从属灵争战看逼迫——彼得前书5章8节中的 “仇敌”Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1Peter 5:8
作者: Christopher Byrley
译者/校对者:甘林/米利暗
前言INTRODUCTION
在彼得前书的105节经文当中，早期教父引用最多的就是彼得前书5:8：“务要谨守、警醒，因为你们的仇敌魔鬼，如同吼叫的狮子，遍地游行，寻找可吞吃的人。”这看起来是在面对属灵争战时最直截了当的鼓励，因此就不难理解为何教会历史上有如此多基督徒，每当面对试探或意识到正遭遇魔鬼压制时，会去看这劝勉和它的上下文。但这节经文位于书信的结尾，读者会期望这劝勉与作者的首要目的相吻合。警告提防那鬼魔的首领，留心它“吞吃”基督徒的企图，似乎与这封以鼓励和劝勉落在受苦逼迫当中的信徒为首要关注的书信并不协调。确实，这节经文是整封书信第一处，也是唯一一处提到魔鬼的地方。
Of the 105 verses that make up the
epistle of 1 Peter, none are quoted more by the early Church Fathers than 1
Peter 5:8: “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls
around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” As a seemingly
straightforward encouragement in the face of spiritual warfare, it is not
difficult to see why many Christians throughout the history of the church have
pointed to this exhortation and the surrounding context in the face of
temptation or perceived demonic oppression. As this passage stands at the
conclusion of the epistle, however, the reader would expect an exhortation in
line with the primary aims of the author. In a letter primarily concerned with
encouragement and exhortation to believers in the midst of suffering and
persecution, a warning against the chief demonic entity and his desire to
“devour” Christians might seem out of place. Indeed, this verse marks the
first, and only, mention of the Devil in the entire epistle.
我认为，这结束的警告并非与这封信其他部分的主题不符，而是让人得以看见作者的世界观，以及他对读者困境的描述。我要论证，这封书信展现的受苦与逼迫，应当通过犹太人和早期基督徒关于宇宙性冲突的启示文学传统加以查看，这种传统把地上的事件与冲突看作是反映出天上的事件与冲突。具体来说，彼得描绘读者当前经历的冲突与逼迫，看这些是对抗撒但及鬼魔灵界的宇宙性冲突之必然的、无可避免的结果，是对这冲突的反映。因此，彼得就不仅仅是在劝勉读者要看自己是上帝的百姓，因重生而得着一种末世的盼望（彼前1:3-5），而且还要他们看到，他们当前与敌对的人和制度的冲突，是一场正在进行的、对抗撒但的末世冲突的重要组成部分（彼前5:8-10）。彼得通过描述他们以在圣洁中的坚忍作为属灵争战的武器，表明了他们当前受苦的意义，解释了他们经历如此敌意的原因。而且，这些充满末世意义的劝勉，为读者在目前的受苦中心存盼望和坚忍提供了依据，因为基督已经确保了最终的得胜（彼前3:22）。
This closing warning is, I suggest,
not out of character with the rest of the epistle, but instead offers an
insight into the author’s worldview and depiction of the plight of his readers.
I will argue that the suffering and persecution envisioned in the letter should
be viewed through the Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic tradition of cosmic
conflict, wherein earthly events and conflicts are seen as a reflection of
heavenly ones. In particular, Peter SBJT 21.3 (2017): 77-98 The Southern
Baptist Journal of Theology 21.3 (2017) 78 pictures the current conflict and
persecution of the readers as a necessary and inevitable product and reflection
of the cosmic struggle against Satan and the demonic realm. Peter thus not only
exhorts his readers to view themselves as the people of God, born into an
eschatological hope (1:3–5), but also to view their present conflict with
hostile human individuals and institutions as an important part of the ongoing
and eschatological conflict with Satan (5:8–10). In so doing, Peter provides
meaning for their present suffering and explains the reason they are experiencing
such hostility by picturing their persistence in holiness as a means of
spiritual warfare. Further, these eschatologically charged exhortations provide
a basis for hope and perseverance in his readers’ present suffering, since
Christ has already ensured ultimate victory (3:22).
要证明这主张，我一开始要根据圣经，特别是新约圣经，简单概括古人对宇宙性冲突和鬼魔灵界的观念。接着，我要讨论彼得前书所展示的逼迫到底属于什么性质。虽然许多现代学者认为，这封书信描绘的逼迫首要是在言语和社会层面的逼迫，但我认为，司法甚至暴力施加的苦难，仍然是当时对小亚细亚基督徒的明显威胁。最后，我把这两条论证思路应用在彼得前书5:8及之后的结束劝勉上，因为这些经文概括了书信的总体内容，劝勉和鼓励读者在他们“火炼的试验中”坚忍（彼前4:12）。
To demonstrate this claim, I will begin
by briefly summarizing ancient conceptions of cosmic conflict and the demonic
realm from biblical literature, especially the NT. Next, I will discuss the
nature of the persecution envisioned in 1 Peter. Despite many modern scholars
maintaining that the persecution depicted in the letter was primarily verbal
and social, I will suggest that legal and even violent suffering remained a
distinct threat to the Christians in Asia Minor. Lastly, I will bring these two
lines of argument to bear on the closing exhortation of 1 Peter 5:8ff, as these
verses sum up the contents of the letter as a whole, encouraging as well as
exhorting the readers to perseverance in the midst of their “fiery trial”
(4:12).
犹太人和基督徒对宇宙性冲突的描写
JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN PORTRAYALS
OF COSMIC CONFLICT
旧约圣经只有三处把撒但当作专有名词使用，在每一处，它的影响力都很有限，并非主要强调点。然而，撒但这个角色相对较少出现，并不必然意味着旧约圣经没有讲述宇宙性冲突的传统。虽然撒但的名字偶尔才使用，但早在创世记第3章（参启12:9，20:2）人已感受到魔鬼的存在，它企图破坏耶和华的计划，反对他的百姓。但总体而言，旧约圣经作者没有强化说明撒但这个角色，把所有邪恶都归在它名下，而是经常描写耶和华与周边民族的众神争战，从耶和华与这些众神争战（并且得胜）的角度来看他们与这些国民的冲突（例如民33:4b；撒下7:23；代下25:15）。
There are only three instances in the
OT where Satan is used as a proper name, and his influence in each case is
limited and not a major point of emphasis. However, this relative absence of
the figure of Satan does not necessitate the absence of the tradition of cosmic
conflict. Though the name of Satan is sparsely used, the presence of the Devil
is felt as early as Genesis 3 (cf. Rev 12:9; 20:2), seeking to undermine the
plans of Yahweh and oppose his people. In general, however, lacking a
solidified figure of Satan under which all evil might be subsumed, the OT
authors instead frequently depicted Yahweh at war with the gods of surrounding
nations, and saw their conflict with these nations in terms of Yahweh’s
conflict with (and triumph over) these beings (e.g., Num 33:4b; 2 Sam 5:7;
7:23; 2 Chron 25:15).
第二圣殿时期的犹太人作品，特别是启示文学性质的作品，极大扩充了对撒但的角色和本性的阐述。这些犹太作者看到邪灵的大军反对耶和华和他的百姓，这大军有一位代表着邪恶的宇宙势力的作它们的元首。这在宇宙范围内上帝的对头的名字叫萨麦尔（Sammael），阿撒泻勒（Azazel），莫斯提马（Mastema），彼列（Beliar），西姆扎斯（Semihazah）， 撒但（Satan），等等——不同作者的说法不同，甚至就在同一段文本中也有差异。但他们都一致把这仇敌描绘为上帝和他百姓的敌人，它把鬼魔的势力，甚至把人类都置于自己的掌控之下。旧约圣经倾向描述耶和华与其他民族的众神冲突，而第二圣殿时期的文学作品则反映出撒但是宇宙邪恶势力的总代表这种观念。因篇幅有限，我们不能详细纵览旧约圣经和第二圣殿时期与宇宙性冲突及鬼魔灵界相关的文本。这样，在接下来的部分，我要把评论专注于简短选取的新约圣经经文，这些经文反映出早期基督徒如何理解撒但的角色，如何理解鬼魔灵界与耶和华及他百姓的冲突。
Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1
Peter 5:8 79 Jewish writings in the Second Temple period, particularly those
apocalyptic in nature, greatly expanded upon the role and nature of Satan.
These Jewish authors conceived of a host of demonic spirits in opposition to
Yahweh and his people, with a single evil cosmic force at their head. The names
for this cosmic opponent of God—Sammael, Azazel, Mastema, Beliar, Semihazah,
Satan, etc.—varied among authors, and even within the same texts. Yet, this
adversary was consistently portrayed as the enemy of God and his people, with a
demonic force and even human beings under his control. Whereas the OT tended to
depict Yahweh in conflict with a multitude of gods of other nations, literature
in the Second Temple period reflects the notion of Satan as the unified cosmic
figure of evil. Space prohibits a substantive survey of OT and Second Temple
texts related to cosmic conflict and the demonic realm. In the following
section, then, I will focus my remarks on a brief selection of NT texts that
reflect the early Christian understanding of the role of Satan and the demonic
realm in conflict with Yahweh and his people.
撒但是“这世界的王”
Satan as the “Ruler of This
World”
新约圣经讲到撒但时，其中最常用的一个称呼就是它是“这世界的王”。约翰福音三次使用了这个特别的标签，指的都是撒但（约12:31，14:30，16:11；参“这世界的神”，林后4:4）。在约翰福音中，“世界”是典型的象征说法，指的是“与上帝为敌的堕落人类”。那么，撒但作为这世界的王，就代表了耶和华在宇宙中的终极对头。而且这标签还暗示，撒但对地球施加相当大的影响力。它是这世界的王，在某种意义上操纵着其上的居民和他们的行动。约翰福音对此的说明就是，指出耶稣最大的敌人——那些宗教领袖和犹大是撒但的后裔，落在它的影响之下。
One of the most common ways the NT
speaks of Satan is as the “ruler of this world.” The Fourth Gospel uses this
specific label three times, all in reference to Satan (12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cf.
“the god of this world,” 2 Cor 4:4). In the Fourth Gospel, the “world” is
typically used symbolically of “fallen humanity in opposition to God.” Satan,
then, as the ruler of the world, represents the ultimate cosmic opponent to
Yahweh. Implied in this label, further, is the considerable influence that
Satan exerts over the earth. As the ruler of the world, in some sense he holds sway
over its inhabitants and their actions. This is seen in the Fourth Gospel by
the identification of Jesus’ greatest opponents, the religious leaders and
Judas, as the offspring of Satan and as under his influence (see below).
撒但作为地上的王带来的影响也可以在马太福音和路加福音耶稣受试探的叙述中看出来，那时撒但把耶稣带到一座高山上，让他看“世上的万国与万国的荣华”（太4:8；对应路4:5）。撒但提出要把万国给耶稣，作为交换，耶稣要拜它。隐含在这提议当中的，就是万国实际上是它的，它可以给耶稣。经文中没有迹象表明撒但的提议不合理，因耶稣的回应集中在除神以外，他不拜任何人，而没有在任何方面强调万国实际并非落在撒但的控制之下。这并不是说新约圣经作者按任何二元论的意思限制上帝的主权，只是说撒但得到上帝许可，对地上万国发挥某种影响。弗朗西斯（R. T. France）的概括很好地把握住这观念：“应该这样理解，撒但在当今世代有实在的权势，但我们总要以上帝最终得胜的视角看待这一点。这样他尽管能提出要给（耶稣）权柄和荣耀，但这并非最终成就上帝的旨意，更说不上符合上帝的旨意。”同样，但以理书第10章描绘地上的国由超自然的“魔君”作代表（例如“波斯的魔君”，“希腊的魔君”，但10:20），同样在这方面，新约圣经承认，地上的万国由魔鬼的君王，就是撒但亲自统治。所以撒但的目的不仅仅是要败坏个人，还要败坏整个社会体系。
The influence of Satan upon the earth
as its ruler may also be observed in the temptation narrative in Matthew and
Luke, when Satan takes Jesus to a high mountain to show him “all the kingdoms
of the world and their glory” (Matt 4:8; par. Luke 4:5). Satan offers to give
Jesus these kingdoms in exchange for his worship. Implicit in this offer is
that the kingdoms are actually his to give. There is no indication in the text
that Satan’s offer is illegitimate, as Jesus’ response centers around his
refusal to bow down to anyone but the Lord rather than any insistence that
those kingdoms were not The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21.3 (2017) 80
actually under Satan’s control anyway. This is not to say that the NT authors
limit God’s sovereignty in any kind of dualistic sense, but only that Satan is
permitted influence of some kind over these earthly kingdoms. France’s summary
captures the idea well, “[Satan] is understood to have real power in the
present age, though always under the perspective of the ultimate victory of
God. And as such he can offer power and glory, but not ultimate fulfillment,
still less in accordance with the will of God.” In the same way that Daniel 10
pictures the nations of the earth represented by supernatural “princes” (e.g.
the “prince of Persia” and the “prince of Greece”; Dan 10:20), so here the NT
acknowledges that the kingdoms of the earth are ruled by the prince of the
demons—Satan himself. Satan’s aims are not just the corruption of individuals,
therefore, but of entire societal structures and governments.
其他新约圣经作者也反映出同样的理解，就是撒但是这地球的统治者并对其实施影响。保罗提到撒但时用了“空中掌权者的首领”这一说法（弗2:2）。对保罗和他的读者而言，“空中”指的不是大气层，而是邪灵的住处。那么这领域的统治者，就是邪灵的统治者，即撒但。意义重大的就是，保罗说，在相信基督之前，以弗所人在这首领的权势之下行事为人。那么对保罗而言，这说的不仅仅是公然与上帝为敌的人受撒但影响，还包括地上每一个无份于上帝在基督里的恩典的人。正如约翰一书的作者明确阐述的：“全世界都卧在那恶者手下。”（约一5:19，也见3:8-10）
Other NT authors reflect this same
understanding of the influence of Satan upon the earth as its ruler. Paul
refers to Satan using the term “the prince of the power of the air” (2:2). For
Paul and his readers, the “air” referred not so much to the atmosphere, but to
the “dwelling place of evil spirits.” The ruler of this realm, then, is the
ruler of the evil spirits, i.e., Satan. Significantly, Paul says that prior to
Christ, the Ephesians walked under the power of this “prince.” For Paul, then,
it is not merely the explicit enemies of God portrayed under the influence of
Satan, but every person on earth apart from the grace of God in Christ. As the
author of 1 John explicitly states, “[T]he whole world lies in the power of the
evil one” (1 John 5:19; see also 3:8–10).
撒但与上帝国度的冲突
Satan in Conflict with the
Kingdom of God
圣经也一贯表明，撒但首先要发起反对耶稣和教会事工的冲突。虽然这种反对通常涉及人或体制的工作，但按照圣经的世界观，这种反对的终极来源是魔鬼自己。我们常常可以在圣经使用魔鬼的意象来描写耶稣和教会的仇敌这件事上看到这种关联。比起任何其他个人或群体，经上更多用魔鬼称呼出卖耶稣的犹大。在约翰福音中，耶稣在五饼二鱼的神迹之后对门徒说：“我不是拣选了你们十二个门徒吗？但你们中间有一个是魔鬼。”作者马上澄清他的意思：“耶稣这话是指着加略人西门的儿子犹大说的，他本是十二个门徒里的一个，后来要卖耶稣的。”（约6:70-71）其他经文讲到撒但影响犹大出卖耶稣，或“入了他的心”（路22:3-6；约13:2,26-27)。另外，约翰福音记载耶稣在客西马尼园被捕之前作告别讲论时，对门徒说：“这世界的王将到。”（约14:30）在这里作者清楚地在讲加略人犹大和与他一起来逮捕耶稣的军队，但指出魔鬼是“这世界的王”。正如上面指出那样，这种说法通常描述的是撒但在地上的影响。关于犹大来逮捕耶稣的对观经文，仅仅讲他是那“卖”主的人（见太26:46；可14:42），但在这里，约翰福音的作者再次明确表明，撒但是在通过犹大做工。
Satan is also shown consistently to
be the primary instigator of conflict against the ministry of Jesus and the
Church. While this opposition usually involves the agency of human beings or
institutions, within the biblical worldview, the ultimate source of this
opposition was the Devil himself. This connection is frequently seen in the
depiction of the enemies of Jesus and the church with demonic imagery. As the
betrayer of Jesus, Judas is spoken of in demonic terms more than any other
individual or group. Following the multiplication of the fishes and loaves in
the Fourth Gospel, Jesus says to the disciples, “Did I not choose you, the
Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” The author immediately clarifies his
meaning, “He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the
Twelve, was going to betray him” ( John Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1
Peter 5:8 81 6:70–71). Other passages speak of Satan influencing Judas to
betray Jesus, or “entering into him” (see Luke 22:3–6; John 13:2, 26–27).
Further, in the Fourth Gospel’s account of the farewell discourse prior to the
arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane, Jesus tells the disciples, “the ruler of this
world is coming” ( John 14:30). Here the author clearly refers to Judas
Iscariot and the arresting force with him, but identifies him as the “ruler of
this world.” As noted above, this designation commonly describes the influence
of Satan on earth. Similar statements about the coming of Judas to arrest Jesus
merely speak of him as the “betrayer” (see Matt 26:46; Mark 14:42), yet here
the author of the Fourth Gospel again makes explicit the work of Satan through
Judas.
除犹大以外，圣经通常也把犹太人的宗教领袖描写成为撒但和鬼魔灵界做工的人。在约翰福音第8章，法利赛人直面耶稣，质问他此时自我宣告的权柄。耶稣的回答就是，宣告他的权柄来自于他的父，就是上帝自己。而且耶稣对他们说，因他们想要杀死他，他们的父就不是亚伯拉罕，也不是上帝，而是撒但。他说：“你们是出于你们的父魔鬼，你们父的私欲，你们偏要行。他从起初是杀人的，不守真理，因他心里没有真理。”（约8:44） 所以，他们反对耶稣时，具体来说，他们想要杀他的时候，就不是与上帝，而是与他在宇宙中的仇敌站在一边。耶稣结束在地上的工作之后，类似的，圣经也把使徒行传中反对使徒和福音传播的对头说成是宇宙的邪恶势力。巴拿巴和保罗在塞浦路斯服事时遇到一个名叫巴耶稣的人（也称以吕马，徒13:8），圣经描写他是一个犹太假先知和一位行法术的人。这位术士在方伯士求保罗手下工作，企图破坏保罗和巴拿巴的教导，“要叫方伯不信真道”。（徒13:8）保罗驳斥这个假先知，称他是“魔鬼的儿子”（徒13:10），最终咒诅他，让他瞎眼。只要巴耶稣反对福音的信息，作“众善的仇敌”行事，他就表明自己是撒但使用的工具。他虽然不是直接反对耶稣本人，但他反对使徒和福音的传播，这仍被看作从本质上是属魔鬼的。
In addition to Judas, the Jewish
religious leaders in general are also portrayed as agents of Satan and the
demonic realm. In John 8, the Pharisees confront Jesus over the authority
concerning the claims he was making about himself. Jesus responds by claiming
his authority from the Lord himself, his Father. Further, Jesus tells them
that, due to their desire to put him to death, their father is not Abraham nor
God himself, but Satan. He says, “You are of your father the devil, and your
will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and
does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him” ( John 8:44). In
their opposition to Jesus, therefore, and specifically in their desire to kill
him, they are aligned not with the Lord, but with his cosmic enemy. Beyond the
earthly ministry of Jesus, the opponents of the apostles and the spread of the
gospel in Acts are similarly equated with the cosmic forces of evil. Barnabas
and Paul, while ministering in Cyprus, encountered a man named Bar-Jesus (also
called Elymas, Acts 13:8), who is described as a Jewish false prophet and a
magician. This magician served under the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, and sought
to undermine the teaching of Paul and Barnabas, “seeking to turn the proconsul
away from the faith” (v. 8). Paul rebukes the false prophet, calling him a “son
of the devil” and an “enemy of all righteousness” (v. 10), ultimately cursing
him with blindness. Insofar as Bar-Jesus opposed the message of the gospel and
acted as an “enemy of righteousness,” then, he showed himself to be a tool of
Satan. While not directly opposing Jesus himself, his opposition to the
apostles and the spread of the gospel is still regarded as demonic in nature.
就连那些看起来与耶稣站在一边的人，圣经也会把他们描写为是在做撒但的工作。在马太福音，耶稣第一次预言他要被出卖和受死后，彼得把他拉在一旁，抗议说这些事情绝不会发生。耶稣强烈回应说：“撒但，退我后边去吧！你是绊我脚的，因为你不体贴上帝的意思，只体贴人的意思。”（太16:23；对应可8:33）在马太的叙述中，耶稣刚刚宣告彼得是磐石，他要把教会建造在这磐石上（太16:16-19），然而彼得的建议却是不让耶稣死在仇敌手中和复活，他不是在遵行主的旨意，而是在遵行撒但的意思。弗朗西斯描写彼得的建议是“作为上帝终极仇敌的发言人行事”。因此，圣经作者再一次把任何反对耶稣事工，包括他舍己的死的事，都归于是撒但的工作。
Even those seemingly aligned with
Jesus may be described as doing the works of Satan. Following the first
prediction of his betrayal and death in the Gospel of Mathew, Peter pulls Jesus
aside to rebuke him, protesting that The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
21.3 (2017) 82 these things will surely not come to pass. Jesus responds
strongly, saying, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are
not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matt
16:23; par. Mark 8:33). In Matthew’s account, Jesus had just declared Peter to
be the rock upon which his church was to be built (vv. 16–19) and yet, in
Peter’s suggestion that Jesus would not die at the hands of his enemies and be
raised, he carried out not the will of the Lord, but of Satan. France describes
Peter’s suggestion as “acting as a spokesman of God’s ultimate enemy.” Again,
therefore, the biblical authors identify any opposition to the ministry of
Jesus, including his sacrificial death, to be the work of Satan.
耶稣与撒但的冲突
Jesus in Conflict with Satan
如果新约圣经把反对耶稣的事工看作是撒但的工作，那么对新约圣经作者而言，耶稣的事工——以他的死和复活为高潮，就是耶和华与撒但和鬼魔灵界冲突并且得胜的一部分。在耶稣赶鬼的工作取得初步成功之后，符类福音书作者描述了一场争议，这争议事关耶稣胜过鬼魔的权柄的源头。具体来说，有人把耶稣赶鬼的能力归于撒但的权势，控告耶稣是被那称为“鬼王”的别西卜附着。福音书作者记载耶稣对这控告做出辩护时，是从与撒但冲突的角度来描绘自己的事工。耶稣首先的回应是指出撒但的势力自己攻击自己这说法实在荒唐，因为如果撒但通过耶稣赶鬼做工，他实际上就是在做工终结自己的国。马可仅仅是暗示的，马太和路加作了明确说明，即让耶稣拥有胜过鬼魔权柄的，就是“上帝的灵”（太12:28）和“上帝的能力”（路11:20）。
If opposition to the ministry of
Jesus is seen to be the work of Satan, for the writers of the NT, the ministry
of Jesus, culminating in his death and resurrection, is a part of Yahweh’s
conflict with and triumph over Satan and the demonic realm. After the initial
success of Jesus’ exorcistic ministry, the Synoptic writers describe a
controversy that arose over the source of Jesus’ authority over demons. In
particular, Jesus’ ability to cast out demons is attributed to Satanic power,
as Jesus is accused of being possessed by Beelzebul, called “the prince of
demons” (Mark 3:22; Matt 12:24; Luke 11:15). In their record of Jesus’ defense
to this accusation, the gospel writers cast Jesus’ ministry in terms of
conflict with Satan. Jesus responds first by pointing out the absurdity of
suggesting that Satan’s power would work against itself, for if Satan were at
work through Jesus in driving out demons, he would effectively be working
towards the end of his own kingdom. Matthew and Luke make explicit what Mark
merely implies—it is the “Spirit of God” (Matt 12:28) and the “finger of God”
(Luke 11:20) that gives Jesus authority over demons.
耶稣继续为自己辩护，用另一种方式描述他的工作——就是捆绑“壮士”，抢夺他的家具（可3:27；太12:29；路11:21-22）。上下文清楚表明，这“壮士”就是撒但，他要保护的“家具”，就是被鬼魔压制的无知受害者。因此，耶稣赶鬼和医治病人，就不仅仅是在证明他的神性或弥赛亚的地位，也不仅仅是在表明对弱者和被压制之人的怜悯。耶稣赶鬼的工作是攻击撒但和灵界的鬼魔，以拯救落在魔鬼掌管之下的人，因此就是“抢夺他的家”（可3:27；太12:29）。莱恩（Lane）写道：“赶鬼不是别的，正是以强力攻击撒但的主权。”类似的，弗朗西斯认为：“‘捆绑壮士’的意象不是与耶稣赶鬼的方法，而是与他现在带来的末世拯救相关，是上帝的王权让撒但最终无力反对上帝的旨意，或继续伤害他的百姓。”
Jesus continues his defense by
picturing his ministry in a different way— namely, the binding of the “strong
man” and plundering his goods (Mark 3:27; Matt 12:29; Luke 11:21–22). The
context makes clear that the “strong man” is Satan himself, and the “goods” he
seeks to protect are the innocent sufferers oppressed by demons. Therefore, in
casting out demons and healing the sick, Jesus is not merely giving proof of
his divinity or messianic status, nor is he merely showing compassion on the
weak and downtrodden. Instead, Jesus’ ministry of exorcisms is an attack on
Satan and the demonic realm, that he may rescue those in his grasp and thus
“plunder his house” (Mark Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1 Peter 5:8 83
3:27; Matt 12:29). Lane writes, “The expulsion of demons is nothing less than a
forceful attack on the lordship of Satan.” Similarly, France suggests, “[T]he
imagery of ‘binding the strong man’ relates not to Jesus’ exorcistic methods,
but rather to the eschatological salvation which he now brings, as God’s
kingship renders Satan ultimately powerless to oppose God’s will or to harm his
people.”
因此，捆绑壮士描写的是耶稣与鬼魔灵界的冲突，以及他胜过这灵界。他在这里的说明帮助读者理解贯穿符类福音书众多赶鬼叙述发生的事。当一个被鬼附的人遇见耶稣，鬼经常是处在一个顺从和恐惧的地位说话（可1:23-24，3:11，5:7），耶稣用一句话就将鬼赶出来（可1:25，7:29-30，9:25）。具体来说，耶稣描述赶鬼是捆绑壮士，这样就描绘他整个医治和赶鬼的事工是在地上反映出耶和华和撒但之间的宇宙性冲突，他事工的果效表明他必然得胜。
The binding of the strong man,
therefore, describes both Jesus’ conflict with the demonic realm as well as his
mastery over it. His statements here help the reader to understand what is
taking place in the numerous exorcism accounts littered throughout the
Synoptics. When Jesus is met by a demon-possessed individual, the demon
frequently speaks from a place of submission and fear (Mark 1:23; 3:11; 5:7),
and Jesus expels the demon with but a word (Mark 1:25; 7:25; 9:25).
Specifically, Jesus’ description of exorcism as the binding of the strong man,
then, paints his entire healing and exorcistic ministry as an earthly
reflection of the cosmic conflict between Yahweh and Satan, and his
effectiveness as an indication of the certainty of his victory.
保罗在反思耶稣死和复活带来的结果时，清楚表明耶稣的死和复活已经让他稳稳胜过撒但和鬼魔灵界。他在哥林多前书，从基督胜过灵界仇敌的角度讲到他的复活。保罗写到，在最后那日，基督“既将一切执政的、掌权的、有能的都毁灭了，就把国交与父上帝”（林前15:24）。保罗在下一节经文进一步解释，基督“必要作王，等上帝把一切仇敌都放在他的脚下”（林前15:25）。因此，24节中“执政的、掌权的、有能的”都是等同于25节中基督的仇敌，表明他们是要作为参照，指向与上帝和他百姓为敌的宇宙势力。保罗也在其他地方提到这些宇宙势力，在以弗所书，他讲到上帝通过基督复活，已叫他“在天上坐在自己的右边，远超过一切执政的、掌权的、有能的、主治的”（弗1:20-21）。保罗也讲到这些势力服在“他脚下”（弗1:22），这是指着诗篇110:1说的。
Reflecting on the consequences of
Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul makes clear that Jesus’ death and
resurrection have secured victory over Satan and the demonic realm. In 1
Corinthians, he speaks of Christ’s resurrection in terms of his dominion over
spiritual enemies. In the last day, Paul writes, Christ will deliver “the
kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and
power” (1 Cor 15:24). Paul explains further in the next verse that Christ “must
reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (v. 25). Thus the
rulers, authorities, and powers of v. 24 are equated with Christ’s enemies in
v. 25, suggesting they are intended to serve as references to cosmic powers hostile
to God and his people. Paul elsewhere makes reference to these cosmic entities
in Ephesians, where he says that in the resurrection, God placed Christ “in the
heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph
1:20–21). Paul also speaks of these powers being placed “under his feet” (v.
22), alluding to Psalm 110:1.
教会与撒但的冲突
The Church in Conflict with Satan
保罗也清楚表明，教会在基督与撒但的这场冲突中发挥了积极作用。保罗在以弗所书结束的劝勉中鼓励信徒“抵挡魔鬼的诡计”（弗6:11）。圣经其他地方鼓励相信的人要抵挡魔鬼（雅 4:7；彼前5:8-9），但保罗在这里比其他圣经作者说明得更详细。他从宇宙性冲突的角度明确描写信徒的挣扎，表明相信的人真正面对的争战是对抗“那些执政的、掌权的、管辖这幽暗世界的（kosmokratōr）”（弗6:12）。我已指出，在其他圣经经文中，“执政的、掌权的”可以指宇宙中的灵。保罗在这里引入了kosmokratōr，新约圣经中只在这里用到这词。从进一步的描述——就是这些灵是“属灵气的恶魔”（弗6:12）——可以清楚看到，这些说法都是指那些恶意的灵。
Paul also makes clear that the church
plays an active role in this conflict between Christ and Satan. In the closing
exhortation in Ephesians, Paul encourages the believers to “stand against the
schemes of the devil” (Eph 6:11). Believers are elsewhere exhorted to resist
the devil ( Jas 4:7; 1 Pet The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21.3 (2017)
84 5:8–9), but here Paul elaborates more than other biblical authors. He
explicitly describes the struggle of the believers in terms of cosmic conflict
when he indicates that the true battle faced by believers is against “the
rulers,” “the authorities,” and “the cosmic powers (kosmokratōr) over this
present darkness” (v. 12). I have already noted how both “rulers” and
“authorities” can refer to cosmic beings in other NT texts. Here Paul
introduces the figure of the kosmokratōr, used only here in the NT. From the
further description that these beings are “spiritual forces of evil” (v. 12),
it is clear these terms are all intended to refer to malevolent spiritual
beings.
然后保罗描写信徒如何参与这场宇宙性冲突——就是穿戴上帝的军装。虽然保罗在此使用了非常军事化的术语，但相信的人是要用真理、公义、信德“武装”自己（弗6:14-17）。正如安苏孟（Asumang）指出的那样：“以弗所书第6章的武器清单包括了由基督救赎之工开启的基督徒美德。”所以他们的争战其实并不是靠自己的能力和力量，而在于他们上帝的力量，以及他们对他的信靠。靠着他的大能，他们就连对抗这样的仇敌也能站立得稳。
Paul then describes how the believers
are to engage in this cosmic conflict—namely, by putting on the armor of God.
Though Paul draws here on heavily militaristic language, the believers are to
“arm” themselves with such things as truth, righteousness, and faith (vv.
14–17). As Asumang notes, “[T]he list of weapons in Ephesians 6 includes
Christian virtues that are inaugurated by Christ’s redemptive work.” Their
struggle, therefore, is not so much about their own might and strength, but
rather on the strength of their God and their dependence upon him. In his might
they would be able to stand firm, even against such a foe.
最后，在罗马书结束的劝勉中，保罗应许读者：“赐平安的上帝，快要将撒但践踏在你们脚下。”（罗16:20）保罗在此可能指的是创世记3:15的应许，在那里耶和华宣告说，“女人的后裔”要践踏蛇的头。意味深长的是，保罗说撒但要被践踏在相信的人脚下，而不是基督的脚下。当然，主仍是挫败撒但的那一位，但是这里是按着与相信的人有某种联合做成这一点（参见约一2:13-14）。而且，保罗劝勉的直接上下文提到分裂教会的假师傅（罗16:17），那么挫败这些假师傅，就是与挫败撒但联系在一起，因为就他们企图反对和削弱教会而言，他们就是魔鬼用来做工的人。
Finally, in the closing exhortation
of Romans, Paul promises his readers, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan
under your feet” (Rom 16:20). Paul likely here is alluding to the promise of Genesis
3:15, where the Lord declares that the “seed of the woman” will crush the head
of the serpent. Significantly, Paul says that Satan will be crushed underneath
the believers’ feet, rather than Christ’s. The Lord is still the one who
defeats Satan, but does so in some connection to the believers (cf. 1 John
2:13–14). Furthermore, the immediate context of Paul’s exhortation is in
reference to false teachers who cause division in the church (v. 17). The
defeat of these false teachers, then, is tied to the defeat of Satan, as they
are agents of the devil, insofar as they seek to oppose and undermine the
Church.
总结来说，虽然新约圣经作者描写撒但是“这世界的王”，他们确实描写他的影响力在基督开启的、不断增长的上帝国度之下日渐衰微。在耶稣医治和赶鬼的工作中，终极来说，在他的死和复活中，耶稣的工作体现为反对撒但和鬼魔灵界的宇宙性冲突。而且，新约圣经作者把上帝和撒但在天上的冲突与相信的人在地上经历的冲突紧密联系在一起。虽然最终的能力和得胜属于主，但跟从耶稣的人确实参与到与撒但和鬼魔灵界的冲突中，并且得胜。相信的人经历的地上冲突，并不像旧约那样是国民之间的冲突，而是属上帝国度的人和反对这国度的人之间的冲突。因此，任何对抗上帝百姓的个人、群体、体制或国家，就是作为撒但的代理人做工。虽然信徒在通过这些代理做工的撒但手里经受苦难，他们在福音和基督末世的得胜里却有终极的盼望。因此相信的人会得到劝勉，得到能力抵挡魔鬼的诡计，他们的信心因此站立得稳，相信最终要取得末世的胜利。现在我们必须转来关注彼得前书所描述的具体冲突和苦难。
In summary, though the NT writers
portray Satan as the “ruler of this world,” they picture his influence waning
under the growing kingdom of God inaugurated by Christ. Both in his
healing/exorcism ministry and ultimately in his death and resurrection, the
ministry of Jesus is seen as an expression of cosmic conflict against Satan and
the demonic realm. Further, the NT authors draw close connections between the
conflict that exists in the heavenly realms between God and Satan and the
conflict that believers Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1 Peter 5:8 85
experience on earth. Followers of Jesus participate in conflict and victory
over Satan and the demonic realm, though the ultimate power and victory belong
to the Lord. The earthly conflict the believers experience is not a conflict
between nations (as in the OT), but instead a conflict between those who belong
to the kingdom of God and all those who would oppose it. Therefore, any
individual, group, institution, or nation that stands against God’s people acts
as an agent of Satan. Yet, while believers experience suffering at the hands of
Satan through these agents, they have ultimate hope in the gospel and the
certain victory of Christ in the eschaton. Therefore the believers are exhorted
and empowered to resist the schemes of the devil and stand firm in their faith,
confident of ultimate eschatological victory. Now our attention must turn to
the particular conflict and suffering depicted in 1 Peter.
彼得前书中逼迫的性质
THE NATURE OF PERSECUTION IN 1
PETER
在上世纪70年代之前，人们对于彼得前书描写的逼迫的主流观点就是，它反映出一种官方的、全帝国范围内的、由国家支持的对基督教的禁止。因彼得提到他的读者是“为作基督徒”受苦（彼前4:16），“你们在世上的众弟兄也是经历这样的苦难”（彼前5:9），学者们的理论就是，彼得描述的是在尼禄（54-68年）、多米田（81-96年）或图拉真（98-117年）统治期间的一种处境。但自从20世纪中期以来，一种对彼得前书中逼迫的不同观点开始出现。习尔温（Selwyn）论证说，这封信的收信人的受苦，并不是在帝国上下推行官方禁令的结果，而是“间歇、特定，并非全国范围的有组织的事件，是偶发，而不是政策引发的事件”。其他人指出，就连在尼禄、多米田和图拉真统治期间的逼迫也不是全国范围的，并不反映对基督教信仰的某种官方立场，因此，无法用这三个历史时期确定这封书信的成书日期或说明它描述的处境。第一次对基督徒真正全国范围的逼迫，是直到德西乌斯作王的时候（约公元后250年）才开始。艾略特（Elliott）论证说：“在这之前，针对个人或群体的反基督教行动是零星的，通常是由暴徒煽动，局限于本地，性质并非是有组织的。”
Prior to the 1970’s, the predominant
position on the persecution described in 1 Peter was that it reflected an
official, empire-wide, state-sponsored proscription against Christianity. Since
Peter mentions that his readers were suffering “as Christians” (4:16), and that
“the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood
throughout the world” (5:9), scholars theorized that Peter was describing a
situation reflected during the reign of Nero (54–68), Domitian (81–96), or
Trajan (98–117). Since the mid-20th century, however, a different view of the
persecutions of 1 Peter began to emerge. Selwyn argued, instead, that the
sufferings experienced by the recipients of the letter were not the result of
an official proscription enforced across the empire, but were “spasmodic and
particular rather than organized on a universal scale, a matter of incidents
rather than of policy.” Others have pointed out that even the persecutions
under Nero, Domitian, and Trajan were not universal in scope, reflecting some
official stance on Christianity, and therefore these three historical eras are
of no use in dating the epistle or informing the situation it describes. The
first true worldwide persecution of Christians did not begin until the reign of
Decius (ca. AD 250). Elliott argues, “Prior to this time, anti-Christian
actions against individuals or groups were sporadic, generally mob-incited,
locally restricted, and unsystematic in nature.”
结果就是这些学者论证，彼得前书的读者面对的逼迫，不大可能是暴力或犯罪性质的，而是“不信的外人一贯的毁谤和语言虐待，目的是要在公共舆论的审判庭上贬低、羞辱基督徒，让他们失信”（例如2:12、15，3:9、16，4:4、14）。但即使言语逼迫也会带来严重后果，当它与古代的荣辱观念关联时尤为如此，布彻勒（Bechtler）指出，希腊罗马社会看这些观念是“至关重要”的。累积尊荣很重要，因为这会在建立社会等级和地位方面发挥作用。要得尊荣，就要得到社会地位，而受辱就是失去社会地位，因此人可以合理地把社会的排斥和毁谤称为“受苦”。
As a result, these scholars argue,
the persecution the readers of 1 Peter The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
21.3 (2017) 86 faced were not likely to be violent or criminal in nature, but
rather “persistent slander and verbal abuse from nonbelieving outsiders aimed
at demeaning, shaming, and discrediting the Christians in the court of public
opinion” (e.g., 2:12, 15; 3:9, 16; 4:4, 14). Even verbal persecution, however,
could carry significant consequences, especially as it relates to ancient conceptions
of honor and shame, which Bechtler notes were considered to be “of the utmost
importance” in Greco-Roman society. The accumulation of honor was important
insofar as it played a role in establishing social rank and status. To gain
honor was to gain social status, whereas to suffer shame was to lose social
status. Social ostracism and slander could therefore legitimately be called
“suffering.”
另外，对于在小亚细亚做买卖的基督徒而言，失去社会地位，会给他们已经微薄的利润带来明显的经济冲击。威廉姆斯（Williams）写道：
Further, for Christians involved in
trade in Asia Minor, a loss of social status would have significant economic
impact on already low profit margins. Williams writes,
大部分小亚细亚居民的收入是通过商业活动来积累的。在大多数情形里，当地这些买卖或生意并不会带来大量金钱盈余。因此，就连最轻微的经济干涉也会对一个人（或家庭的）的稳定收入带来毁灭性打击。能列举出这种可以在无数方面置人于死地的经济压迫的形式：恶意评论或抵制生意和行业关系，取消主顾-客户关系，取消商业场所租约或不再给予金钱方面的协助。
For the majority of urban inhabitants
in Asia Minor, income was generated through some form of commercial
undertaking. In most cases, these local trades or businesses did not generate
large financial surpluses. Therefore, even the slightest economic hindrance
could have produced a devastating impact on a person’s (or family’s) financial
stability. Numerous ways could be listed in which one could be ruined through
this form of economic oppression: censoring or boycotting of business and trade
relations, breaking of patron-client relationship, canceling the tenancy of a
person’s place of business operation, or withdrawing financial assistance.
另外，在罗马社会，特别是在小亚细亚，帝国崇拜处在中心地位，这让基督徒在参与市场买卖时面对道德两难的问题。毕尔（Beale）评论说：“帝国崇拜实际上渗透于小亚细亚城市，甚至经常是乡村生活的方方面面，因此，人只有参与某种程度的罗马崇拜，才能指望在经济方面发达和获得更高的社会地位。”对于只能尊基督为主的基督徒来说（彼前3:15），这方面的妥协是行不通的。威廉姆斯的结论就是，因此他们在市场上被边缘化，这给这些基督徒带来毁灭性的经济冲击，因为“就算收入方面轻微的改变也意味着生死的差别”。
Furthermore, the centrality of the
imperial cult in Roman society, particularly in Asia Minor, made participation
in the marketplace a moral dilemma for Christians. Beale remarks, “[T]he
imperial cult permeated virtually every aspect of city and often even village
life in Asia Minor, so that individuals could aspire to economic prosperity and
greater social standing only by participating to some degree in the Roman
cult.” For Christians who could only set apart Christ as Lord (1 Pet 3:15),
compromise in this area was untenable. As Williams concludes, the subsequent
marginalization from the marketplace for these Christians could have
devastating economic impacts, such that “even a slight alteration to one’s
income could mean the difference between life and death.”
基督教信仰“实际上是非法”
Christianity as “Effectively
Illegal”
但这封书信所讲的逼迫，超越了社会和经济领域。正如贺乐维（Holloway）所写：“那些描写彼得前书的读者受苦是遭社会排挤，几乎或没有提到总是存在的主动逼迫威胁的解经家，是未能客观看待这些早期基督徒面对的困境。”有充分理由得出结论，即使没有任何正式立法禁止基督教的做法，小亚细亚的基督徒也会因着信仰，在生活中不断面对遭遇法律控告的威胁。威廉姆斯请人关注一种常常遭忽略的学术传统，它倡导一种“对逼迫的‘中间’观点”。这种观点指出，在公元后64年罗马大火之后，尼禄对基督徒的集体迫害给帝国各个省份带来冲击。罗马以暴力对待基督徒，这为各地方的巡抚和官员开了先例，可以突然引发暴力，逼迫突然之间变得处境维艰的基督徒群体。虽然逼迫仍是零星发生，尚未形成体系，这仍会让基督徒随时因为受到一个平民发出的控告，而在罗马官员手中接受法律处罚。因此，虽然没有正式的法律生效，把信奉基督教定为犯罪，基督徒也没有遭遇任何追捕，但基督教信仰却“实际上是非法”的。在尼禄于罗马逼迫基督徒之后，“相信基督”在全帝国马上会变成死罪。戈贝特（Goppelt）写到尼禄带来的影响：“如果帝国在首都采取如此措施影响基督徒，那么基督徒这名称对全帝国的公职人员来说肯定会有同样意味。” 贺乐维从社会心理角度撰文论证，大众对基督徒的偏见带来一种“致命威胁”。
The persecution envisioned in the
letter likely extends beyond the social and economic realm, however. As
Holloway writes, “Commentators who describe the suffering of the readers of 1
Peter as social ostracism with little or no reference to the ever-present
threat of active persecution fail to do justice to the predicament facing these
early Christians.” There is good reason to conclude that the Christians in Asia
Minor also lived under constant threat of legal action for their faith, even
without any official law in place prohibiting Christian practice. Williams
draws attention to an often-ignored tradition of scholarship that advocates for
a “‘median’ view of persecution.” This view made note of the impact of the
Neronian pogroms following the fire in Rome of AD 64 on the imperial provinces.
The violent treatment of Christians in Rome set a precedent for local governors
and magistrates, which could erupt into abrupt outbreaks of violence against a
suddenly vulnerable Christian community. While persecution was still sporadic
and unsystematic, it could still result in legal punishment at the hands of
Roman officials at any time when charges were brought by a private accuser.
Therefore, though no official laws were in force making Christian practice a
criminal offense and Christians were not hunted down by any police force,
Christianity was “effectively illegal,” and could be punished by death across
the empire from the time immediately following Nero’s persecution in Rome.
Goppelt writes of the effect of Nero, “If an imperial measure affected Christians
as Christians in this way in the capital city, the name certainly carried the
same burden for all public officials of the Empire.” Holloway, writing from a
social-psychological perspective, argues that the popular prejudice against
Christians posed a “lethal threat.”
一些学者论证说，鉴于彼得总体上以正面笔触描述罗马，敦促人要顺服政府，尊敬皇帝（彼前2:13-17），当时就不大可能有法律逼迫的威胁。但这种思路并不必然成立。虽然彼得确实清楚敦促人要顺服皇帝和地方巡抚，但这劝勉却是在他“家庭教导”的开始部分，他也敦促人要顺服其他那些可能会带来身体虐待和其他形式苦难的人。紧接着彼得命令要尊敬皇帝的经文之后，他敦促奴隶要尊敬主人，即使他们因此受到不公义的责打时仍要如此（彼前2:20）。面对不义、对待受苦却顺服的榜样，就是耶稣他自己（彼前2:21-23），他面对辱骂，死在犹太和罗马当局手中。这样，彼得要求人顺服和尊敬皇帝的指示，并不排除基督徒有可能因某种国家官方逼迫而受苦。就连坡旅甲在一位罗马地方总督手下即将遭处决之前，也再次确认基督徒有本分尊重掌权者和当局。
Some scholars argue that the threat
of legal persecution is unlikely, given that Peter portrays Rome in an overall
positive light, urging submission to the government and honor to the emperor
(2:13–17). This line of reasoning does not necessarily follow, however. While
Peter does clearly urge submission to the emperor and local governors, this
exhortation is in the beginning of his “household code,” where he also urges
submission to other parties that could bring about physical abuse and other
forms of suffering. In the verses immediately following Peter’s command to
honor the emperor, he urges slaves to treat their masters with respect even if
they are beaten unjustly for it (2:20). The example of submission in the face
of unrighteous suffering is The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21.3
(2017) 88 Jesus himself (2:21–23), who faced reviling and death at the hands of
the Jewish and Roman authorities. Peter’s instruction to submit and honor the
emperor, then, does not preclude the possibility of some kind of official
suffering from the state. Even Polycarp, moments before his execution at the
hands of a Roman proconsul, reaffirmed the duty of Christians to pay respect to
human rulers and authorities (Mart. Pol. 10.2).
彼得前书中的司法逼迫
Legal Persecution in 1 Peter
彼得前书内部也有证据表明，即使司法诉讼看来并不是最有可能的逼迫形式，但至少是人感受得到的真实威胁。彼得在信中第一次提到受苦的地方清楚表明，相信的人要经历“百般的”试炼（彼前1:6），这暗示除非有充分理由，否则不应把读者经历的试炼局限于任何一种类型，或将任何一种类型排除在外。后来彼得敦促信徒，面对外邦人宣称基督徒是kakopoioi的时候（彼前2:12）要禁戒肉体的私欲。大多数英文圣经译本把这里的kakopoioi翻译为evildoer（作恶的人），wrongdoer（作坏事的人），或稍微不同的译法。但正如贺乐维指出的，这种译法太过强调词源学，没有考虑上下文解经。就在两节经文之后，彼得再次使用kakopoios这词，描写政权的功用，就是惩罚kakopoioi （彼前2:14）。在这里彼得明显指的不仅仅是道德邪恶的人，而是违反法律的人。对于基督徒来说，被人控告是kakopoioi，那么他们就是被控告的罪犯。这两个意思当然不是互相排斥的，但彼得对这词的其他用法帮助人看到，不应忽略这词与罪犯相关的含义。
There is also evidence within 1 Peter
that legal proceedings were at least a genuine perceived threat, even if they
were not regarded as the most likely form of persecution. Peter’s first mention
of suffering in the letter makes clear that the believers were experiencing
“various” trials (1:6), suggesting that the trials experienced by the readers
should not be confined to (or restricted from) any one category without good
reason. Later, Peter urges the believers to abstain from the desires of the
flesh in the face of the claim of the Gentiles that the Christians are
kakopoioi (2:12). Most English translations render kakopoios here as
“evildoer,” “wrongdoer,” or some minor variation thereof. As Holloway notes,
however, this translation places too much weight on etymology and not on
contextual exegesis. Just two verses later Peter uses kakopoios again to
describe the function of governing authorities as those who punish kakopoioi
(2:14). Here Peter clearly means not just those who commit moral evil, but
those who violate laws. For Christians to be accused of being kakopoioi, then,
they were being accused of being criminals. The two meanings are not, of
course, mutually exclusive, but Peter’s other uses of the word help show that
the criminal connotation should not be ignored.
从彼得前书4:12开始，彼得从“家庭教导”过渡到在结束时劝勉人要在受苦中坚忍的部分。彼得对读者说，不要因着经受“火炼的试验”而感到奇怪，倒要欢喜，因为他们是与基督为义受苦的榜样有份。彼得补充说，他们受苦的原因绝不能是恶行或与犯罪相关，只能是“为基督的名”（彼前4:14-15）。然后他宣告说，“为作基督徒”受苦（彼前4:16）——在功能上等同于“为基督的名”受苦——却不要羞耻，而应把荣耀归给上帝。看来人就是把“基督徒”这标签与“杀人犯”或“强盗”的标签一样看待。人为犯这些事受苦，毫无疑问就是被官方司法起诉。没有明显的理由表明对基督徒的控告为何有所不同。对基督徒的一些控告可能涉及含沙射影，说基督徒行恶事，但彼得前书4:16是把“基督徒”当作独立于“杀人”、“偷窃”，甚至kakopoios这更广泛的称谓（和“好管闲事的人”）之外的标签加以使用。确实，古代一些资料来源对基督徒带有敌意的描写并没有提到任何具体的不道德，只是在总体上藐视这信仰而已。
In 4:12ff, Peter transitions from his
household code to the beginning of his closing exhortation to persevere in the
midst of suffering. Peter tells his readers not to be surprised at the “fiery
trial” they are experiencing, but to rejoice insofar as they share in Christ’s
pattern of righteous suffering. Peter adds that the basis of their suffering,
however, must not be due to evil deeds or criminal associations, but only “for
the name of Christ” (4:14–15). He then declares that the one who suffers “as a
Christian” (4:16)—functionally equivalent to “for the name of Christ”—ought not
to be ashamed but to give glory to God. The label of “Christian,” then, is held
in parallel with labels such as “murderer” and “thief.” One’s suffering for
these actions would doubtless be of official legal prosecution. There is no
apparent reason why the punishment Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1 Peter
5:8 89 for the charge of Christian would be any different. Some accusations
against Christians could involve insinuations of evil deeds (Minucius Felix,
Oct. 9.5–6; Mart. Lyons 1.52; Tertullian, Apol. 9; Origen, Cels. 6.27), but in
4:16 the label of “Christian” is treated as independent of the charges of
“murderer,” “thief,” or even the broader designations kakopoios (see above) and
“meddler” (ESV). Indeed some hostile descriptions of Christians from ancient
sources make no mention of any particular accusations of immorality, but rather
a disdain for the religion as a whole (Suetonius, Vit. 6.16; Pliny, Ep.
10.96.8).
要看的第三段经文，指出可能存在着针对基督徒的司法控告，就是彼得前书3:13-17的鼓励。彼得在此一开始是在做一个普遍的陈述，就是信徒坚持行善，就无需惧怕受到苦待和逼迫（彼前3:13），但他马上承认，人可能为义受苦（彼前3:14）。在此彼得再次展示的，并不是一般道德败坏的控告，而是通常应当是基督徒标志的行为。彼得忠告落在这样处境的读者，要他们继续效忠基督，预备好随时向人发出“回答”（apologia）（彼前3:15）。一些学者认为，彼得前书3:13-17描述的只是非正式的日常的质疑和反对，而不是任何类型的司法控告。确实，当中出现“常”、 “各人”这样的说法，提示我们不应把焦点收窄到任何一种情景。但就像在非正式的情景当中适用一样，这劝勉即使不更适用于司法和审判的处境中，至少也并不与之违背。正如威廉姆斯指出的那样，若人的质问带着某种威胁，14节关于不要怕的鼓励就更好理解了，关于问信徒信什么的普通问题，除非语气至少带着某种威胁，或即使提问只是社交性质，但可能导致某些后果，否则不会成为怕的理由。而且，经文使用了apologia这说法，指出有可能出现司法控诉，这词可以用来描述一般的回答（林前9:3；林后7:11；腓1:7），但也用在明确的司法处境中（徒22:1，25:16；提后4:16）。信徒被问到“缘由”（logos）这提法，可以表现在非正式的处境当中，但这说法也让人联想起，就是毁谤这些基督徒的人也需要向主陈明他们的logos，因为主要来“审判活人死人”（彼前4:5）。没有任何明确的说法表明这里讲的是否是司法控告，那么最好就是不要把这些经文讲的冲突完全局限在司法领域，或完全将其摒除在外。
The third passage to be considered
that points to the possibility of legal proceedings against Christians is the
encouragement found in 3:13–17. Here Peter begins with the general statement
that the believers need not fear mistreatment and persecution if they remain
committed to good works (3:13), but then immediately acknowledges that it is
possible to suffer because of righteousness (v. 14). Here again Peter envisions
not accusations of general moral corruption, but the behavior that should
normally mark Christians. Peter counsels his readers in such a situation to
maintain their allegiance to Christ, and be prepared to give a “defense”
(apologia) to anyone at any time (v. 15). Some scholars maintain that the
situation pictured in 3:13–17 relates only to informal, everyday questions and
opposition and not to any kind of judicial proceedings. Indeed, the presence of
terms like “always” and “anyone” suggest that we should not narrow the focus to
any one kind of situation. This exhortation, however, would make sense in a
legal and judicial setting as much as in an informal setting, if not moreso. As
Williams notes, the encouragement not to fear in v. 14 makes more sense if some
threat were attached to the questioning. Everyday questions about the faith of
the believers would be no cause for fear unless the tone were at least somewhat
threatening or some consequences could result, even if just social in nature.
Further, the use of the term apologia points to the possibility of legal
proceedings. The term can be used to describe a general reply (1 Cor 9:3; 2 Cor
7:11; Phil 1:7), but is also used in explicitly judicial settings (Acts 22:1;
25:16; 2 Tim 4:16). The notion that the believers are asked to give an
“account” (logos) could be seen in an informal context, but the language also
calls to mind the notion that those who slander these Christians will also have
to give a logos to the Lord, who comes “to judge the living and the dead”
(4:5). With nothing to definitively suggest whether legal proceedings are in
view or not, then, it is best not to restrict the conflict in these verses The
Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21.3 (2017) 90 either entirely within the
judicial sphere or entirely outside of it.
逼迫与基督徒的排他性
Persecution and Christian
Exclusivity
如果大众对基督徒的偏见会导致地方政府明显有可能对基督徒进行司法审讯和逼迫，那么这种偏见源自何处？正如上面指出，一些古代资料错误地宣称基督徒有不道德的行为，但通常只是被人说成是基督徒，就足以招来骚扰与逼迫。人把基督徒看作是社会的不稳定因素，这很大部分是因为他们拒绝参与崇拜皇帝和拜各地、民间的神祗。基督徒的排他性让他们被打上“无神论者”的烙印，人说他们是放弃了祖先的传统（彼前1:18）。 在罗马帝国犹太教也会受到同样指控，但因它有历史悠久的根源，就通常得到更好的待遇。一旦基督教信仰开始有别于犹太教自成一派，由于基督徒没有类似可追溯的历史悠久的传承，于是就加重了这些无神论控告。因此苏埃托尼乌斯（Suetonius）描写基督徒是“放纵于一种新的有害迷信的一类人”。
If popular prejudice against
Christians could result in the distinct possibility of legal trials and
persecution from the local government, what then was the source of this
prejudice? As noted above, some ancient sources make misinformed claims of
immoral behavior by Christians, but often simply being named a Christian was
enough to incur harassment and persecution. Christians were seen as a
destabilizing influence upon society, in large part due to their refusal to
participate in the Emperor Cult and the worship of local, civic gods. The
exclusivity of the Christians led to their branding as “atheists,” abandoning
the traditions of their forebears (see 1 Pet 1:18). Judaism in the Roman Empire
was open to the same charge, but it was generally treated more favorably due to
its ancient roots. Once Christianity began to be distinguished from Judaism as
its own movement, these charges of atheism were compounded by the fact that
Christians did not have a similar ancient heritage to which to point.
Accordingly, Suetonius describes Christians as “a class of men given to a new
and mischievous superstition” (Suetonius, Vit. 6.16; Rolfe, LCL).
这种新的排他性宗教带来的危险与藐视众神有关，这会招致神对整个民众的惩罚。德·克鲁斯（Ste. Croix）写道：“人们认为基督徒一神论的排他性质让众神的善意变得与人疏远，危及了罗马人所说的pax delorum（众神与人之间正常和谐的关系），要为让民众猝不及防的灾难负责。”后来的特土良描写了人们对基督徒的指责：“他们把基督徒当作是国家遭遇各种灾难、人民遭受各种不幸的原因。如果台伯河上涨浸到城墙，如果尼罗河没有上涨灌溉农田，如果天空不运动而大地却运动了，如果出现了饥荒，如果有了瘟疫，人就会马上高呼：‘把基督徒拿去喂狮子！’”那么基督徒就因着拒绝敬拜众神，抽身不参与各样敬拜仪式，“被看作是蓄意希望各地民众和帝国遭灾”，“招致众神降下灾难”。这部分解释了塔西佗为何把基督教信仰称为“致命的迷信”，把基督徒说成是“仇恨人类”。
The danger this new and exclusive religion
posed related to the spurning of the gods, which would in turn invite divine
chastisement on the entire community. Ste. Croix writes, “The monotheistic
exclusiveness of the Christians was believed to alienate the goodwill of the
gods, to endanger what the Romans called the pax delorum (the right harmonius
relationship between gods and men), and to be responsible for disasters which
overtook the community.” Writing at a later time, Tertullian describes the
blame cast on Christians, “[T]hey take the Christians to be the cause of every
disaster to the State, of every misfortune of the people. If the Tiber reaches
the walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the sky doesn’t move or
the earth does, if there is famine, if there is plague, the cry is at once:
‘The Christians to the lion!’” (Tertullian, Apol. 40.2; Glover, LCL). The
Christians, then, in their spurning of the worship of the gods and withdrawal
from participation in the cultic rites, “were seen to be willfully and
deliberately wishing misfortune upon local communities and the Empire” and
“inviting divine disaster.” This, in part, was why Tacitus could refer to
Christianity as a “deadly superstition” and Christians as having a “hatred of
the human race” (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44).
这样，小亚细亚的基督徒就要面对来自本地的反对，危及了他们的生存，这种反对在很多方面是罗马帝国整体发动的，即使当时还没有制订正式法律禁止基督教信仰。正如之前指出那样，对第一世纪的圣经作者而言，像犹太宗教领袖的群体，以及像犹大、巴耶稣、甚至西门彼得那样的个人，只要他们反对福音和上帝国度的降临，就可以说是代表撒但——那宇宙中反对上帝的首要势力。因此，通过延伸，任何制度，从地方官员到罗马皇帝本人，只要他们反对和逼迫教会，就是让自己变成魔鬼的工具。早期的基督徒因此能从本地、帝国、甚至宇宙的层面看待他们的受苦。他们的挣扎不仅仅是关乎教会和国家，还关乎在天上的耶和华和撒但势力之间的争战。
The Christians in Asia Minor, then,
faced opposition from a local level to their very existence, but this
opposition was in many ways a function of the Roman Empire as a whole, even if
no official laws were in place prohibiting Christian practices. As noted in the
previous section, for the biblical authors in the first-century, groups such as
the Jewish religious leaders and individuals such as Judas, Bar-Jesus, and even
Simon Peter, insofar as they opposed the gospel and the coming kingdom of God,
were said to be representatives of Satan, the chief cosmic power opposed to the
Lord. By extension, therefore, any institution, from a local magistrate to the
Roman emperor himself, made itself an instrument of the Devil insofar as they opposed
and persecuted the church. The early Christians could therefore perceive of
their suffering with local, imperial and even cosmic dimensions. Their struggle
was not just about the Church and the State, but rather about the heavenly war
between Yahweh and the forces of Satan.
彼得前书5:8以及之后的经文和参与一场宇宙性冲突的关系
1 PETER 5:8FF AND PARTICIPATION
IN COSMIC CONFLICT
最后，我们回到彼得前书结束时的劝勉，以及关于那“仇敌”的警告。这结束时提到魔鬼的地方，并非与贯穿整封书信的强烈劝勉脱节，仿佛彼得现在除了讲到读者目前经历的苦难与逼迫，还转过笔锋警告他们属灵争战会遇到的危险一般。相反，这段经文呈现出彼得在逼迫当中劝勉的高潮，即通过耶和华与撒但和鬼魔灵界冲突的启示透镜，描绘这些基督徒受苦。这结束的劝勉当中有几处迹象清楚表明，在这“吼叫的狮子”手中受苦，是与贯穿整封书信描写的基督徒在人类敌人手下受苦紧密联系在一起的。
Now, finally, we may return to the
closing exhortation of 1 Peter and the warning against the “adversary.” This
closing reference to the Devil is not disconnected from the rest of the
paraenesis throughout the letter, as though Peter now turns to warn his readers
of the dangers of spiritual warfare in addition to the suffering and
persecution they are experiencing. Rather, this passage represents the climax
of Peter’s exhortation in the midst of persecution as he pictures the suffering
of these Christians through the apocalyptic lens of Yahweh’s conflict with
Satan and the demonic realm. Several indications within this closing
exhortation make clear that the suffering at the hands of the “roaring lion” is
closely tied with the suffering described throughout the epistle by the
Christians’ human opponents.
彼得的劝勉以双重的命令作为开始，“务要谨守”，“务要警醒”！（彼前5:8）这两个说法（nēphō和grēgoreō）实际上是同义词，通常在论述末世的上下文中出现，指示相信的人要为着主的日子警醒（例如太 24:42，25:13；特别见帖前5:6，这两个词同时出现）。要警醒的命令也出现在有人敌对的场景当中。马太在马太福音24-25章三次使用动词grēgoreō之后，在客西马尼园的场景中又使用了三次，在那里耶稣教训门徒要警醒（grēgoreō）。这里的危险并不是某种宇宙范围的审判，而是犹大和来逮捕耶稣的队伍，他们在马太福音24:47“说话之间”来到（参可13:34、35、37；另参可14:34、37、38）。保罗敦促以弗所的长老要谨慎（grēgoreō），他讲到的危险，是“凶残的豺狼”要把人带进假教训里（徒20:29-31）。另外，启示录16章描写第六碗的审判：幼发拉底河干了，三个污秽的灵从那龙口、兽口和假先知的口出来，挑动地上的君王在哈米吉多顿与耶和华争战（启16:12-16）。作者在这描述中插入了耶稣的话：“看哪，我来像贼一样。那警醒（grēgoreō）、看守衣服，免得赤身而行，叫人见他羞耻的有福了！”那么这些命令就是鼓励人要看到末世主的日子要马上临到，在虚假教训和敌对当中要站立得稳。与彼得前书5:8最相关的，就是彼得在开篇的劝勉中使用了nēphō这一个词（彼前1:13），接近的上下文讲到读者正在遭遇的“百般的试炼”（彼前1:6），因此在两节经文之间构成一种首尾呼应。
Peter’s exhortation begins with the
double imperative “Be sober! Be watchful!” (5:8). The two terms (nēphō and
grēgoreō) are virtually synonymous and usually occur in eschatological
contexts, where believers are instructed to be on guard for the Day of the Lord
(e.g., Matt 24:42, 42; 25:13; see esp. 1 Thess 5:6, where the words occur
together). The command to be watchful also occurs in the context of human
opposition. After Matthew uses the verb grēgoreō three times in chs. 24–25, it
occurs three additional times in the Garden of Gethsemane, as Jesus instructs
his disciples to keep watch The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21.3
(2017) 92 (grēgoreō). Here the danger is not some cosmic judgment, but Judas
and the arresting force who arrive in v. 47, “while he was still speaking” (see
also Mark 13:34, 35, 37; cf. 14:34, 37, 38). Paul urges the Ephesian elders to
be alert (grēgoreō), where the stated danger is the “fierce wolves” who will
seek to lead the people into false teaching (Acts 20:29–31). Further,
Revelation 16 describes the sixth bowl judgment, where the Euphrates dries up
and three “unclean spirits” arise from the dragon, beast, and false prophet to
incite the kings of the earth to do battle with the Lord at Armageddon
(16:12–16). In a parenthetical comment in the midst of this description, the
author inserts the words of Jesus, “Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed
is the one who stays awake (grēgoreō) …” (v. 15). These commands, then, are an
encouragement to stand firm in the midst of false teaching and opposition in
light of the imminence of the eschatological Day of the Lord. Most relevant for
1 Peter 5:8, Peter uses nēphō in his opening exhortation (1:13), where the near
context speaks of the “various trials” the readers are suffering (1:6), thereby
forming an inclusio between the two texts.
在劝勉人要警醒之后，彼得开始描述魔鬼，用到“仇敌”（antidikos）这一个词。这说法在新约圣经中很罕见，只在当前用法以外还出现过三次（太5:25；路12:58，18:3）。在这些地方，每一处的意思都是法庭上的一位对头（也见箴言18:17的七十士译本）。但在一些情形，它只是指广义的对手。在彼得前书第5章，这说法很有可能是按照这第二种广义的含义使用，虽然我们不应完全排除它有司法的含义（请见上文关于彼得前书可能讲的是司法方面的试炼）。法庭的意象也可直接应用在撒但身上，正如启示录12:9-10说他是“控告者”（katēgōr）。鉴于整封书信都把上帝描写为审判的主（彼前1:17，4:5、17），以及极多的地方讲到基督徒因着他们的行为遭人辱骂，或被控告行恶（彼前2:12、23，3:9、16-17，4:15-16），“仇敌”这用法就是既贴切描述了魔鬼他自己，也贴切描写了在小亚细亚当地反对和控告基督徒的人。
Following the exhortation to
watchfulness, Peter begins his description of the Devil with the word
“adversary” (antidikos). The term is rare in the NT, occuring only three times
outside of the present reference (Matt 5:25; Luke 12:58; 18:3). In each of
those occurrences, it denotes an opponent in the lawcourt (see also Prov 18:17
LXX). In some instances, however, it simply referred to an opponent in a
general sense. In 1 Peter 5, the term is likely used in this secondary, general
sense, though the legal connotations should not be totally dismissed (see above
on the possibility of legal trials in 1 Peter). The lawcourt imagery could also
be applied to Satan directly—as in Revelation 12:9–10 where he is named the
“accuser” (katēgōr). Given the descriptions of God as judge throughout the
epistle (1:17; 4:5, 17), as well as the numerous references made to Christians
being reviled for their behavior or accused of doing evil (2:12, 23; 3:9,
16–17; 4:15–16), the use of “adversary” would be an apt desciptor for the local
opponents and accusers of the Christians in Asia Minor, as well as the Devil
himself.
就连保罗选择使用diabolos这词，而不是更闪族语言的satanas这词来作为这位仇敌的名字，可能也具有重大意义。后面这说法在每一种情形里指的都是实在的灵体，只有一个例外，就是耶稣在马可福音8:33责备彼得。“魔鬼”主要仍是指撒但这宇宙性的角色，但有时候有更广义的所指。教牧书信使用diabolos这词，不仅指撒但自己，也在广义上指一个毁谤的人（见提前3:11；提后3:3； 多2:3）。耶稣在启示录2:10警告示每拿教会，“魔鬼”要把他们当中一些人下在监牢里，显然若不是指扩展来讲的整个罗马，也是指某个地方政治实体。那么“魔鬼”可能既是与耶和华为敌的宇宙性势力，也可能是与他百姓为敌，毁谤控告他们的人。安苏孟指出：“彼得前书用法的惊人之处，在于魔鬼起的这两个作用，即控告和毁谤，之前贯穿这封书信，用来描述信徒面对的某些不义而受苦（例如彼前2:12、15，3:16，4:14-16）。换言之，彼得揭示魔鬼是首要的控告者和毁谤者，带头逼迫信徒。”不应根据这极小的证据过分强调这一点，但安苏孟的观察大可以提供另一个证据，把撒但的活动与基督徒从他们同时代的人和当地政府手中遭遇的逼迫联系在一起。
Even Peter’s choice of diabolos as a
name for this adversary—rather than the more Semitic satanas—may be
significant. The latter term refers to an actual spiritual entity in every
instance except one—namely, Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in Mark 8:33. “Devil” still
primarily serves as a reference to the cosmic figure of Satan, but at times has
a more general reference. The Pastoral Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1
Peter 5:8 93 Epistles use diabolos to refer not only to Satan himself, but also
to a slanderous person in general (see 1 Tim 3:11; 2 Tim 3:3; Tit 2:3). In
Revelation 2:10, Jesus warns the church at Smyrna that “the devil” is about to
throw some of them in prison, clearly referring to some local political entity,
if not Rome as a whole by extension. A “devil,” then, could be both the cosmic
enemy of Yahweh as well as human enemies of his people, bringing slander and
accusations against them. Asumang notes, “What is striking in 1 Peter’s use is
that these two functions of the devil—accusations and slander— are previously
used throughout the epistle to describe some of the unjust sufferings that the
believers were facing (e.g., 2:12, 15; 3:16; 4:14–16). In other words, … Peter
unveils the devil as the slanderer and accuser-in-chief spearheading the
persecution of the believers.” The point ought not to be pressed too far from
such little evidence, but Asumang’s observation may well provide another piece
of evidence that links the activity of Satan with the persecution the Christians
suffer from their peers and local governments.
彼得继续描写魔鬼是“吼叫的狮子”，“遍地游行”。没有其他地方把这画面与描写撒但联系在一起，但大多数解经家认为它的背景在于七十士译本。但帕什科（Boris Paschke）论证说，这短语带有一种更按字面意思的所指对象，就是用来处决基督徒的兽刑（ad bestias）。虽然人在这样的处决中使用了许多野兽，但狮子占有一种突出地位。那么被“吞吃”的威胁，就是非常按字面意思理解的威胁。帕什科得出结论，认为魔鬼“就是被看作要为在竞技场发生的处决基督徒的兽刑负责”。 贺雷尔（Horrell）努力阐述帕什科的论点，论证说把魔鬼比作是吼叫的狮子，这是“图说”（ekphrasis）——栩栩如生的描述，要达至一种修辞效果——的一个例子。他们写到：“那么作为栩栩如生描述读者面对威胁的方法，吼叫狮子的画面就特别重要。”
Peter goes on to describe the Devil
as “prowling about” as a “roaring lion.” This imagery is nowhere else tied to
descriptions of Satan, but most commentators have suggested its background lies
in the LXX. Boris Paschke, however, has argued that the phrase carries a more
literal referent—namely, the ad bestias executions inflicted upon Christians.
Though many wild beasts were utilized in these executions, lions in particular
held a place of prominence. The threat of being “devoured,” then, was a very
literal one. Paschke concludes by suggesting that the Devil “then would be seen
as responsible for what was going on in the arena at the ad bestias executions
of Christians.” Horrell has sought to expound on Paschke’s thesis, arguing that
the comparison of the Devil with a roaring lion is an example of ekphrasis—a
vivid description used for rhetorical effect. They write, “The image of the
roaring lion is particularly important, then, as a way of vividly depicting the
threats that face the readers.”
帕什科的主张是有可能的，但最终来说并不必要。鉴于彼得通篇经常使用旧约圣经，更有可能这就是他在这里所做的，特别是有几处旧约经文可能光照这里要表达的含义。这意象并不是用来指撒但，但几乎总是带有威胁和敌对的言外之意。其中人最经常看到的一个对应之处，就是七十士译本的诗篇22:13，大卫讲到他的仇敌是“掠食咆哮的狮子”。这里所指的显然是身为人的敌人，企图夺取大卫性命。其他经文也类似使用狮子的画面，表明敌对的人类对手。诗篇和阿摩司书都使用这种说法描述普遍的敌对势力（诗7:2，17:12，35:17；摩3:4）。耶利米有几次使用狮子的比喻，讲到审判以色列的敌国（耶 2:15，50:17，51:38及后）。在新约圣经中，保罗讲到有铜匠亚历山大给他造成的伤害，然后这样描写主的保护，“我也从狮子口里被救出来”（提后4:17）。因此，虽然这狮子的画面可以按属灵的含义直接应用在撒但身上，但它也很自然可以用来指人的对头，无论是集体还是个人。
Paschke’s suggestion is possible, but
ultimately is unnecessary. Given Peter’s frequent use of the OT throughout the
epistle, it is much more likely that he does so here, especially since there
are several OT texts that may shed light on the connotation intended here. This
imagery is not used with reference to Satan, but nearly always carries with it
threatening and hostile overtones. One of the parallels most commonly noted is
Psalm 22:13 LXX, where David speaks of his enemies as a “ravening and roaring
The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21.3 (2017) 94 lion.” Here the
referent is clearly human enemies seeking David’s life. Other texts similarly
utilize lion imagery for hostile human opponents, as well. The Psalms and Amos
both utilize such language to describe general opposing forces (Pss 7:2; 17:12;
35:17; Amos 3:4). Jeremiah uses the lion metaphor several times to refer to
enemy nations bringing judgment upon Israel ( Jer 2:15; 50:17; 51:34ff ). In
the NT, Paul speaks of the harm done him by Alexander the coppersmith, and then
characterizes the Lord’s protection by saying, “I was delivered from the lion’s
mouth” (2 Tim 4:17). Therefore, while this lion imagery could be applied
directly to Satan in a spiritual sense, it also naturally fits as a reference
to human opponents, whether corporate or individual.
描写撒但是与狮子密切相关的，就是这里提到它企图吞吃人。这“吞吃”可能不是指身体摧残，而是离道反教，因此是一种灵里的死。但艾略特指出，这术语也按比喻用来指身为人的仇敌，经上说他们“吞吃”上帝的百姓（诗 35:25，124:3；何8:8；赛49:19；耶 51:34、44；哀2:16）。这用法把撒但的活动（他其中一个首要目的，就是让人离道反教，太24:24；路22:31；林后11:12-14；提后2:24-26），与企图惩罚信徒的地方官员的目的联系在一起。基督徒读者面对他们所在之处仇人的敌意逼迫，这些人企图看到信徒否认信仰，离道反教。因此被“吞吃”。确实，德•克鲁斯强调说，罗马政府在这些处境中使用的折磨，“根本目的就是让人成为叛教者，而不是成为殉道士”。
Closely related to the description of
Satan as a lion is the mention that his desire is to devour someone. This
“devouring” likely does not refer to physical destruction, but rather to
apostasy and thus to spiritual death. However, Elliott has noted that this
terminology was also used figuratively of human enemies who are said to
“devour” God’s people (Pss 35:25; 124:3; Hos 8:8; Isa 49:19; Jer 51:34, 44; Lam
2:16). This usage connects the activity of Satan, one of whose primary goals is
to produce apostasy (Matt 24:24; Luke 22:31; 2 Cor 11:12–14; 2 Tim 2:24–26),
with the aims of the local magistrates who might seek to punish the believers.
The Christian readers faced the hostile persecution of their localized human
enemies, who sought to see them deny their faith, commit apostasy and thus be
“devoured.” Indeed, Ste Croix maintains that “the essential aim” of Roman
torture in these settings “was to make apostates, not martyrs.”
彼得在彼得前书5:9笔锋一转，告诉读者要“抵挡”这吼叫的狮子。表明抵挡的这词（anthistēmi）经常用来描述福音的对头，他们努力要压制福音信息（路21:15；徒13:10；提后3:8，4:5）。正如施赖纳（Schreiner）论证的那样，“那么抵挡就不是被动的，而是代表一种积极投身反对敌人的活动”。但这抵挡并不是通过身体方面的反对做成，彼得接下来清楚说明了这一点。他们应“用坚固的信心”抵挡。信徒在受苦、被囚、甚至遭遇折磨和处决当中，面对被“吞吃”的危险，彼得劝勉他们要站立得稳并相信，以此抵挡魔鬼和它选择使用的逼迫工具。
In 1 Peter 5:9, Peter shifts to tell
his readers to “resist” this roaring lion. The word used for resist
(anthistēmi) is frequently used to describe opponents of the gospel fighting to
suppress its message (Luke 21:15; Acts 13:10; 2 Tim 3:8; 4:5). As Schreiner
argues, “Resistance, then, is not passive but represents active engagement
against a foe.” This resistance, however, is not accomplished through physical
opposition, as Peter next makes clear. They are to resist by remaining “firm in
their faith.” In the face of the threat of being “devoured” in the midst of
suffering, imprisonment, or even torture and execution, the believers are
exhorted to stand firm and be faithful, thus resisting the devil and his chosen
instruments of persecution.
把撒但的活动与因人压迫教会而受苦联系起来的最后一个元素，就是第9节最后一个从句，它发挥的作用，就是提供信徒抵挡的根据。读者应抵挡魔鬼，因他们知道，“你们在世上的众弟兄也是经历这样的苦难”。当彼得贯穿这封信讲到“苦难”时，显然指的是由身为人的敌人和制度带来的逼迫（也见彼前2:19、20，3:14、17，4:1、13、15、19）。这样，彼得就清楚地把魔鬼灵里的反对与罗马帝国上下与福音为敌的人的反对等同起来。格林（Green）认为这种广角视角是更准确看到信徒的处境。如果一个人，或者甚至一个孤立的群体受苦，这就是一场悲剧，甚至可能是对做错某样事情的报应。“如果全世界信徒的大家庭在经历受苦，这就需要对此作一种不是如此限于个人层面，而是有体系、宇宙范围的解释。”
The final element connecting the
activity of Satan with the suffering experienced through the churches’ human
oppressors is the final clause of v. 9, Persecution and the “Adversary” of 1
Peter 5:8 95 which functions as a ground for the believers’ resistance. The
readers are to resist the Devil because they know that “the same kinds of
suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.” When
Peter speaks of “suffering” throughout the letter, the reference is clearly to
the persecution carried out by human enemies and institutions (see also 2:19,
20; 3:14, 17; 4:1, 13, 15, 19). As such, Peter clearly equates the spiritual
opposition of the Devil with the human opposition of the enemies of the gospel
throughout the Roman Empire. Green suggests that this wide-angle view offers a
more accurate view of the believers’ circumstances. If an individual—or even an
isolated community—suffers, it is a tragedy, or perhaps even just rewards for
some wrongdoing. “If the whole family of believers throughout the world is
undergoing suffering, however, a less individualistic and more systemic, cosmological
explanation is required.”
如果帝国四方的基督徒都在经历逼迫，他们就应认识到，他们现在面对的敌人要比任何地方官员、甚至凯撒本人都更强大。他们是善恶之间末世争战的一部分，在这场争战当中，他们必然要看到胜利。如果小亚细亚信徒面对的争战，是一个少数人的宗教门派与强大罗马帝国的冲突，那么基督徒的困境就是穷途末路，他们的前景就是暗淡。但如果他们的受苦首要是一个灵界问题，而不是一种社会、经济或法律问题，那么他们的受苦就是暂时的，他们必然要得到伸冤。正如彼得很恰当地结束他最后劝勉所说那样：“那赐诸般恩典的上帝曾在基督里召你们，得享他永远的荣耀，等你们暂受苦难之后，必要亲自成全你们，坚固你们，赐力量给你们。愿权能归给他，直到永永远远。阿们！”（彼前5:10-11）
If Christians from all corners of the
empire are experiencing persecution, they should recognize that they are up
against a foe greater than any local magistrate, or even Caesar himself. They
are a part of the eschatological battle between good and evil—one in which they
are certain to see victory. If the struggles facing the believers in Asia Minor
are a matter of a minority religious sect at odds with the might of the Roman
Empire, the plight of the Christians is desperate and their outlook is bleak.
If however, their sufferings are primarily a spiritual issue rather than a
social, economic, or legal one, then their sufferings are temporary, and their
vindication is assured. As Peter fittingly ends his closing exhortation, “And
after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called
you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen,
and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (5:10–11).
今天在世界某些地方，基督徒应该预料到要经历与彼得前书读者所经历的非常类似的苦难——无论是在社会、经济，甚至暴力或犯罪带来的苦难。就像这些早期基督徒一样，彼得前书邀请我们来看我们的冲突，不是社会改变其价值观的产物，而是主与灵界黑暗势力宇宙争战的结果。无论基督徒在这世界上会面对何等艰难困境，基督仍在上帝的右边，各样属灵仇敌都服了他（彼前3:22）。有了这样的提醒，今天相信的人就得着能力，在他们受苦时站立得稳，“一心为善，将自己灵魂交与那信实的造化之主”（彼前4:19）。
Christians today may expect to
experience much of the same kinds of sufferings the readers of 1 Peter
did—whether social, economic, or even violent or criminal in some parts of the
world. Like these early Christians, 1 Peter invites us to view our conflict not
as a product of a society changings its values, but as a product of the cosmic
battle between the Lord and the spiritual forces of darkness. However dire the
predicament Christians may face in this world, Christ remains at the right hand
of God, with every spiritual foe subject to him (3:22). With such a reminder,
believers today are empowered to stand firm in the midst of their suffering, as
those who “entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good” (4:19).
本文取自美南浸信会期刊2017年21期（3），承蒙授权翻译转载，特此致谢。题目为编者所加。因原文尾注标记缺失，故仅将尾注附在正文之后，以供参考。——编者注
作者简介
克里斯托弗•拜尔利（Christopher Byrley）担任肯塔基州路易斯维尔市恩典宝座社区教会助理牧师，目前是美南浸信会神学院新约圣经在读博士生，曾为《Lexham圣经词典》和《Lexham神学手册》撰稿。
原文尾注：
1.
Urbanus Holzmeister, Commentarius
in Epistulas SS. Petri
et Iudae Apostolorum. Epistula Prima S. Petri , Paris: Lethielleux, 1937,
pp.404-405.
2.
所有经文除非另外标注，全部引自ESV版本圣经。
3. 戴伊（Day）甚至认为撒但这词作为专有名词，在旧约圣经中完全没有出现。她论证说，这名字是按更广义的意思使用，适用于任何担当敌对角色行事的人；Peggy
Day,An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible，Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1988; Cilliers Breytenbach and Peggy L. Day, “Satan” in Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999, pp.726–732. 对戴伊论点的简短反驳，可见
Antti Laato, “The Devil in the Old Testament,” in Evil and the Devil ,Library of New Testament
Studies, vol. 481; ed. Erkki Koskenniemi and Ida Fröhlich;
London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013, pp.3-4.
4. Jason
A. Mackey, The
Light Overcomes the Darkness: Cosmic Conflict in the Fourth Gospel ,Ph.D.
Dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014, p.74. 关于对约翰福音中kosmos 用法的更详细考察，见同上
105-120.
5.
T. France, The
Gospel According to Matthew ,
NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007, p.135. 参见博克（Bock），他说最好是把魔鬼提出的条件看作是“对错混杂”，充其量是一种“过分吹嘘”而已。Darrell L. Bock Luke , 2 vols. BECNT; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1994, 1:376.
6.
柯林斯（Collins）把这些称为“庇护的天使”，而迪莱拉（Di Lella）提出的名称则是“监护的灵”或“守护天使”。John
J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the
Book of Daniel , Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993, p.374; Alexander A. Di Lella and Louis F. Hartman, The Book of Daniel ,The Anchor Bible; Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1978, p.282. 也见申命记32:8，摩西提醒百姓，神“就照以色列人（神的众子）的数目”，立定万民的疆界。最好把这些“神的众子”看作是天使（参见伯1:6;
2:1; 38:7），暗示在某种意义上，宇宙间的灵是与地上的万民相联。
7.
Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians,
Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical
Setting , Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1992, 60, citing PGM I.97–194;
IV.2699; TBenj 3:4. See also Frank Thielman,Ephesians ,
BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010, p.125, citing Diogenes Laertius ( phil. 8.32) and Plutarch (Mor. 274b).
8.
关于福音书作者使用撒但来描写人反对耶稣的更多资料，请见Elaine Pagels, “The Social History of
Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels,”Journal
Of The American Academy Of Religion 62,
no. 1 (1994): 17-58.
9.
也见约翰一书3:11-12，那里把该隐谋杀亚伯描绘为是撒但的工作。
10.
施纳贝尔（Schnabel）认为这位行法术的人是要争取自己的好处，认为“接受相信耶稣是以色列的弥赛亚，这会让方伯愿意、甚至迫切想要通过法术念咒和仪式得到指引，达至某种目的。”Eckhard
J. Schnabel, Acts , ZECNT; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012, p.558.
11.
把以吕马称为“魔鬼的儿子”，当中的用词很有可能也是为了讽刺他的另外一个名字“巴耶稣”。也见 F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles , NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990, p.298; C. K. Barrett, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Acts of the Apostles , 2 vols. ICC; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1994, 1:617.
12. T.
France, The
Gospel of Mark: a Commentary on the Greek Text ,
NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002, p.338.
13.
我把耶稣的事工、死和复活描写为是对抗撒但的宇宙性冲突的一部分时，不是企图否认或削弱圣经的描述，即十字架是代替受罚，只是表明福音书中的事件具有宇宙范围的层面。
14.
弗朗西斯（France）讲到那行邪术的控告，这控告认为行邪术的人通过一种“亲密的灵”得到他们的能力；France, Matthew, 478. 也见William
L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark:
The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes , NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974, p.142, 莱恩（Lane）指出，关于耶稣行邪术的控告也见于塔木德和教父早期的作品当中。
15.
关于把壮士的家具等同于被鬼附之人的说法，请见例如 D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A
Critical And Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1988–1997, 2:342; Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke , NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997, p.458; Robert H. Stein, Mark , BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2008, p.184; France,Mark, p.173.
16.
Lane, Mark, p.143.
17.
France, Mark, pp.173-174.
18.
与圣经之外赶鬼叙述描述的极多和复杂的道具和口令形成对照。见Graham Twelftree, “Devil, Demon, Satan”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels , ed. Joel B. Green and Scot
McKnight; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992, pp.167–168;
PGM IV.1227-1264; IV. 3007-3086; V.116-120; VIII.6-13.
19.
也见
David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians , BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2003, p.710; Gordon D. Fee, The
First Epistle to the Corinthians ,rev.
ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014, p.835, n. 185.
20.
在深度论述七十士译本上下文中的这些术语，以及它们用于描述宇宙势力的用法方面，请见Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical
Commentary , Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002, pp.277-280.
21.
值得留意的是，诗篇110篇所指的是身为人的以色列的对头——“当他发怒的日子，必打伤列王。他要在列邦中刑罚恶人。”（5-6节）保罗和其他新约圣经作者引用这篇诗篇，重新描述基督的仇敌，说他们不仅是人，还是宇宙间的灵体。
22.
在《所罗门遗训》2-4， 七个鬼在所罗门面前出现，描写自己是kosmokratores tou skotou. 正如蒂尔曼（Thielman）指出那样：“《所罗门遗训》可能受到以弗所书影响，但即使如此，它也很有可能反映出保罗讲到kosmokratores时打算要人产生的联想。”Thielman, Ephesians, 421. 阿诺德（Arnold）指出这词带来的神奇联想，提示所指的可能是以弗所人之前拜的诸神——例如亚底米、赫利俄斯、塞拉匹斯和其他神——他们现在惧怕这些神。
Arnold, Power and Magic,p. 67.
23.
Annang Asumang, “‘Resist
him’ (1 Pet 5:9): Holiness and Non-Retaliatory
Responses to Unjust Suffering as ‘Holy War’ in 1 Peter.” Conspectus, Vol. 11 (2011): 23.
24.
也见Thomas
R. Schreiner, Romans , BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker,
1998, p.804; Douglas J. Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans , NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996, pp.932–933. 参见
Brown, 他认为所指的是诗篇110:1，指的是“制伏撒但”，而不是应验了创世记3:15。见 Derek R. Brown, “‘The God of Peace
Will Shortly Crush Satan Under Your Feet’: Paul’s Eschatological Reminder in Romans 16:20a,” Neotestimentica 44, no. 1 (2010): 1-14.
25.
也见Schreiner, Romans, 804; Brown, “The
God of Peace,” 4–5. 与之对立的是James D. G. Dunn, Romans
1-8 , 2 vols.; WBC; Waco: Word
Books, 1988, 1:905. 参见 Moo, Romans, 932, 穆尔（Moo）倡导一种“居中”的立场，认为所指的既是一般的对头，但也与17节的假师傅有某种关联。
26.
对学术研究的详细纵览，请见Travis
Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter:Differentiating and
Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering, NovTSup 145, Leiden: Brill,
2012, pp.4–15.
27. John H.
Elliott, 1
Peter: a New Translation with Introduction and Commentary ,The
Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2000, p.98; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2
Peter, Jude , NAC;
Nashville: B&H, 2003, p.24; Paul J. Achtemeier, 1
Peter: a Commentary on First Peter ,
Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996, pp.30-32; Travis B. Williams, “Suffering
from a Critical Oversight: The Persecutions of 1 Peter within Modern
Scholarship,” Currents
in Biblical Research 10 (2),
p.278.
28. Edward
G. Selwyn, The
First Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd ed., London: Macmillan, 1947, p. 55.
29.
Elliott, 1 Peter, 98.
30.
,
p.100.
31.
R. Bechtler, Following
in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter , SBLDS
162. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998,
p.109.
32.
Ibid，95-96.
33.
Williams, Persecution, p.134.
34. K.
Beale, The
Book of Revelation ,
NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, p.240.
35.
Williams, Persecution, p.325.
36. Paul A.
Holloway, Coping
with Prejudice: 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective , WUNT 244; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2009, p.68.
37.
Williams,
“Oversight,” p.278.
38.
同上，284;
也见David A. Horrell, 1
Peter , New Testament Guides; New
York: T&T Clark, 2008,p. 57.
39. Leonhart
Goppelt, A
Commentary on First Peter, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993, p.43.
40.
Holloway, Prejudice, p.65.
41.
见Elliott, 1 Peter, 100; Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter , BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2005, p.176; Kelly D. Liebengood, The
Eschatology of 1 Peter: Considering the Influence of Zechariah 9-14, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2014, pp.163-164; Bechtler, Following, p.50.
42.
见例如, Hist. 15.25.1. Williams, Persecution, p.304, 留意到在2:14ekdikēsin 和 epainon 的用法，“当‘罚’和‘赏’与一位大臣相联使用时，一位省里居民理解这些词含义的最自然语境，就是法律-司法的背景”。
43.
Holloway, Prejudice, p.67. Contra Elliott, 1 Peter, p.794. 4:15 中这术语的用法可能具有道德、而不是罪犯的含义，但即使在那段经文中，人也能理解这术语可以用作一种广义的标签，表明罪犯。最好使用2:14中更近的所指来理解2:12中的这含糊用法。
44.
不应把这试炼“火”一般的性质解释为读者经历的严重逼迫和苦难的一种关键成分，最好把这里火的意象看作是类似1:7“火”的试炼。那里和这里一样，焦点在于火炼净的效果，而不是试炼的强度。同样观点也见于Schreiner, 1 Peter, p.124; Elliot,1 Peter,pp.771-772;
Jobes, 1 Peter, p.9; Selwyn, Peter,p.54; D. E. Johnson,“Fire in God’s House: Imagery from
Malachi 3 in Peter’s Theology of Suffering (1 Peter
4:12-19),” JETS 29
(1986): 285-294.
45.
也见
David G. Horrell, “The Label Χριστιανός:
1 Peter 4:16 and the Formation of Christian Identity,” JBL 126, no. 2 (2007): 371.
46.
大多数控告集中在乱伦、同类相食、放荡和暴乱的控告上。见Paul Middleton,Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early
Christianity , London: T&T Clark, 2006,
p.67.
47.
关于这极难翻译的词的含义，更多内容可见 Jeannine K. Brown, “Just
a Busybody? A Look at the Greco-Roman Topos of Meddling for Defining ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος in 1 Peter 4:15,” JBL 125 (2006): 549-568; Elliott, 1 Peter, p.788.
48. Elliott, 1 Peter,
p.628; Schreiner, 1 Peter, p.30.
49. Williams, Persecution, 315.
3:14中 autōn 的用法应看作是一个宾语属格，因此是“不要怕他们”。也见同上，312, n.
42; Elliott, 1 Peter,
624-625; J. Ramsey Michaels. 1 Peter ,WBC; Waco:
Word Books, 1988, pp.186-187. 与之相反的是 NRSV, CSB译本，它们按主语翻译这词，“不要怕他们所怕的”。
50.
威廉姆斯（Williams）虽然论证这些经文有一种司法的语境，却很谨慎地说，apologia 本身不能决定它要表达什么意思；Williams, Persecution, 314.
51.
也见
E. M de Ste. Croix, “Why Were the Early Christians
Persecuted?”, inStudies in Early Christianity ed. Everett Ferguson; Studies
in Early Christianity, vol. 7; New York: Garland Publishing, 1993, p.34;
Schreiner,1 Peter, p.30; Williams, Persecution, p.43; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, pp.34-35.
52.
Middleton, Radical Martyrdom,p.55.
53. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 24;
Middleton, Radical
Martyrdom, p.55.
54. Croix, “Why
Were the Early Christians Persecuted?”,p.34.
55. Middleton, Radical
Martyrdom, p.55, p.68.
56.
Schreiner, 1 Peter,p.241; 也见4:7中的用法，在那里它以类似的说法与sōphroneō 联系在一起。
57.
见Schrenk,
“ἀντίδικος”, in Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey
William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976,
1:374-75; Peter H. Davids, The
First Epistle of Peter ,
NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, p.190.
58.
Asumang, “Resist him”26.
59.
Boris
A. Paschke, “The Roman Ad
Bestias Execution as a Possible
Historical Background for 1 Peter 5.8” Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 28, no. 4 (2006): 489-500. 帕什科（Paschke）论证说，第1世纪期间人使用兽刑处决，无论这封书信是使徒彼得所写，还是后来托名伪作者的作品，这都是彼得书信读者真实担忧的问题。也见David
G. Horrell, Bradley Arnold, and Travis B. Williams, “Visuality,
Vivid Description, and the Message of 1 Peter: The Significance of the Roaring
Lion (1 Peter 5:8)” JBL 132, no. 3 (2013): 697-716.
60. Paschke, Roman
Ad Bestias Execution,494.
61.
Ibid,
p.498.
62. Horrell,
Arnold and Williams,Visuality,698.
63.
Ibid,
p.715.
64.
贝斯特（Best）让人留意以赛亚书 35:9; 耶利米书 4:7; 5:6; 以西结书19:6的塔古姆译本，按这译本，这些经文清楚表明所讲的是敌对的各国，它们把“狮子”翻译为“君王”。Ernest
Best, 1 Peter, New Century Bible; London:
Oliphants, 1971, p.174.
65.
Green, 1 Peter,
p.174; Schreiner, 1 Peter,
p.242; Davids, 1 Peter,
p.191; Duane F. Watson, First
and Second Peter,Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012, p.121. Contra Paschke, “Roman Ad Bestias Execution”,
p.498.
66.
Elliott, 1 Peter, p.859.
67. Croix, “Why
Were the Early Christians Persecuted?”, p.30.
68. Schreiner, 1 Peter,
p.242; 也见Wayne
A. Grudem, 1
Peter: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC;
Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2009, p.204.
69. 杜比斯（Dubis）正确指出，翻译这短语时要带上一个隐含的ontes，发挥的作用是表示方式的分词，修饰antistēte。Mark Dubis, 1
Peter: a Handbook on the Greek Text ,
Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament; Waco: Baylor University Press,
2010, p.169.
70.
Green, 1 Peter, pp.174-75.
