Jude, 2 Peter

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2003 by Dyer, Sidney D

Jude, 2 Peter. By Steven J. Kraftchick. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002, 190 pp., $20.00 paper.

In this commentary Kraftchick approaches the epistles of Jude and 2 Peter from a critical perspective. In his introduction to Jude, Kraftchick argues, "it is unlikely that Jude, the brother of James and Jesus, authored the book" (p. 21). The only ground he gives is that the Greek of the epistle is better than one would expect from a Palestinian Jew. He argues that 2 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter and that the unknown author used the apostle's name to lend "authority to his arguments" (p. 86). Based on 2 Pet 1:14, he identifies the epistle as a "farewell testament" and explains that "by choosing the 'farewell' genre and by providing 'proofs' that follow in vv. 16-20, the author establishes his trustworthiness as a guide and interpreter of the fundamentals of the faith" (pp. 101-2). Since Kraftchick sets the composition of the epistle "somewhere between 90 and 100 CE" (p. 72), it is difficult to understand why he contends that the alleged author would have used a pseudonym to establish his authority and would have chosen the "farewell" genre to establish his trustworthiness. The original readers would certainly have known that Peter was already dead.

Kraftchick demonstrates some weakness in his understanding of the Greek language. For example, in his comments on 2 Pet 1:12, he mentions "the present indicative of the infinitive 'to remind'" (p. 102). Since infinitives do not express mood, it is incorrect to label the infinitive as indicative. He identifies the phrases "of the Lord" and "of the apostles" connected to the word "commandment" in 2 Pet 3:2 as "double possessives" (p. 149). These are properly understood as genitives of source. Kraftchick's explanation of what the genitives mean, however, is accurate. He describes the participle "dissolved" in 2 Pet 3:11 as modifying "these things" (p. 166). The participle, however, is not functioning as a modifier. It is in a genitive absolute construction and "these things" is the subject of the participle. He argues that in Jude 4 the word "Master" in the phrase "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," most likely refers to God the Father. "Master," however, is articular and "Lord" is anarthrous in the Greek. The Granville Sharp rule requires the understanding that Jesus Christ is both Master and Lord. Kraftchick also fails to mention this rule in connection with the phrase "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" in 2 Pet 1:1 (pp. 87-88) where the word "God" is articular and "Savior" is anarthrous in the Greek. The construction highlights the deity of Jesus. Even though Kraftchick's theological bias, rather than his weakness in Greek, may be the reason for not mentioning the Granville Sharp rule, the lack of comment indicates an area of weakness in his scholarship, or at least in the display of his scholarship.

Kraftchick offers some invalid interpretations. For example, he argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 7 was not homosexuality, but seeking to have sexual relations with angels and that this was a reversal of the sin described in Gen 6:1-4, which he explains to be angels having sex with humans (pp. 38-40). The Scriptures, however, present angels as spirit beings and only the men of Sodom as guilty of lusting after Lot's visitors, whereas Jude refers to the sin of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities in going after other flesh. Kraftchick carries his interpretation of v. 7 into v. 8, where he suggests, "the expression 'slandered the glorious ones' is equivalent to Sodom's treatment of the angels" (p. 41). Another example of a weak interpretation is his explanation of the phrase "the corruption that is in the world" in 2 Pet 1:4. He does admit it "can refer to moral decadence," but "more likely refers to the decay or decomposition of nature" (p. 93).

Despite its many weaknesses, this commentary has some strengths. Kraftchick has produced more than a mere running commentary on these epistles. He has provided helpful analysis of the elements of each epistle and their relation to each other. This may be readily seen in his table of contents. His identification of interpretative issues is helpful even if one does not agree with his conclusions. A chart listing the parallel passages in Jude and 2 Peter appears in his introduction to 2 Peter (p. 79). He gives much attention to emphatic expressions and word play.

Most conservative scholars will probably not find that the strengths of Kraftchick's commentary outweigh its weaknesses. His theological perspective permeates the work. Evangelicals seeking solid interpretation and insight for these epistles would do well to look elsewhere.

Sidney D. Dyer

Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, SC