NT104

Pheme Perkins

Faced with growing skepticism over belief in the second coming of Christ and the consequences of that view for the ethical conduct of believers, a pseudonymous author invoked the authority of the apostle Peter to confirm established teaching. The transfiguration of Jesus (2 Pet. 1:16–18), establishes both Jesus’ divine identity and belief in his parousia. This focus on Jesus as God is reflected in the opening verse (1:1) of the letter as well as its concluding doxology (3:18). Since Jesus is their benefactor and divine Savior (1:11; 2:20; 3:2), Christians must hold fast to the true knowledge of the Lord (Kistemaker, 221–26). The divine power and goodness of the Savior enables the faithful to participate in the divine nature (1:4; Craddock, 88).

The author reinforces the Petrine voice by employing a Semitic version of the apostle’s name, “Simeon” instead of “Simon” (v. 1), and referring back to an earlier epistle written in Peter’s name, our 1 Peter (3:1). By suggesting that in this letter one also possesses Peter’s “testament,” his final teaching at the point of death (1:12–15), the author invokes the authority of a revered figure delivering final instructions and warnings as Moses does in Deuteronomy. The reference to Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death in 1:14 reflects a tradition attested in John 21:18–19. In addition to these Petrine echoes, 2 Peter also insists that “our beloved brother Paul” presented the same teaching, despite the attempt by false teachers to use the complexity of his letters in support of their theological innovations (3:15–16).

Although the reference to the transfiguration does not quote any one of our written Gospels, it seems reasonable to conclude that 2 Peter expects Christians to know one or more of the Gospels and a collection of apostolic letters that includes several from Paul as well as 1 Peter. When we compare the Old Testament examples used to support the teaching of divine judgment in 2 Peter 2 with Jude 4–13, it becomes clear that the author has employed that writing as well without appealing to Jude as apostolic. Although 2 Peter does not identify either its place of origin or the locale of its audience, several features of the work suggest that it may have been composed in Rome in the early second century CE. In addition to the traditional association of Peter with that city, 1 Peter was dispatched from Rome to believers in Asia Minor. Toward the end of the first century, 1 Clement invoked the authority of both apostles, Peter and Paul, in writing to Corinth (1 Clem. 5.4–5). In addition to the traditional link between Peter and the city, some scholars find a clue in the ethical teaching of 2 Peter. Christian faith as commitment to purity and holiness of life that distinguishes believers from their pagan surroundings is characteristic of Roman Christianity (Bauckham, 158–61).

Though it is difficult to untangle the logic of an opponent’s argument from a well-crafted polemical response, scholars have detected traits of Epicurean philosophy that could have supported the false teaching opposed here (Neyrey, 122–25). Epicureans argued against any belief in intervention by or punishment from the gods and held that the universe reflects the eternal, random interactions of various sorts of atoms moving in a void. Death is the dissolution of the atoms that make up the person. Therefore there is no such thing as a divine providence in the world or divine punishment and reward. By following this philosophy, humans liberate themselves from fear of the gods, the future, or death. Exactly how the false teachers adapted Epicurean principles to distort Christian faith is unclear. Presumably the opposition must have held out some view of salvation, perhaps a divinization of the soul similar to that envisioned in 2 Peter. At the same time, they may have used Epicurean cosmology to reject as mythology all teaching about an end-time judgment. Perhaps they also adopted an ethic of the pleasant life, which 2 Peter interprets as freedom for immorality or caving in to the passions (2:2, 10a, 13–14, 18).

2 Peter follows the structure of a letter.

Greeting (1:1–2)

Opening, purpose for writing (1:3–15)

Summary of the faith shared by believers (vv. 3–11)

Peter’s testament to endure beyond his death (vv. 12–15)

Body of the letter; the certainty of divine judgment (1:16–3:13)

The transfiguration confirms the truth of the Lord’s coming in glory (1:16–18)

True prophecy is inspired by God (1:19–21)

False teachers are comparable to false prophets (2:1–3)

Examples of divine punishment and rescue of the righteous (2:4–10a)

Application to the false teachers and their followers (2:10b–22)

Exhortation to the readers (3:1–13)

Body closing (3:14–18a)

Final doxology (3:18b)

2 Peter 1:1–15: Christ’s Calling

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

The greeting and opening of 2 Peter adopt the voice of the apostle Peter in defense of a shared faith that is summarized in verses 3–11. By casting this work as a testament of the apostle intended to enable future believers to recall Peter’s teaching after his death, the author has crafted a piece intended to transcend the historical particulars of Peter’s life (Harrington and Senior, 250–52). Verses 3–11 summarize the faith shared by believers, which forms the basis of “entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior” (v. 11). “Knowledge of our Lord Jesus” refers to the moral goodness, separation from the passions, and mutual love appropriate to persons who will share the divine nature.

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

Though 2 Peter does not develop the reference to sharing divine nature in 1:4, divinization would become the centerpiece of Christ’s saving work in the fourth-century-CE Greek fathers. The Son of God became man so that we might become God. This transformation could be expressed as participating in divine immortality (Novatian, Trin. 15.1) or linked with receiving a divine nature by participating in the Eucharist (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect. 4.3). Contemporary theologians look to the insights of the Greek fathers in formulating a soteriology of human transformation into the new being envisaged by God.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

An indirect reference to John’s Gospel may have been intended by the comment that Jesus had predicted Peter’s death (v. 14). This section makes a more explicit allusion to the story of Jesus’ transfiguration in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–13; Luke 9:28–36) by referring to a group of apostolic witnesses (“we”), the glory of Jesus, and the words of God’s voice. Most of the details of the Gospel stories have been omitted from this précis. The divine words are closest to Matt. 17:5.

The transition to a discussion of authentic prophecy points to a specific crisis behind the composition of 2 Peter. How affirming the validity of Old Testament prophecy as it points forward to Christ in verse 19a relates to the transfiguration is not entirely clear. Perhaps 2 Peter expects readers to treat the presence of Moses and Elijah as prophetic witnesses. The metaphor of a shining lamp and the morning star rising in the heart recalls such earlier Christian language about awaiting the day of judgment as 1 Thess. 5:5–8 (Neyrey, 183). Second Peter insists that the prophets neither invented their oracles nor fabricated interpretations of their visions, since they spoke under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (vv. 20–21). This argument could be directed against an Epicurean skepticism concerning all oracles or against claims on the part of the false teachers to divine inspiration.

Since biblical prophecy is divinely inspired, the author will connect ancient examples of divine punishment with the fate that awaits false teachers who delude believers and corrupt their morals (2:1–3). Greed is often invoked as a motive in polemical rhetoric along with the standard items of moral depravity. Second Peter employs the polemic of Jude 4 in depicting the false teachers, but it adds an ironical turn. Though they point to the apparent delay as evidence against a day of judgment, the condemnation of these false teachers has been fixed in God’s plan, and is not suspended (v. 3b; Kraftchick, 121–23).

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

Justin Martyr may be alluding to 2 Pet. 2:1 when he compares the false prophets of the Old Testament to the many false teachers of his own day (Dial. 82.1).

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

Although Christians reaffirm their belief in the Hebrew prophets as witnesses to Christ and in the Lord’s coming in judgment whenever they recite the creed, many consider that language a mythological or poetic holdover from a more naive time. The transfiguration story presents the presence of God in the Son as the culmination of a story of God’s saving presence with humanity that began with creation. To use the language of end-time judgment as a way of underlining the moral seriousness required of believers (1:3–11) is one way of holding on to a biblical heritage that no longer matches scientific or popular media scenarios for the end of planet earth. Since 2 Peter clearly retains the early Christian tradition that this world will come to a cataclysmic end when the divine Christ appears as judge, its explanation of the delay (3:5–10) does not imply that the phrase “until he comes again” should be dropped from the creed.

2 Peter 2:4–22: Lessons from the Biblical Past

Second Peter 2:4–10a has modified the language and content of Jude 4–13. It omits Jude’s references to Jewish apocryphal material, such as the contest between Satan and Michael over the body of Moses in Jude 9 or the citation of Enoch as an authoritative prophet in Jude 14–16. These omissions may reflect an awareness that such apocrypha are not inspired Scripture. However, the author might simply have dropped material unfamiliar to the intended audience (Bauckham, 260). In another striking modification, the author adds the dimension of salvation to the judgment and punishment motif in the examples of the flood (“Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others”) and Sodom and Gomorrah (“Lot, a righteous man”). This shift helps readers to view their own situation in these ancient stories. Second Peter even stresses the distress of a righteous man like Lot faced while living among the ungodly (vv. 7–8). Therefore the lesson that his audience is to learn includes God’s ability to rescue the righteous who suffer trials (v. 9a; Bauckham, 257).

Second Peter harangues the opposition (vv. 10b–22) under two heads, the depravity of persons driven by fleshly desires and their arrogant disregard for authority. The latter is picked up first in an ambiguous charge that they engage in some form of slander against heavenly beings that not even angels would attempt (vv. 10b–11). Subjection to fleshly passions reduces the opponents to the level of irrational animals, destined to be the hunter’s prey (v. 12). This section culminates in two proverbial sayings about the filth of irrational animals: dogs that lick their own vomit and pigs that go from water to rolling in mud (v. 22). Disgusting animalistic behavior reflects the dissipation that characterizes the life of the opponents and their followers (vv. 13–14, 18).

With characteristic irony, the invective points out that the freedom promised by the opposition is nothing less than slavery. To adopt false moral teaching is worse than living as the unbelievers do because it undermines the liberating power of Christ (vv. 18–21).

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

Second Peter 2:5–9 emphasizes God’s power to preserve the moral character of the faithful even when they live in situations that are shot through with evil. It acknowledges the spiritual suffering that causes righteous people to keep themselves apart from the wicked but does not advocate sectarian isolation. Christians can bear witness to the gospel in such a world by refusing to accept its moral relativism.

2 Peter 3:1–18: Salvation and Judgment

Second Peter invites the audience to apply two sources of insight to their situation: the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord handed on through the apostles (vv. 1–3; cf. Jude 17–18). The author then defends Christian belief in divine judgment. Those who deny it ignore the truth that the same power by which God created all things preserves them until the day of judgment (vv. 5–7). Another argument points to the psalm text that distinguishes the human and divine perceptions of time (v. 8; Ps. 90:4). Once again, 2 Peter includes God’s saving power in the discussion, since new creation follows judgment (vv. 11–13). To account for the delayed end-time, verse 9 invokes a familiar Jewish treatment of the question of divine punishment. God withholds it to provide opportunity for the wicked to repent (Exod. 34:6; Joel 2:12–13; Sir. 5:4–7; Bauckham, 312). God’s merciful forbearance does not mean that judgment has been canceled. The traditional Christian conviction that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly remains true (v. 10; cf. 1 Thess. 5:2–6).

Therefore Christians should appreciate the delayed judgment as an opportunity for salvation, not license (vv. 14–15). Second Peter insists that the letters of Paul teach the same understanding of the Christian life despite the use false teachers make of them and other Scriptures. A final exhortation to remain steadfast in faith concludes with a doxology to Jesus as Lord and Savior rather than God, as in Jude 25, “to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ.” Praising Jesus in this fashion suggests that at least in its worship, the community perceives him as fully divine.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

A rabbinic tradition that the arrival of the end time is somehow correlated with Israel’s repentance (b. Sanh. 97b–98a) raises an interesting possibility for verse 9b (“… is patient with you, not wanting any to perish”). The delay could reflect a lack of repentance among Christians. Bede reads this passage with Rev. 6:11 as indicating the time for God to gather all those elect predestined before creation.

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

The balance 2 Peter exhibits in revising the apocalyptic traditions adapted from Jude—namely, incorporating salvation of the faithful along with condemnation of the wicked—highlights the deficiency of our secular apocalypses. Unlike the postapocalyptic world in contemporary films, which leaves a few humans wandering amid the ruins of civilization, the Christian hope extends beyond judgment to the new creation no longer marred by evil (v. 13; Rom. 8:21; Rev. 21:1).

However, the methodological problem still engages Christian theology. How can traditional Christian belief address the skepticism generated by scientific descriptions of the universe? Though cast as a form of polemic that most Christians today find distasteful, the ethical emphasis in 2 Peter points to the key area of dispute. Scientific theories about the world are not a threat. It is the moral consequences that opponents of religion such as the “new atheists” attach to them that believers must resist.