General Exhortation: Serve Fellow Believers
General Exhortation: Serve Fellow Believers
1 Peter 4:7–11
Serve One Another (4:7–11)
4:7
The climax of everything has drawn near. Therefore think in a wise and sober way so that you may pray.
4:8
Most important, love each other devotedly, because “Love covers many sins.”
4:9
Show hospitality to each other without complaining.
4:10
Just as each of you has received a gift, use that to serve each other as good managers of God’s many-sided grace.
4:11
If anyone speaks, let their speech be like oracles from God! If anyone serves, let them do so from the strength that God supplies! Let each believer act as God’s agent so that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. Yes, the glory and power are rightly his, forever and ever, amen!
4:7
In 4:7–11, Peter provides paraenesis; 4:7–9 in particular fits the usual format of short, grammatically independent1 exhortations.2 Whereas Peter earlier addresses respect for and submission to everyone generally (2:13–17; cf. 3:8–12), and that of slaves (2:18–20) and wives of nonbelievers (3:1–6), here he focuses especially on treatment of fellow believers.
The nearness of the climax or “end” (telos) of all things should encourage those needing future vindication (4:5–6; cf. 1:4–5, 7, 9; 5:4, 6, 10).3 (The term for “end” here also applies to the “outcome” of faith in 1:9, namely, ultimate salvation, and also in 4:17 to the outcome of judgment for those who disobey the gospel.)
Peter proclaims a sort of hortatory and consolatory imminence;4 he does not predict dates or offer specificity regarding the time of Christ’s future appearing, any more than earlier prophets knew the precise times (cf. 1:10–11).
Jewish people who experienced suffering also found encouragement in expectations of the imminent end:
Such announcements echo earlier biblical warnings of imminent judgment:9
Peter’s contemporaries did not discount biblical warnings simply on the basis that, as they knew very well, centuries had passed since the time of these prophets. To do so would be to misconstrue their rhetorical function, like someone unfamiliar with their genre. (This is an error too often committed by modern popular interpreters of ancient prophetic and apocalyptic discourse.) From an eternal vantage point, all human lifetimes appear fleeting (cf., e.g., Pss. 39:5, 11; 144:4). The point of such announcements was not predicting the time of the end, but an unpredictability that required continued readiness.10 Disillusioned by failed expectations, some thinkers relegated hope of the Messiah’s coming to the distant future,11 but Peter urges readiness (cf. 2 Pet. 3:4, 8–15; Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 12, 20).
Similarly, just as ancient writers in general often connected the language of being “disciplined” or sober with not being caught unexpectedly, early Christians often associated it with being ready for Christ’s return (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:6–7). This association probably goes back to Jesus’s own teaching (Matt. 24:42–51; Mark 13:23, 33–37; Luke 21:36). This warning appears three times in 1 Peter (1:13; 4:7; 5:8). They must stay alert and ready for the end; this awareness invites prayer (cf. Mark 14:38; Luke 21:36). On being watchful and thus prayerful, compare also Col. 4:2.
The exhortation here to be wise and sober (from sōphroneō and nēpho)12 may be related to the ancient virtue of self-control (sōphrosunē),13 extolled at length by, for example, Plato’s Socrates.14 Following Aristotelian categories,15 the dominant Stoic philosophy of Peter’s era made sobriety (sōphrosunē)16 one of its central virtues;17 it regularly appears among the traditional four virtues.18 It involves especially self-control over the passions, the baser emotions.19 Perhaps relevant to 1 Pet. 4:3, many believed that it included avoiding sexual laxity, lavish banqueting, and other Greek excess.20
Jewish sources in Greek display a range of meaning analogous to the non-Jewish uses. Those influenced by Stoic thought hail the virtue and its power to subdue harmful passions,21 including gluttony22 and lust.23 Some Jewish sources also include it among the four traditional Hellenistic virtues.24 Only God could dispose one’s mind toward this virtue.25 The virtue appears fairly commonly in Hellenistic Jewish sources.26 Sōphrosunē also appears in some early Christian writings.27
4:8
Most important28 naturally calls attention to the preeminent point. Loving devotedly echoes 1:22, where Peter also urges loving one another, using a cognate form of the term that I render as devotedly here.29 The priority of mutual love among believers fits early Christian ethics (John 13:34–35; 15:12, 17; Rom. 13:8; 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11–12; 2 John 5). Although ancient Jewish teachers widely valued love, early Christianity was the only movement in which love was consistently and pervasively hailed as the chief virtue. The following context suggests that for Peter, as elsewhere among early Christians, love is to be expressed in actions such as hospitality (1 Pet. 4:9; cf. Rom. 12:9–10, 13; Heb. 13:1–2; 3 John 5–6) and in serving one another with spiritual gifts (1 Pet. 4:10–11; cf. 1 Cor. 12:7; 12:31–13:2; 14:1; Eph. 4:16).
Peter here supports the priority of love by quoting Prov. 10:12.30 That love covers sins might mean (as probably in the proverb itself) that love does not take offense,31 or that one does not draw attention to others’ wrongs.32 In this context, it might mean that God hides the less serious sins33 of his people when they value the greater mission of love (cf. James 5:20).34 Or it could mean that, like the commitment entailed in suffering for Christ, love for one another guaranteed that one would not return to the former way of sin (4:1–4).35
4:9
Loving one another (4:8) entails hospitality to one another (cf. also Rom. 12:10, 13; Heb. 13:1–2).36 Exhortations “to one another” are common in NT paraenesis (Rom. 12:10, 16; 14:19; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:9; 1 Thess. 5:15; cf. 1 Thess. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:3). Hospitality here translates a Greek term that means “love for strangers.” Its demand involves more than merely welcoming friends over for tea periodically.37 The differences between common ancient Mediterranean expectations and those of modern, urban Western ones invite more extended discussion of this virtue.
A CLOSER LOOK
Hospitality
Hospitality is critical in many traditional societies,38 though it is perceived as more difficult, and often unsafe, in most modern urban contexts. It appears as a central virtue in traditional Mediterranean culture,39 no less than the pervasive emphasis on honor and shame;40 this is also true of the Middle Eastern culture in which most biblical stories before Acts take place.41
Hospitality was both a sacred duty and a privilege for the host, especially if the guest is a particularly honorable person,42 such as an agent of God (Mark 6:10–11). To refuse to accept hospitality was an insult to the host’s generosity.43 One important form of Jewish hospitality was toward traveling sages,44 a practice relevant for understanding the Gospels, some lodging in Acts, and Did. 11:4–5; 12:1–13:2. One limit on hospitality was to reject those considered impious or untrustworthy.45 Because much of the responsibility for hospitality, especially food preparation, fell on the matron of a home, later rabbis accepted hospitality only if the wife was trustworthy regarding tithing.46 Insisting on a guest staying at least one night to rest was good form;47 in extreme cases, the guest might have to protest several times to be able to leave.48
One undesirable alternative to accepting hospitality in Mediterranean antiquity was to stay in inns.49 Archaeology confirms the frequent literary portrait of “dilapidated and unclean facilities, virtually nonexistent furnishings, bedbugs, poor quality food and drink, [and] untrustworthy proprietors and staff.”50 More notoriously, inns usually doubled as brothels, with sexual partners available especially in the rooms.51 A surviving sample of a low-class brothel-inn includes “tiny cubicles, erotic paintings, and boastful graffiti.”52 Probably many of the prostitutes were discarded babies raised as slaves;53 inns used both slaves and freedwomen for this task.54
Greeks regarded Zeus as special protector of strangers or guests,55 and as patron deity of hospitality.56 Hospitality invited the favor of the gods,57 and injustice to strangers invited Zeus’s anger.58 Showing hospitality was one expression of fearing the gods.59
Showing hospitality to visitors was a moral obligation,60 and the virtuous display it immediately, not keeping a stranger waiting long at the door.61 Entire cities or lands could be judged by how hospitable they proved to strangers.62 One must provide good food and drink for even unexpected guests,63 and poor hospitality could be satirized.64 Ideal hospitality might treat the guest as if oneself.65 Even Roman and Greek architecture reinforced the point; patrons’ homes were designed to be open to the clients, and all large homes had space to welcome guests.66 Hospitality included lodging, food, and often being helped on one’s way.67 Three days was a normal stay, with up to a week being acceptable.68
People were obligated to cherish hospitality ties,69 sometimes even beyond death70 or to the next generation.71 Cicero wrote letters of recommendations for his guests,72 including one who had stayed with him for a year.73 All but the most wicked would shrink from injuring those who had been guests at their table,74 and betraying a host was equally terrible.75 Those who eat together at a table should not even betray friendship by slandering one another.76
Jewish sources emphasize the importance of showing hospitality to fellow Jews.77 Essenes reportedly did not need to take provisions when they traveled, because they could count on hospitality from fellow Essenes wherever they went.78 Some synagogues apparently had guest rooms to lodge travelers.79 Hospitality to strangers was among the most fundamental acts of charity that Jewish tradition stipulated.80 The more lavish the hospitality, the better (Gen. 18:4–8; Tob. 7:8–9);81 but one should offer whatever one has, no matter how humble.82 The greatest example of hospitality in ancient Judaism was Abraham, with many traditions developing the portrait in Gen. 18:2–8.83
Early Christians also expected hospitality on their travels and emphasize this virtue repeatedly in their writings.84 Both Paul’s letters (Rom. 15:23–24; 16:23; 1 Cor. 16:6; Philem. 22) and Acts (9:11; 21:4, 7–8, 16; 28:14) reveal that Paul often depended on hospitality.85 Chrysostom later opines, “If you receive your neighbor as though he were Christ, you will not complain or feel embarrassed but rather rejoice in your service. But if you do not receive him as if he were Christ, you will not receive Christ either.”86
Showing kindness to strangers in antiquity could be expressed in something as little as providing a cup of cold water, if that was all that one had. Because inns were dangerous, Jewish homeowners often offered a place to stay for other Jewish people who were passing through; this hospitality could even extend for two or three weeks. (The Didache, another early Christian source, shows how Christians welcomed traveling ministers, although also how Christians had to be discerning and guard against abuses.)87
That believers should show hospitality to one another fits the image of believers as “resident aliens” (noncitizen residents) in a world to which they no longer belong (1:1; 2:11); because we share the same alienation from the world, we must be a welcoming family or home for one another. Just as Essenes reportedly welcomed fellow Essenes and normally Jews welcomed fellow Jews, Christians must welcome at least fellow Christians. This might mean hosting travelers, including missionaries; it would certainly invite us to host refugees fleeing religious persecution or economic deprivation. That not all passersby are trustworthy complicates matters today, just as it did in urban antiquity. Nevertheless, the principle of taking care of fellow believers’ needs remains a demand on much of today’s church, especially in the West.
Just as love must be sincere, without hypocrisy (1 Pet. 1:22), so hospitality must be given without grudging; complaining or “murmuring” here is the same language used to describe Israel’s complaining against God in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:10).88 Although Jewish people might think especially of Israel’s disobedience in the wilderness, ancient literature often complains about various sorts of complainers:
4:10
Here the word for managers (oikonomoi), often translated as “stewards,” is literally “household managers.” These were most often slaves93 or freedpersons,94 though some were free persons. Nevertheless, they held high status within a wealthy household,95 and this image fits with the image of the church as a divine house or household elsewhere in 1 Peter (2:5; 4:17).96
Some other early Christians also used figuratively the image of stewards or managers (Luke 12:42; 16:1),97 including Paul (1 Cor. 4:1–2; 9:17; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25). Overseers in local congregations are also “managers” (Titus 1:7). But use of the image was not limited to Christians. Compare, for example, the first-century philosopher Seneca: “Why do you spare your wealth as though it were your own? You are but a steward.”98 “The wealth that you esteem . . . is buried under an inglorious name so long as you keep it . . . ; when you have given it away, it is a benefit.”99
Even in the literal sense, proper management was a matter of interest among ancient intellectuals.100 Thus Stoics “say that only the worthwhile man is skilled in household management and a good manager of his household, and, in addition, skilled at making money.”101 It involves skill in organizing expenses, caring for produce, and the like.102 In this case, it means believers optimally leveraging whatever skills and blessings God has given them in order to serve others (cf. Rom. 12:1–8).103
The Greek term translated as “gift” here, charisma, was still rare in this period,104 so it is probably no coincidence that Paul uses the term in a similar way (esp. in Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 1:7; 12:4, 9, 28–31; cf. 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; possibly also Rom. 1:11), suggesting a wider early Christian usage.105 The prophetic element in 1 Pet. 4:11 is another indication that we may read Peter’s use of the term charisma in the light of wider early Christian usage; prophecy is one of the few gifts invariably among Paul’s lists of charismata.
Both Peter and Paul use charisma in connection with charis, “grace” (Rom. 12:6; cf. Rom. 5:15; Eph. 4:7);106 God’s generous benevolence not only rescues us, but equips us to be his agents in gifts for one another. God has graced each of us with different gifts and therefore we can use these to serve one another. We must share these gifts, since God gave them to us for the church as a whole (Rom. 12:4–8; 1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:11–12).107 The many-sided108 character of the grace reinforces the idea that God uses different individuals in different ways, but it is the same God working through all of them (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4–6, 11).
4:11
Peter elaborates this notion of gifts (4:10), although he offers only two sorts of examples (unlike Paul’s longer lists).109 One may speak as the oracles of God (the NRSV’s very words of God translates an expression that often refers to prophetic utterances).110 This may refer to the spiritual gift of prophecy, which Paul sometimes mentions toward the beginning of his lists of spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:28). Alternatively, it may refer to all sorts of speaking (including teaching), suggesting that we should depend on God’s grace for any speaking, as we would if we were prophesying (cf. Eph. 4:29). For the link between the Spirit and prophecy, see comment at 1 Pet. 1:11; for the association between the Spirit and preaching the good news, see 1:12.
A CLOSER LOOK
Prophetic Speech
Early Christian prophecy (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 14:1–40; 1 Thess. 5:20; Rev. 1:10–20) and OT prophecy provide the most important background for Peter’s mention of oracular speech. Nevertheless, some ideas less familiar to most NT readers may be informative.111 Today prophecy is often associated with prediction of the future, but while that sense appears at times in ancient literature,112 the point was simply to speak the deity’s message.
Early Christian prophecy must have been extraordinarily frequent; Pauline circles, at least, might anticipate two or three prophecies per gathering (1 Cor. 14:29), or ideally even all believers prophesying in turn (14:31).113 The congregational setting of much early Christian prophecy contrasts with other ancient oracles or movements; its frequency contrasts with expectations among other Jewish groups in this period, and especially the expectations of elite groups.
Most Jews of the Maccabean and later eras allowed that prophecy continued in some form, but not through official “prophets” on the same level as in the era of earlier Israel. Thus one pre-Christian writer speaks of prophets no longer appearing (1 Macc. 9:27), although apparently allowing some in the future (4:45–46; 14:41).114 Some apocalyptic voices apparently concurred.115
Josephus contends that there has been no exact succession of prophets since the time of Artaxerxes, which was why no books had been accorded canonical authority since that time.116 Josephus does report continuing prophetic phenomena, but he fails to explicitly associate them, unlike prophetic activity from the biblical period, with God’s Spirit.117 More importantly, while prophecy continued, the title “prophet” belonged only to the past and to the future. Josephus called only “false prophets” the “prophets” in his own time.118
Later rabbis, focused on academic study, particularly developed the idea of the Spirit’s departure after the death of some or all OT prophets;119 relegating prophecy to the past reduced competition with their own role as interpreters of past revelation.120 Surrogates such as the heavenly voice existed, but these were deemed inferior to inspiration or even communal interpretation.121
While some believed that prophets no longer existed as they had in biblical times, no one denied that revelatory experiences continued to be possible.122 Josephus offers various examples.123 Similarly, Philo felt that inspiration continued, and that he availed himself of it.124 Some apocalyptically oriented sects seem to have accepted continuing revelation and, in the case of the Qumran community, even the presence of the Spirit.125
But while the giving of the Spirit is associated with Israel’s eschatological salvation in the Hebrew prophets,126 early Judaism generally,127 apart from the eschatologically oriented Qumran covenanters,128 did not highlight this idea the way early Christians did.129
Recipients of the Spirit and/or Prophecy
Later rabbis often spoke of those worthy to receive the Spirit130 or other special divine gifts,131 even if those gifts were sometimes withheld due to the unworthiness of their generation.132 Prophecy too was merited.133 Related to this is the idea that the Holy Spirit was quenched in Israel due to Israel’s sins.134 This suppression accords with the more common image of the removal of the Shekinah, God’s presence, due to sin.135 Later rabbis recognized prophets’ great authority,136 even to temporarily supersede the letter of the law.137 For them, sages essentially took over the role once granted to the prophets.138
Other early Jewish circles may have been more open to the current availability of the Spirit. The pre-Christian, probably Alexandrian Jewish work Wisdom of Solomon, for instance, declares that Wisdom “enters into holy souls, making them God’s friends and prophets.”139 Philo argues that prophecy is available to every excellent person.140 Qumran sectarians viewed the Spirit as a current blessing exclusively for their community, although not all members experienced the Spirit “to the same degree.”141 The presence of the Spirit was also felt to mark off the early Christians as a unique community.142
The Nature of Prophecy
Although only those who experience the Spirit of prophecy understand one side of the experience, in some other respects the character of ancient prophetic speech may be approached from anthropological study (since the human neural structures will be the same regardless of spiritual causes) and comparison with features of other ancient prophetic speech. Early Christian experience may have sometimes adopted accepted cultural forms of inspiration (1 Cor. 12:1–2), but could also prove quite different in content (12:3) and form (14:32). This section surveys how some contemporaries envisioned prophetic speech.
Pagan sources could regard prophecy as highly accurate, whether by outstanding individuals143 or by stationary oracle cults.144 (I leave aside here discussion of the very common pagan practice of divination,145 which was accepted even by some philosophers, including many Stoics.)146 Jewish sources allowed that a few147 pagan prophets (especially Balaam) had some knowledge,148 but none had revelation at all close to the genuine revelation given to Israel’s prophets.149
Despite a reputed decline of some of the great oracular centers,150 and Romans’ lesser interest in prophetism than Greeks had,151 prophecy also flourished in the eastern Mediterranean world,152 sometimes defended by its intellectuals.153 Perhaps connected with antecedents such as Mari through neo-Assyrian and other models, ecstatic prophecy was found in some154 Greek oracles apparently from the Archaic Period on.
Oracles could take questions.155 In older Egyptian processions, images of deities on the priests’ shoulders “answered” oracular questions by movement, since the priests who carried them (as many as eighty) moved however they believed that the god moved them.156 At some oracles, inquirers experienced the deity’s revelation in different forms.157 In Israelite prophetism, “inquiring of a deity”158 need not always mean that a specific question was put to the deity as in, for example, Hittite divination.159
Prophetic activity in pagan sources is often ecstatic.160 At Mari, prophecy given in trances was institutionalized,161 and, as sometimes in Israel,162 prophets could be designated by a term that otherwise denoted insanity.163 Israelites also knew apparently ecstatic forms of prophecy.164 Mantic prophecy normally came through one “possessed” by the deity.165 Although a rationalistic Plutarch could detect the natural faculties of the Pythoness in her prophesyings,166 many thinkers expected prophetic possession to virtually eliminate human elements.167 Lucan’s poetic depiction of the Pythia’s ecstatic inspiration168 may be exaggerated,169 but it reflects knowledge of some Pythian ecstasy170 and fits modern anthropological descriptions of possession trance.171
Prophecies were often obscure.172 Greeks did not always infer that inspiration entailed inerrancy;173 there were levels of inspiration, later poets sometimes being less inspired than earlier ones.174 But others envisioned prophesying as the deity’s mouthpiece.175 Whereas the LXX and the NT reserve common Greek language for mantic inspiration for pagan or false prophecy,176 they usually adapt the rarer Greek word group prophēteuō and cognates for Israelite and Christian prophecy.177 Not only the terminology but also the practice usually, though not always, differed: Greeks and Romans practiced a majority of contemporary prophecy in oracular shrines with priesthoods, especially in answers to questions posed at the shrines.178
Israelite prophecy was often spontaneous, but it could also be received beforehand;179 prophets sometimes even prophesied to themselves,180 and often had to act before knowing the full intent of the Lord (e.g., Jer. 13:6–7; 35:2, 14).181 Still, most Diaspora-oriented Jewish texts do include an ecstatic element,182 especially in Philo.183 Some early Christians reported this sort of inspiration,184 though many also contended that prophets could control their inspiration, in contrast to pagan prophets who were moved against their will.185
Whether Peter envisions specifically prophetic speech or, more widely, envisions all Christian edifying speech (exhortation, witness, etc.)186 as properly informed by the Spirit of prophecy may be a somewhat moot point, as he may have agreed with both suggestions. Figurative extensions of the notion of oracular speech would be culturally intelligible.187
Moreover, the gods could “gift” people with speaking ability.193
In addition to prophetic speech, Peter offers the example of “serving” (diakoneō; cf. also in Rom. 12:7, although there the NRSV translates the related term diakonia as “ministering”). In this ministry, too, believers must depend on God’s strength. (The language of strength that God “supplies” might also evoke the Spirit; cf. Gal. 3:5; Phil. 1:19; cf. perhaps spiritual gifts in Eph. 4:16; Col. 2:19.)
By acknowledging their dependence on God, believers credit God for what he accomplishes through them, bringing him honor and glory. Ancient Mediterranean reciprocity and obligation ideals understood that recipients of “grace” (4:10) were to respond by honoring the giver.194 The context will reveal, however, that God is glorified not only in believers’ gifts but also in their sufferings for Christ (4:12–17; cf. 1:6–8; 5:10–11).
Peter concludes this section of the letter with a spontaneous doxology (4:11), which was common in early Christian teaching,195 and here it could be addressed to Jesus, who is named immediately before it (cf. possible but debated doxologies to Jesus in Rom. 9:5; Rev. 1:6). Because God is glorified through Jesus Christ, however, glory is probably ascribed more directly here to the Father.
1. For asyndeton, see Rhet. Her. 4.30.41; Rowe, “Style,” 136; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86, citing Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.50; for examples, see Rhet. Alex. 36.1442a.11–14; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.1–2, 373.7–8. Polysyndeton was also common (e.g., Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.1–2, 377.25–26; Rowe, “Style,” 134–35; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86, citing Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.50–52; Anderson, Glossary, 103, citing Demetrius, Style 54 and 63 in support, and 194 against; Aune, Rhetoric, 367). See Hermogenes, Method 11.426–27: “What is stated with connectives conveys quantity or importance” (as in Demosthenes, Or. 9.26), whereas “what is said without connectives conveys character” (trans. Kennedy, 223).
2. A series compounds rhetorical force, e.g., in multiple rhetorical questions (e.g., Cicero, Sest. 52.1; Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.53.2; Quintilian, Decl. 376.5; Apuleius, Apol. 102; Libanius, Topics 1.10).
3. For drawn near (ēngiken), see also Matt. 10:7 // Luke 10:9; Mark 1:15; Rom. 13:12; James 5:8; Barn. 4:3; for imminent judgments or death, see LXX Lam. 4:18; Ezek. 7:7; 9:1; 1 Macc. 9:10; T. Ab. 15:1, 7 A.
4. See Witherington, End. Even a passage as eschatologically focused as Mark 13 has important hortatory concerns (cf., e.g., Deppe, “Charting”).
5. 4Q385 f4.2–3 (trans. Abegg et al.); the context is Ezekiel and the raising of the dead.
6. 4 Ezra 6:18 NEB; cf. imminence in 4:44–50.
7. 4 Ezra 8:61–62 NEB. Cf. Coggins and Knibb, Esdras, 211.
8. 2 Bar. 23:7 (trans. Charles, 2:495).
9. Examples could be multiplied beyond those cited here; e.g., “the time has come” (hēkei ho kairos) appears in LXX Ps. 101:14 (ET 102:13); Ezek. 7:4 (ET 7:7), 12; Hab. 2:3; a judgment “day has come” in Jer. 27:27, 31 (ET 50:27, 31); Ezek. 21:30, 34 (ET 21:25, 29).
10. See again Witherington, End. In a similar vein, a rabbi urged disciples to repent a day before their death; and since they could not know when that would be, they should always be repentant (Eccl. Rab. 9:8, §1). Cf. Bede, Commentary, 109: “So that no one might deceive himself in thinking that the future judgement . . . is far off, he advisedly warns that, although the time of the arrival of the final judgment is indefinite, yet it is definitely clear to all that they are unable to continue for long in this mortal life.”
11. E.g., Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4.
12. Philosophers could speak of being enamored with philosophy as being not drunk but sober and self-controlled (nēphein te kai sōphrein; Lucian, Nigr. 5).
13. Borrowed from Keener, Acts, 4:3538–41; Keener, “Madness.” See, e.g., Musonius Rufus, 18B, p. 116.20; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 80.1; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5f, p. 30.23; 2.7.11g, p. 72.15; Lucian, Icar. 30; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.11; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 1.1; 8.41; 31.195; Ep. 3, frg. 2–3 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.5.45–46); Ep. 3, frg. 5–6 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.5.48–49); cf. Plutarch, Poetry 11, Mor. 32C; further, North, Sophrosyne; North, “Sophrosyne in Criticism”; Marshall, Enmity, 190–94.
14. See esp. Plato, Charm. 159B–176C; cf. Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.23; Iamblichus, Ep. 3, frg. 5 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.5.48); also, in Irwin, Philosophy, 328, §§494–95, note Plato, Gorg. 504E–507E. Plato related it to self-knowledge (though perhaps through a logical inconsistency in Plato [Rosen, “Sophrosyne”]); especially moderation related to self-knowledge (Schmid, “Moderation”). On Socrates’s view of sōphrosunē in Charmides, see, e.g., Kosman, “Definition”; McKim, “Self-Knowledge”; but the Charmides dialogue drops this subject early on (so van der Ben, Charmides). Socrates finds it incompatible with injustice (Eisenstadt, “Teaching”; cf. further McKirahan, “Protagoras”).
15. Ultimately said to go back to Socrates (Plato, Resp. 4.428–34).
16. I include in the discussion the adjective cognate, which usage demonstrates is normally related (at least in the many sources surveyed). Given the period and Festus being a Roman speaking Greek, I focus on Musonius as an example, but other sources are also fruitful.
17. As a summary of virtue in Musonius Rufus, 5, p. 50.22–26.
18. E.g., Musonius Rufus, 4, p. 44.10–22, esp. 16–22; p. 48.1, 4, 8, 13, esp. 4; 6, p. 52.15, 17, 19, 21, esp. 15; 7, p. 58.25–26 (minus “courage”); 8, pp. 60.22–64.9, esp. 62.10–23; 8, p. 66.7–8, esp. 8; 17, p. 108.9–10; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 3.6; 8.1 (sōphrona); Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5a, p. 10.7–9 (Zeno’s views); 2.7.5b1, p. 12.13–22 (and their converse in lines 22–29; as samples of virtues and vices, see lines 29–30); 2.7.5b2, p. 14.1–4 (esp. 3); 2.7.5b5, p. 18.27–31 (with lines 21–26, 32–35). Cf. Musonius Rufus, 7, p. 58.25–26 (esp. 26); 16, p. 104.32–34, esp. 33; frg. 38, p. 136.3; Libanius, Thesis 3.3. See discussion in Lutz, “Musonius,” 27, including n. 113. Cf. lists of virtues including at least three of these, e.g., Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b, p. 10.16–21 (esp. 17); 2.7.11e, p. 68.12–16; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.20. Apart from “justice” and funerary use of sobriety, the four virtues figure little in epigraphic sources in Ephesus and presumably similar cities (Judge, First Christians, 374–75).
19. E.g., cf. Musonius Rufus, 3, p. 40.20–22; 4, p. 44.18–22; 6, p. 52.15–17; 8, p. 62.14–17; 16, p. 104.33–35; 17, p. 108.11–14; frg. 24, p. 130; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b2, p. 14.6; cf. Libanius, Anec. 4.8. Against sexual indulgence, see, e.g., Musonius Rufus, 12, p. 86.13–16; against gluttony, e.g., Musonius Rufus, 18A, p. 112.6–7 (cf. 112.29); 18B, p. 116.4–22, esp. 19–20; 18B, p. 118.4–7, esp. 5; p. 120.2–7, esp. 6–7; against grief, e.g., Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5 L, p. 36.3–5. See further Lutz, “Musonius,” 28 (noting esp. 6, p. 54.2–25). For the fullest definition, see Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b1, p. 12.18–19; 2.7.5b2, p. 14.15–16, 31–35; p. 16.1–3; cf. also 2.7.5b, p. 10.21–25 (esp. 23); p. 12.1–2. For remaining within realistic limits and avoiding hubris, see Jewett, Romans, 739–40 (on Rom. 12:3).
20. Polybius, Hist. 31.25.2, 4; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.5.6; Philostratus, Her. 11.8; 26.1. Some, however, thought that this virtue among the young reflected more on those who raised them than on themselves (Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.16–19, esp. 18–19). On self-control among young men, see, e.g., Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.3, 385.22–28 (esp. 22–23); Libanius, Speech 10.2; 17.4 (cf. 4.1; Invect. 5.14); for the diverse standards for self-control (esp. sexual) of the young in various Greek cities, see Menander Rhetor, Treat. 1.3, 363.28–364.9. Some held that marriage conferred the virtue of temperance on the young (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epid. 2.263).
21. 4 Macc. 1:30–31; 2:18; 3:17, 19; 5:23.
22. 4 Macc. 1:3.
23. 4 Macc. 1:3; 2:2, 16; T. Jos. 4:1–2; elsewhere in Judaism, see, e.g., 2 Macc. 4:37.
24. Wis. 8:7; 4 Macc. 1:6, 18; 2:23; 15:10; and regularly in Philo: Creation 73; Alleg. Interp. 1.63, 65; Cherubim 5; Sacrifices 27, 84; Worse 18; Posterity 128; Agriculture 18; Drunkenness 23; Heir 209; Names 197; Abraham 219; Moses 2.185; 2.216; Spec. Laws 2.62; Rewards 160; Good Person 67, 70, 159. Cf. also Feldman, “Jehu.”
25. Let. Aris. 237, 248.
26. E.g., Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.176, 186, 195 (Josephus employs the noun twenty-one times); Ps.-Phoc. 76; T. Jos. 4:2; 9:2; 10:2–3.
27. 1 Clem. 62:2; 64:1; Ignatius, Eph. 10:3.
28. Above all (pro pantōn); cf. James 5:12; Josephus, Ant. 17.6; 19.364; Life 78; Did. 10:4; similarly, Polycarp, Phil. 5:3.
29. The adverb ektenōs in 1:22 appears only three times in the NT, and the adjective ektenēs in 4:8 appears only here in the NT; the rareness of the terms in the NT suggests that their repetition in 1 Peter is deliberate.
30. This description of love appears also in James 5:20; 1 Clem. 49:5; 2 Clem. 16:4. All the Christian versions change the LXX’s philia (if this was the standard reading at that time) to agapē.
31. Cf. T. Zeb. 8:6; the idea in 1 Cor. 13:7, which is used alongside Prov. 10:12 in 1 Clem. 49:5 (Davids, Peter, 158).
32. Prov. 17:9; cf. James 5:20; 2 Clem. 16:4; contrast gossipers. When a report is of something evil, sometimes it is better left unsaid (Pindar, Nem. 5.14–18). T. Jos. 11–17 emphasizes “covering up” for others’ sins, even lying and suffering to prevent brothers’ dishonor (11:2; 15:3; 17:1; probably 13:7–9). Cf., e.g., Stibbs, Peter, 154. On keeping confidences, see ANET 420, 429; Justinus, Epit. 44.2.3; Philodemus, On Anger col. 20.25–27; Pliny Y., Ep. 1.12.7; Macrobius, Sat. 1.6.20–24; sources in Keener, John, 1010.
33. Cf. LXX Ps. 84:3 (ET 85:2), using kaluptō and hamartiai, as here; the use of Prov. 10:12 in 2 Clem. 16:4. Cf. van Unnik, “Good Works,” 107; Kelly, Peter, 178.
34. Some early church fathers applied this teaching to charity; see 2 Clem. 16:4; Bede, Commentary, 110; Downs, “Love Covers.”
35. In Bray, Peter, 116–17, cf. Ambrose of Milan, Let. Priests 48 (FC 26:253): “Love cuts out the desire to sin”; Leo the Great, Serm. 74.5 (FC 93:329): love avoids or conquers all sin.
36. It is a criterion for local church leadership in 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; Herm. 104:2. The role of hospitality also figures heavily in 1 Clement (1:2; 10:7; 11:1; 12:1, 3).
37. Rome’s annual festival called the lectisternium emphasized hospitality, inviting people to open their homes and provide food to the many passersby (Willis, “Banquets,” 144). The following excursus is from Keener, Acts, 3:2414–20.
38. See, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 277 (cf. even sexual hospitality in 192); Choge, “Hospitality.”
39. E.g., Cicero, Part. or. 23.80; Off. 2.18.64; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.28.23. For discussions of Greek and Roman hospitality, see Fitzgerald, “Hospitality,” 522–24; Wagner-Hasel, “Hospitality”; Malherbe (Social Aspects, 95) cites also Mathews, “Hospitality”; Riddle, “Hospitality”; in Greek novels, cf. Arterbury, “Hospitality”; Arterbury, Hospitality.
40. Herzfeld, “House”; on its reciprocal value, see esp. 78–79.
41. See Felber, “Hospitality”; Wiesehöfer, “Hospitality”; for current Middle Eastern practice, see, e.g., Eickelman, Middle East, 234–36.
42. Euripides, Alcest. 1039–41; Lucian, Affairs 9; Jos. Asen. 3:2–3/3:3–4. One could thus request hospitality with confidence (e.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 5.19.7–9).
43. Cicero, Att. 12.36. One could thus accept an invitation as if granting an honor (e.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 6.14.1–2; cf. Cicero, Fam. 13.69.1).
44. Koenig, Hospitality, 16–17; Safrai, “Education,” 966. Hospitality towards sages appears in b. Ber. 63b (cf. b. Ber. 47b, bar.). A rabbi offered hospitality by no one once had to spend the night in a schoolhouse, which unfortunately was haunted (b. Qidd. 29b).
45. Aeschylus, Suppl. 927; Sir. 11:29, 34; Sipre Deut. 1.10.1; 2 John 10–11.
46. t. Demai 3:9. For more positive roles of the hostess, see Safrai, “Home,” 762–63.
47. Homer, Od. 3.345–58; Luke 24:29.
48. Judg. 19:4–9; Tob. 10:6–10.
49. See Badian and Spawforth, “Inns,” 759; Casson, Travel, 212–13, 215–18; Stambaugh, City, 179; Rapske, Custody, 233; cf., e.g., Cicero, Div. 1.27.57; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 1.7.ext. 10.
50. Rapske, “Travel,” 15.
51. See Virgil, Copa 33; SIG 1251 = IG 14.24; CIL 4.1679 (Sherk, Empire, §165, p. 211); Stahlmann, “Brothels,” 2:790 (citing CIL 9.2689 = ILS 7478; Dig. 23.2.43 pr.); Casson, Travel, 206–7; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 192, 201; Friedländer, Life, 1:293; Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 393; cf. 4Q184 f1.6; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 24:14; Höcker, “Prostitution,” 60. In the ancient Near East, see Renger, “Inns,” 817 (citing Middle Assyrian Laws §14; Code of Hammurabi 110). Speaking of the “lustful tavern” (salax taberna), one poet threatens to scribble obscene graffiti about the prostitutes’ patrons over the tavern’s front (Catullus, Carm. 37.1, 9–10). Some rabbis worried about bestiality there (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1).
52. Stambaugh, City, 182, noting that the graffiti include the claim to have urinated on the bed because there was no toilet (CIL 4.4957).
53. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 140; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 59; cf. Gardner, Women, 132; Martial, Epigr. 9.6.7–8; for captives sold into prostitution, see Apuleius, Metam. 7.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8A.
54. Stambaugh, City, 208.
55. Homer, Od. 9.268–77; Pindar, Nem. 5.33; Ol. 8.22; Euripides, Cycl. 355; Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 2.1131–33; 3.193; Lucian, Tim. 1; Gr. Anth. 7.516; Vit. Aes. 139; this is transferred to the Roman Jupiter (Ovid, Metam. 10.224). All strangers come from Zeus (Homer, Od. 6.207–8; 14.57–58).
56. Homer, Il. 13.624–25; Musonius Rufus, 15, p. 96.29; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.39 (cf. 1.41); 12.75; Lucian, Affairs 7; Heliodorus, Aeth. 2.22. A deity himself appears as a host in Philostratus, Her. 5.5–6; cf. Israel’s God at the eschatological banquet (see Koenig, Hospitality, 46n2).
57. Pindar, Ol. 4.12–15, probably referring especially to Zeus.
58. Musonius Rufus, 15, p. 96.28–31; cf. Demetrius, Style 3.157.
59. Homer, Od. 9.176. Not fearing the gods or showing hospitality (9.273–78) invited Zeus’s vengeance (9.478–79).
60. Homer, Od. 4.26–36; cf. Libanius, Max. 2.2. Among types of friendship, “hospitality” (xenian) is “friendship with strangers” (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5 L, p. 36.1). For Greeks, it related to their emphasis on equality and individualism (Engels, Roman Corinth, 86).
61. Homer, Od. 1.118–20, 123–24; cf. Lucian, Lucius 1–2. The great lengths to which Telemachus goes in Od. 1.113–35, ignorant that the visitor is Athena, resemble Gen. 18:3–8.
62. E.g., Euripides, Cycl. 125 (the Cyclopes prove the antithesis of hospitality, 126–28); Pindar, Ol. 13.3; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.3, 384.22, 24–25. Cf. also some interpretations of 2 Kings 2:23–24 (Gordon, Near East, 200); Luke 11:5 (Bailey, Poet, 122–24; Scott, Parable, 87).
63. Homer, Il. 9.199–220; Luke 11:6.
64. Apuleius, Metam. 1.26; Lucian, Lucius 1–2.
65. Pliny Y., Ep. 1.4.2–3; 6.28.3.
66. See Winter, Left Corinth, 135, 186–87 (following Owens, City, 145); deSilva, Honor, 193; contrast the emphasis in Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 150. Tacitus claims that the noble Germans were so hospitable that their doors were open to anyone (Germ. 21).
67. Hock, Social Context, 29 (citing, for lodging and food, Lucian, Lucius 7; Casson, Travel, 209–18).
68. Hock, Social Context, 29 (citing Did. 11:5; Lucian, Affairs 8–9; Lucius 3; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 2.23; 5.10), noting that Paul observed this rule in Acts (9:9; 20:6; 21:4, 7; 28:14). In Lucian, Lucius 3–4, Lucius consents to stay for three days, but is actually secretly eager to stay longer if necessary to satisfy his curiosity; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 2.23, involves the hospitality of an Indian king.
69. E.g., Lysias, Or. 12.14, §121; Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Cicero, Fam. 13.36.1; 13.73.2; Verr. 2.2.47.117; Pliny Y., Ep. 3.4.5; Plutarch, Cor. 10.3. Rituals even existed to confirm a relationship established by hospitality (Wagner-Hasel, “Hospitality,” 531).
70. Euripides, Temenid. frg. 736.
71. Homer, Il. 6.212–31, esp. 224; to the third generation in Cicero, Fam. 13.34.1.
72. E.g., Cicero, Fam. 13.25.1.
73. Cicero, Fam. 13.19.1.
74. Homer, Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534–35; 11.414–20; 14.404–5; Hesiod, Op. 327; Euripides, Cycl. 126–28; Hec. 25–26, 710–20, 850–56; Sthen. frg. 667; Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 3.377–80; Ovid, Metam. 1.144; 10.225–28; Livy, Hist. 25.16.6; Quintus Curtius Rufus, Alex. 8.2.3; Libanius, Speech 10.1. Such betrayal incurred divine wrath (Homer, Od. 21.26–28; Livy, Hist. 39.51.12; Tacitus, Ann. 2.65; 15.52).
75. Euripides, Heracl. 1034–36 (even in subsequent generations); Cicero, Pis. 34.83; by seeking the host’s wife, Ovid, Her. 17.3–4; Tacitus, Hist. 3.41. (These sources are fewer than for the host, probably due to hosts more often holding more power.)
76. Aeschines, Leg. 22, 55. For a guest to act unkindly was deceptive treachery (Catullus, Carm. 64.176).
77. See Ps.-Phoc. 24; m. ʾAbot 1:5, 15; 3:12; Fitzgerald, “Hospitality,” 524–25.
78. Josephus, J.W. 2.124–25; Hippolytus, Ref. 9.15.
79. E.g., y. Meg. 3:3, §5; for the archaeology, see Sukenik, Synagogues, 49, 69–70; Koenig, Hospitality, 17; Blue, “Influence,” 476.
80. Van Unnik, “Good Works,” 96–97.
81. Cf. T. Job 10, esp. 10:1–4. Job’s hospitality is probably modeled after that of Abraham in Gen. 18 and Jewish tradition.
82. Cf., e.g., Matt. 10:42; Euripides, Elec. 357–63.
83. See Koenig, Hospitality, 15–20. See, e.g., Gen. 19:2–3; 24:18–25 (contrast 12:15; 19:5; 20:2); Num. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Heb. 13:2; James 2:16, 21.
84. Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 John 5–8; Did. 11:1–3; 12:1–2. Fee (Timothy, 44) adds Aristides, Apol. 15; Lane (Hebrews, 512) adds Lucian, Peregr. 16.
85. For Paul’s numerous hosts and supporters, see Judge, “Scholastic Community,” 130; for his housing arrangements, see esp. Hock, Social Context, 29–31. On the hospitality theme in the NT, see Koenig, Hospitality; in Luke-Acts, see also Denaux, “Theme,” 255–63.
86. Chrysostom, Catena (CEC 77; Bray, Peter, 117).
87. Did. 11:3–6; 12:1–5.
88. “Sinners” also speak against the righteous (e.g. 1 En. 102:6).
89. Theophrastus, Char. 17.1–3 (trans. Edmonds, LCL, p. 83).
90. Polybius, Hist. 29.1.1–3. For other criticisms in military settings, see, e.g., Quintus Curtius Rufus, Alex. 4.3.7.
91. Justinus, Epit. 12.5.6–8 (trans. Yardley, 112). Trogus flourished in the first century BCE.
92. Klauck, Context, 49, quoting P.Lond. 2710.
93. E.g., Lucian, Affairs 10; Quintilian, Decl. 353.intro.; 353.3; 388.intro.; cf. Treggiari, “Jobs in Household,” 49.
94. A freedperson, in Tacitus, Hist. 1.49; cf. again Treggiari, “Jobs in Household,” 49; Perkins, Peter, 70.
95. E.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.3; Chariton, Chaer. 1.12.8.
96. Though, in contrast to J. H. Elliott, I associate God’s house (esp. in 2:5) first with the temple.
97. If Luke has not simply put this in his own words, Jesus’s teaching here might offer a source for other early Christian allusions (so Blomberg, “Quotations,” 140).
98. Seneca Y., Ben. 6.3.1 (trans. Basore, LCL, 3:369).
99. Seneca Y., Ben. 6.3.4 (trans. Basore, LCL, 3:369).
100. E.g., Xenophon, Oeconomicus; Philodemus, On Property Management.
101. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11d, p. 64.8–10.
102. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11d, p. 64.10–14.
103. Literal management skills on behalf of the church are among these (Titus 1:7; perhaps Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28).
104. It was rarely used before Paul (it does appear earlier in Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.78, but is not yet extant earlier); coined from charis, it plainly draws attention to the generous/gracious nature of the gift.
105. Often assumed or noted, e.g., Scippa, “Carismi.”
106. Which may in turn evoke a verb for giving; cf. Winger, “From Grace to Sin,” on abstract nouns’ relationship to cognate verbs.
107. In Bray, Peter, 117, cf. Braulio of Saragossa, Letters 5 (FC 63:22): “The manifold grace of God is well dispensed when the gift received . . . is believed to have been given for the sake of him with whom it is shared”; Andreas Presbyter, Catena (CEC 77): stewards “use the gifts which we have received either by nature or by the Holy Spirit so that no one may say that we are keeping these things to ourselves and refusing to share them with our neighbors.”
108. The word poikilos can mean “diverse” or “various.” Believers suffer from various (poikilos) trials in 1:6, but receive God’s diverse grace in 4:10.
109. Achtemeier (Peter, 298) even treats these as the two comprehensive categories of charismata, but they are likelier simply prominent examples.
110. For the law or prophets in Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12; often in the LXX (see Nock, “Vocabulary,” 134).
111. What follows greatly condenses Keener, Acts, 1:886–909.
112. Plutarch, E Delph. 6, Mor. 387B; Pseudo-Heraclitus, Ep. 5; Pseudo-Socrates, Ep. 1; 6; Sib. Or. 3:822; rabbinic references in Bowman, “Prophets,” 107.
113. At a median estimate of at least 2.5 prophecies per gathering each week for thirty years in just fifty house churches, one might expect nearly 200,000 prophecies. This does not even include those outside a weekly congregational setting (e.g., Acts 21:11).
114. Hill, Prophecy, 22. This might mean simply prophets like those in the OT (Aune, Prophecy, 105, though not offering much evidence). Against Hill, Prophecy, 22, “prophet” in Scripture normally connoted inspired authority.
115. 2 Bar. 85:3; 4 Ezra 12:42; possibly LXX Sir. 36:14–16 (ET 36:20–22); John 8:53.
116. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.41. For more on the cessation of prophets in Josephus, see Leiman, “Josephus and Canon”; Bamberger, “Prophet,” 305.
117. Best, “Pneuma,” 222–25; Isaacs, Spirit, 49, 51 (also Philo). Qumran documents associate true prophecy with the Spirit only in the past (1QS 8.16; 4Q381 f69.4; cf. 4Q481a f2.4), but their partly realized eschatology did allow the Spirit among them (Aune, Cultic Setting, 29–44; cf. Chevallier, “Souffle,” 38–41).
118. See Aune, “Προφήτης”; cf. also Hill, Prophecy, 26, 28; contrast Acts 11:28; 21:9–11. The Qumran texts may contrast true inspiration by the Spirit with false prophets (CD 6.1; 4Q266 frg. 3.ii.9; 4Q267 frg. 2.6; 4Q269 frg. 4.i.2; 6Q15 frg. 3.4), as also in Herm. 43:2, 7, 12.
119. t. Soṭah 12:5; 13:3; b. Sanh. 11a, bar.; b. Soṭah 48b, bar.; b. Yoma 9b; Num. Rab. 15:10; Song Rab. 8:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:14. For its diminution after the first temple’s destruction, see b. Yoma 21b; Eccl. Rab. 12:7, §1. See, e.g., discussion in Davies, Paul, 208–15, providing the appropriate qualifications; Bamberger, “Prophet,” 306; Leivestad, “Dogma”; Hill, Prophecy, 33–35. For exceptions, see Aune, Prophecy, 104, but these are a small minority.
120. Greenspahn, “Prophecy.”
121. E.g., t. Soṭah 13:3; b. Sanh. 11a; b. Yoma 9b; b. Soṭah 48b.
122. See esp. Grudem, Prophecy, 21–23, for references on the cessation of prophecy, but pp. 24–33 on the continuation of revelatory experiences understood to be different from OT prophecy. For continuing prophecy in eschatologically oriented circles, see Sommer, “Prophecy,” 36.
123. Josephus, J.W. 1.78–80; 2.159; cf. J.W. 1.68–69; Ant. 15.374–79; 17.346 in Isaacs, Spirit, 48–49; Hill, Prophecy, 26–27, on J.W. 3.351–54; Aune, Prophecy, 145; more extensively, Gray, Figures, 7–111. For the behavior without the title, see Josephus, J.W. 6.300–309, and esp. Noack, Jesus Ananiassøn; Aune, Prophecy, 135–37.
124. Isaacs, Spirit, 48, cites Philo, Abraham 35; cf. Migration 34–35; Cherubim 27; Dreams 2.252; she also notes that corybantic frenzy thrusts ascetics into the wilderness in Names 39; moreover, the LXX translators are inspired in Moses 2.37. For divine inspiration as divine impregnation in Philo, see Baer, Categories, 55–64, 96–98.
125. Aune, Prophecy, 104; see earlier Aune, Cultic Setting.
126. Cf., e.g., Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 1:31–32; Ma, Spirit, 175–78, 210–11. For associations with the new covenant in the OT, see Chevallier, Esprit de Dieu, 84–85; in early Judaism, 85–88.
127. But cf. Sib. Or. 3:781–82. Rabbis could amplify Moses’s prayer that all Israel be prophets (the wish in Sipre Num. 96.3.1; cf. Num. 11:26–29), and some much later rabbis expected, with Joel, that all Israel would be prophets (Num. Rab. 15 in Davies, Paul, 216).
128. Coppens (“Don,” 209) emphasizes that the Spirit is eschatological in the DSS, linking it with the idea of new creation.
129. Isaacs, Spirit, i, 84–86. For exceptions in some considerably later texts, see Davies, Paul, 208–17; Menzies, Development, 104–8; Menzies, Empowered, 94–98, 232–43.
130. Mek. Besh. 7.135ff. (Lauterbach, 1:252–53); Sipre Deut. 173.1.3; Exod. Rab. 5:20; Song Rab. 1:1, §9; cf. Glatzer, “Study,” 122–24. For Torah obedience leading to the Spirit, Davies (“Spirit in Mekilta,” 98) cites m. Soṭah 9:12, 15; t. Soṭah 13:2 (see also Davies, Paul, 207, 218).
131. 3 En. 2:4; b. B. Bat. 10a; Num. Rab. 12:21; ʾAbot R. Nat. 14 A; 28, §57 B.
132. b. Sukkah 28a; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; y. Hor. 3:5, §3; y. Soṭah 9:16, §2; in simpler form (but in a later collection), Song Rab. 8:9, §3; with the Shekinah in place of the Holy Spirit, b. Soṭah 48b.
133. Israel acquired prophets on account of merit (Sipre Deut. 176.1.1; 176.2.2; R. Akiba in Mek. Pisha 1.137–41 [Lauterbach, 1:13]; the gift of prophecy was also acquired thus (Mek. Pisha 1.58–113 [Lauterbach, 1:5–11]; b. Sanh. 39b).
134. t. Soṭah 14:3; cf. also Eph. 4:30; third century, T. Sol. 26:6.
135. E.g., Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1, par. 206.2.6; Sipre Num. 1.10.3; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; 320.2.1; b. Ber. 5b; b. Roš Haš. 31a; b. Yoma 21b; b. Šabb. 33a; 139a; y. Sanh. 8:8, §1; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:14; Ruth Rab. 1:2. The Presence withdrew due to sin but was restored due to merit: Gen. Rab. 19:7; Song Rab. 5:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1. On merit and the Presence, see Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; 312.3.1; 355.6.1; Gen. Rab. 60:12; Exod. Rab. 45:5; Num. Rab. 19:20; Song Rab. 4:5, §2; 7:6, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 10:2.
136. Sipre Deut. 62.1.1–2; 70.1.3; 157.1.1; Gen. Rab. 73:5. Of course, prophets functioned as messengers of the suzerain King YHWH to his vassal kings of Israel in the OT as well. Cf. Holladay, “Statecraft,” 31–34, and, on the court of Yahweh, Cross, Myth, 186–87.
137. Sipre Deut. 175.1.3, on Deut. 18:15–22. But for limitations in practice, see t. Sanh. 14:13; even more so, Sipra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.12.
138. Even some of them report mystical, revelatory experiences, e.g., t. Ḥag. 2:3–4; b. Ḥag. 14b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §7–8; Song Rab. 1:4, §1; 3 Enoch; cf. Schäfer, Vorstellung; Bonsirven, Judaism, 135 (on t. Ber. 3:5, 7). They may have originally belonged to the apocalyptic stream of experience (P. Alexander, in OTP 1:235); for possibly early sources, cf. Scholem, Gnosticism, 11–12; Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash”; Goodenough, Symbols, 1:221; Goodenough, Philo Judaeus, 134–60; Neusner, “Merkavah Tradition.”
139. Wis. 7:27 NEB.
140. Philo, Heir 259; Hill, Prophecy, 32.
141. Flusser, Judaism, 54; cf. also Coppens, “Don,” 209. Tannaim did cite Hillel for the tradition that the Holy Spirit rested on the community of festal pilgrims at Passover (t. Pesaḥ. 6:13; y. Pesaḥ. 6:1; b. Pesaḥ. 66a, in Urbach, Sages, 1:576).
142. Aune, Cultic Setting, 103.
143. E.g., Arrian, Anab. 4.13.5; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 8.26.
144. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 13.9–10; Xenophon of Ephesus, Eph. Tale 1.6. See comments in Nagy, “Prologue,” xxix; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxxix.
145. For that subject, see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:887–88; 3:2333.
146. Cicero, Div. passim (refuting Stoic arguments); Nat. d. 1.20.55–56; 2.3.7–2.4.12 (esp. 2.4.12); 3.6.14; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.149. Stoics believed that exclusively the virtuous person exercised true mantic gifts (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11s, p. 98.16–23). They viewed the mantic art as following rules that help one interpret signs from the gods (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b12, pp. 24.32–27.2).
147. Far fewer than in Israel (Exod. Rab. 32:3; Lev. Rab. 2:9).
148. E.g., Sipre Deut. 343.6.1.
149. E.g., Gen. Rab. 52:5; 74:7; Lev. Rab. 1:13.
150. See Plutarch, Obsol., e.g., 5, Mor. 411F; cf. Lucan, Civ. W. 5.139–40; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.43; Bremmer, “Divination: Greek,” 573; Parke, Delphic Oracle, 381; declining respect, Callimachus, Iam. 3.193. Oracles were still widely consulted (Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 5; Nilsson, Piety, 166; Aune, Prophecy, 51). Their political use had been strongest in the classical period (Nilsson, Cults, 123–42).
151. Hill, Prophecy, 11. The Romans were, of course, fascinated by Sibylline oracles, but in contrast to Greeks, their cults concentrated more on divination (such as augury) than on prophetic inspiration (see further Salles, “Pythies et sibylles”).
152. Oracular prophecy may have even grown in the first three centuries CE (Lewis, Life, 98). For Greco-Egyptian prophecy, cf. CPJ 3:119–21, §520, probably reflecting the Potter’s Oracle.
153. E.g., Plutarch (Mackay, “Plutarch,” 99–101; for divination, 101–2; for portents, 103–4).
154. For the variety among different cults on this point, see Parke, Sibyls, 219; Parke, Oracles of Zeus, 85, 256–57.
155. E.g., Statius, Silv. 5.3.172–75; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 8.3.
156. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 147, citing Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 17.50.6.
157. Pausanias, Descr. 9.39.11 (on Trophonios’s oracle).
158. With pagan deities, e.g., Deut. 12:30; 1 Sam. 28:7; 2 Kings 1:2–3; Isa. 19:3; but it was often used with YHWH (e.g., 2 Kings 1:16; 3:11; 8:8; 22:13; cf. 1 Kings 22:5; 2 Kings 19:2; esp. 1 Sam. 9:9).
159. Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 105, suggesting a connection with the Mari cult title of a prophet as an “answerer.”
160. E.g., ANET 26; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 1.31.1; Livy, Hist. 38.18.9; Aulus Gellius, Att. 15.18.2; PGM 4.738–39; depictions in Virgil, Aen. 6.77–102; Ovid, Metam. 2.640–41; cf. Albright, Yahweh, 212; Paul, “Prophets,” 1156.
161. Haran, “Continuity and Change,” 181; Huffmon, “Prophecy,” 111–12; cf. the possible evidence of Ebla here in Pettinato, Ebla, 253. This is relevant even if the ecstasy was controlled and not a full ecstasy, as some have suggested due to the forms of the prophecies (Moran, “Prophecy,” 27–28).
162. Cf. 2 Kings 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hosea 9:7. Some contrast earlier ecstatic prophets with later literary ones (Gordon, Near East, 159n19, 214; cf. 221); this, however, underestimates the measure of continuity in Israelite prophetism (Paul, “Prophets,” 1160ff.), though some changes occurred (see Haran, “Continuity and Change”). The rise of prophetic literacy need not diminish ecstasy.
163. Albright, Yahweh, 212; Malamat, “Revelations,” 210–11; cf. Paul, “Prophets,” 1159; Lindblom, Prophecy, 31; Gordon, Near East, 206; later, Plutarch (Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 40); Lucian, Alex. 12; the perception in Euripides, Alex. frg. 62g.
164. Cf. Schmid, “Geistwirkungen”; Aune, Prophecy, 86–87; for connections between Israelite and Mari models, see Holladay, “Statecraft,” 11–12; Bright, History, 88–89; cf. Pettinato, Ebla, 319n12. Wilson (“Ecstasy,” 323–25) finds further cases of ecstasy on the basis of more subtle phraseology in the prophets; Parker (“Possession Trance”) views the experience as only marginal in Israelite prophetism. Later studies challenge some earlier ones (see Michaelsen, “Ecstasy”).
165. E.g., Arrian, Anab. 4.13.5–6; Lucan, Civ. W. 1.673–95; Plutarch, Table T. 1.5.2, Mor. 623B; Philostratus, Her. 7.3. But Seneca Y. (Lucil. 28) recounts the possession in Virgil, Aen. 6.78–79, and regards it as folly.
166. Plutarch, Or. Delphi 7, Mor. 397C; but cf. Theon in Or. Delphi, 21, Mor. 404E. For the reputed authority and accuracy of this oracle, see Isocrates, Paneg. 31; Herodotus, Hist. 1.47ff., 65–67, 86; Plutarch, Gr. Q. 12, Mor. 293E; 19, Mor. 295DE; Borrow 3, Mor. 828D; Thes. 36.1; Lyc. 6.5; Sol. 4.2; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.1.21 (cf. 5.91); Strabo, Geogr. 9.3.2, 11–12; Martial, Epigr. 9.42.4; it also posed questions to early Christianity: Justin, 1 Apol. 18; Minucius Felix, Oct. 26:6; cf. Acts 16:16.
167. So, e.g., Iamblichus, Myst. 3.4–6; Gr. Anth. 2.189–91; Libanius, Conf. 1.1; Aune, Prophecy, 47–48; in later societies, see, e.g., Evans-Pritchard, Religion, 96, 303.
168. Lucan, Civ. W. 5.97–197.
169. Cf. Aune, Prophecy, 4; Klauck, Context, 187–88.
170. E.g., Valerius Maximus, Mem. 1.8.10; Plutarch, Dial. L. 16, Mor. 759B; Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 34–35, §11D; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 8.1.
171. See discussion in Keener, “Possession,” 233–34; more recently, cf. Keener, “Crooked Spirits”; Laycock, Possessions.
172. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 10.23–27; 13.9; Philostratus, Her. 28.11–12; Klauck, Context, 189.
173. E.g., Lucian, True Story 2.32; Philostratus, Her. 25.4, 8 with 24.1–2; 25.10–17; perhaps Hierocles, Gods (Stobaeus, Anth. 1.3.53; criticizing Homer, Il. 9.497); Libanius, Refut. 1.1; 2.1; cf. even Gen. Rab. 91:6; others demurred (e.g., Libanius, Conf. 1.1; 2.1).
174. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 36.34–35.
175. E.g., Ovid, Metam. 6.159–62; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 9.1; Sib. Or. 2:1–5; 3:1–7, 295–99, 489–91; 11:315–18; 12:295–96; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.65; 4.49; Num. Rab. 18:12; 2 Pet. 1:20–21; cf. discussion in Aune, Prophecy, 47; on L.A.B., Piñero, “Prophetic Inspiration.” For prophetic enablement as having God’s words put in one’s mouth, cf. Jub. 8:20; L.A.B. 11:2; Sipre Deut. 176.3.1.
176. Manteuomai and cognates, Num. 22:7; 23:23; Deut. 18:10, 14; Josh. 13:22; 1 Sam. 6:2; 28:8; 2 Kings 17:17; Isa. 16:6; 44:25; Jer. 14:14; 34:9 (ET 27:9); 36:8 (29:8); Ezek. 12:24; 13:6–8, 23; 21:26–28, 34 (ET 21:21–23, 29); 22:28; Mic. 3:6–7, 11; Zech. 10:2; Sir. 34:5; Acts 16:16; also Herm. 43:2, 4; a figurative exception is Prov. 16:10. Later rabbis contrast Moses’s prophetic experience with that of Balaam (Sipre Deut. 357.18.2; b. B. Bat. 15b; Bowman, “Prophets,” 108–14; for the contrast between the two in Philo, Moses 1.263–99, see Feldman, “Balaam”). Jewish writers often regarded Balaam as the greatest of the gentile prophets or philosophers (Josephus, Ant. 4.104; Gen. Rab. 65:20; 93:10; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; in Num. Rab. 20:19, the Holy Spirit spoke with him); he was the only one who could explain to the nations what was happening at Sinai (Sipre Deut. 343.6.1; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1); but God kept him from cursing Israel against his will (Josephus, Ant. 4.104; cf. Exod. Rab. 4:3; 20:5; 27:3), though he found another strategy to carry out his purpose (Josephus, Ant. 4.104; Sipre Deut. 252.1.4; y. Sanh. 10:2, §8; cf. y. Taʿan. 4:5, §10). He is repeatedly considered wicked (Philo, Confusion 159; Moses 1.48; b. Ber. 7a; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4a; b. Sanh. 105b–106a; Exod. Rab. 30:20; Num. Rab. 20:6; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; 41:3), and is contrasted with Moses (Sipre Deut. 357.18.1–2, above; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Num. Rab. 14:20; Eccl. Rab. 2:15, §2) and Abraham (m. ʾAbot 5:19; Gen. Rab. 55:8).
177. See Forbes, Prophecy, 188–217; cf. Callan, “Prophecy.”
178. Forbes, Prophecy, 288–308. For differences between Israelite and other ancient Near Eastern prophecy, see, e.g., Heschel, Prophets, 465–66; Paul, “Prophets,” 1160; on prophetic succession, Scott, Relevance, 57–62; Heschel, Prophets, 472–73; for Mari, Buss, “Prophecy,” 338; Craghan, “Mari,” 52; Heschel, Prophets, 471–72; for Greek versus Jewish prophecy, cf. Büchsel, Geist, 43–44.
179. E.g., 1 Sam. 8:6–7; 9:17; 15:10, 16; 2 Sam. 7:4–5; 12:1, 25; 24:11–12; 1 Kings 12:22; 13:1; 14:5; 16:1; 19:15–16; 21:17–19; 2 Kings 1:3–4; Jer. 28:12–13; 36:4–8.
180. E.g., 2 Sam. 23:2; Hosea 1:2; cf. Pss. 12:5; 46:10; 91:14; Jer. 27:2.
181. Cf. kings endowed with the Spirit of prophecy (1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 16:13–14), and Spirit-moved leaders of Israel in Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 9:23; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14.
182. Sib. Or. 11:316–24 (using mantic language); L.A.B. 28:6, 10; 4 Bar. 5:8, 12; T. Job 48–50; cf. possibly apocalyptic experiences (Russell, Apocalyptic, 160). In Josephus, see J.W. 6.300–309 (cf. 3.353); cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 50, citing Josephus, Ant. 6.56, 76; Bamberger, “Prophet,” 305.
183. E.g., Philo, Planting 39; Migration 35, 190; Heir 68–69, 249, 258–59, 264–65; Moses 2.258; Flight 168; Spec. Laws 1.65; QG 9; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 2:11–59; Isaacs, Spirit, 49–51; Hill, Prophecy, 32–33.
184. Odes Sol. 6:1–2.
185. 1 Cor. 14:32; Severian of Gabala, Paul. Comm. (NTAbh 15:262, 270; Bray, Corinthians, 118, 144); Chrysostom, Hom. Cor. 29.2.
186. Divinely empowered preaching (Cranfield, Peter, 116–17); any spiritually gifted speech, including tongues, “prophecy, teaching, and evangelism” (Davids, Peter, 161); divinely empowered speaking (Witherington, Peter, 205–6).
187. E.g., for manteuomai as a metaphorical extension of predicting nonsupernaturally, e.g., Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.9.5, 7; for manteia as a parable of the philosopher, see Epictetus, Diatr. 1.17.29.
188. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.1.21 (trans. Hicks, LCL, 2:339).
189. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 7.2.ext. 1a (trans. Bailey, LCL, 2:113). Though cf. Socrates regarding training in Xenophon, Mem. 4.2.6.
190. Fronto, M. Caes. 3.12 (trans. Haines, LCL, 1:17).
191. Philostratus, Her. 33.15; cf. 25.18.
192. Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 31.213 (trans. Dillon and Hershbell, 213).
193. Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 397, §135D; cf. Ahiq. 114–15 (saying 32; Lindenberger, OTP 2:502; wise speech); Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.17, 437.7–9.
194. DeSilva, Honor, 148; see also Harrison, Grace; Barclay, Gift. For thanking the gods for oratorical ability, cf. again Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 397, §135D.
195. See Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; 2 Tim. 4:18; 1 Pet. 5:11; Rev. 1:6; note esp. 1 Clement (20:12; 32:4; 38:4; 43:6; 45:7–8; 50:7; 58:2; 61:3; 64:1; 65:2). Contrary to some commentators, the doxology need not signal the original end of the letter, since these often occur within letter bodies (many examples appear in this note).