1Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος σαρκὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε, ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας 2εἰς τὸ μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις ἀλλὰ θελήματι θεοῦ τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ βιῶσαι χρόνον. 3ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, πότοις καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις. 4ἐν ᾧ ξενίζονται μὴ συντρεχόντων ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς ἀσωτίας ἀνάχυσιν βλασφημοῦντες, 5οἳ ἀποδώσουσιν λόγον τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. 6εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, ἵνα κριθῶσιν μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί, ζῶσιν δὲ κατὰ θεὸν πνεύματι.
This section has three complex sentences expressed in vv. 1-2, 3-5, and 6. The last two function as explanatory of what precedes, marked by γάρ. The first is connected with what preceded by οὖν that summarizes and points to a new development, e.g., “so then.” Everything in this section focuses upon and develops the initial imperative ὑμεῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε. The concept is very similar to adverbial participial clause used in 1.13, referencing the διανοία. The aorist imperative ὁπλίσασθε introduces a military metaphor (and this may colour our reading of the metaphor used in 1:13), describing the act of a foot-soldier arming himself for battle. However, the object τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν indicates that this is referencing a mental activity. We might translate ἔννοια as “mindset, way of thinking, perspective.” This verbal phrase is framed by the initial genitive absolute Χριστοῦ…παθόντος σαρκὶ. The participle παθόντος is aorist active (πάσχω) and the subject is Χριστοῦ. σαρκί is probably a dative of reference, “in reference the realm of the flesh” (cf. 3:18) and modifies the participle indicating the context of the suffering. Genitive absolutes formally subordinate an action related to another person or thing that is neither subject nor object of the main verb, but relevant to the main verbal activity. In this case it probably has a causal nuance, but genitive absolutes frequently express a temporal nuance. It frames the activity of the main verb. αὐτήν functions in the attributive position as an identifying adjective “the same.”
The ὅτι clause in 4.1b is problematic. It could mark a content clause, functioning epexegetically, defining the mindset, meaning “that.” Or, it could be causal, indicating the reason for the action of the main verb. The subject of this clause is a substantival participle that repeats the terminology used in the initial genitive absolute (ὁ παθὼν σαρκὶ), indicating the particular mindset that the writer urges these believers to embrace. Some commentators think that the Messiah is the referent for the participle. What do you think? Although σαρκὶ is used, it again designates a context in reference to which the suffering occurs, but this could be physical, psychological, or spiritual suffering. The main verb is a perfect middle tense form (πέπαυται) expressing a current condition with a reflexive sense “stop oneself” and modified by a genitive that implies separation (ἁμαρτίας).
The sentence continues (v. 2) with syntactical construction formed by εἰς + articulated infinitive (τὸ…βιῶσαι), expressing purpose, result or goal. The assumed subject of the infinitive could be the subject of the main verb ὁπλίσασθε (you, pl.) or the subject of πέπαυται. It depends on what clause you think this construction modifies. Within this infinitive construction the writer creates a contrasting set of ideas using μηκέτι…ἀλλά. The full construction comes after ἀλλά, but it is implied for the first part of the contrast. The dative phrases ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις…θελήματι θεοῦ form the contrast. They are datives of respect and modify the infinitive βιῶσαι (“to live life”). The writer contrasts “human desires” with the “divine will” (cf. v. 6). Genitives are probably subjective genitives, e.g., desires that humans have. The kind of life generated by “human desires” will be defined in vv. 3-4 and referred to as τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν. The adverb μηκέτι modifies the implied infinitive and this is why the μη-form is used. It defines what should be avoided. It is correlated to ἀλλά that expresses what should be embraced. The object of the infinitive is τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ…χρόνον. The separation of the adjective from the noun is an example of hyperbaton. In this nominal phrase ἐν σαρκί perhaps has a spatial sense “in fleshly existence.”
Verses 3-5 form the next sentence in this paragraph, providing further explanation for the command in and its modifiers in v. 1. γάρ marks its function. Since χρόνος continues to be the subject, presumably this sentence explains the articulated infinitive clause in v. 2. This sentence is a nominal clause with ὁ χρόνος the subject and ἀρκετός a predicate adjective, characterizing the “time.” παρεληλυθὼς is an attributive perfect active participle (“the passed by time”). ἀρκετός is complemented by the infinitive κατειργάσθαι defining what is “sufficient. This is an aorist middle infinitive with the sense “achieve, accomplish; bring about, produce.” The subject continues to be the implied ὑμᾶς. The object of the infinitive is placed before the infinitive to give it prominence (τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν), with βούλημα modified by a subjective genitive. What is the semantic difference between ἐπιθυμία, θέλημα, and βούλημα that occur in these verses? πεπορευμένους functions as an adverbial participle and is another perfect middle participle. It references the implied subject, but defines the kinds of things produced in the past life. It could be temporal in significance. Why does he use a perfect tense form of the participle? “Travelling, proceeding” is a metaphor for “living.” The preposition ἐν governs the list of six dative nouns and may define the manner of their previous “living.” The first two refer to sexual immorality; the next three describe parties enlivened by excessive alcohol consumption; and the last refers to idolatry. It is this list of activities that would indicate that most of this letter’s audience were non-Jewish Christians. What might the plural forms signify?
The sentence continues in v. 4 with a relative clause. ἐν ᾧ refers generally to the scope of the transformation these believers have experienced through the gospel, perhaps “in which circumstances….” The writer shifts to a present middle tense-form ξενίζονται “they think it strange” (cf. 4:12). The writer employs another genitive absolute μὴ συντρεχόντων ὑμῶν εἰς…. It is probably causal in significance. The participle is present active. Note the escalation from “walking” to “running.” It describes a kind of mob action (cf. Mark 6:33). εἰς governs the noun ἀνάχυσιν that means “flood, flow” and is modified by the genitive τῆς ἀσωτίας, a general term describing a wanton, debauched, prodigal lifestyle. The writer again uses the identifying function of αὐτήν. Note the position of the genitive phrase between the article and noun. The clause concludes with an adverbial present active participle βλασφημοῦντες defining the circumstances in which this “strange thinking” occurs and how it gets expressed.
The sentence ends in v. 5 with another relative clause defining these critics. The phrase ἀποδίδωμι λόγον means to “render an account” (cf. Matthew 12:36). The verb takes a direct and indirect object. The indirect object is the substantival participle τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι, which is an idiom meaning “is prepared to.” It takes a complementary infinitive – in this case the aorist active infinitive κρῖναι “to judge.” The object of the infinitive is the compound expression ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Does this refer to the physically living and dead or the spiritually living and dead? Given that the focus in the clause is on those slandering believers, presumably the reference is to these people whether they are still living or have died.
The last clause is another explanatory sentence (v. 6) marked by γάρ, explaining the circumstances under which the account will be rendered. εἰς τοῦτον emphasizes the explanatory function. The verb εὐηγγελίσθη is an impersonal formation, “it has been proclaimed as good news.” καὶ νεκροῖς is the dative of indirect object. It is disputed as to whom these ‘dead’ refer. Historically, a connection was made with 3.19, referencing OT people who died, whether believers or not and suggesting they were presented with the gospel at some point (descensus ad Hades). Since Dalton’s monograph appeared on this passage, most reject this interpretation. It probably refers to believers who have died because of oppression and persecution. This seems to work best with the following ἵνα clause. It incorporates a contrasting μέν…δέ construction that correlates “they might be judged according to human activity in their fleshly context, but they might live according to divine activity in their spiritual context.” The parallelism between κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί and κατὰ θεὸν πνεύματι reflects the opposition that the writer used in vv. 2-3 – desires of humans and will of God. κατὰ + accusative means “in harmony with, in accord with” defining a standard. The datives are probably datives of reference (cf. 3:18 where a similar contrast is used).
7Πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν. σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε εἰς προσευχὰς 8πρὸ πάντων τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, ὅτι ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, 9φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ, 10ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβεν χάρισμα εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦντες ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι ποικίλης χάριτος θεοῦ. 11εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ· εἴ τις διακονεῖ, ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός, ἵνα ἐν πᾶσιν δοξάζηται ὁ θεὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.
After the initial declaration (7a), the writer states two instructions σωφρονήσατε…καὶ νήψατε and the explanations surrounding these instructions forms one sentence (vv. 7b-10). A complex sentence in v. 11 concludes this short section. It seems to be discrete from the surrounding discourse due to the initial time frame Πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος, along with δέ that marks a new topic, and the concluding doxology in v. 11. A new section begins with v. 12.
In v. 7a the writer fronts the subject τὸ τέλος that probably is an eschatological note (cf. v. 17). It is modified by the genitive neuter plural πάντων (all things). He uses a perfect active tense form ἤγγικεν that probably means “stands near” (cf. Jesus’ declaration in Mk. 1:15). The two aorist imperatives σωφρονήσατε…καὶ νήψατε have a resultative nuance, expressed by οὖν, i.e., “(so then) be moderate…and sober.” σωφρονέω and its cognates were important terms in Greek philosophy. In Stoicism it was one of the four cardinal virtues. It describes the person who acts moderately, not being influenced unduly by blind passion or foolish thinking. Such a person is ‘centred,’ able to live a balanced life because reason moderates all decisions and has control of passions. The second verb occurred in 1:13 and complements σωφρονέω, expressing the idea of being self-controlled and not under the influence of alcohol (cf. 4:3b). The adverbial prepositional phrase εἰς προσευχὰς indicates a goal or purpose. Prayer is essential for a disciplined, self-controlled life that demonstrates the holiness of God and it arises from the knowledge that God is sovereign and has the desire and power to bring blessing into the lives of his people. It is unclear whether the phrase πρὸ πάντων also modifies these two imperatives, indicating that these two instructions have priority, or whether it modifies the following adverbial participle. If it does go with the two imperatives, it produces an interesting inclusion involving the two clauses (πάντων…πρὸ πάντων).
The first part of v. 8 is an adverbial participial construction formed with the present participle ἔχοντες, indicating circumstances contemporary with the two imperatives. It relates to the plural subject of the imperatives. The object is τὴν…ἀγάπην (cf. 1:22), and it is modified by the attributive prepositional phrase εἰς ἑαυτούς indicating the objects of this love. ἐκτενῆ is a third declension adjective, feminine accusative singular. It modifies ἀγάπην and because the noun is anarthrous, it could be in the second attributive position, being given prominence by its location after the noun (cf. 1:22 where the cognate adverb occurs). The writer concludes with a causal (ὅτι) clause that is a paraphrase of Proverbs 10:12
LXX πάντας δὲ τοὺς μὴ φιλονεικοῦντας καλύπτει φιλία.
NETS but friendship covers all who are not fond of strife.
The only term these clauses have in common is the verb καλύπτει, so probably do not have a quote (no introductory formula), but rather a Christian principle that probably was well known and frequently expressed. There is a variant that reads a future tense form καλυψει, and may be influenced from James 5:20. It reflects a similar idea expressed in Prov. 10:12, but has been expressed in Christianized terminology. Note that in the Greek versions of the two great commands the verb ἀγαπάω is the key term. καλύπτει is a present tense form and this may be an example of what some Greek scholars term the gnomic present, occurring in proverbs. The object is the noun phrase πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. πλῆθος is a neuter noun with an accusative case ending and it is modified by a partitive genitive. Some scholars consider the participle have an imperative function, but this is not a necessary conclusion.
The nominative adjective φιλόξενοι (v.9; cf. 3:8 and the list of adjectives) suggests that we should read an implied form of εἰμι, whether participle or imperative can be debated. The target of the hospitality is εἰς ἀλλήλους – other believers, referenced by the reciprocal pronoun (always plural). Another adverbial prepositional phrase ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ indicates that manner in which this hospitality is to be expressed.
The sentence ends in v. 10 with another nominative ἕκαστος which is the subject of the verb in the καθὼς clause, but preposed for emphasis. The adverbial comparison clause modifies the following participle and indicates the basis for the service they will render. The object of the verb ἔλαβεν is χάρισμα (expression of grace). The present active participle διακονοῦντες is parallel to the previous present participle ἔχοντες. Whether this is the third in this series of explanatory additions to the two initial imperatives in v. 7 or one of the series of imperatives, with the participle functioning as an imperative, can be debated. The neuter singular pronoun αὐτό probably references the previous χάρισμα, functioning as the direct object. Note its placement before the participle. εἰς ἑαυτούς indicates to whom this service is directed – other believers. The ὡς construction also modifies the subject of the participle (note the plural καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι) and introduces a simile involving the idea of “steward, manager” who is responsible to use his owner’s resources appropriately. ποικίλης χάριτος could be an objective genitive or a genitive that indicates authority over. χάριτος resonates with the previous χάρισμα. θεοῦ probably functions as a subjective genitive.
Verse 11 includes two conditional clauses, two relative clauses and a ἵνα clause. The structure of the first conditional clause is a first class condition (εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ). The apodosis is an implied λαλεῖτω, that is modified by the comparative clause ὡς (λαλεῖ) λόγια θεοῦ. Presumably the action of λαλεῖ is resourced by God’s grace and thus it becomes “oracles of God,” i.e., λόγια affirmed by or sourced in God. The second conditional clause has a similar structure, with the implied verb διακονεῖτω forming the apodosis and διακονεῖ implied in the comparative ὡς clause. The origin of the capacity to assist others is defined in the adverbial prepositional phrase ἐξ ἰσχύος. Lest his audience think this strength arises from human sources, the writer adds the relative clause ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεός. The relative pronoun is genitive by attraction to the antecedent ἰσχύος, even though it functions as the object of χορηγεῖ (“furnish, supply”; cf. Gal. 3:5). The writer concludes with a ἵνα clause (purpose or result) that indicates God’s motive in providing these resources to his people. The writer fronts the prepositional phrase ἑν πᾶσιν emphasizing the inclusiveness of actions that bring glory to God. δοξάζηται is a present middle or passive subjunctive (1:8; 2:12; 4:16). The means by which God achieves this is διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, by whose death and resurrection the new people of God (2:9-10) becomes a reality. The antecedent of the relative pronoun ᾧ is probably θεός, given the focus on glory. The dative is probably a dative of possession given the use of ἐστιν in the clause. The compound arthrous nouns ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος form the subject, even though the verb is singular. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων is a time indicator, indicating how long – “for the ages of the ages.” The noun is αἰών – an age of time – and the plural form, modified by a partitive genitive plural form of the same noun, indicates all ages. ἀμήν reflects a Hebrew term אמן meaning “may it be true,” and thus forms a strong affirmation.
12Ἀγαπητοί, μὴ ξενίζεσθε τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν γινομένῃ ὡς ξένου ὑμῖν συμβαίνοντος, 13ἀλλὰ καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν, χαίρετε, ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ χαρῆτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι. 14εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, μακάριοι, ὅτι τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται. 15μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς ἢ κλέπτης ἢ κακοποιὸς ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος· 16εἰ δὲ ὡς χριστιανός, μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ. 17ὅτι ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἀφ’ ἡμῶν, τί τὸ τέλος τῶν ἀπειθούντων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ; 18καὶ εἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται, ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται; 19ὥστε καὶ οἱ πάσχοντες κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ πιστῷ κτίστῃ παρατιθέσθωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ.
The writer indicates a new section by using a vocative (ἀγαπητοί) and a prohibition. It follows the “doxology” that concludes the previous section. He has used this vocative previously (2:11). μή + present middle imperative expresses a prohibition (Wallace, Basics of Greek Syntax (Abridged), 210-12). It could have the nuance “stop thinking it strange….” The verb occurs also in 4:4 and has the idea of being astonished at something new or strange. τῇ…πυρώσει is probably a dative of cause (Wallace, (unabridged) 167-68). The nominal phrase has an embedded prepositional modifier (ἐν ὑμῖν). Note the triple repetition of the dative plural ὑμῖν. Why do you think the writer has used it so frequently here? πύρωσις “burning ordeal, fiery trial,” sometimes occurs in contexts where metal is being refined (cf. the metaphor in 1:7; cf. Proverbs 27:21). The following present participle γινομένῃ is probably adverbial (no article) and probably circumstantial “as happening to you for at trial/test/temptation (πειρασμόν). Some do interpret it as attributive. πρός + accusative might indicate purpose or goal. The dative ὑμῖν indicates who is being affected. The writer adds a comparison clause, marked by ὡς, with an implied, repeated form of ξενίζεσθε (as you would consider it strange, if….), and a genitive absolute. The participle συνβαίνοντος is present active and means “happening.” ξένου is probably a neuter singular form of the adjective meaning “strange thing” and functions as the subject of the participle. Notice the variation with cognates related to ξένος.
The ἀλλά probably is correlative with the previous μὴ, i.e., not this…but this. However, some would interpret as meaning “moreover” here. The main verb is χαίρετε, a present imperative. It is modified by the comparative clause marked by καθό (“to the extent that, in accordance with”). The verb in the subordinate clause is present active indicative (κονωνεῖτε – “share in, participate in”) and it takes a dative complement τοῖς…παθήμασιν. The writer uses an embedded genitive phrase to qualify the head noun — the sufferings of the Messiah. He emphasizes the command to rejoice by the following purpose or result clause marked by ἵνα…χαρῆτε (aorist medio-passive subjunctive). The ascensive καί modifies the fronted prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, a temporal indicator. The genitive is probably objective and the genitive pronoun identifies whose “glory, radiance” this is, i.e., the Messiah’s. The verb is also modified by a following, adverbial middle participle ἀγαλλιώμενοι (cf. 1:6, 8), functioning as a circumstantial participle describing the manner in which the rejoicing of the main verb will be experienced.
A new sentence begins in v. 14. It is a nominal clause, fronted with a first class conditional clause. The writer has used μακάριοι in 3:14 similarly, following a conditional clause. The verb in the conditional clause ὀνειδίζεσθε is present passive indicative (“being insulted”) and only occurs here in 1 Peter. The cause of or “location/sphere” in which the insult is expressed gets defined in the prepositional phrase ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ. The following ὅτι is probably causal, explaining why such a person should feel blessed. There are several textual issues that relate to the way the subject of the verb is expressed. NA28 chooses to read the original as a compound subject, in which each member is modified by an article. However, in the first member the head noun is implied, meaning that which belongs to glory (referenced in 13). In the second member, πνεῦμα is the subject (i.e., “the [things] of glory and the Spirit of God are resting…”). Although the verb is singular, the compound subject is two neuter nominal formations.
The writer may be referencing terminology used in LXX Isaiah 11:2:
καὶ ἀναπαύσεται ἐπ’ αὐτὸν πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ
If this is the case, the writer has adjusted the word order, perhaps to express an emphasis in his text. He also changes the person of the pronoun in the prepositional phrase to a second person plural form. Lastly, the future form of the verb in Isaiah, becomes a present indicative tense form in 1 Peter.
Some manuscripts have an additional verse here:
κατα μεν αυτους βλασφημειται κατα δε υμας δοξαζεται.
Verses 15 and 16 present a rationale for the promise in v. 14, marked by γάρ. The prohibition (μή + 3rd person imperative) “none of you should suffer…,” follows the initial prohibition in v. 12. The writer uses a partitive genitive τις ὑμῶν. A series of comparisons concludes the sentence, introduced by ὡς, with the main verb implied with each noun in the comparison (e.g., “as a murderer suffers,” with a justified punishment; cf. 1:13-14; 2:20). Why does the writer repeat ὡς before the last noun ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος, but not the second and third items? Is this a way to put emphasis on the last item? And what does that noun mean? The meaning of the last noun is unclear being a hapax legomenon in the NT.
The writer has a third prohibition in v. 16 μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω, used as the apodosis of a conditional sentence. εἰ in the protasis suggests a first class condition, but it is a nominal clause with an implied verb (a form of πάσχω?). The δέ probably has an adversative nuance here. ὡς χριστιανός is another comparison, that parallels the series in v. 15. This noun is formed like others that describe the partisans or followers of a particular leader (e.g., Ἡρῳδιανοί, Καισαριανοί). It was probably formulated by the opponents of the disciples (Acts 11:26). δοξαζέτω δέ expresses a contrast with the previous imperative and is another third person imperative. ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ “in this matter” (BDAG), probably with a locative sense, i.e., in the context of this experience. However, there is another textual reading ονοματι that probably is original (p72 א A B – to name a few witnesses) and would mean “let such a person experience glory because of this name.” The ὅτι clause offers a reason why Christians might suffer in this time and probably functions as a subordinate clause attached to v. 16. This subordinate clause is formed as a nominal clause – having no expressed verb. The subject is ὁ καιρός – why does the writer use this term, rather than χρόνος (4:2)? It is qualified by an articulated, genitive infinitive τοῦ ἄρξεσθαι, and this verb in the middle voice means “begin.” τὸ κρίμα is probably accusative and functions as the subject of the infinitive. ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ θεοῦ indicates the source or origin, i.e., from the house or household of God. Some interpret οἶκος as a reference to the Temple. It may be an allusion to Ezekiel 9:6 that describes Yahweh’s judgment upon the idolaters in Jerusalem, when God commands his messengers: καὶ τῶν ἁγίων μου ἄρξασθε.
The second part of v. 17 offers another conditional sentence. The protasis is a first class condition, formed as a nominal clause. It implies the verb ἄρχομαι – “now if first he/it begins from us…” δέ could be adversative, but I think rather it marks a new topic. πρῶτον is an adverbial accusative (first). The apodosis is a question marked by the interrogative τί. It also is a nominal clause. τὸ τέλος is probably the subject, since it is arthrous. The writer used this same noun in 4:7. Here, however, it is modified by a substantival participle τῶν ἀπειθούντων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ. It is a genitive plural present active participle and this same verb occurs at 2:8; 3:1, 19. It takes a dative object and this object has an embedded genitive modifier.
The writer uses a third, first class condition in v. 18 and the apodosis is also an interrogative. However, this is a quote from Proverbs 11:31:
LXX Εἰ ὁ μὲν δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται, ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται;
NETS If the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the impious and the sinner appear?
Hebrew הן צדיק בארץ ישלם אף כי־רשע וחוטא
NRSV If the righteous are repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!
NT εἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται, ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται;
NIV If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?
Apart from the omission of the particle μέν, the writer has followed the LXX text verbatim. However, the LXX text differs substantially from the sense of the Hebrew (James Barr, “בארץ – ΜΟΛΙΣ: PROV. XI 31, 1 PET. IV.18,” Journal of Semitic Studies, 20(1975):149-164). Barr suggests that the translator’s reading μόλις originates in a reading of the Hebrew term that involves a rearrangement of the consonants as בצר or בצרה, with the sense “in straits.” This Hebrew text is an example of a fortiori argumentation that the translator has maintained in his translation. The writer of 1 Peter uses this text as an explanation for why believers are suffering in this age – because suffering precedes glory. The opposite is the case with wicked, who will have no standing at the last assize.
In terms of the Greek text in 4:18, the subject of the protasis is ὁ δίκαιος and the verb is a present passive indicative. The subject of the apodosis, with the single article, refers to one person who is both ungodly and sinful and so he can use a singular present middle indicative verb φανεῖται. The interrogative ποῦ refers to some place, i.e., “where.”
The initial ὥστε in v. 19 is a resultative particle, but does not function as a subordinate conjunction here (BDAG, 1107.1). The καί is ascensive, modifying the substantival participle οἱ πάσχοντες. The participle is modified by the adverbial prepositional phrase κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ and it indicates a standard against which to measure something, in this case “the will of God” (cf. 4:2-3). The writer puts the indirect object πιστῷ κτίστῃ in the focal point of the clause, prior to the verb. παρατιθέσθωσαν is the third person present middle imperative form of παρατίθημι, perhaps with the sense “entrust, commit.” See the use of a similar verb παρεδίδου at 2:23. The direct object follows τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν, “their lives, persons.” ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ may express the manner (BDAG, 330.11) in which this trust is expressed or perhaps attendant circumstances (“while doing good”) (BDAG, 329.7).