1035. Tg . Ps.-J . on Gen 45:14.

E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:2; Gen. Rab. 44:15, 22; 56:10; Exod. Rab. 51:7; Lev. Rab. 13:5; Pesiq. Rab. 15:2; cf. 2 Bar. 4:4. The future vision of the patriarchs appears a favorite emphasis of Genesis Rabbah’s editors, but the earliest tradition refers especially to Abraham; “he went into the days” (Gen 24:1, lit.) may have provided a natural basis for rabbis assuming that Abraham saw the future world (e.g., Dodd, “Background,” 334).

Gen. Rab. 69:7; 97 NV; Joseph also wept for the destruction of the first and second temples (Gen. Rab. 93:10). In a tradition newly created in the third century, many biblical heroes saw a new world, but this may refer to their change in status (Gen. Rab. 30:8).

He also foresaw Joseph’s survival (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 37:33, opposite MT!), Jephthah’s victory in Gilead (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 31:21), and Samson (Gen. Rab. 98:14). In earlier texts, Jacob receives a revelation apparently of the temple (4Q537 1–2; so Adam in 2 Bar. 4:3); that Wisdom revealed God’s reign to Jacob (Wis 10:10) may be relevant, though eschatologically oriented Jewish interpreters seem to have done little with this work.

Some Tannaim felt that he lost his prophetic sight in Gen 48:10 (Gen. Rab. 97 MSV). In the Targumim (McNamara, Targum, 140), although Jacob looked for the messianic redemption (Targum Neofiti), he could not see it even in a vision (Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1).

Num. Rab. 13:14, extrapolating from the tradition in Gen 49 (cf. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). More simply, Jacob simply saw the Lord (i.e., the archangel) in Philo Dreams 1.157. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49:1 allows him an eschatological revelation that he then forgot (cf. similarly Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1).

2 Bar. 4:3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 31 A; 42, §116 B; b. Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 21:9; 24:2; Pesiq. Rab. 23:1.

Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 45:14.

4Q544 1 10–12; 4Q547 4 8.

Sipre Deut. 357.5.11.

Num. Rab. 9:20.

Noted in Barrett, Acts, 146.

Hom. Il. 19.37–39; 23.184–87.

In Petrine literature, the term “witness” (frequent in the NT) applies to Peter in 1 Pet 5:1 (but also to the elders in Asia Minor); the concept might also appear in 2 Pet 1:16.

Johnson, Acts, 27, compares “this Moses” (Acts 7:35), which derives from the tradition of his rejection (7:40; Exod 32:1, 23). “This man” applies to Jesus (Acts 2:23; 3:16), but the various forms of demonstrative that comprise it are common in Acts (twenty-five times). Rhetoric could employ repetition to underline a point (cf. Rowe, “Style,” 133–34, on diaphora).

With, e.g., Black, Rhetoric of Gospel, 128.

Spencer, Acts, 23–24. The clearest of these is the second point, which may be further amplified by subpoints.

Zwiep, Ascension, 184.

Longus 2:30, ὅσα εἶδεν . . . ὅσα ἤκουσεν. In early Christian texts, e.g., John 3:32; 5:37; 8:38; Rom 11:8; 15:21; 2 Cor 12:6; Phil 1:30; 4:9; Jas 5:11; 2 Pet 2:8; 1 John 1:1, 3; 1 Clem. 28.1; Mart. Pol. 9.1; also the oft-repeated formula in 1 Cor 2:9; 1 Clem. 34.8; 2 Clem. 11.7.

E.g., Jer 23:18; Ezek 40:4; 44:5; Jos. Ant. 1.284; 2.275; Lucian Icar. 2 (and cf. Men. 14); Max. Tyre 8.2; Rev 8:13; 22:8.

When used separately, the terms can also convey celebrating miracles (e.g., Luke 19:37), but their combination is emphatic.

As often noted; e.g., cf. Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 133. On Christ’s exaltation in early Christian literature (including the Apostolic Fathers), see deSilva, “Exaltation”; for the ascension, see discussion at Acts 1:9–11.

Cf. the same idea in Sir 11:5–6; ʾAbot R. Nat. 11 A; 22 B; b. ʾAb. 6:4, bar.; ʿErub. 13b; Gen. Rab. 1:5; Der. b. Zuṭ. 9 (following Moore, Judaism, 2:274; Lachs, Commentary, 368). Czachesz, “Logic,” draws attention to the humiliation/exaltation pattern in Luke-Acts.

Ladd, Theology, 337.

See Tannehill, Luke, 269.

On the connection with Jesus’s death and resurrection, see also Kilgallen, “Pentecost.”

On Joseph and this post in ancient Egypt, cf., e.g., ANET 212–14 (esp. 213), 252, 412–14; Bright, History, 39; Smith, Education, 24; with regard to Joseph, Wright, Archaeology, 53; Yamauchi, Stones, 47; Thompson, Archaeology, 45.

On ancient coregencies, see, e.g., Diod. Sic. 31.19.6 (in this case, his equal); Tac. Ann. 1.2; Bright, History, 52; Gordon, Near East, 63.

Xen. Cyr. 1.3.14; 1.4.1.

The variant form ἐκχύνω (ἐκχύννω) in Acts 10:45 is in the passive (ἐκκέχυται), not specifying who pours out the Spirit, but it is clear that this “gift” (δωρεά, 10:45) is from God (11:17; meanwhile 11:16, like 1:5, uses the passive for a prophecy earlier applied to Jesus [Luke 3:16]).

Philo Flight 166; Worse 117; Sib. Or. 1.33–34; cf. Sir 24:21. Analogously, the rabbis identified the Torah with water, in m. ʾAb. 1:4; 2:8; Mek. Vay. 1:74ff.; Bah. 5:99; Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; 306.19.1; 306.22–25; ʾAbot R. Nat. 18 A; cf. b. Taʿan. 7a; B. Qam. 17a; 82a; Gen. Rab. 41:9; 54:1; 69:5; 70:8–9; 84:16; 97:3; Exod. Rab. 31:3 (Wisdom); 47:5; Song Rab. 1:2, §3; as a well, Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; for heresy as bad water, m. ʾAb. 1:11; Sipre Deut. 48.2.5.

See Wis 9:17; cf. 1:6–7; 7:22; for Philo, Isaacs, Spirit, 54–55; cf. also Keener, John, 963–64.

Cf. Philo’s depiction of the Logos as continually flowing from God, bringing order to creation (Dreams 2.249; cf. Immut. 155–58), which was probably modeled on Ganymede as Zeus’s winepourer (Dillon, “Ganymede as Logos”).

See Johnson, Acts, 52, arguing for the epexegetical genitive, since the Spirit was promised (Luke 24:49); he notes that it fulfills also the “promises” to the patriarchs (1:55, 73; Acts 3:13, 25; 7:17) and that the gift of the Spirit “realizes the blessings promised to Abraham (Acts 2:39; 7:17; 13:23, 32; 26:6)” (in the present age, see also Eph 1:3; Gal 3:14; cf. Hag 2:5). As in Gal 3:14, the Spirit in the community’s experience allows a rereading of the traditional promise (cf. Hays, Echoes, 110).

Luke emphasizes God as Jesus’s Father more often than as the disciples’ Father (few of the latter examples appear in specially Lukan material; see Mowery, “God the Father,” 132).

See Tannehill, Luke, 239. Cf. also verbs of “receiving” with the Spirit in Acts. For God “giving” the Spirit in the LXX, see Haya-Prats, Believers, 5n6, citing 2 Kgs 19:7 and especially Num 11:29; Isa 42:1; Ezek 11:19; 36:26–27; 37:6, 14.

For one consideration of the role of Acts’ pneumatology in articulating Acts’ Christology, see Larkin, “Spirit and Jesus” (esp. 138–39).

Its centrality is frequently acknowledged; e.g., Mainville, “Jésus et l’Esprit”; idem, “Messianisme,” esp. 327, recalling the connection between Jesus’s identity and the Spirit as early as Luke 1:35. Bauckham, Crucified, 49–51, also shows the midrashic links among Isa 6:1; 52:13; 57:15; and sometimes Ps 110:1 in early Christianity (cf. John 12:38–41; Heb 1:3), perhaps facilitating the link with Ps 110 and divine Christology here.

See Turner, Power, 296–97.

Ibid., 305 (following O’Toole, Unity of Theology, chs. 2–3). Cf. Dodd, Preaching, 22, 26: one element of the kerygma is that the Spirit in the church is “the sign of Christ’s present power and glory” (also Ladd, Theology, 329).

E.g., Turner, Gifts, 17–18; idem, Power, 114–18; for the Spirit and the Messiah in Isa 11, see Ma, Spirit, 211 (he distinguishes [213] the prophetic and leadership aspects of the Spirit except where, as in Isa 42:1–3 and 61:1, a single figure integrates both). I would argue that Turner’s approach here risks confusing categories; what the Spirit does and whom the Spirit anoints are distinct ways of categorizing the evidence. Thus, e.g., the Spirit of prophecy does not cease to be the prophetic Spirit simply because it is on the Messiah. But this potential confusion does not diminish the importance of the evidence he cites (and Turner also provides questions about my own categorization of the evidence in “Review,” 70–71).

Turner, Power, 277–78 (quote, 277); idem, “Spirit of Christ and Christology” (esp. 190); idem, “‘Divine’ Christology,” 436. I agree with Turner on the christological implications of such a pneumatology (Keener, Matthew, 130); cf. also Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11.

For the special power for Israel’s renewal involved in Jesus’s enthronement, see Turner, Power, 268, 290–97; for the Spirit’s acting as Jesus’s executive power, see Turner, Power, 303; for divine Christology, see Buckwalter, “Saviour,” 107–23, esp. 115.

See Turner, “Jesus and Spirit in Perspective”; idem, Gifts, 35; idem, Power, 188–266, esp. 212, 266. Contrast, e.g., Crowe, Acts, xxi, for whom 2:33 itself simply adds irony to the parallel (Jesus now gives to the disciples as the Father anointed him).

The Gospels themselves mostly reveal a higher Christology (or greater homage) after the resurrection (see Hurtado, “Homage”).

See Goulder, Type and History; Talbert, Patterns; Tannehill, Acts; see also our introduction, .

Cf. Elisha’s receiving Elijah’s spirit because of the latter’s ascent (Sir 48:12).

E.g., Jacquin, “Worte in der Erziehung”; see further the introduction to Acts 2; comment on Acts 2:2–3.

E.g., Aristob. frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5); Philo QE 2.46; Sipre Deut. 49.2.1; b. Šabb. 88b; Exod. Rab. 28:1; 41:5; 47:5; Lev. Rab. 1:15; Pesiq. Rab. 20:4; 47:4; 3 En. 15B:2; cf. L.A.B. 12:1. Some scholars think that the rabbinic emphasis on Moses’s ascent might respond to Christian claims for Jesus (cf. Van de Water, “Moses’ Exaltation”); others, that the Christian claim might respond at times to claims about Moses (cf. Meeks, Prophet-King, 295–97; Keener, John, 562–63).

E.g., Turner, Power, 267, 279–89.

For the parallel, see Johnson, Acts, 46 (though, for what it is worth, Luke uses ἐδέξατο in Acts 7:38 and λαβὼν in 2:33).

See Turner, Power, 288; Dupont, “Don de l’Esprit”; idem, Salvation, 35; Lincoln, Paradise, 158. It applies to Moses’s ascension in later texts, e.g., Exod. Rab. 28:1; Ruth Rab. 2:3; Pesiq. Rab. 20:4; 21:7; 47:4. Marshall, “Acts,” 541, suggests that if such an allusion is present, it may reflect Luke’s tradition rather than Luke’s own allusion, since he makes nothing of it (cf. Strauss, Messiah, 145–47).

Identified with Torah in Sir 24:23; 34:8 [31:8]; 39:1; Bar 3:29–4:1; 4 Macc 1:16–17; Sipre Deut. 37.1.3; later, Gen. Rab. 17:5; 31:5; 44:17; Lev. Rab. 11:3; 19:1; Eccl. Rab. 1:4, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 20:1; see more fully Urbach, Sages, 1:198–99, 287; Hengel, Judaism, 1:169–71; Keener, John, 354–55.

Cf. Turner, Power, 302.

Cf. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations, 120–21.

Cf. Turner, Power, 267.

See Williams, Justin Martyr, 15 (citing b. Sanh. 99a).

Also b. Ned. 32b; Gen. Rab. 46:5; Lev. Rab. 25:6; the connection is noted by some commentators (e.g., Buchanan, Hebrews, 121). Cf. the application of Ps 45:8 to Abraham (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:4; Gen. Rab. 39:6; 49:9; Lev. Rab. 10:1; Pesiq. Rab. 29/30A:4 [but contrast Isaiah in 29/30A:5]; 33:3 [also Isaiah]).

In view of the probable use in Pss. Sol. 17:32, 46, the proposal of Bodendorfer, “Rechten,” that the Abraham interpretation precedes the Davidic Messiah interpretation cannot be sustained.

Delcor, “Bundesfest und Pfingstfest.”

Robinson, Studies, 141 (he excludes [n. 7] 10:36 because it uses “Jesus Christ” as a name and hence betrays a later stage).

See further Longenecker, Christology, 120–36; Keener, John, 297–98.

The reading χριστὸς κυρίου is an emendation. Cf. Luke 2:11; Rom 16:18; Col 3:24.

Loader, “Christ at Right Hand.”

Longenecker, Wine, 97–99.

The vocative κύριε appears about twenty-five times (the exact count depends on textual variants) before the resurrection (including uses in parables) and about fifteen times afterward (including addresses to the Father in prayers).

But Judaism sometimes connected resurrection with exaltation (1 En. 62:14–16; 2 Bar. 51:5, 10; Test. Benj. 10:6, 9; cf. Dan 12:1–3; so Marshall, Acts, 160, following Anderson, “Resurrection,” 171).

See more fully Longenecker, Christology, 130–32; and discussion at Acts 2:21.

Its messianic use seems to be pre-Pauline (see Hays, Conversion, 109).

Second-century Christianity continues the usage; e.g., Justin Dial. 32; 1 Apol. 45.

Bauckham, Crucified, 29–30. For divine use of Ps 110:1, cf. also Marshall, Origins, 97–111; Hanson, Unity, 154; for the most extensive survey, see Hay, Glory at Right Hand.

On Melchizedek’s exalted, sometimes supernatural, status, see 11QMelch; 2 En. 71–72; Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.82; see further de Jonge and Van der Woude, “11QMelchizedek,” esp. 321; Kobelski, “Melchizedek,” esp. 120, 138–39; Carmignac, “Melkisédeq”; Laubscher, “Angel of Truth”; Caquot, “Jubilés” (his role in Jubilees prefiguring 11QMelch); Puech, “Manuscrit”; Fitzmyer, “Melchizedek”; idem, Essays, 221–67; McNamara, “Melchizedek”; Schniedewind, “Melchizedek”; Longenecker, Christology, 113–14, 117–18. There is a lacuna at this place in Jubilees (Jub. 13:22–27), whether because the Maccabees used Melchizedek as a model (Charles, Jubilees, lxxxviii) or, likelier, because some exalted him too highly (cf. Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 174–75); some think that Jubilees used Melchizedek as a model for the priesthood (Caquot, “Livre”). Apparently various marginal groups used Melchizedek (Vivian, “Movimenti”; Garuti, “Melchisedek”; but specific links with Hebrews [cf. Longenecker, “Melchizedek Argument”; Carmignac, “Melkisédeq”; Yadin, “Melchizedek”] are questionable [Cockerill, “Melchizedek”]) whereas later rabbis claimed that Abraham displaced him (e.g., b. Ned. 32b); but cf. his exalted role again in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; b. Sukkah 52b; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15. Qumran may use him as a Messiah figure (Sabugal, “1QRegla”; Rainbow, “Melchizedek”); some have even argued that Qumran sectarians viewed their Teacher of Righteousness as Melchizedek incarnate (Tantlevskij, “Melchizedek”), though I am not persuaded.

Bauckham, Crucified, 28–29. Cf. m. Sanh. 4:5; Sipre Deut. 329.1.1; b. Sanh. 38ab (mainly third century but with some second-century tradition); Pesiq. Rab. 21:6; 3 En. 16:2 (but cf. 12:5); perhaps also b. Menaḥ. 110a (purportedly Tannaitic); Justin Dial. 55, 63; further discussion in Keener, John, 203.

If one does not take reigning at the right hand literally, with reference to God’s heavenly throne, but as an earthly vizier.

Cf. the abundance of exalted figures in early Judaism, noted in Bock, Blasphemy, 112–83. Miura, David, 146, notes the irrelevance of the figures David addressed as “my lord” (Saul, 1 Sam 24:7, 9, 11; 26:17–19; and Achish, 1 Sam 29:8). Thus he suggests (146–47) a historical application to Solomon (1 Chr 29:23 LXX; 1 Kgs 1:48; 5:3–4 [LXX 5:17–18]), with applicability in principle to the Messiah (147–48).

Apart from Ps 110:1, this is one of only two other uses of “my lord” in the canonical corpus of Psalms (cf. also Ps 151:3 LXX).

Some people used backless footstools to sit on (Hurschmann, “Furniture,” 623; cf. Jas 2:3), but linked with a throne, they were for resting feet (Acts 7:49).

The historical model for Luke 19:12 could be Herod (Ladd, Kingdom, 21) or Archelaus (Kodell, Luke, 92–93; Schweizer, Matthew, 471; Young, Parables, 166; Reicke, Era, 133; Jeremias, Parables, 59), though the situation it envisions could also be illustrated more generally (cf., e.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 24; perhaps Pesiq. Rab. 21:9). Luke 19:14 fits both Herod (cf. Reicke, Era, 92–93) and Archelaus, both of whom were hated.

Eph 1:20–21 (cf. also 6:12) apparently interprets the psalmist’s enemies as present spiritual powers; “this age and the age to come” alludes both to Jesus’s present exaltation and to the psalm’s coming time of enemies under his feet.

See van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 57 (citing Ovid Fasti 4.857–58; Tristia 4.2.44; Pont. 9.12–13; Virgil Aen. 10.495–96; Bömer, Kommentar, 282–83). The image of treading down enemies is even more widespread (e.g., Job 40:12; Pss 60:12; 108:13; Isa 25:10; 28:3; 41:25; 63:2–3, 6; Lam 1:15; Zech 10:5; Mal 4:3; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 94.56).

After slaying Tiamat, Marduk stood on her carcass (earth; Enuma Elish 4.104, in Heidel, Genesis, 40–41); ancient Near Eastern art portrays conquerors stepping on their victims’ backs (Kitchen, Orient, 164; Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra, 60).

Ritner, Mechanics, 119–36, esp. 123–24; cf. Niehaus, Themes, 67, 73.

Hayes, “Oracles,” 90–91 (referring [90n36] to Tutankhamen’s footstool). In Quint. Curt. 5.2.15, Alexander uses his enemy’s table as a footstool.

See Thür, “Embateuein.”

At Nuzi, a buyer claimed ownership by placing a foot on the ground (de Vaux, Israel, 169, comparing also Pss 60:8; 108:9).

E.g., Sen. E. Controv. 5.2; for creditors, see Thucyd. 3.81.2, 4. In a culture emphasizing greetings, some teachers defined as a personal enemy a person who has not spoken to you for a month (Abrahams, Studies [2], 213); personal enmity was also intelligible even in the setting of Galilean villages (Horsley, “Ethics”; Freyne, Galilee, Jesus, 154).

E.g., Thucyd. 3.81.2, 4; cf. Sen. E. Controv. 10.1.intro. Although Luke uses philosophic language at points, he is far from offering a Stoic discussion of “enemies” as merely negative “externals” (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5e, pp. 30–31.12–13), though Stoics did speak of the senseless as enemies of the gods (2.7.11k, pp. 84–85.28–33).

Isaeus Cleon. 48 (out of 51 paragraphs); Aeschines Tim. 196; Rhet. Alex. 36, 1443b.15–16; 1444b.21–35; 37, 1445b.21–23; Cic. Fin. 5.32.95–96; Or. Brut. 40.137; Polyb. 39.8.3; Dion. Hal. Demosth. 32; Thuc. 55; Mus. Ruf. 6, pp. 54.26–56.11, esp. 54.26; 56.7–11; Ael. Arist. Leuct. Or. 5.43–44; Hippol. Her. 10.1; see further Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 181–82; comment on Acts 28:30–31.

Concluding statements sometimes even took the form of exclamations (see Rowe, “Style,” 148, on epiphonema; cf. Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 583). “Know therefore” or “see therefore” was natural in argumentation (e.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.11.39).

Lindars, Apologetic, 46.

As with the usage in Acts 16:23 and Mark 14:44, the cognates can also apply to something being secure, whether a prison (Acts 5:23; 16:33–34) or a certainty that something is true (Wis 18:6; Heb 6:19); cf. Knowling, “Acts,” 89.

Gaventa, Acts, 79.

Whether as members of the “commonwealth” of Israel (see Brawley, “Commonwealth”) or as spiritual proselytes (see discussion at Acts 15).

See Fitzmyer, Acts, 260 (he also refers to his fuller expositions in idem, Luke, 200–204; idem, Wandering Aramean, 115–42); Buckwalter, “Saviour,” 107–23, esp. 107.

To the extent that this challenged the temple hierarchy that abetted Jesus’s death, it would have sounded political; but the situation was a special one for Israel (Acts 3:19–21), not relevant to Gentile politics (Luke 20:35).

It is not impossible Greek; cf. Plut. Alex. 27.4, where it was given (δίδωσιν) to Alexander to be “lord” (κυρίῳ).

Rowe, “Continuity,” argues that the real shift in Acts 2:36 relates to human perception of Jesus’s identity (see Luke 1:43; 2:11).

Longenecker, Christology, 66–73; Polhill, Acts, 111; cf. Keener, Matthew, 262–63. Foundations for most of NT Christology (such as Marana tha) probably predate Paul’s conversion (Hengel, Jesus and Paul, 30–47). Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 68–69, nuances it differently: rather than a Messiah-designate, there were different stages in the status of messiahship (Luke 2:26).

Tannehill, Acts, 38; cf. Witherington, Acts, 149.

For a survey of various views on Christology (esp. 1948–77) in Luke-Acts, see, e.g., Bovon, Theologian, 109–97 (on messiahship, see 187–88; on “Lord,” 189–92).

Longenecker, Wine, 93–94.

Adapted from Keener, John, 283–91; see further Fitzmyer, One.

E.g., Isa 9:7; Jer 23:5. That the eschatological ruler would be a restoration after the Davidic rule had been cut off was suggested by preexilic prophets (Jesse’s “stump” in Isa 11:1; Amos 9:11 [on the authenticity of the latter, see discussion at Acts 15:16–18).

Pss. Sol. 17:21; 4Q252 V, 1–4; b. Sanh. 97b–98a; y. Sukkah 5:1, §7; Gen. Rab. 88:7; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; Tg. Jer. 30:9; the inscription in Yardeni, “Scroll.” See Fitzmyer, Essays, 113–26; Longenecker, Christology, 109–10; Kee, Community, 126, esp. on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

A concept that made more sense in some ancient Near Eastern (especially Egyptian and Hittite) than in Hellenistic settings; see de Vaux, Israel, 104; cf. ANET 338 (though this is merely ritual anointing).

Cf., e.g., Witherington, Christology, 83.

Cf. Feldman, “David.”

Kraeling, John the Baptist, 52. Some professed signs prophets also sought kingship in broader Mediterranean culture (Diod. Sic. 34/35.2.5–6, 22–23).

See Freyne, Galilee, Jesus, 194–95, on Jos. Ant. 18.85–87; 20.97–98, 169–71; War 2.261–66; Acts 5:36; 21:38; cf. also Crossan, Jesus, 158–68. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 110–31, do, however, point out that popular attempts to rule often focused on commoners rather than on a revived Davidic dynasty.

Cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:346. Rivkin, “Messiah,” 65, contrasts the set belief in the world to come and the resurrection with the greater flexibility on messianic belief after the revolt.

ʾAbot R. Nat. 31, §67 B.

Sipre Deut. 34.4.3 (resurrection in the messianic era); y. Ketub. 12:3, §13 (R. Meir); speculation flourished again in the Amoraic period (e.g., b. Meg. 12a); the Davidic Messiah remained later (e.g., Tg. Jer. 30:9). Aberbach, “Hzqyhw,” thinks that “Hezekiah” was sometimes a code name for R. Judah when some still thought him the Messiah.

For groups that emphasized biblical messianic hopes, see Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 102–10. 4Q521 2 II, 1, suggests a global or even cosmic (though this may be hyperbole) role for the Messiah.

There is debate as to how widespread or regular their recitation was in this period (see comment on Acts 3:1), but they are surely some of the earliest samples of postbiblical Jewish prayer that we have.

Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 109. In a later period, redemptive work suggested genealogical correctness rather than Davidic descent as being primary; cf. Kaufmann, “Idea.”

See Wittlieb, “Bedeutung.”

Collins, “Son of Man.”

Wächter, “Messianismus,” stresses this political aspect of Jewish expectations, distinguishing them from the early Christian view, defined by Jesus’s mission. That Jesus did not inaugurate an earthly kingdom in any conventional sense is one of the primary objections to his messiahship in contemporary Jewish scholarship; cf. Berger and Wyschogrod, Jewish Christianity, 18–19; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 414; Borowitz, Christologies, 21.

Evans, “Messianism,” 701–2, finds thirty Qumran texts describing “anointed” individuals, with the royal Messiah probably in CD XII, 23–XIII, 1; XIV, 19 (= 4Q266 10 I, 12); XIX, 10–11; XX, 1; 1QS IX, 11; 1QSa II, 11–12, 14–15, 20–21; 4Q252 V, 3–4; 4Q381 15 7; 4Q382 16 2; 4Q458 2 II, 6; 4Q521 2 II, 1; 4Q521 8 9. The “firstborn” of 4Q369 1 II, 6–7 probably evokes biblical messianic language.

E.g., 1 Macc 14:41–42, with the functions of ruler, priest, commander, and possibly prophet sought for Simon Maccabee.

See the Wicked Priest of 1QpHab VIII, 8–10; IX, 4–7; XI, 4–6; XII, 5; and the role of Zadokites in the community. The view that the Teacher of Righteousness is modeled after Judas Maccabee (Eisenman, Maccabees, 35) has not garnered much support.

Evans, “Messianism,” 703, lists OT precedent for the two messiahs (Jer 33:15–18; Hag 2:1–7; Zech 4:11–14; 6:12–13; 4Q254 4 alludes to Zech 4:14).

Test. Reub. 6:8; Test. Jud. 21:1–2; compare Test. Sim. 5:5 with the Qumran War Scroll. On Melchizedek as eschatological priest, see Puech, “Manuscrit.”

See Jub. 31:12–17 and 31:18–20; cf. similarly Test. Iss. 5:7; Test. Dan 5:4, 10; Test. Naph. 5:3–5; 8:2. Schniedewind, “King,” roots the dual messianic expectation in the Chronicler’s ideal leadership pattern (esp. 1 Chr 17:14).

Jub. 31:18–20; see Noack, “Qumran and Jubilees,” 201.

See Charles, Jubilees, xiv (although we may date Jubilees somewhat earlier than he [xiii] suggests).

Higgins, “Priest,” 333; idem, “Messiah,” 215–19; Laurin, “Messiahs,” 52. LaSor, Scrolls, 152ff., argues that the Hebrew idiom supports one Messiah, rabbinic scholars seeing two because of their talmudic background; although there may be more than one “anointed one,” only one is eschatological. Test. Benj. 11:2 seems to support a figure from both Judah and Levi (perhaps reflecting a Jewish-Christian desire to derive one of Jesus’s parents from Levi; cf. Luke 1:5, 36). The Scrolls conflate various anointed figures (e.g., 4Q174 1 I, 10–13; 4Q252 V, 3; 11Q13 II, 15–20).

Aune, Prophecy, 123 (citing Test. Reub. 6:5–12; Test. Levi 18:2–9; 1QS IX, 10–11; 1QSa II, 12–17; cf. CD XIX, 10–11; XX, 1); Villalón, “Deux messies,” 53–63, esp. 63; Burrows, More Light, 297–311 (or perhaps three, 311); Jóczwiak, “Mesjanizm” (or even three); de Jonge, “Anointed,” 141–42; Brown, “Messianism,” 54–66. In “Theory of Development,” 56, Brown still thought there were probably two messiahs, but he noted that not all texts were clear or represented the same period.

Smith, “Variety”; Abegg, “Messiah.”

Longenecker, Christology, 114; Driver, Scrolls, 468–69; Priest, “Mebaqqer”; cf. Priest, “Messiah.” Wcela, “Messiah(s),” finds in the Damascus Document (CD XII, 23–XIII, 1; XIV, 19; XIX, 10–11; XX, 1; cf. VII, 17–21) one military messiah with a priest who could be an Aaronic messiah (342); 1QS IX, 11 has two messiahs, but often a priestly companion to the Messiah is in view, and the Damascus Document probably sees both as one individual (347). Cf. Smith, “Begetting,” 224, who thinks that both anointed ones may be “survivals of the same figure” but is not certain that either is eschatological or messianic.

CD XII, 23–XIII, 1 (albeit with an emended misspelling of משיח); XIV, 19 (not all of the word is clear, but the relevant ending is); XX, 1; also the warrior Messiah of 1QM XI, 7–8. Puech, “Apocalypse,” considers 4Q521 an “apocalypse messianique” (but contrast Bergmeier, “Beobachtungen”); García Martínez, “Textos,” finds a messianic king (4Q252, 285, 521), priest (4Q540), and heavenly figure (4Q246). See Mitchell, “Deliverer,” on 4Q175 (suggesting that the fourth figure is messianic).

LaSor, “Messiahs,” 429; Gaster, Scriptures, 392; Bruce, History, 122. Stefaniak, “Poglądy,” thinks that Qumran stressed eschatology more than messianology; this is probably right, unless the Messiah was a righteous Teacher redivivus.

Silberman, “Messiahs,” 82, questioning whether the expectation is even eschatological in the final sense. Perhaps the title originally applied to the first Teacher of Righteousness.

Cf. the priest’s precedence to the “Messiah” in 1Q28a II, 19–20; “Moses God’s anointed [‘messiah’]” in 4Q377 1 II, 5; 1Q22 I, 11–12 even adds Eleazar to Joshua in Deut 31:7, to couple priest and ruler figures; see also the “anointed priest” in 4Q376 1 I, 1. Some late rabbis also spoke of a priest “anointed for battle,” i.e., an eschatological priest to accompany the troops, along with the Davidic Messiah (b. Yoma 73b; Song Rab. 2:13, §4).

For the suffering and triumphant messiahs, see, e.g., 3 En. 45:5; for a suffering Messiah, see, e.g., the various views offered in b. Sukkah 52a; y. Sukkah 5:2, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 31:10; 34:2; 36:1–2, and see data listed in Torrey, “Messiah”; for a Messiah suffering for Israel’s sins, cf. Pesiq. Rab. 36:1–2; 37:1; for a servant Messiah, cf. 2 Bar. 70:9. The doctrine of two messiahs continued in ninth-century Karaite doctrine (possibly from Essene roots?); cf. Wieder, “Messiahs.”

Driver, Scrolls, 465–66, notes the different exegesis but thinks that the rabbinic picture could shed light on the Scrolls, a proposition that takes too little account of the relative dates of the traditions. Kuhn, “Messias,” 208, points out that the Scrolls subordinate the political messiah to the priestly one, but rabbinic literature offers no parallel to this (though Jub. 31 and some other texts might).

E.g., Dan 9:26, which is probably messianic in the context of 11Q13 II, 18; see Rosenberg, “Messiah,” who (less accurately) predicates the prominence of Qumran’s Levitic messiah on the decease of the Davidic one. Brownlee, “Servant,” argues that 1QIsa^a applies the Suffering Servant of Isa 52–53 to the “anointed” community as a whole (he and Reider, “MSHTY,” debate the Hebrew back and forth on 27–28). Justin argues from the Scriptures for a suffering Messiah and in his account persuades Trypho (Justin Dial. 39; 90.1; Higgins, “Belief,” 304, regards Trypho’s concession as unusual).

So Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 140; Yamauchi, “Concord,” 165–66 (this seems more reasonable than Berger’s attribution of the doctrine to typology; cf. Berger, “Themes”). If a tradition of testing the Messiah existed (e.g., Bar Kokhba by his sense of smell, b. Sanh. 93b), it may have arisen the same way (Rivkin, “Meaning,” 397, thinks instead that the Pharisees used this tradition in their opposition to Jesus). But Mitchell, “Messiah in Targums,” argues for a pre-Christian suffering Messiah (and even views the figure’s death as atoning, in idem, “Atonement”).

E.g., Tabor, “Messiah” (among others).

Vermes, Religion, 211n1; idem, “Forum”; idem, “Messiah Text”; Bockmuehl, “Messiah”; Abegg, “Hope”; Martone, “Testo”; Abegg, “Introduction to 4Q285”; Evans, “Messianism,” 703. Collins, “Servant,” doubts that 4Q541 (on a suffering sage/priest) is messianic.

For one example of this extreme approach, see Mack, Lost Gospel, 4–5. Did later Gentile Christians assign Jesus to a category that they could hardly have created, when they often failed to comprehend even what “anointed one” meant in Judaism?

Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:594–601.

Marshall, Origins, 54–56; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 272–73.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 234; cf. Beasley-Murray, “Kingdom,” 27–32.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 321–22. Jesus’s execution as a royal pretender leads many scholars to this conclusion (e.g., Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 104, 116; Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 173–87).

Sanders, Figure, 242, suggests that Jesus’s view of his royalty may not have been that he was a messiah but rather that he was God’s eschatological viceroy. These figures, however, are easily coalesced.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 307. The same conclusion is argued from a variety of data; cf., e.g., Chilton, “Announcement,” 168. Raymond Brown likewise concludes that some of Jesus’s followers may have thought him the Messiah but that he responded ambivalently because his mission defined the term differently than the popular title would suggest (Brown, Death, 473–80; cf. Marshall, Origins, 89–90).

Founders of most ancient schools provided for their perpetuity (see Culpepper, School, 123; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 20–22), and the same would naturally be true for Jesus (see Flusser, Judaism, 35). Although Jesus’s apocalyptic orientation could be cited against his intention for a continuing movement, his choice of twelve favors his plan for the church (Borg, Conflict, 70; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 104).

Klein, “Messianism,” 201, relates Jesus to the priestly and royal messiahs at Qumran, but I argue here from analogy only that messianic concepts were gradually adapted to the communities and social situations that they addressed.

See Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 87; cf. Aug. Tract. Jn. 113. Times can dictate discretion; a pagan who claimed his teacher divine had to be very discreet when Christian emperors were in power (Eunapius Lives 461). Such observations are hardly new; Chrys. Hom. Jn. 3 recognizes the messianic secret and thinks that it was the model for Paul’s missions strategy in Acts 17:31.

See, e.g., Isoc. Nic. 46 (Or. 3.36); Plut. Praising 15, Mor. 544D; Quint. Inst. 11.1.17–19; Lyons, Autobiography, 44–45, 68–69; on the relevance of avoiding self-boasting to Jesus’s mission, see also Neyrey, “Shame of Cross,” 127; Keener, Matthew, 262. Even later “divine men” (see the brief discussion in our introduction, , ; also my Miracles, 51–58) were often coy about revealing their divinity (e.g., Philost. Ep. Apoll. 44), especially to outsiders (see, e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.32; 8.5).

See Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 265–67. For documentation on various reasons for the “messianic secret,” see Keener, Matthew, 261–63.

See full documentation in Keener, Matthew, 378–79; also Eunapius Lives 371–72, 468. Suspense was a rhetorical technique (e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.5.5.10–11), but it is less relevant here.

Outside the LXX, however, Diaspora Judaism rarely used the term; even Sib. Or. 2.45 is a Christian interpolation. The most obvious exception would be disputes about “Chrestus” in Rome cited by Suetonius (see above on Gentile backgrounds), but if this refers to Jesus, the title could have been introduced mainly by Christians.

Meeks, Urban Christians, 94; Hooker, Message, 13, 65; Ladd, Criticism, 96.

Morris, Romans, 37.

Ladd, Theology, 140–41.

Tannehill, Acts, 36 (also noting pronouns for Israel placed first in clauses in Acts 3:25–26; 13:26, 46).

Aune, Environment, 199 (citing Arist. Rhet. 1.2.3; 2.4–7; Quint. Inst. 6.2.9–12). For ἦθος (ēthos), see further comment on Acts 24:11, 14–17; for πάθος (pathos), see further comment on Acts 20:19.

Aune, Environment, 199 (citing Quint. Inst. 3.8.1; Cic. De or. 2.81.333–37).

See Aune, Environment, 127 (citing Jos. War 1.629; 2.605; 3.485; 7.389; Hdn. 2.5.8; Ach. Tat. 8.1.2; 8.7.1; 8.11.1); Soards, Speeches, 138 (following Dibelius).

Horsley, “Speeches,” 610.

E.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 48–49 (where the speaker finishes the speech before the hearer, who should have reacted earlier, cries out; cf. a similar suspension of reaction in Gen 44:18–45:1).

Cf. Acts 22:22; Jer 36:16. Parsons, Acts, 47, cites references from histories (Appian Bell. Civ. 3.51–61; Quint. Curt. 6.9.2–24; 7.1.10–40; Tac. Ann. 16.31).

E.g., Livy 3.40.5; Cic. Prov. cons. 8.18; Or. Brut. 40.138.

For other interrupting questions and objections, see, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 18, 1432b.35–40; 1433a.14–25; Sen. E. Controv. 3.pref. 4–5; Plut. Lect. 4, Mor. 39CD; 11, Mor. 43BC; 18, Mor. 48AB; Demosth. 6.3; 8.5; Cic. 16.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 15.26–32; Aul. Gel. 8.10; 16.6.1–12; 18.13.7–8; 20.10.1–6; Pliny Ep. 3.9.25; 3.20.3–4; 9.13.19–20; Diog. Laert. 7.1.19; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.30.623; Eunapius Lives 460.

Luke indicates that Peter said more on the occasion than his skeleton summary of and examples from the speech could recount (2:40; see comment there). Nevertheless, the position of the interruption makes sense of both Luke’s arrangement for his own audience and the sequence of events within the narrative world: the audience response presupposes the completion of Peter’s narration of the passion, and audience interaction also renders more plausible a significant response to Peter’s deliberative conclusion.

Noted also in Nave, Repentance, 36–37. Johnson, Function, 184, rightly notes the connection between the question and the Lukan demand for sharing possessions (Luke 3:11; Acts 2:44–45), which seems soteriologically significant (cf. Keener, “Reconciliation,” 127–29).

This requirement is for the crowds in general; for those in a position to exploit others, John demands dealing justly (Luke 3:14–15).

For Luke, ultimately pointing to cross-cultural sharing, as in Acts 11:29, and the Gentile mission. Jesus’s response presupposes a sound exegesis of Lev 19:18 in light of its context (in addition to gezerah shevah) in Lev 19:34: Israelites must love strangers in the land, among whom the parable implicitly includes Samaritans.

Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 57 (citing Lucian Nigr. 3–7, 35–37; 2 Clem. 19; Herm. Mand. 3.3; 12.4).

For an intense emotional response, Jos. Asen. 6:1 uses κατανύσσομαι, as here (except there conjoined with ψυχή).

For a thorough survey of background concerning repentance in Greek and Greco-Jewish sources, relevant to Luke-Acts, see Nave, Repentance (for the lexical background, see 39–144); for one survey of Luke’s theology of repentance, see Tannehill, Shape, 84–101. On conversion in Acts, see Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 135–48 (comparing Jewish and Greco-Roman elements of conversion and concluding [147–48] that the components of conversions are comparable, though the object [i.e., Jesus] differs).

See Burkert, Mystery Cults, 14.

See comment on Acts 17:30. Against Luke’s term referring to merely intellectual change without emotions, however, see thoroughly Nave, Repentance, 40–70 (esp. 48–66).

Bayer, “Preaching,” 262–67; on the OT prophetic tradition informing the NT usage of repentance, see, e.g., Goppelt, Theology, 1:34–36; Ladd, Theology, 38–39. For the commonly held view of Semitic rather than Greek background, see, e.g., Filson, History, 100; but while this difference may be true at the conceptual level, it is not necessarily true at the lexical level. Nave, Repentance, 74–118, skillfully shows that Jewish sources in Greek tend to use the particular term employed here with a semantic range similar to some other Greek sources (involving changed thinking and behavior that allowed for reconciliation, but not translating shuv). Unlike Nave, however (Repentance, 203n262), I view the close association of the two aorist imperatives in 3:19 as communicating mostly equivalent force, and hence retain the prophetic conceptual background for the preaching of prophetic figures like Peter here. On the demand for repentance in Luke-Acts, see Morris, Cross in New Testament, 109–12.

Applied to Egypt in Isa 19:22.

Though some philosophers did believe that sharp regret could serve the moral function of goading a person to moral improvement (Fredrickson, “Hardships,” 172–76).

See also Pr Man 7 (8 employs the noun), 13; Wis 5:3; Sir 17:24; 48:15.

This verb appears an estimated 431 Times in the LXX with a variety of meanings. Apart from the later Apocrypha, the LXX applies μετανοέω more often to God changing his mind than to people (e.g., Jer 4:28; Amos 7:3, 6; Joel 2:13–14; Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2; Zech 8:14).

That is, in these cases it means more than simply changing one’s mind (as in, e.g., Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 96–97.5–7); in some Greek sources, the term involved remorse (see Marc. Aur. 8.10; Char. Chaer. 3.3.11; Danker, Corinthians, 110). Some date Wisdom in the first century C.E., eliminating three of the five LXX exceptions; but I think a first-century B.C.E. date more likely (cf. Sandmel, Judaism, 71–76; Rost, Judaism, 59; Holmes, “Wisdom,” 1:520–21).

CD II, 5; X, 3; XV, 7; XX, 17; 1QS III, 1, 3; V, 1; VII, 19; 4Q171 II, 3–4; 4Q257 III, 2, 4; 4Q266 2 II, 5; 4Q269 1 2; 4Q400 1 I, 16; 4Q461 1 10; 4Q512 frg. 70, 71.2; 4Q525 10 6; 11Q10 XXVII, 4.

E.g., m. ʾAb. 4:13, 22; 5:21; ʾAbot R. Nat. 39 A; Sipre Deut. 30.1.2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24 passim; 25:3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; b. Yoma 86ab; Exod. Rab. 31:1; Lev. Rab. 15:4; Deut. Rab. 2:24; Eccl. Rab. 7:14, §1; Song Rab. 5:16, §1; 8:6, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 44:7; 47:1; Tg. Isa. 57:19; cf. b. Roš Haš. 16b. Some rabbis placed its creation before the world (b. Pesaḥ. 54a; Gen. Rab. 1:4; Midr. Pss. 90:3; 93:2); it was available to Adam (Gen. Rab. 1:4; he refused it in Num. Rab. 13:3) and to the generation of Babel (Gen. Rab. 38:9).

See, e.g., Sir 18:21 (though using ἐίιστροφήν); 17:24; 44:16; Pss. Sol. 9:7; Let. Aris. 188; Jub. 34:21; 1 En. 40:9; 50:3–5; Test. Iss. 6:3; Test. Reub. 1:9; 2:1; Test. Sim. 2:13; Test. Jud. 15:4; 19:2; 23:5; Test. Zeb. 9:7; Test. Gad 5:6–8; 6:3, 6; 7:5; Test. Jos. 6:6; Test. Ab. 11:10; 12:13 B; 4 Bar. 8:12; cf. Herm. 2.4.2. Repentance is personified in Jos. Asen. 15:7/6–7. For repentance in Judaism, see also Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 315–33; Urbach, Sages, 1:462–70; Le Cornu, Acts, 122–29 passim; for another survey of the literature (arguing that later rabbis are more lenient than earlier sources such as Philo, Josephus, and the earliest Christians), see Bell, “Teshubah”; cf. also Petuchowski, “Teshuvah.” For John the Baptist’s message of repentance, see Taylor, Immerser, 106–11.

E.g., Hos 14:1–2; Tob 13:6.

Oesterley, Liturgy, 63. God granted repentance (Wis 12:19; Rom 2:4), although in some texts this means that God gives space for repentance (cf. 2 Pet 3:9). Vermes, Religion, 192, suggests that John’s and Jesus’s repentance was personal as opposed to the corporate repentance found in Qumran liturgy (e.g., 1QS I, 24–26), but the personal decision on entrance into that community (e.g., III, 9–11; V, 8, 13–14; acknowledged in Vermes, Religion, 192n8) is, in fact, more analogous.

See comment on Acts 3:19.

Pr Man 3:8; cf. Test. Ab. 10:14 A (but contrast 9:3); ʾAbot R. Nat. 14 A.

1 Kgs 8:46; 1 Esd 4:37–38; Sir 8:5; Test. Ab. 9:3 A; 1 En. 40:9; 4 Ezra 8:35; see further Moore, Judaism, 467–69; Bonsirven, Judaism, 114. Some later Amoraim observed that repentance even one day before death could spare the wicked hell (Ruth Rab. 3:3; Eccl. Rab. 1:15, §1).

Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 174–80; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 315–33.

M. Yoma 8:8; t. Kip. 4:7. For repentance atoning or partly atoning, see, e.g., Pss. Sol. 3:9–10 (or 3:8, in a different enumeration; using different wording); y. Šebu. 1:6, §5; Num. Rab. 14:10.

M. ʾAb. 2:10; ʾAbot R. Nat. 15 A; 29, §62 B; b. Šabb. 153a; Midr. Pss. 90:12. Repentance was always efficacious before death (Test. Ab. 10:14 A) and even shortly before the end of the age (1 En. 50:3–5; but not if one waited too long, 4 Ezra 7:82; 9:11; 2 Bar. 85:12). The gates of repentance were always open (Deut. Rab. 2:12; Lam. Rab. 3:43–44, §9; though many rabbis demurred about apostates like Manasseh).

B. Šebu. 13a, bar.

M. Yoma 8:8–9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 39, 40 A; Pesiq. Rab. 44:1. Repentance destroys disobedience (Test. Gad 5:7; cf. 2 Cor 7:10; later, against the evil impulse, Lev. Rab. 9:1). But this was nothing like the later Christian rule allowing only a single repentance (e.g., Herm. 2.4.1)!

E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11; Tg. 2 Chr. 33:12–13. Surely his repentance is viewed favorably in 2 Chr 33:12–15; Pr Man 7–8.

Most rabbis in Num. Rab. 14:1. For a survey of rabbinic approaches to Manasseh’s repentance, see Hoffer, “Manasseh’s Repentance.” Cf. Elisha ben Abuyah in Eccl. Rab. 7:8, §1.

Jos. Asen. 9:2; 15:7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:20; cf. Acts 14:15; 1 Thess 1:9; perhaps also Philo Virt. 175–82 (if Bekken, Word, 85–90, is correct about the application to both Jews and Gentiles).

The clearest exception involves personal reconciliation (Luke 17:3–4).

I say “beginning” because learning remained necessary (e.g., Acts 10:14; 11:2–3, 18; 15:5).

Cf. Gal 3:22; Eph 1:15; Phlm 5; also Jas 2:1; Paul blends repentance and faith in Acts 20:21. Whether the difference in Acts is the speaker or, more importantly (in view of Petrine uses in 11:17; 15:11), relevance to the Gentile mission (cf. Luke 7:9), within the narrative world Peter may grow in articulating the message of saving faith. Yet this growing articulation should not be overplayed into a theological tension; Luke hardly implies that the Lord Jesus, who is the object of faith in Acts, articulated the message inadequately in Luke’s Gospel.

With, e.g., Bruce, Commentary, 77; Dunn, Acts, 33; Bock, Acts, 144.

E.g., Jub. 22:14; 1QH^a VI, 24; Exod. Rab. 52:2.

E.g., 4Q504 4 6–7; also the sixth benediction of the Amidah (Oesterley, Liturgy, 63); for a later discussion of prayer on the eve of Yom Kippur, see, e.g., Lev. Rab. 3:3.

E.g., Jos. Asen. 11:18; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Lev 16:30; 1 John 1:9; for confession, see also, e.g., Pss. Sol. 9:6; b. Sanh. 43b; further comment at Acts 7:60.

For studies of baptism relevant to Acts, see Mattill and Mattill, Bibliography, 290–93, §§4039–87; for a more recent but brief survey of views, see Powell, Acts, 74–75 (usefully highlighting, among others, Giles, “Exponent,” 194–205; Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 93–122).

E.g., McIntyre, “Baptism and Forgiveness” (some of whose other points are stronger), cites the rule of concord to separate baptism and forgiveness in Acts 2:38, but Camp, “Reexamining Concord,” responds that ἕκαστος can serve as a plural pronoun. Grammar alone will not easily decide the theological point here. That εἰς in 2:38 may mean “for the purpose of” (cf., e.g., Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 104, §111.i) is far likelier than Mantey’s theologically determined “because of” (see Wallace, Grammar, 369–71, following Marcus, “Eis”; idem, “Elusive eis,” 44; against Mantey, “Causal Use of eis”; “Eis Again”). Moule, Idiom Book, 70, has “with a view to, or resulting in.”

My concern here is exegetical only. That is, I am not addressing theological questions about how the church should deal with those incapable of being baptized (the oft-cited thief on the cross in Luke 23:42–43 might be relevant, though one could readily counter that the example precedes Christian baptism). More relevant is the spiritual conversion of Cornelius’s household before baptism (Acts 10:47). In view of the latter case, Luke probably would not attribute to baptism any mechanical efficacy for spiritual transformation (against such efficacy, see further, e.g., Stonehouse, Areopagus, 78, 83–84). But such questions remain peripheral to Luke’s central concern here, which is baptism as the standard act of conversion, by which one publicly confesses allegiance to Christ (even if one has already received the Spirit).

The continuity between John’s practice and the early Jesus movement suggests that Jesus himself approved the use of baptism (cf. John 3:22; 4:1–2; France, “Jesus the Baptist?,” 107).

John’s baptism prefigures even this element of proclaiming Christ, except that John proclaims the “coming one” (Luke 3:16) and Peter proclaims the one who has already come.

That is, I understand Luke differently than I understand the Fourth Gospel (cf. Keener, John, 546–52); although I do not think that Luke presents baptism as itself regenerative (or that he anywhere addresses the question of regeneration, in any case), I do believe that he sees it as the decisive act of conversion (pace, e.g., Tanton, “Gospel and Baptism: Acts 2:38”). For views on baptism in Luke-Acts, see, e.g., Bovon, Theologian, 377–79.

This prebaptismal experience with the Spirit here is identified as being baptized in the Spirit (Acts 11:16), its “gift” being the same as that of the first Pentecost (10:45, 47; 11:17).

Acts 10:47–48 does not provide a normative alternative model for Luke’s audience’s practice (it represents only 10 percent of Acts’ baptism passages), but it does demonstrate (perhaps incidentally) that water and Spirit baptisms are ontologically separable. I recognize that some have critiqued Dunn, Baptism, for such a “mediating” position between “sacramentalism” and “Pentecostalism” (Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 72–73), but a position is not rendered untenable merely by “mediating.”

Cf. Harrington, God’s People, 41: “Not only a sealing for the eschaton but also the symbolic appropriation of the present salvation proclaimed by Jesus.”

Cf. this potential danger in Robinson, Studies, 167: since Pentecost, water baptism became “the effective representation” of the Pentecost experience “for every succeeding person and generation (Acts 2.39).”

On the basis of its presence in the earliest sources, Meeks, Moral World, 99, guesses that baptism as Christian initiation began “very soon after the death of Jesus.” Byrne, Romans, 189, notes that Paul presupposes familiarity with it in the Roman churches, which he did not found.

On the anthropological significance of baptism as a rite of separation, see, e.g., deSilva, Honor, 305.

See, e.g., Brownlee, “Comparison,” 58; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4.

See, e.g., Jos. War 2.150; Ringgren, Faith, 221; Milik, Discovery, 102–3.

I borrow most of the material in this excursus from Keener, John, 442–47. On proselytes in general, see Keener, John, 543–44.

On OT ablutions, see, e.g., Webb, Baptizer, 96–108.

Spell 20, part T-1, in the Egyptian Book of the Dead (Allen, 36); Moyer, “Purity,” 130; Blackman, “Purification,” 476; cf. Philo Mos. 1.14.

Moyer, “Purity,” 130. In the ancient Near East generally, see, e.g., Sallaberger and Felber, “Purification.”

Moyer, “Purity,” 132; cf. the importance of ritual purity in “Instructions for Palace Personnel to Insure the King’s Purity” (ANET 207); “Instructions for Temple Officials” 14 (ANET 209).

E.g., postpartum purificatory water rituals among Eskimos, in Fiji, and in Uganda (Fallaize, “Purification”); postpartum or postmenstruation rituals among the Nandi and the Ndebele (Mbiti, Religions, 169, 172); prenuptial washings in Batoro (182–83), Jewish (Safrai, “Home,” 758), and Greco-Roman (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 54–55; Batey, Imagery, 28) cultures; Hindu water purifications before approaching a deity (Fry et al., Religions, 61; and, to a lesser extent, in Shinto tradition in Japan [154]); possibly related Islamic purifications (Guillaume, Islam, 88); Mandaeans (Drower, Mandaeans, 100–123; cf. Kraeling, John the Baptist, 107–9).

Diogenes in Diog. Laert. 6.2.42. Plutarch explicitly condemns only the βαίτισμούς of superstitious religion and magic (Superst. 2, Mor. 166A).

Cf. Diog. Laert. 8.1.33; Culpepper, School, 49 (following Iambl. V.P. 71–74).

Diog. Laert. 7.1.119.

E.g., inscription (SIG² 566.2–9) from Athena’s temple at Pergamum (in Grant, Religions, 6). Aune, Prophecy, 30, cites the Pythia’s ritual bath preceding sacrifice. Ach. Tat. 8.3.2 speaks of a fountain of τὸ ἱερὸν ὕδωρ used for ablutions in the temple of Artemis in Ephesus. Even deities might purify themselves (Ovid Metam. 4.479–80).

Epict. Diatr. 3.21.14; Mylonas, Eleusis, 248; Angus, Mystery-Religions, 81–82.

Plut. Isis 75, Mor. 381D; Apul. Metam. 11.1. For such ablutions deriving from older Egyptian traditions, see Wild, Water, 129–48. Cf. later blood baptisms in the cult of Cybele (Goodenough, Church, 9; cf. Prudentius Peristephanon 10.1011–50 in Barrett, Documents, 96–97).

E.g., Bultmann, Christianity, 158.

Livy 39.9.4; Burkert, Mystery Cults, 101; Nock, Christianity, 60–62, 133; Wagner, Baptism, 71–72, 102–3; Meeks, Christians, 152–53. Typical stages of initiation were κάθαρσις (purification), σύστασις (sacrifices), τελετή (initiation proper), and ἐίοίτεία. Romans were also “cleansed” (καθαίρονται) by sacrifice (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.22.1–2).

Nock, “Vocabulary,” 134. John twice uses καθαρισμός, both times for Jewish lustrations (John 2:6; 3:25).

E.g., Jos. Ant. 6.235 (who implausibly reads it into the David narrative); cf. his comments (18.19) on the form of purification used by Essenes at the temple.

Wirgin, Jubilees, 27–38, adduces numismatic evidence that may argue for priests’ use of holy water for their hands and feet in the Maccabean period.

On the development of mikvaot ideology in an early period see Selkin, “Exegesis,” esp. (97–161); for a recent survey of information about Palestinian mikvaot, see Hoss, “Mikwen”; cf. also Štrba, “Miqveh.” The Pharisees probably did more to extend it beyond the priesthood than anyone else (e.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 87). On early Jewish ablutions apart from Qumran, see Webb, Baptizer, 95–132, esp. 108–32.

E.g., Yadin, Masada, 164; Avigad, Jerusalem, 142; Bruce, Thoughts, 50–51; Kotlar, “Mikveh,” 1535.

Reed, “Contributions,” 52, counts more than three hundred. In the Judean foothills, see, e.g., in Zissu and Ganor, “Horvat ‘Ethri.”

Avigad, Jerusalem, 85–86; notes in Cornfeld, Josephus, 50; probably at Gezer, in Reich, “Mqww’wt”; Netzer, “Mqww’wt.”

E.g., Reich, “Miqweh.”

Pearlman, Zealots, 179, who identified this mikveh as the earliest known at the time of his writing. Zissu, Tepper, and Amit, “Miqwa’ot,” suggest their presence even at some rural sites.

See Avigad, Jerusalem, 139–43. M. Parah 3:7 also mentions a place of immersion at the Mount of Olives.

Avigad, Jerusalem, 139, 142.

Cf. the Chamber of Immersion (m. Mid. 1:9) and, for the immersion of lepers, the Chamber of Lepers (m. Neg. 14:8). See Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 55; Mazar, “Excavations,” 52; Cornfeld, Josephus, 272. The list of “officers” in the temple (m. Šeqal. 5:1–2) includes one Nehemiah as “over the water,” lit. “trench-digger,” and he was “in charge of the aqueduct and the Temple cisterns, and to look after the baths” used for ablutions (Jeremias, Jerusalem, 174).

Neusner, Beginning, 24–25.

See esp. the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the talmudic tractate Miqwaʾot. The most extensive discussion of this material to date is in Neusner, Purities. Miqveh came to be considered a commandment of God (cf. the Amoraic blessing in b. Ber. 51a).

M. Parah 11:6; b. Šabb. 64b; y. Šebu. 2:1, §6. The touch of Gentiles could communicate impurity requiring immersion (cf. y. Šeb. 6:1, §12, 36c).

E.g., b. Ber. 2b, with a purportedly Tannaitic attribution.

b. Pesaḥ. 90b; Šabb. 84a; Yoma 6b; the importance of this may be underlined by the haggadic illustration on an OT narrative in Lev. Rab. 19:6 and the illustration of R. Gamaliel’s maidservant in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:15.

b. Makš. 4:6; Miqw. 9:5–7, 10; Sipra Sh. pq. 9.115.1.6–8; b. Šabb. 15b; 34a; 84a; Zebaḥ. 22a; Menaḥ. 101a; Bek. 22a; Ḥul. 123a; y. Ḥag. 3:8, §§1–3; cf. m. Ṭehar. 8:9; CD X, 12; XI, 3–4. Other Eastern cults (such as that of Cybele) also purified vessels (Mart. Epig. 3.47).

b. Pesaḥ. 59a, bar.; references in Urbach, Sages, 1:582–83. Cf. Jdt 16:18 (the people were purified [ἐκαθαρίσθη] before offering sacrifices); cf. John 11:55; also possibly 2:6 with 2:13, if 2:6 prepares for Passover.

See, e.g., Ladd, Theology, 38–39.

Fritsch, Community, 7; Thiering, “Initiation”; idem, “Cleansing”; Smith, “Baptism”; Brownlee, “Comparison with Sects,” 58; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4; Bertalotto, “Immersion”; Flusser, Sage, 19; cf. Robinson, Studies, 16; Jeremias, “Qumran Texts,” 68–69; Anderson, Mark, 70–71; against Pryke, “John,” 483–96; Delmore, “Pratique.”

See 1QS V, 8–23 and texts in Josephus cited by Cross, Library, 95n96a; see at length Webb, Baptizer, 133–62. Wood, “Dip,” argues for dipping in ritual purifications; the mikvaot that archaeologists have uncovered argue strongly in favor of immersion as the form of washing, fitting other early Jewish evidence.

Cf., e.g., Jos. War 2.150. This has been argued by many scholars, e.g., Driver, Scrolls, 496–506; Ringgren, Faith, 221; Milik, Discovery, 102–3; Pryke, “John,” 483–96; Simon, Sects, 75. Such purifications were not thought to purify the soul from sin; see Sutcliffe, “Baptism.” On ritual purity at Qumran more generally, see, e.g., Bowley, “Purification Texts.”

So Black, Scrolls, 94. I write from the more traditional perspective that sectarians did live at Qumran and composed the major documents, though I am aware that this position is debated today.

E.g., 4Q512 passim; 4Q414 frg. 12; Oxford Genizah Text C 2–8; Mount Athos manuscript in DSSNT 255. The impression that Essenes were meticulous in washings may be gained, e.g., from Jos. War 2.129, 150; cf. Ant. 18.19. It should be noted, however, that non-Essene Jews in upper-city Jerusalem, who had adequate resources, may have also been more meticulous than their halakah demanded; see Avigad, Jerusalem, 142.

Cf., e.g., y. Qidd. 3:12, §8.

Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 18–31; Anderson, Mark, 71; cf. Albright, Stone Age, 290.

E.g., Abrahams, Studies (1), 42; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:8; Rowley, “Baptism”; cf. Taylor, Mark, 155; White, Initiation, 78–79; Argyle, Matthew, 23.

Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 128; idem, Jew, 26; Goppelt, Theology, 1:37; Bruce, History, 156; Ladd, Theology, 41; Meeks, Urban Christians, 150; Falk, Jesus, 151; cf. Hooker, Message, 9; LaSor, “Miqva’ot.”

Rowley, “Baptism,” 333–34.

That is, those joining the Christian movement could justify their baptisms on the analogy of washings before joining other sects; but the element of conversion, even for Jewish adherents (cf., e.g., Q in Matt 3:9/Luke 3:8), is suggestive, and the lack of subsequent baptisms required by this particular community (as opposed to those invited by Jewish practice more generally) weighs the initiatory baptism much more heavily than at Qumran.

For its importance in Jewish practice, see discussion at Acts 15. Some of those who were spreading Judaism apparently thought that exceptions could be made where Judaism would be brought into more reproach if it was carried out (e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.40–42), but this laxity is undoubtedly exceptional (cf. Eleazar of Galilee in Jos. Ant. 20.43–44).

B. Yebam. 46a.

McEleney, “Conversion”; Gilbert, “Convert”; cf. Lake, “Proselytes,” 78–79.

Bamberger, Proselytism, 49–52; cf. Nolland, “Proselytes”; in support of this position, cf. b. Yebam. 71a. Then again, it is easy to see how the tradition would have been modified to its Palestinian form to conform the tradition to the normative interpretation of the Torah.

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

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

For whatever reasons, Judaism attracted Gentile women more frequently than their husbands (cf. Jos. War 2.560–61; CIJ 1:384, §523; inscriptions in Leon, Jews of Rome, 256).

Cohen, “Ceremony,” may be correct that until the mid-second century, different people practiced it in different ways. At least in politically sensitive cases such as Izates, some Jews felt circumcision itself unnecessary (cf. Gilbert, “Convert”), though others clearly disagreed (Jos. Ant. 20.44).

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

Diatr. 2.9.20, despite the interpretation of the Loeb editor. Stern, Authors, 541, interprets it correctly.

It might also be implied by Juv. Sat. 14.104, who would then be regarding it as a matter of common knowledge in Roman society that after Jews circumcised their converts, they led them to the place of washing. On Sib. Or. 4.165 (probably first century), see below; cf. Justin Dial. 29.1 for a mid-second-century Diaspora reference.

Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 128–31; definite early attestation is not possible here, but “the transmission of this statement in the names of three separate Tannaim may indicate that it was widespread” and probably reflects an authentic early dispute. Cf. Torrance, “Baptism,” 154.

Taylor, “Baptism,” 196.

See Abrahams, Studies (1), 37.

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

Cf. also Rowley, “Baptism,” 313; Cohen, Maccabees, 53; Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 128; White, Initiation, 320. Kraeling, John the Baptist, 99–100, indicates the widespread acceptance for an early date, noting that “a growing sense of historical proportion showed how impossible” was the view of some early Christian scholars that Judaism took proselyte baptism from the Christians. Rather, later rabbis and early Christians shared a common source in the wider milieu of early Judaism.

For John’s baptism as a “prophetic symbolic action,” see, e.g., Malina and Pilch, Letters, 333.

Some scholars suggest that John the Baptist himself was an Essene (e.g., Betz, “John”); whether he may have been one at one time, he certainly was not one by the time he began his public proclamation (Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 36; Pryke, “John”). Qumran sectarians practiced strict separatism from the rest of Israel (see, e.g., van der Minde, “Absonderung”). Further, most commonalities between them also appear in most of the rest of Second Temple Judaism (Taylor, Immerser, 15–48), and John’s baptism implied the inadequacy of former purifications (99).

1 En. 6:3 (if “Semyaza” means “he sees the Name”); perhaps 1 Chr 13:6 LXX; Jeremias, Theology, 10; Longenecker, Christology, 43; Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,” 268–69. Bonsirven, Judaism, 7, cites m. Ber. 4:4; Yoma 3:8.

Jos. Asen. 15:7 (OTP 2:227).

It might be helpfully supplemented with the righteous being saved “in the name of the Lord of Spirits” (1 En. 48:7, in both Knibb and Isaac), though the Similitudes could be as late as the mid-first century C.E.

See most fully Abrahams, Studies (1), 45 (citing the small extracanonical tractate Gerim 1:7 and comparing b. Yebam. 45b, 47b); cf. De Ridder, Discipling, 107. The expression undoubtedly reflects the sentiment that all genuine works should be done for the name of heaven (e.g., m. ʾAb. 2:2, 12). Perhaps ἐίί also conveys the sense of the Hebrew le, which apparently stands behind the idiom with εἰς in Acts 8:16 (see discussion there); different prepositions simply reflect different Greek ways to translate the underlying Semitic original (see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 201).

Peterson, “Worship,” 381–82 (his association with the temple is less plausible).

See Martin, Worship, 127; cf. Goppelt, Times, 42. The supposed gnostic background (Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, 256) inverts chronology, appealing anachronistically to sources in a movement dependent on Christianity; alleged baptism in schismatics’ names (cf. Ambrosiaster Comm. [CSEL 81:11–12; Bray, Corinthians, 11]) may be patristic polemic.

E.g., Grant, Gods, 53; Bultmann, Second Corinthians, 252.

Cf. Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 3.6 (Bray, Corinthians, 11) regarding its theological function: “The greatness of baptism does not lie in the baptizer but in the one whose name is invoked in the baptism.”

Judge, First Christians, 619, views “a theological confession as the basis for a new movement” as highly unusual, perhaps unprecedented in antiquity. It would probably not have been possible in typical Greco-Roman religion (see Rives, Religion, 47–50).

T. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:13; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 27a, bar.; y. Yebam. 8:1, §10.

Mussies, “Greek,” 1042. Cf. the confusion of εἰς with ἐίί and πρός (Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 112, §207); ibid., 100, also note (introduction preceding §187) that “the dative was exposed to a greater extent than either the accusative or genitive to the encroachment of various prepositions, especially ἐν and εἰς, on the function of the simple case” (the other mentioned cases also having some such exposure).

Barrett, Acts, 154; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 201.

Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 203.

Ibid., 203.

On “reception of salvation” (conversion, repentance, etc.), see Bovon, Theologian, 267–89. Repentance and baptism themselves might not be simultaneous (cf. discussion in Stonehouse, Areopagus, 78, 83–84).

Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 26: “If the words were used in the Jewish sense this would mean ‘become prophets.’” Reformed scholar Ned Stonehouse warns that a connection with salvation here would have “a Pelagian flavor” (Areopagus, 71) and thus connects the gift of the Spirit with charismatic manifestations, citing Luke’s other references to the gift in Acts 8:20; 10:45; and 11:17 (82, 84). Shelton, Mighty in Deed, 130, notes the ambiguity here.

Cho, Spirit and Kingdom, 140–50 (emphasizing [146–50] the subsequent narratives); Menzies, Empowered, 203–4, argues that Acts 2:38 makes repentance and baptism a prerequisite for receiving the prophetic gift but does not indicate the reverse (i.e., it does not make the gift of the Spirit—in the Lukan sense of empowerment—necessary for conversion). Noting the absence of the Spirit directly following baptism in Luke’s narratives, Shauf, Theology, 155, contends that 2:38 is not a formula, but merely “what they should do and what they should expect.” Cf. also Haya-Prats, Believers, 148–52 (on the imprecise relationship between water and Spirit baptism) and xvii, 138–41, 192, 237 (on the lack of interest in salvation and sanctification in the pneumatology of Acts).

Presumably, the gift (as the entire sphere of the Spirit’s activity in the believer’s life) becomes available at conversion whenever some aspects of it (such as empowerment, Luke’s emphasis) may be actualized in believers’ lives.

Fee, Gospel, 98.

See also Witherington, Acts, 154; Gaventa, Acts, 139. Luke does not clarify inconsistencies regarding baptism because they are beside his primary point (cf. Weatherly, “Purpose”).

Dunn, Baptism, 55–72, seeks to conform Acts 8 to 2:38, in my view, unsuccessfully; more plausibly, many regard 2:38 as the norm and view divergent cases as exceptions (see Hull, Spirit in Acts, 98–99; Turner, Gifts, 44–45; Marshall, Theology, 177), or view the narrative diversity as normative and 2:38 as a schematization or a prerequisite (Cho, Spirit and Kingdom, 140–50; Menzies, Empowered, 203–4). For surveys of views concerning receiving the Spirit and the contemporary debate about subsequence in Acts, see Turner, “Significance of Receiving”; Elbert, “Spirit through Lukan Lens.”

On literary variation, see, e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.4; Max. Tyre 21.4; Anderson, Glossary, 53–54, 114; Nock, “Vocabulary,” 137; in LXX, see Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 776–77; varied imperatives for attentiveness in Xen. Anab. 5.1.8–10; words for “serving” in Xen. Cyr. 3.1.36, 41; see esp. Cic. Or. Brut. 46.156–57; Fam. 13.27.1; cf. Cic. Brut. 91.316. For further examples, see Keener, John, 244–46, 251, 324–25.

Lindars, Apologetic, 57, regards it as exclusively Lukan, which is true insofar as one limits the usage to δωρεά (unless two phrases in Heb 6:4 are synonymous).

Cf. similarly 1 Cor 12:7–8; Eph 4:7–8; Heb 6:4. Given connections between the Spirit and wisdom (Keener, John, 961–66), it might be useful to note that Wisdom is God’s “gift” (although with different terminology) in Wis 8:21; 9:17.

It seems noteworthy that Luke and other NT writers always use λαμβάνω for “receiving” the Spirit and not δέχομαι (possibly excepting 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 11:4), though they do employ both for “receiving” the word (e.g., Luke 8:13; Acts 8:14; 11:1; 17:11; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:13; Jas 1:21; λαμβάνω appears in the NT six times as often as δέχομαι, though only about 2.5 times as often in Luke). Most of Luke’s key verbs with respect to the Spirit (“come,” “pour out,” “descend,” and, distinctive to him in the Gospels, “anoint”) have LXX precedents (Haya-Prats, Believers, 5–6; note also “fall,” Ezek 11:5; Acts 10:44). “Receiving” the Spirit usually appears in the aorist tense in Luke (Haya-Prats, Believers, 54–58), a pattern that Haya-Prats, Believers, 58–59, attributes to grammatical reasons, OT usage, and emphasis on the moment of reception.

See, e.g., b. Soṭah 9:15; b. Soṭah 13:2–4; Mek. Besh. 7.135ff.; comments in our introduction, , . Rabbis connected Peter’s Joel passage, however, with Ezek 36:26 to indicate that the divine presence (i.e., the Spirit) will cause Israel to merit the law.

E.g., Exod 24:12; Lev 26:46; Deut 4:8; Ezra 7:6; Neh 9:13; 1 Esd 9:39; 2 Macc 7:30; Wis 18:4; Sir 45:5, 17; Sipre Deut. 305.1.2; the moral law in 4 Macc 2:23 (and perhaps Sib. Or. 11.37).

E.g., Jos. Ant. 4.318; Num. Rab. 19:33; Pesiq. Rab. 29/30:2; further on the rabbis’ mattan Torah, see discussion in Moore, Judaism, 1:398; Sandmel, Judaism, 182. Whether this analogy is relevant, it is far more so than Greek “gifts” such as Dionysus’s “gift” of wine (e.g., Plut. frg. 54, from scholia on Hesiod W.D. 368–69, in F. H. Sandbach in Plutarch, Moralia, LCL, 15:146–47; Arrian Ind. 7.5); various innate gifts like speaking, hunting, intellect, and the like (e.g., Hom. Il. 13.730–34; Xen. On Hunting 13.18; Cic. Senect. 12.40; Val. Max. 7.1.1; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 397, §135D; Iambl. Letter 13, frg. 1.3–4, in Stob. Anth. 2.2.6); the physician’s art (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.44); or Zeus’s gift of wealth (Lucian Tim. 37).

Sipre Deut. 32.5.10; b. Ber. 5a; Exod. Rab. 1:1; cf. Lev. Rab. 35:8. An early third-century teacher added that God gave the Torah as a gift because Moses kept forgetting it (R. Johanan in b. Ned. 38a; y. Hor. 3:5, §1; elsewhere, however, mediating Torah was merited, e.g., by Ezra in y. Meg. 1:9, §3)—obviously not part of the analogy here!

See e.g., Hermog. Method 4.416.

Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 34. Against Jeremias’s argument for infant baptism here, “children” means any offspring, even as adults (Barrett, Acts, 155).

E.g., Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 230; Klauck, Magic, 12. The healing in that verse is likely spiritual (as in Pesiq. Rab. 44:8).

E.g., Neirynck, “Luke 4,16–30,” 378; Hamm, Acts, 21; cf. especially now Meek, Mission, 110–11 (allowing even Peter’s understanding).

Dupont, Salvation, 23; Johnson, Acts, 58.

Cf. Dunn, Acts, 33. Haenchen, Acts, 184, mentions God’s revelation in Sir 24:32.

Kirby, Ephesians, 157, citing Gen. Rab. 8:4.

B. Ber. 34b; Tg. Isa. 57:19.

See discussion of ecstatic prophecy in the excursus at Acts 2:17–18; Keener, Spirit, 24.

Plut. Isis 14, Mor. 356E; Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 43, §118 B (biblical examples); b. Soṭah 12b (pagans). See further Aune, Prophecy, 139, following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:546; cf. Jdt. 6:2.

Cf. Psyche in Apul. Metam. 5.6; Saul in 1 Sam 14:39. An accurate societal critic could also be dubbed “oracular” in a figurative sense because he spoke truth (Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 9).

As is widely agreed (Haenchen, Acts, 184n5; Dupont, Salvation, 22; Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 34; Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 231–32; Marshall, “Acts,” 536, 543). “The Lord God” appears in Luke-Acts especially in the semitized infancy narrative (Luke 1:32, 68) and in Scripture quotations (here and Acts 3:22); it appears some 525 times in the LXX, though missing in our LXX text of Joel 2:32 (i.e., 3:5 LXX).

See esp. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 198–99, who suggests that this belongs to a very early ritual of confessing Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 12:3). Paul elsewhere applies earlier biblical language for God to Jesus, e.g., Isa 45:22–23 in Phil 2:10–11. For divine language surrounding Jesus’s appearing in 1 Thess 4–5, see Glasson, Advent, 161–79; followed also by Robinson, Coming, 140–41.

Parsons, Acts, 47, notes the wordplay on the cognate terms. The theological compatibility of the two expressions probably also ranks Luke in the dominant stream of Jewish thought, which accepted both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (cf. Jos. Ant. 13.172, 297–98; 18.13).

Turner, Gifts, 56.

Luke often employs διαμαρτύρομαι (Luke 16:28), including for Peter and his colleagues (Acts 2:40; 8:25; 10:42) and Paul (18:5; 20:21, 23, 24; 23:11; 28:23); it appears sixteen times in the LXX; elsewhere in the NT, it appears once in Paul’s undisputed letters (1 Thess 4:6), three times in the Pastorals (1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 2:14; 4:1), and once in Heb 2:6.

Cicero was known for his lengthy speaking (e.g., Plut. Cic. 12.5).

I read the three trumpet calls in Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 1 as a figurative reference to three-hour segments; since I myself must teach eight (or as long as fourteen) hours a day in some intensive sessions, I regard this as exhausting but not incredible.

E.g., Thucydides (Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 15).

Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.29–30 (Lutz, 59).

Xen. Apol. 22. Thus also Aeschines summarizes to avoid repeating the entirety of an earlier speech (Embassy 118). Galba’s speech in Tac. Hist. 1.15–16 is “to this effect” (LCL, 1:27, 33).

Tac. Ann. 11.23–24 (“these and similar arguments” is 11.24).

Ach. Tat. 7.14.4 (LCL).

Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,” 57 (citing Xen. Hell. 2.4.42; Polyb. 3.111.11; 21.14.4); cf. earlier Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 178 (citing, besides those above, Appian Samnite History 10.6; Bell. civ. 3.63.257; followed by Haenchen, Acts, 184; Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 36; Soards, Speeches, 138; Barrett, Acts, 156; Marguerat, Actes, 96).

Aune, Environment, 127–28 (citing Arrian Alex. 3.9.8; Jos. War 1.638; 2.33; 3.383; Longus 1.16). For instructions on abbreviating one’s speeches, see Rhet. Alex. 22, 1434b.11–18.

E.g., Gen. Rab. 55:7 (interpolating Gen 22); 93:8; Exod. Rab. 44:5. For the principle of selectivity of rabbis’ teachings in rabbinic literature, see Gerhardsson, Memory, 174.

Witherington, Acts, 156 (who suggests that perhaps Luke’s source told him there was more). Even in recent history, extant notes for a genuine three-and-a-half-hour speech may be read aloud in three minutes (Tomkins, Wilberforce, 80, 84).

See more fully Keener, John, 1214–15, 1241–42.

Dion. Hal. Thuc. 55; Isaeus 19–20; Demosth. 42, 46, 58; Lit. Comp. 11.

Lysias Or. 2.1, §190; 12.1, §120; 28.1, §179; Aeschines Tim. 109; Cic. Verr. 2.2.47.118; 2.2.48.118; 2.4.26.57; 2.4.46.102; 2.4.47.105; Flacc. 5.12; Plut. Mal. Hdt. 1, Mor. 854F; cf. Isoc. Antid. 140, 310, 320.

Lysias Or. 2.2, §190; 2.54, §195; Ovid Tristia 2.324; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.17.597; 1 Macc 9:22; cf. the difficulty in Diod. Sic. 16.95.5.

E.g., Hom. Od. 3.113–17.

Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; for Torah learning, Song Rab. 1:3, §1.

Philo Spec. Laws 4.238; for analogous hyperbole, cf. Abr. 1; Mos. 1.213; Dreams 2.63.

For reading Luke’s “other words” in light of Luke-Acts as a whole, see Kilgallen, “Assumptions.”

Witherington, Acts, 139. On pathos, See comment on Acts 20:19.

Even transitions ideally restated the point briefly (Rhet. Her. 4.26.35, though Luke does not set forth what follows).

With Ridderbos, “Speeches of Peter,” 28.

With Sloan, “Signs,” 162.

See Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 41–42.

See, e.g., Luke 11:30–32, 50–51; 17:25; 21:32; Keener, Matthew, 589; the “race” interpretation is mentioned in Cullmann, Early Church, 151; Mattill, Last Things, 97; in Luke’s usage, cf. Luke 16:8.

The term often had moral connotations (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 80.9; BDAG cites Dio Chrys. Or. 58[75].1; Lucian Indictment 16; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.179).

Deut 32:5 probably also supplies the language for Sib. Or. 1.124. Διαστρέφω elsewhere appears in the NT only at Luke 23:2; Acts 13:8, 10; 20:30.

Commentators regularly note these two LXX passages (Knowling, “Acts,” 92; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 27; Haenchen, Acts, 184; Munck, Acts, 20).

Such an invitation sounds different as an intra-Jewish critique (as in the psalm or in Peter’s preaching) than it would otherwise; indeed, this text remains part of today’s regular synagogue liturgy.

Both texts employ παρακαλέω, but this appears twenty-nine times in Luke-Acts.

Tannehill, Luke, 49, links the term also with σκολιά in Luke 3:5–6, further connecting Peter with John.

↑ Back to top