Introduction to Second Peter

Authorship: Peter

Traditional View

1. The letter claims to be by Peter:
   • 1:1: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.”
   • 1:14: He knows that his death will be soon, “as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me” (John 21:18-19).
   • 3:1: “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you.”
2. Claims to be from an apostle and eye-witness of Jesus (1:16-18).
3. Early attestation (Michael Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,” JETS 42.4 [1999]: 645-672):
   • Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (2nd cent) made allusions to 2 Peter.
   • Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) wrote a lost commentary on it.
   • Origen (d. 254) quoted it 6 times, treating it as Scripture.
   • Bodmer papyrus (P72, 3rd cent), oldest copy of 1-2 Peter.
   • Eusebius (d. 339) says majority of church accepted it as authentic.
   • Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine.

Pseudonymous View

This is the majority view among NT scholars.

1. Marked difference in Greek style in comparison with 1 Peter.
   • 57 hapax legomena (words not found elsewhere in the NT).
   • 32 of the 57 words are not even found in the LXX.
   • Greek style too advanced for an uneducated fisherman from Galilee.
2. It is claimed that 2 Peter represents “Early Catholicism.”
   • Post-apostolic age.
   • Loss of imminent expectation of the Parousia.
   • Institutionalization of the church (elders, bishops).
   • Emphasis on ethics, tending toward legalism.
3. The reference to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” (3:15-16); NT canon is a 2nd century concept.
4. Looks back on apostolic age as in the distant past.
   • “Through your apostles” (3:2).
   • “Ever since the fathers fell asleep” (3:4).
   • Delay of the Parousia (3:4).
5. Reference to Peter’s imminent death (1:13-15) suggests that the letter is a “testament” or “farewell discourse,” a genre that in Jewish literary tradition was typically pseudonymous.
6. There were doubts about the authenticity of 2 Peter in the early church.
7. It is not included in the Muratorian Canon (AD 170).

Calvin’s Solution

On the one hand, he recognizes the “manifest difference” in style:

“What Jerome writes influences me somewhat more, that some, induced by a difference in the style, did not think that Peter was the author. For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers.”

But on the other hand, he rejects pseudepigraphy as “a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ.” Calvin’s solution:

“I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death.”

I think Calvin’s theory is reasonable.

Date: AD 65–66

If Petrine authorship is accepted, probably early to mid 60s. Church tradition says that Peter was martyred under Nero ca. AD 65-66, so it must be before that. Those who argue that 2 Peter is pseudonymous generally hold to a later date (AD 75-100). But even Richard Bauckham, who thinks it is pseudonymous, recognizes that it can’t be too late:

“The Apocalypse of Peter (c. 110-40) is very good evidence that at least one early second-century writer knew and used 2 Peter, and is sufficient to rule out a late date for 2 Peter” (WBC, 162).

But since I reject pseudonymous authorship, I prefer the earlier date.

Genre of 2 Peter

Testamentary Letter or Farewell Discourse

1. Aged patriarch knowing that death is approaching.
2. Is concerned about his children or followers and wants to make sure they follow in the right path after his departure.
3. 1:13-14: “I think it right, as long as I am in this body [tent], to stir you up by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body [tent] will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.”

Examples from Intertestamental Jewish Literature

1. The Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs
2. Tobit 14: “When he was about to die, [Tobit] called his son Tobias and the seven sons of Tobias and gave this command: ‘My son … God will bring them back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God … So now, my children, I command you, serve God faithfully and do what is pleasing in his sight.’”

The Two Main Types of Content in Farewell Testaments

1. Ethical admonitions—“I’m about to die, but this is how I want you to live after I’m gone.”
   • 1:5-7: “Make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,” etc.
   • 3:11: “Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness!”
   • 3:18: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
2. Prophecies concerning the future
   • 2:1: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.”
   • 3:3: “Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.”
   • 3:10: “The day of the Lord will come like a thief.”

The Opponents in 2 Peter

• They are “false teachers … secretly bringing in destructive heresies” (2:1).
• They are professing Christians (2:1, 20-22).
• They are libertines who live in sexual immorality and greed (2:14-15).
• They entice new recruits by promising freedom from moral restraints (2:18-19).
• They are eschatological skeptics (3:3-4), which is what motivates their moral libertinism.
• They appeal to Paul’s letters in support of their teaching (3:15-16).

Key Contributions

The Doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture

1. 2 Peter 1:19-21: “And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
2. Verse 19a: “And we have the prophetic word more sure (βεβαιότερον)”
   1. Not a specific prophetic oracle but the message of the entire OT viewed as prophetic.
3. Verse 19b: “to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place”
   1. Pay attention to the prophetic message.
   2. In contrast with the scoffers who “deliberately overlook” prophecy (3:5).
   3. Prophetic oracles of Scripture are like a light shining in the darkness.
   4. They give us hope in the midst of despair.
   5. “until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts”
   6. When will the day dawn? When Christ returns.
4. Verse 20: “No prophecy of Scripture …” can be interpreted two ways:
   1. “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own private interpretation” (BDAG ἴδιος 6), “comes from someone’s own interpretation” (ESV).
   2. “No prophecy of Scripture came about from the prophet’s own interpretation of things” (NIV 2011, changing “by” to “from”), taking ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως as genitive of source (“from”).
5. Verse 21: “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man”
   1. Scriptural prophecy did not originate in the prophet’s own initiative, will, intellect, or ingenuity.
   2. Inferential γάρ demands 2nd interpretation of v 20 above.
   3. “But men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
   4. Doctrine of inspiration clearly taught here.
   5. φερόμενοι = “carried along” like ships carried along by the waves.
   6. ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ = they “spoke [words] from God.”

Eschatology (2 Peter 3:10-13)

1. Topic: The dissolution/purification of the present creation and the new heavens and new earth.
2. Verse 10: [οὐχ] εὑρεθήσεται—textual issue:
   1. NA28 has the negative οὐχ, which makes obvious sense: “the earth and the works that are in it will not be found” (cp. Rev 16:20; 18:14, 21, 22).
   2. The negative is only found in early versions (Syriac and Coptic); no Greek MS has it.
   3. NA27 has the more difficult but much better attested reading, εὑρεθήσεται without the negative: lit. “will be found.”
   4. It could be understood as an idiom pertaining to eschatological judgment, meaning “laid bare” (NIV) or “exposed” (ESV) (cp. v. 14; Matt 24:46; Mk 13:36; Lk 18:8; 1 Cor 4:2; 2 Cor 5:3; Phil 3:9; 2 Tim 1:18; 1 Pet 1:7; Rev 14:5; 18:24; 20:11, 15).
3. Piling up of verbs of destruction in vv 10-12:
   1. παρελεύσονται (παρέρχομαι) = “will pass away”
   2. λυθήσεται … λυομένων … λυθήσονται (λύω) = “will be dissolved”
   3. καυσούμενα (2x) (καυσόω) = “burn”
   4. πυρούμενοι (πυρόω) = “burn”
   5. τήκεται (τήκομαι) = “melt”
   6. But note that none literally means “annihilate.”
   7. When you “dissolve” sugar in your tea, the sugar is still there.
4. The question of continuity or discontinuity between this creation and the new creation.
   1. Cosmic dissolution is not the same as total annihilation.
   2. Theologically: creation → redemption → consummation.
   3. “New” creation doesn’t have to mean completely new, out of nothing, but can mean renewal.
   4. Romans 8:18-25 implies this creation will be set free from its bondage to corruption and experience glorification.
   5. Analogy: the resurrection of the body.
      1. Continuity and renewal.
      2. 1 Cor 15:37, 42-44, 50-51.
5. No room for 1000 year reign of Christ on earth after his Parousia and before the new creation
   1. “The day of the Lord” = the Parousia or second coming.
   2. “Like a thief” (Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39; 1 Thess 5:2, 4; Rev 3:3; 16:15).
   3. The day of Christ’s coming is the day “when” or “because of which” the physical creation will experience dissolution/purification.
   4. V 10: ἡμέρα κυρίου … ἐν ᾗ (“the day when”)
   5. V 12: τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρας δι᾽ ἣν (“the day because of which”)
   6. This rules out premillennialism which states that there will be 1000 years separating the Parousia and the cosmic dissolution.