Second Sunday of Advent

Second Sunday of Advent, December 4, 2005
2 Peter 3:8-18 (Peace)
Debate about the authorship of 2 Peter has continued for as long as the book has been a part of the discussion among Christians. In the third century, Origen wrote "Peter, on whom the church of Christ is built–against which the gates of Hades will not prevail–left one epistle of acknowledged authenticity. Suppose we allow that he left a second; yet, this is doubtful" (from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot, p. 516). Second Peter was the last book to actually be canonized into the New Testament showing the obvious skepticism the church showed to its authenticity. A few internal clues to its pseudonymous authorship include:

• Peter himself died in 64 yet the letter contains references to historical events that happened much later.
  –The collection and circulation of Paul’s letters and their view as "scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16) probably did not occur until at least the late 90's.
  –The passing of the Apostles (2 Peter 3:2) and the diminishing hope of Christ’s return (2 Peter 3:4)
  
• Complex Greek that is doubtful of a first century Jewish fisherman.
  Saying that Peter didn’t write 2 Peter is a little more threatening than saying Matthew didn’t write the gospel of Matthew. None of the gospels explicitly claim any specific authorship. The authors were placed on them after the fact by tradition. However, the opening verse of 2 Peter says it was written by Simon Peter. Some conservative scholars defend Peter’s authorship of the letter. Yet the conservative scholar Bruce Metzger who offers credible–or at least plausible–defense of Peter’s authorship of 1 Peter writes, "In light of such intenral and external evidence [similar to what’s been detailed above] one must conclude that II Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority" (The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, p. 258-259).
  

There are other conservative biblical scholars who defend Peter’s authorship. But should we choose to accept the majority opinion that Peter did not write 2 Peter, what do we do with a book that seems to contain such an obviously false statement? Do we simply ignore it? There are those who would say indeed we ought to intentionally ignore certain passages which contain content which we find exceedingly problematic. That is, we ought to have a canon within a canon. Certainly, whether we do so intentionally or not most of us function with such a canon within a canon–emphasizing certain passages and de-emphasizing others. A fact that some people relish in pointing out by referring to our unwillingness to stone our children for back talk as scripture would direct (Deut 21:18-21). For people so inclined, they could simply ignore 2 Peter and write it off as nonauthoritative since it seems to falsely present itself as the work of Jesus’s apostle.

Others defend the pseudonymous letters as scripture. Disciples biblical scholars Boring and Craddock emphasize that pseudonimity bothers us more than it would a first century person. The practice, they argue, was much more common then. Further they write, "The issue in each case [of pseudonymous authorship] is whether the document concerned represents the apostolic faith. The fact that the books are in the canon indicates that the early church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, heard in these documents the word of God, the authentic witness to the apostolic faith, as it tried to find its own way forward after the death of the apostles but before any authoritative tradition, canon, or organizational structure had been accepted" (M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock, The People’s New Testament Commentary, p. 595). We can choose to ignore it or choose to accept it on the grounds that the Holy Spirit was at work not merely in the writing of the texts but also in the collection and canonization of the texts of the New Testament.

Obviously since I’ve chosen to preach on this text, I’m not one who believes it ought to be ignored. There are certain passages in both the Old and New Testament that I find so problematic that I do not believe they represents God’s word. The charge that gets rightfully made against people like me who choose to willfully deny the authority of certain passages is "How do you decide?" Aren’t we putting ourselves above scripture and making ourselves judges of the text rather than allowing the text to judge us? I haven’t worked out a completely acceptable answer to this question but here are a few guidelines that I try to follow.

• I do not deny the authority of a passage simply because it calls me to do something I don’t want to do or asks me to believe something I find hard to believe.
  I don’t like what Jesus said about seeking retribution (Matthew 5:38-42). Oh well. My discomfort doesn’t justify ignoring Christ’s teaching. I have find it hard to believe in the whole demon possession of a person but my incredulity doesn’t mean I get to ignore exorcism texts. I am obligated to wrestles with those texts even if I find them hard to grasp or accept at face value.
• I cannot construct of view of scripture that excuses my behavior but judges others.
  My friend Doug Skinner has said, "Be careful of anyone whose theology brings all the good news to them and all the judgement to someone else." Put another way, in the Old Testament a prophet was often called upon to bring words of God’s judgment against a group of people. God used them to call people to repentance. I believe few people are called by God to play that role. On the other hand, all of us are called to examine ourselves and seek to pursue holiness and serve the kingdom of God.
  
• I can only deny the authority of a particular passage on the basis of a strong sense that the passage denies my understanding of the Gospel (God’s good news for humanity) and God’s vocation (what God expects people to be and to do).
  Paul Ricoeur has described the situation in Protestantism where "you can criticize the Bible only by citing another text from the Bible" (from Figuring the Sacred, p. 71). In saying this, Ricoeur was being descriptive of Protestantism’s tendency. He didn’t necessarily advocate it as the correct approach. Such a practice leads to the accusation that you "can prove anything with the Bible" or justify any behavior from some passage of scripture. People line up their passages "for" or "against" whatever they themselves are "for" or "against." We must be diligently avoid such a practice. However, there is a sense of the gospel and its implications that can be articulated across the breadth of the Biblical witness. We identify that gospel by looking at the frequency and primacy of biblical testimony. Similarly, we can through discernment identify that which God expects us to do–God’s commands for a pure life and God’s call to service, mission and ministry. This process of discernment requires consistent and prayerful scripture study. It rarely works that we can come at the Bible with "our" questions and get straight answers. What does work is to cultivate a practice of daily scripture reading and deep, intentional Bible study in conversation with other Christians, that enables us to arrive at answers when they are needed. Well, that’s a long detour from the actual text. But, I thought it needed to be said and here’s as good a time as any to say it.
  

Our scripture reading begins in verse 8 which actually divides the actual thought. The author begins a new section of the letter in verse 1 where he explains his purpose in writing. The writer sought to return his audiences attention to continuing in the teaching they had received. In the opening passages of the letter (2 Peter 1:3ff), he describes the process of continuing in the faithful walk despite the corruption that surrounds us. Along with faith, he says, we must make every effort to add goodness, knowledge, self-control, endurance, godliness, mutual affection and love. He certainly suggests that those who lack these qualities fall short of God’s expectations and they do not experience the fullness of God’s promise (2 Peter 1:8-11). This process is called sanctification. Sanctification is a process by which the Holy Spirit works in us to cultivate a Christ-like nature. In the simplest terms, sanctification is godly self-improvement. It requires endurance. In particular for the audience of 2 Peter, the motivation to live a holy life and work toward sanctification came with the belief that Christ would come back soon. However, as time wore on and Jesus’s apostles began to die, the sense that Christ would return soon began to wain. Scoffers apparently compounded the problem for the early church mocking their belief in Christ’s eminent return. Second Peter addresses this concern head on reminding readers that God’s time and ours are not the same. "A day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day." If we think God is being slow, we are calculating slowness on our scales and trying to impose those scales on God. God is not confined by creation; God is the Creator.

In this is also a motivation. God’s delay in bringing history to a close is not stoic apathy toward our human plight. God is not teasing us by waiting so long. Rather, God’s delay is born out of God’s love. God doesn’t desire anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Verse 10 raises speculation about the "day of the Lord" or what some now call the "rapture." All too often, people speculate about the who, what, when, where and how of this day and forget prophetic trajectory. What do I mean by prophetic trajectory? I mean the point that a biblical writer was trying to make. Read through the prophetic books of the Old Testament, the book of Revelation in the New Testament, and other books, and you will read about scenes of incredible destruction. In these futuristic visions, God is portrayed as one who comes to bring destruction and judgment to the world. This pictures can be both exciting and frightening. Yet fixating on the these scenes without considering their purpose is a bit like reducing the Fourth of July to a day of fireworks. Yes, the fireworks are salient symbols of July 4th but we celebrate the Fourth of July to commemorate our nation’s founding. Similarly, the scenes of the Day of the Lord in the Bible serve a broader purpose. In this case, they grasp our attention and call us to holy living. "Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness . . ?" (vs. 11). Given all these, we strive to be at peace, without spot or blemish, patient and wise. Regardless of what we believe concerning the Day of the Lord, Peter’s call is to endure in the process of sanctification.