The historical contours of 1 Peter are tolerably distinct; we can answer with considerable assurance most of the questions that historical inquiry raises concerning it. The Second Letter of Peter, however, is wrapped in mystery, and the reconstruction of its historical background is beset at almost every point with perplexing uncertainties. While the place of the first letter in the canon has always been an assured one, the second letter has the weakest historical attestation of any book in the New Testament. There are indications that the letter was known and used in the second century, but there is no unmistakable evidence that it was known as a letter of Peter and used as such in the church before the time of Origen (AD 185 to 254), who referred to the letter and considered it apostolic, but was aware of the fact that its place in the canon was in dispute.
Historical and Cultural Settings of 2 Peter
The authenticity of 1 Peter, though questioned by modern critical scholarship, is actually quite solidly established by the external and internal evidence, whereas the authenticity of the second letter was questioned even in the Early Church and is denied by the great majority of scholars today. The circle of readers for whom the first letter was intended is clearly defined by the letter itself; the address of the second letter is very general: “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours” (2 Peter 1:1), and leaves the location of the readers uncertain. The words “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved” (3:1; emphasis added) make it likely, but not certain, that its destination is the same as that of the first letter. Concerning the time and place of writing of the second letter, we can only say that it must be dated toward the close of Peter’s life and that it was therefore probably written from Rome and addressed to the church in Asia Minor (cf. 1 Peter 1:1). We can see what sort of tendencies and difficulties occasioned the second letter, but we cannot fix them as to place and time with any precision.
Arguments on the Uncertainty of Authorship
The majority of scholars today regard 2 Peter as a second-century work, written by one who wishes to invoke the authority of Peter to aid him in dealing with the dangers and difficulties confronting the Church in his day. The letter, they say, is not a malicious forgery; the use of Peter’s name is not designed to deceive anyone. It is merely the author’s way of saying, “This is what the apostle Peter would say to our situation if he were still with us today.” It is commonly described as an example of the testamentary literature of this era (as in a “last will and testament” document; cf. 2 Peter 1:12–15 where Peter mentioned he was facing death).
This position is supported by a massive array of arguments, and the case is generally conceded to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And yet there is room for reasonable doubt. The greatest difficulty about the theory that 2 Peter is a forgery is to discover a motive for the forgery. Men who write in the name of others, especially great authorities, have a reason for doing so. In the case of 2 Peter such a reason is hard to discover. The author is not using an apostle’s authority to support a heresy, as is so often the case with early forgeries. He is not indulging in a romantic glorification of an apostle as the Acts of Paul, for instance, does. The allusions to Peter’s life and experience remain within the limits of what we know of Peter from the Gospels. And the writer imports nothing from a later time and experience (anachronisms) into the picture of the apostle.
There have been similar cases in the history of New Testament scholarship where theories about a late date for a document were overturned; there was, for instance, a time when practically nobody who was anybody in the world of scholarship cared to defend the authenticity and first-century origin of the Gospel of John, while today further study and new discoveries have put the matter in a different light. This example shows that evidence needs to be sifted. The impressive list of arguments against authenticity for 2 Peter contains items of varying strength and validity. Some of the arguments are strong, and honest scholarship should not evade the fact that we are confronted by genuine reasons for uncertainty in this matter.
Strong Arguments Against Peter’s Authorship
The argument based on differences between the first and the second letter in vocabulary and style is strong. The two letters are clearly quite different. One may conjecture that the differences in language and style are due not only to the different situation presupposed by the two letters but also to the fact that Peter employed a different helper for the second letter, that the associate “through” whom Peter wrote his second letter was a man different from Silvanus, the secretary “through” whom he wrote the first letter. But again this is conjecture; and we are left with unsolved problems.
Weak Arguments Against Peter’s Authorship
Other arguments used to support the thesis that 2 Peter must be a second-century non-Petrine work are less strong. Arguments on what the letter does not say are of dubious validity; it is argued that the second letter is less profoundly Christ-centered than the first letter, that the second letter is more somber about the approaching end of all things than the first letter.
The argument from silence is always dubious; Paul, for instance, is silent on the Lord’s Supper in all his letters except 1 Corinthians, but this neither calls into question the authenticity of the other letters nor does it prove anything concerning the importance that Paul attaches to the Lord’s Supper. Similarly, the fact that the second letter quotes and recalls the Old Testament less often than the first letter does not have much weight, especially when we consider that the second letter contains one of the most powerful statements in the whole New Testament on the authority and the inspiration of Old Testament prophecy (2 Peter 1:19–21). Neither is the alleged fact that the author speaks of Paul’s letters as a collection known to the Church (3:16) sufficient to prove a late date and exclude Peter as the author. The phrase “in all his letters” does not necessarily imply that everyone everywhere in the Church knew the collected letters of Paul. And to argue that Peter could not have ranked Paul’s letters with “the other Scriptures” (that is, the Old Testament) involves the whole question of apostolic authority. If Paul himself considered the word that he spoke to be no less than the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 7:40; 14:37), there is no reason why Peter, who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:9), should not have placed the same value on it.
Summary Content for 2 Peter
2 Peter 1:1–2 Peter greets his readers with a salutation that affirms their standing in Christ. All who confess Christ possess “a faith of equal standing.”
2 Peter 1:3–15 Peter affirms the greatness of the Christian hope, and he encourages his readers to make their calling and election sure by giving evidence of their faith with good works.
2 Peter 1:16–21 Peter had seen a glimpse of our Lord’s glory on the holy Mount of Transfiguration.
2 Peter 2 Our Lord says, “In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33; cf. 2 Peter 2:9).
2 Peter 3 Knowing that this world will not last, we are to live lives of holiness, hastening the coming of the Lord. Our Lord’s patience is essential to our salvation in the sense that He is giving us time to repent.
Martin Luther on 2 Peter
This epistle is written against those who think that Christian faith can be without works. Therefore he exhorts them to test themselves by good works and become sure of their faith, just as one knows trees by their fruits [Matt. 7:20].
He begins accordingly by praising the gospel over against the doctrines of men. He says that people ought to hear the gospel alone and not the doctrines of men. For, as he says, “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of men” [II Pet. 1:21].
For this reason he warns in chapter 2 against the false teachers who are to come. They are preoccupied with works and thereby deny Christ. He threatens these men severely with three terrible illustrations and depicts them so clearly with their avarice, pride, wickedness, fornication, and hypocrisy that one must plainly see he means the clergy of today. For these have swallowed the whole world in their greed and are wickedly leading an irresponsible, fleshly, worldly life.
In chapter 3 he shows that the Last Day will come soon; and though in the sight of [fur] men it may seem a thousand years, yet in the sight of [fur] God it is as one day. He describes what will happen at the Last Day, how everything shall be consumed by fire. However, he also prophesies that at that time people will be scornful and, like the Epicureans, will think nothing of faith. (Luther’s Works, vol. 35, pp. 391–92)
Blog post adapted from Lutheran Bible Companion, Volume 2: Intertestamental Era, New Testament, and Bible Dictionary © 2014 Concordia Publishing House. All rights reserved.
Scripture: ESV®.
The quotation from Luther’s Works in this publication is from Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 35 © 1960 by Augsburg Fortress. Used by permission of the publisher.
Read more about 2 Peter and every book of the New Testament in Lutheran Bible Companion, Volume 2.
