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.

not God; whatever did share these features and receive this worship was God. However, this monotheism was not simple but allowed for ‘real distinction within the unique identity of the one God’⁴⁴.

        Bauckham presents this as an alternative to the view that intermediary figures blurred the boundary between God and all other reality. However, Bauckham’s perspective could also be seen as explaining how such blurring occurred. If an intermediary figure gradually shared the identifying features of God and was worshipped along with God, the figure would be seen as sharing the identity of God.

        Perhaps we can understand this development in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity as follows. When Jewish monotheists encountered Hellenistic polytheism, they began to use the word ‘god’ in two different ways. They continued to use ‘god’ as a proper noun to refer to the one God who revealed himself in the Hebrew scriptures. However, they also began to use ‘god’ occasionally as polytheists did, as a common noun that designated any one of a class of beings. This usage was simply part of the Greek language. When Jews and early Christians used ‘god’ in this second sense, they were not identifying this ‘god’ with the God who revealed himself in the Bible, nor were they seriously affirming the existence of more than one god. Rather they were locating this ‘god’ in the category of the divine⁴⁵. We do something similar when we speak of the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece or modern India. These two uses of ‘god’ were logically incompatible. Eventually Jews eliminated this inconsistency by abandoning the second use of ‘god’, and Christians did so by developing the doctrine of the Trinity.

        The existence of this second significance of ‘god’ among Hellenistic Jews and early Christians is confirmed by Justin Martyr’s, Dialogue with Trypho. In sections 55-62, 126-129 Justin argues that the Bible speaks of another god besides the Maker of all things (55). In the course of his argument he appeals in passing to Ps 45,6-7 (56). Trypho resists the argument at first, but is eventually persuaded to accept it rather easily.

        In making this argument, Justin seems little concerned to avoid affirming the existence of more than one god. He rejects the gods of the Greco-Roman world (Apology 6, 25) but not because there is only one god. Justin’s main concern was to show that Jesus was God. The problem this presented for monotheism was not foremost in his mind, perhaps because, as a Gentile, polytheism seemed natural to him. However, Justin emphasizes the unity between Jesus and the Maker of all things by saying that Jesus is the son of God and Word of God. Although Jesus and the Father are numerically distinct, they are not separate, just as reason and speech are not separate⁴⁶.