Christ’s Example

Christ’s Example

1 Peter 3:18–4:6

Christ’s Suffering and Exaltation (3:18–4:2)

3:18

This is true because Christ also suffered, in his case as a once-for-all sacrifice for sins. He suffered, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God. Although he was killed in the flesh, he was made alive by the Spirit.

3:19

By that Spirit he also, as he went, made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits.

3:20

These were the spirits that disobeyed long ago, when God patiently waited in the time of Noah, when the ark was being built. In that ark, a few—to be more precise, eight—people were saved through water.

3:21

That water also prefigures how now immersion saves us. By this I mean not the putting off of dirt from the flesh. Rather, I mean the commitment of a conscience clear before God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3:22

He’s at God’s right hand. He went into heaven, now that angels and authorities and powers have been made to submit to him.

4:1

In light of this, since Christ suffered in the flesh, get your own hearts ready to suffer! Do so because whoever has suffered in the flesh has given up sin.

4:2

Thus they no longer live the rest of their lives for human passions; instead, they live it for God’s will.

Depending on how one interprets the spirits in 3:19, this section may reflect a possible chiastic (inverted parallel) structure (3:18–4:3).1 Ingenious interpreters often discover chiastic structures too creatively (often choosing nonrepresentative points and radically asymmetrical blocks of material to fit the preconceived pattern).2 The simplest chiasm merely inverts word order in the second of two successive clauses,3 and in many cases may be accidental (the alternative, repeating the word order, is parallelism).

But sometimes the pattern is larger and appears more deliberate. Although the label “chiasmus” is first attested in Hermogenes,4 the practice is much older.5 Classicists often observe it in classical texts;6 it is clear at points in Homer,7 as well as in earlier biblical tradition.8 Thus it could have been recognized and appreciated by the rhetorically astute in the first century.9 Chiasm aids memory, communicates rhetorical sophistication, and sometimes10 serves to highlight, link, or contrast points.11

A Your slanderers will be ashamed (3:16)

B Suffer though innocent, in God’s will (3:17)

C For Christ suffered for the unjust (3:18)

D He triumphed over hostile spirits (3:19)

E Noah was saved through water (3:20)

Eʹ You are saved through water (3:21)

Dʹ Christ triumphed over hostile spirits (3:22)

Cʹ For Christ suffered (4:1a)

Bʹ Suffer in God’s will (4:1b–2)

Aʹ Your slanderers will be ashamed (4:3–5)

3:18

Rhetorically, 3:18 displays appealing antitheses: the just for the unjust, and killed in the flesh . . . made alive by the Spirit.12 I translate peri hamartiōn (“concerning sins,” 3:18)13 as sacrifice for sins in view of the frequent use of this phrase with sacrifices14 and the association of Christ’s death with sacrifice elsewhere in the NT (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:26; 10:12; probably Rom. 8:3). Once-for-all translates hapax, used also for Christ’s sacrificial death in Heb. 9:26, 28.15 Christ’s suffering as the righteous16 for the unrighteous fits the notion of vicarious suffering widely understood in antiquity.17

“Bring” in bring you to God translates the Greek term prosagō. This is a common term and not a technical one, but it is at least appropriate for bringing someone into God’s presence (LXX Exod. 29:4; 40:12; Lev. 1:2–3; Ezek. 44:15; 1 En. 14:25; note the cognate noun in Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:18; 3:12).

The Spirit that made alive Christ could refer to Christ being made alive “in spirit,”18 but this hardly sounds like the Christian doctrine of resurrection assumed in 1:2119 and articulated at length in 1 Cor. 15:35–44.20 People in antiquity widely believed in postmortem spirits,21 which were not unique enough to warrant proclamation as the condition of a unique exalted Lord. Nor would one speak of being made alive (as opposed to simply being alive) with reference to postmortem existence; this is instead the language of resurrection.

Instead of referring to Jesus’s postmortem soul, Peter refers to God’s Spirit, a conclusion supported by both earlier biblical and early Christian contexts.22 Ezekiel associated God’s Spirit with an image of restored life (Ezek. 37:1–14),23 perhaps developing an image from Gen. 2:7; Paul also makes this association (Rom. 1:4;24 8:11;25 probably 1 Cor. 15:44–45).26 Further, the context of the Noah allusion in 1 Pet. 3:20 is Gen. 6:3, which contrasts God’s Spirit with humanity as flesh.27 Early Christian sources sometimes contrast flesh and the human spirit (Mark 14:38; 1 Cor. 5:5), but by far the dominant contrast is between flesh and God’s Spirit (John 3:6; 6:63; Acts 2:17; Rom. 8:4–9, 13; Gal. 3:3; 4:29; 5:16–18; 6:8; Phil. 3:3; 1 John 4:2).28

3:19

By that Spirit (3:19) translates the leaner Greek expression en hō (“in which” or “by which”), which probably refers to the antecedent noun pneumati—that is, the Spirit—in 3:18.29 Because 3:18 refers to the Spirit’s work in the resurrection, a majority of scholars hold that the action in 3:19 follows the resurrection30 (rather than implying Jesus preaching to some sort of spirits between his death and resurrection, as in the common traditional view).31 One would not want to rest this argument solely on the grammar, since writers, both ancient and modern, are not always grammatically perspicuous, but this interpretation coheres well with what is also the dominant scholarly interpretation of 3:22 today.

This interpretation seems likely; links between 3:19 and 3:22 seem clear. For example, although the verb translated as went (poreuomai) is quite common,32 one of its only two other uses in 1 Peter appears in 3:22, with reference to Christ’s ascent into heaven above the spiritual authorities. This verb thus frames Jesus’s engagement with the spirits. If it carries the same sense as in 3:22, the three Greek participles of 3:18–19 refer in succession to Jesus’s death, resurrection, and exaltation.33

The identity of the imprisoned spirits has been the subject of considerable debate throughout history. Major categories of interpretations are as follows, although they can be divided and subdivided in various ways.34

1. Most early church fathers, including most Alexandrians such as Athanasius, believed that, between his death and resurrection, Christ preached to the dead in Hades.35 Most believed that he specifically preached salvation, especially to the dead of Noah’s day; others that he preached only to the righteous or repentant dead of Noah’s day (or the OT era),36 or that he preached judgment to Noah’s wicked contemporaries. This cluster of interpretations is possible exegetically with respect to Peter’s letter, cohering with an interpretation of 4:6 in the near context.37 It also allows for a contrast with the eight persons38 saved and those who perished in the flood. Certainly many stories of descent to the realm of the dead circulated in antiquity.39

This view has an early history, though not early enough to certainly preserve memory of Peter’s sense. Already in the mid-second century, apologist Justin Martyr claimed that Jesus descended and preached to the dead;40 a few decades later, Irenaeus agreed.41 This view probably appears even earlier in Odes of Solomon.42 But we lack evidence that 1 Peter was marshaled for this view before Clement of Alexandria ca. 190 CE,43 well after living memory of 1 Peter’s composition on even the latest usual dating.

Origen further developed Clement’s idea to advocate that even the wicked dead receive another chance for salvation, going well beyond any original sense of 1 Peter and occasioning some of the subsequent reactions against the descent-into-Hades view.44 The Apostles’ Creed even added “descended into Hades” “in the Fourth Formula of Sirmium in 359.”45 Augustine’s alternative view (view 2 below) supplanted this view for much of history until in 1586 Robert Bellarmine proposed a variation on this first view. Bellarmine argued that after Christ’s body died, his soul went to liberate those who repented before dying in the flood.46

God did judge Noah’s generation (Gen. 6:5–7; 2 Pet. 2:5), who presumably disobeyed his preaching (2 Pet. 2:5; cf. 1 Clem. 7:6; 9:4). But if Peter envisions Christ preaching to the dead, why would he specify that Christ preached only to the flood generation? Granted, tradition often viewed them as particularly wicked (so also Gen. 6:5), but then why not add Sodom or Canaanites who sacrificed their children? Further granted, Peter will make an analogy specifically with baptism (3:21), which requires an OT narrative with water. But why then not illustrate that with the Israelites brought safely through the sea that drowned their pursuers, as in 1 Cor. 10:2? A more distinctive sin of Noah’s era was the sons of God impregnating human women (Gen. 6:4), suggesting a very different kind of “spirits” to whom Christ preached. Moreover, Christ does not “descend” (katabainō), as in Rom. 10:7 or Eph. 4:9,47 but rather “goes” (poreuomai), which applies in the immediate context to Jesus’s ascension (1 Pet. 3:19).

2. A second view was advanced by Augustine. He argued that the preexistent Christ, working through the Spirit, preached through Noah to Noah’s generation.48 Augustine was not certain about his interpretation of the passage,49 but most of the medieval Western church and most Reformers followed his interpretation.50 This interpretation, designed to circumvent the possibility of postmortem salvation that some found in the first view, takes account of 3:20, but the action of 3:20 probably precedes that of 3:19 (note long ago, pote, “once”). That is, Christ’s preaching comes sometime after the flood rather than before it.

3. Developing an 1890 proposal by Friedrich Spitta,51 a majority of modern exegetes52 argue that the risen Christ proclaimed triumph over the fallen angels that sinned in Noah’s day (finding Gen. 6:4 as background for 1 Pet. 3:19–20). This interpretation coheres well with 1 Pet. 3:22 (especially if one accepts the chiasm suggested above). In Genesis, it was the sons of God, who surely knew God’s expectations, whose sin provoked God’s declaration of judgment on humanity (Gen. 6:2–3) in the same passage that speaks of his patience (6:3). In that passage, humans were not “spirits,” but specifically “flesh” (6:3), in a contrast that might possibly also inform Peter’s language in 1 Pet. 3:18. Peter’s contemporaries understood the “sons of God” as fallen angels (see the examples below).

Some combine elements of views, contending that spirits include both humans (view 1) and fallen angels (view 3), plus sometimes giants, judged in the flood.53 Occasionally someone suggests that proclamation to the angels includes hope as well as judgment.54

“Spirits” was an appropriate title for fallen angels or demons,55 as is evident in pre-Christian Judean traditions regarding the fallen angels of Gen. 6 or their offspring.56 It also fits a common usage of the language in early Christianity.57 These spirits also appear as those that disobeyed, defying God’s command.58 The idea that the “sons of God” who sinned in Gen. 6:4 were fallen angels was widespread in Peter’s day, as was the idea that they were chained.59 I list below first two early Christian examples, the timing in which is suggested by other early Jewish texts.

What then would be the proclamation to these fallen angels? This is not the term that always means “preach good news”; in the Septuagint, kērussō (“proclaim”) can refer to declaring good or bad news.68 Moreover, if the verb does refer to the good news of Christ’s exaltation, this proclamation nevertheless remains bad news to the fallen angels and their hostile intentions for humanity.

Peter’s audience may have been able to take for granted the sort of message proclaimed to the fallen angels on the basis of widely circulated Jewish stories about proclamation to such angels. Josephus thinks that the fallen angels resisted Noah’s reproof.69 Probably more widespread in Judea in Peter’s day was a story in a work clearly known to many early Christians; 1 Enoch is quoted in Jude 14–15.70 In this work, Enoch was commissioned to proclaim judgment to fallen angels.

In light of this model,72 ancient audiences might take for granted that Christ’s proclamation to the spirits was not an invitation to repentance, but rather a proclamation of their complete subjugation.

3:20

That God patiently waited is a sign of his mercy. The language sometimes applies elsewhere to delays in God’s judgment,73 including eschatological judgment typified by the primeval flood (2 Pet. 3:9, 15).74 Here his patient waiting directly reflects Gen. 6:3, where God allows one hundred twenty years before the flood. The flood appears elsewhere as a prototype of eschatological judgment,75 and presumably so functions here.

Whereas Paul associated baptism with the exodus (1 Cor. 10:2), Peter associates it here with the flood. By undergoing water in baptism now, believers are spared from the fiery cataclysm anticipated at the end.76 The association between baptism and the flood narrative may predate the writing of 1 Peter, implied already in prior Gospel tradition. Scholars associate the descent of the dove at Jesus’s baptism with various potential symbols;77 doves, like other images, had a wide range of potential associations in antiquity.78 In early Jewish texts, a dove was most often used as a symbol of Israel,79 and only rarely for the heavenly voice80 or the Holy Spirit;81 but though some view Israel as the background for the Synoptic Gospels’ dove,82 all sorts of images were understood as symbols for Israel, and there is no reason to think of Israel descending on Jesus at his baptism. The likeliest association, though, is the one that ancient Jewish audiences across the ancient world would have readiest at hand: Noah’s dove that portended a renewed creation (Gen. 8:8–12).83

Jewish tradition elaborated extensively on the story of Noah,84 although later rabbis shifted some of these traditions to their own preferred hero Moses.85 First Enoch describes Noah’s miraculous birth.86 Noah was trustworthy87 and the most righteous of people,88 or the most righteous except for Enoch.89 God “saved” Noah because his heart was fully righteous.90 Noah preached righteousness91 and repentance.92 His generation, by contrast, was very wicked.93 The Noah story was widely known, including in the Diaspora,94 as attested even by pagan coins in Apamea.95 The time of Noah is more literally “in the days of Noah,” an expression also used by Jesus in Matt. 24:37–38 // Luke 17:26–27.96 It might evoke LXX Gen. 9:29, but it is not an unusual construction (cf. LXX Gen. 25:7; Sir. 46:7; Acts 7:45), and was simply a way of saying, “Back in Noah’s day.”97

Peter’s language of “salvation” is not Genesis language for the flood; it is intended to connect to his motif of salvation. Nevertheless, it was appropriate and appeared in other Jewish sources, which often use this or similar language to describe those who were “saved” during the flood.

Noah’s family was brought safely (diasōzō) through water—that is, delivered—prefiguring how believers are now delivered or saved (sōzō) from eschatological destruction. Possibly Peter means simply that they were brought safely through water (cf. Acts 27:20, 31, 44; 28:4).106 If the analogy is meant to be more precise, however, the salvation would not be from the water, as if it were the threat in both cases, since this would not so readily fit baptism. The analogy may be inexact,107 but possibly the point instead is that they are saved from their enemies who were disobedient (1 Pet. 3:19–20). In baptism, believers are also saved from the cosmic powers.108 Although these powers remain active and continue to stir persecution through some earthly powers influenced by them, ultimately they are fully subject to believers’ Lord. Such a message would surely encourage believers facing persecution.109

Peter specifies the salvation of just a few people to remind believers that God does not decide by virtue of the majority, but God is with the minority remnant that is faithful.110 Even by the end of the first century, Christians probably comprised less than a tenth of 1 percent of the empire;111 the reminder of God’s favor for a small remnant could provide them needed encouragement.112 In the NT epistles, Peter alone uses the cardinal adjective oktō (“eight”); the related ordinal adjective appears in 2 Pet. 2:5, again with reference to Noah. (Other Jewish texts naturally also deduced the number from Gen. 7:13.)113

3:21

Now (3:21) refers to the present era of salvation and experience of believers (1:12; 2:10, 25). Prefigures (antitupos) has a range of possible meaning, and does not necessarily deny the literal meaning of the type.114 It is doubtful that Peter simply allegorizes the flood; Greeks also had stories of a primeval flood,115 and few of his Jewish contemporaries doubted that the flood happened historically.116 Other early Christians also apparently took it literally (Matt. 24:37–38 // Luke 17:26–27; Luke 3:36; Heb. 11:7; 2 Pet. 2:5). Instead, ancient thinkers looked for correspondences in history117 and could use earlier events to portend later ones, whether historically or homiletically.118 The first flood could portend the eschatological cataclysm (2 Pet. 3:6), or, in this case, the first deliverance could portend the later one. Others also used Noah’s ark as an analogy (e.g., for enduring hardship, 4 Macc. 15:31).

A CLOSER LOOK

Ancient Baptism

What would the act of baptism communicate to a first-century audience? Jesus’s movement adopted the practice from John the Baptist’s movement (whose ritual lustrations are also noted in Josephus);119 John’s focus was more eschatological than some of his contemporaries, preparing for the coming judgment (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16; Mark 1:2–5).120 Ritual lustrations, however, were common throughout the ancient world.121

Judeans practiced ritual washings long before the time of the Jesus movement.122 Miqvaot, or standard ritual immersion pools, are among the most pervasive Jewish features in excavations of Galilean and Judean sites.123 Although circumcision was the primary sign of entering the covenant, strict Judeans also required converts to immerse, to purify themselves from former gentile impurities.124 From an early period rabbis regarded proselyte baptism as a necessary part of conversion;125 if the traditions are correct, it was being discussed by pre-70 CE Pharisaic schools.126 Although some scholars have argued for the temporal priority of Christian baptism,127 most support the reverse in light of the usual cultural influence at this stage.128 It is highly unlikely that the transition from the most unclean state to a state of cleanness should not have been marked by such a washing.129 By the late first or early second century, gentile sources attest knowledge of the practice and assume that their audiences will understand their allusions.130 A possibly first-century Diaspora Jewish text also assumes that even gentiles know the Jewish practice of baptisms in running water when turning from sins.131 Immersion was thus intelligible as an act of conversion.

Yet the act of washing, which people with water could undergo even apart from ritual considerations, did not effect conversion without intention.132 Putting off dirt from the flesh (1 Pet. 3:21) is thus not sufficient;133 what is needed is putting off (2:1) fleshly desires (2:11). Suffering for Christ can help sharpen such loyalties (4:1–2). Mere flesh can be executed (3:18), but identification with Christ in baptism brings resurrection (cf. 3:18; Rom. 6:3–5; Col. 2:12). Dirt (rupos) can apply to any soiling,134 and some texts applied it to moral filth,135 which some Christians came to affirm was washed away in baptism.136

Rather than merely washing away dirt, deliberate Christian immersion signifies the commitment of a conscience clear before God (3:21). The interpretive problem here is that scholars lack consensus as to what practice Peter took for granted that his audience understood. What was the commitment, or “appeal” (eperōtēma)? Often the term designates a question, request, or formal appeal. The sense of questioning137 does not seem to make much sense here, unless it refers to questions asked of the baptismal candidate to confirm the propriety of baptism, a practice known later (note view 3, below).138

Scholars have proposed various possible meanings for the term eperōtēma. While “question” (the term’s most common sense) does not fit the present text well by itself, some suggest that “question” may include the idea of a “request,”139 hence baptism here constituting a request to God for a clean conscience. This approach fits the context well.140 It is not, however, a usual sense of the term.141

Another approach that could make sense is understanding the term as an “answer,” here the answer constituted by a clean conscience.142 Peter has already spoken of a right conscience before God when suffering unjustly (2:19; 3:16), using the same wording as here (3:21). Because he has also spoken of providing a defense of one’s faith when being questioned regarding it (3:15), perhaps the most relevant sense of eperōtēma would be that of “answer.” The greatest apologetic, the greatest answer, to the charges that believers are immoral is to act morally. Whether or not outsiders immediately recognize this, God recognizes a pure conscience. Baptism is not about putting away dirt from the flesh; it is about a purified conscience that does what is right before God, like Noah (Gen. 6:9). The lexical support for “answer,” however, is weak, unless combined with the question as in the third approach below.

In light of some contracts in the papyri from the second century CE and later, the majority of scholars understand the term to mean “pledge” or “contractual agreement,” covering both the question and the response.143 Contracts could include a question and the other party’s affirmative response that sealed the contract. This idea would certainly make sense here, and potential analogies exist: Essenes reportedly avoided oaths—except the one they took on being initiated into the community.144 Initiates to mysteries might swear an initiatory oath to preserve the mysteries’ secrecy.145 Early Christians in Asia Minor allegedly bound themselves by oath to avoid unjust acts.146 The idea fits subsequent practice among early Christians.147

If a pledge is in view here, it probably means a pledge to maintain a good conscience,148 whether as a pledge offered when undertaking baptism (perhaps in response to a question) or the pledge implicitly expressed by baptism itself. Peter may be reminding believers facing suffering that their baptism has irrevocably committed them to Christ, as well as united them with Noah’s deliverance and Christ’s triumph.149 Although the sense “pledge” may have less lexical support than the meaning of “question,” it is clearly the majority position and does explain the verse.

3:22

Although Christians in this age must accept roles of submission to expected human rank and to one another (1 Pet. 2:13, 18; 3:1, 5; 5:5, using hupotassō), this submission is relative. More important for believers’ faith, believers can be assured that the spiritual powers behind earthly authorities have already been subjected to Christ (3:22, using hupotassō in passive form).150

Jesus’s exaltation is multiply attested in early Christianity. Luke offers two narrative depictions of Jesus’s ascension (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:9–11), which he understands theologically as his exaltation (Acts 2:33; 5:31). The other Gospels end their narration before that point: Mark probably ends even before the promised resurrection appearances (Mark 16:8), though the longer later ending, possibly dependent on Luke, narrates the ascension (16:19).151 John does predict an ascension beyond the narrative’s conclusion (John 20:17; cf. 3:13; 6:62).152 Along with 1 Pet. 3:22, it appears in other first-century Christian sources, including Eph. 4:8–10; Heb. 4:14; 7:26; 8:1; 9:24.153

Still further passages locate Jesus in heaven, whether describing his current reign (cf. Ps. 110:1; e.g., Acts 7:55–56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1–2; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Rev. 3:21; 5:6–14; 6:16; 7:9–10, 17) or his future parousia from heaven (e.g., Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 19:11–16; cf. Phil. 2:9–10).154 His exaltation ranks him above all other heavenly/aerial powers (Rom. 8:34, 38; Eph. 1:20–22; cf. Phil. 2:9–11; perhaps 1 Cor. 15:24–28), with clear implications for his church (Rom. 8:39; Eph. 1:22–23).

A CLOSER LOOK

Christ’s Ascension in Its Ancient Context

How would ancient audiences approach the idea of Christ’s ascension that is presupposed here? Since Peter presupposes rather than explicates the concept here, his ideal audience presumably is familiar with the early Christian, and hence early Jewish, context of the idea. After narrating some ways that gentiles heard such accounts, therefore, I will turn to potential Jewish analogies, and especially the closest of these.

Beyond analogies, however, Christians who believed in Jesus’s bodily resurrection yet recognized that his bodily absence had to affirm something like an ascension. Yet it was also more integral to early Christianity than merely an explanation of his physical absence; it articulated Christ’s triumphant exaltation over creation. Unlike Greek stories or even Jewish accounts, this was not one ascension narrative among many; it was their Lord being enthroned at God’s right hand.155

In connection with a cosmology that placed the divine in heaven above earth, ascension narratives of various sorts were common in ancient literature;156 Jesus’s bodily resurrection is thus more distinctive than his relocation. Most gentile ascension accounts addressed the mythological past, appearing more often in dramatists and mythographers than in historians treating recent centuries.157 Usually these ascended heroes had a divine parent anyway, but sometimes writers claimed that heroes were able to ascend because they merited it.158

In Jewish narratives, God159 or angels160 could return to heaven. Early Jewish rapture stories often developed OT accounts (Elijah)161 or possible OT hints (Moses;162 Enoch),163 though sometimes they were transferred to other characters as well (Ezra).164 Josephus believed that Enoch went to God (Ant. 1.85), that Elijah did like Enoch (Ant. 9.28),165 and that Moses wrote of his apparent death only to prevent people thinking that he went to God (Ant. 4.326).166 Luke, who offers the one NT narrative depiction of the ascension, clearly echoes Elijah’s ascension.167

Theologically, early Christians found in Jesus’s ascension fulfillment of Ps. 110:1 (Mark 12:36; Acts 2:33–35; Heb. 1:13),168 which they cited on the authority of Jesus (Mark 12:36; 14:62).169 In gentile thought, ascension often involved apotheosis, transformation into divinity or immortality.170 Even some Hellenistic Jewish sources viewed Moses’s putative ascent to heaven as an apotheosis.171 Even uninformed gentiles might see in Jesus’s ascension at least hints about his current divinity and immortality.172 Yet monotheistic rapture accounts (e.g., of Elijah, Enoch, or Moses) do not generally connote deification or the conferral of immortality for virtue.173

The common denominator of ascension stories is simply a cosmology that places the suprahuman in heaven.174 Ancient cosmologies differ from the far more spatially accurate modern scientific cosmology, but could be translated into equivalent terms of an external reality beyond conventional geographies.175 They would need to describe such an experience in the cosmological language of their day. For Peter as well, heaven is God’s realm (1 Pet. 1:4, 12).

If the traditional formula in 1 Tim. 3:16 is arranged chronologically, “seen by angels” seems to follow the resurrection, and may imply a heavenly presentation of the exalted Christ.176 This would fit the depiction of Christ’s exaltation in 1 Pet. 3:22. Paired with angels, the authorities and powers noted here are undoubtedly heavenly rulers and authorities, as in Rom. 8:38 (in a context of Jesus’s enthronement in 8:34); Eph. 3:10; 6:12 (locating such rulers in “heavenly realms”); Col. 1:16; and probably 1 Cor. 15:24; Col. 2:15. Such language should have been intelligible to early Christians. Compare, for example:

Jewish people generally treated spiritual rulers over the nations as spiritual powers,178 angelic authorities appointed by God,179 though in some Jewish sources, God appointed them to lead the nations astray,180 or they had become malevolent powers and would be judged at the end of the age.181 While this way of looking at the world is most widely attested after the dawn of Christianity,182 it clearly predates it.183 This approach allowed Jewish people to demythologize polytheistic claims about spiritual powers, such as the gods of various nations, influencing the course of those nations.184

What is less certain is the identification of these angels with the spirits in prison in 3:19, if Christ confronts these angels as he ascends through the heavens. They would appear to be the same kind of spirits, allowing for the connection. But can they be described as “imprisoned,” or are these the spiritual powers that were not imprisoned?185

Some argue that the fallen angels are imprisoned beneath the earth,186 but the evidence is mixed. Some ancient Jewish sources depict fallen angels as imprisoned beneath the earth.187 In the clearly pre-Christian 1 Enoch, however, “the spirits of the angels” who slept with women are imprisoned until judgment day with “the powers of heaven” at the end of heaven and earth.188 In the later 2 Enoch, fallen angels are imprisoned and wailing in the second heaven.189 This is the level of heaven directly above the realm of birds.190 Again, at least some early Christians believed that some spirits in heavenly realms were hostile ones (Eph. 6:12), though they do not specify them as imprisoned.

The subjugation of angels in 1 Pet. 3:22 likely refers to the same event as the preaching to imprisoned spirits in 3:19,191 or at the least, refers to the same kind of event (Christ’s triumph over fallen angels). In much of ancient Jewish and Christian cosmology, souls ascending to heaven after death passed through realms once controlled by fallen angels, but now, in Christian thought, subjugated by Christ.192

4:1

I translate oun (“therefore”) as in light of this in 4:1. Having narrated Christ’s triumph after his death (3:18–22, esp. 3:18), Peter now draws on this observation that, for those who follow Christ, death is not the final word. Therefore, believers should imitate Christ and prepare to suffer (2:21). Christ’s suffering in the flesh refers especially to his death, as is clear from 3:17–18 (cf. also 2:21, 23);193 if believers are committed to share even Christ’s death, they can also embrace any lesser sufferings for him.194 Believers’ suffering is a major Petrine theme (1 Pet. 2:19–21; 3:14, 17; 4:15, 19; 5:10).

Whoever has suffered . . . has given up sin. The meaning of this part of the verse is debated.195 It might refer to the commitment entailed by suffering for Christ, which solidifies commitment to Christ for facing any lesser tests. Although some early Christians believed that union with Christ, who committed no sin (2:22; 3:18), includes dying with Christ to sin (Rom. 6:3–6; Col. 3:3; cf. 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18), the earliest, seminal image apparently was that of sharing his death in terms of suffering with him (Mark 8:34), potentially applied even to daily commitment (Luke 9:23; 1 Cor. 15:31). Once one reckons one’s life as already forfeit and one’s commitment is shown by testing, one will not live for other values. One who is truly prepared to die for Christ can also live for him.

More specifically in this context, the sins that Peter has in mind here may be the sort on which they turned their backs at conversion, examples of which appear in the following context (1 Pet. 4:3–4); if they persevere during the test of suffering rather than returning to their former lifestyle, they show that they have ceased from that lifestyle.

The Greek term often rendered as “arm yourselves” (hoplizō) can mean, more generally, “prepare yourselves” (cf. 1:13), hence my more generic rendering, but it may well draw on a military image; the term often appears in military contexts.196 If so, it might resemble Pauline images of putting on spiritual armor (sometimes using the cognate noun hoplon).197 Other passages in this letter also might use military metaphors (cf. 1:5; 2:11; 5:4, 9),198 the clearest passage which might allow for a military reading of some, or possibly all, of the others being 2:11.

4:2

The term for “desires” (or passions) here also appears in 1:14 and 2:11 (see comment on 2:11), and is illustrated in concrete examples by the unrestrained party lifestyle of 4:3 (drunkenness and sex and idolatry, although this repeats the same Greek term for desires among the examples). These desires characterize the believer’s pre-Christian past (1:14) and the worldly existence to which they no longer belong (2:11). Although some philosophers applied language of “passions” to any emotion or desire, Jewish and Christian sources usually use this language only for illicit passions (e.g., desiring one’s spouse is not sinful, but desiring someone else’s is). Those who have counted the cost, their lives (4:1), can devote their lives to God’s will rather than what humans value.

Live for God’s Assessment, Not the World’s (4:3–6)

4:3

For the time that’s passed away was already more than enough for you to live the way gentiles want to. They like to go around uninhibited, in passions, drunkenness, wild partying, and unrestrained worship of statues of false gods.

4:4

As they go about this behavior, they’re amazed that you don’t join them in their wasteful excesses. That’s why they say terrible things about you.

4:5

But they are going to have to render an accounting to the one who’s ready to judge the living and the dead.

4:6

That’s why the good news was also preached to those who are dead: so that they might be judged in the flesh, from the human standpoint, but have life by the Spirit, from God’s standpoint.

4:3

Like Paul, who underlines the importance of abandoning various vices in light of the eschatological urgency of the time (Rom. 13:11–14), Peter here reminds his hearers that the past time is sufficient for their vices (1 Pet. 4:3).199 In the past time (chronos), they lived for the will (boulēma) of the gentiles (4:3a), for human passions (4:2a); they must live the rest of their time (chronos) for the will (thelēma) of God (4:2b).

In 4:3, Peter contrasts his audience with gentiles; he probably writes at a fairly early period when gentile converts still recognize that they are joining a Jewish movement (as in 1 Cor. 5:1; 1 Thess. 4:5). These gentiles have become a new people in Christ (1 Pet. 2:9), and thus should no longer live like gentiles (i.e., with the forms of immorality illustrated here; cf. 2:12). Second-century gentile Christians often lost sight of the Jewishness of their faith, but they agreed regarding abandoning their past lives of sin; compare, for example, Justin Martyr: “We who formerly delighted in fornication, but now embrace chastity alone; we who formerly used magical arts, dedicate ourselves to the good and unbegotten God.”200

Jewish (and subsequently Christian) views of gentile immorality were usually harsh, and sometimes inflated.201 Jewish people often associated image-worship and sexual immorality with gentiles, including when listing vices,202 and with some good reason. Philo complains about violence, drunkenness,203 and excess luxury204 in pagan feasts. “Our sacrifices are not occasions for drunken self-indulgence,” Josephus insists, with an implied contrast to gentiles, “but for sobriety.”205 Some conservative Judeans even suspected Diaspora Jews of idolatry for attending gentile banquets.206

When Peter mentions what gentiles (“pagans” might better convey the sentiment) like to do, he uses the Greek term boulēma, part of the semantic range of which was the meaning (a person’s) “will” (e.g., Rom. 9:19). It thus contrasts with God’s will (thelēma) in 4:2. The behavior described here characterized most ancient Jewish perceptions of gentiles. Although it was easy for Jewish polemic to caricature gentiles, the vast majority of gentiles did worship gods other than YHWH, used images, and most gentile men did at some point in their lives engage in sexual practices that Jewish people considered immoral.

Ancient writers commonly listed vices; see comment on 1 Pet. 2:1. Those listed here involve especially sexual immorality, drunkenness, and venerating idols. Most of these features were present at banquets; many in taverns;207 they blended with idolatry especially during festivals, although even banquets included libations to deities.

A CLOSER LOOK

Gentile Sexual Practices208

Some gentiles, both individually209 and corporately,210 were known for incestuous marriages by biblical standards,211 including sibling marriages (especially in Egypt)212 and alleged Persian intercourse with mothers.213 Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world, however, opposed incest;214 people often recalled the story of Oedipus.215 Given 1 Pet. 1:1, it is not likely that the decree was directed toward sibling marriages in Egypt or alleged marrying of mothers in Persia. (Although its contours vary from one society to another,216 the incest taboo in some form is almost universal.)217 Further, Jewish people suspected gentiles of forms of immorality much wider than incest alone.218

Jewish people in general did not trust gentile sexual behavior,219 and their suspicions had some empirical basis, especially for unmarried men (quite a number of men, given the late age of marriage for Greek men and average ancient longevity). Going further, a late line of rabbinic tradition even suggests that one should assume virgin a female proselyte only if she is under the age of three years and one day; otherwise one takes one’s chances!220

Whether among gentiles or among their own people, Jews detested as horrible behavior premarital sex,221 adultery,222 prostitution,223 and frequently even lust,224 which some viewed as visual adultery.225 It was crucial to keep oneself from sexual immorality (Jub. 20:3). Jewish men disdained marrying prostitutes, who had defiled their bodies.226 Some Judeans appear particularly strict.227

But despite frequent Jewish views of gentiles, even gentiles prohibited or frowned on various forms of sexual behavior (though, despite exceptions for particular objects,228 usually not lust, which most viewed as normal and healthy,229 and which many individuals even sought to procure through magical means).230 To be sure, many prohibitions involved merely mixing of status;231 Roman law regarded as stuprum, its closest equivalent to unlawful “fornication,” only those liaisons that involved particular social classes.232

Despite the disapproval of Jews and Christians,233 sexual intercourse with prostitutes234 was considered legal and common behavior. Even some moralists who disapproved of male premarital sexual activity might warn hearers not to judge others who engaged in it.235 Nevertheless, gentiles did not regard such sexual relations as on the same level as a legitimate marriage bearing legitimate heirs.236 Women might engage in prostitution legally237 (this activity generated substantial Roman tax revenues)238 provided they were unmarried,239 but some circles regarded sex with prostitutes as shameful,240 perhaps because of the economic excess or submission to pleasure involved.241 Unlike expensive, high-class prostitutes,242 most prostitutes were slaves.243

Women’s premarital244 and extramarital purity was considered so important that some gentiles, both men245 and women,246 preferred women’s death to their defilement. All ancient Mediterranean cultures disapproved of adultery—that is, the wife’s unfaithfulness to her husband and a man’s seduction of another’s wife.247 A double standard, however, existed when it came to a husband’s unfaithfulness with an unmarried woman.248 Although it may have been frequent,249 adultery was shameful250 and was considered the most grievous form of “theft.”251 The charge constituted a serious insult against another man’s or woman’s morality.252 In Roman law, a man who, informed of his wife’s adultery, refused to divorce her, could himself be arraigned for lenocinium—“pimping.”253 For comment on the sexual abuse of slaves, see the excursus “Slavery in the Early Empire” (at comment on 1 Pet. 2:18).

The issue with drunkenness and parties is not merely drinking or nondrunken parties, but drunkenness,254 which entails loss or reduction of self-control.255

A CLOSER LOOK

Drunkenness

Most ancients did not object to moderate drinking.256 Romans valued recreational use of wine among friends.257 Moderate drinking freed a person to laugh, sing, and dance, in contrast to excessive drinking, which exposed matters better not discussed in public.258 Moralists who warned against excessive drinking might even suggest drinking moderately as a remedy.259 Many praised the benefits of wine.260 Wine could help one forget the day’s toils, relax, and rejoice.261

Most gentiles, however, approved of even heavy drinking for festivals;262 such drinking could last for days.263 Drunken banquets (cf. Gal. 5:21) were common in Greek and Roman cities,264 to the dismay of most Diaspora Jews and some gentile moralists. Whether for festivals or wedding banquets or other gatherings,265 many urban gentiles sometimes partied all night in drunkenness, revels, and debauchery: “Men keep vigil by night to indulge their insatiable lust.”266 Some philosophers opposed drunkenness,267 and Jewish teachers condemned it frequently.268

Writers often associated excess drinking with shameful loss of control;269 when drunk, people commit offenses that they would not commit when sober,270 not least embarrassing behavior at banquets.271 Drunkenness’s invitation to sexual license272 earned it warnings in Jewish sources.273 Drunkenness often led to violence,274 and sometimes to both violence and sexual license.275 It could even lead to less frequent capital offenses such as blasphemy.276

The terms in 1 Pet. 4:3 that I render as wild partying (kōmoi potoi) are closely connected with their predecessor in Peter’s list, drunkenness (oinophlugiai). Originally associated with a festal procession honoring the wine deity Dionysus,277 the term kōmos remains associated with pagan religion in the Septuagint.278 In NT vice lists (here in 4:3; Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:21) it probably maintains its popular negative sense of excessive feasting or partying, characteristic of gentile culture (1 Pet. 4:3).279 Drinking parties (potoi) could carry on all night, sometimes annoying neighbors.280 Less endowed circles frequently combined drink and gambling, apparently often leading to disputes.281

Many moralists depicted such excesses negatively, for example:

A CLOSER LOOK

Idolatry

Drawing from Stoic models,289 Wisdom of Solomon used God’s revelation in nature to present idolatry as morally indefensible.290 Jews viewed idolatry as one of the very worst sins,291 indeed, perhaps the worst.292 For the rabbis, idolatry was one of the great sins of the antediluvian era.293 In Jewish tradition, Abraham294 became a fierce opponent of idolatry.295 A second-century rabbi complained that false gods, far from being creators, were created by the last entity created, humans.296 Church fathers adopted this approach.297 Gentiles sometimes mocked this disdain toward conventional gentile religious observances among converts to Judaism and Christianity.298

Sometimes, however, even gentiles mocked what they viewed as ludicrous elements of mythology.299 Lucian (admittedly not typical) mocks inconsistencies in popular views of the gods and fate,300 highlighting gods’ vulnerabilities in myths.301 Poets’ myths are fine for literary purposes, Lucian opines, but those who take them seriously act like children or people who are insane.302

Some gentiles who were agnostic about the nature of the deity nevertheless rejected the multiplication of deities corresponding to human characteristics or needs.303 Humans making images in their own likeness could be mocked.304 Some intellectuals might ridicule the mythical portrayals of some immortals staying old while others remained young,305 their adultery or affairs with mortals,306 their conflicts with one another,307 and so forth. Zeus once asked Helios to rest from his work as sun god for three days, so Zeus would have a long night to commit adultery.308 On another occasion Zeus has to explain that there is nothing wrong with lust, when Ixion thinks he is having intercourse with Hera.309

Some questioned how a mortal woman could escape her divine pursuer when even a man is normally stronger than a woman;310 how gods could prove powerless to help beloved mortals;311 how gods could be permanently lame;312 how the immortals could enjoy night with Helios among them;313 or the twin brothers lovingly sharing immortality on alternate days—so they don’t even get to see each other.314 Some also rejected carrying gods on one’s fingers (i.e., idolatrous rings)315 and ridiculed oracles whose replies typically hedged so they could not be falsified.316 Many laughed about Cretans claiming to host Zeus’s tomb.317 Critics complained about Zeus’s weakness, since Hera allured him to sleep on Mount Ida, so she could help the Greeks win a battle.318 Philosophers rarely accepted the old myths literally,319 and some accused of slander those who had presented the gods as immoral.320 Since anything and everything could be personified and deified, some argued, why worship any deities in particular?321

Popular polytheism allowed for competing agendas of various deities.322 Without intending ridicule, others recounted (as truth or entertaining stories) deities stealing,323 seducing, and raping women324 and occasionally boys,325 yet slaying such mortals if they proved unfaithful.326 (Their sexual exploits proved fertile ground for early Jewish and Christian critiques of paganism.)327 Hera could jealously avenge her honor in response to Zeus’s adultery;328 insulted by mortals’ neglect329 or criticisms,330 deities could also plot their death.331 Deities could not protect mortals they loved,332 but they could deceive with supernatural effectiveness.333 Deities could become animals to mate with each other.334

Such divine morality, modeled after human desires, in turn could become a model for human behavior.335 Jewish and Christian apologists condemned the morality of pagan deities,336 and early Christian apologists (who were condemned especially for their monotheism) worked hard to distinguish Christianity from the tales of polytheistic deities.337 Jewish and Christian critics thus naturally often treated gentiles’ sexual immorality and idolatry together, viewing them as particularly gentile vices (1 Pet. 4:3; cf. Rom. 1:23–27).

Polytheism was more intellectually fashionable in many circles than monotheism was, because it represented the views of the dominant culture.338 It was undoubtedly difficult to give up polytheism; deities or spirits were associated with entrances to the home;339 with trees;340 with personified virtues;341 and, for Romans, spirits associated with families and even individuals.342 Putative deities pervaded people’s daily lives; their experience seemed continuous and second nature. To give up polytheism was to surrender an entire worldview associated with virtually everything that surrounded its devotees.343

Jews and Christians challenged not only the multiplicity of deities and myths, but also the use of images for deities. Neither in myth nor in cult were cult statues the central element of most Greco-Roman religion344 the way they had been in earlier Egypt and much of the ancient Near East (the practices that invited the OT polemic);345 but neither were they mere accessories.346 Intellectuals could normally distinguish between a deity and its statue;347 such images were simply symbols of or pointers to a deeper reality.348 The statue should seek to accurately portray the deity’s attributes,349 but statues cannot adequately portray deity, and when in human form simply offer humanity’s best illustration.350

Nevertheless, even intellectuals who offered such distinctions might insist that such humanly made images were useful for allowing mortals concrete ways to honor their deities.351 Though many philosophers held a more consistent system that allowed idols only for focusing thought on the divine, not everyone agreed.

Idolatry belonged to the fabric of ancient society; many cities in Asia Minor were particularly devoted to the worship of the emperor.352 Honoring civic cults and the emperor were patriotic duties; friends, relatives, and neighbors who noticed believers’ abstention would undoubtedly be amazed (1 Pet. 4:4). In the early second century, venerating the image of the emperor became a capital loyalty test for accused Christians.353 One can readily understand how gentiles perceived as impious and wicked, as well as harmful to society, the radical religious exclusivism of Christians.

4:4

Nonbelievers are amazed (xenizō) by believers’ new and different lifestyle.354 By contrast, Peter will soon emphasize that believers should not be “surprised” (the same Greek word, 4:12) by their sufferings. (The term can also mean “show hospitality to strangers,” like a related expression in 4:9, but here the believers are the strangers, from whom the world is estranged.) Join them might be translated as “run around with them,” but can also simply refer to agreeing with their approach.

Although Jesus’s suffering in the context refers to his death (3:18; 4:1), Christ-related suffering can include also being mocked and marginalized, as here (cf. 4:14; for Christ being mocked as part of his passion, cf. also, e.g., Mark 15:27–32; Rom. 15:3). (The NRSV’s “blaspheme” renders the Greek term blasphēmeō, which can simply mean “speak against.”)355 Jews faced similar criticisms for their “separatism” and alleged lawlessness.356

4:5

Render an accounting can fit a legal context, relevant to the day of judgment. The world might ask for an account (logos) from God’s people (3:15), but it is to God that the world itself will one day render account (logos, 4:5). Believers, then, should not fret over the world’s complaints about them in the present (4:4). This verse, like 4:13 (cf. 4:7), suggests eschatological (end-time) vindication for God’s servants. Such vindication can echo the theme of reversal in the Gospels, as also in 5:6: those who dishonor God’s servants now will someday have to answer to God. God is the ultimate judge of all deeds (1:17), and believers may trust that he judges justly (2:23).

Early Christian tradition elsewhere portrays Jesus as “judge of the living and the dead,”357 but 1 Pet. 4:5 may use the title here for God the Father (cf. 1:17; 2:23).358 That God and/or Christ will judge the living and the dead reminds believers that the vindication will come, whether before or after death.359 Though Jewish tradition360 sometimes adapted the more familiar Greek image361 of human agents assisting in judging, the ultimate judge in Jewish sources was always God,362 the “judge of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25).363 Though Greeks did not emphasize eschatology, even older Greek myths sometimes spoke to the question of moral judgment in the afterlife.364 Those who denied the afterlife365 might be thought especially wicked.366 While some elements of Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity may have played down eschatological judgment, others used it as a summons to moral living (cf. 1 Cor. 15:29–34; Col. 3:4–6; 1 Thess. 3:13; Titus 2:12–14; 2 Pet. 3:3–4, 11–14).

4:6

God will judge the living and the dead (4:5), so the good news367 was preached to the dead, so that although they were judged by humans already they may live. Interpreters divide as to the sense here. Traditionally, many believed that the point was that Jesus preached to the dead in Hades.368 This approach fits the traditional view of 3:19–20, which does appear in the fairly near context. A majority of scholars today, however, understand the verse as referring to the gospel being preached to those who are now dead (but were alive when the gospel was preached to them; cf. 1:25).369 On this latter interpretation, those who have been martyred by human judges will ultimately be vindicated and raised from the dead, because God is the one who will judge ultimately (cf. 4:5).

These two interpretations of 4:6 correspond to the various major views of 3:18–22 (4:1–6 is really part of the larger section 3:17–4:6). As noted in more detail at 3:19, many early church fathers believed that the spirits in prison in 3:19 were the deceased to whom Christ preached in Hades. Many Reformers believed that Christ preached through Noah to those in Noah’s day while they were still alive. A majority of modern scholars find more correspondences with Jewish traditions about Enoch that were widespread in Peter’s era. These traditions declared that Enoch preached judgment to the sons of God (understood in the traditions as fallen angels), who had sexual intercourse with human women in Noah’s day. On this view, Christ’s exaltation over the angelic powers in 3:22 includes his proclamation of victory over them; 3:19 thus matches 3:22 rather than 4:6.

Given the likeliest reading of 3:19, which does not refer to the dead in Hades, there is no reason to suppose that those who embraced the gospel here are the dead in Hades. Rather, those who embraced the gospel and suffered were judged in the flesh (cf. 4:17) for Christ. Thus, 4:6 does not refer to the spirits in prison in 3:19.

But while 4:6 probably does not refer to 3:19, it does draw on the preceding context: as Jesus was executed in the flesh but raised by God’s Spirit (3:18), even so believers may be punished in the flesh (i.e., physically) but will be raised by God’s Spirit (cf. Rom. 1:4; 8:10–11).370 These are not wicked people who perished in the flood in Noah’s day; these are people who heard the gospel and died, perhaps for Christ (cf. 4:1), and have resurrection hope. The meaning of the contrasting phrases the human standpoint (kata anthrōpous, “according to humans”) and God’s standpoint (kata theon, “according to God”) is grammatically ambiguous. “According to God” has to do with God, such as “God’s way” of repentance (2 Cor. 7:9–11), recreated God’s way (Eph. 4:24), and, in 1 Peter itself, shepherding the flock God’s way (1 Pet. 5:2).371 “According to people” thus seems to mean the normal human way.372

The point is that the righteous dead have hope, similar to Wis. 3:1–6. There the foolish thought that the righteous had died (3:2), but in reality, “Even if in people’s sight they are punished, their hope is full of immortality” (3:4); God tested them like gold in a furnace, and now it will be well with them (3:5–6; cf. 1 Pet. 1:6–7; 4:12).

1. From Keener, Background Commentary1, 717–18; in Keener, Background Commentary2, 694. Many scholars find in 3:18–22 a pre-Petrine hymn (e.g., Engel, “Christus Victor”), though many others, including myself, are not persuaded (it is difficult to either demonstrate or refute). The proposal flourished when, in contrast to the present, many scholars viewed 1 Peter as a baptismal liturgy (Jobes, Peter, 252).

2. Often they are “in the eye of the beholder” (Witherington, Christology, 6); cf. Bailey, Peasant Eyes, xix–xx; the four test cases in Harvey, Listening, 104–17, with Gen. 6:3–9:16 being the likeliest (113–14). Heil (Peter) finds extensive chiastic patterns in 1 Peter, though he notes only an ABBA pattern in the present paragraph (15); cf. also Elliott, Peter, 72–73.

3. Rowe, “Style,” 137; Harvey, Listening, 286. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 97, notes Rhet. Her. 4.28.39 and Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.85, but doubts that first-century chiasms extended beyond this. Rhetoricians did not emphasize such simple structures, but they are clear in texts (Aune, Rhetoric, 94).

4. Hermogenes, Inv. 4.3; see Harvey, Listening, 98. Note the verb twice in Hermogenes, Inv. 4.3.181; the genuine author is unknown.

5. In the LXX, see, e.g., Job 30:15; Prov. 10:17 (Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 780); cf. the comparison with commutatio in Rhet. Her. 4.28.39 (Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87).

6. See, e.g., Dewey, Debate, 206n123; Kennedy, Interpretation, 28–29; esp. Harvey, Listening, 61–82.

7. Harvey, Listening, 64–65, taking an extensive example from Homer, Od. 11.171–203 (A-B-C-D-Dʹ-Cʹ-Bʹ-Aʹ).

8. Like other forms of parallelism (e.g., Albright, Yahweh, 4ff.), chiasm appears in the ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (Kitchen, World, 97; Harvey, Listening, 83–96), as well as in early Jewish texts (Spittler, OTP 1:850n. a, on T. Job 25; Vellanickal, Sonship, 38–39, on 1QH 3.7–12).

9. See Stock, “Chiastic Awareness.”

10. This function is not necessary (Aune, Rhetoric, 96).

11. Harvey, Listening, 99. Chiasm may draw attention to the relationship between lines parallel to each other (Gutt, Relevance Theory, 59).

12. See Abernathy, “Translating.” On rhetorical antithesis, see further Rhet. Alex. 26, 1435b.25–39; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lysias 14; Anderson, Glossary, 21–22 (citing Demetrius Phalereus, Style 22–24, 247, 250); Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87 (citing Rhet. Her. 4.15.21); Cosby, “Language,” 216–17 (citing Aristotle, Rhet. 3.9.7–8; Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.81); MacDowell, “Introduction,” 18; Rowe, “Style,” 142.

13. Despite the other textual uncertainties in the line, peri hamartiōn seems secure, appearing in all the earliest manuscripts and over a wide geographic range. Much more debatable is whether Peter says that Christ “suffered” (epathen, e.g., B) or “died” (apethanen, e.g., 𝔓72, א). The latter is more explicit and more in keeping with traditional Christian formulas; the former is more Petrine (2:19–23; 3:14; 4:1, 15, 19; 5:10), including in the immediate context (3:17), but less well-attested. That what Christ suffered is death, of course, is clear from context on either reading.

14. E.g., Lev. 5:6–7, 11; 7:37; and passim; Num. 7:16–87; Heb. 10:6, 8, 18; 13:11.

15. Cf. France, “Exegesis,” 267. Scholars often note here that although Peter employs Christ’s sacrifice as an example, he also presents its atoning aspect as unique (Michaels, Peter, 201–2; Elliott, Peter, 641).

16. Cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14 (possibly reflecting Isa. 53:11; cf. Hays, Conversion, 128–29; Watson, “Faith,” 156–59).

17. See, e.g., 2 Macc. 7:37–38; 4 Macc. 17:22; extensive evidence in Hengel, Atonement; Kim, “Rabbinic Thought”; Kim, “Hellenistic Thought”; Kim, “Targum Isaiah 53”; and esp. Gathercole, Substitution.

18. E.g., Mounce, Peter, 56. Cf. 1 En. 106:17.

19. On the bodily character of resurrection by definition in a Jewish context (e.g., 2 Macc. 7:11; 14:46), see Wright, Resurrection; in the rabbis, Stemberger, “Auferstehungslehre.”

20. That body is a “spiritual” body (1 Cor. 15:44), meaning one animated by God’s Spirit; while it differs starkly from the present sort of body (cf. 15:40–43; Phil. 3:21), it no more refers to a non-body composed of “spirit” than does the antithetical term psuchikos (1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44–46) specify a body composed of “soul” (psuchē). Cf. also Luke 24:37–43.

21. E.g., Lucan, Civ. W. 1.11; Plutarch, Caes. 69.5, 8; Pliny Y., Ep. 7.27.1–16; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 9.6–7; Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 42.11.2–3; Johnston, “Dead,” 114; Dubourdieu, “Dead,” 115–16; in the ancient Near East, see Scurlock, “Ghosts.” Cf. also postmortem spirits in 1 En. 39:4–5.

22. With, e.g., Kelly, Peter, 150–51.

23. Cf. discussion in Raharimanantsoa, Mort. Later, cf. Sipre Deut. 306.28.3; y. Šeqal. 3:3; Gen. Rab. 26:6; perhaps Jos. Asen. 8:10/11; apparently applied to bodily resurrection as early as 4Q385–386 (Dimant, “Resurrection”), though corporate and individual restoration need not conflict; cf. Hogeterp, “Resurrection.”

24. Properly construing “Spirit of holiness” as God’s “holy spirit” (with, e.g., Schreiner, Romans, 43); it is a natural Semitic equivalent.

25. And therefore probably the ambiguous 8:10, 13; see 8:5–9. Scholars often invoke Rom. 8:11 in interpreting 1 Pet. 3:18 (e.g., Dalton, Proclamation, 126).

26. See, e.g., Ridderbos, Paul, 544; Ladd, Last Things, 82–83; Ladd, Theology, 370; Gundry, “Physicality,” 216–17; Fee, Corinthians, 786; Fee, Presence, 28–31; Thiselton, Corinthians, 1269, 1276–81; Dunn, “Raised”; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 734; Wright, Resurrection, 351–52; Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 485n51. Cf. Augustine, Faith Cr. 6.13.

27. Cf. also Jub. 5:8; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 36:26–27; Joel 2:28.

28. Cf. 1QS 4.21; Philo, Heir 57 (and comment in deSilva, Readings, 264); Giants 19, 29. But neither the Qumran sectarians nor Philo is consistent (e.g., 1QM 7.5; 1QHa 5.30).

29. Kelly, Peter, 152; France, “Exegesis,” 268; Schreiner, Peter, 190; pace Selwyn, Peter, 197. The alternative ideas, “in the sphere of the Spirit,” or, “made alive in the Spirit,” are not far removed.

30. Dalton, Proclamation, 141–42; Kelly, Peter, 155–56; France, “Exegesis,” 268; Senior, Peter, 101, 103, 108; Witherington, Peter, 182–85; Skaggs, Peter, 52; Watson, “Peter,” 89. Others read en hō here as “as an adverbial conjunction” designating the time (e.g., Boring, Peter, 140, comparing 1:6; 2:12; 3:16; 4:4; though none of these examples is necessarily temporal, their referents are more generic than the constructions’ immediate antecedent nouns).

31. Elliott (Peter, 650) lists among scholars who believed Christ preached before his resurrection “Gunkel, Windisch, Selwyn, Best.”

32. E.g., nearly 1,000 times in the LXX; more than 140 in the NT; roughly 60 in the Apostolic Fathers.

33. With Jobes, Peter, 242.

34. I follow here Ladd, Theology, 601; Ladd, Last Things, 38. More extensively, see the learned work of Reicke, Spirits, 7–51; Dalton, Proclamation, 15–41; Achtemeier, Peter, 244–46; Elliott, Peter, 648–50; Pakala, “Comments.”

35. “As one soul to other souls” (Cyril of Alexandria, Catena [CEC 66; Bray, Peter, 107]), fitting the pervasive Platonism of Alexandria. For the early view, e.g., Goppelt, Peter, 260–63; Biesbrouck, “Extra Ecclesiam.” On the view’s early development, see Hornik and Parsons, “Harrowing.” For Hades as captivity, cf. 2 Clem. 6:8; perhaps Herm. 1:8; see Goppelt, Peter, 259.

36. E.g. (from Bray, Peter, 107–8), Tertullian, An. 55.2 (FC 10:298); Prudentius, Hymns 9.70–75 (FC 43:65); Severus of Antioch, Catena (CEC 67–68); Ammonius, Catena (CEC 68). Later held by Calvin (Elliott, Peter, 649). Luther and Calvin believed that Christ preached to OT saints in Hades after his resurrection (Elliott, Peter, 650). Bede (Commentary, 103–4) emphasizes that the church holds that Christ rescued only believers from Hades.

37. E.g., Cranfield, “Interpretation”; Perkins, Peter, 65; Green, Peter, 119–38; cf. Klumbies, “Verkündigung.” Cf. the silver race as spirits of the netherworld in Hesiod, Op. 141. Still, the earliest church fathers who held this view did not invoke this passage to support it (Selwyn, Peter, 354).

38. Lit., “souls” (psuchai) in 3:20, which on this view could be linked with 3:19’s “spirits.”

39. Graf, “Katabasis”; e.g., Inanna (ANET2 52–57); Ishtar (ANET2 106–9); Persephone (Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.5.3; Ovid, Metam. 5.564–71); Heracles (Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.5.12); Orpheus (Guthrie, Orpheus, 29–31); Pythagoras (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.1.21); cf. the more extensive exploration in Charlesworth, “Exploring” (who also includes 1QHa). Dibelius (“Initiation,” 94) contended that Paul reconceived the incarnation like a descent-to-Hades myth. Strangely, Derrett (“Descended”) finds the background in Buddhist mythology.

40. Goppelt (Peter, 262) rightly notes Justin, Dial. 72 (his earlier citations from Ignatius do not clearly refer to this idea). He further notes apologists’ complaint that Marcion had Christ save the wicked sinners of the OT rather than the righteous (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 1.3.42.4).

41. Irenaeus, Haer. 4.22.1; 4.27.2; 5.33.1.

42. Odes Sol. 42:11–20. Some have suggested that the Odes of Solomon stem from a Christian who had previously been an Essene (Charlesworth, “Salomen”), but this is speculative (Rudolph, “Verfasser”); their Essene parallels at least do challenge the idea that they are Gnostic (see Charlesworth, “Odes”; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 296). Some believe that they contain some pre-Christian material (Sanders, Hymns, 105), though this is again uncertain. Gospel of Peter 10:41–42 also reports the event, but is of uncertain date.

43. Elliott, Peter, 707, noting Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6 (cf. 44.1; 45.4–5; 46.1–2).

44. Elliott, Peter, 708–9, noting Origen, Princ. 2.5.3. For a serious critique of Origen’s universalism and its subsequent permutations, see McClymond, Redemption. Origen cites 1 Peter for Jesus’s descent also in Comm. Jo. 6.174–76 (FC 80:128; Bray, Peter, 107).

45. Boring, Peter, 136. Challenging the biblical foundation of the idea, see, e.g., Williams, “Descended.”

46. Elliott, Peter, 649. Citing Heb. 11:5, 16, 40; 12:23, Kistemaker (Peter, 145) contrasts with this the dominant Protestant view that the righteous of the OT period were already in heaven.

47. Possibly, Eph. 4:9 depicts Christ’s incarnation (so, e.g., Barth, Ephesians, 2:433–34; Mitton, Ephesians, 147; cf. LXX Ps. 138:13–15 [ET 139:13–15]; Bar. 3:29–30), but in any case neither it nor Rom. 10:7 refers to preaching.

48. More recently, see, e.g., Feinberg, “Mythology”; Grudem, “Preaching”; Erickson, “Opportunity”; Skilton, “Glance.”

49. Elliott, Peter, 649.

50. See, e.g., Bede, Commentary, 102 (with sinners imprisoned in their sins, 103); Elliott, Peter, 649, citing, e.g., Aquinas, Summa Theologica part 3, question 52, article 2, reply to objection 3.

51. Spitta argued that Christ preached to fallen angels, but before his triumph; so also some others, e.g., Hart, “Peter,” 68.

52. Selwyn, Peter, 353; Dalton, “Proclamatio”; Dalton, “Proclamation”; Dalton, “Victory” (seeing Christ as a new Enoch); White, Initiation, 236–37; Stibbs, Peter, 142–43; Leaney, Peter, 51; Kelly, Peter, 154; Kistemaker, Peter, 145–46; Davids, Peter, 138–41; Marshall, Peter, 122–28; Elliott, Peter, 647–62; Boring, Peter, 140; Bandstra, “Proclamation”; Schreiner, Peter, 184–89; Jobes, Peter, 242–51; Charles, “Peter,” 338–42; McKnight, Peter, 216–17; Schlosser, Épître, 227–28; Senior, Peter, 109; Witherington, Peter, 182–89; Vinson, “Peter,” 175–77; Moser in Paul, Rosner, and Mosser, “Letters,” 258; Watson, “Peter,” 89–91; Horrell, Peter, 34–35; Donelson, Peter, 112; Edwards, Peter, 161–63; cf. Elliott, “Enoch”; for the giants as offspring of the Watchers (1 En. 15:8–10), see Michaels, Peter, 207–10 (taking the “prison” instead as a “refuge” [208–9]). Moffatt (General Epistles, 141) reads the text with more direct application to Enoch (also Rendel Harris as noted in Hart, “Peter,” 69n1); against this conjectural emendation of 3:19’s opening enōkai (ενωκαι), proposed at least as early as 1772, see Achtemeier, Peter, 253–54.

53. E.g., Reicke, Epistles, 109 (more fully, Reicke, Spirits, 52–92, esp. 90); Pierce, “Reexamining.” Reicke’s connection between fallen angels and earthly rulers (Spirits, 85–90) is more noteworthy (see discussion below).

54. See Hart, “Peter,” 68; Vinson, “Peter,” 177. On the theological level, see, for a decisive refutation of theological universalism (including Origen’s hope for rebellious spirits), McClymond, Redemption.

55. For spirits as angels, see, e.g., 1 En. 15:4, 6–8, 10; 16:1; 19:1; 1QM 10.12; 12.8–9; 1QHa 5.25; 9.13; Heb. 1:7, 14; 1 Clem. 36:3; as demons, e.g., Jub. 10:8 (children of the Watchers, as also in 1 En. 15:8); 15:31; T. Job 27:2/27:3; 1QM 13.2, 4, 11–12; 14.10; 15.14; 1QHa 11.19; 25.6; 4Q177 f1–4.10; f12–13.1.9; 4Q271 f5.1.18; CD 12.2; Mark 1:27; 3:11; 6:7; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 16:13–14. Cf. Kelly, Peter, 154; Best, Peter, 142–43; France, “Exegesis,” 269. Sometimes it did apply to the dead as well, though normally this is specified (1 En. 22:3, 5; Heb. 12:23).

56. E.g., Jub. 10:5–8; 1 En. 19:1.

57. E.g., Mark 1:27; 3:11; 5:13; 6:7; 1 John 4:1.

58. 1 En. 21:6; 106:13–14.

59. E.g., 1 En. 54:3–6; Jub. 5:10; 2 Bar. 56:12–13.

60. 2 Pet. 2:4–5 (AT). Dalton (“Interpretation”) believes that 2 Peter so applies 1 Pet. 3:19.

61. Jude 6 (AT).

62. 1 En. 106:13–14 (trans. Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 245–46).

63. 1 En. 106:15; T. Naph. 3:5.

64. Jub. 7:21 (trans. Wintermute, OTP 2:70).

65. Jub. 10:8–9 (trans. Wintermute, OTP 2:76).

66. 2 Bar. 56:10–15 (trans. Klijn, OTP 1:641).

67. Josephus, Ant. 1.73 (trans. Thackeray, LCL, 5:35). The sons were giants (following the LXX).

68. E.g., in Hosea 5:8; Joel 2:1; Jon. 1:2; 3:2, 4 (with Kelly, Peter, 156; France, “Exegesis,” 271).

69. Josephus, Ant. 1.74.

70. Quoting from 1 En. 1:9.

71. 1 En. 12:4–5 (trans. Isaac, OTP 1:19). Irenaeus (Haer. 4.16.2) also affirms this belief.

72. In the Similitudes, Enoch might even prefigure an eschatological messianic figure (some identify Enoch as the exalted Son of Man; cf. Heliso, “Enoch”).

73. Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Nah. 1:3; 2 Macc. 6:14; Sir. 5:4; 18:11; Pr. Man. 7; Luke 18:7; Rom. 2:4; 9:22; 2 Bar. 12:4.

74. On this, Best (Peter, 146) cites also 1 En. 9:11; 60:5; 93:3; cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 251.

75. See esp. 1 Enoch (noted in, e.g., Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 251); in early Christianity, Matt. 24:38–39 // Luke 17:26–27; 2 Pet. 2:5.

76. The flood “cleanses” the earth (1 En. 106:17); and in patristic sources prefigures baptism (Hahn and Mitch, Romans, 96n3, citing Daniélou, Liturgy, 70–98). Water also symbolized Wisdom (Sir. 15:3; 24:30–31), the Logos (Philo, Dreams 2.242–45; Posterity 127–29), Torah (Mek. Bah. 5:99; Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; 306.19.1; 306.22–25), and the Spirit (Ezek. 36:25–27; 1QS 4.21). But outside Jewish and Christian usage, baptizō frequently connotes destruction, such as sinking or drowning (e.g., Hippocrates, Epidemics 5.63; LSJ; even Isa. 21:4 LXX).

77. E.g., for a connection with Gen. 1:2 and its eschatological interpretation in the DSS, see Allison, “Baptism”; cf. other associations in Poon, “Background”; Mettayer, “Esprit.” Huber (“Motiv”) suggests merely dovelike descent. Trudinger (“Jonah”) suggests an association with Jonah (his Hebrew name, yônâ, means “dove”); Schwarz (“Taube”) even suggests a misapprehension of an underlying Aramaic phrase.

78. For doves’ function in Neo-Assyrian treaty-making, see Begg, “Doves.” Doves were known for timorousness (Sophocles, Ajax 139–40; Athenaeus, Deipn. 11.490d; cf. Homer, Il. 21.493), weakness (Homer, Od. 20.243), innocence or gullibility (Phaedrus, Fab. 1.31), or inconspicuousness (Homer, Il. 5.778); doves could also be said to stir some nations to war (Aelian, Nat. An. 11.27, perhaps referring to the oracle at Dodona; cf. Dodona’s doves in Herodotus, Hist. 2.57). A dove could represent Aphrodite (Plutarch, Is. Os. 71, Mor. 379D; Ovid, Metam. 13.673–74; Statius, Theb. 5.58, 63; Helen or her daughters in Lycophron, Alex. 86–87, 103), was sacred in some Syrian religion (Lucian, G. Syr. 54, in Grant, Religions, 119), and in artwork often symbolized the realm of a goddess, which was transferred to wisdom and hence to the Spirit in later Christian art (Schroer, “Geist”). For a survey of uses in pagan art, see Goodenough, Symbols, 8:27–37; for Christian material, 37–41, and other Jewish material, 41–46.

79. 4 Ezra 5:26; L.A.B. 39:5 (23:7); b. Šabb. 49a, 130a; Exod. Rab. 20:6; Song Rab. 2:14, §§1–2. Johnston (“Interpretations,” 595) cites Mek. Besh. 3:86ff.; 7:27ff., but notes that it is not frequent enough to constitute a standard metaphor. Although Augustine applied it to the Spirit (Trac. Jo. 6.13.1), he noted some applied it to the church (6.11.2).

80. b. Ber. 3a; cf. Abrahams, Studies (1), 47. One may compare the prophetic doves of Dodona (alluded to in Sib. Or. 1:242–52; the term is different from the one here).

81. Abrahams, Studies (1), 48–49 (followed by Barrett, Spirit, 38; cf. Taylor, Mark, 160–61) cites only Gen. Rab. 2 and Yalqut on Gen. 1:2 (where the interpretation seems dominated more by exegetical principles than by standard tradition); Lachs (Commentary, 47) adds b. Ḥag. 15a (or the Spirit as an eagle in t. Ḥag. 2:5); cf. Manns, “Animale.” A link with the Spirit naturally became common in early post-Synoptic Christian tradition, however (Odes Sol. 24:1; 28:1, and the interpolation in T. Levi 18). The Hebrew Bible does sometimes portray God as a bird (e.g., Ps. 91:3–4).

82. E.g., Lane, Mark, 57.

83. Cf. 4 Bar. 7:8 (which develops from Gen. 8 the image of messenger-birds); Augustine, Trac. Jo. 6.19.2–4. Johnston (Spirit-Paraclete, 20) suggests a combination of Gen. 8:8–9 and Isa. 11:1–2. Cf. Garnet, “Baptism,” although adding too complex a web of other associations. The Ionic designation for this dove in Sib. Or. 1:242–52 might possibly evoke the prophetic doves of Dodona.

84. See 1 En. 106:18, 107:3; 1Q20; 4Q252; 4Q370; 4Q422; Sib. Or. 1:126–28, 173, 231, 236–80; 4:53; 7:8; 3 Bar. 4:11, 15 (on this chapter, cf. Hilton, “Garden”); Jub. 4–10; 4 Bar. 7:8; Heb. 11:7; Lewis, “Noah”; Peters, Noah Traditions; Lieber, “Portraits”; Perry, “Disputing Enoch”; Selwyn, Peter, 328–30.

85. Gen. Rab. 36:3; see esp. his glorious birth, e.g., b. Soṭah 12a. Peters (“Noah Traditions”) sees some of this polemic already in Jubilees, but I believe that Jubilees still exalts Noah. Cf. Philo, Abraham 36–37; possible polemic later in 2 Enoch (see Orlov, “Brother”).

86. 1 En. 106. See also 1Q20 col. 2 (Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 51, 53; Fitzmyer’s commentary, 77–79).

87. Sib. Or. 1:126; cf. Heb. 11:7.

88. Sib. Or. 1:280; cf. Sir. 44:17: “perfect and righteous.”

89. Jub. 10:17. Appealing to grace, later rabbis countered that Noah lacked much merit (Gen. Rab. 26:6; 28:8; 29:1, 3).

90. Jub. 5:19.

91. Josephus, Ant. 1.74; b. Sanh. 108a; 2 Pet. 2:5; 1 Clem. 7:6; 9:4.

92. Sib. Or. 1:129. He typifies Christ in Justin, Dial. 138.

93. E.g., b. Sanh. 108a, bar.; 108b; Gen. Rab. 26:5; 28:8; 70:12; 80:6; Lev. Rab. 7:6; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2. They were eternally damned (m. Sanh. 10:3; t. Sanh. 13:6–10; y. Sanh. 10:3, §1; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 6:15).

94. E.g., Sib. Or. 1:136; 7:7–15 (a Christian interpolation); 11:6–7. Josephus (Ant. 20.25) declares that the ark’s remains were still shown in Adiabene.

95. Trebilco, Communities, 86–93; Trebilco, “Communities,” 567–68.

96. The same expression, in Hebrew, appears in 4Q176 f8–11.10; cf. Jub. 6:18.

97. The same term for “building” the ark in 1 Pet. 3:20 appears in Heb. 11:7 (cf. Philo, Planting 43); the term for the ark itself naturally comes from Genesis (e.g., LXX Gen. 6:14–19).

98. 1 En. 93:4.

99. 1 En. 106:16, 18 (trans. Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch).

100. Jub. 5:19 (trans. Wintermute, OTP 2:65).

101. Sib. Or. 1:136.

102. Sib. Or. 1:263.

103. Wis. 10:4; for the idea, see also Wis. 14:6–7.

104. Using sōzō and sōtēria in Ant. 1.76, diasōzō in Ant. 1.78, 89; 20.25.

105. 2 En. 71:37 (both recensions; trans. Anderson, OTP 1:209).

106. For deities saving in the sea, see, e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 4.43.1; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 3.5; Lucian, Dial. G. 287; Wis. 14:4–5; cf. a Jewish inscription praising God for deliverance at sea in Horsley, Documents 4, 113. “Save” often means “preserve” (e.g., Xenophon, Anab. 5.2.24; Let. Aris. 45).

107. Cf. 4 Macc. 15:31, which compares Noah’s saving ark with spiritual fortitude in the midst of persecution.

108. Note the association of baptism with exorcism in much of church history; see, e.g., “Awe-Inspiring Ceremony.” For one observation of such today, note comments from Jorum Mugari in Keener, Miracles, 2:813–14.

109. Cf. Dalton, Proclamation, 187; France, “Exegesis,” 272. For baptism as also identifying with and sharing in Christ’s descent and ascent here, see Robinson, Studies, 163n7.

110. Noted by various other commentators, e.g., Davids, Peter, 142. The argument from Arabic in Bishop, “Oligoi,” 142, lacks relevance for Peter’s Greek text.

111. This despite the figure of Jesus-followers often being underestimated; cf. Keener, “Plausibility.”

112. With, e.g., Best, Peter, 146. Cf. Matt. 7:14 // Luke 13:23–24. For affirmation of a small but good minority, see, e.g., Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.12.

113. Noah left the ark “eighth” in Sib. Or. 1:281; cf. Hell. Syn. Pr. 12.59. Similar to Gen. 7:13, see Josephus, Ant. 1.77; for Noah’s three sons, cf. also 1 En. 106:16; 2 En. 73:6. Reicke (Epistles, 112–13) suggests eight as the number of perfection; but the more common number for this in antiquity was seven (e.g., Aulus Gellius, Att. 3.10; Apuleius, Metam. 11.1; Philo, Creation 99–100, 116; Abraham 28; Spec. Laws 2.56ff.; Carlston, “Vocabulary,” 134). Kelly (Peter, 159) associates it with the eighth day (Justin, Dial. 138.1); while this tradition is fairly early (Barn. 15:8–9), Peter could hardly have used a number other than eight, given his source material.

114. Cf. Philo, Planting 133; Heb. 9:24; 2 Clem. 14:3.

115. See, e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 1.10.4; Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.7.2; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 36.49; Philo, Rewards 23; Josephus, Ant. 1.93–94; Ag. Ap. 1.130–31. For ancient Near Eastern versions, see, e.g., ANET 42–44, 72–99, 104–6; Albright, Yahweh, 98; Frymer-Kensky, “Epic”; Frymer-Kensky, “Flood Stories.”

116. Note references already cited above.

117. E.g., Plutarch, Cim. 3.1–3; Sert. 1.1–4; Demosth. 3.2; cf. Hays, Echoes, 101; Trompf, Historical Recurrence.

118. See discussion in Keener, Galatians (2019), 402–8.

119. Josephus, Ant. 18.117.

120. In what follows I borrow from Keener, Acts, 1:977–82.

121. E.g., Livy, Hist. 39.9.4; Plutarch, Is. Os. 75, Mor. 381D; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.21.14; Moyer, “Purity,” 130–32; Sallaberger and Felber, “Purification.” In the OT, see Webb, Baptizer, 96–108.

122. On early Jewish ablutions apart from Qumran, see, e.g., Josephus, Life 11; Webb, Baptizer, 95–132 (esp. 108–32).

123. Reed, “Contributions,” 52, counts over 300; cf. Avigad, Jerusalem, 85–86, 139–43; Zissu and Ganor, “Horvat ‘Ethri.”

124. On the basis of b. Yebam. 46a, some scholars (McEleney, “Conversion”; Gilbert, “Convert”) even think that some authorities accepted baptism without circumcision; but this is unlikely (see Bamberger, Proselytism, 49–52; cf. b. Yebam. 71a).

125. t. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:11; b. Ber. 47b; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 57a; b. Yebam. 46ab; y. Qidd. 3:12, §8; cf. t. Zabim 2:7.

126. m. Pesaḥ. 8:8; see Abrahams, Studies (1), 37; Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 128–31.

127. Taylor, “Baptism”; Smith, “Baptism,” 13–32; Robinson, Studies, 16n12; Légasse, “Baptême”; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:52. Webb (Baptizer, 125–27) finds no pre-70 evidence for it, and rightly notes that Josephus, Ant. 20.34–48, where we might expect to find it mentioned, is silent about it. While this could be a stronger than usual argument from silence, the omission could be simply because immersion was a transculturally common practice and because, unlike circumcision in this case, it would not risk generating much controversy.

128. Cf. also Rowley, “Baptism,” 313; Cohen, Maccabees, 53; Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 128; White, Initiation, 320; Kraeling, John the Baptist, 99–100.

129. Cf. similarly Pusey, “Baptism.” Also Taylor, Immerser, 64–68 (though she on other grounds rejects this as background for John’s baptism, 69); for gentile impurity (because of idolatry), cf., e.g., Acts 10:28; 11:3; m. Pesaḥ. 8:8; m. ʾOhol. 18:7; Josephus, J.W. 2.150; y. Šeb. 6:1, §12; Safrai, “Religion,” 829.

130. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.20 (interpreted correctly by Stern, Authors, 541); probably also Juvenal, Sat. 14.104. Cf. Justin, Dial. 29.1, for a mid-second century Diaspora reference.

131. Sib. Or. 4:162–65; the text probably dates to ca. 80 CE, and Collins (OTP 1:383) regards this as Jewish rather than Christian. The association of turning from sin (4.162–64), repentance (4.168–69) and washing in water (4.165) is significant. Some Diaspora circles may have required only washing of hands and feet (Jos. Asen. 14:12).

132. Basil remarks on this verse that any grace in the water derives not from the water’s nature but from the Spirit’s presence (Holy Sp. 35.13). I leave aside here the later issue of infant baptism, which nowhere appears in first-century texts, at least not explicitly. In the case of infant baptism, subsequent intention (for those that survived infancy or young childhood) is typically understood as functionally equivalent.

133. Cf. 1QS 3.4–6: “cultic waters” cannot restore one’s “purity”; “mere ritual bathing” is inadequate so long as one “rejects the laws of God” (trans. Wise et al., Scrolls, 129). Cf., later, Did. 7:4, which advises fasting before baptism.

134. E.g., James 2:2; Josephus, Ant. 7.267; including impurity (LXX Isa. 4:4).

135. Cf., e.g., LXX Zech. 3:3–4; James 1:21; Rev. 22:11; T. Jud. 14:3; 1 Clem. 17:4; Ignatius, Eph. 16:2.

136. Barn. 11:11.

137. E.g., Herm. 43:2; Justin, Dial. 45; note also a close cognate in LXX Gen. 43:7; Let. Aris. 122; Josephus, Ant. 3.32. A verb cognate regularly refers to asking (e.g., Philo, Posterity 89; Planting 59; Flight 149; Luke 23:6, 9; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.9.1; cf. LXX Gen. 44:19; Deut. 13:14), but this is a case where cognates by themselves are insufficient to determine a word’s usage.

138. Cf. perhaps Acts 8:36 (and some MSS of 8:37); 10:47; but the custom is not apparent in Did. 7. Tripp (“Eperōtēma”) suggests that it refers to the baptizer’s adjuration to the baptismal candidate.

139. LXX Ps. 136:3 (ET 137:3); Matt. 16:1; Herm. 43:2. Achtemeier (Peter, 271) compares Roman clients’ request for patrons’ assistance.

140. With, e.g., Schreiner, Peter, 196; Witherington, Peter, 191–92. Contextually, it might mean something like a formal announcement in an alternative Greek version of Dan. 4:17.

141. France, “Exegesis,” 275, noting that it nearly always means an enquiry.

142. Selwyn (Peter, 205) contends that the sense “consent” in some later business documents could be stretched to include the sense, “answer” (citing Sir. 33:3).

143. Richards, “1 Peter iii.21”; Selwyn, Peter, 205; Cross, Peter, 32; Leaney, Peter, 55; Beare, Peter, 149; Kelly, Peter, 162; Best, Peter, 148; France, “Exegesis,” 275; Goppelt, Peter, 269–71; Elliott, Peter, 679–80; Achtemeier, Peter, 270–71; Jobes, Peter, 255. Some envision this as similar to the early textual addition in manuscripts of Acts 8:37. From the second century on, Moulton and Milligan (Vocabulary, 231–32) cite the following papyri: for the noun, P.Cair.Preis. 1.16; for the cognate verb, P.Oxy. 6.905.20; 10.1273.41; 10.1277.14; P.Gen. 1.42.31; P.Fay. 90.22; P.Tebt. 2.378.30; for the form eperōtēsis, P.Oxy. 4.718.13; 9.1205.9. Michaels (Peter, 217) cautions that none of the examples are followed by eis. Roman faith (fides) could mean keeping pledges (Sallust, Catil. 25.4; 44.3).

144. 1QS 5.8; CD 15.6–8; 16.1–5; Josephus, J.W. 2.135; Hippolytus, Ref. 9.17–19; cf. 1QHa 6.28. Cf. physicians’ oath as a shared public declaration (Nutton, Medicine, 177).

145. Klauck, Context, 116–17, on Dionysiac initiations.

146. Pliny Y., Ep. 10.96.7; also noted in this connection in Moffatt, General Epistles, 143. This is, however, an outsider’s interpretation of potentially apologetic responses. Oaths were common in collegia (see, e.g., Pearson, “Associations,” 137); Pliny apparently viewed Christian gatherings as unauthorized associations. The practice was not likely universal; no such oath appears in the detailed instructions of Did. 7:1–4, though this is an argument from silence.

147. See Crawford, “Confessing.” Goppelt (Peter, 270) compares “the abrenuntiatio, the renunciation of the devil, i.e., of the gods and the life that goes along with them,” preceding immersion (Tertullian, Cor. 3; Pud. 9; Hippolytus’s church order). Others also compare later use of the Latin word sacramentum (“military oath”; for its religious dimension, cf. Jones, “Army,” 212) for baptism (e.g., Elliott, Peter, 680; Jobes, Peter, 255).

148. I.e., construing the genitive as objective.

149. France, “Exegesis,” 276.

150. This verb’s use in a context regarding angels might reflect LXX Ps. 8:6–7 (ET 8:5–6) (Elliott, Peter, 14; Skaggs, Peter, 54); cf. 1 Cor. 15:24–27; Eph. 1:20–22; Heb. 2:5–8; perhaps LXX Dan. 7:27; Luke 10:17, 20.

151. Cf. Zwiep, Ascension, 189–90, rightly doubting whether this source antedates Luke. Naturally, later sources recount the ascension (e.g., Gr. Anth. 1.19).

152. See Keener, John, 1192–95. Similarly, the Iliad predicts Achilles’s death without narrating it (e.g., Homer, Il. 21.110; 23.80–81; for other examples of this literary technique, see Keener, John, 1194–95).

153. Also in second-century writers, e.g., Barn. 15:9; Papias, Frag. 3:10; much later, the Christian epigram in Gr. Anth. 1.19.

154. Also 1 Clem. 36:5; Barn. 12:10; Polycarp, Phil. 2:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:25. Cf. also the tradition that Jesus originally came from heaven (Rom. 10:6; 1 Cor. 15:47; cf. Eph. 4:9; John 3:13). On the motif of ascent/descent in early Christology, see Longenecker, “Christological Motifs,” 542–44; Longenecker, Christology, 58–62; cf. Keener, John, 561–63 (esp. 162–63). For Jesus’s enthronement and exaltation in early Christianity, see, e.g., deSilva, “Exaltation.”

155. I draw the following material from Keener, Acts, 1:717–25. “At the right hand” is a royal court image (e.g., 1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 45:9; 1 Esd. 4:29–30; Suetonius, Nero 13.2), not describing actual posture (correctly noted by Calvin, in Cranfield, Mark, 19); the image appears for divine thrones (Pindar frg. 146, from scholion on Il. 24.100; quoted also in Plutarch, Table T. 1.2.4, Mor. 617C; also Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 37.4–7; Eunapius, Lives 462; cf. Wis. 9:4), apparently including in the imperial cult (Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxxxvii).

156. E.g., Heracles in Lysias, Or. 2.11, §191; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 4.38.3–5; Dionysus in Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.5.3; Romulus in Ovid, Fasti 2.500–509; Silius Italicus, Pun. 5.145; Plutarch, Numa 11.3; implied (sarcastically) for Peregrinus in Lucian, Peregr. 39; see further Talbert, “Myth” (emphasizing Hellenistic Jewish sources); Strelan, Strange Acts, 42–47; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 57–60; for some sense for kings (at death) in ancient Egypt, cf. Davis, “Ascension-Myth”; ANET 18. If one counts others snatched up (such as Polydeuces in Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.11.2; or Ganymede in Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.12.2; Pseudo-Lucian, Charid. 7), one could add further examples. Cf. some assumptions about Iphigeneia in Euripides, Iph. Aul. 1608, 1614, 1622.

157. For exceptions, see, e.g., Suetonius, Aug. 100.3–4; cf. Suetonius, Jul. 84.3.

158. E.g., Phaedrus, Fab. 4.12.3; cf. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 9.3.ext. 1.

159. In Jub. 32:20, Jacob watches God’s ascent (cf. 32:21, where an angel descends).

160. Luke 2:15; Judg. 13:20; Tob. 12:20; T. Ab. 4:5; 8:1; 9:7; 15:11 A; 4:4 B; 8:2–3 B; L.A.E. 43:4; Jos. Asen. 17:8, some MSS (absent from Greek version in Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth, 190, for 17:6; with a chariot of fire comparable to Elijah’s); 3 Bar. 3:1.

161. 1 Macc. 2:58.

162. See Zwiep, Ascension, 64–71; cf. Meeks, Prophet-King, 156–58, 205–9, 241–46. Some rabbis apparently believed that Moses did not actually die (Sipre Deut. 357.10.5; cf. Rev. 11:6); cf. also Moses’s earlier ascension to receive the Torah (e.g., Sipre Deut. 49.2.1). Some connect Moses’s ascension with older myths of heavenly invasion (Halperin, “Ascension”), though I am not persuaded.

163. For Enoch ascension traditions, perhaps relevant in the context of 1 Pet. 3:19–22, see, e.g., Sir. 49:14; Heb. 11:5; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 4:24; Zwiep, Ascension, 41–51 (and cf. 51–58); Luke, “Enoch’s Ascension.” Ancient interpreters differed in their understanding of Enoch (cf., e.g., Luciani, “Sorte”). Many rabbis, perhaps polemicizing against the Enoch tradition, denigrating him, claimed that he died for wickedness or before he could become wicked (Gen. Rab. 25:1; cf. Wis. 4:10–11). Prerabbinic sources portray him favorably (e.g., Sir. 44:16; Pseudo-Eupolemus, via Alexander Polyhistor, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.8–9; Jub. 10:17; 1 En. passim, e.g., 83:8; 106:7; 4Q227; 4Q530 col. 2, line 11; 1Q20 2.19, col. 5; Philo, Abraham 17–19; T. Dan 5:6; T. Jud. 18:1; Ascen. Isa. 9:9; cf. VanderKam, “Traditions,” 245) and as escaping death (Jub. 4:23; T. Ab. 11:5 B). Enoch literature circulated widely (cf., e.g., T. Sim. 5:4; T. Naph. 4:1), and his name was used by some later Jews (CPJ 3:40, §478; 3:98, §509).

164. For Ezra, see, e.g., (later) Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:7. See Aune, Revelation, 625–26; Zwiep, Ascension, 71–74. Cf. Baruch in Zwiep, Ascension, 74–75.

165. Although, as Ralph Marcus’s note c here points out (LCL, 8:16–17), Josephus plays down the miraculous element of Elijah’s ascension proper.

166. Cf. Begg, “Disappearances of Enoch,” citing Moses’s humility in Josephus, Ant. 3.212.

167. With Zwiep, Ascension, 59–63, 194; Brodie, “Emulation,” 83; Keener, Acts, 1:713–19, esp. 719.

168. Allusions further appear in Mark 14:62; 16:19; Acts 2:33; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22.

169. For authentic Jesus tradition here, see, e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 259; France, Matthew, 321.

170. See, e.g., Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.7.7; 2.8.1; 3.13.6; Ovid, Metam. 14.824–28, 846–51; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.2.68; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 8.30; Her. 28.1; discussion in Scott, “Ascent,” 447–48.

171. Scott, “Ascent,” 448–50 (citing Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagōgē, esp. the heavenly enthronement in 68–89; Philo, Moses 1.158).

172. See Talbert, “Concept of Immortals.”

173. See Zwiep, Ascension, 194–95. The more Hellenized versions may move more in this direction, but Peter does not seem to do so here.

174. E.g., Mark 13:32; 1 En. 97:2; 104:1; 106:12–13.

175. Cf. various modern attempts to grapple with these issues in, e.g., Benoit, Jesus, 1:209–53; Robinson, “Ascendancy”; Lincoln, Ephesians, 20; esp. thirdspace in Sleeman, Geography.

176. Regardless of whether one accepts his source reconstructions, Sanders (Hymns, 17–18) points out some parallels with 1 Tim. 3:16.

177. Jub. 15:31–32 (trans. Wintermute, OTP 2:87).

178. Philo speaks of “powers” as mediatorial manifestations of God, similar to Stoic (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.147) or later Platonic (Rutenber, Doctrine, 17; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:217–26; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 161; as the background for Paul, Forbes, “Principalities”; Forbes, “Demonology”) thought; e.g., Philo, God 109–10; Confusion 136ff., 171, 174–75; Heir 170; Flight 69; Spec. Laws 1.47, 209; 4.187; QG 20; QE 18, 45, 65, 68. They seem to move between being attributes and being beings. In Jewish mysticism, cf. Scholem, Gnosticism, 33.

179. Jub. 15:31–32; 35:17; Mek. Shir. 2:112ff.; b. Ber. 16b–17a; b. Yoma 77a; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Pesiq. Rab. 17:4; 3 En. 29:1; 30:1–2.

180. Jub. 15:31.

181. 1QM 14.15–16; 15.13–14; 17.5–8; Kobelski, “Melchizedek,” 123. The later rabbis often described their specific hostility toward Israel (3 En. 26:12; Sipre Deut. 315.2.1; Gen. Rab. 77:3; 78:3 [keeping in mind that Edom often stood for Rome]; Exod. Rab. 21:5; Lev. Rab. 21:4; Deut. Rab. 1:22–23; Song Rab. 2:1, §3, 8:8, §1) and judgment (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:9; 27:2; Song Rab. 8:14, §1).

182. 1 En. 40:9 (Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch; contrast Isaac, OTP); 61:10; 2 En. 20:1 (longer version); T. Levi 3:8; T. Job 49:2; 3 Bar. 12:3; Ascen. Isa. 1:3; 2:2 (but probably Christian material; cf. 1:4); Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 11:8; in early Gnostic texts, e.g., Apoc. Adam 1:4; Hypostasis of the Archons. Angels could also be designated with terms of military rank, especially Michael as Archistrategos (e.g., T. Ab. 14:1–5, 10, 12; 15:1, 9, 11; 16:8 A). Carr (Angels, 40) questions whether any of the language precedes early Christianity, the best possibility being in 1 En. 61:10 (though the Similitudes’ date is uncertain; see Erho, “Nature”; Erho, “Methodologies”; Erho, “Dating”; Gurtner, Pseudepigrapha, 36; for pre-Christian dating, see, e.g., Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and New Testament, 18, 38, 89; Bampfylde, “Similitudes”; for their non-Christian character, e.g., Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and Research, 98; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 39–40; for the minority second-century CE date, e.g., Hindley, “Date,” 564; still later, e.g., Black, “Parables”).

183. E.g., LXX Deut. 32:8; Dan. 10:13–12:1; Jub. 15:30–32; 1 En. 89:59–90:19. See Stuckenbruck, “Angels of Nations”; cf. Collins, “Prince,” 662–63; Caragounis, Mysterion, 157–61; Cullmann, State, 68. For the LXX of Deuteronomy, see Russell, Apocalyptic, 244–49; Dodd, Bible and Greeks, 18–19.

184. E.g., Plutarch, Fort. Rom. 11, Mor. 324B (on the guardian spirit of Rome); Fronto, M. Caes. 3.9.2 (for tutelary deities of nations); cf. Mattingly, Christianity, 19; Toepel, “Planetary Demons”; spirits of places in Rives, Religion, 19. The picture of YHWH’s heavenly court (possibly demythologizing the seventy gods in El’s Canaanite pantheon) may suggest that the idea of guardian angels of the nations predates Daniel and LXX Deuteronomy.

185. In Jub. 10:5–8, not all angels were bound.

186. E.g., Best, Peter, 143.

187. Jub. 5:10; in an abyss, see 1 En. 21:7, 10. But as Kelly (Peter, 155) suggests, 1 En. 13:9 sounds as if they are on the earth.

188. 1 En. 18:14–19:1 (trans. Isaac, OTP 1:23). This could be an abyss (cf. 1 En. 60:7) where heaven and earth meet at the ocean; cf. T. Ab. 8 B.

189. 2 En. 7:1–3, both recensions; 18:3–6. Cf. also a Tanna in b. Tam. 32b; ancient Jewish-Christian representations in Bagatti, Church, 283–84.

190. Though even the air realm (the lowest heaven, e.g., Philo, Dreams 1.135) is infested with spirits in many ancient texts (Plato, Symp. 202D; Cornutus, Summary of Greek Theology 5, §4.16–17; 35, §74.5–6; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 8.8; PGM 1.178–81; cf. Dillon, Middle Platonists, 288; Stoics in Klauck, Context, 358); cf. also Eph. 2:2; Hippolytus, Ref. 1.4.

191. With, e.g., Dalton, Proclamation, 87.

192. Daniélou, Theology, 191–92.

193. Despite the textual variant in 3:18. Early Christians used even this term for suffer (paschō) particularly frequently with respect to his death (e.g., Mark 8:31; 9:12; Acts 1:3; 3:18; 17:3; Heb. 2:18; 5:8; 9:26; 13:12; Ignatius, Smyrn. 2:1; 6:2; 2 Clem. 1:2; Barn. 5:5, 13; 6:7; 7:2, 5, 10; 12:2, 5; Mart. Pol. 17:2). The textual elaborations on pathontos in 4:1 may reflect a scribal desire to distinguish Jesus’s unique suffering theologically from that of his followers, or flawed memory of the NT’s usual more theologically pregnant forms.

194. Elliott (Peter, 714–17) rules out connection to Rom. 6:7, suffering for atonement or suffering punishment, focusing instead on the Jewish idea of suffering as a form of disciplining or training for one’s good. On the range of Jewish ideas of suffering, see in the introduction the excursus “Some Ancient Jewish Views of Suffering” (pp. 38–41).

195. Some argue that it applies to Christ himself; see, e.g., Strobel, “Leiden”; Michaels, Peter, 226–29; Giesen, “Leiden.” Some church fathers understood the passage thus; probably overworking their doctrine of two natures, they spoke of Christ suffering in his flesh rather than in his divinity (Athanasius, Catena [CEC 70–71]; Niceta of Remesiana, Explanation of the Creed 5 [FC 7:46–47]; cited in Bray, Peter, 111–12).

196. For ancient military metaphors, see, e.g., Cicero, Fam. 4.7.2; Brut. 2.7; Seneca Y., Lucil. 109.8; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.11–20; 49.10; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.14.15; 4.5.25–32; Lucian, Phil. Sale 8; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.13; Philo, e.g., in Alleg. Interp. 3.14, 155; Dreams 2.90; Abraham 243; Moses 1.225; further, Keener, Mind, 110–11.

197. See 2 Cor. 10:4 (and probably 6:7); Eph. 6:10–20; 1 Thess. 5:8; probably Rom. 13:12.

198. See, helpfully, Kręcidło, “Funkcja.” For these metaphors in light of Roman military personnel in Asia Minor, see Puig Tarrech, “Milieu,” 360–68, as cited in Elliott, Peter, 713; certainly Peter would see them in Rome.

199. The vice lists overlap in wording at two points, though not in the same sequence: uninhibited (aselgeiai, first in 1 Pet. 4:3; the fourth vice in Rom. 13:13; cf. Mark 7:22; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19) and partying (kōmoi, fourth in 1 Pet. 4:3; first in Rom. 13:13; cf. Gal. 5:21); passions (epithumiai, 1 Pet. 4:3) also appears in Rom. 13:14.

200. Justin, 1 Apol. 14 (trans. Roberts and Donaldson, ANF 1:167).

201. See esp. observations in Knust, Abandoned (including the widespread use of slander in ancient invective, e.g., 15–49). Even traditional Romans were not always favorable toward the morality of Greeks (Sallust, Jug. 85.32; Florus 7; Seneca, Ep. Lucil. 59.7; Pliny E., Nat. 15.5.19; cf. Polybius 39.1.10–12; Dio Chrysostom [Favorinus], Or. 37.34; Bowersock, Augustus, 75; Reekmans, “Views,” 124; Goldstein, “Acceptance,” 69; Aune, Environment, 28; Méthy, “Monde romain”; though cf. Pliny E., Nat. 7.30.112; Pliny Y., Ep. 8.24.2–5), barbarians (Sallust, Jug. 98.6–7), or dissolute aristocrats (85.41).

202. With Sanders, Paul, 297, 335, 339–42; here, Matera, Galatians, 209; Witherington, Grace, 391–92; cf. Let. Aris. 152; Sib. Or. 3:594–600, 757–66; Wis. 14:12–31; T. Naph. 3:3; CD 12.9; 1QpHab 4.9–14; 12.13; 1Q22 f1.i.7; 4Q169 f3–4.iii.1; 4Q269 f8.ii.2; 4Q271 f2.9; 4Q385a f18.ii.9; m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1; Sipra ʾAḥ. M. par. 8.193.1.7; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1, §3.

203. Philo, Contempl. Life 40–47; Flaccus 136–37. Philo does attribute such behavior to Israelites in Exod. 32:6 (Moses 2.162). Later, cf. Lev. Rab. 5:3.

204. Philo, Contempl. Life 48–52 (he goes on to contrast the noble banquets of Therapeutae). For luxury in the banquets of the wealthy, see Stambaugh, City, 206–8; for hostile depictions of such vice, see, e.g., Justinus, Epit. 30.1.2–9 (esp. 8); Musonius Rufus, 12, p. 84.31.

205. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.195 (trans. Thackeray, LCL, 1:371).

206. t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:6.

207. Taverns were not always like this; urban areas usually had neighborhood pubs or bars (Stambaugh, City, 208–9).

208. Here I draw on Keener, “Adultery”; Keener, John, 593–95; and esp. Keener, Acts, 3:2271–75.

209. E.g., P.Oxy. 237, vol. 7, lines 19–29; stories about allowing it to prevent death from lovesickness (Valerius Maximus, Mem. 5.7.ext. 1; Seneca E., Controv. 6.7); claims about Caligula in Suetonius, Cal. 23.1; 24.1; Josephus, Ant. 19.204 (but Josephus justifies the same for parents of a royal proselyte in the east, Ant. 20.18); Nero in Suetonius, Nero 28.2; storytellers also exploited such lines (Ovid, Metam. 9.454–665; 10.314–476; Parthenius, Love Rom. 2.2; 5.2–3; 11.1–3; 13.1–4; 17.1–7; 31.1; Apoll. K. Tyre 1); for exceptions for philosophers, see Hook, “Oedipus.”

210. See notes on Egypt (212) and Persia (213) below.

211. For Jewish suspicions, see Sib. Or. 5:390–91; cf. Gen. Rab. 18:5; 52:11. Jewish people harshly condemned all kinds of incest (Gen. 19:30–38; 49:3–4; Jub. 16:8; 33:1–14; 41:23–26; Philo, Spec. Laws 3.19; Josephus, Ant. 17.341; T. Reu. 1:6–10; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:24; Sipre Deut. 246.1.2; y. Ned. 2:1, §4; y. Taʿan. 4:5, §8; Deut. Rab. 2:21; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 35:25; on Deut. 23:10; cf. Ps.-Phoc. 179–81; Belkin, Philo, 232–41), and considered the Jewish standard stricter than gentile practice (e.g., Sipra Qed. par. 4.206.1.2; y. Qidd. 1:1, §2; cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.18). Some gentiles might have condemned levirate marriages, though (cf. Libanius, Law 1).

212. On sibling marriages in Egypt, see Pausanias, Descr. 1.7.1; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 1.27.1; Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 1.152; for a discussion of frequency, see Scheidel, “Incest Revisited”; for development, Ameling, “Sibling Marriage”; Rowlandson and Takahashi, “Marriage”; more skeptically, Huebner, “Marriage” (who suggests, e.g., that one sibling was adoptive); against Huebner, with considerable evidence, Remijsen and Clarysse, “Incest”; for political motives in the Ptolemaic dynasty, see Ager, “Familiarity”; cf. ANET 467–69; in Nubia, see Adams, Nubia, 260; in some more recent cultures, cf. Radcliffe-Brown, “Taboo,” 50. These were rejected elsewhere (Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 10.31.1; Gaius, Inst. 1.61), though Greeks allowed nonuterine, half-sibling unions (e.g., Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.3.1–2; Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 5 [Cimon], 1.2; cf. Cornelius Nepos, Gen. pref. 4). Although Jewish people felt that God tolerated brother-sister marriages in an earlier period (Gen. 20:12; y. Sanh. 5:1, §4), Lev. 18:9, 11 and Deut. 27:22 ruled out subsequent brother-sister marriages (Sipre Num. 90.1.1), except perhaps for gentile slaves (y. Yebam. 11:2, §3).

213. See, e.g., Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 1.152; 3.205; Ptolemy, Tetrab. 4.10.203; Catullus, Carm. 90.1–4; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 10.30; 21.5; Philo, Spec. Laws 3.13; Tatian, Or. Graec. 28; Tertullian, Apol. 9.16; Gane, “Leviticus,” 309–10; more documented, with sisters, Yamauchi, Persia, 127, 450.

214. 1 Cor. 5:1; Hesiod, Op. 328–29; Xenophon, Mem. 4.4.20–21; Lysias, Or. 14.41, §143; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 5.55.6–7; Cicero, Leg. 2.9.22; Catullus, Carm. 67.23–24, 29–30; 78.1–6; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 1.8.ext. 3; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 66.6; Gaius, Inst. 1.59–64; Plutarch, Rom. Q. 108, Mor. 289D; Par. Stor. 19, Mor. 310BC; Juvenal, Sat. 2.32–33; 4.8–9; Tacitus, Ann. 14.2; 16.8; Suetonius, Cal. 23–24; Nero 28; Minucius Felix, Oct. 31.1; Apuleius, Metam. 10.3; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.10; 5.14; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 17.78; 31.210; Keener, “Adultery,” 12–14; Robinson, Criminal Law, 54–57; Ebner, “Incestus.” Many regarded as shameful even Claudius’s marriage to his niece (Tacitus, Ann. 12.5; Suetonius, Claud. 26.3; 39; Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 61.31.6); exceptions had to be made for deities (e.g., Burkert, Religion, 178; Virgil, Aen. 1.45–46; Athenagoras, Leg. 32), and the emperor may have invoked this privilege (for one theory, Green, “Claudius”).

215. E.g., Sophocles, Antig. 863–66; Oedipus tyrannus; Euripides, Phoen. 869; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.24.16; Martial, Epigr. 10.4.1; Herodian, Hist. 4.9.3; cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 27.

216. See, e.g., Farber, Kinship Systems, 59; Barth, “Descent,” 6; Schapera, “Kinship,” 152, 156; cf. Gough, “Mappilla,” 433; Pitt-Rivers, “Kith,” 94–95. Sometimes degrees of kinship also vary in amount of incest guilt (e.g., Elkins, “Models,” 171; Evens, “Mind,” 126; Schlegel, Dominance, 12, 69, 76, 123–24); some cultures also provide rituals for removing incest guilt (e.g., Southall, “Ideology,” 159). A few cultures prohibit all first-cousin marriages (Farber, Kinship Systems, 26–28, 31–32; for parallel cousins, Kuper, “Kinship,” 104), but most permit at least cross-cousin marriages (e.g., Mark, “Marriage”; Gough, “Variation”; Murphy and Kasdan, “Agnation,” 12). Some apply extended sibling terminology to forbidden cousins (e.g., Fields and Merrifield, “Kinship,” 27; Farber, Kinship Systems, 94).

217. See Graburn, “Incest Taboos,” 324; Parsons, “Kinship,” 410; cf., e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 179–80, 192; Evans-Pritchard, Kinship, 29–48; Firth, Tikopia, 280–97. Incest invites punishment by deities or society (e.g., Wilson, Rituals of Kinship, 134–35, 187; Evens, “Mind”; Nukunya, Kinship, 68; Willner, “Definition,” 152; Fortes, “Kinship,” 257; Needham, “Kinship,” 27; in magic, see Makarius, “Violation,” 233–34).

218. See Wilt, “Appealing to Context” (against restricting porneia to “incest” here in NT usage).

219. E.g., m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1; cf. 2 Macc. 6:4; bestiality in y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1, §3; homosexual intercourse in Let. Aris. 152; Sib. Or. 3:185–86, 596–600; 5:166, 387; y. Qidd. 4:11, §6. Cf. generally Iverson, “Jubilees,” 118.

220. b. Yebam. 60b. In the second century, R. Meir allegedly claimed that a pagan cannot know who their father is (Ruth Rab. 2:13, a later source).

221. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.199; 1 En. 8:1–2; Jub. 20:4; 33:20; T. Ab. 10:8 A; Ascen. Isa. 2:5; t. Sanh. 13:8; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; see further Keener, “Adultery,” 10–11. It is equivalent to prostitution (Sipra Qed. pq. 7.204.1.1–2; either may be condemned in CD 4.17–18; 7.1; 8.5; 1QS 4.10).

222. E.g., Wis. 14:24; L.A.B. 2:8; Syr. Men. Sent. 45–46, 240–51; T. Levi 17:11; Treat. Shem 7:15; 9:9; 10:16; at greater length, see Keener, “Adultery,” 7–10.

223. Deut. 23:17; Sir. 9:6; 19:2; 41:20; 2 Macc. 6:4; Josephus, Ant. 4.206, 245; Philo, Joseph 43; Sib. Or. 5:388; Sipre Num. 115.5.7; perhaps Jos. Asen. 7:5/6.

224. E.g., Job 31:1, 9; Tob. 8:7; Sir. 9:8; 23:5; 25:21; 41:21; Sus. 8; 1QS 1.6–7; 4.10; CD 2.16; 11Q19 59.14; 1QpHab 5.7; Sib. Or. 4:33–34; Pss. Sol. 4:4; T. Iss. 3:5; 4:4; T. Reu. 3:3; 4:1, 6, 11; 6:1–3; T. Jud. 17:1; m. Nid. 2:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 2A; 2, §9B; b. Ber. 20a; b. Yebam. 63b; y. Ber. 9:1, §16; y. Ḥag. 2:2, §4; y. Ḥal. 2:1, §10; Gen. Rab. 32:7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; see further Keener, Matthew, 186–87; Mueller, “Faces of Lust.” Cf. Matt. 5:28–30; 2 Pet. 2:14; Justin, 1 Apol. 15; Sent. Sextus 233; Tertullian, Apol. 46.11–12; for avoiding holding one’s membrum during urination, cf. b. Nid. 13a; Gen. Rab. 95 (MSV); for not looking at one’s private parts, cf. y. Sanh. 10:5, §2.

225. T. Iss. 7:2; T. Reu. 4:8; b. Nid. 13b, bar.; b. Šabb. 64ab; Lev. Rab. 23:12; Pesiq. Rab. 24:2; see Keener, Marries Another, 16–17.

226. Josephus, Ant. 4.245. This appears to assume that the woman had a choice, which was probably more common in Israel (prostitutes in Pss. Sol. 2:11).

227. Fitzmyer (Acts, 557–58) suggests that zenut in CD 4.12–5.14 includes polygamy, divorce (4.20–21), and incestuous marriages (5.7–8). The application of the prohibition against second marriages in CD 4.20 to divorce (cf. Black, Scrolls, 123; Schubert, “Ehescheidung,” 27), however, is problematic, since the context involves royal polygyny (CD 5.2; with Vermes, “Halakah”; Keener, Marries Another, 40–41); further the text itself claims that Belial’s nets enslaved Israel, not only gentiles (CD 4.16). The parallel text in 11Q19 56.18–19 prohibits only polygamy (in view of the quotation of Deut. 17:17 and context instructing the king), and allows remarriage after a spouse’s death (with Yadin, “L’attitude”; though Murphy-O’Connor [“Remarques”] believes the two texts may address different issues).

228. Gentiles might frown on it if the woman were betrothed or married (Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 4.3.1–2 in context; Chariton, Chaer. 2.2.8; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.5.ext. 1), but it was not legally punishable (Chariton, Chaer. 5.7.5–6; 8.8.8; Philostratus, Love Letters 26 [§57]); also for immoral intentions or the appearance of such (Xenophon, Cyr. 5.1.8, 16–18; Cicero, Cat. 1.6.13; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.1.5; 4.3.ext. 1; Plutarch, Alex. 21.5; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.6, 404.11–14). Stoics opposed lust because it meant that pleasure rather than virtue dominated one’s thoughts (e.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 95.37; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.18.15–18; 3.2.8; 4.9.3; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 2.10; 3.2.2; 9.40; cf. Nock, Christianity, 19; on the dangers of other pleasures, see, e.g., Musonius Rufus, 18B, p. 116.4–22; purely descriptively, Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.10c, p. 60.14–15). For diverse views on self-stimulation, see Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 3.206.

229. E.g., Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.4–6; Apuleius, Metam. 2.8; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.46, 69; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 35; Artemidorus, Onir. 1.78; Philostratus, Love Letters 10 (§50); 13 (§59); 26 (§57); 58 (§61); Epicurus in Maximus of Tyre, Or. 32.8.

230. E.g., PGM 4.400–405; 13.304; 32.1–19; 36.69–101, 102–33, 134–60, 187–210, 291–94, 295–311, 333–60; 62.1–24; 101.1–53; Theocritus, Id. 2; Lucian, Dial. C. 1 (Glycera and Thais), 281; 4 (Melitta and Bacchis ¶1), 286; Lov. Lies 14–15; Apuleius, Metam. 3.16–18; Philostratus, Her. 16.2; T. Jos. 6:1–8 (even if the woman was married, PDM 61.197–216 = PGM 61.39–71; Tibullus, Eleg. 1.2.41–58; cf. Euripides, Hipp. W. 513–16); cf. Frankfurter, “Perils”; Jordan, “Erotic Spell”; Jordan, “Magical Formulae” (on P.Duk.inv. 729); Dickie, “Love-Magic”; Dunand, Religion, 125; with regard to Apuleius, Bradley, “Apologia”; Nelson, “Fish”; in a more recent culture, Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 15. For aphrodisiacs, see Pliny E., Nat. 27.35.57; 27.99.125; 28.4.19; 28.6.34; 28.80.261; 30.49.141; for anti-aphrodisiacs, see Nat. 24.38.62; 32.50.139.

231. E.g., P.Eleph. 1.3–4; Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 54.16.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 11.28.4; Livy, Hist. 4.4.9–11; Gaius, Inst. 1.66–92; Ulpian, Rules 5.8–9; cf. Arrian, Ind. 12.8; Gardner, Women, 36. In Judaism, cf., e.g., Josephus, Ant. 4.244–45; t. Sanh. 4:7; y. Giṭ. 1:4, §2; y. Ketub. 1:5, §2; y. Qidd. 1:1, §8; 3:12, §8; y. Yebam. 6:1–9:8. On the relation between Jewish and Roman codes here, see Cohen, Law, 133–36; further documentation appears in Keener, Marries Another, 58–60, 169–70.

232. E.g., Gardner, Women, 124; Rawson, “Family,” 34; Robinson, Criminal Law, 70. A youth’s shameful sexual affairs could count against him (Sallust, Catil. 15.1; 23.3).

233. See 1 Cor. 6:12–21; note esp. teaching against sexual abuse of slaves; Sir. 41:22; Syr. Men. Sent. 347–53; Christian influence may exist in the public disapproval of Justinian, Cod. 9.25. The prohibitions, however, suggested that the temptation existed (m. ʾAbot 2:7; t. Hor. 2:11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6). Christian influence in the empire eventually abolished prostitution (Robinson, Criminal Law, 69–70).

234. Some even viewed prostitution as a legitimate deterrent to adultery (Gr. Anth. 7.403). For prostitutes at banquets, see, e.g., Seneca E., Controv. 9.2.intro.

235. Epictetus, Ench. 33.8. Others apparently found nothing wrong with limited male promiscuity (cf. Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 1.842–909).

236. E.g., Demosthenes, Boeot. 2.8–10 (trans. Murray, LCL, 4:486–87); Plutarch, Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB.

237. Gardner, Women, 130; Justinian, Cod. 9.22. Cf. honored prostitutes of higher status (e.g., Athenaeus, Deipn. 13.596b; Aulus Gellius, Att. 7.7.5–7; Sipre Num. 115.5.7); many, however, entered the profession through economic necessity (Terence, Andr. 73–79), and most because they were slaves (Apuleius, Metam. 7.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8A; cf. Justinian, Cod. 9.20, 29). They were supposed to writhe flexibly to prevent conception (Lucretius, Nat. 4.1268–77).

238. See, e.g., OGIS 674 = IGRR I 1183; McGinn, “Taxation”; Lewis, Life, 141, 145, 171–72. Pay varied according to appearance and skill (e.g., CIL 4.1679).

239. On their being unmarried, e.g., Propertius, Eleg. 2.7.7. An equestrian who engaged in this behavior could be exiled, and her husband punished if he refused to confront her activity (Tacitus, Ann. 2.85).

240. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 12.21.2; Dionysius Cato, Coll. Dist. 25; Aulus Gellius, Att. 15.12.2, 3. Prostitution was a shameful profession (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 64.3; 70.1; frg. 7 [Stobaeus, Flor. 4, 23.60 p. 588 Hense; 74.60 Meineke]), as was brothel-owning (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 7.133–35; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 5.7).

241. Cf. Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 44; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.61, 66; Musonius Rufus, 12, p. 86.13–16; Artemidorus, Onir. 1.78; Sallust, Catil. 14.6; Livy, Hist. 23.18.12; Aulus Gellius, Att. 9.5.8. Some philosophers did not regard it as an ethical matter (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.69, 74; Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 3.201).

242. Cf., e.g., Lucian, Dialogues of Courtesans; Aristaenetus, Erot. Let. 1.22; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 141.

243. See, e.g., Martial, Epigr. 9.6.7–8; Quintilian, Decl. 385; Apuleius, Metam. 7.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8 A; Justin, 1 Apol. 27; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 140, 201; Gardner, Women, 132; Stahlmann, “Brothels,” 791; Höcker, “Prostitution,” 59–60; Hezser, Slavery, 179–82; cf. Stambaugh, City, 208.

244. E.g., Homer, Od. 6.287–88.

245. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 12.24.3–4; Livy, Hist. 3.44.4–3.48.9.

246. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 15.54.3; Livy, Hist. 1.58.12.

247. E.g., Plutarch, Bride 42, 46, Mor. 144B, EF; Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 77.16.5; Apuleius, Metam. 6.22; Athenaeus, Deipn. 4.167e. Only a few philosophers did not condemn all adultery (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.99).

248. For the gender-based double standard, see, e.g., Euripides, Pir. frg. 1–13; Justinian, Cod. 9.1; but cf. also Isocrates, Nic. 40; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.1.21.

249. Probably with rhetorical overstatement, Seneca Y., Ben. 1.9.4; 3.16.3; Dial. 12.16.3; Juvenal, Sat. 4.1–20. On actual conditions, see Richlin, “Adultery.”

250. E.g., Euripides, Hipp. W. 403–18; Horace, Sat. 1.2.38, 49, 64–100; Epod. 1.2.25–26; Odes 1.15.19–20; Juvenal, Sat. 6.231–41; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.4; 2.10.18; 2.18.15; Alexander 3, in Plutarch, S. Kings, Mor. 179E; Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 15 (Epaminondas), 5.5.

251. Artemidorus, Onir. 3.11; Sib. Or. 1:178; 3:38, 204; 5:430; Ps.-Phoc. 3; cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 3.3.12.

252. E.g., Sallust, Catil. 25.3–4; Pseudo-Cicero, Invect. Sall. 5.15–6.16; Appian, Hist. rom. 7.9.56; Martial, Epigr. 2.47, 49; 3.26.6; 6.45.4; 6.91; 9.2.

253. Robinson, Criminal Law, 67–68; Gardner, Women, 131–32; Richlin, “Adultery,” 227; cf. Ps.-Phoc. 177–78. The penalty, however, was merely infamy (Robinson, Criminal Law, 69).

254. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5f, p. 30.31, lists drunkenness (oinophlugia, as in 1 Pet. 4:3) among vices; cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 66.1.

255. The following excursus is from Keener, Acts, 1:853–59; Keener, Galatians, at 5:19–21.

256. E.g., Socrates in Xenophon, Symp. 2.24–26; Plato in Aulus Gellius, Att. 15.2.4–5.

257. See, e.g., Fleming, “Savoring.”

258. Plutarch, Table T. 3.intro., Mor. 645A.

259. E.g., Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 10. Some even reportedly drank excessively themselves (Zeno in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.26).

260. E.g., in Athenaeus, Deipn. 2.36–37.

261. E.g., Tibullus, Eleg. 1.7.39–42; Sir. 34[31]:27–28; cf. Prov. 31:4–7. On peasants wanting to forget their toils, see MacMullen, Social Relations, 27; some thinkers regarded drunkenness and other aspects of wild partying (gluttony and promiscuity) as mere diversions from the depressing existence of the philosophically unenlightened (Maximus of Tyre, Or. 36.4).

262. Tibullus, Eleg. 2.1.27–30; Libanius, Descr. 5.12; 29.10. Even the gods were supposed to banquet, in various ancient cultures (Burkert, “Symposia,” 10–11). For more detail (and nuance), see Smith, Symposium, 79–85.

263. E.g., during Saturnalia (Statius, Silv. 1.6.8; Lucian, Sat. 2, 25).

264. See, e.g., Reicke, Era, 308, on associations; for symposia, see Smith, Symposium, 36.

265. Many Roman moralists associated such behavior also with associations (Smith, Symposium, 97), although they were supposed to be more controlled (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 152).

266. Philo, Cherubim 92 (trans. Colson, LCL, 2:65).

267. E.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 58.33; 83; Dial. 1.3.2; 7.12.3.

268. E.g., Sir. 26:8; 31:29–30; Tob. 4:15; 1QpHab 11.13–14; 4Q169 4.4–5; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.195, 204; Philo, Flaccus 4, 136; Moses 2.162; T. Jud. 16:1; Sipra Šem. par. 1.100.1.2–3 (where R. Judah hyperbolically suggests capital punishment; cf. Deut. 21:20).

269. E.g., Demosthenes, Con. 7; Horace, Sat. 1.3.90–91; Seneca Y., Dial. 5.37.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 27.2; 32.55.

270. Seneca Y., Lucil. 83.19–20; Martial, Epigr. 3.16.3; 3.48.5–10; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.76. Cf. the story of Noah (Jub. 7:7; Josephus, Ant. 1.141).

271. E.g., Plutarch, Table T. 3.intro., Mor. 645A; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 27.2; Sipre Deut. 43.8.1; worse, Polybius, Hist. 14.4.9–10.

272. Cf. Horace, Odes 1.18; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.3.ext. 3a; 9.1.8; Lucian, Nigr. 15; True Story 2.46; Chariton, Chaer. 4.3.8; Athenaeus, Deipn. 10.444D; 15.668B.

273. Sir. 19:2; T. Jud. 14:1–8.

274. E.g., Euripides, Cycl. 534; Aeschines, Tim. 59; Lysias, Or. 3.6, §96–97; 3.11, §97; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 4.4.6; Philo, Contempl. Life 40–47; Lucian, Dial. G. 248–49 (22/18, Hera and Zeus ¶2); Plutarch, Alex. 51.1–6; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 20.

275. Polybius, Hist. 6.7.5.

276. Plutarch, Alc. 19.1.

277. BDAG.

278. 2 Macc. 6:4; Wis. 14:23; it seems to characterize also pagan festivals in Philo, Cherubim 92; Spec. Laws 2.193; cf. Embassy 12.

279. It could also have a positive sense in contexts of joyful feasting without excess; e.g., Josephus, Ant. 11.66; it is negative excess in Josephus, J.W. 2.29. It is depicted as an erect but unconscious, drunk youth in Philostratus E., Imag. 1.2.

280. Stambaugh (City, 201) cites Propertius, Eleg. 3.10.25–26; 4.8; Petronius, Sat. 73.6; 78.6–7; Pliny Y., Ep. 3.12.

281. Toner, Culture, 110. Such behavior also pervaded Roman Saturnalia (Lucian, Sat. 2).

282. Cicero, Verr. 2.5.10.26 (trans. Greenwood, LCL, 2:497), critiquing Verres’s governorship. Cf. Justinus, Epit. 30.1.8–9.

283. Sallust, Jug. 85.41 (trans. Rolfe and Ramsey, LCL, 1:357); also 98.6–7 (p. 387): “The barbarians, as is their usual habit, spent the greater part of the night in rejoicing, in exultation and in noisy chatter.” Against such leisure corrupting traditional Roman discipline, see further Sallust, Catil. 7.4; 11.5–6; 12.2.

284. Seneca E., Controv. 2.6.9 (trans. Winterbottom, LCL, 1:357), reciting various inappropriate behaviors.

285. Seneca Y., Lucil. 95.20–21.

286. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 70.1.

287. Maximus of Tyre, Or. 36.4 (trans. Trapp, Maximus, 286), developing Plato, Resp. 514A–516D.

288. Libanius, Comp. 5.5 (trans. Gibson, Progymnasmata, 347).

289. Kennedy, Epistles, 26; Poniży, “Recognition”; cf. Collins, “Natural Theology”; Dafni, “Natürliche Theologie.”

290. Cf. deSilva, “Wisdom of Solomon,” 1272.

291. Jub. 36:5; Ep. Jer. passim; t. Sanh. 13:8; t. Peʾah 1:2; Sipra V. D. Dehob. par. 1.34.1.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 40A; b. Giṭ. 57b; b. Šabb. 145b–146a; y. Sanh. 3:5, §2; 6:7, §2; 8:8, §1; 10:1, §2; 10:3, §2; Lev. Rab. 37:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 35:25. The evil inclination led to this (e.g., Sipre Deut. 43.4.1; Song Rab. 2:4, §1; 7:8, §1; see Davies, Paul, 30, noting b. Šabb. 105b). It was also wrong for gentiles (Sipre Num. 112.2.2; meriting judgment in Sib. Or. 3:34; but cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:9).

292. Wis. 14:27; Mek. Pisha 5:40–41; y. Ned. 3:9, §3. It was tantamount to rejecting the entire Torah (t. Bek. 3:12; Sipre Deut. 54.3.2; b. Qidd. 40a), and rejecting Torah could lead to it (Sipre Deut. 43.4.1).

293. E.g., 3 En. 5:6–11. It was idolatry that made them vulnerable to demons (Gen. Rab. 23:6; 24:6).

294. Similar traditions were applied to Job in T. Job 2–5.

295. E.g., Jub. 11:12–17; 12:1–8; 21:3 (summarizing his righteousness); Apoc. Ab. 1–8; Gen. Rab. 39:1; Pesiq. Rab. 33:3. Flusser (“Upanishads”) highlights Abraham’s resistance to idolatry (e.g., Jub. 11:16–18; 12:1–6, 12–14; Josephus, Ant. 1.155–56), but his comparison to the Upanishads is unnecessary.

296. Sipre Deut. 43.6.9.

297. Tertullian, Apol. 5.2.

298. See, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 20.77; Lucian, Peregr. 13.

299. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 11 passim (e.g., 154, ridiculing Hecuba’s transformation into a dog). For other critics of Greek religion, see, e.g., Grant, Gods, 20.

300. See Lucian, Z. Cat. 2–5; cf. Pliny E., Nat. 2.5.22; Lucian, Doub. Ind. 2; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.245.

301. Lucian, Z. Cat. 7–8; Sacr. 5–6; cf. Z. Rants 40. For this vulnerability of deities, see, e.g., Homer, Il. 5.339–42, 855–59, 870; Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 3.853; Apollodorus, Epit. 4.2; Bibl. 1.7.1; Libanius, Encom. 1.10; immortals die in Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 4.1679–80; Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.9.26; 2.5.4; on the mortality of some ancient Near Eastern deities, see, e.g., ANET 139–40; UT 19.1816; Albright, Yahweh, 125–27; Gordon, “Psalm 82,” 130–31. Such “divine” mortality was rejected by Stoics (e.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 95.49–50), and writers evaded such wounded deities by allegorization (Heraclitus, Hom. Prob. 30.1, 4; 31.1, 11; 52.5–6; 53.1).

302. Lucian, Lov. Lies 2–5; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.14. Lucian, Amber 3, 5–6, denounces them as lies; cf. also the criticism in Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.7.4.

303. E.g., Pliny E., Nat. 2.5.14–16, 19.

304. Lucian, Sacr. 11.

305. E.g., Pliny E., Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian, Sacr. 11.

306. E.g., Pliny E., Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian, Prom. 17; Parl. G. 7; Lov. Lies 2; Dial. G. 206 (6/2, Eros and Zeus 1); 231 (19/11, Aphrodite and Selene 1); 233–34 (20/12, Aphrodite and Eros 1); 243 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 3); 245–46 (21/17, Apollo and Hermes ¶¶1–2); 269–71 (2/22, Pan and Hermes 1–2); 272, ¶4; Dial. S.-G. 305–6 (11/7, South Wind and West Wind 1); 325–27 (15, West Wind and South Wind 2–3); Philostratus E., Imag. 1.8. Some considered it inappropriate for a deity to have sexual intercourse with a mortal (Hermogenes, Progymn. 5, “On Refutation and Confirmation,” 11; cf. Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.40). Zeus does manage to restrain himself if the offspring of the union could overthrow him, in Lucian, Dial. G. 205 (5/1, Prometheus and Zeus 2). Heraclitus evades such charges by allegory (Hom. Prob. 68–69, esp. 68.8–9; 69.8–16).

307. E.g., Pliny E., Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian, Dial. G. 240 (16/14, Hermes and Apollo 2). In Lucian, Dial. G. 278–80 (24/25, Zeus and Helios 1–2), Zeus is angry at Helios for allowing his son to nearly destroy the world, but he lets him off this time (279, ¶2). Heraclitus evades this charge by allegory (Hom. Prob. 52, esp. 52.4).

308. Lucian, Dial. G. 229 (14/10, Hermes and Helios 1), mocking (for a more serious version, see, e.g., Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.4.8).

309. Lucian, Dial. G. 214–19 (9/6, Hera and Zeus ¶¶1–5). Zeus was angrier in the more serious version (Apollodorus, Epit. 1.20).

310. Aphthonius, Progymn. 5, “On Refutation,” 29S, 13R; cf. Lucian, Dial. G. 242, Hermes and Apollo 2. Most mortal objects of Apollo’s affection seem to have spurned him (e.g., Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.12.5; Ovid, Metam. 2.603–11; Lucian, Dial. G. 242 [17/15, Hermes and Apollo 2]; 244 [18/16, Hera and Leto 1]).

311. Lucian, Dial. G. 239–40 (16/14, Hermes and Apollo 1–2); Philostratus E., Imag. 1.24; Philostratus Y., Imag. 14; also Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.245.

312. Lucian, Dial. G. 241 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 1); 243 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1). Heraclitus evades this by allegory (Hom. Prob. 26.1, 7–8).

313. Lucian, Icar. 28 (mythographers would have probably replied that Helios was moving back eastward beneath the earth; but he would have trouble making the banquets without reliable assistants).

314. Lucian, Dial. G. 286 (25/26, Apollo and Hermes). Athena as an armored female also struck Lucian as funny, in Dial. G. 225 (13/8, Hephaistos and Zeus 1), though not everyone mocked it (e.g., Philostratus E., Imag. 2.27).

315. E.g., Pliny E., Nat. 2.5.21.

316. Lucian, Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1).

317. Callimachus, Hymn Z. 8–9; Lucian, Sacr. 10; Parl. G. 6; Tim. 4; Z. Rants 45; Lov. Lies 3; Pseudo-Lucian, Patr. 10 (Byzantine); cf. Euhemerus, Sacr. Hist. 6 (in Grant, Religions, 76); Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.4.569; Sib. Or. 8:45–49; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 136.

318. Heraclitus, Hom. Prob. 39.1 (on Homer, Il. 14.347–53); Heraclitus goes on to salvage the story by allegorizing it (Hom. Prob. 39.2–17). Cf. 1 Kings 18:27; contrast Ps. 121:3–4.

319. Grant, Paul, 4–5; beyond philosophers, e.g., Libanius, Invect. 7.2. Allegorizing allowed them to develop acceptable morals (Cicero, Nat. d. 2.28.70; cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.255; Murray, Stages, 202; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 98); some simply rewrote stories (e.g., Recantation of Stesichorus; Pindar, Ol. 1.52–53).

320. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 37.32 (Favorinus). Dio Chrysostom (Or. 11.19) complains of Homer’s tales of the gods, and in 11.23 calls him a liar (yet seems to favor Hesiod in 12.23, and in 18.8 exalts Homer as the greatest poet).

321. Lucian, Icar. 9; Phil. Sale 4.

322. E.g., Homer, Od. 8.266–366; Aeschylus, Eum. 179–84, 299–300, 640–51; Ovid, Tristia 1.2.4–5; Silius Italicus, Pun. 9.438–39; Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.14.1; Libanius, Narr. 7.1–3; 17; 26.1–2.

323. E.g., Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.1.3; 3.10.2; Ovid, Metam. 2.685–86 (and killing to cover up the act, 2.687–707); Lucian, Dial. G. 220 (11/7, Hephaistos and Apollo 1); Philostratus E., Imag. 1.26; cf. Lucian, Prom. 5. For earlier deities’ covetousness, see, e.g., Tale of Aqhat AQHT A 6; B (ANET 151–52); Gordon, Near East, 100; Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 63 (citing UT 75.1.38–39).

324. E.g., Sophocles, Ichn. 212–15 (SPap 3:44–45); Euripides, Ant. 69–71; Pir. 22–24 (SPap 3:124–25); Alope frg. 107; Ant. frg. 223.72–77; Arch. frg. 228a.15–16; Dan. frg. 1132.26–34; Andromeda frg. 136 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.20.42); Menander, Her. frg. 2 (Stobaeus, Ecl. 5.20a.21); Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.5.1; 1.7.8–9; 1.9.3; 3.2.1 (leading to her death); 3.1.1; 3.4.3; 3.5.5; 3.7.6; 3.8.2; 3.10.1, 3; 3.12.2, 5–6; 3.15.2, 4; Epit. 1.9, 22; Thebaid frg. 11 (from Scholiast D on Homer, Il. 23.346); Cypria frg. 10 (from Athenaeus, Deipn. 334b); frg. 11 (from Philodemus, Piety B 7369); Varro, Ling. lat. 5.5.31; Ovid, Metam. 2.714–47; 3.1–2, 260–61; 4.234–44; 5.391–408; 14.765–71; Silius Italicus, Pun. 13.615; Lucian, Dial. G. 250 (23/19, Aphrodite and Eros 1); Pausanias, Descr. 8.25.7–8; Parthenius, Love Rom. 15.3 (getting someone else killed); Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.5.5–7; Apuleius, Metam. 6.22; Libanius, Speech 27.3; Narr. 1; 4.1–2; 17; 31; 32; 39; 41 (cf. Narr. 3). On very rare occasions a mortal escaped, outwitting the deity (Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 2.946–54) or outrunning him (Libanius, Speech 27.4; cf. Narr. 17). Similar tales are told of mortals later deified, like Heracles (e.g., Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.7.4, 7). In Euripides, frg. 925, Hephaistos even tried to rape Athena.

325. For the boy Ganymede (raped by Zeus), see, e.g., Callimachus, Epigr. 53; Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.12.2; Virgil, Aen. 1.28; Ovid, Metam. 10.155–61; Lucian, Parl. G. 8–9; Dial. G. 208–12 (10/4, Zeus and Ganymede ¶¶1–5), esp. 208, ¶1; 213 (8/5, Zeus and Hera ¶2); 214, ¶¶2–3; Lucian, Affairs 14; Charid. 7; Alciphron, Paras. 23 (Limenterus to Amasetus), 3.59, ¶2; Philostratus, Love Letters 8 (46); Philostratus Y., Imag. 8. For Apollo’s affection for Hyacinthus, see, e.g., Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.10.3; Ovid, Metam. 10.162–219; Lucian, Dial. G. 239–40 (16/14, Hermes and Apollo 1–2); 242 (Hermes and Apollo 2); 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1); Philostratus E., Imag. 1.24; Libanius, Narr. 2. Occasionally goddesses or nymphs got in on the act: for Rhea with Attis as a boy, see Lucian, Sacr. 7; nymphs could do the same, in Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 1.1226–39; Ovid, Metam. 4.368–79; Silius Italicus, Pun. 5.15–21; for Dawn’s rape of Tithonus, see, e.g., Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.12.4.

326. E.g., Ovid, Metam. 2.603–11. Apollo regrets it afterward (2.612–13). Cf. Libanius, Narr. 2; 4.2; 32.

327. E.g., Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.244–46, 275; Athenagoras, Leg. 20–22; Theophilus, Autol. 1.9; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 4.15.1–19.3.

328. E.g., Aeschylus, Aet. frg.; Euripides, Bacch. 94–98; Sophocles, Ichn. 212–15; Callimachus, Hymn Del. 55–58; Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.4.1, 3; 3.4.3; Ovid, Metam. 2.477–88; 3.261–72, 280–309; 4.416–530; Appian, Hist. rom. 12.15.101; Lucian, Dial. G. 207 (7/3, Zeus and Hermes 1); 213 (8/5, Zeus and Hera ¶¶1–2 [of Ganymede]); 228 (12/9, Poseidon and Hermes 2); Dial. S.-G. 315 (9/10, Iris and Poseidon ¶1); cf. her jealousy more generally in Hom. Hymns 3, to Pythian Apollo 343–44; Seneca Y., Herc. fur. 1–29; Libanius, Narr. 12.

329. E.g., Euripides, Hipp. W. 1–28, 1400–403 (because deities desire honor, Hipp. W. 8); Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 3.64–65; nonlethally in Pindar, Hymns frg. 37; Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.9.15. A mortal woman who preferred another to a divine lover might be killed (Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.10.3).

330. Ovid, Metam. 4.543–62; 5.409–37. A mortal who challenged Apollo was skinned to make a wine bottle (Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.4.2; Philostratus Y., Imag. 2); Athena flayed Pallas alive (Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.6.2). A deity could also seek the destruction of the object of his jealousy (Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.4.3; 3.14.1; one view in 3.4.4).

331. Often they inspired them with folly that destroyed them (Homer, Il. 18.311–13; but cf. also 1 Sam. 2:25; 2 Sam. 17:14).

332. E.g., Euripides, Elec. 1298–300; Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.10.3; cf. 1.5.1.

333. Statius, Ach. 1.364.

334. Zeus became a bull to mate with Hera when she was a cow (Aeschylus, Suppl. 299–301; cf. Poseidon’s behavior in Thebaid frg. 11, from Scholiast D on Homer, Il. 23.346). Earlier, Baal apparently turned into a bull to mate with his sister Anath when she became a heifer (Baal 1* AB 5 [ANET 139]); Gordon, Near East, 99; Albright, Yahweh, 128–29; Moyer, “Practices,” 25; Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 9 (esp. UT 76), 58, 60, 155–56; cf. perhaps divine bestiality in Epic of Gilgamesh 6.46ff. (ANET 84); that of Helios’s daughter Pasiphae in Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.1.2–4; 3.15.8; Ovid, Metam. 8.131–37, 155–56; Libanius, Narr. 21; 22.

335. E.g., Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.1.554; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.5.5–7; cf. Pindar, frg. 199 (from Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.19); Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 1.27.1; Philostratus, Love Letters 30 (58); Mattingly, Christianity, 23. This provided a subject for Jewish and Christian criticism (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.244–46; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 4.15.1–19.3). Pagans who advocated imitation of deities, of course, did not cite such examples (e.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 6.2.29; Cicero, Tusc. 5.25.70; Seneca Y., Dial. 1.1.5; 7.8.4; Musonius Rufus, 8, p. 64.14; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.14.12–13; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.82; Plutarch, Borrow 7, Mor. 830B; Pseudo-Heraclitus, Ep. 5; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 35.2; Sent. Sextus 44–45; Libanius, Thesis 1.3).

336. E.g., Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.232–49, 275; Athenagoras, Leg. 20–22; Theophilus, Autol. 1.9; Tatian, Or. Graec. 33–34.

337. See Pelikan, Acts, 163, noting especially Origen’s Contra Celsum (e.g., Cels. 4.5).

338. This was also true in ancient Israel’s Middle Eastern context (Albright, Biblical Period, 61, comparing secularism today; Albright, Yahweh, 264).

339. See Johnston, “Gates.”

340. See Gödde, “Hamadryads”; Käppel, “Nymphs.”

341. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77/78.33; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 1.1, 333.21–24; 2.6, 400.32–401.19; 404.29–405.13 (negatively, 1.1.342.6–9); cf. Klauck, Context, 65; Bloch, “Elpis.” Since winds were deified, Fronto (Naber, p. 211, §7) reasons that smoke and dust are also divine (though one could clearly personify without deifying; e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.53.66; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 63–65; 75.5; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.30). Some rejected such practices as foolish (Pliny E., Nat. 2.5.14–15).

342. For the genius, see, e.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 110.1 (on popular belief); Maharam, “Genius”; this may have influenced some in the eastern Mediterranean as well, through adapting the sense of daimones (cf. popular opinion in Dio Chrysostom, Or. 23.6; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.14.12, 14; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 3.10.1; cf. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.1.32; 9.1.7). For household deities, see, e.g., Klauck, Context, 60.

343. Indeed, as Belayche (“Actors,” 278) notes, deities were so many that one could say that “the world is full of gods” (Thales, in Cicero, Leg. 2.26).

344. Rives, Religion, 32–34.

345. Rives, Religion, 34.

346. Rives, Religion, 34–36.

347. Lucian, Portr. D. 23; cf. Klauck, Context, 27; still harsher critiques by Cynics, in Downing, Cynics, 213. Indeed, eidōlon can refer to simply a phantom (like the Helen made of clouds in Apollodorus, Epit. 3.5 [though a cloud gives birth in 1.20]).

348. Grant, Paul, 4. For mask images of ancestors, cf. Sallust, Jug. 4.6.

349. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.74–75, 77.

350. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.52, 54, 59. Against humanly constructed images, see Iamblichus, Ep. 18.1–3 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.11.35).

351. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.60. But a human figure was the best (12.61). For Celsus’s defense of worshiping deity images, against the Christian critique, see Cook, Interpretation, 91–94.

352. On the imperial cult, see, e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 4.15; 12.66; 13.2; 15.74; 16.31; Suetonius, Nero 9, 31; Klauck, Context, 250–330; Thomas, Revelation 19, 45–55; van Henten, “Ruler Cult”; other sources in Keener, Acts, 2:1784–86.

353. Pliny Y., Ep. 10.96.

354. Wastefulness (here asōtia) could apply to squandering (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.50; LXX Prov. 28:7; Philo, Drunkenness 40; Josephus, J.W. 4.651) and can be a drunken behavior (T. Jud. 16:1).

355. It applied to any sort of defaming (BDAG), and was not limited to narrower, later mishnaic definitions of religious blasphemy (m. Sanh. 7:5; for blasphemy in Judaism, see particularly thoroughly Bock, Blasphemy, 30–112).

356. E.g., Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Daniel, “Anti-Semitism,” 53. Critics transferred the idea of hating humanity to Christians (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, noted in Goppelt, “Church in History,” 194–95).

357. Acts 10:42; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Polycarp, Phil. 2:1; Barn. 7:2; 2 Clem. 1:1; cf. Rom. 14:9. For Jesus as eschatological judge in early Christian tradition, see, e.g., Matt. 7:22–23 (related to Q = Luke 13:25–27, though Matthew may supply the identification of Jesus with the householder); 25:31–32; 2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Q in Matt 19:28 = Luke 22:30; John 12:47–48.

358. For God as the eschatological judge, see Rom. 2:16; 3:6; 14:10; Heb. 12:23; James 4:12; 5:9; Rev. 20:11–12; cf. Luke 18:2–8.

359. Cf. Wis. 4:16: the dead righteous person will condemn the living wicked. I borrow here from Keener, Acts, 2:1807. “Living” and “dead” function together as a merism, thereby including everyone (Cicero, Verr. 2.1.44.114; Ruth 2:20); cf. Plouton as judge of works “both manifest and hidden” (Orph. H. 18.16). That some would still be alive at the parousia is suggested in 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:15, 17; perhaps Rev. 19:19; the contrary view may appear in 4 Ezra 7:29, 31; cf. perhaps Rev. 20:4–5.

360. For Abel, e.g., T. Ab. 12:5–13:3 A; 11:2 B (for comparison of the two recensions of Testament of Abraham’s judgment scene, see Nickelsburg, “Eschatology,” 29–40). The saints in 1QpHab 4.4; 1 Cor. 6:2.

361. For Minos and Rhadamanthys as judges, see, e.g., Homer, Od. 11.568; Euripides, Cycl. 273; Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.1.2; Virgil, Aen. 6.431–33, 566–69; Seneca Y., Herc. fur. 733–34; Lucian, Funerals 7; Z. Cat. 18; Men. 11–13; True Story 2.6–7, 18, 23; Down. J. 13, 24; Dial. D. 380–89 (25/12, Alexander, Hannibal, Minos and Scipio 1–7); 450 (24/30, Minos and Sostratus 1); Dial. G. 276 (4/24, Hermes and Maia 1); Maximus of Tyre, Or. 9.7; Libanius, Encom. 6.3; further, Rose et al., “Minos”; March, “Rhadamanthys”; cf. Stenger, “Minos.” For Minos’s reputation for judging before death, see, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.40; 53.11; but those who considered him unjust denied his posthumous role (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 3.25; cf. 4.34).

362. E.g., Sib. Or. 4:183–84; 1 En. 9:4; 60:2; 62:2; 47:3 with 46:2; cf. T. Ab. 14:9, 13 A.

363. Cf., e.g., 2 Macc. 12:6 (God the righteous judge); cf. T. Ab. 20:3 A.

364. The most extreme example was Tartarus; e.g., Hesiod, Theog. 717–19; Plato, Phaedo 113E–114A; Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.1.2; Epit. 2.1; Virgil, Aen. 6.540–43; Tibullus, Eleg. 1.73–80; Statius, Silv. 5.1.192–93; 5.1.206 (poetically); 5.5.78; Theb. 1.85.102; Seneca Y., Herc. fur. 749–59; Silius Italicus, Pun. 6.40 (poetically); 13.833–49; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.17, 438.30–439.1; in Jewish sources, 1 En. 20:2; Sib. Or. 1:10, 101; 2:291 (possibly interpolated); 4:186; 5:178; L.A.B. 60:3; T. Sol. 6:3; 2 Pet. 2:4; for its extreme distance, Homer, Il. 8.13–15; Hesiod, Theog. 722–25 (for distance). Even without using the terminology, some Jews employed some equivalent depictions for Gehinnom (e.g., 1 En. 67:4; 67:7; 103:8; y. Sanh. 6:6, §2; y. Ḥag. 2:2, §5). Cf. also the river of fire (e.g., Silius Italicus, Pun. 13.836, 871; 14.61–62).

365. E.g., Epicureans denied Tartarus (Lucretius, Nat. 3.978–1023); Lucian rhetorically played with it (Funerals 8; Icar. 33; Down. J. 28), as well as with the notion of judgment in the afterlife (e.g., Z. Cat. 17).

366. Cf., e.g., Wis. 2:1–24; ʾAbot R. Nat. 5A; b. Roš Haš. 17a; Gen. Rab. 53:12; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 4:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 4:8; cf. 2 Pet. 3:3–4. For gentile critiques of the Epicurean denial, see, e.g., Plutarch, Pleas. L. 23, Mor. 1103D; Aulus Gellius, Att. 9.5.8.

367. The term here is euangelizō, not kērussō as in 3:19.

368. Cf. Best, Peter, 156–57; Horrell, “Dead.” Bray (Peter, 111) notes that church fathers tended to apply this to gentiles before Christ’s coming, who had not had the chance to hear before; they diversely understood “dead” here “to mean dead in sin (Ishodad [of Merv, Commentaries 38]) or in hell (Hilary of Arles [Introductory Commentary on 1 Peter, PL Supp. 3:101], Oecumenius [Comm. 1 Pet., PG 119:561], Theophylact [Comm. 1 Pet., PG 125:1237–40]) or the Gentiles (Andreas [Catena CEC 74]) or to the worst of criminals (Bede [On 1 Peter, PL 93:62]).”

369. E.g., Kelly, Peter, 174; Schreiner, Peter, 206–8.

370. For the Spirit here as God’s Spirit, see comment on 3:18.

371. Cf. “with reference to,” “appropriate to,” “from or according to” God in, e.g., 4 Macc. 15:3; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 2.93; Cherubim 31; Sacrifices 87, 106; Heir 114; Prelim. Studies 101; Abraham 244; Decalogue 96; Spec. Laws 1.176, 196; Ignatius, Magn. 1:1; God’s purpose or plan in Philo, Flight 79; Moses 1.12; Ignatius, Eph. 2:1; Magn. 13:1; Smyrn. 11:3; T. Gad 5:7. In Philo, Posterity 69, living “according to God” (kata theon zēn) is loving God; in Ignatius, Eph. 8:1, it (kata theon zēte) is avoiding dissension; it is what is godly in Ignatius, Trall. 1:2; Papias, Frag. 15:1; God’s way in Ignatius, Phld. 4:1. Philo often uses the phrase with “confessing” something about God (e.g., Alleg. Interp. 2.93; Sacrifices 87; Migration 19; Heir 122).

372. Like ordinary people (LXX Judg. 16:17; Philo, Virtues 217); in a merely human way (Rom. 3:5) or a human analogy (Gal. 3:15); from a merely human perspective (1 Cor. 15:32; cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.126; cf. the idea in different terminology in Mark 8:33); from a merely human origin (Gal. 1:11); merely human (1 Cor. 3:3; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.116; Embassy 76); humanward (Decalogue 111); or among humans (cf. Sacrifices 37; Confusion 121; Flight 38; Names 205). Ignatius did not want to live according to human standards (Trall. 2:1, kata anthrōpous zōntes; Rom. 8:1, kata anthrōpous zēn).

↑ Back to top