Throw a
rock and you can hit a dozen Pauline theologies. I’m not denigrating the
importance of the Apostle Paul’s theology, mind you! The man wrote a
significant portion of the New Testament, and his inspired letters deserve the
attention they get. Nevertheless, for those of us interested in Peter and his
theology, there has been a significant dearth of scholarship. There is, of
course, Martin Hengel’s Peter: The Underestimated Apostle as well as Markus Bockmuehl’s
Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early
Church,
both significant books. Yet with Larry R. Helyer’s The Life and Witness of
Peter
(Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012), we have a rare Petrine theology that
also gives key consideration to Peter’s life and treatment in the early church.
Its significance, in my opinion, can be summed up this way: I desperately wish
to teach a class on Petrine theology (at any level!), and without a doubt this
is the textbook I would use (and, in my opinion, it’s well-written enough that
it could easily be used at the college level as well as in a grad class).
Summary
In the
preface, Helyer gives a very brief overview as to his methodology and major
focuses (after, of course, the obligatory comments on the relative neglect of
Petrine scholarship!) Helyer makes it clear that he will focus on the material
from Acts in addition to 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in my opinion one of the major
strengths of the book). He will also utilize Mark as a source for a general
understanding of Peter’s personal background, and consideration will also be
given to some post-NT material, Patristic and otherwise. Especially significant
for the content of this book is Helyer’s statement on p. 17 that “The overarching
rubric that encapsulates Peter’s theology is the meaning and significance of
the cross which shapes Peter’s first pastoral letter.”
Chapter 1
deals with the ‘Background of Simon Peter.” Here Helyer provides a brief
discussion of Peter’s name and occupation, providing in the process a
beneficial overview of the fishing industry in 1st century Galilee
(complete with his own culinary recommendation footnote 35, namely that
visitors to the area try the type of tilapia called “Saint Peter’s Fish,” fresh
from the Sea of Galilee!). Helyer takes an unapologetic “harmonistic approach”
when recreating Peter’s life and background from the Gospels, though he
acknowledges the value of both redaction and narrative approaches (p. 30).
Chapters 2
and 3 deals with Peter’s appearances in the four Gospels. Naturally, Helyer
devotes considerable space to Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 (and the
parallels), as well as Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to Peter. Especially
significant is the way in which Helyer ties events in the Gospels to Peter’s
later ministry, noting its significance for our spiritual development today. On
page 61, for example, he writes (regarding Peter’s three-fold denial), “Peter’s
denial can never be taken back. It happened, and he had to live with the
painful memory. But rather than letting his failure cripple him spiritually and
emotionally, he used it as a means of building up the flock of God. . . . He
becomes a living illustration of forgiveness and a second chance. He possesses
a degree of compassion and understanding for wavering believers that others,
sometimes rather self-righteously, are incapable of showing. We hear a
tenderness in Peter’s first epistle that springs out of a bitterly
disappointing failure in his own life (1 Peter 5:1-11).”
Chapter 4
deals with “Peter and the early church,” focusing on the book of Acts, while
chapter 5 deals with the mention of Peter within Paul’s own epistles. Chapters
6-10 then basically represent a theology of 1 Peter, focusing on that epistle
and its key themes. Chapter 6 functions more-or-less as a traditional
introduction to the letter, focusing on authorship, genre, recipients, etc. I was
especially glad to see Helyer giving due consideration to Karen Jobes’ thesis
regarding the recipients, and also that Helyer concludes on p. 116 that the
letter uses the concept “stranger” in both a literal and a metaphorical sense
(with which I agree, though, like John Elliott, I prefer an initial focus on a
literal sense, as I argue in my soon-to-be-published dissertation; it is from
the literal that the metaphorical draws its force). Chapters 7-10 then discuss,
in order, “Peter’s Christology,” “Christ and the Spirits, Christ and the Holy
Spirit,” “Suffering for Jesus,” and “The People of God.”
Chapter 11
functions as an introduction to 2 Peter while chapter 12 deals with its
theology. Chapter 13 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s treatment of false
teachers, and chapter 14 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s eschatology. At this
point, I need to mention one statement by Helyer that I greatly appreciated
(and one that needs to be preached!): “Many Christians labor under a
misunderstanding about their ultimate destiny. They conceive of their eternal
state in ethereal (otherworldy0 terms situated in a celestial city ‘up there
somewhere.’ The truth is our final destination is on a new earth. In short,
‘heaven’ comes down and does more than ‘fill my soul’; it takes up residence on
this planet and fills the whole world with God’s glory” (p. 269).
Finally,
Helyer devotes 3 chapters to “The Rest of the Story,” where he focuses on
non-canonical treatments of Peter himself, including Patristic accounts of
Peter’s life and death, pseudonymous works on Peter, and (in the final chapter),
the “legacy” of Peter which concludes with Helyer’s “top ten contributions of
the apostle Peter to NT theology.”
Analysis
In my
opinion, Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter represents both a
significant contribution that fills in a gap in scholarship (the relative lack
of work on Petrine theology) as well as a very readable and enjoyable treatment
of Peter, his life, and his theology. While I will have a couple minor issues,
I can definitely recommend this book for anybody interested in either Peter or
biblical theology, or both.
First of all,
does Helyer make an important contribution to biblical theology? In my opinion,
absolutely. Treatments of this scope on Petrine theology are very rare, and
Helyer does an excellent job of plugging that hole in scholarship (from an
evangelical perspective, as well).
Secondly,
Helyer is a good writer; without sacrificing its contribution to scholarship, The
Life and Witness of Peter is both an easy and an enjoyable read. It’s worth pointing
out that his Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period is a much more
enjoyable read than equivalent books at this level of academia (I’m not
claiming it’s necessarily better at the scholarly level than equivalent books,
simply that it’s more enjoyable).
Thirdly, I
like how Helyer does biblical theology. Rather than approaching the texts with
set themes and topics, as I’ve seen some works do, Helyer mostly lets the texts
themselves determine the themes. This is why, for example, we see an entire
chapter on “The People of God” in 1 Peter but not 2 Peter, whereas we see an
entire chapter on 2 Peter’s eschatology but not 1 Peter’s eschatology. Not
because 1 Peter does not discuss eschatology, nor that 2 Peter does not concern
itself at all with the church, but rather because each book of the Bible has
its own emphasis and focus. In my opinion, biblical theology is at its best
when it lets each distinct book bring out its own theology rather than
approaching each book with a “grid” of theological topics. In other words, when
doing biblical theology (as opposed to systematic theology), the question is
not “What does [insert name of book] say about God, Jesus, the end times,
etc.?” but rather, “What themes does this book explore, and how are they
developed?” This, in my opinion, is what Helyer does well. Having said that, I
do wish Helyer had provided a bit more
interaction between books on certain themes. Chapter 8, for example,
could have dealt with the Spirit and the spirits in both 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in light of 2
Peter 1:21 and 2:4, 11), and I would have appreciated it bit more overview of
Peter’s theology as a whole (although the final chapter covers that a little).
Nevertheless, overall I am in favor of how Helyer handles Peter’s theology. In
addition, I greatly appreciate how Helyer covers all the Petrine material in
Scripture, not just 1 Peter and 2 Peter. This, in my opinion, is key to
developing a true Petrine theology (as opposed to just a theology of 1
Peter or a theology of 2 Peter). Such an approach makes this book extremely
valuable.
Fourthly,
one of Helyer’s strengths is his knowledge of Second Temple Literature (he
wrote an entire book on it) and how this knowledge contributes to The Life
and Witness of peter.
Numerous examples can be cited, but I’ll point especially to page 44 (what does
it mean to “loose” and “bind” in Matthew 16:19? He provides some discussion of
close terminology in the Qumran texts and the Mishnah) and p. 251 (2 Pet 2:4’s
remarkably close parallel to 1 Enoch).
Fifthly,
Helyer does an excellent job at making his work relevant for the Christian
community. In other words, The Life and Witness of Peter is meant to be relevant
theologically
in the everyday life of Christians (e.g., see the quote above from page 61).
Having said that, I did scratch my head at his odd sort-of allegorizing of the
story of Peter in the boat from Matthew 14 (see p. 39).
A couple
mild critiques. First of all, while this book does well to cover introductory
matters, students should not rely on it for the best treatment of such topics
as authorship, recipients, etc.. For example, although I like what he does with
his treatment of the recipients of 1 Peter, he never mentions Moses Chin’s
article “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless” in Tyndale Bulletin vol. 42:1 (1991), a
significant and influential article (though I disagree with much of it).
Similarly, there are some gaps in scholarship; when discussing both the eschatology
and the false teachers of 2 Peter, for example, he never mentions two articles
that directly deal with these issues: Gene L. Green, “‘As for Prophecies, They
Will Come to an End’” in JSNT vol. 8 (2001) and Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Form
and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL vol. 99 (September
1980), although he cites other sources by these two scholars. Having said that,
I must express my gratefulness that he mentions a little-known article by
yours-truly on Peter, an article significantly less important than the
contributions by Chin, Green, and Neyrey, so who am I to complain?
Two more
points. Even though this book is meant to be accessible to all levels, it still
would have greatly benefited from a “survey of scholarship” on Peter and his
theology. Secondly, I’m puzzled as to why the relationship between Jude and 2
Peter receives only a two-paragraph treatment (pp. 246-247), especially since
this would seem to be relevant to 2 Peter’s theology.
Nevertheless,
these moderate critiques should not diminish the value that Helyer’s Life
and Witness of Peter provides.
This is an essential book for studying both Peter and his theology, and one
that I hope to use as a textbook someday.
