Obedience And Blood-Sprinkling In 1 Peter 1:2

By Sydney H. T. Page

[Sydney H. T Page is Professor of Mew Testament at Taylor Seminary in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.]

In 1983, Francis Agnew published an article in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly in which he proposed a fresh understanding of the phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ’s blood” [NETBible]) in 1 Pet 1:2.[1] This phrase is one of three phrases that qualify the word ἐκλεκτοῖς (“chosen”) in the preceding verse.[2] The author describes his readers as those who have been chosen by God (1) “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” (2) “by being set apart by the Spirit,” and (3) “for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ’s blood.” The first two phrases are relatively straightforward, but the third is problematic. Most English translations assume that it describes the purpose and/or result of divine election, namely that the elect would come to obey Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood. So, for example, the NRSV renders the third phrase “to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood.” This translation, however, assumes that ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is an objective genitive in relation to ὑπακοήν but a possessive genitive in relation to αἵματος, which would be, as Achtemeier puts it, “something of a grammatical monstrosity.”[3] Agnew proposed a creative solution to this problem. He suggested that εἰς be understood as having a causal force rather than a telic force and that the obedience be seen as the obedience rendered by Christ rather than the obedience of believers to Christ.

Most of the commentators who have considered Agnew’s proposal have not found the case for it to be compelling, but it was endorsed by John H. Elliott in his magisterial commentary on 1 Peter in the Anchor Bible series and by Earl J. Richard in a commentary published the same year as Elliott’s. It can now claim the support of Joel B. Green in his commentary in the Two Horizons series.[4] In view of this recent endorsement, Agnew’s suggestion deserves a more thorough assessment than it has yet received. The interpretation is appealing in a number of ways; however, despite its merits, I intend to show that it is burdened by difficulties that are so serious that it must be rejected.

I. The Appeal Of Agnew’s Interpretation

Agnew’s interpretation has in its favor the fact that it results in a more complete parallelism between the three phrases in v. 2 than other readings. If Agnew’s interpretation is correct, each of the three phrases describes an action of one of the members of the Trinity. The Father foreknows, the Spirit sanctifies, and the Son obeys and sprinkles. On any other interpretation, the third phrase is unlike the earlier phrases, in that the act of obeying is understood to be a human act.

Seeing a reference to the work of each member of the Trinity in the three phrases results in a beautiful symmetry, but one may ask whether this is what the author intended. He does not appear to be concerned to make the parallelism between the phrases too exact, since each of the first two prepositional phrases has a single object, but the third has two objects, ὑπακοήν and ῥαντισμόν, and, unlike the others, the latter is qualified by an impersonal noun (αἵματος). Moreover, there is a similar progression of thought in 2 Thess 2:13b, “God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.” Here there is a reference to the choice of the Father, followed by a reference to the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and then a reference to the human response of believing.[5]

A second appeal of Agnew’s interpretation is that it assumes that the obedience spoken of in 1 Pet 1:2 is the obedience of Christ rather than that of his followers, and the idea that God’s salvific work is based upon the obedience of Christ is thoroughly biblical and indeed is present in 1 Peter (see 2:22-24 especially).

Although 1 Peter does contain the idea that Christ was obedient to his Father’s will and in so doing both atoned for sins and provided a model for his followers to emulate, neither the noun ὑπακοή nor the cognate verb ὑπακούω is used of Christ elsewhere in 1 Peter.[6] The former is used of the obedience of believers in 1 Pet 1:14 and 22, and the latter is used of Sarah obeying Abraham in 1 Pet 3:6. First Peter 1:14 and 22 are especially significant because of their proximity to our text. Of the fifteen occurrences of ὑπακοή in the NT, only those in Rom 5:19 and Heb 5:8 clearly refer to the obedience of Christ. The concept of Christ’s obedience is unquestionably present in the NT, but ὑπακοή and its cognates are rarely used to express it.

Perhaps the greatest strength of Agnew’s interpretation is that it avoids attributing two syntactical functions to ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ Translations like that in the NRSV assume that ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ functions as an objective genitive in relation to ὑπακοήν and as a possessive genitive in relation to αἵματος, but this is surely not what the author intended.[7] Agnew gets around this problem by proposing that ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ should be seen as functioning as a subjective genitive in relation to both ὑπακοήν and ῥαντισμόν.

Seeing the genitive as subjective in relation to both ὑπακοήν and ῥαντισμόν is certainly preferable to seeing it as being both objective and possessive; however, this is not the only option. The awkwardness of attributing two functions to the genitive case of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is avoided if ὑπακοήν is understood to be used absolutely and ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is seen as qualifying only αἵματος.[8] The latter understanding is reflected in the translation in the NET Bible, “for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ’s blood.” Clearly one can understand the author to be referring to the obedience of believers without assuming that ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is an objective genitive.

Though there is an undeniable appeal to Agnew’s interpretation, the arguments used to support it are not compelling. Furthermore, there are considerations that weigh heavily against it. We will look at six considerations that are of such magnitude that they render this interpretation untenable.

II. The Difficulties With Agnew’s Interpretation

Agnew proposes that ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is best understood as a subjective genitive with both ὑπακοήν and ῥαντισμόν, but there are two problems with this. First, this is a very unnatural way of understanding the genitive case of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Appearing as it does immediately after αἵματος, it is most naturally understood as a possessive genitive. In the NT, the noun αἷμα is often qualified by a noun or pronoun in the genitive case indicating whose blood is in view. The first person personal pronoun is used this way (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; John 6:54, 55, 56; Rev 6:10), as is the second person personal pronoun (Acts 18:6; Rev 5:9) and the third person personal pronoun (Matt 27:25; Mark 5:29; John 6:53; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; Rev 1:5). The relative pronoun is used this way (Luke 13:1; Heb 13:11), and so is the demonstrative pronoun (Matt 27:24). Other possessive genitives with αἷμα include Christ (1 Cor 10:16; Eph 2:13; Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 1:19), the Lord (1 Cor 11:27), Jesus (Heb 10:19; 1 John 1:7), the lamb (Rev 7:14; 12:11), this man (Acts 5:28), the prophets (Matt 23:30), all the prophets (Luke 11:50), a corpse (Rev 16:3), saints and prophets (Rev 16:6), prophets and saints (Rev 18:24), saints (Rev 17:6), martyrs (Rev 17:6), his servants (Rev 19:2), his cross (Col 1:20), goats and calves (Heb 9:12), goats and bulls (Heb 9:13), calves and goats (Heb 9:19), bulls and goats (Heb 10:4), and the covenant (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Heb 9:20; 10:29; 13:20). There are also references to the blood of Abel (Matt 23:35; Luke 11:51), Zechariah (Matt 23:35; Luke 11:51), and Stephen (Acts 22:20), as well as to his own blood (Acts 20:28; Heb 9:12; 13:12) and the blood of all (Acts 20:26). Finally, there is one instance where the first person possessive adjective is used (1 Cor 11:25) and one where ἀλλότριος is used (Heb 9:25). Given the frequency with which the NT writers identify whose blood they have in view (note especially the reference to the blood of Christ in 1 Pet 1:19), there can be little doubt that ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) ought to be understood as a possessive genitive in 1 Pet 1:2.

The second problem with seeing ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ as a subjective genitive in relation to ὑπακοήν is that, as we have already noted, the usage of the language of obedience elsewhere in 1 Peter suggests that the obedience should be seen as the obedience of the readers rather than the obedience of Christ. The vocabulary of obedience is prominent in 1 Peter, and it is used to refer specifically to the response of human beings to the gospel. In addition to its occurrence in 1 Pet 1:2, the noun “obedience” (ὑπακοή) appears twice in 1 Peter. In 1 Pet 1:14, the readers are referred to as “obedient children” (literally, “children of obedience”), and in 1 Pet 1:22, the readers are said to have purified their souls by their obedience to the truth. Here the noun ὑπακοή is used with an objective genitive, and the noun in the genitive case is ἀλήθεια (“truth”). This is particularly noteworthy, because it clearly refers to the readers’ initiation into the Christian faith and thus lends strong support for the view that 1 Pet 1:2 not only refers to the obedience of the readers rather than the obedience of Christ, but also refers specifically to the obedience of faith.[9] The emphasis on human obedience in 1 Peter may also be seen in the references to disobedience. The verb a7tei8eco (“disobey”) is used in 1 Pet 2:7, 8; 3:1, 20; and 4:17. It is of particular interest that, when it is transitive, the objects of “disobey” are “the word” (1 Pet 2:8 and 3:1) and “the gospel” (1 Pet 4:17).[10] There can be no doubt that 1 Peter uses the vocabulary of both obedience and disobedience to refer to the way human beings respond to the gospel. Given this usage elsewhere in the letter, it is likely that this is the way it is to be understood in 1 Pet 1:2.

A third difficulty with Agnew’s interpretation is that it assumes that the preposition εἰς has a causal force, but this is highly improbable. Agnew appeals to the work of Julius R. Mantey who attempted to demonstrate in three articles and in the intermediate grammar that he wrote with H. E. Dana that el; can have a causal force.[11] Most scholars have not found Mantey’s arguments to be convincing. As Agnew acknowledges, Mantey’s articles in the Journal of Biblical Literature prompted an immediate response from Ralph Marcus.[12] It is generally agreed that Marcus demonstrated that extrabiblical usage does not support the notion of a causal use of εἰς as Mantey claimed. Moreover, none of the major lexicons endorses Mantey’s view. The possibility that εἰς can have a causal force is not even mentioned in LSJ, Thayer, or Louw and Nida. It is mentioned in BDAG but is not endorsed there.’[13] Certainly there are texts that use εἰς where a causal sense for the preposition would fit, but it is doubtful that any of them require this sense. Stanley Porter exercises sound judgment when he says, “A separate category of causal εἰς is probably to be rejected.”[14] It is most natural to understand εἰς in 1 Pet 1:2 as expressing purpose and/or result, as it does three times in the following three verses. First Peter 1:3-5 says that believers have been given a new birth into (εἰς) a living hope and into (εἰς) an inheritance and that they are being protected by the power of God for (εἰς) a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.[15]

The fourth problem with Agnew’s interpretation is that it fails to appreciate the significance of the intertextual allusion in the disputed phrase. Most commentators have recognized that the background of the reference to obedience and blood-sprinkling is to be found in the account of the ratification of the Mosaic covenant in Exod 24.[16] There we read that Moses had some animals sacrificed, then threw some of the blood of the animals on an altar at the foot of Mount Sinai. Next he read the book of the covenant to the people, and they responded by pledging their obedience to what they had heard. Moses then threw the remaining blood from the sacrificed animals on the people and said,

“This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod 24:8). With this act, those who had been redeemed from Egypt became God’s covenant people.[17] To be sure, the LXX does not use the word ῥαντισμός, in Exod 24, but the action described is one of sprinkling.[18]

There are several reasons for thinking that this incident provides the background for our phrase in 1 Peter. First, the OT mentions only three occasions when persons were sprinkled with blood.[19] The others are described in Lev 14:6-7 and Exod 29:21 (Lev 8:30). Leviticus 14:6-7 says that a person who had been healed of leprosy was sprinkled with the blood of a bird in order to be certified as clean.[20] According to Exod 29:21 and Lev 8:30, Aaron and his sons were sprinkled with blood and oil when they were consecrated as priests. The ratification of the Mosaic covenant in Exod 24 provides a much more likely source for the imagery in 1 Peter than either of these other incidents. Exodus 24 describes a rite that relates to the entire covenant community, whereas the other passages describe rites that relate to specific groups within the covenant community. In addition, Exod 24 refers to a rite of unparalleled significance in the biblical narrative, the rite through which the covenant community was formed. Finally, the Exod 24 narrative combines a reference to a pledge of obedience with the rite of blood-sprinkling, and this combination is absent from the other narratives.[21] This is the only occasion recorded in the OT where individuals are sprinkled with blood after pledging their obedience to God. The combination of obedience and blood-sprinkling in both Exod 24 and 1 Pet 1:2 lends strong support for the view that our author had the scene at Sinai in mind when he wrote 1 Pet 1:2.

Second, the accounts of the words of Jesus at the Last Supper interpret the significance of his death in the light of Exod 24. According to Matt 26:28 and Mark 14:24, Jesus referred to the cup as “my blood of the covenant” (NIV rendering of τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης). Apart from the addition of the personal pronoun, this phrase is taken directly from the words of Moses in Exod 24:8 in the LXX. The accounts of the words of institution in Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25 do not include a direct quotation from Exod 24, but they also echo the words of Moses. In Luke and 1 Corinthians, Jesus refers to the cup as “the new covenant in my blood.”[22] Given the use of the covenant motif in all of these texts and the importance of the Eucharist in the early church, one would expect that the author of 1 Peter would have interpreted the death of Jesus against the background of Exod 24. The likelihood that this passage was in his mind as he wrote 1 Pet 1:2 is great.[23]

The third reason for thinking that 1 Pet 1:2 alludes to Exod 24 is that the idea of the Christian community as a new covenant people who are heirs to the privileges of ancient Israel is an important theme in 1 Peter. For instance, 1 Pet 2:9 says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood (βαςίλειον ἱεράτευμα), a holy nation (ἔθνος ἅγιον), a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Here the author takes excerpts from Isa 43:20-21, Exod 19:5-6, and (possibly) Mal 3:17 that were originally used of the people of Israel and applies them to the predominantly Gentile readers of his letter. The use of Exod 19:5-6 is especially significant, since it occurs in the context of the institution of the Sinaitic covenant. There we read, “And now, if you will diligently listen to me and keep my covenant, then you will be my special possession out of all the nations, for all the earth is mine, and you will be to me a kingdom of priests (βαςίλειον ἱεράτευμα [LXX]) and a holy nation (ἐθνος ἅγιον [LXX]).”

The evidence that Exod 24 provides the source for the allusions to obedience and blood-sprinkling in 1 Pet 1:2 is overwhelming, and if 1 Peter is understood in the light of the Exodus narrative, the obedience in view is almost certainly the obedience of human beings rather than of Christ.

The fifth problem with Agnew’s interpretation is that it assumes that the reference to sprinkling with the blood of Christ refers to what Christ accomplished on the cross, but it is more naturally understood as referring to the application to the readers of the benefits of Christ’s salvific work. In the Exod 24 account, the animals are sacrificed and the blood drained from them, but it is well after their death that their blood is thrown over the people in response to their pledge to keep the terms of the covenant that Moses has read to them. Similarly, Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20 refer to the sacrificial death of Jesus when they speak of Christ’s blood of the covenant being “poured out” (ἐκχυννόμενον); however, 1 Pet 1:2 does not refer to Jesus’ blood being poured out, but to people being sprinkled with it. Here the reference is not to what happened at Calvary but what happens when the benefits of the sacrificial death of Jesus are applied to believers. As A. M. Stibbs says, “The ‘sprinkling of the blood’ in the case of Christ’s sacrifice means the extension to the persons sprinkled of the value and benefits of the death of which it is the token.”[24] This is what happens when a person comes to faith, not what happened when Jesus died on the cross. Some have seen an allusion to baptism here.[25] This is hardly surprising, since baptism is related to the appropriation of salvation in 1 Pet 3:21, which says, “baptism. . . now saves you.” However, this text goes onto say, “not the washing off of physical dirt,” and the use of cleansing imagery suggests that it is unlikely that sprinkling was the mode of baptism that Peter had in mind. Moreover, 1 Pet 1:23 affirms that the means by which the readers were born again was “the living and enduring word of God,” which is equated with “the word that was proclaimed to you” in v. 25.

The final difficulty with Agnew’s interpretation is that by taking εἰς as causal, he assumes that believers are chosen by God because of the obedience of Christ, but this would be an idea without parallel in the NT. To be sure, Jesus is portrayed in 1 Peter as one who was himself chosen by God (1:20; 2:4, 6), and it is only in relation to him that believers are chosen. For instance, Eph 1:4-5 says that believers were chosen in (ἐν) Christ and destined for adoption through (διά) Christ. However, the faithfulness of Jesus in doing his Father’s will is never represented as the reason for God’s election of his people. In fact, the NT is silent when it comes to the issue of why God has chosen whom he has.

Agnew’s proposal offers a creative solution to the problems in 1 Pet 1:2, but the arguments used in its defense are far from compelling. Moreover, it is burdened by difficulties that are so weighty that it must be rejected. First Peter 1:2 is best understood as indicating the goal of divine election, namely that believers should come to the obedience of faith and experience the salvific effects of Christ’s death.

Notes

1. Frances H. Agnew, “1 Peter 1:2—An Alternative Translation,” CBQ45 (1983): 68-73. Unless otherwise indicated, English translations of biblical texts will be taken from the NET Bible (available online at http://bible.org/netbible/).
2. Some scholars (e.g., Edward G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter [2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1947], 119) think that the three phrases qualify ἀπόστολος as well as ἐκλεκτοῖς. This is unlikely. On this issue, see J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude (BNTC; London: Black, 1969), 42.
3. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 87.
4. John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 319; Earl J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 32; and Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 20-21.
5. To be sure, the grammatical structure is quite different. In 2 Thess 2:13, the choice of the Father is expressed by a finite verb, and the references to the sanctification of the Spirit and the faith of believers appear in a single prepositional phrase.
6. None of the 21 occurrences of the verb in the NT refers to the obedience of Christ; however, the adjective ὑπήκοος is so used in Phil 2:8.
7. Some scholars (e.g., Kelly, Epistles, 43) pose the difficulty in terms of treating the genitive as an objective genitive in relation to ὑπακοήν and subjective genitive in relation to αἵματος. Since αἷμα is not a verbal noun, the genitive cannot be subjective in relation to it.
8. This view is favored by J. Ramsey Michaels (1 Peter [WBC; Waco: Word, 1988], 11) Achtemeier (1 Peter, 88). Karen Jobes (1 Peter [BEGNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], 72) suggests that ὑπακοήν and ῥαντισμόν can be understood as forming a hendiadys.
9. The actual phrase “obedience of faith” is used in Rom 1:5 and 16:26. Cf. Rom 10:16; 15:18: 2 Thess 1:8; and Acts 6:7. Many commentators think that the obedience of faith is in view in 1 Pet 1:2- See, e.g., Ernest Best, 1 Peter (NGB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 71; and esp. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAG; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 55.
10. The only occurrence of the verb ὑπακούω in 1 Peter is in 1 Pet 3:6, where it is used of Sarah obeying Abraham. In its only other occurrence in 1 Peter, ἀπειθέω is intransitive (1 Pet 3:20).
11. Julius R. Mantey, “Unusual Meanings for Prepositions in the Greek New Testament,” Expositor 25 (1923): 453-60, esp. 456-58; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 103-4; Julius R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1951): 45-48; and Mantey, “On Causal Eis Again,” JBL 70 (1951): 309-11.
12. Ralph Marcus, “On Causal Eis,” JBL 70 (1951): 129-30; and Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71 (1952): 43-44.
13. J. C. Davis (“Another Look at the Relationship between Baptism and Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2:38,” ResQJ24 [1981]: 80-88) contends that the standard lexicons and grammars do not support the idea of a causal use for εἰς. Note that in his article in The Expositor, Mantey (“Unusual Meanings,” 456) began his discussion of the putative causal use of εἰς with the admission, “For the possibility of εἰς having causal significance in the New Testament there is no Greek authority that I am aware of whom I may quote.”
14. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Biblical Language: Greek 2; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 152 n. 2- Daniel B. Wallace agrees. He says that Mantey’s “ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction” (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000], 371).
15. The preposition εἰς is often used to indicate purpose and/or result in 1 Peter. In addition to the examples in 1 Pet 1:3-5, Elliott (1 Peter, 319) acknowledges that it has this force in 1 Pet 1:7, 22; 2:5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 21; 3:7, 9; 4:2, 7. 1 Peter 2:8 is especially noteworthy because it speaks of the consequences of divine election. It says, “They stumble by disobeying the message; they were destined for (εἰς) this” (Holman Christian Standard Bible). This parallels 1 Pet 1:2 very closely, as it refers to God’s choice and speaks of the human response to the gospel as an act of obedience or disobedience.
16. So, e.g., E J. A Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter I. 1-II. 17 (1898; repr., Minneapolis: James & Klock, 1976), 23-24; and Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Letter of Peter (trans. Peter H. Davids; Waco. Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008), 58.
17. There is general agreement that the Israelites became God’s covenant people through this rite, but there is considerable disagreement about how to understand the function of the rite. See. e.g., E. W. Nicholson, “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus XXIV 3-8,” VT32 (1982): 74-86.
18. The word appears only in Num 19:9, 13, 20, and 21 in the LXX. There it is used of sprinkling with water to cleanse people who had become ceremonially unclean. The verb ῥαντίζω) is used of the sprinkling of blood on the people at Sinai in Heb 9:19.
19. The high priest sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Day of Atonement ritual, and David L. Bartlett (NIB 12:247) suggests that 1 Pet 1:2 may allude to this. However, although this rite had atoning significance, the blood was not applied to human beings.
20. Wayne Grudem (The First Epistle of Peter [TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 53) claims that the blood-sprinkling in 1 Pet 1:2 should be seen against the background of the purification rites for lepers in Lev 14 and refers to the repeated cleansing from the defilement of sin that believers experience. He appears to favor this interpretation, because he understands the references to the sanctifying work of the Spirit and obedience to relate to the ongoing experience of believers, but it is more likely that both relate to initiation into the Christian life.
21. Michaels (1 Peter, 12) says, “The close connection between obedience and sprinkling suggests that Exod 24:3-8 is . . . determinative for his [Peter’s] imagery”
22. The account in 1 Corinthians is especially significant because of the age of the letter (written ca. 55 C.E.) and the fact that Paul explicitly indicates that he is passing on a tradition that he has received (1 Cor 11:23). Cf. Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, “τὰ δρώμενα καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα: The Eucharistic Memory of Jesus’ Words in First Corinthians,” HTR 90 (1997): 359-70.
23. That the early Christians were very familiar with the account of the ratification of the Sinaitic covenant is evident from the fact that there is a version of it in Heb 9:18-20.
24. A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word ‘Blood’ in Scripture (3d ed.; London: Tyndale, 1962), 25.
25. So, e.g., Leonhard Goppelt, ACommentary on 1 Peter (trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 71-72, 74-75.