Frank G. Carver Search ⌕

Book Chapter

Chapter 2 True Knowledge 1:3-21 2 Peter

2 Peter 1:3-21 · 2 Peter 1:3 · 2 Peter 1:4 · 2 Peter 1:5-11 · 2 Peter 1:12-21 · 2 Peter 1:16-17

A scholarly commentary on 2 Peter 1:3-21, focusing on the nature of 'true knowledge' in the Christian faith. The document provides a linguistic and exegetical analysis of the Greek text, specifically examining the particle 'hōs' in verse 3 and the implications for paragraph structure. It explores the source of true knowledge as divine power (theia dynamis) for godliness (eusebeia), the virtuous nature of such knowledge, and its foundation in the testimony of eyewitnesses and Scripture. The text includes discussions on the grammatical antecedents of 'his divine power,' the distinction between conversion-based knowledge (epignōsis) and subsequent moral development, and the relationship between biblical truth and personal experience.

II. True Knowledge of the Christian Faith: 1:3-21 Behind the Text Verse 3 begins with the Greek particle hōs (literally, “as”), which is very difficult to translate within the context of the sentence. The problem is created by the fact that vv 3-4 represent an inseparable hinge between v 2 and vv 5-7. Some translations (KJV, NASB) take the particle as an indication that vv 3-4 are meant as a continuation of v 2. In this way Peter clarifies in v 3 how the increasing abundance of the knowledge of God takes place (that is, by virtue of his divine power). Other translations (NIV, NRSV) view the particle as marking the beginning of a new paragraph in which Peter articulates the kind of knowledge and life to which God calls believers. Bauckham (1983, 173) observes, “The connection with v 2 is largely stylistic, whereas the connection with vv 5-7 is fundamental to the flow of argument.” Thus, it is preferable to understand v 3 as marking the first main section of the letter with a new paragraph. In the first chapter of this letter Peter establishes the source, the nature, and the foundation of true knowledge. In order to effectively wage battle against the false teachers who are threatening the Christian community, a correct understanding of true knowledge must be determined. In his discussion of true knowledge, Peter first identifies the source of knowledge as divine power for godliness (1:3-4). Second, he describes the virtuous nature of true knowledge (1:5-11) as exemplified in the moral behavior of believers. Finally, he identifies the foundation of knowledge as being based upon the trustworthy testimony of eyewitnesses and the inspired words of Scripture (1:12-21). In the Text A. Divine Power for Godliness (1:3-4) ■ 3 Peter begins his discussion of true knowledge by reflecting upon the divine resources that are available to the believer. The abundant economy of God’s plan of salvation is reflected in Peter’s assertion that his divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness. Grammatically, it is unclear whether the pronoun his refers to God or Jesus. A reference to his divine power would normally cause one to think of God, but the close proximity of the antecedent phrase Jesus our Lord in v 2 makes it more probable that his is a reference to Jesus. This probability is strengthened by the reference to the power of our Lord Jesus Christ later in this same chapter (v 16). The phrase divine power (theia dynamis) was used rather frequently in Greek literature, especially in philosophic writings, but it is only found here in the NT. Although this particular phrase is rare, the idea that the power of God is active in Christ is expressed frequently in the NT (e.g., Matt 24:30; Mark 5:30; Luke 4:14; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 5:4; Heb 1:3). Peter proclaims that Christ’s divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness. The verb has given is a perfect tense, which conveys a past action that continues to have repercussions in the present time. In other words, Christ’s divine power continues to give the necessary provisions that the believer needs for life and godliness. Blum observes, “Probably what is in view is the work of the Spirit of God in believers, providing them with gifts and enabling them to use these gifts” (1981b, 268). The phrase everything we need covers every circumstance of a believer’s life, but the focus of this divine power centers on life and godliness for the believer. The word godliness (eusebeia) means literally “good worship.” It denotes the respect for God’s will which results in “a life which is morally good” (Foerster 1971b, 184). Thus, the phrase life and godliness is simply a literary way of referring to “a godly life.” One of Peter’s most vehement criticisms of the false teachers is that they claim a special knowledge of Christ but they live immoral lives (2:2, 14, 18-19). In contrast, true knowledge is characterized by Christ’s divine power which enables believers to live godly and holy lives. This gift of divine power that enables believers to live godly lives is gained through our knowledge of him who called us. As in v 2, the word knowledge (epignōsis) refers to the fundamental knowledge of Christ gained in conversion. Conversion was “Christ’s first gift, by means of which he also gave everything necessary for a God-fearing life” (Bauckham 1983, 178). Since Christ is the one who called the apostles to follow him during his ministry, some scholars maintain that the phrase him who called us refers specifically to Christ’s calling of the apostles instead of the calling of all believers (cf. Bigg 1905, 253). But it seems more likely that Peter has the calling of all believers in mind as is apparent in v 10 when he calls all believers to make your calling and election sure. The way in which Christ calls believers is identified as being by his own glory and goodness. The word glory (doxa) is often used in the NT to describe the “manifestation of the Divine character” (Mayor 1978, 85). In 1 Peter 1:21, Peter asserts that God gave Christ glory (“glorified him”). Likewise, Peter will declare later in 2 Peter that Christ received honor and glory at the Transfiguration (1:17). But here, Christ, as God himself (1:1), is portrayed as partaking of the same glory that characterizes God. The word translated goodness (aretē) has an array of meanings, including “eminence, merit, virtue, or self-declaration” (Bauernfeind 1964a, 460-461). When these two terms glory and goodness are used together in other Greek writings, their meanings are “virtually synonymous” whereby they denote “the manifestation of divine power” (Bauckham 1983, 179). In this way, the glory and goodness of Christ by which he calls believers to salvation is closely associated with his divine power which gives believers everything that is needed for a godly life. Presumably, Christ’s own glory and goodness does not refer to any one event of Jesus’ life, such as the Transfiguration or his resurrection, but it “refers to the incarnate life, ministry and resurrection of Christ as a manifestation of divine power by means of which he called men and women to be Christians” (Bauckham 1983, 179). One cannot miss the poignant portrayal of the all-encompassing sufficiency of Christ for believers in this verse. Christ calls, saves, and empowers believers by means of his own glorious and divine power. ■ 4 By means of his glory and goodness (literally, through these), Christ has given us his very great and precious promises. Grammatically, the phrase through these refers specifically to Christ’s glory and goodness at the end of v 3, but Peter is probably thinking more generally of the entirety of Christ’s saving activity (Kelly 1969, 301). The exact nature of the promises is not specified here, but in 3:13, the promise of God is identified as “a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.” Thus, the word promises undoubtedly refers generally to prophecies in the OT about a new era of salvation and blessing that God would bring about through his Messiah. The gift of these promises enables believers to participate in the divine nature. This phrase is rather problematic due to the fact that the idea of “participation in the divine nature” was used extensively in Greek philosophical and religious thought. Within the context of Greek dualistic thought, existence was divided between the spiritual, divine world (which was understood to be immortal) and the physical, material world (which was understood to be mortal). Within this dualistic way of thinking, salvation was “pictured in ontological terms as escaping from one kind of reality (the perishable being of the ordinary world) in order to participate in another kind of reality (the imperishable being of God)” (Wolters 1990, 29). Fundamental to this Greek dualistic thought is the idea that the body is inherently evil whereas a person’s spirit is inherently good. Despite the similarities in language, Peter’s understanding of salvation is not dualistic or Platonic in its origin. Rather, it is very similar to the Pauline concept of the believers’ participation in the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:11-17), which Paul also calls the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit” in 2 Cor 13:14. Origen corroborates this interpretation when he writes, “What is the fellowship of the Holy Spirit? Peter describes this by calling it ‘sharing in the divine nature’” (Bray 2000, 132). Peter does not teach that believers partake of the essence of God, whereby they escape from the body and actually become gods; instead, through the salvific provisions of Christ, believers share in the quality of God, whereby they are conformed to the image of Christ. This is basically the same idea that Peter endorses in his first letter when he wrote, “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’” (1:15-16). It is also significant to note that Peter’s understanding of how believers are able to participate in the divine nature is fundamentally different than the conception of his Greek counterparts, even though they use much of the same language. Within Greek philosophical thought, participation in the divine nature “is spoken of sometimes as innate, sometimes as attained by effort” (Mayor 1978, 87). In contrast, Peter describes the believers’ participation in the divine nature as a gift of Christ. [Begin Sidebar] Participation in the divine nature Moo reflects upon Peter’s usage of the phrase that you may participate in the divine nature. He writes, Peter’s language in this phrase is strong and controversial. “Divine nature” has a mystical and pantheistic ring—in Peter’s day and in ours. What he seems to mean is that believers come to share in some essential qualities that are characteristic of God himself. Just what those qualities are Peter does not say here; it is necessary to search the New Testament carefully to determine what they might be (and, just as importantly, what they might not be!). At this point, however, we can say simply that Peter must have in mind those divine qualities that enable believers to “escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” (Moo 1996, 43) [End Sidebar] The believers’ participation in the divine nature also has a practical and moral implication. Peter affirms that the promises of Christ are given so that his readers may participate in the divine nature after having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. The tense of the Greek verb after having escaped (aorist participle) indicates clearly that the escape from corruption precedes the believers’ sharing in the divine nature. In other words, it is only after believers have escaped from the corruption of the world that they are enabled to participate in the divine nature. Some scholars, following Calvin’s interpretation of this verse (Calvin 1948, 371), maintain that the phrase escape the corruption of this world indicates that Peter is speaking about a future, heavenly prospect in v 4, and not about a present, earthly experience. But this conclusion is derived more from these scholars’ own presupposition about the inability of humanity to avoid sin in this life than it is from the language of v 4 itself. Peter writes this letter against false teachers who apparently claimed that divine grace freed them from the obligations of the moral law. Hillyer observes, “Such an attitude betrays a willful intention to go on sinning. But the gift of the divine nature is offered by Jesus Christ to enable the believer to counter the fascination of evil desires which lead one to sin” (1992, 161-162). The reference to evil desires in this verse, along with Peter’s emphasis upon godliness in this passage (v 3), make it clear that “escaping corruption” does not focus on the believers’ future experience of going to heaven; rather, it refers to the believers’ renouncing of sin in their present life here on earth. Hillary of Arles wrote, “Just as God stepped out of his nature to become a partaker of our humanity, so we are called to step out of our nature to become partakers of his divinity” (Bray 2000, 133). Even as Christ’s participation in our humanity transpired during his earthly ministry, so also the believers’ renunciation of sin and participation in the righteousness and holiness of God (that is, participation in the divine nature) is portrayed as transpiring during their earthly existence. As Green points out, “Participation in the divine nature is the starting point, not the goal, of Christian living” (1987, 74). Through the enablement of Christ’s divine power and glory and goodness that are demonstrated in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, the believer is empowered to escape the corruption of the world caused by evil desires, and to participate in the holiness and righteousness of Christ (that is, his divine nature). Green writes, “Peter maintains that corruption and mortality are not due to matter, but to sin. You do not escape them by cult initiation now and the immortality of the soul after death, but by God implanting a new nature, Christ’s own, within you, which will produce holiness of life now, and will flower into the fullness of knowing him after this life is over” (1987, 74). Unlike the pseudo-knowledge of the false teachers which results in a life of continued immorality of sin, the true knowledge of Christ imbues believers with divine power for godliness and holiness. B. The Virtuous Nature of True Knowledge (1:5-11) Behind the Text In vv 5-7 Peter includes a list of virtues that believers are enjoined to pursue. Deissmann notes that it has long been recognized that catalogues of virtue of this kind “were no new creations, but based on Jewish and pagan series” (1978, 315). There are several passages in the NT in which lists of virtues are recorded (Gal 5:22-23; 2 Cor 6:6-7; Eph 6:14-17; Phil 4:8; Col 3:12-14; 1 Tim 3:2-3; 6:11; Titus 1:7-8; James 3:17; 2 Pet 1:5-8). Although 2 Peter seems to use more Greek moral philosophical terms for its virtues than the other NT lists (especially goodness [aretē], self-control [enkrateia], godliness [eusebeia], and brotherly kindness [philadelphia]; Harrington 2003, 248), all of the NT lists of virtues tended to borrow heavily from popular Greek ethical terminology. Easton explains that the usage of Greek ethical language was very understandable: “since Gentile converts were already familiar with it, missionaries were saved an immense amount of labor” (1932, 10). This is not to say, however, that the list of virtues in 2 Peter is not specifically Christian. Neyrey (1993, 154) observes that Peter’s list “contains two different strands of virtues, some of which are specifically Christian (faith...hope...love) and some more properly Greco-Roman (self-control ... piety ... kinship affection).” While Neyrey’s reference to “hope” might be questionable—he argues that the Greek term hypomonē (literally, perseverance) should be translated as “hope” (Greek: elpis)—it is very significant that Peter’s list begins with faith and ends in love. Easton notes, “Thus the six miscellaneous virtues that intervene...are made to begin with the fundamental requirement of Christianity and to culminate in its highest achievement” (1932, 11). In this way one cannot deny the thoroughly Christian flavor of Peter’s catalog of virtues, even though Greek moral terminology is also utilized within the list. The form of 2 Peter’s catalog of virtues is also significant. The list in 2 Peter is set forth with the help of a literary device known as sorites (also called gradatio or climax). Fischel defines sorites as “a set of statements which proceed, step by step, through the force of logic or reliance upon a succession of indisputable facts, to a climactic conclusion, each statement picking up the last key word (or key phrase) of the preceding one” (1973, 119). Although the sorites form makes the sequence of the virtues appear important, it is actually only a literary device. While all of the virtues are important, the most significant aspect of the sorites in 2 Peter is the foundational virtue (faith) and the climactic virtue (love). By using this literary device Peter suggests a certain wholeness or completeness to his chain of virtues. Neyrey writes, “All of the specifically Christian virtues are joined with more popular ones to suggest a completeness of moral response” (1993, 155). Although Neyrey suggests that Peter cites eight virtues because the number eight was considered by Greeks to be a complete number (1993, 155), it is more likely that, if the number of virtues has any significance at all, Peter has the number seven in mind, which is considered the perfect number in Jewish thought. In this way Peter probably considered faith to be the foundation of the seven other virtues (Mayor 1978, 90). In the Text ■ 5 After establishing God’s gracious empowerment and provision of salvation through Christ, Peter reminds his readers of their own responsibility to grow up to maturity in their faith. The opening phrase for this very reason gathers up everything that was said in vv 3-4. Namely, Christians have been called, they have been gifted with divine power, they have been given great and precious promises from Christ of victory so that they may participate in the divine nature of Christ’s righteousness and holiness. In the light of all these gifts and promises, Peter calls his readers to make every effort to add to their faith. Peter does not envision believers as passive and idle recipients of God’s salvation. On the contrary, he uses strong language to emphasize how strenuously believers must pursue the goal of holiness. The word effort (spoudē; literally “earnestness, diligence, zeal”) is a favorite word of Peter, and is used three other times in this epistle (1:10, 15; 3:14). The Greek word spoudē “denotes quick movement or haste in the interest of a person or cause. But it also commonly denotes earnestness or zeal in performance” (Hiebert 1984d, 44). Thus, salvation and spiritual maturity are portrayed as a synergism, whereby both God and the believer are actively involved. “We are to bring into this relationship, alongside what God has done, every ounce of determination we can muster” (Rogers and Rogers 1998, 581). Instead of simply using one word to identify the goal for which believers are to strive, Peter uses a list of virtues to illustrate the way in which the Christian faith must be worked out in behavior. This list is presented as a sequence of ethical characteristics (a literary technique called sorites), with each new virtue portrayed as being based upon and springing out of the previous virtue. Despite various attempts to explain the order of sequence of these virtues, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discern any logical or spiritual significance to the sequence of the virtues. Bauckham (1983, 185) is undoubtedly correct when he asserts that “only two virtues have a clearly intelligible place in the list: pistis (“faith”) in first place, and agapē (“love”) in last place.” The other virtues are presented at random (Watson 1998b, 337). The foundation of this list is faith (pistis). Faith is the basis of all Christian life. It is the initial step of acceptance of God’s love and calling through Jesus Christ. In v 3 Peter affirmed that Christ’s divine power has given believers everything that they need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him. This “saving knowledge” (epignōsis) of Christ is received by faith. Peter presents faith as the initial foundation stone upon which all the other virtues are based. Peter commands his readers to add to their faith. The word translated add (epichorēgēsate) is a vivid metaphor drawn from the “action of citizens in ancient Athens who provided the chorus in the drama festivals with their necessary equipment” (Leaney 1967, 107). These generous citizens supplied all the money and equipment that was necessary for the drama club to perform. The name for these generous contributors (chorēgi) was turned into a verb (epichorēgein) that denoted generous and costly co-operation. Describing this verb, Hillyer writes, “Believers, Peter is saying, must be lavish in the time and effort they put into developing their Christian lives—not being satisfied with getting by on the minimum, but striving like the chorēgi of old to achieve the finest and most attractive production” (1992, 164). ■ 5-7 Upon the foundation of faith, Peter calls believers to add seven other virtues: goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. Each virtue adds another piece of the puzzle to Peter’s picturesque portrayal of the Christian life. The word goodness (aretē) is a classic term from Greek ethics which describes “moral excellence.” It is used in v 3 to describe the goodness of Christ, which is most probably an allusion to the voluntary submission of Jesus to human life, death, and resurrection for the purpose of the salvation of those who place their faith in him. The word knowledge (gnōsis) is a different term than the word used earlier for the saving knowledge of God in Christ which makes a person a Christian (1:2, 3). Peter’s term in this letter for “saving knowledge” is the word epignōsis. In contrast, the word gnōsis depicts “the wisdom and discernment which the Christian needs for a virtuous life and which is progressively acquired” (Bauckham 1983, 186). Unlike “saving knowledge” (epignōsis), which is an immediate gift of God to those who repent of their sin and place their faith in Christ for salvation, the word knowledge (gnōsis) within this catalog of virtues depicts the knowledge of Christ that is gradually acquired throughout the Christian walk. The next virtue, self-control (enkrateia), was a popular term within Greek moral codes. It depicts the Greek ideal of a person who is able to exercise restraint from the excessive indulgence of physical desires. As Peter will explain later in this letter (2:18-22; 3:3), believers must exercise self-control to “resist the false teachers who indulge their lusts, become corrupt, and entice others to do the same” (Watson 1998b, 337). The virtue perseverance (hypomonē), like faith and love, is found in several other catalogs of virtue in the NT (Rom 5:3-4; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 3:10; Titus 2:2; Rev 2:19). It refers to “courageous and steadfast endurance in the face of suffering or evil” (Bauckham 1983, 186). To show perseverance is to trust in God and to hope for the fulfillment of his promises. Godliness (eusebeia) depicts the attitude of respect towards God, acknowledging God’s authority, and obeying the will of God. The word eusebeia (godliness) is very rare in the NT, probably because it carried the general meaning of “religion” in popular pagan usage. Green suggests, “Perhaps Peter uses it here in deliberate contrast to the false teachers, who were far from proper in their behavior to God and their fellow men” (1987, 79). The last two virtues, brotherly kindness and love, deal with the idea of “love” within relationships. Brotherly kindness (philadelphia; literally, “brotherly love”) is affection for other Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ. Peter expressed concern for “brotherly love” in 1 Peter as well, connecting love for other believers with obedience to the truth and new birth in Christ (1:22-23). The importance (as well as the difficulty) of practicing philadelphia is probably the reason why brotherly kindness is emphasized so strongly in various passages of the NT (e.g., Rom 12:10; 1 Thes 4:9; Heb 13:1; 1 John 5:1; cf. 1 John 4:20). The last virtue listed is love (agapē). It is difficult to distinguish the meaning of love (agapē) from brotherly kindness (philadelphia). As Moo points out, the difference is not so much a variation in meaning as it is a variation in degree. Moo writes, “Agapē, then, is not a completely different love, but embraces ‘love of the brethren’ as one sphere of Christian love in its fullest scope—that Spirit-given act of the will by which we treat other people with active benevolence” (1996, 47). This final member of the series—love—comprises all the others. Without denigrating the value of the six middle virtues, one must recognize the supreme importance of the bookend virtues of faith and love. While the other virtues are not specifically or inherently Christian and are widely represented within secular Greek moral codes, they take on a fully Christian flavor because of their placement between the two quintessential Christian virtues of faith and love. Faith is the essential foundation of the Christian way of life, and love is both the goal and the glue of all the other virtues. Green writes, “Far from being a mere repetition of pagan ideals, Peter’s list is qualitatively different. For it begins with faith and ends in love, and these are the indispensable root and fruit of Christian ethical behavior” (1987, 80). ■ 8 Verses 8 and 9 point out first the positive result of the cultivation of these virtues and then the negative result of one’s negligence of these virtues. While vv 5-7 seem to imply that believers do not and cannot possess these virtues unless they make every effort to attain them, the opening phrase of v 8—for if you possess these qualities in increasing measure—implies that believers already possess these virtues. Peter’s explanation in v 8 asserts that true knowledge of Christ does in fact produce these moral and virtuous qualities in the believer. Thus, the point is not whether believers have or do not have these virtues, but to what extent they will develop and exhibit these moral qualities in their life. Thus, the purpose of the effort to which Peter calls his readers is to cultivate these virtues in increasing measure. Green observes, “There is no excuse for resting content with present attainment. Lack of spiritual growth is a sign of spiritual death” (1987, 81). The positive result of pursuing these virtues, though, is that they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The words ineffective and unproductive are virtually synonymous in their usage here. Literally, the word ineffective (argous) means “without work, idle” and the word unproductive (akarpous) means “without fruit, unproductive.” Barnett (1957, 178) comments, “Ineffective describes persons who avoid labor for which they should assume responsibility. Unfruitful describes persons barren of moral and spiritual activities.” Without the believers’ active cooperation and effort, all of the virtuous qualities that are implicitly given to them by Christ in salvation will stagnate and come to nothing. But the fostering and development of these virtues will prevent the Christian from being ineffective, in the sense of being out of action, and unproductive, in the sense of bearing no fruit. The phrase in your knowledge (epignōsis) of our Lord Jesus Christ is probably directed against the false teachers who boast of a special knowledge of Christ, but whose lives are devoid of any moral virtues (2:2-3, 13-14, 18-19). In contrast, God has given believers everything they need for life and godliness through their saving knowledge of Christ; if believers will cultivate the virtues, this knowledge (epignōsis) will be effective and fruitful. ■ 9 The negative result of neglecting the virtues is depicted in v 9: But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind. The combination of nearsighted and blind is rather odd; the combination is complicated by the fact that the Greek word order is actually reversed, so that the virtueless Christian is described as blind and nearsighted. If a person is blind, it is hard to explain why Peter would go on to assert that this person is also nearsighted. The explanation to this odd combination is probably found in the grammatical form and root meaning of the word nearsighted. Along with the usual meaning of “nearsightedness”, the Greek word that is translated nearsighted (myōpazōn) can also mean “to blink, to shut the eyes.” The grammatical form of this verb (participle) can carry a causal meaning, so that the word nearsighted would explain why the unvirtuous Christian is blind; namely, Christians who do not practice the Christian virtues are blind because they have blinked or willfully closed their eyes to the light. Green explains, “Spiritual blindness descends upon the eyes which deliberately look away from the graces of character to which the Christian is called when he comes to know Christ” (1987, 82). This is precisely the accusation that Peter levels against the false teachers in 2:17 when he declares that “blackest darkness is reserved for them.” This translation also matches up well with the final description of the virtueless Christian in v 9: such a person has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Christians whose faith does not bear fruit have forgotten what Christ has done for them. The Greek verbal phrase that is translated as forgotten (lēthēn labōn) means literally “has received forgetfulness.” It stresses the fact that this person has deliberately and willfully forgotten; he has put it out of his mind. What this unhappy person has forgotten is that he has been cleansed from his past sins. The majority of commentators assert that the reference to cleansing is an implicit allusion to baptism. While this is a possibility, it is certainly not a necessity in the interpretation of this passage. Too many commentators allow their own presuppositions to limit the act of cleansing to the physical event of baptism, whereas the Bible often uses the metaphors of “washing” or “cleansing” for the forgiveness of sins (Heb 1:3; 1 John 3:3). It is more probable that Peter is referring to the forgiveness and cleansing of sin that transpired at the time of conversion. This interpretation is strengthened by Peter’s criticism of the false teachers in 2:20-22, where Peter describes the believers’ escape from the corruption of the world as taking place through the (saving) knowledge of Christ. When converts fail to make the effort to grow and mature in their Christian faith, they have in effect turned their backs on Christ (2:21). Their mistake is that they have forgotten the basic fact of their cleansing from sin and the enabling provisions for a godly life that Christ has provided for them in their conversion. ■ 10-11 The word therefore draws all of vv 3-9 into view as Peter draws his “mini-sermon” to a conclusion. Therefore—that is to say, because of the precious and empowering gifts of Christ, and because the exercise of these gifts leads to greater knowledge of Christ, increasingly abundant virtuous behavior, and more spiritual fruitfulness—be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. The verb of command be eager (spoudasate; literally, “to be zealous, to make an effort”) picks up the basic exhortation in v 5 to make every effort (spoudē). The focus of this effort and zeal is to make your calling and election sure. The words calling (klēsis) and election (eklogē) are closely related to each other in the Greek language. These words echo the affirmation of Peter in v 3 that Christ has called believers to himself. Although the calling is logically based upon the choice of election, there is “probably no great distinction between the two terms intended here” (Bauckham 1983, 190). Moo suggests that the two words “work together to emphasize the single concept Peter has in mind: God’s, or Christ’s, effective drawing of the sinner to himself for salvation” (1996, 49). Peter’s command to believers to make your calling and election sure encapsulates the essence of the paradox of election and free will. While election comes from God alone, salvation is contingent upon humanity’s response and acceptance, as Peter’s words in the last clause of this verse (for if you do these things) make clear. As is true of the NT in general, Peter does not elevate or subjugate either term in relation to the other, but he embraces them both as being equally relevant and true. It is God who calls and draws people to salvation through Christ, but a person must favorably receive and diligently obey God’s calling in order to participate in salvation. Salvation is the result of a divine-human synergism in which God calls and elects while believers eagerly and diligently make their election sure (bebaios; derived from a verb meaning to “certify, confirm, attest”) by obeying Christ and deliberately growing in grace. With this in mind Clarke observes, “For your calling to believe the Gospel, and your election to be members of the Church of Christ, will be ultimately unprofitable to you, unless you hold fast what you have received by adding to your faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, etc.” (n.d., 881). [Begin Sidebar] Make Your Calling Certain Early in the eighth century, Venerable Bede made the following observations about this passage: Jesus said: “Many are called but few are chosen.” The calling of all those who come to faith is certain, but those who consistently add good works to the sacraments of faith which they have received are the ones who make their calling and election certain in the eyes of those who observe them. The opposite is also true, for those who go back to their crimes after they have been called and who die in their sins make it clear to everyone that they are damned. (Bray 2000, 135) [End Sidebar] In the last part of v 10 and v 11 Peter provides two reasons why believers should diligently work to affirm God’s calling and election in their life, one negative and one positive. The phrase for if you do these things reiterates the importance of the believers’ role in salvation. Throughout these verses, Peter does not portray believers as merely passive recipients of Christ’s salvation; rather, they must make every effort (v 5), be eager to make their calling sure (v 10a), and do these things (v 10b). Faced with the threat of false teachers who boasted of salvation without the accompaniment of a moral lifestyle, Peter leaves no doubt about the role and responsibility of Christians to actively develop a virtuous life. The phrase these things undoubtedly refers to the exercise and progressive cultivation of the Christian virtues that are outlined in vv 5-7. If believers will do these things (that is, rigorously confirm their calling with an appropriate lifestyle), Peter assures them of two things. First, Peter says you will never fall. The verb translated fall (ptaisēte) means literally to “stumble, fall.” Since this verb is sometimes used “figuratively, meaning to fall into sin” (Zodhiates 1992, 1251; cf. James 2:10; 3:2), some scholars interpret this phrase to mean that a believer will never sin (e.g., Moffatt 1928, 183). It seems more likely that the idea “to fall” is more prevalent here, since that is what “a blind or shortsighted person might do” (Strachan 1979, 128). In Jude 24 the same verb is used to describe the disaster of falling so as not to reach final salvation. Bigg (1905, 261) suggests that the picture that Peter has in mind is “the onward march along the King’s highway, and the final entry into the kingdom.” If believers will persist in their journey, Peter promises that they will not stumble or fall, but will reach their final destination in God’s kingdom. Secondly, Peter explains the positive reason why believers should persist in making their election sure. Peter assures his readers that you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There is a vivid play on words that Peter creates in this verse in conjunction with v 5. In v 5, Peter used a form of the verb epichorēgeō to describe the effort that believers should exert to add the Christian virtues to their faith. In v 11, Peter uses the same Greek verb to describe the lavish effort that God will exert to provide a rich welcome for them in Christ’s kingdom. Green skillfully articulates this play on words: “If we generously put ourselves out in obedience to God and give him what we have, he will generously put himself out for us, so to speak, and lavishly equip us for life in the everlasting kingdom” (1987, 84). Adding the words rich (plousiōs) and welcome (eisodos) to his striking play on words, Peter paints a lavish picture of the glorious reward that faithful believers will receive from God. Bauckham aptly points out that despite Peter’s emphasis on human participation in the attainment of salvation, “this concluding statement makes it clear that final salvation is not man’s achievement but the gift of God’s lavish generosity” (1983, 193). In the last phrase of v 11, there are two significant points about the kingdom that should be noted. First, it is an eternal kingdom. Surprisingly, the phrase eternal kingdom is rather rare in early Christian literature. The idea of an eternal kingdom and reign is reflected in Luke 1:33, but the terminology of an eternal kingdom is only found in the NT here in 2 Peter 1:11. In the light of the eschatological expectations expressed in chapter 3, the phrase eternal kingdom is not simply a synonym for “heaven,” but it “looks forward to the cosmic reign of God in righteousness in the new heaven and new earth (3:13)” (Bauckham 1983, 192). Second, the kingdom is portrayed as belonging to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Peter emphasizes here that the kingdom belongs to Christ (Matt 16:28; John 18:36; Ps 2:6), and that it is only entered by virtue of one’s relationship to him (cf. Mark 10:17, 21, 24, 26). The description of Jesus as Lord and Savior is a favorite of Peter’s in this letter (1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18). Its usage here underscores the kind of relationship with Christ that is necessary to enter into his kingdom; namely, a relationship with the Savior as one who has been saved. From the Text Verse 3 contains a beautiful picture of what Christ has made available to believers through his life, death, and resurrection. One cannot miss the portrayal of the all-sufficiency of Christ in this powerful verse. It is Christ’s glory and excellence that calls us, it is the redemptive knowledge of Christ that saves us, and it is Christ’s divine power that enables us to live godly lives. Believers need no other patron or advocate on their behalf. Christ is our all in all. In him we find our calling; in him we find our salvation; and in him we find the enabling power to live righteous and holy lives. Despite the Greek philosophical undertones of the expression, Peter boldly asserts that Christ has made it possible for believers to participate in the divine nature. Reicke (1964, 154) correctly observes that Peter “did not wish to Hellenize the church, but only employed such expressions because they would be familiar to his readers.” By using this phrase, Peter does not tacitly endorse a Greek philosophical understanding by which salvation is gained by escaping the corruption of the body and becoming unified with the divine essence that inherently resides inside of one’s being. On the contrary, his repetitive declaration in vv 3-4 that Christ has given us everything we need is a strong affirmation that salvation is not an innate human quality, but an extraordinary gift of Christ. Nonetheless, Peter recognizes that there is a sense in which salvation makes a believer a participant in the divine nature. The foundation of many of the earliest Christians’ salvific conceptions is the notion of the corporate unity between Christ and believers. For instance, because of their unity with Christ, believers are conceived by Paul as sharing or participating in Christ’s fate, including both his death and his resurrection. As a result, Paul often depicts salvation as the believers’ participation in Jesus’ vindication by God (e.g., Rom 5:15; 1 Cor 10:16; Gal 2:20; cf. Powers 2001, 231-234). Likewise, John records Jesus as urging his followers to “remain in me, and I will remain in you” (John 15:4). Jesus also prays for the unity of believers with God and with himself: “Father, just as you are in me and I am in you...may they also be in us” (John 17:21). Like Paul and John, Peter affirms that through our union with Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, believers share in something of God’s own holy nature, separated from the corrupt world around them. It is for this very reason (v 5) that Peter calls believers to progress in holiness and godliness. Salvation is not only a result of Christ’s work in us, but also of his work through us, which is demonstrated by a life of holiness. Holiness can be described as a conformity to the image and person of Christ, both in one’s disposition and in one’s behavior. As participants in the divine nature, believers do not vie for a status equivalent with God, but they consecrate themselves to a nature that is submitted to Christ, whereby they can declare with Paul, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). As Christ vividly demonstrated in his earthly ministry, this subservient attitude, along with its concomitant product of virtuous behavior, is the essence of the divine nature in which all believers are called to participate. Francis Cardinal Spellman is quoted as saying, “Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.” Peter seems to reflect a similar viewpoint in his portrayal of the balance between God’s initiative and humanity’s response in his opening chapter of 2 Peter. On the one side of the balancing scale, Peter strongly affirms God’s gracious gift of salvation through Christ. God is the one who calls and elects through Christ. God and Christ’s divine power has given believers everything they need for life and godliness. On the other side of the balancing scale, Peter vigorously calls his readers to make every effort to add to their faith and to make their calling and election sure by practicing and cultivating a virtuous life. Throughout the centuries, believers have asked the question whether salvation is dependent upon God’s gracious election and calling or upon humanity’s obedient faith and good works. The NT writers have consistently answered this question with a resounding, “Yes!” That is to say, both elements are essential to salvation. For this reason, Paul calls upon his readers in Philippi to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil 2:12-13). Likewise, James declares that “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (2:17). Peter makes a significant contribution to this discussion with his excellent description of the dignity and the challenge of Christian existence. Harrington writes, “The initiative is with God, and the divine calling makes it possible to become ‘partakers in the divine nature’ (1:4). Yet this great dignity demands by way of response religious and moral seriousness (the practice of and growth in the virtues) on the part of those who have been called and gifted by God” (2003, 250). Logically, God’s gracious initiative undoubtedly precedes and enables humanity’s response, as Wesley readily affirms in his sermon “On Working Out Our Own Salvation” (1979b, 508-509). Gunter notes that “Wesley goes to great lengths to establish his fundamental premise that it is God who is at work before he proceeds to our role in the divine-human synergism” (1989, 263). But God’s initiative demands a positive human response in order for salvation to occur. Wesley explains it in this way, “First, God works; therefore you can work. Secondly, God works, therefore you must work” (1979b, 511). There is no room for an idle and unproductive member in God’s kingdom. Those who believe that God’s grace and election eliminate any need on their part to diligently pursue and exhibit godly behavior are near-sighted and blind. Inasmuch as they have forgotten the cleansing work of God in their life, they are doomed to stumble and fall in their journey into Christ’s eternal kingdom. But to those who eagerly and diligently respond to God’s grace by practicing and cultivating the moral virtues in the strength that Christ provides to them, God will provide them with a lavish and rich welcome into Christ’s eternal kingdom. C. The Foundation of Knowledge (1:12-21) Behind the Text The reflective language of 1:12-15 has caused some scholars to assert that 2 Peter was written in the genre of a “farewell speech” or “testament.” This form of literature was notably characterized by various features: a. The speaker knows (sometimes by prophecy) that he is about to die. b. The speaker gathers around him his children or a similar audience. c. The speaker often impresses on his audience the need for his hearers to remember his teaching and example. d. The speaker makes predictions of the future. e. The speaker gives moral exhortations (Moo 1996, 64). Clearly, each of these features is present in 2 Peter. Peter alludes to his impending death and some kind of prophecy regarding his death (1:12-15). He calls upon his readers to remember his life and teaching (1:12-15; 3:1-2). He predicts what is going to happen in the future (2:1-4; 3:3). In addition, Peter issues moral exhortations all throughout the letter. It is not so surprising, then, to recognize that many scholars identify 2 Peter as a testament. The problem, however, is that ancient testaments were always pseudonymous, being written in the name of a great hero of the faith after that hero’s death. Another problem with the testament genre is that they were virtually always presented in the form of a “farewell speech” of the hero to his people, and not as a letter. While it is somewhat enlightening to peruse 2 Peter from the perspective of the testament genre, the similarities do not preclude the strong possibility that this writing was composed as an authentic letter by the apostle Peter. Peter alludes to the Transfiguration of Christ in vv 17-18 (cf. Matt 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36). For some scholars, this reference seems to be forced, so that, instead of actually promoting Petrine authorship, it exposes this letter as a forgery written in Peter’s name. Interestingly, the description of the Transfiguration in 2 Peter does not exactly match the vocabulary of the Gospel tradition, which one would expect a forgery to do. While scholars debate the source of Peter’s wording, it would seem easiest to think that the differences can be explained as a result of Peter’s own memory of the event, since he himself was present on the mountain when the Transfiguration occurred. In this last section of ch 1, Peter establishes the foundation of true, saving knowledge through Jesus Christ. The first basis is the apostolic witness, based here upon Peter’s own eyewitness experience of Jesus’ honor and glory in his earthly ministry (1:12-18). The second basis of the foundation of knowledge is found in the inspired words of Scripture (1:19-21). In the Text 1. Eyewitnesses (1:12-18) ■ 12 The word so (dio; literally, “therefore,” “for this reason”) demonstrates that the rest of Peter’s comments in this chapter (and indeed, in the entire letter) is based upon the foundational teaching of true (saving) knowledge that he has set forth in vv 3-11. Due to the fact that the believers’ ultimate destiny and reward (v 11) depends not only upon Christ’s gracious provision (v 3) but also upon their earnest striving for godliness (vv 5-9), I will always remind you of these things. The purpose of 2 Peter is to remind its readers of the apostolic teaching upon which the Christian faith is based (see also 3:1-2). This kind of reminder is all the more important when believers are faced with the challenge of false teaching. The grammar of the Greek phrase I will always remind you is difficult. It could be translated as “I am always going to be reminding you” or as “I will take care to remind you.” Peter probably uses this strange grammatical construction to indicate that he intends his letter to be “a permanent reminder of his teaching, not only to be read on one specific occasion, but to be available at all times” (Bauckham 1983, 195). Peter will remind them of his teachings, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. Not only are the readers described as knowing (eidotas) the teachings of the Christian faith as taught by the apostles, but they are also firmly established in the truth. The language here is very complimentary, which may reveal a “conventional politeness” in these words (Kelly 1969, 312). Harrington writes, “Given the emotional tone and the intensity of the polemic in the rest of the letter, it seems that in the writer’s mind this assurance about the readers was probably more wishful thinking than reality” (2003, 251). Regardless of the spiritual strength or stability of his readers, whether Peter knows that they are in actual fact firmly established in the truth or he simply wishes that they were so established, Peter recognizes the need for believers to be reminded of the foundational principles of the faith. This is especially true when the faith is being challenged by false teaching. ■ 13-14 Peter explains that it is right (dikaion) for him to remind them of these things (literally, “awake your memory”) because the time of his own ministry is limited. Thus, he will continue to bring the apostolic teachings to their memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside. The reference to the body as a tent (skēnōma) was fairly common within Greek and early Christian writings (Michaelis 1971, 384). Bauckham explains that “as a metaphor it conveys the image of the body as a temporary dwelling-place for the soul, folded up and abandoned when the soul leaves it at death” (1983, 198). Paul uses the same image in 2 Corinthians 5:1, 4, but there is no evidence that Peter has borrowed the image from the Pauline usage. Peter believes that his own death is impending, as is indicated in the phrase because I know that I will soon put it aside. Since the word translated soon (tachinē) can also mean “sudden,” some scholars assert that Peter is alluding to the sudden, violent nature of his death instead of the imminence of his death (Green 1987, 89). But the context and urgency of his words make it much more probable that he is referring to the nearness of his death rather than the nature of his death. Peter is aware of his soon approaching death as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. There is an obvious allusion here to some kind of prophecy or revelation that Peter has received from the Lord. The Greek word translated has made clear (edēlōsen) is often used in Greek writings “of the communication of cultic mysteries...and of divine revelation given in dreams or other ways” (Bultmann 1964b, 61). Most commentators suggest that Peter is referring to the prophecy about his death that the resurrected Jesus gave to him at the end of John’s Gospel. After pressing Peter to affirm his love for him three times, Jesus says to Peter, “‘I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.’ Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God” (John 21:18-19). While it is possible that Peter is referring to some other undocumented prophecy that he received from Christ (Mayor 1978, 102), it is most probable that the event Peter has in mind is the prophecy of his death recorded in John 21. [Begin Sidebar] Quo Vadis? A few scholars have suggested that the prophecy to which Peter alludes in v 14 is the “Quo Vadis” story that is recorded in the late apocryphal writing entitled The Acts of Peter. When the Christians in Rome heard of a conspiracy to arrest and execute Peter, they convinced him to leave. According to the story, When he went out of the gate he saw the Lord come into Rome. And when he saw him he said, “Lord, where are you going?” (in Latin, quo vadis?). And the Lord said to him, “I go to Rome to be crucified.” And Peter said to him, “Lord, are you being crucified again?” And he said, “Yes, Peter, again I shall be crucified.” And Peter came to himself; and he saw the Lord ascending into heaven. Then he returned to Rome, rejoicing and praising the Lord because he had said, “I am being crucified.” This was to happen to Peter. (Ehrman 2003, 152) Although it is a rather famous and inspiring story, it is unattested until around AD 180 when The Acts of Peter was composed and it is almost certainly inspired by the quo vadis? (“Lord, where are you going?”) language of John 13:36. [End Sidebar] Some have objected to the prophecy of John 21 as the background of Peter’s comment in v 14 because the prophecy in John 21 does not explain how Peter could know that his death was coming soon. But the Greek word that connects Peter’s reference about his impending death to a revelation of Jesus is kathōs, which typically indicates correspondence (“just as”) instead of cause (“because”). Thus, as Bauckham points out, “The general sense of the passage must be: ‘I know that I am going to die soon—and this corresponds to Christ’s prophecy’” (1983, 199). Thus, as Peter contemplates the confluence of events in his own time—Nero’s opposition to the Christian faith, increased persecution and opposition of those who follow Christ, Peter’s own position of leadership within the Christian movement, and Peter’s own advancing age—Peter recognizes that his own death is quickly approaching, and that all of this conforms with the prophecy that Christ gave him in his resurrection appearance that is recorded in John 21. ■ 15 With his impending death in view, Peter assures his readers with the words and I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. The word for departure (exodos) is “a dignified euphemism for death” (Kelly 1969, 314). It is noteworthy that Luke uses this same word exodos to describe Jesus’ death in his Transfiguration narrative (Luke 9:31). Since Peter goes on to speak of the Transfiguration in the following verses (vv 16-18), some scholars believe that he is alluding to the Lukan text, but the widespread common usage of this term for death makes any dependence upon Luke unnecessary and unlikely. It is somewhat puzzling that Peter uses the future tense to describe the effort he will make to ensure his readers’ constant remembrance of his teachings (i.e. these things). Is he referring to the current letter as this reminder, to a different letter, or to a future letter? Scholars have discussed and argued for each of these possibilities. Some have asserted that he may be referring to the Gospel of Mark, since early tradition is reliable in connecting Mark’s Gospel to the teaching and preaching of Peter. Others maintain the possibility that he is referring to an otherwise unknown future letter or visit through which he intended to further bolster his teaching to the readers of this letter. Due to the purely speculative nature of these other suggestions, it seems most likely that Peter is referring to the current letter. Although it would be somewhat peculiar for Peter to refer to the letter he is currently writing with the future tense, this viewpoint has the advantage of connecting the future tense of v 15 with the future tense of v 12, whereby the whole section of vv 12-15 is tied together into one cohesive unity. Thus, by recording his exhortations and warnings in the written form of this letter, Peter hoped to provide his readers with a permanent and continuing source of reference (more specifically, a permanent “reminder”) of his apostolic teaching. ■ 16 By alluding to his impending death in the previous section (vv 12-15), Peter embellishes the importance of his message with an urgency that is fitting to a last will and testament. The doctrinal message which Peter is so intent on ensuring his readers will remember pertains to the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The word that is translated as coming is the Greek word parousia, which is the technical term that is used for the Second Coming of Christ, when he will return to judge the living and the dead (e.g., Matt 24:3, 27; 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thes 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23). Thus, the impetus of this letter is Peter’s concern that his readers might be influenced by false teaching to doubt or even deny the Second Coming of Christ with its accompanying judgment. In the rest of the letter, Peter will denounce the false teachers (2:1-22), rebuke the false teaching that undermines the reality of the Parousia (3:1-9), and assure his readers of the certainty of Christ’s return (3:10). In v 16 Peter denies that the teaching of Christ’s return is merely based on cleverly invented stories. This was undoubtedly one of the accusations of the false teachers. Both the terms cleverly invented (sesophismenois) and stories (mythois) were pejorative terms in ancient Greek writings (Bauckham 1983, 213-214). The word for stories (mythoi; literally, “myths, fables”) was a term of “frivolous mockery...rejection and criticism” in many secular writings, and the word was used with “complete repudiation” by the NT writers (Stählin 1967, 779, 781). Cranfield notes that Peter’s intention in referring to cleverly invented stories is probably twofold: “The writer’s intention is probably both to rebut the charges leveled by the false teachers against the Church’s expectation of the Parousia and also at the same time to imply that their doctrines are, by contrast, indeed fables, mere human speculations and inventions” (1960, 180). Peter adamantly denies that the apostolic teaching was based upon clever myths or concocted fables when we told you about the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is noteworthy that Peter’s language changes from the first person singular pronoun I in vv 12-15 to the first person plural pronoun we in vv 16-21. The we must refer to Peter and the other apostles, since he was not the only one to witness the Transfiguration, to which he will refer in vv 17-18. By using the pronoun we, Peter contrasts the teaching of the false teachers with the witness and preaching of all the apostles. The verb told (egnōrisamen) is also a significant word. This verb is frequently used in the NT for imparting revelation (e.g., Luke 2:15; John 15:15; Rom 16:26; Eph 6:19; Col 1:27). Here it is used of the apostles’ preaching of the gospel, which included the expectation of the Second Coming. The preaching of the apostles is characterized by Peter here as including instruction about the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. As already mentioned, the word coming (parousia) is a clear reference to the Second Coming of Christ. The phrase power and coming is most probably a hendiadys (a figure of speech in which two nouns joined by “and” are used instead of a noun and a modifier), so that the expression power and coming emphasizes Christ’s “powerful coming.” The teaching and preaching of Peter and the other apostles is not based on clever myths or secondary word-of-mouth accounts that they had received from others, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. The word eyewitnesses (epoptai) is only found here in the NT. Literally, the word epoptai means “spectator, observer.” The word was a technical term used in the Greek mystery religions to denote one who had been initiated into the cult (Michaelis 1967, 373-374). If this is the meaning that Peter has in mind, then his purpose in using the term would be to emphasize the fact that his opponents were outside of the circle of initiates to which Peter and the other apostles belong. It is more likely, though, that Peter uses this word in its more common and general sense of “eyewitness” or “personal observer.” Nonetheless, as Strachan points out, the word “no doubt is used here to enhance the splendor of the vision, and the honor done the disciples, at the Transfiguration” (1979, 130). Peter claims, along with others, to have been an eyewitness of Christ’s majesty. The word majesty (megaleiotētos) was used most commonly of divine grandeur and majesty. In the context of this passage it refers specifically to the divine majesty that Jesus received from God in the Transfiguration. ■ 17-18 These verses describe the glorious event to which Peter claims to have been an eyewitness. The references to majesty (v 16), the voice that came to him from heaven (vv 17, 18), and the sacred mountain (v 18) make it very clear that the event that Peter is referring to is the Transfiguration of Jesus that is recorded in the Gospels (Matt 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-10; Luke 9:28-36). First, Peter asserts that Jesus received honor and glory from God the Father. The terms honor and glory may be another example of the literary technique called hendiadys (two nouns are used instead of a noun and modifier) so that this expression indicates the “exalted majestic glory” that Jesus received from God. But it is also possible that the two terms contain individual significance. Thus, honor would refer to Christ’s exalted status, while glory would denote Christ’s splendid appearance (Moo 1996, 72). God is identified specifically as the Father because the verse goes on to emphasize Jesus’ divine sonship in the words of the voice from heaven. It is also important to note that Peter states that Jesus received honor and glory from God. Despite the fact that Peter uses many Hellenistic terms in this letter, his theology does not reflect the Greek religious notion of the “divine man,” whose hidden, innate divine nature struggles to surface and escape the confines of the human body. According to Peter, the Transfiguration was not a “coming out party” of Jesus’ hidden divinity, but, in agreement with other early Christian teaching, Jesus is given divine glory by God because he is obedient to his task of carrying out God’s salvation and judgment (Green 1987, 94). Peter clarifies that Jesus received this divine glory when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory. In the Gospel tradition, there are only two times when a voice was audibly heard from heaven during Jesus’ earthly ministry: at the baptism of Jesus (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22) and at the Transfiguration. Peter describes the voice as coming from the Majestic Glory. The expression Majestic Glory is representative of the Jewish custom of avoiding the name of God. The Jews held the names of God with such high regard that they rarely pronounced or even wrote them. It is noteworthy that the gospel writers also do not mention the voice specifically as coming from God, but represent the voice as coming “from the cloud.” The voice from God’s majestic glory declares that This is my Son, my Beloved; with him I am well pleased. Despite the NIV’s identical wording in 2 Peter and Matthew, Peter’s version of the words of the voice from heaven is different in the Greek from any of the versions in the gospels, but it is most similar to the wording in Matthew. It is most striking that 2 Peter omits the final command, Listen to him!, which is found in all three of the gospel accounts of the Transfiguration. If 2 Peter is the creation of a late pseudonymous author, as many scholars attest, it is odd that the writer was not more careful in accurately reproducing the wording from one of the gospel accounts. Although there are various speculations among scholars regarding the source of Peter’s wording here in this letter, it is perhaps simplest to attribute the difference in wording to Peter’s own recollection of the event, since he was one of the apostles to hear the divine voice. Despite the tendency of some translations to translate my beloved as an adjectival modifier of my Son, the grammatical structure and word order of the Greek seem to suggest the translation This is my Son, my Beloved (NAB, NRSV) instead of “This is my beloved Son” (KJV, NIV, NASB). Thus, the voice confers three important titles upon Jesus at the Transfiguration. First, the voice of God identifies Jesus as my Son. The phrase “This is my Son” alludes to the language of Psalm 2:7, in which God addresses the messianic King as his own Son. Second, Jesus is given the title my Beloved. Bauckham (1983, 220) asserts that this title is derived either from Gen 22 (vv 2, 12, 16) with the meaning that Jesus, like Isaac, is God’s only, beloved son or from Isaiah 42:1 with an emphasis upon God’s election of Jesus to messianic office. In both instances, “the special love of God the Father for his Son involves a special calling in God’s purpose” (Bauckham 1983, 220). This title also expresses “the uniqueness of the relationship of Father and Son” (Schrenk 1964a, 741). Third, Jesus is described as “The One with him I am well pleased” (eudokēsa). This title is drawn from the language of the first “Suffering Servant” song in Isaiah 42:1. Of all the terms for election, the verbal form eudokēsa “brings out most strongly the emotional side of the love of Him who elects” (Schrenk 1964a, 740). In this way, the term carries the special sense of God’s good pleasure in electing and conferring his glory on Jesus. Thus, the voice from heaven identifies Jesus as Messiah, unique Son of God, and Suffering Servant. In v 18, Peter affirms that he and the other apostles (James and John) did not only see this significant event take place, but we ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven. Moo observes that Peter stresses the fact that he was not only an “eyewitness,” but also an “earwitness” of the Transfiguration (1996, 73). Whereas the voice is described as emanating from the Majestic Glory in v 17, it is here depicted as coming from heaven. Both expressions are an example of circumlocution, the Jewish custom of respectfully avoiding the pronunciation of the name of God. It is striking to observe the writer’s emphatic reference to we ourselves as the ones who heard this voice when we were with him on the sacred mountain. Many scholars identify this reference as a “forced” attempt by a forger who is trying too hard to identify himself as Peter. In addition, they point to the expression sacred mountain as reflecting a later generation of Christians when the sites of Jesus’ life had “been taken up into and sanctified in the religious consciousness of the Church” (Strachan 1979, 131). But there is nothing about the term sacred mountain that requires a late date. Literally, the term means “holy mountain” (hagion oros), and it would have been very natural to describe the mount as “holy” (that is, “set apart”) because of what happened there. Moreover, it is very subjective and unfair to identify every allusion to an event in Peter’s life as evidence of an imitator at work. There is nothing about the description of the Transfiguration in vv 17-18 that inherently discounts this as being an authentic description of the event by Peter himself. In this section (1:12-18), Peter identifies and establishes the first foundation for true knowledge as well as the first foundation for the reality of the Second Coming of Christ, both of which are denied by the false teachers. The first foundation is the eyewitness accounts of Peter and the other apostles as illustrated in the events surrounding the Transfiguration of Jesus. Referring to the Transfiguration story, Perkins notes, “The primary use of the story here is to base the claim about divine judgment on the highest authority, God’s word as witnessed by the apostle” (1995, 175). But why does Peter call upon the Transfiguration as the defining event upon which true knowledge and the reality of the Second Coming can be established? One would much more expect Peter to draw upon a resurrection or ascension story to solidify the apostolic teaching of the certainty of the future Coming and Judgment of Christ (e.g., Acts 1:9-11). Peter’s allusion to the Transfiguration in this respect is so surprising that some scholars argue that “it was originally a resurrection appearance and was eventually transferred to the life of Jesus as a transfiguration story” (Carlston 1961, 233). But this theory has been resoundingly refuted by Stein (1976, 79-96). While it remains somewhat of a mystery as to why Peter would refer to the Transfiguration in such a significant way in this context, it is most likely that, as Moo points out, “the Transfiguration experience had an intimate relationship to the Parousia of Jesus from the start” (1996, 74). The Transfiguration must have had a profound impact upon Peter. The combination of the transformation of Jesus’ appearance along with the confirmation of the heavenly voice regarding the Messiahship, unique Sonship, and special election of Jesus must have made an indelible mark upon Peter’s understanding that Jesus was indeed the glorious King. For Peter, what counted the most “were the majesty of Jesus, the voice from heaven, and Peter’s role as an eyewitness” (Harrington 2003, 259). As it was in the gospels, the Transfiguration is interpreted in 2 Peter as the anticipation of the glorious “Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” And so, for Peter, it was the ideal example to reinforce the truth of the gospel as it had been proclaimed by apostolic witnesses, of which he himself was a fundamental part. 2. Inspired Words of Scripture (1:19-21) In this last section of chapter one, Peter establishes the second foundation for true knowledge. It should be noted that the emphasis of Peter’s focus has shifted slightly from a discussion of true knowledge to a discussion of the Second Coming of Christ. It is obvious that, from Peter’s perspective, the false teachers’ general misunderstanding of true knowledge has led to their specific misunderstanding and denial of the Second Coming. Thus, while the topics of true knowledge and the Second Coming might seem rather distant and unrelated, they are in fact closely connected within the false teaching of Peter’s opponents. In essence, then, vv 16-21 are a rebuttal to the accusation that the apostolic message about true knowledge in general, but about the Second Coming specifically, is based upon cleverly invented stories (v 16). Peter’s first objection to this accusation is to remind his readers that he and other apostles were eyewitnesses to the revelation of Christ’s glory at the Transfiguration (vv 16-18). Second, Peter objects by emphasizing the reliability of revelation as it is revealed in the inspired “prophetic word.” As Moo points out, “The reliability of revelation is the idea that links verses 16-18 and verses 19-21” (1996, 75). Not only can the eyewitnesses Peter, James, and John testify to the revelation of Christ’s glory in the Transfiguration, but also the prophets testify to Christ’s glorious appearance at the end of history. ■ 19 In addition to eyewitness accounts, Peter asserts that we have the prophetic word made more certain. The phrase the prophetic word (ton prophētikon logon) has been interpreted in a variety of ways, including suggestions that it refers to OT messianic prophecies, OT and NT prophecies, or the Transfiguration itself as a prophecy of the Parousia. But since “all known occurrences of the phrase refer to OT Scripture” (Bauckham 1983, 224), it seems best to understand the prophetic word as a phrase referring to OT Scripture in general. With the personal pronoun we, Peter now includes all of his readers in his perspective instead of simply the apostles, as his next statement, and you will do well to pay attention to it, indicates. The word that is translated more certain (bebaioteron) is a comparative adjective based upon the Greek word bebaios, which means “reliable, certain, firm.” The meaning of the phrase made more certain can be interpreted in two different ways. It can mean that the OT prophetic Scriptures are even more reliable and certain than the eyewitness testimony of the apostles, or it can mean that the OT prophecies are made even more reliable and certain by the eyewitness accounts of the apostles. Although both interpretations are possible, the latter option seems more probable since the first option seems to subtly denigrate the reliability of the apostolic witness. Peter refers to the reliability of the apostolic eyewitness accounts as the first foundation of true knowledge and the certainty of Christ’s Second Coming (vv 16-18); it would hardly make sense for him to immediately undermine this first assertion by stating, in effect, that the apostolic witness is less certain or less reliable than the prophetic Scriptures themselves. Rather, Peter is suggesting that “his testimony about the Transfiguration gives to the prophetic word an even greater certainty than it had before” (Moo 1996, 76). This greater certainty is achieved because the events that the apostles witnessed (specifically the Transfiguration, but also including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus) are a confirmation of the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. Thus, “Peter indicates that the OT prophets spoke of the same things he did and that their words are made more certain because the Transfiguration is a foreview of their fulfillment” (Blum 1981b, 274). After affirming the reliability of the OT Scriptures, Peter urges his readers to pay attention to it, and compares the Scriptures to a light shining in a dark place. The comparison of God’s Word to a light in a dark place was a well-known metaphor (Ps 119:105), even though the word for dark (auchmēros) only appears here in the NT. Hiebert observes that the adjective dark “properly means ‘dry and parched,’ but it also came to mean ‘murky and dirty,’ a condition of dirt and filth produced through neglect. The light of the lamp exposes the condition” (1984e, 161). Interestingly, the apocryphal writing The Apocalypse of Peter uses the term dark in its description of hell. Peter portrays the world (or the human mind) as dark in its ignorance of God’s prophetic word and divine plan. The Scriptures provide a divine ray of light that exposes and illuminates the darkness until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. The word day is an abbreviation of the OT idea of “the day of the Lord.” Thus, it is a reference to that time when God will decisively intervene in human history to save his people and judge his enemies. The NT writers affirm that God fulfilled his promises concerning this day through the death and resurrection of Christ, but that the “day of the Lord” still awaits its final consummation in the Second Coming of Christ (e.g., Rom 13:11-12; Phil 2:9-11; 1 Thes 4:14-17; 5:1-8). Peter calls upon his readers to pay close attention to the illuminating light of the Scriptures until the day when Christ will return and the morning star rises in your hearts. The word morning star (phōsphoros) means literally “light bringer.” It is most probably meant as a reference to Christ himself, since Scripture elsewhere uses the word “star” as a messianic reference (Num 24:17; Rev 22:16). Kelly writes, “This clause must be a pictorial description of the way in which, at His Coming, Christ will dissipate the doubt and uncertainty by which their hearts are meanwhile beclouded and will fill them with a marvelous illumination” (1969, 323). Some have argued that the phrase in your hearts indicates that Peter is not referring to the Second Coming of Christ, but to an individual experience of enlightenment that believers experience in this life (e.g., Delling 1964, 953). But this viewpoint is certainly incorrect. Peter is not attempting to describe the full spectrum of events at the Parousia, but only the specific aspect of the Second Coming as the full revelation of God to Christian believers. The only point that Peter is making here is that prophecy, which is now represented as a partial ray of light in the darkened world, will become superfluous when the full light of God’s revelation will become apparent at Christ’s Return. Since faith is consistently described as taking place in the hearts of believers, it is only natural that Christians will receive and perceive this final revelation at the Last Day in your hearts. ■ 20-21 Despite the fact that most translations show v 20 as beginning a new sentence, it actually continues the thought of v 19 that we have the prophetic word made more certain. Peter tells his readers that there is one primary point (touto prōton; literally, “this first thing” or above all) that you must understand. Unfortunately, the “main point” that Peter wants his readers to understand is very vague in its Greek construction. Literally, the Greek of v 20b reads, “No prophecy of Scripture is idias (“of one’s own” or “of the prophet’s own”) interpretation.” While there is some discussion about the correct understanding of the word that is translated interpretation (epilyseōs; literally “untying, unraveling”), the basic issue centers upon the translation of the word idias. Depending upon one’s understanding of the meaning of idias, v 20 has been interpreted in two very different ways. The first view translates Peter’s main point in v 20 as “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (NASB). The second view translates the main point in v 20 as no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation (NIV). In essence, the first method of translation makes the verse deal with the issue of interpretation and the second method of translation makes the verse deal with the issue of inspiration. The arguments raised on behalf of both translations are very formidable. If Peter has the first view in mind, then he is making a point about the correct interpretation of Scripture; namely, private individuals cannot interpret the Scripture any way they want to. There is one true interpretation of Scripture (Mayor 1978, 196-198), which was divinely intended by the Holy Spirit, and the true “guide” for this interpretation should be the Church, not self-appointed individuals (Bigg 1905, 269-270). One of the arguments in favor of this view is that it anticipates the argument of 2:1-3, in which false teachers are condemned for secretly introducing destructive heresies most probably by the way in which they explain the Scriptures and the Christian faith. If Peter has the second view in mind, then he is making a point about the reliability and authentication of Scripture itself, not the interpretation of Scripture. One of the strong arguments in favor of this view is that it closely ties vv 20-21 to v 19. Thus, believers should pay close attention to the prophetic word (which is the main point of v 19) because they know that it does not originate from human beings (v 20), but from God himself (v 21). Although it is difficult to decide between the two options, it seems most probable that the second view is Peter’s intention. Bauckham points out that the term idios “seems to have been virtually a technical term” (1983, 229) in Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian discussions which denied the human origin of prophecy. Since the term is used so prolifically elsewhere as a semi-technical term in the discussion of the origin of Scripture, it seems very probable that this usage may underlie Peter’s intention within the context of vv 19-21. In addition, the grammar of the Greek construction of v 20 (that is, it begins with a participle) indicates that this verse goes with what precedes it, not with what follows it. In v 19, Peter is not talking about the interpretation of Scripture, but about the reliability or authentication of Scripture. Thus, the prophetic word is certain (v 19) because the prophets did not make up what they wrote (v 20). Calvin notes that the prophets “did not of themselves, or according to their own will, foolishly deliver their own inventions” (1948, 390-391). The word translated interpretation (epilysis) in v 20 means literally “untying” or “unraveling.” The prophets did not arbitrarily interpret or “unravel” Scripture. Rather, as Peter emphasizes in v 21, true prophecy comes from God, as the prophets are carried along by the Holy Spirit. Since v 20 addresses the reliability of Scripture, v 21 explains the origin of Scripture. Thus, v 21 represents the closest explanation of the inspiration of Scripture that is found in the Bible. Beginning with the explanatory conjunction for (gar), Peter explains to his readers, For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. There is a striking word play with two of the verbs in v 21 that cannot be rendered well in English. The Greek verb behind the English phrase never had its origin is derived from the same Greek verb that is used in the phrase were carried along (pherein; literally, “to bear or carry”). In other words, Peter writes that prophecy was never “carried” (pherein) by the will of man, but that men spoke from God as they were “carried” (pherein) by the Holy Spirit. What is striking about this verbal repetition is that Peter used this same verb in vv 17-18 to describe the divine voice that “came” (literally, “was carried”; pherein) from heaven. Moo writes, “The words Peter and the other apostles heard from heaven at the Transfiguration and the words that the prophets spoke came from the same place: God himself” (1996, 79). The last phrase of v 21—but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit—is very significant. Peter carefully establishes the paradoxical yet important truth of the divine-human interplay in inspiration. While denying what was almost certainly the claim of his opponents that prophecy is only of human origin, Peter confirms the human participation in the creation of Scripture while he emphatically insists that the prophetic words are from God who inspired the writers through the work of the Holy Spirit. Many commentators see a sailing metaphor in the background of the verb carried along, since the same verb is used in Acts 27:15, 17 to describe a ship carried along by the wind. With this metaphor in mind, Green writes, “The prophets raised their sails, so to speak (they were obedient and receptive), and the Holy Spirit filled them and carried their craft along in the direction he wished” (1987, 102). Although it will always be a mystery as to precisely how this happens, Peter affirms that as the prophets spoke by the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, God spoke. From the Text It is noteworthy that Peter expresses the urgent desire to remind his readers of the apostolic teachings about the Christian faith, even though he describes them as knowing the truth and as being firmly established in the truth (1:12). There are two observations that this description of Peter’s readers elicits. First, even knowledgeable and firmly established believers need to be reminded of the basic tenets of the gospel. A believer never outgrows the necessity of constant reminders of the true essence of the faith. Second, even believers who know the truth and are firmly established in it can be vulnerable to false teaching. Peter’s impassioned attack against the false teachers and his intense warning to these firmly established believers reveals his concern for their continued spiritual well-being. Even the strongest of believers can stumble and fall if they do not continue to grow in their spiritual life. Peter recognizes that believers of all maturity levels need to be regularly reminded of the truth and encouraged in their faith, lest their faith be weakened and undermined. Perhaps the writer to the Hebrews, who was also dealing with believers whose faith was being challenged, had this in mind when he wrote, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another” (Heb 10:25). Part of what it means to be a member of the body of Christ is to encourage and remind one another of the truth of the gospel. Those who isolate themselves from the body of Christ and allow the fervent reminders of the gospel truth to grow old and cold within their lives become an easy prey to the false teachings of the enemy of our faith. The words but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit is a very significant phrase for the proper understanding of the inspiration of Scripture. Interestingly, the explanation that many people have concerning the inspiration of Scripture seems to gravitate towards one of two extremes. Either they embrace the divine origin of inspiration (that is, God inspired the Bible) to the point that human involvement is virtually eliminated, or they embrace the human origin of inspiration (that is, men wrote the Bible through their own personal inspiration) to the point that divine involvement is virtually eliminated. Peter articulates the proper mediating position between these two extremes by declaring that men spoke from God. Thus, Peter affirms that Scripture is genuinely the words of prophets themselves who chose their words deliberately and consciously according to their own vocabulary, style, and social situation. But he also affirms that the words that these men chose were also the words that God wanted them to use to communicate his message to humankind. Exactly how men are able to speak their own words but also the words of God is not explained by Peter, other than that it happens as they are carried along by the Holy Spirit. But as Peter carefully demonstrates, any proper doctrine of Scripture will be sure not to neglect either the human participation or the divine origin of the inspiration of Scripture. In his discussion of the foundation of true saving knowledge in vv 16-21, Peter establishes two important cornerstones for the truth of the Christian faith. First, he points to his own personal experience as an eyewitness of the ministry of Christ, as illustrated in Jesus’ Transfiguration (1:16-18). And second, he points to the reliability of the inspired message of Scripture (1:19-21). Recognizing the perfect correspondence of his own personal experience with the promises and prophecies of Scripture, Peter declares that we have the word of the prophets made more certain (1:19). There is an important truth to be recognized here in Peter’s words. The Word of God is not merely something that is meant to be read and believed, but it is meant to be experienced personally by believers. God is not only faithful in the pages of Scripture, but he is also faithful in the pages of our personal life. The confirmation of the truth of God’s Word is written large in the personal experience of believers. Just as Peter’s own eyewitness experience of Jesus’ Transfiguration confirmed the Scriptures and made them all the more reliable and certain for him, so also is each believer’s life an “eyewitness account” of the truth of Scripture and the faithful reliability of God to his promises. Peter points to both Scripture and personal experience as the foundation for true saving knowledge. Salvation is not just a promise to be learned from Scripture, but a relationship to be experienced through Christ. As Peter testifies, the truth of the Bible is never more certain than when it is experienced and lived out in the life of a true believer.

OL

Cite this document

Carver, Frank G. “Chapter 2 True Knowledge 1:3-21 2 Peter.” Book Chapter, n.d.. The Frank G. Carver Archive.

Filed under

Related in the archive

Book Chapter

Chapter 3 False Teachers 2:1-22 2 Peter

This document contains scholarly commentary and structural analysis regarding 2 Peter 2:1-22, focusing on the emergence and characteristics of false teachers. The text examines the historical occasion of the epistle, noting the threat false teachers posed to the faith of believers. It explores the literary relationship between 2 Peter and Jude, discussing parallels in their descriptions of immoral, greedy, and blasphemous teachers, as well as the scholarly debate regarding literary dependence. The author provides a structural analysis of 2 Peter 1:16–2:3, citing Bauckham's chiastic structure, and compares the false teachers of the second epistle to the false prophets of the Old Testament. Additionally, the text includes a sidebar from Green (1987) discussing the practical application of Peter's warnings to contemporary readers regarding various moral temptations.

2 Peter 2:1-22 · 2 Peter 1:16-2:3 · 2 Peter 2:1

Lecture

Chapter 7 - Faith of Israel

A lecture transcript discussing the historical context of Second Temple Judaism as a prerequisite for understanding the historical-critical study of Jesus of Nazareth. The text defines Second Temple Judaism by its period (c. 520/515 BC to AD 70), its formative influences (Ezra and Nehemiah), and its key features, including the continuity of the priesthood and festivals alongside the emergence of the synagogue and new feasts like Purim and Hanukkah. The document addresses the impact of Hellenistic culture, the Maccabean revolt, and the development of the Hebrew Scriptures canon. It also references scholarly shifts in understanding the period, specifically citing the work of Martin Hengel regarding Hellenism and E.P. Sanders regarding the rejection of the 'legalistic' view of Judaism.

Torah · Former Prophets · Latter Prophets

Book Chapter

Commentary Draft 1 John 4 Chapter for submission to Rick

A draft commentary on 1 John 4:1-21, divided into sections titled 'Behind the Text' and 'In the Text.' The author examines the use of dualistic language (e.g., Spirit of God vs. spirit of the antichrist) in the Johannine epistles, noting connections to the Gospel of John and the shared vocabulary of the Qumran community. The text explores the biblical concept of false prophets, drawing comparisons to Old Testament figures (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) and New Testament warnings in the Synoptic Gospels. The commentary further analyzes the Greek imperative to 'test the spirits' (dokimazete), discussing the linguistic nuances of testing and the practical application of Christian love as a means of discerning truth and demonstrating God's presence.

1 John 4:1-21 · 1 John 4:1-6 · 1 John 4:3

Bible Study

Ezra-Nehemiah 1--Introduction

An introductory lecture or study guide for a series on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The document begins with a reading of Ezra 1:1-11, focusing on the decree of King Cyrus of Persia and the return of the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem. The author provides historical context for the Persian period (550-333 B.C.), discussing the roles of Ezra, a priest and scribe, and Nehemiah, a cupbearer to Artaxerxes I. The text also addresses the historical unity of Ezra and Nehemiah as a single document in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts prior to the Latin Vulgate, and outlines the chronological scope of the books from 538 B.C. to approximately 400 B.C.

Ezra 1:1-11 · Ezra 1:8 · Ezra 2:2