Bible Commentaries
2 Peter

The little epistle of Second Peter is often ignored by Christians today. Some reasons for this are that the epistle is often questioned by scholars, and it is also a short work easily overlooked by Bible readers.^(F1)

Second, Peter is without a doubt the most questioned book in the New Testament, with most scholars doubting that Peter could have written it. Fuller professor Thomas Schreiner says, "If one were inclined to doubt the authenticity of any letter in the New Testament, it would be 2 Peter."^(F2)

It might help us to look at some of the reasons why many scholars reject it. Perhaps the primary reason is that the style of writing is different than that of First Peter. This has been noticed since earliest times. The book has an unusual vocabulary, with 57 words being used in the book that are not used in the remainder of the New Testament.^(F3) The early father of the church, Jerome (c. 347-430), felt the difference in style was due to the use of a different scribe. It is of note that Jerome included Second Peter in his famous Vulgate version of the Bible.^(F4)

Scholars feel that Second Peter is dependent on Jude and many of them feel that Jude is a postapostolic work. As with other Bible books, some scholars feel that the adversaries in the book are Gnostics and they seem certain that Gnosticism did not develop until the Second Century. Some think that the book was not sufficiently attested to by the earliest Christian leaders. Also, the book was not mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, which may be dated as early as AD 170, and contains the earliest listing of New Testament books.

To Second Peter's credit, it is now felt by some that Jude could actually be dependent on Second Peter instead of the other way around.^(F5) Many writers now admit that there was certainly a proto-Gnosticism in the First Century and that Paul actually dealt with it in the Book of Colossians.

It should be noted that not all scholars reject Peter's authorship of the epistle. While some in the early church questioned that Peter wrote it, they never questioned the book's message.

Clement of Rome, around AD 95, seems to have quoted from it. The church father Irenaeus (130-200) possibly alluded to the book. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) wrote a commentary to Second Peter – a commentary which is now lost. It is interesting that the early church totally rejected other supposed writings of Peter but they still clung to Second Peter.^(F6) Regarding the Muratorian Fragment, it should be noted that the work is damaged and neither does it include Hebrews, James or First Peter.^(F7)

Second Peter was probably written to the same group of people the apostle addressed in his first letter. Peter warns them about the appearance of certain false teachers. He actually reminds them of his first letter to them in 2 Peter 3:1. It is of note that Peter mentions being present for Christ's Transfiguration (1:16-18). This would obviously be a bold claim to make for someone writing under a false name.

The book was likely written from Rome since early tradition attests that Peter was there. It would have had to be written before Nero took his own life in AD 68. Scholars generally date the book from around AD 64-66, shortly before Peter was martyred by the mad ruler.

Although Second Peter is a little book, it is packed with greatly needed gospel information. Schreiner says that the "eschatological enthusiasm" of early Christianity still pulsates through this small work.^(F8)

CHAPTER 1