1

“The Canonical Function of 2 Peter and Jude” Dr. David R. Nienhuis, Seattle Pacific University

VIII Convegno di Studi Biblici – Facoltà Theologica di Sicilia “San Giovanni Evangelista”

Palermo, 16-17 November, 2012

DRAFT PAPER – NOT TO BE QUOTED

1) Preliminary comments on the canonical approach

Modern biblical scholarship has shown little interest in maintaining the

boundaries of the Bible’s own canonical collections when evidence unearthed by

historical-critical investigation has suggested alternative gatherings. Indeed,

modernity’s orientation to the Bible has so privileged the interpretive control of

individual texts’ reconstructed origins that the later assembling of the texts into a

canonical whole came to be deemed irrelevant at best, or a dangerous ecclesial

distortion of the writings’ “original” truth at worst. Nearly a hundred and fifty years

ago the German scholar Franz Overbeck wrote:

“It is in the nature of all canonization to make its objects unknowable, and one

can also say of all the writings of our New Testament that at the moment of their

canonization they ceased to be understood. They have been transposed into the

higher sphere of an eternal norm for the church, not without a dense veil having

been spread over their origin, their original relationships, and their original

meaning.”1

Though such statements were heard as radical at the time, nowadays the concern to

establish interpretive control according to the historical point of origin—original author,

original readers, original context— is the mainstay of biblical scholarship, regardless of

one’s theological commitments.

As a result of this rather rigid focus on the point of composition, scholarly study

of the New Testament has come to take on the rather predictable form and structure of a

new biblical canon, one that has reorganized the apostolic writings according to

organizational rubrics that reflect the conventions of modern scholarly reconstruction

This paper comes between projects for me. I have just completed a book with my colleague, Dr. Robert W. Wall, entitled The Church’s Guide to Reading the Catholic Epistles: The Shaping and Shape of a Canonical Collection (Eerdmans, 2013), and I am now at work on a monograph tentatively entitled A Crucial Letter: The Canonical Function of the Second Letter of Peter. Much of this paper is made up of extended quotes from these two books. To that end, I wish to acknowledge my debt to Rob Wall, not only for his immense influence on my life and work, but also for his words, some of which have no doubt been carried over directly into this paper. 1 Zur Geschichte des Kanons (Chemnitz, 1880), 80; quoted by G. Luedemann, Heretics: The Other Side of

Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1996), p.270 n.298.

2

— a “Scholar’s Canon” to replace the Church’s Canon. So: though the Church’s New

Testament canon begins with the Gospel according to Matthew, scholars routinely

begin studies of the fourfold Gospel with Mark; since preoccupation with historical

point of origin is oriented toward an interest in authorship, the Acts of the Apostles is

disassociated from its function as bridge between the gospels and the letters to be

treated alongside Luke’s gospel as part two of a singular authorial whole; the Pauline

writings are also reordered, separated like sheep and goats, with the blessed

“authentic” writings on one side and the subcanonical “Deuteropaulines” on the other.

Indeed, the focus of this conference has obviously been determined according to

the conventions of the Scholar’s canon. For though the Church’s Canon deliberately

separates 2 Peter and Jude from one another and places them within an intentionally

designed collection of letters known as the Catholic Epistles, the Scholar’s Canon

underscores these seven letters’ original independence and literary diversity. James

and 1 Peter are either read in isolation or treated as extensions of, or reactions against,

the Pauline letters; the letters of John are pulled out to be read alongside the Gospel as

“Johannine Literature”; and the two remaining—2 Peter and Jude—are read together

because of their clear literary relationship.

It must be said at the outset that a canonical approach to these letters has no

interest whatsoever in denying the valuable historical insights gained from scholarly

research into textual origins. A canonical approach simply seeks to champion the

literary integrity, aesthetic excellence, and hermeneutical promise of the final form of

the canonical text. The canonical approach contends that modernity’s narrow focus on

a text’s point of origin is, according to Christopher Seitz, to “wrongly proportionalize

one dimension of the exegetical discipline and art.”2 Put sharply, attention to the

process of canonical shaping reveals that the biblical texts were not preserved simply

because of what first readers of a particular socio-historical locale thought of them; they

were preserved because, over time, the church discerned that they were vehicles of the

Spirit’s communication to faithful readers regardless of their socio-historical locale.

Thus, though each of the biblical writings had their own varied points of origin as

discrete texts, the canonical approach contends that their point of origin as scripture is

that moment when the individual texts were shaped together as a whole.

2 Christopher R. Seitz, The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Canon (Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011, p.37).

3

Researchers into the canonical process have shown that the slow, purposeful

formation of individual collections appears to have taken place on the basis of a résumé

of ecclesial performances among rank-and-file believers, performances that commended

their future productivity for God’s purposes. Central to this process was the

importance of relationships between writings rather than the authorization of individual

writings in isolation from all the rest.3 Before a text was received into the biblical canon, it

was first widely and well-used in creative conjunction with other texts to maximize the

Spirit’s communication of apostolic tradition; thus the enduring excellence of a

particular canonical form was recognized from among other possibilities by its capacity

to perform the workload intended for a biblical canon in forming the faith of the church.

In this sense, both the final shape of each collection and the finality of the single

biblical canon create an interpretive aesthetic that is functionally different than those

alternate “shapes” of biblical writings created according to the interests of modern

scholarship. In canonical perspective, textual signals that point to an original diversity

will draw less attention than the linguistic and thematic connections that suggest points

of theological unity. One’s eyes become trained to the discernment of intertextual

allusions within the collection as instances of collective coherence and theological

magnification. When this line of vision is applied to the Catholic Epistle collection

(hereafter “CE”), one discovers a robust set of intertextual connections that suggest a

unified reading strategy toward a distinctively theological end.

Far from being antithetical to historical reconstruction, the deep logic of this shift

from composition to canonization (with its attendant focus on canonical intent rather

than authorial intent) actually follows the rationale of modernity’s defense of a text’s

“original meaning”— for indeed, in some cases we know far more about a text’s point

of origin as canonical than we do about its origins as an authored composition. But

reading a biblical text in light of its point of canonization rather than its point of

composition is not simply a more practical hermeneutical control in protecting the text

from interpretive abuse; it is also a species of historical-critical measurement that is

more amenable to the theological interpretation of scripture than a form of historical

investigation that requires the dissolution of the Church’s canon. Indexing a biblical

3 The fascinating intellectual history by M. C. Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), narrates the effects of early modernity on the study and use of Scripture, two of which are (1) the detachment of Scripture from the church, and (2) the dismantling of the strategic relationships between canonical texts in order to treat each per se text alone.

4

text’s “original meaning” by its initial reception as Scripture helps to illumine it within

canonical context, which is how the church currently receives its apostolic witness as a

source of wisdom and a means of grace.

2) Some Thoughts on the Formation of the CE Collection

Our time together today will not allow for a complete articulation of the process

of historical shaping that resulted in the final form of the CE collection, but the

recitation of a few summary points will be necessary if my comments on the canonical

function of 2 Peter and Jude are to make sense.4

It is now well known that the collection first emerged in the Eastern churches of

the late third century, as witnessed first by Eusebius.5 Widespread Eastern canon list

agreement across the fourth and fifth centuries suggest that the form achieved—a seven

letter collection following the order James-Peter-John-Jude— was the one recognized to be

maximally effective for completing the apostolic letter collection. Nevertheless, this

final form took another century to find acceptance in the Western churches, and even

longer to be embraced by the Syrian churches.

Ongoing letter sequence diversity in the major Western canon lists thereafter

makes it clear that the primary stumbling block for Western acceptance of the final form

was the placement of James at the head of the collection rather than the letters of Peter.

As I tried to demonstrate in my earlier book, Not By Paul Alone (Baylor, 2007), the West

appears to have been focused on creating an apostolic letter collection predicated on a

Petrine/Pauline basis. The final form that emerged out of the East, however, envisions

the early apostolic mission according to the narration provided by the book of Acts;

though Peter and Paul are indeed the major characters of that story, these two are in fact

depicted as key representatives of larger movements, that is, a Jerusalem mission to the

Jews headed by James (not Peter) and an evangelistic mission to the Gentiles centered

on the work of Paul.

The intentional design of the CE collection is made evident, in part, by its

sequence: it does not follow the pattern of the gospels, where presumed composition

chronology appears to rule, nor does it follow that of the Pauline collection, which is

4 For a far more thorough discussion, see my book Not By Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle

Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007). 5 Historia ecclesiastica 2.23.25.

5

determined by stichoi-length. The sequence James-Peter-John finds its clearest analogue

in Paul’s assertion in the letter to the Galatians that he met in Jerusalem with “James

and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged Pillars” (Gal.2:9) to agree on a division

of labor, that Paul should work with Gentiles, and the Pillars would work with Jews.

Ending the collection with the letter of “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and

brother of James” (Jd.1) scores two points. First, it makes this a seven letter collection,

following early Patristic interest in patterns of seven6, so that the final form of the NT

includes Paul’s writings to seven churches, followed by the seven catholic letters, and

concluded with the book of Revelation which opens with Jesus dictating seven letters to

seven churches. But secondly (and ultimately more substantively) ending with Jude

creates an inclusio for the collection to suggest that this packet of letters comes in the

embrace of Jesus’ relatives according to the flesh. I’ll say more about the hermeneutical

significance of this inclusio when I turn to the canonical function of the letter of Jude.

Tracking patristic usage of these seven letters makes it clear that 1 Peter, 1 John,

and Jude were known and used widely in the second century. The second and third

letters of John appear to have tagged along with 1 John over this same period. James

and 2 Peter by contrast are not known until Origen in the first half of the third century;

and though he appears to know nothing of a completed CE collection (indeed, evidence

suggests he rejected the canonicity of 2 Peter) it seems that it was his championing of

James that brought it into widespread circulation and enabled the formation of the final

form of the collection as the literary representation of the ancient Jerusalem mission.

Though many doubts persisted regarding the authenticity of 2 Peter, it is a

striking fact that in less than a century from Origen’s day the letter appears to have

gone from complete non-use and even outright rejection to being a fixed component of

an authoritative apostolic letter collection. Its quick admission and stable placement

suggests that it was recognized as capable of performing a crucial canonical role. I have

argued in an earlier book that James was included to provide the orienting logic of the

collection as a whole; but why include 2 Peter? What does it add to the collection that

would be lacking if it was omitted, especially given the fact that it simply repeats so

much of the already authoritative letter of Jude?

6 See e.g. the Muratorian Fragment, lines 47-60; Cyprian Fort.11.101-108; Victorinus Com. Apoc. 1.7; Amphilochius

Iambi vv.289-31; Jerome Ep. 53.9.

6

3) Earlier Studies on the Canonical Function of 2 Peter

Earlier studies of 2 Peter’s canonical function focused primarily on the letter’s

relation to texts outside the CE collection. For example, in a 1985 article entitled “The

Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy in Second Peter and its Role in the Formation of the

Canon,” Dennis Farkasfalvy suggested that “the pseudepigraphy of Second Peter

stands under the control of a canonical concern” interested “first of all” in strengthening

the link between the Pauline and Petrine traditions in a unified struggle against heresy. 7

The author’s community had received a collection of Pauline letters, 1 Peter and Jude as

authoritative. Those of Paul were being misread to support an unorthodox eschatology,

and since the particular eschatological orientations of 1 Peter and Jude were unable to

address the new situation, the author created a letter in Peter’s voice, incorporating

elements of the Pauline collection and Jude in order to bridge the gap that had formerly

existed between them.8

More recently David Trobisch has argued that 2 Peter functions as one among

several “editorial notes” provided for readers by the Bible’s final canonical editors.

These textual “helps” are designed to furnish the recipient of the edition with

redactional signals that enable the coherence of the final form and underscore the

authority of the individual writings whilst emphasizing the harmonious agreement of

their apostolic authors.9 So: readers of the canonical edition will unavoidably identify

the sender as the Apostle Peter familiar to them from the gospel narratives and the well-

known 1 Peter. The comment, “I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our

Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me” (1:14) leads readers to recall Jesus’ prophesy of

Peter’s death in the Gospel of John (21:18-19), and when Peter says, “I will make every

effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things”

(1:14), readers remember that 1 Peter associated Peter with Mark (1Pet.5:13) and assume

that the “effort” made for recollection of the Petrine message is the Markan Gospel;

immediately after that, the author grounds his authority in his being an eyewitness at

the Transfiguration (2Pet.1:16-18), a story only known in our canon through the

Synoptic witnesses.

7 D. Farkasfalvy, “The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy in Second Peter and its Role in the Formation of the

Canon” (SecCent 5, 1985, 3-29). 8 Ibid., 23.

9 D. Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

7

Surrounding these allusions to NT texts are claims regarding the authority of the

OT: There are references to God’s “precious and very great promises” (1:4); readers are

told to be attentive to the prophetic message (1:19) which derives from the Holy Spirit

(1:21); and a list of OT examples underscores the claim that the OT offers reliable

accounts of how God acted in the past and will act in the future (2:1-22). When the

author goes on to assert, “you should remember the words spoken in the past by the

holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your

apostles” (3:2), an important parallel is established for understanding the proper

relation between the two testaments of the Canonical Edition.

When it comes to 2 Peter’s use of Jude, Trobisch is uninterested in the source-

critical questions that have occupied modern interpreters, for the simple fact that the

two letters echo one another is canonically significant. For readers of the Canonical

Edition, the parallel underscores the sense of apostolic agreement on fundamental

aspects of the faith. Just as 1 Corinthians 9:5 mentions Peter together with the brothers

of Jesus, and the first eight chapters of the Acts of the Apostles associates Peter with the

Jerusalem apostles, so also here we find that Peter and Jude, the brother of James, speak

with the unified voice of intimate colleagues in ministry. In this way, the links between

2 Peter and Jude underscore Peter’s association with the Jerusalem apostolate.

Of course, the author also shows a concern to harmonize Peter and Paul. Noting

that Paul “also wrote to you”, the author indicates not only that Peter and Paul share

the same audience, but also that his letter is directed especially toward readers of

Pauline letters; indeed, the reference to “all his letters” indicates that both author and

recipient are in the possession of a collection of Pauline writings. His designation of

Paul as “our beloved brother” suggests the intimacy of their agreement and echoes the

very similar designation of Paul in the letter from the Jerusalem leaders in Acts 15

(v.25), a letter which also underscores the unity of the apostolic kerygma.

4) 2 Peter as the Second Letter of Peter

Again, for Trobisch the textual “helps” provided by 2 Peter are designed to

furnish Bible readers with redactional signals that enable the coherence of the final form

and underscore the authority of the individual writings whilst emphasizing the

harmonious agreement of their apostolic authors. In all this Trobisch does little to

challenge the widespread assumption that 2 Peter has very little to do with 1 Peter.

8

From the perspective of the point of composition, it is difficult to challenge this claim: as

Bauckham rightly concludes, “It can safely be said that if 1 and 2 Peter had been

anonymous documents, no one would have thought of attributing them to a single

author.”10

Though the very real differences between 1 and 2 Peter may indeed be

considered problematic when one’s eyes are trained solely on the point of origin, from a

canonical perspective it is the presence of the differences themselves that serve to

strengthen and extend the NT epistolary witness to Peter’s legacy—and this, I would

suggest, is the primary canonical function of 2 Peter.11 The canonical shape of the

Petrine letters clearly intends readers to receive them as two parts of a whole Petrine

message. Their basic unity is secured by a series of intertextual linkages:12 each is

addressed from “Peter”, and they share markedly similar greetings (1Pet.1:2; 2Pet.1:2)

and closing doxologies (1Pet.4:11; 2Pet.3:18). Each letter also bears strikingly similar

reference to the traditions of the disobedient angels (1Pet.3:19-20; 2Pet.2:4) and the flood

(1Pet.3:20; 2Pet.2:5 and 3:6), and each speaks of prophecy in relation to scripture

(1Pet.1:10-12; 2Pet.1:20-21 and 3:2).

In other places, linguistic connections provide a sense of development between

the two letters. Both seem to be linked by a shared purpose: in the first letter, Peter

says, “I have written this short letter to encourage you and to testify that this is the true

grace of God” (5:12); in the second, Peter says, “This is now, beloved, the second letter I

have written to you; in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding

you” (3:1-2). 1 Peter is written to readers designated “the elect” (1:1), and 2 Peter

follows this up by exhorting readers to “confirm their call and election” (1:10). 1 Peter

says, “As slaves of God (doūloi theoū), live as free people (eleūtheroi), yet do not use your

freedom (eleutherīa) as a pretext for evil” (2:16). 2 Peter in turn condemns the false

teachers because “they promise them freedom (eleutherīa) but they themselves are slaves

of corruption (doūloi… tes phthorās, 2:19).” Likewise, where 1 Peter calls readers to

imitate the Christ who is “like a lamb without defect or blemish” (āmomos kai āspilos,

10

Bauckham, R. J. (1998). Vol. 50: 2 Peter, Jude. Word Biblical Commentary (145). Dallas: Word, Incorporated. 11

In these comments I am closely following the earlier work of my colleague R.W. Wall. See esp. “The Canonical Function of 2 Peter” (BibInt. 9.1, 2001) p.67: “the biblical canon puts these two writings together, even though they address different theological crises by different theological conceptions, so that these two integral and complementary parts may complete a fully biblical Petrine witness to the Christian gospel.” 12

For a full accounting of the lexical agreements between 1 and 2 Peter, see J.H. Elliott 1 Peter (AB 37B, New York: Doubleday, 2000) pp.27 and 141.

9

1:19), 2 Peter condemns the false teachers as “defects and blemishes” (spīlos kai mōmos,

2:14) and reminds readers to hold fast so that they may be found by Christ “without

defect or blemish” (āspiloi kai amōmetos, 3:14).

One can also conceive of the relation between the two letters as an expansion or

“thickening” of Peter’s legacy. As Chief of the Apostles, it is only appropriate that

Peter’s epistles should offer authoritative witness to the full range of Christian

orthodoxy as handed down by the earliest witnesses to Christ. We are not surprised,

therefore, when we find in the combined letters as thorough a rendering of the apostolic

rule of faith as can be found among any of the NT writings (see the chart below).13 Here

the First Person of the Trinity is named both “Father” (1Pet.1:2-3; 2Pet.1:17) and

“Creator” (1Pet.4:19; 2Pet.3:5). Christ’s identity as Son of God (1Pet.1:3; 2Pet.1:17) is

proclaimed, along with his death (1Pet.1:19; 3:18), descent to the dead (1Pet.4:6),

resurrection (1Pet.3:18-21), ascent into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father

(1Pet.3:22), and eventual return (1Pet.1:7, 13; 2Pet.1:16; 3:10) to judge the living and the

dead (1Pet.4:5; 2Pet.2:9; 3:7). The Spirit who proceeds from God (1Pet.1:12) is also

identified as the one who has spoken through the prophets (1Pet.1:10-12; 2Pet.1:20-21)

the one who gives life (1Pet.3:18) through the resurrection of the dead (1Pet.3:21) and

the forgiveness of sins (1Pet.3:18).

13

Indeed, “nowhere in the New Testament are so many components of the later creeds… brought together in so close a space as 1 Peter.” P. Feldmeier, P. The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008) pp.44-45.

10

Article of the Creed Parallel in 1-2 Peter

The First Person of the Trinity

“God the Father” 1P1:2-3 – “God the Father… Blessed be the God and Father” 1P17 – “If you invoke as Father the one who judges…” 2P1:17 – “For he received honor and glory from God the Father”

“maker of heaven and earth” 1P4:19 – “a faithful Creator” (ktise, found only here in the NT) 2P3:5 – “by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed”

The Second Person of the Trinity

“the only Son of God” 1P1:3 – “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” 2P1:17 – “This is my Son, my Beloved…”

“for our sake he was crucified” 1P1:19 – “you were ransomed… with the precious blood of Christ” 1P3:18 – “Christ also suffered for sins once for all”

“he suffered death and was buried” / “he descended to the dead”

1P3:18 – “he was put to death in the flesh” 1P4:6 – “For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead…”

“On the third day he rose again” 1P3:18,21 – “He was… made alive in the Spirit… through the resurrection”

“He ascended into heaven” 1P3:22 – “who has gone into heaven”

“and is seated at the right hand of the Father”

1P3:22 – “and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.”

“He will come again in glory”

1P1:7, 13 – “when Jesus Christ is revealed… set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed.” 1P4:13 – “you may be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed” 2P1:16 – “we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” 2P3:10 – “the day of the Lord will come like a thief”

“to judge the living and the dead” 1P.4:5 – “they will have to give an accounting to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead” 2P2:9 – “keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment” 2P3:7 – “the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment”

“and his kingdom will have no end” 1P1:4 – “an inheritance that is imperishable… and unfading”

The Third Person of the Trinity

“the giver of life” 1P3:18b – [Jesus] “was made alive in the spirit”

“who proceeds from the Father and the Son”

1P1:2, 12 – “destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ… the Holy Spirit sent from heaven”

“he has spoken through the prophets”

1P1:10-12 – “the prophets who prophesied… the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance…” 2P1:20-21 – “no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

The Church of God

One 1P2:5 – “like living stones [pl.] let yourselves be built into a spiritual house [sing.]”

Holy

1P1:2 – “sanctified by the Spirit” 1P1:15-16 – “as he who called you is holy, be yourselves holy in all your conduct” 1P2:5, 9 – “a holy priesthood…a holy nation, God’s own people” 2P3:11 – “leading lives of holiness and godliness”

Catholic 1P5:9 – “your brothers and sisters in all the world”

Apostolic 1P1:1 – “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” 2P1:1 – “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” 2P3:2 – you should remember… the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles”

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins 1P3:21 – “baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you” 2P1:9 – “the cleansing of past sins”

Hope of the resurrection and the life of the world to come

1P1:3-9 – “he has given us a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” 2P1:4-11 – “he has given us… his precious and very great promises… in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you” 2P3:13 – “in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth”

11

We do not have time today for a full analysis of the workload each letter bears in

this dense articulation of the apostolic rule of faith, so two examples of how 2 Peter

extends 1 Peter’s theology will have to suffice. In relation to the first person of the

Trinity, 1 Peter witnesses to God’s activity in the world as it relates to a suffering people

who live in those places where the presence of a loving, powerful God may not be self-

evident. After all, what sort of God allows innocent people to suffer, especially those

who consider themselves to be God’s children?

According to 1 Peter, God can be found and worshiped even in suffering because

God’s real presence is mediated through the suffering and resurrected Jesus (1:3, 21;

3:21). By this experience of the living Jesus, the suffering community realizes that God

has not abandoned them— despite public appearance to the contrary— and in fact has a

loving relationship with them as “Father” in an intimate manner that is not shared by

outsiders (1:2-3, 17). As a community of “resident aliens” (1:1; 2:11), believers

experience the hardships of living as a people belonging to God (2:9) and not to the

Caesar of their pervasively pagan culture (1:6; 2:20; 3:14; 4:12). The Creator’s plan to

liberate this people from their present suffering and sense of alienation was long ago

foretold by Israel’s Scripture (1:10-12), most especially in its prophetic narrative of

God’s suffering Servant-Messiah (1:11; cf. 2:22-24). Through his messianic career the

Creator has revealed the pattern of divine deliverance that is applicable to all (4:19): the

resurrection and glorification of the suffering Messianic Servant (3:18-22) testifies to the

inevitability of the liberation that awaits those who suffer as a result of their faithfulness

to their faithful Creator (4:12-19; cf. 3:22-24).

2 Peter extends this moral vision of God as Creator in an apocalyptic direction

(3:5-7). While 1 Peter concentrates on the inauguration of God’s salvation in the

suffering and resurrection of Jesus, 2 Peter emphasizes its consummation at the coming

triumph at the Lord’s parousia and so more fully rounds out a Petrine conception of

salvation’s history. Put sharply: without a more complete articulation of this salvation,

the liberated people envisioned in 1 Peter may fall prey to the libertarians described in 2

Peter. Indeed, the false teachers of 2 Peter (2:1) work against the redemptive purposes

of the Creator; their emphasis on freedom (2:19) leads them to deny (2:1) and distort

(3:16) central beliefs of the apostolic tradition, which is grounded in their witness to

God’s revelation through Christ (1:16-18) and codified as the community’s rule of faith

(3:2). This false doctrine results in the subversion of the community’s moral rule (2:2, 7-

12

14; cf. 2:18-19); rather than being motivated by pious devotion to God, they exploit the

loyalty of the community for selfish monetary gain (2:3) in clear violation of 1 Peter’s

exhortation to the community’s teachers to be humble shepherds content in the

circumstances of their lives (5:1-5; cf. Jas.4:1-10).

In 1 Peter, God’s revelation in the sufferings of the messianic Servant is one of great

mercy (1:3) by which a marginal community of suffering resident aliens hopes for their

eternal inheritance in the coming age. In 2 Peter, by extension, God’s revelation in the

parousia of the majestic Lord is the unveiling of justice; the coming age has now arrived as

‘the day of judgment and destruction of the godless’ (3:7), especially for those whose

teaching undermines the faithful. Thus the whole Petrine witness insists that allegiance

to a holy God, who governs creation as Father and Judge, requires a confession of God

that is liberative and life-giving as well as potentially punitive and life-threatening.

We see a related shift in emphasis taking place when we consider the two letters’

Christological vision. According to 1 Peter, God is first of all known as the “Father of

our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:3), and God calls the church out of the world for salvation in

Christ (5:10), by him (2:21-25) and for him (1:2) for a salvation that will be fully revealed

at his parousia as Lord. That is, God is principally known and confessed in terms of

God’s relationship with Christ’s work as suffering Servant (2:21-24) by whose costly

obedience God has liberated a suffering community for a future heavenly home (1:3-9;

2:25; 5:13-14). While present suffering is a real problem, Jesus’ resurrection is the central

symbol of a “living hope” by which the temporary suffering of the present is swallowed

up in a future “inheritance” that will be “undefiled and imperishable” (1:4).

According to 1 Peter, Christ “suffered for sins” (3:18); but the redemptive result

of Jesus’ death is not as a substitute sacrifice for sin but rather because of his obedience

to God’s redemptive purposes. This emphasis on Christ’s costly obedience provides the

pattern of humanity’s salvation, since it is precisely in the community’s active and

demanding imitation of this pattern that its salvation at the end of the age is made

secure (1:6-9). In this way followers of Jesus inhabit an eternalized self-perspective:

Christ’s past of obedient suffering becomes the believer’s present reality; Christ’s present

reality as resurrected Lord is envisioned as the believer’s future reality. Thus 1 Peter

assures its readers that innocent suffering provides the means into a future with God; it

establishes a template that opposes any choice to relieve the costs of obedient

discipleship at the expense of a holy lifestyle demanded by a holy God.

13

This emphasis on the centrality of obedience continues in 2 Peter, but there the

focus shifts away from Jesus’ past messianic death to his present mediatorial role as

power-broker of God’s salvation. 2 Peter therefore refers to Jesus as “the Savior” (1:1,

11; 2:20; 3:2, 18) and underscores his participation with God in the present work of

salvation (1:11). As a result, then, the Lord is known by his apostolic representatives in

terms of his ‘power and parousia’ (1:16) rather than in terms of his obedient suffering

and atoning death. Likewise, the false teaching 2 Peter addresses is a denial of Jesus’

lordship (2:1) and ‘commandment’ (3:2), both of which are linked to a denial of his

parousia in power to execute the Creator’s final judgment against a corrupt creation.

2 Peter thus makes keener mention of two discrete periods of Christ’s messianic

mission, not only pushing his work as Savior back from his passion to include earlier

events from his life (1:16-18; cf.. 1:5-8) but then also pushing ahead to emphasize the

importance of his parousia (3:4-13). The rhetorical effect of 2 Peter’s christology, then, is

to construct an inclusio, bracketing and concentrating 1 Peter’s suffering Servant and his

messianic death and resurrection by its prophecy on the holy mountain on one side,

and by its cosmic and ultimate results at the coming triumph of the Creator on the

other. In doing so, the Petrine witness as a whole not only resists the tendency to isolate

Christ’s importance in the past and on the cross, but to carry its results into the future in

a way that continues to judge the present moment in salvation’s history.

5) 2 Peter as Canonical Anchor for the CE Collection

Thus far I have argued that the primary canonical function of 2 Peter is to extend

the NT’s Petrine witness. While the importance of this role must not be understated, I

would suggest that 2 Peter’s quick transition from non-use to canonical authority as a

member of the seven CE resulted because the canonizing community discerned the

crucial role it might play as the “canonical anchor” for that collection. In a fascinating

study entitled “Joel as Literary Anchor for the Book of the Twelve,” James Nogalski has

argued that the book of Joel forms a necessary interpretive key for unifying major

literary threads in the twelve minor prophets.14 Joel accomplishes this unification by

dovetailing genres and repeating words, images and phrases in such a way that the

literary coherence of the book of the twelve is strengthened. I want to suggest that 2

Peter performs much the same function for the CE collection

14

J. Nogalski, “Joel as Literary Anchor for the Book of the Twelve,” in J. Nogalski and M.A. Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (SBLSS 15; Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2000).

14

Critical orthodoxy has long insisted on the lack of coherence that characterizes

the CE collection. As we have already mentioned, the judgment of incoherence results

primarily from the scholarly emphasis on the hermeneutical centrality of reconstructed

historical origins—and most all agree that the seven individual CE appear to have

emerged from different points on the ancient ecclesial map. But even those keen to

emphasize literary and theological themes will at most concede the following: James

and 1 Peter share a good deal of terminology and theme as “diaspora” letters;15 James

and Jude are linked by their titles and ostensible authorship as relatives of Jesus; 2 Peter

and Jude share a relationship of literary dependence; and the Johannine letters simply

do not fit in at all, neither linguistically nor theologically, and are therefore almost

always separated out and read as “Johannine Literature”.16

Nevertheless, close examination reveals that the presence of 2 Peter enables a

level of coherence that would be lacking in its absence. This is especially the case, as I

hope to show, in regard to the Johannine letters. Its unification efforts might be seen

immediately in the self-identification of its ostensible author. Consider the authorial

identities of the six other CE: James and Jude, the relatives of Jesus, self-identify as

“servants” (Jas.1:1; Jd.1). 1 Peter and 1 John are identified as apostolic eyewitnesses

(1Pet.1:1; 1Jn.1:1-4; cf.1Pet.5:1) and, later, as “elders” (1Pet.5:1; 2Jn.1; 3Jn.1; note that

James refers to elders at 5:14 but does not identify himself as such).

“relatives of Jesus”

“apostles/elders”

JAMES 1 PETER JOHN JUDE

“servants”

James and Jude are relative/servants, Peter and John are apostle/elders. 2 Peter, in turn,

unifies the group by identifying the author as both “servant and apostle” (2Pet.1:1).

15

See M. Konradt, “Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus: Erwägungen zum historischen Kontext des Jakobusbriefes im Licht der traditionsgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zum 1 Petrusbrief und zum Hintergrund der Autorfiktion” (in P. von Gemünden, et al, Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Aufwertung der ,,strohernen Epistel.“ Münster: Lit Verlag, 2003, pp.16-53). See also Nienhuis, Not By Paul Alone. 16

Recent attempts to read the Johannine epistles as CE can be found in R. Wall’s “A Unifying Theology of the Catholic Epistles” and J. Painter’s “The Johannine Epistles as Catholic Epistles”, both found in K-W Niebuhr and R.W. Wall, The Catholic Epistles & Apostolic Tradition (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009).

15

“relatives of Jesus”

“apostles/elders”

JAMES 1 PETER 2 PETER JOHN JUDE

“servants”

Subtle though it is, such a feature serves as one more thread to draw together that

which might be viewed as divided, so that the Apostles Peter and John are seen to stand

together with the fleshly relatives of Jesus.

Most of 2 Peter’s unification efforts are directed toward the inclusion of the

Johannine letters within the CE. 1 Peter ended by predicating Peter’s authority in his

“witness to the sufferings of Christ” (5:1). 2 Peter, in turn, makes this the centerpiece of

its authoritative claims: the apostles “did not follow cleverly devised myths” when they

declared the parousia of the Lord, “for we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (1:16) who

“heard” (ekoūsamen) the voice of God on the holy mountain (1:18). So also 1 John begins

by grounding the declaration of the author in his eyewitness status, proclaiming “that

which we have heard (akekōamen), which we have seen with our eyes, which we have

looked upon and touched with our hands” (1:1).

2Pet.1:16-18

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you (egnorisamen humin) 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 (ekousamen) this voice come from heaven,

while we were with him on the holy mountain.

1Jn.1:1-3

We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard (akekōamen), what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—

this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard...

16

One also discerns a dovetailing in their professed occasion for writing. 2 Peter is

explicitly described as having been written (3:1) to readers/auditors of 1 Peter to warn

against scoffers who will come saying “where is the promise (epangellīa) of his coming?

For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning

(ap’ archēs) of creation” (3:3-4). Peter’s reply directs readers to the “word of God”

through which all things were created and by which judgment will soon come (3:5-7).

Soon after these words 1 John opens by insisting it was written (1:4) to declare

(apangēllomen) “that which was from the beginning” (ap’ archēs) “concerning the word of

life” (1:1).

2 Peter 3:1-7

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you (grapho humin); in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you

2 that you should

remember the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles. 3

First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts

4 and saying, “Where is the promise

(epangellīa) of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning (ap’ archēs) of creation!”

5 They deliberately

ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago… But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire…

1Jn.1:1-4

We declare to you (apangēllomen) what was from the

beginning (ap’ arches), what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare (apangellomen) to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us—

3 we

declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. We are writing these things (hemeis graphomen tauta) so that our joy may be complete.

The verbal dovetailing appears undeniable. Indeed, it is worth noting that these are the

only two places in all NT epistolary literature where the construction ap’ archēs occurs.

The opponents may think they know what is “from the beginning”, but Peter and John

agree that only the apostles of Christ can speak to these things with authority.

Reading on, we find that 2 Peter and 1 John describe those who threaten the

integrity of apostolic faith using precisely the same language. In both letters the

opponents are called false prophets (2Pet.2:1; 1Jn.4:1— again, these are the only two

instances of the word pseudoprophētes in all the NT letters). These false prophets are

identified as teachers (2Pet.2:1; 1Jn.2:27) who deny (arnēomai) a key Christological claim

(2Pet.2:1; 1Jn.2:22-23). They are deceivers who have strayed from the truth into error

(note the repeated use of planē and planāo here: 2Pet.2:15,18; 3:17; 1Jn.2:26; 3:7; 4:6; 2Jn.7).

17

They are associated with the world (2Pet.2:18-20; 1Jn.4:1-6) and are therefore corrupted

by the desires of the flesh (2Pet.2:10, 18 and 3:3; 1Jn.2:15-17).

False Prophets 2 Pet.2:1 – But false prophets (pseudoprophētai) also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you… Ones who deny 2Pet.2:1 – They will even deny (arnoūmenoi) the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Teachers 2Pet.2:1 – But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. World 2Pet.1:4 – …that you may escape from the corruption that is in the world…

2Pet.2:5 -- …the world of the ungodly…

2Pet.2:20 – If, after having escaped the defilements of the world… Deceivers/ “Strayers”/ Error 2Pet.2:15 – They have left the straight road and have gone astray (planāo).

2Pet.2:18 – They entice with licentious passions of the flesh people who have barely escaped those who live in error (planē).

2Pet.3:17 – You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away by the error (planē) of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Passions / Flesh 2Pet.2:10 -- …those who indulge their flesh (sarx) in depraved lust (epithumia)…

2Pet.2:18 -- …they entice with licentious passions (epithumia) of the flesh (sarx)…

False Prophets 1Jn.4:1 – Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets (pseudoprophētai) have gone out into the world. Ones who deny 1Jn.2:22-23 – Who is the liar but the one who denies (arnoūmenos) that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies (arnoūmenos) the Father and the Son. Teachers 1Jn.2:27a – As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. World Passim (2,15,16,17; 3:1,13,17; 4:1,3,4,5,9,14,17; 5:4,5,19)

Deceivers/ “Strayers” / Error 1Jn.2:26 – I write these things to you concerning those who would deceive you (planāo).

1Jn.3:7 – Little children, let no one deceive you (planāo). Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

1Jn.4:6 – By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (planēs)

2Jn.7 – Many deceivers (plānoi) have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver (plānos) and the antichrist! Passions / Flesh 1Jn.2:16 – …for all that is in the world—the desire (epithumia) of the flesh (sarx), the desire (epithumia) of the eyes, the pride in riches—comes not from the Father but from the world.

18

An awareness of this key linking enables us to note how 2 Peter helps tie the

collection together by dovetailing the “trials” theme that is so prominent in these letters.

James sets the tone for the collection as a whole in its opening verses: “My brothers and

sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy” (1:2). As the

letter progresses, one discovers that the primary trial of faith in James originates in an

extra-ecclesial place, taking the form of a life lived in a diaspora of desires that tempt and

seduce the believer to indulge in sin. 1 Peter continues the extra-ecclesial trial theme, at

points using precisely the same language as James (comp. e.g. Jas.1:1-3 and 1Pet.1:1, 6-

7); only now the trial described is that of a life lived in a world of hostile pagans who

harass believers for their faith in Christ.

Both of these are threats that come from outside the Christian community. When

we turn to 1 John we find that though the letter doesn’t use the actual word, the “trial”

faced by the community has shifted to an intra-ecclesial crisis; in this case, the pain and

pressure of schism brought about by brothers and sisters who have fallen away from

the apostolic rule of faith. The trial in Jude is similarly intra-ecclesial: the apostolic faith

must be defended, for “admission has been secretly gained” by persons who have

perverted the faith for personal gain.

Extra-ecclesial trial Intra-ecclesial trial

JAMES 1 PETER JOHN JUDE

Pagan Pagan Schismatic Ungodly

Desire Hostility Christians Christians

Protect against Paganization Protect Rule of Faith

As before, a thematic gap exists between these two sets of witnesses, and 2 Peter

appears to draw them back together. 2 Peter continues the “trials” thread established

by James, reminding readers of various OT stories to assure believers that “the Lord

knows how to rescue the godly from trial” (2:9); given the many other connecting points

between 1 and 2 Peter, the linking of James-1 Peter-2 Peter is assured. Of course, 2 Peter

also includes the many connecting links with 1 John just explored, and it also

incorporates material from Jude. By shifting the bulk of Jude’s intra-ecclesial critique of

ungodly Christians to the middle of the collection, 2 Peter bridges the gap that existed

there.

19

Extra-ecclesial trial Intra-ecclesial trial

JAMES 1 PETER 2 PETER JOHN JUDE

Pagan Pagan Ungodly Schismatic Ungodly

Desire Hostility Christians Christians Christian

In all this it is evident that the presence 2 Peter creates a more coherent and thematically

fluid collection than would be possible in its absence. I posit that this is the primary

reason why it was that 2 Peter so quickly rose to canonical authority; once James arrived

(via Origen’s use) to provide the “Jerusalem Pillars” logic for the collection as a whole, 2

Peter was incorporated to function as the canonical anchor to hold the seven letters

together literarily. The result was a seven letter collection quickly judged both

theologically and aesthetically complete by the eastern churches of the fourth century.

6) The Canonical Function of Jude

Given the extensive load-bearing accomplished by 2 Peter, what can be said of

the canonical function of Jude? If so much of its content is simply picked up and

repeated in 2 Peter, why keep Jude at all? What does it contribute to the collection that

would be missing if it were absent?

We have already mentioned the importance of the number seven. The

significance of this should not be underestimated. With Jude we have seven CE; add

this to Paul’s letters to seven churches and Jesus’ seven letters to seven churches in

Revelation, and we have three sets of seven—an aesthetically pleasing and theologically

freighted way of insisting that the final form of the NT presents a whole and complete

communication of the ancient apostolic tradition.

But why include Jude to achieve the potent number seven? The primary insight

into the particular canonical function of this letter is found right in its first verse: this is

a letter from “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.” Just as 2 Peter very

clearly signals its canonical intention by saying, in effect, “read this in light of 1 Peter,”

Jude begins by saying “read this letter in light of James.” The CE collection is thus

passed down to us in the embrace of the relative-servants of Jesus, and an inclusio is

constructed around the letters to frame the intent of the collection as a whole. Once

20

we’ve recognized this our job is to simply look for canonical signals that will link these

two books together intertextually. When we do so, we note the following.

First, as it was in 2 Peter and 1-3 John, so also in Jude the trial facing believers

has to do with the intra-ecclesial crisis occasioned by disagreements between rival

forms of Christian teaching and practice. But unlike these earlier letters, Jude does not

include concern about particular instances of doctrinal deviance; the crisis is not

specifically identified as the result of a denial of apostolic teaching regarding the

parousia and judgment (as in 2 Peter) or Christology (as in 1-2 John), but is instead

revealed to be a species of pneumatic arrogance. The designation of the opponents as

“dreamers” (v.8) most likely identifies them as itinerant teachers or prophets who have

“snuck into” the community (v.4) and have claimed spiritual authority over the

leadership. Thus they are causing divisions (v.19) with novel practices that bear fruit in

a disastrous deviation from the moral practices handed down by apostolic tradition.

That very tradition, of course, predicted the coming of such people as a harbinger of the

end times (vs.17-19), so believers are exhorted to hold fast confidently to “the faith that

was once for all delivered to the saints” (v.3). Jude thus ends the CE as James began it,

with an uncompromising assertion of the soteriological significance of right human

action: the faith handed down by the apostles requires believers to conceive of

themselves not as libertines but as faithful covenant partners with God through

obedient service to the “only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (v.4).

Second: as in James, so also in Jude the author self-identifies as a “servant”. This

title, especially when it is absent of the associated “apostle”, is deeply rooted in Jewish

literature, where it serves as a designation for the great heroes of Israel’s past who

mediated between God and the people.17 Ancient recipients of the collection may have

been aware of the traditional portrait of James described by Hegesippus as one who

“used to enter alone into the temple, and be found kneeling and praying for forgiveness

for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel’s because of his constant

worship of God, kneeling and asking forgiveness for the people.”18 As it turns out, both

James and Jude are agreed in making it absolutely clear that the central calling of the

17

The appellation doulos theou is found in the LXX in reference to Moses (3Kgdms.8:53; Ps.104:26, 42; Dan.9:11; Mal.3:24; 4:4), David (2Sam.7:5; 1Kgs. 8:66; 1Chr.17:4; Ps.77:70; 88:4; 131:10; 143:10; Jer.33:21; Ezek.34:23; 37:25), and all God’s prophets (Jer.7:25; 26:4 and following; 44:4; Ezek.38:17; Joel 3:2; Amos 3:7; Jon.1:9; Zech.1:6). 18

Historia ecclesiastica 2.23.

21

church is the task of rescuing errant brothers and sisters from wandering into paths of

sinful behavior that lead ultimately to condemnation. The gracious act of rescuing the

ungodly described at the end of Jude, of “saving (sōzo) others by snatching them out of

the fire” (Jd.23), draws our minds back to the similar call that ends the letter of James

(5:20). In that letter closing believers were reminded “that whoever brings a sinner back

from the error of his way”— planē hodos autos, like the intruders who are described in

Jude 11 as those who “follow the way (hodōs) of Cain and abandon themselves to

Balaam’s error (planē)”— that rescuer “will save (sōzo) the sinner’s soul from death and

will cover a multitude of sins” (Jas.5:20). According to the relative-servants of Jesus, the

saints are called to an ongoing rescue operation that seeks the merciful restoration of all

those who walk in error.

“save some by snatching them out of the fire” (Jd.23)

Apostles/Elders

Extra-ecclesial trial Intra-ecclesial trial

JAMES 1 PETER 2 PETER JOHN JUDE

Relatives/Servants

“bring back a sinner… save his soul from death” (Jas.5:20)

It is arguable that this concern—that people who get saved, stay saved— was a

major factor influencing the eventual addition of a second apostolic letter collection to

augment that of the Apostle Paul. This view finds support in Augustine, who is the

only ancient authority to leave behind an accounting for why the CE were included in

the NT canon. His On Faith and Works was written around 413 at the very end of the

canonical shaping process. In the essay he addresses several contemporary errors

associated with a misunderstanding of the proper relation between faith and works in

the Christian life. Among them, “the most dangerous”, he said, was attributable to a

“perplexing problem in the writings of the Apostle Paul” (Fide. 27).

Therefore, let us now see what must be torn away from the hearts of the God-fearing to

prevent the loss of salvation through a treacherously false security, if, under the illusion

that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, they neglect to live a good life and fail by good

works to persevere in the way that leads to God. Even in the days of the Apostles certain

somewhat obscure statements of the Apostle Paul were misunderstood, and some

thought that he was saying this: “Let us now do evil that good may come from it”

22

[Rom.3:8] because he said “Now the law intervened that the offense might abound. But

where the offense has abounded, grace has abounded yet more” [Rom.5:20]… Since this

problem is by no means new and had already arisen at the time of the Apostles, other

apostolic letters of Peter, John, James and Jude are deliberately aimed against the

argument I have been refuting and firmly uphold the doctrine that faith does not avail

without good works (Fide. 21).

The essay goes on to offer an intertextual reading of the apostolic letters, balancing

passages from Paul with those of James and others in order to arrive at a wholly

apostolic understanding of the relation between faith and works. Peter, says Augustine,

“urged his readers to holiness in living and character”(Fide. 22), while “James was so

severely annoyed with those who held that faith without works avails to salvation that

he compared them to evil spirits” (Fide. 23). When one comes across Pauline passages

that suggest one can be saved apart from evidence of a transformed life, “another

interpretation assuredly must be sought for them, and these expressions of the Apostle

Paul must be counted among the passages in his writings which Peter says are difficult

to understand and which men must not distort to their own destruction [2Pet.3:16]”

(Fide. 26). According to Augustine, then, the CE collection was added to the canon in

order to keep readers from falling into a Paulinist fideism. The CE collection calls

readers to engage in a rescue operation, to snatch and save errant siblings, and in so

doing, to cover a multitude of sins.

We should note, however, that the closing exhortation in Jude is extended by

means of an important culminating corrective that should likewise be drawn-out across

the CE as a whole. The exhortation “keep yourselves in the love of God” (v.21) is

received in the prior knowledge that it is in fact God who keeps us for Jesus Christ (v.1).

Indeed, Jude closes with the insistence that God “is able to keep you from falling and to

make you stand in the presence of his glory with rejoicing” (v.24). In this way Jude

closes the CE collection by insisting that the divine-human covenant is not a relationship

of equal partners. Readers of the Pauline witness are often guilty of over-emphasizing

God’s initiating covenant grace in a licentious manner that undermines the importance

of obedient human response. Readers of the Pillars, by contrast, hearing the collection’s

persistent call to holiness as a condition of their eternal life with God, may over-

emphasize covenant obedience in a legalistic manner that undermines God’s sovereign

and sustaining grace. Canonically, Jude’s glorious doxology stands as a worshipful

corrective to this potential misunderstanding.