Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BY
ERNEST BEST
St Andrews
directly as the others (Isa. xliii 20 f. and Ex. xix 6 are interlaced
and there is a possible reference to Isa. ix 2 ; only a few key-words
of Hos. ii 25 are given). All six texts are taken from the LXX.
What is the relationship of the O.T. texts to the words of Peter?
Vv. 4 f. and the later phrases of Peter may be regarded as midrashic
comment on the O.T. texts, vv. 4 f. in particular being regarded as
1
introductory to them ) , or the O.T. passages may be viewed as
proof texts of the statement made by Peter in vv. 4 f. etc. I n the
former case vv. 4 f. are to be interpreted in the light of the following
O.T. quotations ; in the latter case vv. 4 f. control the interpretation
of the quotations. These views are not in fact as far apart from one
another as they appear to be when set down as alternatives, nor are
they the sole possible views. The relationship of the beliefs of the
early church to the O.T. is complex; the first Christians did not
come to accept the unique position of Jesus because of what they
read in the O.T., nor after forming their conceptions in isolation
from it did they then seek confirmation fcr these conceptions in its
words. There were times when they used the words of Scripture to
confirm what they had already found to be true in their Christian
experience and times when through the conceptions of the O.T.
they came to understand their own experience more adequately
and to express it more worthily. Both of these aspects are present
in ii 4-10.
To see this we have first to examine how Peter used the O.T. in
his letter. (He invariably uses the LXX or an allied text). Leaving
ii 4-10 temporarily aside we see t h a t he makes formal quotations
of the O.T. at i 16, i 24-5, iii 10-12, iv 18, ν 5.
i 16 quotes Lev. xix 2. Prefaced by διότι γέγραπται it re-expresses
what has already been said in i 15 and does not introduce any
conception not already present therein, i 15 for its part is somewhat
stronger than i 16 in the extent of holiness to which it calls and in
the reference to God as the one who calls; moreover i 15 follows
naturally from i 13-14. I t is not therefore anticipatory midrashic
comment for i 16; the latter confirms the former and is not pro
ductive of it.
x
) There is " a dependence of the formulation in vv. 4 f. upon that of
vv. 6-7 and 9. For two strata of formulation are evident whereby vv. 6-7(8)
and 9(10) represent a primary layer close to the wording of the O.T. and
vv. 4 f. a secondary stage of reflected reformulation. That is, vv. 4-5 offer an
interpretation of the O.T. passages adduced in vv. 6-7 and 9". (ELLIOTT,
p . 20; cf. p p . 17, 22 a n d S E L W Y N p p . 269, 280).
272 ERNEST BEST
The quotation of Isa. xl 6-8 sustains in its last line the reference
in i 23 to the abiding word of God, though the Isaianic quotation
uses ρήμα and not λόγος. The reference to the word of God in i 23
developes out of the reference to rebirth in i 22-3 (cf. James i 18
for the idea) and is not suggested by Isa. xl 6-8 which does not
contain the conception of rebirth. Thus Isa. xl 6-8 is used to confirm
an idea already present in the context. There are some variations
in the LXX text of Isa. xl 6-8 at this point: the addition of ως; the
alteration of του θεοΰ ημών to κυρίου and of άνθρωπου to αυτής. These
may have been present in the text used by P e t e r 1 ) .
iii 10-12 come from ψ xxxiii 12-16; the second person singular
has been changed to the third person singular, probably consequent
upon the reading of ψ xxxiii 13 as a statement and not a question.
I Pet. iii 8-9 is either the concluding verses of the Haustafel (ii 3-
iii 7) or else a general statement of Christian behaviour in relation
to others, which Peter has added to it. The sentiments of v. 8,
though not expressed in exactly the same word, coincide with
similar sentiments in other epistles 2 ) ; v. 9 is similar to Rom. xii 14;
1 Thess. ν 15 and the words of Jesus in Luke vi 27-8. Since then
both these verses are part of the general paraenesis of the church
they are not derived from vv. 10-12, and indeed there is little
verbal or conceptual similarity apart from the general thought of
the avoidance of evil and the performance of good. Vv. 10-12 thus
confirm the general theme of the whole Haustafel and of iii 8-9 in
particular (note the introductory γαρ), and also supply a motive
for right action in iii 12. What precedes them is not midrashic
material preparing for them ; the course of the argument would not
really be affected if the quotation from the Psalm were omitted.
iv 18 comes from Pro v. xi 31 (the omission of μέν is the only
alteration), iv 17a is appropriate to the theme of a period of escha-
tological suffering about to overtake the church; iv 17b consoles
those who will endure it and proceeds naturally from i ν 17a, granted
t h a t there is consolation in seeing judgement fall upon others (and
this seems to be assumed), iv 18 again contrasts judgement in
relation to believers and unbelievers; it thus supports iv 17a and
iv 17b but would not itself have been productive of iv 17. Since
there is no indication that Peter is quoting at this point, not even an
x
) So F . J . A. H O R T , The First Epistle of St. Peter 1.1-11.17, L o n d o n , 1898.
2
) W . F . B E A R E , The First Epistle of Peter, Oxford, 1947, a d l o c ; S E L W Y N ,
p p . 412 f.
I PETER II 4 - I O — A RECONSIDERATION 273
Novum Test. XI 18
274 ERNEST BEST
Iii 3 ; the verbal form has been modified and the noun changed from
μέτα with the genitive to the dative.
(e) i i n ; πάροικους and παρεπίδημους are from ψ χ χ χ ν η ί ΐ 3 ; they
have been altered from the nominative singular (in the first person
context) and intervening words omitted to suit Peter's context.
In each case Peter has used the O.T. words to advance his
argument ; if we were to omit them the sequence of thought would
be harmed and points of exhortation would be completely lost.
They are thus neither prepared for by preceding midrashic comment
nor are they used to confirm an argument already explicitly present
in the context. We should also note t h a t in proportion to their size
the modifications which Peter introduces are much greater than
where he uses texts as confirmation of his argument. When not
confirming his argument Peter tends to use single words or phrases
rather t h a n complete clauses.
We have now to examine ii 4-10 to see if Peter's usage of the O.T.
elsewhere in his epistle affords us any clue to his use of it in this
passage.
Isa. xxviii 16 is quoted in ii 6, being introduced by a formula of
quotation *). In the quotation τίθημι replaces εμβάλλω; the adjective
πολυτελή and the twofold reference to the foundations are omitted.
Where the quotation re-appears at Rom. ix 33 we also find τίθημι
and εν, not εις, with Σιών, εγώ is omitted, έπ' αύτω probably added; 2 )
we may thus assume these alterations already existed in the text as
known to P e t e r 3 ) . The main structure of Isa. xxviii 16 remains
unchanged. The reference to the foundations is probably omitted
because the cornerstone is regarded as a stone at ground level over
which men may stumble and not one sunk in the foundations which
would make this impossible 4 ) . The alterations here are no greater
than we should expect when Peter introduces a text to confirm
what he has already said, and Isa. xxviii 16 takes up the description
of Christ in ii 4 as λίθον έκλεκτόν εντιμον. Moreover διότι which
introduces the quotation is also used at i 16, 24 to introduce con
firmatory quotations; this accords with its normal meaning in
giving a reason for what has preceded.
x
) We cannot accept SELWYN's argument that έν γραφή does not refer to
Scripture.
2
) έπ* αύτφ is read in Codex Alexandrinus of the LXX.
3
) Cf. L I N D A R S , pp. 177 ff., SELWYN pp. 272 ff.
4
) Cf. L I N D A R S p. 180; ELLIOTT, p. 24.
276 ERNEST BEST
x
) L I N D A R S pp. 177 ff., ELLIOTT, pp. 26 ff.
I PETER II 4-IO — A RECONSIDERATION 277
shall examine our section to see if this tradition also forms the
background, and, if so, what then can be learned about the terms
and conceptions used therein which are generally recognised as
being the more difficult to interpret, viz., ίεράτευμα, πνευματικός,
βασίλειον. Of course this is only part of Peter's background. We have
already seen how important the LXX was to him and how in his
argument he tends to make great use of its words and ideas. This is
in keeping with his use of the early Christian paraenesis. He is not
an original thinker but draws on what is common to himself and
the early church. Other sections of the contemporary background
are of course known to him, especially the apocalyptic : in iii 19 he
depends on tradition about Enoch; this may not imply a direct
acquaintanceship with I Enoch since the information might have
been mediated to him through the Christian church.
If we take the ideas of ii 4-10 one by one we quickly see how Peter
is indebted to the primitive tradition.
Jesus as the stone : there is no direct reference to Jesus elsewhere as
the stone simpliciter', but he does appear as the corner-stone and
stone of stumbling. I t is not a great step to advance to Jesus as the
stone within the concept of building given these other ideas as
known. Peter cannot be said to make much of the stone concept
by itself except in so far as it is a foil to Christians as stones x ) .
Believers as stones : granted the conception t h a t a community forms
a building, and we shall see below t h a t this was commonly accepted
in early Christianity, then it is only a short step to view the mem
bers of the community as the stones which compose it. Already in
Eph. ii 19-20, a writing which Peter possibly knew, Christ, apostles
and prophets are individualised as stones in the building. Inde
2
pendently of 1 Peter Ignatius ) took the step of regarding Christians
as stones (ad Eph. ix 1). The idea may well have been in the tra
dition prior both to Peter and Ignatius. Lam. iv 1, 2 may have
encouraged the growth of the conception 3 ) .
The corner-stone: cf. Rom. ix 33; Mark xii 10-11 and parallels; Acts
4
iv n , E p h . ii 20-22 ) .
*) There appears no reason to accept the suggestion of Bo REICKE (The
Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, The Anchor Bible 37, New York 1964) that
Christ as the stone is the stone altar on whom the sacrifices of Christians are laid.
2
) The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, 1905, pp. 63 ff.
3
) Cf. J . M. F O R D , " T h e J e w e l of D i s c e r n m e n t " B.Z. 11 (1967) 109-116;
she d e m o n s t r a t e s h o w widely t h e m e t a p h o r of m e n as stones of a b u i l d i n g w a s
to be found at that time.
4
) On the growth of the tradition on Jesus as the corner-stone and stumb
ling-stone and as rejected, cf. LIND ARS pp. 169 ff.
28ο ERNEST BEST
drawn from the O.T. cult denoting the approach of the priest to
1
G o d ) . Believers come to Christ whom they worship in the new
temple. The corner-stone is connected to the new temple in Eph.
ii 20 ; it is a fairly rare concept but where it appears outside the
primitive Christian tradition it is related to the temple. Test. Sol.
22:7-23:4; 4 Kgdms. xxv 17 (Symmachus) ; in iQS 8.4 ff. it again
reappears in the temple context, only in this case not of the literal
temple but of the new temple which is the community. It is also
connected to the temple in Rabbinic writings 2 ) . Isa. viii 14 is not
quoted in full by Peter; he cannot have been u n a w a r e 3 ) t h a t
the verse begins by arguing t h a t the one who is a stone of offence
and a rock of stumbling to unbelievers is a sanctuary or temple
(άγιασμα) to the faithful ; this recalls the initial words of the passage
'to whom coming' — Christ is himself the new temple, ψ cxvii, from
which Peter quotes in v. 7, is also closely connected to the temple
cultus (cf. vv. 19 f.; 26 f.). The whole imagery of vv. 4-8 is conse
quently t h a t of the new Temple. This was not only a part of the
primitive Christian tradition but it was earlier a part of the tradition
of Qumran where we find the community represented as a temple
whose members offer holy sacrifices 4 ) .
At this point we must meet the objection of ELLIOTT t h a t it is
incorrect to compare the teaching of 1 Pet. ii 4-10 with t h a t of the
remainder of the N.T. in relation to priesthood and sacrifice in the
church because 1 Peter draws on Ex. xix 6 whereas elsewhere the
conception is expressed as a derivation from the conception of
levitical priesthood and sacrifice 5 ) . Ex. xix 6 applies to all Israel,
and wherever it is quoted this is recognised. Levitical priesthood
was however originally limited to a part of Israel ; when the death
of Christ was recognised as rendering unnecessary the levitical
cultus, its terms were spiritualised and applied to the Christian
church. Following on his rejection of a parallel to 1 Peter in the
rest of the N.T. ELLIOT argues t h a t 'spiritual sacrifices' are not
necessarily to be interpreted according to the type of sacrifice
which we see set out elsewhere in the N.T. ; in particular they are to
be considered as activity on the part of Christians directed to those
1
) Cf. B E S T , " S p i r i t u a l Sacrifice", p p . 218 f.
2
) R. J . M C K E L V E Y " C h r i s t t h e c o r n e r s t o n e " NTS, 8 (1961/2) 352-9.
3
) H e q u o t e s from t h e p r e c e d i n g verses (Isa. viii 12-13) a t iii 14-15.
4
) See p p . 284 f. infra.
5
) ELLIOTT, pp. 173, 210.
284 ERNEST BEST
1
) Ibid., p p . 184 f.
2
) GÄRTNER, p p . 5 ff.
3
) Ibid., p p . 44 ff.
4
) Ibid., p p . 16 ff.
5
) Ibid., pp. 5, 9 f.
I PETER II 4 - I O — A RECONSIDERATION 285
x
) Ibid., p p . 72-88. G Ä R T N E R n o t e s t h a t t h e c o n t e x t of 1 P e t . ii 4-10 is t h a t
of m o r a l p u r i t y which is also t h a t of t h e image w h e n used in Q u m r a n ; t h e r e
is also in b o t h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e conceptions of election a n d holiness.
2
) ' ' T h e r e s e m b l a n c e b e t w e e n Q u m r a n a n d I P e t . ii is so s t r i k i n g a t t h i s
p o i n t t h a t we are compelled t o a s s u m e t h e existence of some c o m m o n t r a -
d i t i o n . " ( G Ä R T N E R , p . 78).
3
) Ibid., p p . 82 ff.
4
) T h i s is b r o u g h t o u t in t h e t i t l e of his m o n o g r a p h , " T h e E l e c t a n d t h e
Holy".
5
) R. H . C H A R L E S , Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The Greek Versions
Oxford, 1908.
286 ERNEST BEST
(b) βασίλειον
Including Exod xix 6 Peter has drawn his O.T. quotations from
the L X X , in the latter τ) βασίλειον could be construed either as a
noun or an adjective, stylistic and grammatical considerations
favour the former solution The quotations which depend on the
LXX show that it was so understood (2 Mace. 2 17, Philo, de Sobr
66, de Abrah. 56). A tradition, apparently independent of the LXX,
found m the Targums takes the original phrase D^HD roVöö,
consisting of two nouns of which one depends on the other in t h e
MT, as co-ordinate and results in phrases like 'kings and priests',
this is the tradition followed by J u b 16 18, Rev. 1 6, ν 10 2 )
Peter nearly always places his adjectives after the noun they
qualify, this is true in the noun-adjective phrases he quotes from
the O.T m 11 9, there are not four parallel phrases in 11 9 each
consisting of a noun and an adjective, for the fourth has an ad
jectival phrase εις περιποίηση which Peter did not find in Isa.
xliii 20 f. b u t took independently either from the Ο T. or from the
primitive tradition, he could have taken λαός περιούσιος from
Exod. xix 5 if he had desired four parallel noun-adjective phrases 3 ) .
Unless there is positive evidence to the contrary we must agree
with ELLIOTT 4 ) that βασίλειον should be regarded as a noun, on the
grounds both of internal evidence and the non-Christian tradition
of interpretation of Exod xix 6. If it is taken as an adjective then
x
) ELLIOTT has traced out most carefully the development of the tradition
in respect of Exod xix 6, cf pp 50-128
2
) Jub xxxni 20 stands apart from both lines of development because it
takes βασίλειον as an adjective but dependent on λαός and not on ίεράτευμα
this itself has been changed to an adjective
3
) Cf ELLIOTT ρ 151
4
) Op cit, pp 51 ff
I PETER II 4-IO — A RECONSIDERATION 289
x
) CERFAUX interprets the third term as denoting the purification of the
temple "Regale Sacerdotmm", m Recueil Lucien Cerfaux, Vol II, Gembloux
1954, P· 2 9° Whether this is so or not we can note here (1) the quotation of
Exod xix 6 m a 'temple' context, and (11) its association thereby with
levitical conceptions It is however probably wrong to take ίεράτευμα here
as indicating the restoration of the levitical priesthood to Israel (cf ELLIOTT,
PP 94*0-
2
) Cf GARTNER, ρ 8o
3
) Cf p p 292 f infra
4
) Op cit, ρ 125 KNOPF (cf BENNETT, STIBBS) adopts this solution for
1 P e t 11 9
5
) Cf G r e e k f r a g m e n t t o Τ Levi ( s e e p 285 η 5), αρχή βασιλέων ίεράτευμα.
6
) Ε ScHWYZER, Griechische Grammatik, Vol I, (München, 1939), ρ 470
I PETER II 4-IO — A RECONSIDERATION 29I
1
) This resembles the texts of Symmachus and Theodotion. CHARLES
sees a special link between Revelation and Theodotion, or a text related to
Theodotion (CHARLES, Revelation, Vol. I, pp. lxxx f.).
2
3
) Reading the present tense as lectio difficilior.
) That βασιλεία should mean 'body of kings' is hardly possible; later
scribes altered it to βασίλειον, either to bring it into line with the LXX of
Exod. xix 6 or because they recognised that in the Christian tradition
βασίλειον did have this meaning. The author of the Revelation (or of the
hymn behind this passage) must himself have been aware that βασιλεία could
not mean 'body of kings' ; since he so elucidates he must have known that
Exod.xix 6 was to be understood in this sense.
4
5
) Pp. 107 ff.
) Cf. R. SCROGGS, The Last Adam, Oxford, 1966, pp. 25, 46.
292 ERNEST BEST
(c) πνευματικός
Before we consider the precise significance of this word for Peter it
is necessary to draw attention to a general feature of his style.
Whenever he introduces a term which could be understood in a
secular, literal or physical manner but which he wishes to indicate
should not be so understood he normally adds an adjective or
adjectives or a qualifying phrase which will remove all doubt
about the meaning he intends for the word. Consider the quali
fications given to κληρονομίαν (14), χρυσίου (17), όσφύας (i i ß ) ,
άμνοΰ (i 19), άναγεγεννημένοι (123), γάλα (ii 2), λίθον, λίθοι (ii 4, 5)>
ποιμένα καί έπίσκοπον (ii 25), άνθρωπος (iii 4), νήψατε (iv 7), οικονόμοι
(iv 10), πυρώσει (iv 12), ποίμνιον (ν 2), στέφανον (ν 4), δόξαν (ν ί ο ) .
This explains his introduction of ώς with χόρτος (i 24 ; cf. its use at
ii 2 and ii 11). In the first place the qualifying adjective or phrase
alerts us to the fact t h a t the noun is being used in a sense other than
the literal. But when we examine the qualifying word or phrase
itself we often find that it is chosen because it tells us something
about the new use to which the noun is being put ; this is particu
larly true when the qualification is a simple adjective (or adjec
tives) ; cf. i 4, 7, 19, ii 2, 4, 5, ν 4, 10 in the list above.
Thus the use of πνευματικός in ii 5 indicates to us that οίκος and
θυσίας are not being used in their normal senses of physical house
and material sacrifices but in a transferred or metaphorical sense 1 ) >
though that does not mean an un-real sense. The inheritance (i 4),
the lamb (i 19), the milk (ii 2), the stone (ii 4, 5), the crown (v 4)
are all real, though not literal nor physical. At the same time
πνευματικός indicates in some way the new meaning which is to be
attached to οίκος and θυσίας. This adjective 2 ) is fairly widely used
in the Pauline corpus where it is applied not only to Christians but
also to various non-personal concepts, e.g., χάρισμα (Rom. i n ;
cf. I Cor x i i i , xiv ι ) , βρώμα, πόμα, πέτρα, (i Cor. x 3, 4), ωδαΐς
(Eph. ν 19; cf. Col. iii 16). Of these the last is the most interesting
for we find it related here to worship ; we find πνεύμα itself used in
reference to worship in John iv 24; 1 Cor. xiv 15-16; Eph. vi 18;
Phil, iii 3 3 ) . Peter thus moves within the primitive tradition when
x
) This confirms that οίκος means 'house', i.e., building, rather than
'household', i.e. people.
2
) Cf. E. SCHWEIZER, TWNT, V. pp. 435 f.
3
) θεοΰ is the better reading in Phil, iii 3, but even if τω θεω is read, πνεύματι
can still be understood of the divine rather than the human spirit.
I PETER II 4 - I O — A RECONSIDERATION 2Ç3
CONCLUSIONS
We have attempted to show (1) that Peter uses his O.T. quotations
for one or other of two purposes: either to confirm an argument
already stated or to advance the argument he is making; that the
quotations in ii 4-10 are adequately explained in terms of these
reasons and t h a t therefore ii 4-5 are not preparatory midrashic
material for them : (2) t h a t the passage is explicable in terms of early
Christian tradition and t h a t this is the easiest way in which to
take it. In particular this is so for the difficult concepts (a) ίεράτευμα,
where we found the levitical conception of priesthood merged with
t h a t of Exod. xix 6; (b) βασίλειον, where the suggestion t h a t this
means 'a body of kings' should receive more serious attention ; and
(c) πνευματικός which relates the sacrificial life and worship of
Christians to the Spirit of God.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.