Distinctive Features of 2 Peter

     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

For or Against?

     In Luke 9:50 Jesus is reported as saying, “… for he who is not against us is for us” (par Mark 9:40).¹ But later, in Luke 11:23, the Lord seems to be saying just the opposite: “he that is not with me is against me …” (par Matt. 12:30).

     Those leaning toward and embracing the theological left have been known to exploit the former passage in defense of ecumenical diversity and broadening their circle of acceptance. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the latter text has been favored to justify narrowing lines of fellowship beyond what is biblically prescribed. Meanwhile, antibiblicists cite both texts, pitting one against the other and claiming the Bible contradicts itself.

     None of the above approaches is correct. Each demonstrates the interpretive fallacy of ignoring context and then proof-texting to bolster a preconceived misconception. An honest, sympathetic, and careful examination of these passages reveals both the intended meaning and a coherent harmony of the two.

On the Lord’s Side

     In the first passage, the apostles were forbidding the good works of an apparent disciple of Jesus simply because he was not in their immediate apostolic circle. Contextually a childish dispute had arisen on their journey to Capernaum (Mark 9:33-34), and they later asked the Lord, “Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?” (Matt. 18:1).² Their worldly focus was on which person should be considered preeminent (cf. Luke 22:24), while Jesus redirects their attention to the quality of character needed (Mark 9:35-37).

     Christ teaches an important lesson by taking a small child in his arms (Mark 9:36) – the epitome of spiritual purity and innocence (cf. Mark 10:13-16).³ The disciples are challenged to turn from their selfish, vain, haughty ambitions, to develop the childlike attitude of humility, and to receive (be accepting and considerate of) those who exhibit the same humble disposition (cf. Mark 9:38-42).

     Here is where John⁴ reveals the prideful/arrogant temperament of the apostles as he informs Jesus they had forbidden the good works of a man simply because he was not one of the twelve (Mark 9:38); “he doesn’t follow with us” (Luke 9:49, emp. added). However, Christ had more loyal followers than just the twelve (Mark 9:41; Luke 10:1), and no one could truly cast out demons in Jesus’ name unless the Lord had given him this power (cf. Matt. 10:8; Luke 10:17). What this man had done wasn’t contrary to the way of Christ, so the admonition is given: “Don't forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us” (Luke 9:50; cf. Mark 9:39-40).

Not on the Lord’s Side

     In the second passage (Luke 11:23; par Matt. 12:30), the Lord is speaking to antagonistic Pharisees who were falsely accusing him of doing the devil’s work. This is where he says, “he that is not with me is against me …” This situation, the people involved, and the issue addressed are very different than the above.

     The antagonists were Pharisees (Matt. 12:24), identified by Mark as scribes from Jerusalem (3:22), indicative of Jesus’ widespread influence and reputation and the growing animosity toward him. Their options were to (1) deny the miracles; (2) accept that Jesus’ power was from God; or (3) attribute the miracles to another source. They couldn’t reasonably deny the reality of Christ’s miracles, and they refused to accept Jesus as a legitimate representative of God.

     Jesus was casting out demons “by the Spirit of God” (Matt. 12:28; cf. Luke 11:20), and his opponents responded with “blasphemies,” i.e. reviling; irreverence, slander, defiant hostility. The verbal form blaspēmēsē (Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10) is in the aorist tense, involving a state of mind as long as it lasts, viz. conscious and deliberate opposition to God.

     On this occasion the sin was stubbornly dismissing the obvious working of God’s Spirit and defiantly attributing it to the power of Satan. Enemies of truth, resistant to Christ’s message, are decidedly against him.

Conclusion

     The teachings of Christ call for both exclusiveness and inclusiveness, depending on the circumstances. A genuine disciple of Jesus is not to be rejected (cf. Acts 9:26-27), and the New Testament gives clear instructions about being faithful to the Lord and recognizing faithfulness. But not everyone who wears the name of Christ wears the name legitimately (Matt. 7:21-23); in such cases, Luke 9:50 (par Mark 9:40) does not apply. At the same time, Luke 11:23 (par Matt. 12:30) is not about petty differences and disputes among brethren. The focus here is on false teachers and enemies of truth who reject Christ and the way of Christ.

     Out of context, there appears to be a discrepancy between these two statements, while they seem to conflict with other passages as well. But in context, they are easily understood and harmonized.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the World English Bible. The Byzantine Majority Text reads hēmōn … hēmōn (“the one not against us is for us”), as in the N/KJV and RAV, while the NA/UBS Critical Text has the alternate reading, humōn … humōn (“the one not against you is for you”), as in the ESV, N/ASV, et al. See Text of the NT Part 1 <Link>.

     ² Mark and Luke give abbreviated versions of this incident, while Matthew devotes the entirety of chapter 18 to it.

     ³ Matthew’s expanded recounting of the Lord’s words: “Most certainly I tell you [all], unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever receives one such little child in my name receives me …” (Matt. 18:3-5; cf. Luke 9:47-48).

     ⁴ John was one of the “sons of thunder” who struggled with impatience, intolerance, and selfishness (Mark 3:17; 10:35-37; Luke 9:54).

Related Posts: Alleged Biblical Errors, What is Koinonia?

Image credit: https://nellieamirah.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/what.png

The New Testament Epistle of Judas

Anthony van Dyck's St. Jude

     The book entitled "Jude" in our English Bibles begins with these words in the Greek New Testament: Ioudas Iēsou Christou doulos, adelphos de Iakōbou, meaning, "Judas, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of Jacob" (author’s own translation). The abbreviated "Jude" serves to distinguish this particular Judas from the infamous betrayer of the Lord, and the one designated "Jacob" is better known to us by the Middle English equivalent "James" (see NT Epistle of Jacob).
     There are at least five men in the New Testament named Ioudas (Mark 6:3; Luke 6:16; Acts 5:37; 15:22), a common moniker among first-century Jews presumably due to the influence of Judas Macabaeus, the leader of the Maccabean revolt of 167-160 BC. Since the author of this epistle is the brother of James, it follows that he is also the half-brother of the Lord Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
     The epistle of Jude has early attestation, including the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), and Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160-220). Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263-339) observes that even though not many of the ancients mention the epistle, it was counted among the so-called "General Epistles" and was publicly used in most churches at the time (Eccl. Hist. 2.23.25; cf. 3.25.3).
     One of the arguments against Jude’s authorship concerns the references in v. 3 to "the faith once delivered to the saints" and in v. 17 to "the words previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ," which sound like a much later stage of Christianity when apostolic tradition was more firmly set (see Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions Part 2). But "the faith" was well established much earlier than many critical scholars are prone to concede (cf. Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:21-22; Galatians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 16:13), and Jude’s allusion to the apostles’ words is applied to their predictive teachings rather than established tradition.
     The occasion of the epistle is the simple fact that ungodly men had secretly "crept in" among the disciples to whom Jude writes (vv. 3-4). His initial intent was to convey a positive message about "our common salvation," but his focus abruptly switches to the urgency of his readers to "contend for the faith" in view of the present intrusion. Since the agitators closely resemble those depicted in 2 Peter, the same general movement may be in view.
     By comparing Jude 4-18 with 2 Peter 2:1-18; 3:1-3, it would appear that the two documents share a literary affinity. While the majority opinion in scholarly circles is that the parallel material in 2 Peter was copied from Jude, it seems more likely that Jude borrowed from 2 Peter. For one thing, Jude 17-18 appears to be a quote from 2 Peter 3:1-3 rather than vice versa. Some may object by pointing to the fact that Jude’s statement alludes to "the apostles" (plural) rather than the solitary author of 2 Peter. However, reference is made in 2 Peter 3:2 to "the words having been previously spoken by . . . your apostles." It is noteworthy that the ESV places the warning of Jude 18 in quotation marks and cites 2 Peter 3:2 in the margin. Another reason for maintaining the priority of 2 Peter is 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 fulfilment implied by the present tense of Jude 4, 16-19 (i.e. false teachers are here).
     A plausible scenario is that 2 Peter was written to reprimand false teachers in a particular community (north-central Asia Minor) and was then shared with Jude, who was dealing with a similar form of heresy in his own area. Jude adapts the portions of 2 Peter that were pertinent to the situation with which he was immediately concerned. While the possibility of literary collaboration or use of a common source cannot be discounted either, the involvement of the Holy Spirit is another common denominator (cf. 2 Peter 1:19-21).
     "To [the] only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord [be] glory, majesty, power and authority before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25).
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Jude's Use of Pseudonymous Sources, Epistle of Jacob