Introduction
Overview
Whereas the threat faced by readers in 1 Peter is from the outside (persecution), the threat addressed in 2 Peter is more from the inside (false teaching). Second Peter calls on believers to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (3:18).
Authorship, Audience, and Date
The Letter of 2 Peter had a more difficult time joining the canon than did any other NT letter. It was disputed into the fourth century, mainly due to its significant differences in style and methodology from 1 Peter, and perhaps due to its very Greek way of expressing ideas. Both issues made it difficult for third- and fourth-century church leaders to believe that 2 Peter was actually written by Peter.
Second Peter states that it was written by “Simeon Peter,” who is an “apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1); Simeon (or Simon) is Peter’s actual name, and Peter, or “Rock,” is the nickname Jesus gave to him. Given that we have only one other letter attributed to Peter, that the authorship of that letter is also disputed (although not as hotly as that of 2 Peter; see the introduction to 1 Peter), and that we do not know much about the early life and education of Peter, there is no body of literature against which we can test this claim of authorship, nor is there sufficient information about Peter to indicate whether or not he could have written the letter. What we do have is what the letter reveals about the author, which is the data from which scholars draw their conclusions.
The author of 2 Peter is very much at home with the Greek language, for he has at least some secondary rhetorical education, and with Greek philosophy, for he appears to be opposing some type of Epicurean influence and he uses Greek concepts expertly (e.g., 1:3–11). The author is also very much at home with the Letter of Jude, for he appears to incorporate an edited version of most of that letter into 2 Pt 2:1–3:7. This, of course, means that the author is writing after Jude and is the first witness to the existence of Jude’s letter. Given his use of Jude, the author of 2 Peter is also familiar with stories that originated in the OT. Yet, like Jude, he does not show that he knows these stories directly from the OT but rather attests the form in which they circulated in Second Temple Jewish literature.
The author seems to be writing to Gentile believers in Jesus, not to Jewish believers. In this, 2 Peter is similar to 1 Peter. While the recipients are familiar with stories that modern Christians know from the OT, they do not seem to have been as widely acquainted with Second Temple Jewish literature as that of the recipients of Jude, for 2 Peter edits both the direct quotation of 1 Enoch and the story taken from the Testament of Moses out of the material he takes from Jude. We know that these recipients have received a previous letter from the same author (2 Pt 3:1), but that letter is not necessarily 1 Peter. As Paul shows, NT authors could write numerous letters, many of which have not been preserved. The believing community that the recipients are members of is old enough that the missionaries who founded it (“your apostles,” 3:2) are no longer there, having either moved on or died. It is also old enough that it was possible for believers to be taunted with the question, “Where is his ‘coming’ that he [Jesus] promised?” (3:4).
Assuming that 1 Clement does in fact refer to 2 Peter (which can be debated), 2 Peter must have been written before AD 96. It had to be written before the Apocalypse of Peter (dated AD 110–40), for that work uses 2 Peter. Simon Peter was probably martyred before AD 68 (the death of Nero), so the question one must answer is whether the letter could have been written this early and, if so, whether it was the type of letter that a person like Simon Peter would have or could have written.
Structure and Occasion
The letter is structured as follows. It opens with a salutation (1:1–2) and opening argument (1:3–11). The body of the letter contains a series of arguments in support of the author’s position (1:16–3:13). The letter then closes with a final encouragement (3:14–18). Notice that the letter does not have a typical letter ending but merely a simple doxology in 3:18, leading some to believe that it is more a homily that was sent out with a letter opening (and an inserted resumptive address in 3:1) than an actual letter.
As noted above, the letter appears to have been written to oppose Epicurean influence. The Epicureans believed that everything (the world as a whole, including the gods) was made of atoms, that everything was heading toward final dissolution, that it followed that there was no individual future after death and certainly no final judgment, and that the best life was therefore lived for the present by maximizing pleasure. They were observant enough to realize that unbridled hedonism was not pleasant (as anyone who has eaten or drunk too much can testify), so they called for people to live according to the “golden mean,” that level of self-indulgence that maximized pleasure without leading to negative consequences. Some version of such teaching has apparently infiltrated the community of those who follow Jesus, and the author of 2 Peter is not impressed by this wisdom, for it means a life lived without regard to the imperial rule of Jesus and his coming judgment.
Outline
1. Salutation (1:1–2)
2. Opening Statement (1:3–11)
3. Purpose Statement (1:12–15)
4. Arguments in Support of His Position (1:16–3:13)
A. Apostolic Eyewitness (1:16–18)
B. Prophetic Witness (1:19–21)
C. Certainty of Judgment (2:1–10a)
D. Denunciation of the False Teachers (2:10b–22)
E. Recapitulation and Introduction of the Second Part of the Argument (3:1–2)
F. Mockers Shown to Be Illogical (3:3–7)
G. Delay of the Still Certain Final Judgment (3:8–13)
5. Final Encouragement to Stability (3:14–18)