Diligently Applying Faith - 1 Peter 2:5-10

Introduction:

Most Christians are aware that one of chief objections to Christianity is that Christians are hypocrites. But why? There are two reasons.

We are! We hold people to a high moral standard and can’t meet up to that standard.

But there is another reason. Some professing Christians are living by a moral code for the purpose of self-improvement and to gain acceptance from God. Their self-concept is determined by how well the are doing morally and this is very easily placed on others as well.

When we see a list like the one in our text, we can take a Benjamin Franklin approach to morality if we’re not careful. Benjamin Franklin suggested that we should take one virtue and work on that until we’ve mastered it and then we can move on toward others.

So why put forth this list? The answer is actually found in verse 8.

Background:

The logical relationship between vv. 3–4 and vv. 5–7 is crucial. Verses 5–7 summon the readers to a life of virtue, but vv. 3–4 remind us that a life of godliness is rooted in and dependent upon God’s grace. Believers should live in a way that pleases God because Christ has given them everything they need for life and godliness. The indicative of God’s gift precedes and undergirds the imperative that calls for human exertion. Peter did not lapse, therefore, into works righteousness here since he grounded his exhortations in God’s merciful gifts.

The striking feature in these verses is the chain of eight virtues. It is doubtful, contrary to some commentators, that the number eight is selected because it is the perfect number.37 Nor should we conclude that there are only eight virtues to be pursued. We make a mistake in detecting any significance in the number of virtues listed. Peter used a literary form here that is called sorites, in which we have a step-by-step chain that culminates in a climax. We see an example of this in Wis 6:17–20: “The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction, and concern for instruction is love of her, and love of her is the keeping of her laws, and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality, and immortality brings one near to God; so the desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom” (RSV). An example that is even closer appears in the Mishnah: “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, and cleanliness leads to purity, and purity leads to abstinence, and abstinence leads to holiness, and holiness leads to humility, and humility leads to the shunning of sin, and the shunning of sin leads to saintliness, and saintliness leads to the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead (m. Sotah 9:15).38 When we examine the chain of virtues in 2 Peter, it is doubtful that we should understand each virtue as actually building on the previous one.39 Charles insists that there is a logical progression.40 He explains the order as follows: Faith is the root of all moral virtue, and such virtue is linked with what we do with our knowledge of God.41 If we use this knowledge well, we will exercise self-control. Such self-control will give us ability to endure difficulties. Endurance will then lead to godliness in our relationships, and these relationships will be governed by brotherly affection and Christian love.

Even in Charles’s analysis he seems to intertwine virtue and knowledge by implying that the former is somehow dependent on the latter.42 It is difficult to see how goodness literally precedes knowledge. One could just as easily argue that we need knowledge in order to pursue what is good. Or, at the very least, we can conceive of how the two are mutually interrelated. Neither is it evident that one will only have self-control when one has knowledge. And, is it clear that self-control must precede endurance? The ethical chain of virtues, therefore, is more likely a literary device, and it would be a mistake to read anything into the order in which the virtues are listed. Practically, the matter is important, for the other interpretation could possibly lead one to work on one virtue at a time, thinking that one virtue must be “mastered” before moving on to another. Such a view of the Christian life smacks of moralism and a Ben Franklin approach to the Christian life, where we concentrate for a period of time on a particular virtue. Such a view is an invitation to self-effort instead of dependence upon God. There could be two exceptions to what has just been said. It does seem significant that the chain begins with faith and ends with love. Faith is the root of all the virtues, and love is the goal and climax of the Christian life.43 Otherwise, we should not press the order of the virtues listed, nor should we think Peter encouraged his readers to work first on one virtue before moving to the next one.44

Proposition: God desires for us to diligently apply faith ?

Interrogative: How do we diligently apply faith, why must we do so?

I. By Adding to Our Faith Diligent Application (1:5-7)

2 Peter 1:5–7 (NKJV) — 5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.

A. The Reason: But also for this reason

B. The Command: Add

ἐπιχορηγέω, supply, furnish, Hero Dioptr.31; σπέρμα τῷ σπείροντι 2Ep.Cor.9.10; ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα Ep.Gal.3.5; τὸ ἐοικέναι τοῖς νοητοῖς εἴδεσιν Dam.Pr.341; esp. of a husband, provide for a wife, ἐ. τῇ γαμουμένῃ τὰ δέοντα POxy.905.10 (ii a.d.), cf. 282.6 (i a.d.); conversely, ἐὰν [γυνὴ] ἐ. τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς LxxSi.25.22(30):—Pass., τὰ ἀπὸ Λιμυρικῆς -ούμενα Peripl.M.Rubr.60; τοῖς παρʼ ἑτέρων -ηθεῖσι πλούτοις D.H.1.42; πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν .. ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον Ep.Col.2.19.

C. The Matter: Giving all diligence

παρεισφέρω

pareispherō, to bring in alongside or in addition

pareispherō, S 3923; EDNT 3.37; MM 492; L&N 68.64; BAGD 625

This biblical hapax (2 Pet 1:5), “bring in alongside or in addition,” rare in classical Greek, is attested in only one papyrus dating from 113 bc: “A certain Thracian from Kerkesephis, whose name I do not know, fraudulently brought oil (pareisenēnochota elaion) into the house where Petesuchos lives.” It means “bring an amendment” in Demosthenes (C. Lept. 20.88) and corresponds to eispherein psēphisma in the inscriptions, which means “introduce or propose a decree,”1 “pay a fine” (MAMA VI, 11). This second verb is used for bringing absolute courage into a just war (Onasander 4.2), and the expression eispherein pasan spoudēn is used constantly in the sense of putting one’s zeal into something, bringing all one’s good will to bear.2

Everyone agrees that this is clearly the meaning in 2 Pet 1:5, where the compound form corresponds to the Koine’s common preference: “So therefore bring all your diligence to bear to add to your faith virtue.…” (kai auto touto de spoudēn pasan pareisenenkantes epichorēgēsate en tē pistei hymōn tēn aretēn).3

D. The Qualities

1. Faith (given by God)

2. Virtue

3. Knowledge

4. Self-control

5. Perseverance

6. Godliness

7. Brotherly Kindness

8. Love

1:5 The phrase “for this very reason” links vv. 5–7 to vv. 3–4. Peter exhorted his readers to a godly life (vv. 5–7) because Christ has given them everything they need for a godly life, and they possess magnificent promises of future perfection. It would be a serious mistake, therefore, to dismiss the call to virtue as legalism or moralism. The exhortation to holiness is grounded in God’s work of salvation as it has been accomplished in Jesus Christ.45 As is typical in the New Testament, grace precedes demand. The priority of grace, however, does not cancel out strenuous moral effort. Believers are to “make every effort” or apply “all diligence” (NASB) in carrying out Peter’s commands. A godly character does not emerge from passivity or lassitude. As Luther says, “They should prove their faith by their good works.”46

The chain of virtues begins with “faith” (pistis).47 Some commentators maintain that Peter referred to “the faith” here, so that he meant by “faith” Christian doctrine.48 It has already been argued that “faith” in 1:1 refers to personal faith or trust.49 The same is likely here. Trusting God is the root from which all the other virtues spring. Those who rely on God and his promises begin to live a new way. Peter’s theology here is in accord with Paul’s, who said that faith expresses itself in love (Gal 5:6). All the godly virtues in the Christian life find their source in faith, in trusting God for everything, and the culmination and climax of such faith is love. We should note that some of the virtues featured here are common in Greco-Roman culture, providing another indication that Peter drew some connections with the social world of his readers.50

Believers are to “add to” or supply with (epichorēgēsate) their faith “goodness” (aretē). In Greek culture a benefactor (chorēgos) furnished what was necessary for choruses. Those who did such were known as generous and lavish benefactors.51 The word aretē, probably best translated “moral excellence,” was used in 1:3 to designate by what God has called believers. God’s call, we argued, is effective. He creates the moral excellence he demands. Hence, it follows that the moral excellence of believers can only be attributed to God’s grace. And yet New Testament writers never polarize divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Those whom God has effectively called to virtue are also to practice virtue with energy and intensity.

The term aretē is often used in Greek literature to describe those who are morally virtuous. Once again Peter used a term that would speak to the culture he addressed (cf. Phil 4:8). Believers are not only to pursue moral excellence but also “knowledge” (gnōsis). Peter probably referred to the knowledge of God’s will and ways that are necessary for every Christian. Indeed, the letter concludes with an exhortation to grow in the grace and “knowledge” of Jesus Christ (2 Pet 3:18). “Goodness” (aretē) and “knowledge” were closely allied in Stoic thought, but Charles notes that “knowledge” is distinct from the Stoic conception because it is not conceived as the foundation of one’s ethical life.52 True knowledge is rooted in God’s grace. Bauckham separates too neatly epignōsis from gnōsis, saying that the former relates to conversion and the latter relates to progress in discernment for Christian living.53 There is some truth in this characterization, but it should be noted that progress in all these moral virtues is necessary for one’s heavenly inheritance, and hence progress in knowledge is necessary, ultimately, for eternal life.

The two most extensive lists are those in 2 Peter and Galatians. Of the eight terms in 2 Peter three and the synonym for a fourth are found among the nine terms in Galatians, although Galatians is different in form in that it is a list rather than a chain-saying. Two of four unmatched terms in 2 Peter are unusual in the NT outside of 2 Peter, although common enough in other Greek writings. These two plus knowledge (of Christ) all appeared previously in 2 Pet 1:3.

What we note in these lists plus others that we could add (e.g., Phil 4:8) is that the virtues do not come in any definite order. While here as elsewhere there is a schema in which some virtues are developed out of others (see Hermas, Vis. 3:8:7, where each virtue is a “daughter” of the previous one), this seems more a form for presentation than a logical development.

1:6 Those who add knowledge to their lives should also be ardently seeking self-control (enkrateia). Paul identified self-control as one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:23; cf. 1 Cor 7:9; 9:25; Titus 1:8). Genuine knowledge can never exist apart from self-control (cf. 1 Pet 1:14). Self-restraint was one of the prized virtues in Hellenistic culture.54 A sideways glance is cast here at the false teachers, for their lives are marked by dissolution and licentiousness.55 They are characterized by sensuality (2:2), inflamed by sinful desires (2:10); they live for soft and comforting pleasures (2:13), never cease thinking of adultery (2:14), and are enslaved to corruption (2:19). Those who live a godly life exercise self-discipline and are able to restrain themselves so that they do not capitulate to sinful desires.

Believers should also add “endurance” (hypomonē) to self-restraint. The word “endurance” often describes the desired character of believers (Rom 5:3–4; 8:25; Col 1:11; 1 Thess 1:3–4; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 3:10; Titus 2:2; Heb 12:1; Jas 1:3–4; 5:11; Rev 2:2–3, 19). The need to persevere is particularly important in the situation Peter addressed, for the opponents were threatening the church, attracting others to follow them (2:2), so that some who began in the way of the gospel had since abandoned it (2:20–22). Moral restraint must be combined with endurance and steadfastness for those who hope to win the eschatological prize.

The readers are also called to “godliness” (eusebeia). Another connection is forged with vv. 3–4 because believers have, by God’s grace, already been given everything they need “for life and godliness” (1:3). Here we see that the imperative stands on the indicative. Christ has given believers everything to be godly, and yet believers must pursue godliness. The term godliness refers to piety or, more simply, to living a life that is like God.56 Believers should live in a holy and “godly” way since Jesus is going to return (2 Pet 3:11). The word “godliness” is especially common in the Pastoral Epistles for living the kind of life that pleases God (1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7–8; 6:3, 5–6, 11; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1). Once again it was a virtue prized in Hellenistic society, indicating that Peter appropriated and recast a cultural ideal in a Christian framework.

1:7 The last two virtues focus on love. It is fitting, as already noted, that love should climax the chain since love is the supreme Christian virtue. Peter exhorted his readers first to pursue “brotherly kindness” (philadelphia). The term is used elsewhere in biblical exhortations (Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 4:9; Heb 13:1; 1 Pet 1:22; cf. 1 Pet 3:8). The focus is on the love between fellow believers, on the family-like devotion that should characterize the Christian community. Here Peter used a word that is distinctive of the Christian community in the sense that all believers are brothers and sisters.57 The opponents surely do not display such love (2:13–14, 17). The chain climaxes with Christian love, the supreme evidence that one is a believer.58 Paul said love is the goal of Christian instruction (1 Tim 1:5). It is the most excellent way (1 Cor 12:31–13:13), the virtue that sums up all other virtues (Col 3:14). Anyone who loves will possess the other qualities Peter mentioned. The false teachers are lacking in faith and love and hence are not genuine believers at all.

Pillar Commentary:

While Philo in Legum allegoriae and Wisdom of Solomon are limited to the four cardinal virtues, both get in a fifth by making the four flow out of virtue itself. When we compare these with 2 Peter, we see that he overlaps in three items out of twelve with the Dead Sea Scroll (patience = perseverance, goodness [perhaps, for we are equating a Hebrew idiom with a Greek term], knowledge), in one to two items with the Mishnah (piety = godliness, abstinence if it = self-control), in three of the five items in the four cardinal virtues (although not in the same words), and in at least four items with Philo’s more extensive list. His language, then, belongs to the Hellenistic world rather than to the Hebrew/Aramaic world.

The importance of these virtues is clearly underlined by 2 Peter. “Make every effort” is unusual language (the verb occurs only here in the NT and is rare elsewhere in Greek literature), but the meaning is clear. Growth in virtue is of utmost importance and deserves utmost effort. The verb translated “to add” is far more colorful than that translation might indicate. In secular usage it meant “to provide at one’s own expense.” Here it serves as the chaining verb as if one spent the one virtue to gain a supply of the next. So perhaps “to supply” would be more accurate than “to add.” It again notes the expense, the effort involved in this growth in virtue. We do not automatically become more virtuous as if God infused virtue into us intravenously; we need to make plans and expend effort.

The terms themselves are common enough. The term for faith would be translated “faithfulness” if it were in a non-Christian ethical list, for loyalty to friends and family was an esteemed virtue. That is probably what 2 Peter means here, for in typical Christian fashion faithfulness and love bracket the list. This Christian structure indicates that it is not faithfulness in general that our author is concerned about but faithfulness or commitment to God in Jesus, that is, specifically Christian commitment.38 The next item in the list is “goodness,” which does not mean what one would mean in saying that a person is good. Rather, it refers to moral excellence (as in 1:3). We note that in Philo’s and Wisdom’s lists this term included the four cardinal virtues, which it may well do here. Such a person is an honorable person indeed, for he or she takes part in God’s own moral excellence.

To this is added “knowledge” (also found in virtue lists in 2 Cor 6:6; 8:7), which in our context is surely the knowledge of Christ (see 1:2, 3 above). Bauckham distinguishes it from the knowledge found in 1:2, 3 in that the term here (gnōsis) is a synonym for the term used there. He explains that the term here is “the wisdom and discernment which the Christian needs for a virtuous life and which is progressively acquired. It is practical rather than purely speculative wisdom.”39 While epignōsis stresses coming to the awareness of the significance of Christ, it should not be divorced from gnōsis, first, because one cannot demonstrate a sharp differentiation in Greek as a whole, and, second, because in both the OT (e.g., Prov 1:7) and the NT (Jas 1:5) wisdom and discernment come from knowing God/Christ and adopting his character. However, our author is clearly not talking about knowledge of Scripture per se, which is often the assumed meaning in the contemporary world. Knowledge, including knowledge of Scripture, that is not turned into practical action, that does not produce the character of God/Jesus in one’s life, is worse than useless, for it can blind one to his or her true sorry state.

6 Along with knowledge comes “self-control” (enkrateia). While not usually one of the four cardinal virtues for Greek writers, they view this virtue extremely seriously.40 To narrow our field, we shall simply look at the (Hellenistic) Jewish writers. In a section headed “self-control” starting in Sir 18:30 this virtue is contrasted with desire (epithymia), which is made more specific as feasting (which is the vice that is stressed) and sexual indulgence (referenced by one word, “women”). Philo says, “The opposite of desire (here hēdonē, as in Jas 4:1) is temperance [self-control], which one must endeavor, and labor, and take pains by every contrivance imaginable to acquire, as the very greatest blessing … temperance, being a pure and unblemished virtue, neglecting everything which relates to eating and drinking, and boasting itself as superior to the pleasures of the belly, may be allowed to approach the sacred altars …” (Spec. leg. 1.149–50). Similar praise of self-control and similar contrasting of it with desire can be found in Josephus (e.g., War 2.120 [about the Essenes]; 4.373, “We ought to esteem those that do what is agreeable to temperance and prudence, no less glorious than those that have gained great reputation by their actions in war”). While common in Hellenistic writers, this term is not frequent in the NT. It occurs here, in Acts 24:25 (Paul, speaking to the Roman procurator),41 and in Gal 5:23 (part of the fruit of the Spirit).42 For 2 Peter this is a very important virtue because (1) the teachers our author opposes are in no way self-controlled but rather given to desire,43 and (2) it fits the general Hellenistic ethical milieu in which he is writing. Given that this commentary is being written in a culture of growing obesity, in which consumption and self-indulgence are virtually viewed as human rights, we would do well to pay more attention to Peter’s emphasis on this virtue.

Self-control brings our author to “perseverance,” which is a more typically Christian virtue. It is not that this virtue was not valued by non-Jewish Greek writers as well. It was indeed valued, for it was, among other things, a military value (endurance in battle). However, it was also valued in the Jewish world, especially after the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes (168/9–164 b.c.). Whole books, such as the Testament of Job, were written on the theme. In the Christian world the term appears thirty-two times in the NT, for example, in Pauline virtue lists (Rom 5:3–4; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 3:10; Titus 2:2), James (Jas 1:3, 12; 5:11; cf. 5:7–8, 10, which use a synonym), and in a list in Rev 2:19 (plus six other times in Revelation). It indicates endurance, but in a spiritual battle rather than in a physical battle or an athletic contest. It is the virtue needed to stand firm in one’s commitment to Jesus over the long haul in the face of persecution (thus its prominence in James and Revelation) or other hardships. In 2 Peter the need is to stand firm in their commitment in the face of the enticements of the teachers whom our author opposes.

In our list “godliness” or “piety” comes after self-control. While rare in Christian ethical lists (only here and in 1 Tim 6:11 in the NT), this is another favorite Hellenistic virtue. In the Greek world this virtue pointed to appropriate relationships toward the authorities in one’s life: the gods, dead ancestors, and family/parents. Or, as Foerster puts it, “In addition to the gods, relatives, rulers, judges, oaths, the law, and the good may all be objects; enjoying divine protection, they must be respected and upheld.”44 Thus in the Jewish Letter of Aristeas this virtue indicates not only respect toward God but also respectful conduct toward others. Both Aristeas and Philo relate it to justice, a virtue exercised toward others. “There are, as we may say, two most especially important heads of all the innumerable particular lessons and doctrines; the regulating of one’s conduct toward God by the rules of piety (eusebeias) and holiness (hosiotētos), and of one’s conduct toward men by the rules of humanity (philanthrōpeias) and justice (dikaiosynē)” (Spec. leg. 2.63). The point is that this virtue indicates appropriate respect and reverence toward the deity and those associated with him or her (something that is decidedly lacking in the teachers opposed in ch. 2; cf. 2:10–12); which is also expressed in respect to those relationships that he has sanctioned. Thus it forms an excellent bridge into the more horizontally oriented virtues that follow in v. 7.

7 The first of the clearly horizontally focused virtues is “brotherly kindness” (philadelphia), which would be better translated as “familial affection.” This virtue would also not have sounded strange in the Greco-Roman world. The term indicated acts of affection and generosity among physical kin, which were quite important in that world and yet which did not extend beyond kin (for one was in competition with non-kin). One of the prime examples in the Hellenistic Jewish world is found in the story of the seven brothers in 4 Maccabees:

You are not ignorant of the affection of family ties, which the divine and all-wise Providence has bequeathed through the fathers to their descendants and which was implanted in the mother’s womb. 20 There each of the brothers spent the same length of time and was shaped during the same period of time; and growing from the same blood and through the same life, they were brought to the light of day. 21 When they were born after an equal time of gestation, they drank milk from the same fountains. From such embraces brotherly-loving souls are nourished; 22 and they grow stronger from this common nurture and daily companionship, and from both general education and our discipline in the law of God.

23 Therefore, when sympathy and brotherly affection had been so established, the brothers were the more sympathetic to one another. 24 Since they had been educated by the same law and trained in the same virtues and brought up in right living, they loved one another all the more. 25 A common zeal for nobility strengthened their goodwill toward one another, and their concord, 26 because they could make their brotherly love more fervent with the aid of their religion. 27 But although nature and companionship and virtuous habits had augmented the affection of family ties, those who were left endured for the sake of religion, while watching their brothers being maltreated and tortured to death. (4 Macc 13:19–27)

There are several variants on our term here, although the term itself appears in vv. 23 and 26. The point the author of 4 Maccabees makes is clear: this virtue is the bond of natural affection among family members. (So also Philo, Joseph 218; Josephus, Ant. 2.161 [both concerning Joseph’s brothers]; War 1.275 [Herod for his brother], 485 [Herod for his relatives in general].) Thus this virtue itself is not unique to the Christian setting. What is unique in that setting is the fact that this familial love was extended to the whole Christian family; that is, all believers were treated as if they were physical kin (and unbelieving physical kin were treated as outsiders, Mark 3:31–35). This is not as evident in the one use of this term in a NT virtue list (1 Pet 3:8) or in Heb 13:1, but is clear in context in 1 Pet 1:22 (“Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart”), 1 Thess 4:9, and Rom 12:10 (“Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves”). This is the basis for exchanging the kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 12:12; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14), which was normally not exchanged except among family and close friends, and for the sharing of goods, for functioning families shared with members in need.

According to the apologists, pagans noted this characteristic of Christians and despised them for treating each other as family (Lucian, Peregrinus 13; Minucius Felix, Oct. 31.8 [”Thus we love one another, to your regret, with a mutual love, because we do not know how to hate. Thus we call one another, to your envy, brethren: as being men born of one God and Parent, and companions in faith, and as fellow-heirs in hope”]; Tertullian, Apology 39 [“But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; how they are ready even to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner be put to death. And they are wroth with us, too, because we call each other brethren; for no other reason, as I think, than because among themselves names of consanguinity are assumed in mere pretense of affection. But we are your brethren as well, by the law of our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives”]).

Yet for the Christians this was, as we have seen, the logical consequence of being born from above, of partaking of the nature of God. Thus while in a non-Christian context this would be the Greco-Roman virtue of familial love, in our context it is that same familial love extended to the whole Christian community. As a result, the NIV translation “brotherly kindness” is unfortunate and restricting, and “familial love” or “kinship affection” would be better, as long as we understand that “family” and “kin” mean fellow Christians rather than blood relatives.

The final item in our list, “love” (agapē), flows naturally from “kinship affection.” This term is frequent in NT ethical lists (2 Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22; Eph 4:2; 1 Tim 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22; 3:10; Titus 2:2; Rev 2:19) and more frequent in the NT in general. In Gal 5:22 it heads the list, in 1 Cor 8:1–3 it is contrasted with knowledge (Paul is not against knowledge, but is against knowledge without love), and in 1 Corinthians 13 it is presented as the chief virtue, even greater than faith (which heads our list here) and hope (1 Cor 13:13). The important point to keep in mind is that love is a virtue, not an emotion. Christians are not encouraged to feel warmly about each other or even to like one another; they are instructed to act lovingly toward one another. Thus Paul’s description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 speaks about what love does, how it acts, not how it feels. Furthermore, it is a divine virtue that is passed on to human beings: the Father loves the Son (Mark 1:11; 9:7), and the Father (Rom 1:7) and Jesus love people (e.g., the rich young man in Mark 10:21), so Jesus’ apprentices are to love God and others (Mark 12:30, 31). Here is a virtue firmly rooted in the Jesus tradition and carried forward in the epistolary tradition. Thus this is a distinctly Christian virtue.45

Transition: So why should we apply our faith?

II. Because failing to Apply Faith shows serious problems (1:8-9)

2 Peter 1:8–9 (NKJV) — 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

A. The Condition: If these things are yours and abound

B. The Promise

1. You will be neither barren

2. Or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ

C. The Warning: He who lacks these things is

1. Is shortsighted, even to blindness

2. And has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

The word “for” (gar) connects vv. 8–11 with vv. 5–7. If the virtues listed in vv. 5–7 are abounding in the lives of believers, their knowledge of Jesus Christ is fruitful and effective (v. 8). On the other hand, if these qualities are lacking, such persons are blind, and they have forgotten about their forgiveness of sins (v. 9). What precisely was Peter saying in such statements? Verses 10–11 help us clarify what he had in mind. Believers are enjoined to confirm their calling and election by practicing the virtues described in vv. 5–7. It is only by practicing these virtues that the readers will avoid stumbling. That is, the readers will escape apostasy if they put into practice such godly qualities. In this way, that is, by living a godly life, they will enter into the eternal kingdom on the day of the Lord. It would be tempting for some who are familiar with Paul to dismiss this theology as a form of works righteousness. But Paul himself insisted that those who practice the works of the flesh will not inherit God’s kingdom (Gal 5:21). He taught the unrighteous that they would be excluded from the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9–11). Moreover, Peter had not abandoned the fundamental character of God’s grace. We have already seen in 1:3–4 that everything needed for life and godliness has been given to us. Christ’s call is so powerful that we are promised that we will obtain glory and moral virtue. Even now believers have escaped the world’s corruption in the sense that their desires have been changed, though the consummation of that process will only occur on the day of the Lord.

1:8 The word tauta is rightly rendered by the NIV as “these qualities,” pointing back to the chain of virtues in vv. 5–7. Peter said two things about these qualities. First, they must exist in the lives of his readers (hyparchonta). The NIV obscures this by translating the phrase “if you possess these qualities in increasing measure.” The NIV merges the two participles “existing” and “increasing” (pleonazonta). The NRSV keeps them distinct, “If these things are yours and are increasing among you.”59 The second requirement is evident already from what has just been said. The qualities must “abound” (pleonazonta) in believers. Most translations use the word “increasing,” and this rendering is certainly defensible. However, it could possibly suggest to English readers that we are able to calculate our improvement in godliness as each year passes, as if we become five percent more loving each year. What Peter wanted to emphasize was not that precise. His point was that godly qualities must both exist and overflow in the lives of his readers. Surprisingly, Bigg rejects the interpretation proposed here on the grounds that it would squelch the difference between hyparchonta and pleonazonta.60 But if pleonazonta means “abounding,” that is hardly the same thing as saying that certain qualities “exist” in one’s life. The latter idea says that the virtues are discernible in a person’s life, but the former means that they are overflowing. The two ideas are scarcely the same.

If the godly qualities of vv. 5–7 exist and abound in the lives of believers, they are neither “ineffective” (argous) nor “unfruitful” (akarpous) in their knowledge of Christ.61 Peter made the point negatively. It could be restated as follows: When the virtues both exist and abound in believers, believers are effective and fruitful with respect to their knowledge of Christ. The word “ineffective” is used of idle workers who are wasting their day in the marketplace instead of working (Matt 20:3, 6). James said that faith without works is “idle” or “ineffective” (Jas 2:20). Being without fruit reminds us of the parable of the soils, where the seed sown among thorns is unfruitful because it is choked by the worries of the world and the deceitfulness of money (Matt 13:22; cf. Jude 12 and by contrast Col 1:10). Peter thought that believers must practice godly virtues to receive the eschatological blessing of eternal life. But he also was saying that those who lack godly virtues and are not abounding with them give no indication that they are believers. Or, as Fuchs and Reymond say, there is no virtue without knowledge, but also there is no knowledge without ethics.62 The ineffectiveness and unfruitfulness relate to their knowledge (epignōsis) of the Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps the opponents are particularly in view, for their libertine lifestyle contradicts their profession of faith. Peter likely meant that they give no evidence that their conversion is genuine.63

1:9 Verse 9 elaborates (gar, usually translated “for”; see NRSV, ESV) on v. 8. If the virtues (tauta) are lacking, such people are “blind” (tuphlos). The NIV actually reverses the order of the Greek in translating “nearsighted and blind,” for the Greek says “blind” and “nearsighted” (myōpazōn). This latter word is rare and has provoked some discussion. Perhaps the idea is that those who are nearsighted actually shut their eyes, so that they cannot see anything at all.64 If this is the case, then the second term emphasizes their decision to shut their eyes. Bauckham objects that people who are nearsighted screw their eyes nearly shut to see more clearly and are therefore not blind.65 Perhaps it is best to understand the participle as “shortsighted,” that is, as clarifying in what sense people become blind.66 They are blind in that they fail to see what they should see. They have become so shortsighted that they have forgotten the most important reality of all. The metaphor, then, could be used for rhetorical effect, not to convey a new thought. This may fit with the next clause, which says that such a person has “forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.” The cleansing (katharismou) from past sins refers to baptism, where the baptismal waters symbolize the washing away of sins and hence the forgiveness of sins.67 Moo thinks that forgiveness of sins is intended without any clear reference to baptism.68 There is no need to divorce forgiveness and baptism since in the early church virtually all converted believers were baptized immediately.69 They would naturally recall their baptism when they thought about being “cleansed” from sin, and the water of baptism would remind them that they were cleansed from their sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5). The terminology used here is rooted in the cultic language of the Old Testament (Lev 16:30; Job 7:21; Ps 51:2; cf. Sir 23:10; 38:10). Peter observed that those who are not practicing these virtues have forgotten their baptism and their forgiveness of sins. In other words, they are not living as forgiven sinners. They are behaving like unconverted people. In Peter’s theology the priority of grace is maintained since forgiveness of sins comes first, and a godly life is evidence that they are truly forgiven.70 If members of the church are living immoral lives, they bear witness that forgiveness of sins means little to them. Those who treasure being forgiven live in a way that pleases God.71

8 Having climaxed his virtue list in a very Christian way with love, our author goes on to describe the Christian life as a process. Many Christians wish that their growth in Christ were a series of crises in which holiness and other virtues were suddenly infused into them. That is not 2 Peter’s point of view. Instead our author talks about growth in virtue, process instead of crisis. Thus he says, “If you possess these qualities in increasing measure” you will get a result. The result is not so much “they will keep you from” (followed by a list of negative consequences) as “you will be” neither “ineffective” nor “unproductive.” These two terms, “ineffective” and “unproductive,” mean similar things. The first indicates uselessness, such as faith without works, which is not saving faith (Jas 2:20; cf. Matt 12:36), or idleness (Matt 20:3, 6; 1 Tim 5:13; Titus 1:10[?]). The second also indicates uselessness, but employs an agricultural metaphor. The tree that does not bear fruit is cursed or cut down (Matt 3:8, 10; Mark 11:13, 20 and parallels; Luke 13:6–9). It is the deeds of darkness that are fruitless (Eph 5:11), and they contrast with doing what pleases the Lord (Eph 5:10). It is the word that is choked that bears no fruit (Matt 13:22; Mark 4:19), whereas by doing good works one makes sure that one is not fruitless (Titus 3:14). Christian virtues are fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and good fruit is the result of the wisdom from above (Jas 3:17; cf. the harvest of peace in 3:18).46 In other words, put positively, what 2 Peter is saying is that growth in these virtues will make the readers grow in Christian virtue or good works (both being covered by the metaphor) with respect to “your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Yet that brings up an issue: is “your knowledge of … Christ” the basis of growing in virtue and thus one’s conversion knowledge that is not unfruitful,47 or is this knowledge of Christ a deeper knowledge of Christ that is the result of growing in virtue?48 The decision between these interpretations turns on two factors. First, what is the meaning of the term “in” (eis)? Does it mean “with reference to” or “with respect to,” which would indicate the first interpretation, or does it mean “into” or “resulting in,” which would indicate the second interpretation? If we were talking about Classical Greek the answer would be clear, for the first meaning was carried by en and the second by eis.49 However, in the Koine period this distinction blurred (eventually en will disappear from the language), so that commentators agree that eis could carry either meaning even if the first meaning is less common.50 Second, how technical is the term for knowledge (epignōsis)? Does it mean only the coming to know Christ that occurs at conversion, or can it also indicate coming to know Christ more deeply? While not convinced that knowledge must be only the knowledge of Christ gained in conversion, the fact that 2 Peter does use “in” with the sense of “with respect to” and the type of contrast that the first interpretation makes over against v. 9 weighs our decision toward that first interpretation. Thus 2 Peter is pointing out that if one grows in virtue, the knowledge of Christ referred to in v. 3, that is, the coming to know Christ that happens in Christian conversion/initiation, will not be unproductive or unfruitful.

9 Such fruitfulness, however, is not always the case. Our author quickly points to the other alternative, an alternative that he will discuss in some detail in ch. 2: “if any of you do not have [these virtues], you are nearsighted and blind, and you have forgotten that you have been cleansed from past sins.” The use of the term “blind” for those not “seeing” the truth, including moral truth, is relatively common in the NT (Matt 15:14 [Pharisees]; 23:16, 24 [Pharisees]; Luke 6:39; John 9:39–41 [Pharisees]; 12:40; Rom 2:19 [moral blindness]; 2 Cor 4:4 [blind = unable to “see” the gospel]; 1 John 2:11 [moral blindness]; Rev 3:17 [the moral blindness of Laodicea]). Likewise enlightenment was at times used for the process of Christian initiation (Heb 6:4; 10:32). Here 2 Peter uses a rare word, “nearsighted,” along with the term for “blind.” It is rare in Greek in general and occurs only here in biblical literature. Most translations take it as a parallel term to “blind,” but that ignores the grammar. The text reads, “They are blind, being nearsighted,” or, more colloquially, “so short-sighted that they cannot see” (GNB). They are focused on the present, probably with the implication that they are focused on their present desires (in the light of the teachers of ch. 2) and cannot see the past (nor, it will turn out, future judgment).

That the past is what they cannot see comes out in their forgetting their cleansing from past sins. In the ancient world one significant duty of a client toward his or her patron was the remembrance of past benefits received from the patron. People who do not grow in virtue are failing in that important duty.51 Here the benefaction being forgotten is that of cleansing from past sins. While the image of cleansing from sin is found throughout Scripture (e.g., Lev 16:19 [cleanse from uncleanness], 30 [cleanse from sins]; Ps 51:2 [LXX Ps 50:4]; Ezek 36:33; Zech 13:1; Heb 1:3; 1 John 1:7 cf. Titus 2:14; Heb 9:14; 1 John 1:9), our image here refers, not to ongoing cleansing but to initial cleansing, that is, that accomplished symbolically in baptism: Acts 22:16 (“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name”); 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26 (“cleansing her by the washing with water through the word”); Titus 3:5 (“He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”). That is, in the act of Christian initiation, by which we mean that complex of repentance from our past independence of God (including our specific acts of rebellion), commitment to Christ as Lord, the expression of this commitment in baptism, and God’s sealing of this commitment through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the sins of our pre-Christian life are forgiven. (For the initial readers of this letter our author assumes a pagan pre-Christian life.) This is a benefit that we should be grateful for, and out of this gratitude arises the desire to grow to be more like the one who cleansed us. If we neglect this growth and instead turn back to our former lives, then we have forgotten what was done for us and are, so the speak, slapping our divine patron in the face (cf. Paul’s expression of this idea in Rom 6:1–14; 1 Cor 6:9–11).

Transition:

III. Because Diligent Application Prevents Stumbling - vs. 10

2 Peter 1:10 (NKJV) — 10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;

A. The Reminder: Therefore, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure

B. The Promise: for if you do these things you will never stumble

Shreiener: 1:10 The “therefore” (dio) links v. 10 to v. 9.72 Those who live ungodly lives show no evidence that they truly belong to God, that they have genuinely received forgiveness. Hence, Peter exhorted his readers to exercise diligence (spoudasate) to confirm their calling and election. Bigg wrongly concludes from the aorist that a single and definite action is intended.73 Recent study on the tenses calls such a conclusion into question. The aorist does not necessarily signify once-for-all action, and here it may be used to stress that decisive action must be taken, and yet it is a decisive action that must be repeated again and again in the Christian life. The word spoudasate (“be all the more eager,” NIV) recalls spoudēn (“effort”) in v. 5. God’s grace should not lead to moral relaxation but intense effort.74 The word translated “sure” (bebaian) is often a legal term in Greek literature, denoting that which is valid, ratified, or confirmed. In this instance believers are to confirm their “calling and election” (klēsin kai eklogēn). These two words are very close in meaning. Perhaps we should translate them as one—“elective call.” We saw in v. 3 that Christ’s call is an effective one, one that creates faith. God’s effective call occurs in history when the gospel is preached. If this is the case, the term “election” is distinct, referring to God’s pretemporal decision to save some. The reference to “calling and election” highlights God’s grace. He is the one who saves.

The emphasis here, however, is not on what God has done but on the responsibility of human beings.75 Believers are “to make your calling and election sure.” Calvin understood this verse subjectively, saying that believers should satisfy themselves mentally about their calling and election.76 On this reading, Peter was only referring to believers’ subjective consciousness of their right-standing before God. This interpretation is not entirely satisfying, for Peter was also speaking of objective reality.77 Believers confirm their calling and election by concretely practicing the virtues detailed in vv. 5–7. Still, Calvin was not completely mistaken. Those who practice such virtues will also experience subjective assurance, but we should note that their objective obedience is the foundation for subjective assurance.78 Peter did not tolerate those who claimed to be Christians but contradicted the claim by their behavior.79 We learn from chap. 2 that the false teachers did not confirm their call and election.

I understand the “for” (gar) in v. 10b to explain further the idea in v. 10a. When Peter said “for if you do these things you will never fall,” the word tauta (“these things”) probably refers to the godly qualities of vv. 5–7.80 The word “fall” (ptaisēte) possibly could mean “sin.”81 The verb clearly has this meaning in James (Jas 2:10; 3:2). And yet such a notion is difficult to defend in the Petrine context both theologically and contextually. It is quite improbable that Peter thought Christians can actually live without sin. If so, he would contradict the Lord’s Prayer, which enjoins Christians to ask for forgiveness often (Matt 6:12). Another meaning makes much better sense in context. Believers who confirm their call and election by living in a godly manner will not “stumble,” that is, they will not forsake God, abandon him, and commit apostasy (cf. Rom 11:11; Jude 24).82 Believers who abound in the qualities described in vv. 5–7 will never fall away from God. They are cultivating their relationship with him daily. Those seduced by the false teachers reveal that the problem is a moral one. They have forsaken goodness, allowed their wills to be captivated by evil, and are now easy prey for deception.

The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude A. Opening Sermon (1:3–11)

10 Our author is ready to draw a conclusion: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.” In addressing these readers as “brothers and sisters” (Greek adelphoi), he uses a term that occurs frequently in early Christian letters (although only here in the Petrine correspondence) to designate members of the Christian community. It is especially common in James. As noted in the comment above on v. 7, Christians considered each other members of a large extended family and thus siblings with God as Father. That means that this expression is not simply a form of address indicating a fellow believer, but one that indicates that they considered fellow believers as kin, resulting in treating them as kin by sharing possessions and the like. Here the use may be influenced by the family thinking engendered by the virtue list. Naturally, when Peter later turns to those he considers false teachers, he has no temptation to speak of them as “kin.”

What these brothers and sisters are to do is to “make your calling and election sure.” The phrase “be … eager” is the main verb, one liked by 2 Peter (also in 1:15; 3:14) and related to the term for “effort” in v. 5 (indicating that vv. 5–11 are all one unit). It is a term for zeal, effort, and the expenditure of energy. For example, Timothy is to make an effort to come before winter (2 Tim 4:21), and, more to the point, Christians are to make an effort to enter into God’s rest in Heb 4:11 or to keep the unity of the Spirit in Eph 4:3. Thus this term indicates making something a high priority for which one will expend physical or moral effort. Given the dire consequences (as noted in v. 9) of neglecting the virtues cited above, our author underlines the importance of the effort involved, “make all the more effort” or “make it the highest priority.” This effort is to be expended with respect to their “calling and election.” That these believers were called by Christ our author has already indicated in v. 3. Here “calling” forms a synonymous word-pair with the term “election” or “state of being chosen,” with no real difference between them (notice the interplay of “called” and “chose” in 1 Cor 1:26–31 and 1 Pet 2:9).52 2 Peter likes such word-pairs, and this one also occurs in Rev 17:14, “with him [i.e., Christ] will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.” It is this calling to be a Christian that they need to “make … sure” or ratify (bebaian).53 This root appears sixteen times in the NT and “means ‘firm,’ ‘steadfast,’ ‘steady,’ ‘reliable,’ ‘certain.’ ”54 While in other places in the NT God is said to make the Christian steadfast or firm (1 Cor 1:8; 2 Cor 1:21), here the Christian is to confirm his or her own calling and election. The way that this is done is through growing in virtue. In other words, this passages states “that the ethical fruits of Christian faith are objectively necessary for the attainment of final salvation.”55 Or, as Wisdom of Solomon puts it,

17 The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction,

and concern for instruction is love of her,

18 and love of her is the keeping of her laws,

and giving heed to her laws is assurance (bebaiōsis) of immortality,

19 and immortality brings one near to God;

20 so the desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom. (Wisd 6:17–20, NRSV)

This teaching may sit uncomfortably with some people’s theology, but it is the other side of the coin that has on one side that God makes us firm and on this side that we make our own salvation firm. And it is our side of the coin that the believers 2 Peter addresses need to hear, for they have among them some who think that their salvation is firm enough without their pursuing any of the virtues that our author recommends.

The author of 2 Peter does not leave his readers only with the command. He adds a two-part promise. The first part is negative, “For if you do these things, you will never fall.” The “these things” that one is supposed to do are either the virtues in particular (the same term appears in vv. 8 and 9 referring to the virtues of vv. 5–7) or the sense of the passage in general, although grammatically a reference to the virtues is preferable. It is in the doing (the Greek reader will note the use of alliteration, for “doing,” “fall,” and “never” all begin with pi that one will never “fall.” This last term means to “stumble” or “fall,” which can mean to stumble ethically, that is, sin (Rom 11:11; Jas 2:10; 3:2). That meaning, however, would yield a tautology: if you practice virtue, you will never sin.56 And this idea is so obvious as hardly to need expressing. It is therefore more likely that our author is thinking ahead to the second part of his promise that has a journey metaphor in the “welcome” or “entrance” into the kingdom. In this case the term has a more literal meaning. That is, it means, “Stumble (and fall) on the path to God’s kingdom and thus fail to arrive.” This is the meaning of the same root in Jude 24 (“keep you from falling”), and it makes more sense in this context.57 Virtue will keep one from the disaster of stumbling and never arriving at the eschatological home.

Concluding Applications: