Share:

Learn More

Dr. Dan Smith

Unevenly received and accepted by ancient Christians, and little read by contemporary Christians, 2 Peter sits near the back of the New Testament, presenting a number of hermeneutical and theological problems.

One obvious problem is that of authorship: who wrote 2 Peter? Although a few conservative scholars insist it was Peter himself, with the assistance of a much more literate scribe, most commentators agree that the letter’s language and ideas are more at home in the second century CE than in the first. Second Peter evidently also knew and used the Epistle of Jude (compare Jude 4-18 with 2 Pet 2:1–3:3), but also – possibly – another second century writing attributed to Peter, which I will mention below. Regardless of its authorship, 2 Peter remains part of the Christian Scriptures.

A second obvious problem with 2 Peter is its intense polemic against opponents called “false teachers” (pseudodidaskaloi, 2 Peter 2:1). Second Peter has a lot to say about the depravity and wickedness of these false teachers, and a lot about their coming judgment (see 2 Peter 2); the letter also denigrates them using stark, dehumanizing language (e.g. 2:12-13a). According to the author, these false teachers – because of their immorality – stand in stark contrast to the virtues the author commends to those “called by [Christ’s] own glory and goodness” (2 Pet 1:3-11).

My purpose in this little essay is not to answer either of these problems, or indeed any of the others that 2 Peter presents for contemporary readers. Instead, I want to think about this text as an example of what we call “contextual theology” (though not an unproblematic one).

As Stephen Bevans, one of the leading experts in this area, writes:

“Many theologians would say that there is really no such thing as ‘theology’—a kind of ‘one-size-fits-all,’ universally valid and universally applicable expression of ‘faith seeing understanding’. Instead, they would say that the only kind of theology that exists is ‘contextual theology’—theology, in other words, that is specific to a particular place, a particular time, a particular culture.” (Bevans, “Contextual Methods in Theology,” 2018)

According to Bevans, all theology involves a “mutually critical dialogue” between “the experiences of the past” – what I would call the resources of faith, namely, Scripture and tradition – and “the experience of the present” – faith’s real human contexts, that is, the communal, social, and cultural realities in which faith is understood, expressed, and lived. When theology is seen as contextual in this way, it becomes apparent that even the resources of our faith – Scripture and tradition – likewise resulted from the same kind of theological work. Bevans mentions the different but complementary ideas about God in different sources of the Pentateuch, or about Christ in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of John: these differences within Scripture came about because authors and communities were “doing theology in dialogue with the context,” as Bevans puts it. Different historical, geographic, social, cultural, economic, colonial/postcolonial, and racialized contexts will lead to different theologies as people of faith make sense of their own contexts in light of the resources of their faith – and vice versa.

Turning to 2 Peter, what “resources of faith” does the author interact with? Certain features are to be expected, for example the conviction that Jesus Christ is the “Lord and Saviour” who provides “entry into the eternal kingdom” (1:11). In addition, the writer appeals to the “prophetic message” of “Scripture” (1:19-21), and also to the letters of Paul (3:15-16), though the latter seem not to have been a significant influence. There are numerous allusions to the Hebrew Bible, some of which are derived from Jude, for example: Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah; Balaam and the talking donkey (2:6-8, 15-16). Second Peter 1:17-18 also refers to the Transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:2-8 and parallels, which describe Peter as an eyewitness). But certain features of 2 Peter’s description of the Transfiguration seem very similar to those found in a second-century apocryphal text known as the Apocalypse of Peter (for example, the “holy mountain,” the language of “honour and glory,” and the idea that Peter received a personal prophecy of the time of his death). Scholars now disagree whether 2 Peter was influenced by the Apocalypse of Peter or the other way round. Interestingly, the so-called Muratorian fragment, an early Christian canonical list, includes the Apocalypse of Peter as an accepted though questioned text, but not 2 Peter! (Not to complicate things, but the traditional second-century date of the Muratorian fragment has also long been disputed.)

The author of 2 Peter has applied these sources and resources to a couple of issues he thinks call for a new composition in the name of the Apostle Peter, namely, the wickedness of false teachers, and the coming of Christ. While it is possible that the author was concerned about false teachings about Christ’s return (Chapter 3), most of the letter’s lengthy and severe polemic against the false teachers (Chapter 2) focuses, as mentioned above, not on their teachings but on their moral failings and their ultimate judgment by God. They are accused of factionalism, boastfulness, deceitfulness, godlessness, greed, fraud, exploitation, lust, licentiousness, pleasure-seeking, and luxury; they are also called many names, even “irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed” (2:10b-14). Many of these accusations are stereotypical and reflect broader cultural values beyond Judaism and nascent Christianity. Likewise, many of the virtues that the author commends to readers (1:3-11) are commonly accepted virtues in the Greco-Roman world, which show up as polar opposites to the vices of the false teachers. Whether purposely or instinctively, the author has appealed to conventional ethical ideas in constructing his exhortation to the readers. As for the teachings about the coming of Christ, quite briefly, we find in Chapter 3 an idea that the heavens and the earth and all the elements will be destroyed by fire (ekpyrosis). This idea is foreign to Jewish apocalyptic thought but well-known in Stoicism (3:10-13).

Although 2 Peter’s place of composition is not known (Alexandria is a recent suggestion), there are clear indications in the letter that the author is well-read in the literature of his time and place and interacts with accepted values and ideas from the broader culture. At the same time, the letter shows deep commitments to what were (by then) traditional ideas and themes of early Christianity as well as to the “resources of faith” such as the Scriptures. In the same way, for example, 20th century liberation theology draws on the resources of faith and makes them speak to the economic, social, racial, and postcolonial conditions of its contexts – and vice versa. Second Peter must have made some kind of impact on its earliest readers, for eventually – though probably because of its “apostolic” pedigree – it was included in the New Testament canon.

Here in the Faculty of Theology, we are committed to providing a theological education that grounds students in their religious traditions, by teaching the resources of faith. Many alumni tell me that this solid foundation is what they appreciated most about their experience at Huron. At the same time, we are also committed to providing students with the tools and competencies they need to understand the contexts in which they will serve and minister, and to teaching and modelling an appreciation of theologies that arise in contexts not their own. These are the values and commitments that inform the curricular work we are doing in the Faculty of Theology: solid formation both in the resources of faith (Vera Religio ac Scientia Vera, True Religion and Sound Learning), and solid formation in an understanding of and commitment to context.

 

Sources:

Stephen B. Bevans, “Contextual Methods in Theology,” in Bevans, Essays in Contextual Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 1-29.

Jörg Frey, The Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter: A Theological Commentary, trans. Kathleen Ess (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2018).

Wolfgang Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus: Studien zum historischen und theologischen Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).

Cambry Pardee, “Apocalypse of Peter,” in e-Clavis: Christian Apocrypha. Accessed 3 March 2022. https://www.nasscal.com/e-clavis-christian-apocrypha/apocalypse-of-peter/

Daniel A. Smith, “Peter, Pseudepigraphy, and Polemics: Deviance and ‘False Teachers’ in 2 Peter,” in Peter in the Early Church: Apostle – Missionary – Church Leader, ed. Judith Lieu (Leuven: Peeters, 2022, forthcoming), 627-46.

All Scripture citations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version, © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

 

Image:

Ivory panel (possibly a book cover), c. 950 CE, depicting the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:17-18).

British Museum item number 1856,0623.15

© The Trustees of the British Museum