“DIVINE NATURE” IN 2 PET 1,4 WITHIN ITS ESCHATOLOGICAL CONTEXT 93 verbal form, evpagge,llomai 41, the referent of the promises in 1,4 is to what God, through Christ (cf. 2 Pet 1,11.16-21), intends to do escha- tologically as summarized in 3,8-13. Specifically, the promises refer to the cosmic, divine judgment of the coming “day of God” at the end of the age (2 Pet 3,12) 42. That the promises of 1,4 refer explicitly to the reality and consequences of Christ’s second coming, not his first, is confirmed by the corresponding eschatological context of “the prom- ise [as such] (evpaggeli,a) of his coming (parousi,a)” in 2 Pet 3,4 and 9. The evpagge,lmata (1,4; 3,13) unpack the evpaggeli,a (3,4.9). The promise of Christ’s second coming in 3,4 and 9, as a promise, is to be equated with the “prophetic word” concerning Christ’s “power and parousia” in 2 Pet 1,16.19 and with “the words spoken before by the holy (OT) prophets” in 2 Pet 3,2 concerning “the day of the Lord” (3:10). Vögtle therefore suggests that evpagge,lmata was used in 1,4 since evpaggeli,ai would have called to mind that the Parousia was promised (1:19), rather than referring to what actually happens at the Parousia as a result of these promises, which is the focus of 1:3-4 43. In 1,4, the specific expression of the θεία φύσις is not defined. Yet, consonant with the dynamic meaning of φύσις as “character expressed in actions”, God’s “nature” is to be seen in his eschatological acts of redemption (cf. 3,7-13) as the demonstration of his divine power (1,3) in fulfillment of his promises (1,4). This outworking of God’s “nature” as Savior (1,1) and Lord (1,2) expresses God’s glory as displayed in his virtue, taking do,xh| kai. avreth|/ in 1,3 as one of 29 uses of a hendiadys in 2 Peter, in which the latter element further interprets the former 44. Contra REESE, 2 Peter, 135, 197-198, who posits that the promises are 41 not “spelled out” in 2 Peter itself and so turns to the NT as a whole for their content; she even contrasts the promises of 1,3 with those of chapter three (185); and L.R. DONELSON, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude (NTL; Louisville, KY 2010) 219, who sees “no hint” in 2 Peter of which promises are meant, unless they refer to the other images in 1,4 itself. So, too, many commentaries; see, e.g., J.N.D. KELLY, The Epistles of 42 Peter and of Jude (HNTC; Peabody, MA 1969/1988) 301 (pointing to 1,16; 3,4.9-10.12 and the concept of entrance into the kingdom); BAUCKHAM, 2 Peter, 179; W. SCHRAGE, Die “Katholischen” Briefe. Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas (NTD 10; Göttingen 131985) 130; D. MOO, 2 Peter and Jude (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI 1996) 43, and, tentatively, B. WITHER- INGTON III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter (Letters and Hom- ilies for Hellenized Christians II; Downers Grove, IL 2007) 303. VÖGTLE, 2. Petrusbrief, 139. 43 On this “striking” characteristic of 2 Peter, see KRAUS, Sprache, 162, 44 © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati