The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude

Peter H. Davids

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781467426909
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

Filling a notable gap in scholarship on 2 Peter and Jude, Peter Davids artfully unpacks these two neglected but fascinating epistles that deal with the confrontation between the Greco-Roman world and the burgeoning first-century Jesus communities. Davids firmly grasps the overall structure of these oft-maligned epistles and presents a strong case for 2 Peter and Jude as coherent, consistent documents. Marked by exceptional exegesis and sharp, independent judgments, Davids's work both connects with the latest scholarship and transforms scholarly insights into helpful conclusions benefiting Christian believers.

The Letter
of
2 PETER

Introduction to 2 Peter

I. INTRODUCTION

2 Peter has been termed the “ugly stepchild” of the NT. It is not just that the extended prophetic denunciation is unpalatable to some people and the apparent description of the destruction of the universe in ch. 3 is disturbing, but that many readers wonder whether the book is genuine and belongs in the canon at all.¹ Furthermore, whether or not one determines that the work is or is not by Peter, it is often ignored. As John Elliott writes, “Down to the present day its canonical status and theological significance seem to have remained more a theory than a fact.”²

This uncertainty about the book is not just the product of modern biblical criticism. The same uncertainty about the book existed in antiquity. While the work found some relatively early acceptance at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, as witnessed to by its presence (1) in Greek in

(early A.D. 200s), (2) in Coptic translation (about A.D. 200), and (3) in quotations in some of the church fathers,³ it was rarely used in the western part of the Mediterranean (e.g., Rome, Carthage) from the second to the fourth century.⁴ In the fourth century Jerome reported that many rejected it, a principal reason being its difference in Greek style from 1 Peter.⁵ By that time it was also out of favor in the East, with Origen (Commentary on John 5.3) pointing out that it was a disputed work (although he quotes from it) and Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.3.1-4; 25.3) treating it as inauthentic. It was not until the second half of the century when the Alexandrian bishop Athanasius listed it in his Festal Letter (A.D. 367) that it started to gain general acceptance. Thus it first found acceptance in Alexandria (i.e., southeastern Mediterranean area), while continuing to be rejected in Antioch (northeastern Mediterranean). After this first indication of final acceptance in Alexandria, 2 Peter appears in the Latin canon of the Synod of Carthage (A.D. 397), showing that it had gained some acceptance in the West. The Antiochene tradition (i.e., Syria) did not accept it until the sixth century.

Some of the same concerns have continued throughout church history. Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin⁶ all voiced concerns similar to Jerome’s, although none of them tried to remove 2 Peter from their canon and all of them quote it quite freely. In more recent times the canonical debate has shifted from authorship to content, with Ernst Käsemann arguing that the work is sub-Christian.⁷ Thus we have a book that made it into the canon with some difficulty and since then has been neglected by some, judged canonical but also pseudepigraphical by others, and rejected by still others. We need to examine some of these issues before we look at the text in detail.

II. AUTHORSHIP

2 Peter states that it is written by “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” by which is meant none other than Simon Bar-Jonah (Matt 16:17), a fisherman from Galilee, whom Jesus had chosen as a member of his apprentices and nicknamed “Rock” (Cephas in Aramaic or Peter in Greek). There is some uncertainty in the tradition as to which town in Galilee he actually came from, for John 1:41 says that he was from Bethsaida, while Mark 1:21, 29-30 indicates that he lived in Capernaum and that both Simon’s brother Andrew and Simon’s mother-in-law lived in the same house (presumably Simon’s wife also lived there, but she never appears in the narratives about Peter). Mark 1:16 presents Peter and Andrew with a cast net, which was used by poorer fishermen to catch small fish and could indicate that Peter and Andrew were not wealthy, but Luke 5:3 states that he owned a boat, which would indicate that he (or they, if Andrew was part owner) had somewhat more money, like most artisans and shop owners. Luke further indicates that Peter did not have a theological education (Acts 4:13), which would not necessarily mean that he had no education. Learning to read and write in the village synagogue would not qualify one as a theologically educated person in the eyes of the Sanhedrin.⁸

After Peter became an apprentice of Jesus, he must have distinguished himself, for all the Gospels agree that Jesus selected him first for his core group of twelve (which he sent out as his representatives or delegates, a fact that 2 Peter indicates in the term “apostle,” meaning “one who is sent” or “a delegate”) and then for his inner circle of three (which appears when Jesus did not want the whole group of Twelve present, but did want two or three witnesses). We also learn that he was not a particularly punctilious Jew, for the story in Mark 2:23-27 indicates that Jesus’ apprentices as a whole did not follow Pharisaic interpretations of the law. The general picture that we get of this man is that he was willing to take risks, but his very willingness to step forward could get him into trouble. Thus, on the one hand, he risks proclaiming Jesus the Messiah, risks stepping out of the boat, and risks following the group who arrested Jesus right into the courtyard of the high priest, but, on the other hand, he also risks correcting Jesus’ perception of his messianic office, and in both his stepping out of the boat and his following Jesus after his arrest he ends up in some difficulty. Nevertheless, he is often the spokesperson for the Twelve.

According to Acts, after Easter Simon Peter continued as a leader among the group of Jesus’ apprentices and family. Whether it is accurate to speak of him as the leader (certainly not in a hierarchical sense) or whether he simply remains the most outspoken and thus says what others have been discussing, he is certainly the focal point of Acts. He takes the lead in the appointment of Matthias, the apology on Pentecost, the healing of the lame man at the temple, and the two defenses before the Sanhedrin, among other events. Even his shadow was perceived to be healing (Acts 5:15). Then he disappears from the Jerusalem narrative and appears only outside Jerusalem (e.g., Acts 8:14-25, then 9:32–11:48). When he is again in Jerusalem, it is to defend his actions before the other leaders of the Jesus movement vis-à-vis Pharisaic conceptions of purity that many, if not most, of the community accept (Acts 11:1-18). This is significant, for the narrative of Acts has presented Peter as a much more observant Jew (in the Pharisaic sense) after Pentecost than Luke pictures him as being before. He attends the daily prayer services in the temple (the narrative implies that he was there three times daily), and he can say that he has never eaten ritually impure food.⁹ It is his risk-taking at the baptism of the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius, in particular that he enters Cornelius’s house and then eats with Cornelius and his friends (quite likely a postbaptismal celebration of the Lord’s Supper) that brings down the criticism of other leaders of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem. Were they shocked at behavior they did not expect from him? What was the result of this confrontation? The text says that the critics shut up and glorified God, but it does not say whether unanswered questions remained and whether they still trusted Peter the way they had previously done. When Peter next leaves Jerusalem, fleeing from Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12), James the brother of Jesus seems to be the main leader of the Jerusalem community of the Jesus movement. James’s primacy is clearly evident in Acts 15, for it is James, not Peter, who sums up the decision of the leaders of the Jesus movement. After this incident Peter will not appear again in Acts. Later (i.e., postbiblical) tradition explains this as Peter’s starting to travel outside the Palestinian area, travel that would eventually take him to Rome, where tradition has it that he was martyred (if true, then it was probably between A.D. 64 and 68, i.e., between the great fire in Rome and the death of Nero).¹⁰

The Pauline picture of Peter complicates the one we find in Acts and the Synoptic Gospels. Paul certainly agrees with the Synoptic Gospels that Peter was married, for Paul assumes that the Corinthians knew that Peter’s wife traveled with him (1 Cor 9:5), although we still do not learn her name or whether the couple had children. It is no surprise that Paul cites the example of Peter when writing to the Corinthians, since earlier in 1 Corinthians Paul indicates that some of the Corinthians followed what they perceived to be the way of Peter (1 Cor 1:12). Unfortunately, we never learn what the distinctives of this way were or whether this group had been sparked by a visit of Peter to Corinth (which is quite possible, assuming that he did go to Rome, but not absolutely certain, even though 1 Clement believes that Peter visited Corinth). The only other significant things that Paul says about Peter are (1) that he was one of the three leaders (Paul refers to them as “pillars”) of the Jerusalem Jesus community (implied in Gal 1:18 but stated explicitly in 2:1-10), and (2) that Peter’s ministry was the “sending to the circumcision” (NIV, “apostle to the Jews”) in contrast to Paul’s to the Gentiles. This differing perspective on ministry is reflected in a later clash in Antioch, where Peter, reacting to the perceptions of a delegation from Jerusalem, withdrew from celebrating the Lord’s Supper with Gentile believers (i.e., from table fellowship, for at that time the Lord’s Supper was a full meal), apparently out of concern for ritual purity (Gal 2:11-14). (Eating and especially drinking with Gentiles were among the easiest ways for a Jew to contract ritual impurity.) While we learn that Paul confronted Peter, we never find out how Peter reacted to that confrontation. One would think that if his immediate reaction had been to agree with Paul and thus to repent, Paul would have reported it, but all we know for sure is that, whatever Peter’s response was, it did not fit Paul’s rhetorical purpose in Galatians.¹¹ The problem with this Pauline picture is that we are not sure how to fit it together with the picture of Peter in Acts. In particular, we do not know how to answer two questions: how much of Paul’s narrative about Peter comes chronologically before the conversion of Cornelius (assuming the general historicity of the Acts narrative) and whether any of Paul’s narrative (or even the writing of Galatians) postdates the gathering in Jerusalem in Acts 15, a gathering often called the Apostolic Council (again, assuming that it is historical). The answers to these questions would help us clarify whether later developments in Peter’s life should make us modify Paul’s picture of Peter as a leader focused on evangelizing Jews, who was himself sensitive to Jewish purity regulations.

All of this has relevance to our letter. One can, of course, take the designation of authorship at face value and be done with it. Whatever the problems, the inspired text says that Simon Peter wrote this work, so somehow he was able to do it. John Calvin and others appear to have adopted this stance, so it has significant pedigree. But if one wishes to assemble evidence concerning authorship, in the light of the historical information we have assembled one has to work with some troubling data.

First, there is the fact that 2 Peter (as well as 1 Peter) appears to have been written to a Gentile audience, while Paul’s perception of Simon Peter was that his ministry was to Jews and Jewish Christians. When it comes to 1 Peter, we have demonstrated that repeated references to his readers indicate that before their conversion they had been typical Greco-Roman pagans rather than Jews.¹² When it comes to 2 Peter, even if it is not addressed to the same group (see our comment on 2 Pet 3:1), there is little evidence that these readers were Jews and plenty of evidence that they were very much at home in the Greco-Roman world. We will present these data when we discuss the recipients below, but in general they concern the fact that these readers were not only conversant with Greco-Roman philosophy (unless 2 Peter misjudges them) but also liable to the vices that Jews felt characterized Gentile life. Thus we have a Peter who is apparently focused on a different group from that on which Paul has him focused. Does that mean that Peter changed over the intervening fifteen years or so between Galatians and his putative martyrdom? That is possible but the question for most scholars is not whether such a change is possible, but whether it is probable.

Second, there are the thematic differences between 2 Peter and 1 Peter. 1 Peter is written to address the situation of cultural dislocation (“homelessness” as a result of commitment to follow Jesus) and persecution in a group of communities of the followers of Jesus in northwest Asia Minor. It uses basic instruction common in the Jesus movement (so much so that it has at times been thought of as a catechism or baptismal homily) and is full of scripture citations. 2 Peter is written to an unidentified group or groups to warn them about teachers who appear to be teaching ethical deviation from the standard that other followers of Jesus accepted. The teachers appear to support their lifestyle with a denial of the return of Christ and the last judgment, perhaps based on Epicurean philosophy. Thus the eschatological tension that is so much a part of 1 Peter (e.g., the judgment is already beginning with the church [1 Pet 4:17]; “the end of all things is...