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

The General Epistles: An Introduction

     Since at least the 4th century, the seven NT epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude have been collectively known as the “catholic” or “universal” or “general” epistles, mainly to distinguish them from the writings of Paul. This joint designation is intended to convey the sense of a broad, indefinite address to all Christians as opposed to a particular congregation or individual. C. R. Holladay suggests that one of the reasons these epistles were collectively so designated early on was because they were accepted and read by the church in general (A Critical Introduction to the NT 469).  

     Apparently 1 John was the first to receive the appellation that was eventually applied to all seven epistles for the sake of convenience (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.23.25; 5.18.5; 7.25.7), although 2-3 John were not initially written for the universal church and 1 Peter has a geographically limited address (cf. also 2 Pet. 3:1). The General Epistles bear the respective names of their authors, in contrast to the Pauline letters which bear the names of the recipients. While some have included Hebrews in this list, most recognize as the “General Epistles” only James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. The writings of James and 1 Peter are principally ethical, Jude and 2 Peter eschatological, and the Johannine epistles christological and ethical.

     B. M. Metzger observes that “our New Testament would be infinitely poorer without the variety of emphases supplied by the general letters…. As sunlight is composed of a variety of colors, so the spectrum of early Christian theology represented in the New Testament letters is remarkable for its diversity of emphases as well as for its unity in fundamentals” (The NT: Its Background, Growth, and Content 283).

  

Book	Approx. Date	Writer(s)
James	45-50	James the Lord’s brother (1:1)
1 Peter	64-65	Peter and Silvanus (1:1; 5:12)
2 Peter	64-65	Peter (1:1)
Jude	65-67	Jude the Lord’s brother (1:1)
1, 2, 3 John	90-95	John the apostle

     Five of these writings were contributed by apostles of Jesus Christ, while the other two were written by the Lord’s half-brothers. Chronologically they comprise the earliest and among the latest of the NT documents.¹

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnote:
     ¹ For more chronological details, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament 201-21.

Related Posts: Epistle of Jacob, Epistle of Judas, Distinctive Features of 1 Peter, Distinctive Features of 2 Peter, Introducing the Johannine Epistles

Image credit: http://stpaulsucc.org/fellowship-groups/bible-studies/

Jude 9: Why argue over the body of Moses?

     Jude’s initial intent in writing his letter was to convey a positive message about “our common salvation” (v. 3a). But his focus abruptly switches to the urgency of his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith” in view of the intrusion of ungodly men who had secretly “crept in” among them (vv. 3b-4).¹ In v. 8 he describes these intruders as “dreamers” [void of spiritual substance] who “defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.” To reinforce and illustrate the indictment, he writes in v. 9, “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” The point Jude makes is that evil men ignorantly reject and ridicule authority, while in so doing reveal their own corruption (v. 10).

     The question is, what’s this about the dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over the body of Moses? This is the only biblical passage that speaks of this incident. It is commonly alleged that Jude’s account is based on a pseudepigraphical work, namely the Assumption of Moses (a.k.a. the Testament of Moses). However, Jude does not attribute his information to any particular source. The Assumption of Moses is of uncertain date and authorship, and the only extant portion of it is a sixth-century AD fragmentary Latin manuscript. Since no surviving portion of this work contains the passage in question, and since similar words are found in Zechariah 3:1-2, the element of divine revelation notwithstanding, it is just as likely that the material came from a common source or tradition rather than having been the result of literary dependency.²

     Seeing that Jude provides no further details, no definitive conclusions can be reached, although various suggestions have been made. Nothing is said about the timing of the event. One proposal is that the contention concerned baby Moses (Ex. 1:16) and maybe the devil wanted to destroy or corrupt this future leader of God’s people. Another possibility is that “the body of Moses” is to be understood in a corporate sense as the OT parallel of “the body of Christ”; i.e., the collectivity [body] of people following Moses whom the devil was against (see Zech. 3:2; cp. Acts 15:21; 1 Cor. 3:15).

     The most popular suggestion is that Moses’ corpse was the center of the dispute (Deut. 34:6). Perhaps the devil questioned his right to a proper burial, or wanted to desecrate the body or reveal the burial site to tempt people to idolize the tomb or the remains and draw honor away from God.

     The bottom line is, we don’t know. And seeing that no further details are revealed in scripture, this is apparently something we don’t need to know. The point Jude makes is clear enough without having to satisfy our curiosity.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Scripture quotations are from the NKJV. 

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Jude’s Alleged Use of Pseudonymous Sources,” <Link>.

Related Posts: K. L. Moore, “The NT Epistle of Judas,” <Link>.

Image credit: http://chemistry.csudh.edu/faculty/jim/AAAcozaug05/stmichael02.jpg