Upload
leo-hsu
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
1/25
I PETER II 4-10 A RECONSIDERATIONBY
ERNEST BEST
St Andrews
This passage has received increasing attention m recent years and
the publication of one book wholly devoted to it *) and of twoothers 2) which discuss it from their own particular slants in additionto many articles 3) would appear to offer the occasion for a reexamination of certain aspects of it.
Structure of the passage
As over against SELWYN 4) we must accept ELLIOTT'S argument5)that neither ii 4-10 nor any portion of it represents a primitive hymn
quoted by Peter 6) . Few of the normal characteristics of earlyChristian hymns appear7) . Nor can we argue that Peter derivedvv. 6-10 from a book ofO.T. testimonies ; the existence ofsuch abook at this stage in the history of the Christian church is doubtful 8 ) .
Vv. 4 f., the direct composition ofPeter, are followed in vv. 6-8 bythe quotation of three O.T. texts (Isa. xxvi i i i ; cxvii22; Isa.
viii 14 f.) interspersed with explanatory comments from Peterand again in vv. 9 f. bythe use ofthree more O.T. texts (Isa. xliii
20 f.; Ex. xix6; Hos. 25); these last three are not quoted so
1) J H. ELLIOTT, The Electandthe Holy (Supplements to XII), Leiden,1966
2) GARTNER, The Temple and the Community Qumran and the New
Testament (Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 1),
Cambridge 1965, LINDARS, New Testament Apologetic, London, 19613) There is a most comprehensive bibliography in ELLIOTT, pp 231 ff
4) E G. S E L W Y N , The First Epistle of Peter, London, 1947, p p 268-815) P P 133 ff
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
2/25
I PETER II 4-IO ARECONSIDERATION 2 7 I
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 text s are taken from the LX X.
What is the relationship of the O.T. texts to the words of Peter?
Vv. 4 f. and the later phrases of Peter ma y be regarded as midrashic
comment on the O.T. texts, vv. 4 f. in particular being regarded as
introductory to them1) , or the O.T. passages may be viewed as
proof te xt s of the statem ent made by Pet er in vv. 4 f. etc. In th e
former case vv. 4 f. are to be interpreted in th e light of th e following
O.T. quotations ; in th e la tter case vv. 4 f. control the interpretat ion
of the quotations. These views are not in fact as far apart from oneanother 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 let ter . (He invariably uses the LX X or an allied te xt ). Leaving
ii 4-10 temporari ly aside we see that he makes formal quotat ionsof the O.T. at i 16, i 24-5, iii 10-12, iv 18, 5.
i 16 quotes Lev. xix 2. Prefaced by it re-expresses
wh at has already been said in i 15 and does not introduce any
conception not already present therein, i 15 for its par t is somewhat
stronger than i 16 in the extent of holiness to which it calls and in
the reference to God as th e one who calls; moreover i 15 follows
naturally from i 13-14. It is not therefore antic ipa tory midrashic
comment for i 16; the la tter confirms th e former a nd is not pro
ductive of it
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
3/25
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 and not . The reference to the word of God in i 23developes out of th e 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 th e LX X te xt of Isa. xl 6-8 at this poi nt : the addition of ; the
alteration of to and of to . These
may have been present in the text used by Peter1) .
iii 10-12 come from xxxiii 12-16; the second person singular
has been changed to the third person singular, probably consequent
upon the reading of 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. 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 th e performance of good. Vv. 10-12 thus
confirm the general theme of the whole Haustafel and of iii 8-9 in
par ticular (note the introdu ctory ), and also supply a motive
for right action in iii 12. What precedes them is not midrashicmaterial 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 is the only
alteration), iv 17a is appropriate to the theme of a period of escha-
tological suffering about to overtake t he church; iv 17b consoles
those who will endure it and proceeds naturally from i 17a, granted
that there is consolation in seeing judgement fall upon others (and
thi s seems to be assumed), iv 18 again contrasts judgement in
l ti t b li d b li it th t i 17 d
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
4/25
I PET ER II 4- IO A RECONSIDERATION 2 7 3
introductory , it ma y be that iv 18 should not be regarded as a
formal quotation but rather resemble a use of the O.T. to which we
shall shortly turn; in it Peter uses O.T. words and clauses toadvance his argument ; there is not, however, verymuch new in v. 18
over and above what is found in v. 17.
5b quotes Prov. iii 34 in exactly the same form as in Jas. iv 6
( replaces ). The sequence of t houg ht within v. 5 is
natural ; v. 5a after commanding the obedience of the 'younger' to
the 'elders' emphasises the need for humility on the part of all, and
then sup ports thi s in v. 5b with th e quotation which refers to
humility. This leads on to v. 6 which continues the thought of
humili ty in relation to God. The quotation does then at this point
car ry forward the argument but it is in preparation for v. 6 ra th er
than as that which is commented on in advance in v. 5a.
Apart from these direct quotations which generally confirm what
has preceded there are a good many passages where O.T. phrases
and clauses are worked into the course of the argument). Did we
not know the O.T. we would be unable to pick them out fromPeter's own words because they are not introduced by any formula
of quotation and are an integral part of the argument. Even though
with the help of the O.T. we can isolate them we cannot be certain
that Peter when he used them was consciously aware that he was
using O.T. words; they may have passed from the O.T. into the
general diction of the early church and Peter have adopted them as
words and phrases known to his fellow-Christians. I t is probable,
however, that he knew most of them came from the O.T., and this
mu st be certainly true of the longer ones. By using O.T. words and
phrases in place of his own he is obviously giving to his own argu
ments that authority which he allowed the O.T. to possess. It is
indeed remarkable how many quotations, direct and indirect,
there are in 1 Peter. The only Pauline epistle which has more is
Romans; both 1 and 2 Corinthians have fewer though they are
actually much longer than 1 Peter. The other books which havemore are the synoptic Gospels, Acts, Hebrews and Revelation. In
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
5/25
274 ERNEST BEST
Only one of those listed by WH ought to be omitted: i 23,
, for the participles should be taken here with
and not ; the allusion to Dan. vi 26 th us disappears. Theremaind er are i 17, 18, 25b, ii 3, 11, 12, 17, 22, 24, 25, iii 6a, 6b, 14 f.
22, iv 8, 14, 17, 7. Of these only two are independent clauses:
(a) ii 3 which quotes xxxiii 9 ; in using it has been drop
ped and changed to . Thus adapted the O.T.
words are used within the argument; they neither confirm what
preceded nor were commented on in it.
(b) ii 22 is from Isa. liii 9 and there are in ii 24 f. further allusions
to this chapter of Isaiah. In utilizing Isa. liii 9 Peter has changed
to which adapts it to his argument ; otherwise the
quotation follows one form of the LX X text ; probably Peter knew
this variant text since there is no apparent motive for the change
within his context. In ii 18 ff. Peter adduces the example of Christ's
sufferings to those Christian servants who have to endure hard
masters, and having introduced these sufferings he goes on beyond
the immediate point to speak of their redemptive value. Theexample of Christ is thus given in O.T. words and the argument
carried a stage further with the quotation.
Typical of the kind of way in which Peter incorporates his lesser
quotations are:
(a) ii 17, where , = Prov. xxiv 21; in
the original the verb is in the singular and both nouns, joined by ,
form the object; Peter has also omitted . The change to the
plural is forced on him by his context and the omission of follows
naturally. He has presumably joined to a new verb to
preserve the rhythm of his sentence.
(b) iii 6b, where = Prov. iii 25; the verbal
form of the original (aor. subj.) has been changed to the participle
and the participle qualifying changed to the more general
. The change of verbal form adapts the quotation to the
context and the alteration of the word qualifying generalisesthe exhortation.
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
6/25
I PETER II 4- A RECONSIDERATION 275
Iii 3 ; the verbal form has been modified and the noun changed from
with the genitive to the dative.
(e) i i n ; and are from 3; theyhave 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 that 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 than 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 an y clue to his use of it in th is
passage.Isa. xxviii 16 is quoted in ii 6, being introduced by a formula of
quotation *). In th e quot at ion replaces ; the adjective
and th e twofold reference to th e foundations are omit ted.
Where the quotation re-appears at Rom. ix 33 we also find
and , not , with , is omitted, ' probably added;2)
we may thus assume these alterations already existed in the text as
known to Peter3). 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 impossible4). 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 . Moreover which
introduces the quotation is also used at i 16, 24 to introduce confirmatory quotations; this accords with its normal meaning in
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
7/25
276 ERNEST BEST
V. 7b is a straight forward quotat ion of cxvii 22 with
changed from the accusative to the nominative to accommodate
the quotation to the context. On the one hand it takes up anotherconception of v. 4, viz., t hat Jesus was rejected b y men ; on the
other it begins to introduce a new conception, viz., the relationship
of Jesus to those who do not believe; this is a natural extension of
the argument, cxvii 22 th us in par t confirms v. 4 and in par t
carries the argument further, but without the clinching statement
of v. 8 this would not be apparent.
V. 8a: are abstracted
from the words of Isa. viii 14 but the case of every one of the four
nouns has been altered in a manner wholly typical of the way in
which Peter uses phrases drawn from Scripture to advance his
argument ; and as we have already pointed out this is indeed what
it does, introducing an idea not in ii 4 f. ; v. 8b carries the new
argument further and is not a mere rewriting of v. 8a. Isa. viii 14 is
probably introduced at this point because the primitive church had
already associated it with Isa. xxviii 16 ; the two are used togetherat Rom. ix 33. Probably cxvii 22 was also associated with the
other two texts in a 'stone' complex1) . We have thus quite clearly
moved from confirmation to a new stage in the argument and this is
continued in vv. 9-10.
V. 9 is introduced by ; combined with S this suggests that acontrast is being drawn with what has just preceded, i.e. thecondition of believers is very different from that of those who havestumbled over Christ. When used within a sentence 8 is normallyadversat ive in 1 Peter (cf. i 7, 8, 12, 20, ii lobis, 23 etc.), but at the
beginning of a sentence it usually indicates a new step in the
argument (i 25b, iii 8, iv 7, 17, 5, io) although it is adversative
at ii 7, iv 16a. We may then take it that a fresh step in the argument
comes with v. 9 and that at the same time points a contrast
to what has preceded. The fresh matter introduced here sets out the
church in terms of attributes normally used of the O.T. people ofGod, indicating that the new people of God is continuous with the
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
8/25
I PETER II 4-IO A RECONSIDERATION 2 7 7
remains a word on th e lips of God but is transferred to Peter 's ; if
Peter had intended this to be a quotation he could have used the
present of in place of the future in Exod. xix 6 and adaptedto his context the la tter 's . Moreover it is difficult to see what
other suitable words could have been chosen instead of to
introduce the subsequent string of attributes. We conclude therefore
that they are not a quotation, comes from Isa. xliii 20 ;
is omitted, the number is changed to the second and the phrase
is to rn out of its context, . . . come from Ex od . xix 6
where the words were set on God's lips, are
derived from Isa. xliii 21; they are changed from the accusative to
the nominative, is omitted and becomes
, perhaps under the influence of Mai. iii 17 or Hag. ii 9;
in the latter the context concerns the building of the temple, a not
inappropriate context to the present use of the phrase,
again from Isa. xliii 21, with
replacing and a clause the simple infinitive; note
again the omission of . The contrast of and may alsoreflect O.T. passages (e.g. Isa. ix ) but more probably repeats the
contrast between these two concepts common in inter-testamental
Juda is m and in the early church. We note finally that the use which
Peter makes of Scripture in v. 9 is completely in accord with his
methods when he is using its words to advance his argument, and,
indeed, he is here setting out an argument that was not present
in ii 4, 5, viz., the continuity of the old and new peoples of God.
V. 10 is not a direct quotation from any one passage in Hosea; it
approaches most closely ii 25 but is also related to 16, 9; ii 21. It is
quoted more fully at Rom. ix 25. The use by Peter of selected words
from Hosea resembles again his use of Scripture when applying it to
advance his argument ; the fresh step at this point is the emphasis
upon the change of condition of those who are now the people of God.
By way of objection to our conclusion that vv. 9-10 are fresh steps
in the argument it may be claimed: (1) The introductory phrase inv. 6 governs all the O.T. quotations; there is however no clear
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
9/25
278 ERNEST BEST
surprising in finding that it suggested to Peter the use of Exod.
xix 6 for his purpose. (3) means 'royal building' and so
repeats the idea of in v. 5; it is not certain that this is necessarily the meaning of at this point, but, even if it is,
it certainly adds a new shade of meaning to which does not
suggest by itself that the building which Christians form is 'royal'*).
(4) repeats the idea contained in 2) ; bu t the
former phrase is attached to all the attributes of v. 9 and does not
st and in any special relationship to as does
in v. 5. More positively it must be said th at the principal conception
of vv. 9-10, the na tu re of the church as the continuation of the O.T.
people of God, is not contained in vv. 4-5 ; the argument does make
an advance at this point.
To summarise: in vv. 4-5 Peter sets out the nature of the church
using (as we shall see) an imagery which was common to the early
Christian tradition and which serves to contrast the church with
the O.T. people of God; he then confirms this with O.T. quotations
in vv. 6, 7 ; with that of v. 7 and the words of v. 8 he moves hisargument on to consider the position of those who reject Chris t;
finally in vv. 9-10 he goes on to show the continuity between the new
and the old Israel3).
The Background to the Passage
As in any N.T. writing t he background is complex; however it has
been demonstrated fairly clearly that Peter makes very great use
of primitive Christian tradition in his paraenetic sect ions 4). We
*) E L L I O T T argues that neither nor , while referring to one an
other, me a n s " t e m p l e " ; cf. pp . 149 f., 153, 156 ff., 163. See also p p . 289 infr a.2) So EL LI OT T, pp . 184, 194.
3) In a long pa per 'Th e Lit era ry G enre Midras h' (CBQ X X V I I I (1966)
I O5 - 3
8> 4
I7~57) A. G. W R I G H T has at te mp te d to distinguish the use of the
O.T. in mi dr as h from its ot he r uses. "W e see t h a t in biblical cit ati ons tw o
directions of movement are possible : either a biblical text contributes to the
new composition and is for the sake of the new composition or the new
composition contributes to an understanding of the text cited and is for the
sak e of th e biblical ci ta ti on . Onl y th e la tt er is mi dr as h since onl y th er e does
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
10/25
I PET ER II 4- IO A RECONSIDERATION 279
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 asbeing the more difficult to interpret, viz., , ,
. Of course this is only pa rt of Peter 's background. We have
already seen how im port ant the LX X 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 bu t 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 andstone of stumbling. It 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 stonesx) .
Believers as stones : granted the conception that a community forms
a building, and we shall see below that 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 Peterpossiblyknew, Christ, apostles
and prophets are individualised as stones in the building. In de
pendently of 1 Peter Ignatius2) took th e step of regarding Christians
as stones (ad Eph. ix 1). The idea may well have been in the tra
dition prior both to Peter an d Ignatius. Lam . iv 1, 2 ma y have
encouraged the growth of the conception3) .
The corner-stone: cf. Rom. ix 33; Mark xii 10-11 an d parallels; Actsiv n , E p h . ii 20-22
4) .
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
11/25
28 ERNEST BEST
Jesus as rejected Mark xii i o - n and parallels, Mark vm 31 and
parallels, Luke xvn 25
Jesus as elect Luke ix 35 where is probably the truereading, Luke XXI1135, cf the var iant readings at Jo hn 134 It
appears to have been an accepted Messianic title and as such was
interchangeable between the Messiah and his followers, the elect1)
So already at 1 1 believers have been termed 'the elect' and at
11 9 we have 'the elect race ' On Christ ians as elect see Mark
xm 20, 22 an d parallels, Matt xxn 14, Rom VI1133, Col 11112,
2 T i m 11 10 et c
building is commonly applied to the church both in the sense of
moral edification (1 Cor xiv 4, 17 etc ) an d in the sense, directly
parallel to 1 Pet 11 5, of the comparison of the church to a literal
building Mark xiv 58 and parallels, xv 29 and parallels, Rom
xv 20, 1 Cor 1119, Eph 1121
The church as house Heb 1116, 1 Pet IV17, 1 Tim 11115, Mark
xi 172) "Ho use ' is however constant ly used for the temple both
in th e and m the N T So it is im port an t to draw m also thosepassages which refer to the church as the new temple 1 Cor 111 16,
2 Cor vi 16, E ph 1118-22, Mark xiv 58, xv 293) The house,
which is the church, is the Temple of God ELLIOT4) argues that
does not necessarily signify 'temp le' However when specific
reference is made in the LXX to the building () of the
temple the noun used in association with is almost always
(see especially 3 Kgdms v-vn, 1 Chron vi, xvn, x xn , 2 Chron
11-vi, 1 Esdras 1,11, v, vi , Hagg , Zach ) I t occurs about ten times as
frequently as the next most common word () To a mmd as
sa tu ra te d as Peter's was with the language of the LXX the two
words and together would inevitably imply thetemple.
The sacrifices of the Christian Heb xm 15-16, Rom xn 1, xv 16,
Phil 1117, iv 18, 2 Tim i v 6 , Rev vm 3 f We have the use of
for the collection sent to the poor m Jerusalem Rom
xv 27, 2 Cor ix 125
) This conception goes back to the , e g
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
12/25
I PETER II 4-IO A RECONSIDERATION 281
Isa.in-15; H0S.V6; Mie. vi6-8; Ps. iv6; I13, 14, 23, li 19, cxli 2.Acceptable to God: this concept is found with varying Greek words to
express it in Rom. x v i 6 ; Phil. i v i 8 ; Heb. xii 28, xiii 15-16;1 Tim. ii 3.Through Jesus Christ: John i 17; Acts 36; Rom. ii 16, 9; 1 Cor.xv 57 ; 2 Cor. i 8 ; etc.
The general context of 1 Pet . ii 4, 5, an appeal for puri ty, is
similar to that where the new temple imagery is used elsewhere
in the N.T., 1 Cor. iii 16-17;2
Cor. vi 16 f.; Tim. iii 15; Heb.
iii 6 ff. Commentators have often been puzzled by the sudden
change of metaphor between 1 Pet. ii 1-3 (growth) and ii 4 f.
(building). But these two conceptions are found together in the
tradition at 1 Cor. iii 1-17 (cf. especially iii 9 where the transi tion
is ma de; it recalls 1 QS viii 4 ff.) and Eph . ii 21 (where the temple
is said to grow).
Most of the conceptions of vv. 6-8 have already been covered;
of some it hardly requires to be shown that they belong to the
primitive Christian tradition e.g. the centrality of faith in Christ.That Christ is of value () to Christians is not elsewhere ex
pressed precisely in this way; the word here is drawn from the
quotation of Isa. xxviii 16 ().
Christ as the stone of stumbling and rock of offence: Mark vi 3; Mt.
xiii 57, xi 6, xxvi 31, 33; Luke vii 23; Rom. ix 32-33; 1 Cor. i 23;
Gal 11.
The idea of predestination is also common in the N.T. though the
word used to express it here is probably drawn from Isa. xxviii 16
(). The word is used in a somewhat similar way in 1 Tim. ii 7;
2 Tim. i n ; the idea is already present in (i 2);
it is more fully expressed in Rom. viii 29-30, ix-xi; Eph. i 4, 5, 11.
V. 9 introduces the concept of the Church as the new Israel : in the
Gospels there is the choice oftwelve apostles ; elsewhere the Christians
are called 'the saints' ; more formal expression to the idea is given
in Gal. vi 16; Rom. xi 16-25; Eph. ii 11 ff. (and this in th e contextof the new temple); John xv 1-8; Rev. ii 9; iii 9; etc. The words
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
13/25
282 ERNEST BEST
always expressed precisely in these terms : 2 Thess. ii 14 (2 Thess.
ii 13-17 as a whole is very close to 1 Peter in its ideas) ; Acts xx 28;
Tit. ii 14; Heb. x 39; 1 Thess. g. : the proclamation of God's deeds is very
common to early Christianity, though expressed in different words ;
here again Peter dresses a common idea in O.T. phraseology,
, : for this contrast of the pre-Christian and Christian
life cf. Acts XXV18; Eph. 8; Matt, iv 16, vi 22 f. ( = Lukexi 35 f.) ; Luke i 79; 2 Cor. iv 6, vi 14; 1 Thess. 4, 5; Col. i 12-13;
1 John i 6-7.
The conception in v. 10 of those not a people now becoming a
people is also found in Rom. ix 25, xi 17 ff. ; is the regular word
for the people of God.
It can be thus seen that throughout vv. 4-10 we move in a circle of
ideas which is the common possession of early Christian tradition.
This suggests that the primary background for the understanding
of the remaining concepts will be primitive Christianity. Before we
turn to these it should be pointed out that some of the centralideas are also found in Qumran; since it is likely that the ideas of
Qumran came to Peter already absorbed into the primitive Christian
tradition we shall not trace out in detail their appearance in Qumran
but note their relevance at the particular points in which we are
interested.
(a)
This is used twice by Peter. In ii 9 it is part of a sequence ofphrases which express the church as the new Israel; emphasis lies
not so much upon the idea expressed by each phrase in isolation
as in the cumulative effect of the quotat ion of the complex of
phrases from the O.T. ; its use a t ii 9 has moreover probably been
suggested by its prior use at ii 5 ; since Peter is here constructing his
argument more freely, it is likely that the special meaning he at
taches to the word will appear more clearly, and so we begin with ii 5.
At ii 5 the immediate context is the conception of the new temple ;
as we have already seen are used regularly
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
14/25
I PET ER II 4- IO A RECONSIDERATION 2 8 3
drawn from the O.T. cult denoting the approach of the priest to
God1) . 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
primit ive Christian tradi tio n 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 writings2). Isa. viii 14 is not
quoted in full by Peter; he cannot have been unaware3) that
the verse begins by arguing that th e one who is a stone of offence
and a rock of stumbling to unbelievers is a sanctuary or temple
() to the faithful ; this recalls the initial words of the passage
' to whom coming' Christ is himself the new temple, 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 that of the new Temple. This was not only a part of the
primitive Christian tradition but it was earlier a part of the traditionof Qumran where we find the community represented as a temple
whose members offer holy sacrifices4) .
At this point we must meet the objection of ELLIOTT that it is
incorrect to compare the teaching of 1 Pet. ii 4-10 with that 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 der ivation from the conception of
levitical priesthood and sacrifice5). 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. E LLIOT argues that 'spiritual sacrifices' are not
necessarily to be interpret ed according to th e type of sacrificewhich we see set out elsewhere in the N.T. ; in particular they are to
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
15/25
284 ERNEST BEST
outside the church and not as an inward looking cultus or worship ;the priesthood envisaged is one turned towards the world and not an
internal characteristic of the church *).As against this we have already demonstrated the close connection
between the Petrine complex of ideas in ii 4-10 and those of theprimitive Christian tradition, and we have indicated that this iswholly in line with the general dependence of Peter throughout hisepistle on that tradition. Peter's mind as revealed by his letter isnot creative; it is therefore unlikely that he by himself derivedfrom Ex. xix 6 the conception of a priesthood of the church ; it ismuch more probable that he already knew the tradition of theprimitive church (it is difficult to see how he could not have knownit) and then applied Ex. xix 6 to it; he may not even have been thefirst to apply Ex. xix 6 but have received this also in the tradition.We would now turn more specifically to the relationship of Ex. xix 6and 1 Pet. ii 4-10 to levitical conceptions.
We look first at Qumran where we find an ambivalent attitude
to the levitical priesthood. On the one hand members were acceptedinto the community in accordance with the rules governing theadmissibility of men to exercise levitical function 2) ; they offer non-material sacrifices which may atone 3), as did the sacrifices of thelevitical priesthood; the non-material sacrifices of the O.T. are notregarded as achieving such atonement. The Qumran communityforms the spiritual temple, a temple being necessarily associatedwith priesthood 4). On the other hand there are priests within thecommunity whose leading position is recognised 5). Qumran is thecradle from which the N.T. conception of the temple and thepriesthood of the church is derived; the almost contradictoryposition within it would be resolved once the particular positionof a group of priests within the community was no longer seen to benecessary. It would then only have been a matter of time untilsomeone saw the relevance of Ex. xix 6 to this situation. Indeed the
text may have been used in the community. The formula is quotedtwice in the book o Jubilees (Jub. 16:18; 33:20). Judging by the
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
16/25
I PETER II 4- IO A RECONSIDERATION 2 8 5
ideas in the writings of the community, Jubilees was exceptionally
well known and appreciated there. The idea of the priesthood in
Ex. xix 6 and the levitical conception as applied to the communityas whole would therefore have co-existed at Qumran.
But supposing for the moment that the members of the Qumran
communitydid not associate Ex. xix 6 and levitical ideas bu t framed
their conception of the new temple under the dominance of the
latter alone, then we need to note the many close contacts between
Peter 4-10 and the idea of the new temple at Qumran; it isnot going too far to say that 1 Peter lies nearer to the idea as found
in Qumran than does any other part of the N.T. x). It is only atQumran that we find the new temple directly associated with Isa.xxviii 16 (1 QS 8:4 ff.), non-mater ial sacrifice (1 QS 8:4ft . ;9:3ft . ; 4 QFlor 1: 6 f.), the members as stones (4QpIsad, frag i;cf. 1 QH 6:25 ff.) 2) ; it may be also that at Qumran the priesthoodof the community was related directly to the new temple (CD.3:19-4:3) 3) . ELLIOTT argues that the themes of election and holi
ness run through 1 Peter ii 4-10
4
) ; these are continuing and vitalinterests of the Qumran community. The main conceptions of1 Peter ii 4-10 are all found in Qumran and set out there on alevitical basis; the only item missing is the direct quotation ofExod. xix 6 ; there seems thus no reason why Peter should not quitehappily have married the latter text to neo-levitical ideas or havefound it already in the tradition he used. And we must finally notethat the easiest explanation of his use of the terms , ,
which occur in our passage is to view them as drawnfrom a levitical context.
That the two concepts could co-exist harmoniously is indicated
by: (a) the quotation of Exod. xix 6 in, of all places, Test. Levi
11:4-6. It is found in the Greek Fragment printed by CHARLES5) .
x) Ibid., pp. 72-88. GRTNER not es th a t th e co nt ex t of 1 Pe t. ii 4-10 is t ha t
of moral purity which is also that of the image when used in Qumran ; thereis also in both the combination of the conceptions of election and holiness.
2
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
17/25
286 ERNEST BEST
ELLIOTTX) regards it as a pre-Christian gloss and thus implies the
association of the two ideas prior to Peter. Even if it is a Christian
gloss it shows how easily the two could be brought together2
),(b) Rev. i 6, io have their conception of the priesthood of the
members of the church based on Exod. xix6 ; but Revelation is
also a book which is full of levitical conceptions; cf. 8, vi g,
viii 3-5, xvi6f., xiv 4-5, iii 12, xi 13) . (c) Philo (de Sobr. 66; de
Abrah. 56) quotes Exod. xix 6, but in complete independence of
this and therefore presumably as a development of levitical con
ceptions he also speaks oftrue men ofGod as priests (de Gigant. 61 ;
de Ebriet. 126-8) and ofIsrael as a priest to mankind (de Abrah. 98;
de Spec. Leg. II, 162-4; f de Vita Mosis II, 224 f.; de Spec. Leg.
145 f.)
We thus conclude that there is no reason why Peter should not
have associated the non-levitical conception ofpriesthood in Exod.
xix 6 with the levitical ideas which were already prevalent in the
primitive church, and that in fact, failing any evidence to the
contrary, in ii 5, 9 must be interpreted in line with theconception prevailing in the primitive church of the church as
priestly or ofbelievers as priests.
Th e precise meaning of is difficult to determine.
ELLIOTT4) has carefully examined the meaning of words ending
in - and shown that such words indicate ,,communities of
persons functioning in a particular capacity' ' ( , sen ators;
, artisans; , ambassadors) or " a community
of people in more general terms" ( , a political mass;
, a fighting mass). This leaves unresolved the rela
tionship of the individual to the group: whereas it may be argued
that a senator is only able to exercise his senatorial function within
the senate and this implies a necessary corporateness, the same is
not true of the artisan or the ambassador. There is nothing in the
word itself to tell us how we should understand it. In the
primitive tradition of Rev. i 6, i o, xx 6, Exod. xix 6 becomes thesimple plural "priests"; where the trad ition expresses priesthood
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
18/25
I PETER II 4- A RECONSIDERATION 287
individuals (Rom. xv 16; Phil, ii 17) or in the plural without any
implications of corporateness (Rom. x i i i ; Heb. xiii 15-16). In
1 Pet. ii 5 is set alongside , a term which in its presentcontext and with its present meaning of "temple', in which the
individual members are parts of the whole, is collective in its
significance. At 1 Pet. ii 9 is set in parallel with a sequence
(, , )x) of terms which cannot be individualised; they
are necessarily collective and their members cannot be described
individually in words derived from the collective nouns. However
is a term, unlike them, which also involves a function and
there exists a cognate word, , describing th e one who performsthe function. The only conclusion which it would be safe to draw
from this evidence would appear to imply that just as a Christian
cannot exist in isolation but is always such as the member of a
church, so Christians exercise priestly functions but always as
members of a group who all exercise the same function. We cannot
go further than this because Peter's conception of the church, in so
far as we can ascertain it, lacks the profoundity that we find in Pauland John ; had we fuller knowledge of his conception of the church
we would be able to discuss more adequately the relation of the
individual to the whole.
The nature of the sacrifices which Christians offer is not spelt out
by Peter. ELLIOTT2) argues that is
parallel to . and therefore may be used
to elucidate it. This is not so. The former phrase is attached to all
the terms of v. 9; it is drawn from Isa. xliii 20-1 from which
and come and there is no reason to suppose that Peter would
attach it specifically to , or even mak e any association
between the two in his mind. Further we have argued that v. 5 is
not an anticipatory midrash on v. 9 but that in v. 9 Peter enters
a new stage of his argument. There is thus nothing within the
passage to explain the nature of the sacrifices. We are therefore
again dependent on the primitive tradition for elucidation. In thisthese sacrifices ma y be stated in a perfectly general way (Rom.
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
19/25
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
20/25
I PETER II 4-IO A RECONSIDERATION 289
it will mean "royal" i.e. a priesthood serving a king (God), not a
priesthood consisting of kings ; the priests will not necessarily have
royal dignity.If it is a noun what meanings may we at tr ib ut e to it ?
(1) Royal residence, palace. This is a perfectly good classical
meaning of the word, though normally occuring in the plural ; it is
also found in the LXX (Esther i 9, ii 13 etc.). It is the meaning
Philo gave to the word on th e two occasions he quoted Exod. xix 6 ;
in de Sobr. 66 he glosses a description of it as , by his statement
about God's indwelling, and by his application to it of and
; this latter as a substantive can mean 'sanctuary" or as an
adjective 'inviolate' with reference to th e right of sanctuary in
temples. So understood as ''residence of God", i.e. temple, the word
fits the context of 1 Pet. ii 4, 5 most appropriatelyx). However it is
unlikely that Peter knew Philo, there does not appear to be any
other reference to in the sense of 'temple'2) and the
structure of 1 Pet. ii 4-10 suggests that Peter is now past that part
of his argument which dealt with the new temple. Moreover in thecontext of ii 9 'palace' does not fit sweetlywith four other terms all
of which direct ly describe a group of people. If there was any
evidence that the word meant 'royal household', i.e. the people
belonging to the palace, this objection could be overcome; there
does not appear to be any instance of the word with this meaning.
If it is to be taken in a non-literal sense then we should expect that
Peter in accordance with his usual custom3) would indicate this
with a qualifying word; he could have added as in i 24. However
we cannot completely exclude this meaning for Philo's use of it
shows that it might come naturally to a Jew to regard God's palace
as his dwelling-place or temple.
(2) Tiara, diadem. This is a Hellenistic usage of the word. We only
consider this meaning because in the neighbourhood of Isa. lxi 6,
where th e Israelites are termed priests of God, they are also term ed
his crown and diadem (IX3). But itself is not used inIX3. As in (1) such a meaning would not fit in with the other
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
21/25
290 ERNEST BEST
(3) Kingdom. This again is a Hellenistic usage. I t is possibly found
with this sense in the LXX(3 Kdgms. , xiv 8 ; 4 Kgdms. xv 19
all in A). It occurs more frequently with the active meaning, 'rule,reign', and in the three cases cited it probably has this meaning.
If taken in the passive sense ofthose who are ruled bythe king then
it is appropriate to the context of ii 9. Normallyit should mean the
territory rather than the subjects who are under the rule of th e
king, but the extension appears natural. This may be the meaning
attached to the word in 2 Mace, ii 17. To the people is restored
i.e. they again become
God's kingdom, the priesthood and the hallowing1). This is not
very satisfactory. It would be easier if could be taken to
mean the restoration ofthe rule ofthe people over their own land2) ,
which was now restored to them with the victory ofthe Maccabees.
If, however, the meaning given is 'kingdom', in the sense of the
kingdom ofGod, we have in 1 Peter a more explicit identification
of the people of God with the kingdom than anywhere else in the
N.T. We might then have expected that Peter would add here somequalifying adjective to in accordance with his normal
custom3) to show that it is not to be taken in a literal sense.
(4) Because none of the above explanations is satisfactory it is
worth going back and re-examining a suggestion put forward by
HORT in relation to Exod. xix 6 bu t which he rejects for 1 Pet.
ii 94). He proposed giving to the meaning 'body of kings'.
This is certainly in accord with the Targumic tradition which
renders Exod. xix 6 as 'kings (and) priests'5) . It also goes easily
with the interpretation of as 'body of priests'. The
termination - signifies 'Kollektivitt,Werkzeug, Ort' 6) . Wehave, = townhall, college of magistrates; =
x) CERFAUXinterprets the third term as denoting the purification of the
temple "Regale Sacerdotmm", m RecueilLucien Cerfaux, Vol II, Gembloux
1954, P29 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 here
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
22/25
I PETERII 4-IO ARECONSIDERATION 2 9 I
common hall, club, association ; = congregation of Bacchic
worshippers; = wa tch tower, wat ch (i.e. bo dy of soldiers) ;
= council of elders. Thus, though there is no independent evidence that it ever was taken in this way, it could well
have been so unders tood. This becomes a real possibility when we
consider the way in which Exod. xix 6 is ta ke n in the Revelation
of John. At i 6 we hav e , ; a t
1) ,
2) . The aut ho r has here followed
the tra dit ion of the Targum s but has quite obviously considered
that those who form the are those who reign. At xx 6 he
again mentions that th ey reign wi thou t t he inte rmediate step of the
argument which terms them . He would thus appear to be
spelling out this term as 'kings'3). Revelation and 1 Peter are
written to the same area and their readers may be expected to be
acquainted with the same layer of the primitive tradition. This
probability is increased if we hold, with ELLIOTT4), that at i 6 and
10 we have quotations from an early hymn. We have already seen
in our discussion of 2 Mace, ii 17 at (3) that th e meaning 'kingship'is more suitable than 'kingdom'. From the kingship of the nation
to the conception of its members as 'kings' is not a great step. It is
already present in the O.T. (cf. Isa. lxi i ; Dan. vii 18, 22, 27),
finding its origin perhaps in the dominion given to Adam (Gen.i 28) ; this re-appears in the inter-testamental period in relationto Adam both in his own nature and as representative man 5). Itbecame a part of the primitive Christian tradit ion (Eph. ii 6; 2 Tim.
ii 12; 1 Cor. iv 8, vi 1 ff.; Rom. 17; James ii 5). Finally understood as 'body of kings' fits the context most appropriately
since it gives a group meaning to the term in common with the four
other attributes.
1) This resembles the texts of Symmachus and Theodotion. CHARLES
sees a special link between Revelation and Theodotion, or a text related toTheodotion (CHARLES, Revelation, Vol. I, pp. lxxx f.).
2 ) Reading the present tense as lectio difficilior.3) That should mean 'body of kings' is hardly possible; later
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
23/25
2 9 2 ERNEST BEST
(c)
Before we consider the precise significance ofthis word forPeterit
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 orphysical 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 (14), (17), (i i),
(i 19), (123), (ii 2), , (ii 4, 5)> (ii 25), (iii 4), (iv 7),
(iv 10), (iv 12), ( 2), ( 4), ( ) .
This explains his introduction of with (i 24 ; cf. its use at
ii 2 and ii 11). In the first place the qualifying adjective orphrase
alerts us to the fact that 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 particularly true when the qualification is a simple adjective (or adjec
tives) ; cf. i 4, 7, 19, ii 2, 4, 5, 4, 10 in the list above.
Thus the use of in ii 5 indicates to us that and
are not being used in their normal senses ofphysical house
and material sacrifices but in a transferred ormetaphorical sense1)
>
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 norphysical. At the same time
indicates in some waythe new meaning which is to be
attached to and . This adjective2) 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., (Rom. i n ;
cf. I Corx i i i , xiv ), , , , (i Cor. x3, 4),
(Eph. 19; cf. Col. iii 16). Ofthese the last is the most interesting
for we find it related here to worship ; we find itself used inreference to worship in John iv 24; 1 Cor. xiv 15-16; Eph. vi 18;
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
24/25
I PET ER II 4- IO A RECONSIDERATION 23
he attaches the adjective to . This is also t rue of . Foron two occasions when the new temple imagery is used the Spirit
of God is expressly associated with i t (1 Cor. iii 16; Eph. 22).When used of , the adjective will then suggest thatthe house is one indwelt by the Spirit of God, and because the Spirit
of God indwells those who comprise the spiritual house th ey will
offer a worship which is spiritual, i.e. of the Spirit of God. In neither
case is it surprising to find Peter using the word.
CONCLUSIONS
We have at temp te d to show (1) tha t Peter uses his O.T. quotat ions
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 th at therefore ii 4-5 are not preparatory midrashic
material for them : (2) that the passage is explicable in terms of early
Christian tradition and that this is the easiest way in which tota ke it . In part icular this is so for the difficult concepts (a) ,
where we found the levitical conception of priesthood merged with
that of Exod. xix 6; (b) , where the suggestion that thi s
means 'a body of kings' should receive more serious a ttention ; and
(c) which rela tes th e sacrificial life and worship of
Christians to the Spirit of God.
8/7/2019 1 peter 2, 4-10
25/25
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically 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 specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright 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 ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.