^{page 394 note 1} The First Epistle of Peter ², (1961), p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 2} Almost all modern commentators would agree. See e.g. Reicke, Bo, ‘The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. iii. 19 and its Context’, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Uppsaliensis, XIII (1946), 211 ff.Google Scholar; Windisch, H., Die Katholischen Briefe, rev. H. Preisker. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 15 ³ (1951), p. 70Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 1} Die Niederfahrt Christi in die Unterwelt. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen (hrsgg. Meinertz, M.), ii. Band. 3/5 Heft (1911), pp. 101–9, 116–18.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} In agreement with this view, but without reference to i. 4 f., cf. Beare, , op. cit. p. 135Google Scholar; Reicke, , ‘The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude’, Anchor Bible, xxxvii (1964), 105Google Scholar; Gschwind, , op. cit. pp. 100 f.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 3} On these terms in chapter two, see van Unnik, W. C., ‘The Teaching of Good Works in I Peter’ N.T.S. 1 (1954/1955), 92–110Google Scholar; also ‘A Classical Parallel to I Peter ii. 14’, ibid. ii (1955/6), 198–202.

^{page 396 note 1} Reicke, , Disobedient Spirits, p. 133Google Scholar. On ἀπολογία and λóγον see Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S., A Greek-English Lexicon (1940), pp. 208Google Scholar, 1057 (III, I b). For the kind of situation that Peter has in mind, cf. Matt. x. 17–20; Mark xiii. 9–11; Luke xii. 11 f., xxi. 12–15, and Paul's defences before various Jewish and pagan tribunals in Acts xii–xxvi (note the use of ἀπολογεīσθαı in Luke xii. 11, xxi. 14; Acts xxiv. 10, xxv. 8, xxvi. 1, 2, 24, and of ἀπολογία in Acts xxii. 1, xxv. 16; cf. also Phil. i. 7, 16; II Tim. iv. 16).

^{page 396 note 2} Reicke, , in the Anchor BibleGoogle Scholar, translates συνείδησıν άγαθήν in iii. 16 as ‘good will’ (p. 106); the phrase recurs in verse 21, where baptism is defined as a ‘pledge of good will’ (Reicke), or ‘good faith’, toward God. On verse 16 Reicke says the context ‘indicates that it is a question of a positive attitude or good will toward society’ (p. 138). The other two occurrences of συνείδησις in I Peter, however, give to this term a specifically godward reference (ii. 19, iii. 21). This consideration, plus the facts that: (a) the baptismal formula κũρις χριστóς is found in iii. 15; (b) ‘fear’ in I Peter is urged toward God (i. 17, ii. 17 and probably ii. 18 and iii. 2), but not toward man (iii. 6, 14); (c) iii. 21 is a baptismal reference, suggests that συνείδησις…ἀγαθή in iii. 16 is best understood as ‘good faith’ or loyalty to God. If this is true, then iii. 16, like the rest of the context from iii. 10 on, is concerned more with faithful obedience to God than with submission to the laws of the state.

^{page 397 note 1} Note the strong missionary thrust in Peter's application of the ‘royal priesthood’ and ‘holy nation’ theme in ii. g f., and cf. with verses 9 and 12, Matt. v. 16.

^{page 397 note 2} The ‘day of visitation’ () is a day of punishment in Isa. x. 3, as is ‘time of visitation’ () in Jer. vi. 15, X. 15, and ‘year of visitation’ in Jer. xi. 23; the verb , however, and the noun could have either favourable or unfavourable connotations. ‘Time of visitation’ refers to blessing from God in Wisd. iii. 7, while the ‘hour of visitation’ can mean forgiveness according to Sir. xviii. 20. In the New Testament, cf. Luke xix. 44.

^{page 397 note 3} In the Scrolls, the ‘visitation’ or ‘time of visitation’ generally appears as the ‘end’ () of this age of the two spirits in man, and the inauguration of eternal blessing for the righteous and eternal destruction for the wicked. See, e.g. iQS iii. 18, iv. 6 ff., i i f., 18 f.; cf. iii. 14 f., iv. 26, CD vii. 21 (MS. B, 11. 10–12).

^{page 397 note 4} A rather strongly attested variant in I Pet. v.6 is (making the verse read, ‘Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in the time of visitation’). This reading, attested by A, P, the Latin tradition, and the Harklean Syriac, and defended by Unnik, van, N.T.S. (1954/5), 103 ffGoogle Scholar., would further strengthen the case for an eschatological interpretation of ii. 12. If it is genuine it probably alludes to Jer. vi. 15, a verse whose context is rich in other parallels to I Peter: e.g. ‘shame’ (vi. 15, cf. I Pet. ii. 6, iii. 17, iv. 16), ‘stand’ (vi. 16, cf. I Pet. v. 9, 12), ‘purification for your souls’ (vi. 16 LXX, cf. I Pet. i. 22), ‘those who shepherd their flocks’ (vi. 18 LXX, cf. I Pet. v. 2), ‘stumbling-blocks before this people’ (vi. 21 MT, cf. I Pet. ii. 8).

^{page 397 note 5} Representatives of the eschatological view include Beare, op. cit. p. 112Google Scholar; Bigg, C., The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude, ICC (1901), pp. 138 f.Google Scholar; Gschwind, , op. cit. p. 132Google Scholar, and van Unnik, ibid. (the last two differ from the others by excluding any idea of conversion or salvation from the reference to ‘giving glory to God’).

^{page 398 note 1} Beare, E.g., op. cit. pp. 139 f.Google Scholar; Bigg, op. cit. p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 2} Knopf, E.g. R., Die Briefe Petri und Juda, Meyer Kommentar 12 ⁷ (1912), p. 103Google Scholar; Reicke, , Anchor Bible, p. 108.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 3} This is noted by Ellis, E. E., Paul and his Recent Interpreters (1961), pp. f.Google Scholar, in a discussion of II Cor v. 3. Cf. also Gschwind, , loc. cit. The relevant Old Testament texts include Isa. xlvii. 3; Jer. xxiii. 40Google Scholar; Ezek. xvi. 36 ff., xxiii. 26, 29; Ps. lxxi. 13, lxxviii. 66 among many others, while in the New Testament Matt. xxii. 11, Rev. iii. 17 f., and I John ii. 28 come to mind. Even more interesting are those texts where ‘shame’ occurs in close conjunction with the ‘time of visitation’ (see Jer. vi. 15, and iQS iv. 11 f.).

^{page 398 note 4} Cf. Peter's quotation in ii. 6 of the LXX of Isa. xxviii. 16: ‘And he that believes in him shall by no means be ashamed’ (οũ μή κατισχυνθῇ). This honour Peter applies directly to his readers (‘you who believe’, verse 7a).

^{page 398 note 5} Cf. Beare, , op. cit. p. 155Google Scholar. The judicial and eschatological thrust of the language of iv. 5 is scarcely open to doubt. Cf. Matt. xii. 36.

^{page 399 note 1} For a clear New Testament example of this absolute distinction between ‘doers of good’ and ‘doers of evil’, see III John II; ‘Beloved, do not follow the evil but the good. He that does good (ó ὁγαθοποıῶν) is of God; he that does evil (ὀ κακοποιῶν) has not seen God.’

^{page 399 note 2} Although Gschwind was moving in this same direction, his view was not as consistently eschatological as the one presented here. He neither referred to the ‘two tribunals’, nor contrasted two well-defined groups in terms of present and future suffering. Instead he found the contrast to be between suffering as a Christian (now) and suffering for evil deeds (both now and in the final judgement). Op. cit. pp. 104 f.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 3} For a discussion of this passage and its parallels, see e.g. Selwyn's Additional Note J, ‘Persecution and the Judgment in iv 17–19’, The First Epistle of St Peter (1946), pp. 299–303.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 1} See, e.g., Beare, , op. cit. pp. 7 f.Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Nature and Purpose of I Peter’, N.T.S. III (1956/7), 1–11Google Scholar; Windisch, and Preisker, , op. cit. pp. 156 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 2} Because Gschwind's aim was to understand iii. 17 less for its own sake than as a background to iii. 18 ff., he tended to overstress these latter verses and to neglect the case that could be built on such passages as ii. 12, iii. 10–16 and iv. 17 f. Moreover, his effort to make the imprisoned spirits of iii. 19 a direct and specific example of the ‘evil-doers’ mentioned in verse 17 cannot be regarded as altogether successful. Op. cit.pp. 116 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 1} A detailed exegesis of this much-discussed verse lies outside the scope of the present essay. If, however, the teaching of iii. 13–17 is brought decisively to bear on iv. 6, an interpretation along the lines laid down by Selwyn, (op. cit. pp. 214 ff., 337 ff., 354Google Scholar) is suggested. ‘The dead’ would then be the Christian dead; their ‘evangelization’ would not be part of Christ's ‘Descensus’, but simply that proclamation by Christian preachers which the `‘dead’ had received while still living (cf. i. 12, 25). An attractive conjecture that goes beyond Selwyn would be that these ‘dead’ are the readers of the epistle themselves, those who metaphorically die (i.e. ‘suffer’ )with Christ according to iv. (cf. ii. 24 and Rom. vi. 7 f., 1 1), by ‘arming themselves with the same mind’. On the other side, for a consistent interpretation of iv. 6 in the light of iii. 19 f., see Reicke, , Disobedient Spirits, pp. 204 ff.Google Scholar