I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor?

CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Fri May 14 14:52:06 EDT 1999


Clay,

In a message dated 5/14/99 11:40:48 AM Mountain Daylight Time, 
c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net writes:

> > Is the praise, glory and honor mentioned in I Pet. 1:7 to be applied to 
> QEOS,
>  > IHSOU CRISTOU, or the readers themselves?
>  >
>  >  hINA TO DOKIMION hUMW'N THS PISTEWS...EUREQHi EIS EPAINON KAI DOXAN
>  > KAI TIMHN EN APOKALUYEI IHSOU CRISTOU
>  >
>  > I'm reading an analysis that that seems to suggest that it applies to the
>  > readers' eventual exoneration (honor) for the 'achievements' listed in 
vv.
>  > 4-8. It's unconvincing to me. My objections stem from the fact that the
>  > readers are cast in 1:3-9 as beneficiaries, and God is the target of 
> praise
>  > and rejoicing. Can anyone offer further enlightenment for the 
alternatives?
> 
>  >
>  > Cindy Westfall
>  > PhD Student, Roehampton
>  
>  
>  Cindy,
>  
>  After several readings of this passage and its context I detect a
>  certain amount of ambiguity concerning the target of: EPAINON KAI DOXAN
>  KAI TIMHN. Keep in mind that Peter is describing the culmination of the
>  process of salvation: 1:7 EN APOKALUYEI IHSOU CRISTOU and 1:5 EIS
>  SWTHRIAN hETIOMHN APOKALUFQHNAI EN KAIRWi ESCATWi. This is important
>  because it is not the saints in their present state that would be the
>  target of EPAINON KAI DOXAN KAI TIMHN but the saints who have been
>  perfected by fire.
>  
>  J. Ramsy Michaels (1 Peter, WBC p.30) suggests that the ambiguity of
>  EUREQHi EIS EPAINON KAI DOXAN KAI TIMHN may be intentional. Michaels
>  goes on to say that EPAINON KAI DOXAN KAI TIMHN is probably being
>  offered on behalf of the saints who's faith has been perfected by
>  suffering but that the same praise and honor and glory is give to IHSOU
>  CRISTOS the author of their salvation. Michaels does not see it as an
>  either/or situation.
>  
>  I am recasting Michaels somewhat here so you will need to read him to
>  get his exact argument.
>  

Yes, I think that the one thing that I am convinced of at this point is the 
ambiguity of the language. I was hoping that I was missing something!  While 
my first reaction is that Jim is in the right of it this time because the 
context was already directling honor towards God, I realized that one could 
make a good case for alternate readings.  Dr. Kosaba's fourth alternative 
also seems possible.

Thank you.

Cindy Long Westfall
PhD Student, Roehampton



More information about the B-Greek mailing list