1 Peter 4:16

“Christian” in 1 Peter 4:16 Bob Wilkin ges at airmail.net
Wed May 26 16:31:10 EDT 1999

 

PRODROMOS in Heb 6:20 Gospel of Peter 10 Jim West wrote: Perhaps we need to take account as well of 1 Peter 4:16, which suggeststhatif one “suffers as a “christian”, nonetheless let him not be ashamed; butinstead let him glorify God in spite of this name”. Now why would one beashamed if a name or term was not used derisively? Further, it isabundantly clear that the word is insulting when one sees that the term”chrestianos” (good fellow), found in Sinaiticus!, meant something snide aswell- and was a derisive term applied to Christians as well. Further,Tacitus, in Annals 15.44, has “… Nero fastened the guilt and inflictedthemost exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, calledChristians by the populace….” The populace evidently using the termderisively of a group they hated (unless we are to accept the unlikelyproposition that they meant it as a compliment of people theydespised????).In sum- there is precious little evidence that the term was not intendedderisively while there seems ample evidence that it was. Perhaps thats whythe suggestion is relatively widespread.Best,JimThe reading in 1 Peter 4:16 is disputed. The Majority Text reads EN TWMEREI TOUTW not EN TW ONAMATI TOUTW. If the majority reading is correct,then it should be understood as “let him glorify God in this matter.” Infact, even if one takes the critical reading, this understanding ispossible. Contextually it makes more sense to see the shame associated with evilbehavior (v 15), rather than with the name “Christian.”In His Grace,Bob Wilkin

 

PRODROMOS in Heb 6:20 Gospel of Peter 10

“Christian” in 1 Peter 4:16 Bob Wilkin ges at airmail.net
Wed May 26 16:31:10 EDT 1999

 

PRODROMOS in Heb 6:20 Gospel of Peter 10 Jim West wrote: Perhaps we need to take account as well of 1 Peter 4:16, which suggeststhatif one “suffers as a “christian”, nonetheless let him not be ashamed; butinstead let him glorify God in spite of this name”. Now why would one beashamed if a name or term was not used derisively? Further, it isabundantly clear that the word is insulting when one sees that the term”chrestianos” (good fellow), found in Sinaiticus!, meant something snide aswell- and was a derisive term applied to Christians as well. Further,Tacitus, in Annals 15.44, has “… Nero fastened the guilt and inflictedthemost exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, calledChristians by the populace….” The populace evidently using the termderisively of a group they hated (unless we are to accept the unlikelyproposition that they meant it as a compliment of people theydespised????).In sum- there is precious little evidence that the term was not intendedderisively while there seems ample evidence that it was. Perhaps thats whythe suggestion is relatively widespread.Best,JimThe reading in 1 Peter 4:16 is disputed. The Majority Text reads EN TWMEREI TOUTW not EN TW ONAMATI TOUTW. If the majority reading is correct,then it should be understood as “let him glorify God in this matter.” Infact, even if one takes the critical reading, this understanding ispossible. Contextually it makes more sense to see the shame associated with evilbehavior (v 15), rather than with the name “Christian.”In His Grace,Bob Wilkin

 

PRODROMOS in Heb 6:20 Gospel of Peter 10

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]