“Does 2 Peter 1:4 speak of deification?”

1. By James Starr “Does 2 Peter 1:4 speak of deification?”

2. James Starr • New Testament studies at Johannelund Theological Seminary • Evangelical fatherland Foundation in the Swedish Church • Sharers in Divine Nature: 2 Peter 1:4 in its Hellenistic Context.

3. Structure of the article: • Goal: responding to whether 2 Peter 1:4 is Hellenistic slip or carries an authentic Christian significance. 1- The Divine Nature 2- Participation in Divine Nature 3- Hellenistic dualism or apostolic kerygma? 4- Contrasting 2 Peter and Paul

4. 2 Peter 1:3-4 “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.” (RSV)

5. Preamble Is 2 Peter 1:4 a Hellenistic slip? • In the Hellenistic world, this would have meant union with “an impersonal, objectifiable essence of God.” (81)

6. Ernst Kasemann • Lutheran theologian at Tubingen • “It would be hard to find in the whole New Testament a sentence which…more clearly marks the relapse of Christianity into Hellenistic dualism” 81

7. This Hellenistic view of a “migration from humanity to divinity” is called apotheosis • Is this what 2 Peter 1:4 means by “partakers of the Divine Nature?” • This is the question which Starr will seek to answer.

8. 1st section- The Divine Nature • 5 different qualities to describe divine nature in 2 Peter: • 1- righteousness or justice (1:1) • 2- power (1:3) • 3- glory (1:3b) • 4- excellence or virtue (1:3b) • 5- incorruptible or eternal (1:4) (p.82)

9. to be sharers of divine nature in 2 Peter, means: • “to escape the corruption that is in the world because of passion, or desire.” (82) Thus, those who are: • 1- not governed by the passion • 2- will enjoy incorruptibility

10. after verse 4, • 2 Peter immediately talks about embracing the virtues (1:5-7) • “love is the crown of the virtuous life” 82

11. Sharing in Divine nature also includes: • “escape from corruption and death” • “escape from passionate desire” • “having piety and life eternally” (p.82)

12. 2nd Section- Participation in Divine Nature • How does this happen? • Knowledge of Christ = catalyst to share divine nature • Knowledge happens through faith. (83)

13. Particular knowledge • Epignosis (particular knowledge) vs. gnosis (general knowledge) (83) • Epignosisis an order of gnosis. It is not just about having knowledge, but having knowledge of Christ that leads to eternal life. (83) • To know Christ = eternal life

14. 3 signs of knowing Christ: • 1- forgiveness of sins • 2- power of sinful desire is broken • 3- virtue is added (p. 83)

15. When do we share in divine nature? • 2 Peter 1:4 doesn’t specify the time frame (past, present, future) • Many interpret eschatologically (as having to do with the end times) (83) • But Starr thinks differently…

16. Author of 2 Peter talks about being present at Transfiguration (1:16) and about people being moved by the Holy Spirit (1:21) • God associates with the material. God became a human being. • Material and divine not diametrically opposed.

17. Thus, we escape the corruption because of the passions; we are not escaping the material in becoming a sharer in divine nature.

18. Sharers in divine nature = not just future reality • Present dimension = we are called to escape from passions and decay right now in order to embrace “moral excellence and divine immortality” right now! 84

19. This process involves, but is not limited to a “moral transformation” (85) • We being to grow in Christ’s grace now, “but perfect righteousness will only be enjoyed in the new creation” (ref. 3:18 & 3:13) (85) • Starr says: “concern of the present life is to see the knowledge of Christ bear fruit in one’s moral dealings” (ref. 1:8) (85) • I don’t know about this. Doesn’t seem to embrace the eschatological reality now and not yet adequately.

20. 3rd section- Hellenistic Dualism or Apostolic Kerygma? • Modern scholars: Hellenistic Judaism= “filter through which pagan thought came in contact with the early church” (esp. O.T. Apocrypha) (85)

21. Compare 2 Peter 1:4 to Maccabees 18:3 • 2 Pet: “through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.” • 4 Macc: “therefore, those who gave over their bodies in suffering for the sake of piety were deemed worthy to share in a divine inheritance.”

22. Differences: • No sign of resurrection or “continued life of the soul” in Maccabees. (85) • Catalyst in Peter: knowledge of Christ. • Catalyst in Maccabees should be knowledge of God, but it is: “devout reason” • reason= “innate human capacity” (86) • Knowledge of Christ= “new knowledge from outside” (86)

23. Wisdom and Philo of Alexandria • Both emphasise the use of reason • reason is the initiator (86) • By having an “innate kinship with God because of our common possession of reason…passion is brought under control and one’s character is marked by virtue.” (86)

24. Jewish Hellenism builds on Plato’s notion a human’s “assimilation to God’s goodness” (86) • Reason allows us to be virtuous, and this is how we become like God (87) • With this mindset, virtue is the only thing in our reach. • The best this ends in is a “series of reincarnations” which will hopefully result in the progress in virtue through reason. (87)

25. Differences with Peter: • Knowledge of Christ, is “received from the apostolic and prophetic word.” (87) It is a gift as oppose to reason which is an innate human capacity. • Knowledge of Christ allows a person to be virtuous (not the other way around as in Hellenistic philosophy). (88) • It is about growth in the knowledge of Christ; not about moral perfection. (88)

26. Question interlude: • Starr seems to be saying that there were Hellenistic philosophical ideas in the Old Testament. He seems to accept this. But he goes lengths to prove that it is not the case in the New Testament. Is he secretly a Marcionite?

27. 4- Contrasting 2 Peter and Paul • Starr argues that Paul’s teachings may have led to some confusion among people. (89) • “There has been a deliberate misinterpretation and misapplication of Paul’s teachings, and 2 Peter is writing to correct these problems.” (89) • Peter doesn’t talk of “reason and spirit in connection with the Christian hope.” (89) • This may be to avoid confusion with Platonic or Stoic ideas that the material was unimportant or the person was assimilated with divine reason. (89)

28. Conclusion: • 2 Peter is not a relapse into Hellenistic dualism (90) • Peter is “changing the way some of the philosophical pieces fit together, which gives the whole matter a new frame of reference, namely, the knowledge of Christ rather than innate divine reason.” (88) • Matter is good; corruption happens in the passions. (90)

29. 2 Peter 1:4 = deification if… deification “equality with God or elevation to divine status or absorption into God’s essence.” but… deification “participation in and enjoyment of specific divine attributes and qualities, in part now and fully at Christ’s return.” (90)