1 Peter 1

1 Peter 1:1-2

Πέτρος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνίας 2 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη.

The initial nominative Πέτρος marks the person writing this letter. It is his ‘voice’ that articulates its contents. Some relationship exists between the writer and the intended audience, but we can only discern the nature of that relationship through the contents of the letter. The distinct “sociolect” expressed in the document will give some clues as to their relationship. The name Πέτρος probably reflects the Aramaic כפא that is reflected in the transliterated from Κηφᾶς, used almost exclusively by Paul in his letters (e.g., Gal. 1:18). According to Mark 3:16 this person’s name is Σίμων (Simeon), but Jesus gave him this additional name. The name Σίμων occurs in Greek literature as early as the 5th century BCE (e.g., Isaeus De Cleonymo 31.7) and so is not a Jewish formation per se, but probably was adopted as a Greek equivalent for the Hebrew שמעון. Peter’s brother had a Greek name (Andrew).As far as we can tell, Πέτρος was not used as a Greek name.

The appositional, nominative noun ἀπόστολος defines the status of the writer and explains why he addresses the audience the way he does. The subjective genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (apostle appointed by Jesus) frames his authority to do so. He is Jesus Messiah’s appointed delegate or representative and his message reflects what Jesus Messiah would say to his followers. Ἰησοῦ is the Greek form of the popular “Joshua” and identifies the person as Jewish. Χριστοῦ technically is appositional and an honorific, used within a Jewish context and is a translation of the Hebrew term משיח (as in LXX Psalm 2:2) that defines someone appointed to office through ‘anointing’ as a king or priest. At some point it becomes a reference to the expected “Messiah.” The writer gives no information about how he achieved this role, but expects that his audience has some understanding of this process and accepts his claim.

The lack of any article in vv. 1-2 reflects the nature of a salutation. The correspondents are known, as well as the basic contents and so there is no need for the particularizing article.

The dative adjectives ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις define the audience for whom the letter is intended. Paul usually identifies his intended audience with a term such as ἐκκλησία, ἅγιοι, οἱ ὄντες, or a personal name (Timothy, Titus, Philemon). Both of these lexemes are adjectives, but one or both probably has a substantive function. It is impossible to know which of them the writer intends to function as ‘head noun’ and which might be a modifier. Within the scope of the letter only παρεπίδημος functions as a noun (2:11). ἐκλεκτός is always an adjective (2:4, 6, 9), but also follows the noun modified. In 2.6, 9 it occurs in quotes from the OT and its word order reflects Hebrew convention. In my opinion, Peter intends both adjectives to function substantively, juxtaposed and mutually defining. Both terms occur in the Greek Old Testament referring to Israel as God’s covenant people (e.g., Psalm 77(78):31; 88(89):3Isaiah 65:9, 15, 22(23); Daniel 11:15(Theod)) or to the patriarchs (e.g., Genesis 23:4; Psalm 38(39):12). Their juxtaposition creates an oxymoron because a temporary resident in a city state has few rights and is not counted among its “chosen” citizens. Why the writer characterizes his audience as  παρεπιδήμοις has generated significant debate. Elliott argued that this is a social descriptor, not a spiritual descriptor, whereas most commentators have tended to understand it in spiritual terms. The contradictory nature of these two terms finds expression in 2:4-6 where the writer describes Jesus at one and the same as “rejected by people” but “chosen by God.”

The writer locates his audience in διασπορᾶς. The genitive is defining where the audience is located as “temporary residents” or it may be epexegetical, i.e., defining who they are. The cognate verb occurs in OG Genesis 11:8-9 to describe Yahweh’s intent to scatter the people of Babel throughout the earth. In OG Deuteronomy 28:25, if Israel fails to continue in obedience to the covenant, they will be “ἐν διασπορᾷ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς βασιλείαις τῆς γῆς” under Yahweh’s judgment. Jews living outside of Judea in the first century would describe their place as διασπορά, but whether it continued to have connotations of divine judgment is uncertain. More Jews lived outside of Judea at this time, than were resident. It seems that the emerging Christian community adopts this term to describe the location of believers in the world metaphorically as ἐν διασπορᾷ, with their homeland being heaven (e.g., Hebrews 1-3, 11-12). See James 1:1. Dube (1 Peter, 2) notes that the noun can refer to a region (Judith 5:19) or to Jewish people living outside of Palestine (2 Maccabees 1:27). It can be understood either way in this context.

Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνίας are names of Roman provinces located generally in the area of modern Turkey. The genitive case may be appositional to διασπορᾶς if it describes a region. If διασπορᾶς refers to a group of people, then these genitive place names would also be epexegetical.

The writer employs three parallel prepositional phrases beginning with κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς, that seem to reflect ‘Trinitarian’ structure (Father, Spirit, and Son). He employs various kinds of triple formulations throughout the letter. It is unclear whether these adverbial phrases modify Πέτρος or ἀπόσολος or ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις or διασπορᾶς. Each of these options has its defenders. The majority, however, link them with ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις. κατά + accusative defines a standard over against which something is compared. The chosen and temporary resident status is in accordance with πρόγνωσιν, divine prescience, i.e., foreknowledge (cf. the use of the cognate verb in 1:20). It is modified by the subjective genitive θεοῦ that has an appositional modifier πατρός. The writer claims that the spiritual situation in which his audience exists is the development of God’s prior plans and thus is intentional.

The second phrase ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος may express attendant circumstance (e.g., 1:15, 18), defining the conditions in which these people exist as chosen and temporary residents. Dubis (1 Peter, 3) claims that it expresses means (e.g., 1:5, 12, 22). I think it is difficult to be certain about the exact nuance. The genitive may again function as a subjective genitive, a holiness produced by the Spirit. For the Spirit to be mentioned second in a ‘trinitarian’ formulation is infrequent. See 2 Thess. 2:13 where the same phrase occurs. ἁγιασμός is a noun meaning “holiness, consecration, sanctification.”

The last phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ expresses purpose but is a very compressed expression. Does Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ modify the compound noun phrase or only the second element ῥαντισμὸν? Given the structure of the previous two phrases, the writer intends it to define both nouns. But does it have the same function with respect to both nouns and is it stylistically permitted in Koine Greek to have a modifier define two different nouns in diverse ways? Debate continues around both questions. The recent discussions about the meaning of the phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ” as a subjective genitive leaves open the possibility that Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ theoretically could act as a subjective genitive in relation to both nouns, i.e., “for the purpose of the obedience expressed by Jesus Messiah and the sprinkling of blood by Jesus Messiah.” However, it is difficult to see how such a purpose would add meaning to the spiritual designation “chosen, temporary residents.” Many scholars argue that Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is an objective genitive, i.e., “for the purpose of obedience to Jesus Messiah” in relation to the first noun and a genitive of possession, “being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Messiah” in relation to the second noun. Is the repeated Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in vv. 1-2 an inclusio? ῥαντισμός (cf. Hebrews 9:13, 19, 21; 12:24) a noun formed in the same way as ἁγιασμός, used substantively with a passive sense. It is related to the verb ῥαντίζω, to sprinkle liquid on something. This seems to be a reference to some kind of sacrifice used for cleansing purposes, perhaps for consecrating the priest. Moses scatters blood upon the Israelites when constituting their covenant with Yahweh (Ex. 24:8-9), but the OG uses a different verb. “To sprinkle blood” is not a common formulation either in the LXX or in Greek literature.

The formal salutation is a nominal clause without expressed verb.  χάρις ὑμῖν forms a second nominal clause (“grace to you”), as we commonly find in the salutations of Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 1:1; Ephesians 1:2; Galatians 1:3). Such formulations often are nominal clauses, with a nominative noun and a dative pronoun. The singular verb πληθυνθείη suggests that the writer incorporates a third clause expressing a wish or desire that the writer’s audience may experience the multiplication of shalom in their lives (cf. 2 Peter 1:2). A similar formulation also occurs in OG Daniel 4:1; 6:26 – εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη. The verb πληθυνθείη is an aorist passive optative from πληθύνω, “increase, multiply” (BDAG, 826.1).

1:3-5

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν, 4 εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς 5 τοὐς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ

With the introductory words Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ the writer formulates a nominal clause that includes vv. 3-12. A comparable structure introduces the body of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (1:3-14). These are complex grammatical structure designed to focus the attention of the listener on the topic introduced by the initial words, i.e., why people should speak well of or praise “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Εὐλογητὸς is a verbal adjective formed from the verb εὐλογέω that functions as the predicate (cf. Zechariah’s psalm in Luke 1:68). The first section focuses on God, the Father, as in the salutation, and his role in the salvific events related to Jesus Messiah. The article marks it as the subject of the nominal clause and it is unrepeated and so links the two nouns as referring to the same person (ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ) – Granville Sharp rule. How should we interpret καί? BDAG (494.1) suggest “God, who also is Father of…. καί can have an explicative function.” The relationship of Jesus Messiah to this divine agent is a critical part of the letter’s message. The genitive τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ indicates relationship. τοῦ κυρίου is the head noun and it is modified by the appositional Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, used here for the third time in the first three verses of this letter. ἡμῶν probably is a genitive of authority, indicating over whom Jesus Messiah functions as “lord.”

The subject ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ is defined further by the adjectival, aorist active participle ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας (1:23 – only used in 1 Peter) ἡμᾶς. The aorist tense form indicates a perfective action is referenced. The adverbial phrase κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος is set between the article and the participle to link it closely with the participle. κατά + accusative defines the standard by which the action of the participle has occurred. The placement of the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ between the adjective and noun gives it prominence, putting it at the centre of this construction. It is God’s mercy that has resulted in this action of “re-birth, new generation.” (cf. Exodus 34:6 where Yahweh, when re-establishing the covenant with Israel, defines himself as οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων,…καὶ πολυέλεος καἰ ἀληθινός). ἡμᾶς echoes the prior ἡμῶν to indicate how Jesus Messiah could become “our Lord.” The “our” refers to this mixed group – Jews and non-Jews – of Christ followers who comprise God’s people (2:9-10) and the writer includes himself in this group.

The outcome God’s designs from his re-generation of people is defined in three sequential, adverbial prepositional phrases — εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν, 4 εἰς κληρονομίαν. They echo the triplet of phrases in the salutation. The preposition εἰς + accusative probably indicates metaphorical direction, with a nuance of purpose or result. Recent studies regarding the use of ἐλπίζω in the Greek Psalter indicate that a semantic adjustment occurs as this verb and its cognate noun are brought into connection with Jewish beliefs about Yahweh. It does not have such religious connotations in classical Greek writers. It defines human expectations based upon divine revelations and commitments. ἐλπίς rarely, if ever, in prior Greek literature is modified by the participle of ζάω, not even in the Greek OT. So the writer is reflecting a new formulation expressing the gospel. In the Greek OT God is living and his actions enable humans to live. It is not surprising then that in this new process of “re-generation” God instills life, i.e., spiritual life, that is ‘living’ because it is based upon the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. It is hard to tell whether δι’ ἀναστάσεως defines ζῶσαν directly or modifies the prior ἀναγεννήσας. If we are dealing with a triplet of adverbial phrases, then probably they are all intended to define ἀναγεννήσας. διά + the genitive describes means, i.e., “through, by.” Two verbs in the NT describe the resurrection of Jesus — ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω (1:21). The writer twice uses ἀνάστασις (1:3; 3:21), with the objective genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ defining it in both cases. The writer adds ἐκ νεκρῶν (a standard formula with the corresponding verb in the NT) to ensure that this “rising” is in fact a reference to resurrection. The third phrase repeats εἰς + accusative to reflect purpose/result. κληρονομία in the framework of gospel ideology refers to the anticipated fulfillment of God’s promises contained in the new covenant. In the first covenant land was the focus of the “inheritance” that Yahweh promises to Israel. In the new, Kingdom era, the “inheritance” probably incorporates the idea of the Holy Spirit and all the eschatological realia that he generates.

The writer employs another triplet to define the κληρονομία — ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς. Three alpha-privative adjectives (cf. a similar collocation in v. 19) create a paronomastic sonority, slowing down the audience’s perception so that they will focus on their astonishing new status and expectation. The three adjectives emphasize that this inheritance has no risk of destruction from normal, earthly processes of decomposition, defilement, or desiccation. They are two termination adjectives and so the masculine and feminine forms are the same. How does this description contrast with the inheritance of the land that Israel received in the OT?

To ensure that his audience does not confuse this inheritance with the land of Judea in Israelite theology or the general kinds of inheritance people received in Hellenistic society, he describes where it stands preserved — τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς. The perfect passive participle τετηρημένην (adverbial) indicates a current state of protection/preservation/guardianship. It may have a causal sense, explaining why there is no risk to this inheritance. “Heaven” is probably metonymy for God and ἐν is spatial in sense. The phrase εἰς ὑμᾶς indicates that the focus is now on the audience through the second person plural form. εἰς suggests the idea of advantage.

In v. 5 the writer defines who will receive this inheritance — τοὐς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως. He uses an adjectival participle referencing the previous ὑμᾶς. The participle is present passive in form and emphasizes an incomplete action – “who are being fortressed around.” It is modified by two prepositional phrases. The first indicates the means by which this guarding occurs. Its position prior to the participle gives it prominence. δύναμις can mean power or force (i.e., military force). This is a force under God’s command. The second prepositional phrase defines another, secondary means, διά + genitive, one that arises from the human side, i.e., the expression of faith.

The purpose of all of this divine activity is summarized in εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ. The prepositional phrase εἰς σωτηρίαν is adverbial and could modify τοὺς…φρουρουμένους or ὁ…ἀναγεννήσας (v. 3). If the second possibility is chosen, then this prepositional phrase may be parallel with εἰς ἐλπίδα…εἰς κληρονομίαν…εἰς σωτηρίαν, each of which expresses an eschatological sense. If the first possibility is chosen, then the focus is on the goal or purpose of the divine guardianship – to preserve God’s people for participation in the full, future experience of salvation. ἑτοίμην is a predicate adjective (“prepared, ready”) that is completed by an infinitive (aorist passive ἀποκαλυφθῆναι). ἐν + dative expresses time and this is generically described as “final time/season/opportune time.” The writer uses the verb ἀποκαλύπτω 3x (1:5, 12; 5:1) and the cognate noun 3x (1:7, 13; 4:13). He has a particular interest in God’s intent to reveal the implementation of his plans for human salvation.

1:6-9

ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε ὀλίγον ἄρτι, εἰ δέον ἐστίν, λυπηθέντας ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς 7 ἵνα τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως πολυτιμότερον χρυσίου τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου, διὰ πυρὸς δὲ δοκιμαζομένου εὑρεθῇ εἰς ἔπαινον καὶ δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 8 ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε, εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες, πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ 9 κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. 

In vv. 3-5 the material is linked by participles and prepositional phrases. Now the writer employs relative clauses (v.6, 8a, 8b-9) and a purpose clause (ἵνα 7). Much discussion occurs in the literature whether ἐν ᾧ should be consider a general reference to the totality of vv. 3-5 (a neuter relative pronoun) or whether it modifies the immediately preceding masculine noun καιρός. I think generally in Greek discourse, the closer possible referent would normally be the intended referent. ἐν + dative relative probably referring to point of time, i.e., “in which time/situation.” Another way to interpret it would be cause, i.e., “because of which situation….”

The main verb in this relative clause ἀγαλλιᾶσθε could be present indicative middle or imperative. The verb means “to be exceedingly glad/joyful.” It describes a joy that is more expressive than χαίρω. The verb is repeated in v. 8 and 4:13 (where the writer also uses χαίρω). Two temporal adverbs modify the following aorist participle. ὀλίγον is an adverbial accusative from the adjective ὀλίγος and means “for a little while.” ἄρτι describes present time, i.e., “now.” A third adverbial modifier uses a conditional clause to indicate the necessity of the unpleasant reality expressed in the participle λυπηθέντας. δέον is a neuter nominative singular present participle of δεῖ “it is necessary.” The textual witnesses are varied in their support of ἔστίν. The participle λυπηθέντας functions adverbially and probably has a concessive nuance, i.e., “even though you have been “insulted, distressed, grieved.” The adverbial prepositional phrase ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς expresses the means or attendant circumstances that produce this distress.

The ἵνα clause beginning v. 8 modifies the participle λυπηθέντας, expressing purpose or result. The subject and verb of this complex subordinate clause are τὸ δοκίμιον….εὑρεθῇ (aorist passive subjunctive). πίστεως functions as an epexegetical genitive (explains what is tested), with a possessive pronoun modifier (ὑμῶν). πολυτιμότερον is a comparative adjective modified by a genitive of comparison (χρυσίου). This predicate adjective modifies the subject τὸ δοκίμιον, being neuter singular. χρυσίου is modified by two present participles (ἀπολλυμένου (concessive? middle?)…δοκιμαζομένου (attributive? passive)) intended to be contrasting (δέ). The initial article probably is intended to apply to both participles and connect them closely together. The fact that gold is tested διὰ πύρος (means) shows the legitimacy of the comparison – the “tested precipitate of your faith” similarly results from distress. The phrase precedes the participle and this gives it prominence. However, instead of “being destroyed” eschatologically as gold will be, tested faith will endure.

εἰς ἔπαινον καὶ δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν – εἰς expresses result and the phrases modify εὐρεθῇ. This is another triplet construction. Who receives the praise, glory and honour? The timing of this result is defined by the prepositional phrase ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The genitive is probably objective, but an argument can also be made for a subjective nuance. The same phrase occurs at 4:13 and the genitive there is objective. This writer has a particular interest in the concept expressed by δόξα. The adverbial phrase ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ probably has a temporal significance, a subjective or objective genitive. The term ἀποκαλύψις can refer to the incarnation or the Parousia. Here, the future sense of the context indicates it as a reference to the Parousia. This is the fifth occurrence of the phrase Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in the first seven verses! Any suggestions that might explain this repeated usage?

Verse 8 begins with a relative clause, whose referent is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (ὃν masculine accusative singular). The verb is a present indicative active ἀγαπᾶτε indicating imperfect aspect. It is modified by an adverbial concessive participle (ἰδόντες). The negative οὐκ with a participle is unusual in Koine. It is thought to emphasize the factuality of this observation. A second relative clause follows, with two connected adverbial present active participles, the first being concessive and the second probably expressing attendant circumstance relative to the main verb, but it could be causal. εἰς ὅν probably modifies πιστεύοντες and the δέ indicates a contrast with the previous participle. The writer uses the expected negative μή with ὁρῶντες, indicating that they are not seeing Jesus Messiah in the present, as the adverb ἄρτι indicates. The main verb of this relative clause is the present indicative middle ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, describing their current excessive joy. It is modified by a dative of means χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ. Placing the adjectives after the noun gives them a bit of emphasis. The perfect passive attributive participle δεδοξασμένῃ is difficult to translate, characterizing the state of this joy.

This segment of this long periodic sentence ends with an adverbial, present middle participle (v. 9) that further modifies ἀγαλλιᾶσθε. If the main verb is a futuristic present, then the excessive joy arises somewhat from present reality, but also from future expectations. κομιζόμενοι probably has a causal nuance and describes the act of “receiving.” τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως is the object and the genitive may describe what produces the “goal.” σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν is appositional to τὸ τέλος. ψυχῶν is probably objective genitive and refers to the “person.”

1:10-12

10περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες 11ἐραυνῶντες εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας. 12οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτὰ ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι.

This is the concluding section of this extended periodic sentence that begins in v. 3. The writer focuses on the essential connection between God’s revelations about salvation through the Messiah that he gave to the OT prophets and continues to express through the work of the Holy Spirit in people proclaiming the good news. What was formerly inscrutable, now has become plain through this new revelation in and about Jesus Messiah.

  1. 10 begins with περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας that marks what follows as a relative clause. The relative pronoun is part of an adverbial prepositional phrase that modifies the two verbs in the relative clause. To remove any doubt about the antecedent the writer reiterates it and embeds it in the relative clause (σωτηρίας – same case, number and gender as the relative pronoun), the same noun that ends v. 9. προφῆται functions as the subject of the aorist indicative active compound verbs ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν. Their repetition has rhetorical effect, but also expresses the intensity of the prophets’ inquisitiveness to know everything about God’s plans that he was revealing. The verbs describe processes of investigation and research.

The subject προφῆται is related to the two following participles. The first οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες is an aorist active attributive participle. It is clarified by the prepositional phrase marked by περί that defines the substance of their prophetic message. Note how again the writer sets the second prepositional phrase εἰς ὑμᾶς within the article – noun framework (cf. the same device he uses three times in v. 11). εἰς indicates the goal or purpose of the grace specified. What does χάριτος mean here? The second participle ἐραυνῶντες (simplex form of the previous ἐξηραύνησαν) is an adverbial present participle that modifies the two main verbs, but describes how the prophets went about their research. The present tense form suggests an activity contemporaneous with the main verbs. It may express a temporal or circumstantial sense. ἐραυνῶντες has a complex indirect question as its modifier, marked by εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν. The preposition εἰς indicates direction, “into what time or what kind of time” and both interrogatives may modify καιρόν (cf. v. 5 “last time”). It is also possible that τινά could refer to a person (“to what person”). This prepositional phrase modifies the verb in the interrogative clause ἐδήλου (making clear, explaining), an imperfect indicative active third person singular. This phrase may also modify the prior participle ἐραυνῶντες. The subject of ἐδήλου is the following τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. Note the placement of the prepositional phrase between the article and noun. ἐν + dative is locative here. The reference is to the Holy Spirit, but he is defined in relationship to the Messiah. Another adverbial (no article) present middle participle προμαρτυρόμενον, probably temporal, i.e., “when they were testifying in advance,” modifies verb ἐδήλου. The participle has two objects τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας expressed as nominalized prepositional phrase. With the contrast between παθήματα…δόξας, we are introduced to a common theme in this letter. εἰς Χριστὸν may have the sense – “sufferings directed toward/destined for Messiah.” δόξας is probably plural corresponding to the previous παθήματα and creating parallelism.

  1. 12 introduces a second relative clause further defining the prophets — οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη. The verb is an aorist passive indicative. The subject is expressed in the ὅτι clause and the relative pronoun (οἷς) is the indirect object. The prophets continue to be the subject in the ὅτι clause, expressed in the verb διηκόνουν (imperfect indicative active). It takes a direct object αὐτά and indirect objects (οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, ὑμῖν δὲ). The reflexive pronoun emphasizes the subject. δέ marks a contrasting ὑμεῖς. BDAG suggests that the verb in this context means “acting as an agent.”

Within this relative clause the object αὐτά is defined by another relative clause ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν. The relative pronoun is the subject of the aorist passive verb. The adverb νῦν modifies the verb, indicated by its position before the verb and this gives it prominence. This verb also takes an indirect object ὑμῖν. διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς describes the agent (intermediate) by which the audience received the ‘good news.’ This is an aorist middle participle. Using another prepositional phrase the writer describes the means by which those expressing the good news did so — ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ. The Spirit working in the prophets also works in those proclaiming the gospel. The noun πνεύματι is anarthrous and so the attributive, aorist passive participle also is anarthrous. The participle is modified by an adverbial prepositional phrase describing the origin of the Spirit (from heaven).

The last relative clause, marked by εἰς ἃ adds further information about the preceding αὐτά (v.12). This phrase is adverbial and modifies the aorist infinitive παρακύψαι. This infinitive complements ἐπιθυμοῦσιν, a verb that describes a strong desire that can be positive or negative. παρακύπτω can mean “stoop down” but an also mean to stretch to peer through a window (cf. Gen. 26:8), so that the meaning might be “into which things angels desire to peer (from heaven?).”

1:13—16

13Διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν νήφοντες τελείως ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ τὴν φερομένην ὑμῖν χάριν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 14ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις, 15ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε, 16διότι

γέγραπται·

ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος.

 

The writer begins the body of the letter, building on the content of the extended sentence (1:3-12) as the inferential particle δίο (“wherefore”) indicates. The main verb ἐλπίσατε (aorist imperative) is preceded by two adverbial participles (ἀναζωσάμενοι… νήφοντες). These set the discourse frame for the imperative. The first participle is an aorist middle form describing preparation that forms the basis for the imperative. It is formed from a μι-verb ἀναζωννυμι and describes how people bind up, gird up a long garment to participate in strenuous work or walking (BDAG) (compare Ex. 12:11 αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περιεζωσμέναι).[1] However, it functions metaphorically as the object τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν signifies. Some scholars classify it as an imperatival participle, but this is not a necessary conclusion. The genitive τῆς διανοίας is probably epexegetical, defining what “loins” means as a metaphor.  The second adverbial participle νήφοντες is a present participle and so probably defines an action concurrent with the main verb (ἐλπίσατε). Both participles could express attendant circumstance or means. Scholars debate whether the adverb τελείως modifies the preceding participle, the following imperative, or both.

 

In 1:13-2:3 the writer employs as series of imperatives around which to structure the key elements of his instruction. These include ἐλπίσατε (13), ἅγιοι…γενήθητε (15), ἀναστράφητε (17), ἀγαπήσατε (22), ἐπιποθήσατε (2.3). Each is an aorist imperative that probably defines an activity in its totality. The verb ἐλπίζω (1:13; 3:5) and the cognate noun ἐλπίς (1:3, 21; 3:15) express an important Christian idea in the first half of the letter. ἐλπίζω ἐπί + accusative occurs also in Romans 15:12 and 1 Timothy 4:10 referring to the anticipated Messiah (quoted from Isaiah 11:10) and God, defining the basis of one’s hope. In this case it is χάριν. This head noun in turn is defined by a present middle/passive participle φερομένην, functioning attributively. The assumed agent probably is God the Father. BDAG suggest that this combination means “grant someone a favour.” Why does the writer use the present tense form of the participle? This adverbial prepositional phrase ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ probably modifies the participle and defines the time at which this favour will be fully realized. This “revelation of Jesus Messiah” may refer to the totality of this revelation that includes the incarnation and the Parousia. Again the genitive could be subjective or objective.

 

Verses 14-16 form a single sentence. The main subject and verb occur in v. 15 καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι…γενήθητε. καί is ascensive (“also, too, indeed”), not conjunctive and αὐτοί is an intensifier, giving prominence to the subject (“you yourselves….”). This is an copula clause with the verb γίνομαι (aorist passive imperative) with a predicate adjective (ἅγιοι) defining the character of the subject. The prepositional phrase κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον defines the standard of holiness or the reason that holiness should characterize the addressees. The head noun of the phrase could be τὸν…ἅγιον “the Holy One” that in turn is modified by the attributive aorist participle καλέσαντα that takes an object ὑμᾶς. Or the head noun could be τὸν καλέσαντα functioning as a substantive and ἅγιον as a predicate adjective (“the one who called you is holy”). However, the second does not seem possible since prepositional phrases normally do not include verbs.

 

We return to the beginning of v. 14 and the phrase functioning as a comparison ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, that modifies the subject of γενήθητε (“you, as obedient children”). The writer employs ὡς 27x in his letter. Here, it marks a metaphor, defining someone’s role or capacity. The genitive ὑπακοῆς defines the essence or character and picks up the usage in the phrase found in 1:2 εἰς ὑπακοήν. A negative adverbial participial clause μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι (present middle/passive participle) frames the action of the main verb. In my opinion, this participle is implicit in the following ἀλλά contrast (do not conform yourself to…but conform yourself to the standard of….). For the verb συσχηματίζομαι see Romans 12:1-2. The dative phrase ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις describes the thing to which one is conformed. In this case it is ἐπιθυμίαις that those addressed experienced previously and ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν, i.e., in the intellectual and more space/time when ignorance engulfed them. Conversely, holiness as defined by God himself, should govern their lives ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ. Note its position prior to the copular verb in the focal point of the clause. ἀναστροφή/ἀναστρέφω is another key term for this writer with the sense “manner of life.” πᾶς is inclusive, meaning the totality of life’s conduct. Many consider συσχηματιζόμενοι to function as an imperatival participle, examples of which can be found in papyri and other Hellenistic Greek documents. Even though this may be the case, it does not determine whether or not this is an example of such. Contextual factors must determine this.

 

The last part of this complex sentence is a subordinate clause of cause or inference διότι γέγραπται. The particle διότι may indicate cause, inference or explanation. γέγραπται is a perfect passive tense form often used to introduce quotations. The following quotation functions as the subject. The quotation ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος is Septuagintal and occurs in various contexts in Greek Leviticus (11:44 (והייתם קדשים כי קדוש אני) changes in word order among the various Hebrew iterations; 19:2; 20:7, 26). In Leviticus 19:2 the ὅτι clause ends with the words κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν. The wording follows the Hebrew text of the MT at Lev. 19:2. The main clause uses a future tense form to express an imperative, employing the copular verb and a predicate adjective. ὅτι is probably causal here and the subordinate clause is a nominal clause. This the first formal quotation in 1 Peter (cf. 1:24; 2:6). What are the implications of this Christian writer using a declaration from Leviticus as authorization for his instruction to this Christian audience – for the knowledge of the writer, for theological understanding of the Jewish Scriptures, etc.?

 

1:17-21

 

17καὶ εἰ πατέρα ἐπικαλεῖσθε τὸν ἀπροσωπολήμπτως κρίνοντα κατὰ τὸ ἑκάστου ἔργον, ἐν φόβῳ τὸν τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον ἀναστράφητε

                             18εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ, ἐλυτρώθητε

ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου

                             19ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ

                                             20προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου,

φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων δι’ ὑμᾶς

21τοὺς δι’ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν.

 

The writer creates another long, complex sentence, with the key idea expressed in v. 17 and then it is qualified in various ways in vv. 18-21. The second imperative in this sequence occurs in v. 17 and forms the apodosis of a conditional statement. The initial καί probably is conjunctive. The protasis introduces a first class condition (εἰ + indicative). Its verb is a present middle indicative. The complement is placed before the verb in the focal point of the clause and is separated from the object, the articulated participle, by the verb (hyperbaton), a stylistic device. The anarthrous πατέρα suggests a generic proposition, i.e., “if you call upon a father” but the participle has the article which may communicate the sense “the kind who….” The writer has created a complement-object construction, with the articulated participle being the object and the anarthrous πατέρα the complement. The present participle κρίνοντα suggests that the “judging” is occurring simultaneously with the action of the main verb. It is modified by the adverb ἀπροσωπολήμτως (alpha-privative form with –ως adverbial ending), meaning “unprejudiced or without favouritism.” According to TLG this its first attestation in Greek literature. So is this a neologism created by the writer? If so, why? The participle also has an adverbial prepositional phrase qualifying it (κατά + accusative), indicating the standard by which the assessment is made. ἑκάστου could be a subjective genitive, indicating the agent responsible for the action.

The imperative ἀναστράφητε is an aorist passive tense form, but probably has a middle sense “conduct yourself.” This verb (one occurrence) and its cognate noun ἀναστροφή (1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2 16) are important ethical terms for this writer (cf. Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 4:22; James 3:13; 1 Timothy 4:12). It modified by the adverbial prepositional phrase ἐν φόβῳ describing the manner in which the conduct occurs (presumably here “fearful/with reverence to God”). The writer uses an accusative of time to define the duration of this conduct τὸν…χρόνον that is defined by the genitive of time (in which) τῆς παροικίας. This noun refers to a sojourn in a place where one does not have rights of citizenship. In this case, it refers to span of life Christians have after their conversion. παροικία /παρεπιδήμος belong to the same semantic field (cf. 2:12). Note how the verb is close to the beginning of the protasis and close to the end of the apodosis with various modifiers located in between in a balanced structure.

The sentence continues in v. 18 with an adverbial participle εἰδότες (perfect active participle), probably causal in force explaining why they should behave in a specific way. It introduces a content clause of indirect speech that functions as the object of the participle and is marked by ὅτι. Within the content clause the writer creates a contrasting set of statements using οὐ…ἀλλά, with the second statement replacing the proposition stated in the first. Previously he has used μή…δέ (v.8). The verb ἐλυτρώθητε is explicit in the first clause, but implicit in the second. The dative lexemes define the means of “redemption”, i.e., currency used to purchase the release of a slave or war captive. The first φθαρτοῖς, being plural, probably is neuter and the following two datives are appositional giving examples of what these “corrupt, decaying things” might be. The context out of which the audience has been delivered is defined in the ἐκ phrase. The noun ἀναστροφή contrasts with the kind of behavior/lifestyle that the audience now is engaged with according to v. 17. Adjectival modifies precede and follow the noun. The first defines this lifestyle as “futile” and is in the first attributive position. The second adjective is in the fourth position and is predicative, receiving a little more emphasis – πατροπαραδότου. This applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish social contexts. The term occurs in 1-2 cent BC inscriptions and Greek writers. The author employs a number of terms and phrases to refer to non-Christian culture, with its religious character.

He structures the alternative introduced by ἀλλά in a parallel fashion, beginning with a dative (means) phrase τιμίῳ αἵματι to describe the real ransom that was paid for their release. “Blood” suggests the death of someone was required for their release and this links the concept of sacrifice with that of ransom. Note the previous use of πολυτιμότερος in v. 7. He modifies αἵματι with a comparison structure marked by ὡς. Presumably it implies “like/as the blood of a lamb.” The writer defines ἀμνός as ἄμωμος…ἄσπιλος – without blemish and spotless (ἄμωμος occurs frequently in LXX to describe various sacrificial victims; ἄσπιλος is not well-attested in prior Greek documents and inscriptions). So this is not an animal sacrifice, but nonetheless a living being is involved and if not animal, then human is the only alternative. And this is confirmed by the genitive Χριστοῦ that ends the noun phrase – τιμίῳ αἵματι…Χριστοῦ. This blood belongs to the Messiah, as 1:2 already indicated. This begins to explain what τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα (v.11) refers to. Note the alliteration, as well as the parallel structure of noun + apposition and noun + ὡς construction. The position of Χριστοῦ gives it prominence as well as positions it close to the following participles that define it. Notice also the almost complete absence of articles in vv. 18-21.

The writer continues his thought through the use of two inter-related participles προεγνωσμένου μὲν…φανερωθέντος δὲ. Each is modified by an adverbial prepositional phrase denoting a time reference. Since the referent Χριστοῦ is not articulated, the anarthrous participles could be adjectival, defining some characteristic of the Messiah. The first participle is a perfect passive participle from προγινώσκω (cf. πρόγνωσις 1:2 and also the prophetic revelation in 1:10-11). What is the meaning of this lexeme in this context? Perhaps it means “who stands known/chosen before,” describing a state or condition. If it is passive, who is the implied agent? The extent of this knowing precedes the creation of the world. πρό emphasizes the prefix attached to the verb. κόσμος is probably objective genitive. καταβολή describes a “foundation, something laid down.”

The corresponding participle φανερωθέντος is an aorist passive participle. So the Messiah was known in some way within the deity before creation and this same deity, presumably the implied agent of the participle, “has made him appear,” referring here to the incarnation, but in 5:4 to the Parousia. The writer indicates that incarnation occurs “at/near the end of the times.” This divine action is δι’ ὑμᾶς “because of/on account of you.” Note again the parallelism of structure in these two, inter-related participial constructions. Why is it important for the writer to express these ideas about the Messiah?

The final section of this complex sentence (v.21) defines ὑμᾶς as well as θεός, who is the agent implied in the two previous passive participles. The writer defines his audience as τοὺς δι’ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεόν. Again, he places the prepositional phrase between the article and head noun. διά + genitive describes intermediate means and the pronoun refers to Χριστοῦ. τοὺς…πιστούς is a substantival adjective, probably an alternative to εἰς ὃν…πιστεύοντες (cf. Col. 1:2) that the writer used in v.8 and describes “those who put trust/confidence in.” εἰς indicates goal or direction for that trust. Since θεόν is anarthrous and the following participle is articulated, the participle probably functions appositionally, i.e., it is a substantive. The structure with the single article τὸν ἐγείραντα…καὶ…δόντα indicates that function as a single unit modifying θεόν. Both participles are aorist active forms and have direct objects (αὐτόν…δόξαν), with the second also have an indirect object αὐτῷ. Presumably the act of resurrection is part of and yet preparatory for the expression of glory. It is ἐκ νεκρῶν as in 1:3. Note the use of ἀναστάσις in 1:3 to refer to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The purpose for or result of God’s actions with respect to the Messiah is expressed in the ὥστε clause. The verb is an infinitive and the subject therefore is in the accusative case, positioned immediately after the conjunction. It is a compound expression united by a single article (perhaps anaphoric) and possessive pronoun τἢν πίστιν…καὶ ἐλπίδα. ὑμῶν  is probably a subjective genitive. Again, the goal or direction of faith (πίστις this time) is defined by εἰς. Note the circularity of the faith experience – God resurrects the Messiah so that humans might place trust and hope in God. Note also that the articles in this verse have a syntactical function.

1:22-25

22Τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας εἰς φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπόκριτον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς 23ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλ’ ἀφθάρτου διὰ λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος. 24διότι

πᾶσα σὰρξ*ὡς χόρτος*καὶ πᾶσα δόξα* αὐτῆς ὡς ἄνθος*χόρτου·*

ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος* ἐξέπεσεν·*

25 τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα κυρίου μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς.

The third imperative in this series occurs in v. 22 ἀγαπήσατε. The writer uses adverbial participles before and after the verb as well as a subordinate causal clause marked by διότι to define this command. The sentence includes vv. 22-25a. Another sentence occurs in 25b. The aorist imperative ἀγαπήσατε has a direct object ἀλλήλους, as well as being modified by the adverb ἐκτενῶς and the adverbial prepositional phrase ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας, describing the source of this love. Together with the two previous prepositional phrases it forms another triplet construction.

The action of the imperative is framed by the initial adverbial, perfect active participle ἡγνικότες. It is probably temporal (“since you have made your lives pure”), but could be causal. It is nominative plural and the referent is the subject of the main verb. τὰς ψυχάς is the participle’s direct object and the genitive marks possession. The participle is qualified by two prepositional phrases introduced by ἐν, εἰς. The ἐν phrase defines the means of purification, i.e., by obedience response to the truth (the gospel). The genitive τῆς ἀληθείας is probably an objective genitive. For ὑπακοή see 1:2. Why does the writer use an article in this phrase, but not in the other two? The second phrase expresses the goal or purpose for this purification (εἰς + accusative). The head noun φιλαδελφίαν is modified by a alpha-privative, two declension adjective ἀνυπόκριτον adjective in a predicate position, perhaps for emphasis.

The adverbial, perfect passive participle ἀναγεγεννημένοι (cf. 1:3) that follows the imperative is probably circumstantial. The perfect tense form indicates state or condition probably. It is qualified by a series of prepositional phrases placed within a contrasting οὐ…ἀλλά structure. What might be difference between δέ (v.8) and ἀλλά in such contrasts? ἐκ defines source. The contrasts is between two kinds of seeds – φθαρτῆς…ἀφθάρτου (cf. 1:4). The second is an alpha-privative formation. διά plus genitive describes means. Presumably, λόγου is the head noun and θεοῦ qualifies it in terms of source and authority. The two participles ζῶντος…μένοντος are adjectival and present active forms. It is unclear which genitive noun they modify.

The διότι conjunction probably marks “cause” and indicates that what follows explains the nature of this new birth and the dynamics involved in it by quoting from Isaiah 40:6-8.

Isa. 40:6-8            πᾶσα σὰρξ χόρτος, καὶ πᾶσα δόξα ἀνθρώπου ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου· ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος, καὶ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσε, τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

The LXX is shorter than the MT’s Hebrew text. The writer has made some stylistic adjustments to enhance parallelism and also used κυρίου instead of τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. κύριος without the article often reflects the OT use of this noun to represent the Tetragrammaton.  This last difference makes the quotation less accommodative to the letter’s context (cf. θεοῦ in v. 23), so is probably not due to the writer, but something he found in the quotation. The first two clauses in the quotation are nominal clauses and have a closes parallel structure indicating a poetic Hebrew origin. Note the chiastic structure in the next two verbal clauses. δέ is probably contrastive. The previous participle μένοντος reflects μένει in the quotation. What is the lexical relationship between λόγος and ῥῆμα? εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is a temporal expression of duration and means literally “for the age,” but often is translated as “forever.”

The second part of v. 25 completes this segment and identifies τὸ ῥῆμα mentioned in the quote with τὸ εὐαγγελισθέν, an adjectival, aorist passive participle modifying ῥῆμα (1:12). τὸ ῥῆμα is the predicate nominative and τοῦτο is the subject of ἐστιν. δέ marks a transition to a new topic and perhaps might be rendered “now.” The writer identifies Yahweh’s message to the prophet in Isaiah 40:6-8 with the gospel message brought by Jesus and now embraced by the audience. εἰς ὑμᾶς identifies the audience, those to whom the proclamation of good news is directed.