Authorship and Date. Regarding authorship, 2 Peter is one of the most disputed letters in the *New Testament. A number of scholars argue that the style differs so much from 1 Peter that the same person could not have written both unless he were purposely trying to alter his style. But some scholars respond that Peter could have given literary freedoms to his amanuenses, using a different *scribe (1 Pet 5:13) for each, with the second being more accustomed to bombastic Asiatic *rhetorical style. (Although many second-rate rhetoricians preferred flowery Asianism, Atticist style became predominant and ultimately flourished by the early second century. This style might provide a clue to the destination or, more likely, the date [before the second century], although it might reveal only the rhetorical training of the author or scribe. *Quintilian noted that a third style, the Rhodian, less redundant than the Asiatic school but less concise than the Atticist, was sometimes also used.)
The most important argument against Petrine authorship is the letter’s clear dependence on Jude, yet defenders of Petrine authorship counter that Peter could have incorporated much of Jude’s letter, instructed a scribe to do so or (much less likely) even used Jude as his scribe. (That Jude used 2 Peter is improbable, based on simplifications of imagery, expansions of allusions, etc.) Others argue that a later writer, maybe a close associate of Peter, wove together Petrine material with material from Jude.
The attestation for 2 Peter is weaker than that for most other New Testament books but stronger than that of early Christian books that did not become part of the New Testament, especially those claiming to be Petrine. The early *church did debate its genuineness, although its existence is attested early. But *pseudepigraphic documents were generally written in the name of a hero of the distant past; although a second-century date for the letter is possible, no internal evidence necessarily precludes a first-century date. Second-century *Gnosticism is probably not in view, and the end’s delay was an issue perhaps as early as the first New Testament document (1 Thessalonians).
Opponents. One suggestion of the heresy combated in this letter is second-century Gnosticism or a first-century proto-Gnosticism; “knowledge” (a favorite emphasis of the Gnostics, though hardly limited to them) is mentioned seven times in the letter. Gnostics denied the future coming of Christ, and many of them believed that bodily sins did not matter. Gnosticism did not, however, create these ideas from nothing; they developed earlier Greek (plus Jewish and Christian) ideas that were already evident in the first century.
Given the reports of charlatans so prominent in antiquity and parallels to all the ideas in existing Greek and Jewish conceptions in the first century, it is likely that the opponents are simply *Diaspora Jews almost completely overtaken by Greek thought (perhaps even more than *Philo was). Parallels in Diaspora Jewish literature as well as Judean works in the so-called Psuedepigrapha suggest an audience with a strong background in Jewish literature.
Genre. Second Peter is clearly one of those ancient letters intended for a wide circulation (1:1), although the style indicates that it was not directed toward the highest literary circles who normally read such letters. Besides being a “general letter,” some scholars have found in it elements of the “testamentary” *genre: testaments were final instructions left by a dying father or leader (cf. 1:14).
Commentaries. Very helpful for background are Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983); and Gene L. Green, Jude & 2 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). On a less technical level, see, e.g., J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981); Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002); and Ruth Anne Reese, 2 Peter & Jude, Two Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
The Greek text here reads “Simeon” (NRSV) rather than “Simon” Peter; this form of the name is less common but closer to the original Semitic form of the name than “Simon” is (also in Acts 15:14). Although “*Savior” was a divine title in Judaism and antiquity as a whole, it could be applied more generally; but applying the title “God and Savior” (the most natural translation) to Jesus was a clear statement of his divinity and would have offended typical Jewish readers who were not Christians. Writers often established the intimate relationship between themselves and their readers at the beginning of a letter (thus, “faith like ours”). “*Grace and peace” adopts a standard ancient greeting form but with *Christ at the center; see comment on Romans 1:7.
This section is sometimes said to adapt the literary form of a civic decree known from inscriptions honoring benefactors, but the evidence for this thesis is hardly compelling. Although the parallels demonstrate ideas in common between this passage and some decrees, such ideas were relatively widespread and can be identified in other literary forms as well. They do illustrate that Peter praises God and his benefactions lavishly.
1:3-4. “Divine power” and “divine nature” had been important phrases in Greek thought for centuries; they had also become standard in many *Diaspora Jewish writers. Many Greeks in this period wanted to escape the material world of decay around them, believing that their soul was divine and immortal and belonged in the pure and perfect heavens above; some Greek thinkers and cults provided this idea as a hope for the masses.
Many Greek writers, some Jewish writers like *Philo and generally later *Gnostics argued that one could become “divinized,” a god, either in life or at death; in some systems this divinization involved absorption into the divine. But most of ancient Judaism rejected the idea of divinization; there was only one God (cf. Gen 3:5; and even Philo meant divinization in a very qualified sense). Many Diaspora Jewish texts used language like Peter’s but nearly always only to indicate reception of immortality, not divinization. (Peter applies this language to the Christian view that a believer in Jesus receives a new nature; see comment on 1 Pet 1:23.) In the context of monotheistic early Christianity, embattled by polytheistic culture, Peter’s subdued language might help to refute claims of those who expected full divinization.
That Peter’s immediate cultural context is Diaspora Judaism rather than Greek paganism may be indicated by how he defines physical “corruption” or “decay”: its source is lust (v. 4; cf. 2:14; 3:3). Immortality was available, as the Greeks wished, but it was made available only through purification from sin (1:9); and the Greek concept of immortality is qualified by the biblical hope in the *kingdom and hence future *resurrection (cf. 1:11).
1:5-7. Lists of vices and virtues appear elsewhere in ancient literature. Adding one virtue, vice or some other next step to a former one, as here, was also a standard literary form that appears in Jewish, Greek and Roman texts (such progressions were sometimes called sorites); cf., e.g., Wisdom of Solomon 6:17-20. “Moral excellence” (NASB) or “goodness” (NIV, NRSV, GNT) was the catchall Greek “virtue” (KJV) representing nobility of character.
1:8. Greek philosophers saw philosophical knowledge as the key to changing people’s behavior; Peter may, however, intend “knowledge” to include the sense of a personal relationship, as often in the *Old Testament.
1:9. Jewish texts also speak of moral corruption and defilement from which one must be “purified” (cf. 2:20).
1:10-11. Judaism often spoke of Israel’s “calling” and “chosenness.” Peter applies these terms to all who would persevere to *eternal life. The future transformation of the world and an eternal kingdom established in the future were Jewish and Christian ideas foreign to pagan Greek thought.
1:12. “Reminding” was a common part of ancient moral exhortation, especially when softened by the qualification “though you already know this.”
1:13. A number of ancient texts compared the body to a tent, as here; Peter chooses an image that his readers would readily grasp.
1:14. Various Jewish writers believed that the righteous often were warned of their impending death in advance. In ancient Jewish stories, heroes often gave final exhortations to their heirs in “testaments” as their death approached. Some suggest that by announcing his imminent death (undoubtedly his execution in Rome), Peter may inform his readers: These are my final instructions to you, so pay close attention. Cf. John 21:18-19.
1:15. Reminders were common in testaments (1:14), although they were also common in moral exhortations in general (1:12). “Departure” here is literally “exodus,” a term occasionally used in ancient texts for death (e.g., Lk 9:31).
1:16. The term translated “myths” (NRSV) was usually used negatively for untrue stories, such as slanderously false accounts about the gods; “myths” were contrasted with reliable accounts. Eyewitness testimony was important in establishing a case historically or legally, although Greek and Roman *rhetoricians did not always give it as much weight as it bears today. (Some scholars have drawn attention to the point that the same term Peter uses for “eyewitnesses” here was used for initiates in the final stage of initiation in some pagan *mystery cults, such as the Eleusinian and Samothracian mysteries; but a related term was also applied to the higher philosophy by *Plato and *Aristotle, and it was a frequent term for eyewitnesses, applied even to God himself in *Diaspora Judaism. Because Peter describes not his initiation into the faith but an eyewitness experience distinct from that initiation, the eyewitness element is the central point. Like Peter here, the Gospels are at pains to point out that the glory which Jesus’ companions would see before death was the transfiguration, not the Second Coming; but the transfiguration prefigured the Second Coming; cf. 1:19.)
1:17. Some “testaments” (see comment on 1:14) cited special revelations (often heavenly journeys) of the hero; Peter provides a more down-to-earth revelation: what he experienced at the transfiguration (Mk 9:2-13). Early Judaism often referred to God speaking from heaven (see comment on Mk 1:11 for the texts excerpted here). “The Glory” was sometimes a Jewish circumlocution for God; Peter probably intends an allusion to Sinai, where God revealed his glory to Moses.
1:18. Israel also experienced a revelation of God at a “holy” mountain, and Peter probably parallels his own witness of Jesus’ glory with Moses’ witness of God’s glory on Mount Sinai (an allusion also probably present in the Gospel accounts of the transfiguration). (The *Old Testament usually applies the “holy mountain” title to Zion, but Zion was to be the site of the new Sinai, or *law giving, in the end time; cf. Is 2:2-4.) Both revelations led to divine Scriptures (cf. 2 Pet 1:20 with 3:16), although later Jewish teachers generally agreed that the law had more authority than any mere voice from heaven.
1:19. The apostolic revelation in *Christ confirmed the revelations of the Old Testament prophets. Some *Dead Sea Scrolls texts present the “star” of Numbers 24:17 as messianic, and an Old Testament text describes the coming day of the Lord in terms of a sunrise (Mal 4:2) because God would come like the sun (cf. Ps 84:11). The point here seems to be that the morning star (Venus) heralds the advent of dawn; a new age was about to dawn (cf. 2 Pet 1:11), but the Old Testament plus what was revealed by Jesus’ first coming was the greatest revelation the world would experience until his return in the day of the Lord. The lamp provided light until dawn. “You do well” was a common way of suggesting that a person do something (i.e., “You ought to do this”).
1:20-21. Ancient Judaism and Greek thinkers generally viewed prophetic inspiration as a divine possession or frenzy, in which the prophet’s rational mind was replaced by the divine word. (The remark on the Jewish perspective is especially true of Diaspora Jewish ecstatics, such as Philo and authors of the *Sibylline Oracles.) The various literary styles of different Old Testament prophets indicates that this was not quite the case; inspiration still used human faculties and vocabulary (cf. 1 Pet 1:10-12; 1 Cor 7:40; 14:1-2, 14-19), although there may have been different levels and kinds of ecstasy (cf. 1 Cor 14:2; 2 Cor 5:13; 12:4; 1 Sam 10:10-11; 19:20-24). On either model, however, inspiration could protect the inspired agents from error; contrast 2 Peter 2:1.
2:1. In contrast to the inspired prophets of 1:20-21, false prophets were those who spoke visions from their own mind instead of from God’s heart; in many *Old Testament texts that define them as such, they falsely promise peace for sinners destined instead for judgment (e.g., Jer 23:16-32; Ezek 13:3-10).
2:2. Sincere philosophers complained that philosophy was ridiculed on account of pseudophilosophers; Jewish people and representatives of other minority religions also suffered from the negative publicity following wayward, profiteering members of their groups (cf. Rom 2:23-24). The same was true of early Christianity.
2:3. Traveling diviners, false prophets and moral teachers typically charged fees, found rich *patrons or begged funds and were thus frequently accused of having monetary motives unworthy of their professed callings (see comment on 1 Thess 2:5). False teachers in the *church were likewise exploiting Christians.
2:4. One of the most prominent themes of ancient Jewish tradition, though usually suppressed by the later *rabbis, was the idea that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-3 were angels who lusted after women and so fell (e.g., *Dead Sea Scrolls CD 2.16-18; 4Q180 f1.7-8; *1 Enoch 6–7; 16:2; 69:5; 106:13-15; *Jubilees 4:22; 5:1; 7:21; *2 Baruch 56:10-15; Testament of Reuben 5:6; *Philo, That God Is Unchangeable 1). The term for “cast into hell” here is from the Greek name Tartarus, a place not only of holding for the wicked dead (and especially the Titans, the pre-Olympian supernatural beings), but of the severest conceivable tortures; it occurs elsewhere in Jewish literature (e.g., Sibylline Oracles 4.186; 5.178), including as the place where the fallen angels were imprisoned (Sibylline Oracles 1.101-3; most manuscripts of *Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 60:3; cf. the “burning valley” in 1 Enoch 67:4, 7). Jewish writers also generally affirmed a current hell as a holding place for the wicked until the final judgment. For God not “sparing” the offspring of the angels in Noah’s day or (later) Sodom (as in 2 Pet 2:4-6), see also Sirach 16:7-8.
2:5. Noah stories, like fallen angel stories, were also popular in nonrabbinic Judaism. Judgment on the fallen angels was usually linked with judgment on Noah’s generation because Genesis 6 recounted both. Jewish traditions also portrayed Noah as a preacher of *repentance (e.g., Sibylline Oracles 1.129, 168; Jubilees 7:20). Jewish teachers liked to use the flood generation as an example of impending judgment to warn their own generation to repent, and they believed that the flood generation was particularly wicked and would not have a share in the world to come.
2:6. Jewish teachers often coupled Sodom with the flood generation as epitomes of wickedness (“an example”—*3 Maccabees 2:5; the rabbis frequently, e.g., Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:3; etc.); the Old Testament prophets also used Sodom repeatedly as an image of ultimate sin, often imitated by their own generations (cf. Deut 32:32; Is 1:9-10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 50:40; Lam 4:6; Ezek 16:46; Zeph 2:9).
2:7-8. Jewish tradition was quite divided on whether Lot was righteous (most of the rabbis and some others said that he was not). Genesis portrays him as personally righteous (Gen 18:25; 19:1-16); though not as wise as Abraham (13:10-11; 19:29, 32-35), he was too righteous for Sodom (19:9, 15).
2:9. In most Jewish traditions, the wicked were tortured in *Gehenna until the day of judgment (or until their annihilation, depending on which tradition one follows). In the Wisdom of Solomon 10:6, Wisdom “rescued the righteous one,” Lot, when the ungodly perished in the fire of Sodom; 2 Peter probably alludes to this tradition.
2:10-11. A wide variety of Jewish texts mention those who reviled the stars of heaven or cursed *Satan or *demons (Dead Sea Scrolls 1QM 13.1-4; 4Q280 f2.2; 4Q286 f7ii.2-7; Babylonian Talmud Menahot 62a; cf. Sirach 21:27 LXX; Life of Adam and Eve 39:1). Peter’s opponents have presumably adopted this practice, perhaps as a form of “spiritual warfare.” (By contrast, the Sodomites [2:6] tried to molest angels but were unaware that they were angels.) Although Christians had to be concerned for their public witness—charges of subversion in the Roman Empire led to severe persecution and repression—these false teachers apparently reviled earthly authorities and the angelic authorities behind them (see comment on Eph 1:19-23).
2:12. Ancient writers regarded some animals as existing only to be killed for food; here the animals are objects of the hunt. The image would not be purely rural; many urban arenas displayed the hunting of animals for sport as public entertainment. Philosophers (e.g., *Epictetus and the second-century *Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius) characterized animals as creatures ruled by instinct as opposed to humans, who were ruled by reason, and considered unreasoning humans “wild beasts.”
2:13. Reveling was part of all-night parties; accusing these people of partying in the daytime was portraying them as worse than the pagans. (The common suggestion that Peter’s wording here depends on the early Jewish work called the Assumption of Moses [cf. *Testament of Moses 7:4] is quite possible, but it is also possible that the Assumption of Moses depends on 2 Peter; the direction of dependence depends on the respective dates assigned to the two documents. It is also possible that both depend on some other source, or that the verbal parallel is coincidental.)
2:14. Some Jewish writers also spoke of adultery of the eyes; see comment on Matthew 5:27-28. Whereas philosophers spoke of moral “training” and avoidance of greed, these false teachers were “trained in greed” (NASB, NRSV). “Accursed children” (NASB, NRSV) could either represent the Semitic figure of speech for accursed ones or refer to disinherited children who received curse instead of blessing from parents.
2:15. According to Jewish tradition and the most likely interpretation of the Old Testament, Balaam was a dishonorable character. For the sake of money, Balaam had led the Israelites into cultic prostitution with the Midianites, bringing God’s judgment on them and leading to his own death (Num 31:8, 16; Josh 13:22). Jewish literature considered him the ultimate prophet (and sometimes philosopher) of the pagans but did not reduce his role in Israel’s sexual offense. His attempt to make Israel sin was considered worse than any other nation’s military attack on them because it brought God’s judgment against them. The contrast between “the way of Balaam” and the “right way” reflects the common ancient image of two paths, one leading the righteous or wise to life, the other leading the foolish to destruction.
2:16. Ecstatic prophets were often called “mad” or “possessed” (in the ancient Near East and ancient Israel as well as in Greco-Roman antiquity; cf. 2 Kings 9:11; Jer 29:26). But Balaam’s insanity is even more evident: despite a miraculous warning through an animal that proved to be smarter than he was (cf. the implications in 2 Pet 2:12), he proceeded with his folly (Num 22:20-35). *Philo used Balaam as an allegory for foolish people; the rabbis said that people who followed in Balaam’s paths would inherit hell. Jewish tradition added to the donkey’s speech, in which it reproved Balaam’s folly in greater detail.
2:17. Barren wells were worse than useless; they promised water in the arid East yet did not deliver on their promise. Hell was sometimes described in terms of darkness.
2:18-19. Greek philosophers often warned against being enslaved by one’s passions; the image could extend to those who exploited those passions (such as prostitutes). Those defeated in battle and taken captive were enslaved. Most philosophers spoke of freedom from passion rather than freedom to indulge it; the *gospel spoke of freedom from sin, not freedom to engage in it.
2:20-21. Jewish texts often spoke of the “way of righteousness”; see comment on 2:15.
2:22. One of the proverbs Peter cites here is from the Bible (Prov 26:11, referring to a fool returning to his folly); the other proverb was extrabiblical (from a recension of the ancient story of Ahiqar) but would have been a familiar image. Both dogs and pigs were considered unclean (cf. Mt 7:6) and would have been regarded contemptuously by Jewish readers; they were also associated in other analogies like this one.
Like many Hellenized Jews and like later *Gnostics, the false teachers here played down future judgment, thus leading people to sin like the false prophets of old (chap. 2; see comment on 2:1). Now Peter turns to address the root of their immoral error directly; like many Jewish teachers, he recognizes that lack of expectation of future judgment usually led to immoral behavior or even moral relativism (see also comment on Jude 3-4). Some commentators regard chapter 3 as a letter distinct from the one in chapters 1–2, but this is unnecessary: the transition is natural, especially in view of Peter dropping his dependence on Jude at this point.
3:1-2. On “reminder,” see comment on 1:12. For Jesus’ commandment here, cf. Matthew 24:42-44 (especially for 2 Pet 3:9).
3:3. Some philosophers charged that *Epicureans, who denied future judgment, lacked a basis for morality. Likewise, in much Jewish literature, those who deny the *age to come have no basis for morality (cf., e.g., Wisdom of Solomon 2:1-24; Pharisaic accusations against the *Sadducees). Ridiculing the righteous was also understood to be characteristically wicked behavior; for example, *1 Enoch speaks of sinners who mock God, denying his revelation; the *Dead Sea Scrolls complain about those who mocked their community’s righteous teacher.
3:4. Ancient writers vested “the ancestors” (NRSV) or “the ancients” with great prestige.
*Aristotle and his adherents (the Peripatetics) believed that the universe was eternal. His view caught on even outside Peripatetic circles, and *Philo had to address the idea. Epicureans denied that God acted in the world; they also believed that matter was indestructible (on the atomic level) and that the universe was infinite. The *Stoics believed that fire was eternal, that the universe would periodically be resolved into the primeval fire (see comment on 3:7) and that eternity was a cycle of ages. Whether matter was created out of preexisting substance in chaos (as in most ancient thought) or from nothing (as many find most likely in Gen 1) was debated in *Diaspora Judaism.
3:5. In Genesis 1, God created the world through his word (also Ps 33:6-9). (Some later Jewish traditions counted ten commands in Gen 1 and suggested that they represented the Ten Commandments, the word of the *law on which God founded the world.) The Greek philosopher Thales saw water as the primal element (though Peter’s wording is much more ambiguous).
3:6-7. God had promised after Noah’s flood (Gen 6–9) never to destroy the earth by water again (Gen 9:15; Is 54:9), but the prophets did speak of a future fiery judgment and renewal of the present world (cf. Is 65:17; 66:15, 22); they were followed on this point by later Jewish writers (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, *Sibylline Oracles), some possibly influenced by Stoic conceptions. Jewish tradition thus declared that the present world would be destroyed not by water but by fire (e.g., *Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.70; Rabbi Meir, second century, Tosefta Ta’anit 2:13; Life of Adam and Eve 49:3). Jewish literature sometimes used the flood as a symbol for the future judgment by fire. Unlike the Stoics, who believed that the universe (including even the gods) would be periodically resolved into fire and formed again, Jewish people commonly hoped for a future day of judgment and then a new creation that would stand forever (2 Pet 3:10, 12-13). Though their source was the *Old Testament, on this point their view was closer to that of *Plato, who thought that the world would end once by flood and once by conflagration, rather than Aristotle.
Delay should never be taken to indicate that Jesus is not coming back after all (3:4; cf. Ezek 12:27-28; Hab 2:3). Although many modern scholars think that 2 Peter addresses a second-century disillusionment with the earliest Christian *apocalyptic hope, questions over the delay of Christ’s coming arguably surfaced as early as Pentecost, and the book of Revelation, at the end of the first century, still cherished apocalyptic fervor. The Dead Sea Scrolls also attest unexpected, continued deferment of hope for the day of God among the *Essenes, producing similar exhortations to endurance.
3:8. Peter appeals to Psalm 90:4 to make his point, as did many other Jewish writers of his day (who often took “the day as a thousand years” literally and applied it to the days of creation). Some apocalyptic writers lamented that God did not reckon time as mortals do and consequently urged perseverance.
3:9. The Old Testament emphasized that God delayed judgment to allow opportunity for the wicked to repent (cf. 2 Kings 14:25-27; Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11). His patience with regard to the world’s end was further emphasized in later Jewish texts like *4 Ezra (7:74; cf. 4:33-37); in Jewish texts, one could no longer repent once the day of judgment had come. Some Greco-Roman writers also praised the mercy of God or that of the gods in delaying divine vengeance.
3:10. The day of the Lord is a familiar Old Testament image for the ultimate day of God’s judgment, his final day in court when he settles the injustices of the world (e.g., Is 2:12; Joel 1:15; Amos 5:18-20). That day’s “coming as a thief” refers to a saying of Jesus (extant in Mt 24:43). Different ancient thinkers had different lists of elements (the Stoics, who believed the world would be resolved into fire, had four, like most writers: earth, water, air and fire), but Peter’s point is that everything will be destroyed. The destruction or purifying renewal of heaven and earth was also common in apocalyptic tradition.
3:11. As usually in the *New Testament, Peter’s discussion of the future is practical and suggests how to live in the present. This focus corresponds with the motives of some apocalyptic writers but contrasts with what appear to be those of many others: impatient curiosity about the future. Those who suffered in the present order especially embraced apocalyptic hope, which gave them strength to persevere in the midst of seemingly insurmountable tests in this age.
3:12. Rabbis disagreed among themselves as to whether the end of the age was at a time fixed by God or whether it could be hastened by Israel’s *repentance and obedience. In this context, Christians may hasten the coming of the end by missions and evangelism (cf. Mt 24:14), thereby enabling the conversion of those for whose sake God has delayed the end (2 Pet 3:9, 15).
3:13. This hope is from Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22, and was frequently reiterated in later Jewish literature. The Old Testament and Judaism agreed that righteousness would characterize the world to come (e.g., Is 9:7; 32:16-17; 62:1-2; Jer 32:40).
3:14. Here Peter urges his hearers not to be like the false teachers (2:13). See comment on 3:11.
3:15-16. God’s patience allows salvation for those on whose behalf he delays; cf. 1 Peter 3:20 on Genesis 6:3, returning to the judgment image of the flood (2 Pet 3:5-7). Calling a writer’s work “hard to understand” in antiquity was not an insult (as it often is today); it could mean that it was complex and brilliant. Jewish teachers said that the message of the Scriptures could be “distorted” by misinterpreting them. Second-century *Gnostics and, in the first century, many Jewish and probably Christian groups were distorting the Scriptures, some even to play down a future judgment (perhaps by allegorizing it).
By the late first century, another early Christian writer (1 Clement) asserted the inspiration of Paul’s letters; although Paul’s early writings had undoubtedly not been collected before Peter’s death, Peter may have known of some of them from his travels among the *churches. Even though Josephus and other writers asserted that Judaism had a closed *canon, some Jewish groups (such as the *Qumran community and Diaspora communities that used various recensions of the *Septuagint) seem to have had a fluid idea as to where Scripture ended and other edifying literature began. Although some scholars have reasonably used this statement identifying Paul as Scripture to argue for a post-Petrine date for 2 Peter, it would not have been impossible for the real Peter to view Paul’s writings as Scripture if he accepted Paul’s apostolic status and hence the possibility that some of his writings were prophetically inspired. Much that was prophetically inspired, however, never became Scripture (see “canon” in the glossary). Thus if Peter wrote these words, they reflect a remarkable insight for his day.
3:17-18. Peter’s hearers are to resist the false teachers by growing in Christ. Even groups that separated humanity starkly into righteous and unrighteous or wise and foolish normally recognized the importance of the righteous or wise making progress.