Main Introduction

2 PETER

Peter's Last Words to Christians Who Must Go On Without Him

Peter knows his time is short.

“Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.”
— 2 Peter 1:14

That gives this little letter an unusual seriousness.

Peter is not simply writing another lesson. He believes his death is approaching, and he wants Christians to remember what the apostles taught after Peter is gone.

That may be the key to understanding the whole book.

WHY DID PETER WRITE?

Peter gives us his purpose almost immediately:

“Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them…”
— 2 Peter 1:12

They already knew these truths.

Peter wanted to make certain they didn't forget them.

And then he says something remarkable:

“Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.”
— 2 Peter 1:15

Peter is thinking about what happens after the apostles are gone.

How will Christians know what is true?

His answer is not: Wait for somebody centuries later to recover the truth.

Peter points them back to the apostolic eyewitness testimony and the prophetic word.

That becomes especially important because of what Peter says next.

FALSE TEACHERS ARE COMING

Chapter 2 begins:

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you…”
— 2 Peter 2:1

Peter isn't naïve about the future of the church.

False teachers will arise.

People will distort truth.

Some will use religion for their own purposes.

But notice something important.

Peter predicts false teachers. He does not predict the disappearance of Christianity.

His concern is that Christians recognize error and remain faithful to what they have already received.

SCOFFERS WILL COME TOO

Then Peter looks still farther ahead.

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers…”
— 2 Peter 3:3

Their question will be:

“Where is the promise of his coming?”
— 2 Peter 3:4

Christ hasn't returned.

Years are passing.

So has the promise failed?

Peter's answer occupies much of chapter 3.

God has not forgotten.

God is not late.

And the delay should not produce speculation about dates. It should produce holy living.

Peter asks:

“What manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness?”
— 2 Peter 3:11

That's quite different from drawing an end-times chart.

Peter's concern is:

Since Christ is coming, how should we live now?

THREE CHAPTERS — ONE MESSAGE

The movement of 2 Peter is fairly easy to see.

Chapter 1 — REMEMBER THE TRUTH

Grow in your faith. Remember what the apostles taught. Peter was an eyewitness. Pay attention to God's word.

Chapter 2 — RECOGNIZE FALSE TEACHING

False teachers will come. Don't be fooled by impressive claims, immoral lives, or promises of freedom that actually produce slavery.

Chapter 3 — REMEMBER CHRIST IS COMING

Scoffers will question the promise. God has not forgotten. The Day of the Lord will come.

And Peter ends where he began:

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
— 2 Peter 3:18

Grow. Remember. Be watchful. Remain faithful.

DID PETER REALLY WRITE 2 PETER?

We shouldn't avoid the question.

2 Peter has been questioned more than almost any other New Testament book. Some early Christians knew it, but acceptance of the letter was slower and less universal than with 1 Peter. Modern scholars also debate its authorship because of differences in vocabulary and style and its relationship to Jude.

Those are legitimate historical questions.

But we should also listen carefully to what the document itself claims.

The writer identifies himself:

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ…”
— 2 Peter 1:1

He says he witnessed Jesus' transfiguration:

“We were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
— 2 Peter 1:16

He refers to his approaching death, which Jesus had foretold.

And he refers to an earlier letter:

“This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you…”
— 2 Peter 3:1

So we shouldn't settle the question merely by saying, “Tradition says Peter wrote it.”

Nor should we dismiss its claim merely because modern scholars raise questions.

We should examine the evidence.

TEXT B4 TRADITION works both ways.

SOMETHING ELSE WORTH NOTICING

Near the end of the letter Peter mentions:

“our beloved brother Paul…”
— 2 Peter 3:15

Then he refers to Paul's “epistles” and warns that ignorant and unstable people twist them:

“…as they do also the other scriptures…”
— 2 Peter 3:16

That little statement will deserve a Going Deeper study of its own.

Apparently Paul's letters could already be difficult.

People were already twisting them.

And Peter apparently places them alongside “the other scriptures.”

That's worth slowing down for when we get there.

HOW WE WILL STUDY 2 PETER

We'll use two levels.

THE REGULAR STUDY

First we'll read each section in context and ask:

What is Peter saying?
Why does he say it here?
How does it fit his argument?

These pages will be straightforward and readable.

GOING DEEPER

Then, where a passage raises a larger question, we'll dig farther.

For example:

What does “partakers of the divine nature” mean?

What does “make your calling and election sure” mean?

Who were the angels that sinned?

Can someone escape the world through Christ and later become entangled again?

Does “one day is as a thousand years” give us a prophetic timetable?

What are the “new heavens and a new earth”?

Did Peter consider Paul's letters Scripture?

Those deserve more than a quick paragraph.

BEFORE WE BEGIN

Peter is writing to Christians who will soon have to live without Peter.

False teachers will come.

Scoffers will come.

The apostles will die.

So what will remain?

Peter's answer is remarkably simple:

Remember what you were taught.
Pay attention to the word.
Keep growing.
Don't be deceived.
And live like Christ really is coming again.

Now we're ready for:

2 PETER 1:1–4

Everything We Need for Life and Godliness

Return to HOME page

Return to PETER page

GOING DEEPER

DID PETER REALLY WRITE 2 PETER?

Open almost any modern introduction to 2 Peter and sooner or later you will encounter the question:

Did the apostle Peter really write this letter?

That isn't a question we should be afraid of.

And we shouldn't settle it merely by saying, “My Bible calls it 2 Peter.”

If we're going to practice TEXT B4 TRADITION, let's put the evidence on the table—including the evidence that causes some scholars to doubt Peter wrote it.

Then we can decide how strong the case really is.

FIRST, WHAT DOES THE LETTER CLAIM?

This part is not ambiguous.

It begins:

“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ…”
— 2 Peter 1:1

The writer doesn't merely use Peter's name.

He later claims to have been present at the Transfiguration:

“We were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
— 2 Peter 1:16

He describes hearing the voice from heaven:

“And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”
— 2 Peter 1:18

Peter was one of the three disciples there—Peter, James and John.

The writer also says that Jesus had told him his death was approaching:

“Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.”
— 2 Peter 1:14

That naturally reminds us of Jesus' words to Peter in John 21:18–19.

And in 3:1 he writes:

“This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you…”

Whatever conclusion we reach, we need to begin here:

2 Peter presents itself as a letter from the apostle Peter.

That's stronger than merely attaching Peter's name to the title centuries later. The author speaks as Peter inside the letter itself. The Gospel Coalition

THEN WHY DO SCHOLARS QUESTION IT?

There are several reasons.

We shouldn't hide them.

1. THE GREEK DOESN'T SOUND JUST LIKE 1 PETER

Readers who know Greek have long noticed differences between the style and vocabulary of 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

That raises an obvious question:

If Peter wrote both, why don't they sound more alike?

One possible answer is that Peter may have used different assistance in composing his letters.

First Peter itself says:

“By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly…”
— 1 Peter 5:12

How much Silvanus contributed to the actual wording is debated. Some scholars think he may have functioned as a secretary; others think the expression means principally that he carried the letter. So we shouldn't use Silvanus as a magic solution to every stylistic difference. The Gospel Coalition

But neither should we assume:

Different style = different author.

An author can write differently for different purposes, and ancient writers could employ secretarial help.

So the stylistic difference is evidence worth considering, but by itself it doesn't settle the question.

2. WHAT ABOUT JUDE?

Put 2 Peter 2 beside the little letter of Jude and the similarities are impossible to miss.

Both discuss false teachers.

Both refer to angels who sinned.

Both mention Sodom and Gomorrah.

Both use similar descriptions of corrupt teachers.

There is clearly some kind of literary relationship.

Many scholars think 2 Peter used Jude. Others have argued that Jude used 2 Peter. The precise relationship remains debated. The Gospel Coalition

But suppose Peter did use material from Jude.

Would that prove Peter didn't write 2 Peter?

No.

An apostle didn't have to invent every sentence or illustration he used. Paul quoted other sources. Biblical writers used earlier biblical material constantly.

The important question isn't:

Did 2 Peter use Jude?

It probably did—or at least the two are closely related.

The important question is:

Does that prevent Peter from being the author?

Not necessarily.

3. WHAT ABOUT PAUL'S LETTERS?

Another argument comes from 2 Peter 3:15–16.

Peter speaks about:

“our beloved brother Paul…”

and then about:

“all his epistles…”

He also speaks of people twisting Paul's writings:

“…as they do also the other scriptures…”

Some scholars think this sounds like Paul's letters had already been collected and recognized as Scripture—something they believe more likely happened after Peter's lifetime. The Gospel Coalition

That's worth considering.

But how much does the verse actually require?

Paul's letters were already circulating among churches during Paul's lifetime. Colossians 4:16 explicitly tells churches to exchange letters.

Peter didn't necessarily need a bound volume titled THE LETTERS OF PAUL sitting beside him.

So once again we have an interesting piece of evidence—but not necessarily a decisive one.

4. “SINCE THE FATHERS FELL ASLEEP”

The scoffers say:

“For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”
— 2 Peter 3:4

Some scholars understand “the fathers” as the first generation of Christians who had now died.

If that's correct, they argue, the letter sounds as though considerable time has passed since the apostles.

But “the fathers” could also refer to the patriarchs or earlier generations.

The phrase therefore deserves attention, but its meaning cannot simply be assumed and then used to date the entire letter.

This is another place where our rule applies:

Don't make the text prove more than it actually proves. The Gospel Coalition

5. THE EARLY CHURCH WAS SLOWER TO ACCEPT 2 PETER

This is probably the point we should take most seriously.

The external evidence for 2 Peter is not as strong or as early as the evidence for books such as Romans, 1 Corinthians, or 1 Peter.

Its acceptance was slower.

That fact should simply be admitted.

It doesn't prove the letter is false.

In one sense, it tells us something encouraging about the early Christians:

They weren't apparently accepting every document merely because an apostle's name was attached to it.

Questions were asked.

Books were examined.

Some books took longer than others to receive widespread recognition.

Eventually 2 Peter was received into the New Testament canon, but its road to widespread acceptance was more difficult than that of 1 Peter.

That is historical evidence we shouldn't sweep under the rug. Modern scholarship likewise recognizes 2 Peter as one of the New Testament books whose authorship has been most vigorously debated. The Gospel Coalition

COULD SOMEONE HAVE WRITTEN IN PETER'S NAME?

This brings us to the major alternative.

Many scholars believe an unknown Christian wrote 2 Peter after Peter's death, presenting Peter's teaching in the form of Peter's final testament.

Richard Bauckham, for example, developed a sophisticated version of this argument: 2 Peter could belong to an ancient “testament” genre in which readers supposedly understood that the famous figure wasn't literally writing the document. On that interpretation, the author wasn't necessarily trying to commit fraud. The Gospel Coalition

That deserves a fair hearing.

But it also raises a difficult question.

2 Peter doesn't merely say:

“Here are some teachings in the tradition of Peter.”

The writer says:

I was there.

“We were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

And:

“This voice…we heard.”

That's a very specific autobiographical claim.

If the historical Peter didn't write or authorize this material, we must ask whether the original readers really would have understood those first-person claims merely as a literary convention.

Scholars disagree about that.

And early Christian opposition to falsely attributed writings makes the question especially important; defenders of Petrine authorship argue that pseudonymous apostolic letters were not simply regarded as harmless literary exercises. The Gospel Coalition

SO WHERE DOES THE EVIDENCE LEAD?

Let's separate what we know from what we infer.

We know what the document claims.

It claims Peter as its author.

It claims eyewitness participation in the Transfiguration.

It connects the writer's approaching death with Jesus' prediction.

It calls itself a second letter.

We also know there are genuine historical questions.

The style differs from 1 Peter.

The relationship with Jude requires explanation.

The references to Paul's letters raise dating questions.

And the early external attestation and acceptance of 2 Peter are weaker than for many other New Testament books.

Those facts should not be hidden.

But none of them individually demonstrates that Peter could not have written the letter.

And against them stands something that also requires explanation:

Why does the letter make such specific personal claims if Peter had nothing to do with it?

That question cannot simply be brushed aside either.

OUR CONCLUSION

I think the evidence permits us to take the letter's own claim seriously:

The best working conclusion is that the apostle Peter stands behind 2 Peter.

But we don't need to pretend that there are no difficulties.

There are.

Good scholars disagree.

And admitting that doesn't weaken Scripture.

It simply means we're doing what we keep asking our readers to do:

Read the evidence before reaching the conclusion.

ONE MORE THING

Perhaps the most interesting part of this discussion is what Peter himself wanted his readers to remember.

He knew he was going away.

He didn't want their faith resting merely upon his continued presence.

So he reminded them of what they had received:

“I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.”
— 2 Peter 1:15

Peter would die.

The eyewitnesses would eventually disappear.

But their testimony would remain.

And that's exactly why the question of who wrote this letter is worth investigating carefully.

TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.