Untitled Sermon (6)
Growing
This particular combination (“servant” plus “apostle”) is found only in Rom 1:1 and Titus 1:1, although only in Romans does Paul call himself a servant “of Jesus Christ.” In Titus he is named a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ.
The use of this title marks out this letter as something of an official letter rather than, for example, a friendly letter. At the same time “servant” (better, “slave”) is not an expression of personal humility or an indication of “servant leadership,” but rather an expression for a person totally “owned by” and devoted to Jesus Christ, whose status is not his own but one derived from his master.6
Grace and peace come “through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” The term for “knowledge” here is a less usual term (epignōsis), which, while not rare in the NT (Rom 1:28; 3:20; 10:2; Eph 1:17; 4:13; Phil 1:9; Col 1:9–10; 2:2; 3:10; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; Heb 10:26), is characteristic of 2 Peter (1:2, 3, 8; 2:20). Peter can also use the more common term (gnōsis; 1:5–6; 3:18). Two questions arise from this vocabulary: (1) why the emphasis on knowledge, and (2) is there a difference between the two terms? As for the emphasis on knowledge, some commentators argue that the emphasis exists because those whom 2 Peter opposes claimed some special knowledge or revelation.19 This claim is the result of mirror-imaging the work, not the result of direct statements 2 Peter makes about his opponents; thus, while this was possibly the case, we must evaluate the claim as unproved. What we do know is that 2 Peter thinks that knowledge is very important for his readers. While in some contexts the meanings of the two words for knowledge (and their respective verbs) overlap, recent study indicates that sometimes the term for knowledge that 2 Peter uses here (epignōsis) can mean “coming to know” and thus is appropriate for knowledge that leads to or is gained in conversion.20 This is certainly the case in Heb 10:26, and it fits here in 2 Peter. If this distinction holds, then where the author of 2 Peter uses this term he is thinking of that knowledge gained in conversion rather than that which one may develop on one’s own (as in 1:5–6).
Furthermore, of the five meanings for our term distinguished by Picirelli, this usage here in 2 Peter 1:2 may well be the first, coming to know someone for who they really are, although Neyrey21 argues for the fifth meaning (to give acknowledgment to someone or something). That is, grace and peace come to the readers in abundance in the context of their acknowledgment of or coming to know “God and Jesus our Lord.”22 The fact that persons are named as objects makes me favor “coming to know” as what 2 Peter really means, although certainly that would have to include acknowledgment of the persons, so perhaps this distinction is finer than our author would wish to make. What is clear is that this knowledge implies an ethical lifestyle. Therefore the knowledge is not simply intellectual (knowing things about God and Jesus), or even personal in the sense of having met someone, but knowledge that results in committed living. That will become clearer in the next verse. In our present verse the conversion aspect is more the focus, for if these Christians were Gentiles, it was in conversion that they came to know both God and Jesus. The names of the two persons are quite conventional (e.g., 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; 1 Pet 1:3). Here Jesus is designated “our Lord,” a common Christian title (Rom 10:9–10 indicates that it was a basic Christian confession as well), and is paired with “God,” who is clearly a distinct person. Thus it is in the context of their having come to know these two for who they really are that they are in a position to receive multiplied favor and well-being. It would not be too much to assert that everything else in the letter assumes this foundation.
The focus of this section is on what God has given us: “everything we need for life and godliness,” with the “everything” taking a prominent early position in the sentence. Pairs of words like “life and godliness” are common in 2 Peter, and often function as a hendiadys, two terms standing for a single entity. Thus, while it is possible that our author is talking about eternal life (2 Peter does not use the term “life” again; it is more characteristic of 1 Peter or the Johannine literature) and godliness as separate entities (i.e., future and present life), more likely he is talking about a godly life, for that will be the emphasis of the rest of the letter. In other words, there is no excuse for not living a godly life, for believers have already received everything that is necessary to do so.
In other words, there is no excuse for not living a godly life, for believers have already received everything that is necessary to do so.
This power is released to believers “through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.”
This power is released to believers “through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” If we were correct above that the divine power is the power belonging to Jesus, then one would think that here the person “we” know and “who called us” is also Jesus. While grammatically logical (and accepted by Bauckham8), this has been disputed by, among others, Vögtle9 on the basis that (1) “his own” is unusually emphatic wording and so signals a shift from Jesus to God, and (2) the idea of calling is always referred to God in the NT except in the case of Jesus calling the disciples.10 Now it is certainly true that in the NT (including 1 Pet 1:15; 2:9) God is normally said to be the one calling us. On the other hand, in later early Christian literature there was no problem in referring calling to Jesus (2 Clem. 1:8; 2:4 [= Mark 2:17], 7; 5:1 [“do the will of him who called us”]; 9:5), nor is the idea entirely absent in the NT (Mark 2:17, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners,” quoted in 2 Clem. 2:4 and therefore influential on his thought).11 Furthermore, “knowledge” or “acknowledgment” (see the discussion of this term in the comment on 2 Pet 1:2) in 2 Peter usually has Jesus as its personal object (2 Pet 1:8; 2:20; cf. 3:18, which expresses the same idea using a slightly different term). Thus the knowledge of Jesus (i.e., coming to understand and acknowledge his significance), which was the basis of the reception of the equally honorable faith, is the means by which he, by his divine power, gives one all that is needed for a godly life.
This “knowledge” of Jesus did not come through their personal investigation, but because Jesus himself “called us.” He took the initiative. And this call came “by his own glory and goodness.” “Glory” is closely related to “honor” (timē), and in fact is paired with it in 1:17. As with many word pairs in 2 Peter, the word pair here is traditional and something of a hendiadys. That is, “glory and goodness” (doxa kai aretē) appears frequently in Greek literature (e.g., Pausanius, Arcad. 52.6; Dio nysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 5.62.4; Diodorus of Sicily n).12 Aretē has a range of meanings from wealth and achievements to virtue or excellence and the fame, reputation, and praise that they bring (Phil 4:8, where it is paired with “praiseworthy”). In this word pair in 2 Peter it indicates that Jesus’ own glorious or honorable achievement or excellence led to their calling.13 That raises the question whether this action was done by his glorious excellence or for his glorious excellence (or glorious praise). The grammatical construction (Greek dative) could bear either meaning. That is, God’s glory is to be “declared among the nations,” according to the OT (1 Chron 16:24; Ps 96:3); his excellence is celebrated in the Psalms. Was that the goal of his calling us? Such a display of one’s excellence would not have been thought at all inappropriate in the Mediterranean world of that day. Indeed, it was thought that a truly honorable person would display his wealth and honor and receive the appropriate acclamation. On the other hand, a person who was excellent would naturally act accordingly, so it would also make sense to say that Jesus called us by his own (“his own” being emphatic in contrast to “us”) glorious excellence or glorious achievement. Since both interpretations make sense, it is difficult to decide which is more likely correct. However, the following verse tips the balance toward the latter interpretation. That is, through or by means of these virtues he has given us promises, so very likely the thought in v. 3 is already that they are the basis of our calling. That is, the achievement in our calling was all Jesus’ doing. We were called into our knowledge of him; it was not really our discovery. And this calling came on the basis of his achievement and excellence, his honorable nature, not ours. Yet because of his honor we have been called into an honorable status.