Theopedia

Second Epistle of Peter

But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

— 2 Peter 3:18

Overview

The Second Epistle of Peter is one of the New Testament’s seven “Catholic,” or general, epistles, addressed to the church at large rather than to a single congregation.1 It presents itself as the apostle’s final letter, written as his death drew near (2 Pet. 1:13-14), to root believers’ growth in Christian virtue in the reliability of apostolic testimony, to warn them against false teachers, and to answer scoffers who denied the certainty of Christ’s return.2 Tradition places its writing in the mid-60s, though its authorship was among the most disputed of any New Testament book in the early church.3

Author and Date

The letter opens, “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1), and its author claims to have been an eyewitness of Christ’s transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16-18). Tradition accordingly assigns it to the apostle Peter, written not long before his death, commonly dated around A.D. 65-67.4 Even so, the letter’s authorship was contested earlier and more persistently than that of any other New Testament book, and it remains debated among evangelical scholars today.3

Arguments for traditional authorship

External evidence for the letter’s use reaches back further than its later reputation as a “disputed” book might suggest. 1 Clement (c. A.D. 96) has several apparent points of overlap with it, the Apocalypse of Peter (c. A.D. 110) shows signs of knowing it, and Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus each appear to allude to it.3 Origen, in the third century, cited the letter six times and received it as canonical Scripture, even while noting that others doubted it.3 Jerome accounted for the letter’s difference in style and vocabulary from 1 Peter by proposing that Peter used a different secretary, or amanuensis, for each letter, a solution he considered sufficient to receive both as genuine.5

Arguments against traditional authorship

Most modern critical scholarship regards the letter as pseudonymous, written in Peter’s name after his death, and dates it to the late first or early second century.3 The case rests chiefly on the letter’s difference in Greek style from 1 Peter, its extensive overlap with the epistle of Jude, and its reference to a collection of Paul’s letters already classed alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15-16), which critics take as evidence of a later, post-apostolic setting.3 Eusebius, in the fourth century, placed the letter among the New Testament’s “disputed” books, though he still recorded it as known and studied by most churches.6

Historical and Literary Context

Second Peter reads as a farewell testament: Peter writes with the conviction that “the putting off of my body will be soon” (2 Pet. 1:14), gathering his last instructions for churches he expects not to address again.2 Its central, repeated verb is “remind” or “remember” (2 Pet. 1:9, 12, 13, 15; 3:1), the mark of a leader handing off a trust rather than introducing new teaching.2 The occasion is twofold: Peter’s own death is near, and false teachers within the church are mocking believers’ hope in Christ’s return, insisting that “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:4).2

The letter’s second chapter has an extensive and close parallel with the epistle of Jude, describing the same kind of false teachers in strikingly similar language.7 Commentators differ on the direction of the relationship between the two letters: some hold that Peter draws on Jude, others that Jude draws on Peter, and others still that both draw on a common source now lost. The parallel itself, however, is not in dispute.7

Structure

The letter falls into three broad movements, corresponding to its three chapters.

  • Growth in Christian virtue, grounded in reliable testimony (1:1-21). Peter grounds his call to “make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue” (2 Pet. 1:5) in his own eyewitness testimony to Christ’s glory at the transfiguration and in the certainty of “the prophetic word” of Scripture (2 Pet. 1:16-21).
  • Warning against false teachers (2:1-22). Peter describes teachers who “will secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1), denounces their greed and immorality, and warns of their certain judgment, in close and sustained parallel with the epistle of Jude.7
  • The certainty of Christ’s return and the Day of the Lord (3:1-18). Peter answers scoffers who deny the promise of Christ’s coming, insists that the Lord’s seeming delay is patience rather than slowness (2 Pet. 3:9), and closes by urging his readers to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18).

Major Themes

The reliability of apostolic testimony and the prophetic word

Peter insists that the gospel of Christ’s power and coming does not rest on “cleverly devised myths,” but on his own eyewitness testimony at the transfiguration: “we ourselves heard this very voice born from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Pet. 1:16-18).8 He ties that eyewitness testimony to the “prophetic word more fully confirmed,” Scripture given not by human will but by men “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:19-21), so that the church’s hope rests on two mutually confirming witnesses rather than one.8

False teachers denounced

Peter devotes his second chapter almost entirely to describing false teachers who had “crept in unawares” among believers (2 Pet. 2:1; cf. Jude 4), a description that runs in close verbal and structural parallel with the epistle of Jude’s own warning against the same kind of intruders.7

The certainty of Christ’s return despite scoffers

Peter answers those who mock the promise of Christ’s coming by reminding them that “the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). Calvin appeals to this same passage against those tempted to despair at God’s seeming delay, directing believers instead to fix on the contemplation of eternity, “for since one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” his promise has not failed merely because it has not yet arrived.9 Hodge treats the passage as central New Testament testimony that the apostles fully expected a visible, personal return of Christ, at which “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat” (2 Pet. 3:10).10

Canonicity

2 Peter’s place in the New Testament canon was among the most disputed of any book in the early church.3 Origen, in the early third century, cited the letter repeatedly as Scripture but also recorded that it was “doubted of” by some.6 Eusebius classed it among the New Testament’s antilegomena, or “disputed” books, alongside James, Jude, and 2 and 3 John, distinguishing these from the universally acknowledged writings, while still noting that 2 Peter was “known to many” and studied alongside the recognized Scriptures.6 Jerome recorded that the letter “is denied by most persons on account of its disagreement in style” with 1 Peter, but he himself received it, and from his time onward it was generally regarded as part of the New Testament.5

The chief ground of early hesitation was less a positive objection to the letter than its own obscurity: not being addressed to any one church’s particular care, it circulated slowly and became widely known only gradually, a difficulty it shared with several of the other brief Catholic epistles.5 Despite that slow beginning, external evidence for its use reaches back to the late first and early second centuries, and it was ultimately received by figures including Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine, with textual support for its place in the canon that, on the evidence, exceeds that of any book eventually excluded from it.3 The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith lists “the first and second Epistles of Peter” among the books of the New Testament that are “given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.”11

Related Doctrines

References

  1. Elijah Porter Barrows, Companion to the Bible (New York: American Tract Society, 1867), chap. 31, “The Catholic Epistles,” 487. ↩

  2. Samuel G. Parkison, To Gaze upon God: The Beatific Vision in Doctrine, Tradition, and Practice (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024), chap. 2, “Biblical Foundations for the Beatific Vision,” 42-44. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), chap. 8, “Problem Books and Canonical Boundaries”: “Perhaps no book has had a more difficult journey into the canon than 2 Peter. It is widely regarded as pseudonymous by modern scholars and often dated to the early second century. However, a substantial case has been made for the traditional authorship of the book… 2 Peter still has significantly more support for its inclusion in the canon than the best of those books that have been rejected.” ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  4. Barrows, 493. ↩

  5. Barrows, 495-496. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Barrows, 494-495. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Barrows, 496-497. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Parkison, 44-45. ↩ ↩2

  9. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846), book 3, chap. 2, sec. 42, 507. ↩

  10. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume III (New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1873), 793-794. ↩

  11. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689), chap. 1, “Of the Holy Scriptures,” para. 2. ↩