Virtue as a Theme of 2 Peter (in 2 Peter)
Home A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Abbreviations Glossary
We have considered the relative abundance of ethical language and categories employed in the epistle. The writer is burdened that his readers cultivate an ethos which “offers proof” (1:11) of a virtuous lifestyle. This proof is both to the one who has provided abundant resources for life and godliness (1:3–4, 11) and to the moral skeptic (3:3–7). What sort of persons should you be in holy conduct and piety? (3:11). That is the ringing question the readers, in the end, are left to ponder.
Tracing the theme of the moral life throughout the letter helps us see the unity of 2 Peter, and consequently, the author’s purpose in writing. Following the greeting, which accentuates received righteousness and grace, a catalog of virtues (1:5–7) is introduced. This list uses terms that also appear in philosophic and pagan religious formulations. Significantly, the language of the mysteries surfaces again in 1:16, where the writer speaks of himself as epoptēs, an eyewitness of the Transfiguration, while we were on the holy mountain. It is noteworthy that in spite of three Synoptic narratives recording the Transfiguration, 2 Peter 1:16 is the only NT appearance of the word epoptēs. The reason may lie in the fact that the term is used in a technical sense for the highest degree of enlightenment in the Eleusinian mysteries. If 2 Peter is addressed to an audience in Asia Minor, use of the term epoptēs may also have a strategic rhetorical effect.
The catalog of virtues itself (1:5–7), meant to outline the contours of Christian life and godliness (1:3), includes several commonly cited features that appear in standard Stoic virtue lists and are adapted to the Christian tradition of exhortation. Although Stoic terms are used, they serve a distinctly Christian purpose, and their content is to be understood in a framework of Christian faith. The letter’s greeting clarifies and highlights grace, an acute departure from the Stoic understanding of fate and ultimate things. Both Stoic and Christian moral traditions urge styles of moral progress. The latter, however, are less rigid and based on divine grace and self-discipline, rather than on human achievement alone.
The writer claims that if believers possess these virtues (1:8–9), they will prevent ineffective and unfruitful living. If they lack the virtues, however, they are blind and neglecting truth (1:9). At issue is moral responsibility.
The language of exhortation presses to the fore throughout 2 Peter 1: for this reason (1:5); if these things are yours (1:8); anyone lacking these things (1:9); if you do these things (1:10); for this reason I intend to remind you, even though you know them already and are established in the truth that has come to you (1:12); I think it right to stir you up (1:13); recall these things (1:15).
Second Peter 1 reflects a markedly Gentile social environment in which the Christian community finds itself. The rhetorical effect of this ethical terminology, easily lost on the modern reader, would have been unmistakable to its intended audience. Theirs is not a faith that is void of the moral life. Instead, the distinctly Christian ethic is to shine forth in bold contrast to surrounding pagan culture.
Tragically, in the view of the author, some have disregarded the divine promises (1:4; implied in 1:9, 12, 15). As a result of accommodation to the world, they have forgotten their cleansing from past sins (1:9). These are to confirm their election through a robust Christian ethic (1:10). Worse yet, some are even aggressively announcing that there is no moral authority to which they must give account (2:1; 3:3–5).
Second Peter features the use of moral types and graphic sketches of the opponents. The defining features of the pastoral problem, outlined in 2:10b–18 immediately following examples from the past, are licentiousness [twice], defiling passion, squalor, moral depravity, corruption, seduction, and lawlessness. The examples of 2:4–10a are united by the moral depths to which the people sank. They are relevant to the present, given the description of the reprobates who appear to be reveling in a like condition (2:13).
The Noah and Balaam typology indicate that not doctrinal strife so much as ethical lapse is the focus of the writer’s polemic. This combines with two further clues (2:19; 2:20–22) as to the source of the pastoral problem. The opponents are antinomian in character (rejecting moral standards) and boast of their freedom from moral constraints. In casting off divine moral authority, these individuals actually become slaves (2:19) to their own lusts (2:18) and pleasure (2:13).
The same combination (claiming to be free but really enslaved) was well-known in Hellenistic ethics. Christians, in looking back on their preconversion state, see even greater meaning in this combination than the Greek moralist. Second Peter 2:19, as 2:20–22, describes moral degeneration that characterizes pagan lifestyle, a decidedly pre-Christian condition. The implication for the readers, rhetorically speaking, is that even moral pagans are better off than some in the community who have claimed to be believers.
As already noted, traditional commentary has read 2 Peter 3 through the lens of an eschatological framework, normally interpreting this material to be evidence of doctrinal deformation in need of adjustment. Viewed structurally, 3:1–13 consists of the following components: reminder terminology, a caricature of the hardened moral skeptic, the declaration that moral accountability is beyond dispute, and pastoral remarks concerning theodicy (the ways of God in dealing with people).
Viewed theologically, the opponents are not questioning the timing of the parousia (second coming of Christ); instead, they deny that it is even coming at all. They reject accountability and coming judgment. The writer vigorously asserts that Christ is surely coming. The day of moral reckoning and death, as aptly stated by Mayor (211), removes the skeptic from the realm of illusion and into the sphere of reality. On this basis, hortatory language can be inserted once more, to warn the saints. The writer thus concludes, I am arousing you by way of reminder; … what sort of people should you be? (3:11). Therefore, … make every effort … (3:14).
The affirmation of cosmic renewal in 3:13 mirrors interplay of pagan and Judeo-Christian cosmology, behind which stands a fundamental question: What is the relationship of human beings to matter? Behind this question stands an even more fundamental question: What is the relationship of moral human beings to matter? Yet in the strictest sense, cosmology and eschatology are not being showcased. Instead, the author’s purpose is to develop a response to a caricature of the moral skeptic (3:4). Because the opponents are championing moral self-determination (2:1–2; [implicit in 2:4–10a;] 2:13, 15, 18–19), they must justify their ethical departure. In this context, the caricature in 3:3–5 presents the moral question from the standpoint of someone on the outside.
What’s more, they deliberately ignore past examples of divine retribution (2:5–6), which typologically point to the ultimate day of moral reckoning (3:7). The occurrence twice in chapter 3 of the verb heuriskō, “to find out” (3:10, 14), is significant. In 3:10, the text reads: and the earth and all deeds done on it will be revealed. The point of the teaching is not so much to adjust theology; instead, it is to stress that judgment will be the expression of a judicial process and a moral reckoning.
A unitary reading of 2 Peter brings us to an important determination. What plagues the community hearing this epistle are ethical lapse and apostasy, and not the doctrinal emphasis (on the delay of the parousia) presupposed by “early Catholic” proponents. Such apostasy appears already before the second century. The combined ingredients of literary style and hortatory language, Stoic and mystic terms, the catalog of virtues, moral typology, and caricatures of the adversaries—these all add up to a cultural setting permeated by Hellenistic influence. Moral corruption, licentiousness, antinomianism, and irreverence vex the church set within a pluralistic society. For this reason, moral skepticism rather than dissatisfaction with orthodoxy (against Kelly: 305) is the object of the author’s highly stylized polemic.
Given the community’s need for orthopraxy or right living, which in turn informs the author’s literary strategy, the introductory material in 2 Peter may be understood as presenting a window into the social location of the audience. Throughout the epistle, the writer is exposing a fundamental denial of moral self-responsibility. In its advanced stages, this denial has resulted in the apostasy of certain members of the community. It is true that “theological justification” (heresy) necessarily accompanies any departure from the faith. Yet apostasy—an ethical departure from the moral truth of Christian revelation—is the scourge of this community. The present situation calls for a roundly prophetic and eminently pastoral word of exhortation. This exhortation is aimed foremost at enunciating the ethical foundations of the Christian faith.
| —J. Daryl Charles |
