“DIVINE NATURE” IN 2 PET 1,4 WITHIN ITS ESCHATOLOGICAL CONTEXT 85 of activity or that which expresses itself in activity, the character pro- duced or the character that produces 17. This is why “nature” was often identified with what could be perceived. Even for the Platonists, the four elements of the cosmos therefore emerge out of a prior “cosmic soul” or φύσις by virtue of “necessity” (ἀνάγκη), so that “nature” is seen as inexorably expressing itself in its corresponding actions 18. The Neo-Platonists (and already the Middle-Platonists of the first century A.D.) reemphasized this identity between nature (φύσις) and necessity (ἀνάγκη) or destiny (ei`marme,nh), the latter being the active result of the Zeus-made or crafted cosmic soul as the cause of all things. Far from static, this cosmic “nature” was the intermediate instrument by which all things came about 19. The Stoics rejected the Platonic metaphysics of a transcendent deity. Nevertheless, they too conceived of φύσις actively, now iden- tified with the “right reason” (λόγος ὀρθός) that infused all things, so that “nature” could be identified with “god” itself, since φύσις was the dynamic, physical principle of all reality that held the universe together and caused all living creatures to grow (cf. Diogenes Laer- tius, Vit. 7.148; 7.156; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.3) 20. Everything that takes place is the expression of the perfect will of that perfect reason and so is the most provident thing that could happen. In fact, the Stoic view of nature as universal causality was so active and determinative that they too sought to clarify its meaning with the concepts of ne- cessity (ἀνάγκη) and destiny (ei`marme,nh). We must be careful here. As Engberg-Pedersen stresses, although Stoics did not view “god” as personal, their depictions of nature with See too evkφύω in Mark 13,29 // Matt 24,32. For the continuation of 17 these two uses of φύσις through the NT era, see Barn. 10,7 for “nature” as that which is produced and Diogn. 9,6 for “nature” as that which produces (see too, Ign. Trall. 1,1). Cf. Aristotle, Phys. 2.I.192b 20-22; 3.I.200b 12; Cael. 301b 17-18; and 18 Metaph. 12.1073a 25-30 for the “unmoved mover” (ti o] ouv kinou,menon kinei), who, for Aristotle, is God (θεός), the “metaphysical” reality. Cf. BRIS- / SON, “Natur”, 730-731, for this point and supporting texts. For the Middle Platonist view of “Weltbildung” rather than “Weltschöp- 19 fung”, see D.T. RUNIA, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden 1986) 53-54, 96, 435, 493-494. For a treat- ment of our themes in Plutarch (AD 45-125), who offers the only complete, albeit eclectic work of Middle Platonism, see STARR, Divine Nature, 120-143. So BRISSON, “Natur”, 732-733, who consequently refers to φύσις as a 20 “Wachstum” (732); see also STARR, Divine Nature, 145-146, 150. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati