By Peter H. Davids - The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude

Pillar New Testament Commentary

by Peter H. Davids

Filling a notable gap in scholarship on 2 Peter and Jude, Peter Davids artfully unpacks these two neglected but fascinating epistles that deal with the confrontation between the Greco-Roman world and the burgeoning first-century Jesus communities. Davids firmly grasps the overall structure of these oft-maligned epistles and presents a strong case for 2 Peter and Jude as coherent, consistent documents. Marked by exceptional exegesis, sharp, independent judgments, a singular combination of rhetorical and narrative analysis, and timely application to the concerns of the local church, Davids's work not only connects with the latest scholarship but also transforms scholarly insights into helpful conclusions benefiting all believers.

Genres: Reference, Theology, Nonfiction

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Dave Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

A worthy commentary on two misunderstood books from the New Testament. Both Jude and 2 Peter (and arguably 1 Peter, although to a differing degree) carry a bit of a complicated history as they were ultimately integrated in to most recognizable forms of the canon. As Davids helps us understand, this was not always the case and did not happen without a good deal of controversy. Any reading of either letter should reveal why. The language and references feel obscure and confusing for a lay person of any level of understanding when compared to other more familiar material. Davids helps us to understand a bit more of what lies underneath this confusion from an academic and scholarly level, but allows some of the more complex material to remain accessible to the lay person.

There is consensus that the link between Jude and 2 Peter is essentially a discussion of source material, with the greater degree of certainty accepting that the author of 2 Peter likely used Jude to influence a good degree of the material in its brief 3 chapters. However, the two writers do remain somewhat distinct in their approach and context. Both books contain a clear knowledge of the Hellenistic context. Both books contain an interesting awareness of the Greek language, and both bring some questions to the table regarding the author's understanding of Jewish material and language. Both books are concerned with false teachers, however Jude perceives these false teachers as outside of the faith/church, while 2 Peter recognizes false teachers as being within the Church. Jude is concerned primarily with upholding the promise of the true faith through which we can be assured (in a world where corrupted ideas are challenging the Christian message) that God will be the ultimate judge and that evil will be judged in the end justly. 2 Peter is concerned with the comfort we can find in this promise (that God will ultimately see that true justice emerges in the day of the Lord), but brings an acute awareness to the judgment of evil and also the hopeful expectation of the glorification of good, a more expansive expression of hope than the specific concerns we find in Jude.

Much of the confusion stems initially from the fact that the only source Jude quotes or gives awareness to is the book of Enoch, a contentious book that faced a similar degree of acceptance and skeptisisim in the rise of the early Church communities and structure and the development of the canon. What we know is that there is a likely theory that Jude was speaking in to a Greco-Roman culture that would have been very aware of the particular traditions of the book of Enoch, which reflected the Jewish origins but also reached much broader in terms of the story of Noah and the "watchers"/angels. In this tradition, people understood the tension of the flood story to be the interbreeding of human and non-human species, the product of which was corruption carried forward by demons/fallen angels that now had the run of the earth. The flood itself was intended to rid the world of these demons. We get a brief glimpse of this background in the Genesis account, however the Book of Enoch (and other material) expands on this to offer the fuller oral tradition, including the story surrounding the death of Moses (which likewise gets only a brief description in the canonized scripture). In order to understand what either author is saying we must recognize how this background informs what they desire to say and defines the themes they desire to portray.

Both authors reach forward to their current audience by writing a linear history of God and His people. The truth that their audiences "once fully knew" flows from the story of Cain and Able, Noah, and moves to the story of Sodom and Gommorah. all of these stories are central to the theme of God's judgment of good and evil and accentuate the promise that when the world feels out of our control that we can trust in the promise that God will be the judge. While Jude looks at these stories in their broader picture, 2 Peter narrows us in on the characters themselves in order to display not just God's judgment, but his salvation. Both books are clear in defining the "destructive heresies" that are challenging the way of Jesus in the early development of the Jesus movement. They are issues we should all be rightly ware of, and are defined as "greed" and "sensual conduct" or lust. The language shows a very clear intention to use words that are centered on sin of a "sexual nature". Combined with this is a "despising" of "authority", which either flows from greed and sensuality, or is a result of these sins.

An interesting movement to the flow of both letters is the desire of the author to deal with the issue of judgement as it plays out in the active early Christian communities. 2 Peter at the very least has an association with Paul, even if its hard to know what material might have actually yet existed (in terms of letters... 3:15 would seem to suggest that 2 Peter sees the start of a movement to collect Pauls letters and to affirm his authority as a voice of the Jesus movement). And what we get (from both books to a degree) is a concern for the implications that Paul's teaching regarding grace and law was having on the Jesus movement. 2 Peter refers to it as "confusing" to say the least. And yet the author does not dismiss it. (He) simply suggests that it can be easily misunderstood in a way that allows grace to lead to certain freedom(s) that lead people away from Jesus rather than towards him. This is what he sees as driving the the false teachers and the freedom(s) they appear to be promising the vulnerable Jesus communities. The answer in both letters though is more than simply a declaration that God will judge the evil that these false teachers represent. It is more of a plea (in the form of both an exhortation and a challenge) to recognize that it is not our place to judge. This activity belongs to God and God alone, and the minute we reserve judgement on one another is the minute we begin to place our own ideologies above the mysteries of God's ways. What is most important that we learn not to demand for God to judge in the way we see fit, but rather that we learn to trust in the promise that in the end God will make things "right" again. In 2 Peter this prophetic language is exercised in a wonderful picture of the "heavens" that keep our world in order being dissolved and exposing our earth to the reconstruction that awaits it. It is good to note here that this reconstruction does not point to the destruction of the earth's elements, but rather the creation of an environment where a new heaven and a new earth can find a place to flourish. There is dispute over the use of "heavenly bodies" which will be burned up with the "heavens", but it likely refers either to the whole grander "heavens", or else a completion of the judgment of the fallen angels we find in the book of Enoch. In this way 2 Peter accentuates the judgement of Jude with the hopefulness of God's restoration. God is just, but what is clear is that He is also very clear in His purpose, which is that He desires that none should perish. To the frustration of some, our commitment to this sort of patient approach seems to be able to accomplish a sort of delay of the Day of The Lord, in a similar way that Abraham begs for a delay in the destruction of Sodom. Rather than wishing our own version of judgement on the world we should instead by insistingly and convincingly "praying in the spirit" at all times for God's justice to prevail. This allows us to "build ourselves up in the most holy faith", a practice in which we bring ourselves under the judgment of God first, and then trust him to be the judge of all regarding good and evil in the world. It is in this that we can begin to see and recognize the love and mercy of God and the grace and law of the Pauline school of thought.

The authorship of Jude is more certain than the authorship of 2 Peter. The likely argument for the mention of a second letter from which 2 Peter flows out of is a lost source. There are problems we face when trying to reconcile 1 and 2 Peter as the same author, and the frank assessment is that in the end we simply do not know the answer. If we choose to assert that the apostle Peter wrote one we must then begin the process of reconciling this with whatever theory we feel best represents the other. One of the factors we must weigh is the personal relationship between Peter and Paul (which is contentious at points), the absence of apostolic language, and the understanding that Peter was asked to refrain from preaching to the gentiles (which forces us to wrestle with the perceived gentile audience... there is a greater argument to fit the apostle Peter in to the 1 Peter context in my opinion). In the end we can decide to attribute either or letter to Peter himself, we can connect it to someone writing under Peter's name, or we can simply refrain from any sort of conclusion. Depending on where we fall on that spectrum we will approach an interpretation of the material in specific ways. Saying all this, there is much that we can take from these two complicated books with difficult language that can be said to be appropriate and productive. First, it gives us a good picture of the early Jesus community. Both books take great pains to connect the words of the letter with the eye witness of Jesus Himself. We can trust the prophecies of the OT stories and figures because we can trust the eye witness testimony of Jesus. And thus we can trust that even today, a day that the books eschatology looks ahead towards, this movement and experience of Jesus is still just as real and just as important. God has not returned, and Jesus has not yet come back, but this fact, however slow it feels, is more of a testament to the continued work of God's transforming and restoring work than simply proof for the scoffers and false teachers that this God is not true. Likewise, we can see that both authors take great pains to show the interconnectedness of living under the freedom of grace and the tendencies that move us away from Jesus rather than towards. This might make some readers uncomfortable, but both books employ a sort of "centered set" theology in which it is not about what defines people as in or out (a bounded set theology in which people fall inside the line or outside of it), but rather about what defines the nature of the Jesus movement itself. In the centered set we always have a choice to recognize which direction we are facing. For both books the indicator lies in the two central issues: greed and sensuality. Why these two sins? This I suppose is part of the mystery of God. But we cannot walk away from these letters without at least comprehending the fact that for some reason these two things have the power to change our direction and our focus of sight altogether. And in case we think it is simply about the sin itself, it is suggested that the reason these two sins are at the center of false teaching is because they are effective in the way that they use "favoritism to gain advantage" over one another, and are done at the expense of others around them (interestingly this is the same charge that we find given in all the cited stories, including Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah and Cain and even the greater story of Balaam). Those who value lust and greed will also despise authority in the same way that the angels did in the time of the flood, and those who despise authority will claim a right to freedom which the message of grace that was so central to Paul seemed to be offering. What is worse is that they seemed to be doing this under the claim of the spirits revelation, all while "overlooking the fact that the heavens existed long ago... by the word of God". In other words, God is in control and has always been in control. The stories of Sodom and the flood are told to accentuate this fact, and because of this we should not fear judgement, but rather take comfort that we do not need to play the role of judge and jury ourselves. In Christ God has given us a definite answer to the prophets and prophecies of old who all looked forward to the Day of the Lord. But rather than dwelling on when that Day might be, we should endeavor to live in the present as Christ centered as possible. We do this resting on the power God to transform and the power of Christ to redeem.

[Ian Minielly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this is a great commentary. I am biased in favor of the Pillar NT Commentaries as I have purchased quite a few and so I came into this work with an expectation it would meet or exceed what I was seeking. Having an aid for Jude and even 2 Peter is very helpful when preparing to study these short letters.

[Jeff Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good evangelical treatment of these books. Not the best but very helpful nonetheless.

[Spencer R · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read my whole review here: http://wp.me/p3JhRp-qD
My review for Logos: http://wp.me/p3JhRp-qJ

Davids begins the commentary with an introduction to both books. Then Davids starts with Jude. He reasons that since 2 Peter uses Jude, 2 Peter will be looked at after Jude. Jude has his own arguments and perspectives, while 2 Peter digests it and uses it for his own purposes.
Davids looks at how 2 Peter differs from 1 Peter’s background, audience, and grammer/syntax, though concluding that the differences don’t mean different authors.

Davids’ doesn’t give a definite stance on authorship of either book, but he falls closer to authentic authorship rather than pseudonymous (though I think he should have been more definite given 2 Pet 1.17-19).

The Purpose of the letters are “to motivate. It is a….need to exhort…to ‘contend for the faith’” (44) and to be on their guard so as not to be carried away by the error of lawlessness (2 Pet 3.17). There is a serious struggle and it is the readers’ faith that is to be kept safe from the interlopers, whether they have ‘slipped in’ (Jude) or are ‘among the people’ (2 Peter 2).

Davids deals with both authors’ use of secondary (apocryphal and Second Temple)literature, saying that “[Jude] did consider it [1 Enoch] authoritative, a true word from God. We cannot tell whether he ranked it alongside other prophetic books such as Isaiah and Jeremiah” (76), and “for the most part canonical consciousness came later than the time of Jude” (76). He brings in some excellent application, and at one point asks if Peter would think the false teachers had won if he saw the lifestyles of many churchgoers. He is very able in showing the flow of the argument. I was disappointed that there was no argumentation against the preterist position, yet Davids’ arguments hold plenty of weight, though they may not convince the ardent preterist.

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed reading this commentary. Usually I read though most of the commentary, or main sections to understand how the commentator is writing and what he/she is arguing for. However, in this commentary I actually took out my Bible and took notes through all four (combined) chapters.

[Special thanks to Christine at ThinkIVP and those at Logos for allowing me to review this! I was not obligated to provide a positive review in exchange for this book.]

[Steve Penner · Rating 5 out of 5]

In preparing to preach, I generally have a variety of commentaries to choose from. Not so much for these little letters. I usually have favorite authors. None of them wrote about 2 Peter or Jude that I could find. So I took a chance on this on by Peter Davids and was very pleased. He takes a somewhat conservative and traditional approach to authorship, origin and date of writing while still acknowledging other approaches. It is a critical commentary and deals adequately with the Greek and the interpretations of various writers and their respective traditions. To all my pastor friend, I highly recommend.