ReCIPROCITy AND sUFFeRING IN 1 PeTeR 2,19-20 435 their ultimate reward (Heb 12,15). It is even used in such a way that the reception of God’s ca,rij seems to involve certain reciprocal responsibilities (eph 3,2.7; 1 Pet 4,10), which can be neglected, spurned, or even perverted through an inadequate response (1 Cor 15,10; 2 Cor 6,1; Gal 2,21; Jude 4). From this evidence, it is clear that the phrase h` ca,rij tou/ qeou/ al- ways represents something positive. How then does that relate to the addition of avlhqh,j in 1 Pet 5,12? What seems to have occurred is a re- defining of categories. By adding the attributive adjective, the author attempts to convince the readers that something undesirable (tau,thn) was in fact a benefit (h` ca,rij tou/ qeou/). This would seem to rule out referents such as the letter (and its contents) or the grace of God men- tioned in v. 10, for the audience would have naturally considered these as desirable benefits. The most likely referent of tau,thn in this case is the suffering experienced by the Anatolian Christians 29. The author’s objective, then, is to redefine the nature of ca,rij for his audience. Con- trary to the way that their trials may have felt, and in distinction from the way that God’s favor was customarily viewed (viz., as consisting of pleasurable benefits), the conflict which they were experiencing was actually part of God’s bestowal of lavish munificence. Further confir- mation of this suggestion can be found in the relative imperatival clause which follows (eivj h]n sth/te). The imperative challenges the readers to continue steadfast in the faith despite the difficulties they face. such an appeal makes sense if the ca,rij in which they are asked to stand is a difficulty which they might otherwise choose to avoid. Thus, despite the fact that the author extends the range of possibilities which might be included under the designation ca,rij, the underlying definition from which he works is nonetheless consistent with other contemporary Jewish and Christian authors. 3. Reading 1 Peter 2,19-20 in the Context of Reciprocity What is noteworthy about the author’s attempt to (re)define ca,rij in 1 Pet 5,12 is that the definition is grounded in the semantic domain of ancient reciprocity and gift-exchange. The same is true of all the other examples of ca,rij in 1 Peter as well. such an established pattern of usage is suggestive for the way that interpreters should approach 29 so, e.g., B. ReICke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude. Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 37; Garden City, Ny 21964) 133; BROx, Der erste Petrusbrief, 244-245; e.J. RICHARD, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter. A literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA 2000) 227-28.