As 1 Peter deals with problems from
outside the church (sufferings), 2 Peter deals with problems from within the
church (false teachers). In 2 Peter familiarity is shown with the writings of
Paul, which are further acknowledged among “the rest of scriptures” (3:15-16).1
Because of the close association that Silvanus and Mark had with both Peter and
Paul (Col. 4:10; 1 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12, 13), one or both of these coworkers
may have been responsible for sharing Paul’s writings with Peter. Second Peter also
shares a literary affinity with the epistle of Jude (see below), particularly 2
Pet. 2:1-18; 3:1-3 and Jude 4-18.
Date, Provenance, and Destination
Second Peter was obviously written after 1
Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 3:1), and in 2 Peter the apostle is preparing to die a
martyr’s death (1:13-15). According to early tradition, Peter was executed in
Rome during the reign of Nero (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.1-8). Nero’s persecution began around the summer
of 64 and ended by the summer of 68. It is reasonable to date 2 Peter ca.
64-65. Those who wish to date the epistle much later, particularly on into the
2nd century (e.g. R. E. Brown, Introduction
to the NT 767) and as late as the 120s or 130s (L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 424-25), must
account for the fact that Psa. 90:4 is quoted in 2 Pet. 3:8 without a hint of
chiliastic (literal 1000-year reign of Christ) interpretation that was
prevalent and wide-spread in the 2nd century (cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 81; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.28.3, 23.2; Epistle
of Barnabas 15.4).
Second Peter is simply addressed to “those
having obtained an equally valuable faith with ours through [the] righteousness
of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1). Since reference is made to this
being the second letter written “to you” (3:1), evidently the audience of 2
Peter is the same as the audience of 1 Peter. The document would then be
intended for the “chosen sojourners of [the] dispersion” in the regions of
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (see Distinctive Features of 1 Peter).
Literary Affinity with Jude
A number of striking parallels are evident
between 2 Peter and Jude, with nineteen of the verses in 2 Peter at least
partially replicated in the twenty-five verses of Jude. The five possible
explanations for this phenomenon are as follows:
Ø Each author wrote independently, and the similarities
are either coincidental or attributable to the Holy Spirit.2
Ø Both documents came from the same author, although
each is attributed to someone different.3
Ø Both used a common written source,4 which
cannot be verified since the hypothetical source is not available.
Ø Peter borrowed from Jude, which appears to be the
position held by most modern scholars.5
Ø Jude borrowed from Peter, which is the position
advocated by this author.6
It seems more likely that Jude
borrowed from 2 Peter. Jude 17-18 appears to be a quote from 2 Peter 3:1-3
rather than vice versa. The ESV places the warning of Jude 18 in quotation
marks and cites 2 Peter 3:2 in the margin. Moreover, the predictive nature of
the future tense in 2 Peter 2:1-3 and 3:3 (i.e., false teachers are coming), as
compared to the apparent fulfillment implied by the present tense of Jude 4,
16-19 (i.e., false teachers have come), supports the priority of 2 Peter.7
Conclusion
The message of the relatively brief
three-chapter epistle of 2 Peter has aided God’s people through the centuries
with (a) reminders of the heavenly provision of grace, peace, and knowledge
(1:1-4), (b) exhortations for spiritual growth (1:5-11), (c) confirming eyewitness
testimony and inspiration of scripture (1:12-21), (d) warnings of false
teachers and apostasy (2:1-22), (e) anticipating the day of the Lord (3:1-13),
and (f) calling for spiritual maturation and faithfulness (3:14-18).
“But grow in grace and knowledge of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; to him [be] the glory both now and forever. Amen”
(2 Pet. 3:18).
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Scripture quotations are the
author’s own translation, unless noted otherwise. The reference to “some things”
in Paul’s letters that are “hard to understand” (v. 16) does not necessarily
mean that the writings are unclear or overly complicated; rather the subject
matter itself is sometimes complex.
2 A. Barnes says concerning
this view, “no one can deny that this is possible,
but is by no means probable. No other instance of the kind occurs in the Bible
…” (Notes 1512).
3
John A. T. Robinson suggests that Jude was Peter’s amanuensis in the writing of
2 Peter before he wrote his own epistle (Redating
the NT 193-99).
4
See M. Green, The Second Epistle General
of Peter 50-55.
5
See W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the NT 430-31; R. J.
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter 141-43; D. A.
Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to
the NT 656-57; D. F. Watson, Invention,
Arrangement, and Style 163-87. Note that many advocates of the priority of
Jude build their case on the assumption that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical.
6 See also C. Bigg, Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude
216-24; D. Guthrie, NT Introduction
923-24; G. N. Woods, Epistles of Peter, John and Jude 377-78. This view certainly does not discount the role of divine inspiration (see Biblical Inspiration in Perspective).
7 See The NT Epistle of Judas.
Related Posts: Authorship of 2 Peter, Distinctive Features of 1 Peter
Image credit: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2016/5/31/it-would-have-been-better-2-peter-210b-22.html
No comments:
Post a Comment