Despite the relative neglect shown the First Epistle of Peter, few NT books are more relevant for a study of the use of the OT in the NT. Like the Epistle to the Hebrews, I Peter quotes frequently from various sections of the OT, and like the Book of Revelation its thought is frequently framed with OT expressions. Especially because of the unique collection of stone testimonia and the use of other OT quotations, I Peter ii. 1–10 is one of the most intriguing passages in the NT. As is well known, I Peter provides a message of consolation and exhortation to Christians who were being or were about to be persecuted, and this message is conveyed by a series of imperatives based on indicatives. Particularly in i. 13 through ii. 10 the imperative is couched between a preceding assumption (expressed either by a conditional sentence as in i. 17 or a participle as in i. 22) and a following supporting indicative.

M. Heideggers Wort ‘Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht’ ist insofern berechtigt, als in diesem Satz Denken die In-Frage-Stellung der fundamentalen Grund-lagen bedeutet. C. F. v. Weizsäcker stimmt von der Naturwissenschaft aus Heidegger zu, da die Physik nicht danach fragt, was Materie ihrem Wesen nach ist, sondern die sie betreffenden Gesetze erarbeitet. Auch gewisse Sparten der Geisteswissenschaften verfahren so, z. B. wenn der Linguist Regeln aufstellt oder der Texteditor Handschriften vergleicht und verwertet. Aber gerade in den geisteswissenschaftlichen Disziplinen ist die technische Arbeit meist so eng mit der Interpretation verbunden, daß theologische, religionswissenschaftliche und philosophische Grundfragen auch vom Philologen gestellt werden müssen. Auch bei der Erforschung von Gnosis und Gnostizismus ist dies der Fall, so daß hier eine Trennung von philologischer und religionswissenschaftlicher Arbeit nur zu Fehlschlüssen führen würde.

C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce and E. Käsemann very briefly state, almost in passing, that difficulties at Corinth arose from an over-realized eschatology. In C. K. Barrett's words, the Corinthians were behaving ‘as if the age to come were already consummated…For them there is no “not yet” to qualify the “already” of realized eschatology.’ This claim, however, needs to be argued more closely, and objections to it considered, since it remains a matter of controversy. The most recent attack on this diagnosis of the situation at Corinth comes from E. Earle Ellis. He argues, firstly, that the error in I Cor. xv ‘offers doubtful support for an eschatological interpretation of I Cor. 4. 8’, and secondly, that it is unlikely that Paul would criticize the Corinthians ‘merely for appropriating an eschatological perspective that he himself has taught’.