112 Travis B. Williams extreme, there are those who argue that the condition must communicate a remote contingency7. Most, however, tend to read the condition as an indication that suffering is possible but by no means inevitable8; hence, many choose to stress the uncertainty communicated by the condition9. Because many feel constrained to work within the outdated parameters constructed by previous debates, this grammatical anomaly still continues already been fulfilled or one that is likely to be fulfilled, he provides numerous scriptural examples (as well as an inaccurate quote from J.H.A. Hart, First Epistle General of Peter, 66). Where his argument falters, however, is in its (mis)understanding of conditional sentences. What he fails to recognize is that it is the conditional particle plus the verb that gives a conditional sentence its meaning or sense. Every example he produces is constructed with an indicative verb (i.e., the protasis of a first-class condition). By its very nature this construction conveys the assumption of truth for the sake of argument (see D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids 1996] 690-94). This, of course, is a completely different type of conditional sentence altogether. 7 C.E.B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude (TBC; London 1960) 98: “the Greek optative mood used here and in v. 17 (SHOULD SO WILL) would seem to indicate a possibility that in the author’s judgment is somewhat remote as far as the majority of those who are addressed is concerned.” Cf. C. Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh 1902) 157; Wand, General Epistles of St. Peter, 98; W. Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC 17; Grand Rapids 1988) 151; I.H. Marshall, 1 Peter (IVP New Testament Commentary Series 17; Leicester 1991) 114; S. McKnight, 1 Peter (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids 1996) 213 n. 4; E.J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA 2000) 146-47. 8 W. Steiger, Exposition of the First Epistle of Peter, Considered in Reference to the Whole System of Divine Truth (trans. P. Fairbairn; Edinburgh 1836) 2:185: “εἰ with the optative, puts the case as quite possible.” Others also stress the fact that the fourth-class condition describes suffering that is genuinely possible but by no means inevitable, e.g., J. Monnier, La Première Èpître de L’Apôtre Pierre (Macon 1900) 160; Hart, The First Epistle General of Peter, 66 (although he notes that addition of καί moves the contingency into the realm of improbability); U. Holmer and W. de Boor, Die Briefe des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (5th ed.; Wuppertaler Studienbibel; Wuppertal 1986) 122; P.H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1990) 130; S. Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre (2nd ed.; Commentaire évangélique de la Bible; Vaux-sur-Seine 1992) 198 n. 1; D.E. Hiebert, First Peter (2nd ed.; Chicago 1992) 223; D.G. Horrell, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (Epworth Commentaries; Peterborough 1998) 66; M.E. Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville 1999) 131; Senior, 1 Peter, 94; K.H. Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids 2005) 227-28. 9 G.W. Blenkin, The First Epistle General of Peter (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge 1914) 72: “εἰ with an optative expresses a contingency which is regarded as being quite uncertain.” Cf. E. Best, 1 Peter (New Century Bible Commentary; London 1971; repr. Grand Rapids 1982) 132; O. Knoch, Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief (RNT; Regensburg 1990) 96-97; N. Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief (4th ed.; EKK 21; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993) 157-58; B. Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter (Downers Grove, IL 2007) 177; J.B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids 2007) 114.