8   Cf. 1 Cor 16.20; 2 Cor 13.12; 1 Thess 5.26.



5.12–14

611

love, or peace,9 hortatory elements,10 an announcement of travel plans,11 requests for prayer,12 details relating to associates and their ministerial efforts,13 and an autographic statement.14 These various elements are a composite and disparate list, not all of which appear in any given context. What the author chooses to say and to include thus give us significant indications as to the purpose and message of the epistle. As we have already noted on 5.6–11, the closing sections of letters are an important place where key aspects of the message may be reiterated and accentuated, and also where we may find significant information as to the intended character of the communication.15 Here we find the author’s commendation and evaluation of Silvanus; an autographic summary of the author’s sense of the purpose of the letter; a brief exhortation; greetings sent to the recipients; an exhortation to offer mutual greetings and the kiss; and a final benediction of peace. The personal names and greetings that appear in these closing verses have been significant in discussions of the authorship, authenticity, and origins of the letter (see Introduction: Authorship). Silvanus, in particular, has been seen as Peter’s amanuensis   Cf. Rom 15.33; 16.20, 25–27; 1 Cor 16.23–24; 2 Cor 13.13; Gal 6.18; Eph 6.23–24; Phil 4.23; Col 4.18; 1 Thess 5.28; 2 Thess 3.16, 18; 1 Tim 6.21; 2 Tim 4.22; Titus 3.15; Phlm 25; Heb 13.20–21, 25; 3 John 15. 10   Cf. Rom 16.17–20; 1 Cor 16.13–14; 2 Cor 13.11; Col 4.5–6; 1 Tim 6.20; Heb 13.17. 11   Cf. Rom 15.22–29; 1 Cor 16.5–9; Titus 3.12; Phlm 22; 2 John 12; 3 John 13–14. 12   Cf. Rom 15.30–32; Eph 6.18–20; Col 4.3–4; 1 Thess 5.25; Heb 13.18–19. 13   Cf. Rom 16.1–2; 1 Cor 16.10–12, 15–18; Eph 6.21–22; Col 4.7–9; 2 Tim 4.9–15, 20; Titus 3.12; Heb 13.23. 14   Cf. 1 Cor 16.21; Gal 6.11; Col 4.18; 2 Thess 3.17; Heb 13.22. 15   On letter-endings, see further Gamble, Textual History, 57–83; Weima, Neglected Endings; idem, ‘Sincerely, Paul’, 307–45; Mullins, ‘Benediction’, 59–64; Schnider and Stenger, Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular, 108–67. Bahr (‘Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters’, 27–41) suggests that subscriptions were composed by the authors themselves, giving consent to the details of the epistle which were written by another’s hand (cf. Gal 6.11). Some have claimed that this was the case in 1 Pet 5.12–14, where Peter took up the pen and finished the letter (e.g., Kelcy 107; Barbieri 88; Clowney 123). However, the autobiographical and personal notes would equally fit within a framework of pseudonymity (see further below). 9

612

1 PETER

and/or letter-carrier. While the significance of the authorial selfpresentation and the names that are mentioned should be carefully considered, it is important to note that such personalia are not necessarily any indication of authenticity. On the contrary, such details may be part of the ‘device of pseudonymity’,16 used to add verisimilitude to the letter, as in many clearly pseudepigraphical ancient letters.17 Exegesis 12 Διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ἀδελφοῦ, ὡς λογίζομαι, λογίζομαι, δι᾿ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα. ἔγραψα. The first part of this letter-closing introduces and commends Silvanus, as the author presents his own explanation of the reason and purpose for the writing. The first question that must be considered is the identity of ‘Silvanus’ (Σιλουανός). The name is a Latin gentilicium.18 It seems to have been relatively common in the Roman world,19 appearing in epigraphic and papyrological evidence   Beare 50.   See further Donelson, Pseudepigraphy, 23–42. To illustrate this practice, we might note an example from the (pseudonymous) thirteenth letter of Plato. In this (purportedly) private correspondence to Dionysius II of Syracuse, ‘Plato’ mentions numerous individuals (e.g., Archytas [Ep. 360C], Helicon [Ep. 360C], Dion [Ep. 361D, 362E], Speusippus [Ep. 361E], Erastus and Andromedes [Ep. 362A], Cratinus and Cebes [Ep. 363A], Philagrus and Philaides [Ep. 363B], Terillus and Teison [Ep. 363C]). In the closing, however, several persons are listed as though they would take part in the letter’s transmission or as though they would come in contact with the recipient. This portion of the epistle reads, ‘Keep well and study philosophy and exhort thereto all the other young men; and greet for me your comrades at the game of ball [i.e., fellow-astronomers]; and charge Aristocritus (Ἀριστοκρίτῳ), as well as the rest, that if any message or letter from me should come to your palace, he must take care that you are informed of it as soon as possible; and bid him remind you not to neglect the contents of my letters. So too now, do not neglect to repay Leptines (Λεπτίνῃ) his money, but pay it back as promptly as possible, in order that the others also, seeing how you deal with him, may be the more ready to assist us. Iatrocles (Ἰατροκλῆς), the man whom I released on that occasion, along with Myronides (Μυρωνίδου), is now sailing with the things that I am sending: I ask you, then, to give him some paid post, as he is well-disposed towards you, and employ him for whatever you wish. Preserve also this letter, either itself or a précis of it, and continue as you are’ (Ep. 13 [363D–E]; trans. Bury [LCL]). 18   See Solin and Salomies, Repertorium nominum gentilium, 171. 19   Pace Mason 435 and Johnstone 407. 16 17



5.12–14

613

from around the Mediterranean.20 That being the case, is this the same person who is described as a co-worker of Paul and Timothy in the Pauline epistles (2 Cor 1.19; 1 Thess 1.1; 2 Thess 1.1)? If so, is there any relationship between this person and the ‘Silas’ who the book of Acts describes as a delegate of the Jerusalem Council (15.22, 27, 32, 40)21 and then later as a companion of the apostle Paul during his travels to the cities of Philippi (16.19, 25, 29), Thessalonica (17.4), Berea (17.10, 14–15), and Corinth (18.5)? Most interpreters conclude that Silas and Silvanus are one and the same.22 There are three ways that this connection has been explained. Some suggest that Σιλᾶς is a contracted form of the name Σιλουανός.23 Another possibility is that this person had two names: one a Semitic name (Silas) given to him at birth and the other a Latin name (Silvanus) used among the Gentiles.24 This accords with the fact that Σιλᾶς is attested as a Jewish name within our sources (cf. CIJ 139; Josephus, Ant. 14.40; 18.240; 19.299, 317, 320–21, 353; Life 89–90, 272;War 2.520; 3.11), and that the use of two names seems to have been a common practice among ancient 20   For references to individuals named Σιλουανός in Asia Minor, see Corsten, Pontos to Ionia, 404; Balzat, Coastal Asia Minor, 384; Balzat et al., Inland Asia Minor, 390. The name is found occasionally in and around Palestine as well; see Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names (Part 2), 294. 21   If the apostolic decree is a Lukan construction from a later time meant to show that the Jerusalem leadership approved of the early Gentile mission (as argued by Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 17–19), this might call into question the tradition about Silas being a leading member of the Jerusalem congregation. 22   Some hold this position with great certainty, as in the case of Bigg, who states quite emphatically, ‘There can be little doubt that the Silas of Acts is the Silvanus of the Pauline and Petrine Epistles’ (Bigg 84; cf. Cothenet, ‘La Première Epître de Pierre’, 139). 23   E.g., Brown 784; Bennett 255; Davids 198. This is not the case, however (see MHT 2:146). If contraction occurred, the lengthened form of Silas would have been Silanus, while the contracted form of Silvanus would be Silvas (see Zimmer, ‘Woher kommt der Name Silas?’, 721–23). Not only is Silanus well-represented in the onomastic evidence from the Latin world, it is even attested among Jews (CIJ 449). Moreover, Silvanus was a Roman god of the countryside, associated with agriculture, hunting, and borders (see Dorcey, Cult of Silvanus; for a comparison of this cultic group and the early Christian communities represented in 1 Peter, see Öhler, ‘Silvanus und Christus’, 30–50), and it is possible that some Jews would have wanted to avoid such a ‘pagan’ association. 24   So, e.g., Plumptre 159; cf. also Campbell, ‘Silas’, 509; Bauckham, Jewish World, 385.

614

1 PETER

Jews (e.g., Paul/Saul [Acts 13.9]; Justus/Joseph [Acts 1.23]; Justus/ Jesus [Col 4.11]). But the most popular opinion within scholarship is that both forms represent the same original Semitic name (Hebrew: ‫)סילוני‬,25 with Σιλουανός being the Latinized form and Σιλᾶς being the Grecized form.26 More often than not, however, the connection between Silas and Silvanus has been assumed rather than demonstrated.27 Despite this fact, the connection does seem likely. If the name Silvanus is a device of pseudonymity, as it appears to be, then it would be safe to conclude that the author wants the readers to draw the conclusion that this Silvanus is the associate of Paul.28

  For an alternative, see Selwyn, St. Luke, the Prophet, 6–10.   So, e.g., Windisch 80; Margot 89; Best 55; Hillyer 153; Bénétreau 280; Knoch 140. For a full defence of this position, see Radermacher, ‘Der erste Petrusbrief’, 293–95. 27   Some early Christian tradition seems to have distinguished the two. According to Hippolytus (On the Seventy Apostles 16–17), Silas was the bishop of Corinth, while Silvanus was the bishop of Thessalonica (cf. Hoole, Classical Element, 61–62, who suggests that Silas and Silvanus may represent two distinct persons, the former being a Jew from Antioch and the latter a Roman associate of Paul). Furthermore, even if Silvanus and Silas were distinct figures in the early church, this is no guarantee that the Silvanus referenced in v. 12 was also the co-worker of Paul. It could just as easily be that the present verse refers to a different Silvanus about whom we know little to nothing (e.g., Leaney 72; Achtemeier 350–51; Eve 1270). Two arguments could be made for this position. First, depending on the date assigned to 1 Peter, the Silas/Silvanus of Acts and the Pauline epistles may have been too old to make the journey as an emissary. Second, if this is the same Silas/Silvanus who served as a delegate of the Jerusalem church and then later as a missionary partner with the apostle Paul, would he need the kind of commendation offered in v. 12, especially (as some assume) if he was returning to an area from which he had ministered previously (cf. Marshall 174: ‘it seems strange that a missionary of such standing as Silas should require such a commendation’)? 28   Cf. Beare 50; Brox 241–43; Schelkle 133; Boring 180. Green claims that he is unable to ‘identify any good reason why an anonymous author would include Silvanus’s name since he was not associated with Peter apart from his brief mention at the Jerusalem Council’ (Vox Petri 75; cf. Jobes 321). Yet, if the author’s purpose is to reshape the audience’s social identity so that they are able to better cope with their current situation, the fact that ‘Peter’ addresses them using the language of Paul (as well as other early Christian tradition) is significant (see Introduction: The Choice of the Pseudonym ‘Peter’). This harmonious coalescence of the apostolic witness allows ‘Peter’ to confirm the privileged position of these ‘Gentile’ readers without controversy. Within this larger aim, the mention of Silvanus—to whom both Paul and Peter have some association—represents a natural bridge between these two prominent apostles. 25 26



5.12–14

615

An even more controversial issue in this verse—due in large part to the role it plays in determining the authorship of 1 Peter—is the meaning of the construction διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα. There are two ways that the expression has been understood.29 Many scholars, especially those who espouse Petrine authorship, claim that it means that Silvanus took an active part in the composition of the letter.30 In the capacity of an amanuensis (or secretary), Silvanus could have shaped the epistle to such an extent that much of its content reflects his ideas or his language.31 Some even go so far as to claim that his role should be considered that of a co-author.32 Others have questioned this interpretation, however, claiming that the expression merely indicates that Silvanus is being portrayed as the one who carried the letter to the Christian communities designated in the prescript.33 Since this latter position does not exclude the possibility that Silvanus took an active role in the letter’s composition, many have argued that he served as both secretary and emissary.34   A third possibility was suggested by Gourbillon–du Buit (17), who posited that διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα designates Silvanus as the impetus for Peter’s epistolary composition. That is, during his missionary efforts, Silvanus requested that Peter write to the struggling churches of Asia Minor to encourage and strengthen them. None (to our knowledge) has followed this suggestion, however. 30   E.g., Moffatt 169; Leconte 86; Stibbs–Walls 175; Cranfield 137; Kelly 214–15; Beare 209; Davids 198; Goppelt 369–70; Bartlett 318; cf. Seland, Strangers in the Light, 22–28. Certain English translations represent this perspective: ‘I write you this brief letter with the help of Silas’ (TEV); ‘With the help of Silvanus… I have written to you’ (NIV); ‘Silvanus helped me write this short letter’ (CEV). 31   See further Introduction: Authorship of 1 Peter. 32   Understood in this way, scholars sometimes conjecture that a change in writer might be reflected in these final verses: ‘If Silas did write the letter, either as a secretary for Peter or as an inspired collaborator, it is possible that this last section came from Peter’s own hand’ (Clowney 223). 33   E.g., Grudem 199–200; Michaels 306–307; Brox 241–43; McKnight 279; Achtemeier 249–50; Elliott 872–74; Richard 226; Bony 177; Senior 152; Jobes 320; Green 182; Donelson 154; Watson 125; Vahrenhorst 200. This perspective is also found in a few English translations: ‘I am sending this note to you through the courtesy of Silvanus’ (LB); ‘I am sending this short letter by Silvanus’ (Phillips); ‘Silas will bring this letter to you’ (ERV). 34   E.g., Selwyn 241; Best 176–77; Bénétreau 279; Waltner 163–64; Witherington 246; Osborne 264; Keener 393–402; Green, Vox Petri, 91–92, 302–304. For a full defence of this view, see Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus, 62–71, who also argues that the mention of Silvanus does not serve to indicate the bringing together of Petrine and Pauline perspectives, nor the Pauline character of the letter. 29

616

1 PETER

The decision between these options is impacted by a few important considerations. The first is the prevalence of amanuenses in the process of letter-writing. Contrary to how secretarial activity is portrayed by some NT scholars,35 recent work in classical studies has shown that the frequency with which amanuenses were involved in letter-writing may have been rather low compared to other compositional tasks. In her reflection on the state of the evidence for identifying secretarial hands, Sarri notes that ‘hiring scribes for the writing of private letters was not common in the GraecoRoman world’. In other words, ‘the vast majority of the very large number of surviving private letters that circulated and have been preserved to us were probably written by their authors themselves’.36 Part of the reason why secretaries were avoided in personal correspondence was because such an expedient was considered to be an impolite (and impersonal) gesture.37 Nevertheless, we know that this practice did occur, as indicated by the various apologetic comments scattered throughout ancient epistles (Cicero, Att. 2.20.6; 2.23.1; 11.24.2; Quint. fratr. 2.2.1; 2.15.1; 3.3.1). Literate authors sought to justify their choice of dictation by appealing to pressing business matters, travel, security, or illness.38 Another consideration, which is closely related to the first point, is that if a secretary was employed in the task of letter-writing, seldom is it indicated in the document itself. It is true that on rare occasions the activity of an amanuensis is explicitly mentioned. Such references are usually made rather directly. For instance, an author might specifically comment on the identity of the one who is 35   E.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter Writer, 6: ‘Most letter writers in antiquity used a professional secretary’. 36   Sarri, Material Aspects, 192. 37   This is indicated by the emphasis placed on composing a letter in one’s own hand (see Cicero, Quint. fratr. 2.2.1; Att. 5.19.1; Nepos, Att. 10.4; Seneca, Lucil. 26.8). 38   See McDonnell, ‘Autograph Manuscripts’, 474–75. In the papyrological sources, fewer references are made to the reason for employing an amanuensis, although certain motivations can be discerned. For instance, the social standing of the recipient seems to have played some role in the decision. When Flavius Abinnaeus, a military officer who appears to be literate (see P.Abinn. 43), writes a letter of petition to the emperor Constantius, he employs a professional secretary (see P.Abinn. 1, which seems to be a draft of the petition), perhaps as a way to improve the calligraphic aesthetics of the composition.



5.12–14

617

writing the letter.39 In other cases, the amanuensis might insert his (or her?) own personal greeting, similar to the one added by Tertius in Rom 16.22.40 More often than not, however, the use of a secretary must be discerned through an examination of handwriting, with a particular focus on instances where a subscript (ὑπογραφή) is composed in a hand that differs from the one in which the body of the letter was transcribed (i.e., a ‘handshift’).41 This fact should make us cautious about too quickly assuming that διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα relates to ancient secretarial practices. Above all, however, the meaning of διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα turns on syntax. Advocates of the amanuensis hypothesis have collected a handful of texts with similar constructions to show that the composer of the letter is (or at least, could be) in view. For instance, toward the end of the second century CE, Dionysius of Corinth sent a letter to the church in Rome (= Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.23.11) in which he referred to the epistle known to us as 1 Clement, describing it as ‘the earlier epistle that was written to us 39   This occurs in an epistle from Menas to Georgius concerning the payment of funds for officeholders (sixth–seventh century). Near the end of the letter-body, Menas writes, ‘master, please forgive the fact that my son, your servant, wrote the present letter’ (σύγ\γ/νωθι δε, δέσποτα, ἐπιδὴ [l. ἐπειδὴ] ὁ δοῦλός σου ὁ ἐμὸς ὑὸς [l. ὑιὸς] ἔγραψα [l. ἔγραψε] τὴν παροῦσαν ἐπιστολὴν ταύταν, P.Oxy. XVI 1860). At other times, authors refer to secretaries in more indirect ways. This might involve statements about an amanuensis growing tired from extensive writing (e.g., P.Mil.Vogl. I 24; P.Oxy. XLII 3057). Such comments served as a polite way to end a letter. 40   This type of greeting is found in a late fourth-century letter from Oxyrhynchus, which was sent by Taesis to her husband Tiron, who appears to have been away on business. Near the end of this somewhat long correspondence, we read, ‘Your guest, Alexander, greets you, along with his wife and children, and I, Alexander, have immiserated myself writing these letters to you’ (ἀσπάζετέ [l. ἀσπάζεταί] σε ὁ ὅσπις σου Ἀλέξανδρος μετὰ τῆς συνβίου καὶ τέκνων καὶ ἀπεκάκησα ἐγὼ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος γράφων σοι τὰς ἐπιστολάς, P.Oxy. LVI 3860). Similar examples, though rare, do appear within the documentary materials (see, e.g., P.Mich. VIII 482; P.Mert. II 82; P.Giss.Apoll. 18; P.Oxy. XLIX 3505; XLII 3057; LVI 3860; P.Iand. VI 103; P.Herm. 13; P.Berl.Möller 11; O.Claud. I 137; II 264). 41   See Sarri, ‘Handshifts in Letters’, 797–819; idem, Material Aspects, 146–90, 347–66. Where secretarial activity is most clearly evident is when two such farewell greetings are appended together: one from the author and another (written in smaller script) from the amanuensis (e.g., P.Brem. 21, 50; SB IV 7335; P.Giss. Apoll. 35).

618

1 PETER

by Clement’ (τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν). In this case, Clement is generally thought to be the author of the document, not the scribe who copied it or the courier who delivered it.42 The postscript of Romans in minuscule 337 provides similar evidence. It reads, ‘the epistle to the Romans, written (ἐγράφη) from Corinth by Tertius (διὰ Τερτίου) and sent through Phoebe’. This explanatory summary draws on a detail from Rom 16.22, where Tertius reveals himself as Paul’s amanuensis. An alternative formula, which is also thought to denote scribal activity, is γράφειν διὰ χειρὸς τίνος (‘to write through the hand of someone’). In the postscript of Galatians in minuscule 330, the following description is provided: ‘the end of the epistle of the apostle Paul, which was written (ἐγράφη) to the Galatians from Rome by the hand of Paul (διὰ χειρὸς Παύλου)’.43 Here it is difficult to read the text in any other way than that Paul is depicted as having actually composed the document. The problem is that each of these alleged parallels represents a slightly different construction than the one found in 1 Pet 5.12. In the former, the verbal elements are either third person or passive (or both), which require the object of διά to function as the agent of writing. In the latter, the expression represents a distinct idiom whose usage had already become established in the LXX, unrelated to the 42   Although this text is often cited as proof that an author/composer could be referenced through the expression γράφειν διά τινος (see, e.g., Green, Vox Petri, 91), certain points suggest that this evidence should be used with caution (even beyond the syntactical problem of its passive form). The letter of 1 Clement does not name Clement as its author; it merely claims to have been sent by ‘the church of God that sojourns in Rome’ (praescr.). Elsewhere, Clement is associated with correspondences sent from the church at Rome, but as a facilitator, not as an author. In the Shepherd of Hermas, the shepherd is instructed to write two books, with one being sent to Clement and one to Grapte. In turn, it is noted, ‘Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job’ (Herm. Vis. 2.4.3; trans. Holmes). It is not entirely clear exactly what this role entails. But if Clement was merely the postmaster of the Roman church, then the expression τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν may indicate his role in sending (not writing) the letter we know as 1 Clement. 43   A similar construction is used in Acts 15.23 to describe the letter sent to the church at Antioch by the Jerusalem leadership. According to the text, the men involved in delivering the correspondence were Barsabbas and Silas, and it is said that the leaders ‘wrote through them’ (γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν).



5.12–14

619

question of secretarial activity.44 What these examples reveal, therefore, is that if the Petrine author had wished to designate Silvanus as his amanuensis, alternative constructions were available.45 On the other hand, each time the specific formula γράφω (first or second person active form) + διά τινος is employed,46 it invariably refers to the carrier of the letter,47 a fact that is demonstrated by numerous examples from the non-literary papyri and ostraca.48 For   The expression διὰ χειρός τινος began to take on a metonymical sense in the LXX. In some cases, the act of writing may have been involved (2 Chr 34.14; cf. 35.4). But this was not normally assumed. The expression was simply a way to depict instrumentality and intermediation (see Hauspie, ‘Prepositional Phrases in the Septuagint’, 96–97). The idiom is employed in the same way by the Lukan author (cf. Acts 2.23; 7.25; 11.30). Therefore, it is possible that the expression γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν is unrelated to the act of writing. 45   In the evidence from the ostraca and non-literary papyri, the most common way to designate secretarial activity is through the expression γράφειν ὑπέρ τινος (e.g., BGU I 39; Chrest.Mitt. 82; CPR I 29; O.Petr.Mus. 126; etc.). At times, this phrase is further supplemented with the explanation stating the reason: γράμματα μὴ εἰδότος (P.Col. VII 180; BGU II 490; P.Mich. III 176), or more simply, ἀγράμματος (P.Ryl. II 179; BGU I 152; SB X 10538). 46   Some examples contain a slight variation of this formula (e.g., P.Mich. VIII 501: ἐν ταῖς διὰ Αὐρηλιανοῦ ἐπιστολαῖς [ἔγ]ραψ[ά σ]οι; O.Did. 343: ἔγραψα καὶ ἔπεμψά σοι ἀντιφώνησιν διὰ τῶν καμηλιτῶν), and thus they are excluded from our assessment. 47   A significant challenge to this view has been levelled by Keener. Drawing from the extensive work of his doctoral students (esp. Esteban Hidalgo), Keener reaches the following conclusion: ‘A complete survey of the evidence… suggests that the expression “wrote through” was a loose one that could be used to encompass the entire epistolary (or other written) communication process or specify help at a particular stage. It could designate either composition (the usual sense of “writing”) or, more loosely (yet quite commonly), delivery’ (401; cf. also Green, Vox Petri, 303 n. 8). What makes this assessment problematic is that it is based on a broader formulation than the one found in v. 12. When Keener evaluates the evidence of first- or second-person active forms of γράφω + διά τινος, the evidence points uniformly toward letter-carriers. Only when he considers different formulations (e.g., third-person passive form of γράφω, other writing terms + διά, etc.) do letter-writers come into view. Yet these latter examples represent a slightly different idiom than the one found in v. 12 and thus are not applicable in the present instance. 48   Examples of this formula include: O.Claud. II 292; O.Wilck. 78; P.Leid.Inst. 31; P.Brem. 48; P.Fay. 123; P.Oxy. VI 937, XXXIV 2728, XLII 3067; BGU I 33; P.Princ. III 163; SB XII 10800, XIV 12037; P.Kellis I 12; P.Mich. VIII 466 (see further New Docs 7:54 n. 19; cf. also later examples: P.Ant. II 94; P.Apoll. 33; P.Berl.Zill. 13). As Keener (394) points out, some uses of this formula are found 44

620

1 PETER

instance, in a letter that dates to the late second century CE, Sempronius writes to his mother, Satornila, out of concern for her welfare. He states, ‘I am surprised that you did not write to me (ἔγραψάς μοι) either through Celer (διὰ Κέλερος) or through Sempronius (διὰ Σεμπρωνίου)’. What he means by this becomes clear in the following sentence: ‘For after I came back from my journey, I found them and asked why they did not bring (ἐκομίσαντό) a letter for me’ (P.Mich. XV 751, ll. 4–7). Thus, γράφειν διά τινος means sending a correspondence through the named individual. We could also mention the letter of Hermapollon to his mother Eus. Hermapollon begins the correspondence by noting, ‘Once… a second time… in fact, many times I have written to you through many people (ἔγραψά σοι διὰ πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων), requesting that you would come to me’ (P.Lund II 2). In this case, he is not focusing on the variety of scribes that he has employed, but the number of different people that he sent to request his mother’s presence.49 It is not just in the papyri that this epistolary convention is evident; the same formula is also attested in later Christian letters. In his epistle to the church at Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch concludes in letters that are too brief to make a definitive determination about the meaning (e.g., P.Sijp. 58; O.Claud. I 158; P.Mil. II 80; P.Oxy. XVII 2151). But, in contrast to the conclusion that he reaches, it could be argued that such instances actually support the letter-carrier proposal. While the brevity of these correspondences generally excludes key details that allow for the interpretation of the construction, at the same time their relative size makes it unlikely that the formula would refer to the letter-writer. As one of only a couple of details contained in the letter, what benefit would such an identification serve the reader? It seems more plausible that in these instances the construction denotes the deliverer, for this is the one with whom the recipient would interact. 49   Although the construction is different (i.e., a third person passive), numerous postscripts of Greek manuscripts use the third person passive ἐγράφη + διά τινος to represent the carrier of the letter: Romans (L, 049, 6, 35, 42, 69, 88, 90, 104, 201, 209, 216, 326, 339, 424, 460, 462, 466*, 489, 517, 547, 614, 618, 642, 796, 927, 910, 945, 999, 1175, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1315, 1352, 1424, 1448, 1734, 1738, 1836, 1837, 1854, 1874, 1881, 1891, 1982, 2125, 2147, 2400, 2412); 1 Corinthians (K, L, 049, 075, 6, 69, 88, 104, 205, 209, 326, 330, 424, 440, 460, 489, 517, 547, 614, 910, 927, 945, 999, 1175, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1245, 1315, 1352, 1424, 1448, 1734, 1735, 1738, 1739, 1827, 1836, 1837, 1854, 1874, 1881, 1982, 2125, 2147, 2412); 2 Corinthians (K, L, 6, 69, 88, 209, 326, 330, 424, 440, 460, 489, 517, 547, 614, 618, 910, 927, 945, 1175, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1315, 1424, 1448, 1734, 1735, 1738, 1739, 1836, 1837, 1854, 1874, 1881, 1891, 2147, 2412).



5.12–14

621

by noting, ‘The love of the brothers and sisters in Troas greets you. I am writing you from there through Burrhus (γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Βούρρου), whom you, together with your Ephesian brothers and sisters, sent with me’ (Smyrn. 12.1 [trans. Holmes]; cf. Phld. 11.2; Rom. 10.1; see also Pol. Phil. 14.1 [haec vobis scripsi per Crescentem]). Through a close reading of this entire corpus, it is clear that Ignatius used Burrhus to deliver his letter to the church at Smyrna.50 This evidence points strongly in the direction of interpreting διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα as denoting the courier of the letter. (Again, this conclusion does not preclude someone from positing that Silvanus served as both courier and amanuensis—it simply indicates how the clause διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα was meant to be interpreted.) Nevertheless, certain objections have been raised against this position. First, it is sometimes said that the area to which 1 Peter is addressed (1.1) is too vast for one person to travel; thus, Silvanus could not have carried the epistle throughout each of the Anatolian provinces.51 However, this objection would only be valid on the assumption that Silvanus is a real person whom the author is actually commissioning to deliver the letter. If this name is a device of pseudonymity (see above), then the problem is avoided. But even if the phrase διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα describes the actual (or even imagined) circumstance of the letter, this would not preclude the possibility of a single courier. As Michaels has suggested, the emissary could have carried the letter to a port city and its surrounding congregations, and then passed it (along with his personal greeting from the author) to other messengers to transmit around the region.52 It is equally possible that Silvanus himself (or any other emissary) could have made the long trek through each of the five provinces, stopping at major cities and having the epistle distributed among the surrounding churches. The accounts of Paul’s ‘missionary journeys’ recorded in the book of Acts indicate the great distances one person was able to travel during that period. Moreover, as Paul’s own descriptions of his activity indicate, ‘covering’ an area must have meant visiting a specific and limited number of places within a geographical region (Rom 15.19).   See Richards, ‘Silvanus Was Not Peter’s Secretary’, 418–23.   See Beare 209; Goppelt 369; Seland, Strangers in the Light, 28. 52   Michaels 307, although see the critique by Davids 198 n. 2. 50 51

622

1 PETER

Second, it is claimed that if the author’s purpose was to designate Silvanus as the letter-carrier, he could have made this clearer by writing, ἔπεμψα ὑμῖν ἐπιστολὴν διὰ Σιλουανοῦ (‘I sent the letter to you by Silvanus’).53 This is the formula used in a correspondence dating to the third century CE, in which Sarapammon writes to Piperas, ‘I sent a letter to you by the baker’ (ἔπεμψά σοι ἐπιστολὴν διὰ τοῦ ἀρτοκόπου; cf. P.Oxy. XXXI 2593; BGU IV 1079; IV 1095). The problem is that this construction would not allow the flow of thought that continues the sentence in v. 12b. By employing γράφω rather than πέμπω, the author is able to develop his thought using the adverbial participles that follow (παρακαλῶν and ἐπιμαρτυρῶν). The same could not have been accomplished through the use of ἔπεμψα ὑμῖν ἐπιστολὴν διὰ Σιλουανοῦ.54 More important is the fact that the formula γράφειν διά τινος was an established idiom that was commonly employed in ancient epistolary literature. Its presence was thus sufficient to indicate to the readers that Silvanus’ role as emissary was in view. Established epistolary conventions and syntax are enough to suggest that the expression διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα is best understood as describing Silvanus as the letter-carrier, not the amanu­ensis.55 Nevertheless, other evidence can be adduced to further support this contention. Whereas a greeting is sent from Mark (cf. 5.13), no such greeting is extended from Silvanus. This is consistent with the fact that Silvanus, as the letter-carrier, would be expected to greet the recipients in person. The commendation of Silvanus as a ‘faithful brother’ (πιστὸς ἀδελφός) also leads us in this direction.56 In light of this designation, the difficulty with assigning to Silvanus the role 53   A number of scholars have made this argument (e.g., Selwyn 214; Cranfield 137). 54   This also relates to another objection that is sometimes raised against the ‘courier’ position, viz. that the presence of the expression δι᾿ ὀλίγων (‘briefly’) requires that ἔγραψα be taken in a stricter sense of ‘writing’ rather than ‘sending’ (Kelly 215; Davids 198). However, the verb γράφω does not lose its usual meaning simply because it is employed as part of a larger idiom. 55   The focus of our discussion in this section surrounds the meaning of expression διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα. For further comments on the wider issue of Silvanus’ role in the composition and delivery of the letter (including further evidence that weighs against Silvanus’ role as amanuensis), see Introduction: Authorship. 56   Cf. Johnstone 407; Brox 242; Achtemeier 349.



5.12–14

623

of amanuensis comes not simply in explaining a word of autogenous praise (which would be unusual if Silvanus himself composed or wrote the document),57 but in explaining why such a commendation would be made in the first place. Such praise would make sense if Silvanus were meant to have some type of contact with the readers, but not if he were merely composing the letter.58 In a circular letter like 1 Peter, which most congregations would read in the form of a copy, such an explanation would be unnecessary. Faithfulness, on the other hand, was an important quality in a letter-carrier. Not only did they have to deliver the valuable correspondence, they would also provide oral reports to supplement the written details.59 An example of this practice is recorded in a third-century BCE letter from Berenikes Hormos (Egypt), wherein Simale concludes her correspondence by instructing Zenon, ‘Learn the rest from the one who delivers the letter to you, for he is no stranger to us’ (P.Col. III 6).60 This explains the commendation of individuals in epistolary literature (cf. Rom 16.1–2; Eph 6.21–22; Col 4.7–9; Ign. Smyr. 12.1). As the recognised and approved letter carrier, such persons were to serve as reliable guides to the meaning and intent of the author’s written words. For this reason, letter writers commonly urge their recipients to send their reciprocal 57   We know from the Pauline corpus that it was the custom of some authors to take the pen from their amanuensis at the end of the letter and to compose the final greeting in their own hand (cf. 1 Cor 16.21; Gal 6.11; Col 4.18; 2 Thess 3.17; see further Bahr, ‘Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters’, 27–41; Reece, Paul’s Large Letters). If this were the case here, it is possible to explain the commendation of Silvanus: after Silvanus had written or composed 1 Pet 1.1–5.11, Peter took the pen from his hand and wrote the final three verses himself (a view postulated, e.g., by Bigg 195; Hart 79; Stibbs–Walls 175; Kelcy 107; Clowney 123). Thus, the words would reflect the apostle’s evaluation of his secretary, not Silvanus’ self-identification. It is difficult to find any comparable examples of such a commendation of one’s secretary in the documentary papyri, however. 58   According to Zahn (Introduction, 2:150), the commendation was too great for either a secretary or a letter-carrier. He therefore suggested that Silvanus must have been the co-author. Cf., however, Eph 6.21, where Tychicus, the designated letter-carrier, is described as ‘a dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord’ (ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν κυρίῳ; see also Col 4.7–8). 59   On the role of couriers further supplementing the written correspondence, see Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity, 45–46; Head, ‘Named Letter-Carriers’, 279–99; idem, ‘Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material’, 203–19. 60   Cf. Eph 6.21–22; Col 4.7–9; Cicero, Fam. 5.4.1; P.Lond. I 42.

624

1 PETER

response, including both goods and letters, ‘through a faithful person’ (διʼ ἀνθρώπου πιστοῦ).61 In a fragmentary letter from Kellis (Egypt), the sender requests, ἀντίγραψόν μοι διὰ [πιστοῦ ἀν]θ̣ρώπου, ‘write back to me through a faithful person’ (P.Kellis 12, frag. 2). The request is not for trustworthy secretarial composition, but for the faithful delivery of an epistolary response. This is further evidence that the expression διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα relates to the letter-carrier, not the amanuensis. The evaluation of Silvanus as a ‘faithful brother’ (πιστὸς ἀδελφός) is appended with a statement specifying the standard of reference by which this commendation was made: ὡς λογίζομαι. This phrase has been troubling for many commentators, as it seems to suggest some uncertainty on the part of the Petrine author. As a way of alleviating this difficulty, scholars have proposed alternative ways of understanding the meaning and placement of this phrase in the present sentence. According to Fausset, the construction should be joined with διὰ Σιλουανοῦ… ἔγραψα. This means that the uncertainty rests in ‘whether he [Silvanus] or some other would prove to be the bearer of the letter, addressed as it was to five provinces, all of which Silvanus might not reach’.62 Alternatively, some connect the phrase with δι᾿ ὀλίγων, meaning that the letter seems brief—at least, in the author’s opinion—in comparison to the weight of its importance.63 Others have tried to connect ὡς λογίζομαι with πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, arguing that Silvanus was not actually (well) known to the Petrine author.64 All of these proposals represent attempts to circumvent the seeming uncertainty inherent

  Cf. P.Lond. IV 1404; P.Oxy. VII 1067; P.Ross.Georg. IV 5; P.Yale I 80.   Fausset 514 (original emphasis); cf. also Fronmüller 94. A similar proposal was made by Grotius (110–11), who suggested that Peter had written a previous letter to the same audience but that he could not recall whether that letter had also been delivered by Silvanus (see further below). 63   E.g., Beza 585–86; Horneius 151; Semler 242; Steiger 2:311; Hofmann 200–201; Burger 257; Wordsworth 68. This interpretation is also reflected in the translations of the Peshitta (‫ܗܠܝܢ ܙܥܘܪܝܬܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܣܒܪ ܐܢܐ ܟܬܒܬ ܠܟܘܢ ܒܝܕ ܣܠܘܢܘܣ‬ ‫ )ܐܚܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬and the Vulgate (per Silvanum vobis fidelem fratrem ut arbitror breviter scripsi). 64   E.g., Bengel 83; de Wette 60. In this same vein, Barnes has suggested that Peter did not have first-hand knowledge of whether Silvanus was a faithful minister among the churches because he had not been with them (206). 61 62



5.12–14

625

in the phrase. What these views overlook is that when this same language is used elsewhere, it is not as an indication of an uncertain conjecture, but as a careful judgment reached through reflective consideration (cf. Rom 3.28; 6.11; Heb 11.19). The point is to confirm the reliability of Silvanus, thus ‘assur[ing] the recipients that this trusted brother knew the mind of the apostle and would expound the letter faithfully’.65 Most (correctly) understand ἔγραψα as an epistolary aorist in which the temporal perspective of the verb shifts from that of the author to that of his audience (cf. Rom 15.15; Phlm 19; 1 John 5.13; Mart. Pol. 1.1); thus the ‘writing’ is viewed in the past, ‘I wrote’.66 But over the years, some scholars—possibly because of their discomfort with the legitimacy of this function67—have read ἔγραψα as a genuine past referent. Connecting the verb with the prepositional phrase δι᾿ ὀλίγων, they have thus understood ἔγραψα to refer to the composition of an earlier (and shorter) epistle that has now been lost.68 Such a hypothesis is difficult to sustain, however.69 Somewhat closer to the mark is the suggestion of Schlosser, who claims that ἔγραψα refers to what the author had just written in the previous chapters.70 Given the fact that the present tense form of γράφω is sometimes employed in the letter-carrier formula (e.g., P.Oxy. XLII 3067; P.Ant. II 94; Ign. Smyrn. 12.1; Phld. 11.2;

  Ellliott 875; cf. Schwank 109.   E.g., Alford 387; Caffin 209–10; Cook 219; Bigg 196; Michaels 308; Forbes 184. As noted by Winer, ‘The aorist ἔγραψα is used in letters instead of the present γράφω, in reference to the very letter which is now being written, exactly as scripsi in Latin. In the same way a writer uses ἔπεμψα misi, looking at the fact that for the receiver of the letter the πέμπω has changed itself into an ἔπεμψα’ (Grammar, 347; cf. Green, Grammar, 304; McKay, New Syntax, 48–49). 67   Note the hesitancy of Blass (Grammar, 194) to allow ἔγραψα to function this way. 68   See, e.g., Erasmus 684; Grotius 110–11; Pott 152; Hottinger 145; cf. also Hug, Introduction, 636. Against this view, see Bullinger 83. 69   If the author were alluding to an earlier letter, he could have made the reference much more obvious. In 2 Pet 3.1, for instance, the pseudonymous author makes a quite unmistakable reference to a previous letter (most probably 1 Peter): ταύτην ἤδη, ἀγαπητοί, δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν (‘This now, beloved, is the second letter I am writing to you’). 70   Schlosser 301; cf. Hensler 231; Usteri 227; Bennett 255; see also Robertson, Grammar, 845–46. 65 66

626

1 PETER

Rom. 10.1), the aorist tense may represent a shift in emphasis rather than in temporal perspective. Since, aspectually, it is the least marked tense, it would allow the author to summarise the entire letter writing process.71 Although separated from the verb by some distance, the dative ὑμῖν indicates the ones to whom the letter was addressed (‘I wrote to you’). Due to the placement of ὑμῖν before the intervening modifiers, it is sometimes taken as a dative of advantage modifying πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ (‘faithful brother to you’, cf. Wycliffe, Geneva, KJV, Douay-Rheims). What this would indicate is that Silvanus was known to the churches of Asia Minor because he had faithfully ministered in this area sometime in the past. This view was held by a handful of earlier commentators and has been occasionally espoused more recently.72 While this interpretation is defensible, especially given the placement of ὑμῖν between Σιλουανοῦ and τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, it is probably better to maintain the traditional interpretation, with ὑμῖν modifying ἔγραψα (cf. Gal 6.11; 1 Thess 5.1; 1 Tim 3.14).73 This is consistent with the established use of the epistolary formula γράφειν διά τινος, in which the recipient is normally signified through a dative indirect object.74 If ὑμῖν is taken with πιστοῦ, the verb is left without an object of address. Moreover, the placement of ὑμῖν can be explained through other means. When this expression occurs elsewhere, the regular order is verb–object–preposition (ἔγραψά σοι διά τινος). But in this case the author has shifted the word order for the sake of emphasis, such that διὰ Σιλουανοῦ appears first and ἔγραψα appears last.75 The dative indirect object (ὑμῖν), on the other hand, is placed in its regular location (second position). It is interesting to note that the Petrine author describes the letter as ‘brief’ (δι᾿ ὀλίγων). Various interpreters take this characterisation at face value, and thus seek to explain why the Petrine author   Porter, Verbal Aspect, 228–30; idem, Idioms, 36–37.   Earlier advocates include: Luther 236; Steiger 2:312; Lillie 331; Plumptre 159; Mason 435; Masterman 171; Blenkin 125. For more recent defences, see Dubis 173–74, and Forbes 184. 73   So, e.g., Huther 244; Johnstone 408–409; Kühl 285; Monnier 245. 74   Cf. also Gal 6.11; 1 Thess 5.1; 1 Tim 3.14. 75   On the purpose of word order (or information structure), see Runge, Discourse Grammar, 181–205. 71 72



5.12–14

627

wrote with such brevity. According to Hofmann, this was related to the copying and transmission of the letter: the author’s message was purposefully condensed to prevent the Christian communities from having to copy (and pass along) a letter of significant length.76 Selwyn, on the other hand, suggests that the letter is brief ‘in relation to the greatness and variety of its subject-matter’, which Silvanus would further elaborate upon arrival.77 The difficulty is that 1 Peter— with a total of 105 verses (or 1,679 words in NA28)—is not brief by ancient epistolary standards.78 Most of the private letters recovered from ancient Egypt were much shorter in length, averaging around 87 words in total.79 Even an epistle as short as Paul’s letter to Philemon (25 verses or 335 words in NA28) exceeded the usual size.80 Convention dictated that letters be brief.81 By mentioning the brevity (δι᾿ ὀλίγων) of his epistle, the Petrine author therefore indicates that his efforts were meant to conform to polite and accepted epistolary conventions, even if the letter scarcely manages to do so (cf. Eph 3.3; Heb 13.22; Ign. Rom. 8.2; Pol. 7.3).82   Hofmann 201.   Selwyn 242; cf. Hensler 232; Bigg 195; Blenkin 126. Along similar lines, Wordsworth suggests, ‘The Epistle is short, relatively [sic] to the importance of the subject; and the Apostle might perhaps design to prepare them by these words to receive a second Epistle from him [viz. 2 Peter], on the second or polemical portion of the subject which now occupied his thoughts’ (68; original emphasis). 78   This statement concerning the author’s brevity was one of the primary reasons why Perdelwitz questioned the unity of 1 Peter. He argued that the use of ὀλίγος to describe an epistle consisting of approximately 1,675 words was more than an exaggeration (Mysterienreligion, 16). Such a description would make better sense, he argued, if it were only meant to portray the second half of the letter (4.12–5.14). 79   This approximation is provided by Wikenhauser and Schmid, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 245, and repeated in Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, 163. 80   See Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe, 34–49. 81   According to Demetrius, ‘The length of a letter, no less than its style, must be kept within due bounds’ (De eloc. 228; cf. 231; 234). Writers were aware of these constraints. Thus, Isocrates notes that in one of his epistles he has ‘drifted beyond the due proportions of a letter and run into a lengthy discourse (οὐκ εἰς ἐπιστολῆς συμμετρίαν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς λόγου μῆκος ἐξοκείλας)’ (Ep. 2.13; trans. Norlin; cf. 8.10), and likewise, Jerome mentions the ‘brief (brevitas) limits of a letter which do not allow one to dwell too long on a particular point’ (Ep. 57.8; cf. 68.2). 82   Cf. Spicq 179; Kelly 216. 76 77

628

1 PETER

παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς ἣν στῆτε. στῆτε. By way of two adverbial participles, the purpose of the author’s letter is delineated.83 The verb παρακαλέω, which appears elsewhere in 1 Peter at 2.11 and 5.1, describes the act of appealing to or exhorting someone about a particular course of action. Even though the clause that follows (ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν κτλ.) could be understood as the indirect discourse of both participles (‘encouraging and testifying that…’; cf. NASB, RSV, NKJV), it is probably best to restrict it to simply the latter, which means that παρακαλῶν functions absolutely (cf. Rom 12.8; Heb 10.25).84 Along with exhortation, the letter is also intended to affirm certain truths, as indicated by the verb ἐπιμαρτυρέω. This verb appears nowhere else in the NT (cf. Heb 2.4: συνεπιμαρτυρέω), although it is found occasionally in Jewish literature (e.g., Neh 13.15; Let. Aris. 197, 258). Contrary to the assumption made by some scholars, this prefixed (ἐπι–) form does not indicate that the Petrine author was providing additional testimony, as though he needed to go beyond what had earlier been given by Paul and Silas,85 or as though the readers already knew and believed what the author had testified.86 Rather, ἐπιμαρτυρέω functions in much the same way as the non-prefixed form, meaning simply to bear witness to a fact or to provide testimony to the truth of something.87

83   Most interpreters understand παρακαλῶν and ἐπιμαρτυρῶν as denoting purpose (e.g., Masterman 172; Windisch 81; Richard 227; Vahrenhorst 201). 84   See BDAG 765. Cf. Knopf 199; Goppelt 372; Elliott 877; Forbes 184. The NIV captures the sense well: ‘encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God’ (cf. also NRSV, HCSB, NET, CJB, GNT, EHV, LEB, NAB). 85   Those who have assigned the ἐπι- prefixed form a cumulative force (‘testifying additionally to’) include: Bengel 83; de Wette 60; Burger 257; Blenkin 126; Beare 209. Alternatively, some understand the prefix as conveying an intensive force, ‘earnestly testify’ (e.g., Macknight 506; Goppelt 372 n. 25; Hiebert 328). 86   As argued by Hofmann 199–200. The term can denote the provision of additional information (cf. Josephus, Ant. 7.349), but there is no indication that it functions in this way here. 87   Cf. Alford 387; Hart 79; Schlosser 302. See further BDAG 375; New Docs 2:85. The non-prefixed form (μαρτυρέω) was commonly employed in the epigraphic record to describe the testimony given about the praiseworthy deeds of prominent citizens (I.Labraunda 66; SEG 15:658; IAph2007 12.612), but the prefixed form even appears on occasion (IG X,2 1 226).



5.12–14

629

It is tempting, given the manner in which the epistle contains sections of declaration and exhortation, to understand the two participles as referring to different parts of the letter, as some have suggested.88 Yet the fact that interpreters have not been able to agree where the testimony ends and the exhortation begins raises serious questions about this proposal. Indeed, despite a broad difference between the more declarative opening half of the letter (to 2.10) and a more exhortative latter half (from 2.11), declaration and exhortation are tightly woven together throughout (e.g., 1.13–25; 3.13–22). What it is exactly that the author is testifying about is the identification of something as the χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ. The difficulty lies in determining the referent of the pronoun ταύτην. Among interpreters from an earlier generation, the referent was most commonly understood as the gospel through which the audience had been converted.89 At issue, they argued, was the fact that the readers had begun to question the source of this message as a result of their trying circumstances. Whether these questions arose from the fact that the recipients were evangelised by Paul and his associates,90 or because no apostolic witnesses had been part of the process,91 what was needed was an assurance from ‘Peter’ that the gospel they had received was in fact ‘the true grace of God’. 88   According to de Wette, ‘Die erste Inhaltsangabe bezieht sich auf Cap. 1,13–5,9, die zweite auf 1,3–12 und einzelne Stt. im ermahnenden Theile wie 1,18–20. 25 2,9f. 3,18. 2.12f [sic]’ (60). On the other hand, Goppelt argues that the shift from declaration to exhortation takes place at 2.11. He notes, ‘From this beginning on long series of imperatives weave their way through the document in order to point the way regarding the fundamental posture of the Church, and especially its conduct, in the institutions of society and under circumstances of conflict with society’ (372). 89   Proponents include: Benson 309; Johnstone 412; Keil 174; Bennett 256; Monnier 246. Along similar lines, others have suggested that it refers to the Christian religion (e.g., Bloomfield 729; Barnes 207). 90   As argued by a number of interpreters (e.g., Steiger 2:312–13; Wiesinger 338; Lillie 330 Fausset 514; Plumptre 160; Cook 219; Mason 435; Sadler 147). This view was commonly advocated by the Tübingen school (see, e.g., Schwegler, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 2:22). The problem with this proposal, as pointed out by Caffin, is that ‘it seems probable that, if St. Peter had thought it necessary to give a formal sanction to St. Paul’s preaching, he would have done so plainly, as he does at the end of the Second Epistle’ (210). 91   As suggested by Kühl 286–87, and Weiss 331. Others view the sentence as offering a general confirmation of the gospel that had reached them, regardless of the agents who brought it (see Huther 246).

630

1 PETER

This view found support in the reading of the TR (which was the textual basis of many earlier commentaries and studies), where the following clause reads, εἰς ἣν ἑστήκατε (‘in which you have taken your stand’; see Text at 5.12 n. c). In this case, the perfect tense indicative (ἑστήκατε) places the focus on the past experience of the readers (cf. Rom 5.2: τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν). This particular explanation has, however, fallen out of favour in more recent times, as has the reading ἑστήκατε, given additional MS evidence and a move away from the TR. Recent interpreters have been somewhat more divided over the referent. Many have understood ταύτην as a reference to the letter itself.92 In this case, the feminine gender of the demonstrative pronoun is sometimes explained through its modification of an implied ἐπιστολή (‘epistle’). More than just a simple piece of papyrus (or parchment?) inscribed with writing, this correspondence is God’s gracious gift to the Anatolian congregations. One of the major problems with this proposal, however, is that it requires a great deal to be read into the sentence. The nominative ἐπιστολή is not actually present, and as advocates themselves have admitted, the feminine gender of ταύτην could just as easily be explained through its connection with χάριν. There are numerous instances in Greek literature in which ‘[a] pronoun subject may be made to agree with the predicate noun’.93 Moreover, when this interpretation is applied to the relative clause that follows, further information must be supplied to make sense of the directives. To ‘stand in this [grace]’ means maintaining steadfast commitment; but what is unstated—and thus necessary to complete the logic of the sentence—is that one maintains this commitment by heeding the instructions contained in the epistle. In order to avoid some of these shortcomings, many scholars identify the referent of ταύτην more specifically as ‘the general contents and worldview of the letter, i.e., its affirmations regarding the Christian message and ethic’.94 Nevertheless, this suggestion 92   So, e.g., Demarest 278; Michaels 308–10, Davids 200; McKnight 279 n. 13; Skaggs 74; Jobes 323–24; Donelson 154 n. d; Forbes 184; Schreiner 289; cf. Popp, ‘Theologie der Anerkennung’, 193. 93   BDF §132(1). 94   Dubis 175; cf. Masterman 172; Bigg 196; Mitchell 284; Wheaton 1248; Grudem 201; Marshall 174; Achtemeier 352; Bartlett 318; Harink 129; Vinson 244; Schlosser 301; Watson 125.



5.12–14

631

contains its own problems. In particular, it results in an unsatisfactory tautology. As Wand points out, ‘If [ταύτην] refers merely to the contents of the present epistle, it would be equivalent to saying, “I write this epistle in order to confirm the contents of this epistle”, which is absurd’.95 But perhaps the most problematic aspect of both of these proposals is that they do not adequately account for the presence of ἀληθής as an attributive modifier of χάρις (see below). Another possibility is to connect ταύτην with the antecedent use of χάρις in v. 10.96 In this case, the author’s purpose would be to validate the audience’s experience of God’s grace in light of evidence that seems to speak to the contrary. The point to which he testifies is that the favour that God is currently pouring out upon believers (1.2, 10; 4.10) as well as the benefits that they will experience upon the return of Christ (1.13; 3.7; 5.5) are in fact legitimate. In contrast to the previous suggestion, which requires an implied ἐπιστολή, this proposal has the benefit of a feminine noun in relatively close proximity. But while it is much closer to the mark, this interpretation may not fully capture the Petrine author’s meaning.

  Wand 128.   As argued by Elliott 878; cf. also Kelly 216; Goppelt 372–73; Senior 154; Witherington 247. Along similar lines Martin (Metaphor and Composition, 57–58; idem, ‘Faith: Its Qualities, Attributes’, 59 n. 39) suggests that the following χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 12) is the postcedent of the relative pronoun. In his defence of this view, Martin challenges the claim of Michaels (309) that such a proposal creates an awkward tautology. Martin’s refutation of this criticism is grounded in the assumption that ‘the adjective ἀληθῆ [“true”, “genuine”] occurs in the predicate but not in the subject’. In other words, ‘Ταύτην with its understood antecedent χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ [‘this grace of God’] is the subject of the sentence’, while ‘[ἀ]ληθῆ functions as the predicate adjective and the phrase χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ is placed beside it for emphasis. Thus, the author testifies, “This grace from God is genuine grace from God” ’ (Metaphor and Composition, 57–58; original emphasis). While Martin’s explanation and translation appear to remove the sting of Michaels’ criticism, the tautology still remains. Ultimately, the problem lies in the nature of the relative antecedents: if ταύτην refers to χάριν in v. 12, then this reference must encapsulate the whole phrase (ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ). Martin seeks to limit this to the phrase (χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ); thus, he is able to make the subject and predicate distinct. In the end, however, if χάριν in v. 12 is the post�cedent of ταύτην, then the subject and predicate would be identical (‘The true grace of God is the true grace of God’). 95 96

632

1 PETER

A final suggestion is to take the referent of ταύτην as the suffering experienced by the Anatolian Christians.97 This hypothesis is grounded, in part, on the similarities with the use of χάρις in 2.19–20, where the author offered comparable defining comments (τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις… τοῦτο χάρις παρὰ θεῷ).98 It should be noted, however, that there are significant differences: the feminine (ταύτην) rather than neuter (τοῦτο) pronoun, and the focus in 5.12 on what is χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ rather than παρὰ θεω. Here, the author’s attention is clearly directed on the gift or favour that originates with God, rather than on the response of χάρις on the part of the recipients. Nonetheless, the parallel may suggest the possibility that 5.12 refers in some way to the situation addressed in the letter— specifically the experience of unjust suffering. One of the attractions of this view is that it makes sense both of the author’s insistence that this (surprising) depiction of χάρις is indeed ‘true’ (ἀληθῆ), and also of his exhortation that they ‘stand firm in it’ (i.e., despite the suffering that it currently entails). On this interpretation the use of the attributive adjective ἀληθής (‘genuine’, ‘true’) to describe χάρις is the key to understanding the referent of the demonstrative pronoun.99 In and of itself, there is nothing unusual about an adjectival modifier for the term χάρις. What is strange is the use of an adjective like ἀληθής, which verifies the 97   So, e.g., Usteri 227–29; Reicke 133; Brox 244–45; Boring 181; Richard 227–28. 98   This connection is drawn upon by Brox, who notes, ‘Das Demostra�tivpronomen τοῦτο (2, 19.20) bzw. ταύτην (5, 12b) zeigt dabei nicht auf Sklavenlos bzw. Verfolgung als solche, sondern—in der Sprache des 1 Petr—auf angenommenes (unverschuldetes) Leiden. Darüber wollte der Brief in allen seinen Teilen belehren und dadurch trösten und zur Hoffnung animieren: Ungerecht leiden müssen ist wegen der Verbindung zur Passion Christi die Gnade. Dieses Resümee verweist nicht auf die Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit der Gnade trotz des “Leidens”, sondern im oder als “Leiden”… Gnade hat—so zeigt Ps-Petrus in 2, 18-25—diese “Gestalt”; sie wird in der Form von Hoffnung (oder Freude) im Leiden Wirklichkeit’ (245; original emphasis). 99   In a few places, the focus of ἀληθής is on reliability which finds its basis in truth (cf. John 5.31–32; 21.24; Titus 1.13; 3 John 12). Understood in this manner, some render the term as ‘dependable’ or ‘reliable’ (so Elliott 878–79; Forbes 184). Yet this usage is normally connected to spoken testimony (μαρτυρία or μαρτυρέω), which lends itself to this translation; such is not the case in the present verse. It is better to view the adjective as relating to that which is true; hence the translation ‘genuine’ or ‘real’ (cf. Goppelt 373 n. 26).



5.12–14

633

legitimacy of something. There are no comparable examples from the Greek literary or documentary evidence where ἀληθής functions in an attributive relationship with χάρις.100 But it is not just any χάρις that is ‘true’/‘genuine’; it is ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ. While the expression ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ is rare, it does occur elsewhere. Plato uses the phrase to describe ways of cultivating the ‘favour of the goddess’ (Leg. 796c; cf. Luke 2.40), and other authors employ it to describe the benefits that the gods bestow on humans.101 This latter usage is most prominent in Jewish and Christian literature, where it refers to the munificence that God lavishly bestows upon people (cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.14; 4.60; 5.54, 107, 280). Among NT authors, God’s gifts are thought to manifest themselves in a variety of ways.102 Although the gift of Christ is often the primary focus (Rom 5.15; 1 Cor 1.4; Heb 2.9), God’s χάρις is also evident as the empowering gift through which God animates and strengthens people of faith (1 Cor 15.10; 1 Clem. 55.3; Ign. Rom. praescr.; Mart. Pol. 7.3). Often, ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ serves to summarise in a general way all of the benefits God brings to believers (Acts 20.24; Col 1.6; Acts John 52).103 From this evidence, it is clear that the phrase ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ always represents something positive. How then does this relate to the addition of ἀληθής? On this view, by adding the attributive 100   The only example that comes close to the present usage postdates 1 Peter by a few centuries: τὴν δὲ διὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν χάριν ἀληθῆ καὶ τελείαν εἶναι πιστεύομεν (Cyril of Alexandria Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate [PG 75:597]). 101   See, e.g., Cyranides 1.1; Aelius Aristides, Εἰς τὸ φρέαρ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ, p. 252 (Jebb); Πανηγυρικὸς ἐπὶ τῷ ὕδατι ἐν Περγάμῳ line 10; Συμμαχικὸς βʹ (πρὸς Θηβαίους περὶ τῆς συμμαχίας) p. 495 (Jebb); cf. Sent. Sextus 436b. 102   It is noteworthy that when Philo describes the ‘grace of God’, he often employs the plural: αἱ χάριτες τοῦ θεοῦ (Opif. 168; Leg. 2.80; 3.163, 164; Post. 145; Plant. 93; Ebr. 32, 149; Mut. 268; Ios. 198; Spec. 1.285; Praem. 101, 168; QG 1.89; QE 1.1; 2.71). In each case, he uses the expression to represent the blessings and benefits that God pours out upon humanity (cf. Leg. 3.78; Deus 107). 103   At times, this expression indicates the sphere of Christian existence in which God’s beneficence is experienced (Acts 13.43), or even the final salvation when believers will inherit their ultimate reward (Heb 12.15). On occasion, the expression is used in such a way that the reception of God’s χάρις seems to involve certain reciprocal responsibilities (Eph 3.2, 7; 1 Pet 4.10), which can be neglected, spurned, or even perverted through an inadequate response (1 Cor 15.10; 2 Cor 6.1; Gal 2.21; Jude 4).

634

1 PETER

adjective, the author attempts to convince the readers that a situation that includes something undesirable (ταύτην) is in fact a benefit (ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ). This would seem to rule out referents such as gospel preaching, the letter, and its contents, for the audience would have considered all of these desirable benefits. By contrast, the conflict that they were experiencing, and the suffering it entailed, contrary to the way it might appear, actually represents God’s beneficence.104 But some caution must be exercised here. Given the extent to which χάρις is associated with the salvation soon to be brought to its eschatological fulfilment (cf. 1.13; 3.7; 5.5), a time of inexpressible joy for which the readers are urged to hope, it would be one-sided to align the author’s view of χάρις too closely with suffering itself, as Brox does when he defines this grace (Gnade) as ‘having to suffer unjustly’ (Ungerecht leiden müssen).105 Nevertheless, there are good reasons to argue that this experience of unjust suffering is at least a significant part of what the author depicts and understands as the χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ.106 First, just as the author defines what the prophets foresaw as ‘the sufferings and subsequent glories destined for Christ’ (1.11), so too we might see ‘the divine χάρις destined for you’ (1.10) as encompassing both the faithful endurance of suffering while doing good, and the hope of a joyful future salvation and a reward of honour and glory (1.7). Second, the letter stresses the importance of ‘following in 104   Michaels objects to this proposal on the grounds that it represents a new thought introduced only at the conclusion of the epistle. He writes, ‘If this is his meaning, then he is introducing it here for the first time, presumably as the implication of all that he has said before. It is surprising that he would make such a profound statement so briefly and abruptly by weaving it into his epistolary conclusion’ (309). However, the statement would encapsulate what has been a primary thrust of the author’s message (cf., e.g., 1.6–7; 2.19–20; 3.14–17; 4.12–19) and, as Weima (Neglected Endings) has demonstrated, letter closings were used to summarise the main ideas developed in the body of the epistle. 105   Brox 245. In an earlier publication, it was argued that in 5.12 the Petrine author seeks to ‘redefine the nature of χάρις for his audience’ such that ‘suffering was God’s favour toward them’ (Williams, ‘Reciprocity and Suffering’, 435–36); but this seems to have been a little too one-dimensional. It is perhaps better to stress that this suffering is (strikingly) a part of what God’s χάρις includes, although not the full package. Cf. Horrell, ‘Gift and Grace in 1 Peter’, 157–76. 106   There might be some parallel in Paul’s discussion of his ‘thorn in the flesh’ and the paradoxical combination of power in weakness: How much of Paul’s experience is encompassed by ἡ χάρις μου (2 Cor 12.9)?



5.12–14

635

Christ’s steps’ and sharing in his sufferings (2.21–25; 4.1, 13) on a path that leads from suffering to glory and reward (1.7). Third, the letter is clear, whatever the theological difficulties this raises, that the recipients’ suffering can be attributed to God’s will (3.17: κρεῖττον γὰρ ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, πάσχειν ἢ κακοποιοῦντας; 4.19: οἱ πάσχοντες κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ). Fourth, this would also make sense of the author’s view that enduring unjust suffering as Christ did, without retaliation or violence (2.19–23), is itself χάρις—an appropriate response to the initial and greater χάρις of God. Indeed, this last comment suggests that it might be possible to take the reference to the χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ in 5.12 in an expansive sense, not least given the emphatic declaration shortly before in 5.10 that God is the source of all χάρις. The primary source and focus of the gift-giving is God, whose beneficent favour brings both suffering in the present and the promise of glory, salvation, and joy in the future. As was indicated in 4.10, God’s χάρις weaves its way through a network of relationships, and 2.19–20 makes clear that enduring unjust suffering is an expression of responsive χάρις, a facet of the relationships of giving and reciprocating in which God’s initiating gift is the primary—but not the sole—activity.107 The demonstrative (ταύτην) of v. 12 may then point to this rich network of χάρις-filled relationships, encapsulating in this sense the central message of the letter.108

107   In this case, the genitive in the expression χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 12) might perhaps even be read subjectively, as is sometimes suggested for some instances of the Pauline πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, though this seems unlikely here; perhaps more likely, it might be seen to encompass the imbalanced reciprocity entailed in both the receiving and giving of χάρις in relation to God (cf. Eve 1269–70, who suggests that χάρις here ‘may mean both eschatological salvation and that which is pleasing to God’). This would be similar to the way in which both subjective and objective aspects of the genitive sense have been suggested in some treatments of the πίστις Χριστοῦ issue, where a more two-way reciprocity is suggested (see, e.g., Hooker, From Adam to Christ, 165–86; Morgan, Roman Faith). 108   The feminine ταύτην may be explained by assimilation to χάρις: ‘this’ points to all that is entailed in the divine χάρις, as outlined in the letter. By contrast, the neuter τοῦτο in 2.19–20 points primarily towards an action (suffering unjustly). Brox (245) makes the two demonstratives too closely equivalent, thus failing to explain why the genders are different. See further Horrell, ‘Gift and Grace in 1 Peter’, 170–73.

636

1 PETER

Further confirmation of this interpretation can be found in the relative clause (εἰς ἣν στῆτε) that follows. It is clear that the antecedent of the pronoun ἥν is the previously mentioned χάριν. The difficulty comes when we attempt to unravel the textual and syntactical problems surrounding the clause. The reading στῆτε is somewhat disputed. In the majority of later manuscripts, the aorist imperative/subjective is replaced by the perfect indicative ἑστήκατε. As such, the text becomes a declarative statement about the positive steps the readers have taken to endure their current hardships (‘in which you have taken your stand’). Yet both internal and external considerations support the reading στῆτε (see Text at 5.12 n. c).109 The question is thus whether the form should be taken as an imperative or a subjunctive, since both share the same form in the aorist tense. While a few scholars have argued for the latter, claiming that the form expresses a closing hope or wish that the readers might persevere in the knowledge that their suffering is a blessing,110 most read στῆτε as an imperative, meant to serve as a final (and summary) directive for the audience. Rather than simplifying the task of interpretation, however, the resolution of the textual problem only complicates the issue, in part because the best textual reading is a lectio difficilior. The imperatival form στῆτε, which (metaphorically) describes a firm dedication that resists any temptation to turn away from one’s faith commitment (cf. Eph 6.14; Mart. Pol. 3.1), creates difficulties on two levels. First, some argue that the imperative is abrupt and awkward, leaving ταύτην without any further definition or description.111 But this problem is resolved with the account presented above of the way in which the author seeks to redefine ‘genuine’ χάρις. If the author’s referent of ταύτην is understood to include the situation of suffering as part of God’s larger favour that has been poured out on the readers, then it makes much more sense. The imperative challenges them to continue steadfast in the faith despite

  More recently, Zerwick (Biblical Greek, 37 [§111]) has argued that the aorist imperative is the original reading, but through this form the Petrine author meant to communicate the declarative sense of the perfective indicative (cf. Kelly 217; Spicq 178). 110   E.g., Goppelt 373; Richard 228. 111   See Kelly 217; Davids 201 n. 9; Elliott 879. 109



5.12–14

637

the difficulties they face (cf. 2.20; 4.19). It is not a shift in tone, but a continuation and summary of the paraenesis that has marked the letter and especially the final peroratio (cf. 5.9–10). The second level at which the imperatival relative clause creates difficulty concerns the grammar: whereas the preposition εἰς normally denotes movement, the verb ἵστημι is not a verb of motion.112 To explain this combination, some have suggested that εἰς denotes purpose (‘for which’).113 This finds support in the fact that elsewhere in 1 Peter the preposition functions in the same way (cf. 1.3, 4, 5; 2.8). Most interpreters consider that such an explanation is unnecessary, however. Instead, they understand εἰς as carrying a locative sense (‘in which’), and this seems a well founded judgment.114 In the Koine period, εἰς was slowly encroaching upon the duties of ἐν, with the result that it commonly exerted a locative force, describing a position within a given area (cf. Mark 1.9; John 1.18; Acts 19.22).115 What is more, when εἰς is used for ἐν, it often occurs in connection with the verb ἵστημι.116 Its use with the imperatival form (στῆτε) is even found on occasion (Euripides, Iph. aul. 620; Athanasius, Sermo pro iis qui saeculo renuntiarunt [PG 28:1420]). Although somewhat unusual, then, the final phrase of the verse can cogently be understood as an imperative exhortation: ‘stand firm in it’, that is, the true grace of God, despite the extent to which this divine beneficence entails and includes trials and suffering. 112   Because of this, Hofmann (199) argued that the imperative would have required the prepositional phrase ἐν ᾗ. Interestingly enough, the prepositional phrase ἐν ᾗ does not appear in the textual record, regardless of whether the imperative or indicative is used (see ECM 200). This means either that scribes were reading the preposition differently or that Hofmann’s assessment is not quite accurate. 113   E.g., von Soden 166; Blenkin 126; Michaels 310. An alternative view is proposed by Reicke, who translates the preposition as though it were causal, ‘in view of it’ (133). 114   E.g., Selwyn 243; Bénétreau 281 n. 1; Achtemeier 352–53; Elliott 879; Schreiner 289 n. 7; Dubis 175–76. 115   See Robertson, Grammar, 591–93; MHT 3:255–56; BDF §205; Harris, Prepositions, 84–88. For fuller discussion of the use of εἰς in place of ἐν, see Regard, Contribution à l’étude des prepositions, 330–49. 116   E.g., Neh 4.7; T.Ab. 12.18; Hist. Rech. 17.3; Luke 6.8; John 20.19, 26; 21.4; Acts 22.30; Josephus, Ant. 5.54; 6.125; 12.98; Herm. Sim. 8.5.1, 4; 9.15.1.

638

1 PETER

13 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου. μου. Following immediately after the author’s final hortatory instructions (‘stand firm in [this grace]’, v. 12), we find the closing greeting.117 Generally, epistolary greetings are placed before the final blessing, as here.118 In many Hellenistic letters, the greeting involved an exhortation whereby the author requests that the addressee(s) greet (present: ἀσπάζου; aorist: ἀσπάσαι) a third party on his/her behalf. This might be followed by a subsequent form of greeting wherein the author acts as an agent who communicates a message of greeting to the addressee(s) on behalf of a third party.119 This pattern is reversed by the Petrine author. Two key questions surround the greeting formula used here. The first is the identity of ἡ συνεκλεκτή. This term is not found anywhere else in the NT, nor is it represented in other sources prior to this point. Given the feminine gender of the term, along with the fact that two other individuals are mentioned in the letter’s closing (Silvanus and Mark),120 some have read συνεκλεκτή as referring to an individual woman.121 The phrase is thus translated, ‘the co-elect woman in Babylon’. 117   On epistolary greetings in the Hellenistic world, see Exler, Ancient Greek Letter, 111–12; Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie, 148–51; Mullins, ‘Greetings as a New Testament Form’, 418–26. 118   Some have claimed that by the second century CE, the greeting had moved entirely, shifting from the closing formula to the epistolary opening (see Exler, Ancient Greek Letter, 112; White, ‘Structural Analysis of Philemon’, 19). 119   An example of a letter that contains both a request for the addressee to extend greetings to third parties as well as the communication of greetings directed at the addressee is P.Bingen. 74: ἄσπασαι Λουκρήτιν καὶ Εὔτυχον καὶ Ἀπφῦν. ⟦καὶ Ἀπολλώνια̣ν. καὶ⟧ ἀσπάζεταί σε Ἀν̣τώνις καὶ Κοπρο̣ῦς ̣ ̣ καὶ Νεφωτιανός (‘Greet Lukretias, Eutychos, and Apphys ⟦and Apollonia⟧. Antonios, Koprous, and Nephotianos greet you’). 120   Further support is offered by Alford, who suggests that since the letter is addressed to individuals who are ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι (1.1), the ‘fellow elect’ (συνεκλεκτή) in 5.13 should therefore be an individual as well (388). 121   See, e.g., Heumann, Nova sylloge dissertationum, 110–13. Wolff (171–72) notes the possibility (although he does not accept it) that the term could be understood as a proper name of a female church member (Συνεκλεκτῆς). While he does not specifically refer to the gender of the individual, Rodgers does consider the possibility that ἡ συνεκλεκτή might refer to an individual, noting that ‘Paul uses a similar cryptic mode of expression to commend a co-worker in 2 Cor 8:18’. This



5.12–14

639

One specific version of this proposal, found among some earlier interpreters, entails the suggestion that ἡ συνεκλεκτή refers to the wife of Peter.122 Based on the mention of Cephas (and other apostles) being accompanied by a believing spouse, in Paul’s discussion of his apostolic ‘rights’ (1 Cor 9.5), it is argued that Peter’s wife played an important role in his missionary efforts (cf. Matt 8.14). If this were so, it would be consistent with the reports about her martyrdom (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.11.63 [= Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.30.2]), which would have presumably required a prominent role in Christian activity.123 Furthermore, the fact that her death was known in the early church suggests that she possessed considerable reputation, potentially enough for the readers to grasp such a veiled reference. This proposal finds additional support in the fact that the greeting also derives from Mark, who is said to be the ‘son’ (υἱός) of the author.124 If a literal, familial relationship is meant, then it would seem quite natural to include a reference to the author’s wife at this point as well. But this theory faces serious problems. As others have pointed out, it seems strange that the Petrine author would use such an enigmatic designation for his wife, given that he lists two other persons by name. This is especially noteworthy since the individuals he mentions (Silvanus and Mark) were well-known figures in the early church. If συνεκλεκτή were a reference to an individual woman, we would have to assume that her reputation extended beyond both of theirs to the point that the readers could identify her through merely a veiled reference. leads him to hypothesise, ‘Perhaps here we have yet another collaborator in the writing of the letter’ (3). 122   This view was primarily limited to an earlier generation of interpreters (e.g., Bengel 83; Pott 154; Jachmann 174; Alford 388; Plumptre 160; Caffin 210; Mitchell 285; Bigg 197; cf. Mill, Novum Testamentum, 562; Mayerhoff, Einleitung, 126–27; Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung, 2:313 n. 2). 123   This description from Clement stands in contrast to another strand of early Christian tradition which emphasised Peter’s disassociation from (and even dislike of) women. According to Origen, Peter forsook his wife and children when he went to Rome (Origen, Comm. Matt. 15.21; cf. Matt 19.27). In some Gnostic literature, Peter was an outspoken opponent of women in general (Pistis Sophia 72; Gos. Thom. 114). Further, one passage from the Acts of Philip records that ‘Peter fled from every place where a woman was’ (15.142; trans. James). 124   Bigg 197.

640

1 PETER

Similar difficulties apply to another proposal that identifies ἡ συνεκλεκτή as a specific, individual woman. Applegate has suggested that the title refers to a prominent woman who was well known to the Christian congregations in Asia Minor due to her prior missionary work in the area. According to her reconstruction, this woman played a key role in the letter’s overall social strategy: ‘Her particular participation as a sender of this letter would have been important in order to help authorize the household code, because this code was expected to find resistance from women who were Christian leaders in Asia Minor’.125 In support, she points out that personal greetings are sent from named women in other NT epistles (cf. 1 Cor 16.19; 2 Tim 4.21). But the proposal remains specula�tive (especially given more compelling explanations; see below). Despite the fact that Applegate builds her case on the evidence of other prominent women in the early church, it is difficult to find any clear examples where these influential female leaders were so well known that titles were sufficient to replace their personal names.126 A further difficulty with the ‘individual woman’ interpretation is the definiteness of ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή. The phrase, as it stands, would seem to exclude the presence of any other ‘elect ones’ in Babylon apart from the one so designated.127 This would be problematic in reference to one individual. If this were the author’s wife, we might have expected a designation which indicated the temporality of her residence in ‘Babylon’, such as νῦν, ‘the co-elect who is now in Babylon’,128 or, if the συν-compound referred to the relationship with the author, then perhaps we might have expected an alternative for ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, like the pronoun μου, ‘my fellow-elect’.129   Applegate, ‘Co-Elect Woman’, 604.   Applegate (‘Co-Elect Woman’, 602–603) appeals to the openings of 2 and 3 John to support the idea that 1 Peter might include ‘a greeting from a woman known so well that she is referred to only by title’ (603; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Adum. 4.437, who believed that 2 John was written to a Babylonian woman named Electa). Yet, unlike the opening of 3 John, addressed to a named (male) individual, the anonymous addressee (otherwise unknown) of 2 John 1 (ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία) may refer to a Christian assembly, as many commentators argue (see, e.g., Brown, Epistles of John, 651–55). The referent is at least uncertain. 127   Cf. Steiger 2:314; Johnstone 413–14; Fausset 514. 128   As pointed out by Hensler 236. 129   As noted by various interpreters (e.g., Usteri 229; Keil 174; Best 177). 125 126



5.12–14

641

Rather than interpreting συνεκλεκτή as an individual, therefore, most scholars understand the term as referring to a church or a collection of Christian communities (cf. 1 Cor 16.19, where others send their greetings).130 With this designation, the author establishes a common identity between his readers, whom he describes as ἐκλεκτοί (1 Pet 1.1; 2.9), and the Christian communities in ‘Babylon’, who are συνεκλεκτή (thus, the συν prefix indicates that they are ‘co-elect’ with the readers, not the author). This was how the term was read by early Christian scribes. To make this interpretation clearer, some re-wrote the sentence in a plural form (ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτοί; 18422, boms), while others inserted the word ἐκκλησία (‫א‬marg, 88, 326, 1845c, 2805, syp). The latter approach is the same taken in many modern versions, which translate the phrase, ‘the church in Babylon’ (cf. NRSV, KJV, NET, HCSB, CEB, NCV, NLT). Many commentators, likewise, assume that the word ἐκκλησία has been elided from the sentence.131 Yet nowhere else in the NT is ἐκλεκτός used to describe an ἐκκλησία. Other possibilities have also been suggested.132 The best option, however, may simply be to read ἡ συνεκλεκτή as it stands. The designation represents the church at Rome as a female figure—regardless of whether the letter actually originated (see further Introduction: Place of Origin). It is a gendered representation that, however problematic from a modern critical perspective, has plenty of precedent and parallel in Jewish and early Christian literature.133 There may be a relevant parallel in 2 John 1, where the 130   E.g., Keil 174; Mason 435–36; Usteri 229; Burger 257; Lumby 230; Masterman 172; Bennett 256; Hart 80; Lenski 231; Best 177–78; Feldmeier 254–55; Green 183; Prigent 146; Witherington 248; Vahrenhorst 201. 131   See, e.g., Beza 586; Monnier 247; Selwyn 243; Donelson 155; Schreiner 290–91. 132   Some think that the feminine gender may indicate a reference to διασπορά in 1.1 (Capellus 309–10; Wordsworth 68; von Soden 167; cf. also Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 145–46). But the sense created by this proposal (‘fellow-elect dispersion’) is rather awkward. More recently, scholars have advocated the elision of the closer referent, ἀδελφότης in 5.9 (also 2.17; Elliott 882; Senior 154; Jobes 322; Schlosser 302; Watson 126). Proximity might suggest that this proposal has better explanatory merit than ἐκκλησία, but it too is unnecessary. In this instance, there is no reason to assume that anything has been elided from the sentence (see Hofmann 202). 133   See, e.g., the depictions of Israel as the wife of YHWH (Jer 3; Hos 1–3) and the church as the bride of Christ (2 Cor 11.2; Eph 5.24–32).

642

1 PETER

addressee is represented as ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία (‘elect lady’), though here too there is uncertainty about collective or individual identity (see n. 126 above). The second key question that surrounds the epistolary closing is the location of this Christian community, which is said to be ‘in Babylon’ (ἐν Βαβυλῶνι). What location does this indicate? One possibility that has been suggested is that the ‘Babylon’ referred to is a military stronghold at the southern end of the Nile Delta, founded, according to Josephus (Ant. 2.315), by Cambyses (II), the Persian king who expanded the empire of Cyrus the Great into Egypt in the sixth century BCE, and, according to Strabo, a base for three Roman legions in his time (Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.30; cf. also Diodorus Siculus 1.56.3).134 From Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.16.1), we learn that some early fathers connected Mark with the spread of the gospel in Egypt, which would then explain why he is referenced in the present verse. However, the lack of any church tradition connecting Peter or Silvanus with Babylon on the Nile is problematic. Perhaps more crucial is the lack of evidence to suggest that this location was anything more than a military post during the first century CE. Consistent with the fact that Peter was ‘the apostle to the circumcision’, meaning that the focus of his ministry would be in an area that contained a large Jewish population, many older commentators thought that Βαβυλών referred to the Mesopotamian city along the Euphrates River, which formerly served as the capital of the Babylonian empire.135 However, there is also considerable evidence to suggest that by the first century CE the city lay largely abandoned. According to Josephus, the Jewish community in Babylon was driven out of the city during the reign of Claudius (41–54 CE) and forced to settle in Seleucia (Ant. 18.310–79).136 Dating back   So, e.g., Calov 129–30; Wolf 171; cf. Pearson, Minor Theological Works, 2:342–66; Wall, Brief Critical Notes, 357; Manley, ‘Babylon on the Nile’, 138–46; Altheim and Stiehl, Christentum am Roten Meer, 2:298; Fedalto, ‘Il toponimo di 1 Petr. 5,13’, 461–66. 135   For a fuller discussion of this issue, see Introduction: Place of Origin. 136   Josephus reports their departure for Seleucia, on the Tigris (Ant. 18.372), and thence, after a massacre of many, to Nearda and Nisibis (Ant. 18.379). Cf. also Manley, ‘Babylon’, 143. Seufert (‘Abfassungsort’ 148) notes a third possible ‘Babylon’: new-Babylon/Seleucia on the Tigris. But quite apart from questions 134



5.12–14

643

to the first century BCE, the city seems to have been rather small. Diodorus Siculus notes, ‘of Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time, and most of the area within its walls is given over to agriculture’ (2.9.9; trans. Oldfather [LCL]; though cf. Josephus, Ant. 15.14). Furthermore, while Trajan had anticipated visiting the famed city during the early second century CE, upon arrival he found ‘nothing but mounds and stones and ruins’ (Cassius Dio 68.30.1; trans. Cary [LCL]). This situation of abandonment is supported by other contemporary reports as well.137 Therefore, it appears that when 1 Peter was composed, the city of Babylon was relatively desolate. Moreover, a Babylonian provenance also suffers from the fact that there is no tradition linking Peter with Mesopotamia. This silence is noteworthy considering the overwhelming testimony related to Peter’s ministry and death in Rome. The characteristics and content of the letter also suggest its origins within regions more contiguous with those of the Pauline mission (see further Introduction: Place of Origin). What this view does correctly discern is that the reference to ‘Babylon’ in this verse is one that relates to the ancient Mesopotamian city (and the empire of which it was the centre), even if most recent commentators agree that this is highly unlikely to indicate the actual place of the letter’s origin. More likely, the name is being used as some kind of metaphorical reference, denoting the letter’s place of origin as ‘Babylon’. Most recognise that the designation connects with the earlier reference to the Anatolian readers as ‘elect sojourners in the diaspora’ (1.1).138 The author thus creates an inclusio by which he frames his audience’s newly ascribed social identity. This sense of alienation has led some to the conclusion that ‘Babylon’ functions only on a general metaphorical level, without about whether a writer would refer to Seleucia as ‘Babylon’, the decisive objections against Mesopotamian Babylon as 1 Peter’s place of origin largely apply to Seleucia as well. 137   According to Strabo, ‘the greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say what one of the comic poets said in reference to the Megalopolitans in Arcadia: “The Great City is a great desert” ’ (Geogr. 16.1.5; trans. Jones [LCL]). Similarly, Pliny the Elder notes, ‘in all other respects the place [i.e., Babylon] has gone back to a desert, having been drained of its population by the proximity of Seleucia’ (Nat. 6.122; trans. Rackham [LCL]). 138   See Perkins 81–82; Richard 229–30; Watson 126.

644

1 PETER

providing any indication about the specific geographic location— or the depicted geographical location—of the author. The point of this language, it is argued, is simply to help the Christian readers recognise their estranged place in the world.139 However, such an argument overlooks the prominent use of the Rome–Babylon connection in Jewish and Christian sources. After the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 587/86 BCE, the name ‘Babylon’ came to symbolise arrogance and immorality which would be destroyed by God (Isa 13; 43.14; Jer 50.29; 51.1–58). With the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the connection between Rome and Babylon was naturally adduced. Following this event, Jewish and Christian authors alike applied the label ‘Babylon’ to Rome in an effort to signify the oppressive and immoral character of Roman domination, which opposed God and mistreated God’s people.140 This connection led early readers of the epistle to the conclusion that a specific location stood behind the metaphor. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.15.2), both Papias and Clement of Alexandria testify to the fact that the letter was written (by Peter) in Rome (cf. also Jerome, Vir. ill. 8.2). This also finds expression in some ancient manuscript evidence. Although the evidence is late, there are a few minuscules that replace Βαβυλῶνι with Ῥώμῃ (1611c, 1890, 2138).141 Modern scholars have therefore generally read the designation as a symbolic reference to the city of Rome, whether or not this is seen as the actual location of writing.142 But does the use of the cipher ‘Babylon’ carry with it any further implications beyond the implied location of the author?   See, e.g., Heussi, Die römische Petrustradition, 36–41; Boismard, ‘Une liturgie [II]’, 181; Prete, ‘L’espressione ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή’, 335–52. 140   Cf. 2 Bar. 11.1; 67.7; 77.12, 17, 19; 79.1; 80.4; 4 Ezra 3.1–5.20; 10.19–48; 11.1–12.51; 15.43–63; 16.1–34; Sib. Or. 3.63–74, 303–13; 5.137–78; Rev 14.8; 16.19; 18.2, 10, 21. This trend was continued in rabbinic literature, see Str-B 3:816. On this issue, see further Hunzinger, ‘Babylon als Deckname’, 67–77. 141   See ECM 200. 142   See further Introduction: Place of Origin. This was the position among some early interpreters (e.g., Hofmann 202–203; Wiesinger 340–41; Schott 346–60), and in more recent scholarship, it has become the consensus opinion. Another suggestion that circulated among an earlier generation of scholars is that the name ‘Babylon’ is a metaphorical designation for the city of Jerusalem (so, e.g., Capellus 309–10; Harnack, Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenäus, 459). This view is also represented in one later minuscule (330), which reads, Σιὼν ἐκλεκτή for συνεκλεκτή. 139



5.12–14

645

Many interpreters are quick to deny that the reference to Rome as ‘Babylon’ contains any pejorative sense, as though the empire were a target of the author’s critique.143 The letter is thought instead to indicate a broadly peaceful and positive relationship between the church and the Roman authorities, as delineated by the author in 2.13–17. Yet, as we have shown at various points throughout the commentary, a sense of polite resistance underlies the entire letter and reflects a basic conflict in terms of how the world and its power structures are ‘mapped’.144 For Christians, the connection between Rome and Babylon, already pertinent with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, became more accentuated as persecution, trials, and executions took place. This is clear from drawings on the Roman catacombs as well as a number of early Christian sarcophagi.145 From this evidence, it appears that believers compared themselves to the three young men (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) described in the book of Daniel—though this book itself uses stories set in the conflict with Babylon to address the challenges of the later period in which it was composed. Refusing to worship the golden statue of Nebuchad­ nezzar, king of Babylon, the young men were thrown into the fiery furnace. Christians envisioned themselves in a similar situation as they refused to show reverence to the emperor by sacrificing to his image (cf. Exegesis on 2.17). In 1 Peter, the labeling of Rome with the sobriquet ‘Babylon’ is purposeful, depicting Rome in the terms of the empire classically established as the immoral oppressor of God’s people. There is no reason, however, to see the term as a deliberate code or cipher to   See, e.g., Kelly 219; Arichea–Nida 175; Brox 247; Jobes 322.   See especially, Horrell, Becoming Christian, 211–38; Williams, Good Works in 1 Peter, 211–44; Wan, Contest for Time and Space. Even without these elements of resistance within the letter, it would be difficult to separate the label ‘Babylon’ from critical implications, given its historical and literary resonances within Jewish and early Christian literature, and the various expressions of hope for Babylon to receive her due punishment (e.g., Revelation 18). 145   Roman catacombs: Wilpert, Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms, 41–42, 335–44. Sarcophagi: Wilpert, I Sarcofagi Cristiani Antichi, 259–63; Deichmann, Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage, nos. 324, 338–339, 351, 596, 718. Another source that may imply such a connection is from the Acts of Pionius 5: ‘we do not worship your gods, nor do we provide your image of gold (imagines aureas) with heavenly worship’. 143 144

646

1 PETER

conceal the author’s location or view of Rome.146 By adopting an epithet that had been (and would continue to be) used by others to convey similar perspectives, the author expresses a critical distancing from Rome’s ideology and achievements, challenging the dominant hegemonic discourse to which the readers had been exposed. In this way, he engages in a kind of labelling process of his own, turning the tables on those involved in the (negative) labelling of his community (cf. 1 Pet 4.16). As such, the reference to Babylon, while brief and allusive, plays its part in constructing the narrative worldview of the letter, in which cautious and measured critical distance from Rome finds its counterpart in allegiance to God and to Christ (cf., e.g., 2.17; 3.14–16; 4.1–4, 15–16). Finally, we must consider the identity of the second named individual in the letter’s closing: Mark. As with the case of Silvanus (v. 12), it is difficult to say much about someone who is described so briefly. The author simply refers to him as ‘Mark, my son’. Few have taken this as a literal description of natural lineage.147 Like the reference to Silvanus as a ‘faithful brother’ (πιστὸς ἀδελφός), this designation draws on the familial language commonly employed 146   Some have suggested this interpretation, as though a codeword were employed to keep Roman authorities from discovering the location of the author in the event that the letter fell into the wrong hands (e.g., Mason 436; Hart 80; Selwyn 243; Schelkle 135), but there is little reason to think that the author would have needed to use such a concealed mode of communication. As detailed elsewhere, persecution of Christians by the Roman State did not at this time follow any kind of proactive or inquisitorial method, but was largely driven by popular resentment and the accusatorial process (see Introduction: Socio-Historical Context). In any case, the Roman state did not have enough resources to facilitate a centralized network of police forces (see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 143–46), and intercepting a mildly subversive letter from a small and insignificant religious group would not qualify as a top priority. 147   One exception is Haselhurst (‘Mark, My Son’, 34–36), who claimed that Mary, described as the mother of Mark (Acts 12.12), was the wife of Peter (cf. also Bengel 83; Hottinger 145–46; Jachmann 174–75). According to tradition, Peter was married (Mark 1.29–31; 1 Cor 9.5; cf. Ps.-Clement, Recog. 7.25; 9.38; Hom. 13.11) and fathered children (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.6.52). In the Coptic fragment of the Acts of Peter, a daughter is specifically mentioned (cf. Jerome, Jov. 1.26; Augustine, Adim. 17.5; Acts Phil. 142), whom later tradition identified as Petronilla (Acts of Nereus and Achilleus 14–15). But no mention is made of a biological son. This shows that even later interpreters, who often speculated on these types of connections, understood ὁ υἱός μου to represent a figurative connection rather than membership in the author’s household.



5.12–14

647

within early Christian discourse. The apostle Paul also uses the language of fictive kinship to refer to those whom he has introduced to the gospel.148 He describes both Onesimus (Phlm 10) and Timothy as his τέκνον, ‘child’ (1 Cor 4.17; cf. 1 Tim 1.2, 18; 2 Tim 1.2; 2.1). He even employs this language to depict congregations that were founded as a result of his missionary efforts (1 Cor 4.14; Gal 4.19).149 Based on this use of procreative imagery, Benson proposed that Mark ‘was, very likely, converted to Christianity by St. Peter’.150 But there are other instances in which kinship language focuses less on spiritual progeny and more on relational connections that are built between ministerial co-workers (cf. Phil 2.22: ‘like a son with a father [Timothy] has served with me in the work of the gospel’). Given the stress on the faithfulness of Silvanus, this latter sense is likely intended here. The only Mark (Μᾶρκος) mentioned in the NT is the associate of Paul who is referenced both in Acts and the Pauline epistles. From the former, we learn that Mark’s other name was John (‘John Mark’), the son of Mary from Jerusalem (Acts 12.12, 25; 15.37). He is also said to be the cousin of Barnabas (Col 4.10). This would explain the split that occurred between Paul and Barnabas following their so-called first missionary journey. After the council that convened in Jerusalem to discuss the Gentile mission (Acts 15), the two agreed to part ways, due to a disagreement over whether Mark should accompany them on their return trip across Asia Minor. Paul refused to allow this, since Mark had earlier ‘deserted them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work’ (Acts 15.38). This relationship was apparently mended, however, as later we find Mark listed as one of Paul’s ‘fellow-labourers’ in his letter to Philemon (24; cf. 2 Tim 4.10).   See Gutierrez, La Paternité spirituelle. This same procreative imagery is employed by Clement of Alexandria: ‘everyone who is instructed in obedience to his instructor becomes a son’ (Strom. 1.1.3; cf. b. Sanh. 19b; 99b). Further, he describes the spiritually advanced teacher as ‘birthing’ (γεννάω) students in the faith (Strom. 7.12). 149   The Johannine epistles also use τέκνον in reference to the members of Christian communities (2 John 1, 4, 13; 3 John 4). The Epistle of Barnabas is likewise addressed to ‘sons and daughters’ (υἱοὶ καὶ θυγατέρες) (1.1). 150   Benson 310–11. Others have reached similar conclusions (e.g., Calvin 155; Macknight 507; Doddridge 225; Cook 220; Keil 175; Johnstone 414–15; Huther 248; Lumby 231; Masterman 31). 148

648

1 PETER

If Mark represents an actual person who was involved with the author, it would be difficult to identify him with any confidence as the associate of Paul. The name itself (Μᾶρκος) was simply too common in the ancient world to make this connection with any degree of certainty.151 But since the named individuals in the closing greeting are likely part of the device of pseudonymity,152 it seems safe to conclude that the readers are intended to draw this connection. The names of Mark and Silvanus are not, however, strong indications that the letter emanates from a ‘Petrine circle’ as has often been argued in recent scholarship, since both characters also signal strong connections with Paul.153 Later traditions universally situate Mark in Rome,154 where he is thought to have served as the interpreter and scribe of the apostle Peter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15).155 This tradition may have arisen separately; Körtner argues that it is ‘perhaps older than 1 Pet 5:13’.156 But it is possible that it is dependent on the testimony of 1 Peter.157 If so, it would be noteworthy that a fictious ascription on an early Christian document was picked up and disseminated within later church tradition as a way of legitimating early traditions about Gospel origins. 14 ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης Sometimes in the closing section of an ancient letter the recipient(s) would be urged to greet a third party on the author’s behalf. This could involve particular individuals who are specified by the writer, or it might involve generalised statements as part of a standard   A search of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (LGPN) database online produced a total of 495 instances of the name Μᾶρκος from the ancient epigraphic record. 152   Cf., e.g., Beare 50, 208–209; Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 19. 153   See Introduction: 1 Peter as the Product of a Petrine Circle; Horrell, Becoming Christian, 33–37. 154   See, e.g., Justin Martyr, Dial. 106.3; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.2; Clement of Alexandria, Adum. [1 Pet 5.13]; Hyp. 6 [= Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7]; Tertullian, Marc. 4.5.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 51.6.10; Jerome, Vir. ill. 8; Ep. 120.11. 155   Further, on the antiquity of the association of the name ‘Mark’ with the second Gospel, see Gathercole, ‘Alleged Anonymity’, 447–76. 156   Körtner, Papias von Hierapolis, 212. Cf. also idem, ‘Markus der Mitarbeiter’, 160–73. 157   So, e.g., Vielhauer, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 260–61. 151



5.12–14

649

greeting formula.158 Given that 1 Peter is an encyclical letter addressed to Christian assemblies spread across a very large area, such specific or conventional greetings were not apposite. Instead, the author requests that the readers greet ‘one another’ (ἀλλήλους). This is not so much intended to be an expression of the author’s affection, as though each member were greeting another in Peter’s name,159 but one final instruction about how to relate to others in the various communities addressed.160 The expression ‘to greet one another’ (ἀσπάζειν ἀλλήλους) often denoted a mutual embrace that occurred upon either the initial salutations or the farewell of two individuals who were in a close relationship.161 Among friends or relatives, this greeting of embrace could also involve a kiss.162 This is what is encouraged by the Petrine author when he enjoins his readers, ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης (‘greet one another with a kiss of love’).163 158   Very often greetings were sent to specifically named individuals, e.g., ἄσπασαι Πτολεμαῖον καὶ Τιβερῖνον (‘Greet Ptolemaios and Tiberinus’, P.Mich. VIII 481; cf. P.Princ. II 68). Frequently, authors would simply include a generalised formula that was used to describe greetings more broadly, e.g., ἀσπάζου τοὺς ἐν οἴκῳ πάντες [= πάντας] (‘Greet all of those in your household’, P.Corn. 49; cf. P.Mich. III 206). To personalize these greetings somewhat, the phrase κατ’ ὄνομα (‘by name’) might be included: ἄσπασαι τοὺς σοὺς πάντας κατ’ ὄνομα (‘Greet all of yours by name’, P.Oxy. XIV 1677; cf. BGU I 93; P.Mich. VIII 479). 159   Pace Masterman 172. 160   Cf. Huther 248. 161   See Xenophon, Cyr. 2.1.1; Diodorus Siculus 37.15.2; Dionysius Halicarnassus, Or. 3.7.1; Josephus, War 1.122; Plutarch, Ages. 12.2; Gen. Socr. 33; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 33.56. 162   Lucian describes the exploits of Alexander the false prophet, saying that, ‘He made it a rule, too, not to greet anyone over eighteen years with his lips, or to embrace and kiss him (φιλήματι ἀσπάζεσθαι)’; this show of affection, he tells his readers, was reserved for the young (Alex. 41; trans. Harmon [LCL]; cf. Lucian [Asin.] 17; Heliodorus Eroticus 10.6). 163   It has been suggested that the original exhortation to ‘greet one another with a holy kiss’ (ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ) was merely an epistolary convention employed by the apostle Paul (and imitated by the Petrine author), which was mistakenly understood by second-century Christians to refer to an actual kiss (see Thraede, ‘Ursprünge und Formen des “Heiligen Kusses” ’, 128–31; cf. Collins, ‘Liturgy of the Early Church’, 52). While references to greetings communicated by a kiss do appear in epistolary closings (e.g., Cicero, Att. 16.11.8; 16.3.6; Fronto, Ep. graec. 5.48.2.1; 5.57.2.2), their rarity makes it difficult to assume that Paul was merely following an established literary convention.

650

1 PETER

The kiss shared among Christians was a practice derived from social conventions of the ancient Mediterranean world generally, rather than from any formal cultic or religious rituals in ancient Judaism specifically.164 Such a ritual is otherwise unknown in the synagogue.165 Judas’ kiss on the night of Jesus’ betrayal may suggest that the practice was characteristic of Jesus’ earliest followers.166 It is recorded that Jesus himself expected, although he did not receive, a kiss of friendship from the host at a dinner party (Luke 7.45). In the Greco-Roman world, kisses were exchanged among family, close friends, and even rulers.167 As Green mentions, ‘the bodily act of public kissing functioned like an implement for drawing lines of social interaction’.168 The kiss signified a close and loving relationship between those involved, and in instances where it occurred between non-relatives, it often denoted respect and honour.169 Kisses might be made on the mouth, cheeks, forehead, shoulders, eyes, hands, or feet.170 There were various occasions on which a kiss might be given: as part of the salutation upon greeting someone, as a farewell gesture upon someone’s departure, to mark the reconciliation between two individuals, or even as a prize for certain games. 164   The act of kissing is mentioned in some ancient Jewish sources (e.g., Gen 27.26; 2 Sam 20.9; Sir 29.5; Jos. Asen. 8.6). But the practice is not advocated as a ritual requirement. The closest parallel is found in two rabbinic passages (y. Naz. 5a; t. Naz. 4.6), wherein the priest (Simeon the Righteous) kisses a Nazir prior to conducting the Nazirite vows. Apart from any other parallels regarding formal rites involving ritual kisses in the temple, it is best to conclude that this kiss represented approval and affection. 165   Pace Conybeare, ‘Kiss of Peace’, 460–62. 166   As argued by Cranfield 140; cf. also Schlatter, Petrus und Paulus, 180–81. 167   TDNT 9:118–27, 138–46. 168   Green, ‘Embodying the Gospel’, 19–20. For more on the role of kissing in the formation of group identity in early Christianity, see Klassen, ‘Sacred Kiss’, 122–35. 169   Often kisses took place between parents (or grandparents) and children (Homer, Il. 6.474; Aristophanes, Nub. 81; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.3.9; Tertullian, Ux. 1.6.4). But the practice occurred among other relatives as well. Women, especially, were obligated to kiss relatives (both theirs and their husband’s) each day upon first meeting them (Pliny, Nat. 14.14.90; Athenaeus, Deipn. 10.56; Plutarch, Quaest. rom. 6 [Mor. 265B–D]). 170   Forehead/shoulders: Homer, Od. 16.15; 17.35; 21.224–25; 22.499. Eyes: Epictetus, Diatr. 1.19.24; Apuleius, Metam. 3.14.3; Pliny, Nat. 11.54.146. Hands: Homer, Od. 24.398; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.19.24; Pass. Perp. 2.1.



5.12–14

651

At times, the social convention was carried to excess (Martial, Epig. 11.98); in fact, it became such a problem—especially among more prominent members of society—that the emperor Tiberius issued an edict which forbade kisses of greeting.171 The Petrine author explains the meaning and significance of this kiss when he describes it as a ‘kiss of love’ (φίλημα ἀγάπης). This phrase may be compared with the ‘holy kiss’ (φίλημα ἅγιον) mentioned in the Pauline letters (cf. Rom 16.16; 1 Cor 16.20; 2 Cor 13.12; 1 Thess 5.26).172 Some have understood this as an attempt by the author to imitate Pauline language.173 But if that were the case, it is unclear why the same phrase would not have simply been reproduced. It seems likely that the author has been influenced by Pauline epistolary convention (which would explain the inclusion of the present injunction), although he is describing a common Christian practice in his own particular words. Thus, while the act is the same, the alternative description conveys a somewhat different nuance. The modifier ἀγάπης is most likely an attributive genitive (‘loving kiss’, cf. NET, ISV, LEB, NAB) indicating that the kiss is marked by and is an expression of the love that Christians have for one another.174 This designation was especially appropriate in light of the context and concerns of the letter, and the experiences of hostility and threat shared by Christians across the empire (cf. 5.9). As the letter has emphasised elsewhere (1.22; 2.17; 4.8), one key strategy to maintain group cohesion is through mutual love and dependence. Consequently, the Anatolian communities are encouraged to share a ‘kiss of love’ as a way of showing solidarity and devotion towards one another (cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Myst. 5.3: ‘this kiss blends souls one with another’). Also clear from this command is the fact that ‘the letter was intended not for individual private reading, but to be read aloud at   Suetonius, Tib. 34.2. According to Pliny the Elder (Nat. 26.3), a facial disease was introduced into Rome during the time of Tiberius. It spread primarily among the nobility due to the contact of kisses. 172   Numerous manuscripts and a few ancient versions alter the text to align with this Pauline pattern (see Text at 5.14 n. e). 173   See Thraede, ‘Friedenskuss’, 509. 174   Cf. Demarest 281; Huther 248; Dubis 177. It is also possible to interpret ἀγάπης more generally as a descriptive genitive, ‘kiss characterized by love’ (see Forbes 186). 171

652

1 PETER

the worship service of the community, and that the message of the letter was to be heard in the context of worship’.175 But what role did this kiss play within the Anatolian congregations? In later Christian communities, the kiss became a key liturgical element in eucharistic celebration. Over time, this practice evolved differently between churches in the East and West, including when the kiss appeared in the service and how many kisses were received by baptised Christians.176 The earliest communities kissed without regard to gender (Tertullian, Ux. 2.4.2; Pass. Perp. 6.4).177 Among later communities, this practice was undertaken with the greatest care, lest a member become defiled in thought or action from the pleasure that was received (Athenagoras, Leg. 32.3). Further, some made a show of the practice (Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11.81.2–3). The ritual was eventually regulated so that men only kissed men and women only kissed women (Const. ap. 2.57; 8.11). This official liturgical function within later eucharistic celebrations must be distinguished from the kiss that was exchanged between members of earlier Christian assemblies, such as those addressed here.178 Within this setting, the kiss would have probably taken place at the end of the service.179 Once the letter had been read, participants would be enjoined to kiss one another as an act of solidarity and love.180 This seems like a natural conclusion given   Boring 182; cf. Moffatt 171; Elliott 891.   See Phillips, Ritual Kiss, 26–35. 177   On the separation of kisses according to gender among early communities, see Penn, Kissing Christians, 80–85. 178   Some have been hesitant to attribute a liturgical function to this kiss, because it often blurs the line between its function in the first and second centuries (so, e.g., Blenkin 128; Schlosser 303; cf. Klassen, ‘Sacred Kiss’, 132). 179   According to Justin Martyr (1 Apol. 65), the kiss took place after prayers and prior to the eucharist (cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Myst. 5.3; Const. ap. 2.57). Similarly, Tertullian places the kiss after prayer, describing it as ‘the seal of prayer’ (Or. 18.1). He asks, ‘What prayer is complete if divorced from the “holy kiss”?’ (18.3; trans. Thelwall). 180   Lenski 232–33: ‘When this sentence is read to the congregation, each person addressed is to act as a proxy for Peter and is to bestow a kiss on another so that it would seem as though each received the salutation of a kiss from Peter himself’ (cf. Best 180; Goppelt 378; Achtemeier 356; Senior 155; see also White, ‘Ancient Greek Letters’, 98; Cuming, ‘Service Endings’, 110–113). The frequency of this practice has been variously understood based on the aorist tense of the imperative ἀσπάσασθε. According to Plumptre, the ‘tense of the Greek verb implies 175 176



5.12–14

653

that the worship service was one specific time when the Christian community would be gathered and letters like 1 Peter would be read. Nevertheless, we need not limit the kiss to formal gatherings.181 As Phillips points out, ‘the “holy kiss” was a Christian rite that believers could perform whenever they were together, both in and out of a worship setting’.182 Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ It was customary in Greek letters to end with the salutation, ‘farewell’ (ἔρρωσο, ἔρρωσθε, or ἔρρωσθαί σε [ὑμᾶς] εὔχομαι).183 But in this case, the author concludes with a peace wish, which represents a distinctively Christian alteration to Hellenistic epistolary closings. Like most greetings or prayers that end Christian epistles, the verb has been omitted (cf. 1 Cor 16.24; 2 Cor 13.13; Gal 6.18; Eph 6.24; Phil 4.23). One must either supply the optative εἴη184 or perhaps πληθυνθείη, which is found in 1 Pet 1.2 (χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη; cf. Dan 4.37c). Similar blessing formulae, in which a request is made for peace to reside upon someone, are found in other Jewish and Christian literature (Tob 12.17; Luke 24.36; John 20.19, 21, 26; Acts Pil. 15.4, 5, 6; 16.3, 4; cf. Jer 36.7; Dan 4.37c). Given the similarities between 1 Peter and Pauline letters, it is noteworthy that the Petrine author expressed a wish for the εἰρήνη of God rather than an outpouring of God’s χάρις, which is the more familiar Pauline terminology (see Rom 16.20; 1 Cor 16.23; 2 Cor 13.13; Gal 6.18; Phil 4.23; 1 Thess 5.28). The reason, it seems, is because he has already assured his readers that their entire situation (including suffering) represents the χάρις of God (cf. 5.12) and because what was needed more in the midst of that it was to be done, not as a normal practice in the Church, but as a single act, probably when the Epistle had been read publicly, in token of the unity of feeling among all members of the Church’ (162; cf. Johnstone 416–17). On the other hand, Forbes (186) claims that, despite the aorist tense, the imperative marks a habitual greeting. 181   As is suggested by some interpreters (e.g., Sadler 149; Leaney 73; Prigent 147; Donelson 156–57). 182   Phillips, Ritual Kiss, 8. 183   See Ziemann, De epistularum graecarum formulis, 334–46; cf. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie, 151–54. 184   As suggested by Dubis (177).

654

1 PETER

their present conflict was peace. In this way, the peace wish forms an inclusio with the opening salutation in 1 Pet 1.2.185 Interestingly, the author demarcates those to whom peace is directed. This ‘peace’ is specifically for ‘all who are in Christ’ (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ). In Eph 6.24, the closing benediction of grace is also limited: ‘Grace be with all who have an undying love for our Lord Jesus Christ’. This is not intended to draw a line of distinction within the believing community (as though some were ‘in Christ’ and others were not);186 instead, the line seems to have been drawn around them, marking out ἐν Χριστῷ as the only place where peace may be found. As von Soden has noted, this limited reference may represent one final warning to the readers not to forsake the community of faith.187 This second use of the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ (also 3.16) may be another sign of the influence of Pauline language on 1 Peter, but it should not be taken one-sidedly to indicate a supposedly ‘Pauline’ character to the letter as a whole (see Introduction: Pauline Traditions). Summary The closing section of the letter is concise and in some ways formulaic; yet it nonetheless conveys important indications about the overall strategy and message of the letter. Beyond the possible significance of the characters mentioned, discussed above, we may summarise several features of particular note.   Cf. Davids 205; Schweizer 105.   See Cook 220; Forbes 186. Had the Petrine author wished to draw a distinction within the community, he probably would have written εἰρήνη πᾶσιν ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ. This seems to be the sense of the construction elsewhere (cf. Demosthenes, Eub. 57: καὶ πόλλ’ ἀγαθὰ γένοιτο πᾶσιν ὑμῖν τοῖς δικαίως τούτῳ τῷ πράγματι χρησαμένοις, ‘And I invoke many blessings upon the heads of all of you who have dealt fairly with this matter’ [trans. DeWitt]; Ps.-Clement, Hom. 3.30.2: εἰρήνη εἴη πᾶσιν ὑμῖν τοῖς ἑτοίμως ἔχουσιν δεξιὰς διδόναι τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀληθείᾳ, ‘peace be to all of you who are ready to give your hand to the truth of God’). In this case, it would seem that the article in the phrase τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ is in apposition to ὑμῖν πᾶσιν; hence, ‘peace to all of you, namely, those who are in Christ’ (Lenski 233; Michaels 313; Hiebert 332). 187   Von Soden 167. Cf. Johnstone 417, who notes that it is as if the Petrine author is ‘saying in love, and at the same time with deep solemnity, “Peace be to you,— and bear ever in mind, dear brethren, that true peace can be only to those who are in Christ” ’ (see also Wiesinger 343). 185 186



5.12–14

655

First, the author indicates the character and purpose of the letter as providing both exhortation and testimony (v. 12)—showing the readers what is the case about their situation and the nature of God’s salvation, and also then urging them to act in certain ways in light of that. In particular, the author claims to have shown them what is ‘the true grace of God’, a phrase that seems to refer not simply to the letter itself but rather to the surprising and manifold nature of God’s beneficent gift, which encompasses not only the promise of future salvation but also the sufferings of the present, in which faithful endurance in doing good constitutes the appropriate response (cf. 2.19–20). Hence the final exhortation of the letter, ‘stand firm in it [this grace]’, constitutes a concise summary of what the readers are called to do (cf. 5.8–10). They are to resist the temptation to abandon their commitment to Christ, despite the pressures that may come—at a human level from the hostility and criticism of those among whom they live (e.g., 2.12; 4.4, 14) and the possible trials and sufferings they may experience as a result (e.g., 3.14–16; 4.15–16), and at a cosmic spiritual level from their opponent the devil, operative in and through these human processes and seeking to ‘devour’ them (5.8). These are essentially complementary perspectives on the same situation and set of experiences, the latter interpreting the more mundane interactions within the realm of a wider cosmic and spiritual struggle. A second significant feature of the closing greeting is the specification of the author’s location as ‘Babylon’. As detailed above, this is most likely to represent a labelling of Rome—whether or not this is the author’s actual location—which thereby characterises Rome by identification with the earlier empire of Babylon, known and depicted as the immoral, idolatrous, and violent opponent of God’s people. While the letter as a whole does not represent the kind of opposition to Rome conveyed in the vivid apocalyptic language of Revelation 18, the significance of depicting Rome in this way should not be missed. The letter hints at the kind of identification that is applied by outsiders, including Roman officials, to these followers of Christ: they are ‘slandered’ (2.12; 4.4), and their labelling as ‘Christian’ places them among criminals and evildoers (4.15–16), members of what Tacitus calls a ‘destructive superstition’ (exitiabilis superstitio) known and hated for their ‘shameful deeds’ (flagitia; Tacitus, Ann. 15.44). The author offers a counter-narrative, not least in the

656

1 PETER

framing of the letter: the recipients are identified at the outset as ‘elect strangers of the diaspora’ (1.1), chosen by God but alienated from their society, and addressed by an author writing ‘in Babylon’ (5.13). From a postcolonial perspective attuned to the challenges of navigating life under an imperial or colonising power, we may see this counter-narrative as a significant effort to ‘write back’ in a way that construes the identity of these subaltern groups differently, and positively.188 Far from being shamed by their labelling as Χριστιανοί, they should instead bear this name proudly, glorifying God in it (4.16), and conscious of their privileged identity as God’s elect and holy people (cf., e.g., 2.9–10). Despite the violent pressure that ‘Babylon’ may put upon them, they are to ‘stand firm’. The final greetings and closing wish further contribute to the author’s attempt to equip and encourage his readers in this task. In greeting one another with a kiss, they were doing nothing exceptional, but in describing it as a kiss of ἀγάπη—picking up a key ethical value from the letter (1.22; 2.17; 4.8)—the author identifies it specifically as a means of expressing and enhancing their group solidarity, ‘love’ being in this letter an essentially inward focused demand, expressed ‘to one another’.189 Likewise, in view of the pressures they are seen to be facing, and their longing for trials and sufferings to end (cf. 1.6), the author wishes them ‘peace’, a wish again focused on the community of those ‘in Christ’. The practices of solidarity (such as the kiss) and the narration of their positive identity in Christ come together to reinforce their ability to stand firm against the pressures of living as aliens and strangers in the realm of Babylon’s temporary power.

  See further Horrell, ‘Between Conformity and Resistance’, 111–43; idem, Becoming Christian, 211–38. The phrase ‘write back’ is an allusion to Ashcroft et al., The Empire Writes Back. 189   See further Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 105–16. 188

B IB L IO G R A PH Y

1 Peter Commentaries * Referenced throughout by the last name of the author and the page number (e.g., Elliott 365) Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament, vol. 4: The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles of St. James and St. Peter, the Epistles of St. John and St. Jude, and the Revelation. 5th ed. Boston: Lee & Shepard, 1878. Aretius, Benedictus. Commentarii in omnes Epistolas D. Pauli, et canonicas, itémque in Apocalypsin D. Ioannis. Morgiis: Ioannes Le Preux, 1583. Arichea, Daniel C., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter. Helps for Translators. New York: United Bible Societies, 1980. Augusti, J. C. W. Die Katholischen Briefe, neu übersetzt und erklärt und mit Excursen und einleitenden Abhandlungen. 2 vols. Lemgo: Meyer, 1801–1808. Barbieri, Louis A. First and Second Peter. Chicago: Moody, 1977. Barnes, Albert. Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. Rev. ed. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1875. Bartlett, David L. ‘The First Letter of Peter: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections’. Pages 227–319 in The New Interpreters’ Bible. Vol. 12. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Beare, Francis W. The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Beasley-Murray, George R. The General Epistles: James, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter. Bible Guides. New York: Abingdon, 1965. Beck, Johann T. Erklärung der Briefe Petri. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1896. Bede the Venerable. Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles. Translated by Dom David Hurst. Cistercian Studies Series 82. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1985. Bénétreau, Samuel. La Première Épître de Pierre. 2nd ed. Commentaire évangélique de la Bible 1. Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac, 1992. Bengel, John Albert. Gnomon of the New Testament, vol. 5: Epistles of James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and the Apocalypse. 2nd ed. Translated by William Fletcher. Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1860. Bennett, William H. The General Epistles: James, Peter, John, and Jude. The Century Bible. Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1901.

658

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benson, George. A Paraphrase and Notes on the Seven Catholic Epistles. 2nd ed. London: Waugh & Fenner, 1756. Besser, Wilhelm F. Die Briefe St. Petri in Bibelstudien für die Gemeinde ausgelegt. 2nd ed. Halle: Richard Mühlmann, 1857. Best, Ernest. 1 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971. Beza, Theodore. Annotationes maiores in Novum Dn. nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum: in duas distinctae partes, quarum prior explicationem in quatuor Evangelistas et Acta Apostolorum, posterior verò in Epistolas et Apocalypsin continet: quibus etiam adiuncti sunt indices rerum ac verborum locupletissimi. Geneva: Estienne, 1594. Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. 2nd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Bisping, Augustus. Erklärung der sieben katholischen Briefe. EHNT 8. Münster: Aschendorff, 1871. Black, Allen. ‘The Book of 1 Peter’. Pages 11–140 in Allen Black and Mark C. Black, The College Press NIV Commentary: 1 & 2 Peter. Joplin: College Press Publishing, 1998. Blenkin, George W. The First Epistle General of Peter. CGTSC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Bloomfield, Samuel T. The Greek Testament with English Notes, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical, vol. 2: Romans–Revelation. 9th ed. London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1855. Blum, Edwin A. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 207–54 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 12: Hebrews through Revelation. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Bony, Paul. La Première épître de Pierre: Chrétiens en diaspora. Lire la Bible 137. Paris: Cerf, 2004. Boring, M. Eugene. 1 Peter. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Bosetti, Elena. Prima lettera di Pietro. Dabar, Logos, Parola: Lectio divina popolare. Padova: EMP, 2004. Bowman, John Wick. The Layman’s Bible Commentary, vol. 24: The Letter to the Hebrews. The Letter of James. The First and Second Letters of Peter. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. Bray, Gerald, ed. James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude. ACCSNT 11. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000. Briggs-Kittredge, Cynthia. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 616–19 in Women’s Bible Commentary. 3rd ed. Edited by Carol A. Newsom, Sharon H. Ringe, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012. Brown, John. Expository Discourses on the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter. 2nd ed. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851. Brox, Norbert. Der erste Petrusbrief. 4th ed. EKKNT 21. Zürich/NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1993.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

659

Brückner, Bruno, ed. Kurze Erklärung der Briefe des Petrus, Judas, und Jakobus by W. M. L. de Wette. 3rd ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 3/1. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1865. Bullinger, Heinrich. In D. Petri Apostoli Epistolam Vtranqve. Tiguri: Froschauer, 1534. Burger, Karl. ‘Der erste Brief Petri’. Pages 232–57 in Kurzgefaßter Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments sowie den Apokryphen. B. Neues Testament, 4: Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe des Apostels Paulus, Pastoralbriefe, Hebräerbrief, die katholischen Briefe und die Offenbarung Johannis. Edited by Hermann L. Strack. Nördlingen, Beck, 1888. Caffin, B. C. ‘I. Peter’. Pages i–xiv, 1–237 in The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 50: I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude. Edited by H. D. M. SpenceJones and Joseph S. Exell. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1909. Calloud, Jean, and François Genuyt. La première épître de Pierre: analyse semiotique. Lectio divina 109. Paris: Cerf, 1982. Calov, Abraham. Biblia Novi Testamenti illustrata: In quibus emphases vocum ac mens dictorum genuina è fontibus, contextu & analogia Scripturae eruuntur, Tomus 2: Exhibens Epistolas Apostolicas universas et Apocalypsin Johanneam. 2nd ed. Dresdæ/Lipsiae: Joannis Christoph Zimmermann, 1719. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Translated by John Owen. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1855. Capellus, Jacob. Observationes in Novum Testamentum: exceptis Actibus Apostolorum & Apocalypsi D. Ioannis. Amstelodami: Ludovicum & Danielem Elzevirios, 1657. Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius. Complexiones in Epistulis Apostorum. [PL 70: 1361–1368] Charles, J. Daryl. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 275–356 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 13: Hebrews–Revelation. 2nd ed. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Clorivière, Pierre-Joseph P. de. Explication des épitres de Saint-Pierre. 2 vols. Paris: Société Typographique, 1809. Clowney, Edmund P. The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross. 2nd ed. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1994. Cook, F. C. ‘The First Epistle General of Peter’. Pages 155–220 in The Holy Bible according to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation by Bishops and Other Clergy of thee Anglican Church. New Testament, vol. 4: Hebrews–The Revelation of St. John. Edited by F. C. Cook. London: John Murrary, 1881. Corley, Kathleen E. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 349–60 in Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2: A Feminist Commentary. Edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Ann Brock, and Shelly Matthews. New York: Crossroad, 1994. Cornelius à Lapide. Commentaria in Epistolas canonicas. Antwerp: Nuntium, 1627.

660

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Craddock, Fred B. First and Second Peter and Jude. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Cranfield, C. E. B. I & II Peter and Jude. TBC. London: SCM, 1960. Dalton, William J. ‘The First Epistle of Peter’. Pages 903–908 in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. London: Chapman, 1989. Danker, Frederick W. An Invitation to the New Testament Epistles, IV: A Commentary on Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John and Jude. Garden City: Image Books, 1980. Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. de Wette, W. M. L. Kurze Erklärung der Briefe des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 3/1. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1847. Demarest, John T. A Translation and Exposition of the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter. New York: John Moffet, 1851. Didymus Alexandrinus. Enarratio in Epistolas Catholicas. [PG 39:1755–1772] Doddridge, Philip. The Family Expositor: or, A paraphrase and Version of the New Testament, with Critical Notes, and a Practical Improvement of Each Section. 8th ed. Charlestown: Etheridge, 1808. Donelson, Lewis R. I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. Doriani, Daniel M. 1 Peter. Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2014. Dowd, Sharyn. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 370–72 in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Dubis, Mark. 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010. Dus, Jan A. První list Petrův. Český ekumenický komentář k Novému zákonu 18. Praha: Centrum biblických studií AV ČR a UK v Praze ve spolupráci s Českou biblickou společností, 2017. Elliott, John H. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 37B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Erasmus, Desiderius. In Novum Testamentum annotationes: ab ipso autore jam quartum recognitae et ex Graecis codicibus quos postea nactus est auctario neutique poenitendo locupletatae. Basel: Froben, 1527. Erdman, Charles R. The General Epistles: An Exposition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1918. Escobar y Mendoza, Antonio de. Commentarii litterales et morales in Vetus et Novum Testamentum: Continens D. Pavli, Epistolas Canonicas, & D. Ioannis Apocalypsim. vol. 9. Lugduni: Borde, 1667.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

661

Estius, Wilhelm. In omnes D. Pauli epistolas, item in catholicas commentarii. 3. Epistolam ad Hebraeos, et septem Catholicas. Edited by Johann B. Holzammer. Moguntiae: Kirchheim, 1859. Eve, Eric. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 1263–70 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Ewald, Heinrich. Sieben Sendschreiben des Neuen Bundes. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1870. Fabris, Rinaldo. Lettera di Giacomo e prima lettera di Pietro. Commento pastorale e attualizzazione. Collana Lettura pastorale della Bibbia 8. Bologna: Dehoniane, 1980. Fausset, Andrew R. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2: New Testament. Hartford: S. S. Scranton, 1875. Feldmeier, Reinhard. The First Epistle of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Translated by Peter H. Davids. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008. German original: Der erste Brief des Petrus. THKNT 15/1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005. Felten, Joseph. Die zwei Briefe des heiligen Petrus und der Judasbrief. Regensburg: G.J. Manz, 1929. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. ‘The First Epistle of Peter’. Pages 362–68 in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 2. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Forbes, Greg W. 1 Peter. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2014. Foulkes, Irene. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 878–85 in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Frankemölle, Hubert. 1. Petrusbrief, 2. Petrusbrief, Judasbrief. 2nd ed. NEchtB 18/20. Würzburg: Echter, 1990. Froidmont, Libert. Commentaria in omnes B. Pauli et septem canonicas aliorum Apostolorum epistolas. Louvain: H. Nempaei, 1663. Fronmüller, G. F. C. The Epistles General of Peter and the Epistle General of Jude. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 9. New York: Charles Scribner, 1867. German original: Die Briefe Petri und der Brief Judä. 2nd ed. Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk. Die Heilige Schrift. Des Neuen Testamentes 14. Bielfeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1862. Gerhard, Johann. Commentarius super Priorem D. Petri epistolam: in quo textus declaratur, quaestiones dubiae solvuntur, observationes eruuntur & loca inspeciem pugnantia conciliantur. 5th ed. Hamburg: Z. Hertel, 1709. González, Catherine Gunsalus. 1 & 2 Peter and Jude. Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010.

662

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on I Peter. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Translated and augmented by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. German original: Der erste Petrusbrief. KEK 12/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Gourbillon, Jacques G., and F. M. du Buit. La première épître de Saint Pierre. Cahiers bibliques Évangile 50. Paris: Amis de la Ligue Catholique de l’Evangile, 1963. Green, Joel B. 1 Peter. Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Grotius, Hugo. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, vol. 8: Epistolas Catholicas et Iohannis Apocalypsin. Groningae: Zuidema, 1830. Grudem, Wayne. 1 Peter. TNTC 17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gunkel, Hermann. ‘Der erste Brief des Petrus’. Pages 248–92 in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 3: Die Apostelgeschichte, der Hebräerbrief und die katholischen Briefe. 3rd ed. Edited by Wilhelm Bousset and Wilhelm Heitmüller. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917. Hammond, Henry. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament: Briefly Explaining all the Difficult Places Thereof. Vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1845. Harink, Douglas K. 1 & 2 Peter. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009. Hart, J. H. A. ‘The First Epistle General of Peter’. Pages 1–80 in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 5. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Hartin, Patrick J. James, First Peter, Jude, Second Peter. New Collegeville Bible Commentary. New Testament 10. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2006. Hauck, Friedrich. Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Judas und Johannes. NTD 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957. Hawley Gorsline, Robin. ‘1 and 2 Peter’. Pages 724–36 in The Queer Bible Commentary. Edited by Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona West, and Thomas Bohache. London: SCM, 2006. Hensler, Christian G. Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus übersetzt und mit einem Kommentar versehen. Sulzbach: Seidel, 1813. Heupler, Charles G. ‘The First Epistle of St. Peter’. Pages 616–26 in A Commentary on the New Testament. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association, 1942. Hiebert, D. Edmond. First Peter. 2nd ed. Chicago: Moody, 1992. Hillyer, Norman. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. NIBCNT. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992. Hofmann, Johann C. K. von. Der erste Brief Petri. Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments 7/1. Nördlingen: Nördlingen Beck, 1875. Holmer, Uwe, and Werner de Boor. Die Briefe des Petrus und der Brief des Judas. 5th ed. Wuppertaler Studienbibel 18. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1986. Holtzmann, Heinrich J. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 3rd ed. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1892.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

663

Holzmeister, Urban. Commentarius in Epistulas SS. Petri et Iudae apostolorum. Cursus Scripturae Sacrae. Paris: Lethielleux, 1937. Horneius, Conrad. In Epistolam catholicam Sancti Apostoli Petri priorem expositio. Brunsvigae: Dvnckeri, 1654. Horrell, David G. The Epistles of Peter and Jude. Epworth Commentaries. Peterborough: Epworth, 1998. Hort, F. J. A. The First Epistle of St. Peter I.1–II.17: The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes. London: Macmillan, 1898. Hottinger, Johan H. Epistolae D. Jacobiatque Petri I. Leipzig: Dyck, 1815. Houwelingen, P. H. R. van. 1 Petrus. Rondzendbrief uit Babylon. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament. 4th ed. Kampen: Kok, 2010. Hunt, Laura J. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 527–42 in T&T Clark Social Identity Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by J. Brian Tucker and Aaron Kuecker. London: T&T Clark, 2020. Hunter, A. M. ‘The First Epistle of Peter’. Pages 75–159 in The Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 12. Edited by George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1957. Huther, Johann E. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of Peter and Jude. Translated by David B. Croom and Paton J. Gloag. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1881. German original: Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über den 1. Brief des Petrus, den Brief des Judas und den 2. Brief des Petrus. 4th ed. KEK 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1877. Jachmann, Karl R. Commentar über die katholischen Briefe mit genauer Berücksichtigung der neuesten Auslegungen. Leipzig: Barth, 1838. Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005 [2nd ed., 2022]. Johnstone, Robert. The First Epistle of Peter: Revised Text, with Introduction and Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888. Keating, Daniel. First and Second Peter, Jude. Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. Keener, Craig S. 1 Peter: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021. Keil, Carl F. Commentar über die Briefe des Petrus und Judas. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1883. Kelcy, Raymond C. The Letters of Peter and Jude. Austin: Sweet, 1972. Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. HNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Kelly, William. The First Epistle of Peter. London: Weston, 1904. Ketter, Peter. Hebräerbrief, Jakobusbrief, Petrusbriefe, Judasbrief. Herders Bibelkommentar 16/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1950. Kistermaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and of the Epistle of Jude. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987. Knoch, Otto. Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief. RNT. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1990.

664

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Knopf, Rudolf. Die Briefe Petri und Judä. KEK 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912. Krodel, Gerhard. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 42–83 in The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 1-2-3 John. Proclamation Commentaries. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Kühl, Ernst. Die Briefe Petri und Judae. 6th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897. Leaney, A. R. C. The Letters of Peter and Jude: A Commentary on the First Letter of Peter, a Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Le Clerc, Jean. A Supplement to Dr. Hammond’s Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament. In which His Interpretation of Many Important Passages is Freely and Impartially Examin’d: And the Sacred Text Further Explain’d by New Remarks upon Every Chapter. London: Dolphin, 1699. Leconte, R. Les épitres catholiques. Sainte Bible de Jérusalem. Paris: Cerf, 1953. Leighton, Robert. A Practical Commentary upon the First General Epistle of St. Peter. 2 vols. London: Keble, 1693–1694. Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1945. Repr., The Interpretation of I and II Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2008. Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistles of 2 Corinthians and 1 Peter: Newly Discovered Commentaries. Edited by Ben Witherington III and Todd D. Still. The Lightfoot Legacy Set 3. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. Lillie, John. Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter. New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1869. Lumby, J. Rawson. The Epistles of St. Peter. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1893. Luther, Martin. The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude: Preached and Explained. Translated by E. H. Gillett. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1859. Macknight, James. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 413–507 in A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolic Epistles, with a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. London: Longmans & Co., 1806. Marconi, Gilberto. Prima lettera di Pietro. Nuovo Testamento – commento esegetico e spirituale. Rome: Città Nuova, 2000. Margot, Jean-Claude. Les Épîtres de Pierre: Commentaire. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1960. Marshall, I. Howard. 1 Peter. IVP New Testament Commentary Series 17. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1991. Martinus Legionensis. Expositio in epistolam I B. Petri Apostoli. [PL 209: 217–52] Mason, A. J. ‘The First Epistle General of Peter’. Pages 383–436 in vol. 3 of A New Testament Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers. Edited by C. J. Ellicott. London: Cassell, 1884.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

665

Masterman, J. Howard B. The First Epistle of S. Peter (Greek Text), with Introduction and Notes. London: Macmillan, 1900. Maunoury, August-François. Commentaire sur les Épîtres catholiques de S. Jacques, S. Pierre, S. Jean et S. Jude. Paris: Bloud et Barral, 1888. Mazzeo, Michele. Lettere di Pietro, Lettera di Giuda. Libri biblici, Nuovo Testamento 18. Milan: Paoline, 2002. McKnight, Scot. 1 Peter. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. WBC 49. Waco, TX.: Word, 1988. Michl, Johann. Die katholischen Briefe. 2nd ed. RNT 8/2. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. Miller, Donald G. On This Rock: A Commentary on First Peter. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 34. Allison Park: Pickwick, 1993. Mitchell, A. F. Hebrews and the General Epistles. The Westminster New Testament. London: Andrew Melrose, 1911. Moffatt, James. The General Epistles: James, Peter and Judas. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928. Monnier, Jean. La Première Èpître de L’Apôtre Pierre. Macon: Protat Frères, 1900. Morus, Samuel F. N. Praelectiones in Iacobi et Petri epistolas. Leipzig: Sommer, 1794. Mounce, Robert H. A Living Hope: A Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Neyrey, Jerome H. First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, James, First Peter, Second Peter, Jude. Collegeville Bible Commentary 9. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1993. Oecumenius. Commentarii in Epistolas Catholicas. [PG 119: 509–78] Osborne, Grant R. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 129–272 in Grant R. Osborne and M. Robert Mullholland, Jr., Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, vol. 18: James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, 2011. Osiander, Lucas. Biblia mit der Ausslegung: Das ist, Die gantze Heilige Schrifft, Altes und Neues Testaments D. Martini Lutheri: Mit einer kurtzen, jedoch gründlichen Erklärung des Textes D. Lucae Osiandri, Senioris. Lüneburg: C. J. Stern, 1711. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich. Die Briefe des Petrus und des Judas. Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021. Paine, Stephen W. ‘The First Epistle of Peter’. Pages 1441–52 in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Nashville: Southwestern Company, 1962. Pellicanus, Conrad. Commentaria bibliorum, vol. 7: In omnes apostolicas epistolas Pauli Petri Iacobi, Ioannis et Iudae. Tiguri: Froschouerus, 1539. Perkins, Pheme. First and Second Peter, James, and Jude. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1995.

666

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Picirilli, Robert E. ‘Commentary on 1 Peter’. Pages 91–214 in Paul V. Harrison and Robert E. Picirilli, James, 1, 2 Peter, and Jude. The Randall House Bible Commentary. Nashville: Randall House Publications, 1992. Plumptre, E. H. The General Epistles of St. Peter & St. Jude, with Notes and Introduction. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1879. Polkinghorne, G. J. ‘The First Letter of Peter’. Pages 584–98 in A New Testament Commentary. Edited by G. C. D. Howley, F. F. Bruce, and H. L. Ellison. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969. Pott, David J. Epistolae catholicae Graecae, 2: Epistolae Petri duae. Novum Testamentum Graecae: perpetua annotatione illustratum. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1790. Powers, Daniel G. 1 & 2 Peter/Jude: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2010. Prigent, Pierre. Suivre le Christ: Commentaire de la première épître de Pierre. Lyon: Olivétan, 2006. Pury, Roland de. Pierres vivantes: Commentaire de la première épître de Pierre. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1944. Raymer, Roger M. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 837–58 in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Victor, 1983. Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2nd ed. AB 37. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964. Richard, Earl J. Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000. Robinson, Benjamin W. ‘First Peter’. Pages 1338–44 in The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Edited by Frederick Carl Eiselen, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey. New York: Abingdon, 1929. Rodgers, Peter R., ed. 1 Peter: A Collaborative Commentary. Eugene: Resource Publications, 2017. Sadler, Michael F. The General Epistles of SS. James, Peter, John, and Jude. 2nd ed. London: George Bell & Sons, 1895. Schelkle, Karl H. Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief. 6th ed. HThKNT 13/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1988. Schiwy, Günter. Die katholischen Briefe. Christ un der Welt 6. Das Buch der Bücher 12. Stein am Rhein: Christiana, 1973. Schlatter, Adolf. Die Briefe des Petrus, Judas, Jakobus, der Brief and die Hebräer. Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament 9. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1964. Schlosser, Jacques. La première épître de Pierre. Commentaire biblique, Nouveau Testament 21. Paris: Cerf, 2011. Schneider, Johannes. Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Judas und Johannes: Die Katholischen Briefe. 9th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Schott, Theodor. Der erste Brief Petri. Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1861.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

667

Schrage, Wolfgang. ‘Der erste Petrusbrief’. Pages 60–121 in Horst Balz and Wolfgang Schrage, Die ‘Katholischen’ Briefe: Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas. 4th ed. NTD 10. Göttingen/Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1 & 2 Peter and Jude. 2nd ed. Christian Standard Commentary. Nashville: Holman Reference, 2020. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. ‘The First Letter of Peter’. Pages 380–403 in A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings. Edited by Fernando F. Segovia and R. S. Sugirtharajah. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Schwank, Benedikt. ‘The First Letter of Peter’. Pages ix–xvii, 1–113 in Benedikt Schwank, Alois Stöger, Wilhelm Thüsing, The Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. New Testament for Spiritual Reading 11. London: Sheed & Ward, 1969. Schweizer, Eduard. Der erste Petrusbrief. 4th ed. ZBK 15. Zurich: Theologischer, 1998. Seethaler, Paula-Angelika. 1. und 2. Petrusbrief/Judasbrief. 3rd ed. SKKNT 16. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2003. Selwyn, Edward G. The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1947. Semler, Johann Salomo. Paraphrasis in Epistolam I. Petri cum latinae translationis varietate et multis notis. Halae: Hemmerde, 1783. Senior, Donald P. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 1–158 in Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter. SP 15. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2003. Skaggs, Rebecca. The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude. Pentecostal Commentary Series 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2004. Soden, Hans von. Hebräerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas. 3rd ed. HKNT 3/2. Leipzig/Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1899. Spicq, Ceslas. Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre. Sources bibliques 4. Paris: Gabalda, 1966. Stanton, Graham N. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 1493–1503 in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Steiger, Wilhelm. Exposition of the First Epistle of Peter, Considered in Reference to the Whole System of Divine Truth. Translated by Patrick Fairbairn. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1836. German original: Der erste Brief Petri, mit Berücksichtigung des ganzen biblischen Lehrbegriffs ausgelegt. Berlin: Ludwig Oehmigke, 1832. Steinmeyer, Franz K. L. Disquisitio in epistolae Petrinae prioris procemium. Berlin: Wiegandt et Grieben, 1854. Stibbs, Alan M., and Andrew F. Walls. The First Epistle General of Peter. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. Stolz, Johann Jakob. Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament, 5. Heft: Briefe an die Kolosser und Thessalonicher an Timotheus, Titus und Philemon, Briefe Petri und Johannis. Hannover: Gebrüden Hahn, 1802.

668

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thompson, Claude Holmes. ‘The First Letter of Peter’. Pages 80–98 in Revelation and the General Epistles: A Commentary on Hebrews, James, I & II Peter, I, II, & III John, Jude, Revelation. Edited by Charles M. Laymon. Interpreter’s Concise Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon, 1983. Usteri, Johann M. Wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Commentar über den ersten Petrusbrief. Zürich: Höhr, 1887. Vahrenhorst, Martin. Der erste Brief des Petrus. Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 19. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Valentine, Foy. Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter. Layman’s Bible Book Commentary 23. Nashville: Broadman, 1981. Vanni, Ugo. Lettere di Pietro, Giacomo, Giuda. 5th ed. Nouvissima versione della Bibbia dai testi originali 44. Rome: Paoline, 2003. Vinson, Richard B. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 1–255 in Richard B. Vinson, Richard F. Wilson, and Watson E. Mills, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude. SHBC 29c. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2010. Vrede, Wilhelm. Judas-, Petrus-, und Johannesbriefe. Die Heilige Schrift des Neuen Testaments 4. 2nd ed. Bonn: Hanstein, 1921. Wagner, Gerald, and François Vouga. Der erste Brief des Petrus. HNT 15/2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Wand, J. W. C. The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. WC. London: Methuen & Co., 1934. Warden, Duane. 1 & 2 Peter and Jude. Truth for Today Commentary: An Exegesis & Application of the Holy Scriptures. Searcy: Resource Publications, 2009. Watson, Duane F. ‘First Peter’. Pages 1–127 in Duane F. Watson and Terrance Callan, First and Second Peter. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Webster, William, and William F. Wilkinson. The Greek Testament with Notes Grammatical and Exegetical, vol. 2: The Epistles and the Apocalypse. London: Parker, Son & Bourn, 1861. Weidner, Revere F. Annotations on the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. New York: Christian Literature, 1897. Weiss, Bernhard. Das Neue Testament Handausgabe, Band 3: Apostelgeschichte Katholische Briefe, Apokalypse. 2nd ed. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902. Wheaton, David H. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 1236–48 in The New Bible Commentary. Edited by Donald Guthrie and J. A. Motyer. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. Whitby, Daniel. A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 2: All the Epistles, with a Discourse on the Millennium. London: Bowyer, 1703. Wiesinger, J. T. August. Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus. Olhausens Commentar über sämtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments 6/2. Königsberg: Unzer, 1856. Williams, Nathaniel M. Commentary on the Epistles of Peter. American Commentary on the New Testament 8. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1886.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

669

Willmering, H. ‘The First Epistle of St. Peter’. Pages 1177–80 in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Edited by Bernard Orchard. New York: Nelson, 1953. Windisch, Hans. Die katholischen Briefe. 3rd ed. Revised and augmented by Herbert Preisker. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 15. Tübingen: Mohr, 1951. Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 2: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007. Wohlenberg, Gustav. Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 15. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Deichert, 1923. Wolf, Johann Christoph. Curae philologicae et criticae in SS. Apostolorum Jacobi Petri Judae et Joannis Epistolas huiusque Apocal. 2nd ed. Hamburg: Sumptibus Christiani Heroldi, 1741. Wordsworth, Christopher. The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Original Greek, with Introduction and Notes, vol. 2: St. Paul’s Epistles, the General Epistles, the Book of Revelation, and Indexes. 2nd ed. London: Rivingtons, 1867.

Other Secondary Literature * Referenced throughout by the last name of the author, abbreviated title, and the page number (e.g., Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 65) Aageson, James W. ‘1 Peter 2.11–3.7: Slaves, Wives and the Complexities of Interpretation’. Pages 34–49 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Aasgaard, Reidar. ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!’ Christian Siblingship in Paul. JSNTSup 265. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –––––. ‘Brothers and Sisters in the Faith: Christian Siblingship as an Ecclesiological Mirror in the First Two Centuries’. Pages 285–316 in The Formation of the Early Church. Edited by Jostein Ådna. WUNT 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Abbott-Smith, George. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1937. Abernathy, David. ‘Exegetical Considerations in 1 Peter 2:7–9’. Notes 15 (2001): 24–39. –––––. ‘Translating 1 Peter 3:18–22’. Notes 15 (2001): 28–46. Achelis, T. O. ‘Erasmus über die griechischen Briefe des Brutus’. RhM 72 (1917–18): 633–38. Achtemeier, Paul J. ‘Newborn Babes and Living Stones: Literal and Figurative in 1 Peter’. Pages 207–36 in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J. Edited by Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York: Crossroad, 1989.

670

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Suffering Servant and Suffering Christ in 1 Peter’. Pages 176–88 in The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –––––. ‘The Christology of 1 Peter: Some Reflections’. Pages 140–54 in Who Do People Say I Am? Essays on Christology. Edited by Mark A. Powell and David R. Bauer. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. –––––. ‘John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: An Appreciation’. BTB 32 (2002): 150–53. –––––. ‘Between Text and Sermon: 1 Peter 1:13–21’. Int 60 (2006): 306–308. –––––. ‘1 Peter 4:1–8’. Int 65 (2011): 76–78. Adam, Jean-Pierre. La construction romaine: matériaux et techniques. 7th ed. Paris: Picard, 2017. Adamczewski, Bartosz. Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010. Adams, Bertrand. Paramoné und verwandte Texte: Studien zum Dienstvertrag im Rechte der Papyri. Neue Kölner rechwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen 35. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964. Adams, Edward. Constructing the World: A Study of Paul’s Cosmological Language. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Adams, Sean A. ‘Paul’s Letter Opening and Greek Epistolography: A Matter of Relationship’. Pages 33–55 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2010. –––––. ‘The Tradition of Peter’s Literacy: Acts, 1 Peter, and the Petrine Literature’. Pages 130–45 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Adinolfi, Marco. ‘Stato civile dei Cristiani “forestieri e pellegrini” (1 Pt 2,11)’. Anton 42 (1967): 420–34. –––––. ‘Testimoniare la speranza secondo I Pt 3,15–16’. In La speranza: atti del Congresso promosso dal Pontificio Ateneo “Antonianum” 30 maggio - 2 giugno 1982, vol. 2: Studi biblico-teologici e apporti del pensiero francescano. Edited by Bruno Giordani. Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto pedagogico del Pontificio Ateneo “Antonianum” 24. Brescia: La Scuola Editrice, 1984. –––––. La prima lettera di Pietro nel mondo greco-romano. Bibliotheca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani 26. Rome: Editrice “Antonianum”, 1988. Adkins, Arthur W. H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Ådna, Jostein. ‘Alttestamentliche Zitate im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 229–48 in Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen Testament. Textgeschichtliche Erörterungen. Edited by Martin Karrer, Siegfried Kreuzer, and Marcus Sigismund. ANTF 43. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. ‘Pauline Heritage in 1 Peter: A Study of Literary Dependence in 1 Peter 2:13–25’. Pages 125–47 in The Early Reception of Paul. Edited by Kenneth Liljeström. Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran julkaisuja 99. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2011.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

671

Agnew, Francis H. ‘1 Peter 1:2—An Alternative Translation’. CBQ 45 (1983): 68–73. Akin, Paul. ‘The Missiological Motivation of 1 Peter’. The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 23 (2019): 7–21. Aland, Kurt. Kirchengeschichtliche Entwürfe: alte Kirche, Reformation und Luthertum, Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1960. –––––. ‘Bemerkungen zu den gegenwärtigen möglichkeiten textkritischer Arbeit aus Anlass einer Untersuchung zum Cäsarea-Text der Katholischen Briefe’. NTS 17 (1970): 1–9. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2nd ed. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Aland, Kurt, Michael Welte, Beate Köster, and Klaus Junach, eds. Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. ANTF 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994. Albl, Martin C. “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections. NovTSup 96. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Alkema, Roelof. The Pillars and the Cornerstone: Jesus Tradition Parallels in the Catholic Epistles. Delft: Eburon, 2018. Alkier, Stefan, ed. Strategien der Positionierung im 1. Petrusbrief. Kleine Schriften des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014. –––––. ‘Antagonismen im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 9–22 in Strategien der Positionierung im 1. Petrusbrief. Edited by Stefan Alkier. Kleine Schriften des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014. Allen, David M. ‘Genesis in James, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude’. Pages 147–64 in Genesis in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 466. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Allison, Dale C. ‘Peter and Cephas: One and the Same’. JBL 111 (1992): 489–95. –––––. The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000. –––––. Testament of Abraham. CEJL. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. –––––. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. –––––. James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Altheim, Franz, and Ruth Stiehl. Christentum am Roten Meer. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973.

672

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amarelli, Francesco. ‘Il conventus come forma di partecipazione alle attività giudiziarie nelle città del mondo provinciale romano’. Pages 1–12 in Politica e partecipazione nelle città dell’impero romano. Edited by Francesco Amarelli. Saggi di storia antica 25. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2005. Annand, Rupert. ‘Papias and the Four Gospels’. SJT 9 (1956): 46–62. Antoniotti, Louise-Marie. ‘Structure littéraire et sens de la première épître de Pierre’. RThom 85 (1985): 533–60. Applegate, Judith K. ‘The Co-Elect Woman of 1 Peter’. NTS 38 (1992): 587–604. Appold, Mark. ‘Peter in Profile: From Bethsaida to Rome’. Pages 133–45 in Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Bethsaida Excavations Project Reports & Contextual Studies 3. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2004. Argyle, A. W. ‘Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times’. NTS 20 (1973–74): 87–89. Arichea, Daniel C. ‘God or Christ? A Study of Implicit Information’. BT 28 (1977): 412–18. Arndt, William F. ‘A Royal Priesthood’. CTM 19 (1948): 241–49. Arnold, Clinton E. Powers of Darkness: Principalities and Powers in Paul’s Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992. Arnold, Russell C. D. ‘Qumran Prayer as an Act of Righteousness’. JQR 95 (2005): 509–29. Artebury, Andrew E. Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in its Mediterranean Setting. New Testament Monographs 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Asboeck, Anton. Das Staatswesen von Priene in hellenistischer Zeit. Munich: Seitz, 1913. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. 2nd ed. New Accents. London: Routledge, 2002. Askin, Lindsey A. ‘Scribal Production and Literacy at Qumran: Considerations of Page Layout and Style’. Pages 23–36 in Material Aspects of Reading in Ancient and Medieval Cultures: Materiality, Presence and Performance. Edited by Anna Krauß, Jonas Leipziger, and Friederike Schücking-Jungblut. Materiale Textkulturen 26. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. Assaël, Jacqueline. ‘Typologie de la vie et de la mort dans la première épître de Pierre’. PostLuth 55 (2007): 297–318. Asumang, Annang. ‘ “Resist him” (1 Pet 5:9): Holiness and Non-Retaliatory Responses to Unjust Suffering as “Holy War” in 1 Peter’ Conspectus’. Journal of the South African Theological Seminary 11 (2011): 7–46. Atkinson, Jordan. ‘The Semantics of ἐν ᾧ in 1 Peter’. BT 17 (2021): 117–32. –––––. ‘Genre-Sensitive Biblical Interpretation in 1 Peter’. Them 46 (2021): 608–19.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

673

Atra, Brian J. ‘An Examination of the Speeches of Peter in Acts: Implications for the Authorship and Thought of First Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Aubert, Jean-Jacques. Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C.–A.D. 250. CSCT 21. Leiden: Brill, 1994. –––––. ‘A Double Standard in Roman Criminal Law? The Death Penalty and Social Structure in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome’. Pages 94–133 in Speculum Iuris: Roman Law as a Reflection of Social and Economic Life in Antiquity. Edited by Jean-Jacques Aubert and Adriaan J. B. Sirks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. Augello, Armando. ‘La Speranza nella Prima Lettera di Pietro’. Vivarium 14 (2006): 133–71. Bacon, Benjamin W. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1900. Bahr, Gordon J. ‘Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century’. CBQ 28 (1966): 465–77. –––––. ‘The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters’. JBL 87 (1968): 27–41. Bain, Katherine. Women’s Socioeconomic Status and Religious Leadership in Asia Minor in the First Two Centuries C.E. Emerging Scholars. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Bakke, Odd Magne. Concord and Peace: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First Letter of Clement with an Emphasis on the Language of Unity and Sedition. WUNT 2/141. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –––––. When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Balch, David L. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter. SBLMS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981. –––––. ‘Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter’. Pages 79–101 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. NABPRSSS 9. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986. –––––. ‘Household Codes’. Pages 25–50 in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres. Edited by David E. Aune. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Baldanza, Giuseppe. ‘L’euloghia di 1Pt 1,3-12 e il suo dinamismo trinitario’. RivB 63 (2015): 327–39. Baldensperger, Wilhelm. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit, Erste Hälfte: Die messianisch-apokalyptischen Hoffnungen des Judenthums. 3rd ed. Strassburg: Heitz: 1903. Baldwin, Clinton S. The So-Called Mixed Text: An Examination of the Non-Alexandrian and Non-Byzantine Text-Type in the Catholic Epistles. StBibLit 133. New York: Peter Lang, 2011.

674

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Balla, Peter. The Child–Parent Relationship in the New Testament and its Environment. WUNT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Ballantine, William G. ‘Predicative Participles with Verbs in the Aorist’. BSac 41 (1884): 787–99. Balzat, Jean-Sébastien, ed. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. V.B: Coastal Asia Minor: Caria to Cilicia. Oxford: Clarendon, 2013. Balzat, Jean-Sébastien, Richard W. V. Catling, Edouard Chiricat, and Thomas Corsten, eds. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. V.C: Inland Asia Minor. Oxford: Clarendon, 2018. Bammel, E. ‘The Commands in I Peter II.17’. NTS 11 (1964–65): 279–81. Bandstra, Andrew J. ‘ “Making Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison”: Another Look at 1 Peter 3:19’. CTJ 38 (2003): 120–24. Bar-Asher Siegal, Michal, and Michal Beth Dinkler. ‘Citing Sarah in the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature’. ETL 96 (2020): 443–57. Bar-Ilan, Meir. ‘Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries CE’. Pages 2:46–61 in Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society. Edited by Simcha Fishbane, Jack N. Lightstone, and Victor Levin. Hoboken: Ktav, 1992. Barbarick, Cliff. ‘Milk to Grow On: The Example of Christ in 1 Peter’. Pages 216–39 in Getting ‘Saved’: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament. Edited by Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. –––––. ‘Craving the Milk in 1 Peter: The Pattern of Christ as Salvific Nourishment’. Leaven 20 (2012): 133–40. –––––. ‘The Pattern and the Power: The Example of Christ in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2012. –––––. ‘ “You Shall Be Holy, For I Am Holy”: Theosis in 1 Peter’. JTI 9 (2015): 287–97. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. –––––. ‘There is Neither Old Nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient Ideologies of Age’. NTS 53 (2007): 225–41. –––––. Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. WUNT 275. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –––––. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. –––––. Paul and the Power of Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Barkhuizen, Jan H. ‘Betekenis en funksie van 1 Petrus 2:21b–25’. Acta Patristica et Byzantina 17 (2006): 86–99. Barnes, Timothy D. ‘Legislation against the Christians’. JRS 58 (1968): 32–50. –––––. Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History. TC 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –––––. ‘ “Another Shall Gird Thee”: Probative Evidence for the Death of Peter’. Pages 76–95 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

675

Barnett, Albert E. Paul Becomes a Literary Influence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. Barnett, Paul. ‘Polemical Parallelism: Some Further Reflections on the Apocalypse’. JSNT 35 (1989): 111–20. Baronio, Cesare. Annales ecclesiastici. Edited by O. Rinaldi et al. Paris: Ludovicus G. Barri-Ducis, 1864. Barr, George K. ‘Literary Dependence in the New Testament Epistles’. IBS 19 (1997): 148–60. Barr, James. Biblical Words for Time. 2nd ed. SBT 33. London: SCM, 1969. –––––. ‘‫—בארץ‬μόλις: Prov. xi.31, I Pet. iv.18’. JSS 20 (1975): 149–64. –––––. ‘ “Abba, Father” and the Familiarity of Jesus’ Speech’. Theology 91 (1988): 173–79. –––––. ‘’Abbā Isn’t “Daddy” ’. JTS 39 (1988): 28–47. –––––. ‘Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age’. Pages 79–114 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age. Edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Barrett, C. K. ‘The Imperatival Participle’. ExpTim 59 (1947–48): 165–66. Barth, Gerhard. Die Taufe in frühchristlicher Zeit. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002. Bartlett, S. C. ‘The Preaching to the Spirits in Prison’. New Englander and Yale Review 31 (1872): 601–21. –––––. ‘The Preaching to the Spirits in Prison’. BSac 40 (1883): 333–73. Bartolo, Giuseppina di. ‘Purpose and Result Clauses: ἵνα-hína and ὥστε-hōʹste in the Greek Documentary Papyri of the Roman Period’. Pages 19–38 in Postclassical Greek: Contemporary Approaches to Philology and Linguistics. Edited by Dariya Rafiyenko and Ilja A. Seržant. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 335. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. Bassler, Jouette M. Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom. SBLDS 59. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. –––––. ‘The Widows’ Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Tim 5:3–16’. JBL 103 (1984): 23–41. –––––. ‘σκεῦος: A Modest Proposal for Illuminating Paul’s Use of Metaphor in 1 Thessalonians 4:4’. Pages 53–66 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by O. Larry Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Bataille, André. Les inscriptions grecques du temple de Hatshepsout à Deir El-Bahari. Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1951 Bateman, Herbert W. Interpreting the General Letters: An Exegetical Handbook. Handbook for New Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2013. Batovici, Dan. ‘Mark, Peter’s Son, and the Reception of 1 Peter’. Pages 431–42 in Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Dan Batovici and Geert Van Oyen. BETL 301. Leuven: Peeters, 2019.

676

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Commenting on 1 Pt 4:7–11: A Case Study in Patristic Reception’. Annali di Storia dell’Eegesi 36 (2019): 163–74. –––––. ‘Was 1 Clement Written during the Reign of Domitian’. Pages 297–312 in Die Datierung neutestamentlicher Pseudepigraphen. Herausforderungen und neuere Lösungsansätze. Edited by Wolfgang Grünstäudl and Karl Matthias Schmidt. WUNT 470. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. –––––. ‘Reception and Marginal Texts: Notes on the Reception of 1 Peter 5:1–4’. Pages 95–105 in Studies in the History of Exegesis. Edited by Mark W. Elliott, Raleigh C. Heth, and Angela Zautcke. History of Biblical Exegesis 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022. –––––. 1 Petrus. Novum Testamentum Patristicum 21/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, in preparation. Batten, Alicia J. ‘Neither Gold nor Braided Hair (1 Timothy 2.9; 1 Peter 3.3): Adornment, Gender and Honour in Antiquity’. NTS 55 (2009): 484–501. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco: Word, 1983. –––––. ‘Pseudo-Apostolic Letters’. JBL 107 (1988): 469–94. –––––. ‘James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude’. Pages 303–17 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. –––––. ‘The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature’. Pages 539–95 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part II, Principat 26.1: Religion. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1992. –––––. ‘James, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter’. Pages 153–66 in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet. Edited by Marcus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. –––––. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. NovTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –––––. The Jewish World around the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Bauer, Johannes B. ‘Aut maleficus aut alieni speculator (1 Petr. 4,15)’. BZ 22 (1978): 109–15. ________. ‘Der erste Petrusbrief und die Verfolgung unter Domitian’. Pages 513–27 in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Für Heinz Schürmann. Edited by Rudolf Schnackenburg, Joseph Ernst, and Joachim Wanke. Freiburg: Herder, 1978. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Edited by Frederick W. Danker, based on Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Edited by Kurt and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

677

Baum, Armin D. Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum: mit ausgewählten Quellentexten samt deutscher Übersetzung. WUNT 2/138. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –––––. ‘ “Babylon” als Ortsnamenmetapher in 1 Petr 5,13 auf dem Hintergrund der antiken Literatur und im Kontext des Briefes’. Pages 180–220 in Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte. Edited by Stefan Heid. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. –––––. ‘Content and Form: Authorship Attribution and Pseudonymity in Ancient Speeches, Letters, Lectures, and Translations—A Rejoinder to Bart Ehrman’. JBL 136 (2017): 381–403. Bauman, Richard A. Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 1996. Bauman-Martin, Betsy J. ‘Women on the Edge: New Perspectives on Women in the Petrine Haustafel’. JBL 123 (2004): 253–79. –––––. ‘Feminist Theologies of Suffering and Current Interpretations of 1 Peter 2.18–3.9’. Pages 63–81 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 7. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –––––. ‘Speaking Jewish: Postcolonial Aliens and Strangers in First Peter’. Pages 144–77 in Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin. LNTS 364. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Baumeister, Theofried. Die Anfänge der Theologie des Martyriums. Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 45. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980. Baumgarten, Joseph M. ‘Sacrifice and Worship among the Jewish Sectarians of the Dead Sea (Qumrân) Scrolls’. HTR 46 (1953): 141–59. Baur, F. C. ‘Der erste petrinische Brief’. Theologisches Jahrbuch 15 (1856): 193–240. –––––. Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Fues, 1863. Bayer, Hans. Peter as Apostolic Bedrock: Christology and Discipleship according to His Canonical Testimony. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019. Bean, G. E. ‘Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia’. JHS 68 (1948): 40–58. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. Religions of Rome, vol. 1: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Beare, Francis W. ‘The Text of 1 Peter in Papyrus 72’. JBL 80 (1961): 253–60. –––––. ‘Some Remarks on the Text of 1 Peter in the Bodmer Papyrus (P72)’. Pages 263–65 in Studia Evangelica III. Edited by Frank L. Cross. TU 88. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964. Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1962.

678

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beatrice, Pier Franco. ‘Forgery, Propaganda and Power in Christian Antiquity: Some Methodological Remarks’. Pages 39–51 in Alvarium. Festschrift für Christian Gnilka. Edited by Wilhelm Blümer, Rainer Henke, and Markus Mülke. JAC 33. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002. Beaucamp, Joelle. Le statut de la femme a Byzance, 2: Le pratiques sociales. Travaux et mémoires du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilization de Byzance Monographies 6. Paris: De Boccard, 1992. Beauchet, Ludovic. Histoire du droit privé de la république athénienne, vol. 2: Le droit de famille. Paris: Chevalier-maresco, 1897. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. A History of Babylon, 2200 BC–AD 75. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2018. Bechtler, Steven R. Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter. SBLDS 162. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Becker, Eve-Marie. Paul on Humility. Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity. Translated by Wayne Coppins. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2020. Beckman, John C. ‘Live a Fear-of-God Lifestyle, Ransomed Ones: 1 Peter 1:17–21’. STJ 10 (2002): 77–98. BeDuhn, Jason. ‘The Historical Assessment of Speech Acts: Clarifications of Austin and Skinner for the Study of Religions’. MTSR 12 (2000): 477–505. Beetham, Christopher A. ‘Eschatology and the Book of Proverbs in 1 Peter’. Pages 47–69 in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul. Edited by Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House. WUNT 2/450. Tübingen: Mohr, 2017. Belayche, Nicole. ‘Kyrios and despotes: Addresses to Deities and Religious Experiences’. Pages 87–115 in Lived Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Approaching Religious Transformations from Archaeology, History and Classics. Edited by Valentino Gasparini, Maik Patzelt, Rubina Raja, AnnaKatharina Rieger, Jörg Rüpke and Emiliano Urciuoli. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. Bellarmine, Robert. Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei, adversus huius temporis haereticos: tribus tomis comprehensae. Volume 1. Ingolstadii: Sartorius, 1586. Bellinger, William H., and William R. Farmer, eds. Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. Belousov, Alexey V., and Sergey Yu Saprykin. ‘A Letter of Kledikos from Hermonassa’. ZPE 185 (2013): 153–60. Bénétreau, Samuel. ‘Évangile et prophétie. Un texte original (1 P 1,10–12) peut-il éclairer un texte difficile (2 P 1,16–21)?’. Bib 86 (2005): 174–91. –––––. ‘Obscurité et clarification: l’interprétation des Écritures selon les Épîtres pétriniennes’. ETR 93 (2018): 1–21. Benjamins, Hendrik S. ‘Noah, the Ark, and the Flood in Early Christian Theology: The Ship of the Church in the Making’. Pages 134–49 in Interpretations of the Flood. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. TBN 1. Leiden: Brill, 1999.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

679

Benko, Andrew. Race in John’s Gospel: Toward an Ethnos-Conscious Approach. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2019. Bennett, Byard J. ‘The Origin of Evil: Didymus the Blind’s Contra Manchaeos and Its Debt to Origen’s Theology and Exgesis’. Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1997. Benoît, André, and Charles Munier. Le baptême dans l’Église ancienne. Traditio Christiana 9. New York: Peter Lang, 1994. Berding, Kenneth. Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp’s Use of Biblical and ExtraBiblical Literature. VCSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2002. –––––. What Are Spiritual Gifts? Rethinking the Conventional View. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006. Berger, Klaus. ‘Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel’. NTS 17 (1971): 391–425. –––––. ‘Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament’. Pages 1031–1432 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part II, Principat 25.2: Religion. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984. –––––. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums: Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Francke, 1995. Bergman, Birgit. Der Kranz des Kaisers: Genese und Bedeutung einer römischen Insignie. Image & Context 6. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Bergsma, John S. ‘The Biblical Manumission Laws: Has the Literary Dependence of H on D Been Demonstrated?’. Pages 1:65–89 in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason, Samuel I. Thomas, Alison Schofield, and Eugene Ulrich. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Berkey, Robert. ‘ΕΓΓΙΖΙΕΝ, ΦΘΑΝΕΙΝ, and Realized Eschatology’. JBL 82 (1963): 177–87. Bernardelli, Giovanna Azzali. ‘Gv 1,7 e 1 Pt 1, 18–19 nell’esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea, di Cirillo di Gerusalemme, di Epifanio di Salamina’. Pages 853–93 in Sangue e antropologia nella teologia medievale. Atti della VII settimana. Roma, 27 novembre - 2 dicembre 1989. Edited by Francesco Vattioni. Centro Studi Sanguis Christi 7. Rome: Edizioni Pia Unione Preziosissimo Sangue, 1991. Bernier, Jonathan. Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022. Berry, Paul. The Christian Inscription at Pompeii. Lampeter: Edward Mellen, 1995. Bertacchini, Roberto A. Maria. ‘La discsensa agli inferi di Gesù e il mistero della sofferenza ultraterrena’. Sapienza 53 (2000): 295–324. Bertholdt, Leonhard. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in sämmtliche kanonische und apokryphische Schriften des alten und neuen Testaments. 7 vols. Erlangen: Palm, 1812–1819.

680

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bertman, Stephen. The Conflict of Generations in Ancient Greece and Rome. Amsterdam: Grüner, 1976. Best, Ernest. One Body in Christ. London: SPCK, 1955. –––––. ‘Spiritual Sacrifice: General Priesthood in the New Testament’. Int 14 (1960): 273–99. –––––. ‘I Peter II, 4–10 – A Reconsideration’. NovT 11 (1969): 270–93. –––––. ‘1 Peter and the Gospel Tradition’. NTS 16 (1970): 95–113. Bethge, Hans-Gebhard. ‘Der Text des ersten Petrusbriefes im Crosby-SchøyenCodex (Ms. 193 Schøyen Collection)’. ZNW 84 (1993): 255–67. Bettiolo, Paola. Ascensi Isaiae. Textus. CCSA 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. Betz, Otto. ‘Jesus and Isaiah 53’. Pages 70–87 in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Edited by William H. Bellinger and William R. Farmer. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge, 1994. –––––. ‘Cultural Diversity and Cultural Differences’. Pages 155–57 in The PostColonial Studies Reader. 2nd ed. Edited by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. New York: Routledge, 2006. Bickerman, Elias J. ‘Les Hérodiens’. RB 47 (1938): 184–97. –––––. ‘The Name of Christians’. HTR 42 (1949): 109–24. –––––. ‘Trajan, Hadrian and the Christians’. Rivista di Filogia e di Instruzione Classica 96 (1968): 290–315. Bieder, Werner. Die Vorstellung von der Höllenfahrt Jesu Christi: Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Vorstellung vom sog. Descensus ad inferos. AThANT 19. Zurich: Zwingli, 1949. –––––. Grund und Kraft der Mission nach dem 1. Petrusbrief. ThSt 29. Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1950. Bielman, Anne. ‘Λύτρα, prisonniers et affranchis’. Museum Helveticum: Revue suisse pour l’Étude de l’Antiquité classique 46 (1989): 25–41. Bird, Jennifer G. ‘Reading the Readers Ideologically: Prolegomena to a Study of 1 Peter’. The Bible and Critical Theory 2 (2006): 30.1–30.15. –––––. ‘Rosemary Hennessy and the Circumscribed Symptomatic Symbolism of 1 Peter’s Haustafel’. Pages 229–43 in Marxist Feminist Criticism of the Bible. Edited by Roland Boer and Jorunn Økland. Bible in the Modern World 14. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008. –––––. Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives. LNTS 442. London: T&T Clark International, 2011. Bird, Michael F., and Preston M. Sprinkle. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009. Bischoff, A. ‘Ἀλλοτρι(ο)επίσκοπος’. ZNW 7 (1906): 271–74. Bishop, Eric F. F. ‘Oligoi in 1 Pet. 3:20’. CBQ 13 (1951): 44–45. –––––. ‘The Word of a Living and Unchanging God. 1 Peter 1,23’. Muslim World 43 (1953): 15–17.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

681

Bjerkelund, Carl J. Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen. Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica 1. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967. Blackwell, Ben C. Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria. WUNT 2/314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Blanco, Carlos Ceballos. ‘Pueblo Sacerdotal. Estudio exegético-teológico del Sacerdocio de la comunidad en 1 P 2,4–10 y el Vaticano II con la ayuda de las ciencias sociales’. Th.D. diss., Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 2010. Blass, Friedrich. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Edited by Albert Debrunner. 9th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. –––––. Grammar of New Testament Greek. Translated by H. S. J. Thackeray. London: Macmillan, 1898. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised from the 9th–10th German edition, incorporating supplementary notes of Albert Debrunner by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Blazen, Ivan T. ‘Suffering and Cessation from Sin according to 1 Peter 4:1’. AUSS 21 (1983): 27–50. Blech, Michael. Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen. RVV 38. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982. Blendinger, Christian. ‘Kirche als Fremdlingschaft (1. Petrus 1,22–25)’. CV 10 (1967): 123–34. Blevins, James L. ‘Introduction to 1 Peter’. RevExp 79 (1982): 401–13. Blinzler, Josef. ‘ΙΕΡΑΤΕΥΜΑ. Zur Exegesis von 1 Petr 2,5 u. 9’. Pages 49–65 in Episcopus. Studien über das Bischofsamt. seiner Eminenz Michael Kardinal von Faulhaber, Erzbischof von München-Freising zum 80. Geburtstag. Regensburg: Gregorius-Verlag Vorm. Friedrich Pustet, 1949. Bloch, Moritz. Die Freilassungsbedingungen der delphischen Freilassungsinschriften. Strassburg: Singer, 1914. Blomberg, Craig L., and Darlene M. Seal. From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation. 2nd ed. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2021. Blum, Rudolf. Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Bibliographie. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 18. Frankfurt am Main: Buchhändler-Vereinigung, 1977. Blumell, Lincoln H. ‘The Message and the Medium: Some Observations on Epistolary Communication in Late Antiquity’. JGRChJ 10 (2014): 24–67. –––––. ‘Scribes and Ancient Letters: Implications for the Pauline Epistles’. Pages 208–26 in How the New Testament Came To Be. Edited by Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd. Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2006. Bockmuehl, Marcus N. A. ‘Das Verb φανερόω im Neuen Testament: Versuch einer Neuauswertung’. BZ 32 (1988): 87–99.

682

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study. STI. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. –––––. ‘Peter’s Death in Rome? Back to Front and Upside Down’. SJT 60 (2007): 1–23. –––––. The Remembered Peter: In Ancient Reception and Modern Debate. WUNT 262. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –––––. Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Boehmer, Julius. Das Biblische “Im Namen”. Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung über das Hebräische [be-shem] griechischen Aquivalente (im besonderen Hinblick auf den Taufbefehl Matth. 28, 19). Giessen: J. Ricker, 1898. Boismard, Marie-Émile. ‘Une liturgie baptismale dans la Prima Petri, I: Son influence sur Tit, 1 Jo. et Col’. RB 63 (1956): 182–208. –––––. ‘Une liturgie baptismale dans la Prima Petri, II: Son influence sur l’épître de Jacques’. RB 64 (1957): 161–83. –––––. Quatre hymnes baptismales dans la première épître de Pierre. LD 30. Paris: Cerf, 1961. –––––. ‘Pierre (première épître de)’. DBSup 7 (1966): 1415–55. Bömer, Franz. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, vol. 2: Die sogenannte sakrale Freilassung in Griechenland und die (δοῦλοι) ἱεροί. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1960. –––––. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, vol. 3: Epilegomena. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10. Mainz: Franz Steiner, 1963. Bond, Helen K. ‘Was Peter behind Mark’s Gospel?’. Pages 46–61 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2015. Bonner, Campbell. ‘Demons of the Bath’. Pages 203–208 in Studies Presented to F. Ll. Griffith. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1932. Bonsirven, Joseph. L’évangile de Paul. Théologie. Paris: Aubier, 1948. Boobyer, G. H. ‘The Indebtedness of 2 Peter to 1 Peter’. Pages 34–53 in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1893–1958. Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959. Boor, Carl de. Neue Fragmente des Papias, Hegesippus und Pierius. TUGAL 5/2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1888. Borchert, Gerald L. ‘The Conduct of Christians in the Face of the “Fiery Ordeal” (4:12–5:11)’. RevExp 79 (1982): 451–62. Boring, M. Eugene. ‘Interpreting 1 Peter as a Letter [not] Written to Us’. Quarterly Review 13 (1993): 89–111. –––––. ‘First Peter in Recent Study’. WW 24 (2004): 358–67.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

683

–––––. ‘Narrative Dynamics in First Peter: The Function of Narrative World’. Pages 7–40 in Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy BaumanMartin. LNTS 364. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Bornand, Eric, and Marc Subilia. ‘Les pierres vivantes de 1 Pierre 2,1–10: Une espérance en chantier’. Lire et Dire 52 (2002): 13–24. Bornemann, Wilhelm. ‘Der erste Petrusbrief—eine Taufrede des Silvanus?’. ZNW 19 (1919–20): 143–65. Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971. Bosetti, Elena. Il Pastore: Cristo e la Chiesa Nella Prima Lettera di Pietro. RivBSup 21. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1990. –––––. ‘La Parola della rigenerazione nella Prima lettera di Pietro’. Pages 313–24 in “Generati da una parola di verità” (Gc 1,18): Scritti in onore di Rinaldo Fabris nel suo LXX compleanno. Edited by R. Fabris and S. Grasso. Rivista Biblica Supplments 47. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2006. Bosnakis, D., and K. Hallof. ‘Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos I’. Chiron 33 (2003): 203–62. Botermann, Helga. Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1 Jahrhundert. Hermes Einzelschriften 71. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996. Botha, Phil J. ‘The Social Setting and Strategy of Psalm 34’. OTE 10 (1997): 178–97. Botha, Pieter J. J. ‘Letter Writing and Oral Communication in Antiquity: Suggested Implications for the Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians’. Scriptura 42 (1992): 17–34. Botner, Max. ‘The Essence of a Spiritual House: Misunderstanding Metaphor and the Question of Supersessionism in 1 Peter’. JBL 139 (2020): 411–27. Bott, Nicholas T. ‘Sarah as the “Weaker Vessel”: Genesis 18 and 20 in 1 Peter’s Instructions to Husbands in 1 Pet 3:7’. TJ 36 (2015): 243–59. Böttrich, Christfried. Petrus: Fischer, Fels und Funktionär. BG 2. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001. Bourquin, Yvan, Francine Dubuis, and Jean-Philippe Mérillat. ‘1 Pierre 1,3–12: Une même grâce pour tous’. Lire et Dire 52 (2002): 3–12. Bouttier, Michel. En Christ: Étude d’exégèse et de théologie pauliniennes. Études d’histoire et de la philosophie religieuses 54. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962. Bovon, François. ‘Foi chrétienne et religion populaire dans la première Épître de Pierre’. ETR 53 (1978): 25–41. Bowman, J. W. ‘The Term Gospel and its Cognates in the Palestinian Syriac’. Pages 54–67 in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1893–1958. Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959.

684

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowyer, William. Conjectures on the New Testament: Collected from Various Authors, as well in regard to Word as Pointing, with the Reasons on which Both are Founded. 2nd ed. London: Bowyer & Nichols, 1772. Boyer, James L. ‘First Class Conditions: What Do They Mean?’. Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981): 75–114. –––––. ‘Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions’. Grace Theological Journal 3 (1982): 163–75. –––––. ‘The Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 5 (1984): 163–79. –––––. ‘A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 8 (1987): 35–54. –––––. ‘Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 9 (1988): 233–56. Boylan, Michael. ‘The Galenic and Hippocratic Challenges to Aristotle’s Conception Theory’. Journal of the History of Biology 17 (1984): 83–112. –––––. ‘Galen’s Conception Theory’. Journal of the History of Biology 19 (1986): 47–77. Boyley, Mark. ‘1 Peter: A Mission Document?’. RTR 63 (2004): 72–86. Bradley, Keith. Slavery and Society at Rome. Key Themes in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Brandt, Wilhelm. Dienst und Dienen im Neuen Testament. Neutestamentliche Forschungen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1931. –––––. ‘Wandel als Zeugnis nach dem 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 10–25 in Verbum dei manet in aeternum: Eine Festschrift für Prof. D. Otto Schmitz zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 16. Juni 1953. Edited by Werner Foerster. Witten: Luther, 1953. Braun, Herbert. Qumran und das Neue Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Breed, Gert. ‘The diakonia of Practical Theology to the Alienated in South Africa in the Light of 1 Peter’. Verbum et Ecclesia 35 (2014): 1–9. Bremmer, Jan N. The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife: The 1995 Read-Tuckwell Lectures at the University of Bristol. London: Routledge, 2002. –––––. Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. –––––. ‘The Apocalypse of Peter as the First Christian Martyr Text: Its Date, Provenance and Relationship with 2 Peter’. Pages 75–98 in 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter: Towards a New Perspective. Edited by Jörg Frey, Matthijs den Dulk, and Jan G. van der Watt. BIS 174. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Breu, Clarissa. ‘Zugehörigkeit als Fremdheit. Perspektiven zu einer neutestamentlichen Theologie der Migration’. Protokolle zur Bibel 28 (2019): 41–63. Brewer, Julius A. ‘The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church, II: The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles’. American Journal of Theology 4 (1900): 345–63. Breytenbach, Cilliers. ‘ “Christus starb für uns”. Zur Tradition und paulinischen Rezeption der sogennanten “Sterbeformeln” ’. NTS 49 (2003): 447–75.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

685

–––––. ‘ “Christus litt euretwegen”: Zur Rezeption von JesejaLXX 53 und anderen jüdischen Traditionen im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 437–54 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr, 2005. –––––. ‘The Early Christians and Their Greek Bible: Quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah in Inscriptions from Asia Minor’. Pages 759–74 in Die Septuaginta - Text, Wirkung, Rezeption: 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer. WUNT 325. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Bridges, L. McKinnish. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. SHBC 17. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2008. Brinck, Adolphus. ‘Inscriptiones Graecae ad choregiam pertinentes’. Dissertationes philologicae Halenses 7 (1886): 71–274. Brock, Nadia van. Recherches sur le vocabulaire medical du grec ancient. Soins et guérison. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1961. Brockhaus, Ulrich. Charisma und Amt. Die paulinische Charismenlehre auf dem Hintergrund der frühchristlichen Gemeindefunktionen. 2nd ed. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1975. Brockington, L. H. ‘The Greek Translator of Isaiah and His Interest in ΔΟΞΑ’. VT 1 (1951): 23–32. Brodeur, Scott. The Holy Spirit’s Agency in the Resurrection of the Dead: An Exegetico-Theological Study of 1 Corinthians 15,44b–49 and Romans 8,9–13. TGST 14. Rome: Pontificia università gregoriana, 2004. Brodie, Thomas L. The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004. Brodie, Thomas L., Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter. ‘Problems of Method: Suggested Guidelines’. Pages 284–96 in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. Edited by Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter. NTM 16. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Broer, Ingo and Hans-Ulrich Weidemann. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 4th ed. Würzburg: Echter, 2016. Brongers, H. A. ‘Die Wendung bᵉšēm jhwh im Alten Testament’. ZAW 77 (1965): 1–20. Bronson Barringer, Justin. ‘Subordination and Freedom: Tracing Anarchist Themes in First Peter’. Pages 132–72 in Essays in Anarchism and Religion: Volume II. Edited by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos and Matthew S. Adams. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press, 2018. Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winberry. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1979. Brooks, Oscar S. ‘I Peter 3:21—The Clue to the Literary Structure of the Epistle’. NovT 16 (1974): 290–305. Brosch, Joseph. Charismen und Ämter in der Urkirche. Bonn: Hanstein, 1951.

686

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Broughton, T. R. S. ‘Roman Asia Minor’. Pages 499–918 in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4: Roman Africa, Roman Syria, Roman Greece, Roman Asia. Edited by Tenney Frank. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1938. Brown, E. F. ‘1 Peter v.9’. JTS 8 (1907): 450–52. Brown, Jeannine K. ‘Silent Wives, Verbal Believers: Ethical and Hermeneutical Considerations in 1 Peter 3:1-6 and Its Context’. WW 24 (2004): 395–403. –––––. ‘Just a Busybody? A Look at the Greco-Roman Topos of Meddling for Defining ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος in 1 Peter 4:15’. JBL 125 (2006): 549–68. Brown, Raymond E. Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections. New York: Paulist, 1970. –––––. The Epistles of John: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 30. New York: Doubleday, 1982. –––––. An Introduction to the New Testament. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried, and John Henry Paul Reumann, eds. Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973. Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. SBLMS 24. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979. Brox, Norbert. Zeuge und Märtyrer. SANT 5. Munich: Kösel, 1961. –––––. ‘Zu den persönlichen Notizen der Pastoralbrief’. BZ 13 (1969): 76–94. –––––. Falsche Verfasserangaben: zur Erklärung der frühchristlichen Pseudepigraphie. SBS 79. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1975. –––––. ‘Zur pseudepigraphischen Rahmung des ersten Petrusbriefes’. BZ 19 (1975): 78–96. –––––. ‘Situation und Sprache der Minderheit im ersten Petrusbrief’. Kairos 19 (1977): 1–13. –––––. ‘Tendenz und Pseudepigraphie im ersten Petrusbrief’. Kairos 20 (1978): 110–20. –––––. ‘Der erste Petrusbrief in der literarischen Tradition des Urchristentums’. Kairos 20 (1978): 182–92. –––––. ‘ “Sara zum Beispiel…”: Israel im 1.Petrusbrief’. Pages 484–93 in Kontinuität und Einheit. Für Franz Mussner. Edited by Paul-Gerhard Müller and Werner Stenger. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1981. Brückner, Wilhelm. ‘Zur Kritik des Jakobusbriefs’. ZWT 17 (1874): 530–41 –––––. Die chronologische Reihenfolge, in welcher die Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfasst. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1890. Brummack, Carl. ‘Eis elpida zoosan – zur lebendigen Hoffnung (1 Petr 1,3)’. Pages 276–79 in Kirche, Recht und Land. Festschrift Weihbischof Prof. Dr. Adolf Kindermann dargeboten zum 70 Lebensjahre. Edited by Karl Reiss and Hans Schutz. Munich: Ackerman-Gemeinde, 1969.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

687

Brunt, Peter Astbury, and J. M. Moore. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus. Oxford Scholarly Editions Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Bruyn, Theodore S. de. ‘Greek Amulets from Egypt Invoking Mary as Expressions of “Lived Religion” ’. JCSCS 3 (2012): 55–69. Bryan, Christopher. Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Bryant, Joseph M. Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece: A Sociology of Greek Ethics from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. Buchhold, Jacques. ‘L’étrange nécessité de la persécution: méditation sur 1 Pierre 1.6–9 et 4.12–19 ainsi que sur la structure de la lettre’. Théologie évangelique 18 (2019): 17–35. Buckler, W. H., W. M. Calder, and C. W. M. Cox. ‘Asia Minor, 1924, I: Monuments from Iconium, Lycaonia and Isauria’. JRS 14 (1924): 24–84. Buell, Denise Kimber. Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898. Bultmann, Rudolf. ‘Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente im ersten Petrusbrief’. Coniectanea Neotestamentica 11 (1947): 1–14. Reprinted as pages 285–97 in Exegetica: Ausätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Erich Dinkler. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1967. –––––. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. London: SCM, 1955. Buol, Justin. Martyred for the Church: Memorializations of the Effective Deaths of Bishop Martyrs in the Second Century CE. WUNT 471. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Burchard, Christoph, Carsten Burfeind, and Uta Barbara Fink. Joseph und Aseneth. PVTG 5. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Burer, Michael H., et al., eds. New Testament: New English Translation; Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart/Dallas: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/NET Bible Press, 2004. Burge, Gary M., Gene L. Green, and Lynn H. Cohick. The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Contexts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Burkert, Walter. Antike Mysterien: Funktionen und Gehalt. 5th ed. Munich: Beck, 2012. Burnier, Edouard. La notion de témoignage dans le Nouveau Testament: Notes de théologie biblique. Lausanne: Roth, 1939. Burrows, Millar. ‘The Origin of the Term “Gospel” ’. JBL 44 (1925): 21–33. Burton, Edward. Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. The Greek Testament with English Notes. 3rd ed. Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848.

688

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burton, Ernest D. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898. Burton, Graham P. ‘Powers and Functions of Pro-Consuls in the Roman Empire, 70–260 A.D.’. Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1973. Butler, Howard Crosby. ‘Fourth Preliminary Report on the American Excavations at Sardes in Asia Minor’. AJA 17 (1913): 471–78. Butler, James H. ‘Grace and Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter’. Notes 10 (1996): 58–60. Buttmann, Alexander. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. Translated by Joseph H. Thayer. Andover: W. F. Draper, 1891. –––––. ‘Beiträge zur Kritik und Grammatik des neuen Testaments’. TSK 31 (1858): 474–516. Byrley, Christopher M. ‘Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1 Peter 5:8’. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21 (2017): 77–98. –––––. ‘Eschatology, Cosmic Conflict, and Suffering in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2018. Byrne, Brendan. ‘Christ’s Pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology’. TS 58 (1997): 308–30. Cadbury, Henry J. ‘The Relative Pronoun in Acts and Elsewhere’. JBL 42 (1923): 150–57. –––––. ‘Names for Christians and Christianity in Acts’. Pages 375–92 in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part One: The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 5: Additional Notes to the Commentary. Edited by Frederick J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. London: Macmillan, 1933. Cadoux, Arthur T. The Thought of St. James. London: Clarke, 1944. Calderini, Aristide. La manomissione e la condizione dei liberti in Grecia. Milan: Hoepli, 1908. Calderini, Rita. ‘Gli ἀγράμματοι nell’Egitto greco-romano’. Aeg 30 (1950): 14–41. Callewaert, Camillus. ‘Les premiers chrétiens furent-ils persécutés par édits généraux ou par mesure de police? Observations sur la théorie de Mommsen principalement d’après les écrits de Tertullien’. RHE 2 (1901): 771–97; 3 (1902): 5–15, 324–48, 601–14. Calloud, Jean. ‘Ce que parler veut dire (1 P 1,10–12)’. Pages 175–206 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Camiñas, Julio G. ‘Le “crimen calumniae” dans la “Lex Remnia de calumniatoribus” ’. RIDA 37 (1990): 117–34. Campbell, Barth L. Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter. SBLDS 160. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Campbell, Constantine R. Verbal Aspects, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

689

–––––. Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 15. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. –––––. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Campbell, Douglas N., and Fika J. van Rensburg. ‘A History of Interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18–22’. Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 73–96. Campbell, J. Y. ‘ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ and Its Cognates in the New Testament’. JBL 51 (1932): 352–80. Campbell, R. Alastair. ‘The Elders of the Jerusalem Church’. JTS 44 (1993): 511–28. –––––. The Elders: Seniority within the Earliest Christianity. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Campbell, R. C. ‘Silas’. Page 509 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Volume 4. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Campbell, Ted. ‘Charismata in the Christian Communities of the Second Century’. Wesleyan Theological Journal 17 (1982): 7–25. Caneva, Stefano G., and Aurian Delli Pizzi. ‘Given to a Deity? Religious and Social Reappraisal of Human Consecrations in the Hellenistic and Roman East’. ClQ 65 (2015): 167–91. Canevaro, Mirko, and David Lewis. ‘Khoris Oikountes and the Obligations of Freedmen in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Athens’. Incidenza dell’ Antico 12 (2014): 91–121. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Carder, Muriel M. ‘A Caesarean Text in the Catholic Epistles’. NTS 16 (1970): 252–70. Carlsen, Jesper. Vilici and Roman Estate Managers until AD 284. ARIDSup 24. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1995. –––––. ‘Estate Managers in Ancient Greek Agriculture’. Pages 117–26 in Ancient History Matters: Studies Presented to Jens Erik Skydsgaard on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Karen Ascani et al. ARIDSup 30. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2002. Carlson, Stephen C. ‘A Bias at the Heart of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)’. JBL 139 (2020): 319–40. Carr, David M. ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels’. Pages 107–40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Erhard Blum and Matthias Köchert. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001.

690

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carr, David M., and Colleen M. Conway. An Introduction to the Bible: Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Carr, Wesley. ‘The Rulers of This Age – 1 Corinthians II.6–8’. NTS 23 (1977): 20–35. –––––. Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning, and Development of the Pauline Phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai. SNTSMS 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Carrez, Maurice. ‘L’esclavage dans la première épître de Pierre’. Pages 207–17 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Carrington, Philip. The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940. –––––. ‘Saint Peter’s Epistle’. Pages 57–63 in The Joy of Study: Papers on New Testament and Related Subjects Presented to Honor Frederick Clifton Grant. Edited by Sherman E. Johnson. New York: Macmillan, 1951. –––––. The Early Christian Church, vol. 1: The First Christian Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957. Carson, D. A. Greek Accents: A Student Manual. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. –––––. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996. –––––. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 1015–45 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Carter, John W. ‘1 Peter 1:1–12: An Affirmation of Hope’. Journal of Biblical Theology 3 (2020): 59–79. Carter, Steve. Restored Order: Subordination and Freedom in 1 Peter. StBibLit 175. New York: Peter Lang, 2021. Carter, Warren. ‘Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13–3.6’. Pages 14–33 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 7. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Casalini, Nello. Lettere cattoliche, Apocalisse di Giovanni: Introduzione storica, letteraria, teologica. SBFA 58. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2002. Casson, Lionel. Travel in the Ancient World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Casurella, Anthony. Bibliography of Literature on First Peter. NTTS 23. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Caulley, Thomas S. ‘The Title Christianos and Roman Imperial Cult’. ResQ 53 (2011): 193–206. –––––. ‘The Chrestos/Christos Pun (1 Pet 2:3) in P72 and P125’. NovT 53 (2011): 376–87. Cavin, Robert L. New Existence and Righteous Living: Colossians and 1 Peter in Conversation with 4QInstruction and the Hodayot. BZNW 197. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

691

Cazotto Terra, Kenner Roger. ‘Um Lar (Celestial) para quem não tem Casa: uma História da Tradição de 1 Pedro’. Âncora 4 (2008): 70–94. Centola, Donato Antonio. Il crimen calumniae: contributo allo studio del processo criminale romano. Pubblicazioni del dipartimento di diritto romano e storia della scienza romanistica dell’ università degli Studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’ 14. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica, 1999. Ceresko, Anthony R. ‘The Function of Antanaclasis (mṣʾ “to find” //mṣʾ “to reach, overtake, grasp”) in Hebrew Poetry, Especially in the Book of Qoheleth’. CBQ 44 (1982): 551–69. Cerfaux, Lucien. ‘Regale Sacerdotium’. RSPT 28 (1939): 5–39. Cervantes Gabarrón, José. La Pasión de Jesucristo en la Primera Carta de Pedro: Centro Literario y Teológico de la Carta. Institución San Jerónimo 22. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1991. –––––. ‘Cristo, Piedra viviente, desechada por los hombres (1 P 2,4.7)’. Scripta Fulgentina 1 (1991): 7–26. –––––. ‘Sacerdocio y reino en 1 P 2,4–10’. EstBib 66 (2008): 577–610. Chae, Young S. Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 2/216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Chafer, Lewis Sperry. ‘The Baptism of the Holy Spirit’. BSac 109 (1952): 199–216. Chamberlain, William D. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1941. Chamy, Felipe A. Royal Priesthood: The New Exodus Framework of 1 Peter 1:1–2:10. GlossaHouse Thesis Series. Wilmore: GlossaHouse, 2021. Chancey, Mark A. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. SNTSMS 118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. –––––. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. SNTSMS 134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Chantraine, Pierre. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Collection linguistique 38. Paris: E. Champion, 1933. Chapa, Juan. ‘4934. First Letter of Peter I 23—II 5, 7–12’. Pages 17–22 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LXXIII. Edited by Dirk Obbink and Nikolaos Gonis. Graeco-Roman Memoirs 94. Oxford: Egyptian Exploration Society, 2009. Chapman, Cynthia R. ‘ “Oh that you were like a brother to me, one who had nursed at my mother’s breasts”: Breast Milk as a Kinship-Forging Substance’. JHebS 12 (2012): 1–41. Chapple, Allan. ‘The Appropriation of Scripture in 1 Peter’. Pages 155–71 in All That the Prophets Have Declared: The Appropriation of Scripture in the Emergence of Christianity. Edited by Matthew R. Malcolm. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2015. Charles, Dominique. ‘ “Votre adversaire le diable rôde comme un lion rugissant” (1 P 5,8)’. RB 120 (2013): 405–22.

692

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. “Volonté de Dieu” et “faire le bien” dans la Prima Petri. Origine et portée éthique d’une association féconde. Études bibliques 74. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Charles, J. Daryl. ‘Vice and Virtue Lists’. Pages 1252–57 in Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. Charlesworth, James H. ‘Has the Name “Peter” Been Found among the Dead Sea Scrolls?’. Pages 213–25 in Christen und Christliches in Qumran? Edited by Bernhard Mayer. Eichstätter Studien 32. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1992. –––––. ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects’. Pages 3–35 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Charlesworth, Scott D. ‘Recognizing Greek Literacy in Early Roman Documents from the Judaean Desert’. BASP 51 (2014): 161–89. Chase, F. H. ‘First Epistle of Peter’. Pages 3:779–96 in A Dictionary of the Bible Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents including the Biblical Theology, vol. 3: Kir–Pleiades. Edited by James Hastings. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911. Chatelion-Counet, Patrick. ‘Pseudepigraphy and the Petrine School: Spirit and Tradition in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 62 (2006): 403–24. Chatzidakis, George N. Einleitung in der neugriechische Grammatik. Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken 5. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1892. Cherian, Wilson. ‘The Methodology of Post-Colonialism and Its Relevance in Understanding the Theology of Suffering in 1 Peter and Hebrews’. New Life Review 1 (2012): 23–40. Chester, Andrew. ‘The Theology of James’. Pages 1–62 in Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Chester, Stephen J. Conversion at Corinth: Perspectives on Conversion in Paul’s Theology and the Corinthian Church. SNTW. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Chevallier, Max-Alain. ‘1 Pierre 1/1 á 2/10: Structure Littéraire et Conséquences Exégétiques’. RHPR 51 (1971): 129–42. –––––. ‘Condition et vocation des chrétiens en diaspora. Remarques exégétiques sur la 1er épître de Pierre’. RSR 48 (1974): 387–98. Chevallier, Raymond. Roman Roads. Translated by N. H. Field. Batsford Studies in Archaeology. London: Batsford, 1976. Chia, Philip Suciadi. ‘An Irresistible Beauty in 1 Peter’. Verbum et Ecclesia 42 (2021): 1–7. Chin, Moses. ‘A Heavenly Home for the Homeless: Aliens and Strangers in 1 Peter’. TynBul 42 (1991): 96–112. Christensen, Sean M. ‘Solidarity in Suffering and Glory: The Unifying Role of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter 3:10–12’. JETS 58 (2015): 335–52.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

693

–––––. ‘The Balch/Elliott Debate and the Hermeneutics of the Household Code’. TJ 37 (2016): 173–93. –––––. ‘Reborn Participants in Christ: Recovering the Importance of Union with Christ in 1 Peter’. JETS 61 (2018): 339–54. –––––. ‘The Relationship between the Epistles of James and 1 Peter: A TraditioHistorical Study Based on Their Common Use of Scripture’. Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2018. Christiansen, Ellen Juhl. ‘Chosen and Honoured - Burdened and Troubled: An Aspect of Ecclesiology in 1 Peter’. Pages 77–91 in Cracks in the Walls. Essays on Spirituality, Ecumenicity and Ethics: Festschrift for Anna Marie Aagaard on the Occasion of Her 70th Birthday. Edited by Else M. W. Pedersen and Johannes Nissen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2005. –––––. ‘Election as Identity Term in 1 Peter with a View to a Qumran Background’. SEÅ 73 (2008): 39–64. Chryssavgis, John. ‘The Royal Priesthood (Peter 2.9)’. GOTR 32 (1987): 373–77. Cipriani, S. ‘Lo “Spirito di Cristo” come “spirito di profezia” in 1 Pt 1,10–12’. Pages 157–67 in Ecclesiae Sacramentum: Studi in onore di Alfredo Marranzini. Edited by Giuseppe Lorizio and Vincenzo Scippa. Pontificia facoltà teologica dell’Italia meridionale 2. Naples: M. d’Auria, 1986. Clark, Gillian. Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Life-Styles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Clark, Kenneth W. ‘Realized Eschatology’. JBL 59 (1940): 367–83. –––––. ‘The Meaning of [κατα]κυριεύειν’. Pages 100–105 in Studies in New Testament Language and Text. Edited by J. K. Elliott. NovTSup 44. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Clark, Patricia. ‘Women, Slaves, and the Hierarchies of Domestic Violence: The Family of St. Augustine’. Pages 109–29 in Women and Slaves in GrecoRoman Culture: Differential Equations. Edited by Sandra R. Joshel and Sheila Murnaghan. London: Routledge, 1998. Clarke, Andrew D. ‘The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7’. TynBul 41 (1990): 128–42. –––––. Serve the Community of the Church: Christian Leaders and Ministers. FirstCentury Christians in the Graeco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Clarke, G. W. ‘Some Observations on the Persecution of Decius’. Antichthon 3 (1969): 63–77. –––––. ‘An Illiterate Lector?’. ZPE 57 (1984): 103–4. Clemen, Carl. ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des 1. Petrusbriefes verteidigt’. TSK 78 (1905): 619–28. Cludius, Hermann Heimart. Uransichten des Christenthums nebst Untersuchungen über einige Bücher des Neuen Testaments. Altona: Hammerich, 1808.

694

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Coblentz Bautch, Kelley. ‘ “Awaiting New Heavens and a New Earth”: The Apocalyptic Imagination of 1–2 Peter and Jude’. Pages 63–82 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. –––––. ‘Peter and the Patriarch: A Confluence of Traditions?’. Pages 13–37 in With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic and Mysticism in Honor of Rachel Elior. Edited by Daphne V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov. Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014. Collins, John N. Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Collins, Raymond F. ‘I Thess and the Liturgy of the Early Church’. BTB 10 (1980): 51–64. –––––. Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha. GNS 28. Wilmington: Glazier, 1988. –––––. ‘A Significant Decade: The Trajectory of the Hellenistic Epistolary Thanksgiving’. Pages 159–84 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Colwell, John E. ‘Baptism, Conscience and the Resurrection: A Reappraisal of 1 Peter 3.21’. Pages 210–27 in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross. JSNTSup 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Combet-Galland, Corina. ‘Susciter des pierres vivantes, un destin pour Pierre’. FoiVie 106 (2007): 59–79. Combrink, H. J. B. ‘The Structure of 1 Peter’. Neot 9 (1975): 34–63. Connolly, R. Hugh. ‘On the Meaning of ἐπίκλησις’. Downside Review 41 (1923): 28–43 –––––. ‘ “The Meaning of ἐπίκλησις”: A Reply’. JTS 25 (1924): 337–64. Conybeare, Frederick C. ‘The Kiss of Peace’. Exp 4/9 (1894): 460–62. Cook, D. ‘I Peter iii. 20: An Unnecessary Problem’. JTS 31 (1980): 72–78. Cook, John Granger. Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians: From Claudius to Hadrian. WUNT 261. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –––––. ‘Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: A Second Century Anachronism?’. VC 74 (2020): 237–64. –––––. ‘The Tradition of Peter’s Crucifixion’. Pages 733–51 in Talking God in Society: Multidisciplinary (Re)constructions of Ancient (Con)texts. Festschrift for Peter Lampe, vol. 1: Theories and Applications. Ute E. Eisen and Heidrun E. Mader. NTOA 120/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021. Cooper, Bradley. ‘The Exegetical Method Employed in 1 Peter 2:4–10’. Conspectus 1.1 (2006): 63–77.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

695

Coppens, Joseph. ‘Le Sacerdoce royal des fidèles: Un commentaire de 1 Petr. 2:4–10’. Pages 61–75 in Au service de la Parole de Dieu: Mélanges offerts à Monseigneur André-Marie Charue. Gembloux: Duculot, 1969. Corritore, Alfio. ‘Pietro agli eletti della diaspora: identità storico-teologiche e dinamismi ecclesiali nella “Prima Petri” ’. Ph.D. diss., San Giovanni Evangelista (Sicilia), 2001. Corsten, Thomas, ed. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. V.A: Coastal Asia Minor: Pontos to Ionia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Cortez, Félix H. ‘1 Peter and Postmodern Criticism’. Pages 151–66 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Cothenet, Édouard. ‘Béni soit Dieu’. AsSeign 23 (1971): 26–32. –––––. ‘Les orientations actuelles de l’exégèse de la première lettre de Pierre’. Pages 13–42 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. –––––. ‘Le réalisme de l’espérance chrétienne selon 1 Pierre’. NTS 27 (1980–81): 564–72. –––––. ‘La portée salvifique de la résurrection du Christ d’après I Pierre’. Pages 249–62 in La Pâque du Christ: mystère du salut: mélanges offerts au F.-X. Durrwell pour son 70e anniversaire. Edited by Aloyse Schmid and Martin Benzerath. LD 112. Paris: Cerf, 1982. –––––. ‘La Première de Pierre: Bilan de 35 ans de recherches’. Pages 3685–712 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part II, Principat 25.5. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988. Cotton, Hannah M., and Ada Yardeni. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites, with an Appendix Containing Alleged Qumran Texts. DJD 27. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Coultre, J. le. ‘De l’étymologie du mot “chrétien” ’. RTP 40 (1907): 188–96. Countryman, L. William. ‘Asceticism or Household Morality? 1 and 2 Peter and Jude’. Pages 371–82 in Asceticism and the New Testament. Edited by Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush. New York: Routledge, 1999. Cousin, Georges, and Charles Diehl. ‘Cibyra et Eriza’. BCH 13 (1889): 333–42. Coutts, John. ‘Ephesians I. 3–14 and I Peter I. 3–12’. NTS 3 (1956–57): 115–27. Covolo, Enrico dal. ‘L’interpretazione origeniana di 1 Petri 2,9’. Pages 567–75 in Origeniana Sexta. Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum Chantilly, 30 août–3 septembre 1993. Edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec. BEThL 118. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995. –––––. ‘ “Voi siete stirpe eletta, sacerdozio regale, popolo santo…”. Esegesi e catechesi nell’interpretazione origeniana di 1Pt 2,9’. Pages 85–95 in Esegesi e Catechesi nei Padri (secc. II–IV), Convegno di studio e aggiornamento Facoltà di Lettere cristiane e classiche (Pontificium Institutum Altioris Latinitatis) Roma 26–28 marzo 1992. Edited by Sergio Felici. BSRel 112. Rome: LAS, 1993.

696

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cowles, Henry. ‘Christ Preaching to the Spirits in Prison: 1 Pet. III. 18–20’. BSac 32 (1875): 401–21. Cramer, Daniel. De descensus Christi ad inferos exegema. In fine addita est Jac. Fabri Stapulensis disceptatio: ante annos centum contra Nic. Cusanum edita. Stetini, 1615. Cramer, Jacob. ‘Exegetica et critica, vol. II: Het glossematisch karakter van 1 Petr. 3:19–21 en 4:6’. Nieuwe Bijdragen 7 (1891): 221–97. Crawford, John S., and J. Greaves. ‘A Brass Lamp from Sardis’. AJA 78 (1974): 291–94. Crawford, Matthew R. ‘ “Confessing God from a Good Conscience”: 1 Peter 3:21 and Early Christian Baptismal Theology’. JTS 67 (2016): 23–37. Cribiore, Raffaella. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. ASP 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. –––––. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Crook, John A. ‘An Augustan Inscription in the Rijksmuseum at Leyden (S.E.G. xviii, no. 555)’. PCPhS 8 (1962): 23–29. Croom, Alexandra T. Roman Clothing and Fashion. Stround: Tempus, 2000. Cross, Frank L. 1 Peter: A Paschal Liturgy. 2nd ed. London: Mowbray, 1957. Crowe, Brandon D. The Message of the General Epistles in the History of Redemption: Wisdom from James, Peter, John, and Jude. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015. Cullmann, Oscar. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament. London: Epworth, 1958. –––––. Peter – Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1962. Culy, Martin M. ‘The Clue is in the Case: Distinguishing Adjectival and Adverbial Participles’. PRSt 30 (2003): 441–54. –––––. ‘Double Case Constructions in Koine Greek’. JGRChJ 6 (2009): 82–106. Cuming, G. J. ‘Service Endings in the Epistles’. NTS 22 (1975–76): 110–13. Cumont, Franz. After Life in Roman Paganism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922. –––––. Lux perpetua. Paris: Geuthner, 1949. Curtis, C. Densmore. ‘Ancient Granulated Jewelry of the VIIth Century B.C. and Earlier’. MAAR 1 (1915–16): 63–85. Dabin, Paul. Le sacerdoce royal des fidèles dans les livres saints. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1941. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. ‘Benediction and Congratulation’. Pages 279–314 in Studies in Ephesians: Introductory Questions, Text- & Edition-Critical Issues, Interpretation of Texts and Themes. Edited by David Hellholm, Vemund Blomkvist, and Tord Fornberg. WUNT 131. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

697

Dalton, William J. ‘So That Your Faith May also Be Your Hope in God (1 Peter 1:21)’. Pages 262–74 in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Edited by Robert Banks. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. –––––. ‘The Interpretation of 1 Peter 3,19 and 4,6: Light from 2 Peter’. Bib 60 (1979): 547–55. –––––. ‘La rigenerazione alla vita cristiana (1 Pt 1,3)’. Parola Spirito e vita 5 (1982): 234–46. –––––. Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6. 2nd ed. AnBib 23. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Daly, Lowrie J. ‘Political Implications of Some Medieval Commentators on 1 Peter II, 13–17’. Manuscripta 20 (2009): 137–49. Daly, Robert J. ‘Early Christian Influences on Origen’s Concept of Sacrifice’. Pages 313–26 in Origeniana. Premier colloque international des études origéniennes (Montserrat, 18–21 septembre 1973). Edited by Henri Crouzel, Gennaro Lomiento, and Josep Rius-Camps. Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum 12. Bari: Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1975. Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Danielou, Jean. Sacramentum futuri: Études sur les origines de la typologie biblique. Études de théologie historique 19. Paris: Beauchesne, 1950. Danielson II, David D. ‘Peter’s Gospel to the Martyrs’. Pages 171–89 in For it Stands in Scripture: Essays in Honor of W. Edward Glenny. Edited by Ardel B. Caneday, Anna Rask, and Greg Rosauer. St. Paul: The University of Northwestern Berntsen Library, 2019. Danker, Frederick W. ‘I Peter 1,24–2,17—A Consolatory Pericope’. ZNW 58 (1967): 93–102. –––––. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton, 1982. –––––. ‘First Peter in Sociological Perspective’. Int 37 (1983): 84–88. Daube, David. ‘Participle and Imperative in 1 Peter’. Pages 467–88 in E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1947. –––––. ‘κερδαίνω as a Missionary Term’. HTR 40 (1947): 109–20. Dautzenberg, Gerhard. ‘Σωτηρία ψυχῶν (1 Petr 1,9)’. BZ 8 (1964): 262–76. _____. ‘Seele IV. Neues Testament’. Pages 744–48 in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 30: Samuel – Seele. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999. Daux, Georges. ‘Inscriptions de Delphes inédites ou revues’. BCH 73 (1949): 248–93. Davids, Peter H. ‘The Use of Second Temple Traditions in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude’. Pages 409–31 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. BETL 176. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.

698

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘A Silent Witness in Marriage: 1 Peter 3:1–7’. Pages 224–38 in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. 2nd ed. Edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. Downers Grover: InterVarsity, 2005. –––––. A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. –––––. ‘Immigrants in Our Own Land, Citizens of God’. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21 (2017): 11–24. –––––. ‘Exalted Lord and Suffering Servant: The Response to Jesus in James and 1 Peter’. Pages 253–67 in The Earliest Perceptions of Jesus in Context: Essays in Honor of John Nolland on his 70th Birthday. Edited by Aaron White, David Wenham, and Craig A. Evans. LNTS 566. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018. Davidson, Samuel. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, Critical Exegetical, and Theological. 3rd ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1894. Davies, Glenn N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4. JSNTSup 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Davies, John A. A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6. JSOTSup 395. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Davies, Paul E. ‘Primitive Christology in I Peter’. Pages 115–22 in Festschrift to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich: Lexicographer, Scholar, Teacher, and Committed Christian Layman. Edited by Eugene H. Barth and Ronald E. Cocroft. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Davies, Rupert E. ‘Christ in our Place—The Contribution of Prepositions’. TynBul 21 (1970): 81–90. Davis, James F. Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5.38–42. JSNTSup 281. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Dawes, Stephen B. ‘ʾANAWAʾ in Translation and Tradition’. VT 41 (1991): 38–48. –––––. ‘Humility: Whence This Strange Notion?’. ExpTim 103 (1991): 72–75. Déaut, Robert le. ‘Le Targum de Gen. 22,8 et 1 Pt. 1,20’. RechSR 49 (1961): 103–106. Debord, Pierre. ‘L’esclavage sacré: état de la question’. Pages 135–50 in Actes du colloque 1971 sur l’esclavage. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 140. Paris: Belles lettres, 1972. Dechow, Jon F. ‘The “Gospel” and the Emperor Cult: From Bultmann to Crossan’. Forum 3,2 (2014): 63–88. Decker, Rodney J. ‘The Semantic Range of νῦν in the Gospels as Related to Temporal Deixis’. TJ 16 (1995): 187–217. –––––. Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Decock, Paul. ‘Towards Maturity in 1 Peter: Freedom, Holiness, Immortality’. IDS 50 (2016): 1–8.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

699

Deeks, David G. ‘Papias Revisited (Part 2)’. ExpTim 88 (1977): 324–29. Deichgräber, Reinhard. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymen. Studien zu Umwelt des Neuen Testament 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967. Deichmann, Friedrich W. Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage, Bd. 1: Rom und Ostia. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1967. Deissmann, G. Adolf. Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘In Christo Jesu’ untersucht. Marburg: Elwert, 1892. –––––. Bible Studies. Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity. Translated by Alexander Grieve. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901. –––––. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. de Jonge, Marinus. ‘Vreemdelingen en bijwoners. Enige opmerkingen naar aanleiding van 1 Petr 2:11 en verwante teksten’. NedTT 11 (1956–57): 18–36. Dekker, Jaap. Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16. OtSt 54. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Delling, Gerhard. Die Taufe im Neuen Testament. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963. –––––. ‘Der Bezug der christlichen Existenz auf das Heilshandeln Gottes nach dem ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 95–113 in Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift für Herbert Braun zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. Mai 1973. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz and Luise Schottroff. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973. DeMaris, Richard E. ‘Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology’. JBL 114 (1995): 661–82. Dennis, John. ‘Cosmology in the Petrine Literature and Jude’. Pages 157–77 in Cosmology and New Testament Theology. LNTS 355. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Denniston, John D., and Kenneth J. Dover. The Greek Particles. 2nd ed. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1950. De Robertis, Francesco M. ‘Arbitrium iudicantis e statuizioni imperiali: Pena discrezionale e pena fissa nella cognitio extra ordinem’. SZ 59 (1939): 219–60. Derrett, J. D. M. ‘He Descended into Hell’. Journal of Higher Criticism 9 (2002): 234–45. –––––. ‘Christ, the Messiah, and Bodhisattvas Descend into Hell’. ArOr 70 (2002): 489–504. Deselaers, Paul. ‘ “Der verborgene Mensch des Herzens” (1 Petr 3,4). Ein Leitbildbiblischer Anthropologie’. BL 81 (2008): 281–84.

700

BIBLIOGRAPHY

de Silva, David A. ‘Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament’. ATJ 31 (1999): 32–84. –––––. ‘1 Peter: Strategies for Counseling Individuals on the Way to a New Heritage’. ATJ 32 (2000): 33–52. –––––. ‘Turning Shame into Honor: The Pastoral Strategy of 1 Peter’. Pages 159–86 in The Shame Factor: How Shame Shapes Society. Edited by Robert Jewett, Wayne L. Alloway, and John G. Lacey. Eugene: Cascade, 2011. Deterding, Paul E. ‘Exodus Motif in First Peter’. Concordia Journal 7 (1981): 58–65. Deubner, L. ‘Die Bedeutung des Kranzes im klassischen Altertum’. AR 30 (1933): 70–104. Devine, Andrew M., and Lawrence D. Stephens. Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. DeVivo, Jenny L. ‘Waters of Salvation: 1 Peter 3:20–21’. Pages 335–48 in With Gentleness and Respect: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Mark F. Whitters. BTS 40. Leuven: Peeters, 2020. Dey, J. ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der religionsgechichtlichen Bedeutung von Tit 3,5. NTAbh 17. Münster: Aschendorff, 1937. Dhont, Marieke. ‘The Use of Greek in Palestine: Eupolemus as a Case Study’. PEQ (2022): online. Dhorme, Paul. L’emploi métaphorique des noms de partie du corps en hébreu et en akkadien. Paris: Gabdala, 1923. Dibelius, Martin. ‘Zur Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (ausserhalb der Evangelien)’. TRu 3 (1931): 207–42. –––––. A Fresh Approach to the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1936. –––––. James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Hermeneia. Translated by Heinrich Greeven. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Dickson, John P., and Brian S. Rosner. ‘Humility as a Social Virtue in the Hebrew Bible?’. VT 54 (2004): 459–79. Dihle, Albrecht. ‘Antike Höflichkeit und christliche Demut’. Studi italiani di filología classica 26 (1952): 169–90. Dijkman, J. H. L. ‘The Socio-Religious Condition of the Recipients of I Peter: An Attempt to Solve the Problem of Date, Authorship and Addressees of the Letter’. Ph.D. diss., University of the Witwatersrand, 1984. –––––. ‘Ὅτι as an Introductory Formula to Catechetical References in I Peter’. Pages 260–70 in A South African Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by South African New Testament Scholars presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during his Visit to South Africa in 1985. Edited by Jacobus H. Petzer and Patrick J. Hartin. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Dillon, Sheila. ‘Figured Pilaster Capitals from Aphrodisias’. AJA 101 (1997): 731–69.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

701

Dimant, Devorah. ‘ “The Crucible of Tests”: A Central Concept in the Thinking of the Qumran Community’. Pages 161–74 in Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010 (Hebrew). Dinkler, Michal Beth. ‘Sarah’s Submission: Peter’s Analogy in 1 Peter 3:5–6’. Priscilla Papers 21 (2007): 9–15. Dioxiadis, Euphrosyne. The Mysterious Fayum Portraits: Faces from Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson, 1995. Di Palma, G. ‘ “La vostra speranza sia fissa in Dio”. Aspetto della testimonianza nella prima Lettera di Pietro’. Asprenas [Naples] 53 (2006): 349–76. Dmitriev, Sviatoslav. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Doble, Peter. ‘Luke 24.26, 44—Songs of God’s Servant: David and his Psalms in Luke–Acts’. JSNT 28 (2006): 267–83. Dochhorn, Jan. ‘ “Vater, in deine Hände übergebe ich meinen Geist”. Das Kreuzeswort Jesu in Lk 23,46 und die Rezeption von Ps 31,6 im frühen Judentum und Christentum’. Early Christianity 2 (2011): 468–91. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. Dodewaard, J. van. ‘Die sprachliche Übereinstimmung zwischen Markus-Paulus und Markus-Petrus, II: Markus-Petrus’. Bib 30 (1949): 218–38. Dodwell, Henry. Dissertationes Cyprianicae. Oxford: n.p., 1682. Doering, Lutz. ‘Schwerpunkte und Tendenzen der neueren Petrus-Forschung’. BTZ 19 (2002): 203–23. –––––. ‘First Peter as Early Christian Diaspora Letter’. Pages 215–36, 441–57 in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude. Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert W. Wall. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. –––––. Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginning of Christian Epistolography. WUNT 246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –––––. ‘Apostle, Co-Elder, and Witness of Suffering: Author Construction and Peter Image in First Peter’. Pages 645–81 in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 298. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –––––. ‘Gottes Volk: Die Adressaten als “Israel” in Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 81–113 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘ “You are a Chosen Stock…”: The Use of Israel Epithets for the Addressees in First Peter’. Pages 243–76 in Jewish and Christian Communal Identities in the Roman World. Edited by Yair Furstenberg. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 94. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

702

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Ransom, Re-begetting, and Rescue: The Soteriological Web of 1 Peter’. Pages 476–97 in Sōtēria: Salvation in Early Christianity and Antiquity: Festschrift in Honour of Cilliers Breytenbach on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by David S. du Toit, Christine Gerber, and Christiane Zimmermann. NovTSup 175. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Doeve, J. W. ‘Some Notes with Reference to τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 3.2’. Pages 111–23 in Studia Paulina: in Honorem Johannis de Zwaan, septuagenarii. Edited by J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik. Haarlem: Bohn, 1953. Dognini, Cristiano. ‘Le comunità cristiane e l’impero romano secondo la Prima Lettera di Pietro’. Latomus 68 (2009): 957–71. Donaldson, John W. A Complete Greek Grammar for the Use of Students. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1862. Donaldson, Terence L. Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE). Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. HUT 22. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Siebeck), 1986. –––––. ‘Gathering Apostolic Voices: Who Wrote 1 and 2 Peter and Jude?’. Pages 11–26 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Donovan, John. ‘Greek Jussives’. Classical Review 9 (1895): 145–49. –––––. The Logia in Ancient and Recent Literature. Cambridge: Heffer & Sons, 1924. Dorcey, Peter F. The Cult of Silvanus: A Study in Roman Folk Religion. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 20. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. Downing, F. Gerald. ‘Pliny’s Prosecutions of Christians: Revelation and 1 Peter’. JSNT 34 (1988): 105–23. Downs, David J. ‘Redemptive Almsgiving and Economic Stratification in 2 Clement’. JECS 19 (2011): 493–517. –––––. ‘ “Love Covers a Multitude of Sins”: Redemptive Almsgiving in 1 Peter 4:8 and its Early Christian Reception’. JTS 65 (2014): 489–514. Drawnel, Henryk. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. JSJSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Drodge, Arthur J. Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. HUT 26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Drogula, Fred K. ‘The Office of the Provincial Governor under the Roman Republic and Empire (to AD 235): Conception and Tradition’. Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 2005. Dryden, J. de Waal. Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation. WUNT 2/209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Dschulnigg, Peter. ‘Aspekte und Hintergrund der Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes’. TGl 84 (1994): 318–29. –––––. Petrus im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

703

Dubis, Mark. ‘First Peter and the “Sufferings of the Messiah” ’. Pages 85–96 in Looking into the Future: Evangelical Studies in Eschatology. Edited by David W. Baker. ETS Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. –––––. Messianic Woes in 1 Peter: Suffering and Eschatology in 1 Peter 4:12–19. StBibLit 33. New York: Peter Lang, 2002. –––––. ‘Research on 1 Peter: A Survey of Scholarly Literature Since 1985’. CBR 4 (2006): 199–239. Duff, Jeremy. ‘A Reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in Early Christianity’. Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford, 1998. Dunant, Sylvie, David Allisson, and Samuel Kahlil. ‘Pierre 2,18–25: Patience, le ver est dans le fruit’. Lire et Dire 52 (2002): 27–37. Dunbabin, Katherine. ‘Baiarum Grata Voluptas: Pleasures and Dangers of the Baths’. Papers of the British School in Rome 57 (1989): 33–46. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975. –––––. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1990. –––––. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –––––. The Living Word. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. –––––. Christianity in the Making, vol. 2: Beginning from Jerusalem. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –––––. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentacostalism Today. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 2010. Duplacy, Jean. ‘Le texte occidental des Épîtres catholiques’. NTS 16 (1970): 397–99. Duplacy, Jean, and Christian-Bernard Amphoux. ‘A propos de l’histoire du texte de la première épître de Pierre’. Pages 155–73 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Dupont-Roc, Roselyne. ‘Le jeu des prépositions en 1 Pierre 1,1–12: De l’espérance finale à la joie dans les épreuves présentes’. EstBib 53 (1995): 201–12. Durham, Ken. ‘How Can We Crave the Milk? A Response to Jobes, Liebengood and Barbarick’. Leaven 20 (2012): 141–44. Durst, Michael. ‘Babylon gleich Rom in der jüdischen Apokalyptik und im frühen Christentum. Zur Auslegung von 1 Petr 5,13’. Pages 422–43 in Petrus und Paulus in Rom: eine interdisziplinäre Debatte. Edited by Stefan Heid. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Dvorjetski, Esti. Leisure, Pleasure and Healing: Spa Culture and Medicine in Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. JSJSup 116. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Eastman, David L. The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul. SBLGRW 39. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Easton, B. S. ‘New Testament Ethical Lists’. JBL 51 (1932): 1–12.

704

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eberhart, Christian. Kultmetaphorik und Christologie: Opfer- und Sühneterminologie im Neuen Testament. WUNT 306. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Ebright, Homer K. The Petrine Epistles: A Critical Study of Authorship. Cincinnati: Methodist Book Concern, 1917. Eck, Werner. Die Verwaltung des römischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit: Ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge. Area 1,3. Basel: F. Reinhardt, 1995–1998. Ecker, Ute. Grabmal und Epigramm. Studien zur frühgriechischen Sepulkraldichtung. Palingenesia 29. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990. Eckhard, Heinrich. Tractatus de descensu Christi ad inferos: et aliis nonnullis maxime controversis quaestionibus. Lipsiae: Grosse, 1610. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim. Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus. WUNT 2/10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Edenburg, Cynthia. ‘How (not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1 Sam 24; 26’. SJOT 12 (1998): 64–85. Edwards, Dennis R. ‘Participation in Christ in 1 Peter’. Pages 144–62 in Cruciform Scripture: Cross, Participation, and Mission. Edited by Nijay K. Gupta, Andy Johnson, Christopher W. Skinner, and Drew J. Strait. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. –––––. ‘Guarding the Flock: Shepherding in the Jesus Way according to 1 Peter’. Pages 80–96 in Living the King Jesus Gospel: Discipleship and Ministry Then and Now. Edited by Nijay K. Gupta, Tara Beth Leach, Matthew W. Bates, and Drew J. Strait. Eugene: Cascade, 2021. Egan, Patrick T. ‘Did Peter Change Scripture? The Manuscript Tradition of Greek Psalms 33–34 and 1 Peter 3:10–12’. Pages 505–28 in Die Septuaginta— Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte: 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22.–25. Juli 2010. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund. WUNT 286. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –––––. Ecclesiology and the Scriptural Narrative of 1 Peter. Eugene: Pickwick, 2016. Ehrman, Bart D. ‘Cephas and Peter’. JBL 109 (1990): 463–74. –––––. Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 5 vols. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1810–1827. Eisele, Wilfried. ‘Alles in Ordnung? Strukturen und Ziele der Paraklese in 1 Petr 2,11–4,11’. Pages 126–37 in Der Erste Petrusbrief. Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel. Edited by Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber. QD 269. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Ekpendu, Ikechi Chidi. ‘ “The Spirit in Prison”: An Exegetical and Theological Study of 1 Peter 3:19’. Research on Humanities and Social Science 9/12 (2019): 23–28. Elderen, Jr., Bastiaan Van. ‘The Pauline Use of the Participle’. Ph.D. diss., Pacific School of Religion, 1960.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

705

Elgvin, Torleif. ‘ “To Master His Own Vessel”: 1 Thess 4:4 in Light of New Qumran Evidence’. NTS 43 (1997): 604–19. Elliott, John H. The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of 1 Peter 2:4–10 and the Phrase βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα. NovTSup 12. Leiden: Brill, 1966. –––––. ‘A Catholic Gospel: Reflections on “Early Catholicism” in the New Testament’. CBQ 31 (1969): 213–23. –––––. ‘Ministry and Church Order in the NT: A Traditio-Historical Analysis (1 Pt 5, 1–5 & plls.)’. CBQ 32 (1970): 367–91. –––––. ‘The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in Recent Research’. JBL 95 (1976): 243–54. –––––. 1 Peter Estrangement and Community. Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1979. –––––. ‘Peter, Silvanus and Mark in 1 Peter and Acts: Sociological-Exegetical Perspectives on a Petrine Group in Rome’. Pages 250–67 in Wort in der Zeit: neutestamentliche Studien. Festgabe für Karl Heinrich Rengstorff zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Wilfrid Haubeck and Michael Bachmann. Leiden: Brill, 1980. –––––. ‘The Roman Provenance of 1 Peter and the Gospel of Mark: A Response to David Dungan’. Pages 181–94 in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches. Edited by Bruce Corley. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983. –––––. ‘1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch’. Pages 61–78 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. NABPRSSS 9. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986. –––––. A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy, with a New Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. –––––. ‘First Epistle of Peter’. Pages 269–78 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5: O – Sh. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –––––. ‘Disgraced yet Graced: The Gospel according to 1 Peter in the Key of Honor and Shame’. BTB 25 (1995): 166–78. –––––. ‘Review of Rainer Metzner, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangelium im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluss des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief’. JBL 116 (1997): 379–82. –––––. ‘Elders as Leaders in 1 Peter and the Early Church’. CTM 28 (2001): 549–59. –––––. Conflict, Community, and Honor: 1 Peter in Social-Scientific Perspective. Cascade Companions. Eugene: Cascade, 2007. –––––. ‘Elders as Leaders in 1 Peter and the Early Church’. HvTSt 64 (2008): 681–95. –––––. Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World. 4 vols. Eugene: Cascade, 2015–2017. Elliott, J. K. ‘Nouns with Diminutive Endings in the New Testament’. NovT 12 (1970): 391–98.

706

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘The Petrine Epistles in the “Editio Critica Maior” ’. NovT 42 (2000): 328–39. –––––. ‘The Early Text of the Catholic Epistles’. Pages 204–24 in The Early Text of the New Testament. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Ellis, Earle E. ‘II Corinthians V.1–10 in Pauline Eschatology’. NTS 6 (1959): 211–24. –––––. ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’. Pages 691–725 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. CRINT 2/1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. –––––. The Making of the New Testament Documents. BIS 39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Elmer, Ian J. ‘I, Tertius: Secretary or Co-Author of Romans’. ABR 56 (2008): 45–60. Elsner, Jacob. Observationes sacræ in Novi Foederis libros: quibus plura illorum librorum loca ex auctoribus potissimum græcis & antiquitate exponuntur et illustrantur. Trajecti ad Rhenum: J. van Poolsum, 1720. Elzevir, Abraham. Ἡ Καινη Διαθηκη. Novum Testamentum. Ex Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus, hac nova expressum: cui quid accesserit, Præfatio docebit. Lugd. Batavorum: Ex officina Elzevirorum, 1633. Endsjø, Dag Øistein. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Engberg, Jakob. Impulsore Chresto: Opposition to Christianity in the Roman Empire c.50–250 AD. Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. ‘Paul, Virtues and Vices’. Pages 608–33 in Paul in the Graeco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg: Trinity, 2003. Engel, Werner. ‘Christus Victor. Eine Untersuchung zu Gattung und Struktur des vorliterarischen Christushymnus 1Petr 3,18–22’. PzB 7 (1998): 137–47. Epp, Eldon Jay. ‘The Multivalence of the Term “Original Text” in New Testament Textual Criticism’. HTR 92 (1999): 245–81. –––––. ‘In the Beginning was the New Testament Text, but Which Text? A Consideration of the “Ausgangstext” and “Initial Text” ’. Pages 35–70 in Texts and Traditions: Essays in Honour of J. Keith Elliott. Edited by Peter Doble and Jeffrey Kloha. NTTSD 47. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Erbes, K. ‘Petrus nicht in Rom, sondern in Jerusalem gestorben’. ZKG 22 (1901): 1–47, 161–224. –––––. ‘Was bedeutet ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος 1 Pt 4,15?’. ZNW 19 (1919–20): 39–44. –––––. ‘Noch etwas zum ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος 1 Petr 4, 15’. ZNW 20 (1921): 249. Erickson, Millard J. ‘Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death?’. BSac 152 (1995): 131–44.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

707

Eriksson, Lars Olov. “Come, Children, Listen to Me!” Psalm 34 in the Hebrew Bible and in Early Christian Writings. ConBOT 32. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1991. Erim, Kenan T. ‘De Aphrodisiade’. AJA 71 (1967): 233–43. Eschner, Christina. Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi. WMANT 122. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010. Esler, Philip F. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology. SNTSMS 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Estrada, Bernardo. ‘La gioia nella sofferenza in 1 Pietro’. RivB 51 (2003): 405–36. Evang, Martin. ‘Ἐκ καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς. Zum Verständnis der Aufforderung und ihrer Begründungen in 1Petr 1,22f.᾽. ZNW 80 (1989): 111–23. –––––. ‘ “Jedes menschliche Geschöpf” und “treuer Schöpfer”: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte in 1. Petr 2,13; 4,19’. Pages 53–67 in Eschatologie und Schöpfung. Festschrift für Erich Grässer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Edited by Martin Evang, Helmut Merklein, and Michael Wolter. BZNW 89. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997. –––––. ‘Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit in der Strategie des 1. Petrusbriefes’. Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 17 (2006): 21–30. Evans, Arthur. ‘ “The Ring of Nestor”: A Glimpse into the Minoan After-World and a Sepulchral Treasure of Gold Signet-Rings and Bead Seals from Thisbê Boeotia’. JHS 45 (1925): 1–75. Evans, Craig A. From Jesus to the Church: The First Christian Generation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014. Evans, T. V. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Evanson, Edward. The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists, and the Evidence of Their Respective Authenticity Examined. Ipswich: Jermyn, 1792. –––––. A Letter to Dr. Priestley’s Young Man; With a Postscript concerning the Rev. D. Simpson’s Essay in Answer to Evanson’s Dissonance and Volney’s Ruins. Ipswich: Jermyn, 1794. Exler, Francis X. J. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (3rd c. B.C.–3rd c. A.D.): A Study in Greek Epistolography. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1923. Faber, Riemer A. ‘The Juridical Nuance in the NT Use of ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΛΗΜΨΙΑ’. WTJ 57 (1995): 299–309. Fabris, Rinaldo. ‘Lettere Cattoliche: Un ventennio di ricerca (1990–2010)’. RivB 59 (2011): 523–44.

708

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fagbemi, Stephen Ayodeji A. ‘The Identity of the “Elect” in 1 Peter: Its “Present” Significance and Implications for Believers’. Pages 367–80 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004. –––––. Who Are the Elect in 1 Peter? A Study in Biblical Exegesis and Its Application to the Anglican Church of Nigeria. StBibLit 104. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. –––––. ‘Living for Christ in a Hostile World: The Christian Identity and its Present Challenges in 1 Peter’. Transformation 26 (2009): 1–14. –––––. ‘Transformation, Proclamation and Mission in the New Testament: Examining the Case of 1 Peter’. Transformation 27 (2010): 209–23. Faivre, Cecile. ‘Chrèstianoi/Christianoi. ce que “chrétiens” en ses débuts voulait dire’. RHE 103 (2008): 771–805. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Fantin, Joseph D. The Greek Imperative Mood in the New Testament: A Cognitive and Communicative Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek 12. New York: Peter Lang, 2012. Farago-Bermon, Pascale. ‘Surviving the Disaster: The Use of Psychē in 1 Peter 3:20’. Pages 81–94 in Papers Presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2011, vol. 11: Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica, Ethica. Edited by Markus Vinzent. StPatr 63. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Farmer, William R. ‘Reflections on Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins’. Pages 260–80 in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Edited by William H. Bellinger and William R. Farmer. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. Fascher, Erich. Textgeschichte als hermeneutisches Problem. Halle: Niemeyer, 1953. Fedalto, Giorgio. ‘Il toponimo di 1 Petr. 5,13 nella esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea’. Vetera Christianorum 20 (1983): 461–66. Fee, Gordon D. (revised by Roderic L. Mullen). ‘The Use of the Greek Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism’. Pages 351–73 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Feinberg, John S. ‘1 Peter 3:18–20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State’. WTJ 48 (1986): 303–36. Feldmeier, Reinhard. Die Christen als Fremde: Die Metapher der Fremde in der antiken Welt, im Urchristentum und im 1. Petrusbrief. WUNT 64. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992. –––––. ‘The “Nation” of Strangers: Social Contempt and its Theological Interpretations in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity’. Pages 240–70 in Ethnicity and the Bible. Edited by Mark G. Brett. BIS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1996.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

709

–––––. ‘Die Außenseiter als Avantgarde. Gesellschaftliche Ausgrenzung als missionarische Chance nach dem 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 161–78 in Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism. Edited by Pieter W. van der Horst, Maarten J. J. Menek, Joop F. M. Smith, and Geert Van Oyen. CBET 33. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. –––––. ‘Euer Widersacher, der Teufel. Frühchristliche Konzeptionalisierungen des Bösen am Beispiel des 1. Petrusbriefes’. Pages 61–76 in Das Böse in der Geschichte. Edited by Werner H. Ritter and Jörg A. Schlumberger. Bayreuther historische Kolloquien 16. Dettelbach: Röll, 2003. –––––. ‘Seelenheil. Überlegungen zur Soteriologie und Anthropologie des 1. Petrusbriefes’. Pages 291–306 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. BETL 176. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. –––––. ‘Wiedergeburt im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 75–100 in Wiedergeburt. Edited by Reinhard Feldmeier. Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. –––––. ‘Salvation and Anthropology in First Peter’. Pages 203–13, 437–41 in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude. Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert W. Wall. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. –––––. ‘ “Basis des Kontaktes unter Christen”. Demut als Schlüsselbegriff der Ethik des Ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 249–62 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Felix, Paul W. ‘Penal Substitution in the New Testament: A Focused Look at First Peter’. MSJ 20 (2009): 171–97. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –––––. ‘Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and Its Environment’. Pages 1151–89 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part II, Principat 23.2. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980. Ferrari, Markus Schiefer. ‘Dem Wort glauben – ohne Wort überzeugen Suchbewegungen des Autors und der Leser/innen in 1 Petr 2,11–4,11’. Pages 155–67 in Der Erste Petrusbrief. Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel. Edited by Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber. QD 269. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Ferris, T. E. S. ‘A Comparison of 1 Peter and Hebrews’. CQR 111 (1930): 123–27. –––––. ‘The Epistle of James in Relation to 1 Peter’. CQR 128 (1939): 303–308. Feuillet, André. ‘Les “sacrifices spirituels” du sacerdoce royal des baptisés (1 P 2,5) et leur preparation dans l’Ancien Testament’. NRTh 96 (1974): 704–28. –––––. ‘La primauté et l’humilité de Pierre: Leur attestation en Mt 16,17–19, dans l’Evangile de Marc et dans la Première Epître de Pierre’. NV 66 (1991): 3–24.

710

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Février, Paul-Albert. ‘Les chrétiens dans l’arèna’. Pages 265–73 in Spectacula, vol. 1: Gladiateurs et amphithéatres: Actes du colloque tenu à Toulouse et à Lattes, 26–29 mai 1987. Paris: Imago, Musée archéologique Henri Prades, 1990. Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. –––––. Notes on the Translation of the New Testament. Otium Norvicense, Pars Tertia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Figueras, Pau. Death and Afterlife in Ancient Jewish and Christian Sources. Gorgias Handbooks. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2019. Filson, Floyd V. ‘Partakers with Christ: Suffering in 1 Peter’. Int 9 (1955): 400–412. Fink, Paul R. ‘The Use and Significance of en hōi in 1 Peter’. Grace Theological Journal 8 (1967): 33–39. –––––. ‘An Analysis of Peter’s Literary Style and Its Contribution to the Exegesis of the Petrine Epistles’. Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1967. Finney, Mark T. Resurrection, Hell and the Afterlife: Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism, and Early Christianity. New York: Routledge, 2016. Fischer, Karl M. Tendenz und Absicht des Epheserbriefes. FRLANT 111. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Fischer, Ulrich. Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum. BZNW 44. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978. Fishbane, Michael A. ‘Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran’. Pages 339–76 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. CRINT 2/1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Fittschen, Klaus. ‘Courtly Portraits of Women in the Era of the Adoptive Emperors (AD 98–180) and Their Reception in Roman Society’. Pages 42–52 in I, Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome. Edited by Diana E. E. Kleiner and Susan B. Matheson. New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery, 1996. Fitzgerald, John T. ‘Virtue/Vice Lists’. Pages 857–59 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6: Si–Z. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –––––. ‘Early Christian Missionary Practice and Pagan Reaction: 1 Peter and Domestic Violence against Slaves and Wives’. Pages 24–44 in Renewing Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson. Edited by Mark W. Hamilton, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Jeffrey Peterson. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 65. Eugene: Pickwick, 2007. –––––. ‘Domestic Violence in the Ancient World: Preliminary Considerations and the Problem of Wife-Beating’. Pages 101–21 in Animosity, the Bible, and Us: Some European, North American and South African Perspectives. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Fika J. van Rensburg, and Herrie F. van Rooy. GPBS 12. Atlanta: SBL, 2009.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

711

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. ‘ “4QTestimonia” and the New Testament’. TS 18 (1957): 513–37. –––––. ‘David, “Being therefore a Prophet…” (Acts 2:30)’. CBQ 34 (1972): 332–39. –––––. ‘The Gospel in the Theology of Paul’. Int 33 (1979): 339–50. Flemming, Dean. ‘ “Won Over without a Word”: Holiness and the Church’s Missional Identity in 1 Peter’. Wesleyan Theological Journal 49 (2014): 50–66. Flint, Peter W. ‘The Prophet David at Qumran’. Pages 158–67 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Flusser, David. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. –––––. ‘The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity’. Pages 39–88 in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation. Edited by Jeremy Cohen. New York: New York University Press, 1991. Foggini, Pietro Francesco. De romano divi Petri itinere et episcopatu eiusque antiquissimis imaginibus exercitationes historico-critica. Florentiae: Manniano, 1741. Forbes, Clarence A. Neoi: A Contribution to the Study of Greek Associations. Philological Monographs 2. Middletown: American Philological Association, 1933. Forbes, Greg. ‘Children of Sarah: Interpreting 1 Peter 3:6b’. BBR 15 (2005): 105–109. Fornberg, Tord. An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter. ConB 9. Lund: Gleerup, 1977. Forrest, W. G. ‘Some Inscriptions of Chios’. ABSA 61 (1966): 197–206. Foster, Ora D. ‘The Literary Relations of “The First Epistle of Peter” with Their Bearing on Date and Place of Authorship’. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 17 (1913): 363–538. Foster, Paul. ‘Peter in Noncanonical Traditions’. Pages 222–62 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. France, R. T. ‘Exegesis in Practice: Two Examples’. Pages 252–81 in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. –––––. ‘First Century Bible Study: Old Testament Motifs in 1 Peter 2:4–10’. Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 18 (2015): 26–48. Francis, Fred O. ‘The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and I John’. ZNW 61 (1970): 110–25. Francis, James. ‘ “Like newborn babes” – The Image of the Child in 1 Peter 2:2–3’. Pages 111–17 in Studia Biblica 1978. III. Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors. Edited by E. A. Livingstone. JSNTSup 3. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.

712

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Frankemölle, Hubert. Evangelium—Begriff und Gattung: Ein Forschungsbericht. Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 15. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994. Fransen, Irénée. ‘Une homélie chrétienne: La première Epître de Pierre’. BVC 31 (1960): 28–38. Franzmann, John W. ‘The Early Development of the Greek Concept of Charis’. Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1972. Fraser, P. M., et al., eds. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987–. Frattallone, Raimondo. Antropologia naturale e soprannaturale nella prima lettera di San Pietro. Rome: Academia Alfonsiana, 1967. –––––. Fondamenti dell’agire morale secondo la 1a Petri: Il battezzato sulle orme di Cristo. Studi e richerche 11. Bologna: EDB, 1971. Frederick, Stephen C. ‘The Theme of Obedience in the First Epistle of Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1975. French, David H. ‘The Roman Road-System of Asia Minor’. Pages 698–729 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part II, Principat 7.2: Politische Geschichte. Edited by Hildegard Temporini. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980. –––––. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. BARIS 105, 392. 2 vols. Oxford: B.A.R., 1981–1988. –––––. ‘Acts and the Roman Roads of Asia Minor’. Pages 49–58 in The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, vol. 2: The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by David W. J. Gill and Cconrad H. Gempf. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Frenschkowski, Marco. ‘Erkannte Pseudepigraphie? Ein Essay über Fiktionalität, Antike und Christentum’. Pages 181–232 in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Frey, Jörg. The Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter: A Theological Commentary. Translated by Kathleen Ess. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2018. Frey, Jörg, Matthijs den Dulk, and Jan G. van der Watt, eds. 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter: Toward a New Perspective: Radboud Prestige Lectures by Jörg Frey. BIS 174. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Frey, Jörg, Jens Herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. Rothschild, eds. Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, WUNT 246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Friedeman, Caleb T. ‘The Rhetorical Design of 1 Peter 2,9–10’. Bib 101 (2020): 124–31. Friesen, Steven J. ‘Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus’. JSNT 26 (2004): 323–61.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

713

–––––. ‘Normal Religion, or, Words Fail Us: A Response to Karl Galinsky’s “The Cult of the Roman Emperor: Uniter or Divider?” ’. Pages 23–26 in Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult. Edited by Jeffrey Brodd and Jonathan L. Reed. WGRWSup 5. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Frings, J. ‘Zu 1 Petr. 3,19 und 4,6’. BZ 17 (1925–1926): 75–88. Frisius, Mark A. Tertullian’s Use of the Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude. StBibLit 143. New York: Peter Lang, 2011. Fritsch, C. T. ‘ΤΟ ἈΝΤΙΤΥΠΟΝ’. Pages 100–107 in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodoro Christiano Vriezen, qui munere professoris theologiae per XXV annos functus est, ab amicis, collegis, discipulis dedicata. Edited by W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude. Wageningen: Veeman & Zonen, 1966. Fritzsche, Karl F. A. ‘Ejusdem de loquutione Petrinâ (ep. I. c. V. vs. 5) τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε commentatio’. Pages 259–75 in Fritzschiorum opuscula academica. Lipsiae: Sumtibus Friderici Fleischeri, 1838. Fry, Evan. ‘Commentaries on James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude’. BT 41 (1990): 326–36. Fuhrmann, Sebastian. ‘The Devil as (Convicted) Prosecutor: Some Ideas on the Devil in 1 Peter and Hebrews’. IDS 50 (2016): 1–4. Fujii, Takashi. ‘Imperial Cult and Imperial Death in the Roman East: Emperors Represented in Cypriot Inscriptions’. Pages 159–66 in Mors Omnibus Instat: Aspectos arqueológicos, epigráficos y rituales de la muerte en el Occidente Romano. Edited by Javier Andreu, Simone Pastor, and David Espinosa. Historia Antigua; Madrid: Liceus, 2011. Fuller, Lois K. ‘The “Genitive Absolute” in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for Clearer Understanding’. JGRChJ 3 (2006): 142–67. Fuller, Reginald H. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Duckworth, 1966. Funk, Robert W. A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. 3rd ed. Salem: Polebridge, 2013. Furnish, Victor Paul. The Love Command in the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. –––––. ‘Elect Sojourners in Christ: An Approach to the Theology of 1 Peter’. PSTJ 28 (1975): 1–11. Gabriel, Karl. ‘Ausstieg aus der Majoritätsgesellschaft. Soziologische Beleuchtung – im Blick auf den Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 49–66 in Der Erste Petrusbrief. Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel. Edited by Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber. QD 269. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Gäckle, Volker. Allgemeines Priestertum. Zur Metaphorisierung des Priestertitels im Frühjudentum und Neuen Testament. WUNT 331. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –––––. ‘Grüße aus Babylon: Anmerkungen zur Verfasserfrage des 1. Petrusbriefes’. TBei 46 (2015): 8–23.

714

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Jesus, the Slaves, and the Servant(s) in 1 Peter 2:18–25’. Pages 273–93 in Isaiah’s Servants in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Isaian Servant and the Exegetical Formation of Community Identity. Edited by Michael A. Lyons and Jacob Stromberg. WUNT 2/554. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Galinsky, Adam D., Kurt Hugenberg, Carla Groom, and Galen V. Bodenhausen. ‘The Reappropriation of Stigmatizing Labels: Implications for Social Identity’. Pages 221–56 in Identity Issues in Groups. Edited by Jeffrey T. Polzer. Research on Managing Groups and Teams 5. Amsterdam/Boston: JAI, 2003. Galot, Jean. ‘La descente du Christ aux enfers’. NRTh 83 (1961): 471–91. Gamba, Giuseppe G. ‘L’Evangelista Marco Segretario—“Interprete” della prima lettera di Pietro?’. Salesianum 44 (1982): 61–70. Gamble, Harry Y. The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism. SD 42. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. –––––. ‘Pseudonymity and the New Testament Canon’. Pages 333–62 in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Gan, Jonathan. The Metaphor of Shepherd in the Hebrew Bible: A HistoricalLiterary Reading. Lanham: University Press of America, 2007. Gandhi, Leela. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998. Garnsey, Peter. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. –––––. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Key Themes in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Garrison, Roman. Redemptive Almsgiving in Early Christianity. JSNTSup 77. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Gärtner, Bertil. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament. SNTSMS 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gathercole, Simon J. The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. –––––. ‘The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts’. ZNW 104 (2013): 33–76. –––––. ‘The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels’. JTS 69 (2018): 447–76. Gatzweiler, Karl. ‘Prix et exigencies de la condition chrétienne (1 P 1,17–21)’. AsSeign 24 (1970): 16–20. Geagan, Daniel J. The Athenian Constitution after Sulla. Hesperia Supplement 12. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1967. Geiger, Stephen H. ‘A Word about Baptism: Ἐπερώτημα in 1 Peter 3:21’. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 113 (2016): 204–209.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

715

Gemünden, Petra von. Affekt und Glaube. Studien zur Historischen Psychologie des Frühjudentums and Urchristentums. NTOA 73. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. George, Roji Thomas. ‘Petrine Missional Ethics’. Pages 51–63 in Theological Formation for Christian Missions: A Festschrift for Ian Water Payne. Edited by Roji Thomas George and Aruthuckal Varughese John. Bangalore: SAIACS Press, 2019. Gerhard, Gustav A. ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des griechischen Briefes I: Die Formel ὁ δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι χαίρειν’. Philologus 64 (1905): 27–65. Gess, Wolfgang Friedrich. Christi person und werke nach Christi selbstzeugniss und den zeugnissen der Apostel, vol. 2: Das apostolische Zeugniss von Christi Person und Werk nach seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Basel: Detloff, 1878. Ghiberti, Giuseppe F. ‘Le “sante donne” di una volta (1Pt 3,5)’. RivB 36 (1988): 287–97. Gibson, E. Leigh. The Jewish Manumission Inscriptions of the Bosporus Kingdom. TSAJ 75. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Gibson, Jack J. Peter between Jerusalem and Antioch: Peter, James and the Gentiles. WUNT 2/345. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Gibson, Margaret D., ed. The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, vol. 4: Acts of the Apostles and Three Catholic Epistles in Syriac and English. Horae Semiticae 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913. Gielen, Marlis. Tradition und Theologie neutestamentlicher Haustafelethik: ein Beitrag zur Frage einer christlichen Auseinandersetzung mit gesellschaftlichen Normen. BBB 75. Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1990. –––––. ‘Der Polykarpbrief und der 1. Petrusbrief. Versuch einer Neubestimmung ihres literarischen Verhältnisses’. Pages 416–44 in Aneignung durch Transformation: Beiträge zur Analyse von Überlieferungsprozessen im frühen Christentum: Festschrift für Michael Theobald. Edited by Wilfried Eisele, Christoph Schaefer, and Hans-Ulrich Weidemann. Herders biblische Studien 74. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2013. –––––. ‘Der 1. Petrusbrief und Kaiser Hadrian. Zur Frage der zeitgeschichtlichen Einordnung des 1. Petrusbriefes’. BZ 57 (2013): 161–83. –––––. ‘Eine kulturwissenschaftliche Erschließung neutestamentlicher Lebenswelten am Beispiel des 1. Petrusbriefes’. Pages 37–72 in Das Theologische der Theologie. Wissenschaftstheoretische Reflexionen, methodische Bestimmungen, disziplinäre Konkretionen. Edited by Franz Gmainer-Pranzl and Gregor M. Hoff. Salzburger theologische Studien 62. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 2019. Gieseler, J. C. L., ed. Petri Siculi Historia Manichaeorum Seu Paulicianorum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1846. Giesen, Heinz. ‘Hoffnung auf Heil für alle—Heilsgegenwart für die Glaubenden (1 Petr 3,18–22)’. SNTSU 14 (1989): 93–150. –––––. ‘Lebenszeugnis in der Fremde. Zum Verhalten der Christen in der paganen Gesellschaft (1 Petr. 2.11–17)’. SNTSU 23 (1998): 113–52.

716

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Gemeinde als Liebesgemeinschaft dank göttlicher Neuzeugung zu Petr 1,22–2,1–3’. SNTSU 24 (1999): 135–66. –––––. ‘Christi Leiden - Voraussetzung und Bedingung christlichen Lebens und Heils auch für Verstorbene (1 Petr 4, 1–6)’. SNTSU 25 (2000): 176–218. –––––. ‘Der Gott Israels als der Vater unseres Herrn Jesus Christus im ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 130–61 in Der Gott Israels im Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Ulrich Busse. QD 201. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. –––––. Jesu Heilsbotschaft und die Kirche: Studien zur Eschatologie und Ekklesiologie bei den Synoptiken und im ersten Petrusbrief. BETL 179. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004. Giet, Stanislas. ‘Le témoignage de Clément de Rome sur la venue à Rome de saint Pierre’. RevScRel 29 (1955): 123–36. Gildersleeve, Basil L. ‘Encroachment of μή and οὐ in Later Greek’. AJP 1 (1879): 45–57. –––––. Syntax of Classical Greek: From Homer to Demosthenes. First Part, The Syntax of the Simple Sentence, Embracing the Doctrine of the Moods and Tenses. New York: American Book Co., 1900. Gilen, Leonhard. ‘Demut des Christen nach dem Neuen Testament’. Zeitschrift für Aszese und Mystik 13 (1938): 266–84. Gill, Christopher. The Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Gilliam, James Frank. ‘Invitations to the Kline of Sarapis’. Pages 315–24 in Collectanea Papyrologica. Texts Published in Honor of H. C. Youtie. Edited by Ann Ellis Hanson. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 19. Bonn: Habelt, 1976. Gilmour, Michael. ‘Crass Casualty or Purposeful Pain? Psalm 34’s Influence on Peter’s First Letter’. WW 24 (2004): 404–11. Giovannini, Adalberto. ‘L’interdit contre les chrétiens: raison d’état ou mesure de police?’. CCG 7 (1996): 103–34. Givens, Tommy. We the People: Israel and the Catholicity of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Givón, Talmy, ‘From Discourse to Syntax: Grammar as a Processing Strategy’. Pages 81–112 in Discourse and Syntax. Edited by Talmy Givón. Syntax and Semantics 12. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Glancy, Jennifer A. Slavery in Early Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Gleaves, G. Scott. ‘The Identity of the Prophets in 1 Pet 1:10–12’. ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΑ 3 (2015): 67–79. –––––. Did Jesus Speak Greek? The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine. Eugene: Pickwick, 2015. Glenny, W. Edward. ‘The Hermeneutics of the Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

717

–––––. ‘1 Peter 2:2a: Nourishment for Growth in Faith and Love’. Pages 441–48 in Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Greek Exegesis. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006. Gloag, Paton J. Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887. Goehring, James E., ed. The Crosby-Schøyen Codex: Ms 193 in the Schøyen Collection. CSCO 521. Leuven: Peeters, 1990. –––––. ‘Unidentified Text’. Pages 261–75 in The Crosby-Schøyen Codex: Ms 193 in the Schøyen Collection. Edited by James E. Goehring. CSCO 521. Leuven: Peeters, 1990. Goetchius, Eugene V. The Language of the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1965. Goff, Matthew J. Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VTSup 116. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Goldstein, Horst. ‘Die politischen Paränesen in 1 Petr 2 und Röm 13’. BibLeb 14 (1973): 88–104. –––––. ‘Die Kirche als Schar derer, die ihrem leidenden Herrn mit dem Ziel der Gottesgemeinschaft nachfolgen: Zum Gemeindeverständnis von 1 Petr 2,21–25 und 3,18–22’. BibLeb 15 (1974): 38–54. –––––. Paulinische Gemeinde im Ersten Petrusbrief. SBS 80. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. Golebiewski, R. P. E. ‘Dieu nous console dans l’épreuve (1 P 5,6–11)’. AsSeign 57 (1965): 17–23. Golubcova, E. S. ‘Sklaverei- und Abhängigkeitsformen in Kleinasien’. Pages 77–138 in Die Sklaverei in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Reiches im 1.–3. Jahrhundert. Translated by Jaroslav Kriz et al. Übersetzungen ausländischer Arbeiten zur antiken Sklaverei 5. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1992. Goodacre, Mark. ‘Scripturalization in Mark’s Crucifixion Narrative’. Pages 33–47 in The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark. Edited by Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. –––––. ‘Prophecy Historicized or Tradition Scripturalized? Reflections on the Origins of the Passion Narrative’. Pages 37–51 in The New Testament and the Church: Essays in Honour of John Muddiman. Edited by John Barton and Peter Groves. LNTS 532. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 7, Pagan Symbols in Judaism. Bolligen Series 37. New York: Pantheon, 1958. Goodrich, John K. Paul as Administrator of God in 1 Corinthians. SNTSMS 152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Goodspeed, Edgar J. ‘Foreword’. Pages vii–viii in Albert E. Barnett, Paul Becomes a Literary Influence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. –––––. Problems of New Testament Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945. –––––. ‘Enoch in 1 Peter 3:19’. JBL 73 (1954): 91–92.

718

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goodwin, William W. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. 2nd ed. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1890. –––––. A Greek Grammar. 2nd ed. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1895. Goppelt, Leonhard. Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen. Anhang: Apokalyptik und Typologie bei Paulus. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969. –––––. ‘Prinzipien neutestamentlicher Sozialethik nach dem 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 285–96 in Neues Testament und Geschichte. historisches geschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament. Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Heinrich Baltenweiler and Bo Reicke. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972. Gorman, Michael J. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Goswell, Gregory. ‘The Early Readership of the Catholic Epistles’. JGRChJ 13 (2017): 129–51. Goukowsky, Paul. ‘Les lettres grecques de Brutus: Documents authentiques ou forgerie?’. Pages 273–90 in Les gouverneurs et les provinciaux sous la République romaine. Edited by Nathalie Barrandon and François Kirbihler. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2011. Goulder, Michael D. ‘Did Peter Ever Go to Rome?’. SJT 57 (2004): 377–96. Gounelle, Rémi. 1 Pierre 3,18–20 et la descente du Christ aux enfers. Cahiers Évangile Supplément 128. Paris: Cerf, 2004. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. London: Routledge, 2000. Grafe, Eduard. Die Stellung und Bedeutung des Jakobusbriefes in der Entwicklung des Urchristentums. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904. Grafton, Anthony. Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Grandjouan, Clairève. The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 6: Terrocottas and Plastic Lamps of the Roman Period. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1961. Grant, Robert M. Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum. Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Grappe, Christian. Images de Pierre aux deux premiers siècles. Études d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 75. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1995. Graser, Aaron, and Christoph Stenschke. ‘Coping with Discrimination in the First Epistle of Peter and in Modern Social Psychology’. International Journal for Religious Freedom 5 (2012): 101–12. Grau, Friedrich. ‘Der neutestamentliche Begriff χάρισμα, seine Geschichte und seine Theologie’. Ph.D. diss., Tübingen University, 1946 . Graves, Robert. Greek Gods and Heroes. Garden City: Doubleday, 1960. Gréaux, Eric J. ‘ “To the Elect Exiles of the Dispersion… From Babylon”: The Function of the Old Testament in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2003.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

719

–––––. ‘The Lord Delivers Us: An Examination of the Function of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter’. RevExp 106 (2009): 603–13. Green, Dennis. ‘To “…Send up, like the Smoke of Incense, the Works of the Law”: The Similarity of Views on an Alternative to Temple Sacrifice by Three Jewish Sectarian Movements of the Late Second Temple Period’. Pages 165–75 in Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches. Edited by Matthew Dillon. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1996. Green, Edwin L. ‘Μή for οὐ before Lucian’. Pages 471–79 in Studies in Honor of Basil L. Gildersleeve. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1902. Green, F. Mira. ‘Witnesses and Participants in the Shadows: The Sexual Lives of Enslaved Women and Boys in Ancient Rome’. Helios 42 (2015): 143–62. Green, Gene L. ‘Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1979. –––––. Vox Petri: A Theology of Peter. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2019. Green, Joel B. ‘Identity and Engagement in a Diverse World: Pluralism and Holiness in 1 Peter’. AsTJ 55 (2000): 85–92. –––––. ‘Modernity, History and the Theological Interpretation of the Bible’. SJT 54 (2001): 308–29. –––––. ‘Faithful Witness in the Diaspora: The Holy Spirit and the Exiled People of God according to 1 Peter’. Pages 282–95 in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. Edited by Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. –––––. ‘Narrating the Gospel in 1 and 2 Peter’. Int 60 (2006): 262–78. –––––. ‘Living as Exiles: The Church in the Diaspora in 1 Peter’. Pages 311–25 in Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament. Edited by Kent E. Brower and Andy Johnson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. –––––. ‘Embodying the Gospel: Two Exemplary Practices’. Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care 7 (2014): 11–21. Green, Thomas S. A Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testament Dialect, Embracing Observations on the Literal Interpretation of Numerous Passages. 2nd ed. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1862. Greene, Melanie C., and Timothy C. Brock, ‘The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (2000): 701–21. –––––. ‘In the Mind’s Eye: Transportation-Imagery Model of Narrative Persuasion’. Pages 315–41 in Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations. Edited by Melanie C. Green, Jeffrey J. Strange, and Timothy C. Brock. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Greenidge, A. H. J. Infamia: Its Place in Roman Public and Private Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1894. Gregory, Caspar René. Novum Testamentum graece: Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit, apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit commentationem isagogicam, vol. 3,1: Prolegomena. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1884.

720

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Greindl, Max. ‘Κλέος, Κῦδος, Εὖχος, Τιμή, Φάτις, Δόξα. Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des epischen und lyrischen Sprachgebrauches’. Ph.D. diss., University of Munich, 1938. Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt. The Amherst Papyri, Part 1: The Ascension of Isaiah and Other Theological Fragments. London: Frowde, 1900. Griesbach, Johann Jacob. Novum Testamentum graece. Textum ad fidem codicum versionum et Patrum recensuit et lectionis varietatem adiecit, vol. 2: Acta et epistolas Apostolorum cum Apocalypsi. 2nd ed. Halle: Haeredes, 1806. Grosheide, F. W. ‘Kol. 3:1–4; 1 Petr. 1:3–5; 1 Joh. 3:1–2’, GTT 54 (1954): 139–47. Gross, Carl D. ‘Are the Wives of 1 Peter 3.7 Christians?’. JSNT 35 (1989): 89–96. Grudem, Wayne. ‘Christ Preaching through Noah: 1 Peter 3:19–20 in the Light of Dominant Themes in Jewish Literature’. TJ 7 (1986): 3–31. –––––. ‘Wives Like Sarah, and the Husbands Who Honor Them: 1 Peter 3:1–7’. Pages 194–208 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton: Crossway, 1991. Gruen, Erich S. ‘Christians as a “Third Race”: Is Ethnicity at Issue?’. Pages 235–49 in Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Judith M. Lieu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Gruen, William (‘Chip’). ‘The Liminal Donkey: A Reappraisal of the Palatine Crucifix’. Early Christianity 2 (2011): 492–514. Grundmann, Walter. ‘Die ΝΗΠΙΟΙ in der urchristlichen Paränese’. NTS 5 (1958): 188–205. Grunewald, Winfried, and Klaus Junack. Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus. I: Die katholischen Briefe. ANTF 6. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986. Grünstäudl, Wolfgang. Petrus Alexandrinus: Studien zum historischen und theologischen Ort des Zweiten Petrusbriefes. WUNT 2/353. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Gschwind, Karl. Die Niederfahrt Christi in die Unterwelt. NTAbh 2,3/5. Münster: Aschendorff, 1911. Gubler, Marie-Louise. ‘Rechenschaft über die Hoffnung. Eine Auslegung von 1 Petr 3.15’. Diakonia 34 (2003): 126–28. Guerra y Gómez, Manuel. Episcopos y Presbyteros. Evolución semántica de los términos ἐπίσϰοπος - πρεσβύτερος desde Homero hasta el siglo secundo después de Jesucristo. Publicaciones del Seminario Metropolitano de Burgos 5. Burgos: Aldecoa, 1962. Gundry, Robert H. ‘The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine: Its Bearing on the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition’. JBL 83 (1964): 404–408. –––––. ‘ “Verba Christi” in I Peter: Their Implications concerning the Authorship of I Peter and the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition’. NTS 13 (1966–67): 336–50. –––––. ‘Further Verba on Verba Christi in First Peter’. Bib 55 (1974): 211–32.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

721

Günther, Ernst. ΜΑΡΤΥΣ. Die Geschichte eines Wortes. Gütersloh: Beretelsmann, 1941. –––––. ‘Zeuge und Märtyrer’. ZNW 47 (1956): 145–61. Gupta, Nijay K. ‘A Spiritual House of Royal Priests, Chosen and Honored: The Presence and Function of Cultic Imagery in 1 Peter’. PRSt 36 (2009): 61–76. Gurry, Peter J. ‘How Your Greek NT Is Changing: A Simple Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)’. JETS 59 (2016): 675–89. –––––. A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism. NTTSD 55. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990. Gutierrez, Pedro. La Paternité spirituelle selon Saint Paul. Études Bibliques. Paris: Lecoffre, 1968. Guttenberger, Gudrun. Status und Statusverzicht im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. NTOA 39. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. –––––. Passio Christiana: Die alltagsmartyrologische Position des ersten Petrusbriefes. SBS 223. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2010. –––––. ‘ “…nun aber Volk Gottes” (1 Petr 2,10): Der erste Petrusbrief im Kontext des ‘Parting of the Ways’-Prozesses’. Pages 115–39 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘ “Teilhabe am Leiden Christi”. Zur Identitätskonstruktion im Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 100–125 in Der Erste Petrusbrief. Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel. Edited by Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber. QD 269. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Habicht, Christian. ‘Die Augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt’. Pages 41–88 in Le culte des souverains dans l’Empire romain. Edited by Willem den Boer. EAC 19. Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1973. Hacham, Noah. ‘Where Does the Shekhinah Dwell? Between the Dead Sea Sect, Diaspora Judaism, Rabbinic Literature, and Christianity’. Pages 1:399–412 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context, Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold. 2 vols. VTSup 140/1–2. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Hagner, Donald A. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. NovTSup 34. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Hahn, Ferdinand. ‘Charisma und Amt. Die Diskussion über das kirchliche Amt im Lichte der neutestamentlichen Charismenlehre’. ZTK 76 (1979): 419–49. Hahn, Ludwig. Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-römischen Osten. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sprache. Bis auf die Zeit Hadrians. Leipzig: Dietrich, 1906. Hahnemann, Geoffrey M. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.

722

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Haines-Eitzen, Kim. Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Halas, Stanislas. ‘Sens dynamique de l’expression λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν en 1 P 2,9’. Bib 65 (1984): 254–58. Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory. Translated by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Hall, David R. ‘Romans 3.1–8 Reconsidered’. NTS 29 (1983): 183–97. Hall, Jonathan M. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Hall, Josiah D. ‘Christian Mission in the Contemporary World: A Dialogue between 1 Peter and Postcolonial Critics’. HBT 43 (2021): 119–45. Hall, Randy. ‘For to This You Have Been Called: The Cross and Suffering in 1 Peter’. ResQ 19 (1976): 137–47. Hall, Robert G. ‘The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity’. JBL 109 (1990): 289–306. Hall, S. G. ‘Paschal Baptism’. Pages 234-51 in Studia Evangelica VI. Edited by E. A. Livingstone. TU 112. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973. Hamblin, Robert L. ‘An Analysis of First Peter with Special Reference to the Greek Participle’. Th.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1960. Hammer, Keir E. ‘Disambiguating Rebirth: A Socio-Rhetorical Exploration of Rebirth Language in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 2011. Hanges, James C. Paul, Founder of Churches: A Study in Light of the Evidence for the Role of “Founder-Figures” in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. WUNT 292. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Hanson, Anthony. ‘Salvation Proclaimed, I. 1 Peter 3:18–22’. ExpTim 93 (1982): 100–105. Haran, Menahem. ‘On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel’. Pages 81–95 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Hardin, Justin K. Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter. WUNT 2/237. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Hardy, Ernest G. Christianity and the Roman Government: A Study in Imperial Administration. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1894. –––––. Studies in Roman History: First Series. London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1906. Harland, Philip A. ‘Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation in Civic Life among Associations (Jewish, Christian and Other) in Asia Minor and the Apocalypse of John’. JSNT 77 (2000): 99–121. –––––. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. –––––. Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians: Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

723

Harnack, Adolf von. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius: Theil 2. Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Band 1: Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenäus. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897. –––––. The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Translated and edited by James Moffatt. 2 vols. London: Williams & Norgate, 1904–1905. –––––. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 7: Zur Revision der Prinzipien der neutestamentlichen Textkritik: die Bedeutung der Vulgata für der katholischen Briefe und der Anteil des Hieronymus an den Übersetzungswerk. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1916. –––––. Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes, Part 1: Die Terminologie der Wiedergeburt und verwandter Erlebnisse in der ältesten Kirche. TU 42. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1918. –––––. “Sanftmut, Huld und Demut” in der alten Kirche: Aus der Festgabe für Julius Kaftan zu seinem 70. Geburstage, dargebracht von Schülern und Kollegen. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Siebeck), 1920. Harner, Philip B. What Are They Saying about the Catholic Epistles? Mahwah: Paulist, 2004. Harrill, J. Albert ‘The Use of the New Testament in the American Slave Controversy: A Case History in the Hermeneutical Tension between Biblical Criticism and Christian Moral Debate’. Religion and American Culture 10 (2000): 149–86. Harris, J. Rendel. ‘A Further Note on the Use of Enoch in 1 Peter’. Expositor 4.5 (1901): 346–49. –––––. ‘On a Recent Emendation in the Text of St. Peter’. Expositor 5.4 (1902): 317–20. –––––. ‘The History of a Conjectural Emendation’. Expositor 6.6 (1902): 378–80. –––––. ‘An Emendation to 1 Peter II.8’. Expositor 7.2 (1909): 155–63. –––––. Side-Lights on New Testament Research: Seven Lectures Delivered in 1908, at Regent’s Park College, London. London: Kingsgate, 1909. –––––. Testimonies. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916–1920. –––––. ‘The Religious Meaning of 1 Peter V.5’. Expositor 8/18 (1919): 131–39. –––––. ‘An Emendation to 1 Peter i.13’. ExpTim 41 (1929–30): 43. Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. Harrison, Gessner. A Treatise on the Greek Prepositions and on the Cases of Nouns with which They Are Used. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1858. Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. WUNT 2/172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Hartog, Paul, ed. Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians and the Martyrdom of Polycarp: Introduction, Text and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Hartung, Johann A. Lehre von Partikeln der griechischen Sprache. Erlangen: Palm & Enke, 1832.

724

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Harvey, A. E. ‘Elders’. JTS 25 (1974): 318–32. Haselhurst, R. S. T. ‘Mark, My Son’. Theology 13 (1926): 34–36. Hatch, Edwin. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1889. Haubold, Johannes. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hauck, Marion Christina. Dynamis eis soterian. Eine Untersuchung zum semantischen Hintergrund eines neutestamentlichen Syntagmas. WMANT 154. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. Hauge, Eirin Hoel. ‘Turn Away from Evil and Do Good! Reading 1 Peter in Light of Psalm 34’. Ph.D. diss., Det teologiske Menighetsfakultete (Oslo), 2008. Hauschildt, H. ‘Πρεσβύτεροι in Aegypten im I–III Jahrh. n. Chr’. ZNW 4 (1903): 235–42. Hauspie, Katrin. ‘Prepositional Phrases in the Septuagint of Ezekiel’. Pages 89–105 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. JSJSup 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Hausrath, Adolf. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, III: Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Bassermann, 1877. Hayes, Michael E. An Analysis of the Attributive Participle and the Relative Clause in the Greek New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 18. New York: Peter Lang, 2018. Hays, Christopher B. ‘The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1–22’. VT 60 (2010): 212–40. Hays, Christopher M. ‘By Almsgiving and Faith Sins Are Purged? The Theological Underpinnings of Early Christian Care for the Poor’. Pages 260–80 in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Head, Peter M. ‘Named Letter-Carriers among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri’. JSNT 31 (2009): 279–99. –––––. ‘Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material’. Pages 203–19 in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LSTS 70. London: T&T Clark, 2009. –––––. ‘Editio Critica Maior: An Introduction and Assessment’. TynBul 61 (2010): 131–52. Heckert, Jakob K. Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles. Dallas: SIL International, 1996. Heemstra, Marius. The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways. WUNT 2/277. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

725

Heen, Erik M. ‘The Role of Symbolic Inversion in Utopian Discourse: Apocalyptic Reversal in Paul and in the Festival of the Saturnalia/Kronia’. Pages 123–44 in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul. Edited by Richard A. Horsley. Semeia 48. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Heger, Paul. ‘Did Prayer Replace Sacrifice at Qumran?’. RevQ 22 (2005): 213–33. Heikel, I. A. ‘Konjekturen zu einigen Stellen des neutestamentlichen Textes’. TSK 106 (1935): 314–17. Heiligenthal, Roman. Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum. WUNT 2/9. Tübingen: Mohr, 1983. Heilmann, Jan. ‘Reading Early New Testament Manuscripts: Scriptio continua, “Reading Aids”, and Other Characteristic Features’. Pages 177–196 in Material Aspects of Reading in Ancient and Medieval Cultures: Materiality, Presence and Performance. Edited by Anna Krauß, Jonas Leipziger, and Friederike Schücking-Jungblut. Materiale Textkulturen 26. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. Helyer, Larry R. The Life and Witness of Peter. Downers Grove: IVP Academic 2012. Hemer, Colin J. ‘The Address of 1 Peter’. ExpTim 89 (1978): 239–43. Hengel, Martin. Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. WUNT 10. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1969. –––––. ‘Anonymität, Pseudepigraphie und “Literarische Fälschung” in der jüdisch-hellenistischer Literatur’. Pages 231–308 in Pseudepigrapha I: Pseudopythagorica, lettres de Platon, littérature pseudépigraphique juive: huit exposés suivis de discussions. Edited by Kurt von Fritz. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 18. Geneva: Hardt, 1972. Henne, Philippe. ‘La datation du Canon de Muratori’. RB 100 (1993): 54–73. Henning, Meghan. ‘In Sickness and in Health: Ancient “Rituals of Truth” in the Greco-Roman World and 1 Peter’. Pages 185–203 in Disability Studies in Biblical Literature. Edited by Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Henten, Jan W. van. ‘Rulercult’. Pages 711–16 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Hentschel, Anni. Diakonia in Neuen Testament: Studien zur Semantik unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der Rolle von Grauen. WUNT 2/226. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Hernández, Jr., Juan. ‘Modern Critical Editions and Apparatuses of the Greek New Testament’. Pages 689–710 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

726

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Herzer, Jens. ‘Alttestamentliche Prophetie und die Verkündigung des Evangeliums. Beobachtungen zur Stellung und zur hermeneutischen Funktion von 1Petr 1,10–12’. BTZ 14 (1997): 14–22. –––––. Petrus oder Paulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition. WUNT 103. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Heumann, Christoph Augustus. Nova sylloge dissertationum, Part 2. Rostock: Wismar, 1754. Heussi, Karl. Die römische Petrustradition in Kritischer Sicht. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1955. Hewitt, Thomas. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Hezser, Catherine. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. TSAJ 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –––––. ‘Private and Public Education’. Pages 465–81 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hicks, E. L. ‘On Some Political Terms Employed in the New Testament᾽. The Classical Review 1.1 (1887): 4–8, 42–46. Hiebert, D. Edmond. ‘Following Christ’s Example: An Exposition of 1 Peter 2:21–25’. BSac 139 (1982): 32–45. –––––. ‘Living in the Light of Christ’s Return: An Exposition of 1 Peter 4:7–11’. BSac 139 (1982): 243–54. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. ‘Der erste Petrus-Brief’. ZWT 16 (1873): 465–98. –––––. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig: Fues, 1875. Hilhorst, Antonius. ‘Termes chrétiens issus du vocabulaire de la démocratie Athénienne’. Filología Neotestamentaria 1 (1988): 27–34. Hill, Charles E. ‘The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon’. WTJ 57 (1995): 437–52. Hill, David. ‘On Suffering and Baptism in I Peter’. NovT 18 (1976): 181–89. –––––. ‘ “To Offer Spiritual Sacrifices…” (1 Peter 2:5): Liturgical Formulations and Christian Paraenesis in 1 Peter’. JSNT 16 (1982): 45–63. Hillert, Sven. Limited and Universal Salvation: A Text-Oriented and Hermeneutical Study of Two Perspectives in Paul. ConBNT 31. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999. Hillyer, Norman. ‘Spiritual Milk…Spiritual House’. TynBul 20 (1969): 126. –––––. ‘The Servant of God’. EvQ 41 (1969): 144–60. –––––. ‘First Peter and the Feast of Tabernacles’. TynBul 21 (1970): 39–70. –––––. ‘ “Rock-Stone” Imagery in 1 Peter’. TynBul 22 (1971): 58–81. Hilton, Allen R. Illiterate Apostles: Uneducated Early Christians and the Literates Who Loved Them. LNTS 541. London: Bloomsbury, 2018. Himes, Paul A. ‘Peter and the Prophetic Word: The Theology of Prophecy Traced through Peter’s Sermons and Epistles’. BBR 21 (2011): 227–43. –––––. Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter. Eugene: Pickwick, 2014.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

727

–––––. ‘Why Did Peter Change the Septuagint? A Reexamination of the Significance of the Use of Τίθημι in 1 Peter 2:6’. BBR 26 (2016): 227–44. –––––. ‘First Peter’s Identity Theology and Community of Faith: A Test-Case in How Social-Scientific Criticism Can Assist with Theological Ethics via Biblical Theology’. EvQ 89 (2018): 115–32. Hiršs, Ilmars. Ein Volk aus Juden und Heiden. Der ekklesiologische Beitrag des Ersten Petrusbriefes zum christlich-jüdischen Gespräch. Münsteraner judaistische Studien 15. Hamburg: Lit, 2003. Hockey, Katherine M. ‘1 Peter 4.16: Shame, Emotion, and Christian SelfPerception’. Pages 27–40 in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce, and Francis Watson. LNTS 587. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. –––––. The Role of Emotion in 1 Peter. SNTSMS 173. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. –––––. ‘Resilience in 1 Peter: Faithfulness and Hope in the Face of Adversity’. Pages 98–110 in Biblical and Theological Visions of Resilience: Pastoral and Clinical Insights. Edited by Christopher C. H. Cook and Nathan H. White. London: Routledge, 2020. Hodgson, Jr., Robert. ‘The Testimony Hypothesis’. JBL 98 (1979): 361–78. Hoffmann, E. ‘Hope, Expectation’. Pages 238–44 in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–1978. Hofius, Otfried. ‘The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters’. Pages 163–88 in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Hofmann, Johann von. Der Schriftbeweis. Ein theologischer Versuch. Hälfte 2. Abt. 2. 2nd ed. Nördlingen: Beck, 1859. Hogan, Karina Martin. ‘Pseudonymity Reconsidered’. Review of Rabbinic Judaism 9 (2006): 1–15. Hölemann, Hermann G. Letzte Bibelstudien. Leipzig: Wolf, 1885. Holleaux, Maurice. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, Tome 2: Études sur la monarchie attalide. Paris: Boccard, 1938. Holleaux, Maurice, and P. Paris, ‘Inscriptions de Carie’. BCH 9 (1885): 68–84. Holloway, Paul A. ‘Nihil inopinati accidisse – “Nothing unexpected has happened”: A Cyrenaic Consolatory Topos in 1 Pet 4.12ff’. NTS 48 (2002): 433–48. –––––. Coping with Prejudice: 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective. WUNT 244. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –––––. ‘1 Peter and Prejudice: Insights from Modern Social Psychology’. STRev 54 (2011): 199–220. Holm, Douglas. ‘Holy Engagement: “Doing Good” as a Missional Response in 1 Peter’. Leaven 20 (2012): 110–16. –––––. ‘Holy Engagement: Doing Good and Verbal Witness as Missional Activity in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., University of Bristol, 2014.

728

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holmes, Michael W. ‘From “Original Text” to “Initial Text”: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion’. Pages 637–88 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Holst, Søren, ‘4Q173a. A Part of an Eschatological Midrash?’. Pages 119–27 in The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revising Texts from Cave Four. Edited by George J. Brooke and Jesper Hørgenhaven. STDJ 96. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Holtzmann, Heinrich J. Die synoptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863. –––––. Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe. Auf grund einer Analyse ihres Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1872. –––––. ‘Die Zeitlage des Jakobusbriefes’. ZWT 25 (1882): 292–310. –––––. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritisch Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 3rd ed. Freiburg: J. C. B Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1892. Holzmeister, Urban. ‘De “plurali categoriae” in Novo Testamento et a Patribus adhibito’. Bib 14 (1933): 68–95. –––––. ‘Vocabularium secundae epistolae S. Petri erroresque quidam de eo divulgati’. Bib 30 (1949): 339–55. Hoogeveen, Hendrik. Greek Particles. Abridged and Translated by John Seager. London: Longman & Co., 1829. Hooker, Morna D. Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1959. –––––. From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. –––––. ‘Did the Use of Isaiah 53 to Interpret His Mission Begin with Jesus?’. Pages 88–103 in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Edited by William H. Bellinger and William R. Farmer. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. Hoole, Charles H. The Classical Element in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1888. Hoppe, Rudolf. ‘Bundestheologie im Ersten Petrusbrief?’. Pages 103–12 in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel. Edited by Christoph Dohmen and Christian Frevel. SBS 211. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007. Horn, Christoph. ‘Der Güterbegriff der antiken Moralphilosophie’. Pages 61–72 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Horn, Cornelia B., and John W. Martens. “Let the Little Children Come to Me”: Childhood and Children in Early Christianity. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2009.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

729

Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. ‘Der Beitrag des 1. Petrusbriefes zur frühchristlichen Tauftheologie’. Pages 409–25 in Beiträge zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Ulrich B. Müller. BZNW 163. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. –––––. ‘Die Petrus-Schule in Rome. Forschungsgeschichtliche Notizen zur Abfassungssituation des 1. Petrusbriefs’. Pages 3–20 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘Die Verantwortung der Christen in der Gesellschaft. Leonhard Goppelts Beitrag zur Auslegung des 1. Petrusbriefs’. Pages 353–68 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘Gute Staatsbürger. Zur politischen Ethik des 1. Petrusbriefs’. Pages 371–90 in Ethos und Theologie im Neuen Testament. Festschrift für Michael Wolter. Edited by Jochen Flebbe and Matthias Konradt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2016. –––––. ‘Christen in der Diaspora. Zum Kirchenverständnis des 1. Petrusbriefs’. KD 63 (2017): 3–17. –––––. ‘Kanonsgeschichte und Einleitung in das Neue Testament am Beispiel des 1. Petrusbriefs. Die Aufgabe einer Einleitung in das Neue Testament’. Pages 331–46 in Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle. Edited by Michael Labahn. FRLANT 271. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. –––––. ‘Der erste Petrusbrief’. Pages 374–85 in Der “Kritisch-exegetische Kommentar” in seiner Geschichte: H.A.W. Meyers KEK von seiner Gründung 1829 bis heute. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker, Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, and Dietrich-Alex Koch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. –––––. ‘Vom Missbrauch, von der Missdeutung und vom Bewahren der Freiheit: Galater 5,13 und 1. Petrus 2,16’. Pages 81–94 in Bestimmte Freiheit. Edited by Martin Bauspieß. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020. Hornik, Heidi J., and Mikeal C. Parsons. ‘The Harrowing of Hell’. BRev 19 (2003): 18–26, 50. Horrell, David G. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. –––––. ‘Whose Faith(fulness) Is It in 1 Peter 1:5?’. JTS 48 (1997): 110–15. –––––. ‘Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity’. Pages 309–37 in Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. Edited by David G. Horrell. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. –––––. ‘Review of Jens Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus?’. JTS 51 (2000): 287–89. –––––. ‘From ἀδελφοί to οἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity’. JBL 120 (2001): 293–311. Reprinted as pages 75–96 in idem, The Making of Christian Morality: Reading Paul in Ancient and Modern Contexts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019.

730

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘The Product of a Petrine Circle? A Reassessment of the Origin and Character of 1 Peter’. JSNT 86 (2002): 29–60. –––––. ‘Who are “the Dead” and When was the Gospel Preached to Them? The Interpretation of 1 Peter 4.6’. NTS 49 (2003): 70–89. –––––. ‘The Catholic Epistles and Hebrews’. Pages 122–35 in Redemption and Resistance in the Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget. London: T&T Clark, 2007. –––––. ‘The Label Χριστιανός: 1 Pet 4.16 and the Formation of Christian Identity’. JBL 126 (2007): 361–81. –––––. ‘Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch-Elliott Debate Towards a Postcolonial Reading of 1 Peter’. Pages 111–43 in Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin. LNTS 364. London: T&T Clark, 2007. –––––. ‘Leiden als Diskriminerung und Martyrium: (Selbst-)Stigmatisierung und Soziale Identität am Beispiel des ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 119–32 in Erkennen und Erleben: Beiträge zur psychologischen Erforschung des frühen Christentums. Edited by Gerd Theissen and Petra von Gemünden. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007. –––––. 1 Peter. NTG. London: T&T Clark, 2008. –––––. ‘The Themes of 1 Peter: Insights from the Earliest Manuscripts (the CrosbySchøyen Codex ms 193 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex containing P72’. NTS 55 (2009): 502–22. –––––. ‘Aliens and Strangers? The Socioeconomic Location of the Addressees of 1 Peter’. Pages 176–202 in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –––––. ‘Particular Identity and Common Ethics: Reflections on the Foundations and Content of Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 5’. Pages 197–212 in Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/ Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –––––. ‘ “Race”, “Nation”, “People”: Ethnic Identity-Construction in 1 Peter 2.9’. NTS 58 (2012): 123–43. –––––. Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity. LNTS 394. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. –––––. ‘‘Das im Unglauben verharrende Judenvolk’: 1 Pet 2:4–10, Its History of Interpretation in Germany (1855–1978), and the Important Contribution of Leonhard Goppelt’. Pages 327–51 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

731

–––––. ‘The Image of Jesus in 1 Peter and its Paradigmatic Significance: Sociological and Psychological Correlations’. Pages 299–315 in Jesus - Gestalt und Gestaltungen. Rezeptionen des Galiläers in Wissenschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft. Festschrift für Gerd Theissen zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Petra von Gemünden, David G. Horrell, and Max Küchler. NTOA 100. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. –––––. ‘Ethnicity, Empire, and Early Christian Identity: Social-Scientific Perspectives on 1 Peter’. Pages 135–49 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. –––––. ‘ “Honour Everyone…” (1 Pet. 2.17): The Social Strategy of 1 Peter and its Significance for the Development of Christianity’. Pages 192–210 in To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and its Social World in Honor of John H. Elliott. Edited by Stephen K. Black. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2014. –––––. ‘Jesus Remembered in 1 Peter? Early Jesus Traditions, Isaiah 53, and 1 Peter 2.21–25’. Pages 123–50 in James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions. Edited by Alicia J. Batten and John S. Kloppenborg. LNTS 478. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. –––––. ‘Ethnicisation, Marriage and Early Christian Identity: Critical Reflections on 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Peter 3 and Modern New Testament Scholarship’. NTS 62 (2016): 439–60. –––––. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. –––––. ‘Fear, Hope, and Doing Good: Wives as a Paradigm of Mission in 1 Peter’. EstBib 73 (2016): 409–29. –––––. ‘Re-Placing 1 Peter: From Place of Origin to Constructions of Space’. Pages 271–86 in The Urban World of the First Christians. Edited by Steve Walton, Paul R. Trebilco, and David W. J. Gill. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. –––––. ‘Tradition and Innovation: Reassessing 1 Peter’s Contributions to the Making of Christian Identity’. Pages 9–25 in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce, and Francis Watson. LNTS 587. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. –––––. Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race and Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. –––––. ‘Peter Remembered in 1 Peter? Representations, Images, Traditions’. Pages 179–208 in The Apostle Peter in the Early Church. Edited by Judith Lieu. BETL. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. –––––. ‘Gift and Grace in 1 Peter: Unjust Suffering and Reciprocated Charis’. Pages 157–76 in The New Perspective on Grace: Paul and the Gospel after Paul and the Gift. Edited by Edward Adams, Dorothea H. Bertschmann, Stephen J. Chester, Jonathan A. Linebaugh, and Todd D. Still. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2023.

732

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Horrell, David G., Bradley Arnold, and Travis B. Williams. ‘Visuality, Vivid Description, and the Message of 1 Peter: The Significance of the Roaring Lion (1 Peter 5:8)’. JBL 132 (2013): 697–716. Horrell, David G., and Wei Hsien Wan. ‘Christology, Eschatology and the Politics of Time in 1 Peter’. JSNT 38 (2016): 263–76. Horsley, G. H. R., ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 2: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1977. North Ryde: Macquarie University Press, 1982. –––––, ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 3: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1978. North Ryde: Macquarie University Press, 1983. –––––, ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 4: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979. North Ryde: Macquarie University Press, 1987. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Horsley, Samuel. On Christ’s Descent into Hell and the Intermediate State: A Sermon on 1 Peter III. 18, 19, 20. London: Hatchard, 1804. Horst, Pieter W. van der. ‘Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy’. Pages 154–74 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2001. Hort, F. J. A. ‘Adversaria: Use of the Aorist in the Greek of the New Testament’. Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 3 (1856): 226–30. Hotze, Gerhard. ‘Königliche Priesterschaft in Bedrängnis. Zur Ekklesiologie des Ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 105–29 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis, Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 216. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Howard, George. ‘The Tetragram and the New Testament’. JBL 96 (1977): 63–83. Howe, Bonnie. Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter. BIS 81. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Howe, Frederic R. ‘God’s Grace in Peter’s Theology’. BSac 157 (2000): 432–38. –––––. ‘The Christian Life in Peter’s Theology’. BSac 157 (2000): 304–14. –––––. ‘The Cross of Christ in Peter’s Theology’. BSac 157 (2000): 190–99. –––––. ‘Christ, the Building Stone, in Peter’s Theology’. BSac 157 (2000): 35–43. Hübenthal, Sandra. ‘Erfahrung, die sich lesbar macht. Kol und 2 Thess als fiktionale Texte’. Pages 295–339 in Wie Geschichten Geschichte schreiben: Frühchristliche Literatur zwischen Faktualität. Edited by Susanne Luther, Jörg Röder, and Eckart D. Schmidt. WUNT 2/395. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Huffman, Douglas S. Verbal Aspect Theory and the Prohibitions in the Greek New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 16. New York: Peter Lang, 2014. Hug, J. Leonhard Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by David Fosdick, Jr. Andover: Gould & Newman, 1836.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

733

Hull, Michael F. Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection. AcBib 22. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. Hult, Karin. Syntactic Variation in Greek of the 5th Century A.D. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 52. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1990. Hultin, Jeremy F. ‘The Literary Relationship among 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude’. Pages 27–45 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Humbert, Paul. ‘Yahvé Deiu Géniteur? (Les verbes yālad et ḥīl avec Yahvé comme sujet. Image ou réalite?)’. AsSt 18/19 (1965): 247–51. Hunt, Benjamin B. ‘Meaning in Bulk: The Greek Clause Complex and 1 Peter 1:3–12’. Pages 391–414 in Modeling Biblical Language: Selected Papers from the McMaster Divinity College Linguistics Circle. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Linguistic Biblical Studies 13. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno. ‘Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes’. Pages 67–77 in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburstag am 16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern. Edited by Henning G. Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. –––––. ‘Zur Struktur der Christus-Hymnen in Phil 2 und 1. Petr 3’. Pages 142–56 in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. Exegetische Untersuchungen Joachim Jeremias zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Schülern. Edited by Eduard Lohse, Christoph Burchard, and Berndt Schaller. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Hurst, L. D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. SNTSMS 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hurtado, Larry W. ‘The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal’. JBL 117 (1998): 655–73. –––––. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. –––––. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. –––––. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Hwang, Sunwoo. ‘Participation in Christ’s Suffering in 1 Peter 4:1–6’. 성경과 신 학 [Bible and Theology] 82 (2017): 133–50. Hylen, Susan E. Women in the New Testament World. Essentials of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Ilan, Tal. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part 1: Palestine 330 BCE– 200 CE. TSAJ 91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. –––––. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part 2: Palestine 200–650. TSAJ 148. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Innocenti, Beth. ‘Towards a Theory of Vivid Description as Practiced in Cicero’s Verrine Orations’. Rhetorica 12 (1994): 355–81.

734

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Irshai, Oded. ‘Dating the Eschaton: Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Calculations in Late Antiquity’. Pages 113–53 in Apocalyptic Time. Edited by Albert I. Baumgarten. SHR 86. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Jacob, Benno. Im Namen Gottes. Eine sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Alten und Neuen Testament. Berlin: Calvary, 1903. Jacobi, Christine. Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien. BZNW 213. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Jacobson, William. S. Clementis Romani, S. Ignatii, S. Polycarpi, Patrum apostolicorum, quae supersunt: accedunt S. Ignatii et S. Polycarpi martyria. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1863. Jacques, François. Le Privilège de Liberté: Politique Impériale et Autonomie Municipale dans les cités de L’occident romain (161–244). Collection de L’école Française de Rome. Rome: École française de Rome, 1984. James, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1924. James, Patrick. ‘The Productivity of the Suffix -σύνη from Homer to the Present Day, with Special Reference to the “Septuagint” and New Testament’. Pages 263–82 in Studies in Greek Lexicography. Edited by Georgios K. Giannakis, Christoforos Charalambakis, Franco Montanari, and Antonios Rengakos. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018. Jannaris, Antonius N. A Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect. London: Macmillan, 1897. Janowski, Bernd, and Peter Stuhlmacher, eds. The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Jansse, Martina. Unter falschem Namen. Eine kritische Forschungsbilanz frühchristlicher Pseudepigraphie. ARGU 14. New York, Lang, 2003. Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. STDJ 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jelf, William E. A Grammar of the Greek Language. 5th ed. Oxford: Parker & Co., 1881. Jensen, Robin Margaret. Understanding Early Christian Art. London: Routledge, 2000. Jeremias, Joachim. ‘Der Eckstein’. Angelos 1 (1925): 65–70. –––––. ‘Κεφαλὴ γωνίας—Ἀκρογωνιαῖος’. ZNW 29 (1930): 264–80. –––––. ‘Eckstein—Schlußstein’. ZNW 36 (1937): 154–57. –––––. Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Jervis, L. Ann, and Peter Richardson, ed. Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker. JSNTSup 108. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Jewett, Robert. ‘The Form and Function of the Homiletic Benediction’. AThR 51 (1969): 18–34. –––––. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings. AGJU 10. Leiden: Brill, 1971.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

735

Jobes, Karen H. ‘Got Milk? Septuagint Psalm 33 and the Interpretation of 1 Peter 2:1–3’. WTJ 64 (2002): 1–14. –––––. ‘The Syntax of 1 Peter: Just How Good is the Greek?’. BBR 13 (2003): 159–73. –––––. ‘The Septuagint Textual Tradition in 1 Peter’. Pages 311–33 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SCS 53. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. –––––. ‘The Minor Prophets in James, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude’. Pages 135–53 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. LNTS 377. London: T&T Clark, 2009. –––––. Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. –––––. ‘ “Got Milk?” A Petrine Metaphor in 1 Peter 2.1–3 Revisited’. Leaven 20 (2012): 121–26. –––––. ‘ “Foreigners and Exiles”: Was 1 Peter Written to Roman Colonists?’. Pages 21–41 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘ “O Taste and See”: Septuagint Psalm 33 in 1 Peter’. Stone-Campbell Journal 18 (2015): 241–51. Jodoin, Danielle. ‘Au cœur de la dispersion, un appel personnel à la suite du Christ: lecture narratologique de 1 P 2,18–25’. LTP 65 (2009): 515–30. Johannessohn, Martin. Der Gebrauch der Präpositionen in der Septuaginta. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen III,3. Berlin: Weidmann, 1925. Johnson, Dennis E. ‘Fire in God’s House: Imagery from Malachi 3 in Peter’s Theology of Suffering (1 Pet. 4:12–19)’. JETS 29 (1986): 285–94. Johnson Hodge, Caroline E. ‘ “Holy Wives” in Roman Households: 1 Peter 3:1–6’. Journal of Interdisciplinary Feminist Thought 4 (2010): 1–24. Johnson, Jacqueline, and Elissa Newport. ‘Critical Period of Effects in Second Language Learning: The Influence of Maturational State on the Acquisition of English as a Second Language’. Cognitive Psychology 21 (1989): 60–99. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 37A. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Johnson, Sherman E. ‘The Preaching to the Dead’. JBL 79 (1960): 48–51. Johnston, J. William. The Use of Πᾶς in the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 11. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Jones, Brice C. ‘The Bodmer “Miscellaneous” Codex and the Crosby-Schøyen Codex ms 193: A New Proposal’. JGRChJ 8 (2011–12): 9–20. Jones, Christopher P. ‘The Greek Letters Ascribed to Brutus’. HSCP 108 (2015): 195–244. –––––. ‘The Historicity of the Neronian Persecution: A Response to Brent Shaw’. NTS 63 (2017): 146–52. Jones-Haldeman, Madelynn. ‘The Function of Christ’s Suffering in First Peter 2:21’. Th.D. diss., Andrews University, 1988.

736

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jongkind, Dirk. Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. TS 3/5. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2007. Jonsen, Albert R. ‘The Moral Theology of the First Epistle of St. Peter’. ScEccl 16 (1964): 93–105. Joseph, Abson P. A Narratological Reading of 1 Peter. LNTS 440. London: T&T Clark, 2012. –––––. ‘Social Holiness in James and 1 Peter’. Pages 29–40 in Holy Imagination: Rethinking Social Holiness. Edited by Nathan Crawford, Jonathan Dodrill, and David Wilson. Lexington: Emeth, 2015. –––––. ‘The Petrine Letters’. Pages 425–43 in The State of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by Scot McKnight and Nijay K. Gupta. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019. –––––. ‘The Background and Implications of the Language of New Birth in 1 Peter’. JTI 15 (2021): 318–32. Joshel, Sandra R. Slavery in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Jossa, Giorgio. ‘La sottomissione alle autorità politiche in 1Pt 2,13–17’. RivBib 44 (1996): 205–11. Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. SubBi 14. 2 vols. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico, 1991. Judd, Jr., Frank F. ‘The Case for Petrine Authorship of 1 Peter’. Pages 247–65 in The Ministry of Peter, the Chief Apostle. Edited by Frank F. Judd, Jr., Eric D. Huntsman, and Shon D. Hopkin. Salt Lake City: Deseret, 2014. Judge, Edwin A. The Social Patterns of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation. London: Tyndale, 1960. Jülicher, Adolph. An Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by J. P. Ward. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1904. Kaalund, Jennifer T. Reading Hebrews and 1 Peter with the African American Great Migration: (Dis)Locating Diaspora. LNTS 598. London: T&T Clark, 2018. Kaestli, Jean-Daniel. ‘La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon. À propos de la these de Sundberg et Hahneman’. CNS 15 (1994): 609–34. Kahl, Brigitte. Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Kahnis, Karl F. A. Die Lehre vom Abendmahle. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1851. Kaiser, Ursula U. Die Rede von “Wiedergeburt” im Neuen Testament: ein metapherntheoretisch orientierter Neuansatz nach 100 Jahren Forschungsgeschichte. WUNT 413. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Kamen, Deborah. ‘A Corpus of Inscriptions: Representing Slave Marks in Antiquity’. MAAR 55 (2010): 95–110. Kamlah, Erhard. Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. WUNT 7. Tübingen: Mohr, 1964.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

737

–––––. ‘῾Υποτάσσεσθαι in den neutestamentlichen “Haustafeln” ’. Pages 237–43 in Verborum Veritas. Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Otto Böcher and Klaus Haacker. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970. Kampling, Rainer. ‘Bekenntnisrede. Zur Funktion und theologischen Bedeutung des öffentlichen Zeugnisses (1Petr 3,15f)’. Pages 165–76 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis. Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 216. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Kanjuparambil, Philip. ‘Imperatival Participles in Rom 12:9–21’. JBL 102 (1983): 285–88. Kapambu, Valentin N. ‘La portée de χάρις en 1 P 2,20c’. Teresianum 54 (2003): 423–44. Karleen, Paul S. ‘The Syntax of the Participle in the Greek New Testament’. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1980. Karrer, Martin. ‘Das urchristliche Ältestenamt’. NovT 32 (1990): 152–88. Karrer, Martin, and Johannes de Vries. ‘Der Septuagintatext in den neutestamentlichen Schriften und der Codex Ambrosianus’. Pages 124–53 in Die Septuaginta - Text, Wirkung, Rezeption: 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer. WUNT 325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Kattenbusch, Ferdinand. ‘Der Märtyrertitel’. ZNW 4 (1903): 111–27. Katz, Peter. Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and Its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Katzoff, Ranon. ‘Sperber’s Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature – a Review-Essay’. JSJ 20 (1989): 195–206. Kautzsch, Emil, ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Kayalaparampil, Thomas. ‘Christian Suffering in I Peter’. BiBh 3 (1977): 7–19. Keener, Craig S. ‘ “He did not come to help angels”: Posthumous Salvation in 1 Peter 3?’. Lutheran Forum 54 (2020): 46–50. Kehinde, Simeon F. ‘Christianity amidst Violence: An Exegesis of 1 Peter 2:4–10’. Ogbomoso Journal of Theology 19 (2014): 78–92. Keil, Bruno. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Areopags. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 71/8. Leipzig: Teubner, 1920. Keith, Chris. ‘ “In My Own Hand”: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul’. Bib 89 (2008): 39–58. –––––. Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee. LNTS 413. London: T&T Clark 2011. –––––. ‘Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Parts One and Two)’. Early Christianity 6 (2015): 354–76, 517–42.

738

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kelhoffer, James A. Persecution, Persuasion, and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament. WUNT 270. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –––––. ‘Improvising Two Different Responses to Persecution: First Peter’s Innovations and Relationship to the Corpus Paulinum’. Pages 263–80 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Keller, Otto. Die antike Tierwelt, vol. 1: Säugertiere. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1909. Kelly, Henry A. Satan: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kelly, W. The Preaching to the Spirits in Prison: 1 Peter III.18–20. London: Paternoster, 1900. Kendall, David W. ‘The Introductory Character of 1 Peter 1:3–12’. Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary (Virginia), 1984. –––––. ‘The Christian Vocation: The Call to Holiness According to the First Epistle of Peter’. Asbury Seminarian 40 (1985): 3–12. –––––. ‘The Literary and Theological Function of 1 Peter 1:3–12’. Pages 103–20 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. NABPRSSS 9. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986. Kennell, Nigel M. ‘Who Were the Neoi?’. Pages 217–32 in Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis: Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD. Edited by Paraskevi Martzavou and Nikolaos Papazarkadas. Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Keresztes, Paul. ‘Law and Arbitrariness in the Persectution of the Christians and Justin’s First Apology’. VC 18 (1964): 204–14. –––––. ‘The Imperial Roman Government and the Christian Church: I. From Nero to the Severi’. Pages 247–315 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part II, Principat 23.1. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1979. –––––. ‘Nero, the Christians and the Jews in Tacitus and Clement of Rome’. Latomus 43 (1979): 404–13. Ketter, Peter. ‘Das allgemeine Priestertum’. TTZ 56 (1947): 43–51. Khobnya, Svetlana. ‘So That They May Be Won Over Without a Word: Reading 1 Peter Through a Missional Lens’. EuroJTh 29 (2020): 7–16. –––––. ‘You have been Called to Faithfully Follow Christ’s Steps: Missional Reading of 1 Peter’. Pages 49–64 in A Plain Account of Christian Faithfulness. Edited by Rob A. Fringer and Dean G. Smith. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2020. Kieffer, John Spangler. Galen’s Institutio Logica. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964. Kiley, Mark. ‘Like Sara: The Tale of Terror behind 1 Peter 3:6’. JBL 106 (1987): 689–92. Kilgallen, John J. ‘Reflections on Charisma(ta) in the New Testament’. Studia Missionalia 41 (1992): 289–323.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

739

Kilpatrick, G. D. ‘1 Peter 1:11 ΤΙΝΑ Ἠ ΠΟΙΟΝ ΚΑΙΡΟΝ’. NovT 28 (1986): 91–92. Kim, Hayoung. ‘The Death of Christ in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss, University of Exeter, in preparation. Kim, Kyoung-Shik. God Will Judge Each One according to Works: Judgment according to Works and Psalm 62 in Early Judaism and the New Testament. BZNW 178. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Kim, Myong Il. ‘Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison in 1 Peter 3:19’. Reform & Revival 23 (2019): 7–31. Kinzig, Wolfram. Christian Persecution in Antiquity. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2021. Kitz, Anne Marie. Cursed Are You! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2014. Klassen, William. ‘The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament: An Example of Social Boundary Lines’. NTS 39 (1993): 122–35. Klauck, Hans-Josef. 4. Makkabäerbuch. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit 3/6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1989. –––––. ‘Brotherly Love in Plutarch and in 4 Maccabees’. Pages 144–56 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. –––––. Religion und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum: Neutestamentliche Studien. WUNT 152. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –––––. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis. Translated and edited by Daniel P. Bailey. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Klausli, Markus T. ‘The Question of the Messianic Woes in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Klees, Hans. Sklavenleben im klassischen Griechenland. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 30. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998. Klein, Thorsten. Bewahrung in Anfechtung: Der Jakobusbrief und der Erste Petrusbrief als christliche Diasporabriefe. Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie 18. Tübingen: Francke, 2011. Klein, William W. ‘Paul’s Use of καλεῖν: A Proposal’. JETS 27 (1984): 53–64. Kline, Leslie L. ‘Ethics for the End Time: An Exegesis of 1 Peter 4:7–11’. ResQ 7 (1963): 113–23. Kloppenborg, John S. ‘Φιλαδελφία, Θεοδίδακτος and the Dioscuri: Rhetorical Engagement in 1 Thess 4.9–12’. NTS 39 (1993): 265–89. –––––. ‘Literate Media in Early Christian Groups: The Creation of a Christian Book Culture’. JECS 22 (2014): 21–59.

740

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Civic Identity in Early Christ Groups’. Pages 85–115 in Jewish and Christian Communal Identities in the Roman World. Edited by Yair Furstenburg. AJEC 94. Leiden: Brill, 2016. –––––. ‘Associations, Christ Groups, and Their Place in the Polis’. ZNW 108 (2017): 1–56. –––––. Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019. Klumbies, Paul-Gerhard. ‘Die Verkündigung unter Geistern und Toten nach 1Petr 3,19f. und 4,6’. ZNW 92 (2001): 207–28. Knapp, Georg C. Novum Testamentum Graece. Halae: Libraria Orphanotpophei, 1797. Knatchbull, Norton. Annotations upon Some Difficult Texts in All the Books of the New Testament. Cambridge: Hayes, 1693. Knight, Jarrett W. ‘Reading between the Lines: 1 Peter 4:16, MS 424, and Some Methodological Blind Spots in the CBGM’. JBL 138 (2019): 899–921. Knight, Jonathan. Disciples of the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah. JSPSup 18. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Knoch, Otto. ‘Gab es eine Petrusschule in Rom? Überlegungen zu einer bedeutsamen Frage’. SNTSU 16 (1991): 105–26. Knox, John. ‘Pliny and I Peter: A Note on I Pet 4:14–16 and 3:15’. JBL 72 (1953): 187–89. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. ‘Beobachtungen zum christologischen Schriftgebrauch in den vorpaulinischen Gemeinden’. ZNW 71 (1980): 174–91. –––––. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986. –––––. ‘The Quotations of Isaiah 8,14 and 28,16 in Romans 9,33 and 1Peter 2,6.8 as Test Case for Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament’. ZNW 101 (2010): 223–40. –––––. Geschichte des Urchristentums. Ein Lehrbuch. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Kock-Malan, Annemarie Susan de. ‘Suffering, Submission, Silence? Rereading 1 Peter through a Lens of Trauma’. Ph.D. diss., Stellenbosch University, 2019. Koenig, John. Charismata: God’s Gifts for God’s People. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. –––––. New Testament Hospitality: Partnership with Strangers as Promise and Mission. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Koestermann, Erich. ‘Ein folgenschwerer Irrtum des Tacitus (Ann. 15,44,2ff.)?’. Historia 16 (1967): 456–69.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

741

Kok, Jacobus. ‘What’s in the Name? The Conundrum of ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ versus ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ? A Text-Critical Investigation of 1 Peter 4:16 and Its Implication for the Afrikaans-Greek Interlinear Translation’. IDS 51 (2017): 1–10. Kolade, Israel A. ‘ “The Weaker Vessel” (1 Peter 3:7): A Linguistic and Contextual Analysis of ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει’. Presb 47 (2021): 121–26. Kolden, Marc. ‘Are You Serious? First Peter on Christian Life in a Complicated World’. WW 24 (2004): 421–29. König, Johann L. Die Lehre von Christi Höllenfahrt nach der Heil Schrift, der ältesten Kirche, den christlichen Symbolen, und nach ihrer vielumfassenden Bedeutung dargestellt. Frankfurt am Main: Zimmer, 1842. Konradt, Matthias. ‘Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus. Erwägungen zum historischen Kontext des Jakobusbriefes im Lichte der traditionsgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zum 1. Petrusbriefes und zum Hintergrund der Autorfiktion’. Pages 16–53 in Der Jakobusbrief. Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der “strohernen Epistel”. Edited by Petra von Gemünden, Matthias Konradt, and Gerd Theissen. BVB 3. Münster: Lit, 2003. –––––. ‘The Historical Context of the Letter of James in Light of Its TraditioHistorical Relations with First Peter’. Pages 101–25, 403–25 in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude. Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert W. Wall. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Kooten, George van. ‘Is Early Christianity a Religion or a Philosophy? Reflections on the Importance of “Knowledge” and “Truth” in the Letters of Paul and Peter’. Pages 396–403 in Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer. Edited by Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Kroesen, and Yme Kuiper. SHR 127. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Körtner, Ulrich H. ‘Markus der Mitarbeiter des Petrus’. ZNW 71 (1980): 160–73. –––––. Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frühen Christentums. FRLANT 133. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Koschaker, Paul. Über einige griechische Rechtsurkunden aus den östlichen Randgebieten des Hellenismus. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1931. Koskenniemi, Heikki. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Helsinki: Akateeminen Kirjakauppa, 1956. Krafft, Eva. ‘Christologie und Anthropologie im 1. Petrusbrief’. EvT 10 (1950– 51): 120–26. Kraftchick, Steven J. ‘Reborn to a Living Hope: A Christology of 1 Peter’. Pages 83–98 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Kramer, Hans. ‘Quid valeat ὁμόνοια in litteris Graecis’. Ph.D. diss., University of Göttingen, 1915.

742

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kränzlein, Arnold. ‘Bemerkungen zu den griechischen Freilassungsinschriften’. Pages 237–47 in Symposion 1979: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Ägina, 3.–7. September 1979). Edited by Hans J. Wolff, Joseph Modrzejewski, Panagiōtēs D. Dēmakēs, and Arnaldo Biscardi. Akten der Gesellschaft für Griechische und Hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 4. Köln: Bohlau, 1983. Kraus, Thomas J. ‘ “Uneducated”, “Ignorant”, or even “Illiterate”? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of AΓPAMMATOI (and IΔIΩTAI) in Acts 4.13’. NTS 45 (1999): 434–49. –––––. ‘P.Vindob.G. 39756 + Bodl. MS Gr. th. f 4 [P]: Fragmente eines Codex der griechischen Petrus-Apokalypse’. BASP 40 (2003): 45–61. Krebs, Johann Tobias. Observationes in Novum Testamentum e Flavio Josepho. Lipsiae: Joannem Wendlerum, 1755. Kreitzer, Larry Joseph. ‘On Board the Eschatological Ark of God: Noah-Deucalion and the “Phrygian Connection” in 1 Peter 3.19–22’. Pages 228–72 in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross. JSNTSup 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Krentz, Edgar. ‘Order in the “House” of God: The Haustafel in 1 Peter 2:11–3:12’. Pages 279–85 in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder. Edited by Julian V. Hills. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000. –––––. ‘Creating a Past: 1 Peter and Christian Identity’. BR 53 (2008): 41–57. Kretschmer, Paul, and Ernst Locker. Rückläufiges Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Kroeger, Catherine Clark. ‘Towards a Pastoral Understanding of 1 Peter 3.1–6 and Related Texts’. Pages 82–88 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 7. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Krüger, Karl W. Griechische Sprachlehre für Schulen, Erster Teil: Über die gewöhnliche, vorzugsweise die attische Prosa, Zweites Heft: Syntax. 6th ed. Edited by Wilhelm Pökel. Leipzig: Krüger, 1891. Küchler, Max. Schweigen, Schmuck und Schleier. Drei neutestamentliche Vorschriften zur Verdrängung der Frauen auf dem Hintergrund einer frauenfeindlichen Exegese des Alten Testamtents im antiken Judentum. NTOA 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Kugler, Robert A. ‘Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran’. Pages 90–112 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Kuhn, Karl G. ‘πειρασμός – ἁμαρτία – σάρξ in Neuen Testament und die damit zusammenhängenden Vorstellungen’. ZTK 49 (1952): 200–222. –––––. ‘New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the New Testament’. Pages 94–113 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper, 1957.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

743

Kühner, Raphael, and Bernhard Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1898. Külling, Heinz. Vom Gericht zur Gnade. Zur Errettung der vielen oder aller im Lukas- und Matthäusevangelium, im 1. Petrusbrief, in der Offenbarung und bei Paulus. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2020. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. SBT 23. London: SCM, 1957. Kunjummen, Raju D. ‘The Single Intent of Scripture—Critical Examination of a Theological Construct’. Grace Theological Journal 7 (1986): 81–110. Kuryliak, Bohdan. ‘Methods of Interpretation. 1 Peter 3:18–22 in Historical Retrospect’. Theological Reflections: Euro-Asian Journal of Theology 21 (2018): 31–42 (Russian). Kuykendall, Charles, and C. John Collins. ‘1 Peter 3:15a: A Critical Review of English Versions’. Presb 29 (2003): 76–84. Lachmann, Karl. Novum Testamentum graece. Berlin: Reimer, 1846. Làconi, Mauro. ‘Tracce dello stile e del pensiero di Paolo nella prima lettera di Pietro’. San Pietro 19 (1967): 367–94. Laes, Christian. Children in the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Lai, Kenny Ke-Chung. ‘The Holy Spirit in 1 Peter: A Study of Petrine Pneumatology in Light of the Isaianic New Exodus’. Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2009. Lalitha, Jayachitra. ‘Alternate Petrine Community as “A Third Space of Enunciation”: Decolonizing Imperial Agenda in 1 Peter’. Pages 54–66 in Bible and Hermeneutics. Edited by C. I. David Joy. Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithi, 2010. Lamau, Marie-Louise. Des chrétiens dans le monde: Communautés pétriniennes au 1er siècle. LD 134. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Lamb, Gregory E. ‘Saint Peter as “Symprebyteros”: Mimetic Desire, Discipleship, and Education’. Christian Education Journal 15 (2018): 189–207. Lambrecht, Jan. ‘Christian Freedom in 1 Pet 2,16: A Grammatical and Exegetical Note’. Pages 319–25 in idem, Collected Studies on Pauline Literature and on The Book of Revelation. AnBib 147. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001. Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961–1968. Lampe, Peter. ‘Das Spiel mit dem Petrusnamen—Matt. xvi.18’. NTS 25 (1978– 79): 227–45. –––––. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. 6th ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. –––––. ‘Traces of Peter Veneration in Roman Archaeology’. Pages 273–317 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

744

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lampe, Peter, and Ulrich Luz. ‘Nachpaulinisches Christentum und pagane Gesellschaft’. Pages 185–216 in Die Anfänge des Christentums: alte Welt und neue Hoffnung. Edited by Jürgen Becker. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987. Lang, Manfred. ‘Lebenskunst und Ethos. Beobachtungen zu Plutarch, Seneca, Philo von Alexandrien und dem 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 57–76 in Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ. Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/ Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Band 1. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn and R. Zimmermann. WUNT 238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lang, T. J. ‘ “You will desire to see and you will not see [it]”: Reading Luke 17.22 as Antanaclasis’. JSNT 33 (2011): 281–302. Langford, Justin. Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013. Langkammer, Hugolinus. ‘Jes 53 und 1 Pet 2,21–25: Zur Christologischen Interpretation der Leidenstheologie von Jes 53’. BL 60 (1987): 90–98. Lans, Birgit Van der, and Jan N. Bremmer. ‘Tacitus and the Persecution of the Christians: An Invention of Tradition?’. Eirene 53 (2017): 299–331. Landvogt, Peter. ‘Epigraphische Untersuchungen über den Οἰκονόμος: Ein Beitrag zum hellenistischen Beamtenwesen’. Ph.D. diss., University of Strassburg, 1908. Lapham, F. Peter. The Myth, the Man and the Writings. JSNTSup 239. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Larfeld, Wilhelm. Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik. 2 vols. in 3. Leipzig: Reisland, 1902–1907. Lash, Christopher J. A. ‘Fashionable Sports: Hymn-Hunting in I Peter’. Pages 293–97 in Studia Evangelica VII. Edited by E. A. Livingston. TU 126. Berlin: Akademie, 1982. Laum, Bernhard. Das alexandrinische Akzentuationssystem unter Zugrundelegung der theoretischen Lehren der Grammatiker und mit Heranziehung der praktischen Verwendung in den Papyri. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 4. Paderborn: F. Schoningh, 1928. LaVerdière, Eugene A. ‘Covenant Theology in 1 Peter 1:1–2:10’. BTB 42 (1969): 2909–16. –––––. ‘A Grammatical Ambiguity in 1 Pet 1:23’. CBQ 36 (1974): 89–94. Lawlor, H. J. ‘Early Citations from the Book of Enoch’. Journal of Philology 25 (1897): 164–225. Lea, Thomas D. ‘Peter’s Use of the Old Testament’. Th.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1968. Leaney, A. R. C. ‘I Peter and the Passover: An Interpretation’. NTS 10 (1964): 238–51. Lee, Edwin K. ‘Words Denoting “Pattern” in the New Testament’. NTS 8 (1961– 62): 166–73. Lee, Sanghwan. ‘Reexamining the Greek-Speaking Ability of Peter in Light of a Sociolinguistic Perspective’. JGRChJ 14 (2018): 158–81.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

745

–––––. ‘An Illiterate Fisherman and Impressive Letter: A Dialogue with Bart D. Ehrman’. JGRChJ 17 (2021): 38–61. Leeuwen, E. H. van. ‘Ἀγαπητοί’. Theologische Studien 21 (1903): 139–51. Lefkowitz, Mary. Greek Gods, Human Lives: What We Can Learn From Myths. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Légasse, Simon. ‘La soumission aux autorités d’après 1 Pierre 2.13–17: version spécifique d’une parénèse traditionelle’. NTS 34 (1988): 378–96. Lehtipuu, Outi. Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Leivestad, Ragnar. ‘Ταπεινός – ταπεινόφρων’. NovT 8 (1966): 36–47. Leonard, Jeffrey M. ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case’. JBL 128 (2008): 241–65. Lepelley, Claude. ‘Le Contexte historique de la première lettre de Pierre: Essai d’interprétation’. Pages 43–64 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Le Roux, Elritia. Ethics in 1 Peter: The Imitatio Christi and the Ethics of Suffering in 1 Peter and the Gospel of Mark – A Comparative Study. Eugene: Pickwick, 2018. –––––. ‘ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν: 1 Peter as Subversive Text, Challenging Predominant Gender Roles in the 1st-century Mediterranean World’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75 (2019): online. Leschhorn, Wolfgang. Gründer der Stadt: Studien zu einem politisch-religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte. Palingenesia: Monographien und Texte zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 20. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1984. Lethaby, W. R. ‘Greek Lion Monuments’. JHS 38 (1918): 37–44. Levasheff, Drake. ‘A House or a Tower? Honor, Precedence, and the Contrasting Visions of 1 Peter and The Shepherd of Hermas’. Pages 260–72 in One in Christ Jesus: Essays on Early Christianity and “All That Jazz” in Honor of S. Scott Bartchy. Edited by David L. Matson and K. C. Richardson. Eugene: Pickwick, 2014. Levick, Barbara. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. Levieils, Xavier, Contra Christianos: La critique sociale et religieuse du christianisme des origines au concile de Nicée (45–325). BZNW 146. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Levin-Richardson, Sarah. ‘Fututa sum hic: Female Subjectivity and Agency in Pompeian Sexual Graffiti’. CJ 108 (2013): 319–45. Levinskaya, Irina. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 5: The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International, 2000.

746

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Levko, Olexandr. ‘The Word tapeinos in the New Testament and its Rendition in Ukrainian Translations’. Studia Slavica 63 (2018): 283–95. Levy, Ernst. Gesammelte Schriften. Zu seinem achtzigsten Geburtstag mit Unterstützung der Akademien der Wissenschaften zur Göttingen, Heidelberg und München sowie von Basler Freunden ihm dargebracht von Wolfgang Kunkel und Max Kaser. Köln: Böhlau, 1963. Lewis. F. W. ‘Note on the Date of the First Epistle of Peter’. Expositor 5/10 (1899): 319–20. Lewis, Jack P. A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Lewis, Naphtali. Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Lewis, Naphtali, Yigael Yadin, and Jonas C. Greenfield, eds. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri. JDS 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Lewy, Hans. The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona, Part 1: The Armenian Text with a Critical Introduction. Studies and Documents 7. London: Christophers, 1936. Lichtenwalter, Larry L. ‘The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit in the General Epistles and the Book of Hebrews’. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 23 (2012): 72–111. Liebengood, Kelly D. ‘Augustine con leche: Reading the Milk Metaphor of 1 Peter 2.2 with Help from Augustine’s Insights Regarding the Affections’. Leaven 20 (2012): 127–32. –––––. The Eschatology of 1 Peter: Considering the Influence of Zechariah 9–14. SNTSMS 157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. –––––. ‘Confronting Roman Imperial Claims: Following the Footsteps (and the Narrative) of 1 Peter’s Eschatological Davidic Shepherd’. Pages 255–72 in An Introduction to Empire in the New Testament. Edited by Adam Winn. RBS 84. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. –––––. ‘Participating in the Life of God: Exploring the Trinitarian Foundation of 1 Peter’s Missional Identity’. Midwestern Journal of Theology 15 (2016): 74–91. –––––. ‘Reconsidering the Ethnic Identity of 1 Peter’s “Elect Sojourners” ’. (forthcoming). Lieber, Laura. ‘Portraits of Righteousness: Noah in Early Christian and Jewish Hymnography’. ZRGG 61 (2009): 332–55. Lietzmann, Hans. ‘Petrus römischer Märtyrer’. SPAW (1936): 392–410. Reprinted as pages 100–123 in idem, Kleine Schriften I: Studien zur spätantiken Religionsgeschichte. Edited by Kurt Aland. TUGAL 67. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958. Lieu, Judith M. ‘ “Grace to You and Peace”: The Apostolic Greeting’. BJRL 68 (1985): 161–78. –––––. ‘ “The Parting of the Ways”: Theological Construct or Historical Reality?’. JSNT 56 (1994): 101–19.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

747

–––––. Neither Jew Nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. –––––. Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2003. –––––. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Lifshitz, Baruch. ‘L’origine du nom des chretiens’. VC 16 (1962): 65–70. Lightbown, Patsy M., and Nina Spada. How Languages are Learned. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Lightfoot, J. B. Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion. London: Macmillan, 1889. –––––. The Apostolic Fathers, Part 1: S. Clement of Rome. A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. London: Macmillan & Co., 1890. –––––. On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1891. Ljungvik, Herman. ‘Zum Gebrauch einiger Adverbien im Neuen Testament’. Eranos 62 (1964): 26–31. Lim, Jason Jit-Fong. The Trials of the Christians as Elect Resident Aliens and Visiting Strangers in 1 Peter, with an Emphasis on the Context of 1 Peter within the Graeco-Roman Milieu. Jian Dao Dissertation Series 11. Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2005. Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scriptures in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. –––––. ‘The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism, and Biblical Interpretation’. Pages 57–73 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –––––. The Formation of the Jewish Canon. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Lin, Yii-Jan. The Erotic Life of Manuscripts: New Testament Textual Criticism and the Biological Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Lincicum, David. ‘Mirror-Reading a Pseudepigraphical Letter’. NovT 59 (2017): 171–93. Lindbeck, George. ‘What of the Future? A Christian Response’. Pages 357–66 in Christianity in Jewish Terms. Edited by Tikva Frymer-Kensky, David Novak, and Peter Ochs. Boulder: Westview, 2000. Lindeman Allen, Amy. ‘Babies and Building Blocks: A Re-constructive Reading of God’s Household in 1 Peter in Light of the Absent Child’. BibInt 28 (2020): 347–70. Lippert, Peter. ‘Leben als Zeugnis: Ein Beitrag des ersten Petrusbriefes zur pastoral-theologischen Problematik der Gegenwart’. Studia Moralia 3 (1965): 226–68.

748

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lips, Hermann von. ‘Die Haustafel als “topos” im Rahmen der urchristlichen Paränese. Beobachtungen anhand des 1. Petrusbriefes und des Titusbriefes’. NTS 40 (1994): 261–80. Litwa, M. David. We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology. BZNW 187. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Liubinskas, Susann. ‘Who’s Stumbling on the Stumbling Stone? A Reassessment of 1 Peter 2:4–10 in Light of a Dynamic Understanding of Holiness and Election’. Pages 216–34 in Kingdom Rhetoric: New Testament Explorations in Honor of Ben Witherington III. Edited by T. Michael W. Halcomb. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013. Liverani, Mario. Israel’s History and the History of Israel. Bible World. Oakville: Equinox, 2003. Livneh, Atar. ‘Jewish Traditions and Familial Roman Values in Philo’s De Abrahamo 245–254’. HTR 109 (2016): 536–49. Llewelyn, Stephen R., and Rosalinde A. Kearsley, eds. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 7: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1982–83. North Ryde: Macquarie University Press, 1994. Llopart, Estanislao M. ‘La protovetlla pasqual apostolica. Contribucio a l’estudi del seus testimonis literaris’. Pages 387–522 in Liturgica 1: Cardinali I. A. Schuster in Memoriam. Edited by Aurelius María Escarré. Scripta et documenta 7. Montserrat: In abbatia Montiserrati, 1956. Lo, Jonathan W. ‘Did Peter Really Say That? Revisiting the Petrine Speeches in Acts’. Pages 62–75 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Loader, William R. G. The New Testament on Sexuality. Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Lockett, Darian R. An Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2012. –––––. ‘Are the Catholic Epistles a Canonically Significant Collection? A Status Quaestionis’. CBR 14 (2015): 62–80. –––––. ‘Not Whether; but What Kind of Canonical Approach: A Review Essay’. JTI 9 (2015): 127–36. –––––. Letters from the Pillar Apostles: The Formation of the Catholic Epistles as a Canonical Collection. Eugene: Pickwick, 2017. –––––. ‘The Use of Leviticus 19 in James and 1 Peter: A Neglected Parallel’. CBQ 82 (2020): 456–72. –––––. Letters for the Church: Reading James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude as Canon. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2021. Lofthouse, W. F. ‘Poneron and Kakon in Old and New Testaments’. ExpTim 60 (1948–49): 264–68. Lohmeyer, Ernst. ‘Das Mahl in der ältesten Christenheit’. TRu 9 (1937): 273–312.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

749

Lohse, Eduard. ‘Paränese und Kerygma im 1. Petrusbrief’. ZNW 45 (1954): 68–89. Repr. as idem, ‘Parenesis and Kerygma in 1 Peter’. Pages 37–59 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Translated by John Steely. NABPRSSS 9. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986. –––––. Märtyrer und Gottesknecht. FRLANT 64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. Lona, Horacio E. Der erste Clemensbrief. Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Long Westfall, Cynthia. ‘The Relationship between the Resurrection, the Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison and Baptismal Regeneration: 1 Peter 3.19–22’. Pages 106–35 in Resurrection. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs. JSNTSup 186. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Longenecker, Bruce W. ‘Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity’. JSNT 31 (2009): 243–78. –––––. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Longenecker, Richard N. ‘Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles’. Pages 281–97 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. –––––. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. López, Réne A. ‘Views on Paul’s Vice Lists and Inheriting the Kingdom’. BSac 168 (2011): 81–97. –––––. ‘Vice Lists in Non-Pauline Sources’. BSac 168 (2011): 178–95. Louw, Johannes P. ‘On Greek Prohibitions’. Acta Classica 2 (1959): 43–57. –––––. ‘Linguistic Theory and the Greek Case System’. Acta Classica 9 (1966): 73–88. –––––. Semantics of New Testament Greek. SemeiaSt. Chico: SBL, 1982. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Socities, 1989. Love, Julian P. ‘The First Epistle of Peter’. Int 8 (1954): 63–87. Lovik, Eric G. ‘A Look at the Ancient House Codes and Their Contributions to Understanding 1 Peter 3:1–7’. CBTJ 11 (1995): 49–63. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. London: SCM, 1984. Lugo Rodríguez, Raúl Humberto. ‘La Primera Carta de San Pedro en los estudios actuales’. EfMex 10 (1992): 269–73. –––––. ‘ “Wait for the Day of God’s Coming and Do What You Can to Hasten It…” (2 Pet 3:12): The Non-Pauline Letters as Resistance Literature’. Pages 193–206 in Subversive Scriptures. Revolutionary Readings of the Christian Bible in Latin America. Edited and translated by Leif E. Vaage. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1997.

750

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Luraghi, Silvia. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek. Studies in Language Companion Series 67. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2003. Luther, Martin. Commentary on Genesis. Translated by John Nicholas Lenker. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Luther, 1910. –––––. ‘Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude’. Pages 395–99 in Luther’s Works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament 1. Edited by E. T. Bachmann. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960. Luther, Susanne. Sprachethik im Neuen Testament. Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief. WUNT 2/394. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. EKK I/1. 5th ed. Düsseldorf/ Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Lynch, Chloe. ‘In 1 Peter 5:1–5, Who Are the πρϵσβύτϵροι and What Is Said about their Role?’. ExpTim 123 (2012): 529–40. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. LHBOTS 507. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Macaskill, Grant. Union with Christ in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. MacCulloch, John A. The Harrowing of Hell: A Comparative Study of an Early Christian Doctrine. Edinburgh: Clark, 1930. MacDonald, Dennis R. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. MacDonald, Margaret Y. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. MacLachlan, Bonnie. The Age of Grace. Charis in Early Greek Poetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Magie, David. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. 2 vols. New York: Arno, 1975. Maier, Gerhard. ‘Jesustradition im 1. Petrusbrief?’. Pages 85–128 in Gospel Perspectives, vol 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Edited by David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Maier, Harry O. Picturing Paul in Empire: Imperial Image, Text and Persuasion in Colossians, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. –––––. ‘Colossian, Ephesians, and Empire’. Pages 185–202 in An Introduction to Empire in the New Testament. RBS 84. Edited by Adam Winn. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. Majer-Leonhard, Ernest. ΑΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΟΙ in Aegypto qui litteras sciverint qui nesciverint ex papyris Graecis quantum fieri potest exploratur. Frankfurt am Main: Diekmann, 1913. Malcolm, Matthew R. ‘Governing Imagery and the Translation of the Words philadelphia and anachusis in 1 Peter 1.22 and 4.4’. BT (2019): 9–15. Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

751

Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Mandilaras, Basil G. The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1973. Manley, G. T. ‘Babylon on the Nile’. EvQ 16 (1944): 138–46. Manns, Frédéric. ‘Sara, modèle de la femme obéissante. Étude de l’arrière-plan juif de 1 Pierre 3,5–6’. BeO 26 (1984): 65–73. –––––. ‘La théologie de la nouvelle naissance dans la première Lettre de Pierre’. SBFLA 45 (1995): 107–41. –––––. ‘Souffrances et joie dans la première Lettre de Pierre’. SBFLA 49 (1999): 259–82. –––––. ‘La morale domestique de 1 P’. Didaskalia 30 (2000): 3–27. –––––. ‘A Jewish Reading of 1 Peter 2,1–10’. SBFLA 60 (2010): 173–87. Manson, T. W. ‘The Life of Jesus: A Survey of the Available Material: 4 The Gospel According to St. Matthew’. BJRL 29 (1946): 392–428. –––––. ‘Some Reflections on Apocalyptic’. Pages 139–45 in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne. Mélanges offertes à M. Maurice Goguel à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire. Edited by Pierre H. Menoud and Oscar Cullmann. Bibliothèque théologique. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950. Mansy, Aliyah El. ‘Interreligiöse Ehen im literarischen Diskurs des 1./2. Jahrhunderts. Plutarch und der Erste Petrusbrief im Vergleich’. Pages 155–78 in Doing Gender – Doing Religion. Fallstudien zur Intersektionalität im frühen Judentum, Christentum und Islam. WUNT 302. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Mantey, J. R. ‘Unusual Meanings for Prepositions in the Greek New Testament’. Expositor 8/25 (1923): 453–60. –––––. ‘The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament’. JBL 70 (1951): 45–48. –––––. ‘On Causal Eis Again’. JBL 70 (1951): 309–11. Manzi, Franco. ‘ “Tamquam lapides vivi”: memoria e testimonianza di Cristo nella Prima lettera di Pietro’. EphLiturg 120 (2006): 333–45. Marcar, Katherine A. ‘The Quotations of Isaiah in 1 Peter: A Text-Critical Analysis’. TC 21 (2016): 1–22. –––––. ‘Building a Holy House: Identity Formation in the Community Rule, 4QFlorilegium, and 1 Peter 2.4–10’. Pages 41–54 in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce, and Francis Watson. LNTS 587. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. –––––. ‘In the Days of Noah: Urzeit/Endzeit Correspondence and the Flood Tradition in 1 Peter 3–4’. NTS 63 (2017): 550–66. –––––. Divine Regeneration and Ethnic Identity in 1 Peter: Mapping Metaphors of Family, Race, and Nation. SNTSMS 180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Marcks, Johann Friedrich. Symbola critica ad epistolographos Graecos. Bonn: Typis Caroli Georgi, 1883.

752

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Marcus, Ralph. ‘On Causal Eis’. JBL 70 (1951): 129–30. –––––. ‘The Elusive Causal Eis’. JBL 71 (1952): 43–44. Marinis, Vasileios. Death and the Afterlife in Byzantium: The Fate of the Soul in Theology, Liturgy, and Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Marion, Jean-Luc. ‘Apologétique et apologie’. Comm 39 (2014): 9–17. Markovic, Daniel. ‘Hyperbaton in the Greek Literary Sentence’. GRBS 46 (2006): 127–46. Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004. Martin, Clarice J. ‘The Haustafeln (Household Codes) in African American Biblical Interpretation: “Free Slaves” and “Subordinate Women” ’. Pages 206–31 in Stony the Road we Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Cain Hope Felder. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Martin, Dale B. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. –––––. ‘Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question’. Pages 29–61 in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Martin, Ralph P. ‘The Composition of 1 Peter in Recent Study’. Pages 29–42 in Vox Evangelica: Biblical and Historical Essays by Members of the Faculty of the London Bible College. Edited by Ralph P. Martin. London: Epworth, 1962. –––––. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, vol. 2: Acts – Revelation. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Martin, Troy W. Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter. SBLDS 131. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. –––––. ‘The Present Indicative in the Eschatological Statements of 1 Peter 1:6, 8’. JBL 111 (1992): 307–12. –––––. ‘The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Pet 3,6’. ZNW 90 (1999): 139–46. –––––. ‘The Good as God (Romans 5.7)’. JSNT 25 (2002): 55–70. –––––. ‘The Rehabilitation of a Rhetorical Step-Child: First Peter and Classical Rhetorical Criticism’. Pages 41–71 in Reading First Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy J. Bauman-Martin. LNTS 364. London: T&T Clark, 2007. –––––. ‘Roaring Lions among Diaspora Metaphors: First Peter 5:8 in Its Metaphorical Context’. Pages 167–79 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘Christians as Babies: Metaphorical Reality in 1 Peter’. Pages 99–112 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. –––––. ‘Emotional Physiology and Consolatory Etiquette: Reading the Present Indicative with Future Reference in the Eschatological Statement in 1 Peter 1:6’. JBL 135 (2016): 649–60.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

753

–––––. ‘Faith: Its Qualities, Attributes, and Legitimization in 1 Peter’. BR 61 (2016): 46–61. –––––. ‘Tasting the Eucharistic Lord as Usable (1 Peter 2:3)’. CBQ 78 (2016): 515–25. –––––. ‘Christ’s Healing Sore. A Medical Reading of 1 Petri 2,24’. Vetera Christianorum 54 (2017): 143–54. –––––. ‘Peter and the Expansion of Early Christianity in the Letters of Acts (15:23–29) and First Peter’. Pages 87–99 in Delightful Acts: New Essays on Canonical and Non-canonical Acts. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Claire K. Rothschild. WUNT 391. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –––––. ‘Dating First Peter to a Hairdo (1 Pet 3:3)’. Early Christianity 9 (2018) 298–318. –––––. ‘Translating λόγος as DNA in First Peter 1:22–25’. Pages 133–49 in Listening Again to the Text: New Testament Studies in Honor of George Lyons. Edited by Richard P. Thompson. Claremont Studies in New Testament and Christian Origins 5. Claremont: Claremont, 2020. Marxsen, Willi. ‘Der Mitälteste und Zeuge der Leiden Christi: Eine martyrologische Begründung das “Romprimats” im 1. Petrus-Brief?’. Pages 377–93 in Theologia crucis—Signum crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkler zum 70. Geburstag. Edited by Carl Andresen and Gunter Klein. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1979. Mason, Eric F. ‘The “Conscience” Conundrum of 1 Peter 3:21 – Insights from the Epistle to the Hebrews?’. Pages 349–60 in With Gentleness and Respect: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Mark F. Whitters. BTS 40. Leuven: Peeters, 2020. Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. 2nd ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. Mason, William. ‘Grace in the New Testament’. Pages 33–60 in The Doctrine of Grace. Edited by W. T. Whitley. London: SCM, 1932. Massaux, Eduard. ‘Le texte de la 1a Petri du Papyrus Bodmer VIII (P72)’. ETL 39 (1963): 616–71. Matthiae, Augustus. A Copious Greek Grammar. 5th ed. 2 vols. Translated by Edward V. Blomfield. Revised by John Kenrick. London: Murray, 1832. Mattingly, Harold B. ‘The Origin of the Name Christiani’. JTS 9 (1958): 26–37. MayCock, Edward A. A Letter of Wise Counsel: Studies in the First Epistle of Peter. New York: Association Press, 1957. Mayerhoff, Ernst T. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften. Nebst einer Abhandlung über den Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte. Hamburg: Perthes, 1835. Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter: Greek Text with Introductory Notes and Comments. London: Macmillan, 1907. –––––. The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Comments. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1910.

754

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mayser, Edwin. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften. 6 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906–38. Mazza, Carlo. Per una speranza viva. Lettura spirituale della Prima Lettera di Pietro. Bologna: Dehoniane, 2006. Mbuvi, Andrew M. Temple, Exile and Identity in 1 Peter. LNTS 345. London: T&T Clark, 2007. McCartney, Dan G. ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the First Epistle of Peter’. Th.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989. –––––. ‘λογικός in 1Peter 2,2’. ZNW 82 (1991): 128–32. –––––. ‘Atonement in James, Peter and Jude: “Because Christ Suffered for You” ’. Pages 176–89 in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Roger Nicole. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. –––––. James. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. McCaughey, J. D. ‘Three “Persecution Documents” of the New Testament’. ABR 17 (1969): 27–40. McCruden, Kevin B. ‘Compassionate Soteriology in Hebrews, 1 Peter, and the Gospel of Mark’. BR 52 (2007): 41–56. McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origins, Transmission, and Authority. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. McDonnell, Myles. ‘Writing, Copying, and Autograph Manuscripts in Ancient Rome’. ClQ 46 (1996): 469–91. McKay, K. L. ‘Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek’. NovT 27 (1985): 201–26. –––––. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek 5. New York: Peter Lang, 1994. McKelvey, Robert J. ‘Christ the Cornerstone’. NTS 8 (1962): 352–59. –––––. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. McKnight, Scot. ‘Aliens and Exiles: Social Location and Christian Vocation’. WW 24 (2004): 378–86. McLay, Tim. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. McMillen, R. Melvin. ‘Metaphor and First Peter: The Essential Role of the Minds of Father-God’s Children in Spiritual Conflict with a Special Focus on 1:13’. Ph.D. diss., University of South Africa, 2011. McNeile, A. H. New Testament Teaching in the Light of St. Paul’s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923. Meade, David G. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. WUNT 39. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

755

Mede, Joseph. The Works of that Reverend, Iudicious and Learned Divine, Mr. Ioseph Mede … : Being Discourses on Divers Texts of Scripture and Four Treatises … together with two tables, one of the principall contents, another of the places of Scripture expounded. London: Clark, 1648. Meecham, H. G. ‘The Use of the Participle for the Imperative in the New Testament’. ExpTim 58 (1946–47): 207–208. –––––. ‘A Note on 1 Peter ii.12’. ExpTim 65 (1953–54): 93. Meeks, Wayne A. ‘The “Haustafeln” and American Slavery: A Hermeneutical Challenge’. Pages 232–53 in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering and Jerry L. Sumney. Nashville: Abingdon 1996. Meggitt, Justin J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. –––––. ‘Taking the Emperor’s Clothes Seriously: The New Testament and the Roman Emperor’. Pages 143–69 in The Quest for Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Philip Budd. Edited by C. Joynes. Cambridge: Orchard Academic, 2002. Meinertz, Max. Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser nach der ältesten Überlieferung. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1905. Mellink, Machteld J. ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’. AJA 62 (1958): 91–104. –––––. ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’. AJA 68 (1964): 149–66. –––––. ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’. AJA 70 (1966): 139–59. –––––. ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’. AJA 88 (1984): 441–59. –––––. ‘Archaeology in Anatolia’. AJA 97 (1993): 105–33. Merino, Luis Díez. ‘El cordero de Dios en la literatura intertestamental’. Pages 551–68 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Merk, Augustus. Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine. 11th ed. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 65. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1992. Merkle, Benjamin L. The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church. StBibLit 57. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Merkt, Andreas. ‘Checks and Balances: Is Christ’s Passion an Exemplum Only? Patristic Interpretation of 1 Peter 2:21’. Pages 239–46 in Gelitten, Gestorben, Auferstanden: Passions- und Ostertraditionen im antiken Christentum. Edited by Tobias Nicklas, Andreas Merkt, and Joseph Verheyden. WUNT 2/273. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –––––. ‘1 Peter in Patristic Literature’. Pages 167–79 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. –––––. ‘Verfolgung und Martyrium im frühen Christentum. Mythos, Historie, Theologie’. Communio 43 (2014): 233–43. –––––. 1 Petrus. Novum Testamentum Patristicum 21/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015.

756

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Ein “stilles Blümlein”. Patristische Perspektiven auf den Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 168–205 in Der Erste Petrusbrief. Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel. Edited by Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber. QD 269. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Merrill, Elmer T. Essays in Early Christian History. London: Macmillan, 1924. Merz, Annette. Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe. NTOA 52. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Metzger, Bruce M. Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism. NTTSD 4. Leiden: Brill, 1963. –––––. ‘Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha’. JBL 91 (1972): 3–24. –––––. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. –––––. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Metzner, Rainer. Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangelium im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluss des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief. WUNT 2/74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Meyer, Arnold. Die moderne Forschung über die Geschichte des Urchristentums. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1898. –––––. Das Rätsel des Jacobusbriefes. BZNW 10. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1930. Meyer, Elizabeth A. ‘The Justice of the Roman Governor and the Performance of Prestige’. Pages 167–80 in Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis: Konzepte, Prinzipien und Startegien der Administration im römischen Kaiserreich: Akten der Tagung an der Universität Zürich, 18.–20.10.2004. Edited by Anne Kolb. Berlin: Akademie, 2006. Meyer, Paul M. Die Libelli aus der Decianischen Christenverfolgung. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1910. –––––. Griechische texte aus Ägypten. Berlin: Weidmann, 1916. Michaelis, John D. Introduction to the New Testament. 4th ed. Translated by Herbert Marsh. 4 vols. London: Rivington, 1823. Michaelis, Wilhelm. Das Ältestenamt der christlichen Gemeinde im Lichte der Heiligen Schrift. Bern: Haller, 1953. Michaels, J. Ramsey. ‘Eschatology in I Peter III.17’. NTS 13 (1967): 394–401. –––––. ‘Going to Heaven with Jesus: From 1 Peter to Pilgrim’s Progress’. Pages 248–68 in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –––––. ‘Finding Yourself an Intercessor: New Testament Prayer from Hebrews to Jude’. Pages 228–51 in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001. –––––. ‘St. Peter’s Passion: The Passion Narrative in 1 Peter’. WW 24 (2004): 387–94.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

757

–––––. ‘Catholic Christologies in the Catholic Epistles’. Pages 268–91 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Michel, Charles. Recueil d’inscriptions grecques. Brussels: Lamertin, 1900. Michel, Otto. ‘Zeuge und Zeugnis’. Pages 15–31 in Neues Testament und Geschichte. Historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament. Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Heinrich Baltensweiler and Bo Reicke. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1972. Michel, Otto, and Otto Betz. ‘Von Gott gezeugt’. Pages 3–23 in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche. Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias. Edited by Walther Eltester. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960. Michl, Johann. ‘Die Presbyter des ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 48–62 in Ortskirche, Weltkirche: Festgabe für Julius Kardinal Döpfner. Edited by Heinz Fleckenstein. Würzburg: Echter, 1973. Middleton, Thomas F. The Doctrine of the Greek Article: Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament. 3rd ed. Edited by Hugh J. Rose. London: Rivington, 1833. Migliasso, Secondo. ‘Il paolinismo di prima Pietro’. RivB 34 (1986): 519–41. Mihai, Adrian. ‘Soul’s Aitherial Abode According to the Poteidaia Epitaph and the Presocratic Philosophers’. Numen 57 (2010): 553–82. –––––. L’Hadès celeste: histoire du purgatoire dans l’Antiquité. Kaïnon: présence de la philosophie ancienne 1. Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2015. –––––. ‘Hades in Hellenistic Philosophy (The Early Academy and Stoicism)’. Pages 194–214 in Round Trip to Hades in the Eastern Mediterranean Tradition: Visits to the Underworld from Antiquity to Byzantium. Edited by Gunnel Ekroth and Ingela Nilsson. Cultural Interactions in the Mediterranean 2. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Mill, John. Novum Testamentum Graecum: cum lectionibus variantibus mss. exemplarium, versionum, editionum, ss. patrum et scriptorum ecclesiasticorum; et in easdem notis: accedunt loca scripturae parallela, aliaque exegetica: praemittitur dissertatio de libris N.T. canonis constitutione, et s. textus n. foederis ad nostra usque tempora historia. 2nd ed. Edited by Ludolf Küster. Leipzig: Gleditschii, 1723. Millar, Fergus. ‘The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions’. Pages 143–75 in Le culte des souverains dans l’Empire romain: sept exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres – Genève, 28 août – 2 septembre 1972. Edited by Willem den Boer and Elias J. Bickerman. EAC 19. Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1973. Millauer, Helmut. Leiden als Gnade: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Leidenstheologie des ersten Petrusbriefes. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/56. Bern: Lang, 1976. Miller, Larry. ‘Christianisme et societé dans la première lettre de Pierre: histoire de l’interpétation, interprétation de l’histoire’. Ph.D. diss., Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, 1995.

758

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘La protestation sociale dans la première lettre de Pierre’. Social Compass 46 (1999): 521–43. Miller, Timothy E. ‘The Use of 1 Peter 3:13–17 for Christian Apologetics’. BSac 174 (2017): 193–209. –––––. ‘The Meaning of Milk in 1 Peter 2:1–3’. Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 24 (2019): 63–80. –––––. ‘Choice Implies Meaning: The Imperatival Participles’. NovT 64 (2022): 318–41. –––––. Echoes of Jesus in the First Epistle of Peter. Eugene: Pickwick, 2022. Mills, Mark A. ‘An Analysis of the Clause Patterns in the Greek Text of 1 Peter with Reference to Information Structure’. Ph.D. diss., Baptist Bible Seminary, 2019. Mills, Watson E. 1 Peter. Bibliographies for Biblical Research: New Testament Series 17. Lewiston: Mellen Biblical, 2000. Milne, H. J. M., and T. C. Skeat. Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus. London: British Museum, 1938. Minear, Paul S. ‘The House of Living Stones: A Study of 1 Peter 2:4–12’. Ecumenical Review 34 (1982): 238–48. Mink, Gerd. ‘Ein umfassende Genealogie der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung’. NTS 39 (1993): 481–99. –––––. ‘Was verändert sich in der Textkritik durch die Beachtung genealogischer Kohärenz?’. Pages 39–68 in Recent Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament, Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature: Papers Read at a Noster Conference in Münster, January 4–6, 2001. Edited by Wim Weren and Dietrich-Alex Koch. Studies in Theology and Religion. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003. –––––. ‘Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: The New Testament: Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses’. Pages 13–85 in Studies in Stemmatology II. Edited by Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander, and Margot van Mulken. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. –––––. ‘Contamination, Coherence, and Coincidence in Textual Transmission: The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) as a Complement and Corrective to Existing Approaches’. Pages 141–216 in The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing View in Contemporary Research. Edited by Klaus Wachtel and Michael W. Holmes. SBLTCS 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Minnen, Peter van. ‘House-to-House Enquiries: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Roman Karanis’. ZPE 100 (1994): 227–51. Minns, D. P. ‘The Rescript of Hadrian’. Pages 38–49 in Justin Martyr and His Worlds. Edited by Sara Parvis and Paul Foster. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

759

Misset-van de Weg, Magda. ‘The Sarah Imagery in I Peter’. Pages 111–26 in The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World. Edited by Leonard V. Rutgers, Pieter W. van der Horst, and Henriëtte W. Havelaar. CBET 22. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Reprinted as ‘Sarah Imagery in 1 Peter’. Pages 50–62 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. HUT 28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. –––––. ‘Thessalonicherbriefe’. RGG4 8 (2005): 360–62. Mitchell, Stephen. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Mitchell, Timothy. ‘Everyday Metaphors of Power’. Theory and Society 19 (1990): 545–77. Mitteis, Ludwig. Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Kaiserreichs. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1891. Mitton, C. L. ‘The Relationship between 1 Peter and Ephesians’. JTS 1 (1950): 67–73. Moffatt, James. The Historical New Testament. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1901. –––––. Grace in the New Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1931. Moles, John. ‘Plutarch, Brutus and Brutus’ Greek and Latin Letters’. Pages 141–68 in Plutarch and His Intellectual World: Essays on Plutarch. Edited by Judith Mossman. London: Duckworth, 1997. Molland, Einar. Das paulinische Euangelion. Das Wort und die Sache. Avhandlinger/Norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo. II, Historisk-filosofisk klasse 3. Oslo: Dybwad, 1934. Molthagen, Joachim. Der römische Staat und die Christen im zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. –––––. ‘Die Lage der Christen im römischen Reich nach dem 1. Petrusbrief: Zum Problem einer Domitianischen Verfolgung’. Historia 44 (1995): 422–58. –––––. ‘ “Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui numquam.” Das Nichtwissen des Plinius und die Anfänge der Christenprozesse’. ZTG 9 (2004): 112–40. Mommsen, Theodor. Römisches Strafrecht. Systematischen handbuchs der rechtswissenschaft. Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt, 1899. Mongillo, Dalmazio. ‘Il disegno nascosto dai secoli e manifestato ora per noi (1 Pt 1, 20)’. Angelicum 81 (2004): 867–90. Monro, David B. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. Montefiore, Claude G., and Herbert Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology, Selected and Arranged with Comments and Introduction. London: Macmillan, 1938. Moon, Jongyoon. Mark as a Contributive Amanuensis of 1 Peter? Theologie 97. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2009.

760

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Moon, Joshua N. ‘A New Participation in an Old Identity: 1 Peter and the Church’s Inclusion into Israel’. Pages 117–33 in Faithful Ministry: An Ecclesial Festschrift in Honor of the Rev. Dr. Robert S. Rayburn. Edited by Max Rogland. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019. Moorhouse, A. C. Studies in the Greek Negatives. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1959. –––––. The Syntax of Sophocles. Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava Supplementum 75. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Moral, Antonio García del. ‘Crítica textual de I Ptr. 4,14’. EstBib 20 (1961): 45–77. –––––. ‘Sentido trinitario de la expresión “Espíritu de Yavé” de Is. XI,2 en 1 Pdr. IV,14’. EstBib 20 (1961): 169–206. Moreau, Jacques. ‘Le nom des Chrétiens’. La Nouvelle Clio 4 (1949–50): 190–92. –––––. La persécution du christianisme dans l’empire romain. Mythes et religions 32. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1956. Morgan, Teresa J. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. –––––. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Morris, W. D. ‘1 Peter iii.19’. ExpTim 38/10 (1927): 470. Morrison-Atkins, Kelsi. ‘Worn Stories: (Ad)dressing Wives in 1 Peter’. Pages 289–99 in Dress in Mediterranean Antiquity: Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians. Edited by Alicia J. Batten and Kelly Olson. London: T&T Clark, 2021. Morujão, G. ‘Vestígios de uma primitiva catequese sobre o Pai Nosso na Prima Petri’. Didaskalia 33 (2003): 139–61. Mosetto, Francesco. ‘Sacerdozio regale (1Pt 2,4–10)’. Pages 571–82 in Lettere paoline e altre lettere. Edited by Alessandro Sacchi. Logos, Corso di studi biblici 6. Leumann: Elle de ci, 1996. Moss, Candida. The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. New York: HarperOne, 2013. Mott, Stephen C. ‘The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence’. Pages 60–72 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Motte, André. L’expression du sacré dans la religion grecque. Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre d’Histoire des Religions, 1986. Moulakis, Athanasios. Homonoia: Eintracht und die Entwicklung eines politischen Bewusstseins. Schriftenreihe zur Politik und Geschichte. Munich: List, 1973. Moule, C. F. D. ‘Some Reflections on the Stone Testimonia in Relation to the Name Peter’. NTS 2 (1955): 56–59. –––––. ‘The Nature and Purpose of I Peter’. NTS 3 (1956–57): 1–11. –––––. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

761

Moulton, James H. ‘Characteristics of New Testament Greek’. Expositor 6/10 (1904): 440–45. Mounce, William D. ‘The Origin of the New Testament Metaphor of Rebirth’. Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1981. Moxnes, Halvor. ‘Body, Gender and Social Space: Dilemmas in Constructing Early Christian Identities’. Pages 163–81 in Identity Formation in the New Testament. Edited by Bengt Holmberg and Mikael Winninge. WUNT 227. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. –––––. ‘Because of “The Name of Christ”: Baptism and the Location of Identity in 1 Peter’. Pages 605–28 in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Edited by David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, Øyvind Norderval, and Christer Hellholm. BZNW 176. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. –––––. ‘The Beaten Body of Christ: Reading and Empowering Slave Bodies in 1 Peter’. R&T 21 (2014): 125–41. Moy, Russell G. ‘Resident Aliens of the Diaspora: 1 Peter and Chinese Protestants in San Francisco’. Semeia 91 (2002): 51–67. Moyise, Steve. ‘Isaiah in 1 Peter’. Pages 175–88 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Mudendeli, Martin. ‘L’utilisation de l’Ancien Testament dans la première Épître de Pierre: Unité dynamique des Ecritures’. Ph.D. diss., Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, Rome, 1987. Mueller, Ian. ‘Greek Mathematics and Greek Logic’. Pages 35–70 in Ancient Logic and Its Modern Interpretations. Edited by John Corcoran. Synthese Historical Library 9. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1974. Mülke, Markus. Der Autor und sein Text: Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker Autoren. UALG 93. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008. Müller, Christoph G. ‘Der Erste Petrusbrief und die Schrift’. Pages 197–213 in Schätze der Schrift: Festgabe für Hans F. Fuhs zur Vollendung seines 65. Lebensjahres. Edited by Ansgar Moenikes. Paderborner theologische Studien, 47. Munich: Schöningh, 2007. –––––. ‘Diaspora—Herausforderung und Chance. Anmerkungen zum Glaubensprofil der Adressaten den 1. Petrusbriefs’. SNTSU 32 (2007): 67–88. –––––. ‘ “Lebendige Steine”. Ekklesiologische Formationen im Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 39–63 in Verantwortet Kirche sein - hier und heute. Edited by Richard Hartmann and Jörg Disse. Fuldaer Hochschulschriften 50. Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht, 2009. –––––. ‘ “Ihr seid ein königliches Volk, eine königliche Priesterschaft!” ’. Pages 19–38 in “Seid Ihr bereit . . . ?” Priester sein in unserer Zeit. Edited by Markus Lersch and Christoph G. Müller. Fuldaer Hochschulschriften 52. Würzburg: Echter, 2011.

762

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘ “Umgürtet die Hüften eurer Gesinnung!” (1 Petr 1,13). Das Zusammenspiel von metaphorischer Rede und nicht-metaphorischer Begrifflichkeit im Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 143–66 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘Auserwählte als Fremde. Theologische Standortbestimmung im Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 9–48 in Der Erste Petrusbrief. Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel. Edited by Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber. QD 269. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. –––––. ‘Von Gesinnungshüften (1Petr 1,13) und geistlichen Opfern (1Petr 2,5). Zur paränetischen Valenz metaphorischer Rede im Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 71–88 in Metapher - Narratio - Mimesis – Doxologie. Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. Edited by Ulrich Volp, Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, and Ruben Zimmermann. Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik 7. WUNT 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. –––––. Den Fußsspuren Christi folgen (1 Petr 2,21) Untersuchungen zum ersten Petrusbrief und seinem Umfled. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 71. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2020. Müller, Karlheinz. Anstoss und Gericht: Eine Studie zum jüdischen Hintergrund des paulinischen Skandalon-Begriffs. SANT 19. Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1969. Müller, Peter. Anfänge der Paulusschule: Dargestellt am zweiten Thessalonicherbrief und am Kolosserbrief. ATANT 74. Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1988. –––––. ‘Der 1. Petrusbrief (Teil 1)’. TRu 80 (2015): 335–71. –––––. ‘Der 1. Petrusbrief (Teil 2)’. TRu 80 (2015): 425–65. Müller, Pierre. Löwen und Mischwesen in der archaischen griechischen Kunst: Eine Untersuchung über ihre Bedeutung. Zurich: Juris, 1978. Mullins, T. Y. ‘Greetings as a New Testament Form’. JBL 88 (1968): 418–26. –––––. ‘Benediction as a New Testament Form’. AUSS 15 (1977): 59–64. Münch, Christian. ‘Geschwister in der Fremde. Zur Ethik des Ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 130–64 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis. Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 216. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Munro, Winsome. Authority of Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter. SNTSMS 45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. –––––. ‘Romans 13:1–7 Apartheid’s Last Biblical Refuge’. BTB 20 (1990): 161–68. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. GNS 41. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1995. Musurillo, Herbert. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs: Introductions, Texts and Translations. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

763

Myers, Alicia D. ‘Pater Nutrix: Milk Metaphors and Character Formation in Hebrews and 1 Peter’. Pages 81–99 in Making Sense of Motherhood: Biblical and Theological Perspectives. Edited by Beth M. Stovell. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2016. Myers, Elizabeth A. Intertextual Borrowing between 1 Peter and Hebrews: Probability of Literary Dependence and the Most Likely Direction of Borrowing. Cody: Pistos Ktistes, 2020. –––––. Authorship of 1 Peter and Hebrews: New Evidence in Light of Probable Intertextual Borrowing. Cody: Pistos Ktistes, 2020. Nagy, Gregory. Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 33. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. Narborough, F. D. V. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Revised Version, with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1930. Naseri, Christopher. ‘Christian Identity in the First Letter of Peter: An Exegesis of 1 Peter 2:11’. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences 6 (2016): 114–20. –––––. ‘The “Elect” as “Resident Aliens” and “Sojourners” in 1 Peter 2:11’. Caban 8 (2016): 285–302. –––––. ‘Petrine Christians as Strangers and the Globalization of Christianity: A Study of 1 Peter 1:1; 1:17; 2:9 and 2:11’. Nigerian Journal of Theology 31 (2017): 77–95. Nauck, Wolfgang. ‘Freude im Leiden: Zum Problem einer urchristlichen Verfolgungstradition’. ZNW 46 (1955): 68–80. –––––. ‘Probleme des frühchristlichen Amtsverständnisses (I Ptr 5,2f.)’. ZNW 48 (1957): 200–220. Naveh, Joseph. ‘A Medical Document or a Writing Exercise? The So-Called 4QTherapeia’. IEJ 36 (1986): 52–55. Naylor, H. D. ‘Prohibitions in Greek’. Classical Review 19 (1905): 26–30. Neal, G. C. ‘In the Original Greek’. TynBul 12 (1963): 12–16. Neander, August. Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel. 5th ed. Bibliothek theologischer Klassiker 26–28. 3 vols. Gotha: Perthes, 1890. Needham, Anuradha Dingwaney. Using the Master’s Tools: Resistance and the Literature of the African and South-Asian Diasporas. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 2000. Nef Ulloa, Boris Agustin, and Jean Richard Lopes. ‘Identidade e testemunho cristão Segundo a 1 Pedro: Christian Identity and Witness according to 1 Peter’. Pistis & Praxis: Teologia e Pastoral 13 (2021): 741–57. Nelligan, Thomas P. The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians. Eugene: Pickwick, 2015. Neudecker, Christian G. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das neue Testament. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1840. Neugebauer, Fritz. In Christus: Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Glaubenverständnis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961 –––––. ‘Zur Deutung und Bedeutung des 1. Petrusbriefes’. NTS 26 (1979): 61–86.

764

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Neusner, Jacob. A History of the Jews in Babylonia, I: The Parthian Period. StPB 9. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Nicholas of Lyra. Textus biblie: Cum glosa ordinaria, Nicolai de Lyra postilla, moralitatibus eiusdem, Pauli Burgensis additionibus, Matthiae Thoring replicis, Sexta pars: super epistolas ad Romanos, . . . Actus apostolorum, super canonica Jacobi, . . . Apocalypsim. Basel: Johannes Froben & Johannes Petri, 1508. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. 2nd ed. HTS 56. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Nickelson, Ronald L. ‘First Peter 3:21, Daniel 4:14[17], and the Ordo Salutis’. Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (2000): 229–41. Nicklas, Tobias. ‘ “Insider” und “Outsider”: Überlegungen zum historischen Kontext der Darstellung “jenseitiger Orte” in der Offenbarung des Petrus’. Pages 35–48 in Topographie des Jenseits: Studien zur Geschichte des Todes in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike. Edited by Walter Ameling. Altertumswisssenschaftliches Kolloquium 21. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2011. –––––. ‘Christ Sein macht den Unterschied: Zum Motiv der “Fremdheit” im 1. Petrusbrief und der Schrift an Diognet’. Pages 81–111 in Strategien der Positionierung im 1. Petrusbrief. Edited by Stefan Alkier. Kleine Schriften des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014. –––––. ‘ “Drink the Cup which I Promised You!” (Apocalypse of Peter 14.4) Peter’s Death and the End of Times’. Pages 183–200 in The Open Mind: Essays in Honour of Christopher Rowland. Edited by Jonathan Knight and Kevin P. Sullivan. LNTS 522. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Nicklas, Tobias, and Tommy Wasserman. ‘Theologische Linien im Codex Bodmer Miscellani?’. Pages 161–88 in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World. Edited by Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas. TENTS 2. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Nicolaci, Maria Armida. ‘Giacomo e Prima Petri: Possibili rapporti letterari?’. Pages 111–57 in Quasi vitis (Sir 24,23): Miscellanea in Memoria di Antonino Minissale. Edited by Dionisio Candido and Antonino Minissale. Quaderni di synaxis 2. Catania: Studi Teologico S. Paolo, 2012. Nicolet, Claude. Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Jerome Lectures 19. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm, and Robert W. Wall, eds. The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Niehoff, Maren R. ‘Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic Midrash’. HTR 97 (2004): 413–44.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

765

Niemand, Christoph. ‘ “Plan A” und “Plan B” für ein christliches Leben in feindlicher Umwelt. Werkstattbericht au seiner Seminarlektüre von 1 Petr 2,11–4,11’. Pages 138–54 in Der Erste Petrusbrief. Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel. Edited by Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber. QD 269. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Nienhuis, David R. Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. –––––. ‘The Letter of James as a Canon-Conscious Pseudepigraph’. Pages 183–200, 433–37 in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude. Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert W. Wall. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. –––––. ‘1–2 Peter’. Pages 685–87 in T&T Clark Companion to Atonement. Bloomsbury Companions 5. Edited by Adam J. Johnson. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Nienhuis, David R., and Robert W. Wall. Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude as Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. –––––. ‘On Reading Canonical Collections: A Response’. JTI 9 (2015): 149–60. Nixon, R. E. ‘The Meaning of “Baptism” in 1 Peter 3,21’. Pages 437–41 in Studia Evangelica, vol. IV: Papers Presented to the Third International Congress on New Testament Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1965. Part I: The New Testament Scriptures. TUGAL 102. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968. Noble, Paul R. ‘Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions’. VT 52 (2002): 219–52. Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1956. Nordling, John G. ‘A More Positive View of Slavery: Establishing Servile Identity in the Christian Assemblies’. BBR 19 (2009): 63–84. Norelli, Enrico. ‘Situation des apocryphes pétriniens’. Apocrypha 2 (1991): 31–83. –––––. ‘Au sujet de la première réception de 1 Pierre. Trois exemples’. Pages 327–66 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004. North, Helen. Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature. Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 35. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966. North, James Lionel. ‘ “Qui cum percuteretur non repercussit” (1 Pt 2,23). The Christian Trajectory of a Non-Christian Motif’. Pages 316–37 in Philologia sacra. Biblische und patristische Studien für Hermann J. Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag, Band 1: Altes und Neues Testament. VL 24. Freiburg, Herder, 1993. Norton, Jonathan D. H. ‘The Qumran Library and the Shadow it Casts on the Wall of the Cave’. Pages 40–74 in Ancient Readers and Their Scriptures: Engaging the Hebrew Bible in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Garrick V. Allen and John Anthony Dunne. AJEC 107. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

766

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Novenson, Matthew V. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. –––––. ‘Why Are There Some Petrine Epistles Rather Than None?’. Pages 146–57 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Noy, David. Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers. London: Duckworth, 2002. Nugent, John C. ‘The “Weaker Sex” or a Weak Translation? Strengthening our Interpretation of 1 Peter 3:7’. Priscilla Papers 32 (2018): 8–11. Nurmela, Risto. ‘The Growth of the Book of Isaiah Illustrated by Allusions in Zechariah’. Pages 245–59 in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. JSOTSup 370. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Oakes, Peter. Philippians: From People to Letter. SNTSMS 110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Obermann, Andreas. ‘Fremd im eigenen Land. Die Heimatkonzeption frühchristlicher Gemeinden nach dem 1. Petrusbrief und ihre praktischen Implikationen heute’. KD 51 (2005): 263–89. O’Brien, Peter T. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. NovTSup 49. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Ogara, Florentino. ‘Caritas operit multitudinem peccatorum (1 Pet. 4,7b–11)’. VD 16 (1936): 129–35. –––––. ‘Adversarius… diabolus tamquam leo rugiens’. VD 16 (1936): 166–73. Öhler, Markus. ‘Der 1. Petrusbrief und der Silvanuskult’. Pages 30–50 in Ein neues Geschlecht? Entwicklung des frühchristlichen Selbstbewusstseins. Edited by Markus Lang. NTOA 105. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. –––––. ‘Graeco-Roman Associations, Judean Synagogues and Early Christianity in Bithynia-Pontus’. Pages 62–88 in Authority and Identity in Emerging Christianities in Asia Minor and Greece. Edited by Cilliers Breytenbach and Julien M. Ogereau. AJEC 103. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Ok, Janette H. ‘Always Ethnic, Never “American”: Reading 1 Peter through the Lens of the “Perpetual Foreigner” Stereotype’. Pages 417–26 in T&T Clark Handbook of Asian American Biblical Hermeneutics. Edited by Uriah Y. Kim and Seung Ai Yang. London: T&T Clark, 2019. –––––. ‘You have become children of Sarah: Reading 1 Peter 3:1–6 through the Intersectionality of Asian Immigrant Wives, Patriarchy, and Honorary Whiteness’. Pages 111–29 in Minoritized Women Reading Race and Ethnicity: Intersectional Approaches to Constructed Identity and Early Christian Texts. Edited by Mitzi J. Smith and Jin Young Choi. Feminist Studies and Sacred Texts. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2020. –––––. Constructing Ethnic Identity in 1 Peter: Who You Are No Longer. LNTS 645. London: Bloomsbury, 2021.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

767

Olick, Jeffrey K., and Joyce Robbins. ‘Social Memory Studies: From “Collective Memory” to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices’. Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 105–40. Oliver, James H. ‘Epaminondas of Acraephia’. GRBS 12 (1971): 221–37. Ollrog, Wolf-Henning. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission. WMANT 50. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. Olshausen, Hermann. Proof of the Genuineness of the Writings of the New Testament. Translated by D. Fosdick. Andover: Gould & Newman, 1838. Olson, Vernon S. ‘The Atonement in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary (Virginia), 1979. Olsson, Birger. ‘A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter’. Pages 827–46 in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. Olusoga, David Black and British: A Forgotten History. London: Macmillan, 2016. Omanson, Roger L. ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake (1 Pet 3:13–4:11)’. RevExp 79 (1982): 439–50. Ong, Hughson T. ‘Is “Spiritual Gift(s)” a Linguistically Fallacious Term? A Lexical Study of Χάρισμα, Πνευματικός, and Πνεῦμα’. ExpTim 125 (2014): 583–92. O’Neill, John C. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975. Orlando, Luigi. La prima lettera di Pietro: Tradizioni inniche, liturgiche, midrashiche. Analecta Nicolaiana 9. Bari: Ecumenica, 2009. Oropeza, B. J. Churches under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation: The General Epistles and Revelation. Apostasy in the New Testament Communities 3. Eugene: Wipf & Stock/Cascade, 2012. Osborne, Thomas P. ‘Christian Suffering in the First Epistle of Peter’. S.T.D. diss., Faculté de Théologie of the Université Catholique de Louvain [Louvain-laNeuve], 1981. –––––. ‘L’utilisation des citations de l’Ancien Testament dans la première épître de Pierre’. RTL 12 (1981): 64–77. –––––. ‘Guide Lines for Christian Suffering: A Source-Critical and Theological Study of 1 Peter 2,21–25’. Bib 64 (1983): 381–408. Oss, Douglas A. ‘The Interpretation of the “Stone” Passages by Peter and Paul: A Comparative Study’. JETS 32 (1989): 181–200. Osswald, Eva. ‘Zur Hermeneutik des Habakuk-Kommentars’. ZAW 68 (1956): 243–56. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich. Taufe und Typos. Elemente und Theologie der Tauftypologien in 1. Korinther 10 und 1. Petrus 3. WUNT 2/118. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

768

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Das Verständnis des Leidens bei Philo und im ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 265–81 in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. I. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum, 1.–4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena. Edited by Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Oudshoorn, Carolien. The Relationship between Roman and Local Law in the Babatha and Salome Komaise Archives: General Analysis and Three Case Studies on Law of Succession, Guardianship and Marriage. STDJ 69. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Oxford Society of Historical Theology. The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: Clarendon, 1905. Packer, J. I. Fundamentalism and the Word of God. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1958. Page, Sydney H. T. ‘Obedience and Blood-Sprinkling in 1 Peter 1:2’. WTJ 72 (2010): 291–98. Painter, John. ‘The Johannine Epistles as Catholic Epistles’. Pages 239–305 in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James to Jude. Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert W. Wall. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Pakala, J. C. ‘A Librarian’s Comments on Commentaries: 19. 1 Peter’. Presb 31 (2005): 49–53. Paley, F. A. A Short Treatise on the Greek Particles and Their Combinations according to Attic Usage. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1881. Panning, A. J. ‘What Has Been Determined (έτέθησαν) in 1 Peter 2:8?’. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 98 (2001): 48–52. Papaioannou, Kim, ‘The Sin of the Angels in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6’. JBL 140 (2021): 391–408. Pape, Wilhelm. Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. 3rd ed. Revised and edited by Gustav E. Benseler. Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache 3. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg, 1911. Pardee, Nancy. ‘Be Holy, for I Am Holy: Paraenesis in 1 Peter’. Pages 113–34 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. –––––. ‘ “You have been born anew”: Philo and the Image of New Birth in 1 Peter’. Pages 283–314 in With Gentleness and Respect: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Mark F. Whitters. BTS 40. Leuven: Peeters, 2020. Paribeni, Roberto. ‘Sull’ origine del nome cristiano’. Nuovo Bollettino di Archeologia Cristiana 19 (1913): 37–41. Park, Joseph S. Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions, with Special Reference to Pauline Literature. WUNT 2/121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Park, Seong-Su. ‘Christology as Motivation for Ethical Exhortation in 1 Peter and Philippians’. Ph.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 2007. Parker, Brent E. ‘The Church as the Renewed Israel in Christ: A Study of 1 Peter 2:4–10’. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21 (2017): 41–52.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

769

Parker, David C. ‘The Eschatology of 1 Peter’. BTB 24 (1994): 27–32. –––––. Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Parker, Thomas James. ‘Jesus and Scripture: A Comparative Study of Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter and Their Use of the Old Testament and Jesus Traditions’. Ph.D. diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2022. Parrish, David. ‘Introduction: The Urban Plan and Its Constituent Elements’. Pages 9–41 in Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge, and Xanthos. Edited by David Parrish. JRASup 45. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2001. Parry, R. St. John. A Discussion of the General Epistle of St. James. London: C. J. Clay, 1903. Parsons, Samuel. ‘We Have Been Born Anew: The New Birth of the Christian in the First Epistle of St. Peter (I Peter 1:3, 23)’. Ph.D. diss., St. Thomas Aquinas Pontifical University, 1978. Paschke, Boris A. ‘The Roman ad bestias Execution as a Possible Historical Background for 1 Peter 5.8’. JSNT 28 (2006): 489–500. Patkowski, Mark. ‘The Sensitive Period for the Acquisition of Syntax in a Second Language’. Language Learning 30 (1980): 449–72. Patton, William W. ‘Exegesis of I. Peter III. 18–20; or, Christ’s Preaching to the Spirits-in-Prison’. New Englander and Yale Review 41 (1882): 460–79. Pearson, John. The Minor Theological Works of John Pearson. Edited by Edward Churton. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1844. Pearson, Sharon Clark. The Christological and Rhetorical Properties of 1 Peter. Studies in Bible and Early Christianity 45. Lewiston: Mellen, 2001. Pella-Grin, G. ‘Puis-je donner un sens aux souffrances? Quatre responses de la première épître de Pierre’. Hokhma 95 (2009): 98–117. Penn, Michael Philip. Kissing Christians: Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. Penniman, John David. Raised on Christian Milk: Food and the Formation of the Soul in Early Christianity. Synkrisis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. Pennington, Jonathan T. ‘ “Heaven” and “Heavens” in the LXX: Exploring the Relationship Between ‫ ָשׁ ָמיִ ם‬and οὐρανός’. BIOSCS 36 (2003): 39–59. –––––. ‘Deponency in Koine Greek: The Grammatical Question and the Lexicographical Dilemma’. TJ 24 (2003): 55–76. –––––. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 126. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Peppard, Michael. ‘ “Poetry”, “Hymns” and “Traditional Material” in New Testament Epistles or How to Do Things with Indentations’. JSNT 30 (2008): 319–42. Perdelwitz, E. Richard. Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des I. Petrusbriefes. Ein literarischer und religionsgeschichtlicher Versuch. RVV 11/3. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911.

770

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Perkins, Judith. The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era. New York: Routledge, 1995. Perlzweig, Judith. The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 7: Lamps of the Roman Period, First to Seventh Century after Christ. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1961. Perrot, Charles. ‘La descente aux enfers et la predication aux morts’. Pages 231–46 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Peters, Dorothy M. Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity. EJL 26. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Petersen, Eugen A. H., and Felix von Luschan. Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien, vol. 2: Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratis. Vienna: Gerold, 1889. Petersen, Walter. Greek Diminutives in -ΙΟΝ: A Study in Semantics. Weimar: R. Wagner Sohn, 1910. Peterson, Erik. ‘Christianus’. Pages 355–72 in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. 1: Bibbia, Letteratura cristiana antica. Studi e testi 121. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1946. –––––. Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis. Studien und Untersuchungen. Rome: Herder, 1959. Petzl, Georg, ed. Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. Bonn: Habelt, 1994. Pfleiderer, Otto. Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren, in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang. 2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1902. Phillips, Gregory Y. ‘The Use of the Psalms in 1 Peter: An Exegetical and Hermeneutical Study’. Ph.D. diss., North-West University, 2013. Philipps, Karl. Kirche in der Gesellschaft nach dem 1. Petrusbrief. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971. Phillips, L. Edward. The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship. Joint Liturgical Studies 36. Cambridge: Grove, 1996. Piepkorn, Arthur C. ‘Charisma in the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers’. CTM 42 (1971): 369–89. Pierce, Chad. ‘Reexamining Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison: Punishment Traditions in the Book of Watchers and their Influence on 1 Peter 3:18–22’. Henoch 28 (2006): 27–42. –––––. Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18–22 in Light of Sin and Punishment Traditions in Early Jewish and Christian Literature. WUNT 2/305. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –––––. ‘Apocalypse and the Epistles of 1, 2 Peter and Jude’. Pages 307–25 in The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought. Edited by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Pilch, John J. ‘ “Visiting Strangers” and “Resident Aliens” ’. TBT 29 (1991): 357–61.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

771

Pilgrim. Walter E. Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Pilhofer, Peter. Presbyteron Kreitton: Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte. WUNT 2/39. Tübingen: Mohr, 1990. Piper, John. ‘Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9–12’. NTS 26 (1980): 212–31. Pistone, Rosario. ‘Born or Re-Born? Identity and Family Bonds in 1 Peter and 4 Maccabees’. Pages 481–503 in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2012/2013: Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Angelo Passaro. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Plumpe, J. C. ‘Vivum saxum, Vivi lapides: The Concept of “Living Stones” in Classical and Christian Antiquity’. Traditio 1 (1943): 1–14. Poh, Chu Luan Eileen. ‘The Social World of 1 Peter: Socio-Historical and Exegetical Studies’. Ph.D. diss., King’s College, London, 1998. Pohlsander, Hans A. ‘The Religious Policy of Decius’. Pages 1826–42 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part II, Principat 16.3: Religion. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986. Pomeroy, Sarah B., ed. Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom and A Consolation to His Wife. English Translations, Commentary, Interpretive Essays, and Bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Popp, Thomas. Die Kunst der Konvivenz. Theologie der Anerkennung im 1. Petrusbrief. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 33. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010. –––––. ‘ “… den erwählten Fremden” (1 Petr 1,1). Theologie der Anerkennung im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 183–203 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘ “damit ihr seinen Fußspurennachfolgt” (1 Petr 2,21). Christus als Leitbild der Lebenskunst im 1. Petrusbrief’. Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 17 (2014): 61–70. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. –––––. ‘Jesus and the Use of Greek in Galilee’. Pages 123–54 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1994. –––––. ‘Greek of the New Testament’. Pages 426–35 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. –––––. ‘Granville Sharp’s Rule: A Response to Dan Wallace, or Why a Critical Book Review Should Be Left Alone’. JETS 56 (2013): 93–110. Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. ‘Paul’s Bible, His Education, and His Access to the Scriptures of Israel’. JGRCJ 5 (2008): 9–41.

772

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Porter, Stanley E., Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. Fundamentals of New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Poutsma, Albertus. Over de tempora van de imperativus en de conjunctivus hortativus-prohibitivus in het Grieks. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe reeks, Deel 27, no 2. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van wetenschappen, 1928. Powell, Douglas. ‘Ordo Presbyterii’. JTS 26 (1975): 289–328. Prasad, Jacob. Foundations of the Christian Way of Life according to 1 Peter 1, 13–25: An Exegetico-Theological Study. AnBib 146. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000. Prehn, E. ‘κτίστης’. RE 11.2.22 (1922): cols. 2083–2087. Prete, Benedetto. ‘L’espressione ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή di 1 Pt 5,13’. Vetera Christianorum 21 (1984): 335–52. Preus, Anthony. ‘Galen’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Conception Theory’. Journal of the History of Biology 10 (1977): 65–85. Price, S. R. F. ‘Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult’. JHS 104 (1984): 79–95. –––––. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Priesker, Herbert. ‘Anhang zum ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 152–62 in Hans Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe. 3rd ed. HNT 15. Tübingen: Mohr, 1951. Priestley, Joseph. Letters to a Young Man, Part II. Occasioned by Mr. Evanson’s Treatise on the Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists. London: Johnson, 1793. Prigent, Pierre. ‘I Pierre 2,4–10’. RHPhR 72 (1992): 53–60. Prostmeier, Ferdinand R. Handlungsmodelle im ersten Petrusbrief. FB 63. Würzburg: Echter, 1990. Prümm, Karl. ‘Herrscherkult und Neues Testament’. Bib 9 (1928): 3–25, 129–42, 289–301. Pryor, John W. ‘First Peter and the New Covenant’. RTR 45 (1986): 44–50. Psichari, Jean. Essai sur le grec de la septante. Paris: Klincksieck, 1908. Puig i Tàrrech, Armand. ‘Le milieu de la première épître de Pierre’. RCT 5 (1980): 95–129, 331–402. –––––. ‘Une semence, une fraternité: lecture de 1P 1,22–2,3’. Pages 173–95 in La parola edifica la comunità: Liber amicorum offerto al padre Jacques Dupont in occasione del suo 80° compleanno e del 60° anniversario di professione monastica. Edited by Enzo Bianchi. Magnano: Comunità di Bose, 1996. –––––. ‘Els cristians com a foraster en la Primera Carta de Pere’. Pages 197–242 in La Bíblia i els immigrants. Edited by Armand Puig i Tàrrech. Scripta biblica 6. Barcelona: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya/Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2005.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

773

–––––. ‘The Mission According to the New Testament: Choice or Need?’. Pages 231–47 in Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament: Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg, 24.–31. August 2005. Edited by Anatoly A. Alexeev, Christos Karakolis, and Ulrich Luz. WUNT 218. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Punt, Jeremy. ‘The Female as Weaker Vessel in the Household Code of 1 Peter 3.7’. South African Baptist Journal of Theology 13 (2004): 46–56. –––––. ‘Subverting Sarah in the New Testament: Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3’. Pages 155–74 in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, vol. 2: Exegetical Studies. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Danny Zacharias. LNTS 392. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Quarry, J. ‘On the Epistles of St. Peter’. Journal of Sacred Literature 24 (1861): 257–99. Quick, Laura. ‘Blessings and Curses in Deuteronomy’. Online edition in The Oxford Handbook of Deuteronomy. Edited by Don C. Benjamin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Quinn, Jerome D. ‘Notes on the Text of the P72 1 Pt 2,3; 5,14; and 5,9’. CBQ 27 (1965): 241–49. Rademaker, Adriaan. Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self Restraint: Polysemy and Persuasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term. Mnemosyne Supplement 259. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Radermacher, Ludwig. Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1925. –––––. ‘Der erste Petrusbrief und Silvanus. Mit einem Nachwort in eigener Sache’. ZNW 25 (1926): 287–99. Rahlfs, Alfred. Psalmi cum Odis. 2nd ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Ramsay, William M. ‘Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor’. BCH 7 (1883): 297–328. –––––. ‘The Church and the Empire in the First Century, III: The First Epistle attributed to St. Peter’. Expositor 4.8 (1893): 282–96. –––––. ‘A Study of Phrygian Art’. JHS 9 (1888): 350–82. –––––. ‘The Greek of the Early Church and the Pagan Ritual’. ExpTim 10 (1898): 54–59. –––––. The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1912. Ramsey, Arthur Michael. The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1949. Rankin, David. The Early Church and the Afterlife: Post-Death Existence in Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen and the Letter to Rheginos. London: Routledge, 2017.

774

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rasco, Emilio. ‘Il “sangue prezioso” di Cristo nella prima lettera di Pietro’. Pages 851–64 in Sangue e antropologia biblica: atti della settimana, Roma, 10–15 marzo, 1980. Edited by Francesco Vattioni, Centro studi Sanguis Christi 1. Rome: Pia Unione Preziosissimo Sangue, 1981. Rathbone, Dominic, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Rauch, Ernst K. ‘Rettung der Originalität des ersten Briefes des Apostel Petrus’. Neues kritisches Journal der theologischen Literatur 8 (1828): 385–442. Rawson, Beryl. Children and Childhood in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Rawson, Elizabeth. ‘Cassius and Brutus: The Memory of the Liberators’. Pages 101–19 in Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing. Papers Presented at a Conference in Leeds, 6–8 April 1983. Edited by I. S. Moxon, John D. Smart, and Anthony J. Woodman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Reaves, Pamela. ‘Pseudo-Peter and Persecution: (Counter-)Evaluations of Suffering in the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII,3) and the Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC VIII,2)’. Pages 129–51 in Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions: Writing Ancient and Modern Christian Apocrypha. Edited by Tony Burke. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2017. Reddin, Lester. ‘Hebrews a Petrine Document’. BSac 68 (1911): 684–92. Reece, Steve. Paul’s Large Letters: Paul’s Autographic Subscriptions in the Light of Ancient Epistolary Conventions. LNTS 561. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Reeder, Caryn. ‘1 Peter 3:1–6: Biblical Authority and Battered Wives’. BBR 25 (2015): 519–39. Reese, Ruth Anne. ‘Centering the Decentered Self: 1 Peter and Identity in the 21st Century’. Pages 197–215 in Kingdom Rhetoric: New Testament Explorations in Honor of Ben Witherington III. Edited by T. Michael W. Halcomb. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013. Regard, Paul F. Contribution à l’étude des prépositions dans la langue du Nouveau Testament. Paris: Leroux, 1919. Regev, Eyal. ‘Community as Temple: Revisiting Cultic Metaphors in Qumran and the New Testament’. BBR 28 (2018): 604–31. Rehfeld, Emmanuel L. ‘Die “Gottesknechtsgrammatik” des ersten Petrusbriefs. Ein Musterfall biblischer Theologie’. TBei 47 (2016): 119–27. Rehrl, Stefan. Das Problem der Demut in der profan-griechischen Literatur im Vergleich zu Septuaginta und Neuem Testament. Aevum Christianum 4. Münster: Aschendorff, 1961. Reiche, Johann G. Commentarius criticus in N.T.: quo loca graviora et difficiliora lectionis dubiae accurate recensentur et explicantur, Tomus 3: Epistolam ad Hebraeios et epistolas catholicas continens. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1862.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

775

Reichert, Angelika. Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium: Studien zur Komposition, Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. BBET 22. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989. –––––. ‘Durchdachte Konfusion. Plinius, Trajan und das Christentum’. ZNW 93 (2002): 227–50. –––––. ‘Gegensätzliche Wahrnehmungen einer ambivalenten Krisensituation. Das Plinius-Trajan-Konzept, der 1. Petrusbrief und die Johannesapokalypse’. Pages 281–302 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Reicke, Bo. The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter III.19 and Its Context. ASNU 13. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1946. –––––. ‘Die Gnosis der Männer nach I. Ptr. 3:7’. Pages 296–304 in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann. Zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20. August 1954. Edited by Walter Eltester. BZNW 21. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954. Reinach, Salomon. ‘Les arétalogues dans l’antiquité’. BCH 9 (1885): 257–65. Reitzenstein, Richard. Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen: nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1927. Renan, Ernest. L’Antéchrist. Paris: M. Lévy frères, 1873. Rendall, Gerald H. The Epistle of St. James and Judaic Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927. Renner, Frumentius. An die Hebräer, ein pseudepigraphischer Brief. Münsterschwarzacher Studien 14. Münsterschwarzach: Vier-Türme-Verlag, 1970. Rensburg, Fika J. van. ‘Christians as “Resident and Visiting Aliens”: Implications of the Exhortations to the παροίκοι and παρεπιδήμοι in 1 Peter for the Church in South Africa’. Neot 32 (1998): 573–83. –––––. ‘Sarah’s Submissiveness to Abraham: A Socio-Historic Interpretation of the Exhortation to Wives in 1 Peter 3:5–6 to Take Sarah as Example of Submissiveness’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 60 (2004): 249–60. –––––. ‘The Old Testament in the Salvific Metaphors in 1 Peter’. Pages 381–96 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. BETL 176. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. –––––. ‘Metaphors in the Soteriology in 1 Peter: Identifying and Interpreting the Salvific Imageries’. Pages 409–35 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. NovTSup 121. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –––––. ‘A Code of Conduct for Children of God Who Suffer Unjustly: Identity, Ethics and Ethos in 1 Peter’. Pages 473–509 in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. BZNW 141. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006.

776

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘No Retaliation! An Ethical Analysis of the Exhortation in 1 Peter 3:9 Not to Repay Evil with Evil’. Pages 199–230 in Animosity, the Bible, and Us: Some European, North American, and South African Perspectives. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Fika J. van Rensburg, and Herrie F. van Rooy. GPBS 12. Atlanta: SBL, 2009. –––––. ‘The Referent of Egeusasthe (You Have Tasted) in 1 Peter 2:3’. Acta Theologica 29 (2009): 103–19. –––––. ‘Constructing the Economic-Historic Context of 1 Peter: Exploring a Methodology’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67 (2011): 1–11. –––––. ‘The Eschatology of 1 Peter: Hope and Vindication for Visiting and Resident Strangers’. Pages 472–92 in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. WUNT 2/315. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –––––. ‘Ransomed by God into His Household: Interpreting the Ransom Imagery in 1 Peter within the Economic Context of its Author and Addressees’. Acta Theologica 33 (2013): 255–75. Rensburg, Fika J. van, and Steve Moyise, ‘Isaiah in 1 Peter 3:13–17: Applying Intertextuality to the Study of the Old Testament in the New’. Scriptura 80 (2002): 275–86. Rensburg, J. J. Janse van. ‘The Use of Intersentence Relational Particles and Asyndeton in First Peter’. Neot 24 (1990): 283–300. Resch, Alfred. Agrapha: Ausserkanonische Evangelienfragmente. TUGAL 5/4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1889. –––––. Agrapha: Ausserkanonische Schriftfragmente. TUGAL 30,3/4. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906. Reumann, John. ‘ “Stewards of God”: Pre-Christian Religious Application of Oikonomos in Greek’. JBL 77 (1958): 339–49. –––––. ‘ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΑ-Terms in Paul in Comparison with Lucan Heilsgeschichte’. NTS 13 (1966–67): 147–67. –––––. Stewardship and the Economy of God. Library of Christian Stewardship. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Reynolds, Joyce. Aphrodisias and Rome. JRS Monograph 1. London, 1982. Reynolds, Joyce, and Robert Tannenbaum. Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary. Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Series 12. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987. Reynolds, Stephen M. ‘The Zero Tense in Greek: A Critical Note’. WTJ 32 (1965): 68–72. Rham, Ariane Keller De. ‘1 Pierre 3,13-18: N’ayez crainte!’. Lire et Dire 88 (2011): 38–48. Ribbens, Benjamin J. Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews. BZNW 222. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Richard, Earl J. ‘The Functional Christology of First Peter’. Pages 121–39 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. NABPRSSS 9. Macon: Macon University Press, 1986.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

777

–––––. First and Second Thessalonians. SP. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1995. –––––. ‘Honourable Conduct Among the Gentiles: A Study of the Social Thought of 1 Peter’. WW 24 (2004): 412–20. Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. WUNT 2/42. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1991. –––––. ‘Silvanus Was Not Peter’s Secretary: Theological Bias in Interpreting διὰ Σιλουανοῦ…ἔγραψα in 1 Peter 5:12’. JETS 43 (2000): 417–32. –––––. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. –––––. ‘The General Epistles and Hebrews: In Exile but on the Brink of Restoration’. Pages 232–54 in The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology. Edited by C. Marvin Pate, J. Scott Duvall, J. Daniel Hays, E. Randolph Richards, W. Dennis Tucker, Jr., and Preben Vang. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. –––––. ‘Will the Real Author Please Stand Up? The Author in Greco-Roman Letter Writing’. Pages 113–36 in Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics. Edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012. Richards, G. C. ‘1 Peter iii 21’. JTS 32 (1931): 77. Richardson, John. Roman Provincial Administration 227 BC to AD 117. London: MacMillan, 1976. Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. SNTSMS 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Richardson, Philip. ‘What are the Spiritual Sacrifices of 1 Peter 2:5? Some Light from Philo of Alexandria’. EvQ 87 (2015): 3–17. Richter, Gisela M. A. ‘A New Early Attic Vase’. JHS 32 (1912): 370–84. –––––. ‘An Archaic Greek Mirror’. AJA 42 (1938): 337–44. –––––. ‘Ancient Plaster Casts of Greek Metalware’. AJA 62 (1958): 369–77. Riedl, Hermann. Anamnese und Apostolizität. Der Zweite Petrusbrief und das theologische Problem neutestamentlicher Pseudepigraphie. RST 64. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2005. Riehm, Eduard K. A. Der Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefes. Ludwigsburg: Riehm, 1858–59. Rigato, Maria-Luisa. ‘Quali i profeti di cui nella 1Pt 1,10?’. RivB 38 (1990): 73–90. –––––. ‘Il carisma di interpretare la Sacra Scrittura in profeti cristiani (1Pt 1,10–12)’. Ricerche Teologiche 12 (2001): 15–49. Riggenbach, Bernhard. ‘Die Poimenik des Apostels Petrus (I Petri 5,1–5) nach ihrer geschichtlichen und praktischen Bedeutung’. Theologische Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz 7 (1890): 185–95. Rijksbaron, Albert. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1984. Rilinger, Rolf. Humiliores-Honestiores: zu einer sozialen Dichotomie im Strafrecht der römischen Kaiserzeit. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1988.

778

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rissi, Mathias. Die Taufe für die Toten. Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Tauflehre. ATANT 42. Zürich: Zwingli, 1962. Ritschl, Albrecht. Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, vol. 2: Der biblische Stoff der Lehre. 3rd ed. Bonn: Marcus, 1889. Ritterling, E. ‘Military Forces in the Senatorial Provinces’. JRS 17 (1927): 28–32. Rives, James B. ‘The Piety of a Persecutor’. JECS 4 (1996): 1–25. –––––. ‘The Decree of Decius and the Religion of the Empire’. JRS 89 (1999): 135–54. Rivkin, Ellis. What Crucified Jesus? London: SCM, 1986. Robert, Louis. ‘Un corpus des inscriptions juives’. REJ 101 (1937): 73–86. –––––. Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec. Paris: Champion, 1940. –––––. ‘Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce centrale’. Archaiologike Ephemeris (1969): 1–58. Roberts, J. W. ‘The Use of Conditional Sentences in the Greek New Testament as Compared with Homeric, Classical, and Hellenistic Uses’. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas, 1955. Robertson, A. T. ‘The Use of Ὑπέρ in Business Documents in the Papyri’. The Expositor 8/19 (1920): 321–27. –––––. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman, 1930–1933. –––––. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1934. Robinson, D. F. ‘Where and When Did Peter Die?’. JBL 64 (1945): 255–67. Robinson, Edward. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. 2nd ed. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1837. Robinson, James M. ‘The Manuscript’s History and Codicology’. Pages xvii–xlvii in The Crosby-Schøyen Codex MS 193 in the Schøyen Collection. Edited by James E. Goehring. CSCO 521. Leuven: Peeters, 1990. Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM, 1976. Robinson, Maurice A., and William G. Pierpont, eds. The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform. Atlanta: The Original Word, 1991. Robinson, Thomas A. Who Were the First Christians? Dismantling the Urban Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Robinson, Will, and Stephen R. Llewelyn. ‘The Fictitious Audience of 1 Peter’. HeyJ 61 (2020): 939–50. Robison, Henry B. Syntax of the Participle in the Apostolic Fathers, in the Editio Minor of Gerbhardt-Harnack-Zahn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1913.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

779

Röder, Jörg. ‘Was ist “gut” im Neuen Testament? Funktionale Bedeutungsmöglichkeiten des ἀγαθός-Begriffs in der ethischen Argumentation’. Pages 93–129 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut - Leben - Leib - Tugend, Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Band IV. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Rodgers, Peter R. ‘The Longer Reading of 1 Peter 4:14’. CBQ 43 (1981): 93–95. –––––. ‘Book of 1 Peter’. Pages 581–83 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. –––––. ‘1 Peter 4:16 in Nestle 28’. Filología Neotestamentaria 30 (2017): 167–74. –––––. ‘The Question of 1 Peter 3:13’. Filología Neotestamentaria 31 (2018): 111–18. Rodríguez, Rafael. Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text. LNTS 407. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Rogers, Trent A. ‘The Function of ὥστε in the New Testament’. Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 30 (2013): 317–31. Rohde, Erwin. Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Röhser, Günter. ‘Sünde und “Sündlosigkeit” im 1. Petrusbrief und vergleichbaren Texten’. Pages 391–414 in Ethos und Theologie im Neuen Testament. Festschrift für Michael Wolter. Edited by Jochen Flebbe and Matthias Konradt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2016. Rolland, Emmanuel. ‘1 Pierre 3,18-22: …c’est l’enfer!’. Lire et Dire 12 (2012): 37–48. Roller, Duane W. ‘Juba II of Mauretania’. In Brill’s New Jacoby. Leiden: Brill, online. Roller, Otto. Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von antike Briefen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933. Römer, Adolph. Die Homerexegese Aristarchs in ihren Grundzügen. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 13.2–3. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1924. Ropes, James H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916. Rosauer, Greg. ‘First Peter and Atonement Theology’. Pages 149–69 in For it Stands in Scripture: Essays in Honor of W. Edward Glenny. Edited by Ardel B. Caneday, Anna Rask, and Greg Rosauer. St. Paul: The University of Northwestern Berntsen Library, 2019. Rosen, Haiim B. ‘Palestinian ΚΟΙΝΗ in Rabbinic Illustrations’. JSS 8 (1963): 56–73. Rosenberger, Veit. ‘Oracles’. Pages 183–87 in Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, vol. 10: Obl-Phe. Edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. Ancient Greek Literary Letters: Selections in Translation. New York: Routledge, 2006.

780

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ross, J. M. ‘Further Unnoticed Points in the Text of the New Testament’. NovT 45 (2003): 209–21. Rossberg, Conradus. De praepositionum Graecarum in chartis Aegyptiis Ptolemaeorum Aetatis usu. Jena: Neuenhah, 1909. Rougé, Jean. ‘L’incendie de Rome en 64 et l’incendie de Nicomédie en 303’. Pages 433–41 in Mélanges d’histoire ancienne offerts à William Seston. Edited by J. Tréheux. Publications de la Sorbonne, Série ‘Études’ 9. Paris: Boccard, 1974. Rousseau, Jacques. ‘A Multidimensional Approach towards the Communication of an Ancient Canonized Text: Towards Determining the Thrust, Perspective and Strategy of 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 1986. Rowley, H. H. ‘The Herodians in the Gospels’. JTS 41 (1940): 14–27. Royse, James R. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. NTTS 36. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Rudman, Dominic. ‘1 Peter 3–4 and the Baptism of Chaos’. Pages 397–405 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004. Ruge, W. ‘Orakel’. Pages 829–66 in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by Georg Wissowa and Wilhelm Kroll. Vol. 18/1. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1939. Rühl, Franz. ‘Die griechischen Briefe des Brutus’. RhM 70 (1915): 315–25. Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2015. Rupert, n.n. ‘The Last Times, Days, and Hours—Past and Gone!’. Page 156 in Biblical Notes and Queries. Edinburgh: George Adam Young & Co., 1869. Rusche, Helga. Gastfreundschaft in der Verkündigung des Neuen Testaments und ihr Verhältnis zur Mission. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Missionswissenschaft der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster Westfalen 7. Münster: Aschendorff 1958. Rydryck, Michael. ‘Strangers and Pilgrims: Identität und Raum im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 45–65 in Strategien der Positionierung im 1. Petrusbrief. Edited by Stefan Alkier. Kleine Schriften des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014. Saddington, D. B. ‘The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Augustus to Trajan’. Pages 176–201 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part II, Principat 3: Politische Geschichte. Edited by Hildegard Temporini. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975. Safrai, Schmuel. ‘Elementary Education, Its Religious and Social Significance in the Talmudic Period’. Cahiers D’Histoire Mondiale 11 (1968): 148–69. Saldanha, Assisi. ‘Hope for the Homeless in 1 Peter: Issues of Migration and Identity’. Indian Theological Studies 49 (2012): 113–46. Saldarini, Anthony J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1994.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

781

Saller, Richard P. ‘Corporal Punishment, Authority and Obedience in the Roman Household’. Pages 144–65 in Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. Edited by Beryl Rawson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Salmon, E. T. Roman Colonization under the Republic. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969. Salmon, George. A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, Being an Expansion of Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin. 4th ed. London: J. Murray, 1889. Salom, A. P. ‘The Imperatival Use of the Participle in the New Testament’. ABR 11 (1963): 41–49. Samuel, Alan E. ‘The Role of Paramone Clauses in Ancient Documents’. Journal of Juristic Papyrology 15 (1965): 221–29. Sanchez, Juan R. ‘Peter the Expositor: The Apostle’s Use of Scripture in 1 Peter’. Pages 11–35 in Resurrection Life in a World of Suffering: 1 Peter. Edited by D. A. Carson and Kathleen B. Nielson. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018. –––––. ‘The Chosen People and Racial Reconciliation (1 Peter 2:9)’. Pages 127–35 in Ministers of Reconciliation: Preaching on Race and the Gospel. Edited by Daniel Darling and Russell Moore. Bellingham: Lexham, 2021. Sander, Emilie T. ‘ΠΥΡΩΣΙΣ and the First Epistle of Peter 4:12’. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1966. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: SCM, 1977. –––––. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. –––––. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE–66CE. London: SCM, 1992. Sanders, Jack T. ‘The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus’. JBL 81 (1962): 348–62. –––––. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background. SNTSMS 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Sandevoir, Pierre. ‘Un royaume de prêtres’. Pages 219–29 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Sandnes, Karl Olav. ‘Revised Conventions in Early Christian Paraenesis – “Working Good” in 1 Peter as an Example’. Pages 373–403 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Edited by James M. Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen. BZNW 125. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Sänger, Dieter. ‘Kultisches Amt und priesterliche Gemeinde. Neutestamenliche Erwägungen zum Priestertum aller Gläubigen’. Pages 619–57 in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. Edited by Christof Landmesser, Hans-Joachim Eckstein, and Hermann Lichtenberger. BZNW 86. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997. Santamaría Lancho, Juan A. ‘Un estudio sobre la soteriología del dogma del Descensus ad Inferos: 1 Pe 3,19–20a y la tradición sobre “la predicación de Cristo en los Infiernos” ’. Ph.D. diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (München), 2007.

782

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sargent, Benjamin. ‘Chosen through Sanctification (1 Pet 1,2 and 2 Thess 2,13): The Theology or Diction of Silvanus?’. Bib 94 (2013): 117–20. –––––. ‘The Narrative Substructure of 1 Peter’. ExpTim 124 (2013): 485–90. –––––. Written to Serve: The Use of Scripture in 1 Peter. LNTS 547. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Sarri, Antonia. ‘Handshifts in Letters’. Pages 797–819 in Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology, Warsaw 29 July–3 August 2013, vol. 2: Subliterary Papyri, Documentary Papyri, Scribal Practices, Linguistic Matters. Edited by Tomasz Derda, Adam Łajtar, and Jakub Urbanik. Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement 28. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, 2016. –––––. Material Aspects of Letter Writing in the Graeco-Roman World, 500 BC– AD 300. Materiale Textkulturen 12. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018. Saumaise, Claude. De Hellenistica commentarius: controversiam de lingua Hellenistica decidens, et plenissime pertractans originem et dialectos Graecae linguae. Lugduni Batavorum: Elsevir, 1643. Savage, Carl E. Biblical Bethsaida: An Archaeological Study of the First Century. Lanham: Lexington, 2011. Sawyer, John F. A. The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Schaefer, Hans. ‘Paroikoi’. Pages 1695–707 in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by A. F. von Pauly et al. Vol. 18/4. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1949. Schäfer, Karl T. ‘Zur Deutung von ἀκρογωνιαῖος Eph 2,20’. Pages 218–24 in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze. Fetschrift für Prof. Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Josef Blinzler, Otto Kuss, and Franz Mussner. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1963. Schäfer, Ruth. ‘Die Verheißung an Sara. Ansätze einer Sara-Tradition im Neuen Testament und ihre Grundlage in Gen 18,1–15’. SNTSU 39 (2014): 59–84. Scharfe, Ernest. Die petrinische Strömung der neutestamentlichen Literatur. Untersuchungen über die schriftstellerische Eigentümlichkeit des ersten Petrusbriefs, des Marcusevangeliums und der petrinischen Reden der Apostelgeschichte. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1893. Scharlemann, Martin H. ‘Why the kuriou in 1 Peter 1:25?’. CTM 30 (1959): 352–56. –––––. ‘Exodus Ethics: Part One – 1 Peter 1:13–16’. Concordia Journal 2 (1976): 165–70. –––––. ‘An Apostolic Descant: An Exegetical Study of 1 Peter 1:3–12’. Concordia Journal 2 (1976): 9–17. Schattenmann, Johannes. ‘The Little Apocalypse of the Synoptics and the First Epistle of Peter’. Theology Today 11 (1954): 193–98. Schatzmann, Siegfried S. A Pauline Theology of Charismata. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. Scheidel, Walter, and Steven J. Friesen. ‘The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire’. JRS 99 (2009): 61–91.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

783

Schelbert, Georg. ABBA Vater: Der literarische Befund vom Altaramäischen bis zu den späten Midrasch- und Haggada-Werken in Auseinandersetzung mit den Thesen von Joachim Jeremias. NTOA 81. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Schellenberg, Ryan S. Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10–13. ECL 10. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. ——. ‘Subsistence, Swapping, and Paul’s Rhetoric of Generosity’. JBL 137 (2018): 215–34. Schenk, Hans-Martin, and Karl M. Fischer. Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. I: Die Briefe des Paulus und Schriften des Paulinismus. Berlin: Evangelische Verlags-anstalt, 1978. Schertz, Mary H. ‘Nonretaliation and the Haustafeln in 1 Peter’. Pages 258–86 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. Studies in Peace and Scripture. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. –––––. ‘Radical Trust in the Just Judge: The Easter Texts of 1 Peter’. WW 24 (2004): 430–41. Schickert, Katharina. Der Schutz literarischer Urheberschaft im Rom der klassischen Antike. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Schlatter, Adolf. Petrus und Paulus nach dem ersten Petrusbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1937. –––––. Der Brief des Jakobus. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1956. Schlesinger, Eugene R. ‘Fire in the Water: Baptismal Aptness and Ecology in the Petrine Epistles’. JTI 7 (2013): 275–94. Schleusner, Johann F. Novum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Novum Testamentum. 5th ed. Glasgow: Duncan, 1817. Schlier, Heinrich. ‘Eine adhortatio aus Rom. Die Botschaft des ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 59–80, 369–71 in Strukturen christlicher Existenz: Beiträge zur Erneuerung des geistlichen Lebens. Würzburg: Echter, 1968. Schlosser, Jacques. ‘Ancien Testament et christologie dans la prima Petri’. Pages 64–95 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. –––––. ‘1 Pierre 3,5b–6’. Bib 64 (1983): 409–10. –––––. ‘Le theme exodial dans la Prima Petri’. Pages 259–74 in La Mémoire et le Temps: Mélanges offerts à Pierre Bonnard. Edited by Daniel Marguerat and Jean Zumstein. Monde de la Bible 23. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991. –––––. ‘ “Aimez la fraternité” (1 P 2,17). A propos de l’ecclésiologie de la première lettre de Pierre’. Pages 525–45 in Patrimonium fidei: Traditionsgeschichtliches Verstehen am Ende? Festschrift für Magnus Löhrer und Pius-Ramon Tragan. Edited by Marinella Perroni and Elmar Salmann. Studia Anselmiana philosophica theologica 124. Rome: Pont Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1997.

784

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Déluge et typologie dans 1 P 3,19–21’. Pages 177–202 in Typologie biblique. De quelques figures vives. Edited by Raymond Kuntzmann. Lectio Divina, Hors série. Paris: Cerf, 2002. –––––. ‘La resurrection de Jésus d’après la Prima Petri’. Pages 445–62 in idem, À la recherche de la Parole. Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique. LD 207. Paris: Cerf, 2006. –––––. ‘Les elements hymniques en 1 P 1,3–2,10’. Pages 179–208 in Les hymnes du Nouveau Testament et leurs fonctions: XXIIe congrès de l’Association catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible (Strasbourg, 2007). Edited by Daniel Gerber and Pierre Keith. LD 225. Paris: Cerf, 2009. –––––. ‘La “philadelphie” selon Pierre et Paul’. Pages 251–66 in Bible et paix: Mélanges offerts à Claude Coulot. Edited by Eberhard Bons, Daniel Gerber, and Pierre Keith. LD 233. Paris: Cerf, 2010. Schmeller, Thomas. Schulen im Neuen Testament? Zur Stellung des Urchristentums in der Bildungswelt seiner Zeit. HBS 30. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Schmidt, Eckart David. ‘Kult und Ethik: Leben “heiliger” Gemeinden. Der Heiligkeitsbegriff in ethischen Begründungszusammenhängen im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 225–55 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut - Leben - Leib - Tugend, Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Band IV. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –––––. ‘Dienen zu Gottes Ehre. Die Doxologien im 1. Petrusbrief und ihr Beitrag zu einer “doxologischen Ethik” ’. Pages 375–402 in Metapher – Narratio – Mimesis – Doxologie. Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. Edited by Ulrich Volp, Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, and Ruben Zimmermann. Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik 7. WUNT 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Schmidt, J. H. Heinrich. Synonymik der griechischen Sprache. Leipzig: Teubner, 1886. Schmidt, Karl Matthias. Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel: Epistolographie, Rhetorik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe. Herders biblische Studien 38. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. –––––. ‘Die Stimme des Apostels erheben. Pragmatische Leistungen der Autorenfiktion in den Petrusbriefen’. Pages 625–44 in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –––––. ‘Die Gnade des Leidens. Die Positionierung des Ersten Petrusbriefes im Gegenüber zum Epheser- und zum Jakobusbrief’. Pages 303–24 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

785

–––––. ‘Ein Brief aus Babylon. Die Anpassung der Verfasserfiktion im Ersten Petrusbrief an die Realität der angesprochenen Gemeinde’. Pages 67–99 in Der Erste Petrusbrief. Frühchristliche Identität im Wandel. Edited by Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber. QD 269. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. Schmidt, Paul. ‘Zwei Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief’. ZWT 50 (1907): 24–52. Schmitz, Franz-Jürgen. Das Verhaltnis des koptischen zur griechischen Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments. Dokumentation und Auswertung der Gesamtmaterialien beider Traditionen zum Jakobusbrief und den beiden Petrusbriefen. ANTF 33. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Schmocker, Katharina. Elpis oder Hoffnung. Eine zukunftsgerichtete Auseinandersetzung mit dem Anspruch in 1 Petr 3,15. Bern: Peter Lang, 1998. Schnabel, Eckhard J. ‘The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More than a Prophet’. Pages 203–57 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28/1. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –––––. ‘Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions’. NovT 45 (2003): 160–88. –––––. Early Christian Mission, vol. 2: Paul and the Early Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. Schneider, Michael. ‘Fremde in der Zerstreuung: Identität, Konflikte und Gemeinschaft der Christen im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 67–80 in Strategien der Positionierung im 1. Petrusbrief. Edited by Stefan Alkier. Kleine Schriften des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014. Schnelle, Udo. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. –––––. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 9th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Schnider, Franz, and Werner Stenger. Studien zum Neutestamentlichen Briefformular. NTTS 11. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Schniewind, Julius. Euangelion. Urspung und erste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium. Untersuchungen. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 2. Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Monographien 13. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970. Schonfield, Hugh J. The Authentic New Testament. London: Dennis Dobson, 1955. Schottroff, Luise. ‘Non-violence and the Love of One’s Enemies’. Pages 9–39 in Essays on the Love Commandment. Translated by Reginald H. Fuller and Ilse Fuller. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Schöttgen, Christian. Horae hebraïcae et talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum, quibus Horae Joannis Lightfootii in libris historicis supplentur, Epistolae et Apocalypsis eodem modo illustrantur, accedunt dissertationes quaedam philologico-sacrae. Dresdae: Hekel, 1733. Schreiber, Stefan. Begleiter durch das Neue Testament. 3rd ed. Ostfildern: Patmos, 2014.

786

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘Pseudepigraphie als Problem der Einleitungswissenschaft. Perspektiven aus der antiken Briefliteratur’. Pages 231–58 in Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle. Edited by Michael Labahn. FRLANT 271. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Schroeder, David. ‘Once you were no people…’. Pages 37–65 in The Church as Theological Community: Essays in Honour of David Schroeder. Edited by Harry Huebner. Winnipeg: Canadian Mennonite Bible College, 1990. Schröger, Friedrich. ‘Die Verfassung der Germeinde des ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 239–52 in Kirche im Werden: Studien zum Thema Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament. Edited by Josef Hainz. Münich: Schöningh, 1976. –––––. Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief: Untersuchungen zum Selbstverstandnis einer christlichen Gemeinde an der Wende vom 1. zum 2. Jahrhundert. Passan: Passavia Universitätsverlag, 1981. Schückler, Georg. ‘Wandel im Glauben als Missionarisches Zeugnis’. Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 4 (1967): 289–99. Schultz, Thomas N. The Meaning of Charis in the New Testament. Genova: Editrice Lanterna, 1971. Schultz Montalbetti, María José. ‘Los destinatarios de la primera carta de Pedro en la sociedad greco-romana del siglo I’. RevistB 79 (2017): 127–53. –––––. ‘Teología y estrategia en la primera carta de Pedro’. RevistB 81 (2019): 363–84. –––––. La estrategia misionera de la Primera carta de Pedro. Edificar una “casa espiritual” por medio de la buena conducta. Monografías Bibícas (Asociación Bíblica Espanñola) 81. Madrid: Verbo Divino, forthcoming. Schulz, Anselm. Nachfolgen und Nachahmen: Studien über das Verhältnis der neutestamentlichen Jüngerschaft zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik‬ . SANT 6. Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1962. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). Edited by Fergus Millar, Geza Vermes, Matthew Black, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Schüssler, Karlheinz. ‘Eine griechisch-koptische Handschrift des Apostolos (l 1575 u. 0129. 0203)’. Pages 218–65 in Materialien zur neutestamentlichen Handschriftenkunde. Edited by Kurt Aland. ANTF 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. ‘Cultic Language in Qumran and in the NT’. CBQ 38 (1976): 159–77. –––––. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983. –––––. 1 Peter: An Introduction and Study Guide. Reading Against the Grain. T&T Clark Study Guides to the New Testament 18. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. Schutter, William L. ‘1 Peter 4:17, Ezekiel 9:6, and Apocalyptic Hermeneutics’. Pages 276–84 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, vol. 26. Edited by Kent H. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

787

–––––. Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter. WUNT 2/30. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1989. Schwank, P. Benedikt. ‘Wir Freie—aber als Sklaven Gottes (1 Pe 2,16). Das Verhältnis des Christen zur Staatsmacht nach dem Ersten Petrusbrief’. Erbe und Auftrag 36 (1960): 5–12. –––––. ‘Diabolus tamquam leo rugiens (1 Petr 5,8)’. Erbe und Auftrag 38 (1962): 15–20. –––––. ‘L’Epître (1 P 3,8–15)’. AsSeig 59 (1966): 16–32. –––––. ‘Des éléments mythologiques dans une profession de foi. 1 P 3,18–22’. AsSeig 29 (1973): 41–44. –––––. ‘Le “chrétien normal” selon le Nouveau Testament. 1 P 4,13–16’. AsSeig 29 (1973): 26–30. Schwarz, Eberhard. Identität durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2.vorchristlichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jubiläenbuches. Europäische Hochschulschriften, Series 23 Theology, 162. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982. Schwegler, Albert. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung. 2 vols. Tübingen: Fues, 1846. Schweizer, Eduard. ‘1 Petrus 4.6’. TZ 8 (1952): 152–54. –––––. The Letter to the Colossians. Translated by Andrew Chester. London: SPCK, 1982. –––––. ‘The Priesthood of All Believers: 1 Peter 2.1–10’. Pages 285–93 in Worship, Theology, and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige. JNTSSup 87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. –––––. ‘Glaubensgrundlage und Glaubenserfahrung in der Kirche des allgemeinen Priestertums: 1Petr 2,1–10’. Pages 272–83 in Kirche und Volk Gottes. Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Otto Merk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000. Schwyzer, Eduard. Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechische Grammatik. Bd. 2, Syntax und Syntaktischer Stilistik. 5th ed. HAW 2.2. Münich: Beck, 1988. Scott, C. Anderson. ‘The Sufferings of Christ: A Note on 1 Peter I. 11’. Expositor 6/12 (1905): 234–40. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Scott, Mary. ‘Charis in Homer and the Homeric Hymns’. Acta Classica 26 (1983): 1–13. –––––. ‘Charis from Hesiod to Pindar’. Acta Classica 27 (1984): 1–13. Sear, Frank. Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Sechrest, Love L. A Former Jew: Paul and the Dialectics of Race. LNTS 410. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

788

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sedlaczek, H. ‘φιλαδελφία nach den Schriften des heiliges Apostels Paulus’. ThQ 76 (1894): 272–95. Seeberg, Alfred. Der Tod Christi in seiner Bedeutung für die Erlösung: eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung. Leipzig: Deichert, 1895. –––––. Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit. Theologische Bücherei 26. Leipzig: A. Deichertschen, 1903. Seland, Torrey. ‘The “Common Priesthood” of Philo and 1 Peter: A Philonic Reading of 1 Peter 2:5, 9’. JSNT 57 (1995): 87–119. –––––. ‘πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος: Proselyte Characterizations in 1 Peter?’. BBR 11 (2001): 239–68. –––––. ‘The Moderate Life of the Christian paroikoi: A Philonic Reading of 1 Pet 2:11’. Pages 241–64 in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. I. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum, 1.–4. Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena. Edited by Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. –––––. Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter. BIS 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –––––. ‘Resident Aliens in Mission: Missional Practices in the Emerging Church of 1 Peter’. BBR 19 (2009): 565–89. –––––. ‘Crucial Issues in the Quest for the First Readers of 1 Peter: Reassessing an Old Question’. Pages 43–57 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘ “Like Newborn Infants”: The Readers of 1 Peter as Newly Converted Christians?’. Pages 227–42 in The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Memory of Hans Kvalbein. Edited by David E. Aune and Reidar Hvalvik. WUNT 404. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Selinger, Reinhard. The Mid-Third Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian. New York: Peter Lang, 2002. Selwyn, Edward C. St. Luke, the Prophet. London: Macmillan, 1901. Selwyn, Edward G. ‘The Persecutions in I Peter’. Bulletin of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas 1 (1950): 39–50. –––––. ‘Eschatology in 1 Peter’. Pages 394–401 in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. Edited by W. D. Davies and David Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956. Senior, Donald. ‘The Conduct of Christians in the World (2:11–3:12)’. RevExp 79 (1982): 427–38. –––––. ‘The Petrine Letters and the Petrine Ministry’. TBT 43 (2005): 233–37. –––––. ‘A Reason for Hope: The First Letter of Peter’. TBT 54 (2016): 309–15. Seufert, W. ‘Das Abhängigkeitsverhältnis des 1. Petrusbriefs vom Römerbrief’. ZWT 17 (1874): 360–88. –––––. ‘Das Verwandtschaftsverhältnis des ersten Petrusbriefes und Epheserbriefs’. ZWT 24 (1881): 178–97, 332–80.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

789

–––––. ‘Titus Silvanus (ΣΙΛΑΣ) und der Verfasser des ersten Petrusbriefs’. ZWT 28 (1885): 350–71. –––––. ‘Der Abfassungsort des ersten Petrusbriefes’. ZWT 28 (1885): 146–56. Sevenster, Jan N. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? NovTSup 19. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Severyns, Albert. Le cycle épique dans l’école d’Aristarque. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège 40. Paris: Champion, 1928. Sgourou, Marina, and Anagnostis R. Agelarakis. ‘Jewellery from Thasian Graves’. ABSA 96 (2001): 327–64. Shanks, Monte A. Papias and the New Testament. Eugene: Pickwick, 2013. Sharp, Granville. Remarks on the uses of the definitive article in the Greek text of the New Testament containing many new proofs of the divinity of Christ, from passages which are wrongly translated in the common English version. 3rd ed. London: Vernor & Hood, 1803. Shaw, Brent D. ‘The Myth of the Neronian Persecution’. JRS 105 (2015): 73–100. Shaw, David M. ‘A People Called: Narrative Transportation and Missional Identity in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., University of Exeter, 2017. –––––. ‘Called to Bless: Considering an Under-appreciated Aspect of “Doing Good” in 1 Peter 3:8–17’. BTB 50 (2020): 161–73. –––––. ‘Narrating a New Identity: The Role of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant in 1 Peter 2:18–25’. Pages 125–53 in The Impact of Jesus of Nazareth: Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives, vol. 2: Social and Pastoral Studies. Edited by Peter G. Bolt and James R. Harrison. Macquarie Park: SCD Press, 2021. Sherk, Robert K. ‘The Inermes Provinciae of Asia Minor’. AJP 76 (1955): 400–413. Sherwin-White, A. N. ‘The Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again’. JTS 3 (1952): 199–213. Shimada, Kazuhito. ‘The Formulary Material in First Peter: A Study According to the Method of Traditionsgeschichte’. Th.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1966. –––––. ‘A Critical Note on I Peter 1:12’. AJBI 7 (1981): 146–50. –––––. ‘Is 1 Peter a Composite Writing? A Stylistic Approach to the Two Document Hypothesis’. AJBI 11 (1985): 95–114. –––––. ‘Is I Peter Dependent on Ephesians? A Critique of C. L. Mitton’. AJBI 17 (1991): 77–106. –––––. ‘Is I Peter Dependent on Romans?’. AJBI 19 (1993): 87–137. –––––. Studies on First Peter: with a concordance to the Epistle. Tokyo: Kyo Bun Kwan, 1998. Sibley, Jim R. ‘You Talkin’ to Me? 1 Peter 2:4–10 and a Theology of Israel’. SwJT 59 (2016): 59–75. Sieffert, E. A. ‘Die Heilsbedeutung des Leidens und Sterbens Christi nach dem ersten Brief des Petrus’. JDT 20 (1875): 371–440.

790

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Siegert, Folker. ‘Christus, der “Eckstein”, und sein Unterbau: Eine Entdeckung an 1 Petr 2.6f’. NTS 50 (2004): 139–46. Sigismund, Marcus. ‘Identität durch Leiden. Anmerkungen zur Leidensthematik des Ersten Petrusbriefes im Rahmen einer frühchristlichen Gedächtnisgeschichte’. Pages 177–206 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis. Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 216. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Sigvartsen, Jan A. Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Apocrypha and Apocalyptic Literature. Jewish and Christian Texts 29. New York: T&T Clark, 2019. –––––. Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Pseudepigrapha. Jewish and Christian Texts 30. New York: T&T Clark, 2019. Siker, Jeffrey S. ‘The Canonical Status of the Catholic Epistles in the Syriac New Testament’. JTS 38 (1987): 311–40. –––––. Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Simcox, William H. The Language of the New Testament. Theological Educator. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1889. Simonson, Gustave. A Greek Grammar: Syntax. London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1911. Simpson, David. An Essay on the Authenticity of the New Testament: Designed as an Answer to Evanson’s Dissonance and Volney’s Ruins. Macclesfield: Bayley, 1793. Sisson, Russel B. ‘ “Fear God, Honor the Emperor”: Rhetoric and Philosophy in 1 Peter 2:13–17’. Pages 315–34 in With Gentleness and Respect: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Mark F. Whitters. BTS 40. Leuven: Peeters, 2020. Sisti, A. ‘La vita cristiana nell’attesa della Parusia (1 Piet. 4,7–11)’. BeO 7 (1965): 123–28. Sjöberg, Erik. ‘Wiedergeburt und Neuschöpfung im palästinischen Judentum’. ST 4 (1950): 44–85. Skaggs, Rebecca. 1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the Centuries. Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2020. Skard, Eiliv. Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe: euergetes-concordia. Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-filos. Klasse, 1931, no. 2. Oslo: Dybwad, 1932. Skilton, John H. ‘A Glance at Some Old Problems in First Peter’. WTJ 58 (1996): 1–9. Slaten, Arthur W. Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version. Historical and Linguistic Studies, Second Series 4/1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1918. Slaughter, James R. ‘Submission of Wives (1 Pet. 3:1a) in the Context of 1 Peter’. BSac 153 (1996): 63–74. –––––. ‘Winning Unbelieving Husbands to Christ (1 Pet. 3:1b–4)’. BSac 153 (1996): 199–211.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

791

Sleeper, C. Freeman. ‘Political Responsibility According to 1 Peter’. NovT 10 (1968): 270–86. Sly, Dorothy I. ‘1 Peter 3:6b in the Light of Philo and Josephus’. JBL 110 (1991): 126–29. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule: from Pompey to Diocletian. Edited by Jacob Neusner. SJLA 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smaltz, Warren M. ‘Did Peter Die in Jerusalem?’. JBL 71 (1952): 211–16. Smith, Charles R. ‘Errant Aorist Interpreters’. Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981): 205–26. Smith, Elizabeth. ‘Himations and Fancy Hairdos: A Note on 1 Peter 3.3’. JSNT 42 (2019): 237–41. Smith, Jay E. ‘1 Thessalonians 4:4: Breaking the Impasse’. BBR 11 (2001): 65–105. –––––. ‘Another Look at 4Q416 2 ii 21, a Critical Parallel to First Thessalonians 4:4’. CBQ 63 (2001): 499–504. Smith, Morton. ‘The Report about Peter in I Clement V.4’. NTS 7 (1960): 86–88. Smith, M. L. ‘1 Peter III 21: Ἐπερώτημα᾽. ExpTim 24 (1912): 46–47. Smith, R. E. ‘The Greek Letters of Brutus’. ClQ 30 (1936): 194–203. Smith, R. R. R. ‘Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias’. JRS 78 (1988): 50–77. Smith, Shively T. J. Strangers to Family: Diaspora and 1 Peter’s Invention of God’s Household. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016. Smith, Terrance V. Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity: Attitudes towards Peter in Christian Writings in the First Two Centuries. WUNT 2/15. Tübingen: Mohr, 1985. Smoak, Jeremy D. The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and Scripture: The Early History of Numbers 6.24–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Smyth, Herbert. Greek Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Snodgrass, Klyne R. ‘I Peter II.1–10: Its Formation and Literary Affinities’. NTS 24 (1977): 97–106. –––––. Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40:1–5 and Their Adaption in the New Testament’. JSNT 8 (1980): 24–45. Snyder, Graydon F. ‘The Tobspruch in the New Testament’. NTS 23 (1977): 117–20. Snyder, Scot. ‘1 Peter 2:17: A Reconsideration’. Filología Neotestamentaria 4 (1991): 211–15. –––––. ‘Participles and Imperatives in 1 Peter: A Re-Examination in the Light of Recent Scholarly Trends’. Filología Neotestamentaria 8 (1995): 187–98. Soards, Marion L. ‘1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude as Evidence for a Petrine School’. Pages 3827–49 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part II, Principat 25.5. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988. –––––. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

792

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sociedad Argentina de Theología, Escrituristas de la. ‘ “Dar razón de nuestra esperanza” (1 Pe 3,15): Primera parte’. RevistB 70 (2008): 209–42. –––––. ‘ “Dar razón de nuestra esperanza” (1 Pe 3,15): Segunda parte’. RevistB 71 (2009): 51–72. Soden, Hermann F. von. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, Bd. 1: Untersuchungen: 1. Abt. Die Textzeugen. Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1902. Söding, Thomas. Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus. Die Mahnung zur Agape im Rahmen der paulinischen Ethik. NTA 26. Muenster: Aschendorff, 1995. –––––. ‘Grüße aus Rom. Der Erste Petrusbrief in der Geschichte des Urchristentums und im Kanon’. Pages 11–45 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis. Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 216. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Soggin, J. Alberto. An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah. 3rd ed. London: SCM, 1999. Soja, Edward W. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-andImagined Places. Malden: Blackwell, 1996. Solin, Heikki, and Marja Itkonen-Kaila, ed. Graffiti del Palatino, vol. 1: Paedagogium. Helsinki: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 1966. Solin, Heikki, and Olli Salomies. Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum. 2nd ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1994. Soltau, W. ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Petrusbriefes’. TSK 78 (1905): 302–15. ________. ‘Nochmals die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Petrusbriefes’. TSK 79 (1906): 456–60. Sordi, Marta. The Christians and the Roman Empire. Translated by Annabel Bedini. London: Routledge, 1994. Sosa, Raúl. ‘1ra Carta de Pedro Santidad: Camino a recorrer’. Cuadernos de Teologia [Buenos Aires] 21 (2002): 185–212. Sosin, Joshua D. ‘Manumission with Paramone: Conditional Freedom?’. TAPA 145 (2015): 325–81. Souček, Josef B. ‘Das Gegenüber von Gemeinde und Welt nach dem ersten Petrusbrief’. CV 3 (1960): 5–13. Reprinted as pages 199–209 in Petr Pokorný and Josef B. Souček. Bibelauslegung als Theologie. Edited by Petr Pokorný. WUNT 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Souter, Alexander. A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1916. Spencer, Aída Besançon. ‘Peter’s Pedagogical Method in 1 Peter 3:6’. BBR 10 (2000): 107–19. Speyer, Wolfgang. Bücherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike. Mit einem Ausblick auf Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Hypomnemata 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. –––––. Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft I/2. Munich: Beck, 1971.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

793

Spicq, Ceslas. L’Épitre aux Hébreux: Commentaire. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953. –––––. ‘Ἐπιποθεῖν, desirer ou chérir?’. RB 64 (1957): 184–95. –––––. ‘Ce que signifie le titre de Chrétien’. ST 15 (1961): 68–78. –––––. Agape in the New Testament. 3 vols. Translated by Marie Aquinas McNamara and Mary Honoria Richter. St. Louis: Herder, 1963–1966. –––––. ‘La Ia Petri et le témoignage évangélique de Saint Pierre’. ST 20 (1966): 37–61. _____. ‘Prière, charité, justice… et fin des temps (1 P 4:7–11)’. AsSeig 50 (1966): 15–29. –––––. ‘La place ou le rôle des Jeunes dans certaines communautés néotestamentaires’. RB 76 (1969): 508–27. Spitta, Friedrich. Christi Predigt an die Geister (1 Petr. 3,19ff). Ein Beitrag zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1890. –––––. Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums, vol. 2: Der Brief des Jakobus, Studien zum Hirten des Hermas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896. Spörri, Theophil. Der Gemeindegedanke im ersten Petrusbrief. Ein Beitrag zur Struktur des urchristlichen Kirchenbegriffs. NTF 2.2. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1925. Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. FAT 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Stagg, Frank. ‘The Abused Aorist’. JBL 91 (1972): 222–31. Stahl, Johann M. Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit. Indogermanische Bibliothek, Abt. 1: Sammlung indogermnischer Lehr- und Handbücher. Reihe 1, Grammatiken IV. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1907. Standhartinger, Angela. ‘Colossians and the Pauline School’. NTS 50 (2004): 572–93. Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn. Sinai and Palestine in Connection with Their History. Rev. ed. London: Murray, 1877. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. –––––. ‘ “Pearls Before Swine”: Did Paul’s Audience Understand His Biblical Quotations?’. NovT 41 (1999): 124–44. –––––. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Starling, David I. ‘ “She Who Is in Babylon”: 1 Peter and the Hermeneutics of Empire’. Pages 111–28 in Reactions to Empire: Sacred Texts in their SocioPolitical Contexts. Edited by John Anthony Dunne and Dan Batovici. WUNT 2/372. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Starwalt, Ervin R. A Discourse Analysis of 1 Peter. Studies in Koine Greek. Dallas: Fontes, 2020.

794

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 589–620 in Discourse Analysis of the New Testament Writings. Edited by Todd A. Scacewater. Dallas: Fontes, 2020. Staudinger, Ferdinand. ‘Verantwortete Hoffnung (1 Petr 3,15)’. Pages 113–22 in Weihbischof Dr. Alois Stöger: Exeget zwischen Bibelkommission und Offenbarungskonstitution. Edited by Ferdinand Staudinger and Heinrich Wurz. St. Pölten: Staudinger, 1990. Ste Croix, Geoffrey E. M. de. ‘Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?’. Past and Present 26 (1963): 6–31. –––––. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. London: Duckworth, 1981. Steenberg, Pierre F. ‘The Reversal of Roles as the Reasoning for Remaining Christian in the Face of Hardship in the First Epistle of Peter’. Ph.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 2000. –––––. ‘Christ: A Solution to Suffering in First Peter’. Verbum et Ecclesia 22 (2001): 392–400. Steetskamp, Jisk. ‘Durchkreuzte Unterordnungen: Beobachtungen im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 23–43 in Strategien der Positionierung im 1. Petrusbrief. Edited by Stefan Alkier. Kleine Schriften des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014. –––––. Autorschaft und Sklavenperspektive im Ersten Petrusbrief. WUNT 2/524. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Stegman, Thomas D. ‘Uncovering the Gems of the “Catholic Epistles”: First and Second Peter’. Pastoral Review 7 (2011): 28–33. Steiner, Richard C. Disembodied Souls: The Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription. ANEM 11. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Stelzenberger, Johannes. Syneidesis im Neuen Testament. AMT 1. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1961. Stemplinger, Eduard. Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur. Leipzig: Teubner, 1912. Stenschke, Christoph. ‘Mission and Conversion in the First Epistle of Peter’. Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 221–63. –––––. ‘The Status and Calling of Strangers and Exiles: Mission According to First Peter’. Pages 180–219 in Bible and Mission: A Conversation Between Biblical Studies and Missiology. Edited by Rollin G. Grams, I. Howard Marshall, Peter F. Penner, and Robin Routledge. Schwarzenfeld: Neufeld, 2008. –––––. ‘ “… das auserwählte Geschlecht, die königliche Priesterschaft, das heilige Volk” (1 Petr 2.9): Funktion und Bedeutung der Ehrenbezeichnungen Israels im 1. Petrusbrief’. Neot 42 (2008): 119–46. –––––. ‘Reading First Peter in the Context of Early Christian Mission’. TynBul 60 (2009): 107–26. Stern, David. ‘The First Jewish Books and the Early History of Jewish Reading’. JQR 98 (2008): 163–202.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

795

Stettler, Christian. Der Kolosserhymnus: Untersuchungen zu Form, traditionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund und Aussage von Kol 1,15–20. WUNT 2/131. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Steuernagel, Valdir R. ‘An Exiled Community as a Missionary Community: A Study Based on 1 Peter 2:9, 10’. Evangelical Review of Theology 10 (1986): 8–18. Stevenson, George H. Roman Provincial Administration till the Age of the Anotonines. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1939. Stevick, Daniel B. ‘A Matter of Taste: 1 Peter 2:3’. Review for Religious 47 (1988): 707–17. Stewart. Alexander E. ‘When are Christians Saved and Why Does it Matter? An Investigation into the Rhetorical Force of First Peter’s Inaugurated Soteriology’. TJ 121 (2011): 221–35. –––––. ‘The Role of Fear and Confidence in 1 Peter’s Rhetorical Strategy’. Pages 647–59 in Peter in the Early Church: Apostle, Missionary, Church Leader. Edited by Judith Lieu. BETL 325. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. ‘The Function of “Peter” in 1 Peter’. ScrB 27 (1997): 8–21. Still, Todd D. ‘ “Paul,” “Peter,” and Slaves: Texts and Context’. Pages 231–40 in With Gentleness and Respect: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Mark F. Whitters. BTS 40. Leuven: Peeters, 2020. Still, Todd D., and Natalie R. Webb. ‘ “Aliens” among “Pagans,” “Exiles” Among “Gentiles”: Authorial Strategy and (Social) Identity in 1 Peter’. Pages 455–71 in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. Edited by J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Stirewalt, M. Luther. Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography. RBS 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Stokes, Ryan E. The Satan: How God’s Executioner Became the Enemy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019. Stout, Ann M. ‘Jewelry as a Symbol of Status in the Roman Empire’. Pages 77–100 in The World of Roman Costume. Edited by Judith L. Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC 5. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Strack, H. L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Strawn, Brent A. ‘Why Does the Lion Disappear in Revelation 5? Leonine Imagery in Early Jewish and Christian Literatures’. JSP 17 (2007): 37–74. –––––. What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. OBO 212. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Strecker, Georg. ‘Das Evangelium Jesu Christi’. Pages 183–228 in Eschaton und Historie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.

796

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Streeter, Burnett Hillman. The Primitive Church: Studied with Special Reference to the Origins of the Christian Ministry. London: Macmillan, 1929. Strickland, Philip D. ‘The Curious Case of P72: What an Ancient Manuscript Can Tell Us About the Epistles of Peter and Jude’. JETS 60 (2017): 781–91. Strobel, August. ‘Macht Leiden von Sünde frei? Zur Problematik von 1. Petr. 4,1f’. TZ 19 (1963): 412–25. Strugnell, John. ‘More on Wives and Marriage in the Dead Sea Scrolls: (4Q416 2 ii 21 [Cf. 1 Thess 4:4] and 4QMMT §B)’. RevQ 17 (1996): 537–47. Strutwolf, Holger, ‘Scribal Practices and the Transmission of Biblical Texts: New Insights from the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method’. Pages 139–60 in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present, Society of Biblical Literature. Resources for Biblical Study. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman. RBS 69. Atlanta, SBL, 2012. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Das paulinische Evangelium. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. –––––. ‘The Pauline Gospel’. Pages 149–72 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. –––––. ‘Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts’. Pages 147–62 in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Sturdy, J. V. M. Redrawing the Boundaries: The Date of Early Christian Literature. Edited by Jonathan Knight. Oakville: Equinox, 2007. Sun, Joyce Wai-Lan. This is True Grace: The Shaping of Social Behavioural Instructions by Theology in 1 Peter. Carlisle: Langham, 2016. Sundberg, A. C. ‘Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List’. HTR (1973): 1–41. Süss, Jürgen. ‘Kaiserkult und Urbanistik. Kultbezirke für römische Kaiser in kleinasiatischen Städten’. Pages 249–81 in Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen. Edited by Hubert Cancik and Konrad Hitzl. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Sventitskaya, I. S. ‘Polis and Empire: The Imperial Cult in the Cities of Asia Minor in the First and Second Centuries’. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 4 (1981): 33–51 (Russian). Swanson, Donald C. ‘Diminutives in the Greek New Testament’. JBL 77 (1958): 134–51. Swarat, U. ‘Die Krise der gesellschaftlichen Institutionen und die Verantwortung des Christen: Bibelstudie zu 1 Petrus 2:11–17’. Pages 161–72 in Christliche Ethik im Wandel der Systeme: Bericht von der 8 Theologischen Studienkonferenz des Arbeitskreises für Evangelikale Theologie (AfeT) vom 22 bis 25 August 1993 in Bad Blankenburg, Thüringen. Edited by Helmut Burkhardt. Monographien und Studienbücher 389. Giessen: Brunnen, 1994. Swartley, Willard M. Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

797

Sylva, Dennis. ‘1 Peter Studies: The State of the Discipline’. BTB 14 (1980): 155–63. –––––. ‘Translating and Interpreting 1 Peter 3.2’. BT 34 (1983): 144–47. Synge. F. C. ‘1 Peter 3:18–21’. ExpTim 82/10 (1971): 311. Syrén, Roger. The Blessings in the Targums: A Study of the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. Acta Academiae Aboensis 64/1. Åbo: Åbo akademi, 1986. Taatz, Irene. Frühjüdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Tábet, Michelangelo. ‘La Scrittura e lo “Spirito di Cristo” (1Pt 1,10–12)’. Pages 373–85 in Initium Sapientiae: Scritti in onore di Franco Festorazzi nel suo 70° compleanno. Edited by Rinaldo Fabris. Supplementi all Rivista biblica 36. Bologna: Ed. Dehoniane, 2000. Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. ‘The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior’. Pages 7–24 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations. 2nd ed. Edited by Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986. Talbert, Charles H. ‘Once Again: The Plan of 1 Peter’. Pages 141–51 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. NABPRSSS 9. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986. Tassin, Claude. ‘ “Comme des étrangers résidents et des migrants” (1 P 2,11): approche exégétique de l’élaboration d’un éthos chrétien’. Pages 119–36 in Bible et morale. Edited by Philippe Bordeyne. Lectio Divina, Hors série. Paris: Cerf, 2003. Taubenschlag, Rafał. The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.–640 A.D. 2 vols. New York: Herald Square, 1944–1948. Taylor, Joan E. ‘4Q341: A Writing Exercise Remembered’. Pages 133–51 in Is There a Text in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke. Edited by Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioată, and Charlotte Hempel. STJD 119. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Taylor, Justin. ‘Why Were the Disciples First Called “Christians” at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26)’. RevBib 101 (1994): 75–94. Taylor, N. H. ‘Baptism for the Dead (1 Cor 15:29)?’. Neot 36 (2002): 111–20. Teichert, Horst. ‘1 Petr 2,13—eine crux interpretum?’. TLZ 74 (1949): 303–304. Tenney, Merrill C. ‘Some Possible Parallels Between 1 Peter and John’. Pages 370–77 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Tervanotko, Hanna, and Elisa Uusimäki. ‘Sarah the Princess: Tracing the Hellenistic Afterlife of a Pentateuchal Female Figure’. SJOT 32 (2018): 115–34. Testini, Pasquale. Archeologia Christiana: Nozioni Generali dalle Origini alla Fine del Secolo VI, Propedeutica, Topografia Cimiteriale, Epigrafia, Edifici di Culto. 2nd ed. Bari: Edipuglia, 1980. Testuz, Michel, ed. Papyrus Bodmer V. Nativite de Marie. Cologne-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1958.

798

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––, ed. Papyrus Bodmer VII–IX. VII: L’Epître de Jude; VIII: Les deux Epîtres de Pierre; IX: Les Psaumes 33 et 34. Cologne-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959. –––––, ed. Papyrus Bodmer X–XII. X: Correspondance apocryphe des Corinthiens et de l’apotre Paul; XI: Onzieme Ode de Salomon; XII: Fragment d’un Hymne liturgique. Cologne-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959. –––––, ed. Papyrus Bodmer XIII. Meliton de Sardes, Homelie sur la Pâque. Cologne- Cologne-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1960. Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar of Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, vol. 1: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Thate, Michael, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell, eds. ‘In Christ’ in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation. WUNT 2/384. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Thayer, Joseph H. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1889. Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982. Theophilos, Michael P. ‘Κτίστης (1 Peter 4:19) in Light of the Numismatic Record’. Pages 191–205 in Biblical Greek in Context: Essays in Honour of John A. L. Lee. Edited by James K. Aitken and Trevor V. Evans. BTS 22. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Thiede, Carsten P. ‘Babylon, der andere Ort: Anmerkungen zu 1 Petr 5,13 und Apg 12,17’. Bib 67 (1986): 532–38. –––––. Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome. Exeter: Paternoster, 1986. –––––. Geheimakte Petrus. Auf den Spuren des Apostels. Stuttgart: Kreuz, 2000. –––––. ‘The Apostle Peter and the Jewish Scriptures in 1 & 2 Peter’. Analecta Bruxellensia 7 (2002): 145–55. Thiele, Walter. Die Lateinischen Texte des 1. Petrusbriefes. Freiburg: Herder, 1965. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Tholuck, Friedrich August G. Beiträge zur Spracherklärung des Neuen Testaments. Halle: Eduard Anton, 1832. Thomas, W. H. Griffith. The Apostle Peter: Outline Studies in His Life, Character, and Writings. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946. Thomas, Kenneth J., and Margaret O. Thomas. Structure and Orality in 1 Peter: A Guide for Translators. UBS Monograph Series 10. New York: United Bible Societies, 2006. Thomassen, Einar. ‘Forgery in the New Testament’. Pages 141–57 in The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Edited by James R. Lewis and Olav Hammer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Thompson, J. W. ‘ “Be Submissive to your Masters”: A Study of 1 Pt 2:18–25’. ResQ 9 (1966): 66–78.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

799

Thompson, Michael B. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13. JSNTSup 59. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Thompson, Trevor. ‘As If Genuine. Interpreting the Pseudepigraphic Second Thessalonians’. Pages 471–88 in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Thornton, T. C. G. ‘I Peter, a Paschal Liturgy?’. JTS 12 (1961): 14–26. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Thraede, Klaus. ‘Ursprünge und Formen des “Heiligen Kusses” im frühen Christentum’. JAC 11–12 (1968–69): 124–80. –––––. ‘Friedenskuss’. RAC 8 (1972): 505–19. –––––. ‘Noch einmal. Plinius d. J. und die Christen’. ZNW 95 (2004): 102–28. Thurén, Lauri. The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, with Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions. Åbo: Åbo Academy, 1990. –––––. Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis. JSNTSup 114. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. –––––. ‘Jeremiah 27 and Civil Obedience in 1 Peter’. Pages 215–28 in Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und römische Herrschaft. Vorträge auf der ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies. Edited by Michael Labahn and Jürgen Zangenberg. TANZ 36. Tübingen: Francke, 2002. –––––. ‘Motivation as the Core of Paraenesis: Remarks on Peter and Paul as Persuaders’. Pages 353–71 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Edited by James M. Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen. BZNW 125. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. –––––. ‘1 Peter and the Lion’. Pages 142–55 in Evil and the Devil. Edited by Erkki Koskenniemi and Ida Frölich. LNTS 481. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Thurston, Robert W. ‘Interpreting First Peter’. JETS 17 (1974): 171–82. Tigchelaar, Eibert. ‘Is the Liar Bar Kokhba? Considering the Date and Provenance of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter’. Pages 63–77 in The Apocalypse of Peter. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer and István Czachesz. Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 7. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Tischendorf, Constantin von. Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. Novum Testamentum graece. 3rd ed. Lipsiae: Tauchnitz, 1873. Tite, Philip L. ‘The Compositional Function of the Petrine Prescript: A Look at 1 Pet 1:1–3’. JETS 39 (1996): 47–56. –––––. Compositional Transitions in 1 Peter: An Analysis of the Letter-Opening. San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1997. –––––. ‘Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development in the Greco-Roman Context: A Reappraisal of the Paraenetic Utilization of Metaphor in 1 Peter 2,1–3’. JSNT 31 (2009): 371–400. Titrud, Kermit. ‘The Overlooked ΚΑΙ in the Greek New Testament’. Notes 5 (1991): 1–28.

800

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Toit, A. B. du. ‘The Significance of Discourse Analysis for New Testament Interpretation and Translation: Introductory Remarks with Special Reference to 1 Peter 1:3–13’. Neot 8 (1974): 54–79. –––––. ‘Die Charismata’. NGTT 20 (1979): 189–200. Toit, Marietjie du. ‘The Expression λογικόν ἄδολον γάλα as the Key to 1 Peter 2:1–3’. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 63 (2007): 221–29. Toit, Sean du. ‘1 Peter and Negotiating Life in the Graeco-Roman World’. Ph.D. diss., University of Otago, 2016. –––––. ‘Negotiating Hostility Through Beneficial Deeds’. TynBul 70 (2019): 221–43. –––––. ‘Practising Idolatry in 1 Peter’. JSNT 43 (2021): 411–30. Tooley, Wilfred. ‘The Shepherd and Sheep Image in the Teachings of Jesus’. NovT 7 (1964–65): 15–25. –––––. ‘Stewards of God: An Examination of the Terms οἰκονόμος and οἰκονομία in the New Testament’. SJT 19 (1966): 74–86. Tooman, William A. ‘Authenticating Oral and Memory Variants in Ancient Hebrew Literature’. JSS 64 (2019): 91–114. Torm, Frederik E. Die Psychologie der Pseudonymität im Hinblick auf die Literatur des Urchristentums. Studien der Luther-Akademie 2. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932. –––––. ‘Der pluralis οὐρανοί’. ZNW 33 (1934): 48–50. Torraca, Luigi, ed. Marco Giunio Bruto. Epistole greche. Collana di Studi greci 31. Naples: Libreria scientifica editrice, 1959. Tov, Emanuel. ‘Some Thoughts about the Diffusion of Biblical Manuscripts in Antiquity’. Pages 151–72 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hinday Najman, and Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Towner, Philip H. ‘Resurrection in 1 Peter’. The Biblical Annals 9 (2019): 513–24. Townsend, Philippa. ‘Who Were the First Christians? Jews, Gentiles and the Christianoi’. Pages 212–30 in Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity. Edited by Eduard Iricinschi and Holger M. Zellentin. TSAJ 119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Toynbee, Jocelyn M. C. ‘Greek Imperial Medallions’. JRS 34 (1944): 65–73. –––––. Animals in Roman Life and Art. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973. Tracy, Steven. ‘Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering in 1 Peter’. CTJ 41 (2006): 279–96. Tran, Nha Trong. ‘A Theology of the First Epistle of Peter: God in Threefold Revelation’. Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2006. Trebilco, Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Trench, Richard C. Synonyms of the New Testament. 12th ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., 1894.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

801

Trilling, Wolfgang. ‘Zum Petrusamt im Neuen Testament. Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen anhand von Matthäus, 1 Petrus und Johannes’. ThQ 151 (1971): 110–33. Tripp, D. H. ‘Eperōtēma (I Peter 321): A Liturgist’s Note’. ExpTim 92 (1981): 267–70. Trites, Allison A. ‘Μάρτυς and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse: A Semantic Study’. NovT 15 (1973): 72–80. –––––. The New Testament Concept of Witness. SNTSMS 31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Truex, Jerry. ‘God’s Spiritual House: A Study of 1 Peter 2:4–5’. Direction 33 (2004): 185–93. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Tsuji, Manabu. ‘Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Zur Strategie der Pastoralbriefe als Pseudepigrapha’. NTS 56 (2010): 253–72. Tucker, Elizabeth. ‘Greek Factitive Verbs in -οω, -αινω and -υνω’. Transactions of the Philological Society 79 (1981): 15–34. Tuñi, José Oriol. ‘Jesus of Nazareth in the Christology of 1 Peter’. HeyJ 28 (1987): 292–304. Turner, Eric G. The Typology of the Early Codex. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977. Turner, H. E. W. The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries. London: Mowbray, 1952. Turner, Max. ‘Modern Linguistics and the New Testament’. Pages 146–74 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Turner, Nigel. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. –––––. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 4: Style. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976. –––––. Christian Words. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980. Twelftree, Graham H. The Gospel According to Paul: A Reappraisal. Eugene: Cascade, 2019. Twells, Leonard. A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament: Wherein the Editor’s Corrupt Text, False Version, and Fallacious Notes are Detected and Censur’d, Part 1. London: Gosling, 1731. Tyrer, J. W. ‘The Meaning of ἐπίκλησις’. JTS 25 (1924): 139–50. Uhlig, Siegbert. ‘Die typologische Bedeutung des Begriffs Babylon’. AUSS 12 (1974): 112–25. Ullucci, Daniel C. The Christian Rejection of Animal Sacrifice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Unger, Merrill F. The Baptism & Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Chicago: Moody, 1974.

802

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unnik, W. C. van. ‘De verlossing 1 Petrus i 18–19 en het probleem van den eersten Petrusbrief’. Mededelingen der Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen Afdeeling Letterkunde n.r. 5/1 (1942): 1–106. Reprinted as ‘The Redemption in 1 Peter I 18–19 and the Problem of the First Epistle of Peter’. Pages 3–82 in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia. NovTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. –––––. ‘Zur Bedeutung von ταπεινοῦν τὴν ψυχήν bei den Apostolischen Vätern’. ZNW 44 (1952–53): 250–55. –––––. ‘The Teaching of Good Works in 1 Peter’. NTS 1 (1954-55): 92–110. Repr. as pages 83–105 in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia. NovTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. –––––. ‘Christianity According to I Peter’. ExpTim 58 (1956): 79–83. –––––. ‘The Critique of Paganism in 1 Peter 1:18’. Pages 129–42 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969. –––––. ‘A Classical Parallel to I Peter ii 14 and 20’. NTS 2 (1956): 198–202. Repr. as pages 106–10 in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia. NovTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Usaybi’a, Ibn Abi. Kitab ‘uyun al-anba’ fi tabaqat al-atibba. Edited by ‘Amir al-Najjar. Cairo: al-Hay’a al-Misriyya al-’Amma lil-Kitab, 2001. Usener, Hermann, ed. Legenden der Pelagia: Festschrift für die XXXIV Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner zu Trier. Bonn: Universitäts-buchdruckerei, 1879. Vahrenhorst, Martin. ‘Der Text der Septuaginta in den Zitaten des 1. Petrusbriefs’. Pages 259–75 in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity. Edited by Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer. SCS 60. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. –––––. ‘Leiden als Gnade. Zum realen Hintergrund einer theologischen Deutung’. Pages 59–78 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Vallauri, Emiliano. ‘ “Succincti lumbos mentis vestrae” (1 Piet. 1,13): nota per una traduzione’. BeO 24 (1982): 19–22. VanBeek, Lawrence. ‘1 Enoch Among Jews and Christians: A Fringe Connection?’. Pages 93–115 in Christian–Jewish Relations Through the Centuries. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Brook W. R. Pearson. JSNTSup 192. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Vanderkam, James C. ‘Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71’. Pages 169–91 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

803

–––––. ‘1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature’. Pages 33–101 in Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature, vol. 4: Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. Edited by William Adler and James VanderKam. CRINT 3/4. Leiden: Brill, 1996. VanGemeren,Willem A. ‘ʾABBĀʾ in the Old Testament?’. JETS 31 (1988): 385–98. Vanhoye, Albert. ‘De structura litteraria Epistolae ad Hebaeos’. VD 40 (1962): 73–80. –––––. ‘L’Epître (I P 2,1–10): La maison spirituelle’. AsSeig 43 (1964): 16–29. –––––. La Structure littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux. 2nd ed. StudNeot 1. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1976. –––––. ‘1 Pierre au carrefour des Théologies du Nouveau Testament’. Pages 96–129 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. LD 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. VanLandingham, Chris. Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. Vater, Johann S. Novum Testamentum. Halis Saxonum: Ex Libraria Gebauctiana, 1824. Vegge, Tor. Paulus und das antike Schulwesen. Schule und Bildung des Paulus. BZNW 134. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Verheyden, Joseph. ‘The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute’. Pages 487–556 in The Biblical Canons. Edited by Jean-Marie Auwers and Henk J. de Jonge. BETL 163. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Vermaseren, Maarten J., and Carel C. van Essen. The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Vermeule, Cornelius. ‘Greek Funerary Animals, 450–300 B.C.’. AJA 76 (1972): 49–59. Versnel, Hendrik S. ‘Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen über die Herkunft von Aspekten des “Effective Death” ’. Pages 162–96 in Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten. StPB 38. Leiden: Brill, 1989. –––––. ‘Making Sense of Jesus’ Death: The Pagan Contribution’. Pages 213–94 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Vielhauer, Philipp. ‘Oikodome: das Bild vom Bau in der christlichen Literatur vom Neuen Testament bis Clemens Alexandrinus’. Ph.D. diss., Heidelberg University, 1940. –––––. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vater. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975. Villiers, J. L. de. ‘Joy in Suffering in 1 Peter’. Pages 64–86 in Essays on the General Epistles of the New Testament: Proceedings of the Eleventh Meeting Held at the University of Stellenbosch from the 29th of April to the 1st of May 1975. Edited by W. Nicol. Neotestamentica 9. Pretoria: NTWSA, 1975. Visser, Jacobie M. Helena. ‘Following the Man on the Slippery Slide: Christ in 1 Peter’. Neot 51 (2017): 337–57.

804

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vittinghoff, Friedrich. ‘ “Christianus sum” - Das “Verbrechen” von Aussenseitern der römischen Gesellschaft’. Historia 33 (1984): 331–57. Voelz, James W. ‘The Use of the Present and Aorist Imperatives and Prohibitions in the New Testament’. Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1977. –––––. ‘The Language of the New Testament’. Pages 893–977 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part II, Principat 25.2: Religion. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984. Vogels, Heinz-Jürgen. Christi Abstieg ins Totenreich und das Läuterungsgericht an den Toten. Eine bibeltheologisch-dogmatische Untersuchung zum Glaubensartikel “descendit ad inferos”. Freiburger theologischer Studien 102. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. Vögtle, Anton. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament. Exegetisch, religions- und formgeschichtlich untersucht. NTAbh 16,4–5. Münster: Aschendorff, 1936. Volf, Miroslav. ‘Soft Difference: Reflections on the Relation Between Church and Culture in 1 Peter’. ExAud 10 (1994): 15–30. Volkmar, Gustav. ‘Über die katholischen Briefe und Henoch’. ZWT 4 (1861): 422–36. Vollmer, Hans. Die alttestamentlichen Citate bei Paulus textkritisch und biblischtheologisch gewürdigt, nebst einem Anhang ueber das Verhältnis des Apostels zu Philo. Freiburg: Mohr, 1895. Volpi, Isidoro. ‘La definizione del battesimo secondo 1Pt 3,20b–21’. Pages 193–241 in Alle origini del battesimo Cristiano. Edited by Pius R. Tragan. Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1991. Völter, Daniel. Der erste Petrusbrief. Seine Entstehung und Stellung in der Geschichte des Urchristentums. Strassburg: Heitz, 1906. –––––. ‘Bemerkungen zu I. Pe 3 und 4’. ZNW 9 (1908): 74–77. Voorwinde, Stephen. ‘Old Testament Quotations in Peter’s Epistles’. VR 49 (1987): 3–16. Vorholt, Robert. ‘ “Das Ende ist nahe” (1Petr 4,7). Eine Skizze zur Eschatologie des Ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 89–104 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 216. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Vos, Craig S. de. Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities. SBLDS 168. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. –––––. ‘Popular Graeco-Roman Responses to Christianity’. Pages 869–89 in The Early Christian World. Edited Philip F. Esler. 2 vols. London: Routledge, 2000. Votaw, Clyde W. The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek. Chicago: Votaw, 1896. Vouga, François. ‘Le Jugement de Pierre (1 P 4,12–19)’. Pages 335–51 in Le jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, II: Mélanges offerts à Jacques Schlosser. Edited by Claude Coulot and Denis Fricker. LD 198. Paris: Cerf, 2004.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

805

–––––. ‘La christologie de la Première de Pierre’. Pages 307–25 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. BETL 176. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. –––––. ‘Christ, le Serviteur souffrant (1 Pierre 2,21–25)’. Pages 167–79 in Analyse narrative et Bible: Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-laNeuve, avril 2004. Edited by Camille Focant and André Wénin. BETL 191. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. –––––. ‘Textproduktion durch Zitation. Ist der Erste Petrusbrief der Autor der Gottesknechtslieder (1 Petr 2,21–25)?’. Pages 353–64 in Was ist ein Text? Alttestamentliche, ägyptologische und altorientalische Perspektiven. Edited by Lorenz Morenz and Stefan Schorch. BZNW 362. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. –––––. ‘ “Auch Christus hat für uns gelitten”. Christologie und Soteriologie im 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 205–22 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Vowinckel, Ernst. Die Grundgedanken des Jakobusbriefes, verglichen mit den ersten Briefen des Petrus und Johannes. BFCT 2/6. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1899. Vries, C. J. de. ‘σωφροσύνη en grec classique’. Mnemosyne 11 (1943): 81–101. Vroom, Jonathan. ‘The Role of Memory in Vorlage-based Transmission: Evidence from Erasures and Corrections’. Textus 27 (2018): 258–73. Wachtel, Klaus, Der Byzantinische text der Katholischen Briefe: Eine untersuchung zur entstehung der koine des Neuen Testaments. ANTF 24. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995. –––––. ‘Towards a Redefinition of External Criteria: The Role of Coherence in Assessing the Origin of Variants’. Pages 109–27 in Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Papers from the Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Texts and Studies: Third Series. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2008. –––––. ‘The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method: A New Way to Reconstruct the Text of the Greek New Testament’. Page 123–38 in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman. RBS 69. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Wagner, Gerald. ‘Dissidenten der Hoffnung. Eine Studie zur Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes’. Ph.D. diss., Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel, 2009. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002. –––––. ‘Faithfulness and Fear, Stumbling and Salvation: Receptions of LXX Isaiah 8:11–18 in the New Testament’. Pages 76–106 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Wahl, Christian Abraham. Clavis novi testamenti philologica: Usibus scholarum et juvenum theologiae studiosorum accommodata. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Barth, 1843.

806

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Waldstein, Wolfgang. Operae Libertorum. Untersuchungen zur Dienstpflicht freigelassener Sklaven. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1986. Wall, Robert W. ‘The Canonical Function of 2 Peter’. BibInt 9 (2001): 64–81. –––––. ‘Toward a Unifying Theology of the Catholic Epistles: A Canonical Approach’. Pages 43–71 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. BETL 176. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. –––––. ‘Teaching 1 Peter as Scripture’. WW 24 (2004): 368–77. Wall, William. Brief Critical Notes, Especially on the Various Readings of the New Testament Books. London: William Innys, 1730. Wallace, Daniel B. ‘The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the Object– complement Construction in the New Testament’. Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 91–112. –––––. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. –––––. Granville Sharp’s Canon and Kin: Semantics and Significance. Studies in Biblical Greek 14. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Wambacq, B. N. ‘Le mot charisme’. NRTh 97 (1975): 345–55. Wan, Wei Hsien. ‘Whose Time? Which Rationality? Reflections on Empire, 1 Peter, and the “Common Era” ’. Postscripts 7 (2011): 279–94. –––––. ‘Repairing Social Vertigo: Spatial Production and Belonging in 1 Peter’. Pages 287–303 in The Urban World of the First Christians. Edited by Steve Walton, Paul R. Trebilco, and David W. J. Gill. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. –––––. The Contest for Time and Space in the Roman Imperial Cults and 1 Peter: Reconfiguring the Universe. LNTS 611. London: T&T Clark, 2019. Wand, J. W. C. ‘Lessons of First Peter: A Survey of Interpretation’. Int 9 (1955): 387–99. Wander, Bernd. Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen. WUNT 104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Warden, P. Duane. ‘Alienation and Community in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1986. –––––. ‘The Prophets of 1 Peter 1:10–12’. ResQ 31 (1989): 1–12. –––––. ‘Imperial Persecution and the Dating of 1 Peter and Revelation’. JETS 34 (1991): 203–12. Wardle, Timothy. The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity. WUNT 2/291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Wasserman, Tommy. ‘Papyrus 72 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex’. NTS 51 (2005): 137–54. –––––. ‘Criteria for Evaluating Readings in New Testament Textual Criticism’. Pages 579–612 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

807

Wasserman, Tommy, and Peter J. Gurry. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method. RBS 80. Atlanta: SBL, 2017. Watson, Duane F. ‘Spiritual Sobriety in 1 Peter’. ExpTim 122 (2011): 539–42. –––––. ‘The Epistolary Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude’. Pages 47–62 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. –––––. ‘Early Jesus Tradition in 1 Peter 3.18–22’. Pages 151–65 in James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions. Edited by Alicia J. Batten and John S. Kloppenborg. LNTS 478. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. –––––. ‘The Body and Abuse, Power and Submission, Honor and Shame: Imitating Christ and Articulating the Gospel in 1 Peter’. Pages 265–82 in With Gentleness and Respect: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Mark F. Whitters. BTS 40. Leuven: Peeters, 2020. Wayment, Thomas A., and Matthew J. Grey. ‘Jesus Followers in Pompeii: The Christianos Graffito and “Hotel of the Christians” Reconsidered’. JJMJS 2 (2015): 102–46. Webb, Robert L. ‘The Petrine Epistles: Recent Developments and Trends’. Pages 373–90 in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. –––––. ‘Intertexture and Rhetorical Strategy in First Peter’s Apocalyptic Discourse: A Study in Sociorhetorical Interpretation’. Pages 72–110 Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin. LNTS 364. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Webb, Robert L., and Betsy Bauman-Martin, eds. Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. LNTS 364. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Webb, Ruth. Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. Webber, Martin I. ‘Mercy and Justice or Mercy without Justice? Comparing James and 1 Peter’. Pages 321–34 in Biblical Ethics: Tensions Between Justice and Mercy, Law and Love. Edited by Markus Zehnder and Peter Wick. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2019. Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. ‘Some Observations on Paul’s Use of the Phrases “In Christ” and “With Christ” ’. JSNT 25 (1985): 83–97. –––––. Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology Against Its Graeco-Roman Background. WUNT 44. Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Wehr, Lothar. Petrus und Paulus - Kontrahenten und Partner: die beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments, der Apostolischen Väter und früher Zeugnisse ihrer Verehrung. NTAbh 30. Münster: Aschenforff, 1996.

808

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Weihs, Alexander. ‘Teilhabe an den Leiden Christi. Zur Soteriologie des Ersten Petrusbriefes’. Pages 46–88 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis. Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 216. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings. JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. –––––. ‘Sincerely, Paul: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings’. Pages 307–45 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Weiß, Alexander. Sklave der Stadt: Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Sklaverei in den Städten des Römischen Reiches. Historia Einzelschriften 173. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2004. Weiss, Bernhard. Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff: Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie, sowie zur Kritik und Exegese des I. Briefes Petri und der petrinischen Reden. Berlin: Schultze, 1855. –––––. ‘Die petrinische Frage: Kritisch Untersuchungen, I: Der erste petrinische Brief’. TSK 38 (1865): 619–57. Weizsäcker, Karl H. ‘Exegetische Theologie’. Allgemeines Repertorium für die theologische Litteratur und kirchlich Statistik 100/3 (1858): 241–56. –––––. Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche. 3rd ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1902. Welborn, Laurence L. ‘On the Date of First Clement’. BR 29 (1984): 35–54. –––––. ‘On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Ancient Politics’. JBL 106 (1987): 85–111. Welch, Adam. The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1898. Wells, Jo Bailey. God’s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology. JSOTSup 305. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Wendland, Ernst R. ‘Stand Fast in the True Grace of God! A Study of 1 Peter’. JOTT 13 (2000): 25–102. Wengst, Klaus. Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums. 2nd ed. SNT 7. Gütersloh G. Mohn, 1973. –––––. Humility: Solidarity of the Humiliated. The Transformation and Its Social Relevance in Graeco-Roman, Old Testament-Jewish and Early Christian Tradition. London: SCM, 1988. Wenham, David. ‘Being “Found” on the Last Day: New Light on 2 Peter 3.10 and 2 Corinthians 5.3’. NTS 33 (1987): 477–79. Wessely, Carl. Les plus anciens monuments du christianisme écrits sur papyrus. PO 18/3. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1924. Westcott, Brooke F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1892. –––––. A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1896.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

809

Westcott, Brooke F., and Fenton J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, with Notes on Selected Readings. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882. Westermann, William L. ‘Between Slavery and Freedom’. American Historical Review 50 (1945): 213–27. Wet, Chris L. de. ‘The Discourse of the Suffering Slave in 1 Peter’. Ekklesiastikos Pharos 95 (2013): 15–24. Wettstein, Johann Jakob. Hē Kaine Diatheke: Novum Testamentum Graecum, vol. 2: Epistolas Pauli, Acta Apostolorum, Epistolas Canonicas et Apocalypsin. Amstelaedami: Dommer, 1752. Weymouth, Richard F. The Resultant Greek Text. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1892. Wheatley, Alan B. Patronage in Early Christianity: Its Use and Transformation from Jesus to Paul of Samosata. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 160. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011. Wheeler, Nathan. ‘ “For a Holy Priesthood”: A Petrine Model for Evangelical Cultural Engagement’. JETS 59 (2016): 523–39. Whitaker, E. C. ‘The Baptismal Interrogations’. Theology 59 (1956): 103–12. Whitaker, G. H. ‘ “The Chief Corner-Stone” ’. Expositor 8/22 (1921): 470–72. White, Joel R. ‘ “Baptized on Account of the Dead”: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context’. JBL 116 (1997): 487–99. White, John L. ‘Introductory Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter’. JBL 90 (1971): 91–97. –––––. ‘The Structural Analysis of Philemon: A Point of Departure in the Formal Analysis of the Pauline Letters’. Pages 1–47 in SBL Seminar Papers 1971. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1971. –––––. The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle. SBLDS 2. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972. –––––. ‘New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography’. Pages 1730–56 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part II, Principat 25.2: Religion. Edited Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984. –––––. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –––––. ‘Ancient Greek Letters’. Pages 85–105 in Greco-Roman Literature. Edited by David E. Aune. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Wibbing, Siegfried. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1959. Wiedemann, Thomas. Greek and Roman Slavery. London: Croom Helm, 1981. Wiefel, Wolfgang. ‘Kanongeschichtliche Erwägungen zu Papyrus Bodmer VII/ VIII (P72)’. APF 22 (1973): 289–303. Wifstrand, Albert. ‘Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter’. ST 1 (1947): 170–82.

810

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wikenhauser, Alfred. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 5th ed. Freiburg: Herder, 1963. Wikenhauser, Alfred, and Josef Schmid. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 6th ed. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer, vol. 3: Röm 12–16. EKKNT 6.3. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1982. Wilder, Terry L. Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception. Lanham: University Press of America, 2004. Wilken, Robert L. ‘1 Peter 2.13–17 and Martyrdom’. Pages 348–52 in To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and Its Social World in Honor of John H. Elliott. Edited by Stephen K. Black. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014. Wilkins, Michael J. ‘Peter’s Theology of Discipleship to the Crucified Messiah (1 Peter 2:18–25)’. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21 (2017): 53–75. Williams, Jocelyn A. ‘A Case Study of Intertextuality: The Place of Isaiah in the “Stone” Sayings of 1 Peter 2’. RTR 66 (2007): 37–55. Williams, Margaret H. ‘From Shimon to Petros – Petrine Nomenclature in the Light of Contemporary Onomastic Practices’. Pages 30–45 in Peter in Early Christianity. Edited by Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Williams, Martin A. The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter. SNTSMS 149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Williams, Peter J. ‘Not the Prologue of John’. JSNT 33 (2011): 375–86. Williams, Travis B. ‘Reconsidering the Imperatival Participle in 1 Peter’. WTJ 73 (2011): 59–78. –––––. Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. NovTSup 145. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –––––. ‘Suffering from a Critical Oversight: The Persecutions of 1 Peter within Modern Scholarship’. CBR 10 (2012): 271–88. –––––. ‘Benefiting the Community Through Good Works? The Economic Feasibility of Civic Benefaction in 1 Peter’. JGRChJ 9 (2013): 147–95. –––––. ‘Reading Social Conflict through Greek Grammar: Reconciling the Difficulties of the Fourth-Class Condition in 1 Pet 3.14’. Filología Neotestamentaria 26 (2013): 119–60. –––––. ‘Ancient Prophets and Inspired Exegetes: Interpreting Prophetic Scripture in 1QpHab and 1 Peter’. Pages 221–44 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. –––––. ‘The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar in 1 Peter 2,13’. ZNW 105 (2014): 131–47. –––––. Good Works in 1 Peter: Negotiating Social Conflict and Christian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. WUNT 337. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –––––. ‘Reciprocity and Suffering in 1 Peter 2,19–20: Reading χάρις in Its Ancient Social Context’. Bib 97 (2016): 421–39.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

811

–––––. ‘Intertextuality and Methodological Bias: Prolegomena to the Evaluation of Source Materials in 1 Peter’. JSNT 39 (2016): 169–87. –––––. ‘Petrine Epistles and Jude’. Pages 277–97 in The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries, vol. 1: From Paul to Josephus: Literary Receptions of Jesus in the First Century CE. Edited by Helen K. Bond. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2019. –––––. History and Memory in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Remembering the Teacher of Righteousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. –––––. ‘Delivering Oracles of God: The Nature of Christian Communication in 1 Peter 4:11a’. HTR 113 (2020): 334–53. –––––. ‘Pseudonymity, Persecution, and the Date of 1 Peter: Some Methodological Reflections’. Pages 245–67 in Die Datierung neutestamentlicher Pseudepigraphen. Herausforderungen und neuere Lösungsansätze. Edited by Wolfgang Grünstäudl and Karl Matthias Schmidt. WUNT 470. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Williamson, Hugh G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Williamson, Louisa. ‘Challenges and Opportunities in Today’s World in the Light of God’s Surprising Commands in 1 Peter’. Journal of Adventist Mission Studies 9 (2013): 110–15. Willis, William W. ‘The Letter of Peter (1 Peter)’. Pages 135–215 in The CrosbySchøyen Codex MS 193 in the Schøyen Collection. Edited by James E. Goehring. CSCO 521. Leuven: Peeters, 1990. Wilpert, Giuseppe. I Sarcofagi Cristiani Antichi, vol. 2: Testo. Monumenti dell’antichità cristiana 1. Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1932. Wilpert, Josef. Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms. Freiburg: Herder, 1903. Wilson, Alistair I. ‘ “Hope Kept in Heaven” in Colossians and 1 Peter’. IDS 50 (2016): 1–8. Wilson, James P. ‘In the Text of I Peter II.17 is πάντας τιμήσατε a Primitive Error for πάντας ποιήσατε’. ExpTim 54 (1942–43): 193–94. Wilson, Mark W. ‘Cities of God in Northern Asia Minor: Using Stark’s Social Theories to Reconstruct Peter’s Communities’. Verbum et Ecclesia 32 (2011): 1–9. –––––. ‘Noah, the Ark, and the Flood in Early Christian Literature’. Scriptura 113 (2014): 1–12. Wilson, Matthew. ‘Immigrant and Refugee: Pariokous, Parepidemous and Politics in 1 Peter’. Pages 159–69 in Postcolonial Voices from Downunder: Indigenous Matters, Confronting Readings. Edited by Jione Havea. Eugene: Pickwick, 2017. Wilson, R. McL. Hebrews. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Winer, G. B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek. Translated by W. F. Moulton. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882.

812

BIBLIOGRAPHY

–––––. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Edited by Paul W. Schmiedel. 8th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894–1898. Wink, Walter. ‘Neither Passivity nor Violence: Jesus’ Third Way (Matt. 5:38–42 par.)’. Pages 102–25 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Winkler, Robert. ‘Die Gnade im Neuen Testament’. ZST 10 (1933): 642–80. Winling, Raymond. La Bonne Nouvelle du salut en Jésus-Christ. Sotériologie du Nouveau Testament: essai de Théologie biblique. Paris: Cerf, 2007. Winn, Adam. Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative: Considering the Practice of Greco-Roman Imitation in the Search for Markan Source Material. Eugene: Pickwick, 2010. Winter, Bruce W. ‘The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13.3–4 and 1 Peter 2.14–15’. JSNT 34 (1988): 87–103. –––––. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. FirstCentury Christians in the Graeco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. –––––. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Winter, Franz. ‘Sculpturen’. Pages 56–66 in Altertümer von Hierapolis. Edited by Carl Humann, Conrad Cichorius, Walther Judeich, and Franz Winter. Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Institus, Ergänzungsheft 4. Berlin: Reimer, 1898. Wire, Antoinette C. ‘Review Essay on Elliott, Home for the Homeless, and Balch, Let Wives be Submissive’. RelSRev 10 (1984): 209–16. Wischmeyer, Oda. ‘Das Adjectiv ΑΓΑΠΗΤΟΣ in den paulinischen Briefen. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Miszelle’. NTS 32 (1986): 476–80. Wise, Michael O. Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015. Woan, Susan A. ‘The Psalms in 1 Peter’. Pages 213–29 in The Psalms in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –––––. ‘The Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter, with Especial Focus on the Role of Psalm 34’. Ph.D. diss., University of Exeter, 2008. Wobbe, Joseph. Der Charis-Gedanke bei Paulus. Münster: Aschendorff, 1932. Wohlenberg, Gustav. ‘Wer hat den Hebräerbrief verfasst?’. NKZ 24 (1913): 742–62. Wolff, Christian. ‘Christ und Welt im 1. Petrusbrief’. ThLZ 100 (1975): 333–42. –––––. ‘In der Nachfolge des leidenden Christus. Exegetische Überlegungen zur Sklavenparänese I Petr 2,18–25’. Pages 427–39 in Exegese vor Ort. Festschrift für Peter Welten zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Christl Maier, Rüdiger Liwak, and Klaus-Peter Jörns. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

813

–––––. ‘Himmlisches Erbe und Herrlichkeitskranz. Zu Hintergrund und Bedeutung von zwei Metaphern eschatologischer Hoffnung im Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 339–53 in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum: Festschrift für Günter Haufe zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Christfried Böttrich. Greifswalder theologische Forschungen 11. New York: Peter Lang, 2006. –––––. ‘Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi im Ersten Petrusbrief’. Pages 257–66 in ‘Il vostro frutto rimanga’ (Gv 16,16): Miscellanea per il LXX compleanno di Giuseppe Ghiberti. Edited by Anna Passoni Dell’Acqua. Supplementi alla Rivista biblica 46. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2005. Wolff, Hans Julius. ‘Römisches Provinzialrecht in der Provinz Arabia’. Pages 763–806 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part II, Principat 13: Recht. Edited by Hildegard Temporini. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980. Wong, Theron K. ‘The Use of Jesus’ Sayings in 1 Peter’. Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2008. Woo, Kenneth J. ‘Suffering as a Mark of the Church in Martin Luther’s Exegesis of 1 Peter’. CTQ 77 (2013): 307–25. Wray, T. J., and Gregory Mobley. The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Wrede, W. ‘Miscellen 3: Bemerkungen zu Harnacks Hypothese über die Adresse des I. Petrusbriefs’. ZNW 1 (1900): 75–85. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. –––––. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Wypadlo, Adrian. ‘ “Seele” und “Seelenheill” im 1. Petrusbrief. Philonische Perspektiven auf eine alte Streitfrage’. TRev 110 (2014): 267–84. –––––. ‘Die durch das Wasser hindurch geretteten Seelen (1 Petr 3,20): Eine “Gegenprobe” zur Seelenvorstellung im 1. Petrusbrief’. TGl 106 (2016): 25–44. –––––. ‘ “Ihr seid heimgekehrt zum Hirten und Bischof eurer Seelen” (1 Petr 2,25). Jesus Christus als Urbild des “episkopalen” Amtes nach dem 1. Petrusbrief’. Pages 135–54 in In verbo autem tuo, Domine. Auf dein Wort hin, Herr. Festschrift für Erzbischof Hans-Josef Becker zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres. Edited by Rüdiger Althaus. Paderborner Theologische Studien 58. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2018. Wyrick, Jed. Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Tradition. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 49. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. Wyss, Karl. Die Milch im Kultus der Griechen und Römer. RVV 15/2. Giessen: Töplemann, 1914. Yarbrough, Robert W. ‘The Date of Papias: A Reassessment’. JETS 26 (1983): 181–91. Yarnold, Edward J. The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation: The Origins of the RCIA. 2nd ed. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994.

814

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Yates, Jonathan P. ‘Sic est uoluntas Dei: Latin Patristic Views on 1 Peter 2:13–17’. Pages 32–61 in Sacred Scripture and Secular Struggles. Bible in Ancient Christianity 9. Leiden: Brill, 2015. –––––. ‘Salvation Through Water? 1 Peter 3:20-21 in the Ancient Latin Tradition’. Worship 92 (2018): 492–510. Yiftach, Uri. ‘Law in Graeco-Roman Egypt: Hellenization, Fusion, Romanization’. Pages 541–60 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Yinger, Kent L. Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds. SNTSMS 105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Yoder, John H. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Yong, Amos. ‘Diasporic Discipleship from West Asia through Southeast Asia and Beyond: A Dialogue with 1 Peter’. AsJT 32 (2018): 3–21. Yoo, Kenneth Keumsang. ‘The Classification of the Greek Manuscripts of 1 Peter with Special Emphasis on Methodology’. Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2001. Yoshihara, Hirokatsu. ‘A Study of 1 Peter 3:18b–20a and 4:6: A Response to the Notion of Christ’s Postmortem Evangelism to the Un-evangelized, a View Recently Advocated in Japan (Parts 1–2)’. Asia Journal of Pentecostal Studies 20 (2017): 183–197, 199–217. Young, Frances M. The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrysostom. Patristic Monograph Series 5. Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979. Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Youtie, Herbert C. ‘Pétaus, fils des Pétaus, ou le scribe qui ne savait pas écrire’. CdE 41 (1966): 127–43. –––––. ‘ΑΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΟΣ: An Aspect of Greek Society in Egypt’. HSCP 75 (1971): 161–76. –––––. ‘ΥΠΟΓΡΑΦΕΥΣ: The Social Impact of Illiteracy in Graeco-Roman Egypt’. ZPE 17 (1975): 201–21. –––––. ‘ “Because They Do Not Know Letters” ’. ZPE 19 (1975): 101–108. Zahn, Theodore. Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, Theil 3: Supplementum Clementium. Erlangen: Deichert, 1884. –––––. Introduction to the New Testament. 3 vols. Translated by John M. Trout, Williams A. Mather, Louis Hodous, Edward S. Worcester, William H. Worrell, and Rowland B, Dodge. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909. Zeilinger, F. ‘Das “zweite Petrusbeneknntnis”. Zur Rezeption von 1 Kor 15,3ff in 1 Petr 3,18–22’. Pages 81–99 in Anfänge der Theologie. ΧΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΟΝ Johannes B. Bauer zum Jänner 1987. Edited by Norbert Brox, Anneliese Felber, Wolfgang L. Gombocz, and Manfred Kertsch. Graz: Styria, 1987. Zeiller, J. ‘Legalité et arbitraire dans les persécutions contre les chrétiens’. AnBoll 67 (1949): 49–54.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

815

–––––. ‘Institutum Neronianum. Loi fantôme ou réalité?’. RHE 50 (1955): 393–99. Zell, Paul E. ‘Ephesians 5:10 and 1 Peter 1:7—“Tested and Approved” ’. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 105 (2008): 52–55. Zeller, Dieter. ‘Kyrios’. Pages 492–97 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –––––. ‘Nominal unbestimmtes ἐν ᾧ in Neuen Testament’. ZNW 104 (2013): 268–76. –––––. ‘ “Tod gegenüber der Sünde – Leben für Gott”: Zur Parallel Röm 6,1–11/1Petr 2,24; 4.1f’. Pages 185–94 in Paulus und Petrus: Geschichte – Theologie – Rezeption: Festschrift für Friedrich Wilhelm Horn zu seinem 60. Geburtstag. Heike Omerzu and Eckart David Schmidt. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 48. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016. Zeller, Eduard. Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht. Stuttgart: Mäcken, 1854. Zeller, Eric W. ‘Intertextuality in 1 Peter 2:9–12: Peter’s Biblical-Theological Summary of the Mission of God’s People’. Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2013. Zellmann-Rohrer, Michael. ‘Five Private Letters on Papyrus in the British Library’. Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 63 (2017): 135–70. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Rachel. Not Wholly Free: The Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World. Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava 266. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –––––. ‘The Status of Slaves Manumitted Under Paramonē: A Reappraisal’. Pages 377–401 in Symposion 2017: Vortrage zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Tel Aviv, 20.–23. August 2017). Edited by Gerhard Thür, Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz, and Uri Yiftaḥ-Firanḳo. Akten der Gesellschaft für Griechische und Hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 27. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2019. Zerbe, Gordon M. Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. JSPSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge, 2003. Zezschwitz, Karl A. G. Petri Apostoli de Christi ad inferos descensu sententia ex loco nobilissimo I. Ep. III, 19 eruta exacta ad epistolae argumentum. Lipsiae: Dörffling & Franke, 1857. Ziegler, Joseph. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. 2nd ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. –––––. Isaias. 3rd ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

816

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ziemann, Ferdinandus. De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae. Dissertationes philologicae Halenses 18/4. Halis Saxonum, M. Niemeyer, 1911. Zimmer, Friedrich. ‘Woher kommt der Name Silas?’. Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie 7 (1881): 721–23. Zimmerli, Walther. ‘Zur Struktur der alttestamentlichen Weisheit’. ZAW 51 (1933): 177–204. Zimmermann, Ruben. ‘Unecht – und doch wahr? Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament als theologisches Problem’. ZNT 12 (2003): 27–38. –––––. ‘Das “Gute” als ethische Norm in Antike und Christentum: Gut, Güter, Güterabwägung in philosophischen und christlichen Ethiken’. Pages 53–60 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Zinsmeister, Stefan. ‘Kirche in der Fremde? Der Erste Petrusbrief und das Lesen der Heiligen Schrift’. BL 84 (2011): 205–18. Zoepfl, Friedrich, ed. Didymi Alexandrini in Epistolas Canonicas brevis enarratio. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 4/1. Münster: Aschendorff, 1914. Zondervan, Pieter S. ‘Het Woord “Evangelium” ’. ThT 43 (1914): 178–213. Zorell, Francisco. Novi Testamenti lexicon graecum. Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1911. Zuiddam, Benno A. ‘Oracles of God: A Comparative Study of Apostolic Christianity and Its Greco-Roman World’. Ph.D. diss., North-West University, 2008. –––––. ‘Die eerste beginsels van die Woord, die implikasie van Heb 5:12 vir kerk en teologie’. Scriptura 108 (2011): 238–48. –––––. ‘Die Woord as maatstaf: Die implikasie van Godspraak in 1 Petrus 4:11’. NGTT 55 (2014): 489–508. Zuiddam, Benno A., Fika J. van Rensburg, and Pierre J. Jordan. ‘Λόγιον in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Christian Scholarship’. Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 379–94. Zwemstra, Jacomien, and Elma M. Cornelius. ‘Die kommunikatiewe funksie(s) van die gebruik van Psalm 34 in 1 Petrus’. Acta Patristica et Byzantina 14 (2003): 325–44. Zwierlein, Otto. Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse. UALG 96. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. –––––. ‘Kritisches zur Römischen Petrustradition und zur Datierung des Ersten Clemensbriefes’. GFA 13 (2010): 87–157. –––––. ‘Petrus in Rom? Die literarischen Zeugnisse’. Pages 444–67 in Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte. Edited by Stefan Heid. Freiburg: Herder, 2011.