1 peter 2, 4-10

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.