2 Peter

1. SALUTATION (1:1–2)

The letter opens with the identification of the author as “Simeon Peter” (1:1a)—this work uses the more original form of the name, Simeon (as in Ac 15:14), rather than the shortened version Simon. He is writing to those with “a faith equal to ours”—so, to faithful believers (1:1b). The expression “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” is unusual and unlike similar expressions later in the letter. If the author is following the normal rules of Greek, he is talking about a single person, which makes this one of the clearer NT statements identifying Jesus as God.

2. OPENING STATEMENT (1:3–11)

1:3–4. The opening statement consists of two parts. This first part uses Hellenistic concepts and unusual language to point out that Jesus took the initiative in delivering us and that this deliverance was accomplished through “the knowledge of” him (meaning personal knowledge and commitment, not just knowing about him; 1:3). This enables us to “share in the divine nature” (a bold statement that we can become like Jesus/God), but one cannot participate in the divine nature without “escaping the corruption that is in the world” that is caused by desire (1:4).

1:5–11. Therefore, this second part of the opening statement is about the virtues (not listed in any particular order) that will make us more like Jesus (1:5–7). Pursuing these virtues (many of them community-preserving virtues) does not only make one’s commitment to Jesus better; it also makes it more secure, preventing one from falling away (1:8, 10). If we are moving toward the center, Jesus, we are in no danger of slipping back into the pit from which we were rescued. Thus, this action will make sure not only that we are warmly welcomed when Jesus returns as emperor of this world (1:11) but also that we do not fall away and miss out on the rule of Jesus altogether, as the author of 2 Peter believes that some have done (1:9, picked up in 2:1–22).

The list of godly qualities in 2 Pt 1:5–8 looks a lot like Paul’s fruit of the Spirit list in Gl 5:22–23.

3. PURPOSE STATEMENT (1:12–15)

The purpose of the letter is testamental (similar to the purpose of other testaments [e.g., Gn 49:1–28; Dt 33:1–29])—namely, that after his death the addressees will have a written record of Peter’s teaching and so always be able to remember it (1:15). The reason this is necessary is that (1) Peter is mortal (he refers to his mortal body as a tent [1:13], as Paul does in 2 Co 5:1, where the resurrection body is an “eternal dwelling”—in other words, permanent), and (2) he believes that his death (as predicted by Jesus in either Jn 13:36 or Jn 21:18–19) is impending (although he does not tell us why he believes this; 1:14). This letter is to “wake [them] up with a reminder,” since they are “established in the truth” (1:12–13), which is a rhetorically polite statement that assumes the best about them. However, the fact that he is writing this letter indicates his fear that they could be vulnerable to the new teaching of those he labels “false teachers” (2:1).

4. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS POSITION (1:16–3:13)

The statement in 2 Pt 1:19 “until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” may be an allusion to Nm 24:17: “A star will come from Jacob.” This prophecy is from one of the oracles of Balaam, who is cited as a negative example in 2 Pt 2:15–16. However, an allusion to Balaam may reinforce the point of 2 Pt 1:21: Balaam’s prophecy came not from his own will but from the Holy Spirit.

Given 2 Peter’s thesis (1) that God has intervened by means of Jesus to free human beings from the power of evil that is rooted in desire and (2) that in order to live in this deliverance one needs to pursue virtue, the author supports this assertion by means of a series of arguments. He introduces this by his polite assertion that his addressees know and are practicing all this but that, given his impending death, it is his duty to “remind” them (1:12). Chapter 2 makes it clear that he believes they are under threat; but in the Hellenistic world it was polite to phrase your instruction as a reminder, so this is rhetorically effective. Furthermore, since he casts this letter in the form of a final testament, this lends weight to his arguments as the last words of a revered leader.

A. Apostolic eyewitness (1:16–18). The first argument refers to the transfiguration, also found in Mk 9:2–8 and its parallels. Second Peter presents this as an eyewitness account of the enthronement of Jesus, describing it by terms like “majesty” and “honor and glory” with a voice coming from the “Majestic Glory,” designating Jesus as God’s Son (1:16–17). Jesus’s reign has already been inaugurated, and if Jesus already reigns, trifling with his leadership and teaching and denying his “coming” are unwise indeed.

B. Prophetic witness (1:19–21). The experience of the transfiguration confirms what the prophets said (1:19). That is, Peter is not basing his argument on his religious experience alone but sees that experience as in continuity with the ancient prophets. We do not know which prophets he refers to, but the author wants to make clear that the prophets recorded in Scripture received not only the visions that they had from the Spirit but also the interpretation of those visions; so the prophets’ interpretation of their visions were not “the prophet’s own interpretation” but were just as directed by the Holy Spirit as were the visions (1:20–21).

C. Certainty of judgment (2:1–10a). 2:1–3. At this point the author reveals his central concern, as he incorporates the material he takes from Jude. There were false prophets in the past, and there are false teachers now. In Jude the others are outsiders, never named, and never said to be teachers. Here they are insiders (“among you”) who are “false teachers” (2:1), and it is only the new ideas that come from outside. (They “bring” them in.) The phrase “destructive heresies” means not so much false doctrine (the denial of the return of Jesus is a secondary issue and so left to last) as ideas that lead to divisions in the community. (“Heresy” indicates they separated into a party or sect.) It is also clear that these ideas lead to “depraved ways” (2:2; some form of promiscuity) that even those in the larger pagan community around the believers would condemn, and that these teachers based this teaching on “made-up stories” (2:3; perhaps stories about spiritual experiences or visions), unlike the story of the transfiguration and the words of the prophets.

2:4–10a. God, of course, is not fooled and will not be slow to judge them. The author gives a series of examples drawn from Jude, which he edits to stress that God can judge and at the same time save the righteous, rather than having to remove the righteous first or being prevented from judging because of the presence of the righteous. The first example (2:4) is a reading of Gn 6:1–8 through the lens of works like 1 Enoch, in which the sinning beings are angels who are subsequently imprisoned. But while the “angels who sinned” perished, Noah, “a preacher of righteousness” (an idea drawn from extrabiblical Jewish stories about Noah), was saved (2:5). The same is true about Sodom and Gomorrah and the rescue of Lot (2:6–7), whose “tormented” soul is also an idea drawn from extrabiblical Jewish traditions, although his righteousness may be implied from Gn 18.

The author’s conclusion is that it is no problem for God to distinguish between the “godly” and the “unrighteous” in judgment (2:9; he does not have to remove the righteous first, and he does not worry that in judging the unrighteous he will accidentally harm the righteous) and that his judgment falls in particular on those following their natural desires (again, it is desire that is the culprit) and despising divine authority (2:10a).

D. Denunciation of the false teachers (2:10b–22). 2:10b–12. The thesis that God distinguishes in judgment leads into a denunciation of the false teachers. Unlike the holy angels, these teachers slander celestial beings (2:10b). (The clear reference found in Jude to the Testament of Moses has been removed.) But such behavior is simply emotional reaction and thus from what we would call the “animal brain”—so these teachers will die like animals (2:12).

2:13–16. The author charges these teachers with carousing (and not even trying to hide it) at the Lord’s Supper, adultery, and greed (financially exploiting the community) (2:13–14). The last charge makes them like Balaam (also mentioned in Jude), who prophesied or taught for money (both practices—especially prophecy for money—were rejected in the early church; 2:15). Balaam’s action (and, by implication, that of the teachers) was so shameful that a dumb animal rebuked him verbally (2:16)! (In Nm 22:30 the donkey speaks, but in Nm 22:32–33 it is the angel who rebukes Balaam; however, in Second Temple Jewish literature the eloquent rebuke is in the donkey’s mouth.)

2:17–22. These teachers promise much but deliver little (2:17–18). They have been and still claim to be followers of Jesus and, as pointed out in 1:3–5, have therefore been delivered from the power of desire. But now they are enslaved to it again (so the “freedom” from conventional morality that they promise is a sham, since they are not truly free themselves; 2:19). Therefore, they are worse off than if they had never become believers (2:20–21), presumably because they will receive harsher judgment than those who have never accepted the good news. This shocking conclusion is capped off with the citation of two proverbs, one Jewish and one pagan (2:22).

E. Recapitulation and introduction of the second part of the argument (3:1–2). The author pauses to recapitulate: this is a second letter (the first is not necessarily 1 Peter; 3:1), and both simply remind the addressees what they already know from the Scriptures (“holy prophets”) and those evangelizing them (“your apostles”) (3:2).

F. Mockers shown to be illogical (3:3–7). These teachers are the “scoffers” predicted to come in the “last days” (3:3). Obviously, if one is living immorally, one can hardly believe in a judgment in which one will be called to account. These teachers therefore deny that there will be a “coming” of Jesus (3:4) and that “he will judge the living and the dead” (to quote the later Apostles’ Creed). Perhaps they thought that all judgment had been taken care of on the cross or in the fall of Jerusalem, and so it was past. The world, so they argue, goes on steadily.

The author again points to Noah. The earth, pictured as rising in creation out of the seas and with waters in the firmament above it, was destroyed by that very water (3:5–6); God will do it again, but this time by fire rather than water (3:7). The idea that the world is indissoluble forgets biblical history.

G. Delay of the still certain final judgment (3:8–13). But what about that “coming”? Jesus had not returned, and it had been decades since his resurrection. The author argues that (1) God’s sense of time is not the human sense (which is the understanding of the psalmist in Ps 90:4 and a common Jewish understanding; 3:8), (2) God is not slow, but patient (3:9a), and (3) God will bring judgment at an unexpected time (3:10). God has delayed the return of Jesus, but it is for a purpose: God does not want “any to perish but all to come to repentance” (3:9b).

The sudden judgment, when it comes, will mean the removal of heaven (the firmament that is between where God is and the earth) and the heavenly bodies (3:10b). This will leave the earth “disclosed” (not destroyed) so all is open to the divine eye and easily judged. Since even the heavens above (thought by ancients to control life on earth) are impermanent, believers should be living for the permanent, the renewed earth, purged of all evil, with, of course, a new heaven (since the old was destroyed in the course of judgment), which God has promised (3:12–13). The way one lives for this is not by talking about it but by “holy conduct and godliness” (3:11).

5. FINAL ENCOURAGEMENT TO STABILITY (3:14–18)

3:14–16. The author sums up. (1) Live holy lives (3:14). (2) Think of the delay in the coming of Jesus as “the patience of our Lord,” which means “salvation”—perhaps the recipients’ salvation, for Christ could have come before they came to know and commit to him (3:15a). Then the author notes (3) that Paul agrees with this teaching in his letters, although, as was already clear in 1 Co 5–6, some took Paul’s teaching on grace to mean that licentious living would not be punished (3:15b–16). Such distortion of Paul would lead to the destruction of the distorters.

3:17–18. The final reminder (3:17) is to “be on your guard” and thus not to be deceived and fall, for the holy lives they are now living in obedience to Jesus are a “stable position.” The letter (or perhaps sermon with a letter opening) ends with a blessing and doxology: the blessing is a summary of 1:5–8 and focuses on our imperial ruler and deliverer, Jesus, God’s anointed King (to put our author’s titles into more modern form; 3:18a). And certainly he will indeed have all honor (i.e., “glory”) now and forever (3:18b).

In 2 Pt 3:10, the day of the Lord is described as coming “like a thief.” The image of the thief is drawn from Jesus’s teaching (Mt 6:19; Lk 12:39) and is also used by Paul (1 Th 5:2).