THE SECOND
1.1. Internal Evidence 1.1.1. According to 2 Pet 1:1, who was the author of 2 Peter? The author of 2 Peter was "Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ." It should be noted that Peter refers to himself in 2 Peter by both his name, Simon (or Simeon) and his "nickname," Peter" (Petros) unlike 1 Pet 1:1. 1.1.2. How does what the author says in 2 Pet 1:14 and 1:16-18 confirm that Peter was the author of 2 Peter? (See Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2 = Luke 9:28 and John 21:18-19.) The author of 2 Peter claims to be a witness of Jesus' transfiguration (1:16-18); according to the synoptic gospels, Peter was one of three disciples who accompanied Jesus (the other two being James and John). The author of 2 Peter also refers to the fact that he is destined to die what seems to be a martyr's death (1:14); in John 21:18-19, Jesus foretells that Peter will be martyred after what appears to be a period of incarceration. 1.1.3. It is often argued that, although there are some commonalties between them, 1 & 2 Peter are so different with respect to vocabulary and style that they could not have been written by the same author. A. Vocabulary 1. 2 Peter contains fifty-seven hapaxlegomena, the largest percentage of any writing in the New Testament. Thirty-two words of the fifty-eight do not occur in the LXX, so that 2 Peter has many non-biblical words. The presence of so many non-biblical hapaxlegomena has been interpreted as meaning that the author of 1 Peter could not also have written 2 Peter, on the assumption that an author would not have used so many hapaxlegomena in one of his letters. 2. 2 Peter has 100 words in common with 1 Peter, but there are 599 words found in one but not the other. The vocabulary of any letter will depend largely on its subject matter, so it should comes as no surprise that two letters with different subject matters have little vocabulary in common. Nevertheless, it is argued that there are words that one would expect to find in 1 Peter that occur in 2 Peter, but are not found, and words that one would expect to find in 2 Peter that occur in 1 Peter, but are not found. Unlike 2 Peter, 1 Peter, never uses words such as entolê ("commandment") (2 Pet 2:21; 3:2), eusebês ("pious") (2 Pet 2:9) and eusebeia ("piety") (2 Pet 1:3, 6, 7; 3:11) theios ("divine") (2 Pet 1:3, 4) or sôtêr ("savior") (2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18). Likewise, unlike 1 Peter, in 2 Peter one does not find words such as apeitheô ("to disobey") (1 Pet 2:8; 3:1, 20; 4:17), elpis ("hope") (1 Pet 1:3, 21; 3:15), klêronomeô ("to inherit") (1 Pet 3:9) and klêromomia ("inheritance") (1 Pet 1:4) or zaô ("to live") (1 Pet 1:3, 23; 2:4, 5, 24; 4:5, 6). It is especially peculiar that compound words using "good" (agathos) and "evil" (kakos), common in 1 Peter, are entirely absent in 2 Peter (agathopoieô in 1 Pet 2:15, 20; 3:6, 17; agathopoios in 1 Pet 2:14; agathopoiia in 1 Pet 4:19 / kakopoieô in 1 Pet 3:16; kakoô in 1 Pet 3:13; kakopoios in 1 Pet 2:12, 14; 4:15). These data are interpreted to mean that the same author did not write 1 & 2 Peter. 3. Another peculiarity with respect to the vocabularies of 1 & 2 Peter is the fact that 1 Peter has a predilection for compounds using the preposition sun ("with"). Whereas 1 Peter has sumpathês, suneidêsis, suneklektos, sunklêronomos, sunoikein, sunschêmatisthai, sunpresbuteros and suntrchein, 2 Peter has only three such sun-compounds: sunapagein, suneuôchesthai and sunistêmi. This has been interpreted as supporting the view that one and the same author could not have written both letters. 4. There are several examples of synonyms in 2 Peter for words that occur in 1 Peter. Some scholars argue that an author would use the same word to express the same idea in all or most of his letters, so that there should not be so many synonyms in 2 Peter for words in 1 Peter if the same author wrote both letters.
In addition, 2 Peter has two synonymous phrases: "From the beginning of creation" (ap' archês ktiseôs) (2 Pet (3:4) instead of "from the foundation of the world" (pro katabolês kosmou) (1Pet 1:20) and "the former sins" hai palai hamartiai (2 Pet 1:9) instead of "the previous desires" hai proteron epithumiai (1 Pet 1:14). 5. A significant divergence in theological vocabulary occurs with respect to the Second Coming of Christ. In 2 Peter, the term used for this is parousia ("presence") (1:16; 3:4, 12), but in 1 Peter the preferred word used is apokalupsis ("revelation") (1:7, 13; 4:13). It is argued that an author a would demonstrate consistency of theological terminology from one letter to the next. B. Style 1. Jerome correctly notices that the two letters attributed to Peter in the New Testament differ significantly with respect to their styles: "He [Peter] wrote two letters, which are called general, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him" (De vir. ill. 1; see Ep. Hedib. 120 Quaest. 11). In general, the style of 2 Peter is effusive and somewhat grandiose, unlike 1 Peter. It is common to find complicated and repetitive phrases in 2 Peter such as:
The style of 2 Pet 1:3-11 in fact resembles the style of public inscriptions in the Hellenistic world that detail the virtues and acts of benefactors and saviors. 2. 2 Peter (1:3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17; 2:10, 11, 13; 3:7, 11, 14, 16) has more than twice as many instances of the use of pairs of synonyms or near synonyms than does 1 Peter (1:19, 23; 2:18, 25; 3:4; 4:7), but 1 Peter has examples of the use of three synonyms or near synonyms, unlike 2 Peter (1:4, 7; 3:22; see 5:10). 3. Unlike 1 Peter, 2 Peter has relatively few connective particles. Significantly, the particle men used with de does not occur in 2 Peter, unlike 1 Peter (1:20; 2:4; 3:18; 4:6). Rather what is found in 2 Peter is the use of de kai (1:15; 2:1), which does not occur in 1Peter. 2 Peter is also characterized by the relatively meager use of prepositions. 4. There is a disproportionate number of allusions to the Old Testament in 1 Peter as compared to 2 Peter, thirty-one to five. Stylistically, the author of 1 Peter interweaves allusion to scripture throughout his letter, whereas the author of 2 Peter tends not to do so.
1.1.4. Defense of Petrine Authorship The differences of vocabulary and style between 1 and 2 Peter are significant, but do not require the conclusion that the same author could not have written both letters. A. Vocabulary 1. Conclusions about authorship based on the respective vocabularies of 1 & 2 Peter are tenuous at best. The shorter the text, the more insecure does such a undertaking become, and 1 & 2 Peter are relatively short texts. First, how many non-biblical hapaxlegomena in 2 Peter require the conclusion that it could not have been composed by the author of 1 Peter is difficult to determine, but fifty-seven does not seem to be significantly excessive. Second, it is difficult to decide generally whether, given the content of his letter, an author "should" have used a particular word or not. Such arguments generally are not very convincing. Third, the greater frequency of sun-compounds in 1 Peter as compared to 2 Peter may be coincidental; it must not be forgotten that 2 Peter has three such sun-compounds. Fourth, to argue that an author cannot use synonymous words and phrases is unrealistically restrictive. Finally, the fact that in 2 Peter parousia ("presence") is used of Christ's Second Coming whereas in 1 Peter the preferred word used is apokalupsis ("revelation") is not significant since the author of 1 Peter also uses the synonym of Christ's "appearing" (phanoresthai) (1:20; 5:4). If he uses two different terms in the same letter to denote Christ's Second Coming then surely he could use another synonymous term in a second letter. 2. There are, in fact, verbal parallels between 1 & 2 Peter that suggest a common author for both. a. 1 & 2 Peter have 100 words in common and, more significantly, there are several words and phrases in 1 & 2 Peter that either occur only in these two letters or are relatively rare elsewhere in the New Testament: "virtue" (aretê) (2 Pet 1:3, 5; 1 Pet 2:9); "manner of life" (anastrophê) (2 Pet 2:7; 3:11; 1 Pet 1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16); "to live in a certain manner" (anastrephomai) (2 Pet 2:18; 1 Pet 1:17); "without blemish or defect" (aspilos kai amômos [or amômêtos]) (2 Pet 3:14; 1 Pet 1:19 [in reverse order]); "putting off" (apothesis) (2 Pet 1:14; 1 Pet 3:21); "eyewitness" or "to be an eyewitness" (epoptês or epopteuô) (2 Pet 1:16; 1 Pet 2:12; 3:2); "support" (stêrigmos) (2 Pet 3:17) and "unstable" (astêriktos) (1 Pet 2:14; 3:16); "never ceasing from sin" (akatapaustos hamartias) (2 Pet 2:14) and "He has ceased from sin" (pepautai hamartias) (1 Pet 4:1); "indecency" (aselgeia) (2 Pet 2:2, 7, 18; 1 Pet 4:3); "soul" (to designate persons) (psuchê) (2 Pet 2:8, 14; 1 Pet 1:9, 22; 2:11, 25; 3:20; 4:19); use of the metaphor "growth" to describe spiritual progress (auxanein) (1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18). b. Both letters have the same greeting: "Grace and peace be to you abundantly" (charis humin kai eirênê plêthuneiê) (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2). c. Both letters identify the number of those saved in the ark as eight, even though no such number is provided in Gen 6:18; 7:7, 13; 8:16 (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5). d. In both letters, "patience" (makrothumia) is said to be the basis for God's postponement of judgment (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 3:9). B. Style 1. The arguments from style for an author for 2 Peter different from the author of 1 Peter are more convincing. The noticeable difference of style between the two letters may imply two different authors, although it is not inconceivable that an author could adopt two different literary styles depending on his purpose and the historical context. Jerome explains the literary differences between 1 & 2 Peter by postulating Peter's use of a different "interpreter" (interpres) or what we would now call amanuenses, for each letter (Ep. Hedib. 120 Quaest. 11). Is Jerome’s explanation feasible? (See 1 Pet 5:12.) Jerome's explanation is feasible, and is probably the best. Whatever differences in style there are between 1 and 2 Peter that remain inexplicable of the hypothesis of a Petrine authorship could be explained as resulting from the contribution of two different amanuenses or Peter's having written one of the letters and an amanuensis the other. 2. It should also be noted that Papias claims that Mark was Peter's "interpreter" (hermeneutês) (H.E. 3.39.15). According to Clement of Alexandria, Peter also made use of an "interpreter" identified as a certain Glaucias (Strom. 7.17). Clearly, the evidence points to the conclusion that Peter had assistants working under his authority so that it is credible that he could have made use of an amanuensis when writing a letter. 1.1.5. Other Arguments against Petrine Authorship Considered There are four other arguments based on three passages from 2 Peter put forward against the authenticity of 2 Peter and for it as a pseudepigraphon. None of these, however, is decisive. A. 2 Pet 1:12-18. Those who reject the authenticity of 2 Peter see 1 Pet 1:12-18 as a transparent attempt by a forger to introduce into his text biographical elements for the purpose of lending credibility to the Petrine authorship of the letter. Some have even argued that the reference to the "holy mountain" in 2 Pet 1:18 derives from the second-century Apocalypse of Peter (15-17) (in the Ethiopic version): "And my Lord Jesus Christ our King said unto me: Let us go unto the holy mountain." If so, then 2 Peter must be later than it. Why is this argument not convincing? First, to argue that a forger introduced biographical elements into 2 Peter is circular, because these biographical inclusions could just as easily be truly autobiographical and not spurious. Second, it is equally possible to argue that the Apocalypse of Peter is dependent on 2 Peter. B. 2 Pet 3:1-4. The author is said to betray the fact that he is writing in the post-apostolic period in two ways. First, he refers to "the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the command of our Lord and savior [through] your apostles" (3:2). It is claimed that by what he says the author implies that he is not an apostle, and so could not be Peter: to refer to "your apostles" is supposed to exclude the author from this group. A similar reference in Polycarp's second-century letter to the Philippians is said to betray the post-apostolic origin of 2 Peter: "As did the apostles who brought us the gospel and prophets who announced beforehand the coming of the Lord" (Phil. 6). In other words, the reference to "prophets and apostles" in 2 Pet 3:2 is anachronistic. Why is the argument that the author cannot be counted among the apostles not convincing? (See Eph 2:20; 3:5.) It is possible to take the reference to "your apostles" to mean "those missionaries with whom you are familiar" (see Paul's statement in 1 Cor 9:2 and 1 Clem. 44.1). The word apostle can have the broader meaning of one who is sent out to proclaim the gospel. But even if apostle is used in the more restrictive sense of "one of the twelve," Peter does not necessarily exclude himself from this group; rather, he only excludes himself from the group of apostles with whom the readers were familiar. It is also possible that the phrase "your apostles" is intended to stand in contrast to the false teachers, and so Peter could include himself among the former group. The pairing of prophets and apostles also occurs in Eph 2:20; 3:5, and so is not an anachronism. Thus, the reference to prophets and apostles in Pol. Phil. 6 is not evidence of the post-apostolic origin of 2 Peter. Second, that the author refers to the fact that there will arise scoffers who will reject the teaching of Christ's parousia is said to reflect the fact that, in the post-apostolic period, there did arise scoffers—Gnostic false teachers—who rejected this teaching. Thus, 2 Pet 3:3-4 would actually be a vaticinium ex eventu. The reference to "the fathers" who have died would be to the previous apostolic generation, so that the "scoffers" are from the post-apostolic generation. Why is this argument not convincing? Such a conclusion is circular, because it is equally possible that Peter wrote of the coming of "scoffers" who are not to be identified with second-century Gnostics, but with earlier false teachers. There is nothing distinctly Gnostic about the description of the false teachers in 2 Peter. If so, the reference to the fact that "the fathers" who have died is a reference to the first generation of believers, those who first believed as adults, some of whom will be dead when these scoffers will arise, in the near future, but before the second century. No doubt, some of the first generation of believers had already died at the time of the composition of 2 Peter (which is to be date in the mid-60's). C. 2 Pet 3:15-16. It is said that the author's reference to a collection of all Paul's letters and the implicit inclusion of these letters among "the rest of the graphai" reflects a later period when the canon had begun to be formed and Paul's letters were included in it. There is nothing unusual about the existence of a collection of Paul's letters in the apostolic period, but there is no necessary implication that the phrase "all of his letters" means the thirteen, canonical Pauline letters, but just all the letters that happen to be in Peter's collection. The more pressing question, however, is what is meant by the phrase "the rest of the graphai." Does this refer to the other scriptures and is, therefore, an anachronistic attribution of a scriptural status to Paul's letters? It is possible that "the graphai" means "other writings," and so there is no implication of canonicity. Yet, even if "the graphai" means the Old Testament, it is probable that even in the apostolic period Paul's letters had a scriptural status. After all, Paul viewed his letters as authoritative for his churches (see 2 Thess 3:14; 1 Cor 2:16; 7:17; 14:37-39). Besides, 2 Pet 3:15-16 implies that Paul is still alive, for otherwise the past tense would have been used: "Paul wrote..." This is consistent with Petrine authorship. 1.2. External Evidence The early church had some doubts about the Petrine authorship and some hesitancy about accepting 2 Peter into the canon. 1.2.1. Origen’s comments in his Expositions on the Gospel according to John, as quoted by Eusebius (H.E. 6.25.8), provides evidence that some in Origen’s day doubted the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter: "And Peter, on whom the church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle, and, it may be, a second also, for it is doubted." Origen also said that 2 Peter was not known until his own time. 1.2.2. Eusebius classified 2 Peter as one of the antilegomena, the disputed books, and did not personally accept its canonicity: "Of the disputed books which are nevertheless known to most are the letter called James, that of Jude, the second letter of Peter, and the so-called second and third letters of John" (H.E. 3.25.3). He wrote earlier in that same chapter, "But the so-called second letter [of Peter] we have not received as canonical, but nevertheless it has appeared useful to many, and has been studied with other scriptures" (H.E. 3.3.1; see also 3.3.4.). Eusebius' statement implies that a reason for his rejection 2 Peter as canonical was that, unlike 1 Peter, it was not quoted by the "ancient elders" (see quote from Eusebius in section on 1 Peter). 1.2.3. As already indicated, Jerome recorded that doubt existed about the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter because the style differed so markedly from that of 1 Peter (De vir. ill. 1). 1.2.4. Many modern New Testament scholars interpret the doubts of the early church about Petrine authorship and its hesitancy to accept 2 Peter as canonical, in conjunction with the differences of style and vocabulary between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, as indications that the apostle Peter did not write 2 Peter. Rather, they claim pseudonymity for the letter, and classify it as one of the many texts circulating in the second and third centuries that purported to be from Peter's hand, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Peter and the Gospel of Peter. The attribution of the letter to "Simon Peter" in the salutation (2 Pet 1:1) and personal references throughout the letter (2 Pet 1:13-18; 3:1, 15-16) are literary devices designed to give verisimilitude to its alleged Petrine origin. How do you evaluate this position? How do you account for the external evidence, if you accept Petrine authorship? The skeptical
position with respect to 2 Peter is unjustified. The differences in
style and vocabulary do not necessarily lead to the conclusion of its
non-Petrine authorship. Besides, such differences can be explained,
as Jerome said, by postulating the use of different amamuenses. Doubt
about the authorship of 2 Peter and its disputed status in the early
church could stem from the fact that it was not well-known. One must
not forget that 2 Peter was accepted as canonical, in spite of some
doubts, whereas other works alleged to be written by Peter were not.
2.1. Whom does Peter identify as the intended readers of 2 Peter in 2 Pet 1:1? The intended readers of 2 Peter were "those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ." 2.2. The description of the intended readers in 2 Pet 1:1 is very general. Given what Peter says in 2 Pet 3:1, what may be inferred further about the intended readers? Whoever they were, the intended readers had received a first letter from the author. 2.3. If the first letter referred to in 2 Pet 3:1 is 1 Peter, then the intended readers are the same for 2 Peter as 1 Peter: "God's elect...dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." This conclusion, however, is far from certain. Peter describes the first letter as having the same purpose as 2 Peter: "This is the second letter that I write to you, beloved; in both I stimulate your pure mind to remind you of the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and savior [through] your apostles." It seems that Peter has two reasons for writing both letters. First, he intends to remind his readers of what the "holy prophets" have spoken, by which he means the Old Testament prophets. Second, his purpose is to remind them of Jesus' commandment, but to which commandment this refers is not clear. It seems that the reason that Peter thinks that this twofold reminder is important is because of the threat of false teaching. If 2 Pet 3:3-4 is also part of what Peter wanted to bring to mind for his readers in both letters (2 Pet 3:3 follows on 3:4 without a break in the sentence), then a further purpose in writing 1 Peter is to warn against false teachers who deny the parousia of Christ. Do the contents of 1 Peter fit the description of the purpose of the first letter sent to the intended readers? (See 1 Pet 1:10-12.) The description of the purpose of the first letter is general and somewhat vague and so it is not entirely clear whether 1 Peter fits the description of the purpose of the first letter or not. Nevertheless, it seems that the twofold purpose of the first letter does not coincide well with the contents of 1 Peter. In 1 Pet 1:10-12, Peter refers to the Old Testament prophets, but there is no clear reference to any commands of Jesus through the apostles in the letter. Moreover, there is no polemic against any false teaching in 1 Peter. 2.4. 2 Pet 1:16 implies that, in the past, Peter had personal contact with the intended readers: "When we made known to you the power and parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ." It seems that he and others visited the intended readers and taught them in person. In 1 Peter, on the other hand, there is some evidence that Peter was not known personally to the readers (1 Pet 1:12), in which case 2 Peter could not be addressed to the same readers as 1 Peter. 2.5. What do you conclude about the intended readers from all the available data? There is probably insufficient evidence to conclude that the intended readers of 2 Peter were the same as those of 1 Peter, "God's elect...dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." If his first letter to his readers (see 2 Pet 3:1) was not 1 Peter, then Peter must have written more than two letters, possibly to different groups of intended readers. If so, then the identity of the intended readers of 2 Peter is unknown.
3.1. In 2 Pet 3:15-16, Peter refers to the fact that Paul had written a letter or letters to his intended readers. What does this imply about the date of the composition of 2 Peter? When Peter wrote, his intended readers were in possession of a letter or letters that Paul had written. Thus, Peter must have been writing sometime after Paul wrote this letter or these letters. But which letter or letters from Paul that the intended readers possessed is indeterminable. This means that one cannot use this letter or letters as a terminus a quo by which to date 2 Peter, since it is unknown which letter or letters the readers had in their possession. 3.2. 2 Pet 1:14 indicates that Peter writes 2 Peter just prior to his death: "Knowing that shortly is the putting off of my tent [i.e., body]." It seems that Peter knew that he is about to die. This could only mean that he was about to be executed, for otherwise he could not be certain that his death was imminent. Early church tradition situates Peter's death during the Nero's persecution of the church (Eusebius, H.E. 2.25; Lactantius, De mort. persec. 2.5; Origen as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 3.1.2; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.5.1; Scorp. 15). Jerome dates Peter's death to the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero, which is 68 (De vir. Ill. 1). Epiphanius, however, places the death of Peter in the twelfth year of Nero's reign (Adv. Haer. 27.6). 3.3. Taking all the evidence into consideration, which date would you give to the composition of the 2 Peter? Peter wrote 2 Peter was written towards the end of his life; since he died, according to church tradition, during Nero's persecution of the church, Peter must have written 2 Peter in the mid-60's and maybe even as late as 68. Such a date would explain why Peter's intended readers have certain of Paul's letters, because most, if not all, of Paul's letters had been written by that time.
If he wrote 2 Peter just prior to his execution by Nero, where did Peter write 2 Peter? Peter was in Rome at the end of his life, and was martyred there under Nero. This is the probable place of the composition of 2 Peter.
Outline of the Second Letter of Peter A. 1:1-2 This represents the salutation
of the letter. B. 1:3-3:18b This represents the main body of the letter. 1. 1:3-21 Peter instructs his readers on what they should believe and how they should live; this is intended to be contrasted with 2:1-22. a. 1:3-4 He says that believers have access to divine power, enabling them to have everything needed for life and godliness. In so doing, they become participants in the divine nature. b. 1:5-11 Based on what he said in 1:3-4, Peter gives a list of virtues that Christians should possess. If they possess these virtues, his readers will be effective and productive in their knowledge of Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have these virtues, he has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. He exhorts his readers to make their calling and election sure. c. 1:12-21 Peter says that he will keep on reminding his readers of these things as long as he is alive; he expects, however, to die soon. He will make every effort to ensure that they do not forget these things—presumably through some unidentified writings. Peter contrasts his message with mythology: because he has been an eyewitness of Christ's majesty at the transfiguration, Peter's teaching cannot be classified as mythological. His readers are to heed the prophetic word, which confirms his message, and he adds that interpretation of prophecy is not a matter of one's own interpretation, because prophecy is inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2. 2:1-22 Peter refutes the false teaching prevalent in the churches of the intended readers. a. 2:1-3 Peter predicts the coming of false teachers and says that they will introduce destructive heresies, denying the Lord who bought them and bringing destruction upon themselves. These teachers are motivated by greed, and many will follow them. b. 2:4-10 Peter gives examples of God's judgment from previous eras: rebellious angels, the antediluvian world, Sodom and Gomorrah. He promises that God will rescue the righteous person and keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. c. 2:11-22 Peter describes the false teachers referred to earlier: they slander angels, are like animals, are immoral, have left the straight road. They are compared to Balaam who prophesied for money. They had once escaped the corruption of the world, but have become entangled in it once again. 3. 3:1-18 Peter deals with the coming of Christ and the destruction of the world. a. 3:1-2 Peter reminds them that this is his second letter to them and asks them to remember the words spoken by the prophets and Jesus. b. 3:3-10 Peter explains that there will be those who scoff at the idea of Christ's coming, saying that the world will continue as it always has. Peter draws a comparison between this world and that before the flood: the latter was destroyed by water, whereas the former will be destroyed by fire. He reminds his readers that God is not slow to keep his promises, but that He measures time differently: "With the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day." He says that God delays judgment to give people an opportunity to repent. The day of the Lord will come suddenly, like a thief. c. 3:11-18 Peter concludes with an exhortation. In view of the coming judgment, he exhorts his readers to be expectant of the coming of the day of God and to lead holy and pious lives. He also makes reference to the fact that some misinterpret some of the more obscure passages in Paul's letters. He ends with a warning not to be corrupted by error but to grow.
6.1. Based on what he wrote in 2 Pet 3:1-2, what was Peter's twofold purpose in writing 2 Peter? Does 2 Peter conform to this twofold purpose? (See 2 Pet 1:19-21; 2:21) Peter wrote 2 Peter in order to stimulate his readers to wholesome thinking. In particular, he wanted to remind them of what they heard through the prophets and the command given by "our Lord and Savior" through the apostles. In 2 Pet 1:19-21, Peter writes "We have the more certain prophetic word." What he means is that the church has the prophetic word about Christ that confirms the apostolic, eyewitness testimony about Christ (2 Pet 1:16-18). He no doubt expects his readers to call to mind the details of this prophetic word about Christ. Peter also makes reference to "the holy commandment" as that which the false teachers have rejected. In this context, "holy commandment" means Christian ethical requirements (2:21). In Peter's view, this ethical requirement ultimately derives from Christ. Thus, 2 Peter does conform to this twofold purpose. 6.2. Based on its contents in general why did Peter write 2 Peter? From the
contents of the letter, it is clear that Peter wrote 2 Peter in order
to warn against false teachers and to explain the delay in the coming
of Christ. It is probable that the false teachers were questioning the
doctrine of the coming of Christ. He also aimed to instruct and encourage
his readers generally. |
1.
Who wrote the Second Letter of Peter?
Last Modified On: