Most Christians understand that 2 Peter 1.4 is an assertion that all Christians, in view of their position in Christ, have been made “partakers of the divine nature” but some preachers and teachers–most notably those in the so-called “Word of Faith movement”–think that this verse justifies the claim that Christians are “little gods” with omnipotent words and other attributes of deity.

The word “nature” (Grk. Physis) can mean the essential nature of a being, such as “human nature” or “the nature of the beast” (see Gal 4.8); but it can also refer to “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT)–as in the saying, “it’s just his nature to tell the truth” or “swimming is second nature to her.”

Given these two possibilities, and looking at the context of 2 Peter 1.4, which meaning was in the mind of Peter? Was he thinking about a change in your human “essence” that in some sense turns you into a sort of divine being? Or was he talking about a change in your behavior that makes you, while still only a human, a human who reflects the glory of God?

I think this is a rather interesting passage and question. Does Peter’s description of being “partakers of the divine nature” mean that human beings have somehow become divine beings in their nature?

Something has indeed happened to us in salvation, as Paul proclaims in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” This seems to indicate that a fundamental change has occurred even though the old nature continues to wrestle the new within us.

If we break up the verse and its surrounding context, we’ll see that Peter is describing a series of things that have occurred through God’s divine power which are all things that pertain to life and godliness including: being called because of his own glory and excellence, the giving his precious and very great promises, partaking of the divine nature, and escape from the corruption of the world. Each of these things in this passage can be traced back to the knowledge of God who gave all things that pertain to life and godliness- which is ultimately a product of the Lord’s divine power.

Here’s the Passage:

2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

3 His divine power has granted to us \ all things that pertain to life and godliness,\ through the knowledge of him who called us\ to his own glory and excellence,

4 by which he has granted to us\ His precious and very great promises,\ so that through them you may\ become partakers of the divine nature,\ having escaped from the corruption\ that is in the world because of sinful desire.

5 For this very reason,\ make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue,\ and virtue with knowledge,\ 6 and knowledge with self-control,\ and self-control with steadfastness,\ and steadfastness with godliness,\ 7 and godliness with brotherly affection,\ and brotherly affection with love.

8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

The idea of becoming a partaker of the divine nature is directly linked in the passage to the great and precious promises of God, which flow from God’s own glory and excellence and rest on the divine power that is exclusive to God alone. There’s nothing in this passage that seems to suggest that human beings become like God in essence, but instead are dependent on the qualities of God’s essence.

Further, if you look at the context that follows this passage, you see that there is an appropriate response to this gift which are virtues that one “adds” to their faith in Christ so that they can be “effective and fruitful” in the Kingdom…. not to become a god themselves. Even these things that are added or supplemented fall under the category of God’s divine power being given for “all things that pertain to life and godliness.” This means that the virtues in verses 5-7 are also a gift from God.

In short, partakers of the divine nature are participants in the kingdom as raised up servants, not kings. I think this passage is teaching participation in God’s essential work of sanctification not in God’s essence.

The Eastern Orthodox (hereafter, “EO”) and patristic theologians have exegeted this passage to understand that redeemed humanity receives the communicable life of God, through grace, but this does not mean that humans can become what God is in His essence. This is called the doctrine of theosis (or deification). In commentating on this passage, Kyle Strobel states:

The core that unites these distinct traditions of theosis is an understanding of God’s communicable life—that what is Christ’s by nature is made available to his people by grace. What is not stated clearly in this definition, but what has always been assumed by orthodox doctrine, is that the divine essence is incommunicable. Therefore, what is Christ’s by nature that is offered in grace is not the divine essence, but the communicable divine nature (Strobel, 372). Even John Calvin took this passage to mean that in some way, the divine nature is communicable to humans through grace, but not the divine essence (Strobel, 372-373). Other great theologians of the post-Reformation era took up and explored the doctrine of theosis while at the same time remaining faithful to Reformation theology and principles, including the great preacher Jonathan Edwards. Accordingly, Edwards:

believed that true grace in the heart of a saint is a communication and participation in divine fullness. […] This divine fullness is not vested in created nature. Rather, it is above and discontinuous with created nature. It is “something of God.” However, at the same time this communication of divine fullness does not impart the divine essence. Thus, when God gives special grace, God gives himself to the creature, establishing a profound and even infinite union between Creator and creature. Yet, this communication never fuses the creature with the Creator. Rather, for all eternity God and the saints will enjoy a christologically mediated bond in the Spirit, which will increase perpetually but still never violate the Creator-creature distinction. This communication and participation in divine fullness is the end purpose of creation and redemption. Edwards believed that God’s great gift is himself, and that God designed creation to receive this grace and redeemed humanity in order to give this grace (Salladin, 2). Commentator Michael Green describes this participation as a promise of “his moral excellence during this life, and of his glory hereafter;” furthermore he states, “…taken together, the triple agency of the promises, the power and the person of the Lord Jesus regenerate a man and make him a sharer in God’s own nature, so that the family likeness begins to be seen in him” (Green, 83). Here we see a clear teaching of theosis without mention of the word itself. On the other hand, Douglas Moo sees that this phrase teaches the unique privilege that Christians have of enjoying intimacy with God (Moo, 2 Peter 1:3-11).

Given the distinction between that nature which is communicable by God and the divine essence, the EO and other teachers of theosis would likely deny the word of faith movements perversion of this teaching where human beings become “little gods.” Further, evangelical commentators such as Green and Moo would suggest that there is a union with Christ that Christians have but it is limited in scope to relational attributes or bound up in the doctrine of adoption. The sort of teaching found in the Word of Faith movement is closer to Mormon belief, Eastern monism, or New Age teaching.

I think there is something to the teaching of theosis which may be better described as adoption and participation rather than theosis. This idea is bound up in the process of Sanctification so that we are better fitted for being an ambassador for Christ (2 Cor 5:20), as Kingdom participants (2 Peter 1:11). Ken Boa describes this fundamental change as the means through which our outer life begins to reflect the inner life that has already been changed; in other words, this is the process of Sanctification at work (Boa, 265).

In answer to the question proposed, the nature being described here is closer to the second meaning in that it is communicable attributes not his essence that comes from God to redeemed humanity.

Works Cited:

Boa, Kenneth. Conformed to His Image Publisher: Zondervan, n.d.

Douglas J. Moo. 2 Peter, Jude. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 1996.

E. Michael Green. 2 Peter and Jude : An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Nottingham, England: IVP Academic, 2009.

Salladin, James R. Jonathan Edwards and Deification: Reconciling Theosis and the Reformed Tradition. IVP Academic, 2022.

Strobel, Kyle. “Jonathan Edwards’s Reformed Doctrine of Theosis.” Harvard Theological Review 109, no. 3 (July 2016): 371–99.