Unpacking the Second Epistle of Peter: Its Authenticity, Themes, and Relevance

Near the end of the New Testament are two books authored by Peter, the apostle of Christ. Each of these is designed to caution the saints of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. 1: 1; cf. 2 Pet. 3:1) about the hardships that would befall them and the fidelity they must exercise under these difficulties. The term “Dispersion” generally refers to the scattering of Jews beyond their land, especially during Alexander the Great’s reign.

The first epistle focuses mainly on attacks that would arise from outside the church. But Second Peter concentrates on false teachers who would assault the church from within.

Is Second Peter an Authentic Epistle?

Tragically, there has been such a widespread denial of Peter’s authorship of the second letter.

For example, Carl Holladay was a professor at Emory University (a private Methodist university in Atlanta) from 1980 until his retirement in 2019. He once characterized Second Peter as “transparent fiction” (2005, 516).

In 2002, Holladay presented his material on “Introducing the New Testament Theologically” at the Harding Graduate School of Religion W. B. West Lectures (Memphis). He also regularly taught classes at the Northlake Church of Christ in Atlanta.

However, we should observe that Second Peter begins by declaring that it is the work of “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1). The writer also affirms that Christ specifically foretold the apostle’s death (1:13:14; cf. Jn 21:18ff).

The author also asserts that “we were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” in the “holy mount” (1:16-18), a reference to the events of the Transfiguration. The “we” would include Peter, James, and John, the latter two clearly excluded as authors of this book (cf. Mt. 17:1ff).

When Holladay contends that Second Peter was written by someone other than Peter in the late first or early second century A.D., the undeniable conclusion must be that whoever is this mystery writer, he lied in his introductory attribution to Peter as the author, as well as the other notable historical allusions in the text.

Here’s an important question. If the book commences with a lie, how could we trust anything written in the document?

Early pseudo-writings were attributed to Peter (e.g., the Gospel of Peter or the Apocalypse of Peter). Still, the character of those spurious documents was vastly inferior to that of Second Peter (Hillyer 1992, 11).

Many competent scholars have offered capable defenses of Peter’s authorship. Gundry confidently contends: “Despite modern doubt, then, we may accept the final verdict of the early Church that shortly after the Apostle Peter wrote his first epistle and shortly before his martyrdom in A.D. 64, he wrote this second epistle which bears his name” (1970, 354).

Thiessen firmly stated: “The Christian earnestness, apostolic tone, and autobiographical allusions make it impossible to believe that the Epistle is spurious” (1955, 289). For another brief but powerful defense of Peter’s authorship, see McNab (1954, 1143-1144).

Then there is this question. Isn’t it a rather fantastic phenomenon that liberal scholars who deny the genuineness of Second Peter nonetheless include it in their commentaries? Why do so if a criminal scribe forged the work? Has any modern English translation omitted the book? No.

Second Peter should be accepted as genuine.

The Theme of Second Peter

As previously noted, the apostle addresses two significant errors in his second epistle: enemies outside and within the body of Christ.

Denying the Master

The following text sets the tone for the warnings that follow.

But there arose false prophets also among the people, among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction (2 Pet. 2: 1).

Several vital points are apparent.

First, false teachers will import “heresies” into the church. The nature of their doctrine is false—further characterized as “heresies” (plural). “Heresy” takes its rise from the Greek, hairesis, found 9 times in the New Testament. Initially, the term meant “to choose” (Lev. 22: 18, 21 — LXX). Later, it came to signify a choice (i.e., an opinion, especially a destructive opinion, as in this passage).

The term then acquired the sense of a “sect” that adopts an opinion contrary to divine revelation. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees were sects that distorted the Law of Moses (Acts 5:17; 15:5). Early Christians were sometimes falsely charged with being a sect of Judaism (Acts 24:14; 28:22). The expression is also used for a factious element (following an opinion or dominant leader) within the church (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20).

Second, erroneous teachings would be brought into the church from outside sources. Their mode of operation would be covert, “secretly.” False teachers not only disdain gospel truth, but they are also duplicitous in their operation—wholly void of honor.

The heresies would be “destructive” (Greek apoleia), indicating “the loss of well-being, not of being” (Vine 1991, 212). It is a ruin that conveys the idea of misery (Thayer 1958, 70-71). No extinction of existence is implied in the term, as some suppose in their efforts to nullify the doctrine of eternal punishment for the wicked (Smith 2003, 165ff).

The doom of these heretics will arrive at the appropriate time with decisive swiftness. Destruction would visit the teachers and those who yield to their fallacious dogma. There is accountability for listening with discernment and teaching truth (cf Lk. 8:18).

The core of the heretical doctrine appears to be a repudiation of Christ as Savior, for the apostle declares that they are “denying even the Master who bought them.” It will not do to depict these as mere “professing Christians” (Robertson 1933, 160), in an effort to avoid the conclusion that these were apostates from the faith who were destined for hell. The text is far too clear to miss the point that they had been “bought” by Christ’s blood at the time of their conversion (cf Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:19- 20), but they had abandoned the relationship (cf. Heb. 10:29).

Mocking the Promise of Return

A second major heresy was a sneer at the divine promise that Christ would return to render judgment (Jn. 5:28-29; cf. 2 Cor. 5:10).

[I]n the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Pet. 3:3-4).

This brief statement contains several facts that warrant examination.

First, certain false teachers are characterized as “mockers” (empaiktes). The word describes those who add ridicule to the other base traits that blighted their ungodly souls. The term depicts those “who are hostile to revelation and to godliness” (Kittel 1985, 759).

The pattern of such conduct is well-defined in the Gospel records as used concerning the hateful treatment of Jesus (cf. Mt. 27:29, 31; Mk. 15:31; Lk. 18:32). Mockers are not an extinct species!

Second, their wanton lives are a telling index of their true character. They pursue their own “lusts,” and doubtless, this indulgence was reflected in their ridicule of that coming day when the Lord Jesus will judge the lives of all (cf. 1 Pet. 4:3; 2 Pet. 2:10).

Third, they arrogantly challenged the promise of the Lord’s Second Coming. They appealed to the seeming uniformity of history as support for their proposition. They contended that since the “fathers [i.e., notable ancestors] fell asleep,” the regularity of nature has remained relatively constant “from the beginning of the creation.” The “sleep” of the fathers is a reference to the disposition of their bodies in death (Dan. 12:2), not to a state of post-mortem non-consciousness, as alleged by some (cf. Smith 2003, 102ff).

Observe that even these crass advocates of error believed: (a) that there was a “creation,” hence the earth has not existed eternally, and (b) that humankind had observed the orderliness of the creation since its “beginning.”

They did not subscribe to the modern anti-biblical notion that the creation occurred eons before the arrival of man, who by some folks is alleged to be but a “very recent newcomer to the planet” (Clayton 1968, 2). In this matter, the first-century heretics were closer to the truth than some modern church members!

Fourth, the apostle counters their mockery with a devastating argument, which the lust-laden critics had “willfully” dis-remembered. The same earth that initially had been “compacted” (made to stand) out of water, and in the presence of water, by the “word of God” (cf. Gen. 1:1-2, 9), wholly overflowed with water and “perished” (Gen. 6-8). It was a worldwide flood. The term “perished” (apoleto) “does not carry with it the sense of utter destruction or annihilation, but rather that of a change, or breaking up, of an existing order” (Plumptre 1893, 192).

Peter’s contrast between the “world that then was” and the implied “world that now is” is significant. The global geologic and fossil evidence is a dramatic testimony to the Genesis Flood. However, such was unknown empirically to any appreciable degree to first-century citizens. The information came to the apostle by revelation, not investigation!

Peter’s point is this. The terrible interruption of the earth’s ancient features, as revealed in the testimony of Scripture, should be a sobering reminder of the promised judgment yet to come. The material universe has been “reserved” for a coming “day of judgment” and the horrible punishment of the ungodly. There is no room for a “heaven-on-earth” theory in this context, though this concept appears to be gaining momentum in the church (see Jackson 2007).

An Appeal for Repentance

The apostle urges his readers not to be swayed by the baseless argument that because Christ has delayed coming, he is not coming. We must remember that God is eternal, and his “clock” is not set according to human standards. What spans hundreds of years in Earth’s chronology is but a moment to the Eternal One.

I am compelled to comment on the frequent wresting of this text from its context to allege that the chronological references in Scripture are wholly elastic. This has been the ploy of those who have inhaled the fumes of evolutionary propaganda, attempting to stretch the “days” of the creation week into billions of years to facilitate the evolutionary timetable. Such a perversion of biblical truth is unconscionable.

God Keeps His Promises

Peter then penned this statement.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).

Four great truths regarding God here are set forth. Careful consideration should be given to each of them.

God is faithful.

The God of the Bible is a “God of truth” (Psa. 31:5; Isa. 65:16). He does not lie (Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). His word is one of integrity. When he makes a promise, he fulfills it (Dt. 7:8; cf. Psa. 36:5b; Isa. 25: 1).

When Abraham was promised that all nations of the earth would be blessed through his "seed,” he believed the Lord (Rom. 4:3). He operated on the premises that God is faithful, can be trusted, and is “able also to perform” what he has promised (v. 21).

It must be borne in mind, however, that some of Jehovah’s promises are absolute, while others are conditional. When a promise is conditional, its fulfillment depends on the obedience of those to whom it has been addressed (cf. Acts 2:38-39).

The promise of Christ’s return is absolute. He will “come again” (Jn. 14:3), and he will do so according to his schedule, of which no man has been apprised (Mt. 24:36).

God is patient.

The apostle affirms that the Lord is “longsuffering.” The Greek verb is makrothymeo, from makros (“long” in terms of time) and thymos (anger, fury). God’s wrath at sin is tempered by his love for pitiful, stupid human beings who, against their own best interests, frequently ignore him and reject his plan for their present lives and eternal welfare.

The pre-Flood world was “corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11), but the “longsuffering of God waited [more than a century] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared” (1 Pet. 3:20).

Fifteen centuries before the birth of Christ, God, through Moses, promised the nation of Israel blessings in abundance if the people would obey his voice (Dt. 28:1-14). But if they refused to obey, great punishment would be visited upon the nation in time (28:15ff).

Centuries passed, with the people becoming increasingly apostate. A temporal judgment came with the overthrow of northern Israel by the Assyrians (722-21 B.C.), and then Judah was taken into Babylonian captivity for seventy years (606-536 B.C.).

Eventually, after the Jews crucified their own Messiah, the full wrath of God came in the emphatic destruction of the nation by the Romans in A.D. 70 (cf. Mt. 22:7; 23:32-36; 24: 1-34).

Fifteen hundred years of longsuffering was exhausted! God is patient, but his Spirit will not strive with man indefinitely (Gen. 6:3).

God is merciful.

Peter declares that God does not “will that anyone perish.” Does this mean that no one will? It does not (see v. 7b). Universalism (the notion that everyone will be saved) finds no support in the Bible (Mt. 7:13-14).

The text does signify that the divine ideal was never that anyone be lost. Before the foundation of the world, the omniscient God knew that humanity would stray from his will, and a plan of salvation was already in motion (Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:20).

As noted above, the Lord does not “will” (KJV) or “wish” (ASV, ESV) anyone to be lost. The Greek term for this is boulomenos (a present, middle participle), which reflects God’s ideal desire. However, the word leaves open the door to human choice (Hiebert 1989, 156).

The crucifixion of Jesus was according to the will or counsel (boule) of God, but the Jews nonetheless were held accountable for their sinful actions in that event (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28; see Muller 1971, 1017). The notion that some were “elected” or “predestined” to be lost before the foundation of the world, irrespective of their personal choices, is a false doctrine that is horrible in its implications.

In a time of great danger, when pursued by enemies, David praised “the God of my mercy” for his deliverance (Psa. 59:17). The Lord is described as being “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4), and that mercy has been manifest in the offering of Christ as the atonement for sin (Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:3; Jude 21). Divine mercy is an extension of love (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:8). God’s mercy is not unconditional, however; it is available only to those who reverence him and submit to his word (Lk. 1:50; c£ Eccl. 12:13).

God is demanding.

There appears to be a common view in the world that “God” (whoever he is perceived to be) is a benevolent “fellow” who allows everyone to enter heaven eventually. Even the vilest Hollywood sleazes and the most corrupt politicians are frequently said to be “in a better place” after death. All who bravely fight and die in defense of their respective countries are almost guaranteed a home in whatever “heaven” they espouse—be it Islam’s “happy bedroom” or “Christendom’s” hall of “national valor.” Faithful obedience and genuine fidelity appear to be unknown requirements in certain circles.

But the apostle declares it is God’s will that “all come to repentance.”

The expression “come to” derives from choreo, “to leave a space (which may be occupied or filled by another), to make room, give place, yield” (Thayer 1958, 674). It implies the exercise of personal initiative and an attitude of surrender. We must make room in our life for submission to God.

“Repentance” is a change of mind that results in a transformation of state or action. It is a “radical, moral turn of the whole person to God” (Mounce 2006, 580). Here, the word is used as a synecdoche (the part stated for the whole; see Jackson 2005, 101-05). By that, we mean that “repentance” stands for the full complement of conditions leading to the forgiveness of past sins on the part of the sinner. Other items of the plan of salvation are similarly used as summary terms, e.g., faith (Acts 16:31), confession (1 Tim. 6:12), and water immersion (Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21).

“Repentance” is employed in several other contexts as a summary term for complete gospel obedience (Acts 11:18; 17:30; Rom. 2:4). We may not isolate one item of the plan of redemption from the full complement of requirements.

These marvelous two verses contain an abbreviated sketch of the character of our Creator. What a tremendous responsibility it is to live before him in humble obedience!