Lectionary Calendar
Friday, May 3rd, 2024
the Fifth Week after Easter
Attention!
Tired of seeing ads while studying? Now you can enjoy an "Ads Free" version of the site for as little as 10¢ a day and support a great cause!
Click here to learn more!

Bible Commentaries
2 Peter

Old & New Testament Restoration CommentaryRestoration Commentary

- 2 Peter

by Multiple Authors

INTRODUCTION TO THE

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

THE AUTHOR

The name of the author is affixed to the epistle itself. "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ . . ." (2 Peter 1:1.) Despite this, more serious doubts have been raised regarding the genuineness of the epistle of Second Peter than any other portion of the New Testament. The uncertainty which attaches to the matter of authorship has existed from an early age. Eusebius, sometimes styled the "Father of Church History," placed it among the antilegoma, books not universally admitted to be genuine, "disputed, indeed, but known to most men." (Ecclesiastical His-tory, book iii, 25.) This history was written, it is believed, about A.D. 325. Jerome, born A.D. 350, wrote that "Peter wrote two epistles called catholic; the second of which is denied by many to be his, because of differences of style from the former." Origen (who died A.D. 253) said, "Peter has left one acknowledged epistle: let it be granted that he left a second, for this is disputed."

By the end of the fourth century the epistle had come to be regarded as genuine by all except the Syrians. It was recognized as canonical (entitled to a place in the canon of scripture) by the councils of Laodicea (A.D. 366), Hippo (A.D. 393), and Carthage (A.D. 397). Though excluded from the Old Syrian Version, it was included in the Philoxenian, or Later Syriac, and eventually came to be regarded as genuine by the majority of conservative scholars.

It should be observed that Eusebius, Jerome, and Origen did not themselves express doubts regarding its genuineness; they merely noted that some in their time had questioned it. The doubts were with reference to its authorship, and these appear to have gradually disappeared following its acceptance by Jerome who included it in his Latin Version of the scriptures. The alleged differences in style are doubtless due to the difference in the nature of the subjects treated, and are more than offset by the many points of resemblance discernible between the first and second epistles and the author’s recorded speeches in the Book of Acts. (1) The epistle claims to have been written by Peter. (2 Peter 1:1.) (2) There are numerous references in it to incidents which are applicable to Peter: (a) a warning of sudden death (2 Peter 1:14; John 21:18-19); (b) the experience of the transfiguration (1:16-18; Matthew 17:1 ff). (3) The first epistle is universally admitted to be genuine, and the second affects to be addressed by the same author to the same readers (3:1). (4) Its reliability and authenticity depend on the Petrine authorship; it is either a production of the author whose name it bears, or it is a spurious document and thus unworthy of consideration. A candid consid-eration of all the facts leads to the conclusion that Pater was its author; that it was addressed to the same persons as the first epistle; and that it is as authoritative and true as any portion of the sacred writings.

DESIGN AND OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE

The keynote of the first epistle of Peter is hope; in the second, it is knowledge. The first epistle was written to sustain the saints in the severe trials through which they were passing the second was designed to guard them against the errors being industriously propagated by false teachers. The only safeguard against their deductions was knowledge--the full knowledge (epignosis) of Jesus Christ. The epistle it, therefore, largely devoted to the description of the false teachers then active, and to a refutation of their specious and false doctrines. As it was necessary, in the first epistle, to warn the saints of the dangers of discouragement in the face of trial, so here, he thought it wise to admonish them to avoid the errors of doctrine with which they were certain to come in contact. Among the false doctrines dealt with in the epistle are (a) the denial of the deity of Jesus (2:1); (b) sensuality in the name of religion (2:1ff); (c) a disposition to be disrespectful of dignitaries (2:10-12); (d) a repudiation of the teaching of the apostles regarding the judgment, the end of the world, and the dissolution of the heavens and the earth.

PERSONS TO WHOM WRITTEN

Both epistles of Peter were addressed to the same persons "This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I write unto you; and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance." (2 Peter 3:1.) The first epistle was written to saints sojourning in Asia Minor: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia . . ." (1 Peter 1:1-2.)

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

It is not possible to determine, with any degree of certainty, either when, or where, the second epistle of Peter was written. The letter itself contains no data sufficient to reach a definite con-clusion regarding these matters; and the effort is, therefore, specu-lative. From the fact that the King James’ Version has the apostle saying that he must shortly put off his tabernacle (2 Peter 1:14), it has led to the assumption that it was written very near his death. A correct translation of the word tachine (swiftly, rather than shortly), however, points to the suddenness with which death would descend upon the apostle, rather than the nearness of its approach. It is, on the other hand, certain that Peter was ad-vanced in years when he penned these words, and realized that death, in the natural order of events, could not be far distant. We may therefore assume that the epistle was written soon after the first, perhaps A.D. 64 or 65. From the fact that no reference is made to the place from which it was written, and that the apostle was in Babylon when he wrote the first letter, it is proper to assume that he was still in that city. The traditions of the Roman church are, on the question, biased and thus utterly unreliable. Evidence that Peter was ever in Rome does not exist; and the claims of Catholics in this matter are as unjustifiable as their assumption that Peter founded the See of Rome and was its first occupant.

adsFree icon
Ads FreeProfile