Peter

Who are the “Opponents” in Second Peter?

May We Burn Her?

2 Peter was written in response to some sort of movement from within church which claimed to be Christian, but denied important elements of the faith. They have a overly-realized eschatology and seem to deny the return of Jesus (1:16, 2:1-3, 14, 18). While denial of the return of Christ may seem like a small deviation from the apostolic teaching, it is in fact a denial of the core of Jesus as Messiah, even the Jewish Messiah. This in turn could imply that the opponents reject the standard approach of the apostles to preaching as the Jewish messiah and perhaps a softening on the use of the Hebrew Bible as scripture.

It is possible that 2:5-8 implies sexual immorality, especially since the comparisons to the fallen angels, the time of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah allude to sexual sins. Even the allusion to Balaam can be seen as a sexual sin since Balaam used prostitution to entice the men of Israel. While someone might suggest that this is just standard heretic bashing, it seems that there is some substance to the charge of immorality since it appears again in Jude and Revelation 2-3.

There are several suggested opponents:

Gnostics. This view is often tied to a later date for 2 Peter primarily because Gnosticism is not a factor until well into the second century. It is difficult to describe a Gnostic theology because it was such a broad movement encompassing many different (and sometimes contradictory) themes. With the exception of a radical realized eschatology and sexual sin, there is little on this list present in 2 Peter. Paul deal with a rejection of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 and there may be some hints at a realized eschatology in 2 Thess 2. Sexual immorality is too generic to be used to prove 2 Peter is dealing with Gnosticism. At best, Second Peter might be aimed at a sort of proto-gnostic doctrine.

Epicureans. Neyrey suggested that the opponents in 2 Peter are teachers who combine Epicurean philosophy with Christianity. Certainly Epicureanism was popular in the Greco-Roman world, and there are some points of the school of thought that resonate with Christianity But Epicureans were not exactly hedonists, so this may not be a complete answer.

Antinomians. Richard Bauckham suggested that the opponents in the letter represent some form of antinomianism (Jude, 2 Peter, 154-6). “Antinomian” refers to any theology which sees itself as separate from law. For the most part, this takes the shape of permitting (or even encouraging) sinful behavior.  These behaviors are not matters of indifference, but rather genuine sin as defined in scripture.  Because the believer is free in Christ, they are free to behave however they want, whether that is judged as immoral or not.

The reference in 2 Peter 3:16 to Paul is important – the opponents are “twisting” Paul’s teaching in order to make it say something that was not intended.  In my view, this is probably the best way to describe these opponents.  They are post-Pauline Christians who have pushed the Pauline doctrine of freedom in Christ well past what Paul did.

The opponents are therefore (in the words of Baukham), “theologically unaware Christians” who compromise with the world on ethical issues (156).   This is the point of application to modern deviations from orthodox Christian theology and behavior.  How do you deal with the person who claims to be a follower of Jesus yet behaves in a way which is clearly sinful?  Do we “shun the unbeliever”?  Should we accept them regardless of the sin?  How does 2 Peter help  with this problem?

Peter and Diaspora Jewish Christians

Like James, Peter’s first letter appears to reflect a Jewish Christianity. Surprisingly, this is not the majority opinion. In his brief notes on 1 Peter in the ESV Study Bible, Thomas Schriener comments that “Most scholars are convinced that the recipients of 1 Peter were primarily Gentiles” (ESVSB 2402). Carson and Moo (Introduction, 647) assume a mixed congregation. Raymond Brown (Introduction, 720) also sees the target audience of 1 Peter as “Gentiles who have been heavily catechized with a strong appreciation of Judaism.”

There are several indications that Peter is addressed to Jewish Christians congregations, which may include God-Fearing Gentile converts, but I would prefer to see these primarily Jewish Christian churches.

1 Peter 1:1 addresses “the elect” who are “scatted” (1:1, NIV). Both words are significant in that they point to a Jewish audience. The “Elect” is a common self-designation in Judaism. They are the nation which God chose (via Abraham, or in the prophets, when he rescued the nation out of Egypt). “Scattered” is the Greek diaspora, the Diaspora. This was a word used frequently to describe Jews loving outside of the Land, including those regions addressed in 1 Peter 1:1.

These elect believers are described as being in exile (ESV). This word is better translated as “sojourners,” or “strangers.” The Greek parepidamos is rare in the New Testament, occurring here, 2:11 and Heb 11:13 referring to the children of Abraham (LXX Gen 23:24, LXX PS 38:13, 39:12 ET). The synonym paroikos appears in Acts 7:6 with a similar sense.

If one sees the addressees of 1 Peter as Gentile, then these descriptions must be taken as metaphors. It is assumed that the church is New Israel, and so Christians like Peter picked up on language once applied to the Jewish Diaspora and re-apply it spiritually to the Church (as Schreiner does in ESVSB 2405). If Peter, like James, is writing a letter to other Diaspora Jews, then there is no reason to take the language referring to anything other than Jewish believers.

There are several other examples of letters to Jews in the Diaspora. In Jer 29:4-23 a letter is sent to Jews living in Babylon. Similarly, 2 Baruch 78-87 imagines a similar letter sent from Baruch after the fall of Jerusalem. The first chapter of 2 Maccabees is a letter sent to Alexandrian Jews. James should also be included in this list, as well as the book of Hebrews, which is addressed to Jews living in Rome in the mid first century, although the word Diaspora does not appear there. It is therefore Peter stands in a tradition of Jewish writers and leaders writing to Jews in the Hellenistic world. to encourage them in their belief and practice.

What difference might this make for reading 1 Peter?  If the book was written to Diaspora Jewish Christians,

Acts 4 – Peter Speaks to the High Priest

In Acts 4, Peter and John are arrested and brought before the high priest and some of his associates. In the previous two chapters Luke has described the ministry of Peter in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and just after that time.  He and the twelve seem to have gone regularly to the temple for prayer and worship. While they were there, they had opportunity to preach Jesus as the messiah and the gospel of the risen and ascended Jesus to groups of religiously minded Jews who were also in the Temple for prayer and worship.

Peter and John DoreIn both cases God does a miracle which demonstrates that the messianic age has begun (the descent of the Holy Spirit and the healing of a lame man), and in both cases Peter’s sermon is based solidly on messianic prophecies found in the Hebrew Bible.  Both sermons show that Jesus was the messiah, and that while he was crucified in ignorance, that ignorance will no longer be overlooked, judgment is coming. In each case they have great success with thousands of people believing that Jesus is the messiah and that he will return soon to establish his kingdom.  As Ben Witherington comments, it is in this chapter that we “see the beginnings of the power struggle for the hearts of the Jewish people.” (Acts, 189).

Peter is filled with the Holy Spirit as he addressed the meeting. That Peter is filled with the Holy Spirit is an indication that Luke sees this speech in the tradition of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible.  Luke is presenting Peter as giving a prophetic speech like Isaiah or Jeremiah, directly to the leadership of the Jewish people, calling even the High Priest to repent of the sin of killing the Messiah.

The words which follow are therefore a prophetic speech of condemnation, which amazes the listeners.  But it is not Peter’s skills as an orator which is important, but that the words come through the Holy Spirit.   In fact, Luke uses this phrase in a number of places in his gospel and in Acts before a prophetic speech.*  In each case, the target of the speech is Jewish; 9:17 refers to Paul receiving the Spirit, 11:24 refers to Barnabas as a man “full of the Spirit.”

Peter asks if the healing of a lame man is a good deed or not.  If this is an act of kindness, then it must come from God.  The obvious answer seems to be yes, it is a good deed from God.  If they agree it is a good deed from God, then they have a problem:  Peter states the man was healed by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, the one put to death by this very council only two months before!

The last line of his defense is a classic statement of the gospel: “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”  This is a strong statement of total dedication to Jesus Christ.  There is no possibility of religious pluralism, Jesus is in fact the only way, truth and life.  If humans (these people before Peter or any human) expect to be right with God, they can only do it through the name of Jesus. This is really an outgrowth of the belief that God raised Jesus from the dead and seated him on his right hand (Marshall, Acts, 100). The name of Jesus is now the highest authority possible, so that Paul can say in Phil 2 that at the name of Jesus every knew will bow.

There is a remarkable boldness in this statement, but from the modern perspective of religious pluralism.  The boldness is that Peter is saying this to a group of highly religious Jews who thought that they were the ones who held the right way to salvation. If you wanted to be right with God, you had to come to them and hear their interpretation of the Law and participate in worship only in the Temple, which they control.

Peter is saying that salvation now comes through Jesus, not the Temple.  Little wonder why these men were shocked at Peter’s boldness!

*See Luke 1:15, 1:41, 1:67; 4:1, Acts 2:4, 4:31, 6:3-5, 7:55, 9:17, 11:24, and 13:9.

1 Peter and the Diaspora

Like James, Peter’s first letter appears to reflect a Jewish Christianity.  Surprisingly, this is not the majority opinion.  In his brief notes on 1 Peter in the ESV Study Bible,  Thomas Schriener comments that  “Most scholars are convinced that the recipients of 1 Peter were primarily Gentiles” (ESVSB 2402).  Carson and Moo (Introduction, 647) assume a mixed congregation.  Raymond Brown (Introduction, 720) also sees the target audience of 1 Peter as “Gentiles who have been heavily catechized with a strong appreciation of Judaism.”

There are several indications that Peter is addressed to Jewish Christians congregations, which may include God-Fearing Gentile converts, but I would prefer to see these primarily Jewish Christian churches.

1 Peter 1:1 addresses “the elect” who are “scatted” (1:1, NIV).  Both words are significant in that they point to a Jewish audience.  The “Elect” is a common self-designation in Judaism.  They are the nation which God chose (via Abraham, or in the prophets, when he rescued the nation out of Egypt).   “Scattered” is the Greek diaspora, the Diaspora.  This was a word used frequently to describe Jews loving outside of the Land, including those regions addressed in 1 Peter 1:1.

These elect believers are described as being in exile (ESV).  This word is better translated as “sojourners,” or “strangers.” The Greek parepidamos is rare in the New Testament, occurring here, 2:11 and Heb 11:13 referring to the children of Abraham (LXX Gen 23:24, LXX PS 38:13, 39:12 ET).  The synonym paroikos appears in Acts 7:6 with a similar sense.

If one sees the addressees of 1 Peter as Gentile, then these descriptions must be taken as metaphors.  It is assumed that the church is New Israel, and so Christians like Peter picked up on language once applied to the Jewish Diaspora and re-apply it spiritually to the Church (as Schreiner does in ESVSB 2405).   If Peter, like James, is writing a letter to other Diaspora Jews, then there is no reason to take the language referring to anything other than Jewish believers.

There are several other examples of letters to Jews in the Diaspora.  In Jer 29:4-23 a letter is sent to Jews living in Babylon.  Similarly, 2 Baruch 78-87 imagines a similar letter sent from Baruch after the fall of Jerusalem.  The first chapter of 2 Maccabees is a letter sent to Alexandrian Jews.  James should also be included in this list, as well as the book of Hebrews, which is addressed to Jews living in Rome in the mid first century, although the word Diaspora does not appear there.  It is therefore Peter stands in a tradition of Jewish writers and leaders writing to Jews in the Hellenistic world to encourage them in their belief and practice.

I suppose that we can revisit the question of a few days ago – is there anything in the letter (or in history, tradition, etc.) that makes us think Peter actually visited congregations in these regions?  Since we know little of Peter’s ministry after Acts 12, it is hard to be dogmatic.

Peter and Corinth

Bill Heroman’s blog has a nice extension of the question I raised yesterday about Peter and Corinth.  He gives five good reasons to think that Peter did in fact go to Corinth, three of which are quite convincing.

Here’s his “thought experiment.”

Bill Says….

If Peter had innocently assumed all the gentile issues had really been fixed by Jerusalem’s letter (an assumption easier to maintain from Jerusalem, but one which Paul’s entire career proves is false) – then Peter probably went in unprepared; overconfident that all was well. The controversies were all taken care of. In that mindset, Peter casually mentions Jerusalem’s letter. At that point, most likely, someone in Corinth says, “What letter?”

Good question — what evidence do we have that Paul ever distributed the letter from the Apostolic council?  He never refers to it in his letters, even if there is good reason that he might.  Perhaps Peter went to Corinth in order to “check out” the Pauline mission to Gentiles as he did with Philip’s mission in Antioch, or even the diaspora situation in Antioch. (I think Barnabas went first for that reason, but quickly gave way to Paul).  This is (for me) the best explanation for Peter’s presence in Corinth.