While much work has been done on the theology of individual books in the Bible,
very few have attempted to develop a Petrine theology that utilizes both 1 and
2 Peter as well as Peter’s speeches in Acts. If, however, both the epistles and the
discourse material in Acts stem from a common source, it stands to reason that
one should be able to trace certain theological themes throughout and that these
themes, when viewed in light of the Petrine material as a whole, would form a
coherent theology.
Key Words: Peter, Petrine theology, prophecy, theology of prophecy, Acts, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Peter’s sermons
While extensive work has been done on the theology of 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Acts as distinct units, very few have attempted to link the two major Petrine sermons from Acts with the two epistles in order to develop a coherent Petrine theology. Indeed, even those who argue that 1 and 2 Peter should be studied together see no reason to integrate the sermons in Acts into the equation, and the most comprehensive study to date of Peter’s discourses in Acts does not even view them as truly Petrine.
But if the apostle Peter truly is behind the two epistles bearing his name as well as the sermons in Acts 2 and 3, as many evangelicals believe, one should be able to notice common themes in those works that can lead to the development of a coherent Petrine theology.
An examination of the epistles and sermons reveals that this is indeed the case. Acts 2, Acts 3, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter all evidence a common emphasis on the role and nature of prophecy. First we will look at each source in turn and attempt to trace the theme of prophecy therein. The secondly we will attempt to mold all the prophetic material into a Petrine theology and discuss any corollary doctrines potentially affected by a theology of this sort.
Prophecy in the Petrine Material of Scripture
Before a Petrine theology of prophecy can take form, one must first examine each of the relevant sources in turn. While a prima facie approach to Petrine theology cannot limit Peter to only the two epistles and his two sermons in Acts 2 and 3, nevertheless the two sermons in Acts, due to their public and apologetic nature (in contrast to Peter’s other speeches), provide the most substantial area in which to begin.
It is likely that Peter was not speaking Greek in Acts 2 and 3, and thus Luke would have been relying on sources that had already translated Peter’s words or, quite possibly, he would have translated them himself. Either way, Luke must be given some liberty as a redactor to focus on particular vocabulary or themes and to summarize the speeches. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that a proper representation of Peter’s sermons would have been conducive to Luke’s overall apologetic purpose. The theology, then, may be viewed as genuinely Petrine, although the final form of the sermons may possess a certain amount of Lukan redaction.
Peter’s Pentecost Sermon (Acts 2:14–40)
Acts 1–2 may be viewed as “a sort of theological prologue” and that Acts 2 is the “keynote address” of the prologue, part of the “careful statement by Luke of the ultimate reality underlying the mission ... which enables the reader to understand the material that follows.” On the one hand, this prologue to Acts continues to develop the theology of fulfillment that began in Luke. On the other hand, it sets the stage for the rest of Acts by heralding the start of the eschaton (via the Holy Spirit’s activity and the appropriation of OT promises by Jesus followers).
Peter’s Pentecost sermon: vv. 14–21 are Peter’s defense against the accusation of drunkenness and his explanation of the Spirit’s work; vv. 22–36 develop Peter’s Christology; and vv. 37–39 provide Peter’s invitation. Each part of Peter’s speech relies heavily on the concept of prophecy for its argument. Immediately after Peter’s defense against the accusation of drunkenness, he delves into the heart of his message: someone has already prophesied about what is happening at Pentecost. Peter cites Joel 2:28–32, specifically referring to Joel as a prophet, and uses “the preposition (dia) to make the point that God speaks ‘through’ the intermediate agent, the prophet.” With his citation of Joel, “the eschatological and fulfillment frame of Pentecost is affirmed from the start.” Within the citation, it is affirmed that the Spirit will be distributed to all kinds of people, great wonders will be seen, and salvation will be open to all who call on the Lord.
Through Peter’s contemporary application we understand that the Holy Spirit’s activity in Joel “is seen as the sign that the eschatological age has begun, and the promises of the OT era are being fulfilled in the lives of those who follow Jesus.” Yet Peter, as recorded by Luke, is hardly creating new doctrine at this point. Judaism had already come to view Joel’s prophecy here as a reference to a future time of “the outpouring of the Spirit ... when prophecy would cease to be confined to a few.”
Thus, Peter cites a prophet in order to point out that the gift of prophecy will be appropriated to all kinds of people. Notice the three parallels in 2:17–18 that cover all classes of humanity: sons/daughters, young/old, and male/female servants. The third parallel shows that “even the lowest of classes will be blessed across both genders. Two often-ignored groups of people, servants and women, will be included.” In this way, Peter makes the following key points with his citation of Joel: the prophesying occurring at that moment is a sign of the eschaton, and the gift of prophecy is distributed regardless of class or gender.
After this citation, Peter delves into the work of God's anointed one Jesus on earth, arguing that his death was both preordained and foreknown by God. Furthermore, not only was Jesus death and resurrection foreknown by God, it was also foreknown by David, himself a prophet (2:30). Peter specifically refers to David in citing Pslam 16:8–11, calling him, like Joel, a prophet and arguing that he “saw ahead of time” the resurrection of God's anointed one. For Peter, David’s death logically ruled out David as the referent of his own prophecy. Furthermore, because David himself did not ascend into heaven, his prophecy in Psalm 110:1 likewise could not have been about himself but must be a reference to God's anointed one Jesus.
David, then, is placed on an equal standing with Joel, and the fact that both prophesied about Peter’s day forms the backbone for Peter’s argument. Notice that “This reference to David as a prophet is uniquely expressed.” But the perception of David as a prophet was already prevalent in first-century Judaism, and even though the OT never calls him a prophet per se, its description of David’s anointing at least implies that he might be one. Whatever the case, Peter clearly believed that David possessed prophetic knowledge.
Peter’s argument was not that David’s language allowed Peter to assert knowledge of the covenant implications, but that David’s personal covenantal and prophetic knowledge allowed him to speak of the supreme implication of God’s promise. Peter then proclaimed that this supreme implication, the resurrection of the Messiah, had been fulfilled in Jesus ... David’s awareness of the messianic implications of the Davidic Covenant contributed to his prophesying of the Messiah’s resurrection.
Indeed, Luke’s portrayal of Peter’s argument falls apart if David’s prophetic role is not acknowledged. Peter’s Christology is predicated on fulfilled prophecy regarding the Messiah’s death, resurrection, and ascension. Trull declares, “If David had no foresight related to the Messiah’s resurrection, the inclusion of the modifying προϊδὼν is superfluous. Therefore ... one may conclude that David had sufficient insight into the future to allow him to tell of the resurrection of the Messiah.” Had David not truly been a prophet and possessed foreknowledge of God's anointed one Jesus, Peter would have had to look elsewhere for the cornerstone to his Christology. Thus, both David and Joel, in their role as prophets, significantly bolster Peter’s argument.
In summary, Luke portrays Peter as relying on past prophecy (Joel and David) to explain present prophecy (the occurrences at Pentecost) and to call for repentance. Notice, “The linking of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension with the pouring out of the promised Spirit indicates that Joel’s prophecy has been fulfilled and that Jesus is ‘the lord’ on whom Israel is to call for salvation.” This provides the foundation for Peter both to confront his audience about their sin and to offer them the opportunity to appropriate “the promise” (2:39 - the gift of the Holy Spirit). Thus, what was prophesied ages ago, salvation and the opportunity to prophesy through the Holy Spirit, is waiting to be grasped by the present generation.
Peter’s Second Sermon (Acts 3:12–26)
Peter’s second public sermon, stemming from the healing of the lame man, has been viewed by some as inferior to his first. Yet regardless of literary quality, these two speeches are inseparable, together forming an integral part of the theology of Acts.
Let Acts be read in continuity, but omitting the speeches. Then the reader will notice to how great an extent these speeches give the book its intellectual and spiritual weight. Without them Acts would be like a gospel consisting only of miracle-stories, without any sayings of Jesus. The speeches in Acts, different as they are in provenance and value, correspond in some way to the discourse material in the gospels.
Indeed the second speech moves along the argument begun in the first speech, further developing Christology and eschatology.
The outlines Peter’s sermon are as follows: vv.12–18 begin the sermon with a “forensic or judicial speech that involves defense and attack,” vv.19–21 “offer the basic proposition the speaker wishes to emphasize,” vv. 22–25 constitute the “proof based on prophecy,” and v. 26 concludes. Peter begins his sermon by declaring that God’s power, not his own, was responsible for the lame man walking (v.12). Furthermore, the same God who possessed the power to make a lame man walk had already done a greater work, namely glorifying His anointed one Jesus and raising him from the dead, the very same Jesus whom Peter’s audience had crucified (vv.13–15). It is this Jesus who has given health to the blind man (v. 16).
At this point, having confronted his audience concerning their sin, Peter offers them hope. He speaks of their ignorance in v.17 and then contrasts the ignorance of his audience (and their rulers) with the mantic insight of the past prophets whom God has used to declare these things (vv.18, 21).
Moses, in a sense, acts as the prototype prophet, one who initiates the long line of prophets that includes Samuel and those following him (vv. 22–24). Furthermore, not only does Moses speak specifically of a special prophet that is to follow him, he also describes the consequences of those who reject the coming prophet (vv. 22–23). Zehnle notes that Jewish tradition had already given Moses the position of “intermediary of God’s revelation” (e.g., the Assumption of Moses 11:16), and that the rabbis had traditionally subscribed to the axiom “as the first savior (Moses), so the last (messiah).” Indeed, Moses’ statements in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18–19 had come to be viewed “as a typological promise of the prophet of the Mosaic leader-deliverer pattern who was part of the eschaton.”
While Samuel did not specifically prophecy of God's anointed one Jesus, he is closely linked to David and thus may be portrayed as “pointing to a messianic allusion as part of a ‘son of David Christology.’” Furthermore, he functions as “the representative of all those who followed.” At this point, Luke has Peter closing his sermon with an appeal to the crowd, offering them the opportunity to partake of the promises that had been prophesied. Peter’s description of the audience as “the children of those prophets” (3:25) would have been both literal (due to their genealogy) and metaphorical, “the sense that they are heirs of the prophets, potentially the recipients of what the prophets foretold.” As “children of those prophets”, each member of Peter’s audience has the potential to become an instrument of God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:18 (3:25) if they allow themselves to be turned from their sins by God’s Servant (3:26)
Luke’s record of Peter’s speech in Acts 3 argues from prophecy, specifically Christological prophecy, that his audience has crucified the Messiah. Whereas the prophets (with Moses and Samuel as representatives) possessed foresight of what was to happen, Peter’s audience remained ignorant and thus sinned against God’s servant. Yet the same prophecy that condemns also offers hope, and Peter’s audience is given the great opportunity to become the recipients of the blessings inherent in those prophecies.
1 Peter
The theme of prophecy, especially Christological prophecy, continues on through the Petrine epistles. The theme of prophecy, especially Christological prophecy, continues on through the Petrine epistles. Peter’s “agenda” in the two epistles “had to do with putting into play the words of the prophets and the commandment of the lord, mediated through the prophets.” Furthermore, Peter “finds an essential unity in the outworking of God’s purpose, from the prophets to Christ to the apostles and thus to the community of Christ’s followers.” The focus is on “remembrance” and staying faithful to what God has revealed through the prophets. Throughout both epistles, Peter “employs what we might recognize as a literary device known as ‘back shadowing,’” with the result that “although the narrative ‘Peter’ shapes is a linear one, it emphasizes Israel’s past and God’s promised future in order to shape perspective on the present, and it formulates God's anointed one's event as the ground for Christian life and godliness.” Thus, Peter naturally continues to develop a theology of prophecy throughout both his epistles in order to define faithful conduct for the present.
The first epistle addresses those who are desperately in need of hope, those who “are suffering and have suffered, especially verbally.” Furthermore, they were a “community [that] questions the desirability of remaining firm in times of crisis” and “is faced with the problem of finding an appropriate conduct during its life in exile.” “Specifically, the theology [of 1 Peter] may not be understood apart from the problems of discrimination and oppression suffered by the early Christian congregations in the ‘troublesome environment’ of the northern provinces of Asia Minor.”“Unless we are prepared to interpret the passage [4:16–17] as mere hyperbole, we must accept that the sufferings of the Christians in Asia Minor at this time were so extreme, and so widespread, as to give rise to the belief that the time of judgment had finally arrived.” Indeed, this suffering is “the most prominent and repeatedly emphasized feature of the addressees’ situation."
It is in light of this setting that a theology of prophecy can offer the most hope. Despite their hardships, Peter’s audience can nevertheless take joy in their future salvation (1:9), a salvation that had already been foretold (1:10). In fact, the prophets were specifically prophesying of God's anointed one in order to serve Peter’s audience instead of themselves (1:11–12), and this fact should stir the Christian to action (1:13). Having established the prophetic foundation for his soteriology, Peter then goes on to develop his Christology by quoting the ancient Jewish prophets (see especially 1 Pet 2:6–8); he also uses his Christology to establish his audience as the true people of God (2:9–10) and then proceeds to examine the ethical ramifications of his audience’s position in Jesus God's anointed one (2:11 through the end of the epistle). In this way, Peter’s discussion of prophecy provides a key element in laying the foundation for both his Christology and his parenesis.
There is good reasons exist for seeing the prophets in question as ancient Jewish prophets. Whereas generally in the NT, references to the Jewish prophets include the article and references to contemporary prophets do not (for example, Acts 10:43, Romans 11:3 as compared to Acts 11:27, 1 Corinthians 12:28), it is odd that in 1 Peter does possess the article in reference to the prophets. However, simply because OT prophets were generally referred to collectively with an article does not then logically dictate that all references to OT prophets must include the article while all references to contemporary prophets do not (Ephesians 4:11, for example, has the article but is clearly a reference to contemporary prophets).
More importantly, the entire sense of 1:10–12 seems to indicate a temporal disjunction between the prophets and Peter’s audience, a disjunction that would seem odd if contemporary prophets were in view.
It is difficult to understand why it is such a stretch to speak of angels desiring to look into the matter of ancient prophecy any more than contemporary prophecy. Either way, the angels are curious about something. Nor is it clear what exactly is “unnatural” about ancient prophets inquiring about salvation. Would it not be more odd if the reference were to NT prophets? It must be pointed out that Jesus himself declared that many prophets desired to see what his disciples saw, but they were denied the opportunity (Matthew 13:17). The point, then, is that Peter’s generation was uniquely privileged in experiencing this fulfillment of prophecy.
The prophets in view were speaking long before the sufferings occurred, but they knew that sufferings would come to the Messiah. In the parallel syntax of verse 10, those prophets also foresaw the grace that would come and, in Peter’s opinion, had come ‘to you,’ the Christians to whom Peter writes. Just as the Messiah would be the recipient of sufferings, God’s people, among whom the Christians of Asia Minor now find themselves remarkably included, will be the recipients of grace.
In this way, 1 Peter 1 teaches that the ancient prophets foretold of the suffering of God's anointed one Jesus and thus ministered on behalf of contemporary believers. Peter’s audience can rejoice that, just as they are partakers of the suffering spoken of in prophecy (as Christ was), so they are also heirs of the grace spoken of in prophecy. All has been foreknown and planned out by Yehovah, and the fact that ancient prophets foretold of the culmination of this plan provides one of the main stepping-stones in Peter’s epistle. God’s grace in 1 Peter “reflects the nature of God (5:10) and is expressed by his saving activity predicted by the prophets (1:10)”; furthermore, the prophets themselves see their work as proving helpful to Christians contemporary to Peter’s time. Thus, for Peter, predictive prophecy is the very basis of assurance, the foundation of the Christian’s hope.
2 Peter
2 Peter continues many of the themes discussed so far. One of the purposes behind this second epistle was to strengthen the recipients’ faith in God’s revelation while defending against the accusations of the heretics. To this end, Peter reminds his readers of the nature of the prophetic word.
2 Peter as a whole is concerned with “knowledge,” not knowledge simply as “principles and systems but rather the formal aspects of our faith that cannot be segregated from but actually find their meaning within the narrative and context of God’s revelation to us.” But the false teachers attack the very source of that knowledge, and they must be countered. Consequently, in 2 Peter 1:16, Peter is quick to declare that he did not follow myths when declaring to his audience the gospel; rather, his knowledge and conviction stemmed from both direct revelation of which Peter himself was an eyewitness (1:17–19) and the “prophetic word.”
Furthermore, this “prophetic word” did not come about simply through man; rather, it has God as the ultimate source. In contrast to this divine source for Peter’s gospel, the “false teachers” (who, are the counterparts of the past “false prophets”) bring destruction and ruin (2:1) and, like Balaam, are in continual danger of truly reaping what they sow (2:4–22). 52 In 3:2, Peter calls his listeners to action, giving a “call to remember” that “presupposes that these believers have received the fundamentals of Christian instruction,” instruction that included the prophetic Scriptures. In light of Peter’s previous teaching about the veracity of the prophetic message of the OT (1:19–21), which the false teachers have cast in doubt, we should understand these ‘holy prophets’ as messengers known to us through the OT (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; Wis 11:1).” Finally, in 2 Peter 3:13–14, the prophetic word of Jesus parousia becomes the basis for proper living.
In one sense, then, 2 Peter can be viewed as a defense of the veracity of the prophecy spoken of in Acts 2–3 and 1 Peter. Thus, Peter’s discussion of prophecy in 2 Peter is apologetic, representing a conflict between the false teachers and true revelation. A contrast is set up between the prophet undertaking his own interpretation of the divine will (1:20) over against this prophecy being a result of the activity of God, who has moved him (1:21). Concerning the latter verse, “2 Peter wants to intimate that the adversaries, whom he is about to describe with the help of the material from Jude, interpret prophecy ‘by themselves’ and possibly also construct a prophecy ‘by the will of man.’” Thus, Peter seems to stress that the very nature of prophecy is that it has a divine origin in contrast to his opponents’ polemics, which possess only a human origin.
2 Peter 2:1, then, directly contrasts Spirit-filled prophets with pseudo-prophets. One may further agree that the discussion of Balaam is telling; he is essentially included with the “false prophets” as a prototype, so to speak, the adversary par excellence to true prophecy.
The argument from unfulfilled prophecy is one of the pillars of Epicurean skepticism. . . . the author of 2 Peter is careful to dismantle their arguments by his appeal to divine inspiration of the prophets (2 Peter 1.20–21), the rehearsal of divine judgment in the past (3.5–7), and apologetic concerning God’s mercy in delaying judgment.
In the process of countering his opponents’ attack, Peter builds up prophetic fulfillment “as verification of the validity of their faith and their prophetic tradition.
But prophecy functions as more than just an academic defense. Peter makes it clear (as seen by the “light” metaphor in 1:19) that prophecy is very much relevant to the contemporary hearer. Prophecy functions not only as a defense against false teaching but also as a call to proper living (e.g., 3:1–2).
In summary, the following must be stressed:
First of all, prophecy acts as a defense against heresy, the divine proof that the gospel is true in contrast to the strictly human teachings of Peter’s opponents.
Secondly, prophecy manifests truth, and by doing so it calls the believer to action; the believer is to “pay attention to” 1:19) and “remember” in 3:2) so that he or she can develop into a mature believer while continually looking for Jesus parousia (3:3–17).
Viewing Peter’s Speeches and Epistles Holistically
As noted above, Acts 2, 3, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter all have different emphasis and motivations. Yet they all contain essentially the same theology, and each one further develops the previous one. In other words, those four units show a logical progression of thought that never alters the initial premise of Peter’s speech in Acts 2. The following paragraphs discuss three main aspects of a Petrine theology of prophecy.
First of all, the concept of fulfillment is prominent. The sermons in both Acts 2 and 3 are meant to confront unbelievers. To this end, Peter asserts that OT prophecy has been fulfilled (and is continuing to be fulfilled). Yet the same prophecies that are used to confront the unbelievers of Acts are used to encourage the believers of 1 Peter, and this is likewise only possible in light of the fulfillment of those prophecies. In 2 Peter the emphasis on fulfillment becomes the main line of argument against the opponents: fulfilled prophecy is a co-testament with eye-witnessed revelation concerning Jesus. Otherwise there would hardly be any contrast between true prophecy and false prophecy.
Furthermore, even prophecy which has not yet come to pass is certain eventually to occur (note especially 2 Peter 3 and the issue of the delayed parousia). Thus, a holistic look at Petrine theology reveals that the concept of fulfillment is a necessary part of prophecy. Indeed, prophecy without fulfillment is not true prophecy.
Second, a Petrine theology of prophecy posits both a divine and a human source. In Acts 2 and 3 God’s word comes about through human means, and He can use whatever class or gender he chooses. Thus, on the one hand, God’s gift of prophecy is an act of grace, but on the other hand, those who are chosen to prophecy are naturally the recipients of divine revelation of which others remain ignorant (Acts 3:17). However, Peter also emphasizes the sovereign act of God, both in prophecy and history, in his sermons.
Both Petrine epistles likewise put a human and divine spin on the nature of prophecy. On the one hand, the prophets themselves were active participants in their prophesying (1 Peter 1:10–12; 2 Peter 1:21). But on the other hand, the Lord himself, through the Spirit, is the originator and guarantee of that prophecy.
Peter’s statement recognized both the divine and the human element in the production of inspired Scripture. Any balanced doctrine of the origin of Scripture must recognize both. Peter accepts the fact of the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, but he does not define the relationship between the divine and the human elements. The moving of the Holy Spirit on the speakers was the primary and indispensable element, but with God using human beings as His spokesmen His Spirit worked in and through their varied personalities to produce the very result He desired. The prophets were treated as living men, not lifeless tools.
There is no conflict, provided we understand that the reflection of the prophets followed the revelation of the Spirit of God to them and did not enter into the prophetic message. It is not to be wondered at that they should be pricked into investigation, since they had been the chosen channels of revelation. Hence the prophets, though passive in the sense that they did not contribute the message apart from the Spirit’s moving, yet were so far from being mechanical instruments that they had all their powers of thought aroused and taxed by the disclosures granted to them.
A Petrine theology of prophecy, then, affirms both the divine and human aspects of prophecy. The prophets in Acts and the epistles do not instigate revelation; nevertheless, they are active participants in it, not adding to the prophecy but rather eagerly transmitting it.
Finally, a Petrine theology of prophecy demands personal action. Prophecy is not something that can be viewed strictly with academic curiosity. The prophecies discussed in Acts 2 and 3 demand repentance from unbelievers, repentance that results in new prophesying by believers at Pentecost. The prophecies spoken of in 1 and 2 Peter demand proper living from believers (1 Peter 1:13–15, 2 Peter 3:14) and place false prophets in a precarious position if they refuse to repent (2 Peter 3). In this way, all of the references to prophecy in the Petrine material demand a change in the hearer, either to repentance or to sanctification. A Petrine theology of prophecy is practical; a reverence for prophecy naturally produces a certain kind of outward conduct.
The Implications of a Petrine Theology of Prophecy for Other Theological Themes
If the unity of a Petrine theology of prophecy is accepted, it could potentially affect other realms of theology. The most obvious area would be that of eschatology. Acts 2:17 seems to indicate that the eschaton was initiated with Pentecost (or possibly with Christ’s ascension?), but 2 Peter 3 deals extensively with the concept of a future parousia of the lord Jesus. It might be informative, for example, to see if all of the Petrine material could be brought to bear on a unified Petrine theology of the parousia.
Second, Peter’s theology of prophecy has great significance for theology proper, specifically the issue of God’s foreknowledge in the open theism debate.Indeed, it is not without significance that Peter’s sermons and epistles utilize four of the seven total occurrences of the noun and verb forms of “foreknowledge” in the entire NT. Peter’s theology seems to assume a prescient God, for how could the prophets know the future if God Himself does not? According to Acts 2:23, Jesus crucifixion occurred both by the decision and foreknowledge of God, and 2 Peter’s response to the opponents completely depends on the ability of God to fulfill his prophecies, an ability that would be nonexistent without extensive foreknowledge. Much more could certainly be said on this topic, but let it suffice to say that prophecy is no mere “guessing game.”
A Petrine theology of prophecy is also closely tied to both Christology and pneumatology. In three out the four sources, prophecy is specifically linked to the revelation of Jesus God's anointed one (2 Peter is the exception). Furthermore, God's Spirit plays an obviously significant role in the events of Acts 2 and in Peter’s Joel citation, and in both 1 Peter 1:11 and 2 Peter 1:21 the Spirit instigates the work of prophecy among God’s servants.
Finally, a Petrine theology of prophecy could help clarify the doctrine of inspiration. Too often, 2 Peter 1:20–21 has been taken in isolation from the other texts, but in reality the entirety of the Petrine material could potentially contribute to this doctrine. While the interplay of divine and human roles has already been discussed above, a renewed emphasis on the ramifications of the divine origin of Scripture might well be in order. Indeed, Peter’s emphasis on prophecy is tightly linked to the concept of inspiration, for the prophets only spoke because they were inspired. While Peter does not use the technical term that 2 Timothy 3:16 does, it is surely significant that Peter nevertheless links inspiration closely to the role of the God's Holy Spirit.
No doubt other areas of theology exist where a Petrine theology of prophecy would prove illuminating. At the very least, one must acknowledge that a comprehensive Petrine theology (what goes beyond just one or both of the epistles) possesses an untapped wealth of material for future studies.
Conclusion
When viewed as a whole, Peter’s two public sermons in Acts and his two epistles form a unified and coherent theology of prophecy, a truly Petrine theology of prophecy. A Petrine theology of prophecy of this sort confronts both believers and unbelievers (demanding action on their part), emphasizes both the divine and human roles in revelation, and assumes fulfillment. It is internally consistent throughout all the Petrine material, and each unit of material builds on the other. Thus, Peter’s theology of prophecy in Acts 2, designed to confront unbelievers and offer them hope, is further enhanced by Acts 3 and then applied to believers in 1 Peter. 2 Peter then utilizes prophecy as an apologetic against unbelievers while simultaneously presenting it as the basis for the proper conduct of believers. From Acts 2 through 2 Peter, the theology remains consistent. Whereas this is not an argument for Petrine authorship per se, I hope that these four Petrine units will be viewed more closely together in the future.
Very little work has been done that treats all four Petrine units as a whole. Yet a detailed examination of the Petrine material in Scripture yields the conclusion that perhaps they are closer in theme and substance than previously thought. The future development of a comprehensive “Petrine theology,” then, remains a distinct possibility, and, if this article’s treatment of prophecy has been accurate, this development will not prove fruitless.
Key Words: Peter, Petrine theology, prophecy, theology of prophecy, Acts, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Peter’s sermons
While extensive work has been done on the theology of 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Acts as distinct units, very few have attempted to link the two major Petrine sermons from Acts with the two epistles in order to develop a coherent Petrine theology. Indeed, even those who argue that 1 and 2 Peter should be studied together see no reason to integrate the sermons in Acts into the equation, and the most comprehensive study to date of Peter’s discourses in Acts does not even view them as truly Petrine.
But if the apostle Peter truly is behind the two epistles bearing his name as well as the sermons in Acts 2 and 3, as many evangelicals believe, one should be able to notice common themes in those works that can lead to the development of a coherent Petrine theology.
An examination of the epistles and sermons reveals that this is indeed the case. Acts 2, Acts 3, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter all evidence a common emphasis on the role and nature of prophecy. First we will look at each source in turn and attempt to trace the theme of prophecy therein. The secondly we will attempt to mold all the prophetic material into a Petrine theology and discuss any corollary doctrines potentially affected by a theology of this sort.
Prophecy in the Petrine Material of Scripture
Before a Petrine theology of prophecy can take form, one must first examine each of the relevant sources in turn. While a prima facie approach to Petrine theology cannot limit Peter to only the two epistles and his two sermons in Acts 2 and 3, nevertheless the two sermons in Acts, due to their public and apologetic nature (in contrast to Peter’s other speeches), provide the most substantial area in which to begin.
It is likely that Peter was not speaking Greek in Acts 2 and 3, and thus Luke would have been relying on sources that had already translated Peter’s words or, quite possibly, he would have translated them himself. Either way, Luke must be given some liberty as a redactor to focus on particular vocabulary or themes and to summarize the speeches. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that a proper representation of Peter’s sermons would have been conducive to Luke’s overall apologetic purpose. The theology, then, may be viewed as genuinely Petrine, although the final form of the sermons may possess a certain amount of Lukan redaction.
Peter’s Pentecost Sermon (Acts 2:14–40)
Acts 1–2 may be viewed as “a sort of theological prologue” and that Acts 2 is the “keynote address” of the prologue, part of the “careful statement by Luke of the ultimate reality underlying the mission ... which enables the reader to understand the material that follows.” On the one hand, this prologue to Acts continues to develop the theology of fulfillment that began in Luke. On the other hand, it sets the stage for the rest of Acts by heralding the start of the eschaton (via the Holy Spirit’s activity and the appropriation of OT promises by Jesus followers).
Peter’s Pentecost sermon: vv. 14–21 are Peter’s defense against the accusation of drunkenness and his explanation of the Spirit’s work; vv. 22–36 develop Peter’s Christology; and vv. 37–39 provide Peter’s invitation. Each part of Peter’s speech relies heavily on the concept of prophecy for its argument. Immediately after Peter’s defense against the accusation of drunkenness, he delves into the heart of his message: someone has already prophesied about what is happening at Pentecost. Peter cites Joel 2:28–32, specifically referring to Joel as a prophet, and uses “the preposition (dia) to make the point that God speaks ‘through’ the intermediate agent, the prophet.” With his citation of Joel, “the eschatological and fulfillment frame of Pentecost is affirmed from the start.” Within the citation, it is affirmed that the Spirit will be distributed to all kinds of people, great wonders will be seen, and salvation will be open to all who call on the Lord.
Through Peter’s contemporary application we understand that the Holy Spirit’s activity in Joel “is seen as the sign that the eschatological age has begun, and the promises of the OT era are being fulfilled in the lives of those who follow Jesus.” Yet Peter, as recorded by Luke, is hardly creating new doctrine at this point. Judaism had already come to view Joel’s prophecy here as a reference to a future time of “the outpouring of the Spirit ... when prophecy would cease to be confined to a few.”
Thus, Peter cites a prophet in order to point out that the gift of prophecy will be appropriated to all kinds of people. Notice the three parallels in 2:17–18 that cover all classes of humanity: sons/daughters, young/old, and male/female servants. The third parallel shows that “even the lowest of classes will be blessed across both genders. Two often-ignored groups of people, servants and women, will be included.” In this way, Peter makes the following key points with his citation of Joel: the prophesying occurring at that moment is a sign of the eschaton, and the gift of prophecy is distributed regardless of class or gender.
After this citation, Peter delves into the work of God's anointed one Jesus on earth, arguing that his death was both preordained and foreknown by God. Furthermore, not only was Jesus death and resurrection foreknown by God, it was also foreknown by David, himself a prophet (2:30). Peter specifically refers to David in citing Pslam 16:8–11, calling him, like Joel, a prophet and arguing that he “saw ahead of time” the resurrection of God's anointed one. For Peter, David’s death logically ruled out David as the referent of his own prophecy. Furthermore, because David himself did not ascend into heaven, his prophecy in Psalm 110:1 likewise could not have been about himself but must be a reference to God's anointed one Jesus.
David, then, is placed on an equal standing with Joel, and the fact that both prophesied about Peter’s day forms the backbone for Peter’s argument. Notice that “This reference to David as a prophet is uniquely expressed.” But the perception of David as a prophet was already prevalent in first-century Judaism, and even though the OT never calls him a prophet per se, its description of David’s anointing at least implies that he might be one. Whatever the case, Peter clearly believed that David possessed prophetic knowledge.
Peter’s argument was not that David’s language allowed Peter to assert knowledge of the covenant implications, but that David’s personal covenantal and prophetic knowledge allowed him to speak of the supreme implication of God’s promise. Peter then proclaimed that this supreme implication, the resurrection of the Messiah, had been fulfilled in Jesus ... David’s awareness of the messianic implications of the Davidic Covenant contributed to his prophesying of the Messiah’s resurrection.
Indeed, Luke’s portrayal of Peter’s argument falls apart if David’s prophetic role is not acknowledged. Peter’s Christology is predicated on fulfilled prophecy regarding the Messiah’s death, resurrection, and ascension. Trull declares, “If David had no foresight related to the Messiah’s resurrection, the inclusion of the modifying προϊδὼν is superfluous. Therefore ... one may conclude that David had sufficient insight into the future to allow him to tell of the resurrection of the Messiah.” Had David not truly been a prophet and possessed foreknowledge of God's anointed one Jesus, Peter would have had to look elsewhere for the cornerstone to his Christology. Thus, both David and Joel, in their role as prophets, significantly bolster Peter’s argument.
In summary, Luke portrays Peter as relying on past prophecy (Joel and David) to explain present prophecy (the occurrences at Pentecost) and to call for repentance. Notice, “The linking of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension with the pouring out of the promised Spirit indicates that Joel’s prophecy has been fulfilled and that Jesus is ‘the lord’ on whom Israel is to call for salvation.” This provides the foundation for Peter both to confront his audience about their sin and to offer them the opportunity to appropriate “the promise” (2:39 - the gift of the Holy Spirit). Thus, what was prophesied ages ago, salvation and the opportunity to prophesy through the Holy Spirit, is waiting to be grasped by the present generation.
Peter’s Second Sermon (Acts 3:12–26)
Peter’s second public sermon, stemming from the healing of the lame man, has been viewed by some as inferior to his first. Yet regardless of literary quality, these two speeches are inseparable, together forming an integral part of the theology of Acts.
Let Acts be read in continuity, but omitting the speeches. Then the reader will notice to how great an extent these speeches give the book its intellectual and spiritual weight. Without them Acts would be like a gospel consisting only of miracle-stories, without any sayings of Jesus. The speeches in Acts, different as they are in provenance and value, correspond in some way to the discourse material in the gospels.
Indeed the second speech moves along the argument begun in the first speech, further developing Christology and eschatology.
The outlines Peter’s sermon are as follows: vv.12–18 begin the sermon with a “forensic or judicial speech that involves defense and attack,” vv.19–21 “offer the basic proposition the speaker wishes to emphasize,” vv. 22–25 constitute the “proof based on prophecy,” and v. 26 concludes. Peter begins his sermon by declaring that God’s power, not his own, was responsible for the lame man walking (v.12). Furthermore, the same God who possessed the power to make a lame man walk had already done a greater work, namely glorifying His anointed one Jesus and raising him from the dead, the very same Jesus whom Peter’s audience had crucified (vv.13–15). It is this Jesus who has given health to the blind man (v. 16).
At this point, having confronted his audience concerning their sin, Peter offers them hope. He speaks of their ignorance in v.17 and then contrasts the ignorance of his audience (and their rulers) with the mantic insight of the past prophets whom God has used to declare these things (vv.18, 21).
Moses, in a sense, acts as the prototype prophet, one who initiates the long line of prophets that includes Samuel and those following him (vv. 22–24). Furthermore, not only does Moses speak specifically of a special prophet that is to follow him, he also describes the consequences of those who reject the coming prophet (vv. 22–23). Zehnle notes that Jewish tradition had already given Moses the position of “intermediary of God’s revelation” (e.g., the Assumption of Moses 11:16), and that the rabbis had traditionally subscribed to the axiom “as the first savior (Moses), so the last (messiah).” Indeed, Moses’ statements in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18–19 had come to be viewed “as a typological promise of the prophet of the Mosaic leader-deliverer pattern who was part of the eschaton.”
While Samuel did not specifically prophecy of God's anointed one Jesus, he is closely linked to David and thus may be portrayed as “pointing to a messianic allusion as part of a ‘son of David Christology.’” Furthermore, he functions as “the representative of all those who followed.” At this point, Luke has Peter closing his sermon with an appeal to the crowd, offering them the opportunity to partake of the promises that had been prophesied. Peter’s description of the audience as “the children of those prophets” (3:25) would have been both literal (due to their genealogy) and metaphorical, “the sense that they are heirs of the prophets, potentially the recipients of what the prophets foretold.” As “children of those prophets”, each member of Peter’s audience has the potential to become an instrument of God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:18 (3:25) if they allow themselves to be turned from their sins by God’s Servant (3:26)
Luke’s record of Peter’s speech in Acts 3 argues from prophecy, specifically Christological prophecy, that his audience has crucified the Messiah. Whereas the prophets (with Moses and Samuel as representatives) possessed foresight of what was to happen, Peter’s audience remained ignorant and thus sinned against God’s servant. Yet the same prophecy that condemns also offers hope, and Peter’s audience is given the great opportunity to become the recipients of the blessings inherent in those prophecies.
1 Peter
The theme of prophecy, especially Christological prophecy, continues on through the Petrine epistles. The theme of prophecy, especially Christological prophecy, continues on through the Petrine epistles. Peter’s “agenda” in the two epistles “had to do with putting into play the words of the prophets and the commandment of the lord, mediated through the prophets.” Furthermore, Peter “finds an essential unity in the outworking of God’s purpose, from the prophets to Christ to the apostles and thus to the community of Christ’s followers.” The focus is on “remembrance” and staying faithful to what God has revealed through the prophets. Throughout both epistles, Peter “employs what we might recognize as a literary device known as ‘back shadowing,’” with the result that “although the narrative ‘Peter’ shapes is a linear one, it emphasizes Israel’s past and God’s promised future in order to shape perspective on the present, and it formulates God's anointed one's event as the ground for Christian life and godliness.” Thus, Peter naturally continues to develop a theology of prophecy throughout both his epistles in order to define faithful conduct for the present.
The first epistle addresses those who are desperately in need of hope, those who “are suffering and have suffered, especially verbally.” Furthermore, they were a “community [that] questions the desirability of remaining firm in times of crisis” and “is faced with the problem of finding an appropriate conduct during its life in exile.” “Specifically, the theology [of 1 Peter] may not be understood apart from the problems of discrimination and oppression suffered by the early Christian congregations in the ‘troublesome environment’ of the northern provinces of Asia Minor.”“Unless we are prepared to interpret the passage [4:16–17] as mere hyperbole, we must accept that the sufferings of the Christians in Asia Minor at this time were so extreme, and so widespread, as to give rise to the belief that the time of judgment had finally arrived.” Indeed, this suffering is “the most prominent and repeatedly emphasized feature of the addressees’ situation."
It is in light of this setting that a theology of prophecy can offer the most hope. Despite their hardships, Peter’s audience can nevertheless take joy in their future salvation (1:9), a salvation that had already been foretold (1:10). In fact, the prophets were specifically prophesying of God's anointed one in order to serve Peter’s audience instead of themselves (1:11–12), and this fact should stir the Christian to action (1:13). Having established the prophetic foundation for his soteriology, Peter then goes on to develop his Christology by quoting the ancient Jewish prophets (see especially 1 Pet 2:6–8); he also uses his Christology to establish his audience as the true people of God (2:9–10) and then proceeds to examine the ethical ramifications of his audience’s position in Jesus God's anointed one (2:11 through the end of the epistle). In this way, Peter’s discussion of prophecy provides a key element in laying the foundation for both his Christology and his parenesis.
There is good reasons exist for seeing the prophets in question as ancient Jewish prophets. Whereas generally in the NT, references to the Jewish prophets include the article and references to contemporary prophets do not (for example, Acts 10:43, Romans 11:3 as compared to Acts 11:27, 1 Corinthians 12:28), it is odd that in 1 Peter does possess the article in reference to the prophets. However, simply because OT prophets were generally referred to collectively with an article does not then logically dictate that all references to OT prophets must include the article while all references to contemporary prophets do not (Ephesians 4:11, for example, has the article but is clearly a reference to contemporary prophets).
More importantly, the entire sense of 1:10–12 seems to indicate a temporal disjunction between the prophets and Peter’s audience, a disjunction that would seem odd if contemporary prophets were in view.
It is difficult to understand why it is such a stretch to speak of angels desiring to look into the matter of ancient prophecy any more than contemporary prophecy. Either way, the angels are curious about something. Nor is it clear what exactly is “unnatural” about ancient prophets inquiring about salvation. Would it not be more odd if the reference were to NT prophets? It must be pointed out that Jesus himself declared that many prophets desired to see what his disciples saw, but they were denied the opportunity (Matthew 13:17). The point, then, is that Peter’s generation was uniquely privileged in experiencing this fulfillment of prophecy.
The prophets in view were speaking long before the sufferings occurred, but they knew that sufferings would come to the Messiah. In the parallel syntax of verse 10, those prophets also foresaw the grace that would come and, in Peter’s opinion, had come ‘to you,’ the Christians to whom Peter writes. Just as the Messiah would be the recipient of sufferings, God’s people, among whom the Christians of Asia Minor now find themselves remarkably included, will be the recipients of grace.
In this way, 1 Peter 1 teaches that the ancient prophets foretold of the suffering of God's anointed one Jesus and thus ministered on behalf of contemporary believers. Peter’s audience can rejoice that, just as they are partakers of the suffering spoken of in prophecy (as Christ was), so they are also heirs of the grace spoken of in prophecy. All has been foreknown and planned out by Yehovah, and the fact that ancient prophets foretold of the culmination of this plan provides one of the main stepping-stones in Peter’s epistle. God’s grace in 1 Peter “reflects the nature of God (5:10) and is expressed by his saving activity predicted by the prophets (1:10)”; furthermore, the prophets themselves see their work as proving helpful to Christians contemporary to Peter’s time. Thus, for Peter, predictive prophecy is the very basis of assurance, the foundation of the Christian’s hope.
2 Peter
2 Peter continues many of the themes discussed so far. One of the purposes behind this second epistle was to strengthen the recipients’ faith in God’s revelation while defending against the accusations of the heretics. To this end, Peter reminds his readers of the nature of the prophetic word.
2 Peter as a whole is concerned with “knowledge,” not knowledge simply as “principles and systems but rather the formal aspects of our faith that cannot be segregated from but actually find their meaning within the narrative and context of God’s revelation to us.” But the false teachers attack the very source of that knowledge, and they must be countered. Consequently, in 2 Peter 1:16, Peter is quick to declare that he did not follow myths when declaring to his audience the gospel; rather, his knowledge and conviction stemmed from both direct revelation of which Peter himself was an eyewitness (1:17–19) and the “prophetic word.”
Furthermore, this “prophetic word” did not come about simply through man; rather, it has God as the ultimate source. In contrast to this divine source for Peter’s gospel, the “false teachers” (who, are the counterparts of the past “false prophets”) bring destruction and ruin (2:1) and, like Balaam, are in continual danger of truly reaping what they sow (2:4–22). 52 In 3:2, Peter calls his listeners to action, giving a “call to remember” that “presupposes that these believers have received the fundamentals of Christian instruction,” instruction that included the prophetic Scriptures. In light of Peter’s previous teaching about the veracity of the prophetic message of the OT (1:19–21), which the false teachers have cast in doubt, we should understand these ‘holy prophets’ as messengers known to us through the OT (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; Wis 11:1).” Finally, in 2 Peter 3:13–14, the prophetic word of Jesus parousia becomes the basis for proper living.
In one sense, then, 2 Peter can be viewed as a defense of the veracity of the prophecy spoken of in Acts 2–3 and 1 Peter. Thus, Peter’s discussion of prophecy in 2 Peter is apologetic, representing a conflict between the false teachers and true revelation. A contrast is set up between the prophet undertaking his own interpretation of the divine will (1:20) over against this prophecy being a result of the activity of God, who has moved him (1:21). Concerning the latter verse, “2 Peter wants to intimate that the adversaries, whom he is about to describe with the help of the material from Jude, interpret prophecy ‘by themselves’ and possibly also construct a prophecy ‘by the will of man.’” Thus, Peter seems to stress that the very nature of prophecy is that it has a divine origin in contrast to his opponents’ polemics, which possess only a human origin.
2 Peter 2:1, then, directly contrasts Spirit-filled prophets with pseudo-prophets. One may further agree that the discussion of Balaam is telling; he is essentially included with the “false prophets” as a prototype, so to speak, the adversary par excellence to true prophecy.
The argument from unfulfilled prophecy is one of the pillars of Epicurean skepticism. . . . the author of 2 Peter is careful to dismantle their arguments by his appeal to divine inspiration of the prophets (2 Peter 1.20–21), the rehearsal of divine judgment in the past (3.5–7), and apologetic concerning God’s mercy in delaying judgment.
In the process of countering his opponents’ attack, Peter builds up prophetic fulfillment “as verification of the validity of their faith and their prophetic tradition.
But prophecy functions as more than just an academic defense. Peter makes it clear (as seen by the “light” metaphor in 1:19) that prophecy is very much relevant to the contemporary hearer. Prophecy functions not only as a defense against false teaching but also as a call to proper living (e.g., 3:1–2).
In summary, the following must be stressed:
First of all, prophecy acts as a defense against heresy, the divine proof that the gospel is true in contrast to the strictly human teachings of Peter’s opponents.
Secondly, prophecy manifests truth, and by doing so it calls the believer to action; the believer is to “pay attention to” 1:19) and “remember” in 3:2) so that he or she can develop into a mature believer while continually looking for Jesus parousia (3:3–17).
Viewing Peter’s Speeches and Epistles Holistically
As noted above, Acts 2, 3, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter all have different emphasis and motivations. Yet they all contain essentially the same theology, and each one further develops the previous one. In other words, those four units show a logical progression of thought that never alters the initial premise of Peter’s speech in Acts 2. The following paragraphs discuss three main aspects of a Petrine theology of prophecy.
First of all, the concept of fulfillment is prominent. The sermons in both Acts 2 and 3 are meant to confront unbelievers. To this end, Peter asserts that OT prophecy has been fulfilled (and is continuing to be fulfilled). Yet the same prophecies that are used to confront the unbelievers of Acts are used to encourage the believers of 1 Peter, and this is likewise only possible in light of the fulfillment of those prophecies. In 2 Peter the emphasis on fulfillment becomes the main line of argument against the opponents: fulfilled prophecy is a co-testament with eye-witnessed revelation concerning Jesus. Otherwise there would hardly be any contrast between true prophecy and false prophecy.
Furthermore, even prophecy which has not yet come to pass is certain eventually to occur (note especially 2 Peter 3 and the issue of the delayed parousia). Thus, a holistic look at Petrine theology reveals that the concept of fulfillment is a necessary part of prophecy. Indeed, prophecy without fulfillment is not true prophecy.
Second, a Petrine theology of prophecy posits both a divine and a human source. In Acts 2 and 3 God’s word comes about through human means, and He can use whatever class or gender he chooses. Thus, on the one hand, God’s gift of prophecy is an act of grace, but on the other hand, those who are chosen to prophecy are naturally the recipients of divine revelation of which others remain ignorant (Acts 3:17). However, Peter also emphasizes the sovereign act of God, both in prophecy and history, in his sermons.
Both Petrine epistles likewise put a human and divine spin on the nature of prophecy. On the one hand, the prophets themselves were active participants in their prophesying (1 Peter 1:10–12; 2 Peter 1:21). But on the other hand, the Lord himself, through the Spirit, is the originator and guarantee of that prophecy.
Peter’s statement recognized both the divine and the human element in the production of inspired Scripture. Any balanced doctrine of the origin of Scripture must recognize both. Peter accepts the fact of the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, but he does not define the relationship between the divine and the human elements. The moving of the Holy Spirit on the speakers was the primary and indispensable element, but with God using human beings as His spokesmen His Spirit worked in and through their varied personalities to produce the very result He desired. The prophets were treated as living men, not lifeless tools.
There is no conflict, provided we understand that the reflection of the prophets followed the revelation of the Spirit of God to them and did not enter into the prophetic message. It is not to be wondered at that they should be pricked into investigation, since they had been the chosen channels of revelation. Hence the prophets, though passive in the sense that they did not contribute the message apart from the Spirit’s moving, yet were so far from being mechanical instruments that they had all their powers of thought aroused and taxed by the disclosures granted to them.
A Petrine theology of prophecy, then, affirms both the divine and human aspects of prophecy. The prophets in Acts and the epistles do not instigate revelation; nevertheless, they are active participants in it, not adding to the prophecy but rather eagerly transmitting it.
Finally, a Petrine theology of prophecy demands personal action. Prophecy is not something that can be viewed strictly with academic curiosity. The prophecies discussed in Acts 2 and 3 demand repentance from unbelievers, repentance that results in new prophesying by believers at Pentecost. The prophecies spoken of in 1 and 2 Peter demand proper living from believers (1 Peter 1:13–15, 2 Peter 3:14) and place false prophets in a precarious position if they refuse to repent (2 Peter 3). In this way, all of the references to prophecy in the Petrine material demand a change in the hearer, either to repentance or to sanctification. A Petrine theology of prophecy is practical; a reverence for prophecy naturally produces a certain kind of outward conduct.
The Implications of a Petrine Theology of Prophecy for Other Theological Themes
If the unity of a Petrine theology of prophecy is accepted, it could potentially affect other realms of theology. The most obvious area would be that of eschatology. Acts 2:17 seems to indicate that the eschaton was initiated with Pentecost (or possibly with Christ’s ascension?), but 2 Peter 3 deals extensively with the concept of a future parousia of the lord Jesus. It might be informative, for example, to see if all of the Petrine material could be brought to bear on a unified Petrine theology of the parousia.
Second, Peter’s theology of prophecy has great significance for theology proper, specifically the issue of God’s foreknowledge in the open theism debate.Indeed, it is not without significance that Peter’s sermons and epistles utilize four of the seven total occurrences of the noun and verb forms of “foreknowledge” in the entire NT. Peter’s theology seems to assume a prescient God, for how could the prophets know the future if God Himself does not? According to Acts 2:23, Jesus crucifixion occurred both by the decision and foreknowledge of God, and 2 Peter’s response to the opponents completely depends on the ability of God to fulfill his prophecies, an ability that would be nonexistent without extensive foreknowledge. Much more could certainly be said on this topic, but let it suffice to say that prophecy is no mere “guessing game.”
A Petrine theology of prophecy is also closely tied to both Christology and pneumatology. In three out the four sources, prophecy is specifically linked to the revelation of Jesus God's anointed one (2 Peter is the exception). Furthermore, God's Spirit plays an obviously significant role in the events of Acts 2 and in Peter’s Joel citation, and in both 1 Peter 1:11 and 2 Peter 1:21 the Spirit instigates the work of prophecy among God’s servants.
Finally, a Petrine theology of prophecy could help clarify the doctrine of inspiration. Too often, 2 Peter 1:20–21 has been taken in isolation from the other texts, but in reality the entirety of the Petrine material could potentially contribute to this doctrine. While the interplay of divine and human roles has already been discussed above, a renewed emphasis on the ramifications of the divine origin of Scripture might well be in order. Indeed, Peter’s emphasis on prophecy is tightly linked to the concept of inspiration, for the prophets only spoke because they were inspired. While Peter does not use the technical term that 2 Timothy 3:16 does, it is surely significant that Peter nevertheless links inspiration closely to the role of the God's Holy Spirit.
No doubt other areas of theology exist where a Petrine theology of prophecy would prove illuminating. At the very least, one must acknowledge that a comprehensive Petrine theology (what goes beyond just one or both of the epistles) possesses an untapped wealth of material for future studies.
Conclusion
When viewed as a whole, Peter’s two public sermons in Acts and his two epistles form a unified and coherent theology of prophecy, a truly Petrine theology of prophecy. A Petrine theology of prophecy of this sort confronts both believers and unbelievers (demanding action on their part), emphasizes both the divine and human roles in revelation, and assumes fulfillment. It is internally consistent throughout all the Petrine material, and each unit of material builds on the other. Thus, Peter’s theology of prophecy in Acts 2, designed to confront unbelievers and offer them hope, is further enhanced by Acts 3 and then applied to believers in 1 Peter. 2 Peter then utilizes prophecy as an apologetic against unbelievers while simultaneously presenting it as the basis for the proper conduct of believers. From Acts 2 through 2 Peter, the theology remains consistent. Whereas this is not an argument for Petrine authorship per se, I hope that these four Petrine units will be viewed more closely together in the future.
Very little work has been done that treats all four Petrine units as a whole. Yet a detailed examination of the Petrine material in Scripture yields the conclusion that perhaps they are closer in theme and substance than previously thought. The future development of a comprehensive “Petrine theology,” then, remains a distinct possibility, and, if this article’s treatment of prophecy has been accurate, this development will not prove fruitless.
No comments:
Post a Comment