2 Peter Introduction Bible Teaching

Welcome
Prayer
Music
Silence

Whoa . . .key-doe-key! 2nd Peter – the epistle of.

2nd Peter Introduction
December 13th 2015
Meat
Of all the epistles accepted into the New Testament canon today
And I say today because the set we now use is not the set that has always been used.
First of all, the Catholics held the Bible up equally with their own policies and Popes and so they were much more loose with what was accepted as canon and what was not – that’s why they Catholics have a number of other books in their Bibles than Protestants.
Frankly, the need to decide which books were truly acceptable was ultimately decided upon at the Reformation because it was during this time that Sola Scriptura came to fame and if “scripture alone” was to be the governing guide of the church then which books of scripture would be included became paramount.
That being said we have to remember that both Erasmus and Luther placed Hebrews, James, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John and Revelation at the back of their Bibles believing that they were not as convincing (in doctrine and in possessing apostolic origin) as the rest.
I have said that Luther also protested against 2nd Peter and I was wrong in this.
See, the main reason these other books were suspect to Luther was because of their questionable authorship and because of this they were not accepted by most believers in the early Church.
Because II Peter, above ALL other books, was similarly disputed by believers in the early church, I though Luther included it. But he didn’t.
And from this we can see that one of the main drivers for Luther rejecting the other four books had to do with doctrine and content rather than questionable authorship.
In any case, the book of 2 Peter remains the most difficult among all the New Testament books in passing the litmus test for authenticity.
The epistle issues are somewhat complex.
First there is the rejection that Peter is the writer. In fact, most scholars and higher critics assign “pseudonymity” to the epistle, which means an author assumed the name of another, writing supposedly on his or her behalf—or in his or her name.
There is a built-in slam against any book that carries anything that has to do with pseudo as the prefix means “false.”
One of the first big questions about II Peter is was it written during Peter’s lifetime?
One Bible scholar, Richard Bauchman says
“The evidence which really rules out composition during Peter’s lifetime is that of literary genre and that of date. Either of these might be fatal for any degree of Petrine authorship. Together they must be regarded as entirely conclusive against Petrine authorship.”
But other scholars disagree.
This epistle was examined, prayed over, considered, and debated more than any other New Testament book—including Revelation – by the early church.
One reason for all the attention is that a lot of fake epistles were written in Peter’s name and so this automatically raised a red flag when it came forth as Peter’s Second Epistle.
Now listen – the book was recognized as canonical by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century.
These same Councils rejected the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement because they were not of apostolic origin so we know that at that time they, at least, trusted that Peter was the author.
But again, at the Reformation it was regarded as second-class Scripture by Luther, was rejected by Erasmus, and regarded with great hesitancy by Calvin.
There are a couple of reasons for this resistance:
The External Evidence
The Internal Evidence
References to Apocryphal writings
Almost verbatim recitations within II Peter from other disputed books.

Let’s talk about the External Evidence of II Peter – it’s not conclusive, but it is noteworthy.
The common view by those who hold to pseudonymity is that 2 Peter was not written until the second century because of it isn’t mentioned until way too late in the writings of the early Church fathers.
But this can be disputed because we can see mss evidence in earlier writings but just not as early as some would like.
The reason this is important is because if the Epistle was written by Peter during his life then it is believed that it would have been around and thus quoted by the early church fathers earlier.
The earliest absolute reference to II Peter is in Origen, whom Eusebius (H.E. vi. 25) refers to as having said that “Peter left one acknowledge epistle, and ‘perhaps also a second, for it is disputed….’
But we have nothing earlier than Origen who died in 254 AD.
The struggle over 2 Peter began early in church history. According to Merrill C Tenney “it was quoted less and discussed more by the Church Fathers than any other single book of the New Testament.”
One of the arguments to support II Peter and external evidence for it is the fact that we COULD believe that it was being quoted by the Early Church Fathers – even some 22 times – but the references are so general that it’s hard to prove they came from this epistle.

The internal evidence for the authenticity of 2 Peter is there but not without its problems. First of all the book clearly intends its readers to believe Peter to be its author – it even includes personal references to Peter’s life and opens with the name “Simon Peter” as the author in the first verse.

Additionally it mentions the immanency of his death (as foretold by the Lord – which is a unique addition for a forger to include and the author also claims to have been an eyewitness to the Transfiguration (1:16–18).
For the cynical these things are easy to explain away. For the pure in heart not so much.
Some see these references as evidence against authenticity under the guise of pseudonymity.
Barnett says:
“This zeal of the epistle for its own authenticity creates more doubt than confidence and other data fail to support its claim.”15
Strachan agrees: “They do not nearly amount to evidence that the writer is the Apostle himself.”16
Perhaps a more balanced approach is suggested by Tenney, who says:
“While the external evidence for the genuineness of II Peter is not so clear and convincing as it is for other books of the New Testament, the internal evidence creates at least a presumption of authenticity.”17
One of the suspicious factors against II Peter (verse I) is that in I Peter the apostle introduces himself as Peter but in II Peter uses Simon Peter.
It is thought by some that having been renamed Peter by the Lord that the Apostle would never refer back to his Hebrew name.
Another internal issue has to do with the Author mentioning the fact that Jesus told Peter how he would die and this is recorded only in John’s Gospel – which was available to people only after Peter’s death.
To me, if Peter was the author he could have referred to the Lords words (recorded in John) well before John wrote them because he was there and heard the Lord say them.
So it comes down to how people sort of view the world, doesn’t it? With suspicion or with open arms.
One of the clearest personal allusions to the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter is his reference to his presence on the Mount of Transfiguration (1:16–18) as validation of his eyewitness authority.
To Peter the mount was “sacred,” for he was one of the few who got to witness the event.
Supporter of II Peter as valid, Green, observes:
“It is interesting that the roots of both skenoma (tabernacle) and exodus (decease, verse 15) should occur in the Lucan account of the transfiguration, to which Peter goes on to refer.
If 2 Peter is a pseudepigraph, its author must have been sophisticated in the extreme to produce so delicate a touch.”
We might ask ourselves when reading II Peter:
What could Peter have done to prove that this epistle was his!?
I mean, if we are just looking at the book without suspicion, he mentions the Lord describing his death, he mentions witnessing the Transfiguration, and this is a sign of it being false?
Not so sure.
There is another point of scrutiny used against the epistle. In II Peter 3:4 he writes:
2nd Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
Again it is asserted that the reference to “the death of the fathers” refers to the Apostles and it is therefore believed that Peter could not have written it himself because all the apostles would not yet have died.
But even I can see that when Peter used the line, “the Fathers” it is an absolute reference to the Old Testament fathers- a line used all through the New Testament.
In fact “Nowhere else in the New Testament nor the Apostolic Fathers is [the Greek word for fathers] used of Christian ‘patriarchs’ but it is frequently used to describe the Jewish patriarchs.”
Also, in chapter 2, where the author refers to all of Paul’s writings as being on par with “other Scriptures,” it is seen by some to clinch pseudonymity, because all of Paul’s letters were not written by the time of Peter’s death.
However “all” need not be taken this way, for it could simply mean “all he has written so far.”
Bible commentator Mayor disagrees and says:
“A collection of later writings known to the writer as Scripture, of which St. Paul’s epistles formed a part … can hardly be conceived as possible before the middle of the second century.”
Then there is the issue of the “second letter,” which 2 Peter refers to in chapter 3 verse 1, saying:
“This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:”
Just reading this we would naturally believe that the writer was referring to the 1st Epistle and that this was the second.
And while this is possible, the criticism comes from the fact that this “second letter” following does NOT seem to, in any sense, remind the reader of the contents that were included in the first, as promised.
Cynics say this proves a forgery but defenders believe that II Peter is a letter that follows up on another letter that was lost OR that this II Epistle does do what it promises we just aren’t seeing it in the way Peter meant it.
Then there is the issue of 2nd Peter 3:8 where the author, quoting Psalm 90:4 says that “a thousand years are like a day and a day as a thousand years for the Lord.
Now stay with me. People who believe that Peter was NOT the author of this epistle claim that it was written in the second century.
Well during the 2nd Century there was a major doctrine being thrown around called Chiliasm (which simply was a topic over the 1000 year reign of Christ.
If this was a forgery and if it was written in the second century but someone other than Peter, and this passage was appealed to, because the topic of Chiliasm was so hot at that time it is almost assured that the psuedopigrapher would have commented on it.
But we get nothing – a proof that Peter did in fact write this.
Then there is “the style” of writing between 1 and 2 Peter. Very different. On this basis alone many – perhaps most – have doubted that Peter is the author.
1 Peter’s Greek is cultured and written fairly well but scholars say 2 Peter is “ like baroque art, almost vulgar in its pretentiousness and effusiveness.”
In terms of true scholarship this is perhaps the least powerful point but it does play a role, one which caused detractor of the Epistle (Bauckham) to write:
“The relationship of 1 and 2 Peter is ambiguous in its relevance to the question of Petrine authorship, but certainly Peter cannot be the real author of both letters.”
Commentator Wand agrees, saying:
“Thus the writer takes every pains to let us know that he is the Apostle Peter. But if he is S. Peter, it is certainly not the Peter that we know… . The two Epistles indeed show a contrast at nearly every point.”
Is there a reasonable response to this?
In comparing the letters we find that Peter used a secretary, or what is called an amanuensis, to compose 1 Peter but no such mention of one is made in 2 Peter.
This would explain why 1 Peter’s Greek is so polished, and why 2 Peter, written by the rugged fisherman himself, is more rough. By the way Paul also used an amanuenses.
Another objection arises in that Peter could not have written both letters because the content is so different.
However, the nature of the circumstances determines the nature of the content, and different purposes in writing would be a simple solution to the epistles’ different themes.
As we’ve seen First Peter is an admonishment to stand strong in tribulation and 2 Peter is a stirring up to remember the basics of the faith (which is a fitting theme for Peter to emphasize at the end of his life).
While it is the popular opinion Peter could not have written both 1 and 2 Peter, it is universally agreed that the same author wrote 1 Timothy and Titus. However, when one compares the ratio of common words between the pairs of books, it suggests a consistency, not a contradiction, of authors.
(see figure on board)

After comparing the remarkable similarities in language between 1 and 2 Peter, Bible scholar Weiss concludes:
“From a biblical and theological point of view the second epistle of Peter is allied to no New Testament writing more closely than to his first.”
Of course we would EXPECT this of a pseudopigric work. But also of the real deal, right?

Everything in life is a choice, a decision. Let continue with our analysis by comparing themes of the two epistles.

Because the major themes of 1 and 2 Peter are so different, this is often held as evidence against Petrine authorship.
I do not see any validity in variant themes between the two letters as evidencing forgery. The themes of the things we write – especially by the Holy Spirit – are dependent upon need.
However, even a casual reading in the English text shows a dependence of 2 Peter upon Jude OR Jude upon 2 Peter (or, which is less likely, with both depending on some lost document or another).
It is the common assumption that 2 Peter borrowed from Jude. This is the stance those who think 2 Peter is a fraud because the date for the writing of Jude is set as after the date of Peter’s death.
Scholar Meade writes:
“Literarily the work is dependent on the Epistle of Jude…. the problem is that, authentic or not, Jude is usually dated after the lifetime of Peter.”
I think this is jumping to some big conclusions because when it comes to dating the books of the New Testament we are at best throwing darts in a dimly lit room.
Also, there exists no compelling evidence to show a “late date” for Jude, or for that matter, Jude’s primacy over Peter.
Now, supporters of II Peter suggest say that even if Jude was Peter’s source, there is no reason Peter could not have used Jude’s material in his letter.
Says defender of II Peter Green,
“The ancients had no law of copyright. In short, the question of the relationship of 2 Peter to Jude has no bearing whatever on the authenticity of 2 Peter.”
Support for this view is found in further justifications by other scholars who say things like:
“If Paul was not averse to adapting to his own purposes the writings of the heathen poets, lists of Stoic virtues, fragments of hymns, for the dubious war cries of his opponents, is there any reason to suppose that Peter would have been unwilling to draw from the work of a brother of his Master?
Or another asserts that Peter employed Jude’s letter because,
“It would not be enough merely to pass on the letter of St. Jude. His own name was better known, and would carry greater weight with it”
I can accept that either Jude borrow from Peter or Peter from Jude. I have to accept it because Peter certainly borrowed from Paul (or less likely Paul borrowed from Peter).
In fact in the case of II Peter let’s throw up the major evidence that one author borrowed from another.
Now remember, Jude is only one chapter so it is presented only in verses.
2 Peter 1:22 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
Jude 2 1:2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

2 Peter 2:1 “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Jude 4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Peter 2:2 “And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.”
Jude 4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2nd Peter 2:3 “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.”
Jude 4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Peter 2:4 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”
Jude 6 “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

2 Peter 2:6 “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.”
Jude 7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

2 Peter 2:9 “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:”
Jude 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

2 Peter 2:10 “But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.”
Jude 8 “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.”

2 Peter 2:11 “Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.”
Jude 9 “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”

2 Peter 2:12 “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption.”
Jude 10 “But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.”

2 Peter 2:13 “And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;”
Jude 12 “These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.”

2 Peter 2:15 “Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.”
Jude 11 “Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.”

2 Peter 2:17 “These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.”
Jude 12,13 “These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”

2 Peter 2:18 “For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.”
Jude 16 “These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.”

2 Peter 3:2“That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior:”
Jude 17 “But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Peter 3:3 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.”
Jude 18 “How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.”

2 Peter 3:14 “Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.”
Jude 24 “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,”

2 Peter 3:18 “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.”
Jude 25 “To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”

As we said 2 Peter is commonly held to be pseudepigraphal in nature, which is the practice of writing under someone else’s name.

Now this is not simply a “pen name,” as we have today, but it is the deliberate taking of a real person’s name for the purpose of influence in publication.
Because of the difference in the style and the theological emphases between 1 and 2 Peter, Commentator Kelly says:
“We must therefore conclude that 2 Peter belongs to the luxuriant crop of pseudo-Petrine literature which sprang up around the memory of the Prince of the apostles.”
I mention this because there is this whole school of thought that Pseudopigrapha writings were acceptable in the New Testament age and not a negative; that people would, sort of as an honor to the name they were writing in, speak as if they were them.
To me this view is dubious and discounts the fact that the apostles wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
And perhaps this is the most important point to consider as we examine II Peter – are the contents consistent with the rest of scripture?
In spite of all the doubts regarding the epistle it seems that the early Christian church decided in its favor because the quality of its message suggested that it was authentic.
And we must remember that it was the same discernment that confidently rejected what became know as the spurious Petrine literature. So the fact that II Peter ultimately gained acceptance in spite of the pseudo-Petrine literature is an evidence more favorable to its authenticity than against it.
It may be conclusively stated that there is no definitive evidence against the authenticity of 2 Peter in spite of the fact that the majority of scholarship today rejects apostolic authorship.
Again, the external evidence, while not proving authenticity, neither disproves it, for the evidence provides twenty-two possible usages of 2 Peter.
The internal evidence, particularly the personal allusions to Peter’s life, clearly means to communicate that the author is Peter.
The issues regarding history, doctrine, and style are, again, not conclusively against Petrine authorship, but on the contrary, may be used to support it.
And the issues of doctrine and style can be attributed naturally to purpose and Peter’s use of an amanuensis.
I personally find the borrowing from Jude one of the greatest issues with the Epistle. Not because that makes the Epistle inferior (in any way) but it does something to the idea that many Christians carry about has all these books being created by the Holy Spirit falling on these writers and them creating epistles out of nothing.
I believe II Peter is the work of Peter and I believe that Peter was inspired when he composed it.
But I think the borrowing from Jude shows (or Jude from II Peter) shows that the way the Apostles were inspired could extend way beyond how we normally think it occurs.
A denial that II Peter was written by Peter cuts to the very heart of the biblical doctrine of inerrancy. If Peter didn’t author it then there is a tremendous problem with calling it inspired or canon.

And if it is included in the NT but it is a pseudopigraphal work this would throw much of the NT into question.
So, regardless of its late acceptance into scripture we have to admit that it was accepted as Canon.
And if 2 Peter is Scripture, and if Scripture is inerrant, then the author must be the one whom the word of God says he is: “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.”

Maybe we will get a better flavor through studying it – which we will begin doing next week.

Question
Comments

1 Timothy—537 words
Titus—399 words
161 common words
1 Peter—543 words
2 Peter—399 words
153 common words