His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature. 2 Pe 1:3–4 (NRSV)

I once took this as a hard saying. I think I was cautioned at one point that this passage could lead some people into the dangers of Eastern Orthodoxy, or Christian mysticism, or even worse, into denying the Trinity. And yet it is in the Bible. As a Bible-believing evangelical who holds to biblical inerrancy, this passage gave me a good deal of indigestion.

What do you do with a passage like that?

I think that with James Gifford’s understanding of Perichoretic Salvation, this is no longer a difficult passage in the same way. In fact, his framework takes the sting out of the verse. More than that, it amplifies and clarifies it. In context, it makes better sense as well. Far from slipping into heretical teaching on the Trinity or into polytheism, it can be understood in a way that preserves the Creator and creation distinction while still taking Peter’s words seriously.

This passage is listed in Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred Brauch. I believe this section was written by Peter Davids, on pages 723 to 724. Davids points out that divine power is providing Christians with everything needed for a godly life, and that Christ mediates this to us through personal knowledge of God. He does not use the phrase relational knowledge the way Dallas Willard would, but I think that is at least close to what is intended. Peter is not merely speaking of data about God. He is speaking of knowing Him.

Davids also points out that “divine nature” is a well-known phrase in Greek philosophical literature. That matters because it helps us understand how Peter’s original hearers might have heard the words. Davids is careful to make an important clarification. This language, in either Greek or Jewish Hellenistic literature, “does not mean merging into God or union with deity (which is the sense equivalent language has in true New Age thought).” This is typically the concern surrounding this passage as it has been articulated to me and to many Christians. The fear is that if we take the verse too seriously, we will somehow collapse the distinction between God and man.

Great. We now know what it does not mean. But that does not really help us understand what it does mean, does it?

Davids continues:

“What ‘partaking of the divine nature’ does mean for Greek and Jewish authors is to take part in the immortality and incorruption of God (or ‘the god’ in pagan Greek literature). One who has so participated will, like God, live in the immortal sphere and like him will not be tainted with any corruption. Certainly Peter means at least this much. And if this is all that he means, then he is indicating what will happen at death (or the return of Christ). That is, the promises of God lead us on and direct our life until we obtain the inheritance of what they promise, the divine nature, at death.”

That is certainly one way to understand it. It is careful. It is restrained. It avoids confusion. But it also lacks any real relational aspect between God and the believer. It feels dry. It does not feel very transformative. If we were to take this passage in isolation, apart from John or Paul, we might come to that conclusion. That would be fair enough as a first step. But is that really all Peter means?

Davids himself seems to sense that more is going on. He writes, “It is possible Peter means more than this.” He points to Paul, John, and James speaking of being born of God and therefore having something of God’s nature, and to Paul’s teaching that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians. That is a crucial move. A good principle of biblical interpretation is to read obscure passages in light of clearer ones. That is exactly what we have here. It is more. Much more.

Davids says that Peter is using Greek philosophical language, but using it boldly, refining it into a Christian sense. That is an important observation. Peter is not simply borrowing pagan ideas. He is taking language people knew and pressing it into the service of revealed truth.

Davids then says:

“…the goal of the Christian life as a participation in the divine nature, at least at death, when like Christ the Christian will live immortally in the incorruptible heavenly realm. He may be indicating that this participation is an experience that the Holy Spirit mediates to Christians in the present life. Although his language is not clear enough to be certain of this.”

Ok, we now know what Peter could mean. But what does it mean for us?

Peter says that all of this comes “through the knowledge of him who called us.” That matters. Personal knowledge of God requires relationship. It is relational knowledge, not merely conceptual knowledge. James Gifford makes this point in his work on perichoretic salvation, and Dallas Willard makes a similar point in his own way when he describes a unique kind of knowledge that comes only through lived fellowship with God. This is not simply knowing facts about God. It is not merely affirming correct doctrine, however important doctrine is. It is knowing God as one knows a person, through communion, trust, response, and shared life.

By his divine power, God has given us everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know him, the one who called us to himself by means of his marvelous glory and excellence. And because of his glory and excellence, he has given us great and precious promises. These are the promises that enable you to share his divine nature and escape the world’s corruption caused by human desires. 2 Pe 1:3–4 (NLT)

If we read this passage through the lens of what Gifford calls a third type of perichoretic relationship, the whole thing begins to come into clearer focus. Gifford’s basic concern is to explain how the believer can truly participate in the life of God without collapsing the distinction between Creator and creature. That is the fear many Christians understandably have when they hear language like “participants of the divine nature.” But Gifford’s point is that participation does not mean confusion. It does not mean that the creature becomes the Creator. It does not mean we dissolve into God or merge with Him in some impersonal mystical sense. Rather, God and man remain distinct, yet are truly united in Christ through the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. The line is not blurred. The relationship is deepened.

That is an important distinction, and I think it takes much of the anxiety out of this verse. Peter is not inviting us into polytheism. He is not undermining the Trinity. He is not encouraging some kind of spiritual absorption. He is speaking of a real participation in the life that comes from God, mediated by the Spirit, grounded in the promises of God, and made possible through union with Christ. In that sense, to be a participant of the divine nature is to be brought into a living, Spirit-mediated relationship in which the life of God is truly at work in us.

This also helps us with the question of timing. When you read the New Revised Standard Version, you can get the feeling that this participation is primarily future: “and may become participants of the divine nature.” It sounds as though this is something lying ahead, something deferred. But when you read the New Living Translation, the force feels different: God has given us promises that “enable you to share his divine nature and escape the world’s corruption.” That sounds much more present, much more active, much more like help for the life we are living now.

I do not think that difference should be overplayed, but neither should it be ignored. The New Testament consistently speaks of eternal life as both future and present, both not yet and already here. The same seems true here. Yes, the fullness of incorruption awaits resurrection. Yes, there is an aspect of this promise that looks ahead to the age to come. But is that all Peter means? I do not think so. The Holy Spirit mediates the life of God to believers in the present life, not merely after death. That is why the passage begins as it does, with “everything needed for life and godliness.” Peter is not only talking about what happens when we die. He is talking about how we live now.

This is where Dallas Willard is especially helpful. Willard repeatedly emphasized that life in the Kingdom of God is not merely a future hope, but a present reality. Eternal life, in his understanding, is not just endless duration after death. It is the kind of life one enters now through relationship with God. To know God is already to begin living in that life. To be indwelt by the Spirit is already to participate in the life of the Kingdom. Willard would not flatten the future hope into the present, but neither would he allow us to postpone everything meaningful until after the grave. Too much Christian teaching, perhaps unintentionally, trains people to wait for what God intends them to begin experiencing now.

And that, I think, is the real force of Peter’s words. If the Spirit is truly in us, if we truly know God, if the promises are truly active, then participation in the divine nature cannot be reduced to a distant reward only realized at death. It must include a present sharing in God’s life that begins to transform us now. Not exhaustively. Not independently. Not as though we control it. But really.

That makes this passage both more demanding and more beautiful. It is more demanding because it will not allow us to reduce Christianity to mere belief, mere morality, or mere future destiny. It is more beautiful because it suggests that God is not simply preparing benefits for us later, but sharing His life with us even now. Through the Spirit, through union with Christ, through the promises, we are being drawn into something deeper than religious membership. We are being drawn into participation, much like a dance.

References

• Gifford, J. D., Jr. (2011). Perichoretic salvation: The believer’s union with Christ as a third type of perichoresis. Wipf and Stock.
• Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., & Brauch, M. T. (1996). Hard sayings of the Bible. InterVarsity Press.
• Willard, D. (1998). The divine conspiracy: Rediscovering our hidden life in God. HarperCollins.

Excerpt

2 Peter 1:4 once felt like a dangerous verse to me. But read in light of union with Christ, the Holy Spirit, and perichoretic salvation, it becomes not a threat to orthodoxy, but a stunning promise of present participation in the life of God.

Κοινωνοὶ