1
“Sober Up!” Perception and Praxis in 1 Peter
David F. Watson
United Theological Seminary
4501 Denlinger Road
Trotwood, OH 45426
937-529-2270
[email protected]
When Pliny the Younger wrote to the emperor Trajan seeking advice on how to handle people
accused of being Christians, Christianity had already been established in Asia Minor for several
decades.1 Written ca. 111 CE, Pliny’s letter indicates that Christianity had also had ample time to
acquire a body of opponents in his province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor2. He has no need
to seek out Christians (whether he would have wanted to or not) because they are brought to him
by informants. In fact, he even mentions a pamphlet that someone has circulated anonymously
which lists the names of people alleged to belong to the sect. Pliny sees no real crime among
these Christians. He executes those who will not recant (unless they are Roman citizens, in
which case he sends them to Rome). After torturing two Christian female slaves for information,
he concludes that Christianity is simply “a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant
lengths.”3
Some years before Pliny’s letter from Asia Minor to Rome, a letter was sent, perhaps
from Rome, into Asia Minor. It gives us, at least in part, the other side of the story alluded to in
Pliny’s letter. This letter came to be known as 1 Peter, and it was written to people who suffered,
people who were seen as belonging to a “degenerate sort of cult” and were therefore despised. It
1
See Pliny, Ep. 10.96.
2
Richard G. Oster writes that Christianity in Asia Minor was pre-Pauline, and that “the Pentecost discourse
(Acts 2:9-10) states that Jewish pilgrims from Asia Minor were among the first to accept Jesus as the Christ”
(“Christianity in Asia Minor,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 1, ed. David Noel Freedman et al. [New York:
Doubleday, 1992], 942).
3
noted.
Pliny, Ep. 10.96.8; quotations from classical texts are from the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise
2
encourages its suffering Christian readers to maintain their beliefs, practices, and group solidarity
in the face of opposition, and it instructs them on how to get by in a hostile environment.
Three times in this letter (1:13; 4:7; 5:8), readers are instructed to be “sober.” The verb
used in these passages is nh/fw, and this accounts for half of the uses of this verb in the NT.
These are not simply admonitions against drinking too much wine, however. In what follows I
will argue that the language of sobriety in 1 Peter has an “epistemic” meaning.4 It serves a larger
argument meant to direct Christian readers toward adherence to the teachings and practices of
their faith, teachings and practices that are widely rejected among members of the dominant
culture. In 1 Peter, to be sober means to be cognizant of certain divinely revealed truths that are
either rejected by or unknown to non-Christians. I will argue for this claim first by looking at the
ways in which the language of sobriety and drunkenness functioned in various contexts,
especially as they were used in discussions of knowledge. I will then discuss certain features of 1
Peter that support an epistemic understanding of sobriety in this letter.
The Discourse of Sobriety and Drunkenness
OT uses of the language of drunkenness
In the OT, it is primarily drunkenness, rather than sobriety, that is used with regard to
knowledge. For example, drunkenness is sometimes linked with ignorance that leads to sin. Noah
4
Because of its emphasis on the epistemic meaning of nh/fw, my article differs from the
philological/theological approach of the TDNT article on this term; see O. Bauernfeind, “nh/fw, nhfa&liov,
e)knh/fw,” TDNT 4:936-41. Several other articles have examined epistemic issues in early Christian literature; see,
e.g., Stanley K. Stowers, “Paul on the Use and Abuse of Reason,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in
Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1990), 253-286; J. Louis Martyn. “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages: 2 Corinthians 5:16,” in Christian
History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 269-287; Raoul Mortley, “The Mirror and 1 Cor 13,12 in the
Epistemology of Clement of Alexandria,” Vigilae Christianae 30 (1976): 109-120; Paul Ciholas, “Knowledge and
Faith: Pauline Platonisms and the Spiritualization of Reality,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 3 no. 2 (1976): 188201; Joel Marcus, “Mark 4:10-12 and Marcan Epistemology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 no. 4 (1984): 55774.
3
and Lot, for example, are under the influence of strong drink when they fall victim to the
inappropriate sexual behavior of their children.5 Their insensibility, produced by inebriation,
results in sins committed against them and against God. In both stories, the parents have no
knowledge of what the sinful children are doing (see Gen 9: 24 [by implication];19:33, 35).
These stories, moreover, describe the origins of the Canaanites (Gen 9), the Moabites, and the
Ammonites (both in Gen 19), people closely related to the Israelites but who do not worship
Yahweh or abide by the Torah.6
In Isaiah there are several examples in which drunkenness is linked with the inability or
unwillingness to perceive divine instruction. For example, in Isa 5:22-24, the people who are
“heroes in drinking wine and valiant at mixing drink … acquit the guilty for a bribe and deprive
the innocent of their rights.”7 These people “have rejected the instruction of the Lord of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.” Likewise in 28:7, the priest and the
prophet who reel with strong drink and are confused by wine “err in vision,” and “stumble in
giving judgment.” In Isa 29:9-12, drunkenness is a metaphor for ignorance of the divine word:
“Stupefy yourselves and be in a stupor, blind yourselves and be blind! Be drunk, but not from
strong drink! For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep; he has closed your
eyes, you prophets, and covered your heads, you seers. The vision of all this has become for you
like the words of a sealed document. If it is given to those who can read, with the command,
‘Read this,’ they say, ‘We cannot, for it is sealed.’ And if it is given to those who cannot read,
saying ‘Read this,’ they say, ‘We cannot read.’” 8 A similar idea occurs in Hosea: “Wine and
5
For the story of Noah, see Gen 9:18-29; for that of Lot, see Gen 19:30-38.
6
In the fifth chapter of Daniel, drunkenness is linked to idolatry (5:1-4), and in Nahum those who plot
against the Lord are likened to drunkards (1:10).
7
Quotations from the OT are from the NRSV.
8
See also Isa 5:11-13; 19:14.
4
new wine take away the understanding. My people consult a piece of wood, and their divining
rod gives them oracles” (4:12).9
Sobriety and drunkenness in the Greco-Roman context
In the Greco-Roman context, the language of sobriety had more currency and was used in
a variety of ways. There was, of course, the literal sense of not having drunk too much wine.
This was generally considered a good idea, though one that was commonly ignored. Philo writes,
“[T]he passion for wine is extraordinarily strong in mankind, and is unique in this, that it does
not produce satiety. For whereas everyone is satisfied with a certain amount of sleep and food
and sexual intercourse and the like, this is rarely so with strong drink, particularly among
practised topers”10
There were also more metaphorical understandings of sobriety. For example, a person
who used discerning judgment or was clear headed was sometimes referred to as sober.11
Josephus uses the term to speak of a measured and controlled attitude toward success.12 Such an
attitude was considered an admirable quality, especially in people in positions of authority.13
9
Idolatry is linked again to drunkenness in Hos 4:18.
10
Philo, Ebr. 220; Pliny the Elder writes “[W]e may feel ourselves quite justified in saying that there is
nothing more useful than wine for strengthening the body, while, at the same time, there is nothing more pernicious
as a luxury, if we are not on our guard against excess” (Nat. 14.7); Plutarch encourages passing a few “sober and
wineness days,” in order to gain better control of one’s own thoughts and actions (Cohib. ira 464C).
11
See, e.g., Herodian, 2.15.1, in which nh/fov, used in the sense of “wary,” refers to Severus’s good sense
about military matters; Lucian, Hermot. 47: “‘Keep sober, and remember to disbelieve.’ For if we are not prepared
to believe everything we hear, but rather to act like judges and let the next man have his say, perhaps we may escape
the labyrinths with ease.”
12
“As it is a mark of vulgarity to be over-elated by success, so it is unmanly to be downcast in adversity;
for the transition from one to the other is rapid, and the best soldier is he who meets good fortune with sobriety
(nh/fwn)” (B.J. 4.42); see Plato, Laws 11.918d, for a use of nh/fw for moderation regarding wealth.
13
See Plutarch, Moralia, 800B.
5
Most important for the present discussion, however, is the metaphorical use of the
language of sobriety to express the perception of important religious and philosophical truths in
contexts in which those truths are either widely ignored or challenged.14 I refer to this as the
“epistemic” sense of sobriety because when used in this way the language of sobriety is
primarily about knowing—knowing truths of which others are ignorant and which lead to a
virtuous life. Those who recognize these truths are “sober.” Correlatively, the language of
drunkenness is used to describe people who do not recognize these truths. The behavior of
members of each group—the sober and the drunk— follows suit. Consider, for example,
Epicurus, for whom pleasure is life’s goal. “[Pleasure],” he writes, “is not an unbroken
succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual love, not the enjoyment of the fish and
other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning (nh/fon
logi/smov), searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those
beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.”15
In a similar way, Plutarch uses the imagery of the wine bowl that does not intoxicate, but
imparts wisdom. His Dinner of the Seven Wise Men is set in a symposium, a drinking party
hosted by wealthy people for their friends.16 Yet at this symposium evening’s beverage is
discourse, and it is served by the Muses. Plutarch refers to this as “a non-intoxicating
(nhfa&lion) bowl … containing a maximum of pleasure in jest and seriousness combined.”17
Discourse, then, which leads to heightened understanding, is the non-intoxicating substitute for
wine.
14
For sobriety as a literal requirement to receive oracles through divination, see Philostratus, Life of
Apollonius 2.37
15
Diogenes Laertius, 10.132.
16
For a satiric description of a symposium, see Lucian’s The Carousal, or The Lapiths.
17
Plutarch, Mor. 156D.
6
Another example occurs in the Corpus Hermeticum. People who lack knowledge of God
are said to be drunken “with the strong drink of ignorance.” Such people are exhorted to “turn
sober (nh/yantev)” and to “receive sight with the eyes of the heart.”18 They are to seek a guide
who will lead them “to the House of Knowledge.” There they will find “the bright light which is
pure from darkness; there none is drunken, but all are sober (nh/fousin).”
Sobriety and drunkenness in early Christianity
In early Christian writers, we find similar uses of the language of sobriety for insight into
spiritual truths, and drunkenness for the lack thereof. In 1 Thes 5:6-8, for example, Paul contrasts
sobriety with darkness and slumber, a kind of “spiritual stupor.”19 In 1 Cor 15:34, sobriety is
connected directly with knowledge of God: “Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more;
for some people have no knowledge of God, I say this to your shame” (NRSV). In 2 Clement,
sobriety is offered as a remedy for ignorance (a!noia) and wickedness (ponhri/a).20
Sometimes sobriety is contrasted with the “drunkenness” of false teachings. For example
in 2 Tim 4:5, the imperative nh=fe follows immediately after a warning regarding false teaching.
We find a similar use of nh/fw in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians.21
Perhaps not surprisingly, we also find a link between sobriety, drunkenness, and
knowledge in the Gnostic literature. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus describes the people of the
18
Libellus 7 1.a; the translation “receive sight with the eyes of the heart” is my own, in distinction from that
of Walter Scott (Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings which Contain Religious or Philosophic
Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924]), who renders a)nable/yantev as “look
up” rather than “receive sight.”
19
John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Comentary (New York: Doubleday,
2000), 748; see also Luke 21:34, in which drunkenness is opposed to a state of eschatological alertness.
20
See 2 Clem. 13.1; sobriety is linked to the proper moral life by Ignatius (Eph. 10.3), and drunkenness to
fornication in Revelation (14:8, 17:2; 18:3).
21
Pol. Phil. 7.2.
7
world as “intoxicated.” They are “blind in their hearts and do not have sight.” Only when they
become sober will they repent.22 Similarly in the Gospel of Truth we read, “He who is to have
knowledge in this manner knows where he comes from and where he is going. He knows as one
who having become drunk has turned away from his drunkenness.”23
Sobriety and drunkenness in Philo
A few extra-biblical Jewish writers have taken up the idea of sobriety as perception of
religious truth, and drunkenness as the lack of perception.24 Yet none has done so in the
extensive manner of Philo of Alexandria. For Philo, sobriety and drunkenness are essentially
epistemic categories. In his analysis, the drunkenness that wine produces creates an impairment
of the faculties of reason and perception. Yet while wine can and often does produce in people
such negative characteristics as folly, insensibility, and greediness, “thousands of those who
never touch strong drink and consider themselves sober are mastered by similar conditions.”25 In
other words, actual drunkenness is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for these
characteristics. Essentially, drunkenness has the same effect as a)paideusi/a: “want of
education.”26 It symbolizes the absence of right reason, and for Philo right reason is identical to
God’s law.27 The “drunken,” therefore, cannot properly distinguish between right and wrong.
Sobriety, on the other hand, symbolizes the perception of truths that God has imparted to
humankind. “[I]t is the act of a sober and well-ordered reason,” he writes, “to acknowledge God
22
Gos. Thom. 28, trans. Thomas O. Lambdin, in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, rev. ed., ed. James
M. Robinson (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990).
23
Gos. Truth 22:13-20, trans. Harold W. Attridge and George W. MacRae, in Nag Hammadi Library.
24
E.g., see the T.Jud. 14.1-8; 1QpHab 11.12-15, which is an interpretation of Hab 2:16.
25
Philo, Ebr. 4.
26
See LSJ, s.v. a)paideusi/a.
27
Philo, Ebr. 142.
8
as the Maker and Father of the universe.”28 Josephus holds that priests must abstain from wine
because “their private life must be beyond reproach.”29 Yet for Philo the sacrificing priests must
abstain because drunkenness hinders their knowledge of God’s laws. He writes that the officiants
at the sacrifice “fast from wine, ‘to discern and distinguish between holy and profane, clean and
unclean,’ lawful and unlawful,”30 and so that “no poison to derange the mind and the tongue
should steal in and dim the eyes of the understanding.”31
Because of his or her insight into the divine will, the sober person can live a life that is
pleasing to God. Philo writes that “the mind, which has drunk deep of abstinence unmixed,
becomes a libation in its whole being, a libation which is poured out to God.”32 Philo even takes
the symbolism of the abstinent priest a step further, maintaining that the sober person is able to
enter into what he calls the “true priesthood.” 33 Such a life is one of true happiness. Though
people will live their lives in ignorance of reason and truth—in what amounts to a drunken
stupor—Philo prays that God will plant “in the garden of our souls the trees of right instruction.”
His hope is that God “may grant us fruits of genuine worth and true virility, and powers of
reason, capable of begetting good actions and also of bringing the virtues to their fullness, gifted
too with the strength to bind together and keep safe for ever all that is akin to real happiness.”34
The result of this knowledge of God and virtue which are born from sobriety is,
ironically, what Philo calls “sober drunkenness”35 or “divine intoxication.”36 In this drunkenness
28
Philo, Post. 175.
29
Josephus, Ant. 3.279.
30
Philo, Spec.1. 99-100; one finds a similar perspective in Isa 28:7.
31
Philo, Spec. 4.191-92.
32
Philo, Ebr. 152.
33
See, e.g., Philo, Ebr. 124-26.
34
Philo, Ebr. 224.
35
See Philo, Leg. 1.84; Fug. 32, 165-68; Mos. 1.187; Prob. 13; Opif. 71; see also Ebr. 146-47.
9
there is no shame,37 for it is in fact sobriety itself.38 Philo describes a person in this state in a
variety of ways. He claims that such a person has been given wisdom by God, and thereby
perceives things according to right reason (o)rqo&thtov lo&gou).39 As a result, this person
adheres to God’s law. Still elsewhere he refers to the soberly drunken soul as “inspired”40 and
even “God-possessed” (qeoforh/tov).41
Sobriety in 1 Peter
1 Peter and Philo
I suggest that when 1 Peter uses the verb nh/fw it does so in an epistemic sense: to be
sober means to be cognizant of spiritual truths that remain occluded to others. It seems quite
reasonable that the author, like other early Christian writers, would use the language of sobriety
to refer to epistemic concepts. It is also intriguing to consider similarities between 1 Peter and
Philo.42 These writers draw on a common scriptural tradition (the LXX), and both use the LXX
extensively in their argumentation.43 Further, both 1 Peter and Philo wrote to people who were,
in some sense, “aliens” within the larger culture in which they lived. 1 Peter’s Christians were
36
See Philo, Leg. 3.80-83.
37
See Philo, Contempl. 89;
38
See Philo, Prob. 13.
39
See Philo, Fug. 165-68; see also Prob. 13.
40
See Philo, Ebr. 146.
41
See Philo, Ebr. 146; for religious ecstasy being mistaken for drunkenness, see 1 Sam 1:12-15.
Interestingly, Lucian makes use of similar imagery for the soul that is rapt by philosophy. Philosophical discourse is
an elixir that produces a kind of drunkenness, although this “drunkenness” does not obscure one’s powers of reason
and perception, but enhances them. To be rapt in philosophy is to be sober in the truest sense; see Nigr. 5.
42
Few scholars note the relevance of Philo, although Eduard Schweizer makes mention of Philo is Der
Erste Petrusbrief. (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1949), 29-30. Elliott has demonstrated affinities between 1 Peter and
Philo others than those listed here. For example, he notes “their common appeal to and similar exposition of the
covenant formula of Exod 19:3-6.” He also notes that both writers “knew and adapted the Hellenistic household
management (oikonomia) tradition.” Moreover, “Both authors also shared social perspecticves typical of Diaspora
Judaism and its familiarity with Greco-Roman social, cultural, and ethical traditions” (1 Peter, 19).
43
For a detailed list of OT citations and allusions in 1 Peter, see Elliott, 1 Peter, 13-17.
10
“aliens” primarily in a metaphorical sense. Philo’s Alexandrian Jews, however, were literally
resident aliens.44 Further, both groups endured the ill will of the wider culture in which they
lived. In the case of 1 Peter, this ill will took the form of slander, loss of honor, and other forms
of social disconnection. The Jews to whom Philo wrote were widely resented, mocked, and
occasionally subjected to violence.45 From the perspective of these beleaguered minority groups,
the metaphor of drunkenness for those who lacked spiritual insight, and sobriety for those who
possessed it, would make perfect sense. Those who oppressed them would seem irrational, out of
control, and above all ignorant of the truth that God has revealed and that leads to a virtuous life.
Suffering, ignorance, and knowledge in 1 Peter’s larger framework
The suffering of Christians. More significant, however, is that an epistemic construal of
the meaning of nh/fw corresponds to one of 1 Peter’s chief purposes, which is to encourage
believers to adhere to Christian teachings, community, and norms of behavior in the face of
suffering that they experience because of conflict with the dominant culture.46 That these
Christians were experiencing suffering is clear.47 1 Peter mentions suffering more than any other
NT work. The word pa&sxw occurs twelve times (2:19; 2:20; 2:21; 2:23; 3:14; 3:17; 3:18; 4:1
[twice]; 4:15; 4:19; 5:10), and pa&qhma occurs four times (1:11; 4:13; 5:1; 5:9). The verb
lupe/w and the related noun lu/ph each occur once (1:6 and 2:19, respectively). The Christians
44
They formed a “quasi-autonomous civic unit” called a politeuma: “a recognized, formally constituted
corporation of aliens enjoying the right of domicile in a foreign city and forming a separate, semi-autonomous civic
body, a city within the city” (E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981], 225).
45
See Smallwood, Jews, 235 ff.
46
1 Peter belongs to the genre of the hortatory/parenetic letter (see Elliott, 1 Peter, 11).
47
Charles Talbert identifies seven passages in 1 Peter that deal specifically with suffering: 1:6-7; 2:19-25;
3:13-14a; 3:14b-22; 4:1-6; 4:12-19; 5:9-10 (Learning Through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the
New Testament and Its Milieu [Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991], 42); concern with suffering in the letter,
however, is not limited to these seven passages.
11
to whom 1 Peter was written, while not the victims of an official persecution, probably suffered
shunning, ridicule, ostracism, loss of financial opportunities, and other, similar types of
degradation (see, for example, 2:12; 3:16; 4:4; 4:14).48 These kinds of practices served as a
means of social control, a way of bringing people perceived as deviant back into acceptable
norms of behavior.49 For the group-oriented (or “dyadic”) personality inherent among ancient
Mediterranean people, the opinions of family members, neighbors, one’s fellow townspeople,
and others to whom one had some natural relationship mattered very much.50 Deviance from
accepted standards of behavior was looked down upon and would likely bring about the loss of
honor. Hence 1 Peter describes these Christians, perceived as deviant because of their beliefs and
practices, as “aliens and exiles” (2:11). They live within the dominant culture, and yet they do
not belong there.
Ignorance and knowledge. In 1 Peter’s schema, ignorance is a key characteristic of the
non-Christian world, and it accounts for much of the suffering that Christians undergo. NonChristians are ignorant of what God has done in Jesus Christ, of what God will continue to do,
and of the sinfulness of life apart from Christ. This ignorance is partly attributable to the fact that
Christ remains unrevealed for the time being. Christians, however, to whom the good news has
been proclaimed, love him even though they have not seen him. They are faithful to him even
though he remains unseen (1:8). J. Ramsey Michaels puts the issue thusly: “Even though [Christ]
48
See Elliott, 1 Peter, 94-103, especially 100; on the loss of financial opportunities, see Donald P. Senior
and Daniel J. Harrington, 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2003), 13.
49
See John H. Elliott, “Disgraced Yet Graced: The Gospel According to 1 Peter in the Key of Honor and
Shame,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 25 (1995): 170; David A. deSilva, “Honor and Shame in the New Testament,”
chap. 2 in Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 2000); see also Seneca, Ira.
1.16.2.
50
For a thorough discussion of the dyadic personality, see Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “FirstCentury Personality: Dyadic, Not Individual,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 67-96.
12
is in heaven (3:22), the Christian hope is not that he will ‘come’ as a distant visitor but that he
will be ‘revealed’ as one who is somehow already present, although unseen.”51
Bound up with the invisibility of Christ is the invisibility of the special status of his
followers. Though most people do not know it, these much-maligned followers of Jesus are “a
chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (2:9).52 They have been called
to eternal glory (5:10). It is they whom the prophets served and they who have been given good
news by the work of the Holy Spirit (1:12). Moreover, unlike most people, these Christians know
that those who do not serve God will have to give an accounting to God, who will judge them
(4:5, 17). Things have changed, but most people are not cognizant of this fact. In essence, they
are not spiritually “sober.”
Playing on the theme of the special knowledge that Christians have and that nonChristians lack, the author of 1 Peter reverses the intention of the malice directed toward
Christians by making it a mark of honor rather than of shame. Christ, whom God raised from the
dead and who sits at the right hand of God in heaven, to whom angels, authorities, and powers
are subject (3:22), went before them in this suffering (2:21-25; 3:18). In fact, he bore their very
sins upon his body on the cross (2:24). Thus while people who do not follow Jesus regard the
suffering of these Christians as shameful, those who follow Jesus know that it is in fact
honorable because they are following Christ’s example.53 In 1:14 we read, “If you are reviled in
the name of Christ, you are blessed (or honored),54 because the spirit of glory and of God rests
51
J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (Waco: Word Books, 1988), lxix.
52
This NRSV translation renders well the phrase la&ov ei)v peripoi/hsin , which is rather awkward to
bring into English.
53
54
See Elliott, “Graced,” 172.
For maka&riov as “honorable,” see K. C. Hanson, “How Honorable! How Shameful! A Cultural
Analysis of Matthew’s Makarisms and Reproaches,” Semeia 68 (1994): 82-111.
13
upon you.”55 Anyone who suffers as a “Christian” (Xristiano&v), a term that seems to have been
used in a derogatory way in the wider culture,56 should not be shamed, but should glorify God in
this name.
Individual references to sobriety
1 Peter 1:13. 1 Peter’s uses of nh/fw contribute to the theme that Christians are aware of
truths of which others are ignorant and that they are favored by God even if despised by the
dominant culture. The first occurrence of this verb is in 1:13. After reminding readers of the
good news of salvation that was announced to them through the work of the Holy Spirit (1:12),
the letter reads, “Therefore (dio&), having girded up the loins of your mind and being sober
(nh/fontev), hope completely in the grace being brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
The inferential conjunction dio& indicates that this hope results from what the letter has just
mentioned, namely the good news of salvation.57 An epistemic reading of nh/fontev is entirely
fitting in this passage. It describes the person (the understood second person plural subject of the
imperative verb e0lpi/sate) who has received the good news and therefore has hope in what God
will do through Jesus Christ. Put differently, the sober person is the one who knows the good
news and bases his or her hope on it. The epistemic function of nh/fontev is underscored by the
mention in the next verse of former desires held “in ignorance” (a)gnoi/a|).
1 Peter 4:7. The second occurrence of nh/fw is found in 4:7. After discussing the former
lives of sinfulness that these Christians once led (4:3) and the slander (blacfhme/w) that they
endure because they no longer engage in such pursuits (4:4), the author reminds them of the
55
Cf. Elliott, “Graced,” 171-72.
56
See Elliott, “Graced,” 172.
57
Cf. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 118.
14
coming eschatological judgment (4:5-6). Those who slander these Christians will have to
account for their behavior (4:5), but those who have heard the good news—even the dead—are
enabled to “live in accordance with God in the spirit” (4:6).58 The letter then reads, “The end of
all things is near.” In other words, the judgment just mentioned—from which one can be saved
by the good news—is at hand. “Therefore (ou]n),” readers are exhorted, “use good judgment
(swfronh/sate) and be sober (nh/yate) in prayer.” Again, the exhortation to sobriety follows
inferentially (ou]n) from a discussion of the good news. To be sober is not simply to be alert in
light of the coming judgment. Rather, it is to be prayerfully mindful of the good news in light of
this judgment, since it is the good news that enables one to live in the spirit as God does.59 The
person who abandons the truths of Christian teaching in the face of suffering is no longer sober.
The imperative nh/yate should therefore be interpreted epistemically, since it refers to
cognizance of and adherence to spiritual truths. In similar fashion, Polycarp understands sobriety
in prayer (nh/fontev pro\v ta\v eu)xa&v) in terms of distinguishing spiritual truth from
falsehood.60
1 Peter 5:8. The final use of nh/fw occurs in 5:8: “Be sober; be alert.” Again, the
reference to sobriety falls within a discussion of suffering and eschatological hope.61 Believers
are urged, “Cast all of your anxiety upon [God], because he cares for you.” Later in the passage,
they are reminded that Christians throughout the world are enduring the same suffering. The
author warns the readers of their “adversary, the devil,” a word that is synonymous with “Satan”
58
Cf. Senior, 1 Peter, 118.
59
Achtemeier understands nh/yate as being used “in the metaphorical sense of remaining alert and in full
possession of one’s ‘sound mind,’ particularly in light of the imminent eschatological events” (1 Peter, 294).
60
Pol. Phil. 7.2.
61
Cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 340.
15
in the NT.62. In stark opposition to 1 Peter’s encouragement of believers to maintain their faith,
the devil leads people away from the faith (see, for example, Luke 22:31; Eph 6:11; 1 Tim 5:15;
Ign. Rom. 7.1; Ign. Eph. 17:1-2; Mart. Pol. 2:4; Herm. Mand 11.3;12.5.4; 12.6.1 12:5:4).63 The
reference to the devil is a way of describing the temptation, brought about by suffering, to
abandon the faith.64
Yet the anxiety and suffering of believers will not last. References to the eschatological
revelation of Christ form a frame around the section of 5:6-11 (see also 5:1, 4). The intention in
this section is to cast the temptation to abandon the faith under the shadow of the eschatological
revelation in which believers will be exalted (5:6) as well as restored, supported, strengthened,
and established (5:10). Given this intention, it makes sense once again to understand the
injunction to “be sober” epistemically. As in the cases of the other uses of nh/fw in 1 Peter, in
5:8 its function is to urge believers to bear in mind the truths of their faith.65 Things may seem
bad now, but the sober person knows the truth: this sorry state of affairs will not last, and
suffering and shame will be transformed into eschatological glory.
62
See Elliott, 1 Peter, 855.
63
Often in early Christian tradition the devil is connected with lies and deceit (John 8:44; Acts 5:3; 13:10; 2
Cor 14; 2 Thes 2:9-10; Rev 3:9; 12:9, 20:2-3, 10), opposition to truth (John 8:44; 2 Thes 2:10; 2 Tim 2:25-26;) and
the inability to receive the gospel (Matt 13:19; Mark 4:15; Luke 8:12; 2 Cor 4:4); Elliott offers a most helpful
summary of NT references to the devil’s activities (1 Peter, 855-56).
64
65
Cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 340.
As Achtemeier puts it, “Unlike sheep, terrified by the roaring lion, who bolt in panic from the safety of
their fold only to be devoured as a result, the Christians are to remain watchful and sober, recognizing the situation
in which they stand and holding fast to their faith and to their community, in that way resisting the devil (v. 9) and
sharing God’s triumph at the last (v. 10)” (1 Peter, 341-42, italics mine).
16
Conclusion
In summary, epistemic uses of the language of sobriety and drunkenness occur in the
scriptural tradition on which 1 Peter drew, in early Christian literature, and in the religious and
philosophical literature of 1 Peter’s wider Hellenistic milieu. 1 Peter uses this language to exhort
Christians to remain cognizant of the teachings of their faith in the midst of suffering that might
tempt them to return to gentile ways. Pliny’s reference to Christians as belonging to a
“degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths” reflects the widespread perspective in
which Christians were viewed with deep disdain. Yet the sober person, says 1 Peter, understands
the truth of what God is doing through Jesus Christ, and therefore sees things very differently
than those who live in ignorance.