126 Travis B. Williams So, in one sense, 1 Pet 3,14a does place righteous suffering on the level of improbability. However, this passage does not represent a case of blind optimism. The author does not naïvely view good works as the solution to the audience social troubles, as though doing good would alleviate the conflict. Rather, the passage is simply a way of helping the readers properly respond to the gruesome reality of their current experience44. The purpose of v. 14a is to help uphold the ethic that is encouraged throughout the epistle (viz., doing good/good works) by maintaining the optimism of v. 13 (thereby preserving the necessity of good works as spelled out in vv. 10-12) and by establishing the value of righteous suffering (and thus the need for righteousness). This strategy is intended to persuade the readers to embrace a life of good works at all costs and in the face of any opposition. Travis B. WILLIAMS 822 Winchester Drive Greeneville, TN 37743 USA twilliams@tusculum.edu 44 pace Kelhoffer, Persecution, Persuasion, and Power, 118-19, who proposes that the good deeds of the Christians are actually thought to be a viable solution to the conflict: “At the time of the letter’s composition, the addressees had not yet taken the author’s advice of persisting in doing good and by such a faithful witness trying to win over their oppressors. By following this advice, the author opines that there is only a minimal chance of facing further hardship” (119). The problem is that the Petrine author recognizes that even if the readers persist in doing good, their good deeds will be met with further hostility not acceptance (cf. 1 Pet 2,20; 3,6. 16-17; 4,19). In this way, good works appear to be one of the major causes of conflict (see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 258-75).