Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, ἳνα κριθῶσιν μὲν κατὰ ἀνθρώπους σαρκί, ζῶσιν δὲ κατὰ θεὸν πνεύματι.

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does. (1 Pet 4:6)^[1]

After almost two thousand years, Peter’s gospel to the dead (1 Pet 4:6) continues to strike readers as a “curious and strange text.”^[2] Who proclaimed good news and when? Who listened and where?^[3] In the mid-twentieth century, W.J. Dalton identified four views on the identity of the “dead.”^[4] More recently, David Horrell has distilled the debate as between two views regarding the substantival adjective νεκροῖς (“the dead”). One view is that human beings who were “already dead” encountered the gospel message in the realm of the dead. The other view is that people heard and believed the gospel on earth but had “since died” before Peter wrote his epistle.^[5] Whereas Horrell takes the “already dead” view, this essay will argue for a version of the “since died” view.^[6] In particular, I will argue that “the dead” of 1 Pet 4:6 were Anatolian Christians who had been slandered in court, found guilty, and put to death. In the Great Assize (1 Pet 4:5), God will conduct a trial de novo with respect to those who suffered and died as Christians (1 Pet 4:15–17). The good news for these dead is that the lower court’s judgment will be thrown out, and the divine court will award to these defendants far more than compensatory damages—namely, resurrection. In a word, then, Peter’s gospel to the dead was good news for the Anatolian martyrs and good news to his readers.^[7]

First, I will address the historical question: What kinds of persecution did Peter’s readers face? Much of recent Petrine scholarship has depicted persecution of Christians in first-century Asia Minor as local and sporadic, consisting of verbal assault and social ostracism. On this view, Peter’s readers faced persecutions, but not prosecutions. Pagan hostility was local, popular, and informal. This account needs to be revised.

Second, I will offer a new take on 1 Pet 4:6 by framing the identity of “the dead” in terms of the concessive clause “they were judged.” Interpreters have understood this aorist passive subjunctive (κριθῶσιν) in essentially three ways: judged by God, criticized by humans, or judged in court. The third seems most likely, revealing a martyriological significance in this “curious and strange text.”^[8]

1. Persecutions in Asia Minor

What kinds of persecution had “grieved” the churches in Asia Minor? Did some Christians stand trial for their participation in what one Roman governor called “a perverse and immoderate superstition”?^[9] Or were persecutions merely unofficial forms of social hostility?

1.1 The Current Consensus: Unofficial Persecution View

While older scholarship posited that the Roman Empire made persecution of Christians a matter of official policy,^[10] the current consensus holds that the persecutions suffered by Peter’s readers were unofficial.^[11] This view precludes a martyriological interpretation of 1 Pet 4:6. Three points typify the unofficial persecution position.

First, at the time of the letter’s composition (ca. AD 60–95), the Roman Empire had not proscribed the Christian faith.^[12] Christians of this period did not face “organized Roman persecution,” nor had they been dubbed “enemies of the state.”^[13] In fact, the correspondence of Trajan and Pliny shows a lack of imperial policy regarding the Christian movement.^[14]

Second, the suffering of Peter’s readers was popular and consisted largely of verbal assault and social antipathy. John Elliott refers to the “disparagement and abuse” inflicted by “hostile unbelievers.”^[15] Likewise, J. Ramsey Michaels states that “the actual abuse of Christians with which [Peter] seems most concerned is verbal abuse (e.g., 2:12, 15, 23; 3:9, 16; 4:4, 14b).”^[16] According to Paul Achtemeier, Peter’s readers faced “reproach and obloquy (1 Pet 4:14)….”^[17] And for Karen Jobes, the letter depicts “verbal slander, malicious talk, and false accusations (1:6; 2:12, 15; 3:9, 16; 4:12, 16).”^[18]

Third, any aggressions and violence against Christians generally were local and sporadic. Outbursts of hostility (e.g., against Stephen in Acts 7:54–60) occurred because of “the flare-up of local hatreds rather than because Roman officials were engaged in the regular discharge of official policy.”^[19]

In sum, Elliott notes that “anti-Christian actions against individuals or groups were sporadic, generally mob-incited, locally restricted, and unsystematic in nature.”^[20] Probably for this reason, Dalton says that martyrdom in 1 Pet 4:6 would be “foreign to the context.”^[21] Accordingly, Martin Williams finds death via “formal legal proceedings” to be unlikely “since there is nothing in 1 Peter to suggest that, at this time, there existed an official policy of state-organised persecution resulting in martyrdom.”^[22] Thus, a reference to martyrs in 1 Pet 4:6 is flatly dismissed.

1.2 Recovery of the Median Persecution View

Travis Williams has offered a forceful rejoinder to the unofficial persecution view by examining inter alia the structures of civic and judicial authority in first-century Roman Anatolia.^[23] According to him, the unofficial view is not a recent development.^[24] And the official/unofficial dichotomy oversimplifies earlier Petrine scholarship. Many who are said to hold the official view were in fact more nuanced than current scholarship concedes.^[25] Thus, T. Williams argues for a third position that he sees in previous Petrine scholarship, and which he dubs the “median” view of persecution.^[26]

The median view hypothesizes a combination of official and unofficial hostility against first-century Christians. This hostility was not “the result of laws passed down by the Roman government which proscribed the Christian faith” but stemmed from “the important influence of the Neronian pogroms, both on the local populace as well as on governing officials.” Nero’s violence is thought “to have set a precedent for the treatment of Christians.”^[27] Moreover, several texts in 1 Peter (2:11–17; 3:14b–16) could easily reflect “a more formal conflict situation,” and “there is no more natural environment in which to envision these events than the Anatolian courts.”^[28] In particular, the remarks of 4:15–19 reflect the criminalized status of Christianity in this period.^[29]

During this time, “believers were not actively sought by the local or provincial authorities.” Any prosecution of Christians occurred because of “official accusations” brought by individuals.^[30] Most criminal cases, including capital cases such as “adultery, sacrilege, and murder,” had to be tried by the provincial governor, who would make yearly circuits of the province.^[31] If a governor decided to hear a case, “the formal procedure of a trial, the rendering of a verdict, and the dispensing of appropriate punishments were all dependent upon the personal discretion of the governor.”^[32]

At the same time, “relatively few [Christians] ever suffered capital punishment” during the first three centuries of Christian history.^[33] Thus, “destructive, escalated conflict [was] more often sporadic and episodic rather than permanent and decisive.”^[34] Reasons for this include personal risks to the accuser, who could suffer penalties if the accused Christian recanted; the caprice and broad discretion exercised by the provincial governor in both verdict and sentencing; and the scarcity of the governor’s judicial presence, who alone in the province could impose capital punishments.^[35] The costs of attending the governor’s tribunal must also have deterred would-be litigants.^[36] These and still other reasons^[37] explain why an “effectively illegal” religion did not regularly meet with violent suppression by Roman authorities.

Though evidence for an official view of persecution is lacking,^[38] the unofficial persecution view has overcompensated. It will not do simply “to pose as alternatives informal public hostility and official Roman persecution.”^[39] Such a dichotomy falsely assumes “a hard and fast separation… between popular animosity and official persecution.”^[40] The work of T. Williams has recovered the median persecution view, prevalent among earlier scholarship, by recognizing how Nero’s pogroms would have impacted local authorities.^[41]

In summary, a strong argument can be made that Christianity was effectively illegal at the time of Peter’s writing. The officially sanctioned action of Nero against Christians, in Rome no less, associated Christians with criminal behavior or at least with imperial condemnation. In this light, Peter’s reference to “governors as sent by [God] to punish those who do evil” (2:14) is striking. His emphasis upon doing good and not evil in the public eye (2:11–12; 2:15–16; 2:19–21; 3:16–17) seems to imply that slander against Christians included content of a criminal nature (4:15–16).

2. Gospel to the Martyrs

Taking the median view of persecution, this study reframes the question of “the dead” in the interpretation of 1 Pet 4:6a: In what sense were they “judged” (κριθῶσιν)? Intriguingly, interpreters who disagree on the identity of “the dead” overlap in their assessment of “judged.” In this section, three interpretations of “judged” (κριθῶσιν) will be assessed. For ease, I will refer to 1 Pet 4:6b as the “judgment clause” or the “concessive clause.”

Preliminarily, the meaning of “judged” partly hinges upon the meanings of its two adverbial modifiers: κατὰ ἀνθρώπους (“according to humans”) and σαρκί (“in/by/with respect to the flesh”). The latter will be addressed in section 2.2. The former has been understood to indicate (i) the nature of those judged (i.e., “as/like humans”), (ii) the standard of their being judged (i.e., “according to human standards”), or (iii) the perspective from which they are judged (i.e., “according to a human perspective”).

2.1 Were the Dead Judged by God?

Some understand the word “judged” to mean “judged by God.” There are two variations within this view: death as divine judgment or divine judgment on the Last Day.

The first version asserts that death is God’s judgment on sin. As God warned Adam, the consequence of disobedience would be death (Gen 2:17).^[42] On this reading of the judgment clause, all human beings who live in the fleshly realm (σαρκί) experience divine judgment in the form of death.

Death as divine judgment fits into the “since died” reading for Dalton, who says that through participation in Christ, believers are brought through “the lot common to all men” into life.^[43] Alan Stibbs writes that when believers hear and receive the gospel, they die, and thus “the judgment due to them as sinners is fully accomplished in this world, i.e. in the flesh….”^[44]

Proponents of the “already dead” view also assert this meaning of “judged.” J.W.C. Wand writes: “The point is that the dead have already suffered some judgment either in the manner of their death or in the penalties they have undergone in their life on the earth.”^[45] C.E.B. Cranfield explains the concessive clause to mean “though they have died, as all men must (death itself being regarded as God’s judgment).”^[46] For Goppelt, “condemnation is executed in their death,” as attested in scriptural and early Jewish sources.^[47] Horrell also appeals to a scriptural basis to describe death “as a sign of judgment for sin,” but he notes that “I Peter insists that this is a human perspective.”^[48]

A second version of the judged-by-God view is proposed by Bo Reicke, who argues that “judged” in 4:6 refers to God’s judgment on the Last Day, just as it did in 4:5.^[49] The downfall of the death-as-divine-judgment view is twofold. First, it sharply distinguishes between two species of God’s judgment in the span of three clauses.^[50] In 4:5, the Last Day judgment is in view, whereas in 4:6, the judgment stated is a biblical gloss on death. The accompanying modifiers in 4:6, “according to humans” and “in the flesh,” make such a nuance semantically possible, but one wonders if a simpler solution lies at hand. Second, the death-as-divine-judgment view must interpret “according to humans” as indicating the common lot of humanity, what I have called the nature translation. Yet several scholars argue that the modifier κατὰ ἀνθρώπους (“according to humans”) indicates standard or perspective. If they are right, it would be absurd to assert a divine judgment according to human standards, and it is unlikely that unbelieving pagans would have appealed to a scriptural view of death.^[51]

A Last Day judgment in 4:6b is more persuasive, as argued by Reicke. For him, both “dead” and “judge” should be interpreted consistently in 4:5–6, and the word γάρ (“For,” 4:6) presents the gospel proclamation to “the dead” as the legal basis for God’s judgment of all “living and dead” (v. 5).^[52] If “the dead” have not changed between the two verses, why should the meaning of “judge” change?^[53] The tense/mood of “judged” (κριθῶσιν) is no obstacle, since the aorist subjunctive could refer to past, present, or future time.^[54]

The obvious obstacle to this reading is construing the word σαρκί (“in the flesh”) to mean “physically.”^[55] Reicke seeks to resolve this difficulty by demonstrating early Jewish and early Christian belief in a universal resurrection of righteous and wicked unto both life and judgment.^[56] However, this attempt must be deemed unsuccessful. Earlier in the letter, Peter quotes from Isa 40 to depict the frailty and mortality of human generations: “All flesh [πᾶσα σάρξ] is grass…” (1:24). More at hand, the parallel between 3:18 and 4:6 is unmistakable.^[57] In 3:18, Peter writes: “For Christ also suffered once for sins… being put to death in the flesh [σαρκί] but made alive in the spirit [πνεύματι].” According to Karen Jobes, most scholars find these two datives pointing “either to two spheres of Christ’s existence (the earthly sphere versus the eschatological) or to two modes of his personal existence (in human form before his death and in glorified form after his resurrection).”^[58] Either sense would fit with the usage of σαρκί (“in the flesh”) both in 4:1, “Christ suffered in the flesh [σαρκί],” and in 4:2, where believers are to pursue God’s will during “the rest of the time in the flesh [ἐν σαρκί].”^[59] Throughout the letter, σάρξ (“flesh”) serves as a synecdoche for frail, mortal existence on earth. Contra Reicke, the modifier σαρκί (“in the flesh”) is not a blunt reference to physicality. Rather, Peter writes that the “dead” were “judged” in the realm/existence characterized by mortal “flesh.”

2.2 Were the Dead Criticized by Humans?

A second view holds that “the dead” were criticized by humans. According to this view, those who had believed the gospel had faced ridicule and slander during their time “in the flesh,” and the Last Judgment not only holds their critics accountable (4:5) but vindicates these berated believers through resurrection (4:6).

According to Selwyn, the Thessalonian conundrum was “modified and accentuated by the fact of persecution and social ostracism at the hands of men who lived wholly for the flesh and scorned all idea of future retribution and eternal life. ‘What good is Christianity,’ they said, ‘when like the rest of us you die?’”^[60] Dalton refers to the apparent condemnation of death, which is, from a human and pagan perspective, “the final verdict on human destiny, the verdict of annihilation.”^[61] And Jobes comments, “Accountability after death was not widely taught in the pagan world.”^[62] Proponents of this view thus find an echo of pagan criticism in Peter’s reference to fallen believers as simply “the dead.”

Lexically, the word κρίνω (“to judge”) can mean “pass an unfavorable judgment upon, criticize, find fault with, condemn.”^[63] The strength of the criticized-by-humans view is that this meaning of “judged” fits both with the context 4:1–4 (which culminates in the phrase “and they malign you”) and with the repeated references in 1 Peter to verbal hostility. “The Gentiles… with their maligning, slander, and reproach (4:4; cf. 2:12; 3:9, 16; 4:14) actively faulted the Christians according to their own God-opposed norms….”^[64] These considerations combine with the unofficial persecution view to support an interpretation of “judged” as “criticized.”

In addition, this view rightly connects the identity of “the dead” with the meaning of “judged,” but like the judged-by-God view, it errs in letting the state of death interpret the type of judgment that Peter has in mind. Rather, the judgment or criticism of “the dead” occurs prior to their death. While the aorist subjunctive κριθῶσιν (“judged”) could refer to discourse contemporaneous with Peter’s letter,^[65] the modifier σαρκί (“in the flesh”) implies that the judging occurred during their lives, not after their deaths. More fundamentally, the criticized-by-humans view overlooks the juxtaposition of “judge” and “judged” in 4:5–6, and it assumes without proof that Gentile criticism occurred only in informal settings. While rare, slander against Christians, especially accusations of criminal behavior (4:15), could lead to judicial proceedings.

2.3 Were the Dead Judged in Court?

I propose here a third view of the concessive clause: the dead had been “judged in court.” In a few instances known to Peter, believers in Asia Minor had been tried in court, where they were found guilty “according to human standards” and put to death, marking the end of their time “in the flesh.” To be clear, the verb κριθῶσιν (“they were judged”) refers simply to their trials. The results—a guilty verdict and a death sentence—emerge from Peter’s somewhat awkward reference to them as “the dead.”

The judged-in-court view argues first from the antithesis of the purpose clause (4:6bc), which thus balances execution and resurrection: “judged by human standards” vs. “live by God’s standard.” As seen above, interpreters variously connect “judged” and being “dead,” whether as a scriptural gloss (judged-by-God view) or as a prong of pagan polemic (criticized-by-humans view). Actually, the solution is straightforward: God’s decision (future) to grant life will foil human decisions (past) to inflict capital punishment. Outside of the verse, one can identify contextual and structural support for this view. First, the parallel with 3:18de supports this interpretation:^[66]

Whereas the agents of execution and resurrection are implied in 3:18, they come to the fore in 4:6. The positive results are identical: just as Christ was made alive by God (B), believers will live by God’s standard of judgment (B′). Or negatively, Christ was executed by humans (A), and certain believers, now dead, had been judged by human standards (A′).

Second, the sequence of suffering in 4:1–6 repeats that of Christ, who suffered both popular hostility and capital punishment. Admonishing slaves, Peter writes, “For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly [πάσχων ἀδίκως]” (2:19). Peter goes on to narrate the exemplary suffering of Christ (2:21), who “committed no sin,” was “reviled” and “suffered” (πάσχων), “continued entrusting himself [παρεδίδου] to him who judges justly [τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως],” and died. Full vindication waits until Christ’s resurrection (3:18) and ascension (3:22). With different points of emphasis, a similar sequence appears in 4:1–5: believers “suffered” (παθών), having “ceased from sin,” and were maligned, and all will face “him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” The sequence is compressed in 4:6: “the dead” had heard the gospel, “were judged by human standards,” and will “live according to God’s standard.” Thus, like Christ, “those who suffer” (οἱ πάσχοντες) must do good and thus “entrust their lives [παρατιθέσθωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν] to the faithful creator” (4:19). The template for believers is thus the Passion narrative, in which verbal aggression led to judicially guided violence. In the end (4:5, 7), the story of these Anatolian believers (4:6) will recapitulate the story of Christ: “suffering unjustly” (2:19) will give way to God “judging justly” (2:23).

Furthermore, a trial-execution sequence explains why Peter’s thought leaps from βλασφημοῦντες (“and they malign you,” 4:4) to τῷ ἑτοίμως ἒχοντι κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς (“him who is ready to judge the living and the dead,” 4:5). Mere mockery in the streets does not seem to warrant this warning. On the other hand, this sudden climax makes good sense if the slander of 4:4 had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. God’s judgment looms over not libel but lynching.

Finally, a martyriological interpretation of 4:6 resonates with the key pairing of νεκρῶν (“the dead”) and κρίνω (“to judge”). When God judges (κρῖναι) all the dead (4:5), he will vindicate a particular group of dead people (4:6), namely, those who heard the gospel and were “judged” (κριθῶσιν) in court.^[68] In these two instances, the word κρίνω (“to judge”) involves different agents but carries the same basic sense—“to engage in a judicial process.”^[69] In 4:6, “judged” does not mean either “criticized”^[70] or “condemned through a legal process,”^[71] for the one “ready to judge” (4:5) will not merely “criticize” or only “condemn.” Rather, God will declare to some human beings life and to others an unnamed alternative.^[72] To depict this speech act, Peter and other NT authors picture a great and final trial over which God will preside, judging “impartially according to each one’s deeds” (1:17). The twice pairing of “dead” and “judge” thus effects an eclipse: divine judgment will overwhelm all human judgments. God’s opponents will answer for their actions (4:5). As for the faithful dead (4:6), their death sentences will be contravened by God’s verdict of life—a fitting end to the larger section (3:18–4:6).

In summary, the judged-in-court view is plausible both historically and lexically. This reading attends to the key parallel with 3:18, balances death with resurrection within 4:6, and realizes the theological and rhetorical potential of Peter’s repetitions.

3. Conclusion

The breathless quality of Peter’s gospel to the dead, with its high concentration of universals, has lent itself to a netherworldly reading (people already dead hearing the gospel) and to claims about the enigmatic nature of Scripture.^[73] Yet it seems historically probable that this text was written at a time when Christianity was effectively illegal—at minimum, some Christians were being accused of criminal conduct (2:12; 4:15).^[74]

Interpreters have sometimes suggested that “martyrs” could be a subset of Peter’s “dead,”^[75] yet they have looked outside of the letter for an explanation that sits, unencrypted, in the text: awaiting the Judge of all humanity, these believers had stood trial before human judges and had subsequently died. In 1 Pet 4:6, a beautiful catena of universals identifies martyrs with Christ, dignifies their deaths,^[76] and foretells future vindication.

The brevity, psychology, and universality of 1 Pet 4:1–6 verge on poetry. In a poem, an author may achieve economy and potency through ambiguity and double entendre. One such point is βλασφημοῦντες (4:4), which lacks a direct object and could be translated “and they malign”^[77] or “and they blaspheme.”^[78] The former directs insults against believers; the latter, against God himself, to whom they will give account (4:5). In fact, both are in play, and Peter effects the ambiguity by omitting the direct object. “When unbelievers slander the Christians, they also, wittingly or no, slander God.”^[79]

Similarly, Peter creates polyvalence in the terms “dead” and “judge.” The expression “him who is ready to judge the living and dead” (4:5) takes on several meanings. In 4:5, it identifies God as one who holds the slanderous accountable for their blasphemy, yet it points forward to 4:6, where believers will “live by God’s standard,” recalling God’s final judgment of all. One day, Peter writes, God will condemn the living Gentiles who wrongly prosecuted and executed those who did God’s will, and he will vindicate these dead believers. Having heard of Christ’s suffering and glories, they were tried by merely human standards, found guilty, and killed. On the Last Day, these believers will stand before God. Overturning the sentence of the lower courts, the High Court will rule in favor of the martyrs “that they should live.”