Elders and the Younger

Elders and the Younger

1 Peter 5:1–7

Servant Leaders and Mutuality (5:1–7)

5:1

In light of all this, I’m appealing to the elders among you. I do so as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings, who also shares in the glory that will be revealed.

5:2

Shepherd the part of God’s flock that is among you. Don’t watch over them as if this is something you were forced to do, but willingly; that’s what God wants. Don’t do it greedily; instead do it enthusiastically.

5:3

Don’t lord it over those whom God has allotted you to lead. Instead, be a role model for the flock.

5:4

And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will get the victors’ unfading wreath of glory.

5:5

Likewise, those of you who are younger should submit to those who are older. Now all of you: clothe yourselves with humility, since God “stands against the arrogant, but bestows grace on the humble.”

5:6

So humble yourselves under God’s powerful hand, so that he may exalt you at the right time.

5:7

“Cast all your concerns on” him, because he cares about you.

5:1

In light of the suffering just elaborated, Peter now elaborates church leaders’ responsibility for the welfare of the flock (5:1–4). They are not mere time-keeping caretakers; they must equip God’s people to persevere.

Peter makes an appeal, starting in 5:1. Appealing here translates the Greek word parakaleō, which appears often with requests in letters.1 It has a wide range of meaning, including not only “strongly urge” or “exhort,” as here, but also even “comfort.” As such, it served as a much gentler term than terms usually translated “admonish” or “warn.”2 Ideally, even admonitions ordinarily should be gentle.3

Peter rests the credibility of his appeal on his threefold role: a fellow elder, a sharer in coming glory, and, noted between those two, a witness of Christ’s sufferings. The other two roles build rapport with his fellow elders, who will also share in glory at Christ’s coming (5:5). Peter’s authority is distinctive, however, especially as a witness of Christ’s sufferings.4 Peter appeals to Christ’s suffering in 5:1; this letter often focuses on suffering (2:19–20; 3:14, 17; 4:1, 13, 15, 19; 5:9–10), including that of Christ (1:11; 2:21, 23; 3:18; 4:1, 13). No one will be able to deny that suffering is the Christian way, since Jesus’s chief commissioned agent is able to testify.

Despite Christian reappropriation of the language of “witness” in terms of wider proclamation (and eventually in terms of martyrdom), in the NT it usually retains its original connection to testifying to matters to which one has firsthand access. The term “witness” often functioned in a legal context,5 where the witness’s reliability was a major issue.6 In the Septuagint, the term indicates an appeal to objective evidence,7 and frequently appears in lawcourt or controversy imagery.8 Probably originally through figurative extension, by this period the forensic element was optional;9 it nevertheless typically remained connected to evidence,10 and canons of evidence normally preferred firsthand knowledge.11

Technically, there is good reason to doubt that Peter directly witnessed Jesus’s crucifixion (cf. Mark 14:72; 15:40–41; 16:7). Peter experienced enough of Jesus’s passion, however (not least the beginning of the passion narrative [Mark 14:29, 33, 37, 54, 66–72]), and was close enough to the original events, to be able to testify authoritatively about them (cf. Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 1 Cor. 15:5). On the glory to be revealed, see comment on 1 Pet. 1:7, 11;12 Peter also reportedly witnessed a foretaste of that (see Mark 9:1–2; 2 Pet. 1:16–18).

If Peter was roughly twenty when he began following Jesus (most disciples were likely teenagers, but Peter’s marriage [Mark 1:30; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5] suggests that he was slightly older), and if he authors this letter shortly before the Neronian persecution, he would be in his mid-fifties by this point, which would make him an elder, though not aged.13 Peter was clearly also an elder in terms of authority or witness.14

Contrary to the view of some commentators, the leadership roles mentioned in 5:1–2 do not suggest a date later than Peter’s lifetime; indeed, they surely preclude a second-century date. First, Peter speaks of roles rather than designating titles. Leadership roles exist alongside other charismatic gifts (cf. 4:10–11) already in the early Diaspora churches (Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28; 1 Thess. 5:12–13; cf. Heb. 13:7, 17);15 leadership can be one way to serve (1 Pet. 5:5). Second, even if they were titles, the claim that these titles appear only late in the first century depends on the circular assumption that all texts claiming such titles stem from late in the first century themselves, an assumption that, with at least some of these works, is open to challenge. Third, regardless of the date of these works, they depict an earlier period. Acts, for example, speaks of church elders in Jerusalem and some locations in Asia Minor well before Peter’s death (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2–6, 22–23; 20:17; 21:18), a usage easily available already from the synagogue (cf. also shepherding and overseeing in 20:28, in Asia Minor). Shepherding was a massively widespread image for leadership roles in antiquity (see the excursus “Shepherds as Benevolent Rulers” at comment on 1 Pet. 2:25). And Paul already designates some leaders as overseers in one of his later undisputed letters (Phil. 1:1, addressed to a Roman colony). Finally, all the NT depictions of church leadership predate the adoption of bishops over larger areas apparently already widespread by the beginning of the second century.16

Ancient society expected younger persons to respect their elders and defer to them wherever possible (see comment on 5:5). In many synagogues, as in ancient Israelite villages, “elders” ruled (see the excursus “Elders”). In Christian circles, too, elders could be appointed to lead (Acts 14:23), so named because they were normally chosen from among older members with more life experience (cf. the connection in 1 Tim. 5:1–2, 17; but exceptions existed for those otherwise qualified, as in 1 Tim. 4:12). The ideas of elders as older persons (as in 1 Pet. 5:5) and as those to whom others looked for leadership (as here) were closely related; that house churches often grew around a household might reinforce this connection all the more.

A CLOSER LOOK

Elders17

The language of “elders” (most often, though not exclusively, presbuteros) would be widely familiar. Egyptian associations could call their leaders “elders.”18 On a larger scale, Greeks could use the term for leaders in a city.19 A city’s elders constituted the influential group in the city gymnasium known as the gerousia.20 Because an ekklēsia in Greek most often was a “town meeting,” a Christian assembly ruled by “elders” might lead hearers to think of an alternative civic assembly. Elders could also be, in a less official role, the older and wiser members of, for example, the army, leaders whose words were heeded by others.21

The primary leadership model that the Christians had available to adapt, however, was leadership in the synagogue.22 Synagogues may have borrowed the term from their Greek environment,23 especially if Septuagint usage reflects that environment.24 (As noted below, however, the Hebrew Bible itself already applies the title to many leaders.) As is well known, the Septuagint uses both ekklēsia and sunagōgē to translate the Hebrew qāhāl for the “community” or “congregation” of Israel in the wilderness (cf. Acts 7:38).25 Because both terms applied to “assemblies” in Greek, and if one wished to distinguish the group from a local synagogue (not necessarily always the case; cf. James 2:2 with 5:14), the former might serve as well as the latter, provided no one confused it with town assemblies (cf. Acts 19:39). Since Jewish synagogues (perhaps especially fledgling house synagogues) were the primary model for the house churches,26 it is helpful to recognize that authorities usually granted synagogue communities some autonomy as ethnic communities. As long as Christians were recognized as Jewish and not repudiated by the recognized Jewish community, they could ideally experience the same autonomy.

Given the church’s adaptation of synagogue models already effective in Diaspora cities, it is reasonable that they borrowed the title “elders” from there as well.27 Diaspora Jewish communities certainly drew on wider models of rule by elders. Our evidence is clearest for the Alexandrian Jewish community, which was ruled by a gerousia, or council of elders, probably with members representing each of the local congregations.28 “Elders” are also abundantly attested in Diaspora Jewish inscriptions, though their role is not always clear and may have varied (and may sometimes simply designate age, with its attendant status and influence).29 Scholars note the widespread evidence for this office in the Jewish Diaspora.30 Usually a council of elders rather than a single elder exercised their activities in synagogues.31 That they appear in 1QS 6.8–9 reinforces the impression that the Jewish usage was widespread.32 The Septuagint33 and Josephus34 use the title also for rulers of Israel.

Age contributed to this usage.35 The title had a longer history in ancient Israel; there the older male members of a community typically functioned as its de facto local community leaders.36 The usage was natural in a world where respect for elders was part of the broader culture.37 In Jewish society the younger had to respect the elder;38 in the wider world, young men should rise before elders to offer their seats.39 Prominent local leaders tended to be those who were aged, as both literary texts40 and inscriptions41 indicate. Merely being older men was sufficient grounds for showing them respect.42 Texts also spoke of the elders of Jerusalem (e.g., 2 Macc. 14:37; Jdt. 6:16) and of prominent scholars allegedly sent by the high priest to impress Ptolemy.43 In Jerusalem they were probably the lay members of the aristocracy who shared power with the priestly aristocrats.44 The leading men in Galilee were the aged;45 local village leaders were “elders,” just as in most of the ancient Mediterranean world.46

Although the spiritually mature would constitute exceptions (1 Tim. 4:12), it made sense to select most “elders”—who would normally tend to be older, as their title suggests—at least somewhat on the basis of their age, both because of the respect that this age would entail in the community and because older members of a local community normally knew the community best.47 Elders were generally considered the wisest.48 Not only age, but also heads of stable households, with success in governing their households, usually made better sense for church leaders respectable to the broader society, a criterion employed in selecting church elders later (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5; Titus 1:6).49

Other synagogue titles include “archons,”50 “synagogue rulers” (Luke 8:49; 13:14; Acts 18:8, 17), and (perhaps usually honorary or often patronal) “fathers” and “mothers” of synagogues.51 The usage seems to have varied in vocabulary and especially in function from one location to another. Patrons of associations often exercised some influence, paralleling the use of patronage in the political system.52 That we do not know what all of the titles meant in any given place, whether in synagogue inscriptions or in first-century Christian texts, is to be expected. As one expert notes, inscriptions list officers of synagogues in Rome, but not their functions: “This is hardly surprising, since the members of the community obviously knew what the titles meant and the writers of the epitaphs were not concerned about remote posterity.”53

5:2

The term translated as watch over (episkopountes, “watching over,” “having oversight”) is missing in some key early manuscripts (esp. א and B) but appears in other early manuscripts (especially 𝔓72) and over a wide geographic distribution.54 If the term here is original, the function may evoke the title episkopos. It probably belongs to a period when overseers (episkopoi), elders (presbuteroi [cf. 5:1]) and shepherds/pastors (poimēnes [cf. 5:2–4]) designated mostly the same role (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7), thus probably well before the time of Ignatius in the early second century.55

For the general background of this concept, see comment on 2:25 (where the text is not in question). More specifically regarding early Christian usage, Phil. 1:1 is probably the earliest NT use, but the Pastoral Epistles provide our earliest description of at least some early Christians’ expectations for qualifications, and hence might shed light on what Peter’s audience assumed the function of the term would be here. Ideally, they should not be new converts (1 Tim. 3:6);56 thus they should be tested (1 Tim. 3:10),57 and not ordained prematurely (1 Tim. 5:22). The Pastoral Epistles desired heads of stable, successful households in church leadership (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5; Titus 1:6; cf. 1 Tim. 3:12),58 at least given the local situations addressed (1 Tim. 4:3; 5:11–14; 2 Tim. 3:6–7; Titus 1:11).59

The semantic range of the term episkopos is broad, the term appearing commonly in classical Greek to refer to an overseer or guardian;60 it applies to financial oversight, temple administration, or inspectors of colonies or associations.61 Athenians used it for those they dispatched to manage states they had conquered;62 Plato used it for an educator.63 Jewish people writing in Greek were well aware of the Greek usage and had already adapted it for leaders, both Jewish and gentile, in the Septuagint.64 Although Paul and other early Christians apparently borrowed this title “for officers in voluntary associations,” they lack other titles like archōn (i.e., Lat. magister), normally an association’s highest officer—also “treasurer,” “secretary,” and so forth.65

We lack concrete evidence for the use of episkopos for oversight of synagogues, but certainly the Septuagint attests Jewish usage for “overseers,” with the same extensive range of meaning found in non-Jewish Greek.66 The Qumran scrolls employ an analogous Hebrew term for overseers, mebaqqer,67 as scholars frequently point out.68 This official records offenses of those reported for community discipline.69 Because the earliest Christian use always appears outside Judea, however, it probably reflects Diaspora usage.70 The Greek usage of episkopos is already reflected as a leadership title in the Septuagint.71 It may be significant that the Septuagint uses the cognate verb episkeptomai for “overseeing” God’s people (although not always honorably), along with the title “shepherd” (Jer. 23:2; Ezek. 34:11; Zech. 10:3; 11:16).72

In 5:2–4, Peter develops the earlier biblical, and widely intelligible, image of shepherds and flocks. The image was frequently used for early Christian leaders (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 9:7; Eph. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:2; cf. John 21:16), probably derived from Jesus’s role as shepherd (John 10:11–16; 1 Pet. 5:4; cf. Mark 6:34; 14:27; perhaps Luke 15:4–7). For background, see the excursus “Overseers” (at comment on 1 Pet. 2:25).

Peter also urges the importance of acting willingly, not under compulsion. Actions were classified as involuntary if forced from another or performed through ignorance.73 Because prominent positions entailed obligation as well as honor,74 some people sought to evade the heaviest obligations.75 A shepherd whose heart was in serving the sheep would take better care of them than would another (cf. John 10:12–15). Hirelings were less inclined to care about the property (flocks and otherwise) than an owner was (again, cf. John 10:12–15).76 According to the Beloved Disciple, Jesus had commissioned Peter himself to tend the flock for him, out of love for Jesus (John 21:15–17).

God’s calling is nonnegotiable,77 but as Paul noted, one could serve either as someone compelled or voluntarily (1 Cor. 9:16–18). Voluntary action was normally deemed superior (as in 2 Cor. 9:5; Philem. 14), a sentiment widespread in antiquity.78 For example:

That’s what God wants renders kata theon, which normally speaks of God’s way (see comment on 4:6). The Greek word translated as greedily (aischrokerdōs) is too strong to be rendered simply with the modern idiom “in it for the money”; the compound implies what is shameful, such as “for filthy gain.” The adjectival form appears in ministry requirements also in 1 Tim. 3:8 and Titus 1:7 (but nowhere else in the NT or the Apostolic Fathers), probably suggesting a more common Christian tradition about requirements for church leadership. Pauline literature similarly employs pastoral language (1 Cor. 9:7; Eph. 4:11), warns against seeking gain from ministry (1 Tim. 3:3; 6:5; cf. Luke 12:41–48), and certainly sets the example of not seeking personal gain (1 Cor. 9:6, 12, 15–18; 2 Cor. 12:13; cf. Mark 6:8–9).

Christian elders should not care for God’s flock for the purpose of getting money, but enthusiastically, a term (prothumōs) that indicates eagerness and willingness,86 carrying further the notion of willingly treated above. Such language applied also to OT ministry and offerings (1 Chron. 28:21; 2 Chron. 29:31, 34; contrast 2 Macc. 4:14). Here, in contrast to greedily, it suggests that they should be eager to do it because it is an inherent good.

Leaders were sometimes known to exploit people, perhaps particularly notoriously in the case of corrupt judges and provincial governors.87 Bribery, for example, occurred in many settings,88 but the exercise of bribery and corruption was perhaps nowhere so rampant as in the judicial system,89 including the bribing of jurors90 and judges.91 Governors were not supposed to get rich at provincials’ expense,92 but corruption remained rampant,93 and governors who resisted corruption were praiseworthy.94 Agents of the imperial court also took bribes.95 The frequency of corruption and abuses made people all the more wary about greed among leaders.

A CLOSER LOOK

Avoiding Greed in Antiquity96

Critics frequently charged that impostors got rich off the gullible whom they could deceive.97 The motif of greedy sophists was a polemical topos deployed by Plato and others, perhaps to distance themselves from potential competitors.98 Commitment to avoid personal gain thus authenticates leaders or heroes, as Robert Brawley notes:99

Part of Socrates’ defense is that he does not profit from his philosophy (Plato Apology 19D–E), and he denounces those who do (Xenophon Memorabilia 1.2.6–7). Philo notes that some people travel for pleasure or financial advantage, but he portrays Abraham in contrast as one who migrates in obedience to God and gives no thought to personal gain (On Abraham 62–67). Josephus charges that his colleagues accept bribes to allow John of Gischala access to imperial grain, but he defends himself as unswayed by monetary enticements (Life 13 §§70–73).

Distinguishing oneself from charlatans was essential for a traveling preacher,100 including Christian ones (Acts 20:33–35; 2 Cor. 2:17; 1 Thess. 2:5).101 Some intellectuals complained that most philosophers are worse than average persons, but that this should not be held against the minority of genuine philosophers.102 Others enjoyed the pastime of mocking phony, greedy philosophic preachers.103 Good sages criticized104 or are sometimes portrayed as exposing105 the bad sages and religious practitioners, further differentiating honest from dishonest speakers. Criticizing impostors became a serious enough pastime that rhetoricians themselves criticized the insincerity of “sophists.”106 Other rhetoricians protested against the dismissal of all rhetoricians on account of the abusive behavior of some.107

Leaders in general had to beware of suspicion of greed.108 Thus, for example:

Public speakers who refused money, or at least were very discerning about the people from whom they would accept it, were praised.115 Many believed that good teachers should not care about money.116 Plato’s guardians (though not all the community) would share their property in common.117 Even philosophers who were not Stoic or Cynic could regard wealth and poverty as inconsequential.118 Some philosophers also believed that one should avoid any situation that would obligate them to wealthy patrons, prejudicing their free speech.119 Among the stock criticisms of traveling teachers (especially those who begged or charged fees) was that they were greedy for gain.120

Like any other group of people, Jewish people had their share of charlatans;121 but as a minority group, they sometimes suffered from public prejudices resulting from generalizations based on the exceptional charlatans among them.122 Christians could expect the same. Some later rabbis warned that those who taught Torah only for their own benefit would perish eternally;123 in an apologetic context such attitudes would surely translate into distinguishing true from false teachers (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:12b–18; 2 Cor. 2:17).

Early Christians warned church leaders against greed (1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7; cf. Exod. 18:21)124 and recognized that false teachers were often eager for money (1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Pet. 2:3, 14; Did. 11:6, 12). Given their commitment to share with the needy, however, early Christians were sometimes viewed as gullible targets for charlatans.125

Not only were condemnations of avarice widespread,126 but also austerity was respected. Romans highly valued austerity and self-control, though more in traditions about the past than in this era.127 Thus they praised the values of earlier Rome, when the senate expelled an otherwise virtuous man for procuring a ten-pound silver plate;128 they also expelled a tribune for revoking a law limiting the amount of money which could be spent for banquets.129

Most writers especially praised strict discipline and a rugged lifestyle for military camps and their leaders.130 Moralists could employ such examples to provoke more disciplined living among their generally civilian audiences.131 For them, those who were extravagant in their lifestyles could not be trusted with public funds.132 Leaders should not treat money as important.133 Leaders were sometimes charged with being eager for personal gain,134 and sometimes had to defend themselves against charges of misappropriating funds.135

Love of money was a conventional accusation that some philosophers had leveled against other philosophers from Socrates’s day onward.136 Pythagoreans insisted that those who charged for learning, which should be free, were worse than common laborers.137 Thus Philostratus’s later story of Apollonius of Tyana illustrates the ideal of one without financial ambition.138 Some also complained about prophets who spoke for financial gain.139

Moralists advised seeking such contentment;140 this emphasis was particularly prominent among Stoics, the most popular philosophic school in the northern Mediterranean world at this time.141 Even Epicurus was “content” with little,142 and even hypocritical philosophers praised contentment in public.143 Diaspora Jewish moralists valued contentment as well.144

5:3

The verb translated as lord it over (katakurieuō) can mean to subordinate or simply to rule. Jesus taught an alternative style of leadership: serving rather than overpowering or flaunting authority (Mark 10:42–45, citing the world’s authorities as a negative example with this same verb in 10:42).145 Paul does not want to lord it over his converts (2 Cor. 1:24) but is their slave for Christ’s sake (4:5). Allotted reminds the leaders that the believers they shepherd in their geographic location belong to God’s plan for them, not an accident.146 (Many leadership positions in antiquity were determined by the literal casting of lots,147 but apart from Acts 1:26 there is little evidence for this practice for early church leadership, and none for local church elders.)

Instead of leading by fiat, the elders could lead by example, by being a role model.148 Rather than compelling submission, they could (ideally) make resistance unnecessary, making submission and humility honorable. Some others urged voluntarily limiting one’s use of authority (cf. Philem. 8–9), although most people in authority did not share this concern.149

Some others in antiquity valued leaders being models for their people.150 A teacher was expected to be an example,151 and even self-praise could be justified if used to provoke hearers to emulation.152 Peter’s invitation here resembles the sort of appeal to example in Paul’s letters: not authoritarian, but an appeal instead to a model of servanthood.153

5:4

Like Peter (5:1), the elders he addresses can expect to share in glory when Christ appears. For Christ as the shepherd, see the extended discussion at 2:25; since they also are shepherds here (5:2–3), Peter identifies Christ as the Chief Shepherd, the leader (and in this case, the shepherd) over the other shepherds.154 The word for appears here sometimes applies to Jesus’s first coming (1 Pet. 1:20; cf. 2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:3; Heb. 9:26), but here applies to his future coming.

The wreath (stephanos, often translated as “crown”) here, when used in its literal sense, was a garland of leaves,155 often used as an award, most prominently the victor’s wreath in athletic settings156 (also used in military settings157 and for other honors158 or celebrations).159 Playing on this image, thinkers sometimes spoke of more worthy garlands, such as garlands of reputation160 or virtue.161 Early Jewish sources speak of such garlands and crowns for future rewards.162 One apocalyptic work, for example, depicts the present age as a struggle and hardship for the righteous, but envisions for them in the coming world “a crown with great glory.”163 When martyrs died, “piety triumphed and crowned her own athletes.”164

Victory garlands were naturally associated with honor and glory,165 though in this passage this is true in a special way because the garland is associated with the glory to be revealed at Christ’s return (1 Pet. 5:1). Early Diaspora Christians often used this garland image,166 whether for the reward whose content is life and immortality (2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 2:10),167 righteousness or vindication (James 1:12),168 or glory, as here.169

Peter uses a similar word for unfading in 1:4; here, their victors’ wreath of honor, like their inheritance, will never fade away.170 This imperishability contrasts with the perishable wreaths awarded physical athletes;171 Paul had offered a similar and more explicit contrast (1 Cor. 9:25).172 The unfading garland also contrasts with the flower that falls and the grass that withers (1 Pet. 1:24); it is more like the word of the Lord, and those born from it, who endure forever (1:23–25).173

5:5

Likewise invites younger members to submit to elders174 the way that Peter has invited elders to humble themselves in 5:1–3; it also corresponds to how Peter introduces instructions to wives (3:1) and husbands (3:7), just as Titus addresses young men (Titus 2:6) among the different groups (2:2–10). This exhortation continues the motif of submission, or deference and respect, to those respected in society, as in 1 Pet. 2:13, 18; 3:1, 5; and the exhortation to humble-mindedness in 3:8–9. Although 5:1 addresses elders in their role as leaders, the idea here is comparative; those who are younger should defer with greater respect to those who are older.

Respect for the aged was a conventional value in ancient Mediterranean society,175 and people often associated age with wisdom.176 (Those growing older did, however, privately acknowledge the disadvantages of aging.)177 As in the broader Mediterranean culture, Jewish tradition emphasized respect for the aged.178

Many adults in antiquity did not reach old age. An estimated half of children born died by age ten (half of these in their first year), but those who survived childhood may have averaged only “another thirty-five to forty years.”179 Old age was also recognized as a time of physical decline,180 though literary sources highlight respect more frequently.

Formal settings in the ancient Mediterranean world might require the eldest to speak first;181 young men should also rise before elders to offer their seats.182 Such practices permeated Jewish circles as well.183 Higher offices usually belonged to the aged, often generating displeasure with or barriers to younger men’s “premature” advancement.184 Contradicting elders was considered rude.185

Many examples, such as the following, could illustrate honor for the aged:

Like modern media culture, people in antiquity valued the vigor of youth,196 but ancients were often more explicit about the reasons for which they valued different age groups (cf. 1 John 2:12–14). Respect and deference, however, belonged especially to the aged.

Ultimately, however, Peter makes explicit in 5:5–6 that all believers should humble themselves.197 Peter’s all of you (5:5b) means that both older (5:1–4) and younger (5:5a) must humble themselves. Many others in antiquity valued a sort of graciousness198 even for leaders, though among gentiles199 rarely as self-abasement, and even in the East not as consistently or emphatically as Jesus or in his movement. Many valued the humility of gentleness,200 and the motif of a “humble” leader in this sense was widely valued.201 A ruler’s “humility” was often considered power under control.202 Thus, for example, the emperor Vespasian was praised for identifying with common soldiers,203 and Vitellius increased his reputation by kissing them.204 A later ruler was so “gentle” that he ignored a spiteful thinker’s verbal abuses.205 Some spoke even of Zeus in this manner.206 Early Christians, however, cultivated not only a model of merciful leaders (2 Cor. 10:1) but also of identification with the broken (Rom. 12:16) and relinquishment of public status (1 Cor. 4:10–13; 2 Cor. 12:10).207

Thus, most people in antiquity appreciated gentle and merciful rulers. Jewish tradition further valued leaders who humbled themselves to serve their parents or fellow leaders. But the mutual humility for all believers here reminds even leaders that leaders must be servants. Leadership is one way of expressing service, but rather than lording it over others, leaders should be examples for them (5:3). If they do this, they will be rewarded by the Chief Shepherd, who is their own example (5:2a, 4), who sacrificially served all of us (2:21–25).

Those who would one day don a wreath of honor (5:4) must now clothe themselves with humility (5:5; cf. 3:8). This is because those who humble themselves free themselves to depend on divine grace; God will exalt those who humble themselves (5:6). This idea revisits the motif of submission throughout the letter (2:13, 18; 3:1, 5), climaxing here with a Christian ideal of humility for all believers, ultimately (5:6) as submission to God.

The language of “putting on” or “clothing oneself” (5:5)208 contrasts with what is “put off” in 2:1 and reflects an ancient idiom.209 One person playing the role of another could be said, figuratively, to don the other;210 likewise, one could put off the soldier and put on (i.e., act as) the sophist.211 Scripture had already long offered a figurative use of this image (Isa. 52:1; 61:10; Zech. 3:3–4); “clothing oneself” with a quality was a Semitic idiom.212 (The idiom might be especially familiar from being clothed with the divine Spirit in the Septuagint.)213 Other Jewish sources also spoke of being “clothed” with righteous qualities,214 the Spirit,215 or eschatological clothing (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53).216 The Apostolic Fathers also speak of figuratively clothing oneself with virtues.217

God will exalt the lowly but punish the haughty. To support the value of humbling themselves, Peter quotes Prov. 3:34 verbatim, as he recently quoted Prov. 11:31 (1 Pet. 4:18). This verse may have been a popular one in early Christian preaching.218 Fittingly, the verb here for stands against (antitassō) is a natural antonym for the verb hupotassō (submit) that Peter used earlier in the verse.219 The term for the arrogant here is frequent and very negative in the Septuagint, and its word group contrasts commonly with humility or humiliation.220 A psalm that Peter evokes and quotes earlier similarly attested that God is near the broken (LXX Ps. 33:19 [ET 34:18]). Peter often speaks of grace (1:2, 10; 2:19–20; 4:10; 5:10, 12), including at Christ’s future coming (1:13; 3:7); here this probably includes his strength (cf. 5:10; 2 Cor. 12:9) to those enduring until the promised vindication of 1 Pet. 5:6. The Greek expression for bestows grace is idiomatic.221

5:6

The use of “humble” language in these two adjacent verses (1 Pet. 5:5–6) is no coincidence. One humbles oneself under others (5:5) not because one is inferior to them but because, by humbling oneself before others for the Lord’s sake (cf. 2:13), one is humbling oneself before the God who is sovereign (5:6).222 Like nonretaliation, leaving one’s honor with God recognizes whose honor really matters, and expresses vulnerable trust in God. The grace God gives to reward the humble in 5:5 corresponds to God exalting the humble in 5:6. These could constitute the same reward or two distinct rewards. In this passage, one might think of both: the grace is apparently partly a present gift (4:10; 5:12; perhaps 2:20), but it sustains one for the ultimate, eschatological grace of exaltation (5:6; cf. 1:13; 3:7), the crown of honor at Christ’s appearing (5:4).

That God exalts the lowly shows that he does not depend on or determine plans by human opinion. Gentiles sometimes spoke of deities exalting the lowly; Scripture and Jewish tradition highlight God’s exaltation of the lowly more consistently and emphatically.

Here it fits the divine pattern of God exalting those who humble themselves, whether in the OT (e.g., LXX Pss. 17:28 [ET 18:27]; 137:6 [138:6]; Isa. 2:11–12, 17; 57:15; Ezek. 21:26) or in early Christian texts (Luke 1:52; 14:11; 18:14; cf. Acts 7:9–10; 13:17; Phil. 2:8–9).228 Humbling oneself before God is equivalent to fearing him (cf. 1 Pet. 1:17; 2:17) and entrusting oneself to God’s hand: “Those who fear the Lord will prepare their hearts, and humble their souls before him; we will fall into the Lord’s hands, and not into people’s hands, for as is his greatness, so also is his mercy.”229

The affirmation that God’s hand is powerful evokes LXX language,230 especially regarding the deliverance effected in the exodus.231 Peter elsewhere uses a related term to ascribe to God all power forever (1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11). God alone knows the right time for exaltation; Peter will expect it to apply especially to eschatological exaltation (5:4),232 although, given the wider biblical use of such language, he presumably would also recognize the principle more widely (cf. Luke 14:7–11).

This passage in 1 Peter shows a close relationship to James,233 whether one letter reflects the other or both depend on shared early Christian tradition, perhaps teaching from Jesus,234 or on a song or the like. Some relationship in the material is impossible to avoid. Note the following:

1 Peter 5:5–9

James 4:6–10

a

4:6: God “stands against the arrogant, but bestows grace on the humble” (quoting LXX Prov. 3:34)

tapeinōthēte

tapeinōthēte

humas hupsōsē

hupsōsei humas

5:8–9: Resist the devil

4:7b: Resist the devil

a

kurios

Differences between the two reflect different audiences: Peter encourages the suffering who are repressed for their faith, whereas James preaches repentance to those tempted to respond angrily and perhaps violently against their (perhaps especially economic) oppressors.

5:7

Because God exalts those who humble themselves before him (5:6), believers may be assured that he cares for them. Those who are abased may therefore safely cast their cares on him (5:7). Jesus urges his followers to abandon worries or cares (Matt. 6:25, 27–28 // Luke 12:22, 25–26; Matt. 10:19 // Luke 12:11); Paul agrees with the principle (Phil. 4:6), although he freely applies related language to caring about one another (1 Cor. 12:25; 2 Cor. 11:28; Phil. 2:20).

When Peter speaks of casting cares on the Lord,235 he echoes LXX Ps. 54:23 (ET 55:22).236 The frequent translation “anxiety” or “anxieties” (e.g., ASV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV) risks different connotations in a day when people are medicated for anxiety disorders; the issue here is not problems of the nervous system, but rather dangers that could invite mind-consuming worry.237 That God cares about (melei peri) you might echo Wis. 12:13, where the true God “cares for” (melei peri) all people.238

1. Aune, Environment, 188; Stowers, Letter Writing, 24, 78.

2. Following categories articulated in later handbooks, protreptic or hortatory correspondence (Stowers, Letter Writing, 112–25) did not require the level of harshness found in letters of admonition (125–32) and especially rebuke (133–38) and, most harshly, reproach (139–41). Urgent requests could be worded as entreaties. Thus for example even honorable people could “beg” on behalf of another, as in Cicero, Fam. 13.14.2; 13.20.1; 13.24.3; 13.26.2; 13.30.2; 13.32.2; 13.35.2; 13.54.1; 13.72.2; 13.74.1; or “I beg of you again and again” (13.28b.2; 13.41.2; 13.43.2; 13.45.1; 13.47.1; 13.73.2; 13.76.2). Cf. a loving exhortation in a nonrecommendation letter: “I implore you again and again, my dear brother, to keep well” (Cicero, Quint. fratr. 3.1.7.25). R. Longenecker (Romans, 218) similarly cites affectionate or urgent request formulas (BGU 846:10; P.Mich. 209:9–10).

3. Cf. Rom. 15:14; Gal. 6:1; Plutarch, Old Man 22, Mor. 795A; 23, Mor. 795BC; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 22.101; 33.231; 1QS 5.25; b. Sanh. 101a; cf. even harsher genres, in Rhet. Alex. 37, 1445b.17–19; t. Kip. 4:12.

4. For 1 Peter as a sort of Petrine “passion narrative,” like Mark, see Michaels, “Passion” (also comparing the later Gospel of Peter).

5. E.g., Aeschines, Tim. 89; Lysias, Or. 3.14, §97; 3.20–21, §98; 3.27, §98; Rhet. Alex. 15, 1431b.21; cf. Casey, “Μάρτυς,” 30–31.

6. Rhet. Alex. 15, 1431b.22–23; Hermogenes, Issues 45.10–20. Early courts valued them highly (Todd, “Evidence,” 579), though they were mistrusted in the later empire (Nicholas, “Evidence”).

7. Trites, Witness, 16–19.

8. Trites, Witness, 20–47; for other Jewish texts, see 48–65.

9. See, e.g., Aristotle, Rhet. 1.15.13, 1375b; 1.15.17; Plutarch, Apoll. 14, Mor. 108E; Or. Delph. 22, Mor. 405A; Nic. 6.3; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.29.47; 3.26.28; Libanius, Max. 3.3; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.4; Jub. 1:12.

10. Trites (Witness, 4–15) shows that they were used in both legal and nonlegal (e.g., historiographic) contexts to establish data. “Witness” could be linked with “evidences,” “sign,” and “example,” as Hermogenes, Method 4.417, finds in Thucydides, Hist. 1.1, 6, 8.

11. E.g., Xenophon, Hell. 6.2.31; Seneca Y., Nat. 3.25.8; in historians, see Aune, Environment, 81 (citing, e.g., Polybius, Hist. 12.27.1–6; 20.12.8; Lucian, Hist. 47); also Xenophon, Ages. 3.1. Writers could cite other authors as if witnesses in a courtroom (e.g., Plutarch, Or. Delph. 22, Mor. 405A; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.4).

12. The Greek verb mellō can imply imminence, but was often used in a weakened sense to simply designate a future time, and as such could add a future sense to a present infinitive (such as apokaluptesthai here). 1 Clem. 5:4 may recall this passage when the author speaks of Peter going to his “place of glory” at his death (cf. Paul going to the “holy place” in 5:7).

13. Age sixty could demarcate presbuteroi, elders, in Philo, Spec. Laws 2.33.

14. See the usage in Papias, Frag. 3:4 (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.4), a testimony that Eusebius seems to complicate in Papias, Frag. 3:5–6 (Hist. eccl. 3.39.5–6) through Eusebius’s antipathy toward the book of Revelation.

15. Cf. Witherington, Peter, 222–24, rightly also noting the diversity of leadership forms in earliest Christianity.

16. For house church leaders rather than bishops here, see, e.g., Elliott, “Elders.”

17. I borrow here from Keener, Acts, 2:2182–89.

18. Klauck, Context, 46.

19. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 21.18.1. Cf. likewise the elders (in this case gerontas) as leaders in old Crete (Aristotle, Pol. 2.7.5, 1272a). Elders probably did control more in the idealized past (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosth. 3). For examples from Egypt, see Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 77.

20. MacMullen, Social Relations, 27, 81; Luke employs this term in Acts 5:21, and it appears over thirty times in the LXX. The Spartans’ council of elders (those over sixty) was especially noted (e.g., Aeschines, Tim. 180).

21. Homer, Il. 2.404; Philostratus, Her. 21.29. The term episkopos also may reflect secular usage, though again probably via prior Jewish adaptation.

22. Meeks, Urban Christians, 80–81 (rightly noting that synagogues were in turn influenced by forms of families and Hellenistic voluntary associations); Maser, “Synagoge und Ecclesia”; Luna, “Reflections.”

23. Goodman, State, 119. Cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 49 (for archons).

24. Deissmann, Studies, 154–56 (arguing that the LXX reflects Ptolemaic Alexandrian idiom).

25. Cf. Bultmann, Theology, 1:38; Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Development,” 327–28; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 54; Richardson, Theology, 285; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:629.

26. On churches following synagogue models, cf., e.g., Maser, “Synagoge und Ecclesia.”

27. Many commentators recognize dependence on Jewish models (Selwyn, Peter, 227; Reicke, Epistles, 58; Sidebottom, James, Jude & 2 Peter, 61; Williams, Acts, 97, 109).

28. Philo, Flaccus 74, 76, 80; Meeks, Urban Christians, 35; elsewhere, Josephus, J.W. 7.412; Libanius, Ep. 1251; Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 43; cf. Philo, Embassy 229; Josephus, Ant. 7.293; 12.138, 142; 13.166, 169; Applebaum, “Organization,” 491. Some have extrapolated from this to all Diaspora communities (Kelly, Peter, 197). For a discussion of gerousia and gerousiarchs in ancient society, including Jewish inscriptions, see CIJ 1:lxxv–lxxvi; cf. the feminine usage in CIJ 1:67, §95.

29. In general, see CIJ 1:lxxxvi–lxxxvii. See, e.g., CIJ 1:294, §378; 1:432, §595 (transliterated from Hebrew; he was eighty); 1:433, §597 (feminine); 1:426, §581 (feminine); 1:503, §692 (feminine); 2:9, §739 (abbreviated, in Smyrna; cf. Goodenough, Symbols, 80); 2:45, §790 (Cilicia); 2:46, §792 (Cilicia); 2:53, §801 (Pontus); 2:76–77, §828a; 2:77, §828b; 2:79, §829; 2:137, §931; Philo, Drunkenness 14; Spec. Laws 3.80. In Sardis, see Mitten, “Sardis,” 65.

30. See Applebaum, “Organization,” 493–94; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 77 (rightly noting the LXX, though probably overemphasizing the lateness of the epigraphic evidence). It is widely assumed (e.g., Lake, “Twelve,” 56).

31. See Brooten, Women Leaders, 53.

32. See Driver, Scrolls, 522 (comparing also CD 10.2; comments on plural leadership among the Essenes in Josephus, Ant. 18.22; J.W. 2.146); cf. Kelly, Peter, 197. Rabbis also viewed “elders” as wise (m. ʾAbot 5:21), and often viewed biblical ruling “elders” as sages (Sipra Qed. pq. 7.204.3.1; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; y. Hor. 3:5, §3; Lev. Rab. 11:8).

33. E.g., Exod. 3:16, 18; 4:29; 12:21; 17:5–6; 18:12; 19:7; 24:1, 9, 14; Lev. 4:15; 9:1; Num. 11:16, 24–25, 30; 16:25; Deut. 5:23; 27:1; 29:10; 31:9, 28; Josh. 7:6; 8:10, 33; Jer. 29:1; Ezek. 8:1. For other peoples, see, e.g., Num. 22:4, 7.

34. E.g., Josephus, Ant. 4.186, 218, 220, 224, 255–56; 13.166; J.W. 7.412; cf. Philo, Migration 168; Moses 2.153; Mark 8:31; 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1; Acts 4:5; 5:21.

35. Cf. Philo, Embassy 227–29; Agriculture 56; Decalogue 165; Flaccus 74.

36. See, e.g., locally, Deut. 19:12; 21:2–6, 19–20; 22:15–18; 25:7–9; Ruth 4:2, 4, 9. Cf. later, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 13.124, 428; J.W. 2.267; Luke 9:22; 20:1; 22:52, 66; Let. Aris. 310; 2 Bar. 31:1; 46:1; Acts 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12. On elders in ancient Israel, see Jacobs, “Leadership.”

37. This is true also in cultures not directly dependent on the ancient Near East or Mediterranean world (cf. Mbiti, Religions, 89–90).

38. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.206; Ant. 3.47; Ps.-Phoc. 220–22; 4 Bar. 5:20; among Pharisees, Josephus, Ant. 18.12; cf. Philo, Hypothetica 11.13. This included rising before elders (Philo, Spec. Laws 2.238; Ps.-Phoc. 220; t. Meg. 3:24; cf. y. Bik. 3:3, §§4–5).

39. E.g., Xenophon, Mem. 2.3.16; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.5.ext. 2; Lycurgus 14 in Plutarch, S. Sp., Mor. 227F; cf. Hurschmann, “Greeting,” 1023. Roman society also demanded giving way to one’s elder (Dionysius Cato, Coll. Dist. 10; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 7.47.1); on respect for elders, see also, e.g., Homer, Il. 1.259; 23.616–23; Xenophon, Cyr. 8.7.10; Aeschines, Leg. 22, 25; Livy, Hist. 5.25.3; 6.24.7; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.1.9–10; 2.2.4; Aulus Gellius, Att. 2.15; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.4, 394.22; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 8.37; 16.69; 21.99; 30.180; 33.230; text in SPap 3, p. 476, §116; cf. Polybius, Hist. 31.24.3; cf. fatherly respect toward even strangers (Homer, Il. 24.362, 371, 373; 24.507; Od. 7.28, 48; 8.145, 408; 20.199).

40. E.g., Aristotle, Pol. 2.7.5, 1272a; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 21.18.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 8.15.1; Josephus, Life 266; Let. Aris. 32, 39.

41. E.g., CIJ 1:294, §378; 1:426, §581; 1:432, §595; 1:433, §597; 2:9, §739; 2:45, §790; 2:46, §792; 2:53, §801; 2:76–77, §828a; 2:77, §828b; 2:79, §829; 2:137, §931; cf. CIJ 1:lxxxvi–lxxxvii; Mitten, “Sardis,” 65.

42. E.g., 1 Pet. 5:5; t. Meg. 3:24; ʿAbod. Zar. 1:19; 4 Bar. 5:20; Ps.-Phoc. 220–22; Syr. Men. Sent. 11–14, 76–93 (but cf. 170–72); Homer, Il. 1.259; 23.616–23; Aulus Gellius, Att. 2.15; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 1.1.4; 2.58.6; Lycurgus 14 in Plutarch, S. Sp., Mor. 227F; Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.1.22–23.

43. Let. Aris. 32, 39.

44. See Sanders, Judaism, 329.

45. Josephus, Life 266.

46. Cf. Sanders, Jewish Law, 79 (citing Ezra 10:14; Philo, Hypothetica 7.13). Sanders allows them this role alongside priests (cf. Sanders, Judaism, 170–71, 182, citing esp. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.187), also a high status role in many unrelated societies (cf. Mbiti, Religions, 88).

47. Lysias, Or. 23.5, §167.

48. E.g., Aeschines, Tim. 24; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 8.15.1; Phaedrus, Fab. 4.2.16–19; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.11; Vit. soph. 1.25.543; Job 12:12; 32:7; for virtue, cf. Gen. Rab. 59:1. There were exceptions (e.g., Eccl. 4:13; Fronto, M. Caes. 3.3).

49. “Overseers” in these texts are interchangeable with “elders” (Titus 1:5, 7); for “deacons,” see 1 Tim. 3:12. On successful management of one’s household as a criterion for public leadership in antiquity, see Isocrates, Demon. 35; Ad Nic. 19; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 12.12.1; Seneca Y., Ben. 4.27.5; Plutarch, Arist. Cato 3.1; Dinner 12, Mor. 155D; Bride 43–44, Mor. 144CD; Alex. 9.6; Lycurgus 21 in S. Sp., Mor. 228CD; cf. Euripides, Elec. 386–87; Isocrates, Nic. 41; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 1.16.4; Sipre Deut. 32.5.12; Keener, Marries Another, 98; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 99n21.

50. Though Justin uses “archon” generically, later Roman sources mention only “elders” (Theodosius, Cod. 16.8.2; Applebaum, “Organization,” 494–95); the title “archon” was dominant in Rome to the exclusion of “elder” (Applebaum, “Organization,” 493). They covered especially the secular part of synagogue business (Applebaum, “Organization,” 495).

51. For fathers (probably honorary, without attached duties, Leon, Jews of Rome, 186), see, e.g., CIJ 1:xcv–xcvi; 1:66, §93; 1:250–51, §319; 1:360, §494; 1:372, §§508–9; 1:373, §510; 1:393, §533; 1:397, §535; 1:398, §537; 1:462, §645; 1:463, §646; 1:505, §694; 1:520, §720; 2:9, §739. For “mothers of synagogues,” see, e.g., CIJ 1:118, §166 (reconstructed); 1:362, §496 (reconstructed); 1:384, §523 (a proselyte); 1:457, §639; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 191; more fully, Brooten, Women Leaders, 57–72 (esp. 57–63); the (much later) Codex of Theodosius treats it as a real office (Brooten, Women Leaders, 65–66); fathers and mothers of guilds could be patrons, but cultic groups, especially Mithraists, may have used them as officers (Brooten, Women Leaders, 71).

52. Chow, Patronage, 64–68.

53. Leon, Jews of Rome, 167. Cf. similarly Christian “deacons” in 1 Tim. 3:8!

54. For more detailed arguments for and against the variant, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 695–96. Schreiner (Peter, 234n71) notes that B also omits all of v. 3, clearly wrongly.

55. See, e.g., Ignatius, Eph. 2:2; 4:1; 20:2; Magn. 2:1; 3:1; 6:1; 7:1; 13:1; Trall. 2:2; 3:1; 7:2; 12:2; 13:2; Phld. 4:1; 7:1; 10:2; Smyrn. 8:1; 12:2; Pol. 6:1. Ignatius does, however, see the bishop (episkopos) as a shepherd (Phld. 2:1).

56. For the ancient reticence to appoint novices, see, e.g., for testing haberim, t. Demai 2:12; for testing judges, t. Šeqal. 3:27; t. Ḥag. 2:9; t. Sanh. 7:1; cf. 1QS 6.16–17; Suetonius, Tib. 54.1; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 60. These instructions made more sense in older churches (e.g., a decade or more) than in recently planted ones (Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 78), though most leaders addressed in Acts 20:17, 28 could not have been Christians for more than four years (cf. Acts 20:31).

57. On the principle of testing leaders before promotion, see, e.g., Cicero, Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.14–1.1.5.16; Columella, Rust. 1.8.2; Let. Aris. 264; t. Ḥag. 2:9; y. Taʿan. 4:2, §8; for preliminary testing in other settings, cf. Thucydides, Hist. 4.80.3–4; Polybius, Hist. 3.31.7–8; Julius Caesar, Civ. W. 2.32–33; Musonius Rufus, 45, p. 140.1; 46, p. 140.8–9; Plutarch, Educ. 7, Mor. 4C; Pseudo-Heraclitus, Ep. 9; Gaius, Inst. 1.199–200; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 17.71–72; 20.94; 1QS 6.14–23; in other societies, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 218, 247.

58. For discussion, cf. Keener, Marries Another, 89–95, 100–103; Keener, “Husband.”

59. What follows depends on Keener, Acts, 3:3031–33.

60. As most NT commentators note (e.g., Scott, Pastoral Epistles, 30–31; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 73; at greater length, see Beyer, “ἐπίσκοπος,” esp. 610–14).

61. Fitzmyer, Acts, 678 (citing Aeschylus, Eum. 740; Aristophanes, Birds 1022–23; Plato, Leg. 6.762D; 9.872E); Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 54; Goppelt, Times, 188; Rhodes, “Episkopos.” See, e.g., the overseer of the Vestal Virgins (Plutarch, Numa 9.5); a satrap (Appian, Hist. rom. 11.9.53); a supervisory caste in India (Arrian, Ind. 12.5); the verb cognate episkopein applies also to royal activity (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.72).

62. Selwyn, Peter, 182 (citing also Philo, Migration 115).

63. Johnson, Acts, 362 (citing Plato, Leg. 795D); for guardians (Plato, Resp. 506B); Selwyn, Peter, 230. On Plato’s guardians, see, e.g., Lodge, Ethics, 389–90.

64. E.g., LXX Num. 4:16; 31:14; Judg. 9:28; 2 Kings 11:15; 2 Chron. 34:17; Neh. 11:9, 14, 22; Isa. 60:17; 1 Macc. 1:51; so also Josephus, Ant. 10.53; 12.254. See also Beyer, “ἐπίσκοπος,” 614–15.

65. Jeffers, World, 80. Latin could employ speculatores, the equivalent of episkopos, as in Jub. 40:4.

66. See Beyer, “ἐπίσκοπος,” 614–15, and the sources cited there.

67. E.g., (of over thirty references) 1QS 6.12, 20; CD 9.18, 19, 22; 13.6, 7, 13, 16; 14.8, 11, 13; 15.8, 11, 14; 4Q265 frg. 1, col. 2, line 5; 4Q275 frg. 1, line 3.

68. E.g., Brown, “Scrolls,” 7; Cross, Library, 232; Yamauchi, Stones, 138–39 (following Albright, Horizons, 49); Vermes, Scrolls, 19; McNamara, Judaism, 139–40; Johnson, Acts, 362; Fitzmyer, Acts, 679; Goppelt, Times, 188–89; Daniélou, Theology, 349; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 73–74; cf. Thiering, “Mebaqqer,” 72, 74 (who even thinks that Christians adopted the office from Essenes!). On the office, cf. further Harrison, “Rites,” 27; for possible identification of the term with pqd, which can be translated as episkopos in the LXX, see Cross, Library, 233; also Driver, Scrolls, 522 (though esp. interested in mbqr in rabbinic texts). Cf. the comparison of the mebaqqer with the Athenian practice (Steiner, “Mbqr”). For a particularly nuanced comparison of the mebaqqer and NT episkopos (arguing that this is not the source of the NT usage, which has plurality of elders), see Humble, “Mebaqqer.”

69. CD 9.18–22; 4Q266 frg. 18, col. 5, line 16. Cf. Eshel, “Rebukes” (though here the overseers probably only recorded the rebukes [Hempel, “Who Rebukes”]). The overseer may command banishment in 4Q266 frg. 6, col. 1, line 12 (and other matters in 4Q271 frg. 1, col. 1, lines 14–15).

70. Fitzmyer, Acts, 679; cf. Beyer, “ἐπίσκοπος,” 619. Though the Hebrew and Greek terms share a common etymology and some similar functions, Fitzmyer doubts a direct connection (Essays, 293–94, esp. 294; “Christianity,” 247–48). Might the Hebrew term have been adopted and employed with analogy to the Greek in the Hellenistic era?

71. See Num. 4:16; 31:14; Judg. 9:28; 2 Kings 11:15, 18; 12:12 (ET 12:11); 2 Chron. 34:12, 17; Neh. 11:9, 14, 22; Isa. 60:17; 1 Macc. 1:51.

72. Tannehill, Acts, 258.

73. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 3.1.2–3, 1109b–1110a.

74. DeSilva, Honor, 138.

75. Especially liturgies (expensive civic benefactions; e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 46.14; Bell, “Egypt,” 301–2, 315; Llewelyn, Documents 7, §5, pp. 93–105; Rhodes, “Liturgy,” esp. 732); many pleaded relief from these due to financial hardships (Danker, Corinthians, 144).

76. Virgil, Ecl. 3.3–6; Babrius, Fab. 3.5; Phaedrus, Fab. 2.8.27–28; 3.3.4–5, 16–17; Alciphron, Farm. 18 (Eunapē to Glaucē), 3.21, ¶¶1–3; cf. Columella, Rust. 1.7.7; Statius, Theb. 9.189–91. As with tenant farmers, most shepherds in the rural empire worked for others (MacMullen, Social Relations, 3; Bailey, “Shepherd Poems,” 6).

77. No one would deem it wise to refuse a deity; cf. Acts 11:17; 26:14, 19 (on which see Talbert, Acts, 208); Quintilian, Decl. 323.20.

78. It contrasts with compulsion in Philo, Unchangeable 47; Migration 169; Dreams 2.253; Moses 2.53; Spec. Laws 1.30, 103; 4.150, 193; Virtues 83; Contempl. Life 68; Hypothetica 11.13; Josephus, Ant. 8.69; later, Sib. Or. 12:129; for submission, Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 8.36.3. Cf. voluntary offerings, in Exod. 36:2; Lev. 7:16; 23:38; Num. 15:3; 29:39; Deut. 12:6; Pss. 53:8 (ET 54:6); 118:108 (119:108); Ezra 1:4–6; 3:5; 8:28; Jdt. 4:14; 16:18; T. Levi 9:7.

79. Hesiod, Op. 353.

80. Plato, Crat. 403C (trans. Fowler, LCL, 4:71).

81. Xenophon, Cyr. 8.1.4. Cf. Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 30.183 (trans. Dillon and Hershbell, 193): proper management requires “both, the ruler and those ruled, to be equally willing.”

82. Menander, Sam. 711–12 (though this is comedy).

83. Cicero, Fam. 13.1.2; cf. Symmachus, Ep. 1.36.

84. Seneca Y., Ben. 7.4.4. Those who submit voluntarily are not slaves (Philostratus, Her. 30.3); cf. the reflexive form of the verb ʿānâ from Gen. 16:6 in 16:9, perhaps suggesting that now Hagar takes the initiative.

85. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.17.22 (trans. Oldfather, LCL, 1:343); cf. Musonius Rufus, 16, p. 106.6–8; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11g, p. 72.26–30.

86. Cf., e.g., Sir. 45:23; 4 Macc. 1:1; Mark 14:38; Acts 17:11; Rom. 1:15; 2 Cor. 8:11–12, 19; 9:2; for martyrdom or danger, cf. 2 Macc. 6:28; 11:7; 4 Macc. 16:16. It also contrasts with acting under compulsion earlier in the verse (cf., e.g., Philo, Names 270).

87. I condense here material from Keener, Acts, 3:3437–42.

88. “Buying” victories (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epid. 7.291); guards (Rapske, Custody, 259–61, 383; Lucian, Tox. 31); desertion (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 59.4); release of prisoners (Polybius, Hist. 38.18.4–5; Cicero, Verr. 2.1.4.9; Josephus, J.W. 2.273; cf. Acts 24:26); allegedly, sparing life (Lysias, Or. 12.9–11, §120–21; Cicero, Verr. 2.3.28.69); even a failed attempt to bribe the Delphic oracle (Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 6 [Lysander], 3.2). Demosthenes also took bribes (Aeschines, Leg. 3; Ctes. 69, 113, 156, 259; Plutarch, Demosth. 14.2; 25.4), angering his people (Plutarch, Demosth. 25.5), though he was remembered for not taking them from Philip (Libanius, Max. 3.1; Encom. 5.12; cf. Invect. 3.5; 4.13).

89. E.g., Lucian, Fisherman 9; Tacitus, Ann. 4.31 (extortion); Suetonius, Jul. 12; 20.5; Dom. 8.1; for governors, cf. Tacitus, Ann. 13.32; for the collusion of prosecutors, e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 14.41 (here punished with exile). For corruption, see Rapske, Custody, 62–67.

90. Seneca Y., Lucil. 97.2; 2 Macc. 4:45; attempts in Cicero, Verr. 1.6.16; 1.8.23–1.9.25; 1.12.36; 1.13.38.

91. E.g., Longinus, Subl. 44.9.

92. Catullus, Carm. 10.7–13.

93. See, e.g., Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.117.2; Tacitus, Agr. 6; Pliny Y., Ep. 2.11.2; 4.9.6–7, 17–18; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 3.25; Josephus, Ant. 20.118–19, 127, 163, 205, 215, 253–54, 279; J.W. 2.273, 277–79, 287, 293–95, 305; Acts 24:26; cf. Crawford, “Debt,” 143; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 152; Kelly, “Corruption,” 402; for governors’ underlings, Cicero, Quint. fratr. 1.1.2.7; 1.1.4.13. Earlier, during the republic, see Cicero, Verr. 1.1.2; 1.4.12; 2.1.3.7; 2.3.22.55; 2.3.28.69; 2.2.38.94; 2.5.20.51; Livy, Hist. 43.2.1–12; Plutarch, Cic. 36.4; cf. Rome’s exploitation of allies in Sallust, Catil. 12.4–5.

94. Seneca Y., Nat. 4.pref. 18; Plutarch, Cic. 8.1; 36.2; Tacitus, Agr. 19; Ann. 16.23; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.10, 416.5–12, esp. 8–10, 15; cf. Pliny E., Nat. pref. 9; Pliny Y., Ep. 7.31.2; earlier, Dan. 6:4–5; Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 15 (Epaminondas), 4.1–3; Plutarch, Them. 5.4.

95. Suetonius, Tit. 7.1; Josephus, Ant. 19.65; 20.183–84.

96. Here I borrow from Keener, Acts, 3:3055–58.

97. E.g., Phaedrus, Fab. 1.14.17–18; even a true philosopher could be hoodwinked at times (Musonius Rufus, 50, pp. 142, 144).

98. For Plato and the theme of sophists’ association with fees, see Tell, “Wisdom.”

99. Brawley, Luke-Acts, 61. Displaying one’s avoidance of covetousness strengthened one’s rhetorical ethos (Watson, “Speech,” 205, citing Cicero, De or. 2.43.182). A defense speech could include the point that one did not act from desire for gain (Apuleius, Metam. 3.6).

100. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 285–87; Malherbe, “Nurse,” 214; Cynics against their opponents, in Neumann, “Gewinn.” Thus Dio Chrysostom distinguishes himself from hucksters (Or. 35.4) who get popular solely by people talking them up (35.8); he notes how they go wherever crowds gather (35.15).

101. Walton, Leadership, 172, shows parallels with Acts 20:33–35 in 1 Thess. 2:5ff., 9; 4:11–12; 5:14.

102. Plutarch, Lect. 12, Mor. 43F. Others also complained that the genuine philosophers were a minority among professed philosophers (Maximus of Tyre, Or. 1.8).

103. E.g., Lucian, Dial. D. 374 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 10); Runaways 4, 20; Fisherman 42; Tim. 54–57.

104. E.g., Plato, Resp. 2.364BC; Leg. 10.908DE.

105. Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.41; Ep. Apoll. 3, 5, 15, 35, 51.

106. E.g., Isocrates, Antidosis; In sophistas; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.32–34; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 27.8. Philosophers, of course, had long criticized those more interested in winning debates than in truth (Plato, Theaet. 164CD; against sophists, e.g., Plato, Hippias major; Hippias minor; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.36–37; Philo, Worse 38); for sophists as “peddlers,” see Plato, Prot. 313C; Soph. 231D; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 27.8; cf. 2 Cor. 2:17.

107. Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 247, §76D. Sophists’ enemies may have had rhetorical reasons for painting them as greedy (see Tell, “Wisdom”).

108. The ideal ruler employed his office only for the corporate good (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.23, 65).

109. Isocrates, Nic. 37.

110. Lysias, Or. 28.3, §179.

111. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 54.3. Cf. claims of simple living in Aeschines, Ctes. 218; Plutarch, Arist. 25.3–5.

112. Fronto, Ant. Pium 9.2 (in a letter of recommendation).

113. E.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 7.31.3.

114. Soranus, Gynec. 1.2.4.

115. E.g., Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.29.621; Ep. Apoll. 42. Stoics in this period differed regarding propriety in receiving pay (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11m, p. 90.14–29); nevertheless, fondness for money was a vice (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5f, p. 30.30; cf. Seneca Y., Nat. 1.16.1), as many other thinkers concurred (e.g., Xenophon, Oec. 1.22 [Socrates]; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 9.4; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 5.1).

116. So, e.g., Gaventa, Acts, 289 (citing Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.9, 11; Lucian, Nigr. 25–26); Philostratus, Apoll. ep. 4.

117. Plato, Resp. 6.499CD (noted by Capper, “Reciprocity,” 506).

118. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.67, 94.

119. Peterson, Eloquence, 67–68 (citing Lucian, Posts passim; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.69; Plato, Apol. 19DE; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 9.1.7; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.13; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77/78.34–35).

120. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 247–51, 256. Philo criticized sophists for greed, shown in their charging fees (Winter, Philo and Paul, 95–97).

121. E.g., Josephus, Ant. 17.327 (fortunately, Caesar was merciful [17.338]).

122. E.g., Juvenal, Sat. 6.542–47.

123. Moore, Judaism, 2:97 (citing m. ʾAbot 1:13; 4:5; b. Ber. 50a); Sipre Deut. 48.7.1. Later rabbis were also concerned about appearances regarding money (Exod. Rab. 51:2, 6).

124. Overseers must not love money (1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7; likewise deacons in 1 Tim. 3:8); some had gone astray for money (1 Tim. 6:10; cf. 2 Tim. 4:10).

125. Lucian, Peregr. 13.

126. E.g., Polybius, Hist. 13.2.3–5; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 9.4; Musonius Rufus, 1, p. 34.31–33; 3, p. 40.27–28; 4, p. 48.9; 8, p. 62.17; 14, p. 92.22; 20, p. 126.18–21; Frag. 34, p. 134; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 13.32; 17; Let. Aris. 277; Josephus, Ant. 15.89; Rom. 1:29. Writers often included it in vice lists (Plato, Leg. 1.649D; 3.677B; Cicero, Pis. 27.66; Mur. 6.14; Musonius Rufus, 17, p. 108.13; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.19; Lucian, Charon 15; in a suffering list in Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.9, 414.9–10), but it was sometimes the foundation for other vices (Thucydides, Hist. 3.82.8; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 17.6; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 17.78; 1 Tim. 6:10), as the worst vice (Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 21.1.4a).

127. Especially the noted example of Cato in Sallust, Catil. 54.5; Plutarch, M. Cato 2.1–2; 4.1, 3.

128. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.9.4. By Paul’s day the elite had in practice moved further beyond these traditional Roman values, but they remained among the examples recited and praised.

129. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.9.5.

130. E.g., Sallust, Catil. 54.4; Jug. 85.33; Musonius Rufus, 20, p. 126.6–7, 9–10; Philostratus, Her. 27.10–11.

131. See Musonius Rufus, 20, p. 126.6–21. Some pursued austerity to be an example (Plutarch, M. Cato 4.1; 5.1).

132. Polybius, Hist. 10.22.5.

133. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.3.4–12. A leader who remained poor was particularly trustworthy and praiseworthy (4.3.6a).

134. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 6.58.3.

135. 1 Sam. 12:3; Xenophon, Anab. 7.6.11–22; Aeschines, Leg. 160, 180–82. A leader might thus boast of his generosity, as in Res gest. 1.5; 3.15, 17 (though Augustus, unlike Paul, did not earn his own money).

136. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 141 (on Luke 16:14, citing Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.56).

137. Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 34.245. The translation (239n7) compares also Plato, Prot. 313D; Soph. 231D; cf. Hillel in m. ʾAbot 4:5, condemning those who profit from Torah. From a different, sophistic perspective, one stored his treasures in the hearts of those who paid for his learning (Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.1.547). Fathers normally paid their sons’ fees for grammar, rhetoric, or Scripture teachers (Watson, “Education,” 311–12).

138. Liefeld (“Preacher,” 246) notes that, despite Apollonius’s many invitations (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.1; 4.1), he chose a modest home over a palace (1.33); he refused the gift of a camel, continuing his journey on foot (3.50–51).

139. E.g., Sophocles, Antig. 1061 (though in this story the prophet is true and the complainer mistaken); Mic. 3:5, 11; Jer. 6:13; 8:10; T. Levi 14:6 (priests); Did. 11:5–6, 9, 12. Pindar (Isth. 2.9–11) complains that all follow the adage that money matters most, but notes (in 2.6) that the Muse was once not greedy.

140. E.g., Plutarch, Virt. 3, Mor. 101B; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 6; 17; Lucian, Dial. D. 436 (8/26, Menippus and Chiron 2); Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.291; cf. Horace, Ep. 1.2.55–59; Odes 2.18; 3.16; Publilius Syrus, Sent. 626; Plutarch, Love W. 1–2, Mor. 523DE; Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 11; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 46; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.11; Porphyry, Marc. 27.429–34; 28.447–50; 29.457–59. One with modest desires might thus prove happier than another better endowed materially (Xenophon, Oec. 2.2–4; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 7.1.2; Pliny E., Nat. 7.46.151; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 3.12; b. Tamid 32a; cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.7.6–8, 1097b; Juvenal, Sat. 14.308–14; Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 35; Aulus Gellius, Att. 13.24); virtue could be sufficient for happiness (Cicero, Parad. 16–19).

141. E.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 9.1; 55.4; Musonius Rufus, 43, p. 138.15; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.1.27; 2.2.3; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11h, p. 74.31–32; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 3.11.2; 8.45.1; cf. Seneca Y., Lucil. 61.4; 94.43; Sevenster, Seneca, 113; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 101. Among Cynics, cf. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.23; 6.5.93.

142. Cicero, Tusc. 5.32.89; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 10.1.11; but he did pursue absence of pain (10.128, 131).

143. Lucian, Icar. 29.

144. Let. Aris. 223; Ps.-Phoc. 6. In Pauline literature, see Phil. 4:11; 1 Tim. 6:6, 8.

145. It applies to subduing the earth and the land in, e.g., LXX Gen. 1:28; 9:1 (added in the LXX); Num. 21:24; 32:22, 29; Sir. 17:4; 1 Macc. 15:30; Barn. 6:13, 17.

146. Klēros sometimes applied to allotted inheritance (Gen. 48:6; Num. 27:7), including in the promised land (Exod. 6:8; Num. 26:55–56; 34:13–15; Ezek. 48:29) or the kingdom (Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:11; Col. 1:12); or to shares in ministry (1 Chron. 24:5–7, 31; 25:8–9; 26:13–14; Acts 1:17); but it could also refer to one’s “lot in life,” so to speak, recognizing God’s sovereignty (Diogn. 5:4).

147. E.g., Cicero, Quint. fratr. 1.1.9.27; Verr. 1.8.21; Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.59.2; Pliny Y., Ep. 2.12.2; 4.9.2; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.3 (but cf. Tacitus, Ann. 3.58, 71); 1 Chron. 24:5, 7, 31; 25:8; 26:13–14; 1QS 11.7; Josephus, Ant. 7.367; cf. t. Sukkah 4:15–16; further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:776–79.

148. Cf. Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7; Ignatius, Magn. 6:2; negatively, 4 Macc. 6:19; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11.

149. Cato the Elder allegedly urged “those in power to be sparing of their authority, so that authority might continue always to be theirs” (Cato the Elder 12, in Plutarch, S. Rom., Mor. 198F [trans. Babbitt, LCL, 3:179]).

150. E.g., Isocrates, Nic. 37; Seneca Y., Dial. 7.11.1 (delicately, cf. 7.18.1); Musonius Rufus, 9, p. 74.13–19; Tacitus, Ann. 15.62 (regarding Seneca); Paul in Acts 20:18–27, 31, 33–35; esp. 1 Cor. 4:16; 9; 11:1. Cf. Fiore, “Exemplification,” 233–34; Fowl, “Imitation.”

151. For disciples imitating teachers, see, e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.3; Quintilian, Inst. 1.2.26; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.21; Josephus, Life 11; b. Ber. 62a; Kirschner, “Imitatio”; for an extreme example, see Seneca E., Controv. 9.3.12–13; so also for other leaders (e.g., Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 1.363–64).

152. Plutarch, Praising 15, Mor. 544D.

153. See Clarke, “Imitators”; Ehrensperger, “Imitators.” Imitating “the crucified Christ and his suffering followers” contrasts with the Roman ideal of imitating the powerful (Kwon, Corinthians, 86–87; at length, see the contrast in Harrison, “Imitation”).

154. “Chief” was often conjoined to titles of professions to designate the leader of the group, whether chief bakers (Gen. 40:1–22; 41:10; Philo, Drunkenness 210–16; Dreams 2.5, 16, 155, 158; Joseph 88, 93, 104), chief builders (Sir. 38:27; 2 Macc. 2:29; Eupolemus, Frag. 2.12 [34.1, OTP 2:868]; 1 Cor. 3:10; Josephus, Ant. 3.104; 10.56; 19.9; Life 156) or chief shepherds (T. Jud. 8:1). Deissmann (Light, 99–100) identifies this as the regular term for a shepherd over some other shepherds.

155. E.g., Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 16.79.3; Pliny E., Nat. 15.5.19; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.15; 66.5; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 1.4; Pseudo-Callisthenes, Alex. 1.19; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.217–18. Crowns of gold (e.g., Philo, Dreams 2.62; Rev. 4:4; 9:7; 14:14) were much less common.

156. E.g., Aeschines, Ctes. 179; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 16.79.3; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 9.11; 28.4; 31.21–22, 82, 95; 37.15 (Favorinus); 66.5; Pliny Y., Ep. 10.118.1; Suetonius, Nero 24.2; 25.1; Lucian, Anach. 9, 16; Book-Coll. 10; Pausanias, Descr. 6.8.4; 6.14.11; Pseudo-Callisthenes, Alex. 1.19; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 31; Libanius, Encom. 7.13; 9.8; T. Job 4:10; cf. Decker, “Prizes.” On vase paintings, see Hurschmann, “Tainia.” Sometimes this was applied figuratively, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.15; 9.11–13; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 1.4–6; 34.8–9; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 9.49; Wis. 4:2; Philo, Dreams 2.62; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.217–18; T. Job 4:10/8; Exod. Rab. 21:11.

157. E.g., Thucydides, Hist. 2.46.1 (figuratively); Polybius, Hist. 6.39.5–6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 6.94.1; Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 8 (Thrasybulus), 4.1; 16 (Pelopidas), 5.5; Pliny E., Nat. 15.5.19; Arrian, Anab. 7.5.4; 7.10.3; Suetonius, Jul. 2; Aulus Gellius, Att. 5.6; Josephus, J.W. 7.105; but these may have followed the athletic analogy, as in Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 7 (Alcibiades), 6.3; Pliny E., Nat. 15.5.19; Plutarch, Luc. Cim. 2.1; Lucian, Posts 13.

158. E.g., Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.6.5; Suetonius, Jul. 2; Lucian, Book-Coll. 20; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 1.25.530; Her. 23.23; 33.19; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.41; cf. Polybius, Hist. 32.1.1; 32.2.1; also data in Horsley, Documents 2, §14.3, p. 50.

159. E.g., for Athenian citizenship, Aeschines, Tim. 21; for prosperity, Sib. Or. 5:100; for celebration, Apoll. K. Tyre 46; Jub. 16:30; Josephus, J.W. 7.72; Winter, Left Corinth, 275; for weddings, m. Soṭah 9:14; Eccl. Rab. 10:5, §1; Lam. Rab. 5:16, §1; Menander, Sam. 732–33; Sik. 418–19; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.6, 409.10, 13; other rewards, Sir. 15:6; 32:2; at Sinai, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:3; b. Šabb. 88a; Song Rab. 4:4, §1; Lam. Rab. 2:13, §17; Pesiq. Rab. 10:6; 21:7. For various other figurative uses, see, e.g., Ps. 89:39; Lam. 5:16; Let. Aris. 280; m. ʾAbot 4:13; 6:5; ʾAbot R. Nat. 41A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:7; b. Ber. 7a; Gen. Rab. 63:2; Exod. Rab. 34:2; Num. Rab. 14:10; Eccl. Rab. 7:1, §2.

160. Euripides, frg. 853. Cf. Lucian, Posts 13.

161. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 9.10–12; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 1.4–6; 34.9; cf. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.41; the crown of Torah in ʾAbot R. Nat. 41A.

162. 1QS 4.7; 4Q257 5.5; Wis. 5:16; cf. 2 Bar. 15:8; T. Job 4:10; 40:3; Sib. Or. 2:153–54; b. Ber. 17a; Meg. 15b; Deut. Rab. 3:7.

163. 2 Bar. 15:8 (trans. Klijn, OTP 1:626).

164. 4 Macc. 17:15 (AT).

165. Job 19:9; Isa. 28:5; Sir. 1:11; a glorious crown in LXX Jer. 13:18; Lam. 2:15; with a different term, Sir. 47:6. Age (cf. 1 Pet. 5:5) is also associated with a crown of honor (boasting, in LXX) in Prov. 16:31.

166. See, e.g., Phil. 4:1; 1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Thess. 2:19; Rev. 2:10; Ignatius, Magn. 13:1; Papias, Frag. 22:1 (Holmes); 2 Clem. 7:3; Hippolytus, Ref. 1.proem.

167. Also Mart. Pol. 17:1; 19:2, for martyrs.

168. The crown of righteousness in Let. Aris. 280 means simply righteous rule.

169. Also in 2 Bar. 15:8; T. Benj. 4:1.

170. Philostratus (Her. 53.9) uses “unfading garlands” to refer to those that were fresh and not soon to wilt, but the context in 1 Peter indicates real permanence.

171. These leaves’ perishability sometimes evoked comment, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.15; 31.82.

172. Cf. Grant, Paul, 37; Thiselton, Corinthians, 711. The crown of celery, awarded “at the Isthmian Games, was already withered (I Cor. 9:25)” (Broneer, “Games,” 17).

173. Note also the falling flower of the glory and crown of the wicked in LXX Isa. 28:1, 3, which contrasts with the Lord of hosts as a garland of hope and glory for the remnant of his people (LXX Isa. 28:5; cf. also 61:3, 10; 62:3; for the fallen crown of glory, cf. also LXX Jer. 13:18; Lam. 2:15). Several paragraphs later Isaiah speaks of the chosen and precious cornerstone (Isa. 28:16), on which Peter elaborates in 1 Pet. 2:6.

174. By the early second century, some highlighted submission to overseers (bishops) and elders (Ignatius, Pol. 6:1; Eph. 2:2; 5:3; Magn. 2:1; 13:2; Trall. 2:1–2; 13:2).

175. E.g., Homer, Il. 1.259; 23.616–23; Xenophon, Cyr. 8.7.10; Aristotle, Pol. 2.7.5, 1272a; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 2.58.6; 21.18.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 8.15.1; Dionysius Cato, Coll. Dist. 10; Livy, Hist. 5.25.3; 6.24.7; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.1.9–10; 4.5.ext. 2; Pliny Y., Ep. 8.14.4, 6; 8.23.3; Ptolemy, Tetrab. 4.10.206; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.4, 394.22; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 16.69; Libanius, Anec. 3.19. In earlier Greek culture, see Grmek, Diseases, 108. The practice is not limited to Mediterranean cultures; cf. the Confucian emphasis (e.g., Confucius, Analects 2.8; 13.20 [32, 87]) noted in, e.g., Kwon, Corinthians, 201.

176. Cf. the wisdom of age in, e.g., Aeschylus, Frag. 228 (justice) (Smyth and Lloyd-Jones, LCL, 2:502; Stobaeus, Anth. 4.50.7); Euripides, Pel. frg. 619 (Collard and Cropp, LCL, 8:77); Aeschines, Tim. 24; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 1.1.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 8.15.1; Phaedrus, Fab. 4.2.16–19; Plutarch, Old Man passim, Mor. 783B–797F; Pliny Y., Ep. 3.1.10; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.11; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 1:19; for local knowledge, Lysias, Or. 23.5, §167; for oratorical skill, Philostratus, Vit. soph. 1.25.543. There were, of course, exceptions (e.g., Aeschylus, Frag. 224 [in Smyth and Lloyd-Jones, LCL, 2:501, from Stobaeus, Anth. 3.29.24]; Fronto, M. Caes. 3.3; Syr. Men. Sent. 170–72; cf. Wis. 4:8–9). Not all remained mentally keen into old age (Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 5.21), but some did (e.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 76; Pausanias, Descr. 1.18.8; Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 1.9.494; see, much more fully, Keener, John, 102–3).

177. Cicero, Att. 14.21; 15.1; Musonius Rufus, 17, p. 108.28; Sib. Or. 1:299–304. Deterioration of beauty was one problem (Cicero, Att. 15.1; Syr. Men. Sent. 397–401), although it could be supernaturally arrested (Jos. Asen. 22:7).

178. Prov. 16:31; 20:29; Philo, Good Person 87; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.206; Ant. 3.47; 18.12; J.W. 2.145; 4 Bar. 5:20; Syr. Men. Sent. 11–14, 76–93; Syr. Men. Epit. 2–4; cf. Wis. 2:10; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; Leon, Jews of Rome, 230. Prominent local leaders tended to be those who were aged, as both literary texts (Josephus, Life 266; Let. Aris. 32, 39; Acts 14:23) and inscriptions (CIJ 1:294, §378; 1:426, §581; 1:432, §595; 1:433, §597; 2:9, §739; 2:45, §790; 2:46, §792; 2:53, §801; 2:76–77, §828a; 2:77, §828b; 2:79, §829; 2:137, §931; cf. CIJ 1:lxxxvi–lxxxvii) testify, as does the LXX (e.g., Josh. 24:1; Judg. 8:14, 16; 11:5–11; 21:16; Ruth 4:2–11; 2 Chron. 34:29; Jer. 33:17 [ET 26:17]; Jdt. 6:16; 7:23–24; 13:12; 1 Macc. 1:26; 7:33; 11:23; 12:35; 13:36; 14:20, 28; 2 Macc. 13:13; 14:37). Among Amoraim, see Cohen, “Criterion”; cf. Perelmuter, “Strength.”

179. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 138; cf. Gardner, Women, 40 (average being below 30, as low as 21.11); Scheidel, “Age Structure” (estimates below 30 are plausible but hypothetical). Garland (“Age”) finds 34 years the average for wives, and 46.5 for husbands, in burial epitaphs; in Jewish burials the average age of skeletons was 38 years (Nagar and Torgeë, “Characteristics”). Against extrapolations from some other societies, ancient Mediterranean nutrition may have been better than is often supposed (Kron, “Anthropometry”; Borowski, “Eat”). Arrian (Ind. 9.1) seems to suppose 40 to be a low life expectancy (but he was not an Egyptian peasant).

180. Harlow and Laurence, “Old Age.”

181. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 7.47.1; Aeschines, Tim. 23–24; Cicero, Verr. 2.4.64.142. Young men should speak little in the presence of elders (Sir. 32[35]:7–9).

182. Lycurgus 14 in Plutarch, S. Sp., Mor. 227F; Xenophon, Mem. 2.3.16. Roman society also demanded giving way to one’s elder (Dionysius Cato, Coll. Dist. 10; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 7.47.1).

183. Ps.-Phoc. 220–21; t. Meg. 3:24; reversal of this practice reflects the eschatological time of evil (Song Rab. 2:13, §4). Appropriate etiquette for rising before elders is discussed in y. Bik. 3:3, §§4–6.

184. Plutarch, Demosth. 12.1; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.41; Josephus, Life 80.

185. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isocr. 8; Josephus, Ant. 18.12; 4 Bar. 5:20; t. Meg. 3:24; cf. Sophocles, Antig. 726–27 (ironically).

186. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.1.22 (trans. Hicks, LCL, 2:341).

187. Justinus, Epit. 3.3.9 (trans. Yardley, 47).

188. Aeschines, Tim. 25 (trans. Adams, LCL, p. 23).

189. SPap 3:476–77, §116 (trans. D. L. Page).

190. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.206 (trans. Thackeray, LCL, 1:377); cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.47.

191. Josephus, J.W. 2.146.

192. Josephus, Ant. 18.12 (trans. Feldman, LCL, 9:11).

193. Syr. Men. Sent. 13–14 (trans. Baarda, OTP 2:592).

194. Syr. Men. Epit. 2–4 (trans. Baarda, OTP 2:591).

195. Ps.-Phoc. 221–22 (trans. van der Horst, OTP 2:582, including note e).

196. For discussion and documentation, see Keener, “Vigor”; further, Keener, Acts, 2:1447–48. Youth was sometimes associated with lack of self-control (Euripides, Alcest. 1052–54; Sallust, Catil. 3.3; 12.2; 13.4; 14.5–6; 17.6; 18.4; 37.7; 38.1; Cicero, Pis. 28.68–69; Cael. 20.48–49; Seneca E., Controv. 2.6.7–8, 10–11; Seneca Y., Trojan Women 250–51; Lucian, Tox. 14, 16; T. Reu. 1:6; 2:9; 3:8; 4:6). Thus they needed virtuous mentoring from elders (cf. Isocrates, Demon. 15; Cato the Elder 12, in Plutarch, S. Rom., Mor. 198F; Pliny Y., Ep. 3.3.3–4, 7; 2 Tim. 2:22).

197. Cf. a sort of mutuality in Philo, Decalogue 167: the law commands the young to heed the old, and the old to show care for the young.

198. I draw here on texts using a common conception of positively condescending leaders, though they express it through several different terms. I draw on my material from Keener, Acts, 3:3008.

199. See, e.g., Feldmeier, Peter, 239–40. Among Jews, even this could be honorable for a leader; Josephus, Ant. 3.212; m. ʾAbot 3:12; Sipre Deut. 38.1.4; b. Meg. 28a; b. Pesaḥ. 66b; b. Soṭah 32b, bar.; b. Taʿan. 20b; y. Sanh. 6:6, §2; y. Soṭah 9:13, §2; y. Taʿan. 4:2, §§8–9; Num. Rab. 9:20; ʾAbot R. Nat. 15, 38 A; 29, §§60–62 B; 33, §73 B; 41, §111 B; Maher, “Humble”; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 117; Keener, John, 904–7. Still, rabbis expected honor (e.g., t. Moʿed Qaṭ. 2:17; t. Sanh. 7:8; Sipra Šem. Mek. d. 99.5.6; 99.6.1; y. Ketub. 12:3, §6; Gen. Rab. 33:3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 25A; 27, §56B).

200. See, e.g., (for prao- cognates), Musonius Rufus, 16, p. 104.18; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.37; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11s, p. 100.4–7 (avoiding anger); Lucian, Alex. 61. Lowliness (in the sense of tapeinos) could elicit pathos (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 13.10); sometimes it was appropriate (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 9.20). Most considered modesty more honorable than self-boasting (Symmachus, Ep. 1.2.6; 1.16.2; 1.43.1–2).

201. E.g., Ptolemy as a gentle (praos) and kind king (Polybius, Hist. 39.7.3–4), showing mercy rather than revenge (39.7.5–6); cf. Let. Aris. 257; for a governor, Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.4, 389.8; for a rabbi, e.g., b. Šabb. 31a. Many texts value a ruler’s mercy and kindness, e.g., Polybius, Hist. 1.72.3; 3.99.7; 39.7.3–6; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 27.16.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 3.54.2; Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 8 (Thrasybulus), 2.6; Res gest. 1.3; Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.25.2–3; 2.29.3; 2.52.4; 2.56.1; 2.85.5; 2.86.2; 2.87.2–3; 2.98.2–3; 2.114.1, 3; 2.122.1; Arrian, Anab. 1.17.12; 4.19.6; Appian, Hist. rom. 10.4.24; Suetonius, Jul. 74.1; 75.1; Aug. 51; Vesp. 12; 14; Tit. 9.1; Herodian, Hist. 1.2.4; Babrius, Fab. 102.3; Iamblichus, Ep. 1, frg. 1 (from Stobaeus, Anth. 4.5.76); Matt. 21:5; cf. also Josephus, Life 353; Sipre Deut. 323.4.1; despite Achilles’s more commonly vengeful personality, Homer, Il. 24.507–8, 665–70; see further Good, King, 47–49; Konstan, “Clemency”; Harrison, Authorities, 139, 141. Such clemency could be impractical in some settings, however (Cicero, Or. Brut. 24.10 [1.15.10]). Gentile philosophers did struggle with the concept of pity when it violated notions of justice (cf. Judge, Athens, 185).

202. See esp. Good, King, passim.

203. Tacitus, Hist. 2.5.

204. Suetonius, Vit. 7.3.

205. Lucian, Peregr. 18. Imperial claims to reject honor, of course (cf., e.g., Res gest. 1.4; 2.10; 4.24; Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.89.4–5; 2.103.3; 2.122.1–2; 2.124.2), are probably no more ingenuous than those of Sejanus (Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.127.4).

206. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.40; 12.77.

207. For relinquishing status, see, e.g., Winter, Left Corinth, 69; on status issues in Corinth, cf. also the seminal Theissen, Social Setting; Malherbe, Social Aspects.

208. The particular term can appear in contexts of slave clothing (Kelly, Peter, 206) but does not appear limited to that (Beare, Peter, 176).

209. The following comments are from Keener, Galatians (2019), on 3:27.

210. Burton, Galatians, 204, citing Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 11.5.2.

211. Burton, Galatians, 204, citing Libanius, Ep. 968, though this source was composed much later.

212. Burton, Galatians, 204; Bruce, Galatians, 186; Das, Galatians, 382.

213. LXX Judg. 6:34; 1 Chron. 12:19 (ET 12:18); 2 Chron. 24:20; with, e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 150. On clothing metaphors, see further Keener, Mind, 111.

214. E.g., 4 Macc. 6:2; Apoc. Mos. 20:1; perhaps m. ʾAbot 6:1, bar.; Pesiq. Rab. 1:2; clothed with evil in 4 Ezra 3:26. Clothing with some quality was not an unusual metaphor (e.g., Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.10.590).

215. L.A.B. 27:9–10; b. Meg. 14b.

216. Pss. Sol. 11:7; 1 En. 62:15–16; 2 En. 22:8 (cf. 22:9–10). McNamara (Judaism, 223) and Meeks (Urban Christians, 155) consider Adam and Eve’s “garments of glory” or “honor” (Tg. Neof. 1, Tg. Ps.-J., and Tg. Onq. on Gen. 3:21).

217. 1 Clem. 30:3; Polycarp, Phil. 1:2; Herm. 20:2; 22:8; 26:2; 27:4; 34:8; 39:7, 10; 42:1, 4; 43:4; 44:1; 45:4; 61:2, 4; cf. 65:3; 75:1; 90:2. For “laying aside” (apotithēmi), see 1 Clem. 13:1; 57:2.

218. Although other “humble/exalt” verses existed, precisely the same quotation appears in James 4:6; 1 Clem. 30:2, both also reading theos, like 1 Peter, against the dominant LXX version kurios.

219. As in Josephus, J.W. 2.194; Ignatius, Eph. 5:3. For God opposing the proud, cf. Augustine, Serm. 156.10 (WSA 3/5:102; Bray, Peter, 123).

220. As in Pss. 17:28 (ET 18:27); 88:11 (differing from MT 89:11 and ET 89:10); Job 22:29; Isa. 1:25 (differing from the MT); 2:12; 13:11; Sir. 13:20; Jdt. 6:19; cf. Let. Aris. 263; Josephus, Ant. 20.56; 1 Clem. 16:2.

221. Though most often for God giving favor, in Gen. 39:21; 43:14; Exod. 3:21; 11:3; 12:36; Tob. 1:13; Ps. 83:12 (ET 84:11); Dan. 1:9; Bar. 2:14; Let. Aris. 249; T. Jud. 2:1; T. Jos. 11:6; another sort of grace in Josephus, J.W. 7.325. Its usage is not, however, limited to God (e.g., Philo, Embassy 334; Josephus, Ant. 7.185).

222. Divine exaltation can also relate to honoring elders, as in 1 Pet. 5:5; cf. Syr. Men. Sent. 13–14: “Honor him who is older than you, (and) God will raise you to honor and dignity” (trans. Baarda, OTP 2:592).

223. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.69 (trans. Hicks, LCL, 1:71). Cf. the fourth-century CE praise in Libanius, Speech 4.2; the reconstruction of Ahiq. 149 (saying 60) in Lindenberger, OTP 2:505 (using Armenian Ahiq. 2.35).

224. Sir. 7:11. Cf. Tob. 4:19.

225. Sir. 11:1.

226. Let. Aris. 262–63 (trans. Hadas, Aristeas, 203).

227. ʾAbot R. Nat. 11 A (trans. Goldin, 62); 22, §46 B (p. 136).

228. Cf. the same idea in Sir. 11:5–6; ʾAbot R. Nat. 11A; 22B; b. ʾAbot 6:4, bar.; b. ʿErub. 13b; Gen. Rab. 1:5; Der. Er. Zuṭ. 9 (following Moore, Judaism, 2:274; Lachs, Commentary, 368).

229. Sir. 2:17–18 (AT).

230. The Lord’s, in 2 Chron. 6:32; Job 30:21; Ezek. 3:14; 1 Esd. 8:46, 60 (ET 8:47, 61); 3 Macc. 5:13; for the idiom more generally, Deut. 8:17; Jdt. 11:22. For future deliverance, see Ezek. 20:33–34.

231. See Exod. 3:19; 6:1; 13:3, 9, 14, 16; Deut. 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26; 26:8; Neh. 1:10; Ps. 135:12 (ET 136:12); Jer. 39:21 (ET 32:21); Bar. 2:11; somewhat more generally, Deut. 11:2.

232. So also Oecumenius, Comm. 1 Pet. (PG 119:573; Bray, Peter, 124).

233. Ancient readers also noticed a connection between the letters; see, e.g. (in Bray, Peter, 65–66), Andreas Presbyter, Catena (CEC 41–42); Oecumenius, Comm. 1 Pet. (PG 119:513).

234. Cf. the humble being exalted and the exalted being humbled in Matt. 23:12 // Luke 14:11; 18:14; Satan being cast down from heaven as the disciples carry out Jesus’s commission (Luke 10:18; overcoming the devil in 10:19); a similar image of the exalted being brought down in Matt. 11:23 // Luke 10:15. If Jesus quoted Prov. 3:34 and Luke’s source for Luke 10:15–18 (perhaps Q) included it (in basically its LXX form), or if that source added it as comment, this source may also be a shared source for Peter and James.

235. Possibly echoed in Herm. 19:3; 23:4–5.

236. The psalm has epirripson epi kurion tēn merimnan sou; Peter has pasan tēn merimnan humōn epiripsantes ep’ auton, especially changing an aorist imperative to an aorist participle and making the audience of the invitation plural. The NT uses Peter’s verb only twice; the LXX uses it some fourteen times, and merimna or its verb cognate nineteen times. These are the only two verses in which overlap of the terms appears. For the idea, cf. possibly Ps. 68:19 (MT 68:20).

237. See discussion in Keener, Mind, 223.

238. For God’s care for all people, see also, e.g., Sib. Or. 1:72; Philo, Names 45; Flaccus 102; Josephus, Ant. 7.45; J.W. 5.60; cf. Plato, Phaedr. 246E4–247A1 (cited in Macrobius, Sat. 1.23.5); for his people Israel, Josephus, Ant. 3.88; 4.318; J.W. 2.186. (This conception is far from Epicurean views of divine impassibility.) Following biblical teaching (Deut. 7:7, 13; 10:15; 23:5; 33:3; Isa. 43:4; 63:9; Hosea 11:1), Jewish tradition naturally highlighted God’s special love toward his people (CD 8.17; Sipre Deut. 97.2; 24.3.1; Gen. Rab. 80:7; Exod. Rab. 18:5; 38:4; 51:4; Num. Rab. 14:4; Song Rab. 8:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 36, §94B; cf. Goshen-Gottstein, “Love.” Contrast Eliphaz’s wrong supposition of God’s lack of concern for people’s righteousness in LXX Job 22:3.

↑ Back to top