Travis B. Williams, «Reciprocity and Suffering in 1 Peter 2,19-20: Reading "caris" in Its Ancient Social Context.», Vol. 97 (2016) 421-439
Scholars have long debated whether "caris" in 1 Pet 2,19-20 should be understood as the unmerited favor which is divinely bestowed upon those who please God, or whether it represents a human action that secures a favorable response from God. What interpreters have continued to overlook, however, are the ancient social dynamics which underlie this passage. By interpreting "caris" within the framework of reciprocity and gift-exchange in the Greco-Roman world, this study brings fresh perspective to a problem which has long divided scholarship, and also suggests a new direction for understanding the letter's theology of suffering.
ReCIPROCITy AND sUFFeRING IN 1 PeTeR 2,19-20 433
What is clear from this survey is that ca,rij is consistently employed
to represent divine munificence towards the people of God. This
established pattern is an important clue for diagnosing the meaning of
the term in 1 Pet 2,19-20.
2. The (Re)Defining of ca,rij in 1 Peter
A further indication of the meaning of ca,rij is found in the equative
nature of the sentence (i.e., tou/to with an elided evstin) in 1 Pet 2,19-
20. This construction suggests that the author wants to define (or per-
haps, redefine) ca,rij for his readers. The same form appears at the end
of the epistle as well. In 1 Pet 5,12, the author summarizes and high-
lights the crucial point of his argument by stating, “I have written this
brief letter exhorting you and testifying that this is the true beneficence
of God (tau,thn ei=nai avlhqh/ ca,rin tou/ qeou/) in which you must stand
firm”. The meaning of the verse turns on the antecedent of the demon-
strative pronoun tau,thn. Most interpreters view tau,thn as a reference
to the letter itself 25. In this case, the feminine gender of the demon-
strative pronoun is sometimes explained through its modification of an
implied evpistolh, (“epistle”). some scholars have been more specific
in their identification, describing the referent as “the general contents
and worldview of the letter, i.e., its affirmations regarding the Christian
message and ethic” 26.
Despite the wide acceptance of this view, there are a number of
reasons why it fails to be completely convincing. As advocates them-
selves have admitted, the feminine gender of tau,thn could just as easily
be explained through its connection with ca,rin rather than an implied
evpistolh,. For there are various instances in Greek literature in which
“[a] pronoun subject may be made to agree with the predicate noun”
(BDF §132[1]). Moreover, this suggestion results in an unsatisfactory
tautology. “If [tau,thn] refers merely to the contents of the present epistle,
25
so, e.g., MICHAels, 1 Peter, 308-310, DAVIDs, First Epistle of Peter, 200;
k.H. JOBes, 1 Peter (BeCNT; Grand Rapids 2005) 323-324; G.W. FORBes, 1 Peter
(eGGNT; Nashville 2014) 184. Other views have also been proposed. For in-
stance, ellIOTT (1 Peter, 878) claims that the pronoun refers to the ca,ritoj of
v. 10 (on the problem with this view, see MICHAels, 1 Peter, 309).
26
DUBIs, 1 Peter, 175; cf. J.H.B. MAsTeRMAN, The First Epistle of S. Peter
(Greek Text), with Introduction and Notes (london 1900) 172; C. BIGG, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; edin-
burgh 21902) 196; ACHTeMeIeR, 1 Peter, 352; sCHlOsseR, La première épître de
Pierre, 301; WATsON, First Peter, 125.