436 T.B. WIllIAMs the term in 2,19-20. yet, what becomes immediately clear when one considers the use of ca,rij in this passage is that the focus has shifted from divine provision to human action. In this way, the word functions differently than in any other place in the letter. This difference plays an important role in the way that scholars ap- proach the passage. Most notably in this regard, John H. elliott has of- fered a sustained defense for separating this unique function 30. By doing so, elliott (and others) have been able to challenge the popular theological reading of ca,rij in these verses; nevertheless, it has come at a significant cost. By driving a wedge too strongly between this and the other uses in the epistle, scholars have failed to recognize the social domain from which the author consistently draws. Furthermore, what has not been considered is that within the discourse of gift-exchange in the Hellenistic world, ca,rij was used both for a benefactor’s gift as well as for the beneficiary’s reciprocation. When these points are brought into the discussion, it opens up a new avenue by which to read 1 Pet 2,19-20. It is from this perspective that we will consider the present usage. The simple fact that ca,rij was regularly employed to describe the socially accepted and obligatory reciprocal response which a person or group made toward favors received is sufficient to re-visit the term’s usage in 1 Pet 2,19-20. But there are further clues in the passage itself that would indicate that this was the meaning intended by the Petrine author. The first is the equative nature of the sentence (tou/to ca,rij para. qew/|). As we have mentioned, the same construction is used later in the epistle to show that, contrary to the readers’ expectations, suf- fering was God’s favor toward them (cf. 5,12: tau,thn ei=nai avlhqh/ ca,rin tou/ qeou/). In the same way, there appears to be a need in the present verses to clarify the nature of ca,rij for the recipients. But in this case the issue relates to human action and, in particular, to the au- dience’s response to suffering. This suggests that he may be attempting to broaden his readers’ definition of ca,rij to include patient endurance, a response which they might not normally associate with this term. If this is the case, it would connect perfectly with the view that ca,rij is not merely an action which is pleasing to God (“this is commendable before [or: finds favor with] God”), but one which is considered to be 30 J.H. ellIOTT, “Backward and Forward ‘In His steps’: Following Jesus from Rome to Raymond and Beyond. The Tradition, Redaction, and Reception of 1 Peter 2:18-25”, Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. F.F. seGOVIA) (Philadelphia 1985) 203-204 n. 13.