God’s People
God’s People
1 Peter 2:4–10
Chosen Foundation for a Chosen People (2:4–10)
2:4
That’s the Lord to whom you come: a living stone rejected as unfit by people, but chosen by God as priceless.
2:5
In the same way, as living stones, you’re being built as a spiritual house, for a consecrated community of priests that offers up spiritual sacrifices pleasing to God through Jesus Christ.
2:6
The Bible includes comment about this: “Look, I’m putting a stone in Zion, a chosen, invaluable cornerstone, and whoever trusts in it will not be shamed.”
2:7
So he’s invaluable to you who trust him. For those who don’t trust him, however: “The stone that the builders rejected as unfit is the very one that became the cornerstone!”
2:8
Moreover: “A stone to trip over and a rock over which they fall!” Because they disobey the message, they fall, a destiny to which they’ve been consigned.
2:9
By contrast, you’re a chosen people, “a royal community of priests, a consecrated nation,” a people precious to God. That’s so you may make known the greatness of the one who called you out of darkness into his amazing light.
2:10
Although at one time you were “not a people,” now you are “God’s people.” Although at one time you “hadn’t received mercy,” now you “have received it.”
In 2:4–10, Peter reminds his audience of their new identity as a community founded on Christ, although he will soon go on to show how this alternative community must still function as resident aliens within the world (2:11–3:12). In 2:4, Peter shifts from an image of human maturation to one of architecture (as Paul can shift effortlessly from agriculture to architecture in 1 Cor. 3:6–17).
The biblically saturated wording of 1 Pet. 2:4 anticipates the explicit biblical quotations in 2:6–7. Peter also presupposes Jesus as divine here (though his language also presupposes a distinction between Jesus and God the Father). The accusative pronoun hon in the Greek text of 2:4 refers back to the psalm allusion in 2:3; “coming to” him evokes a line in that psalm’s context (LXX Ps. 33:6 [missing in ET 34:5]).1 Yet whereas the Lord in the psalm is clearly YHWH, Peter refers in 2:4 to Jesus (to whom he applies the quotation in 2:6).
The adjective living (2:4) not only distinguishes this stone from the literal, inanimate variety, but it also connects this stone with the living hope (1:3), God’s living message (1:23), and in particular the resurrection (2:24; cf. 4:6). That the stone was rejected by people before being exalted by God speaks of unjust suffering; Peter soon urges his hearers to share, when necessary, Christ’s sufferings (2:21; 4:13–16). The stone is chosen (2:4–5), like Peter’s audience (1:1; 2:9), and invaluably precious (2:4, 6), like believers’ faith (1:7), Jesus’s blood (1:19), and believers’ hearts (3:4), but its value is evident only to people of faith (2:7). The contrast between the divine and mortal perspectives is common in 1 Peter and in early Christian sources generally. Peter’s chosen and precious stone anticipates his Isaiah quotation in 1 Pet. 2:6.
The living stones of 2:5 are those who share Christ’s risen life, and thus can function like the living stone of 2:4. Greek and Roman mythology recounts stones becoming people,2 but (of far greater relevance here) 1 Peter uses temple imagery (2:5–8). Peter does not identify an explicit source for the image of believers as stones, but it was available in the gospel tradition with its background in OT people-of-God imagery. Most obviously, God could raise up people for himself, without genetic lineage from Abraham, from stones (Matt. 3:9 // Luke 3:8).3 Peter will soon (in 2:9) make explicit his theological source (Exod. 19:6) for identifying them as a consecrated community (or order) of priests; the spiritual house where they offer sacrifices is a spiritual temple. At least some other Jews appropriated the building metaphor for God’s people, developing OT images of God “building” his people;4 early Christians also embraced the image.5
The spiritual house draws on the early Christian image of God’s people as a spiritual house or temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:18–22; Rev. 3:12).6 This image in turn adapts an already existing Jewish image, especially in the Qumran scrolls.7 In 1QS 8.5–9, the sectarians appear as “a temple for Israel,” “a Holy of Holies for Aaron,” a “wall,” “the costly cornerstone” (of Isa. 28:16), and “a perfect and true house in Israel.” In 9.6 they are a “holy house for Aaron,” a “Holy of Holies,” and “a house for the community.” Such a living house might also prefigure the eschatological temple expected by many Jewish people in antiquity.8 Scripture already played on various senses of “house” (see 2 Sam. 7:7, 11, 13, 16), and some scholars plausibly suggest here a connection with the household, relevant to the household codes of 1 Pet. 2:13–3:7.9 The dominant image at this juncture, however, remains architectural, since this house is built from living stones.10
Spiritual (pneumatikos) could function here as “figurative” (cf. pneumatikōs in Rev. 11:8), in contrast to material.11 More likely, as typically in NT letters, spiritual instead (or additionally) suggests an association with God’s Spirit,12 hence a temple for the Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Eph. 2:22; cf. John 4:21, 24).
The image of spiritual sacrifices also has significant precedent, including in Scripture (e.g., LXX Ps. 140:2 [ET 141:2]; see further my next paragraph). Figurative or metaphoric sacrifices appear frequently in ancient sources.13 Although Stoics participated in public cults, in principle they affirmed that the wise “are the only [genuine] priests; for they have made sacrifices their study, as also the building of temples, purifications, and all the other matters appertaining to the gods.”14 Similar ideas appear in The Pythagorean Sentences: “The wise man alone is a priest, alone is dear to the gods, and alone knows how to pray.”15 Likewise, “Votive gifts and sacrifices do not honor God; offerings are not an honor to God. But the inspired mind which is completely secure meets God, for like must come to like.”16 For Porphyry, a later Neoplatonist, the true temple of the divine was the wise man’s mind;17 God was honored not by sacrifices but by a God-filled frame of thinking.18
Certainly the priority of spiritual sacrifices was biblically supportable, already appearing in the OT.19 In early Jewish circles in Judea, praise,20 alms,21 and other righteous deeds22 counted as sacrifices. Some Jews also opposed animal sacrifices, though perhaps especially to critique pagan ones. Qumran sectarians developed this idea: the council of the community is “appointed to offer expiation for the earth”; “to make offerings of sweet savour”; “And they shall be accepted as expiation for the earth.”23 They would atone for guilt, “becoming an acceptable sacrifice for the land through the flesh of burnt offerings, the fat of sacrificial portions, and prayer, becoming—as it were—justice itself, a sweet savor of righteousness and blameless behavior, a pleasing freewill offering.”24 Outsiders differed as to whether Essenes offered their own sacrifices away from the temple25 or did not sacrifice at all, dedicating instead their minds in reverence.26 Although the covenanters probably did value literal sacrifices,27 the Qumran texts also suggest spiritual sacrifices.28 The sectarians may have believed that their spiritual sacrifices functioned as the true equivalent of temple sacrifices until the expected new temple of the future era.29
More relevant to Peter’s specified audience (1 Pet. 1:1), some Diaspora Jews, who had less access to the Jerusalem temple, may have adopted wider arguments for praise being the only true sacrifice.30 Already in the Hellenistic era, Aristotle’s student Theophrastus apparently knew of the spiritualization of Jewish sacrifices.31 Such an attitude appears in the pre-Christian Letter of Aristeas: “To honor God . . . not by offerings and sacrifices but by purity of spirit.”32 In Wisdom of Solomon, God accepted martyrs as sacrifices.33 For Philo, piety,34 or the mind devoted in love to God,35 or truth from the soul,36 was the best sacrifice.37
The idea of spiritual sacrifices was thus by no means merely an accommodation to the temple’s destruction.38 Nevertheless, the idea necessarily became more central after the temple’s destruction.39 Jewish teachers then continued the tradition of prayer,40 confession of sin,41 a contrite heart,42 potential martyrdom,43 suffering,44 acts of mercy,45 study of the Torah,46 and other activities as spiritual sacrifices.47
But whereas among gentiles only some members of the intellectual elite really eschewed sacrifices, Christian groups lacked the physical sacrifices typically associated with religion.48 Diaspora Christians, almost always without access to the Jerusalem temple, would not have been able to perform literal sacrifices alongside the spiritual ones. In this respect, they more resembled a philosophic school than what outsiders normally considered religion.49 Whereas Jesus’s Judean followers in this period retained access to sacrifices in the temple,50 his followers in the Diaspora lacked anything of the sort.
Pleasing (euprosdektos) could mean pleasing in various ways, but was also appropriate to the description of sacrifices or offerings pleasing to God (Rom. 15:16), like other terms for pleasing (e.g., euarestos, also used figuratively, in Rom. 12:1; Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:16). People often spoke of what was “pleasing” to a deity,51 and sacrifices had to be “acceptable” or pleasing to a deity.52 Scripture sometimes declared, using various expressions, that God accepted or was pleased with sacrifices offered to him,53 or, conversely, found them unacceptable.54 Here their sacrifices are pleasing to God through Jesus Christ, through whom they came to the true God (1:21), and who is God’s accepted mediator.
2:6
The title Scripture borrows standard nomenclature (as early as Let. Aris. 155, 168).55 Before citing Scripture regarding the community of priests (2:5; developed in 2:9), Peter supplies in 2:6 the biblical support for his (retroactively clear) christological claim in 2:4. Jesus’s relation to the temple (2:5) is as its cornerstone (2:8),56 possibly also implied by his special role in Zion (2:6). Here Peter quotes from Isa. 28:16, a text highlighted also by Paul for its emphasis on faith (Rom. 9:32–33; 10:11), with which Paul blends the wording of another Isaian “stone” text, Isa. 8:14. Early Christian tradition links texts about stones sufficiently widely to suggest a more common source for this common pattern of linking “stone” texts (cf. Matt. 21:42, 4457 // Luke 20:17–18).
The context of the invaluable cornerstone in Isa. 28:16 is a firm foundation of truth and righteousness that exposes the falsehood of the lies in which the wicked have taken refuge58 (28:15–17). Peter’s wording differs somewhat from that of Paul and the most common form of the Greek text. (This is not particularly surprising in any case, since most memory is for meaning rather than verbatim.)59
1 Peter 2:6
Romans 9:33
Isaiah 28:16 LXX
Behold, I put in Zion
Behold, I put in Zion
Behold, I place in Zion
for the foundations
a stone
a stone
a stone
a cornerstone that is chosen and invaluable.
a tripping hazard and a rock for stumbling.
a costly, chosen cornerstone, invaluable
a
And whoever trusts in him would not be shamed.
And whoever trusts in him will not be shamed.
And whoever trusts in him would not be shamed.
a
Zion
Keys
Peter might depend on the LXX and not on Paul, who weaves in another “stone” citation that Peter adds separately afterward, and uses a different grammatical form of “ashamed” than in the LXX. Where they correspond distinctively is only in the first verb, and early Christians may have simply circulated the verse in this form, which offers a legitimate rendering of the Hebrew text.60 Oddly enough, however, both Peter and Paul omit mention of the foundation (twice) here, although allusion to it appears in Eph. 2:20.61 That Peter and Paul both cite Hosea 1–2 in such proximity to citing this verse (Rom. 9:25–26; 1 Pet. 2:10) suggests either that they shared a common early Christian preaching tradition62 or that Peter or his circle may draw on Paul’s letter as one of his sources.63
Like Paul, Peter follows the LXX of Isa. 28:16 in declaring that those who trust in the chosen, foundational stone will not be shamed. By contrast, Peter does expect Christians’ slanderers to be ultimately shamed (1 Pet. 3:16).64 If Christians suffer as Christians, they should not be ashamed, but instead give honor to God (4:16).
2:7
In 2:7, Peter shows that the affirmation of 2:6 applies to those who trust; but the verses he cites in 2:7–8 apply to those who do not. Peter here reverses the sequence in 2:4–5, which speaks first of those who reject the stone and then of those for whom it is precious. Those who trust the stone recognize its supreme value; by contrast, those who do not trust it fit the verdict of another Scripture, rejecting the key stone as worthless! When the Lord exalts that stone, those who despised it will be ashamed. That the value is evident only to those who trust Christ (2:7) fits other early Christian epistemology (e.g., 2 Cor. 2:15–16). The builders who reject the stone in 1 Pet. 2:7 clearly contrast with the one implicitly building the spiritual house in 2:5.65
Jewish expositors commonly linked texts on the basis of shared key words or phrases,66 so it is not surprising that, after quoting one “stone” text in 1 Pet. 2:6, Peter adds another one in 2:7.67 Here he quotes Ps. 118:22, linking it with the material cited in 1 Pet. 2:6 by a shared key word. The verse’s wide use in early Christian tradition (Acts 4:11, attributed to Peter; Eph. 2:20) probably stems from Jesus’s own use (Mark 12:10);68 part of the Hallel (Pss. 113–118), the passage thus was especially familiar in the Passover setting in which the Gospels place it.69 The temple context in Ps. 118:19–20, 27, makes application to the temple natural, as does Jesus’s citation of it in a temple setting (Mark 11:27; 12:10, 35).70
In 2:8, Peter adds yet another “stone” text, Isa. 8:14, a natural text to link with the Isaian “stone” text with which he started this series.71 Although Peter does not provide the full quotation, the context encourages the righteous not to fear what the wicked fear, but instead to fear the Lord (Isa. 8:12–13, which Peter later uses in 1 Pet. 3:14–15). Isaiah’s passage goes on, just before the line that Peter uses here, to speak of the Lord as a “sanctuary” (hagiasma) for the righteous, as well as a stone of judgment to disobedient Israel. “Sanctuary” (hagiasma) is a term sometimes used for the temple,72 and potentially even God’s people as his sanctuary (Judah as hagiasma in LXX Ps. 113:2 [ET 114:2]). That is, Isaiah’s immediate context fits perfectly Peter’s attachment of “stone” imagery to that of the temple. In contrast to a stone of stumbling, those who prayed psalms would be familiar with God as a rock, a fortress-like defense or solid ground, for the righteous (petra in LXX Pss. 26:5 [ET 27:5]; 39:3 [40:2]; 60:3 [61:2]).73
Paul blends Isa. 8:14 into his citation of Isa. 28 in Rom. 9:33, but both Peter and Paul have earlier precedent for blending “stone” texts. Jesus apparently alludes to Isa. 8:14 in Luke 20:18 (between his citation of Ps. 118:22 and his allusion to the pulverizing stone in Dan. 2:34–35, 44). Like Ps. 118:22, this verse offers a stern verdict against those who fail to trust the stone: it will precipitate their downfall. Peter had once learned how he himself could be both a positive rock and a stumbling block (Matt. 16:18, 23),74 but here the rock of stumbling is Christ.
People trip over the stumbling stone.75 “Falling” or “stumbling” can designate apostasy (Rom. 11:11, 22; 14:4, 13; 1 Cor. 8:9, 13; 10:12).76 It refers not to something mildly offensive to another but to an obstacle or stumbling block for faith. Such stumbling or falling contrasts with standing firm, which is by grace and faith (1 Pet. 5:12; Rom. 11:20; cf. 1 Cor. 16:13; 2 Cor. 1:24).
They disobey the message (2:8), in contrast to those who were reborn through it (1:23). Disobeying the message is the same as refusing to trust and entrust oneself to it (2:7);77 Peter applies this language of “disobedience” to the fallen spirits in 3:19–20 and to nonbelievers in general in 3:1 and 4:17. The generic term tithēmi, which I have probably rendered too dramatically as a destiny to which they have been consigned, invites somewhat more detailed comment. It probably functions as a divine passive here, and may evoke 1 Peter’s only other use of the verb, in the immediately preceding context. God placed the stone in Zion (2:6), and God has assigned unbelievers to stumble over it (2:8). Less clear is whether Peter thinks of God consigning unbelievers as a group to this fate—that is, predetermining punishment for unbelief78—or whether he thinks of God predestining specific persons to be such unbelievers.79 If the latter, his foreknowledge might allow for their response just as it does for that of believers belonging to the chosen in 1:1. In either case, the claim contrasts starkly with the chosen people of 2:9.
2:9
Although Peter does not introduce 2:9 with a strong adversative (alla), his emphatic plural “you” (humeis) highlights the contrast with 2:8 well enough. Chosen people may echo various OT passages regarding Israel; the LXX language is closest in Isa. 43:20 (most important; see comment on Isa. 43:21 below) and LXX Esther 16:21,80 but the idea is much wider (e.g., Deut. 4:37; 10:15; 1 Kings 3:8; Isa. 41:8–9; 43:10; 45:4), including in some texts that also speak of a people precious to God (Deut. 7:6; 14:2). For chosenness, see comment on 1:1. The first term that I render as people (genos) can be roughly synonymous with the terms rendered as nation (ethnos) and people (a different Greek term, laos), but when used more narrowly genos can also connote family or lineage, appropriate to those born from God (1 Pet. 1:3, 23).81
A royal community of priests, a consecrated nation recalls the LXX of Exod. 19:6,82 where God describes Israel’s identity among all peoples if they keep his covenant (19:5).83 A people precious to God evokes Exod. 19:5,84 although the LXX uses a different Greek term for “special.”85 There his covenant people would be to him a special, treasured possession for himself alone,86 above all other peoples of the earth.
Jewish people continued to celebrate this statement of their identity, a heritage that Peter affirms for his audience that follows Israel’s God and Messiah:87
In Roman Asia, royal community of priests might suggest competition with priests of the imperial temples,94 but if Peter (or anyone else quoting the LXX) partly envisioned such a contrast, they would probably not be very explicit, especially when writing in Rome. In any case, as Israel was meant to be a kingdom of priests to YHWH,95 so these priests would offer spiritual sacrifices (2:5). On their consecrated status, see also 1:15–16; 2:5. Their status as specially loved by God fits a status held by Israel in Jewish tradition.96
These titles occasioned much comment among early Christian commentators:97
Being priests, Christians naturally worship and, in light of OT temple practice (e.g., 1 Chron. 25:1–31),104 lead worship. Thus they summon others to recognize God’s excellent character; the verb rendered as make known (exangellō) often applies to praising God for his righteous acts.105 The term I rendered as greatness can mean “excellences” or “virtues” (aretai; sing. aretē); inscriptions use it to praise civic benefactors, so it is natural in a praise context, including in later parts of the LXX (Isa. 42:8, 12; 63:7; Hab. 3:3; Zech. 6:13). Always it was an aspect of character regarded as praiseworthy.106
Aretē107 was a basic Greek term for virtue,108 also used in the plural for virtues;109 it was a frequent topic for intellectual discourse.110 Various schools defined its content somewhat differently,111 but there was considerable overlap among them. Many intellectuals, including both Cynics112 and Stoics,113 regarded it as the chief goal.114 Although many objectives that people value are beyond our grasp, a Stoic reasons, if it is aretē that one seeks, one can obtain it, thus being happy and free from the disturbance of passions.115
In Hellenistic Jewish circles, Philo, writing in the early first century CE, uses the term roughly one thousand times.116 He employs the term especially like Aristotelians do but also incorporates Stoic elements.117 Josephus employs the term nearly three hundred times.118 Earlier, the Letter of Aristeas defines aretē as the fulfillment of good works;119 such virtue characterizes the elders that the Judean high priest sends to Ptolemy.120 The term appears in the Septuagint121 and later early Christianity,122 although sometimes generically. Aretē could encompass other individual virtues (such as wisdom and courage).123 It also could function as a summary of virtues after listing them; thus, for example, a Roman Stoic lists a few virtues and adds, “and virtue as a whole.”124
In 1 Pet. 2:9, Peter evokes the common Greek version of Isa. 43:21: “My people, whom I kept for myself, declare my praises.”125 Two key terms from this verse are identical to 1 Pet. 2:9 (laos, people; and aretas, “praises,” greatness), and another is a cognate (a middle of peripoieō, “kept for myself”; peripoiēsis, which I rendered as precious to God).126 This verse immediately follows the final line in Isa. 43:20, which speaks of God providing for his “chosen people” (to genos mou to eklekton).
That God called his people out of darkness into his amazing light fits Isaian motifs as well (esp. Isa. 9:2 [LXX 9:1]; 42:16; 50:10; 58:8–10; 59:9 with 60:1–2). The term translated as amazing can apply to God’s glory (Exod. 15:11; Odes Sol. 1:11) and to his works, his wonders (e.g., Exod. 34:10; Isa. 25:1; Tob. 12:22; Sir. 11:4). One might compare a Jewish tradition: “Therefore [because of Passover] are we bound to give thanks, to praise. . . . He brought us out from bondage to freedom, from sorrow to gladness, and . . . from darkness to great light, and from servitude to redemption.”127
Peter’s biblical canon often uses “light” figuratively,128 as does the early Gospel tradition dependent on the OT.129 A variety of Jewish sources employ darkness and light figuratively for evil and good respectively130 or with reference to enlightenment in wisdom;131 “light/darkness” dualism is especially common in the Qumran scrolls.132 Eventually, Jewish traditions emphasized the primeval light before or from the creation.133 Because this light would be restored,134 it also was connected with OT images of eschatological light and glory.135 Other Jewish teachers regularly called particularly righteous sages or other persons lights (cf. Matt. 5:14; John 5:35),136 including Adam,137 Abraham,138 Jacob,139 Moses,140 David,141 Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai,142 and ultimately the Messiah;143 the designation also could be applied to Israel,144 Jerusalem,145 the temple,146 or to God himself.147 Moreover, Jewish literature portrays both Wisdom148 and Torah149 as light (e.g., Ps. 119:105, 130; Prov. 6:23). Many used darkness as an image of ignorance.150 Death was also associated with darkness.151 The punishment of the wicked in the afterlife could also be associated with darkness.152
Antithesis was a standard rhetorical device,153 displayed here in the antithesis between light and darkness. Writers commonly employed the contrast between light and darkness to a contrast between good and evil,154 highlighting their incompatibility.155 This moral imagery is frequent in the Qumran scrolls.156 The presence of light banishes darkness (1Q27 col. 1.5–6);157 this triumph of light would especially characterize the activity of the eschatological deliverer (John 1:5; 4Q541 frg. 9, col. 1.4–5). Other early Christians also taught that God called his people from darkness to light (Acts 26:18; 1 Clem. 59:2; cf. Col. 1:12–13; 1 John 2:8–9; 1 Clem. 36:2), perhaps reflecting Isaianic imagery (Isa. 9:2; 42:16; 58:10).158 In 1 Pet. 2:9, this calling (kalesantos) could prefigure the future hope (cf. 3:9; 5:10),159 but probably depends on God calling them in the past (cf. 1:15; 2:21).
2:10
Peter develops further believers’ role as a people (2:9) in 2:10.160 As signs to Israel, Hosea named a daughter “Unloved” and a son “Not-my-people” (Hosea 1:6, 9), a status that would be reversed when God saved his people (Hosea 1:10; 2:1, 23). Like Paul, Peter applies this language not directly to eschatologically restored Israel but to gentiles (Rom. 9:24–26). Paul does envision a future turning of the Jewish people (Rom. 11:25–26), so his point is not a permanent rejection of the Jewish people, but simply that gentiles can be grafted into Israel’s heritage and thus belong to the eschatological people of God. The same approach may well be true of Peter.
1. With Bede, Commentary, 81; Goppelt, Peter, 132n51.
2. E.g., Ovid, Metam. 1.393–94, 400–415; Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.7.2; Statius, Theb. 8.305; for discussion, see Keener, “Stones.” Cf. also dragon’s teeth (Aeschylus, Seven 412–13; Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 3.1355–57; Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.9.23; 3.4.1; Ovid, Metam. 3.101–30; 7.121–30; Her. 6.33; Valerius Flaccus, Argon. 7.76; Seneca Y., Med. 169, 470) and people being turned to stone (Homer, Il. 24.611; Hesiod, Eoiae 16; Ovid, Metam. 2.696, 705–7, 830–32; 4.276–78, 551–60; 10.241–42), not least by seeing hideous Medusa (Pindar, Pyth. 10.47–48; Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.4.2; Ovid, Metam. 4.180–209, 230–35, 248–49, 655–60; Lucian, Hall 19; Portr. 1; 14).
3. Cf. Matt. 7:24–25 // Luke 6:48; 19:40; background in Exod. 28:9–12, 21; Josh. 4:5–22, remembered in subsequent Jewish tradition (e.g., Gen. Rab. 68:11; cf. later scholars as stones in Lam. Rab. 4:1, §1).
4. Ruth 4:11; Pss. 51:18; 69:35; 147:2; Jer. 12:16; 24:6; 31:4, 28; 42:10; 4QpPs (4Q171) 37.3, 16.
5. Matt. 16:18 (Jesus addressing Peter); Rom. 15:20; cf. possibly Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 10:23; 14:4; 1 Thess. 5:11; see Winter, Welfare, 175; Judge, First Christians, 374; Senior, Peter, 60. Note here esp. the stone rejected by “builders” (Mark 12:10; 1 Pet. 2:7), whom Andreas Presbyter, Catena (CEC 51; Bray, Peter, 85), identifies with the Sanhedrin; Mark 12:10 probably involved the new temple from the start (Collins, Mark, 548; esp. Gray, Temple, 76, 107–8, 162; Perrin, Temple, 80–113; on 1 Peter, 55–57).
6. Cf. John 4:23–24; Rev. 21:2 and esp. 21:22. For some proposed similarities and differences between 1 Pet. 2:6–7 and Eph. 2:18–22, see Siegert, “Eckstein.”
7. See, e.g., 1QS 8.5; 4Q511 f35.2–3; Let. Aris. 234; Philo, Rewards 123; among gentiles, cf. figurative temple imagery in Tacitus, Ann. 4.38.2 (in Sinclair, “Temples”); Porphyry, Marc. 19.318–19; the universe as a temple in Cicero, Rep. 6.15.15; cf. Davila, “Macrocosmic Temple”; one’s home figuratively as a temple in Hierocles, Marriage (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.79.53). See further information in Gärtner, Temple; Allison, “4Q403”; Keener, Acts, 1:1033–34; 2:1323, 1417; 3:2639–40, 2643, and esp. 3151–52. For gentile analogies, see most fully Richardson, “Temple Language.”
8. Cf. Manns, “Maison.” On the eschatological temple, see, e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Jub. 1:17, 27; 1 En. 90:28–29; 11Q19; 2 Bar. 32:3–4.
9. See esp. Elliott, Home, 165–266; Elliott, Peter, 414–18.
10. As usually noted, e.g., Bede, Hom. Gosp. 2.24 (Bray, Peter, 85); Leaney, Peter, 31–32; Stibbs, Peter, 99; Davids, Peter, 86n21; Martin, Metaphor, 181–85; Achtemeier, Peter, 159; Senior, Peter, 59; Schreiner, Peter, 105. As magnificent as were the stones in Jerusalem’s humanly-constructed temple (Mark 13:1), they could not compare with a divinely-constructed temple comprised of humans in God’s image and in whom God’s Spirit dwells. This need not, however, entail a supersessionist understanding of the temple metaphor (even on a post-70 reading of 1 Peter; see Botner, “Essence”).
11. So, e.g., Selwyn, Peter, 161. Yet it might refer to the Spirit even in Rev. 11:8 (Roloff, Revelation, 133).
12. E.g., Elliott, Peter, 422 (sacrifices “motivated by the Holy Spirit”); see esp. Fee, Presence, 28–31. Later, cf. probably 1 Clem. 47:3; perhaps 2 Clem. 14:3.
13. Here I borrow from Keener, Mind, 147–49.
14. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.119 (trans. Hicks, LCL, 2:225). Hierocles, Marriage (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.79.53) (p. 83), urged the honor of parents as deities, making their children thus like priests ordained by nature.
15. Pyth. Sent. 15 (in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 110).
16. Pyth. Sent. 20 (in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 111). For purity of soul as well as body required in some sanctuaries, see the sources in Nock, Christianity, 18–19.
17. Porphyry, Marc. 11.191–93, 196–98; 19.318–19.
18. Porphyry, Marc. 19.313–16.
19. E.g., Kelly (Peter, 91) cites Pss. 50:14; 51:16–19; 69:30–31; 141:2; Hosea 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8; cf. also 1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:11–17; 58:3–7; Amos 5:21–24. Fearing God is better than mere sacrifice (Jdt. 16:16).
20. 11Q5 18.9–11; 4Q403 f1i.39–40.
21. Sir. 3:30; 29:12; 35:4. Cf. also alms in Islam (Mbiti, Religions, 330).
22. Sir. 35:1–5.
23. 1QS 8.6, 9–10 (trans. Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings).
24. 1QS 9.4–5 (trans. Wise et al., Scrolls, 139).
25. So Josephus, Ant. 18.19; some think that Josephus merely wished to present the Essenes as positive toward the temple, which he valued (Nolland, “Misleading Statement”). Some suggest that the animal bones at Qumran, which others attribute to sacrifice, come instead from a communal meal (Laperrousaz, “Dépôts”) or merely a rare sacrifice, such as an annual covenant renewal (Duhaime, “Remarques”). There is no clear evidence that the bones found there were used in ritual (Donceel, “Khirbet Qumrân”).
26. Philo, Good Person 75. This may be Philo’s idealization. Heger (“Prayer”) argues that the idea that prayer replaced sacrifice arises from reading later rabbis into Qumran scrolls.
27. See CD 9.14; 11.17–19; 16.13; Davies, “Ideology.”
28. 1QS 9.4–5; CD 11.21; Gärtner, Temple, 30, 44–46. For offerings of praise, see, e.g., 1QS 10.6.
29. Flusser, Judaism, 39–44. Cf. Arnaldich, “Sacerdocio.”
30. Cf. Philo, Planting 126; cf. Knox, Gentiles, 32. Philo’s interest, however, may be especially in opposing the futile sacrifices of the wicked (Planting 108, 164), since he elsewhere does speak favorably of pious sacrifices. Philo (Migration 89–93) attests that some others allegorized all the laws, a practice of which he disapproved (see Sanders, Judaism, 53).
31. Stern, Authors, 1:8–11.
32. Let. Aris. 234. The precise date of composition is debated (see, e.g., Bickermann, “Datierung,” esp. 298; Jellicoe, Septuagint, 39; Hadas, Aristeas, 3–54; Rappaport, “Aristeas”), but Josephus uses it (Ant. 12.12–118), and it is universally regarded as pre-Christian.
33. Wis. 3:6; see also 4 Macc. 17:22.
34. Philo, Moses 2.108.
35. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.201, 271–72, 290; cf. Alleg. Interp. 2.56; Unchangeable 8.
36. Philo, Worse 21; cf. Sacrifices 27; Dreams 2.72. The soul of the one who sacrifices must be free from passions (Spec. Laws 1.257).
37. See now more fully Richardson, “Spiritual Sacrifices,” 9–14.
38. Gathercole, Boasting, 205; cf. Sanders, Judaism, 253. Roetzel (Paul, 7) even suggests Pharisaic influence on Paul’s idea of spiritual sacrifice. Pharisees were meticulous about purity but did not try to achieve it on the priestly level (Sanders, Jewish Law, 131–254). Certainly Peter’s new temple could replace the Jerusalem temple if Peter writes after 70 (Truex, “House”), but from Qumran to Paul (1 Cor. 3:16) the idea easily predates 70.
39. Judaism already affirmed spiritual sacrifices, but Guttmann (“Sacrificial Cult”) probably overstates Pharisaic distaste for the temple establishment.
40. E.g., b. Ber. 15a.
41. b. Sanh. 43b.
42. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:5.
43. Gen. Rab. 34:9.
44. Sipre Deut. 32.5.2.
45. ʾAbot R. Nat. 4A; 8, §22B. Among Christians, cf. Sent. Sextus 47.
46. ʾAbot R. Nat. 4A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:3; Pesiq. Rab. 16:7; cf. Sipre Deut. 306.20.3.
47. Cf. the continuing thought among Christians, e.g., Jerome, Hom. Ps. 1: “If I do what is prescribed, I am praying with my whole body what others are praying with their lips” (Bray, Corinthians, 102). For a different but useful list of spiritual sacrifice language in antiquity, see Talbert, Romans, 283–84.
48. With Dunn, Romans, 710; Witherington, Acts, 398; cf. also Nock, “Vocabulary,” 134.
49. Wilken, “Christians,” 107–10 (yet also as a religious association devoted to Christ, 110–18); Wilken, “Social Interpretation”; Keener, Acts, 3:2610–11. By the second century, many viewed Christianity as a philosophic school; see Wilken, “Social Interpretation,” 444–48; Schmeller, “Gegenwelten.”
50. As in Acts 21:23–26; cf. Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42.
51. E.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 2.14.12; 4.12.11; in Judaism, e.g., Jub. 2:22; 23:10; Tob. 4:21; Wis. 4:10; 9:10; T. Dan 1:3; T. Ab. 15:14 A; cf. Sir. 2:16.
52. In gentile religion, this could be determined by examining the sacrificed animal’s internal organs after the sacrifice (deSilva, Honor, 252). The phrase “acceptable to God” is not uncommon Koine (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 259, citing Priene 114.15; and, later, P.Fay. 90.17; P.Flor. 1.30.30; P.Strass. 1.1.9; P.Gen. 1.15.2; Jewett, Romans, 729, following Foerster, “Εὐάρεστος,” 456). For this and related language applied to sacrifices, see Porphyry, Marc. 17.282–86; for unacceptable sacrifices, see Lucian, Sacr. 12–13 (sarcastically); Runaways 1.
53. E.g., Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:18, 25, 41; Lev. 1:9, 13, 17; and passim; Num. 15:3; Ezra 6:10; Pss. 20:3; 119:108; Isa. 56:7; cf. also 1 Esd. 1:12; Sir. 35:8; 45:16; 50:15; Jub. 6:3; 7:5; 21:7, 9; 49:9; 1QS 3.11; 8.10; 9.4; 2Q24 f4.2; 11Q19 27.4; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.201; Josephus, Ant. 4.34, 311; 6.149; 7.334; 10.64; 12.146.
54. E.g., Gen. 4:4–5; Jer. 6:20; 14:12; Ezek. 43:27; Amos 5:22; Mal. 1:10; 2:13; Jub. 4:2; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.223; Josephus, Ant. 5.266.
55. Hadas (Aristeas, 161, note on Let. Aris. 155) sees this as the earliest use of the title; but cf. LXX 1 Chron. 15:15; 2 Chron. 30:5, 18; Ezra 6:18. Later, cf. m. ʾAbot 3:9–11; 5:1, 27; 6:2, 6, 7.
56. Contrast Qumran sectarians’ view of themselves as not only the temple but also the cornerstone (1QS 8.7).
57. This pairing assumes that Matt. 21:44 is original and not a scribal variant introduced from recollection of Luke 20:18. Its attestation is, however, comparatively early and widespread.
58. The LXX interprets this refuge as taking cover or shelter.
59. McIver, Memory, 60–62; Kloppenborg, “Memory,” 291. For dependence on memory even for sources that are written, see Pelling, “Method,” 92; Small, Wax Tablets, 81, 129, 151–55, 167–68, 176, 181–82, 185–87, 223; Derrenbacker, Practices, 38–39, 47, 96–97. In the earlier Middle East, see Gordon, Near East, 107. In oral tradition, cf. Finnegan, Oral Poetry, 140; Ong, Orality, 56–57; Rubin, Memory, 7, 319; Small, Wax Tablets, 7, 192; McIver, Memory, 120; see further Hunter, “Recall.”
60. Himes (“Change”) argues that Peter was simply improving the LXX here.
61. Cf. possibly Luke 6:48–49; 1 Cor. 3:10–12; Heb. 11:10. Perhaps the omission is to leave room for the apostolic foundations (Rom. 15:20; Rev. 21:14), but the text that mentions both cornerstone and foundation is the one that applies the latter image to apostles and prophets.
62. Against 1 Peter using Paul here, see Jewett, Romans, 612.
63. As I think is reasonable. On my view of Petrine authorship, Paul’s letter to the Romans reached Rome somewhere close to 56 CE, long before (again, on my view) either Paul or Peter would have done so.
64. Prayers that God would spare the petitioner from shame from enemies pervade the Psalms, Christians’ worship book; shame can contrast with hope in God, as in Pss. 69:6; 71:13–14; 119:116.
65. Builders employs an active participial form of oikodomeō; by contrast, the form and function of this verb in 2:5 may be a divine passive.
66. E.g., CD 7.15–20 (without the title); Mek. Pisha 5.103; Mek. Nez. 10.15–16; p. 76.26; p. 77.38; p. 130.17; more generally, cf. Hays, Echoes, 12; Chernick, “Restraints.” On Paul’s use of this method, cf. Plag, “Gezera schawa”; Sanders, Paul, 529.
67. Both Peter and Paul use exegetical methods intelligible to their contemporaries, but christocentrically (Oss, “Interpretation”).
68. Many psalms were for or from Israel’s king, whose triumph entails the triumph of his people (e.g., LXX Pss. 2; 17:38–45, 48, 51 [ET 18:37–45, 47, 50]; 19:7 [20:6]; 20:2 [21:1]; 27:8 [28:8]; 44 [45]; 83:10 [84:9]; 88:39, 52 [89:38, 51]; 131:10, 17 [132:10, 17]).
69. Keener, Matthew, 492; see m. Pesaḥ. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5–7; t. Pesaḥ. 8:22; at other festivals, see t. Sukkah 3:2.
70. A later rabbinic tradition plausibly explains the rejected cornerstone as David, repudiated by Saul (Hilton and Marshall, Gospels and Judaism, 60; Young, Jewish Theologian, 219). Scholars have diverged as to whether Jesus envisaged a cornerstone (e.g., McKelvey, “Cornerstone”; Kelly, Peter, 94; Howe, “Building Stone”; Hultgren, Parables, 369; Moloney, Mark, 226, 234, 347; Snodgrass, Stories, 685n177; Collins, Mark, 548; Schnabel, Mark, 287), fitting his chronological priority, or a topstone (e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 429; Jeremias, “Γωνία,” 792–93; Cahill, “Cornerstone”; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 238; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 808–9; Tan, Mark, 163), fitting his climactic exaltation.
71. On the Isaian “stone” texts, see, e.g., Williams, “Case Study.” For 1 Peter’s version of Isaiah, see Marcar, “Quotations”; for Pauline influence on the tradition behind Peter’s passages, see Koch, “Quotations”; for composite citations in antiquity, see vol. 1 of Adams and Ehorn, Composite Citations.
72. E.g., 1 Chron. 22:19; 28:10; LXX Pss. 77:54 (ET 78:54); 92:5 (93:5); 95:6 (96:6); 131:8 (132:8).
73. Those working midrashically might also think of the rock for water in the wilderness (LXX Pss. 77:15–16, 20 [ET 78:15–16, 20]; 104:41 [105:41]; 113:8 [114:8]; 135:16 [LXX only]), as developed in 1 Cor. 10:4 (cf. L.A.B. 11:15; t. Sukkah 3:11; see Enns, “Well”).
74. Particularly significant if 1 Peter is from Peter or Petrine material, and if Matt. 16:18, 23, also reflect an authentic exchange (on which, see Gundry, “Framework”; van Cangh and van Esbroeck, “Primauté”; Harrington, Matthew, 68; Hagner, Matthew, 465–66; Keener, Matthew, 423–28).
75. E.g., LXX Exod. 23:33; 34:12; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; 8:27; Isa. 29:21; 1 Macc. 5:4; Sir. 27:23; Wis. 14:11; 1 Clem. 35:8. The image naturally derives from tripping over literal stones (e.g., Theophrastus, Char. 15.8; Lev. 19:14; cf. Jdt. 5:1); one should avoid tripping twice over the same stone—i.e., being foiled twice in the same way (Polybius, Hist. 31.11.5).
76. For general figurative use, see, e.g., Plutarch, Cato Y. 30.2; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 7.22; Babrius, Fab. 103.20; specifically with regard to apostasy or falling under righteous judgment, Ezek. 14:3, 4, 7; 18:30; 33:12; 44:12; Sir. 9:5; 25:21; 34:7, 19; 35:15; 39:24; Matt. 5:29–30; 11:6; 13:41; 16:23; 18:6–9; Mark 9:42–47; Luke 7:23; 17:1–2; 1QS 2.12; 3.24; 1QpHab 11.7–8; 4Q174, 3.7–9; b. Soṭah 22a; John 6:61; 16:1; James 2:10; 3:2; 1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 1:10; T. Reu. 4:7.
77. Cf. Heb. 3:18–19. For this word group for disobeying, hence not being among those saved, see also Rom. 2:8; 10:21; 11:30–32; 15:31; Eph. 2:2; 5:6; Col. 3:6; Titus 1:16; 3:3; Heb. 3:18; 4:6, 11; 11:31.
78. See Panning, “Determined.”
79. He could affirm either or both, but need not be addressing both here.
80. Cf. also T. Job 1:5.
81. Cf. Didymus the Blind, Comm. 1 Pet. (PG 39:1762; Bray, Peter, 85): “Those who have accepted the gospel and who have been born again of incorruptible seed are an elect and approved race.”
82. Also LXX Exod. 23:22 (missing in the MT); Isa. 61:6. The phrase also figures, in slightly revised form with targumic parallels, in Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6. In early Jewish and Christian texts following the LXX of Exod. 19, and thus probably here, “royal” generally functions as a noun (Kelly, Peter, 97–98; Best, Peter, 107). Some understand this as a kingdom that is also a priesthood (Abernathy, “Considerations”).
83. Early Jewish interpreters developed further this tradition of a priestly people; see Himmelfarb, “Kingdom.”
84. Also LXX Exod. 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18.
85. But the same Greek term for people; the most relevant passage with the same Greek term as in 1 Pet. 2:9 is Mal. 3:17; also relevant for early Christian usage is esp. Eph. 1:14. Echoing the LXX more directly, see Titus 2:14.
86. Using the Hebrew term səgûllâ; discussion in, e.g., Kaiser, Old Testament Theology, 105.
87. On the language’s value for identity formation here, see, e.g., Stenschke, “Geschlecht”; Horrell, “Race”; Steuernagel, “Community.” On identity formation in 1 Peter, cf. also Green, “Identity.”
88. Jub. 16:18 (trans. Wintermute, OTP 2:88).
89. Jub. 33:20 (trans. Wintermute, OTP 2:120).
90. Philo, Abraham 56–57.
91. Sib. Or. 3:288. They are a holy people in Sib. Or. 3:573, but “royal race” refers to someone else in 3:483 (from probably pre-Christian Asia; see Geffcken, Die Oracula sibyllina, 73).
92. T. Job 1:5 (trans. Spittler, OTP 1:839; 1:3 in Kraft, pp. 22–23).
93. R. Nehemiah (second century CE), but quoted in the very late Pesiq. Rab. 6:2 (trans. Braude, 1:120); kings in Exod. Rab. 51:4.
94. On which see, e.g., Suetonius, Cal. 22.3; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 164.
95. Perhaps as priest kings (Kaiser, Old Testament Theology, 108).
96. Bar. 3:36; Pss. Sol. 9:8; Jub. 31:15, 20; 4 Ezra 5:27; Rom. 11:28; Sipre Deut. 37.1.3; 97.2; 344.1.1; 344.3.1; 344.5.1; cf. also Goshen-Gottstein, “Love.”
97. From Bray, Peter, 87–88.
98. Origen, Hom. Lev. 4.2 (FC 83:78).
99. Augustine, Serm. 198A (WSA 3/6:77).
100. Leo the Great, Serm. 4 (FC 93:25).
101. Andreas Presbyter, Catena (CEC 53); also holy because he is “holy in himself.”
102. Severus of Antioch, Catena (CEC 54).
103. Bede, On 1 Peter (PL 93:50; trans. Bray, Peter, 88).
104. Cf. perhaps also imperial festivals.
105. Pss. 9:15 (ET 9:14); 55:9 (56:8); 70:15 (71:15); 72:28 (73:28); 78:13 (79:13); 106:22 (107:22); Sir. 39:10; 44:15.
106. E.g., valor in 2 Macc. 6:31; 10:28; 15:17; virtue (often mixed with endurance) in 2 Macc. 15:12; 3 Macc. 6:1; Wis. 4:1; 5:13; 8:7; 4 Macc. 1:2, 8, 10, 30; 2:10; 7:22; 9:8, 18, 31; 10:10; 11:2; 12:14; 13:24, 27; 17:12, 23.
107. The following paragraphs on this topic use Keener, Mind, 227.
108. E.g., Cornutus, Summary of Greek Theology 20, §36.10; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.47; 35.2; Lucian, Hermot. 22; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11i, p. 78.28. Hawthorne (Philippians, 186) emphasizes the breadth of the classical usage and the sense of “glory or praise” in the LXX. It can mean “excellence” (e.g., Philostratus, Her. 36.3) or “expertise” (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b5, p. 18.15–17; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.5, 397.23–24; 2.14, 426.27–32).
109. E.g., Musonius Rufus, 17, p. 108.9, 12; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b2, p. 14.1; 2.7.5b5, p. 18.15–17; 2.7.5e, p. 30.3; 2.7.5f, p. 30.19; 2.7.5g, p. 32.6; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 1.3, 361.14–15; 2.1–2, 369.30; 2.3, 379.30; 2.11, 421.30–32; Iamblichus, Ep. 3, frg. 6 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.5.49).
110. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 69 (“On Virtue”).
111. In Platonism see Gould, Ethics, 142–53; Krämer, Arete (also treating Aristotle). For Philo’s definition, see Wolfson, Philo, 2:268–79; Philo is close to the Aristotelian definition of virtue, but found use for the Stoic definition (272–75). Aristotle’s concern was value to the polis, but Hellenistic usage focused on character (Finkelberg, “Virtue”). For its foundation in self-control, see Iamblichus, Ep. 3, frg. 5 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.5.48). Iamblichus, Ep. 16, frg. 1, line 1 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.1.17 [trans. Dillon and Polleichtner, 47]), describes it as the completeness or perfection of the soul.
112. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.9.104. Pseudo-Crates (Ep. 12) contends that a person acquires aretē only by practice.
113. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.9.104; 7.1.30 (“the only good”); Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.6e, p. 40.11–15, 26–32 (by identifying it with happiness); see Long, Philosophy, 199. For aretē in Stoicism, see, e.g., Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 3.11.2; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b1, p. 12.31–33; 2.7.11h, p. 74.14–17 (esp. 14); further, Long, Philosophy, 199–205; Kidd, “Posidonius,” 208. Lucian (Phil. Sale 20) mocks the Stoic association with virtue. For Stoics, each creature has virtue characteristic to its nature (Musonius Rufus, 17, p. 108.1–4), and, most oddly, virtues (like other qualities and indeed anything describable by a noun) were considered material entities (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b7, p. 20.28–30; pp. 20.35–22.1).
114. Euripides, frg. 1029–30. Cf. the gods’ high interest in this matter in Dio Chrysostom, Or. 39.2.
115. Epictetus, Diatr. 1.4.3 (i.e., one may achieve apatheia).
116. An Accordance search (August 26, 2014) yielded 955 hits in the Philonic corpus.
117. Wolfson, Philo, 2:272–75.
118. An Accordance search (August 26, 2014) yielded 290 hits.
119. Let. Aris. 272. Most reject aretē because they are given to passions (277).
120. Let. Aris. 122, 200.
121. The six times in the portions of the LXX that overlap with the Hebrew canon use a more general sense; it appears more frequently in Maccabean texts. It is certainly used with knowledge of at least popular philosophic uses in 4 Maccabees (4 Macc. 1:2, 8, 10, 30; 2:10; 7:22; 9:8, 18, 31; 10:10; 11:2; 12:14; 13:24, 27; 17:12, 23) and Wisdom of Solomon (Wis. 4:1; 5:13; 8:7).
122. Besides the LXX quotation in 1 Pet. 2:9, see 2 Pet. 1:3, 5; 2 Clem. 10:1; Herm. 26:2; 36:3; 46:1; 61:4; 76:3.
123. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5a, p. 10.7–9; Iamblichus, Ep. 4.7–9 (wisdom; in Stobaeus, Anth. 3.3.26).
124. Musonius Rufus, 38, p. 136.3 (trans. Lutz, “Musonius”).
125. This section of Isaiah emphasizes Israel’s exaltation among the nations at the judgment.
126. For Israel as God’s special possession (peripoiēsis), see LXX Hag. 2:9; Mal. 3:17; cf. periousios (special) in LXX Exod. 19:5; 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; cf. also Exod. 34:9 (MT); Eph. 1:14.
127. m. Pesaḥ. 10:5 (trans. Danby, Mishnah, 151). The tradition precedes 220 CE and may have circulated in Peter’s day; R. Gamaliel I or II is the last-mentioned source, but the material could be anonymous.
128. E.g., 2 Sam. 22:29; Pss. 18:28; 27:1; 36:9; 43:3; 119:105, 130; Isa. 2:5; 5:20; 9:2; 42:6; 49:6; 51:4. For the figurative use of “light” conjoined with opening eyes, see, e.g., Isa. 42:6–7. For this background material I am adapting Keener, Acts, 4:3524–26; Keener, John, 382–85.
129. E.g., Matt. 4:16 (Isa. 9:2); 5:14 (Ps. 27:1; I would cite here esp. Isa. 42:6; 49:6); Luke 2:32 (Isa. 42:6; 49:6), as noted by Painter, John, 33. In Platonic metaphysics, see Meyer-Schwelling, “Light”; e.g., Apuleius, God Socr. 124.
130. E.g., 1QS 3.3 and passim; 1Q27 1.5–6; 4Q183 2.4–8 (and perhaps 4Q185 frg. 1–2, 2.6–8); T. Job 43:6/4; Sib. Or. frg. 1:26–27 (OTP 1:470); cf. 1 En. 108:12–14. People commonly valued light and associated darkness with danger (e.g., Job 18:5, 18; 24:13, 16).
131. E.g., Sir. 45:17.
132. E.g., 1QS 3.19–22; 1QM 13.5–6, 14–15. They also employ “day” figuratively with “light” and “night” with “darkness” (1QS 10.1–2). The DSS added dualism to the OT images (Brown, John, 1:340; cf. Charlesworth, “Comparison”). Though acknowledging OT influence, Treves (“Sons of Light,” 421) thinks that the imagery is “ultimately of Iranian origin”; but Hebrew emphasis on contrasting opposites (like “day” and “night”) to represent a whole (cf. Gordon, Near East, 35n3) allows that the image’s Jewish roots lay in the OT, despite exilic, Persian influence accentuating the dualism (cf. similarly Manson, Paul and John, 118–19).
133. It existed before visible things (2 En. 24:4, A, J; cf. Exod. Rab. 50:1) or appeared on the first day (e.g., b. Ḥag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 42:3; see fuller discussion in Urbach, Sages, 1:208–10), and by it one could see from one end of the world to the other (3 En. 5:3; b. Ḥag. 12a; y. Ber. 8:6, §5; Gen. Rab. 42:3; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Num. Rab. 13:5; Ruth Rab. proem 7; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6). Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism, 1:169) points to the “way Jewish-Palestinian and Pythagorean-Platonic and Stoic conceptions are intermingled in Aristobulus” on the primeval light; cf. perhaps the sun’s scattering of chaos in Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.17, 438.20–24. Cf. the Yozer Or, “The Creator of Light” prayer, in later synagogue liturgy (Bowman, Fourth Gospel, 68); Philo, Creation 30–35.
134. Because of human sin, it was hidden till the eschatological time (cf. b. Ḥag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 11:2; 42:3; Exod. Rab. 18:11; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Num. Rab. 13:5; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6; 42:4).
135. E.g., 1 En. 1:8; 5:7; 108:11–14; 1QM 17.6–7; 4Q541 frg. 9, 1.4–5; Sib. Or. 2:316 (probably in Christian redaction); b. Ḥag. 12b; b. Pesaḥ. 50a; b. Sanh. 91b; b. Taʿan. 15a; ʾAbot R. Nat. 37, §95 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:3–5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; Exod. Rab. 14:3; 18:11; Lev. Rab. 6:6; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Eccl. Rab. 11:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 36:1; 42:4; Matt. 13:43; Rev. 22:5.
136. Simon ben Onias in Sir. 50:6–7; possibly Samuel in L.A.B. 51:4; R. Eliezer in ʾAbot R. Nat. 13, §32 B; Honi the Circle-Drawer in y. Taʿan. 3:9, §4; Daniel’s three friends in Exod. Rab. 15:6; the Patriarchs in Pesiq. Rab. 8:4; possibly priests in 4Q504; 4Q505; 4Q506; cf. the righteous in general in ʾAbot R. Nat. 24 A and Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod. 40:4; righteous deeds in Gen. Rab. 1:6. The expression must have been a fairly widespread one; Anna considers her son Tobias “the light of my eyes” (Tob. 10:5); a source may have been 2 Sam. 21:17 (cf. 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19). In the eschatological time, see Wis. 3:7–8 (cf. 5:6); Matt. 13:43; Rev. 22:5; L.A.B. 26:13; 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 En. 65:11 A; Sipre Deut. 47.2.1–2; b. Sanh. 100a; Lev. Rab. 30:2; Eccl. Rab. 1:7, §9; Abelson (Immanence, 89) cites Yalqut Ps. 72. Cf. a pagan metaphor for a skillful sophist (Eunapius, Lives 495), heroes (Virgil, Aen. 2.281 [reused in Macrobius, Sat. 6.2.18]; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.11, 419.18–20; Philostratus, Her. 44.5; 45.5), or any great and beloved person (Fronto, M. Caes. 4.7).
137. ʾAbot R. Nat. 9, §25 B; y. Šabb. 2:6, §2.
138. T. Ab. 7:14 B; Gen. Rab. 2:3; 30:10; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2.
139. Ruth Rab. 2:12 (probably fourth century).
140. Sipre Num. 93.1.3; b. Soṭah 12a; 13a; Exod. Rab. 1:20, 22, 24; Pesiq. Rab. 15:4; cf. L.A.B. 12:1.
141. 11Q5 27.2; b. Sanh. 95a (following 2 Sam. 21:17).
142. ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A; b. Ber. 28b.
143. 1 En. 48:4 (from the Similitudes, alluding to Isa. 42:6; 49:6); the eschatological high priest in 1QSb 4.27; and Amoraic sources in Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 6:5; Gen. Rab. 1:6; 85:1; Pesiq. Rab. 36:1–2; 37:2; kingship in general in Tg. to 1 Chron. 8:33.
144. E.g., Sir. 17:19; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:1; uses of Isa. 60:3 in the late Song Rab. 1:3, §2; 1:15, §4; 4:1, §2. For the association with Israel more generally, cf. b. Pesaḥ. 103b; 104a; b. Ḥul. 26b.
145. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:4 (citing Isa. 60:3); Gen. Rab. 59:5 (citing Isa. 60:3). Some see Jerusalem in Matt. 5:14 (cf. Campbell, “Jerusalem,” 346; Jeremias, Promise, 66; Jeremias, Sermon, 33; Jeremias, Parables, 217). A great city could be called a light (Pliny E., Nat. 5.31.120, on Ephesus and Smyrna).
146. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5, bar.; Gen. Rab. 2:5 (the temple in the messianic era; citing Isa. 60:1); 3:4 (fifth century; citing Jer. 17:12; Ezek. 43:2).
147. 1QHa 12.7, 24; 4 Bar. 9:3; L.A.B. 12:9; L.A.E. 28:2; T. Zeb. 9:8 (paraphrasing Mal. 4:2); PGM 4.1219–22; perhaps 4Q468b f1.3; cf. Sib. Or. 3:285; b. Menaḥ. 88b (late second century); Gen. Rab. 3:4 (third century, citing Ps. 104:2; also in Exod. Rab. 50:1); Gen. Rab. 59:5 (citing Isa. 60:19); Num. Rab. 15:2; Pesiq. Rab. 8:5 (citing Pss. 27:1; 119:105); 21:5 (citing Isa. 60:19); Rev. 21:23. In rabbinic texts, this often alludes to the Shekinah, e.g., Sipre Num. 41.1.1; b. Ber. 60b; the Shekinah of the first exodus is also depicted as light (e.g., Wis. 17; 18:1–3; b. Menaḥ. 86b; Exod. Rab. 14:3).
148. Wis. 6:12; 7:26, 29–30; 1QS 2.3; 11.5–6; 1QM 1.8; 4 Ezra 14:20–21; cf. Sir. 22:11; Tatian, Or. Graec. 13; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.45 (the Logos). Cf. the light of knowledge in both LXX and Qumran readings of Isa. 53:11, adding (?) light to what became the MT (cf. Seeligmann, “Phōs”). For light representing wisdom and law in the OT, see the references in Malatesta, Interiority, 99–102; Boismard, Prologue, 114 (esp. Pss. 19:8; 119:105; Prov. 4:18–19; 6:23; Eccl. 2:13).
149. Bar. 4:2; 4Q511 frg. 1, lines 7–8; frg. 18, lines 7–8; CIJ 1:409, §554; L.A.B. 9:8; 11:1–2; 15:6; 19:4, 6; 23:10; 33:3 end; 51:3; 2 Bar. 17:4; 18:1–2; 59:2; Sipre Num. 41.1.2; y. B. Meṣ. 2:5, §2; y. Hor. 3:1, §2; y. Sukkah 5:1, §7; Gen. Rab. 26:7; Pesiq. Rab. 8:5; 46:3; cf. Sir. 45:17; L.A.B. 37:3; Sipre Deut. 343.7.1; Gen. Rab. 3:5; Exod. Rab. 36:3; Num. Rab. 14:10; Deut. Rab. 4:4; 7:3; Eccl. Rab. 11:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 17:7. Torah also appears as fire (m. ʾAbot 2:10; Sipre Deut. 343.11.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 43, §121 B, citing Deut. 33:2; b. Beṣah 25b; b. Taʿan. 7a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2, citing Jer. 23:29; Song Rab. 5:11, §6; the Ten Commandments as lightning in Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod. 20:2–3; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod. 20:2–3; Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut. 5:6–7) or summons heavenly fire (y. Ḥag. 2:1, §9; Song Rab. 1:10, §2), and specific commandments like the Sabbath appear as light (Pesiq. Rab. 8:4). God’s words shine the light of understanding on the willing heart (4Q511 frg. 1.7–8; frg. 18.7–8). Later, Islamic tradition claimed that Jesus’s gospel contains light, confirming Torah (so Qur’an 5.46).
150. E.g., Valerius Maximus, Mem. 7.2.ext. 1a (Socrates); Maximus of Tyre, Or. 29.5.
151. E.g., Homer, Il. 4.503, 526; Lycophron, Alex. 705–6; Silius Italicus, Pun. 7.586 (because those in the netherworld could no longer see the light of the world).
152. E.g., Matt. 8:12; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; 1 En. 103:8; cf. 1 En. 10:4–6; 63:6, 11; 92:5; 108:14. Cf. other sources in Keener, Matthew, 269.
153. See, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 26, 1435b.25–39; Anderson, Glossary, 21–22; Rowe, “Style,” 142; Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 780; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87.
154. E.g., Maximus of Tyre, Or. 34.1. Orators also praised the brilliance of deities (e.g., Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.17, 438.12–13, 20–24); writers also used light to symbolize the divine nature or care (Iamblichus, Myst. 1.9, 13). In early Christianity, see, e.g., Rom. 2:19; 13:12–13; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 4:6; 6:14; Eph. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:5; cf. Col. 1:13.
155. E.g., 2 Cor. 6:14–16; Barn. 14:7; Papias, Frag. 24:2; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 34.1.
156. See, e.g., the contrast between light and darkness in 1QS 3.3, 19, 25; 10.2; 1QM 1.1, 11; 13.5, 15; 14.17; 4Q462 frg. 1.9–10; 4Q548 frg. 1.ii 2.10–16; 11Q11 5.7; cf. 1QHa 17.26; 20.9; 21.15; 4Q257 3.5; 4Q299 frg. 5.2; 4Q392 frg. 1.4–6; 11Q5 26.11; 11Q17 10.5.
157. Cf. Apollo as the sun god appearing to destroy darkness in Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.17, 438.20–24.
158. Cf. Barn. 14:7. The same language appears in Jos. Asen. 8:9/10, also using conversion language (with Conzelmann, Acts, 211). Whether Joseph and Aseneth includes Christian influence remains debated.
159. Michaels, Peter, 111.
160. Directly connected with the people of 2:9 with the opening pronoun hoi (sing. hos).