T.B. Williams, «Reading Social Conflict through Greek Grammar: Reconciling the Difficulties of the Fourth-Class Condition in 1 Pet 3,14.», Vol. 26 (2013) 109-126
For the most part, it is assumed that in the Koine period the fourth-class condition indicated a future contingency with a possible or, in many cases, only a remote chance of fulfillment (e.g., “if this could happen”). If this meaning is applied to the condition in 1 Pet 3,14, it seems to imply not the reality of suffering, but merely the remote possibility, which is at odds with the popular understanding of the epistle’s social situation. This study is an attempt to examine the meaning of the fourth-class condition in 1 Pet 3,14 and its function(s) within the larger Petrine argument, a task which not only sheds light on the interpretation of 1 Pet 3,13-17, but also provides the unity of the epistle with some much-needed substantiation.
Reading Social Conflict through Greek Grammar 119
letter’s recipients would suffer for doing good27. Of course, the validity
of this suggestion can only be verified by a close examination of the
condition in context.
3.3. Semantics of the Fourth-Class Condition in 1 Pet 3,14
In 1 Pet 3,13–4,11, our author provides an extended discussion on the
Christian response to unjust suffering. The pericope is introduced by way
of a καί whose purpose is to reach back into the previous section in order
to draw out its implications. The new line of thought is thus grounded in
the scriptural principle that is delineated in 3,10-12, viz., that the Lord
blesses those who do good and punishes those who do evil. It is based on
this premise that the rhetorical question in 3,13 is posed, “Who will harm
you if you are zealous to do good?” The answer to this question is assumed:
“no one”. Therefore, v. 13 provides a general, all-encompassing statement
about the relationship between righteous living and its affect on one’s
well-being. The point of the verse is to communicate the unlikelihood of
experiencing harm as a result of righteous behavior: by maintaining a
godly lifestyle, harm will be avoided.
We are still left with two very difficult interpretive questions, however:
(1) the referent behind the word “harm” (κακόω – v. 13), and (2) the
relationship between v. 13 and v. 14? The vast majority of interpreters
have understood the “harm” described in v. 13 as either an internal injury
or a type eschatological destruction28. According to this view, the basic
point of the verse is that one’s favor with God or one’s eschatological
salvation is in no way jeopardized by earthly distress. With this being
the case, v. 14a becomes essentially a restatement of the previous verse.
27
C.E. Powell, “The Semantic Relationship between the Protasis and the Apodosis of New
Testament Conditional Constructions”, (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2000)
217 n. 118, rightly notes that the optative is used “for the sake of portraying suffering for
righteousness as an uncommon occurrence as compared to suffering for unrighteousness.”
Cf. also Grudem, 1 Peter, 151: “Though suffering of all kinds may be widespread, suffering
for righteousness’ sake may still be unlikely” (original emphasis).
28
So, e.g., Cranfield, I & II Peter, 97-98; C. Spicq, Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre (SB 4; Paris
1966) 130; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (HNTC; New
York 1969) 139-40; Best, 1 Peter, 131-32; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 157; T.P. Osborne,
“Christian Suffering in the First Epistle of Peter”, (S.T.D. diss., Faculté de Théologie of the
Université Catholique de Louvain [Louvain-la-Neuve], 1981) 132; J.R. Michaels, 1 Peter
(WBC 49; Waco, TX 1988) 184-85; K.H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief (6th ed.;
HTKNT 13/2; Freiburg 1988) 100; A. Reichert, Eine urchristliche praeparatio ad martyrium:
Studien zur Komposition, Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes (BBET
22; Frankfurt am Main 1989) 180-85; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 228-230; Horrell, Epistles of Peter
and Jude, 65; J.H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB 37B; New York 2000) 620; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, 169-70; R. Feldmeier, Der erste Brief
des Petrus (THKNT 15/1; Leipzig 2005) 129.