The Christology of the Second Letter of Peter

The following essay sets forth in systematic form the Christology expressed in the Second Letter of Peter. Despite the relative neglect of 2 Peter in New Testament scholarship, there have been several recent discussions of its theology¹. However, none discusses 2 Peter's Christology at any length; all focus on its ethics and eschatology. These are clearly the main concerns of 2 Peter. Nevertheless, 2 Peter's presentation of Christ is also significant².

1. Jesus as God

In the first verse of the letter, the author of 2 Peter calls Jesus God. He says that the readers have received faith by the justice tou= qeou= h(mw=n kai_ swth=roj 'Ihsou= Xristou=. Because there is only one article, the phrase probably refers to Jesus as both God and savior³. Grammatically parallel phrases occur in 2 Pet 1,11; 2,20; 3,18, and unambiguously designate Jesus as both lord and savior⁴.

This is the only place where 2 Peter explicitly calls Jesus God. However, other things 2 Peter says about Jesus more or less clearly imply this same understanding. One of the clearest instances is 1,3 where the author of 2 Peter speaks of th=j qei/aj duna/mewj au)tou=, and the antecedent of au)tou= is probably Jesus, the last named substantive (in v. 2)⁵. Because the author of 2 Peter sees Jesus as God, he also believes that Jesus possesses divine power⁶. Another clear instance is 1,4 where the author of 2 Peter says that those he addresses are destined to become qei/aj koinwnoi_ fu/sewj. If divinity is the destiny of those who follow Jesus, Jesus himself is surely divine.

The view that Jesus is divine is probably also implied by 2 Peter's use of 'Lord' as a title both for Jesus and for God. In itself 'Lord' does not imply divinity. Use of this title indicates a relationship between the one who uses the title, and the one to whom it is applied. Calling someone 'Lord' indicates recognition of that person as a superior to whom one gives respect, and even obedience. 'Lord' was widely used as a title for God, but also as a title for any other superior⁷. Nevertheless, 2 Peter's use of the title both for Jesus and for God suggests that they are Lord in the same sense of the word, as does the ambiguity of some of 2 Peter's uses of the title; at times it is not clear whether the title refers to Jesus or to God.

2 Peter uses the title 'Lord' 14 times. Seven times Jesus is explicitly said to be the Lord (1,2.8.11.14.16; 2,20; 3,18). In addition, the Lord and savior in 3,2 is very likely to be Jesus; elsewhere in 2 Peter Jesus is explicitly said to be the Lord and savior (1,11; 2,20; 3,18) or God and savior (1,1). The remaining six occurrences of 'Lord' probably refer to God.

In 2 Pet 2,9 'Lord' is the subject of the apodosis of the long conditional sentence that begins in 2,4. The subject of the protasis is 'God'. It would be most natural to understand 'Lord' as another name for 'God' in this sentence. Thus the sentence would say that if God did not spare the sinful angels, etc., then God knows how to punish and save. It is possible that 'Lord' refers to Jesus here, and the sentence says that if God did not spare the sinful angels, etc., then Jesus knows how to punish and save. However, this would be comprehensible only if 'Lord' were so strongly connected with Jesus, that the title alone meant Jesus; this does not seem to be true for 2 Peter. 2,10 says that those whom the Lord will punish especially include those who despise kurio/thtoj. This refers back to 'Lord' in v. 9 and takes its meaning from that.

In 2 Pet 2,11 the meaning of 'Lord' is ambiguous. I will suggest below that the slander of the glorious ones mentioned in 2,10 refers to the false teachers' slander of God and Jesus. 2 Pet 2,11 contrasts this behavior with that of the angels. Though greater in might and power than the false teachers, the angels do not bring against them a slanderous judgment from the Lord. If it refers to the glorious ones, 'Lord' might mean either God or Jesus. Or it may refer back to kurio/thtoj in v. 10. If so, it most likely refers to God.

2 Pet 3,8 immediately follows a reference to the present heavens and earth's being treasured up for fire by the word of God (3,7). This makes it likely that 'Lord' in 3,8 refers to God. Likewise, since 3,8 quotes Ps 90,4, it would be most natural to understand 'Lord' as a reference to God. However, it is possible that the author of 2 Peter sees this as a passage that refers to the Lord Jesus. 'Lord' in 3,9 and 15 must refer to the same person as 'Lord' in 3,8. 3,9 says that the Lord is not slow about the promise, but is patient; 3,15 refers again to the patience of the Lord.

Finally, 2 Pet 3,10 refers to the day of the Lord. The parallel with 'day of God' in 3,12 suggests that 'Lord' here means God. On the other hand, 3,10 quotes 1 Thess 5,2 where 'day of the Lord' is probably understood as the day of the Lord Jesus.

If these six occurrences of 'Lord' refer to God, then 2 Peter uses 'Lord' about half of the time to mean Jesus, and the other half to mean God. This suggests that 2 Peter sees God and Jesus as the same kind of Lord. In addition, we have just seen that the occurrences of 'Lord' that probably refer to God are themselves ambiguous, and might be seen as referring to Jesus. This also indicates that God and Jesus are Lord in the same sense of the word in 2 Peter.

In 2 Pet 1,11 the author refers to the eternal kingdom of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. This suggests that, as Lord, Jesus is an eternal king, like God. In 1,14 the author says that our Lord Jesus Christ has revealed to him that he will die soon. This probably refers to John 21,18-19⁸ and thus to a revelation given by Jesus to Peter before Jesus' definitive return to the Father. It might also refer to a revelation subsequent to that⁹. If so, the verse implies that Jesus continues to guide his followers from heaven, again like God.

In 2 Pet 1,16 the author of 2 Peter says that he and others were eyewitnesses (e)po/ptai) of Jesus' majesty. Since this term was used to designate the highest level of initiate into the Eleusinian mysteries, it implies that the vision of Jesus transfigured was comparable to that. And if the highest level of initiation involved a vision of the goddess¹⁰, the word may also suggest that the transfiguration was a vision of Jesus' divinity.

The transfiguration was an occasion on which God, the megaloprepou=j do/chj, gave timh_n kai_ do/can to Jesus. This suggests that Jesus' glory is the same as God's and that Jesus is divine. Thus in 3,18 the author of 2 Peter praises Jesus with the kind of doxology usually reserved for God. According to Bauckham, the phrase do/ch| kai_ a)reth=| in 1,3 is synonymous with divine power¹¹.

In 2 Pet 2,10, using language borrowed from the Letter of Jude, the author criticizes the false teachers for slandering the do/caj. This is usually understood to refer to church¹² or secular¹³ leaders or to angels, either good¹⁴ or evil¹⁵. These interpretations may be too much influenced by Jude's use of the word. In the context of 2 Peter it is most likely that the do/caj are God and Jesus, since they are the ones said in 2 Peter to have glory — God in 1,17; Jesus in 1,3.17; and 3,18. The false teachers' slander of God and Jesus is their skepticism about Jesus' return and all that will accompany it.

The description of Jesus in 2,11 as the master who has purchased his followers might allude to the practice of sacral manumission at Delphi¹⁶. This involved sale of slaves to a god in order to free them. If this is what the author of 2 Peter has in mind, he thinks of those purchased by Jesus as effectively freed, and only nominally transferred to another owner. This would be another instance of 2 Peter's presentation of Jesus as divine.

2. Jesus as distinct from God

Although 2 Peter calls Jesus God and consistently presents him as divine, God and Jesus are clearly distinguished in 2 Peter. They are first distinguished from one another in 1,2, where the author wishes that peace might be multiplied for the readers by the knowledge of both God and Jesus our Lord. Because this phrase closely follows and parallels the phrase in 1,1 that refers to Jesus as God, it is sometimes used to argue that Jesus is not being called God in 1,1¹⁷. However, we see a similar alternation between identifying Jesus with, and distinguishing him from, God in the first verses of the gospel according to John. In John 1,1-2 the author first says that the Word was with God, then that the Word was God, then (again) that the Word was with God¹⁸. It seems most likely that both 2 Peter and John consciously intend to identify Jesus with God and to distinguish him from God.

In addition to the two occurrences of 'God' in 1,1-2, 2 Peter uses the word five other times. These five uses of 'God' present the following picture of God:
(1) there were of old heavens and earth created by the word of God (3,5). 2 Peter does not say explicitly that God created the present heavens and earth, but this can probably be assumed;
(2) God did not spare the angels who sinned, but sent them to hell (2,4);
(3) God did not spare the ancient world (cf. 3,6), but preserved Noah (2,5);
(4) God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to ashes and establishing them as a sign of what will happen to the ungodly (2,6), but saved Lot (2,7-8);
(5) the prophets were men who spoke from God (1,21);
(6) God the father gave Jesus honor and glory when a voice was conveyed to him by the majestic glory, 'This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased' (1,17);
(7) the present heavens and earth have been treasured up by the word of God for fire on the day of judgment (3,7); this is also the day of God (3,12).

The six occurrences of 'Lord' that probably refer to God add the following items to the depiction of God in 2 Peter:

(8) God knows how to save the pious and punish the wicked (2,9), a general conclusion from the specific cases mentioned in 2,4-8;
(9) time is different for God than for humans (3,8);
(10) God is not slow to keep the promise of Jesus' return and all that will accompany it, but is patient, wanting all to repent (3,9.15).

God and Jesus are most explicitly distinguished in item 6. However, items 1-5, 8-9 describe God in terms drawn from the Hebrew scriptures. This is a figure distinct from Jesus unless the author of 2 Peter thinks Jesus is the God revealed by the Hebrew scriptures. Nothing suggests this.

God's creation of the first heavens and earth by means of the word probably refers to the depiction of creation in Genesis 1 as produced by God's speech, which is also summed up as by the word in Ps 33,6 ¹⁹. God created the first heavens and earth e)c u#datoj kai_ di' u#datoj. This refers to Gen 1,2.6-9 and indicates that God created by first separating the primeval waters with the dome of the heavens and then gathering them together below the heavens so that earth might appear²⁰.

God's punishment of the sinful angels refers to Gen 6,1-4, but presumes an understanding of it that is only explicit in extra-biblical literature. God's destruction of the ancient world and preservation of Noah are drawn from Gen 6,5–8,19. If di' w|n in 2 Pet 3,6 refers to water and the word of God²¹, then God destroyed the first heavens and earth by means of both water and the word. The former means that God ceased to restrain the primeval waters, and creation was undone (cf. Gen 7,11).

God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and salvation of Lot come from Gen 19,1-29. Prophets sent by God appear very frequently in the Bible. We have already noted that the different meaning of time for God than for humans derives from Ps 90,4.

Although 2 Peter's presentation of God is clearly drawn from the Hebrew scriptures, the author does not say anything about God's election of, and subsequent dealings with, Israel. 2 Peter presents God as God of the whole world and has little to say about the relationship of God to Israel. This probably indicates that the author writes for Gentiles, for whom God's dealing with people in general is more meaningful than is God's involvement with Israel.

It is noteworthy that 2 Peter often avoids making 'God' the subject of sentences. The main exception to this is 2,4-8, where the author speaks about God's punishment of sinners and salvation of the righteous. Elsewhere the author is respectfully indirect, making 'God' the object of a preposition to indicate that God is the source of something (1,17.21), or putting 'God' in the genitive case (1,2; 3,12). The author also refers to God by speaking of the majestic glory (1,17) and the word of God (3,5).

Even more striking is the emphasis on the word of God in 2 Peter's references to God. This is explicit in the statements, mentioned above, that God created the first heavens and earth by the word, then destroyed them through the word, and has treasured up the present heavens and earth for destruction by the same word²². It is implicit in the statement that prophets spoke from God, i.e., they spoke the word of God, and in the story of the transfiguration, when God spoke words concerning Jesus. It may even be implicit in the examples of God's saving the pious and punishing the wicked that are cited in 2,4-8, if they are seen as examples of prophecy that point to the end of the world.

3. Jesus and God

2 Peter sees Jesus as God, yet distinct from God. How can this be? Despite the emphasis on the word of God noted above, the author of 2 Peter does not explain the relationship between Jesus and God by saying that Jesus is the Word of God. The gospel of John first proposed this explanation, and it has been very important in subsequent Christian theology. However, 2 Peter does not seem to identify Jesus and the word of God.

2 Peter explains the relationship between Jesus and God by saying that Jesus is the Son of God. This occurs in 1,16-18, 2 Peter's account of the transfiguration. In v. 16 the author says that he did not make known to the readers the du/namin kai_ parousi/an of Jesus by following myths, but as a result of having been an eyewitness of Jesus' majesty. In v. 17 he goes on to say that Jesus received timh_n kai_ do/can from God the Father and that a voice was conveyed to him from the megaloprepou=j do/chj saying, 'This is my son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased'.

Jesus' reception of timh_n kai_ do/can from God probably refers to his being transfigured, as is narrated in the accounts of the transfiguration in the synoptic gospels (Mark 9,2-8 and parallels)²³. The voice identifies Jesus as the beloved son of God the Father.

In the Hebrew scriptures 'son of God' does not imply a special ontological relationship with God. 'Son of' is an idiom in Semitic languages that expresses a range of relationships in addition to that of biological descent. 'Son of God' indicates a relationship with God shared by many people, including the people of Israel as a whole, the king of Israel and the Messiah. However, in the Hellenistic world, 'son of God' designated divinities who were seen as literal offspring of the gods²⁴.

Since 2 Peter regards Jesus as God, it is very likely that 2 Peter understands the phrase on Hellenistic lines. Bauckham argues persuasively that the reference to the 'holy mountain' in v. 18 indicates that the author sees the words of v. 17 as an allusion to Ps 2,7²⁵. Nevertheless, he may understand them in a Hellenistic sense. This would be consistent with the presentation of Jesus as God, yet distinct from God described above. Jesus is God in the sense that he was revealed to be son of God at his transfiguration. He is distinct from God because he is the son, not God himself.

4. The background and foreground of 2 Peter's Christology

Jesus is the son of God the father. If the author of 2 Peter understands this as an ontological relationship, it is easy to understand why he calls Jesus God and sees Jesus as having divine power, sharing divine nature, possessing God's glory. It is also easy to see why both Jesus and God are properly called Lord. What is not easy to understand is why the author of 2 Peter does not think there are two Gods.

Calling Jesus God would most naturally mean either that he is identical with God, or that there are two Gods. Because early Christians did not wish to assert either of these things, use of the title 'God' for Jesus is rare in the New Testament, though more common in post-New Testament Christian literature²⁶. Jesus is clearly called God only in John 1,1; 20,28 and Heb 1,8, though there are several other passages (in addition to 2 Pet 1,1) that are probably to be interpreted this way²⁷. The adjective qei/oj is used elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts 17,29, where it refers to God.

Jesus is frequently called son of God in the New Testament. In the synoptic gospels the title is likely to be used as it is in the Hebrew scriptures. In the gospel and letters of John and the letter to the Hebrews, the title is likely to have a more Hellenistic sense, as I have argued it does in 2 Peter. Like 2 Peter, these writings also call Jesus God. The meaning of the title in the letters of Paul is uncertain²⁸.

The use of 'God' and related titles for Jesus in 2 Peter and elsewhere in the New Testament, probably reflects theological developments among Jews influenced by Hellenistic culture. In its early history the people of Israel seem to have given exclusive allegiance to one God without denying the existence of others. Because of this the Hebrew Bible often refers to gods alongside the God of Israel (e.g., Exod 2,2-3; Ps 82,1.6) and even occasionally uses 'God' as a title for human beings²⁹. For example, Moses is called god (Myhl)) in Exod 7,1; cf. 4,16, and the king is called god in Ps 45,6 (Myhl)) and Isa 9,6 (l)). From at least the sixth century BCE onward Israel was monotheistic in the strict sense, denying the existence of other gods.

Greco-Roman religion was polytheistic, recognizing the existence of many gods, and rather readily speaking of human beings, especially rulers, as gods³⁰. In contact with this culture, Hellenistic Jews adopted this usage to some extent, in part reviving the similar language of the Bible³¹. Philo of Alexandria once refers to God as supreme father of gods and humans (De spec. leg. 2.165). He distinguishes between God and God's two highest powers, the creative and the kingly³². God is most properly called the one who is (o( w!n), while the creative power is called God and the kingly power is called Lord³³. Standing between God and these two powers is the Word of God (De cher. 28; De fuga 95). In Quest. in Gen. 2.62 Philo calls the Word a second God. Depending on Exod 7,1, Philo often refers to Moses as God³⁴. At one point Philo observes that the passage does not mean that Moses actually was God (Quod det. 161-162; cf. also Quod omnis prob. 43). However, at another point he simply says that Moses was named God (De vita Mosis 1.158)³⁵.

Even more strikingly Hellenistic Jews made abundant use of qei/oj³⁶. In view of Philo's references to Moses as God, it is not surprising that he also calls Moses divine. For example, in Quest. in Ex. 2.29 Philo says that when Moses, the prophetic mind, becomes divinely inspired and led by God, he becomes kin to God and truly divine³⁷. Philo also speaks of the high priest as divine³⁸. Although Philo most often uses divine power as a synonym for God³⁹, in De vita Mosis 1.94 he implies that Aaron exercised divine power in performing signs before Pharoah. Philo also uses divine nature as a synonym for God (De Abr. 144). However, he speaks of the planets as sharing divine nature (De dec. 104) and refers to the divine natures in heaven (De conf. ling. 154). And in De post. Caini 28 he says that God shares his own nature with the one who is eager, i.e., in the first instance Moses⁴⁰.

Josephus refers to Moses as a divine man in Ant. 3.180. Josephus uses divine power as a synonym for God⁴¹, but also speaks of the prophet Elisha as having divine power in Ant. 9.183. Josephus also uses divine nature as a synonym for God in Ant. 8.107⁴².

Hellenistic Jews also made abundant use of the title son of God. In part this was simply a continuation of the usage of the Hebrew Bible. However, they also used son of God in a more Hellenistic sense. For example, Philo calls the Word of God God's firstborn son (De agr. 51) or simply God's firstborn (De conf. ling. 146; De somniis 1.215).

This combination of monotheism with a broad understanding of divinity to encompass not only God in the strictest sense, but also others, even human beings, closely related to God, forms the background for early Christian use of 'God' and related titles for Jesus.

In One God, One Lord Larry Hurtado argues that there was no erosion of monotheism among Hellenistic Jews because none of the divine agents about whom they spoke was worshipped alongside God⁴³. Early Christian reflection on the risen and exalted Jesus viewed him as a divine agent, but introduced the novel idea that Jesus should share the devotion and cultic attention usually reserved for God. This correctly identifies the starting point for the view that Jesus is divine, but does not in itself fully account for the language we find in 2 Peter and elsewhere, i.e., calling Jesus God and speaking of his divine power. In order to do this, we must reckon with the influence of Greek thought on Jewish monotheism.

Richard Bauckham argues that the monotheism of Second Temple Judaism was a matter of believing in one God, identified by several features, and of offering worship to that God alone. Bauckham groups the features that identify God into two categories, those identifying God in relationship to Israel and those identifying God in relationship to all reality. The latter are that God is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. Bauckham then argues that there was no ambiguity about this monotheism. Whatever did not share the identifying features of God and receive the worship accorded to God was not God; whatever did share these features and receive this worship was God. However, this monotheism was not simple but allowed for 'real distinction within the unique identity of the one God'⁴⁴.

Bauckham presents this as an alternative to the view that intermediary figures blurred the boundary between God and all other reality. However, Bauckham's perspective could also be seen as explaining how such blurring occurred. If an intermediary figure gradually shared the identifying features of God and was worshipped along with God, the figure would be seen as sharing the identity of God.

Perhaps we can understand this development in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity as follows. When Jewish monotheists encountered Hellenistic polytheism, they began to use the word 'god' in two different ways. They continued to use 'god' as a proper noun to refer to the one God who revealed himself in the Hebrew scriptures. However, they also began to use 'god' occasionally as polytheists did, as a common noun that designated any one of a class of beings. This usage was simply part of the Greek language. When Jews and early Christians used 'god' in this second sense, they were not identifying this 'god' with the God who revealed himself in the Bible, nor were they seriously affirming the existence of more than one god. Rather they were locating this 'god' in the category of the divine⁴⁵. We do something similar when we speak of the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece or modern India. These two uses of 'god' were logically incompatible. Eventually Jews eliminated this inconsistency by abandoning the second use of 'god', and Christians did so by developing the doctrine of the Trinity.

The existence of this second significance of 'god' among Hellenistic Jews and early Christians is confirmed by Justin Martyr's, Dialogue with Trypho. In sections 55-62, 126-129 Justin argues that the Bible speaks of another god besides the Maker of all things (55). In the course of his argument he appeals in passing to Ps 45,6-7 (56). Trypho resists the argument at first, but is eventually persuaded to accept it rather easily.

In making this argument, Justin seems little concerned to avoid affirming the existence of more than one god. He rejects the gods of the Greco-Roman world (Apology 6, 25) but not because there is only one god. Justin's main concern was to show that Jesus was God. The problem this presented for monotheism was not foremost in his mind, perhaps because, as a Gentile, polytheism seemed natural to him. However, Justin emphasizes the unity between Jesus and the Maker of all things by saying that Jesus is the son of God and Word of God. Although Jesus and the Father are numerically distinct, they are not separate, just as reason and speech are not separate⁴⁶.

Using similar terms Tertullian explained the relationship between Jesus and the Father in a way eventually adopted by the whole church. In Apology 21 he says that the Word, who became flesh in Jesus, proceeded from God and was generated by God, and so is called the Son of God, but is called God because of unity of substance with God. The relationship of God and the Word is like that of the sun and a ray of light going forth from it, no division of substance, but merely an extension⁴⁷. Tertullian used this account of the relationship between Jesus and God to refute the charge that he believed in two Gods in Praxeas 13. See also Novatian, On the Trinity 30-31.

There is no indication that the author of 2 Peter has anything like this in mind. He has probably not reflected systematically on the relationship between God and Jesus. He speaks of Jesus as God, yet regards Jesus as distinct from God and does not seem to think there is more than one God. When he speaks of the Lord, it might mean either God or Jesus, and sometimes it is not clear which. He stands near the beginning of early Christian use of 'god' in two senses. Most of the time he uses 'god' as a proper noun designating the one who revealed himself in the Hebrew Bible. But he can also call Jesus 'god' in a more general sense, meaning that he belongs to the category of the divine. However, he does not mean either that Jesus is the God who revealed himself in the Hebrew Bible, or that there is more than one God.

SUMMARY

The Christology of 2 Peter is very exalted. The author calls Jesus God and speaks of his divine power. He uses the title 'Lord' both for Jesus and for God; in the latter cases there is usually some ambiguity about which of them is meant. However, the author presents God as a person distinct from Jesus, and there is no suggestion that the author would affirm the existence of two Gods. The transfiguration revealed Jesus as the son of God. It may be understood as an epiphany of the divine Jesus. It was a moment when Jesus received glory from God, in virtue of which he is praised like God.
2 Peter reflects a stage in early Christian thinking when the word 'god' was used in two ways. Usually it was a proper noun that designated the one who revealed himself in the Hebrew scriptures. Occasionally it was used as a common noun that designated those who belonged to the category of the divine. In this way 2 Peter can call Jesus God without either identifying Jesus with God or seriously affirming the existence of two Gods. Eventually these uses were related in the doctrine of the Trinity.

NOTES

¹ E. Kдsemann, "An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology" in his Essays on New Testament Themes (SBT 41; Naperville 1964 [orig. publ.: 1952]) 169-195; T. Fornberg, An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society. A Study of 2 Peter (CBNT; Lund 1977); R.J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Word Biblical Themes; Dallas 1990) 41-107; J.D. Charles, Virtue Amidst Vice. The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1 (JSNTSS 150; Sheffield 1997). Kдsemann is critical of 2 Peter, while Fornberg and Bauckham are more appreciative of it. The present essay is of the appreciative kind.

² In the terms recently proposed by V.K. Robbins, this essay delineates part of the sacred texture of 2 Peter. See V.K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts. A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge 1996) 120-131.

³ R.E. Brown, Jesus God and Man (London 1968) 22; id., An Introduction to New Testament Christology (New York 1994) 184; C. Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; New York 1901) 250-252; B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (AB 37; Garden City 1964) 150; J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (HNTC; New York – Evanston 1969) 297-298; Fornberg, Early Church, 142; R.J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco 1983) 168-169; M.J. Harris, Jesus as God. The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids 1992) 229-238. Harris lists others who hold this view, as well as those who disagree with it, on p. 238. The former is by far the majority view.

⁴ Against this it might be argued that a grammatically parallel phrase (i.e., article–noun–possessive pronoun–kai/–noun–noun–noun) in 2 Thess 1,12 is to be interpreted as referring to God and Jesus as distinct from one another (Brown, Jesus God and Man, 15-16; id., New Testament Christology, 180; Harris, Jesus as God, 265-266). However, in this verse the construction pairs the nouns 'God' and 'Lord', in that order. These are not as easily understood as applying to one person as either 'God' and 'savior' or 'Lord' and 'savior'. Note however, the use of the titles 'Lord' and 'God' (reversing the order of 2 Thess 1,12) for a single person in John 20,28; Suetonius, Domit. 13.2.

⁵ So Fornberg, Early Church, 144; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 177. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 300, disagrees.

⁶ Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, 253. 2 Pet 1,16 implies that Jesus' power was revealed at the transfiguration and that it is connected with his parousi/a.

⁷ On this see O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia 1963) 195-203; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology. Their History in Early Christianity (London 1969) 68-73.

⁸ Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, 264; Reicke, James, Peter and Jude, 155; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 200-201; J.H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (AB 37C; New York 1993) 167.

⁹ Kelly, Peter and Jude, 313-314.

¹⁰ Fornberg, Early Church, 123.

¹¹ Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 179.

¹² Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, 279-280.

¹³ Reicke, James, Peter and Jude, 167.

¹⁴ Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 213-214.

¹⁵ Kelly, Peter and Jude, 337; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 261.

¹⁶ Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 191-192. According to D.B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation. The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven – London 1990) xvi, however, this thesis, first proposed by Deissmann, is now generally rejected because of differences in terminology between the inscriptions that speak of sacral manumission and the New Testament.

¹⁷ Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 148.

¹⁸ Harris, Jesus as God, 275. Another parallel to the way 2 Peter both identifies Jesus with, and distinguishes him from, God may be seen in 2 Peter's one reference to the Holy Spirit. In 2 Pet 1,21 the author says that in prophecy, 'moved by the Holy Spirit men spoke from God'. Prophecy is said to derive both from the Holy Spirit and from God. This suggests an identity between the two, but the use of two different names suggests that they are distinct.

¹⁹ Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 298.

²⁰ Kelly, Peter and Jude, 358-359; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 297.

²¹ Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, 293-294; Kelly, Peter and Jude, 359-360; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 298.

²² Reicke, James, Peter and Jude, 175.

²³ Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, 267; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 217-218. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 319 suggests that only the reception of do/can refers to the transfiguration.

²⁴ On this see Cullmann, Christology, 271-275; Hahn, Titles, 279-284; M. Hengel, The Son of God. The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia 1976) 21-56; F. Young, "Two Roots or a Tangled Mass", The Myth of God Incarnate (ed. J. Hick) (London 1977) 87-121; J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making. A New Testament Inquiry in the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Philadelphia 1980) 13-22, esp. 18-19.

²⁵ Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 219-221.

²⁶ See early examples in Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrn. 1.1; Eph. 1.1; 7.2; 15.3; 19.3. Cf. also Pliny's statement that early Christians chant in honor of Christ as if to God (Ep. 10.96.7).

²⁷ On this see Cullmann, Christology, 306-314; Brown, Jesus God and Man, 1-38; id., New Testament Christology, 171-195; Harris, Jesus as God. Brown considers this interpretation probable in the case of the following passages: John 1,18; Titus 2,13; Rom 9,5; 1 John 5,20.

²⁸ See Cullmann, Christology, 290-305; Dunn, Christology, 33-60.

²⁹ Harris, Jesus as God, 22-26.

³⁰ Harris, Jesus as God, 27-28. Note, for example, recognition of Herod Agrippa as god in Acts 12,22; Josephus, Ant. 19.345, 347.

³¹ On this see C.R. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism. A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology (SBLDS 40; Missoula 1977). Holladay argues that Hellenistic Jews were very restrained with regard to divinizing human beings. On use of 'God' as a title by Hellenistic Gentiles and Jews see Dunn, Christology, 16-17.

³² Philo of Alexandria, De cher. 27-28; De sacrif. 59; De fuga 95. A.F. Segal discusses this and other themes in Philo suggesting that there were two Gods in Two Powers in Heaven. Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden 1977) 159-181.

³³ Philo of Alexandria, De plant. 86-87; Quis rerum div. heres 166; De Abr. 121; 124-125; De vita Mosis 2.99; Quest. in Gen. 2.51; 4.2; Quest. in Ex. 2.62. In De conf. ling. 137; De mut. nom. 29, Philo mentions only that the creative power is called God.

³⁴ Philo of Alexandria, Legum Alleg. 1.40; De sacrif. 9-10; De migr. Abr. 84; De mut. nom. 19,125-129,208; De somniis 2.189; Quest. in Ex. 2.6 (Greek fragment). Artapanus says that the Egyptian priests considered Moses worthy to be honored like a God and that he was called Hermes (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.27.6). On rabbinic and Samaritan interpretation of Exod 7,1 see W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NTS 14; Leiden 1967) 192-195, 234-237.

³⁵ Holladay, Theios Aner, 108-155, argues that all of these passages must be understood in light of Philo of Alexandria, Quod det. 161-162. L. Hurtado, One God, One Lord. Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia 1988) 62-63, agrees. Meeks thinks that at least in De sacr. 9-10 Philo calls Moses God in the proper sense (The Prophet-King, 103-107, esp. 104-105).

³⁶ Kelly, Peter and Jude, 302; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 177; Holladay, Theios Aner. Holladay points out that qei/oj has at least four meanings: (1) literally divine, (2) inspired, (3) in some sense related to God, and (4) extraordinary (ibid., 57-58, 237). Holladay discusses Philo's use of qei/oj on pp. 177-183.

³⁷ On this passage see Holladay, Theios Aner, 155-160. Cf. also De vita Mosis 1.27; 2.188; Quest. in Ex. 2.40, 54.

³⁸ Holladay, Theios Aner, 170-173. He cites Philo of Alexandria, De spec. leg. 1.116; De fuga 108; De somniis 2.188-189,231; and Quis rerum div. heres 84.

³⁹ Cf. Philo of Alexandria, De Abr. 26; De post. Caini 27; Quod det. 83; De conf. ling. 115; Spec. Leg. 2.2; De virt. 54.

⁴⁰ Philo makes this comment in interpreting Deut 5,31. His other treatments of this passage imply something very similar, but do not say explicitly that God shares his divine nature with Moses. See Philo of Alexandria, De sacr. 8; De gig. 48-49; Quod deus sit imm. 22-23; De conf. ling. 30-31; De somniis 2.227-228.

⁴¹ Cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.318; 9.58; 19.69.

⁴² Josephus, Contra Ap. 1.232, quotes Manetho as speaking of someone thought to share in divine nature. According to Origen, Comm. in ev. Joan. 13.25, Heracleon said that pneumatics receive a share in divine nature when they are given knowledge.

⁴³ Note, however, as Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 67, does that Philo addresses a prayer to Moses in De somniis 1.164-165.

⁴⁴ R. Bauckham, God Crucified. Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids – Cambridge 1998) 1-22. Quotation from p. 22.

⁴⁵ K. Rahner, God, Christ, Mary and Grace (Theological Investigations 1; London 1961) 79-148 ("Theos in the New Testament"), argues that the referent of qeo_j in the New Testament is God the Father. When Jesus is called qeo/j, the word is used generically (ibid., 136-138). Rahner discusses the Greek conception of God on pp. 90-92.

⁴⁶ Justin, Dialogue 61; cf. also 128. Earlier Ignatius of Antioch had also explained the unity of Jesus and the Father by saying that Jesus was son of God and Word of God (Magn. 8.2). On Ignatius and Justin see J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York 1960) 92-93, 96-98.

⁴⁷ See Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 112-114; A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition. I. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (Atlanta 1975) 118-121.