Module Twenty-Two

The Catholic Letters

Introduction

The “Catholic Letters” or “Catholic Epistles” have traditionally consisted of seven non-Pauline letters that represent the broader apostolic tradition. They are 1 John, 2 John, 3 John 1 Peter, 2 Peter, James and Jude. The label “catholic” does not mean that these letters are associated in any special way with the Roman Catholic church. The word simply means “universal” and reflects the assumption during the formative period of the Church that these letters were intended for the broader Christian community, rather than a specific congregation or an individual. In order to avoid confusion associated with the label “catholic,” some scholars have opted for the category “General Letters.”

This chapter is devoted to six of the seven letters, omitting the letter of James, which is not uncommon in introductory textbooks. Instead, James appears in the previous Module with the letter to the Hebrews since both writings appear to be written to a Jewish-Christian audience, both contain similar literary features such as the stringing together of general ethical admonitions (called paraenesis), and both include extended appeals to the fidelity of the Jewish patriarchs, especially Abraham’s faithfulness and obedience, as examples of Christian faith and practice.

Categorizations, as we have seen elsewhere, should primarily be considered as a convenient way to group related writings. They are, however, not precise. And the category “Catholic Letters” or “General Letters” is no exception. While 1 John, 2 Peter and Jude do not identify a specific community or individual as their addressee, implying a broader Christian audience, the same cannot be said of the other three letters. 1 Peter is addressed to Christians living in specific regions of Asia Minor. 2 John is addressed to a particular church community. And 3 John, like Philemon, is addressed to an individual. Moreover, if we understand the labels “catholic” and “general” to refer to a broader Christian audience, then we might also expect Hebrews to be included, since it does not name a particular congregation or individual as its recipient. It is, however, possible that it was not included among the seven Catholic Letters by the early church because some ascribed it to Paul, which meant it would be categorized as a Pauline epistle.

One of the features that is interesting about the Catholic Letters is that they were all attributed to people who were either disciples of Jesus during his ministry (Peter and John) or were his brothers (Jude and James). As we will see below, many ancient and modern scholars have questioned some of these attributions.

The Johannine Letters

21.1 Introduction

1, 2, and 3 John are a sub-category of the Catholic Letters called the “Johannine Letters” or “Johannine Epistles.” They can be studied as part of the Catholic Letters, but because of their connection to the Gospel of John they are often explored in conjunction with it. Together, the Gospel of John and the letters of John form the “Johannine Literature” or “Johannine Corpus,” and represent a distinctive stream of thought or tradition in the New Testament and early Christianity. The letters of John are very interesting historically and theologically. In addition to containing religiously weighty themes and images—like love, light/darkness, sin, and Christian identity—they are clearly written in a context of diversity and conflict within the early Christian movement. The letters of John may also help us to better understand the identity and problems that led to the composition of John’s Gospel, even if they may not have had a common author.

21.2 Genre and Style

Although we have grouped the Johannine letters together, each should be regarded as an independent work that was written within a distinct setting in response to distinct issues, containing distinct features. Apart from its distinguishing length, one of the more interesting features of 1 John is that it does not contain the typical characteristics of letters. For instance, it does not contain the customary introduction of the author. It does not identify the recipient(s). And, it does not offer a greeting. As a result, some have noted that it resembles a sermon more than a letter. Most scholars, however, regard 1 John as a letter despite the lack of common epistolary features, arguing that while the form of letters in the ancient world were generally uniform, anomalies did exist. Moreover, the author’s multiple references to “writing” (1:4; 2:1, 7, 12-14, 21, 26; 5:13) does not support the claim that 1 John was a transcription of a speech or a sermon.

1 John opens with a prologue that is reminiscent of the well-known prologue in the Gospel of John (1:1-18). The structure and flow of the rest of 1 John, however, is difficult to identify. As a result, scholars have struggled in their attempt to isolate an outline that might assist in the interpretation of the work. What we see throughout is the repetition and exploration of a handful of key themes, some of which are addressed below.

By contrast, 2 and 3 John contain the typical format and style found in most letters from the Greco-Roman period. 3 John in particular demonstrates the hallmark features of these ancient letters. In addition to the conventional greeting and closing, along with a body that addresses some conflicts between the author and one of the churches, it even includes the customary wishing of good health to the recipient (3 John 2). 2 John has a simple structure with a standard greeting and closing along with a short body that calls the Christian community to love one another and to be warry of false teachers.

21.3 Authorship

As is the case with many New Testament writings, there is uncertainty about the authorship of the Johannine letters. While 1 John is anonymous, the author of both 2 and 3 John identifies himself ambiguously as “the elder,” which can refer to someone who is elderly and thus worthy of respect (1 Tim 5:1), or it can refer to someone who is in a position of leadership (Matt 16:21; Acts 14:23). Either way, since an actual name is omitted, “the elder” had probably become a nickname that was well-known to his audience.

Early Christian tradition associated “the elder” with a person named John, which is reflected in the titles that were given to all three letters. The identity of John, however, has a complicated and multifaceted history. In early Christian literature, he is sometimes identified as John the Apostle, who was also called the son of Zebedee in the Synoptic tradition (e.g. Matt 4:21). Sometimes he is even associated with the author of the Gospel of John, who identifies himself simply as “the beloved disciple.” The evidence from the early church is certainly interesting, but must be approached with caution because attributions to apostolic authorship were often associated with attempts to make writings authoritative and eventually canonical.

Info Box 21.1. Authorship of the Letters in Antiquity

Irenaeus the bishop of Lyons, writing around 180 CE, identifies quotations from 1 and 2 John as coming from “John, the disciple of the Lord,” who he believed also wrote the Gospel of John (Against Heresies 1.16.3; 3.16.5). Interestingly, while Irenaeus quotes from both 1 and 2 John, he seems to think that these quotations came from a single letter.

By the end of the second century, Christians were commonly identifying the author of at least two of these letters—probably 1 and 2 John—as John the Gospel writer. While 1 John came to be widely considered as an authentic writing from the Apostle John, some ancient theologians, like Origen in the third century, expressed doubts about the authorship of 2 and 3 John (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.10). Jerome, writing at the end of the fourth century, claimed that John the Apostle wrote both the Gospel and 1 John, but that 2 and 3 John were written by another person identified as “John the presbyter (or elder)” (On Illustrious Men, 9)—who was also briefly discussed in Module 14.4.2. Jerome’s view, which became influential, probable emerged from the fact that the author of 2 and 3 John identifies himself as “the elder” rather than as an Apostle.

In determining basic questions like the authorship, date, and setting of the Johannine letters, there are two major connections that modern scholars have focused on. The first is the connection among the three letters themselves. Did one person write all three of these letters, as their current titles seem to suggest? Or are we facing a situation like 1 and 2 Thessalonians or 1 and 2 Peter, where different writers composed the sequels? While these kinds of questions were raised in antiquity, they are widespread among scholars today. A good case can be made that 2 and 3 John were written by the same person, since in both letters the author introduces himself as “the elder” and uses a comparable style and structure. Yet, there are also reasons to believe that 1 and 2 John were written by the same person. They contain similarities in language and it seems like they may be addressing the same adversaries who do not confess that Christ came in the flesh (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). There is not very much, though, that connects 1 John and 3 John.  Conversely, the combination of similarities leads some modern scholars to conclude that all three letters were written by the same person. It is argued that since 1 John does not take the form of customary letters, one should not expect the author to identify himself in the same way as 2 and 3 John. Whether in the end we believe there was one, two, or even three authors, the connections between these letters invite us to read them in close conversation with each other.

The second connection that scholars address is between the letters and the Gospel of John. Did the same person who was responsible for most of the Gospel also write one or more of these letters? The similarities are particularly striking between 1 John and the Gospel, particularly their theological themes and terminology. the language they use, such as eternal life, love, and the world.

Info Box 21.2. Similarities between the Gospel of John and 1 John

The similarities of both themes and language in the Gospel and 1 John are noticeable even to the casual reader. The most conspicuous examples include references to light, darkness, the world, love, the love commandment (John 13:34-35; 1 John 2:7-10), the present state of eternal life (John 6:40; 1 John 5:11), and the “abiding” of the true followers in Christ (John 15:4-7; 1 John 2:27-28). Do they reflect the same author, the same school of thought, or was one author influenced by another?  

The resemblances between 1 John and the Gospel of John has led many readers in the ancient world and some even today to conclude that they share a common author. This view is less common today. Over the last century of research, careful attention to the differences in language and concepts alongside the similarities has led a number of scholars to conclude that each was written by a different author. The differences in concepts have been most convincing. For instance, 1 John stresses that Jesus’ death achieved a “propitiation” (atoning sacrifice) for the sins of the world (2:2). This is a theme that is absent from the Gospel, with the possible exception of John 1:29, which is probably a reference to the paschal lamb in the Passover tradition, whose blood did not remove sin, but caused the angel of death to pass over. Second, many scholars note that 1 John emphasizes the imminent parousia or second coming of Jesus, while the Gospel offers a more complicated combination of future hope and a “realized eschatology” that focuses on what has already been accomplished by Jesus. Third, while “glory” is a key term and theme in the Gospel, occurring nineteen times and often with reference to Jesus’ obedience and relationship with the Father, it appears nowhere in 1 John or the other letters. And fourth, there are occasions where the Gospel and 1 John use the same word, but give it different meanings. For instance, in the Gospel it is the Spirit who is identified as the “paraklete,” which is variously translated as the helper, comforter, or advocate that Jesus promises his followers after his departure (e.g. John 14:26). In 1 John 2:1, however, the “paraklete” is associated with Jesus.

While differences like these have proven to be weighty, they must be combined with similarities in order to provide a fuller understanding of authorship. The picture which emerges is that if there indeed were two authors, they were probably part of the same community or were influenced by the same tradition. It is not uncommon for a particular religious community or tradition to have developed patterns of speech and ideas that were adopted and revised by those who received them. In some cases, an important founding figure who is associated with a community and its tradition is invoked by his contemporaries, and more often by a subsequent generation of followers, for purposes of continuity and authority. An example of this process is the last chapter of John’s Gospel, which is usually regarded as being written after the main body of the story by a different author or later editor. So, while the “beloved disciple” is associated with much of the gospel tradition, someone else carried on his work by adding John 21 after his death. In light of this process, the letters of John can be viewed as being influenced by and even complementing the Gospel or the reverse.

21.4 Date and Location

Determining when the Johannine letters were written is as elusive as their authorship. What we know for sure is that the upper limit can be verified by the initial references to the letters by second century Christian writers. The earliest quotation from 1 John is found in the writings of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, dated between 110-140 CE. The earliest quotation from 2 John is found in the writings of Irenaeus towards the end of the second century, and the earliest quotation from 3 John is found in the writings of Origen, dated to the middle of the third century.  If one person wrote all three letters, then we can assume that they were all composed no later than the middle of the second century CE.

The dating of the Johannine letters, like their authorship, is also contingent on how one understands their relationship to the Gospel of John. For instance, if one assumes that the main author of John’s Gospel is the same person who wrote the letters, then the letters can be dated in the same time-frame as the Gospel. According to a common theory, the letters were composed after the Gospel by someone who belonged to the same community or adhered to the same tradition. One of the main reasons for dating the letters after the Gospel is that they do not address the conflict within the synagogue which underlies certain parts of the Gospel. The assumption is that enough time had passed and the author(s) of the letters no longer needed to address that conflict. If this is a plausible reconstruction, then the letters can be dated from the mid-90s CE to the early part of the second century. Another scenario is that one or more of the letters were written before the Gospel of John or during its compositional process. What complicates this option is that the Gospel of John was most likely composed in stages from independent sources (see Module 14.3). In the end, while scholars agree about the general timeframe, they are not agreed on the exact date or on the sequence of the writings.

Another issue that is also associated with the dating of the epistles is the order in which the letters were written relative to each other. Since letters bearing the same author were arranged in the New Testament canon according to their length, with the longest being first, we are not sure if the current order of the Johannine letters reflects the historical chronology. Scholars have argued for nearly every possibility.

The location of these letters is even less certain than their authorship and date of writing.  The author of 2 and 3 John was clearly residing in a different location than the recipients whom he hoped to visit (2 John 12; 3 John 14). We do not know, however, how far apart geographically the author was from the audience(s). The author of 1 John implies that he is in closer proximity to his recipients by identifying himself as a member of the community (e.g. 2:19; 3:11). Yet, the act of writing to a community implies distance. There is nothing within any of the letters that connects either the author or the audience to a particular location. There are however, external hints. If arguments that the Gospel of John was composed in Asia Minor, particularly Ephesus, are correct, then we could infer on the basis of their common tradition that the letters were composed there as well. This coincides with some modern proposals that at least some of the opponents of the Johannine community may have been Gnostics, who would have been quite at home in the western part of Asia Minor (see below).  In addition, we can again point to the earliest quotation from 1 John in the writings of Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 7:1), who was a bishop of Smyrna in the western part of Asia Minor.

21.5 Audience

1 John does not tell us the name or location of its audience, but it is addressed to Christians who are identified as “children” throughout the writing, which may indicate affection. Part of the problem, again, is that 1 John does not follow the customary format of letters, which contain a reference to the recipients. Since 2 and 3 John follow the customary format, they provide a little more clarity. 2 John is addressed to the “elect lady and her children” (v. 1). In the early part of the letter the author speaks directly to the “elect lady,” referring to her children in the third person. In the middle of the letter, however, he refers to them in the second person plural, indicating that he is at this point addressing multiple people. The shift may not be significant since the “elect lady” may well be a personification of a particular house church. The children of the elect lady would then be the members of that church, which is corroborated by the closing line, “the children of your elect sister greet you” (v. 13). Alternatively, some have suggested that the “elect lady” is a real person, perhaps a leader of a congregation and/or the owner of the house where this Christian community met. 3 John is addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Gaius, despite several appeals to the plural “beloved” (vv. 2, 5, 11). The author implies that Gaius is one of his children (v. 4), which is most likely a metaphorical designation for affection and/or discipleship. If the letters were written by the same author, then the best way to envision the audiences of the letters is that they represent various house churches in and around Ephesus.

21.6 Purpose

21.6.1 1 John

Determining why 1 John was written is less elusive since the author includes several purpose statements. Some of his purpose statements resemble the end of the Gospel of John, where we are told that the signs Jesus performed were written down “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). While some of the purpose statements in 1 John apply only to a particular argument and not the entire writing, they nevertheless give us some insights into what the author is trying to accomplish. In 1:3-4 we read: “. . . that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed, our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.” This language may suggest that the author has an existing positive relationship with the audience that he is trying to nurture and develop. Unlike some of the letters of Paul, there is no hint here of animosity or a wounded relationship.

In 2:1, the author says that he is writing “these things” so that the recipients “may not sin,” which reflects a recurring concern for how the community behaves. In 2:12-14, the author gives six additional, parallel purpose statements:

• I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven on account of his name.

• I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

• I am writing to you, young people, because you have conquered the evil one.

• I write to you, children, because you know the father.

• I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.

• I write to you, young people, because you are strong and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

What is interesting about these parallel statements is that they are not instructional theologically or ethically. They are not correctional. They are not even reprimands. Instead, these statements appear to be affirmations, expressing the author’s need to convey his audience’s identity theologically as genuine followers of Christ.

Another overarching purpose is related to a recent conflict or even a schism within the Christian community. Referring to the many “antichrists” who have come, the author says, “They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us” (2:19). For some scholars, this fragmentation within the community was the main reason for the composition of 1 John. If this is the case, then it helps to explain why the author spends so much time on affirming his community’s identity. He develops their distinctiveness as the “true” community by drawing a contrast with those who left.

Who were these people that departed from the community? It is difficult to paint a clear portrayal because it was not only common in the ancient world to minimize direct references to one’s opponents, but it would have also been highly biased. Vilifying language was not out of the ordinary, and was used of opponents by Christians, Jews, and pagans. Thus, one could not expect a fair evaluation of a group’s beliefs and practices by only consulting its opponents. There are hints, however, that can help us in the reconstruction process. Those who are described as leaving the community are identified with “antichrists” because (1) they deny that Jesus is the Christ, which is tantamount to denying the Father (2:22-23), and (2) they do not confess that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (4:2-3).

The denial of Jesus as the Christ has led some scholars to propose that this group consisted of Jews and/or followers of John the Baptist. While the connection with Jews is predictable, the connection with the Baptist may seem strange at first, but there are two main reasons for this. First, when the Baptist is arrested and imprisoned, he conveys a lack of certainty about Jesus’ messianic identity in Matt 11:2-3. If the Baptist was unsure, it implied that his followers were as well. And second, we know that the disciples of the Baptist continued as an identifiable group well after his execution (e.g. Acts 19:1-4). One such group may have been influential in the formation of the Mandaeans, which exists as a religious group to this day, primarily in the Middle East.

Most scholars, however, find it difficult to coincide the denial “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” with a Jewish group, regardless of their relationship to the Baptist. Consequently, another option has been commonly proposed which stems from the varied descriptions of “heretical” groups by Christian writers from the second century. The underlying assumption is that these later “heretical” Christians movements had their roots in the latter part of the first century. The two prominent proposals, which overlap with another, are Gnosticism and Docetism. We discussed Gnosticism in Module 3, 5 and 14. One of the main concepts found in later Gnostic movements is that Jesus and the Christ are two different beings. The Christ, who is a heavenly being or force and cannot suffer and die, descended on the human Jesus at his baptism and departed from him before his death. If this is the idea that the author of 1 John is confronting, then it explains why he is adamantly affirming that “Jesus is the Christ.” Furthermore, the emphasis on both water and blood in 1 John 5:6 might be a way of affirming that Jesus was the Christ not only in baptism, but in his death as well.

Docetism, which comes from the Greek word meaning “to appear”, advocates the idea that Jesus was not actually human, but only appeared to be human. This idea would make sense in both Jewish and broader Greco-Roman contexts, where angels and other divine figures were believed to sometimes take on the appearance of ordinary humans. For the author of 1 John, if this belief was associated with Jesus, it could have been considered a denial that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” If Docetism lies in the background, then the conspicuous reference to the touching of Jesus “with our hands” in the opening line of 1 John may be a direct affirmation that Jesus indeed came in the flesh and was fully human.

Scholars look for clues about what the opponents might have believed in some of the hypothetical statements that the author makes throughout the letter. For instance, when the author says, “If we say that we have fellowship with [God] while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true” (1:6), or “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1:8), is he citing the claims made by the opponents and then refuting them? This is possible, but it is also conceivable that this is a literary technique that merely communicates an idea by first posing its antithesis. 

Info Box 21.3. Ignatius of Antioch, the Suffering of Jesus, and the Gnostics

Perhaps the earliest reference to the suffering of Jesus in relation to Gnosticim and Docetism comes from Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108 CE), who was martyred in the circus maximus, Rome’s largest venue for public games and religious ceremonies. During his transport from Antioch, he managed to write several letters. The following excerpt, which addresses concepts found in both Docetism and Gnosticism, is taken from his Epistle to the Trallians 10.

But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that he [Jesus] only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds? Why do I long to be exposed to the wild beasts? Do I therefore die in vain? Am I not then guilty of falsehood against [the cross of] the Lord? But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, he became man in appearance [only], that he did not in reality take unto him a body, that he died in appearance [merely], and did not in very deed suffer, then for what reason am I now in bonds, and long to be exposed to the wild beasts? In such a case, I die in vain, and am guilty of falsehood against the cross of the Lord. Then also does the prophet in vain declare, “They shall look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn over themselves as over one beloved.” These men, therefore, are not less unbelievers than were those that crucified him. But as for me, I do not place my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality. For that which is false is quite abhorrent to the truth. Mary then did truly conceive a body which had God inhabiting it. And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own.

21.6.2 2 John

2 John is a very short letter that communicates two main points. First, the author invites his audience, whom he calls “dear Lady,” to join him in fellowship that is characterized by “loving one another” (vv. 5-6). Second, the author warns about people who sound very similar to the antichrists in 1 John. More specifically, the warning concerns the “many deceivers” who have “gone out into the world”, people who “do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (v. 7). There is an additional hint about the practices of these opponents. The elder mentions that they do not follow the “teaching of Christ,” but rather they go “beyond it” (v. 9). The elder even warns his audience not to welcome anyone who does not “bring this teaching” (v. 10). The references to teaching implies that those who have departed from the community and its true tradition are now attempting to spread their views. What is particularly interesting, and some would even say ironic, about this warning is that the material in the Johannine tradition does not seem to go back to the historical Jesus himself and thus does not reflect the “teaching of Christ.” Rather, that which the elder considered the “teaching of Christ” emerged in the contexts of charismatic experiences of Christians who created, expanded, and reinterpreted received traditions through the guidance of what they believed to be the inspiration of the resurrected Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The elder clearly considers these people to be a danger to his audience, urging them, “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person” (vv. 10-11). Gnostic Christians were especially viewed as a threat in the second century to bishops like Irenaeus (see Info Box 14.5). Most likely, the elder’s warning is directed against the same group of people that were a threat in 1 John. If 2 John was written to a different audience, which makes the most sense, the opponents were itinerant teachers who affected a large geographical area. What is particularly curious is that the elder’s warning about false teachers and teachings is not regarded as a conflict with his strong command to “love one another” (v. 5). Presumably, the command is directed only at community members who “walk in the truth” (v. 4).

21.6.3 3 John

The purpose of 3 John is also connected to intra-church conflict. While it is possible that the conflict is related to 1 and 2 John, we cannot be sure. The elder commends the recipient of the letter, Gaius, for welcoming fellow Christian travelers who seem to have a connection to the elder. Since their journey was “for the sake of Christ” they may have been missionaries. The elder goes on to note that he has written “something to the church” (v. 9), which was evidently rejected by its self-appointed leader Diotrephes, who appears to be at odds with the elder. 3 John is unique among the three letters in using the term “church.” Identifying what the elder meant by “something” is guesswork. While some have suggested that it may refer to either 1 or 2 John, there is no way of knowing. The best that we can surmise is that it concerned Diotrephes who had established himself as a leader of a house church and prohibited anyone to welcome the associates of the elder, who were probably itinerant preachers representing the broader Johannine community (v. 10). In closing, the elder commends a certain “Demetrius,” who is an unknown figure. There is no reason to connect him with the Demetrius of Acts19:23-41. Nor is there evidence to support the fourth-century tradition that the elder made him the bishop of Philadelphia (Apostolic Constitutions 7.46.9). So, why was he singled out? His commendation stemmed from his support of the elder in his opposition to Diotrephes. He may have been among the rejected by Diotrephes, and may have even been the carrier of the elder’s letter.

We do not know anything else about the identities of the people named in the letter or the specifics of the situation. We can speculate, however. Diotrephes may be treating the elder and his associates in the same way the elder tells the “elect lady and her children” to treat the opponents in 2 John. It is possible that Diotrephes’ actions were connected with the schism referenced in 1 and 2 John. There is no mention, however, of disputes over beliefs. It is conceivable that the issue was political, having more to do with power and organization in the church. Nevertheless, 3 John is a personal communication to Gaius (and by extension to his community) who seems to be showing hospitality to itinerants connected with the elder. As such, the purpose may be to encourage Gaius to continue in his work in light of the very different behavior exhibited by Diotrephes.  

21.7 Themes

21.7.1 Identity Boundaries

Like other New Testament writings, the Johannine Epistles address Christian identity, which is a common feature of emerging or threatened religious groups. Boundary markers were essential in the formation of distinctiveness. Underlying these markers were questions, such as: What are the characteristic features of a person or a group that would identify them as “one of us”?  Since the Johannine community experienced a schism and was rejected by other groups that viewed themselves as followers of Jesus, identity formation was crucial. One of the means that this was achieved was through a series of dualisms such as light/darkness and truth/falsehood. Thus, those who were insiders are characterized as living in the light and truth, whereas those who were outsiders are characterized as living in darkness and falsehood (1 John 2:9-11). The portrayal of the insiders that emerges, especially in 1 John, seems fairly simple, including both a confessional compliance (namely that Jesus is the Christ and that he has come in the flesh) and an ethical standard. While the author seems to recognize that total perfection may not be possible (2:1), keeping Jesus’ commandments is an essential litmus test for determining who truly belongs and knows God (2:4-6).

The dominant distinguishing feature of the insiders is obedience to the command of love. This theme is developed early in the letter and repeated throughout. Those who love others are in the light (2:9), are born of God (4:7), know God (4:7), and abide in God (4:16). In 1 John, love is not so much an emotion as it is practice (3:17), and is rooted in the nature of God (4:7) and the Father’s act of love in sending the Son into the world (4:9-10; cf. John 3:16-17). It is best characterized as sacrificial or the seeking of the good for the other.

We noted earlier that the Gospel of John is not as ethically focused as some of the other Gospel traditions, and that it lacks an emphasis on social justice, which may have led to the idea that ethics were not important for the Christian life. If 1 John was written afterwards, it may be providing a corrective. In clear Johannine style, the author of 1 John appropriates key metaphors that are used to define the spiritual identity of members of the community and links them to an ethic that has love as its centerpiece.

21.7.2 Antichrists

The idea of the “Antichrist” has played a significant role in the history of Christianity. It continues to hold a fascination among many modern Christians, though it tends to be interpreted in ways that are foreign to the Johannine tradition. For example, many Christians in North America imagine a single powerful figure who epitomizes evil and ushers in the end of the world. Christians have sometimes accused particular religious or political leaders of being the Antichrist, and some have even engaged in lively speculation about which global leader might take on this identity. One need not look further than the bestselling Left Behind book series, which is a fictional portrayal of a modern antichrist, or the 2013 film Rapture-Palooza, which offers a vulgar comedic interpretation of the relevance of the antichrist tradition.

In light of this widespread fascination, it is interesting that “antichrist” is rarely used in the New Testament. In fact, it only occurs in 1 and 2 John (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). Christians in the late second and third centuries developed the idea of the Antichrist by bringing together many different scriptural texts and traditions and combined them with the references in 1 and 2 John, which resulted in a patchwork figure. If we want to accurately represent the Johannine meaning, we have to be careful about imposing later traditions about the Antichrist onto first-century texts.

The Greek term antichristos can mean either “against Christ” as we would tend to understand the word in English, or it can mean “in place of Christ.” The term initially appears in 1 John 2:18 in a warning: “Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour.” It is clear that the audience had some prior understanding of the “antichrist,” but apart from associating him with the “last hour,” we have no information. Scholars have tried to fill in the blanks by appealing to similar eschatological expectations of an evil figure(s) in other writings. In the Old Testament, Daniel’s presentation of Antiochus Epiphanes has been used as a model analogy for the coming of the ultimate evil figure. In the New Testament, there are several analogous figures, including the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2:3-12, “the Beast” in Revelation, and the false christs and false prophets in Mark 13:22. While these analogous figures help us to appreciate the breadth of eschatological expectations, they should not automatically be imposed onto 1 and 2 John.

Perhaps the most unique feature in the warning is the alternation between the singular “antichrist” and the plural “antichrists.” Instead of directly warning about the Antichrist, the author first speaks of antichrist or “an” antichrist, and then goes on to claim that multiple antichrists have come (or are present), which serves as a criterion for the end time (2:18). This scenario seems closer to the Markan Jesus’ warning of false christs than to Paul’s expectation of the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians or “the Beast” in Revelation. However, unlike the comparisons, antichrist in 1 John is not a future figure(s), but a present reality — “many antichrists” have already come.

Who or what is antichrist? While the term is ambiguous in the sense that it could refer to a single person/being or a personification that expresses the spirit or phenomenon of opposing/replacing Christ, the former is probably in mind. The “many antichrists” are not demonic or mysterious spiritual entities, but rather they include the former members of the Johannine community (1 John 2:19). The designation applies to those who do not believe that “Jesus is the Christ” and that he has come in the flesh (1 John 2:22). Since they cannot make these confessions, they have the “spirit of the antichrist” (1John 4:3; 2 John 2:7). They are described as deceivers and a significant threat to the community. Thus, “antichrist” is provocative language that is used to vilify adversaries in an intra-Christian conflict. If the author drew on existing eschatological expectations of a future evil figure (or multiple evil figures) in Jewish and Christian texts, he has reinterpreted them to suit the conflict facing his community.

Info Box 21.4. Antichrist in the Second Century

Irenaeus, the second century bishop of Lyons, was one of the earliest influences that shaped the antichrist tradition by bringing together the term “antichrist” in 1 and 2 John with other biblical traditions about a future evil figure. He writes, “And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second epistle to the Thessalonians: ‘Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.’ The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped—that is, above every idol—for these are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will endeavor in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God.” (Against Heresies 5.25.1; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf)

21.7.3 Hospitality

The ease of mobility throughout much of the Roman Empire during the first century was beneficial for Christian travelers. In most cases, the travel was precipitated by non-religious factors, such as commerce, relationships, and politics. On occasion, however, some Christians travelled for religious reasons, serving as missionaries and itinerant teachers/preachers or miracle workers. The apostle Paul is the most famous example, though there are others. The Gospel of Matthew in particular seems to reflect a situation where itinerants were part of the faith community (Matt 10:1-23). In their travels, these itinerants sought out existing Christian communities and depended on them for social networking and some level of support, such as food and lodging. The practice of welcoming travelling Christians was encouraged as an important virtue (Romans 12:13). Interestingly, this practice continues in some modern religious communities. For instance, the Mennonites, a small Christian denomination, publish a directory that lists Mennonites around the world who will welcome other Mennonite travelers into their homes. 

In 2 and 3 John, we gain some fascinating insights into some of the politics, particularly interpersonal conflicts and power struggles, associated with itinerant Christians. In 2 John, the elder is essentially trying to protect a church community from the threat of those who are teaching a different understanding of the Christian faith. He seems to be concerned that those who “went out” from the community (as mentioned in 1 John) may infect other communities with their false teaching. In order to neutralize the impact, he strongly encourages his community to have no contact with them (2 John 10-11). Not only are they to refrain from offering hospitality, they are not even to offer a greeting. To do so would constitute a participation in their evil deeds.

3 John also addresses hospitality. As we mentioned in our discussion above, it is possible that the issues in 3 John are related to the issue of false teaching in 1 and 2 John, but we cannot be sure.  Regardless of the specific circumstances, the central theme of this letter is hospitality. Gaius is commended for welcoming traveling Christians, and is encouraged to support them, perhaps monetarily. Support for those Christians that are aligned with the Johannine community is a way of being “co-workers with the truth” (v. 8). Diotrephes, however, is doing the exact opposite by refusing to extend the same welcome.

The growth and development of early Christianity was dependent on the movement of people and ideas throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. The sending of letters and the use of emissaries and other traveling Christians was an important way for leaders to establish and maintain influence over other communities, and these leaders often found themselves in competition with others whose authority and teaching were perceived as a threat. Offering or denying hospitality became one of the ways that local communities regulated their influence. 2 and 3 John give us a glimpse into the struggle of using hospitality both to bolster influence and to mitigate it.

Info Box 21.5. Welcoming Travelers in the Didache

While travel and hospitality contributed to the expansion of Christianity during the first two centuries, it was not without questions that needed to be answered. For example, (1) What were the obligations of a host community to the itinerants? (2) How does a host community protect itself from false teachers? And (3) how can a host community avoid being exploited? Questions like these are reflected in the New Testament, but they are particularly vivid in the Didache (also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), an early collection of Christian teachings that may have been written as early as the late first century. The Didache offers a conservative approach to traveling teachers, advising its readers to reject those who propagate teachings that differ from accepted tradition. By contrast, it encourages the welcome of those who bring traditional teachings as if they were welcoming “the Lord” (11:1-3), but not without guidelines. Hosts should limit the stay of traveling teachers to a single day. If they stay three days, it may indicate that they are “false prophets” (11:6-7). The writer also prohibits the travelers to beg for money (11:9). 

1 Peter

21.8 Introduction

1, 2 Peter and Jude form a distinct sub-category within the collection of the Catholic Letters, and it is not uncommon for commentaries to treat all three letters in one volume. 1 and 2 Peter are connected to each other because both claim the apostle Peter as their author. Jude is included because its content is similar to 2 Peter. As we will see, however, the grouping is not without lively discussions about each writing’s authorship and literary relationships. Since there is so much disparity between 1 Peter and 2 Peter in contemporary scholarship, they are not grouped together as is 1, 2, and 3 John. Instead, they are presented separately.

1 Peter is a short letter that claims to be written by Peter, who was a prominent disciple in the Synoptic tradition, Acts, and John. He is also mentioned by Paul in Galatians. The letter’s primary contributions to the New Testament include an extensive discussion of Christian suffering, the use of Jewish images and traditions to construct Christian identity, tradition about Jesus preaching to the spirits, and an example of a household code outside the letters of Paul.

21.9 Author and Date

At the beginning of the letter, the author identifies himself as “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.”

Given the widespread use of pseudonymous authorship in early Jewish and Christian literature, modern scholars have raised questions about the authorship of 1 Peter. Was it written by the historical Simon Peter that we encounter as a major character in the Gospels? Or was it written in his name by someone else? In making such evaluations of the disputed letters of Paul, scholars have the advantage of comparing their language, content, and style with the undisputed letters of Paul. Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury when evaluating the authorship of 1 and 2 Peter, since we do not have a body of letters that were indisputably written by Peter. We do, however, have traditions about Peter in other New Testament writings (the Gospels, Acts, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians) and later Christian literature, all of which may be helpful in determining the plausible identity of the author.

In comparing 1 Peter to other early Christian traditions about Simon Peter, some scholars conclude that the letter is indeed orthonymous, meaning that the author is accurately identified. Their case is made on the basis that the descriptions about him in other writings coincide with the supposed autobiographical attestations in 1 Peter. For instance, in 1 Peter 5:1 the author identifies himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ,” which may reflect the tradition in Luke that Peter observed some of Jesus’ trial from a distance (22:54, 61). Such evidence, however, can be used both ways. A pseudonymous author who was aware of traditions about Peter as a witness to Jesus’ sufferings could have just as well included this information as a way of enhancing the authoritative value of the letter.

Info Box 21.6. Peter, The Disciple with Multiple Names

While the name “Peter” is most well-known from the Gospels and later tradition, his birth name was actually Simon. “Peter,” which comes from a Greek word meaning “rock,” may well have been a nickname given to him by Jesus (Mark 3:16; Matt 16:18; Luke 6:14; John 1:42). In the New Testament, he is sometimes also called “Cephas” (usually by Paul), which comes from the Aramaic word kephas that also means “rock” (John 1:42; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14). On occasion, his birth name is combined with the nickname, resulting in “Simon Peter” (Matt 16:16; Luke 5:8; John 6:68). In 1 Peter, he is simply “Peter.” Throughout the history of the Church, Peter’s fame has exceeded beyond the other disciples of Jesus. In the Roman Catholic tradition, Peter is considered to be the first bishop of Rome, and thus the first Pope. Today, when one visits the Vatican, one cannot avoid noticing at the base of the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica a Latin quotation from Matt 16:18-19 in letters that are 2.5 meters high: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

In evaluating the evidence, many modern scholars have come to reject Simon Peter as the author of 1 Peter. Some point to the lack of references to episodes from the life of Jesus or quotations of Jesus’ teachings, which might seem expected given Peter’s close relationship to him. Many point to the author’s use of both good grammar and style as well as his sophisticated use of the LXX. Since other New Testament traditions present Simon Peter as an uneducated Jewish fisherman from Galilee whose native language was Aramaic (Mark 1:16-18; Acts 4:13), many scholars find it hard to believe that he would be capable of writing an erudite letter.

The dating of the letter is interconnected with authorship. According to later Christian tradition, Simon Peter died as a martyr in Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE) sometime in the mid-60s CE. One of the most well-known statements about his martyrdom comes for the fourth-century historian Eusebius, who writes, “And at last, having come to Rome, he [Peter] was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way” (Ecclesiastical Histories 3.1.2). The tradition, however, may have its roots in Jesus’ enigmatic prediction of Peter’s death, that when he is old, he will stretch out his hands and be fastened with a belt, taken where he does not want to go” (John 21:18-19). While it is next impossible to determine, if Peter died in the mid-60s, then it gives us an historical anchor point for addressing both dating and authorship. The assumption leads to one of two options. If we accept that Simon Peter was the author, then the letter had to be written before his death under Nero, but if we find evidence that the letter was written after the mid-60s CE, then obviously, Simon Peter was not the author. With no concrete evidence of when Peter died, however, we need to look for other hints.

One possible clue for a post-Nero date is the author’s claim that he is sending the letter from a congregation in “Babylon” (5:13), which became a code word for Rome among early Jews and Christians (e.g. Rev 18:2). Scholars have commonly noted that the code word emerged after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE. The comparison clear. As the Babylonians destroyed the first temple in Jerusalem, so Rome’s destruction of the second temple in 70 CE was described in an analogous manner. From this vantage point, 1 Peter could conceivably have been written after 70 CE and well after Simon Peter’s traditional date of death.

Another clue that may be helpful in determining the dating is the reference to Christian suffering and persecution. In 1 Pet 5:9, for example, the author writes, “for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering,” which may imply an empire-wide persecution. The problem, however, is that there is no evidence of Christian persecutions in the first century that spanned beyond specific regions. The most well-known regional persecutions during the first and early second centuries occurred during the reigns of Nero (58-64 CE), Domitian (81-96 CE), and Trajan (97-117 CE). The author’s reference in 4:12 to “fiery ordeal” that his audience is experiencing is sometimes connected to Nero’s burning of Christians in 64 CE (Tacitus, The Annals 15.44; see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Tac.+Ann.+15.44&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078), although it is equally possible that this language is metaphorical. Likewise, the author’s address in 1:1 to especially “the exiles of the dispersion in Pontus… and Bithynia” have caused some to speculate that he is addressing the persecution under Pliny the Younger, who was governor of Bithynia and Pontus during the reign of Trajan (see Pliny’s letter to Trajan at https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/pliny-trajan1.asp).  

No matter how tempting, linking the persecutions in 1 Peter to any one of these three periods is difficult to substantiate. Persecution came in many forms and did not need to be officially sanctioned. For example, some have suggested that the author’s call to “accept the authority of every human institution” (2:13-14) would not fit well with an official persecution. What seems most likely is that the persecution refers to exclusion and marginalization at the level of social engagement.

In the final analysis, the dating of 1 Peter depends on one’s assessment of the author. If it was written by the historical Peter, then we can date it before the mid-60s CE, assuming traditions about his death are accurate. If the letter is pseudonymous, then it was written at least after the mid-60s. The ceiling is Polycarp’s early second-century Letter to the Philippians, which borrows from 1 Peter, but does not identify the source.

21.10 Audience

1 Peter is addressed to “the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1:1), which covered a considerable area of Asia Minor. Altogether, these regions spanned some 330,000 square kilometers, which is almost the size of Germany. The intention that lies behind the ordering and listing of the five areas is unclear. Did they represent a travel route? Did they represent all of Asia Minor? Were they thought to be Roman provinces, and if so, how might we explain the slight inaccuracies? One option is to take these areas as representing the northern part of Asia Minor. As such, some scholars have argued that the author deliberately excludes the Pauline missionary areas of Asia Minor as described in Acts, namely Pamphylia (13:13), Pisidia (13:14; 14:1), Lycaonia (14:6), Cilicia (15:41), and Phrygia (16:6). Galatia would be the exception, but only if Paul visited its northern regions. Another possibility is that since these regions overlap with the list of places in Acts 2:9-10, from where devotees came to Jerusalem at Pentecost, the author of 1 Peter wants to show that the success of the Christian mission extends beyond Paul. In particular, Acts claims that Jews from Pontus were present during Peter’s sermon in Jerusalem, and may have been among the early converts to the Christian movement. Acts also mentions that Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who played an important role in Jewish-Christian missionary activity (Acts 18; cf. Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19), originally came from Pontus (Acts 18:2). Interestingly, the regions listed in Acts 2:9-10 from where Peter’s hearers travelled are all outside the province of Galatia, where Paul invested considerable effort. The list of places in 1 Peter and Acts, which implies a division of designated territories, have raised questions about the (perhaps tense) relationship between the Pauline and Petrine missions.

The unusual address to the “exiles of the Dispersion” (1:1) has led to questions about the ethnicity of the audience. In addition to the address, the author uses language of exile on two other occasions (1:17; 2:11). On the surface, such language would normally be used to describe Jews who lived in the Diaspora and were under the rule of Gentiles, but there is good reason to believe that he primarily has Gentile converts in mind. In particular, there are several references to the audience’s former (pre-Christian) life which imply they came from a pagan background (1:8; 4:3-4). We will see below that a largely Gentile audience makes better sense of the imagery used by the author. So, if the audience is not ethnically Jewish, how should we think about their exilic condition? Scholar have commonly understood the exilic language in two ways. For some, it conveys a spiritual metaphor that refers to the displacement of all Christian who have their true home in heaven (1:4), but temporarily sojourn as strangers in an earthly exile. For others, the language of exile is taken literally to describe, not ethnicity, but the marginalizing of the addressees. When the author calls his audience “aliens/strangers and exiles” (2:11), he may be conveying empathetically that they are living a life of political, legal, and social exclusion from the larger community.

21.11 Purpose

The primary aim of the letter is to help the audience understand and respond to the trials they were experiencing. In so doing, the author places the trials within a broader theological context of Christian identity, behavior, and hope. The audience is reminded that they have been chosen by God and sanctified in the Holy Spirit as they await their heavenly inheritance (1:3-9). In this way, the trials are put into perspective. The suffering of Christ serves as an analogy. As Christ endured his unjust suffered, so the audience is encouraged to do the same, being mindful of the vindication that awaits them (2:13-25). This is a pastoral letter that focusses on ethical behavior, encouragement and perseverance.

The experiences of suffering that the author addresses are not violent, state-sponsored persecutions, but rather they are mistreatments and injustices on the level of daily social interaction, be it inside or outside the household. For example, the author addresses being maligned as evildoers (2:12), abused (3:16), and reviled (4:14) all for the sake of their Christian faith. The author does, however, refer to physical abuse and suffering when he addresses slaves. He recognizes that masters are not always “kind and gentle” but can be “harsh” (2:18), which can include beatings (2:20). The discrimination, slander, abuses, stigmatization, and even the violent mistreatment of slaves were certainly not restricted to anti-Christian sentiment, but rather were part of the widespread fabric of life in the Roman world.

21.12 Themes

21.12.1 Suffering

Among all the New Testament writings, 1 Peter arguably focuses the most on the experience of Christian suffering. The early Christian movement, which experienced a range of sufferings common to many other groups in the ancient world, not only analogously referred to the suffering of Jesus, but also inherited a range of reflections on suffering from the Jewish scriptures and their interpretive traditions, which offered a variety of answers for coping—and the author of 1 Peter was no exception.

As we noted above, many of the sufferings were par for the course in the ancient world. Christian slaves, wives, and children were subject to the same abuses as their non-Christian neighbors. If we accept that the audience saw themselves as social “strangers and exiles,” then their experience of suffering could have also stemmed from their lower social status. Much of the suffering, however, has a religious dimension in the sense that it is tied to Christian identity. There are indications throughout the letter that when members of the audience joined the Christian movement, they changed their social behavior, giving up certain practices and withdrawing from certain social circles and associations. For example, the author writes, “You have already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry. They are surprised that you no longer join them in the same excesses of dissipation, and so they blaspheme” (4:3-4). The Christians’ change in behavior invited disdain and criticism. One such change that may have created problems for Gentile converts was there abstention from worshipping the pagan deities and supporting the temple cult. On a broad social level, this would have been seen as impious, even atheistic, and a threat to the stability of society.

Info Box 21.7. Happy Gods Means Happy Humans

Paula Fredricksen has well captured a broad social sentiment in the pagan world that related the emotional posture of the gods and the emotional well-being of society. She writes, “The problem, then, in the view of the majority culture, was not that Gentile Christians were ‘Christians.’ The problem was that, whatever religious practices these people chose to assume, they were still, nonetheless, ‘Gentiles,’ that is, members of their native genos or natio, with standing obligations to their own gods, who were the gods of the majority. From roughly the end of the 1st century until 250 CE, these Gentile Christians could be the object of local resentments and anxieties precisely because they were not honoring the gods upon whom their city’s prosperity depended. (Recall: cult makes gods happy. If deprived of cult, gods can grow resentful, then angry. Unhappy gods make for unhappy humans.) But Jewish Christians were not so persecuted, because as Jews their exemption from public cult was ancient, traditional and protected by long precedent. Ancestral obligation, not legal status, is what is at stake here... Popular fear of this strange new group fed also on rumor, which attributed terrible anti-social crimes to Christians — infanticide, cannibalism, incestuous intercourse — all accusations that the different Christian sects also made against each other, and that Greco-Roman proto-racist thought routinely attributed to outsiders” (“Mandatory Retirement,” 239).

The author attempts to make sense of his audience’s suffering in three ways. First, he attempts to counter the experiences of social exclusion by reminding them that they are members of a new community by virtue of their new identity in Christ and their heritage in the Jewish scriptures and traditions. We will discuss this more below. Second, he invokes the image of refinement, using the analogy of gold being refined or tested by fire (1:7; 4:12), which may have been influenced by Zech 13:9 (“And I will put this third into the fire, refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested”) or the description of the righteous sufferers in Wisdom of Solomon 3:5-6 (“Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them”). Third, he draws a clear distinction between justified and unjustified suffering, using Jesus as the model for the latter. Throughout the letter he encourages his listeners to be righteous and exemplary people, so that their suffering is not the result of their own wrongdoing. When they do what is right and live above reproach, their righteous suffering will shame those who slander them.

In developing the analogy of Jesus as the model of righteous suffering, the author draws on the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, which is one of the most significant examples of righteous suffering in the Jewish scriptures (2:21-25). As Jesus had done nothing wrong, enduring suffering, so Christians are to follow his example. And just as Jesus’ suffering was followed by resurrection and glory, so they have a heavenly inheritance to look forward to beyond the trials they are facing “for a little while” (1:6).

Info Box 21.8. Is Submission Relevant?

While the aim of 1 Peter is to provide comfort for those who suffer, some scholars have questioned whether the author unintentionally endorses and legitimizes injustice. Like some of the letters attributed to Paul, 1 Peter contains advice for members of households, addressing in particular slaves and women (2:18-3:7). The author advises slaves and women that they should submit to the male head of the household and be well-behaved, even if he is cruel. The ultimate goal is to imitate Christ, which may lead to conversion of the head of the household. While the advice clearly reflects the social conditions of the patriarchal society wherein it may have brought comfort, is it still relevant today? Or does it potentially reinforce domestic and broader social injustice and undermine our cultural propensity toward gender equality and human rights?

21.12.2 Building identity

1 Peter relies on a rich array of symbols and images for the construction of Christian identity. Like his early Christian contemporaries, the author appropriates language from the Jewish scriptures that is used to describe Israel. In the process, the meanings shift. What was said of Israel is now applied to the author’s audience. In the process, the scriptures form a framework of how the text of 1 Peter is constructed and how Christian identity is shaped. 1 Pet 2:9-10 is particularly apt: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” This short text conflates a series of labels and images from several scripture texts, drawing particularly on Exodus 19, Isaiah 43, and Hosea. For example, in Exod 19:6 we read: “. . . but you [Israel] shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.” This kind of widespread borrowing from the Jewish scriptures not only raises questions about the implied exclusivity of Israel in those texts, but it also raises the age-old question about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. In the first century, such questions would not have compared and contrasted religions as we do today, but rather ethnicities. While the Jewish converts to Christianity could have aligned themselves with the language about Israel in the scripture, applying such language to Gentile converts would have been much more difficult.

Another way that the author of 1 Peter constructs Christian identity is by connecting it with Jesus. We have already hit upon this connection in other sections above. The author encourages his readers to interpret their experiences, especially those of suffering, in light of the communal memories of Jesus. His righteous suffering serves as an analogy for the suffering of audience. Yet, it is more than just simple comparison in that their suffering is actually sharing in Christ’s suffering in the anticipation of sharing his reward (4:13).

2 Peter

21.13 Introduction

Like 1 Peter, 2 Peter is a letter which claims to be written by the Apostle Peter, but it is considerably shorter, exhibits a distinctive writing style, contains unique theological language, and addresses very different issues. If 2 Peter is pseudonymous, then chronologically it may well be the last New Testament writing to have been written. It is also distinguished from all of the other writings in the New Testament as garnering the least support during the canonical process. In the Western Church, it was either ignored or rejected until about 350 CE. In the Eastern Church, it was known but was disputed up until the early 4th century. It was not until the middle of the 4th century that it starts to appear in some canonical lists. In addition to its checkered past, within the last hundred years, the inclusion of 2 Peter in the canon has been the topic of debate among some Protestant scholars who have argued that it differs from Paul’s idea of faith, relies too much on Hellenistic philosophy, and endorses “early Catholic” features, which include associating Peter with interpretive authority and “faith” with a body of beliefs.

21.14 Author and Date

The opening verse attributes the letter to “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.” His choice of “Simeon,” which is a Greek variant of “Simon” and also used of Peter in Acts 15:14, is unknown. Interestingly, the author is not content to simply identify himself as Peter in the opening line, but extends his claim to being an eyewitness of the transfiguration (1:16-18), which is closest to Matthew’s version when Peter, James and John witnessed Jesus’ mysterious transformation and heard the voice from heaven say, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well please” (Mark 9:2-8; Matt 17:1-9; Luke 9:28-36). The author further assumes Peter’s identity by saying that he is writing a “second letter” to them (3:1). What is more, despite his endorsement of Paul, he hints at his own superior teaching ability (3:15-16).

While there is debate about the orthonymous authorship of 1 Peter, the same cannot be said of 2 Peter. There is broad agreement that 2 Peter is pseudonymous. In fact, many scholars have noted that the pseudonymous authorship of 2 Peter is more certain than any other New Testament writing. Many of the doubts go back to ancient Christianity. For example, the fourth-century church historian Eusebius quotes Origen, an eminent scholar from the third century as saying, “And Peter, on whom the church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful’” (Ecclesiastical Histories 6.25.8. The main reason for attributing pseudonymous authorship to 2 Peter is due to its distinctive language and style, which some have described as solemn, even haughty and strenuous. About sixty percent of the vocabulary in 2 Peter is not found in 1 Peter. In addition, 2 Peter contains a few theological differences, the most notable of which are its presentation of judgment and the second coming (3:1-16). In summary, despite its attribution to Peter, all indications point to an author who did not also write 1 Peter.

If the letter is pseudonymous and written after Peter’s death, assuming he was martyred under Nero, then it must have been composed later than the 60s CE. It is difficult to know for certain when the letter was written after that, but there are three weighty clues. First, the author’s references to an earlier letter of Peter and letters of Paul, as well as his probable use of Jude, tell us that he wrote after these texts were in circulation, which we could conservatively estimate towards the end of the first century. The second clue is found in 3:3-4, which reads, “First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’” It seems that in the author’s day there were some who had become disillusioned with the idea of an imminent return of Jesus, which reflects a period when early Christian eschatological fervor receded. The reference of the death of “our ancestors” may point to a time when the first Christian generation had passes way. This sentiment would have been common in the latter part of the first century. The third clue, which brings us to the upper limit of dating, is found in second-century writings that draw on 2 Peter. Our earliest copy of 2 Peter is preserved in the third-century manuscript called P72 (part of the Bodmer Papyri), which suggests that it was already in circulation. In the end, while we cannot be precise, the probable range for dating the letter is between the latter part of the first century and the middle of the second century.

21.15 Audience

The label “catholic” or “general” may fit 2 Peter better than some of the other letters within this categorization. The addressees do not appear to be members of any specific congregation or residents of a particular region. Rather, the author seems to address Christians in general, writing “to those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1). As we read through the letter, the generality narrows in that the author assumes the same audience to which 1 Peter is addressed (3:1), but other than that it remains broad. The author’s reference to 1 Peter, which was addressed to those scattered in “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1:1) and his reference to their reception of a letter from Paul (3:15), implies that Christians in Asia Minor may be in view.

21:16 Purpose

A key to understanding what the author is trying to accomplish with this letter may be found in 1:12-14:

Therefore, I intend to keep on reminding you of these things, though you know them already and are established in the truth that has come to you. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your memory, since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

In taking on the persona of the Apostle Peter before his imminent death—much like we find predicted by Jesus in John 21:18-19—the author wants to remind his audience what they have already learned (cf. 3:1-2). What is especially interesting is that he wants to make sure that their memories will not wane after his death. As such, the letter has a mnemonic purpose which resembles early Jewish and Christian testaments. As a genre, a testament is a speech given by a parent to their children or by a leader to his followers when death is imminent. It includes blessings, encouragements, warnings, ethical instructions, and prophecies. An early form of testament is present in Genesis, such as the instructions given to Aaron by Moses. The genre exploded in the first century BCE and CE. Testaments were a way for Jews and Christians to creatively use authoritative figures from their history, such as Abraham, to offer guidance and direction in their own day. This is very similar to how the author of 2 Peter is trying to channel Peter as presenting a testament to the church. What is fascinating about this, is that it reflects an important development in early Christianity in the sense that the memory of the apostles begins to be appropriated in ways that were similar to the appropriation of the prophets and patriarchs. Within the process, foundational figures serve as social memory frames through which Christian identity is constructed.

The aim of “Peter’s” testament is not uncommon to early Christianity. As observed in other New Testament writings, the author of 2 Peter addresses the internal struggles within the Christian community. In particular, he focuses on two issues. First, he warns the audience of “false prophets” who will bring destructive teaching and will entice many with their “sensuality” (2:1-2). Since the author draws on Jude, we will discuss their possible identity below. Second, “Peter” is concerned that Christians do not waver in their expectation of a final judgment, despite its delay. They are to live with the hope of that expectation. 

21.17 Themes

21.17.1 Reception of Christian Writings and Traditions

One of the most fascinating aspects of 2 Peter is its interaction with several New Testament texts, traditions, and figures. Many of these were mentioned above in brief. First, the author refers to 1 Peter as the preceding letter that he wrote to the same audience (3:1). We cannot be sure, however, if the author simply knew about the letter or if in fact he read it.

Second, the author conveys familiarity with the transfiguration account in the Synoptic tradition. He writes,

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain” (1:16-18).

The declaration from heaven is not an exact quotation of what we find in the Synoptic accounts (cf. Mark 9:7; Matt 17:5; Luke 9:35), which suggests that the author was not copying from any of them, but relying perhaps on oral tradition or another version of the story. However, the wording resembles Matthew’s version more than the others. Regardless of his source, the inclusion of a specific event from the life of Jesus is remarkable since the letters in the New Testament tend to focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus and their significance.

Third, toward the end of the letter, the author refers to “our brother Paul.” He writes, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction as they do the other scriptures” (3:15-16). In addition to being aware that Paul wrote multiple letters, the author refers to a specific letter that was written to the same audience that 2 Peter targets. Since 2 Peter addresses a general readership, and all of Paul’s surviving letters were addressed to specific individuals or communities, it is not clear what letter the author has in mind. To narrow the options, scholars have identified specific words, phrases, and traditions that occur in both 2 Peter and Paul’s letters. Based on these comparisons, scholars have isolated Romans, 1 Thessalonians, and maybe 1 Corinthians as strong possibilities.

The positive portrayal of Paul by “Peter” is interesting given the tension between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2, which represented differences among the earliest Christian communities. Some identified with Pauline teachings, while others gravitated toward Petrine teaching. The author’s representation of Peter and advocacy of Paul, which is also implied in Acts, indicates an easing of the initial tensions in the first generation of the church, giving an impression of early Christian unity.

Info Box 21.9. Paul’s Letters as Scripture?

2 Peter provides a window into how Paul’s writings were received by some early Christians. It is very interesting to note, for example, that “Peter” seems to consider Paul’s letters to be scriptural, comparing them to “the other scriptures” (literally “the other writings”). While the term “scripture” does not necessarily refer to canon, it is potentially indicative of very early groupings of authoritative Christian writings. In addition to viewing Paul’s letters as scripture, we also learn here that they were being interpreted in different ways, which is implied by “Peter’s” reference to the “ignorant and unstable” readers of Paul. This should not surprise us, as Paul himself felt the need to clarify his letters (1 Cor 5:9-12). The fact that the earliest readers of Paul understood his words in different ways, and that “Peter” recognized that “there are some things in them hard to understand” should be encouraging to modern readers of Paul as they puzzle over what exactly the apostle was trying to say.

Finally, the author of 2 Peter significantly interacts with Jude, which constitutes one of the major topics in the study of the Catholic Letters. While the author of 2 Peter does not refer to Jude in the way he refers to 1 Peter or Paul, but he does share a considerable amount of material with Jude. In fact, Jude and 2 Peter have more in common than 1 and 2 Peter. Note, for example, the following comparison.

2 Peter 2:4-6

For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment; and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he saved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood on a world of the ungodly; and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly.

Jude 6-7

And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immortality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire

The exact relationship between these two texts is difficult to explain. One option is that the author of 2 Peter knew Jude well and incorporated it into his own letter. A second option is that the author of Jude took a portion of 2 Peter and used it for the bulk of his own work. A third option is that both are dependent on common source material. The options, however, may not be of equal weight. When the two letters are compared, there is a striking tendency by the author of 2 Peter to be more expansive than the author of Jude. Since source material is usually shorter or less extensive, many scholars have argued that Jude is used by the author 2 Peter. If so, then 2 Peter can be understood as one of our earliest Christian interpretations of Jude, just as Matthew and Luke constitute our earliest interpretations of Mark.

21.17.2 Equating the New and the Old

The first Christians did not create a new religious movement solely on the basis of the resurrection story. Instead, they interpreted it within the continuity of Israel’s identity, practices, and traditions. They utilized images, models, figures, and stories that were rooted in the Jewish scriptures and first-century Jewish self-understanding and imagination. The author of 2 Peter is a master at connecting the early Christian movement with the Jewish past. Demonstrating a continuity with an ancient religion would not have only strengthen the author’s message, but would have also given legitimacy to the Christian movement in Roman society. There is a litany of examples. We see an attempt to equate the apostles with Israel’s prophets and patriarchs. Paul’s writings are put on the same level as “the other scriptures.” Peter, like the patriarchs, offers a testament. The commandment of Jesus, through the apostles, is compared to the teachings of the “holy prophets” (3:2-3). False teachers are compared to the false prophets of Israel’s day (2:1). The judgment that awaits the author’s opponents is compared to the judgment of the fallen angels, the victims of the Noahic flood, and the casualties of Sodom and Gomorrah (2:4-10). As is the case with his construct of Christian identity, so it is with his portrayal of the impending judgment. They are both informed and shaped by the author’s inherited cultural memories of Israel’s past.

21.17.3 The Nature of Prophecy

One of the major questions in the history of Christian theology concerns the nature of scripture. Long before the Jewish scriptures and the writings of the New Testament attained an official canonical status, their authoritative role was nebulously and sporadically integrated with the divine. Though, inspiration never functioned as a criterion of canonicity. The theological discussions of the relationship of the scriptures to the divine and to the human have in part turned to 2 Peter 1:20-21 along with 2 Tim 3:16, both of which have served as the main New Testament texts. The author of 2 Peter writes, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Although the author does not specifically speak about the inspirational quality of scripture, he does claim that the prophecies in scripture are not of human origin. This emphasis on the divine nature of prophecy in scripture is particularly interesting in that the author connects the words and writings of the apostles to Israel’s prophets. By emphasizing the inspirational quality of Israel’s prophets, the author bolsters the authority of the apostles, and by extension his own as “Peter.”

Jude

21.18 Introduction

The letter of Jude can easily be overlooked when flipping through the New Testament because it contains only twenty-five verses. During the early centuries of Christianity, some like Origen regarded the letter to be theologically rich. By comparison, apart from its well-known appeal “to contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3), the letter has fallen into neglect, which is perhaps due to its brevity, negativity, apocalypticism, and an abundance of textual difficulties throughout its history of reception. Despite its inattention, Jude contributes to our understanding of early Christianity. In particular, it conveys how early Christians appropriated early Jewish texts and traditions in support of their faith. The sharp tone of the author also reveals how a Christian authority figure addressed threats to his community, perceived and real, by drawing boundaries between authentic and inauthentic faith during a period of internal division.

21.19 Author, Date, and Audience

The author of Jude introduces himself as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (v. 1). As is perhaps anticipated by now, scholars have questioned the accuracy of the author’s self-designation. While it is theoretically possible that “Jude” and “James” were unknown persons given the popularity of both names in the first century, it is unlikely. Since the time that Jude started to circulate, readers have tended to identify its author with a figure we encounter elsewhere in the New Testament. In Greek, Jude is Ioudas, the Greek form of Judah, which stems from one of the twelve sons of Jacob in the book of Genesis. Ioudas is translated in other parts of the New Testament as Judas, so Jude and Judas are the same name in Greek. There are several figures named Judas in the New Testament (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13, 9:11, 15:22), but most scholars believe the author of Jude is claiming to be Judas, the brother of Jesus as well as the brother of James, who was a leader in the early church and the supposed author of the letter of James in the New Testament (cf. Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55).

Was Jude written by the brother of Jesus and James, or is it another example of early Christian pseudonymous authorship? Some have argued that since Jude does not appear to have been as well-known as Peter and Paul, he would have been an odd choice for a pseudonym. Though, it is possible that he was more acknowledged in some early Christian circles than the New Testament writings indicate. The two main arguments for pseudonymous authorship are not unlike the ones we have encountered in assessments of other New Testament writings. The first is the style of the Greek used by the author. As with James and the letters of Peter, many scholars consider the polished Greek of Jude to have been beyond the skill level of someone raised in a Galilean peasant family. Given the extremely low literacy rate among rural peasants in antiquity, the argument has weight. Second, some have argued that since the content of the writing reflects later developments in the early Christian movement, it was likely written sometime after Jude’s death. One example, which is often proposed, is the lack of any discussion about tensions between Jews and Gentiles, which begin to ease toward to the close of the first century.

Dating Jude is a problem regardless of who wrote it. If the letter was written by the historical Jude, it leaves us in a quandary because we cannot accurately date his death, before which he obviously wrote. If the letter is pseudonymous, written after Jude’s death, it could be dated in the last quarter of the first century or even in the early part of the second. The use of Jude by the author of 2 Peter is helpful for determining an upper limit, but here too we can only offer an estimate.

In addition to the dating, we are also uncertain about the place of authorship and the audience in view. As in the case of 2 Peter, Jude’s reference to the recipients is fairly vague. The author addresses the letter, “To those who are called, who are beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ” (v. 1).

21.20 Purpose

The overarching purpose of the letter is to encourage its recipients to remain firm in “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3) in the face of opposition. The intruders (literally “certain men” in the Greek) that appear to be disrupting the community are not Roman officials or Jewish authorities, but other Christians whose teachings and perhaps behaviors were regarded as corrupt. The intruders are described as “ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (v. 4). This kind of incident and polemic seems to have been commonplace. While we have already encountered a similar clash in Galatians, conflicts among rival groups who identified themselves as followers of Jesus were especially prevalent in the last third of first century (e.g. Acts 20:29; 2 Tim 3:6; 2 John 10). Most likely, the intruders would have considered themselves as itinerant teachers or missionaries who were extended hospitality. They are called “dreamers” in verse 8, which suggests they claimed prophetic insight. They are sarcastically described as “shepherding themselves” in verse 12, which suggest they saw themselves as leaders. And they are portrayed as judging everyone for their “ungodliness” in verse 15, which implies that they saw themselves as authorities. Since the author does not address the content of their teaching, it is unfortunately lost. What survives, however, is a vilifying polemic against them, which takes up most of the letter. In addition to their “ungodly perversions” and “denial of Jesus” in verse 4, they author launches a barrage of condemnations.

• They are dreamers who “defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glorious ones” (v. 8)

• They “slander whatever they do not understand” (v. 10).

• They are comparable to Cain and make Balaam’s “error for the sake of gain”, and “perish in Korah’s rebellion” (v. 11).

• They are described with metaphors from the natural world: waterless clouds, fruitless trees, wild waves “casting up the foam of their own shame”, and straying stars (vv. 12-13).

• They are viewed as the intended recipients of Enoch’s words of judgment (vv. 14-15).

• They are “grumblers and malcontents; they indulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage” (v. 16).

• They are the scoffers who indulge in ungodly lusts as the apostles predicted (vv. 17-18).

• They are worldly, do not have the Spirit and they cause divisions (v. 19).

The condemnations are envisioned through the frames of divine judgment in the Jewish scriptures, specifically the punishment of Israelites in the Exodus story (v. 5), the demise of the angels in Genesis 6 and the Enoch traditions (v. 6), and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7). These stories serve two primary functions. First, they equate the fate of the condemned in Jewish tradition with the impending fate of the intruders. Second, they are intended to strike fear among the recipients should they think about shifting their allegiances. So, just as the Israelites were saved from bondage in Egypt and later destroyed because of their disbelief, so Christians who have been saved by Jesus can be punished if they depart from the true faith.

21.21 Themes

21.21.1 Licentiousness

The two themes that dominate this letter are licentiousness and rebellion against authority. The former is captured explicitly in verse 4 where the author describes the intruders as perverting God’s grace to the point of “licentiousness,” which many scholars have interpreted as steering Jude’s audience in directions that would threaten their faith at the risk of divine judgment. Some have connected the licentiousness to lax ethical attitudes, specifically sexual morality. If so, the intruders could be connected to Gnostics whose strong distinction between the spiritual and the physical led some to think that no bodily actions were immoral. We came across a similar sentiment addressed by Paul in the Corinthian letters. The problem is that evidence for Christian Gnostic intruders is not specific enough. Others have suggested that licentiousness refers to the intruders’ antinomian (“anti-legal”) views, meaning that they interpreted the Christian message in such a way that freed them from certain moral obligations, rules, laws, or taboos. Since Paul opposed Jewish legal requirements for his Gentile converts (e.g. circumcision), his followers could have exaggerated his emphasis on faithfulness to Christ at the exclusion of other behavioral practices. In the end, apart from the author’s frustration with the intruders’ teaching and behavior, he is not specific, which suggests that the recipients are fully aware of the issues.

21.21.2 Rebellion Against Authority

The theme of rebellion against authority is atypically connected with “glorious ones.” In verse 8, the author condemns the intruders for rejecting authority and for slandering the “glorious ones,” which some have suggested is a reference to angels. In the next verse, the slander is compared to an early Jewish tradition about the archangel Michael who struggled with the devil over the body of Moses. In comparison, the actions of the intruders are more severe since in the midst of this struggle, Michael did not “bring a condemnation of slander” against the devil, but merely said “The Lord rebuke you.” Does the comparison suggest that the intruders disrespected or insulted angelic beings as authoritative entities?  If so, how? In Jewish tradition, angels were usually connected with divine revelation, especially the giving of the law to Moses on Mount Sinai. If this tradition is in view, then the intruders’ licentiousness, if understood as a flagrant disregard for the Law, may be seen as an act of rebellion against angelic authorities who mediated it.

Another possibility is that the opponents are not actually rebelling against angels, but rather against authority within the church, which could include the leadership and/or traditions. This option corresponds well, for instance, with the reference to Korah’s rebellion in verse 11, which stems from Numbers 16. Korah was among the wandering Israelites in the wilderness who challenged the authority of Moses and Aaron, which resulted in the earth opening up and swallowing him and his co-conspirators. The cultural memory of Korah functioned to represent the dangerous consequences of challenging divinely appointed leaders. There is an anomaly with this option, though. If church leaders are in view, it is surprising that Jude does not identify them as bishops or elders, which began to be the norm in latter part of the first-century.

Since the author of 2 Peter—who most likely used Jude—utilizes similar language to describe his opponents, does he have in mind the same group of intruders? Apart from calling them “false prophets” instead of Jude’s nebulous “certain men,” the author of 2 Peter expands on the condemnations and captures many of the same themes, namely the denial of Jesus, immorality, and greed (2:1-3). The similarity is particularly striking in the blasphemous attitude toward the “glorious ones” by the “false prophets,” which are identified as angels. “Peter” writes, “Bold and willful, they are not afraid to slander the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not bring against them a slanderous judgment from the Lord” (2:10-11). Despite the similarities, it is hard to determine if the same opponents are in view. If they are not, then Jude’s vilifying language may have been taken as stock condemnation against itinerant followers of Jesus who were advancing alternate teachings.

Info Box 21.10. Condemnation as Self-Disclosure?

Attempts to draw boundaries within early Christianity were not unusual. The same practice is seen among early Jewish groups. Sociologists have long argued that vilifying language and even violence increases among groups that are in closer proximity to each other socially and ideologically, naturally resulting in the construction of boundaries. If this is the case in Jude and 2 Peter, then the condemnatory language does not accurately describe the opposing group(s). Michel Desjardins, for example, argues that the descriptions of the opponents in these letters tells us more about the authors than the opponents. The things they considered deviant and dangerous help us understand their own sense of boundaries and the things that were most important to them. This approach can also help us understand the type of community and social identity they were trying to create, since polemical attacks did not always reflect major differences or divides within a community, but were meant to create distinctions and divisions in order to shape communal identity.

21.21.3 The Watchers

We have seen on occasion throughout this book that New Testament writers not only rely on the scriptures, but also Jewish oral and written traditions. 1, 2 Peter and Jude are particularly indebted to a tradition that explains how evil entered the world, which is preserved in a popular apocalyptic story of evil angels, called “Watchers,” in a writing dated to about 200 BCE, known as 1 Enoch. The writing is attributed to Enoch who briefly appears in the genealogy from Adam to Noah in Gen 5:18-24. Interestingly, the author of Jude not only refers to traditions from this book, but actually quotes from it, writing, “It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him’” (vv. 14-15). Jude’s reference to Enoch implies that it was an authoritative document for him in much the same way that the Jewish scriptures were cited by other New Testament writers. As a result, scholars have wondered whether the author of Jude saw Enoch as scripture.

The story of the Watchers is rooted in Gen 6:1-4, which reads,

When people began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide[a] in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.

Immediately following this episode, the author of Genesis writes that the earth had become very wicked, and that God had decided to destroy the earth with a great flood. What did all of this mean?  Many ancient interpreters understood the “sons of God” to refer to angelic beings, since this is the way the phrase is often used in the Jewish scriptures (Job 1:6). In Genesis 6 we read that angelic beings procreated with human women. Even though Genesis does not explicitly say anything negative about these angels or their children, the fact that the context talks about human wickedness and the flood led some interpreters to understand the angels’ sexual intermingling with humans as a grave sin that introduced evil into the world, which resulted in the destruction of the earth in the flood. Early Jewish stories, like that of the Watchers in 1 Enoch, developed these interpretations in detail. In 1 Enoch’s version of the story, the Watchers abandon their divinely ordained roles and impregnate human women, who give birth to violent and destructive giants. The Watchers also teach human beings forbidden knowledge, like how to make weapons, which explains how warfare and chaos entered the world. In response, God intervenes through intermediaries by destroying the giants, throwing the Watchers into a prison where they wait for the final judgment, and sending the flood. In some versions, the spirits of the dead giants continue to roam the earth, causing all kinds of trouble, and manifesting themselves as demons.

The authors of 1, 2 Peter and Jude make use of this tradition. 1 Peter tells us that after his death Christ preached to the imprisoned spirits (3:18-19). 2 Peter and Jude use the fallen angels as an example of sin and judgment. Note especially the following texts.

“For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment; and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he saved Noah . . .” (2 Pet 2:4-5)

“And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6).

Further Reading

Richard Bauckham. Jude, 2 Peter. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Michel Desjardins. “The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does it Tell Us More About the ‘Godly’ Than the ‘Ungodly’?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (1987), 89-102.

John H. Elliot. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Anchor Bible, 2001.

Paula Fredrickson. “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time Has Come to Go.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 35 (2006) 231-246.

Judith Lieu. The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986.

Darian R. Lockett. An Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. London: T. & T. CLark, 2012.

Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin, ed. Reading 1-2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.

J. Ramsey Michaels. 1 Peter. Waco: Word Books, 1988.

Jerome Neyrey. 2 Peter and Jude. Anchor Bible, 37C. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

David R Nienhuis. Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistles Collection and the Christian Canon. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007.