Reading Social Conflict through Greek Grammar 121 result of the principle’s violation31. In both Philo and 1 Peter, there is a reason why this type of language must be used: it flows from a desire not to contradict the promises of Scripture, despite its seeming contradiction in everyday life. With the relationship between v. 13 and 14 thus established, the meaning of “harm” naturally follows. Since v. 14a functions as a qualification of v. 13, the referents of “harm” (v. 13) and “suffering” (v. 14a) must be the same (i.e., experiencing harm while being zealous for good = suffering for righteousness). For a qualification assumes continuity between the two. If we were to ask how πάσχω is used elsewhere in 1 Peter, we would discover that in every other instance it refers to verbal or physical abuse that takes place in this life (cf. 2,19. 20. 21. 23; 3,17. 18; 4,1bis. 15. 19; 5,10). Therefore, it is natural to assume that the same is the case in 1 Pet 3,14a. What this means is that “harm” is not internal injury or eschatological ruin but verbal and physical mistreatment in this life32. With this, we offer a summary of the line of thought present in vv. 13- 14: Based on God’s economy of retribution (namely, the fact that he blesses those who do good and punishes those who do evil, 1 Pet 3,10-12), no one is going to harm you verbally or physically if you practice righteousness (or what is “good”). But even if you happen to suffer persecution for doing what is “good”, you would be blessed. This, of course, holds significant implications for the semantics of the fourth-class condition in v. 14a. It means that if the author desires v. 13 to possess any sort of validity, the condition must communicate a future contingency with only a remote chance of fulfillment (“Even if you happen to suffer for righteousness [and it is not likely that you will], you would be blessed”)33. If v. 13 describes the improbability of suffering for doing good, v. 14a cannot turn back around and state the exact opposite. Were the condition to denote anything other than an unlikely future contingency, the effect of v. 13 would be lost. The author would be responsible for a clear contradiction within the space of two verses. 31 So also Hart, The First Epistle General of Peter, 66: “The addition of καί implies that the contingency is unlikely to occur and is best represented by an emphasis on should.” 32 Cf. L. Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter (trans. J.E. Alsup; Grand Rapids 1993) 240-41; McKnight, 1 Peter, 212 n. 2; M. Dubis, 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament; Waco, TX 2010) 106. 33 This function of the fourth-class condition is recognized by J.A. Kelhoffer, Persecution, Persuasion, and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament (WUNT 270; Tübingen 2010) 114-15, 118-19; but see below on our disagreement regarding the condition’s function.