Suffering for and with Christ
Suffering for and with Christ
1 Peter 4:12–19
Suffering for Christ (4:12–19)
4:12
Loved ones, don’t think strange the fiery burning that comes to test you, as if something strange were happening to you.
4:13
Instead, to the extent that you’re sharing Christ’s sufferings, be glad, so you may celebrate with joy when his glory is revealed.
4:14
If you’re reproached because you bear Christ’s name, it’s well with you! It’s well with you because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
4:15
But don’t let any of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or a wrongdoer or as a troublemaker.
4:16
But if any of you suffers for being a “Christian,” don’t be ashamed of that. Instead, give honor to God by this name.
4:17
Be ready for such hardship, because it’s time for judgment to begin with God’s household. And if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who disobey God’s good news?
4:18
And “If it’s hard for the just to be saved, what can we expect for the irreverent and sinners?”
4:19
Keeping this pattern in mind, let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their lives to the trustworthy creator. You entrust yourself to him by continuing to do what’s good.
4:12
Just as Peter addressed his audience as loved ones in 2:11, so here the affectionate address prepares for an exhortation. The term rendered as fiery burning can refer to the furnace used for testing and purifying gold (Prov. 27:21; cf. Wis. 3:6), relevant to the image of fiery testing in 1:7. The Didache, in the late first or possibly early second century, applies it to the period of final tribulation and testing before Christ’s return (Did. 16:5).
One consolatory theme in antiquity was that the suffering or death that has come is nothing unexpected; one should not be surprised by it.1 Gentiles who follow their passions are amazed (xenizō) that Jesus’s followers do not share their behavior (4:4); believers should not “be amazed” (think strange, xenizō) that they face testings (4:12). Peter presumably intends a contrast.2 Because believers are aliens or strangers within the world (1:1; 2:13), they should not count it as “alien” or “strange” when they face testing in this world.3 (In most other NT texts, the term translated as think strange or “be amazed” means “entertain as a guest,”4 and the related term in 4:12 translated as strange [xenos] can mean a “stranger” or foreigner.)
The image of a fiery burning that tests recalls 1:7, in which believers’ faith is tested by fire (see comment there.) If the date of composition allows, this image could relate to Nero’s burning of Christians as torches5 (a period of persecution in which we have reason to believe that Peter himself ultimately died). Nevertheless, it was also an image very familiar from the OT (Job 23:10; Ps. 66:10; Prov. 17:3; 27:21; Isa. 48:10; Ezek. 22:18, 20, 22; Dan. 11:35; 12:10; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:2; see fuller comment on 1 Pet. 1:7). The outcome of such testing, for those who persevere, is honor for Christ (1 Pet. 1:7), and full vindication (4:5–7). (On testing, see comment on 1:6.)
4:13
Here Peter gives believers reasons to take courage when they are persecuted or mocked for Christ. Those whose suffering shares in Christ’s sufferings (cf. Phil. 3:10)6 can rejoice, because they will also share his glory. (Peter uses a cognate of this term for sharing in 5:1, when he notes that he will also share Christ’s coming glory.) Rejoicing in the face of suffering for Christ is a common early Christian theme (see, e.g., Acts 5:41; Rom. 5:3; James 1:2; cf. 1 Pet. 1:6–8). It presumably reflects Jesus’s teaching, in which Jesus’s followers are blessed when they are mocked (Matt. 5:11–12 // Luke 6:22–23; cf. 1 Pet. 4:14). Christ’s future revelation will make all present unavoidable sufferings worthwhile. Peter speaks here of rejoicing gladly (charēte agalliōmenoi) at Christ’s future revelation, just as he earlier probably spoke of present rejoicing gladly (agalliasthe chara) while awaiting his future revelation (1:7–8).
Socrates had allegedly and famously quipped that it was better to suffer unjustly than to suffer justly;7 others continued the idea. This commentary offers some ancient examples of the idea at 1 Pet. 2:18, and here provides some related ideas:
Persecution of religious minorities (and other minorities) is alive and well in our world today. I learned most directly about this, for example, in my time among fellow believers in northern Nigeria.18 ECWA, a Nigerian-based denomination with ten thousand churches, made their theme for 2018 “Joy in Suffering,” using 1 Pet. 4:13. In 2020 I have heard similar reports from friends facing genocidal attacks in Mozambique, while religious minorities in some countries in Asia report being deliberately shut out of food aid during the crisis of COVID-19. I have personally experienced beatings for my witness even in the United States, although many years ago. Rather than doubting such experiences of others, those who have not experienced many prejudices or persecutions can learn by listening to the experiences of those marginalized for their faith or ethnicity.
4:14
If believers suffer reproach for Christ’s name, they experience what Christ did (2:23). Declaring that those insulted for Christ’s name are blessed (4:14) echoes Jesus’s teaching (“Blessed are you when people insult you”; Matt. 5:11 // Luke 6:22) and passion (Mark 15:32; Rom. 15:3).19 Believers are blessed not only because it is in fellowship with Christ that they suffer (4:13), awaiting his glory that will be revealed, but also because they already experience the Spirit that brings glory, the Spirit of God (4:14).20 The Spirit provides a foretaste of future glory (Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 2:9–10; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Gal. 5:5; Eph. 1:13–14; cf. Heb. 6:4–5). Unjust suffering invites God’s presence and favor.21
The language of the Spirit of God “resting on”22 people was sometimes used for the inspiration of prophets in the OT, as in Num. 11:25–26; 2 Kings 2:15;23 for the Messiah (with much closer wording), see Isa. 11:2. In 1 Peter, believers carry on the prophetic ministry of proclaiming Christ (cf. 1:10–12). In the OT, the Spirit sometimes came upon people to equip them,24 nearly always empowering them to prophesy,25 lead,26 or exhibit superhuman strength.27 While in the OT the Spirit sometimes rested on individuals temporarily (Num. 11:25–26), here the Spirit rests on believers always, more like Num. 27:18; 2 Kings 2:15.
As noted earlier (at 1:10–12; cf. 4:11), most Jewish people, possibly excepting Essenes with reference to their community, did not speak of a regular experience of the Spirit in daily life. Peter’s expression here fits the early Christian distinctive of emphasizing direct contact with and a direct relationship with the God of Scripture.
The suffering here is not random or for wrongdoing but for Christ’s name (4:14, 16). That they suffer for Christ’s name is significant.28 Jewish people emphasized sanctifying “the Name” and suffering on behalf of it; the Name was a divine circumlocution in Judaism. Similarly, Jewish sources praised martyrs who died on account of God (4 Macc. 16:25), his law (4 Macc. 6:27, 30),29 or piety (4 Macc. 9:7); or on behalf of their ancestral covenant (1 Macc. 2:50) or God’s laws (2 Macc. 7:9; cf. 14:38). Rabbis felt that often God’s people suffer so that God’s “great name might be sanctified in the world.”30
Early Christians often spoke of rejoicing in suffering (Luke 6:22–23; Rom. 5:3; James 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:6),31 and even giving thanks for all things (Eph. 5:20; cf. 1 Thess. 5:16–18), an ethic that would appeal to many of those familiar with Greek philosophy (especially Stoics)32 as well as to many of those familiar with the Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic traditions.33 One mid-first-century CE Stoic philosopher opines that experiencing supposedly shameful punishments is not truly shameful.34 Spartan boys “celebrate” it,35 and true philosophers ought to disregard blows and insults.36 Genuine reason for shame stems not from insults, he declares, but from one’s own behavior.37 Philosophically minded orators developed the same themes.38
4:15
Chains, imprisonment, conviction, and the like were considered causes of great shame in antiquity; most people did not want to be associated with someone so punished.39 (This carried over to the embarrassment of some about the cross: the Roman state had executed Jesus, Israel’s rightful king—although they could not keep him dead.) One should not bring reproach on the name of Christ by suffering for real crimes. But if one suffers as a Christian, this was not genuinely worthy of shame, even if it was wrongly considered a crime against the state (4:16).
Most ancient hearers would despise murderers and thieves. Murderer and thief naturally appear in vice lists (1 Cor. 6:10; Rev. 21:8; 22:15; 3 Bar. 8:5); wrongdoer in this form appears in the NT only in 1 Peter and reminds readers to avoid giving any substance to the slanders against them (1 Pet. 2:12, 14; cf. the verb in 3:17).40
The term that I render as troublemaker (allotriepiskopos) might not mean that. It might mean, more specifically, meddling in other people’s affairs, but its sense is debatable (see BDAG), perhaps more relevant to some specific accusations that Peter had heard that some Christians were facing at this time. The TLG database first attests the term41 here, in 1 Peter; and it is next attested in the writings of the late fourth-century bishop Epiphanius, where it may be associated with meddling.42 These are apparently the term’s first attested examples (though they do not seem directly dependent on 1 Peter), and no cognates of the full title appear either in the TLG or in the Duke papyri database. Given the obviousness of the meaning of murder and thievery, the obscurity of this term suggests either that it had a special local usage that Peter and the Asian Christian audience knew, or that Peter coined the term and expected his audience to understand the meaning on the basis of the words from which it is compounded.
The term allotriepiskopos is compounded from words that together could mean something like “strange overseer”; it might refer to trying to usurp the role of overseer (contrast proper oversight in 1 Pet. 5:2).43 But this is not the way we would expect a normal Greek compound word to work.44 Perhaps the term refers to trying to oversee matters outside the sphere of the church, say, political meddling or injecting Christian advice where it is not welcome in that form. Perhaps it simply refers to trying to supervise a stranger’s business—that is (as it is often taken), meddling45 (cf. Prov. 26:17)—though listing this among criminal offenses might suggest a more dramatic, particular local expression. It could refer to “tampering with social relationships,”46 against which Peter may provide apologetic in 2:13–3:6.47 Later Christian writers condemned learning others’ business for the purpose of criticizing them.48
Similar compound terms may indeed suggest something like “meddling in another’s affairs,”49 behavior for which some ancient moralists were reviled.50 One can well imagine this offense arising when one is questioned about not behaving like others (4:3–4). Like the wife not “preaching” to the husband in 3:1, it is not Christians’ role to dictate how non-Christians should behave (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9–12; 7:16).51
Because the first part of the compound (allotrio-) sometimes refers to nonlocals—that is, foreigners52—and Peter’s audience are already social aliens by virtue of their faith (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11), it might highlight the danger of imposing their values on nonbelievers. If so, however, one wishes that Peter would have employed one of his more familiar terms for aliens here. Peter presumably took for granted that the term’s sense would be self-evident to his intended audience, but that sense appears more elusive to us today.
Virtually everyone in antiquity viewed murder as heinous.53 It could invite capital punishment54 and might require purification of a location.55 Although killing tyrants, thieves, deserters, aggressors, or adulterers involved exceptional circumstances, killing fellow citizens was normally a terrible offense.56 Robbers endangered travelers57 and sometimes murdered their victims.58 As murder epitomized evil, so not being a murderer could represent innocence.59 A person who was neither an adulterer nor a murderer might demand a reason why people were angry with him;60 only someone wicked would torment a person not for murder or impiety but for defending God’s law (4 Macc. 9:15).
Thieves and robbers were common and could prove very costly to property owners.61 Jewish law technically distinguished thieves from robbers; although definitions varied, most commonly the former broke into homes whereas the latter accosted wayfarers.62 Different forms of theft existed. A spiteful enemy might sneak onto someone’s property to hack at vines;63 a jealous acquaintance might seek to steal someone’s animals.64 Early Roman law reportedly even treated as theft the use of a borrowed animal for a purpose other than that for which one borrowed it.65 Some Jewish teachers also considered those who cheated, deceived, or shortchanged their neighbors to be thieves—what we would call “white-collar crime.”66 One Jewish sage declared that thieves, like liars, would inherit destruction.67
Because of its dry climate that preserved documents, Egypt provides numerous concrete examples. Thieves were so common in Egyptian villages68 that the men of local villages had to appoint unpaid representatives from their number to guard their threshing floors at night.69 Robbers became a severe danger in Egypt as well, demanding harsh threats against them.70 Ancient Mediterranean laws generally demanded harsh punishment for thieves.71 Indeed, a villager who caught a thief might enlist fellow villagers to help beat the culprit.72
Murder, theft, and “strange oversight” are simply examples of criminal or extreme antisocial behavior. Beyond the particular examples, the point is believers behaving in such a manner that no one will have legitimate reason to speak ill about them. Socrates reportedly claimed to have no need to offer a defense, since his whole life had prepared for the defense, by doing right;73 people would remember him as one who wronged no one, but his accusers for shame.74 When a governor in Asia Minor examined former Christians in the early second century, all they had to say about the sect was that Christians each week promised “to abstain from theft, robbery and adultery, to commit no breach of trust and not to deny a deposit when called upon to restore it.”75
4:16
First-century Christian sources include the title “Christian” only in 1 Peter and in the mouth of non-Christians in Acts 11:26 and 26:28, probably originally as a title of derision.76 It was outsiders in Antioch77 who first called believers “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28). Opponents of Jesus’s movement apparently derided its members with a new coinage based on Roman political parties: “the partisans of Christ” (i.e., of the Judean king), such as the pre-Christian Pompeians or Caesarians.78 By the late 60s, partisans of various factions after Nero’s demise were called Othonians,79 Vitellians,80 and Flavians (loyal to Vespasian).81 Anyone familiar with basic Latin political terminology, such as Roman citizens in Antioch or any of its educated elite, could have coined the term. They may have misunderstood Jesus’s followers as thinking Jesus to be politically king of Judea.82
Had Christians’ opponents meant that the Christians were literally “preaching another king” (Acts 17:7), the charge could prove dangerous.83 That Acts does not associate the label with persecution in 11:26 probably suggests that Antiochenes used it as derision, not as a charge of actual membership in a political group competing with Caesar.84 At least by a later period, Antioch’s residents were well known for mocking people.85 The title, however, cannot have counted in the movement’s favor when members in the west were later accused of sedition (cf., e.g., 1 Pet. 4:16).86 It might support the fear of political “meddling” (cf. 4:15).
Clearly, Christians did not employ the title for themselves until later, possibly (for most of them) as late as the second century.87 In the earliest period, Christians called themselves “saints,” “brothers,” “believers,” “the way,” or “disciples,” several of these being terms that outsiders would not concede to them readily; that Acts prefers such terms rather than “Christians” supports the reliability of its account of the name’s origin.88
The title was likely already familiar in Rome by Peter’s time there;89 a Pompeian graffito dated between 62 and 79 CE uses the name to ridicule Christ’s followers.90 In 1 Pet. 4:16, “Christian” might be used as not merely ridicule but something like a legal charge or widespread accusation.91 Already by 64, people in Rome were apparently calling the disciples “Christians,” even before it became a temporarily chargeable offense under Nero,92 and Roman governors continued to apply the term to the group in legal settings in the early second century.93 Beginning early in the second century Christian sources themselves adopt the title;94 by the mid-second century Justin Martyr uses it extensively and proudly.95
Roman law normally prosecuted individuals, not collegia (associations),96 unless the latter were illegal. But in the second century, Christians complain that they are being persecuted merely for the name “Christian,”97 and of a misunderstanding of what that meant: “The accusation relates merely to our name”; “Up to the present time the stories told about us rest on nothing better than the common undiscriminating popular talk, nor has any Christian been convicted of crime.”98
Others might ridicule one as a Christian, trying to shame one; but this is an opportunity to honor God; in the end, God will remove the shame and vindicate his servants (4:13). In Greek, Peter uses the terms “glory” (doxa) and “glorify” (doxazō) fourteen times, most of them in a related sense. Jesus will return with “glory,” like God’s glory in the OT (cf., e.g., Exod. 33:18–22; 40:34). But “glory” also means “honor”; God will take away the shame of his people, vindicating them as in the right and showing his own honor.99
Cognate language for ashamed here appears in 2:6 and 3:16; in 2:6, it comes from Isa. 28:16 (also a source for Paul’s “unashamed” statements in Rom. 9:33; 10:11). Christians should not be ashamed of their faith (1 Pet. 4:16); those who trust in the rock will not be shamed in the end (2:6). When Christians are dishonored for Christ’s name, God’s Spirit, the Spirit of true glory and honor, rests on them (4:14).
Concern for honor and shame dominated ancient Mediterranean urban relationships, inevitably making the message of the cross appear as folly and weakness to a status-conscious culture (1 Cor. 1:18–23).100 The world’s hostility could provide temptation to be ashamed (cf. 2 Tim. 1:8, 12, 16; 1 Pet. 4:16), but God’s servants could trust that they would not be shamed eschatologically (Rom. 5:5; 9:33; 10:11).101
Believers should be ready for suffering in their role as Christians (4:16), because it is the time for judgment to begin. God can use persecution as discipline (5:6–10; Heb. 12:3–11), to make his people stronger spiritually. Recognizing God as sovereign, the OT understood many sufferings of the pious as divine discipline;102 Jewish thought continued to develop this idea in the Second Temple period.103 Peter elsewhere speaks of the time (kairos) of Christ’s first coming (1:11), his second coming (1:5), and a time of exaltation after suffering (5:6), which includes the time of the second coming (though the principle need not be limited to it). Peter is aware of God’s sovereignty over eschatological times and seasons (cf. Dan. 2:21; 7:12; Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:1).104
Some see the judgment in 4:17 in terms of expected end-time sufferings before the Lord’s coming. Certainly the idea of suffering immediately preceding the end is frequent in early Jewish literature,105 sometimes even described as birth pangs.106 For troubles and apostasy as part of Jewish end-time expectation, one may sample the following:
Christian texts likewise mention an eschatological period of suffering and apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3, 10–12; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1; 2 Pet. 3:3; cf. Mark 13:9–13; 1 John 2:18), although they normally envision the final tribulation as at least partly present (see, e.g., Matt. 24:6–8; Rom. 8:22; 2 Thess. 1:4; 2:7; 1 Tim. 4:1–2; 2 Tim. 3:1–6; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:9; 12:1–6).113 But whether Peter thinks of a final tribulation here114 (cf. 4:7) or not (and as far as Peter knows, any near tribulation may be the final one), he can draw on the familiar understanding of end-time sufferings for the righteous.
Others believe that Peter envisions here the final judgment,115 beginning in a proleptic way. Like the idea of a final tribulation, this image would fit Peter’s understanding of the end being imminent (4:7). It would also fit what may be the image in 4:5–6: God or Christ will judge the world (4:5), but those killed for Christ experience judgment in the flesh in this world so that they may experience resurrection life by the Spirit in the world to come (4:6).116 In this case, we may think of the sort of prophetic rhetoric that appears often in OT prophets, in which nearer judgments foreshadow a more ultimate day of the Lord (cf., e.g., Isa. 13:1, 6, 9–13; 34:2–6; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 25).
But would Peter’s audience understand persecution (or other suffering) as, in some sense, judgment? Jewish teachers often insisted that God punishes the righteous in this age to correct them and atone for their sins (or for some individuals to suffer for corporate sins), but he would punish the wicked in fuller measure in the day of judgment.117 Compare Chrysostom’s comment on 1 Pet. 1:7: “The righteous suffer so that they may be crowned with glory, but sinners suffer in order to bring judgment on their sins.”118
Some later rabbis also insisted that judgment begins with the righteous, with God’s people.119 In the OT, God was sometimes more strict with his own people first, since they knew better (Jer. 25:29; Amos 3:2; cf. Isa. 10:12).120 That judgment begins with God’s household (1 Pet. 4:17) fits another OT judgment image. The Lord could begin judgment with his own house, his own sanctuary (Ezek. 9:6). Indeed, Scripture promised that the Lord would someday come to purify his temple (Mal. 3:1–4).121 In 1 Peter, God’s household is his spiritual house, the temple (1 Pet. 2:5).
Jewish thinkers also recognized the biblical principle that God could use the wicked to judge his own people.122 They trusted that God as a just judge will ultimately sort everything out. Here, believers may experience even unjust suffering as divine discipline in one sense (cf. Heb. 12:3–11), as something to make them better. But one could be assured that if even the righteous suffer, judgment will come far more harshly on those who disobey the gospel (1 Pet. 4:17; cf. Rom. 2:8). In 1 Peter, those who disobey God’s good news are nonbelievers (3:1; cf. 3:20), those who find the good news offensive (2:8). Again, Peter reminds his audience that vindication will come, and that God will set all things right.
4:18
Peter reinforces the point of 4:17 with a verbatim quotation in 4:18 of LXX Prov. 11:31 (which differs somewhat from the MT).123 In the context in 1 Peter, the difficulty with being saved seems to be the suffering they endure (4:16–17), which requires perseverance in the face of hardship (2:20; 5:8–10).124 If God’s own people suffer now, how much more can we expect God to punish the wicked? Others also paired the irreverent and sinners in summaries of wickedness.125
4:19
Suffering according to God’s will in this context is suffering on account of one’s devotion to Christ rather than for one’s crimes or stupidity (4:15–16). Peter emphasizes God’s will (cf. 4:2), including, in 3:17 and 4:19 (and probably 2:15), the idea of suffering while in God’s will. God is sovereign, a sovereignty displayed not only in him choosing us (see 2:9; the excursus “Providence, Fate, and Predestination in Antiquity” at comment on 1:1–2; 2:12), but also in our suffering. Peter is not addressing theodicy here; he takes for granted the biblical worldview and uses this message to bring comfort. Suffering that nonbelievers experience as destruction, believers may experience as testing, although both may include a measure of “judgment” (4:17).
Believers should not assume that they are outside God’s will when they suffer. God can use suffering in our lives, whether as discipline to transform us (4:17) or for other reasons. Suffering then does not mean that we are bad, or that one who suffers now is worse than someone who does not suffer now. Suffering according to God’s will means that we can trust that God has a purpose in our suffering, that our suffering has meaning, even if wicked people (rather than God) are the ones directly causing it. This does not mean that we should seek suffering: we should keep in mind that Peter is encouraging those who are in a situation of suffering that they have not chosen.
The term translated as entrust (paratithēmi) could mean simply “give,” but in this context naturally means entrusting something to someone one trusts (1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:2),126 especially God (Acts 14:23; 20:32).127 Sometimes one had to entrust oneself or someone dear to oneself to another,128 as, for example, defendants entrusting their judgment to jurors or judges.129 More specifically relevant here is the idea of entrusting oneself to God. A first-century Stoic philosopher reasons that agreeing with God means controlling what is in our control, “but what is not in our control we ought to entrust to the universe and gladly yield to it whether it asks for our children, our country, our body, or anything whatsoever.”130 Where biblically grounded Jews and Christians would differ from such an approach is in their belief that God welcomes his children to pray and that God hears these prayers. Although first-century Stoics also believed in providence and what is ultimately good, the personal God of Scripture can be trusted in a more personal and intimate way for good. Compare a commonly prayed ancient Jewish prayer: “We give thanks unto Thee. . . . For our lives which are committed into Thy hand, and for our souls which are in Thy care.”131 Here the entrusting might echo especially Ps. 31:5 (LXX 30:6; also in Luke 23:46): “Into your hands I entrust my spirit.”132
Jewish sources in Greek had already widely adopted the term ktistēs (creator) for God.133 In perhaps the most similar pre-Christian Jewish passage, the warrior priest Judas commits all to the world’s creator (ktistēs), while exhorting his recruits to fight to the death for their people (2 Macc. 13:14). Believers entrust themselves to the creator, who holds all ultimate power, and can trust him because he is trustworthy, as Scripture had long affirmed and as Jewish tradition recognized.134 One entrusts oneself to God by not taking matters into one’s own hands to retaliate, but in continuing to do good (1 Pet. 2:14–15, 20; 3:6, 17).135
1. See esp. Holloway, “Nihil.”
2. These two uses of xenizō are two of the only three NT occurrences outside Acts (the other being Heb. 13:2), and two of the only three NT occasions where it does not refer to hospitality (the other is Acts 17:20). (Its only use in the Apostolic Fathers, 2 Clem. 17:5, also refers to astonishment.)
3. Using different words, cf. Seneca Y., Dial. 1.4.12: given beatings that Spartan boys endure to learn bravery, “Why . . . is it strange if God tries noble spirits with severity?” (trans. Basore, LCL, 1:31); 4 Macc. 14:11: “Don’t consider it astonishing” that reason enabled those men to overcome tortures.
4. Acts 10:6, 18, 23; 21:16; 28:7; Heb. 13:2; closer to 1 Peter’s use, see Acts 17:20; 2 Clem. 17:5; for “strange,” see 2 Macc. 9:6.
5. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.
6. Some (Krodel, “Peter,” 54; Best, Peter, 162–63; Elliott, Peter, 775; esp. Dubis, Woes) envision 4:13 and its context as addressing the expected messianic woes (cf. Col. 1:24); see comment on 1 Pet. 4:17.
7. Xenophon, Apol. 28; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 7.2.ext. 1d; Aelius Theon, Progymn. 3.105–6; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.35.
8. Alexander 32 in Plutarch, S. Kings, Mor. 181F (trans. Babbitt, LCL, 3:67; note e cites also Plutarch, Alex. 41, Mor. 688E; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.3; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.6; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 7.36; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 47). If authentic, it does not reflect his worse moods.
9. Cicero, Fam. 6.20.3 (trans. Williams, LCL, 1:513).
10. Cicero, Quint. fratr. 1.1.2.
11. Musonius Rufus, 9, p. 76.5–11 (trans. Lutz, “Musonius,” 77).
12. Musonius Rufus, 10, p. 78.3–4 (p. 79).
13. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 46.2 (trans. Crosby, LCL, 4:229).
14. Maximus of Tyre, Or. 12.10 (trans. Trapp, Maximus, 114–15).
15. Epictetus, Diatr. 1.18 (trans. Oldfather, LCL, 1:11).
16. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 2 (trans. Roberts and Donaldson, ANF 1:163).
17. Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 16 (trans. Hock, in Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 67). Cf. Antisthenes in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.11: “Ill repute is a good thing” (trans. Hicks, LCL, p. 13).
18. See, e.g., Keener, “Mayhem,” based on observations even preceding the horrors of Boko Haram.
19. The connection has long been noted (e.g., Hart, “Peter,” 74). The Gospels passages and Rom. 15:3 use the same verb for reproached (oneidizō) as here.
20. At a fairly early point in the textual tradition, perhaps initially as memory of homiletical elaboration (cf. Mark 13:26; 1 Cor. 15:43; Eph. 3:16; Col. 1:11; Rev. 19:1), “of power” was added to “of glory.”
21. Cf. Sipre Deut. 32.5.8: God’s name rests on those on who suffer.
22. Cf. also the Spirit “falling” on people (Ezek. 11:5; Acts 10:44; 11:15).
23. For the Spirit “resting” on Israel or prophets, see t. Pisha 2:15; Mek. Pisha 1:154–55; Mek. Besh. 3:82–83; later, Lev. Rab. 15:2.
24. Num. 11:25–26; 24:2; Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; 19:20, 23; 2 Chron. 20:14; cf. also Luke 1:35; 2:25; 4:18; Acts 1:8; 2:17; 10:44–45; 11:15; 19:6; Josephus, Ant. 6.166; L.A.B. 28:6; Jos. Asen. 4:7/9.
25. Num. 11:17, 25–26, 29; 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23; 1 Chron. 12:18; 2 Chron. 20:14; probably 2 Kings 2:9; Isa. 59:21; 61:1; Ezek. 11:5; 37:1.
26. Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 1 Sam. 16:13.
27. Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam. 11:6. The supposed distinction between the Spirit “in” believers in the NT and “upon” believers in the OT does not hold for 1 Peter (1 Pet. 1:11; 4:14) or Luke; it is sometimes only stylistic preference, perhaps reflecting the different idioms of Hebrew grammar (preferring “upon”) and Greek anthropology (preferring “in”; cf., e.g., T. Sim. 4:4), overlap though they do. Still, Paul’s and other early Christian “in” passages often do evoke more the transforming activity of the Spirit characteristic of Ezek. 36, whereas Luke’s and Peter’s “upon” passages typically evoke the more frequent OT idiom that more often refers to empowerment.
28. I borrow here from Keener, Acts, 2:1243–44.
29. Torah should be loved, even to the death (b. Šabb. 83b).
30. Sipre Deut. 306.30.2–6. One’s motivation in doing good should also be “for the name of heaven,” i.e., for God’s honor (m. ʾAbot 2:2, 12; cf. Num. Rab. 8:4; 15:12).
31. Repeated later, e.g., in Chrysostom, Hom. Cor. 23.4 (Bray, Corinthians, 95).
32. See esp. Epictetus, Diatr. 1.6.1; 4.7.9; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 6.16. Since one cannot change one’s lot, one should accept it (Seneca Y., Dial. 1.5.6; 7.8.3; 11.4.1; Lucil. 66.18, 37–39; 98.3; Musonius Rufus, 17, p. 108.37–38; frg. 38, p. 136.4–8; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.12.23; 2.16.42; 3.18.1–9; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 3.12; Lucian, Phil. Sale 21; Dem. 19–20; cf. Cicero, Fam. 6.20.3; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 7.2.ext. 1a) and appreciate whatever is good in it (Seneca Y., Dial. 7.15.4–7.16.3; 9.10.4), remaining cheerful (Seneca Y., Lucil. 123.3; Nat. 3.pref. 12–13, 15; Dial. 1.5.8; 7.15.4; 7.16.1–3), without complaining (Seneca Y., Lucil. 96.1–2; 107.6; Dial. 7.15.6; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.14.16; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 2.16; cf. Publilius Syrus, Sent. 180). Cf. the formula “perhaps it is for the best” (Cicero, Fam. 13.47.1; b. Taʿan. 21a). Popular Stoic philosophers identified joy with a correct perspective on sufferings (Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 96–98).
33. See 1QS 10.15–17; Sir. 2:4; 2 Bar. 52:6; for praise despite suffering, 1 En. 108:10; b. Taʿan. 21a. For joy in suffering for God’s commandments (because of future reward), see Sipre Deut. 32.5.5; Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3; for joy in martyrdom in hope of future reward, the Essenes in Josephus, J.W. 2.152.
34. Musonius Rufus, 10, p. 76.18–21.
35. Musonius Rufus, 10, p. 76.21.
36. Musonius Rufus, 10, p. 76.23–24.
37. Musonius Rufus, 10, p. 78.1–2, 4, 7.
38. Maximus of Tyre, Or. 25.7 (trans. Trapp, Maximus, 213). On breaking and entering in Roman law, see Schiemann, “Effractor.”
39. Rapske, Custody, 288–91, esp. 293.
40. The designation is normally a very general one; cf., e.g., the Stoic ideal in Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11g, p. 72.29.
41. The TLG attests two spellings of the word: allotriepiskopos and allotrioepiskopos, with no semantic difference. I am grateful to my PhD student Murray Vasser for this TLG search.
42. Epiphanius, Ancor. 12.5 (associated with periergazomai, “meddle”); Pan. 3.128 (cited by others as 66.85). Reicke (Epistles, 125) suggests a supervisor of foreign capital, esp. in cases of vote-buying (although buying votes made more sense in Rome during the republic). Bauer (“Maleficus”) understands it as “embezzler” (though too narrowly construing Peter’s kakopoios in terms of sorcery; see the appropriate critique on that point earlier in Moffatt, General Epistles, 157–58). On the basis of a Latin translation of the term, Achtemeier (Peter, 312–13) suggests “a broker or executor who misuses that position for personal enrichment through embezzlement.” This conclusion would explain the term’s seriousness, but probably rests too much on evidence too slender. The Latin translator may have understood the Greek term, but could have simply guessed at the meaning—as modern commentators seem forced to do.
43. Cf. Dionysius the Areopagite, Ep. 8.1 (fifth century), for bishops encroaching on others’ dioceses (Michaels, Peter, 267).
44. Normally in Greek, the prefix, here allotrio-, describes the object of what follows, so here the overseer of something foreign, rather than the overseer acting strangely (Elliott, Peter, 786). Murray Vasser notes that these terms do not appear within seven words of each other in extant Greek prior to the fourth century. This makes even their compounded sense difficult to reconstruct with certainty.
45. E.g., Selwyn, Peter, 225 (on busybodies; he also refers to tactless attempts to convert neighbors).
46. Moffatt, General Epistles, 158.
47. Balch (Wives, 93) notes ancient complaints about domestic meddling. See fuller discussion in Brown, “Busybody.”
48. Theophylact, Comm. 1 Pet. (PG 125:1214; Bray, Peter, 119).
49. Elliott, Peter, 786 (in 786n598 comparing terms in Plutarch, Flatterer 14, Mor. 57D; Plato, Resp. 444b).
50. Balch, Wives, 93, noting Diogenes in Dio Chrysostom, Or. 9.1; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.72, 77, 97 (also BDAG); Michaels, Peter, 267; Elliott, Peter, 786–87. Balch (Wives, 93) notes busybodies in Plutarch, Busybody 516E–517A, 521E. Cf. the negative view of meddlers in Rhet. Alex. 29, 1437a.35–36 (using a different term).
51. Keep in mind that Peter is addressing Christians as a small minority within society. In a context where Christians have more social power, such as in a democracy where they and those they influence constitute a majority, they are right to work for standards of justice that prevent some people from oppressing others. Even so, Peter’s principle of not bringing reproach on the gospel remains an important reminder, and deciding precisely which issues merit vocal involvement remains a matter of some debate. Opposing genocide must be mandatory; supervising adult consensual sexual practices outside the church appears much more problematic.
52. E.g., Acts 7:6; Heb. 11:9, 34; and pervasively in the LXX.
53. E.g., Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:18; Jer. 7:9; Hosea 4:2; Wis. 14:25; Sipra ʾAḥ. M. par. 13.194.2.11. It demanded divine vengeance (e.g., Jub. 4:31–32) and potentially damnation (Gen. Rab. 97 NV). This sin would vanish in the world to come (Sib. Or. 3:379).
54. E.g., Num. 25:16–21; but for imprisonment, see, e.g., Philo, Joseph 84.
55. Deut. 21:6–9; Philostratus, Her. 53.5. It stains also the murderer’s heart (Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 34.66–67).
56. Polybius, Hist. 2.56.15. On homicide in Roman law, see Robinson, Criminal Law, 41–46; for exceptions, 45.
57. Phaedrus, Fab. 4.23.16; 2 Cor. 11:26; m. Ber. 1:3; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 25b; b. Ber. 11a; b. B. Qam. 116b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:6; Gen. Rab. 75:3; Exod. Rab. 30:24; cf. sources in Friedländer, Life, 1:294–96; Hock, Social Context, 78n19; Tannaitic sources in Goodman, State, 55. In ancient romances robbers also carried off young women (Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 2.16.2; 2.18.5; 3.9.3).
58. E.g., Gr. Anth. 7.310, 516, 581, 737; Xenophon of Ephesus, Eph. Tale 4.3; Gen. Rab. 80:2; 92:6.
59. Cf. synecdoche (Rhet. Her. 4.44–45; Rowe, “Style,” 127; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85).
60. Pseudo-Heraclitus, Ep. 7. (Cf. Jer. 15:10.)
61. E.g., Columella, Rust. 1.7.1; P.Ryl. 125 (28–29 CE); P.Gur. 8 (210 BCE). I borrow here from Keener, John, on 10:1ff.
62. t. B. Qam. 7:2; b. B. Qam. 114b; Gen. Rab. 54:3; Derrett, “Shepherd,” 41; also Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430b.16–19.
63. E.g., Virgil, Ecl. 3.10–11; for spiteful acts of “enemies,” see commentaries on Matt. 13:25.
64. Virgil, Ecl. 3.17–24; cf. P.Ryl. 114.
65. Aulus Gellius, Att. 6.15.
66. t. B. Qam. 7:8; cf. 2 Bar. 22:4; for robbing the poor’s food as murder, see LXX Sir. 34:21–22 (ET 34:25–26).
67. Sir. 20:25; cf. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 6:11, 13.
68. See Lewis, Life, 77.
69. Lewis, Life, 123.
70. E.g., P.Oxy. 1408.11–21 (210–14 CE); cf. Lewis, Life, 141. They generally lived off the countryside and traveled in bands (MacMullen, Enemies, 255).
71. Aulus Gellius, Att. 11.18; death in Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.62 and Code of Hammurabi 21; those in collusion with them should receive the same penalty (Lysias, Or. 29.11, §182). Even former thieves were permanently barred from speaking to public meetings (Seneca E., Controv. 10.6.intro.).
72. Alciphron, Farm. 16 (Pithacnion to Eustachys), 3.19, ¶¶1–2; I have received various reports of similar action in central and northern Nigeria. Either the robber or the homeowner might be bound (Xenophon, Anab. 6.1.8; Matt. 12:29); a homeowner could kill a thief who came at night or armed (Cicero, Mil. 3.9; Exod. 22:2; Laws of Eshnunna 13; cf. Laws of Eshnunna 12).
73. Xenophon, Mem. 4.8.4.
74. Xenophon, Mem. 4.8.9–10.
75. Pliny Y., Ep. 10.96.7 (trans. Radice, LCL, 2:289).
76. I borrow the following material from Keener, Acts, 2:1847–50.
77. Some argue for Rome on the basis of the Latin political form of the title, but educated citizens in the East also knew such forms.
78. For examples of Pompeians as Pompey’s partisans, see Appian, Bell. civ. 2.12.87; Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.49.3; 2.51.3; 2.62.1, 6; 2.63.3; 2.65.1; 2.73.2; for their conflict with Caesarians, see, e.g., Julius Caesar, Alex. W. 1.59 (this work may not be by Caesar); Iuliani in Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.84.1; Brutiani and Cassiani, e.g., in Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.74.1. Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Damascus and Antioch, 225–30; Judge, Athens, 269; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 130; Reicke, Era, 194; Fitzmyer, Acts, 478; Rüpke, Religion, 27; for the significance of political partisans named for leaders, see Welborn, Politics, 8–9.
79. Tacitus, Hist. 1.34 (Othionianis).
80. E.g., Tacitus, Hist. 2.27, 31, 34, 42; 3.9, 17, 22, 25, 29, 35, 61, 73, 77, 84; 4.1 (Vitellianos).
81. E.g., Tacitus, Hist. 3.6, 23, 59, 63, 69, 82 (Flavianos).
82. Cf. Mark 15:26; the Syrian Stoic Mara bar Sarapion, who claimed (ca. 73 CE) that Jesus was a “wise king of the Jews”; on this source, see Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 76–80 (suspecting the influence of Syrian Christians, 80); Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 455–57. Hengel and Schwemer (Damascus and Antioch, 229) note the view that Jewish residents coined the phrase in protesting the Jesus movement to the government. Yet even if relations between Jesus’s followers and other Jews were strained at this point in Antioch (a suggestion for which we lack evidence), non-Christian Jews probably would not have coined a term that appears to concede Jesus’s messiahship (Judge, First Christians, 437; Schnabel, Mission, 73; cf. John 19:21).
83. Cf. Caulley, “Christianos.”
84. With Dunn, Acts, 156.
85. So Yamauchi, Stones, 114, citing reported insults against Apollonius of Tyana and the emperor Julian.
86. Though Tacitus, at least, does not seem to regard them as politically dangerous. The negative connotations weaken the comparison (offered in Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 170) to historians’ reports about colonies’ early changes of name (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 1.9.3; 1.10.2; 1.25.2; 1.26.1; 1.30.3; 1.45.2; 1.53.1; 1.65.1; 2.2.2; 2.46.2; 2.49.1).
87. Riesner, Early Period, 112–13; cf. Pilch, “Jews and Christians”; Horsley, “Assembly,” 373–75. I apply the title in this commentary, aware that it is an anachronism, solely because it currently remains the standard designation today in the language in which I write.
88. Haenchen, “Source Material,” 270 (suggesting that “disciples” probably was archaic even by Luke’s time).
89. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, probably reflects more than simply the nomenclature of Tacitus’s era, since he explicitly attributes it to Romans in 64 CE (cf. Suetonius, Nero 16; with Moffatt, General Epistles, 159; Selwyn, Peter, 225; Kelly, Peter, 190). The claim of Pervo (Acts, 295) that the title originates in the 90s rather than 30s or 40s, largely because Paul does not cite it, is unduly skeptical; he himself notes that this was probably an external nickname rather than internal title, and we have barely any non-Christian references to Christians from this period, except, if authentic, mention (with this name) in Josephus, Ant. 18.64, where it is already familiar to Josephus’s audience. It became a standard title and spread widely (Pliny Y., Ep. 10.96–97; Suetonius, Nero 16.2; Did. 12:4; Ignatius, Eph. 11:2; Magn. 4:1; 10:1, 3; Trall. 6:1; Rom. 3:2–3; Phld. 6:1; Mart. Pol. 3:2; 10:1; 12:1–2; Diogn. 1:1; 2:6, 10; 3:1; 4:6; 5:1; 6:1–9).
90. CIL 4.679 (Barrett, Acts, 556–57). Lucian also uses it for ridicule in the second century (Alex. 25, 38, cited in Fitzmyer, Acts, 478).
91. This is probably the accusers’ title for them; see, e.g., Beare, Peter, 167. It seems to have become a nickname by the mid-first century in Rome (Moffatt, General Epistles, 159; Selwyn, Peter, 225, citing Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Suetonius, Nero 16), though these reports may be colored by the period of the historians who convey them. If Judge (Athens, 211) is correct about the variant spelling in P.Oxy. 42.3035 (Feb. 28, 256 CE), “Christian” remained a legal charge in third-century Egypt.
92. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.
93. Pliny Y., Ep. 10.96; later, cf. Lucian, Peregr. 11–14.
94. See, e.g., Did. 12:4; 1 Clem. 1:2; 48:4; Papias, Frag. 26:1; Ignatius, Eph. 11:2; Rom. 3:2–3; Magn. 4:1; 10:1, 3; Phld. 6:1; Trall. 6:1; Pol. 7:3; Mart. Pol. 3:2; 10:1; 12:1–2. Although I use the designation throughout on the basis of common convention, it does run the risk of anachronistic reading in light of essentialist categories (see esp. Runesson, “Terminology,” 54–55, 59, 67; Hodge, “Identity,” 154; Elliott, “Politics,” 208–9). In 1 Peter, it remains an outsider label (Caulley, “Christianos”; but Horrell [“Christianos”] sees the title being embraced positively already there).
95. Osborn, Justin, 171; cf. also Diogn. 2:6, 10; 3:1; 4:6; 5:1; 6:1–9.
96. Robinson, Criminal Law, 17, though relevant esp. in Rome. A defense speaker might also remind the hearers that it is a person on trial, not a vice (Cicero, Cael. 12.29).
97. Justin, 1 Apol. 4; 2 Apol. 2; Tertullian, Apol. 2.20–3.8. Harrison (“Persecution,” 291) cites esp. Tertullian, Apol. 1.4; 2.3, 10–11, 13, 19; 3.5; 44.2.
98. Athenagoras, Leg. 2 (trans. Pratten, ANF 2:130). Diogn. 5:17: those who hate Christians “are unable to assign any reason for their hatred” (trans. Roberts and Donaldson, ANF 1:27).
99. Others played on those who sought glory in what was shameful (Phil. 3:19) or in what others wrongly considered shameful.
100. Cf. similarly Apollinaris of Laodicea (Bray, Romans, 29); Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 2. I draw these two sentences from Keener, Romans, on 1:16; for fuller discussion of honor in antiquity, see comment on 1 Pet. 1:7.
101. Paul drew on LXX Isa. 28:16 in two of these texts, and knew Isaiah’s broader expectation (Isa. 45:17; 54:4; 65:13; 66:5 [see more fully Hays, Echoes, 38–39]); he may have also known Jesus’s saying in Mark 8:38 (cf. John 12:26).
102. See, e.g., LXX Deut. 8:5; Ps. 93:10–13 (ET 94:10–13); Prov. 3:11–12; Jer. 26:28 (ET 46:28).
103. See 2 Macc. 6:16; 10:4; Wis. 3:5; 11:9–10; 12:22; Pss. Sol. 3:4; 7:3; 13:8; 16:11. See the excursus “Some Ancient Jewish Views of Suffering” in the introduction (pp. 38–41).
104. The language of times and seasons also applied to the festival calendar (Neh. 10:34; 13:31) and time generally (Eccl. 3:1; Sir. 43:6; Wis. 7:18; 8:8).
105. E.g., CD 4.12–13 A; 1QM 15.1; 1Q22 7–8; 4Q169 3.3; 4Q162 cols. 1–2, esp. 2.2–7; 4Q215 frg. 1, col. 2; 4Q390 frg. 1, lines 7–9; 4QMMT section C, lines 21–22; Jub. 23:13; Sib. Or. 3:213–15, 635–48, 652–56; 5:74; T. Mos. 7–8; 4 Ezra 6:24; 8:63–9:8; 13:30; 14:16–18; 2 Bar. 26:1–29:3; T. Naph. 4:1; T. Dan 5:4; T. Zeb. 9:5; 3 En. 48A:5–6; m. Soṭah 9:15; Sipre Deut. 318.1.10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; b. Ketub. 112b; b. Sanh. 97a; Gen. Rab. 97 (NV); Eccl. Rab. 2:15, §2; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; 8:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; 31:10; 34:1; 36:1–2; cf. perhaps 4Q501, line 3; cf. Herm. 23:1–6.
106. E.g., 1QHa 11.8–10; 1 En. 62:4; b. Sanh. 98b; b. Šabb. 118a.
107. 1 En. 91:7 (trans. Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 217).
108. 4Q169 f3–4.3.3.
109. 4 Ezra 14:16–18 (trans. Metzger, OTP 1:554). Cf. b. Sanh. 97a, in which the world will be converted to schismatic belief (Christianity?) before the Messiah’s coming.
110. Sib. Or. 5:74.
111. T. Dan 5:4 (trans. Kee, OTP 1:809).
112. T. Iss. 6:1 (trans. Kee, OTP 1:804).
113. Some may have envisioned a predestined amount of suffering before the end (cf. Col. 1:24; Rev. 6:11), probably associated with the proclamation of the good news of the kingdom before the end (cf. Matt. 24:14; Rom. 11:25; Col. 1:25; 2 Pet. 3:9–12; Rev. 6:9).
114. Cf. Selwyn, Peter, 303; Selwyn, “Eschatology,” 399; Best, Peter, 162–63, 166; Best, Temptation, 155; Krodel, “Peter,” 78; see most thoroughly Dubis, Woes. Questioning this approach, see, e.g., Hockey, Role of Emotion, 145–45, citing Liebengood, Eschatology, 116–27.
115. Goppelt, Peter, 330; Achtemeier, Peter, 315 (doubting that “proleptic” is strong enough).
116. That 4:6 mentions those who received the good news might reinforce the connection (4:17 implies this of believers, contrasting those who disobey it).
117. Cf., e.g., 2 Macc. 6:13–17; 7:18, 32–33. On 1 Pet. 4:17, see similarly Bede, Commentary, 112–13, citing Job 21:13. Sometimes only suffering could produce adequate repentance (e.g., Sipre Deut. 32.5.12, attributed to R. Akiba).
118. Though recognizing that some punishments await the resurrection (Chrysostom, Catena [CEC 44; Bray, Peter, 71]); for judgment as discipline to bring repentance before the day of judgment, see Bede, On 1 Peter (PL 93:64; Bray, Peter, 119).
119. b. B. Qam. 60a; ʾAbot R. Nat. 48, §132B; Pesiq. Rab. 26:1/2.
120. For God being stricter with his own, cf. later b. B. Qam. 50a.
121. Schreiner (Peter, 227) sees Mal. 3:1–4 as closer in thought than even Ezek. 9:6 (cf. Johnson, “Fire”), though commentators more frequently cite the latter.
122. Isa. 10:5; Hab. 1:12; Sipre Deut. 305.2.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Eccl. Rab. 3:17, §1; Lam. Rab. proem 23.
123. Emphasized in Barr, “בארץ–ΜΟΛΙΣ,” although even the Hebrew text would support Peter’s basic analogy.
124. For Peter, salvation is especially eschatological (1:5, 9–10), but one is introduced to it at conversion (3:21) and matures toward it (2:2); in the meantime, God protects believers’ faith for that time (1:5).
125. LXX Pss. 1:1, 5; 57:11 (ET 58:10); Ezek. 33:8; Sir. 12:6; 41:5; Barn. 10:10; 11:7 (following Ps. 1); T. Jud. 25:5; 1 Tim. 1:9; cf. Jude 15 (= 1 En. 1:9).
126. For entrusting to one who is faithful, see, e.g., Philo, Worse 65.
127. Cf. perhaps the request in L.A.B. 33:4.
128. E.g., Tob. 10:13; Sallust, Catil. 35.1, 6.
129. Aeschines, Leg. 184, final paragraph; Anderson, Glossary, 54, citing Rhet. Her. 4.39 for epitropē.
130. Musonius Rufus, 38, p. 136.4–8 (trans. Lutz, “Musonius,” 137).
131. The final benediction of the Eighteen Benedictions (trans. Oesterley, Liturgy, 61). Cf. Wis. 3:1, where “the souls of the righteous are in God’s hand” (for the suggestion of allusion also there to Ps. 31, cf. Dochhorn, “Vater”).
132. In the psalm, “spirit” is pneuma; in 1 Pet. 4:19 lives is a plural of psuchē, a term that could be used as equivalent to pneuma.
133. LXX 2 Sam. 22:32; Sir. 24:8; Jdt. 9:12; 2 Macc. 1:24; 7:23; 13:14; 4 Macc. 5:25; 11:5; Let. Aris. 16; Philo, Drunkenness 42; Dreams 1.76, 93; Spec. Laws 1.30, 294; Virtues 179; Sib. Or. 1:45, 158; 3:10, 704; 5:433; 8:381, 396, 440; Pr. Jac. 2; cf. 3 En. 22:16. Yet even near Galilee, coins could depict humans as founders with this term (Arav and Savage, “Bethsaida,” 267).
134. For God as trustworthy (pistos), see, e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 2.14.13; LXX Deut. 7:9; 32:4; Pss. 110:7 (ET 111:7); 144:13 (145:13); Isa. 49:7; 3 Macc. 2:11; Pss. Sol. 14:1; 17:10; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.204; Sacrifices 93; Heir 93; Names 182; 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18; 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 10:23; 1 John 1:9; his word in LXX Ps. 18:8 (ET 19:7); Christ in Heb. 2:17; 3:2; Rev. 1:5; 3:14; 19:11.
135. Apart from 3 John 11 and Luke 6:9, 33, 35, Peter is the only author in the NT or Apostolic Fathers to employ the compound agathopoieō. The joining of two separate words, however, remains common, and appears in 1 Peter in a LXX quotation (poiēsatō agathon, in 3:11).