Terrance Callan, «The Christology of the Second Letter of Peter», Vol. 82 (2001) 253-263

The Christology of 2 Peter is very exalted. The author calls Jesus God and speaks of his divine power. He uses the title ‘Lord’ both for Jesus and for God; in the latter cases there is usually some ambiguity about which of them is meant. However, the author presents God as a person distinct from Jesus, and there is no suggestion that the author would affirm the existence of two Gods. The transfiguration revealed Jesus as the son of God. It may be understood as an epiphany of the divine Jesus. It was a moment when Jesus received glory from God, in virtue of which he is praised like God.
        2 Peter reflects a stage in early Christian thinking when the word ‘god’ was used in two ways. Usually it was a proper noun that designated the one who revealed himself in the Hebrew scriptures. Occasionally it was used as a common noun that designated those who belonged to the category of the divine. In this way 2 Peter can call Jesus God without either identifying Jesus with God or seriously affirming the existence of two Gods. Eventually these uses were related in the doctrine of the Trinity.

God³⁹, in De vita Mosis 1.94 he implies that Aaron exercised divine power in performing signs before Pharoah. Philo also uses divine nature as a synonym for God (De Abr. 144). However, he speaks of the planets as sharing divine nature (De dec. 104) and refers to the divine natures in heaven (De conf. ling. 154). And in De post. Caini 28 he says that God shares his own nature with the one who is eager, i.e., in the first instance Moses⁴⁰.

        Josephus refers to Moses as a divine man in Ant. 3.180. Josephus uses divine power as a synonym for God⁴¹, but also speaks of the prophet Elisha as having divine power in Ant. 9.183. Josephus also uses divine nature as a synonym for God in Ant. 8.107⁴².

        Hellenistic Jews also made abundant use of the title son of God. In part this was simply a continuation of the usage of the Hebrew Bible. However, they also used son of God in a more Hellenistic sense. For example, Philo calls the Word of God God’s firstborn son (De agr. 51) or simply God’s firstborn (De conf. ling. 146; De somniis 1.215).

        This combination of monotheism with a broad understanding of divinity to encompass not only God in the strictest sense, but also others, even human beings, closely related to God, forms the background for early Christian use of ‘God’ and related titles for Jesus.

        In One God, One Lord Larry Hurtado argues that there was no erosion of monotheism among Hellenistic Jews because none of the divine agents about whom they spoke was worshipped alongside God⁴³. Early Christian reflection on the risen and exalted Jesus viewed him as a divine agent, but introduced the novel idea that Jesus should share the devotion and cultic attention usually reserved for God. This correctly identifies the starting point for the view that Jesus is divine, but does not in itself fully account for the language we find in 2 Peter and elsewhere, i.e., calling Jesus God and speaking of his divine power. In order to do this, we must reckon with the influence of Greek thought on Jewish monotheism.

        Richard Bauckham argues that the monotheism of Second Temple Judaism was a matter of believing in one God, identified by several features, and of offering worship to that God alone. Bauckham groups the features that identify God into two categories, those identifying God in relationship to Israel and those identifying God in relationship to all reality. The latter are that God is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. Bauckham then argues that there was no ambiguity about this monotheism. Whatever did not share the identifying features of God and receive the worship accorded to God was