A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude

Peter H. Davids, Andreas J. Kostenberger

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9780310519430
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

In this volume, Peter Davids offers a comprehensive study of the General or Catholic Epistles of James, 1-2 Peter, and Jude, which are often insufficiently covered in more general New Testament introductions, theologies, and surveys. Before discussing a theology of each of the four letters, Davids first deals with their common aspects—their shared background in the Greco-Roman world and a similar Christology, view of the source of sin, and eschatology—thus justifying their being treated together. In the chapters that follow, Davids embarks upon a theological reading of each letter informed by its social-rhetorical understanding—what they meant in the context of their original cultural settings—including: a survey of recent scholarship, a discussion of relevant introductory issues, a thematic commentary, a treatment of important theological themes, and a discussion of the place of the letter in the biblical canon and its contribution to New Testament theology.

The Biblical Theology of the New Testament (BTNT) series provides upper college and seminary-level textbooks for students of New Testament theology, interpretation, and exegesis. Pastors and discerning theology readers alike will also benefit from this series. Written at the highest level of academic excellence by recognized experts in the field, the BTNT series not only offers a comprehensive exploration of the theology of every book of the New Testament, including introductory issues and major themes, but also shows how each book relates to the broad picture of New Testament theology.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION: COMMON THEMES AND ISSUES

The letters of James, Peter, and Jude, or, to put them in what may be their historical order, James, Jude, and 1 and 2 Peter, form four of the seven works collectively known since the fourth century as the “Catholic Epistles,” or, more recently in some Protestant circles, as the “General Epistles.” This is because at least two of these seven (James and 1 Peter) and possibly all of them (except 2 and 3 John) were letters sent to multiple churches and thus were historically viewed as universal (i.e., “catholic”) or general rather than problem-solving letters to specific Christian communities (such as Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, or 1 and 2 Corinthians). In this present volume we will not discuss 1, 2, and 3 John, for in style, theology, and probably historical origin they fit better with the Fourth Gospel and thus are included in The Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters in this series.

The remaining four letters are disparate enough to require every bit of the present volume to give them a hearing. And a good hearing is what they deserve, for their theological voices have often been neglected because of the dominance of Paul (whose work for centuries was believed to include Hebrews), particularly in Reformation and post-Reformation Protestantism, and the Synoptic Gospels (including the two-part Luke-Acts), and the Johannine writings in the New Testament. We do not for a moment wish to disparage the importance of these other works; yet we must emphasize that the four voices that constitute our present enquiry, while minor in size, were of great importance during the first century (perhaps of more importance than Paul before the fall of Jerusalem and the circulation of Paul’s letters), and they must be allowed to balance and nuance the louder voices found in the present configuration of the New Testament.

The problem with these four works is in knowing how to handle them. When this present author along with Ralph P. Martin and Daniel Reid set about to organize what became the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments,1 the first discussion session was about what to name this project. Should it be (facetiously) “Dictionary of the Rest” or “The Leftovers” after the two previous dictionaries on Paul and the Gospels? There are few common themes that unite the works (which, to be fair to that dictionary, included Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation, as well as the Catholic Epistles), much less common authorship or (except for Jude and 2 Peter) literary dependence. The term “Later” was chosen because most of the works come toward the end of printed Bibles and some of them may well be the latest works in the New Testament (“and Its Developments” indicated that the work also included articles on the Apostolic Fathers and some other second-century works).

This present volume faces a similar problem of diversity, so we propose to proceed as follows: an initial chapter will cover common themes and issues; then a chapter will be devoted to each of the works, in each case (1) surveying recent scholarship and research; (2) treating relevant introductory issues; (3) producing a thematic commentary; and (4) treating important individual themes that arise out of the commentary. None of this can or will be totally comprehensive, for, as the present author has shown, one can easily write a full commentary on each of these works and then continue writing articles about them.2 Nor can any of this be totally final because this author, at least, is constantly growing in his understanding of these works and is also aware that he is writing about literature from a culture in which neither he nor any person has lived for at least 1,700 years. That, of course, is why new discovery is possible and why there are arguments about the meaning of these works: one can never know with full certainty what these ancient authors were intending to communicate (just as one can never know with full certainty what a contemporary person, perhaps even one’s spouse, is intending to communicate, although in that case one can get feedback from that person to indicate whether one has understood sufficiently). Yet we can grow in our understanding, although we are limited to questioning the text and understanding its context rather than directly questioning the ancient author. It is toward that goal that this present work is dedicated.

As we try to come to clearer understandings, this author will use his own translations of biblical texts (unless otherwise indicated). These translations will often avoid terms that he believes have become misleading. Often the traditional term will be included as an alternative translation, but it is alternative only if one understands it as meaning the same as the author’s preferred term. For instance, “faith” will often be translated as “commitment,” for when it (or its corresponding verb, “believe”) has a personal object expressed or implied, it means “trust,” “commitment,” or the like; it only means “belief” when the object is impersonal and mental (e.g., in James this is true about the clause “believe that God is one”). Likewise some terms, such as “Christ” and “apostle,” are really transliterations rather than translations, and we believe that these and similar terms were understood by initiates in the Jesus movement. Thus we will tend to translate them “the Anointed One” (often putting “Messiah” as an alternative) and “official delegate” respectively.

Other terms have taken on additional meanings by association over the years (e.g., “church”), so we will tend to say “Jesus movement” or “community” rather than “church” because in our view the “early church” was more movemental and less structured than terms such as “church” tend to connote in our cultural context. This author has been committed to translating the Scriptures so that they speak to contemporary people,3 and the translations and other language used in the theological reading of these works will reflect that commitment.

This author is also convinced that words only have meaning in context; in our case that means the social context of the writers of these works. This means referring to the theology of the Jewish Scriptures when it is believed that an author is picking up on that theology (i.e., is demonstrating intertextuality), to the social structures of the Greco-Roman world when they are reflected in the text, and to rhetorical devices when the texts reflect the tools of ancient rhetoric. So while this book is primarily a theological reading of the texts, it is a theological reading informed by a social-rhetorical understanding of the texts—that is, what the texts meant in the context of their original cultural settings, as best this can be determined.

1 THEMES AND ISSUES

While at first blush it looks as if there are few common themes and issues in these works, a closer look identifies a number of them. All of the works share a background in the Greco-Roman world, even if perhaps in different segments of it. All of the works share a similar theology, Christology, view of the source of sin, and eschatology, even if it is at times stated in compressed form. All of the works ostensibly come from authors identified with the Palestinian Jewish followers of Jesus of Nazareth. But all of the works are also thought by many scholars to be pseudonymous. Let us look at those themes in that order.

1.1 Greco-Roman Background

Each of these works is written within the Greco-Roman world, and all four are written by relatively educated authors. Each of the authors has at least completed the progymnasmata level of education,4 and some at least were likely educated to a higher level, although they do not seem to have achieved the highest levels of education. This is evident from their writing style. For example, 1 Peter has some of the best-quality Greek in the New Testament, but James and 2 Peter are not far behind. It is true that there are Semitisms in the works—for instance, the notorious “doers of the word” in Jas 1:22–25, which contemporary readers find understandable in context as an expression drawn from Semitic constructions for one who does what “the word” instructs him or her to do, but which in “normal” Greek should mean one who writes words, such as a poet. But these “Semitisms” are not especially numerous and could be the result of the reading of Semitic literature in church, that is, the reading of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which we know of through the Septuagint. This would take place in that age much as King James language has crept into the written and, at times, spoken language of this author when he was a youth (much to the consternation of his high school teachers), for that was the language read, sung, and, at times, spoken in his church.

But this reference to Greek style shows another thing that these works have in common, the use of a Greek translation of the Scriptures; for it is difficult, although not impossible on a limited basis,5 to argue that any of these authors had direct knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. (We will say more about this as we work through the individual letters.) What we have, then, are four works composed within a Greco-Roman context, some perhaps in the Palestinian end of the Greco-Roman world, but still rooted in that world and its language. There are, of course, differences in the parts of that world that they address, but these specific points of view will be covered as we encounter them.

1.2 Theology

These works also share a common theology in that they all agree that there is only one God, who is to be identified with the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. James 2:19 is explicit about the belief that “God is one” (and while this is an insufficient belief, James indicates that it is a starting point, “You do well”), but each of the other works refers to the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures and thereby identifies the God in whom each author believes. He is the God of creation (Jas 1:17; 1 Pet 4:19; 2 Pet 3:5), the God of Noah (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5), the God of Abraham (Jas 2:23), and God the Father (Jas 1:27; 3:9; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:17; Jude 1).

There are many other things that one can say about this God, such as that he is a God of grace (Jas 4:6; 1 Pet 5:10; Jude 4), but enough has been said to indicate that each of these writers lives within the same narrative, namely, that of the one creator God whose story is found in the Hebrew Scriptures (whether read in translation or in Second Temple retellings) and who revealed himself through the (Hebrew/Jewish) prophets. They may emphasize different aspects of this God, but unless one understands their common assumptions, one will have large gaps in one’s understanding of what they are intending to communicate.

1.3 Christology

By noting that God is God the Father, we pass into the realm of Christology, for God is primarily “the Father” of “our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:3). While only 1 Peter says this explicitly, the title “Father” is used in 2 Pet 1:17 and Jude 1 as part of differentiating “the Father” from Jesus Christ. Only James is not clear about this point (Jas 1:27 may be referring to God as the Father of orphans and Jas 3:9 is probably referring to the creator God as “Lord and Father”), but then James has much less to say about Christology than any of the other three. Yet it is clear that he agrees with the others (and with Paul) on the core concept of the “good news” that Jesus is Lord (Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:3; 2 Pet 1:2; Jude 4, 17); that he is presently exalted (Jas 2:1; 1 Pet 3:22; 2 Pet 1:11 [if viewed as presently reigning in the light of 2 Pet 1:17]; possibly Jude 1); and that he is to return, in the words of the (much later) Apostles’ Creed, to “judge the living and the dead” (Jas 5:7–9; 1 Pet 1:7 [he is to be revealed from heaven]; 2 Pet 1:16; Jude 21).

All of these authors also agree that Jesus is the “Anointed One” (usually translated “Messiah” or transliterated “Christ”); that fact places him as well within the Second Temple Jewish narrative that in a number of its forms expected God to designate or “anoint” a ruler for his people, usually thought of as a descendant of David on the basis of 2 Sam 7:12–13. These works may differ in their application of sacrificial metaphors to Jesus (more prominent in 1 Peter) or their use of the title “Savior” (used only in 2 Peter [5x] and Jude), but their particular christological emphases are built on a common foundation.

1.4 View of the Source of Sin

Another feature of these letters is that all of them view sin or human evil as rooted in desire (epithymia). In fact, a quarter of the uses of this term in the New Testament occur in these four relatively short letters. Whether it be Jas 1:14–15 or 1 Pet 2:11 or 2 Pet 1:4 or by implication Jude 18, desire is the source of testing or that which fights against virtue or the source of corruption in the world. The term is often mistranslated “lust,” for “lust” implies something illicit, usually sexual, while the Greek term simply means “desire” or “drive” (in the psychological sense). These “passions” are tied to the body, and when they control a person, they lead that one into evil.

One can illustrate this from Matt 4:2–4 (although epithymia does not appear in this passage). Jesus has fasted for forty days and is hungry; that is, he has a desire for food, a legitimate need that is necessary for survival. But God has told him to fast, since the forty-day fast is Spirit-directed. Thus it is a test of his obedience to God when the devil suggests Jesus use his powers to create food. But Jesus submits to God’s word rather than to his own desire. This narrative reveals the nature of desire: when it is one’s motivation, unconstrained by divine direction, it leads one into evil. It is not specific desires that are evil, but any desire in control of one’s behavior. It is, so to speak, the question of Eden: Will I follow what is good (or avoid what is evil) in my eyes, or will I submit to the divine direction and let God decide what is good or evil?

The four works we are examining share the perspective that desire, when in control, is the source of evil. They express this in Greek, of course, and some forms of Greek philosophy, especially Stoicism, would nod in agreement. Likewise a number of strains of Jewish thought (including later rabbinic writings) would agree, using the term yēṣer for desire. Where the Jesus followers differed from these others was in the solution. The Greek thought generally considered the solution as a form of rationality, and Jewish thought as a form of Torah obedience, but our works will suggest the solution is a gift from God—that is, divine wisdom (James), or knowledge of God (2 Peter), or the will of God/spiritual milk (1 Peter). Paul would say, the Holy Spirit. Our works differ when it comes to expressing the solution, but they agree in that it is some gift or favor that finds its source in God.

1.5 Eschatology

All of these works have a similar eschatology, although they differ in the details presented. They agree that a day is coming—coming quickly for James (it is “near,” Jas 5:8, or “at the doors,” 5:9) and delayed for 2 Peter (2 Pet 3:9)—in which God or Jesus will judge the living and the dead. For James this includes the “coming of the Lord” and thus his presence on earth (Jas 5:7); Jude 14–15 uses the prophecy of 1 En. 1:9 to describe this “coming” of the Lord to execute judgment. Thus there are some differences in the images used6 (even within a single book such as 1 Peter) as to whether God or Jesus is going to come/be revealed as judge, and whether the judgment is the result of his coming to earth (James, 1 Peter, Jude) or of his exposing to his sight what is happening on earth (2 Peter), but all would agree with Heb 6:2 that “the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment” are part of the essence of Christian belief.

1.6 Implied Authorship

All four of these works have an implied author identified with the early community of the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. As we will a...