THE FORGOTTEN AND FORSAKEN LETTER: AN INTRODUCTION TO SECOND PETER

THE FORGOTTEN AND FORSAKEN LETTER: AN INTRODUCTION TO SECOND PETER

By: Daniel McMillin

Second Peter is a book that has been lost in the pages of Scripture and almost swept under the rug completely among Bible students and scholars alike. It is a book that is absent behind the pulpit and neglected in the academy. It is for that reason that I believe 2 Peter has become the “forgotten and forsaken letter” of the Church. We have lost the beauty and elegance of 2 Peter, and it is time that we reclaim its power in the life of the Church. I fear that this book has been overlooked due to “its brevity and because scholars question is authenticity,” as Thomas Schreiner suggests.[1] It is true, as Simon J. Kistemaker similarly said in full detail, “Second Peter is arguably one of the most neglected books in the New Testament canon. It has lived on the margins of modern scholarship for generations, receiving substantially less academic attention than other writings of a similar length…Since the earliest stages of Christianity, 2 Peter has been largely overlooked, with no mention of it (by name) until the third century. Even in the modern day, it is preached less frequently in local churches than other biblical books and not studied (or cited) as often by individual Christians. No doubt this neglect is due to the critical issues regarding authorship and date, as well as the number of difficult and complex passages that focus on God’s future destruction of the world and judgment on sin.”[2] I am also weary that this book has been forgotten because we do not enjoy the difficulty of such a book, nor do we hope for the day of the Lord but tremble in fear at the very thought of the judgment. But that is precisely why we need a book like 2 Peter, because our minds must be challenged since we are engaging with the revealed knowledge of God and we require confirmation that our calling and election is sure.

AUTHORSHIP OF SECOND PETER

The authenticity of Peter’s authorship of 2 Peter is heavily debated among scholars. As Darian R. Lockett said, “More than any other New Testament text, 2 Peter’s authorship and authenticity have been questioned.”[3] The consensus among critical scholars leans toward an anonymous author who penned this letter around the late to early second century AD. “The vast majority of critical scholars,” Bart Ehrman says, “agree that whoever wrote the book, it was not Jesus’ disciple Simon Peter. As was the case with 1 Peter, this author is a relatively sophisticated and literate Greek-speaking Christian, not an Aramaic-speaking Jewish peasant.”[4] In sum, the second epistle of Peter is either a forgery that claims to have been written by Peter or an authentic letter written by the apostle Peter. There are six major objections that Carson and Moo summarize:

1.     The Greek of the letter could not have been written by the apostle Peter. The vocabulary and style are quite distinct from that of 1 Peter. And even if the Greek of 1 Peter is not the apostle’s—because of the use of an amanuensis or because it is pseudonymous—the Greek of 2 Peter could not be attributed to Peter.

2.     The false teaching combated in the letter is second-century Gnosticism.

3.     In 2 Peter 3:15-16, the author implies that the letters of Paul belong to the category “the Scriptures.” Some scholars think that the text implies a full collection of the Pauline epistles, and such a collection could not, of course, have existed during Peter’s lifetime.

4.     References to the death of “our fathers” (interpreted as the earliest Christian generation), the importance of apostolic tradition (cf. 3:2, 16), and the teaching that the Parousia might be delayed for a long time (3:8) betray a later date, when the hope for an imminent parousia had faded and a fixed ecclesiastical authority had arisen.

5.     The letter is not strongly attested in the early church.

6.     The reference to Peter’s imminent death and the focus on remembrance of Peter’s teaching (1:12-15) reveal that the letter takes the form of a “testament.”[5]

For a thorough defense of the authenticity of Petrine authorship, see Thomas Schriener’s commentary, where he concludes that “Good reasons still exist to support the authenticity of 2 Peter. One is not sacrificing one's intellect in believing that 2 Peter is authentically Petrine. Indeed, Petrine authorship is still the most credible position.”[6] 

RECEPTION OF SECOND PETER IN THE EARLY CHURCH

Peter was a popular figure in the early Church and would have written something in his lifetime. Of course, this popularity negatively led to many pseudonymous (“a falsely named” document) Petrine documents such as the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. Since there were a plethora of Petrine forgeries, it is no wonder why so many early Christians debated the authenticity of 2 Peter since many questionable documents were popping up everywhere. The early Church exercised caution when reviewing the material found in 2 Peter to determine its authenticity, which was surely no easy task.[7] “While some Christians expressed doubts about 2 Peter, many others accepted the book from the beginning. People probably had doubts because the book was not widely used and because there were so many Petrine forgeries about.”[8]

While it is true that “no book of the Canon is so poorly attested among the [Church] Fathers,” it is also the case that, as Green notes, “no excluded book has nearly such weight of backing as 2 Peter.”[9] Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles suggest that “there is good evidence that 2 Peter was widely considered authoritative, which in many cases may imply belief in Peter’s authorship.”[10] Even though there were some doubts and debates that circulated among early Christians, the Church recognized the canonicity of 2 Peter at the end.[11] “Although it struggled to rise to the level of a canonical writing, it was,” as Frank Thielman suggests, “widely read and valued even before it found a place in the canonical lists of all major Christian traditions.”[12]

Throughout Church history, no one willingly accepted a known forgery. There is no evidence that the Church accepted anything other than holy Scripture. Only those documents that were recognized as Scripture, also known as the canon, were accepted and circulated by the early Christians.  Additionally, “All the evidence we possess suggests that pseudepigraphical letters were not common in the first or second centuries and that the few we know about were rejected as forgeries.”[13] It should also be noted that 2 Peter does not meet any of the qualifications for pseudepigrapha. As Green notes, pseudepigraphal writings often promote heresy, attempt to fill in historical gaps, contain elements of the pseudonymous author, and answer the present generation’s questions.[14] Since 2 Peter does not fit within the purview of pseudepigrapha and there are no reasonable arguments for dismissing 2 Peter’s authenticity, it is safe to say that this letter was genuinely authored by the apostle Peter himself. Indeed, “the very fact that 2 Peter was accepted as a canonical book, then, presumes that the early Christians who made this decision were sure that Peter wrote it.”[15]

DATE OF SECOND PETER

Those who propose a pseudonymous authorship of 2 Peter date the letter from the early to mid-second century AD.[16] However, those who hold to a Petrine authorship date the letter before the death of Nero in AD 68 and date the letter from around AD 64-68.[17] Since the author of 2 Peter suggests he is writing this letter before his “departure,” a euphemism for death (2 Pet. 1:13-14), it is certainly written towards the end of his life, before his death. Peter was more than likely killed under Nero around AD 65-66, where traditionally, it is said that Peter was crucified upside down.[18] According to Josh and Sean McDowell, “the early, consistent, and unanimous testimony is that Peter died as a martyr.”[19] If that is the case, then Peter is, as Carson and Moo suggest, “writing from Rome, and perhaps with Nero’s persecution already underway. The apostle senses that the time for the fulfillment of the Lord’s prophecy about his martyrdom had come, and he writes a final note of advice and caution before his end.”[20]

OCCASION AND AUDIENCE

It appears most likely that the author of 2 Peter is the author of 1 Peter since he is addressing the same audience as the author of both letters. Notice Peter’s greetings: “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” (1:1-2). The author uses the Hebrew name “Simeon” in an introductory fashion, which establishes the authenticity of his authorship since no pseudonymous author would dare to do such a thing. In addition, the targeted aim of the letter is introduced in the opening statements since 2 Peter is primarily concerned with the “knowledge” of the Triune God. The author of 2 Peter suggests that he has written to this audience before, which would only be possible if he were, indeed, the author of 1 Peter. “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles” (3:1-2). Since the author of this letter uses the familiar language of “beloved” on three other occasions (3:8, 14, 17) and alludes to a particular set of teachings that would have been commonly understood since they would be receiving this letter as a “reminder” of those previous instructions, namely, the second coming of Christ, it seems most fitting that the first letter sent to this Church in Asia Minor was 1 Peter.

Peter is well informed on the false teaching that is being promoted among his brethren and writes these things so they may defend themselves from the erroneous propaganda being spread. He says, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep” (2:1-3)

The falsehood that is being spread in Asia Minor appears to be a pressing matter that the Church is experiencing that requires immediate action. Those who promote these “destructive heresies” and live destructive lives are introducing a distorted theology and disruptive behavior, which both lead to destruction. That is why “the apostle Peter exhorts the churches in northwest Asia Minor to resist these false teachers and condemn them. As the true people of God, they are to live in accordance with the truth of the gospel and expect Christ’s second coming as sovereign king.”[21] 

Peter states his thesis in 3:18: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” This statement serves multiple purposes. (1) It offers a summary of the letter’s contents, (2) it encourages the readers to “grow,” which is the targeted outcome of the letter, and (3) it elevates the Lordship of the Risen Savior who will return in glory.

2 PETER AND JUDE

Moo recognizes that “2 Peter and Jude closely resemble each other. Each was written in response to false teaching; the false teaching they oppose appears to be almost the same; and they denounce the false teachers in similar terms.”[22] But why are these two epistles so similar? (1) 2 Peter borrows from Jude; (2) Jude borrows from 2 Peter; and (3) 2 Peter and Jude borrow from an outside source. It appears most likely that Jude wrote his letter first, and Peter used Jude’s writings when he wrote his second letter to the church in Asia Minor since each of these groups was facing similar problems. In addition, it should be observed that the author of Jude and 2 Peter is the same author, namely, the Holy Spirit, who moves the human authors (2 Pet. 1:20-21).Some scholars suggest that the parallels between 2 Peter and Jude are further evidence of a pseudonymous authorship. However, this poses a false dichotomy in scholarship. “Textual dependence does not preclude Petrine authorship. Peter’s use of Jude poses no problems.”[23]

FALSE TEACHERS

The exact nature of the heretical teachings presented in 2 Peter is uncertain. In fact, it is possibly one of the more difficult books in the New Testament when interpreting the exact circumstances of the letter. While we may want to fit these heretical teachings in a box and concisely define or sketch out their theology, we must come to terms with the reality that “we face our distance from the original events here since the letter was written to Peter’s churches, who knew the false teachers well.”[24] Much of the discussion that surrounds the letter’s false teaching is primarily speculation. Some authors speak with more certainty than they should, while others are too modest to be clear. As Carson and Moo say, “Peter is more interested in condemning the false teaching than in describing it.”[25] It does not appear to be, as it is often posited by scholars, that the author is addressing Gnosticism and Epicureanism.[26] Instead, it is more proper to say that there are possible elements of proto-Gnosticism and some hints of Epicurean philosophy; however, this only serves as a backdrop to the letter. “It is best to reconstruct the false teaching basis of the internal evidence, which suggests that the opponents’ philosophy at the very outset precluded God intervening in the world at any time (3:3-4), whether by sending a flood (thus denying the veracity of the OT Scriptures; see Genesis 6-9) or by having Jesus return at the end of time (a denial of Jesus’ own words and of the Apostolic and early church’s witness).”[27]

While there may not be clear markers of the false teaching being addressed in this letter, the internal evidence suggests that the falsehood being spread is centered on the doctrine of eschatology. The heretical teachings promoted by 2 Peter’s false teachers are what Richard Bauckham coined “eschatological skepticism.”[28] That is, the heretics in 2 Peter were promoting falsehood concerning the end times, such as the validity of a final judgment or an eschatological reckoning (2:3-10) alongside the timing of Jesus’ second coming (1:16-18; 3:4-7).

Peter understands the theological mainframe inevitably influences the livelihood and values of Christians. Eschatology was not a useless doctrinal point in the Christian faith. Indeed, the second coming of Christ was central to the Gospel, according to 2 Peter. Peter Davids states,

“It is clear that Jesus’ reign and concomitant final judgment are main themes of the work, not because the work is focused on doctrinal correctness, but because the work knows that eschatology determines ethics, and it is precisely the ethics of those whom he addresses about which our author is concerned.”[29]

WHY DO WE NEED SECOND PETER?

There will always be false teaching that needs to be vanquished and true knowledge that must be spread to the ends of the earth. There will always be a need for Christian virtues in a world filled with vile souls. There will always be a need to be prepared for the day of the Lord when Christ arrives to judge and destroy the world. “This book provides critical guidance and encouragement to the church as it endures the hostile criticisms of skeptics, scoffers, and doubters. In response to these challenges, Peter reminds the reader that Christ is certainly coming back (2 Pet. 3:1-18), that God will hold false teachers accountable for leading people astray (2:1-22), that the testimony of the apostles and the authority of Scripture can be trusted (1:16-21), and that believers are to be diligent in making their calling and election sure (1:1-15).”[30]

SURVEY OF SECOND PETER: THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD REVEALED

The knowledge of God has unveiled “all things that pertain to life and godliness” to those who have been “called” according to “his own glory and excellence” so they may experience “the divine nature” and “confirm” their “calling and election” by possessing these “qualities” and acting according to the knowledge God has “granted” to them. Those who “have obtained a faith of equal standing” as the elect or chosen, now share in God’s essence and existence, character and activity, life and love, and according to Peter, to have an effect and fruitful knowledge of God, we must apply faith—virtue—knowledge—self-control—steadfastness—godliness—brotherly affection—love (2 Pet. 1:1-15). This knowledge is not fabricated as though they were following “cleverly devised myths,” (that is, stories with no basis), but rather, they “were eyewitnesses” of the transfiguration where Christ’s “Majestic Glory” was revealed clearly on the “holy mountain” and they have received the “prophetic word more fully” as “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” which confirms the authenticity of this divine knowledge (2 Pet. 1:16-21). The knowledge of God is brought into question by the “false prophets” who introduce “destructive heresies” that diminish the value of God’s grace and saving knowledge. Since God’s knowledge is brought into question, God will act as He has in the past when He judges the angels by casting them into hell, the entire world by sending a flood, Sodom and Gomorrah by whipping the cities from the face of the planet—God will not leave their insubordination and iniquities unpunished as they “indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority,” which is why the Lord will “rescue the godly from trials” and, at the same time, He will “keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment”  (2 Pet. 2:4-11). Those who oppose the knowledge of God and trade it for falsehood have been deceived into believing they are free when they are, indeed, “slaves of corruption” as they follow their worldly passions like a dog who returns to its vomit. It would have been better for them to have never known “the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” than to receive it and “turn back from the holy command delivered to them” (2 Pet. 2:12-22). The knowledge of God must be remembered by those who have received it, and they must be warned that there are those who will be “scoffing” and  “following their own sinful desires” in the “last days,” but they should hold fast the knowledge of God that is found in “the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through” the “prophets” (2 Pet. 3:1-3). Those who doubt the knowledge of God will question the return of Christ, the origins of the universe, and God’s relationship to the universe. The knowledge of God is a revelation of God’s role in the creation and new creation as He “formed” the universe through the “word” and “water” and will destroy it through the “word” and “fire” on “the day of judgment” where He will judge and destroy the ungodly. God will judge the universe in His own time (“with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”) in His own way, when we least expect it—“the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed”— because He is an eternally patient deity who is extending mercy to those who should seek forgiveness— “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:4-10). The knowledge of God that reveals the end days empowers us to live according to our calling with “holiness and godliness,” knowing that the universe’s destruction is certain and Christ’s return is near, while eagerly and patiently “waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” to become a reality. In the meantime, maintain the knowledge of God and protect it from the local heresies so “you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability” but instead increase in the “knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:11-18). In sum, 2 Peter presents a vision of glory and judgment in these last days. May our understanding of the day of judgment motivate us to live for God as we patiently wait for Christ’s return, may our knowledge of God grow for we partake in His nature, and may “our Lord and savior Jesus Christ” receive all “glory both now and to the day of eternity.”

END NOTES

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020), 296.

[2] Simon J. Kistemaker, “2 Peter,” 471.

[3] Darian R. Lockett, “How 2 Peter Made It into the Bible,” Text & Canon Institute. https://textandcanon.org/how-2-peter-made-it-into-the-bible/. For more, see, Letters for the Church: Reading James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude as Canon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021).

[4] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 456.

[5] Douglas Moo and D.A. Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic,2005), 659-660.

[6] Schriener, 1&2 Peter and Jude, 303-316.

[7] For a similar interpretation, see Green, The Second Epistle of Peter, 14-15.

[8] Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 24. “It is striking that the letter was not widely accepted as Peters, or even known to exist, for most of the first three Christian centuries. There is not a solitary reference to it until 220 C.E., and it does not appear to have been widely circulated for at least another century after that. It was no doubt included in the canon because the orthodox fathers of the fourth century accepted the claims of its offer to be Peter, and because it served their purpose in opposing those who promote false teaching.” (Ehrman, The New Testament, 456)

[9] Green, The Second Epistle of Peter, 13.

[10] Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 750.

[11] Michael J. Kruger, “Authenticity of 2 Peter,” JETS (1999): 662.

[12] Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2005), 522.

[13] Moo and Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 662.

[14] Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered, 37.

[15] Moo and Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 663.

[16] AD 80-90 (Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, 158-159) AD 100-110 (Kelly, Peter and Jude, 237) AD 120-125 (Canfield, Peter and Jude, 149)

[17]  Daniel Wallace dates this letter to AD 64-65 in “Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.”

[18] John 21:18-19; 1 Clement 5:1-4; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.25.4-5, 3.1.1-2; Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:1-2; The Apocalypse of Peter, The Ascension of Isaiah, The Acts of Peter, the Apocrypha of James, Dionysius of Corinth; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15; The Prescription Against Heresies 36; cf. Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2015).

[19] Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: HarperCollins Publishers, 2017), 363.

[20] Moo and Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 663.

[21] G.K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd, The Story Retold: A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: IVP Academic, 2020), 433.

[22] Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 16.

[23] Beale and Gladd, The Story Retold, 432.

[24] Schriener, 1&2 Peter and Jude, 329.

[25] Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 658.

[26] Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 122-128.

[27] Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 756.

[28] Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 154.

[29] Peter H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude: Living in the Light of the Coming King (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 209.

[30] Kistemaker, “2 Peter,” 471.