The Eschatology of 2 Peter and Jude

"Eschatology" has a wide variety of meanings. In this paper we intend it primarily in its classic systematic theological meaning; that is, teaching about the "last things" or how this age or this world ends. That 2 Peter and Jude speak to the topic of eschatology so understood is abundantly clear in the texts. The purpose of this paper is to describe that eschatology and to try to put it into its setting in the early church.

In describing the setting, we recognize, first, that neither of these letters is about eschatology. Both of them are about heterodox teachers. In both cases the teachers are accused of immoral behavior, and in the case of 2 Peter it appears that the behavior is related to a belief that the promise of Jesus' future coming is specious. In Jude the teachers have come into the community from outside of the group (Jude 4, "stolen in among you" NRSV), and in 2 Peter they appear to have arisen from inside the group (2 Pet 2:1, "among you"). In each case it is certain behaviors which mark out the teachers as heterodox, rather than certain doctrines (as, for example, is the case at least in part in the Johannine letters). This is especially true if the divergent teaching about the coming of Christ that is mentioned in 2 Peter is the rationale for their behavior rather than the cause of their behavior. Thus in each of these letters the eschatological references are in the service of reinforcing community norms or ethics, rather than being the main topic under discussion, as one sees, for instance, in parts of 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

Second, while we need to discuss whether these works use apocalyptic eschatology, neither of these letters is apocalyptic per se. There is only one reference that either of the authors makes to a personal revelatory experience (2 Pet 1:16-18; this remains true whether one thinks of Peter as the implied author or the actual author) and that is to a past proleptic experience of the glory of Christ, not a vision of the return itself. While there are references to past events, there is no journey into either the past or the future. What we have in these works is the exegesis of the teaching of the church (including the scriptures of the church) with respect to the judgment of those who live lives comparable to those of the heterodox teachers. These writers are teachers applying the prophets rather than prophets themselves.

Jude

The eschatology of Jude focuses on a belief in a future final judgment. As early as verse 6 he mentions "the judgment of the great Day" (eij" krivsin megavlh" hJmevra"). At this point the judgment applies only to the fallen angels of Gen 6:1-4. Their present fate is imprisonment in chains in "deepest darkness" but their future fate will be worse. However, this verse is one of three verses that give warning examples to the false teachers, starting with the destruction of unbelievers among the Hebrews and ending with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in "eternal fire" which is "an example". Thus we are not surprised when in Jude 13 we read that the false teachers are themselves "wandering stars" (perhaps a reference to the fallen angels again) for whom "the deepest darkness has been reserved forever."

The timing of this judgment is found in the next two verses, a citation of 1 Enoch 1:9:

That is, there is a coming Day when "the Lord" will come with his angels to establish justice and execute his final judgment.

It is likely that Jude believed that this judgment would take place in the relatively near future, for he cites the presence of the false teachers as evidence of this being "the end of time" ( jEp· ejscavtou [tou'] crovnou, Jude 18).

Finally, this Day is not simply a time of judgment, but also a time of salvation. The believers he writes to are not to look forward to this Day fearfully, but instead to "look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life." (Jude 21) This salvation is accomplished by the one who is "able to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing" (Jude 24).

When we read this description, we immediately notice that the eschatology is basically typical Pharisaic-rabbinic Jewish eschatology, namely, that at the end of this age there will be a final judgment in which the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished. The punishment itself is left relatively vague ("deepest darkness" with perhaps an implication of "eternal fire"); the main point is that it is final (i.e. eternal). On the other hand, the reward of the righteous is described as "eternal life" and standing "in the presence of his glory with rejoicing," descriptions which are left to the end of the letter so that they will be emphasized without distracting from the warning. Any of this could have been said by a number of Jewish groups including the covenanters at Qumran to the proto-rabbis.

The specific form of this eschatology, however, is that of 1 Enoch. We not only have the quotation of 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14-15, but we also have a reference in Jude 6 to 1 Enoch 6, which describes the sin of the fallen angels, and to 1 Enoch 10:4-6, 12-14, where God orders their imprisonment to await the final judgment. Furthermore, Jude 12-13 may incorporate Enochian imagery. Thus we can say that the specific type of Jewish eschatology which Jude follows is the apocalyptic eschatology of 1 Enoch. How much of the composite work we know of as 1 Enoch Jude knew cannot be determined from this short work. But that he knew some form of the book and that he subscribed to his own interpretation of 1 Enoch's eschatology is clear.

It is his personal interpretation of the eschatology is what makes Jude a Christian work. First, a key element of the unrighteousness of which he accuses the false teachers is described as a denial of "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Since there is no indication that these people do not claim to be Christians, the denial is probably a rejection of some of the teachings of Jesus, and thus a practical denial of him as Master and Lord. Furthermore, while there are numerous citations of Old Testament stories, including some from the Pentateuch, there is no mention of legal material per se nor any other indication that Jude is struggling against a deviant interpretation of Jewish Torah ethics. Thus Jude is thinking of Christian/ Jewish-Christian morality; i.e. ethics as it was understood by the Christian community, and perhaps as Jesus taught it.

Second, the "Lord" who is the coming to judge the world may well be Jesus. Jude uses the term "Lord" seven times. Of these, it clearly indicates Jesus four times, for it occurs together with "Jesus Christ" (Jude 4, 17, 21, 25). Three times it appears in the context of citations of texts: one is a general citation of the Exodus (Jude 5), another is a citation of the Testament of Moses (Jude 9), and the third is a citation of 1 Enoch (Jude 14). In none of these citations does Jude make it clear that he is speaking about God rather than about Jesus. Thus it is possible that Jude understands the use of the title "Lord" in the "scriptural" passages he cites as referring to Jesus, thus shifting a Jewish eschatology into a specifically Christian one.

This observation does not deny the fact that God plays a role in relation to Christ. God himself is mentioned four times, twice at the beginning and twice at the end of the work (Jude 1, 4, 21, 25), forming an inclusio. He is described as Father, the giver of grace. And he is also likely the one keeping the Christians safe for Jesus Christ (Jude 1). In Jude 24-25 it is "the only God our Savior" who will make the Christians stand in the presence of his glory with rejoicing "through Jesus Christ." Thus salvation and perseverance are attributed to God rather than to Jesus. Does Jude also understand final judgment as one of his functions rather than re-read the texts in terms of Jesus as Lord? One wishes that the text were longer or more explicit so that a clear resolution of these two possibilities could emerge.

2 Peter

When we come to 2 Peter, we have a variation on the themes of Jude with major clear addition to Jude's picture occurring in chapter 3.

2 Peter begins by picturing this age as one corrupt through desire, a portrayal many Jews could agree to, assuming that desire translates the idea of the evil y$x#r (2 Pet 1:4). Salvation is viewed as future; i.e. as "entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:11, NRSV). This kingdom may be future, but it has already been prolepticly seen on earth in the transfiguration (2 Pet 1:16,19).

In chapter 2, Peter begins to follow Jude. The intimations of the final judgment of the false teachers begin in 2 Pet 2:1, 3. Having explicitly cited the final judgment of the fallen angels in 2 Pet 2:4, our author makes the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah clearer in that it is an example of "what is about to happen to the ungodly" (2 Pet 2:6). Indeed, the ungodly are kept "under punishment" until this day of judgment (2:9), perhaps indicating immediate punishment of the ungodly who die before the final judgment. We also learn that there is a time coming when irrational creatures will be destroyed and at that same time the ungodly will be destroyed (2:12). With this 2 Peter has moved beyond Jude and intimates the topic that he will take up in the following chapter.

The main addition to the thought of Jude comes in 2 Peter 3, where we discover the problem of parousia delay. Jude does not even hint that parousia delay might be an issue used by the false teachers, while 2 Peter does not indicate any problem with "the grace of God" (his only two references to grace in 1:2 and 3:18 being formal and general respectively). For 2 Peter, like Jude, the sign of the last days is "scoffers" who indulge their desires, but, unlike the parallel passage in Jude 18, 2 Peter goes on to amplify the content of their scoffing in terms of parousia delay.

In 2 Peter the day of judgment is said to include not simply the judgment of the righteous and unrighteous, as in Jude, but also "fire" which will destroy the world as water destroyed the world in the time of Noah (2 Pet 3:5-7). In fact, the violent dissolution of the earth appears to precede the judgment, since it "discloses" the earth and the things done in it (2 Pet 3:10). This destruction includes the heavens as well as the earth (2 Pet 3:13), which probably refers to the first and second heavens, not the place where God dwells. The impermanence of this earth shows the folly of living for the values of this age (as the false teachers do) and the importance of living for values that will outlast it (2 Pet 3:11).

While the certainty of the day of judgment is important to 2 Peter, equally important is his discussion of the timing. Citing Ps 90:4, Peter argues that human time is not God's time. If it looks like God has delayed the day of judgment, this appearance is due to his mercy (3:8-9). This type of apologetic can also be found in Jewish sources. The day is coming, and it is coming like a "thief", which echoes the words of Jesus (Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39; cf. 1 Thess 5:2; Rev 3:3; 16:15) indicating that "the Son of Man" would come at an unexpected time. While the unknown timing should remove any complacency, Christians are not only the wait (3:12, 14) for "the day of God" but to "hurry" it along (3:12). The means of doing this is not clear, unless they are the lives of holiness and godliness mentioned in the previous verse (3:11).

Peter is clearer than Jude about the agent of this eschatology. In 3:15 it is the patience of "our Lord" which means salvation, so the eschatological day appears to be under the control of Jesus. While the previous references in 3:8-10 are to "the Lord" which could mean either God or Christ, already in 1:16 2 Peter has indicated his subject as "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Thus the reference in 3:5 to "the word of God" which was both the agent of the first creation and that of reserving the present world for fire (3:7), appears to indicate the power behind the main theme. Jesus is the one coming, so the five ambiguous references to "the Lord" (of 14 total) and especially the three in chapter 3 probably refer to Jesus. If this is true, "the day of the Lord" from the Old Testament has been reinterpreted in terms of Jesus as Lord, even though that day is also called "the day of God" in 3:12 and even though in chapter 2 God is explicitly cited as the agent of judgment of the fallen angels (2:4).

Issues in the Eschatology of 2 Peter and Jude

The eschatology of 2 Peter and Jude has not escaped analysis by New Testament scholars, even if the result of this analysis has at times been to reject it as relevant for the church. The discussion began relatively early in church history, not only with the ignoring of 2 Peter or its outright rejection due to questions about authorship (Eusebius, Hist Eccl. 3.3.1,4), but also with problems with its theology, for the idea of a final destructive conflagration was rejected by both Irenaeus and Origen. In more modern times E. Käsemann has criticized the epistle on the basis that, among other things, its eschatology is basically sub-Christian in that the Christological basis of the early Christian eschatology is missing with the result that one is left with an anthropologically-centered eschatology similar to that of Jews and pagans. His position has been followed by others influential scholars. While this assertion did not go without response, it certainly cast a shadow on an already-neglected book and it is only recently that there has been something of a rehabilitation of 2 Peter, partially because there has also been a re-evaluation of apocalyptic modes of thought. Thus the two major issues in the eschatology of 2 Peter are: (1) what did our author mean when he speaks of a world-conflagration and (2) is his eschatology anthropocentric and thus Christologically deficient? In setting these questions, we notice that Jude is not brought up, for Jude does not have the parousia-delay issue of 2 Peter nor does he have a description of a final conflagration. His relatively "primitive" description of final judgment and salvation does not arouse the same criticism, although the work is none-the-less neglected.

Turning to the issue of what 2 Peter meant in speaking of world conflagration, we recognize that the general background of the imagery is the judgment oracles of the Old Testament. Upon examining them one discovers that in passages such as Isa 13:10,13 cosmic events are described (sun and stars darkened; heavens tremble), but they are fulfilled in earthly invasions (Isa 13:17; the Medes destroy Babylon). Parallel descriptions can be found elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. Isa 34:4 = judgment of Edom; Joel 2:10 = locust plague; Hag 2:6,21 = events happening in the lifetime of the high priest Joshua). Likewise in looking back on the Exodus Ps 114:3-7 describes cataclysmic earthly events that are far more dramatic than those described in Exodus itself. Could it be that our author is aware of this use of the image of terrestrial or cosmological cataclysm for earthly events, most of which are political, and is making use of such imagery himself without meaning it literally?

We suspect that the answer to this question is in the negative. First, whether or not the Old Testament author was aware of the eventual referent of his image, our author is reading his Old Testament at a distance in time and sees the texts as fulfilled in the coming parousia rather than in the distant past. The immediacy of 2 Peter's reading of the texts (or of the texts used by Jude in the case of chapter 2) renders the manner of their previous historical fulfillment irrelevant. Second, while the language of final conflagration is normally late in the Old Testament, first being applied to specific enemies (Isa 33:11; 66:11; Joel 2:3; Zech 12:6) and only then used as a metaphor generalized to the world (Zeph 1:18; 3:8; Deut 32:22), there is an "inner-Israelite development" which logically leads to the world conflagration of the Sibylline Oracles (Sib. Or. 4.171-182; 5.155-161). Thus 2 Peter is part of a development within Judaism. Finally, the parallel with the flood, explicitly made in 2 Peter 3, but implied already in the previous language of the book, relying as it does on Jewish tradition, perhaps as mediated through the synoptic tradition, implies that our author expects the fire to be as historical and as real as in his view the flood was. The effect of this fire is to "burn" or "dissolve" the elements, i.e. the materials of which the world is made, clearing the way for the new creation.

It is not that 2 Peter is opposing the present physical world to a non-physical world, as Käsemann supposes, nor that he is not interested in a new creation at all. After all, a renewed creation did rise out of the flood in all Jewish accounts known. Rather, our author is indicating the judgment needed to prepare for a new creation ("new heavens and a new earth", 2 Pet 3:13) in which only righteousness exists, a theme known in 1 Enoch as well.

Turning to the second issue, as to whether his eschatology is anthropocentric and thus Christologically deficient, we note that Käsemann is correct in pointing out the ethical emphasis of 2 Peter. In both 2 Peter and Jude it is the ethical behavior of the sectarians that the author views as problematic, their doctrinal positions being mentioned only insofar as they support the behavior. Yet this does not mean that 2 Peter is Christologically deficient. Käsemann himself acknowledges that 2 Peter contains a number of fully Christian references to Christ, which, however, he discounts due to the ethical emphasis of the whole as merely traditional language. The issue, then, is whether one can have ethical imperatives based on eschatological reward and punishment and still maintain a fully Christian stance? This stance, of course, is defined by an interpretation of Paul.

The issue itself is far wider than 2 Peter. Revelation, for example, also uses eschatology in the service of ethics in that the thrust of the book is to support values of endurance and faithfulness in the church in the light of the parousia and its concomitant reversal of values. Much the same could be argued about the eschatology of the synoptics and other works. Indeed, one could argue that the function of eschatological teaching in general is to support obedience to the risen Christ, whom the Christian experiences at present through the Spirit in a context of suffering. The eschatological teaching, "Jesus will return and establish true justice" answers "What is the purpose of this faithfulness in the midst of suffering?" Thus in essence Käsemann's objection is to eschatology in general with 2 Peter forming an example.

Furthermore, the standard by which 2 Peter is judged is as problematic as 2 Peter itself. Paul himself can speak of certain unethical behaviors that disqualify one for the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21). His warnings in 1 Cor 10:1-22 are fully as strong as anything found in 2 Peter. And we must also remember that in 2 Peter, unlike the Pauline Hauptbriefe the indicative of the cross is not an issue. It is the imperative of ethics that is at issue. Thus it is no surprise if 2 Peter focuses on the imperative mode rather than on the indicative. That the latter occurs in the attribution of salvation to Jesus and God alone is not just a bowing to tradition, but a shorthand reference to what does not need to be discussed because presumably it is not an issue between 2 Peter and those he opposes.

Thus it would be correct to argue that 2 Peter does not discuss Christology at length. Neither Christology nor soteriology is the subject of the work. But it is incorrect to draw from this the conclusion that he therefore holds a sub-Christian Christology due to his eschatologically driven ethic. His work revolves around the actions of Christ, not just in the past, but also as coming Lord and Savior. He is working more in the future tense of salvation than in the past or present tense, but embedded in his titles of Christ and God and his reference to the Jesus tradition is an acceptance of traditional teaching which he need not dispute.

Conclusion

1. The eschatology of Jude and 2 Peter is basically typical Pharisaic-Jewish eschatology. This includes a belief in: (1) a division of time into this age and the age to come, (2) a final judgment at the end of this age, and (3) the deeds of this age determining status in the age to come, including the negative status of punishment/ destruction for those deemed unrighteous. The particular form of eschatology found in Jude is that of 1 Enoch.

2. For Jude the Lord is the judge in the final judgment. It is not clear whether "the Lord" is God or whether the reference has been shifted to Jesus. In 2 Peter it is clear that the judge is Jesus.

3. 2 Peter also includes the destruction of this world by fire before the final judgement. This act both purifies the world, as the flood did previously, and "exposes" the world to the divine view, as all intervening "cover" is burned away. The nature of this destruction is as real as that of the flood, but in this case the reduction to chaos extends not just to the waters passing this boundaries to overflow the land (i.e. Gen 1:6-13 reversed) but also to the melting of the building products of the universe. While there may have been other influences on the development of this doctrine, the stream of Jewish tradition shows both precedents and parallel development, so we cannot conclude that this idea is foreign to Judaism. Our author does not argue for a non-material world to follow a material one, but for a righteous world to follow an unrighteous one. There does appear to an a "resurrection" of the world as there is a "resurrection" of human beings.

4. None of this eschatology is taught for its own sake, but for the sake of ethics. The parousia delay in 2 Peter was not an issue for the community until "scoffers" appeared. These are heterodox teachers whose deviant lifestyle is the major issue for both Jude and 2 Peter. In the case of 2 Peter they defend their deviant lifestyle with heterodox eschatology, which is apparently a fully realized eschatology.

Thus both works use a traditional Christian eschatology in the service of defending the ethical norms of the community. Neither is pretending to reveal anything new to the Christian community, but each is showing a major Christian use of eschatology, or, in the case of 2 Peter, both a use of eschatology and a defense of it.

Peter H. Davids Innsbruck, Austria

© Peter H. Davids, 1998. All rights reserved.

Return to Publications | Return to Home Page

Bibliography on the Eschatology of 2 Peter and Jude

Barnard, L. W. "Justin Martyr's Eschatology," VigChr 19 (1965) 86-98.

Bauckham, Richard J. "The Delay of the Parousia." Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980) 3-36.

Beasley-Murray, George R., Jesus and the Last Days: An Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993).

Becker, J.C. "Peter, Second Letter of," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1962) 3.767-771.

Farkasfalvy, Denis. "The Ecclesial Setting and Pseudepigraphy in 2 Peter and its Role in the Formation of the Canon." Second Century 5.1 (1985-1986) 3-29.

Farmer, W. R. "Some Critical Reflections on Second Peter." Second Century 5.1 (1985-1986) 30-46.

Fornberg, Tord. An Early Church in a Pluraistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter (ConB, New Testament Series 9; Lund: Gleerup, 1977).

Heide, Gale Z. "What is New about the New Heaven and the New Earth? A Theology of Creation from Revelation 21 and 2 Peter 3." JETS 40(1997) 37-56.

Käsemann, Ernst. "Eine Apologie der Urchristliche Eschatologie" in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen pp. 135-157. ET "An Apology for Primitive Christian Eschatology" in Essays on New Testament Themes (London:SCM, 1964).

Lövestam, Evald. "Eschatologie und Tradition im 2 Petrusbrief," in William C Weinrich, ed., The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, (Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press, 1984) 2:287-300.

Mayer, Rudolf. Die biblische Vorstellung vom Weltbrand: Eine Untersuchung über die Beziehungen zwischen Parsismus und Judentum (Bonner Orientalistische Studien, Neue Serie, 4; Bonn: Selbstverlag des Orietalischen Seminars der Universität Bonn, 1956).

Meier, Sam. "2 Peter 3:3-7 - An Early Jewish and Christian Response to Eschatological Skepticism," Biblische Zeitschrift ns 32.2 (1988) 255-257.

Moule, C. F. D. "The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Eschatological Terms," JTS n.s. 15 (1964) 1-15.

Smalley, S. S. "The Delay of the Parousia," JBL 83 (1964) 41-54.

Strobel, A. Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem (Leiden: Brill, 1961). espec. pg 97.

Wisse, Frederik. "The Epistle of Jude in the History of Heresiology," in Martin Krause, ed. Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Böhlig, (Nag Hammadi Studies 3; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 133-143.

Wenham, David. "Being 'found' on the last day: new light on 2 Peter 3:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:3." New Testament Studies 33.3 (1987) 477-479.

Schelkle, Karl Hermann, DiePetrusbriefe Der Judasbrief (HTK NT 13.2; Freiburg:Herder, 1961), espec. "Eschatologie in 2 Petr" 240-241.

Snyder, J I, The Promise of his Coming - The eschatology of 2 Peter, (San Mateo, CA, 1986; Diss theol Basel 1983).

Talbert, C. H., "II Peter and the Delay of the Parousia" VigChr 20 (1966) 137-145.

Vögtle, Anton. Das Neue Testament und die Zukunft des Kosmos (Kommentare und Beiträge zum Alten und Neuen Testament; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1970).

Witherington, Ben, III., Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992).

Return to Publications | Return to Home Page