Narrating the Gospel in 1 and 2 Peter JOEL B. GREEN Professor of New Testament Interpretation Asbury Theological Seminary

Narrative theology emphasizes the overall aim and recounting of God's ways revealed in Scripture and ongoing in history. An exploration of 1 and 2 Peter from this perspective accentuates the theological role of these short letters in shaping the identity of God's people.

R

ecent interest in theological interpretation of the Bible brings to the surface a number of important and not a few difficult questions.1 For persons trained in biblical studies as this has been practiced in the last two centuries, these would include: What is the role of history and historical criticism? What is the status and role of the Old Testament in the two-testament canonical Scriptures? What is the relationship between exegesis and Christian formation? What is the relationship between exegesis and doctrine? What is the nature of the unity of Scripture? What is the role of the canon in theological interpretation?2 Does theological interpretation extract theological claims or principles from the Bible? Does it organize the theological witness of each biblical book, understood discretely on its own terms? Does it draw up the plans for a theological superstructure towering above a biblical foundation?

*For the revival of interest in theological interpretation, see, e.g., Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ed., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). 2 On these issues, see Joel B. Green and Max Turner, eds., Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

JULY 2 0 0 6

Interpretation 263

In this essay, I want to reflect on these issues in relationship to two books, 1 and 2 Peter. First, I will note briefly how two recent NT theologians have approached the task. I will then propose an alternative approach, one congruent with narrative-theological concerns, and then, secondly, suggest what a narrative-theological reading of 2 Peter would look like before delving more fully into 1 Peter. It is in the interplay of these two reformulations of the story of God and God's people that we can begin to reflect on the significance of reading 1 and 2 Peter side by side. Depending on the nature of one's theological training, 1 and 2 Peter will seem either an obvious or a strange combination of books to consider. To those uninitiated into formal theological studies, it will seem obvious that 1 and 2 Peter are closely related and ought to be read serially, as one might read 1 and 2 Samuel or 1 and 2 Corinthians. After all, both carry the name of Peter, a "pillar" of the early church (Gal 2:9), and the second letter presents itself as a follow-up to the first (2 Pet 3:1). Why not examine these two letters side by side in order to ascertain a "Petrine" gospel? To the theologically trained, on the other hand, the interesting relationship is not between 1 and 2 Peter, but between 2 Peter and Jude. Critical readers will discern in parallels like Jude 17-18 // 2 Pet 3:1-3 evidence of 2 Peter's dependence on Jude, prompting the conclusion that 2 Peter ought to be read as "2 Jude." Moreover, stylistically, the two letters are sufficiently distinct so that it is hard to imagine that they share a single author. And, whereas 1 Peter calls itself a "brief letter" (5:12) and actually takes the form of a letter, 2 Peter refers to itself as a letter (3:1) but looks more like "testamentary literature," a literary form that allows an honored figure to speak across time and space, even from the grave.3 In "critical studies," then, the proximity of 1 and 2 Peter and their attribution to a common author are of no interpretive consequence. From yet a third perspective, however, given their canonical titles and shared attribution to the apostle Peter, 2 Peter invites theological reflection in relation to 1 Peter. According to this reading, the distinctions between these two books do not detract from but rather enhance our appreciation of their fecundity as a coordinated "Petrine" witness within the biblical canon.4

THE THEOLOGIES OF 1 AND 2 PETER In as many years, two major NT theologies have recently appeared in English, and these provide a helpful point of entry. The first is by Howard Marshall, whose approach is well-

O n these and related matters of introduction, see Paul J. Achtemeier, et al., Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 513-34. 4 So Robert W. Wall, "The Canonical Function of 2 Peter," Biblnt 9 (2001): 64-81.

264 Interpretation

JULY 2 0 0 6

represented in the volume's subtitle: Many Witnesses: One Gospel5 Marshall wants to avoid two procedural problems: the indiscriminate use of the NT materials as if they all represented the same perspective; and an anachronistic theological framework into which all NT theologies might be squeezed. Hence, the first task of NT theology is to collect the various theologies that come to expression in these books, taking seriously their diversity while at the same time remaining open to the possibility of an underlying unity. As with other NT books, then, when Marshall turns to examine 1 and 2 Peter, he treats them separately. He engages first in a section-by-section analysis of the teaching of each, understood within their respective socio-historical contexts; he discusses major theological themes his work has surfaced; finally he identifies the core ideas of NT theology. Elsewhere, Marshall urges that propositions are what Paul has to offer us by way of theology;6 given the analogously epistolary nature of the contribution of 1 and 2 Peter to NT thought as well as the overall ideational shape of NT theology for Marshall, I presume that he would say the same of Peter. The second theology of the NT, released in 2005, is by Frank Thielman.7 In spite of its subtitle—A Canonical and Synthetic Approach—Thielman's approach has very little to say about the OT, nor does it account for the canonical shaping of the NT documents. Interestingly, 1 and 2 Peter are not treated as they appear in the NT, side by side. Canonical sequence and 2 Peter's reference to itself as the "second letter" (3:1) notwithstanding, Thielman treats the General Epistles in this order: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, 1 Peter, Hebrews. Thielman explores the teaching of each book within the historical horizons addressed by the writing before inquiring into the possibility of unity within each of three parts of the NT: Gospels and Acts, Paul, and the non-Pauline letters with Revelation; he then turns to the question of overall synthesis. What holds the NT together, theologically, he concludes, are five issues: the significance of Jesus; faith as a response to Jesus; the outpouring of God's Spirit; the church as God's people; and the consummation of all things. The OT provides linguistic and conceptual categories for shaping how to talk about those issues, but otherwise contributes little. As with Marshall, emphasis falls above all on the articulation of the message of each book within its historical horizons, with a premium placed on ideas. This kind of approach is not without merit. For example, were we to prepare our notes on the "theology of 2 Peter" along these lines, we would find important things to say about christology—including reflection on the apparent identification of Jesus as God in 1:1, as well as the letter's overall concern with the identity of Jesus as Savior (1:11; 2:20; 3:18). Consonant with this christological focus, we would find in the author's allusion to the scene

5 I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004). See already Marshall's essays, "New Testament Theology" (1979); and "Jesus, Paul and John" (1985), now available in Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsiry, 1990), 15-34, 35-56. 6 I. Howard Marshall, "The Stories of Predecessors and Inheritors in Galatians and Romans," in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (ed. Bruce W. Longenecker; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 204-14. 7 Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).

CATHOLIC EPISTLES

Interpretation 265

of Jesus' transfiguration (1:16-18) a seemingly unimpeachable confirmation of Jesus' exalted status, just as we would find Jesus' role as Savior worked out in terms of redemption (2:1) and above all with reference to the coming of the End. All in all, these are important affirmations regarding Jesus, however sparsely 2 Peter might develop them. It can scarcely escape our notice, though, that these christological statements dwell in the realm of abstract theological claims. True enough, the approaches sketched by Marshall and Thielman press the importance of showing the significance of these affirmations within the historical situation being addressed in 2 Peter. Nevertheless, in the end, when it comes to either the synthetic task or the contemporary theological task, what we have before us are christological propositions in search of a context. If the christology of 2 Peter (and, by extension, the theology of the NT) is to become something more than an issue to be parsed or a statement to be affirmed, then somehow, apparently, these theological principles will require re-contextualization; that is, they must be transformed in order to speak to our own times and places. In spite of its hoary pedigree, this approach too often stops short, its frames abandoned on the cutting room floor. This is not surprising. First, it has an effect that is the exact opposite of what it intended. Rather than bringing the message of the NT more fully to bear on the life and mission of the church, it tends instead to segregate that message from the contemporary church. To a large degree, this is because it perpetuates the erroneous claim that these NT materials are written to folks back then and not to the church now. The task of theological interpretation cannot bypass the theological claim that the church is one—one across time and space. The church out of which 1 Peter was written, the church to which 1 Peter wasfirstaddressed, the church that received 1 Peter as canon, the church that has engaged in interpretation of 1 Peter, and the church that today turns to it as Scripture—these are all the same church. Second, it places the need for transformation in the wrong place. This is because it assumes that what is needed is our moving into the world of the New Testament, tracking and capturing its message, then carrying it back into our worlds for transformation into contemporary idiom. But it is we who need transformation, not the Word of God. The essential division between the biblical world and our own is not historical but theological, having to do with our capacity to read ourselves into Scripture's theological vision and so to enter into its world that we are transformed for faithful life in our world. What I am urging is a narrative-theological approach to our craft. More to the point, I am urging that this approach actually helps us to grasp better how a text like 2 Peter engages

266 Interpretation

JULY 2 0 0 6

in the theological task and how to be grasped by it—and, indeed, that this is the sort of approach that characterizes the theological work of the books of 1 and 2 Peter themselves.

NARRATIVE THEOLOGY—IN AN EPISTLE? Narrative theology refers to a constellation of approaches to the theological task typically joined by their antipathy toward forms of theology concerned with the systematic organization of propositions and grounded in ahistorical principles, and their attempt to discern an overall aim and ongoing plot in the ways of God as these are revealed in Scripture and continue to express themselves in history. A primary impetus for narrative theology comes from Scripture itself. This is true, first, in that the bulk of Scripture comes to us in the form of narratives. Second, we find in biblical texts the deliberate work of forming God's people by shaping their story. Israel's first "credo" took the form of a narrative: "A wandering Aramean was my father ..." (Deut 26:5-10). The speeches in Acts interpretively render the history of Israel so as to identify the advent of Jesus as its culmination (e.g., Acts 7:2-53; 13:16-41). John's Revelation portrays the whole of history from creation to new creation so as to transform the theological imagination of its readers. Third, the particular narratives related in the biblical books, together with the non-narrative portions of Scripture, participate in a more extensive, overarching narrative, or metanarrative. This is the story of God's purpose coming to fruition in the whole of God's history with us, from the creation of the world and humanity's falling away from God, through God's repeated attempts to restore his people culminating in the coming of Jesus of Nazareth, and reaching its full crescendo in the final revelation of Christ and the new creation. In an important sense, the Bible is nothing less than the record of the actualization (and ongoing promise) of this purpose of God in the history of the cosmos. It will be obvious already that narrative theology does not assume that all forms of discourse are narcological. The books before us, 1 and 2 Peter, are self-evidently epistolary; they do not tell a story. Nevertheless, even these books participate in a narrative—or, better, they manipulate the grand story of God's engagement with the world and his people for theological purposes. The importance of our coming to terms with the theological work of narrative-shaping is underscored by the recognition that narrative is central to identity formation. Recent work in neurobiology emphasizes the peculiarly human capacity for and drive toward making storied sense of our world and lives. Memory formation is narratively determined, so we naturally explain our behaviors through the historical narratives by

CATHOLIC EPISTLES

Interpretation 267

which we collaborate to create a sense of ourselves as persons and as a people. Patients who have experienced selected lesions to the brain demonstrate the inability to see what they cannot believe to be true,8 just as those of us with unaffected brains operate normally with a strong hermeneutical bias on the basis of prior beliefs, so that we actually perceive stimuli when none are physically presented.9 The narratives we tell and embody thus regulate how we construe the world. Because life-events do not come with self-contained and immediately obvious interpretations, we make sense by means of imaginative structures that we implicitly take to be true, normal, and good.10 From this perspective, attending to narrative theology, even in our engagement with epistolary texts, is attending to the power of theology to shape a people's way of making sense of what they experience day by day. From this perspective, narrative is not the absence of referentiality, but rather the admission that persons and events in the world receive their significance by means of their being located in particular narratives. From this perspective, "ideas" are not ruled out of court, but gather meaning within a particular narrative by which imaginative structures are (trans)formed. In this context, narrative representation is identity formation through theological intervention.

THE NARRATIVE OF 2 PETER What would a narrative approach to the theology of 2 Peter look like? How does 2 Peter represent the grand story of God, from creation to new creation? "Peter," as I shall refer to the author of 2 Peter, presents a straightforward, linear narrative: (1) Israel's Past — • (2) Christ Event —• (3) Present — • (4) Eschatological Judgment Note that a narrative-theological emphasis does not disregard cognition or truth. Second Peter is obviously interested in knowledge, an interest that is documented in the range of terms "Peter" deploys: epignösis ("knowledge, recognition"—1:2,3,8; 2:20), gnosis ("knowledge"—1:5,6; 3:18), epiginösko ("to know, to recognize"—2:21 [2x]), and ginösko ("to know"—1:20; 3:3). This is not knowledge of principles and systems but rather the formal aspects of our faith that cannot be segregated from but actually find their meaning within the narrative content and context of God's revelation to us. To put it differently, this knowledge is tacit and embodied. Truth has meaning in relation to the ongoing story. In "Peter's" reckoning, (1) Israel's past provides exemplars of divine judgment and rescue. (2) The Christ-event is less the turning point of history and more the guarantee of Christ's

8 E.g., V. S. Ramachandran, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Imposter Poodles to Purple Numbers (NewYork:Pi,2004),ch.2. 9 See Aaron R. Seitz, et al., "Seeing What Is Not There Shows the Costs of Perceptual Learning," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, no. 25 (21 June 2005): 9080-85. The importance of "belief" has only begun to be studied empirically—cf., e.g., Daniel L. Schacter and Elaine Scarry, eds., Memory, Brain, and Belief (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000). 10 Cf. Mark Johnson, Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), ch. 8.

268 Interpretation

JULY 2 0 0 6

ability to do what is promised. "Peter's" reflection on Christ's divinity (1:1) and divine power (1:3) ensures that Christ is able to give his people all that is needed for faithful life in the present. Reflection on the transfiguration (1:16-18) verifies Christ's glory, and "Peter's" barest mention of Jesus' death (in the language of "purchase," 2:1) serves as a critical reminder that his audience has been liberated from one form of slavery in order to exercise their freedom from the world (2:20) and in faithful living. It is precisely at the conjunction of (1) and (2) that 2 Pet 3:1-2 should attract our interest: "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you 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." "Peter" thus positions 2 Peter as a sequel to 1 Peter, but, more critically, urges that these two books share a common purpose: "¿n them I am trying to...." The agenda "Peter" lays out for these two letters has to do with putting into play the words of the prophets and the commandment of the Lord, mediated through the prophets. Israel's past (1) and the advent of Christ (2) are set side by side, with a view to how eschatological judgment (4) ought to impinge on present faith and life (3). With these words, "Peter" prompts a theological hermeneutic—that is, a mode of understanding that takes seriously how theological commitments order our reading of Scripture. Developed more fully in 1 Pet 1:10-12, this hermeneutic is one that finds Christ and the Scriptures of Israel as mutually informing.11 This is because they say the same thing, albeit in different theological idioms; how could they not, since the prophets of old spoke as inspired by the Spirit of Christ (1 Pet 1:11)? The importance of Israel's Scriptures is not worked out in terms of promise and fulfillment, then, but as simultaneity of substance and address. This means that "Peter" finds an essential unity in the outworking of God's purpose, from the prophets to Christ to the apostles and, thus to the community of Christ's followers. In this context, "remembrance" ([1] and [2]) is concerned with a present life (3) marked by creative fidelity: "fidelity" in the sense that the words of the prophets and commandment of the Lord set the parameters of faithful performance; "creative" in the sense that life is too particular and unruly to be carefully scripted, but Christians can nonetheless be persons shaped by this script, and who allow their lives to be set within its plot lines. Present existence (3) is cast within the eschatological horizon of impending judgment (4). Irrespective of the message of the false teachers, judgment will take place. In this way, "Peter" employs what we might recognize as a literary device known as "backshadowing," which posits that the pattern of history is revealed, the nature of the end is known, and the

H The connection of 2 Pet 3:1-2 to 1 Pet 1:10-12 was noted already by G. H. Boobyer, who saw 2 Pet 3:1-2 as the starting point for comprehending how the two letters should be related ("The Indebtedness of 2 Peter to 1 Peter," in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson 1893-1958 [ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959], 34-53).

Interpretation 269

CATHOLIC EPISTLES

present can be evaluated accordingly.12 This means that "Peter" interprets the present in light of his convictions regarding the future. In short, although the narrative "Peter" shapes is a linear one, it emphasizes Israel's past and God's promised future in order to shape perspective on the present, and it formulates the Christ event as the ground for Christian life and godliness. Of the four nodes in "Peter's" narrative, two are especially underdeveloped: Israel's past and the advent of Christ. One receives special attention: eschatological judgment, with the End construed above all in terms of the transformation of creation. From different angles and with varying degrees of intensity, these three shed light on the fourth: the present. Situating 2 Peter theologically in relation to 1 Peter, we might not be surprised to learn that, as 1 Peter sculpts the grand story, two nodes of the narrative receive copious attention: Israel's past and the advent of Christ. On the one hand, the difference between these two letters, read from this narrative-theological perspective, can be explained by the differences in present existence to which each is addressed: 2 Peter toward false teaching with its concomitant immorality; 1 Peter toward the enigmatic marginal status of believers in the world. On the other hand, 2 Peter is able to do little more than drop hints about the relationship of the church to Israel's past and point in the general direction of the significance of Christ's advent because it presumes a reading of 1 Peter, where these hermeneutical compass points are prominent. THE NARRATIVE OF 1 PETER The narrative of 1 Peter comes into focus especially in 1 Pet 1:13-21, where the apostle's instruction is set within and determined by a temporal map. Events (or conditions) that figure centrally in the scheme by which Peter (as I shall call the author of 1 Peter) orders the lives of his audience are plotted along this time line: Primordial

Time of

Revelation of

Time

Ignorance/ Emptiness

Jesus at the End of Ages

Liberation

Time of

Revelation

Alien Life

of Jesus Christ

w

(1) Primordial Time (1:20). Using traditional christological formulations,13 Peter inscribes the sacrificial death of Jesus into the timeless plan of God. In doing so, Peter underscores and expands on what is already known to his audience (v. 18: "knowing that"). Building on the undeveloped but assumed premise of Christ's préexistence, Peter urges that God's own agenda stands behind Jesus' redemptive work, so that the sacrificial death of

12 I have borrowed this concept from Gary Saul Morson, Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 234-64; Morson, however, takes a dim view of this "foreshadowing after the fact." 13 Sharon Clark Pearson identifies 1:18-21 as "a composite of formulary materials"(77ze Christological and Rhetorical Properties ofl Peter [SBEC 45; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2001], 97-111).

270 Interpretation

JULY 2 0 0 6

Jesus provides insight into the very nature of God. The purpose of Peter's affirmation is given at the close of 1:20: the selection of Christ before the foundation of the world and his revelation at the end of the ages was "because of you." That is, Peter assures his audience that the plan of God finds its goal in the community of the faithful and in this way confirms the location of his audience, whose lives are marginal in the world at large, but nonetheless at the heart of God's will. Not unlike the work of Hellenistic historians and consistent with ancient Jewish voices, Peter urges that beneath the surface of daily life events, divine guidance is at work. Additionally, given the premium placed on what is old in the world of 1 Peter ("The old is better"),14 Peter's affirmation puts in the strongest possible terms the significance of the way of life he has set before his audience. Far from being subject to dismissal as newfangled, it is grounded in unparalleled antiquity. Because Peter otherwise counsels his audience to put aside their former desires and inherited way of life (1:14,18), it was imperative that he provide a suitable substitute, with suitability measured in terms of agedness. (2) Time of Ignorance/Emptiness (1:14,18; cf. 2:11; 4:2-3). In the NT, ignorance characterizes those, Gentile or Jew, who do not know the God revealed in Jesus Christ (i.e. "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," 1:3; see Acts 3:17; 17:30) and, therefore, whose knowledge of God can only be distorted. Ignorance is less the state of lacking information, and more the profound failure to grasp the character and purpose of God. Misconceiving the nature of God and life before God, they were blinded to what God was doing. Consequently, the resolution of ignorance is never simply the amassing of data, but a realignment with God's ancient purpose, a theological transformation. Peter's invective continues. In the Greco-Roman world, desire (epithymia) appears in moral discourse with such generally negative connotations as insatiable cravings or lust.15 A generic vice almost universally condemned, desire marked the former time of ignorance. In the present text, desires rooted in ignorance belong to the past, and so should no longer shape or form Peter's audience; in its place, imitation of God's holiness is expected. Paul similarly wrote, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds" (Rom 12:2). Condemnatory rhetoric is also used of the former life of Peter's audience in 1:18, where their inherited way of life is dismissed as empty or futile. In Peter's world, this is a stunning conclusion. Roman culture valued what was handed down from generation to generation, but Peter assigns those customs to the category of idolatry. It is difficult to exaggerate the

14 This motif is developed with reference to Greek, Roman, Hellenistic-Jewish, and early Christian literature in Peter Pilhofer, Presbyteron Kreitton: Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte (WUNT 2:39; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990). r5 E.g., Plato Phaedr. 83b; Epictetus Diatr. 2.16.45; 2.18.8-9; Wis 4:12; 4 Mace 1:22; Rom 1:24; Jas 1:14-15.

CATHOLIC EPISTLES

Interpretation 271

seriousness of Peter's claim. According to pervasive sentiment, to break from one's ancestral religion was to invite disaster in the form of recriminations from the gods thus scorned. Accordingly, those who set aside ancestral traditions invited contempt for undermining the fabric of society by engaging in nonconformist behavior. It is no wonder, then, that the liberation that comes through the death of Christ results in a time of dwelling in a strange land, a time of alien status (v. 17). (3) The End of the Ages (1:20). In locating the end of the ages subsequent to what Peter describes as the time of ignorance, I am breaking from a strict chronological ordering. The advent of lesus, which is for Peter the end of the ages, predated the pagan lives of his audience. Nevertheless, their awareness of lesus' advent at the end of the ages has interrupted their former lives. Existentially, then, if not in a strictly chronological sense, this ordering of events and conditions is appropriate. For Peter, the advent of Jesus Christ constitutes the midpoint in a history that spans the period from creation to the final revelation of Jesus Christ; as such, no telling of the narrative of God's election and redemption is true that does not pass through and take its meaning from the death and resurrection of Jesus. The notion of the end of the ages is a commonplace in Jewish apocalyptic texts of the Second Temple period, even if those interpretations of the End might differ markedly. Two motifs from that literature are highlighted in the opening verses of 1 Peter: the anticipated resurrection of the dead (marking the restoration of Israel); and an expected time of affliction or woe (marking the onset of the messianic age). Early in 1 Peter, the resurrection of the dead comes into play in 1:3,21, and suffering is the lot of both Jesus (1:2,11,19) and God's people, Peter's audience (1:6, 7,17). The revelation of Jesus of which Peter writes in 1:20 thus refers to the advent of Jesus, and especially his passion and resurrection, by which the End has been inaugurated. This portrait is only enhanced with reference to God's honoring Jesus by raising him from the dead and giving him glory in 1:21. What is more, reading Peter against the backdrop of contemporary Jewish apocalyptic thought, we learn that the suffering of believers is nothing less than a participation in the Messiah's own suffering, by which God actualizes his salvific purpose. The sufferings of Jesus and his followers together constitute the birth pangs through which the new age emerges. This interpretation of suffering in relation to the end of the ages is not unique to Peter. It was knownfromearliest Christian times and is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, in Paul, and in Revelation.16 (4) Liberation (1:18-19). For Peter's audience, liberation lies in the past, driving home once again that God has already acted decisively in their lives: to give them new birth (1:3);

16 See Dale C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Allison does not involve 1 Peter in his study, however.

272 Interpretation

JULY 2 0 0 6

to evangelize them (1:12); and to liberate or redeem them. Liberation is grounded in the work of Christ, and Peter conflates three images as he articulates the atonement theology of this text: (a) "liberation" or "ransom," (b) "lamb," and (c) the combination of "blood" and "[a lamb] without blemish or defect." (a) The importance of liberation derives in the OT from God's liberating (or ransoming) Israel from enslavement in Egypt (e.g., Exod 6:6; 15:13; Deut 7:8; Isa 43:1). However, ransom in this sense is effected without concern for payment (cf. Isa 52:3!), whereas Peter observes that the liberation of believers comes with a price: not "such perishable things like gold or silver," but "the precious blood of Christ." This opens the door to possible influence from practices associated with human affairs—recovering a person or property through the payment of a "ransom"—in the LXX (e.g., Lev 25:25,48-49) and in the Roman world (e.g., of prisoners of war). (b) The image of the lamb takes us more specifically into the tradition of the Passover sacrifice (Exod 12)—so central to Israel's history and identity—and its appropriation within early Christianity (e.g., John 1:29,36; 1 Cor 5:7). Celebrated annually, Passover both memorialized and reappropriated God's election and great act of deliverance for generations of God's people. (c) The reference to blood and the phrase "without blemish or defect" recall Israel's economy of sacrifice and attribute atoning significance to Jesus' death. As in texts associated with Paul (Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20), blood must be understood symbolically (since the mode of Jesus' execution was not particularly bloody) as shorthand for "purification offering" (e.g., Lev 4:1-6:7; 6:24-7:10; see Lev 16), the focus of which is on cleansing the effects of sin. In this system, the life of an unblemished animal substitutes for blemished human life, and restores right relations with God. The author's qualification of Christ's blood as "precious" marks a profound, if easily overlooked, theological move. Reckoned by human criteria, Jesus' death on a cross (2:24) was anything but honorable, so mention of his passion could easily evoke valuations of humiliation and scorn. In a manner consistent with his emphasis on God's choice of Jesus (1:20), and the subsequent declaration of Jesus as rejected among humans but chosen and honored before God (2:4,6), Peter declares that Jesus' death, however ignominious in the Roman world, actually bears divine approval. The imagery Peter borrows from Israel's economy of sacrifice thus portrays the honorable death of Jesus as effective in wiping away sin and its effects. Interestingly, in 1 Pet 1:18-19, sin and its consequences per se are not the focus of redemption; "the emptiness of your inherited way of life" is. This suggests the potency of

CATHOLIC EPISTLES

Interpretation 273

the desires ofthat former life, a suggestion that gains leverage in Peter's admonition against allowing oneself to be shaped or formed by them. Liberation belongs to the larger semantic domain of salvation understood in terms of war,17 encouraging our recognition that an inherited way of life and its desires could present themselves as forces against which God has undertaken battle. Drawing deeply from the well of Israel's life and moving effortlessly among Israel's images of reconciliation and rescue, Peter forges an atonement theology the focus of which is liberation from slavery, not to Egypt, but to an inherited way of life that is empty and characterized by insatiable cravings and idolatry. (5) Time ofAlien Life (1:17). Peter uses the term chronos, "a period of time during which some activity occurs," twice in this section, in both instances with reference to the time during which believers live (1:17,20). They refer to the present differently, however. In 1:17, Peter writes of "the time of your dwelling in a strange land," while in 1:20 he writes of "the end of the times (or ages)." The juxtaposition of these two descriptions is parabolic of the deeper reality to which his audience must attend. This is that the last days inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus can only be a time of living as strangers and never really at home for those who have been born anew. Apart from this verse, the noun paroikiay "temporary dwelling among strangers," occurs in the NT only once, in Luke's description of Israel's "stay in the land of Egypt" (Acts 13:17). The parallel between the two is apt, especially when it is recognized that paroikia functions within Second Temple Judaism already as a metaphor for exilic life (e.g., 3 Mace 7:19). Recall the closely related phrase "strangers in the world of the diaspora" (1:1), which likewise speaks to a socio-religious situation as marginal folk, subject to day-to-day, cancerous slander and bedevilment. With three imperatives, Peter sketches the shape of expected conduct in this temporal and social context: "to set their hope" (v. 13), "to become holy" (v. 15), and "to live in reverent fear" (v. 17). Together, these constitute a response of resistance centered on an alternative structuring of time and a formative narrative that rejects ancestral and contemporary conventions for behavior and allegiance to a competing god/God and embodied in characteristic practices. And this is made possible by a liberation that reverberates with echoes of the story of Israel's exodus from Egypt, that prototypical expression of Yahweh the warrior. (6) Revelation of Jesus Christ (1:13). Peter actually begins his exhortation in 1:13-21 with the end of the story: "the [end-time] revelation of Jesus Christ " This serves two immediate purposes. First, it continues his interest in the eschatological horizons of life for those

17

See Joel B. Green, Salvation (Understanding Biblical Themes; St. Louis: Chalice, 2003), 63-92.

274 Interpretation

JULY 2 0 0 6

who have been born anew (1:3,4, 7,11), thus providing a reminder that vindication is the certain successor to the suffering of the faithful. Second, as in 2 Peter, so here Peter engages in "backshadowing," which posits that the pattern of history is revealed, the nature of the end is known, and the present can be evaluated accordingly. This means that Peter can interpret the present in light of his convictions regarding the future and can direct his audience to live their lives in ways determined by that future, in hope (1:13, 21). What agenda is served by this concern with the times, this attention to the emplotment of God's story? First, recalling that Peter's audience is primarily Gentile, and so unskilled in rehearsing the story of God's dealings with Israel, Peter works to introduce and to induct them further into a particular way of construing their history that is deeply rooted in the eternal plan of God and that takes seriously the formation and nurture of God's people, Israel, through Passover, exodus, and the pattern of reconciliation through sacrifice. As cognitive scientist Mark Turner has observed, "narrative imagining is our fundamental form of predicting" and our "fundamental cognitive instrument for explanation."18 For Peter, the only true categories for making sense of daily existence are determined by a particular narrative, the scriptural story. Second, remembering that we tell stories not only to make sense of the world, but also to form identity and community, we see that in selecting these particular events and in ordering them in this particular way, Peter is set on constructing the identity of the communities to which he has addressed himself. Although we would never confuse Peter's letter with a narrative text, his concern with marking the times suggests an agenda like that of those who use narrative to represent history. In this way, he orients his audience toward the future consummation of God's plan at the same time that he grounds their identity in a divine strategy that predates creation itself. He is already working to collapse the self-evident historical distinctiveness between Israel of old and these communities of Jesus-followers in the service of a theological unity that conjoins old and new. On account of the initiative of God manifest in the passion and resurrection of Jesus, these communities stem from the same roots. They are one. The result is a strong sense of continuity with the past, a secure place within the arc of God's gracious purpose and a firm basis for projecting oneself into a future made certain in Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Third, this concern with future and past has present significance. Peter's attention to the times carefully articulates the nature of present-day existence—not as an anomaly in God's story nor a challenge to God's fdtnfulness, but as an opportunity for identification with Christ and for putting into play the human vocation to imitate the holiness of God. More could be said regarding Peter's theological narrative, of course, since I have artificially constrained my inquiry by focusing on a single text, 1 Pet 1:13-21. For example, had I

18 Mark Turner, The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 20.

CATHOLIC EPISTLES

Interpretation 275

simply moved back a few verses (1:10-12), I would have been able to explore more fully the texture of Peter's scriptural hermeneutic and thus say more about Peter's perspective on Israel. Had I pushed back a bit further, into 1:3-9,1 would have been able to develop more thoroughly the degree to which Peter's "gospel" is centered on God. Hopefully, however, this is enough to show how integral to 1 Peter is this theological concern with the mapping of time, a centerpiece of a narrative-theological approach.19

CONCLUSION Theologically, we are pressured to read 1 and 2 Peter together, in spite of historical differences calibrated in terms of tradition history, authorship, genre, and style. This compulsion comes above all from their shared attribution to the apostle Peter and the interpretively significant remark in 2 Pet 3:1: "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you...." From a narrative-theological perspective, we have already begun to see how, when read together, these historical differences actually enrich our theological reflection. The christology of 1 Peter fills in the blanks, as it were, for 2 Peter. Similarly, in comparison with 2 Peter, 1 Peter provides a far more robust and theologically engaging interaction with the story of Israel as the story of God's people, including Peter's Christian audience. This paves the way for us to locate the exemplars of Israel's past that are brought into focus in 2 Peter within the larger mural of Israel's life as this is painted in 1 Peter. At one point, 1 and 2 Peter overwhelmingly share a common emphasis, narratively speaking. Both have a well-developed eschatological horizon, even though this horizon is developed in distinctive ways. Both assure their audience of the certainty of the End, and of final judgment. Both draw attention in this way to the fact that the present is not all there is, but points to and serves a future reality that mitigates the present's claims to ultimacy. Both engage in backshadowing, insisting that our sure knowledge of a certain future leads us to see that the future casts its shadow backward on present life, calling for conduct congruent with the way things really are, and in the End will be shown to be. For 1 Peter, however, eschatology is cast in the role of servant to hope, providing motivation for courageous steadfastness in the face of opposition. For 2 Peter, eschatology serves as the flashing light of warning (3:17!), underscoring the certainty that present life has enduring consequences. Both insist that the End will reveal what is really valued by God and what ought to be valued in the present by God's people. And both shape a narrative theology within which those values—those dispositions, those ways of thinking and acting—are second nature. Between

19

See further, Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).

276 Interpretation

JULY 2 0 0 6

them, 1 and 2 Peter, we encounter the eschatologically determined pastoral task of afflicting the comfortable (2 Peter) and comforting the afflicted (1 Peter). When examined from this perspective, 1 and 2 Peter emerge as opportunities to shape our imagination and conception of the world, supported by one of the most potent weapons in the formation and reformation of identity: narrative. Narrative does not imply a dismissal of reality as it really is, but insists that reality is subject to numerous representations; narrative does not declare that facts are constituted by their narration, but that there are multiple ways of construing facts.20 To illustrate this with reference to 2 Peter, clearly one way to read the world as it is would be to deny any claim of ultimate justice. Do we not see all around us evidence that the immorality of others leads to their apparent happiness and to our exploitation, but not to their punishment? For "Peter," however, such a reading is possible only for the nearsighted and blind (1:9), those lacking true understanding (2:12). Such immoral people seem free, but are actually slaves to corruption (2:19). If they would open their eyes to the whole of God's story, then they would recognize the certainty of divine judgment—and order their lives accordingly. To illustrate this with reference to 1 Peter, execution on a cross, according to the dominant narrative of Roman antiquity, was an ignominy, and the Christian experience of ostracism and insult was likewise shameful and debilitating. Following the adage that the best defense of the marginal and powerless is narrative, 1 Peter spins a different narrative, not by creating new facts, but by according privilege to some facts over others and by ordering them in a particular way. Peter writes the story of his Christian audience into the story of Christ, itself already understood within the plot line of Israel's story and, indeed, within the story of God's purpose from creation to new creation. As a result, "the stone that the builders rejected has become the very head of the corner" (1 Pet 2:7). In other words, given the inversion of categories of valuation within Peter's narrative (e.g., 2:4-10,21-25), it really was possible to declare victory (before God) in the face of apparent defeat (before humans), for this was a central means by which to maintain courageous steadfastness in the face of adversity and to undermine the Roman ethos of power and status. Narrating the creation of the world of Narnia, including the talking beasts that would inhabit it, C. S. Lewis observed, "For what you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing: it also depends on what sort of person you are."21 Lacking true perspec-

20 See James Phelan, Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1996), 1-23. 21 C. S. Lewis, The Magician's Nephew (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 125.

CATHOLIC EPISTLES

Interpretation 277

tive, Uncle Andrew heard only roaring when Asian sang the melody of genesis, only snarling when Asian voiced the words of first commissioning. When it comes to the work of observation and meaning-making, we see what we allow ourselves to see and find the categories of evidence for which we had gone looking. This raises the stakes on the question about which narrative we indwell, about what patterns of thought structure our beliefs and comportment in the world. And this underscores all the more the importance of the worldforming aims of the narrative-theological work of 1 and 2 Peter.

^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.