PETER, SECOND EPISTLE OF. The second epistle of Peter is markedly different in tone and style from all of the other epistles except Jude. It is beset by many difficult problems of interpretation and contains obscure and disconnected allusions to other writings. Since it includes no historical or geographical references unattainable elsewhere, there is little evidence of its precise place in the apostolic lit. Few NT documents have been a center of so much persistent controversy over the authenticity and authorship as 2 Peter.

This epistle is a personal message from the aged apostle who was about to finish his career. He warned the young churches under his charge about his own approaching death and the imminence of Christ’s return. In the face of these eventualities, Christians were exhorted against being corrupted by heretical teachings and falling into error. The chief concern of this epistle, not unlike the latter epistles of Paul and those of James and Jude, was heresy.

1. Unity. In critical discussions the basic coherence of the epistle often is questioned. A variety of ancient texts have been proposed as possible sources of the teachings of the book. Attempts have been made to determine by internal evidence certain subordinate documents within the whole. These are said to be a Petrine tradition called “P,” and a collection of later additions denoted “E.” This is the same sort of methodology that long has been associated with unsuccessful attempts to isolate the origins of the OT. Any efforts to locate such sources within an epistle of such short length and compactness are subjective and specious from the beginning. In this “search,” however, the works Clement of Rome, Second Clement, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Gospel of Peter and even the writings of Josephus and Philo all have had their adherents as influences on 2 Peter. If it is remembered that the epistle is an intensely personal reminder by the apostle to his converts, then its reiterative and disorganized style is easily explained. The mood of the epistle is severe but triumphant, as it seeks to compel faith in the final triumph of God’s will and the ultimate glorification of God’s people.

2. Authorship. The Early Church showed more care and suspicion in regard to the authorship of 2 Peter than almost any other epistle. Although most of the doubts had ceased by the end of the 4th cent., modern scholars repeatedly have cast doubt on its Petrine origin. The two key problems are its distinctive style in relation to 1 Peter and the lack of early mention or quotation of it by the patristic writers. Eusebius states: “These then are the works attributed to Peter, of which I have recognized only one epistle as authentic and accepted by the early fathers” (Euseb. Hist. III:1). The problem held little interest for expositors during the Medieval, Renaissance, and Reformation periods. In the 19th cent. it became a major point of debate and has continued to be so in critical studies. Most recent writers exclude the Petrine authorship of the epistle outright; those who would espouse it take a defensive stance. In support of Petrine authenticity is the statement in 3:1, “This is now the second letter that I have written to you...,” which, in turn, assumes the author to be the person, mentioned as addressor in the prologue of 2 Peter, “Simon Peter” (1:1) and also in the prologue of 1 Peter, “Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1). Were the text a pseudepigraphic forgery it must have been carefully concocted to deceive; its style and organization, however, yield little in the way of carefully planned deception. Actually, the text has the characteristics of haste and immediacy. The earliest known reference to the authorship and the book was made by an antagonist of Origen, Methodius, who quoted in his De Resurrectione the words from 3:8, for the Apostle Peter has written “that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” In later times this almost became a household ph rase appearing in a great number of scholastic sources. Methodius is supposed to have been slain during the persecutions of Diocletian’s reign a.d. 284-305. Cyprian received as noteworthy a letter from Firmilian, the bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea, in which there was an allusion to 2 Peter. The evidence from the various extant fragments of Origen’s works are difficult to collate and are somewhat contradictory. It is clear that in his time (a.d. 185?-253) 2 Peter was known to be of early provenience, even though its authenticity may have been questioned. It also is important that this document was not attributed to any other author than Peter; it was a question not of who wrote the epistle, but whether Peter composed it. There is a strong possibility that the epistle was known to Justin Martyr (a.d. 1-165) and Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 150?-213), which would place it in an era contemporaneous with many who had known the apostles and their first circle of converts. It is highly unlikely that any epistle could be circulated at this early period under the name of one of the foremost leaders of the Church if not authentic. It is difficult to propose a pseudepigraphic origin for a book whose author was so well known to its first readers. The arguments marshaled against its Petrine authorship on the basis of the stylistic differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are answered by noting the difference in subject matter and intent of the two books. The historical situation of the times, the atmosphere of expectations for the end of the ancient world and the apostolic age, and the vision of the parousia of Christ are all significant to the time of the latter’s origin. All of these concerns fit well into the close of the 1st cent. This involves the authorship of the epistle directly as only the apostle himself would have been involved in the responsibilities of each of the churches, or have represented the unique eyewitness point of view developed within the epistle. Passages such as 1:21; 2:9, 22; and 3:2 fit more precisely the character and position of Peter as portrayed in the gospels, Acts, and 1 Peter than any other figure of the apostolic period. To ascribe such to an unknown and spurious origin is to disregard utterly the textual evidence.

3. Date. The date of the epistle must be set between the writing of the first set of apostolic epistles and the death of Peter. If, however, the Petrine authorship is summarily dismissed, then the date is irrelevant and any chronological niche will be sufficient. The evidence supports the Petrine authorship, which could have occurred shortly before Peter’s death. Eusebius places Peter’s martyrdom in Rome during the period of Nero’s persecution (a.d. 64-68). If this were indeed a prison epistle written during the apostle’s last incarceration, then its distribution would be limited. This might account for its extremely late arrival in the Eastern empire. As with the book of Jude (q.v.), the epistle of 2 Peter includes references to the angelology characteristic of late Jewish works of the time of the Rom. destruction under Titus, in a.d. 70. The date of a.d. 67-68 seems to fit all these aspects most completely.

4. Place of origin. The tradition that Peter was imprisoned in Rome and thereafter slain under Nero’s orders is central to the Caesaropapism of the medieval world view. Eusebius recounts several traditions associating Peter and Paul with Rome and claiming that they were buried there after preaching the Gospel in Corinth and Italy. Peter’s oblique reference to his own death (1:13, 14) is meager evidence, but it is similar to Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 4:6, 7, an epistle that Peter may have read. Recent excavations under the foundations of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome have yielded early Christian tombs in what was once a Rom. necropolis. It is possible that some apostolic figure may have been hurriedly interred there after being executed. This evidence may not be discounted in the consideration of the date of 2 Peter. Irrespective of its actual place of origin the epistle is the work of a man under sentence writing to a suffering church that he cannot visit. The recent identification of a fragment of a Dead Sea Scroll from cave 7 at Qumran as a phrase from 2 Peter 1:15 would prove that the book was known in Pal. by a.d. 135. It was presumably a portion of a partial canon of the NT.

5. Destination and readers. The destination and readers of this second epistle must have been the same as those of the first epistle in the light of 2 Peter 3:1. The recipients of 1 Peter are listed in the prologue as, “the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1:1). The mention of the diaspora limits the initially intended audience to the vast Jewish community of Asia Minor. In the Acts, Peter is portrayed as the initial leader of the Church, proclaiming the Gospel to the many groups of national Jews gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Also, in his conforming to Jewish law and the Judaizing mode before his confrontation with Paul he worked primarily among the Jews and Gentile proselytes known as “God fearers” (Acts 10:2, et al.). In the period of the Acts, his ministry was centered in Pal. He is said on one occasion to have gone “here and there among them all,” referring to the small towns of Samaria, Galilee, and western Pal. (Acts 9:32). It was to these same Christian Jews and Jewish converts that both epistles, 1 and 2 Peter, were addressed. They must have been known also to the Asian Jews who had assumed the Hel. way of life in the distant places named. This contention is reinforced by the many lesser known references to the OT and Jewish notions found in 2 Peter. Such material would be comprehended most readily by Jewish readers.

6. Occasion. The Church and its leaders were being persecuted from without and subverted from within. Influenced by the many syncretistic cults that had come into the Rom. world from farther E, the Judaizers sought a common ground between the legalistic Pharisaic tradition and the Gospel of Christ. Against this heresy, Peter in his first letter directed his careful statements concerning the relationship between the Old and New covenants. In 2 Peter, on the other hand, none of these directions are noticeable, nor are any anti-Judaizing arguments presented. In their place are farreaching invectives and imprecations taken from the OT and directed against the overt moral laxity and iniquity of the false teachers. In this respect 2 Peter is closest to Jude. This change in theme indicates a change in the historical situation. The decline of the post-Augustan era was already being felt in the Rom. colonies. With the breakdown in external political control came a decline and dissolution in public morals. Antinomianism in the name of Christian liberty endangered the purity of the Biblical message. The apostle directed his readers to this new threat. Magic and astrology were prevalent in the Hel. age, and the evangelical doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ was easily just another mystical notion drawn into the general apocalyptic mood of the oriental cults. Peter aimed to strengthen faith through proper teaching upon the subject. The readers must consider the parousia as an historic fulfillment of the progress of God’s plan and not simply another crystal ball by which men could know the future for personal, selfish gain. The Second Coming must be grasped in its historical meaning and in its assurance of hope for the Christian.

7. Purpose. The purpose of 2 Peter is to warn, encourage, and instruct the churches to meet the new challenges that a later age would thrust upon them. The focus of the apostle’s attention is the Church. The epistle is not an evangelizing document as the gospel narratives were intended. It is an edifying personal letter seeking to secure the Christian’s resolve in the face of troubles. In accomplishing his purpose, the author covered a number of points of doctrine, simply mentioning some in passing and reiterating and reviewing others, but discussing none in detail. There is almost nothing that is completely unique to this work. Unlike 1 Peter, which is more in the doctrinal treatise tradition of the major Pauline epistles, 2 Peter relies on arguments, at times appealing to the OT in indirect fashion and at times to the author’s career and personal assurance of his experience (1:18). The purpose of the epistle is stated in Peter’s words as, “to arouse you by way of reminder” (1:13), so that they would (1) beware of false teachers and (2) live holy lives in accordance with their previous beliefs in Christ.

8. Canonicity. The involved problem of the canonical position of 2 Peter is dependent first of all on the concept of canon espoused. If the principle of divine providence in the preservation and acceptance of the Biblical books is rejected, then the canonization of any specific text becomes a mere problem in historiography. If, on the other hand, a belief in the sovereign work of God through the Church’s responsible agency in producing the canon is maintained then the fact is established by history itself. Second Peter has been in the canon since the late 4th cent. in all but certain oriental systems of organizing the Biblical books. Only the Syrian churches among the ancient ecclesiastical establishments, and only through their councils, rejected the book as spurious. In most rejections it was not the external circumstances that were crucial to their decision, but the internal evidence of the book itself. The two oldest representatives of the Syr. VSS of the text of the NT, are the Sinaitic and the Curetonian MSS, which are dated to the era of a.d. 200. These omit 2 Peter with 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Since the Syrian church and its shorter canon—possibly going back to a very early tradition to even before the completion and distribution of these last books of the NT—had a great effect on its daughter churches in Asia, many of their canons lacked these texts as well. Chief of these national churches that failed to include 2 Peter was that of St. Thomas in India. The reason for this omission, even after the book became known, was due to its quotation from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses. On the same basis they barred Jude. In their situation, the Gnostic cult pressed in upon them, and its followers frequently utilized the late apocalyptic Jewish writings and their commentaries for sectarian interests. “It is precisely in Syria, where the extravagence of Jewish angelology was most notorious, that one would naturally expect the most violent reaction against anything that might be adduced in their support” (E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered, 1961, 7ff.). Nonetheless the Philoxenian VS of the ancient Christian community in Iraq and the North African VS called Harclean, both prepared in the 5th cent. a.d., included 2 Peter. It is not doubted that Jerome referred to the Syrian tradition of rejection when he stated that many denied the authenticity of 2 Peter in the canon. It is necessary to note that the early debates and cross opinions concerning 2 Peter simply stated that it was suspected and disputed. Few authorities other than Eusebius and the Syrian church openly insisted that it was rejected. There is further evidence that homilies and commentaries included the rejected texts as of lesser rank than the better known gospel and epistle traditions. This is what is meant by the lack of references to 2 Peter since, interestingly, writers quoted it without mention or acknowledgment. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. a.d. 350) and Gregory of Nazianzus (c. a.d. 385) are typical of this type of author. Even after the councilar decisions of the 4th cent., the books were not well distributed throughout the widely scattered Christian communities. Only Jerome and very few others pointed out the apparent difficulty involved in the differences in style and content between 1 and 2 Peter. Jerome suggests, to solve his own enigma, that Peter may have employed two different secretaries to set down his thoughts in writing. This would be a very real solution if in fact Peter wrote 2 Peter while in prison. The church councils after the Nicene Creed (a.d. 325) give evidence of the widespread acceptance of 2 Peter in the canon. Augustine, in the early 5th cent. a.d., accepted this and other suspected books but with the reservation that each expositor should use his own judgment. The study by T. J. Herter, The Canonicity and Authorship of Second Peter (1962; Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary), is indispensible. All relevant patristic citations appear in B. F. Wescott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 7th. ed. (1896).

9. Text. As the authorship and canonicity of 2 Peter have engendered controversies, so also has the unique style and usage of the epistle. Many 19th-cent. critical scholars, aglow over the contemporary discoveries of large caches of papyri in Hel. Gr., were ready to dismiss the form of 2 Peter as neither classical nor Hel. but as something else. In view of the current advances in linguistic theory and comparative philology, their arguments appear absurd, but they do demonstrate that the essential characteristics of the two Petrine epistles are distinct. In this last regard three concerns seem important: (1) the words used only once in the NT that occur in 2 Peter (hapax legomena); (2) the unique expressions used in this book; (3) the semantic elements bearing particular stress or special meaning. The vocabulary of the epistle is drawn from all levels and developments of the Gr. language. There are terms that appear as early as Homer (10th cent b.c.) such as τήκω, “melt,” “dissolve” (3:12), and nowhere else in the NT. There are words of particularly Attic origin such as σιρός, G4987, “cave,” “crevice,” used only in 2:4 and spelled variously by the ancient MSS. There are, by contrast, also terms characteristic of the Hel. age with the marked tendency to combine two older portions or morphological elements into one term, such as ψευδῆς plus διδασκάλος, “false” plus “teacher,” combined to yield ψευδοδιδάσκαλος, G6015, “one who teaches falsehoods” used in 2:1, and hardly known from any source outside the 2 Peter citation. A large portion of the vocabulary is drawn directly from the LXX either in the form of quotations or oblique allusions, such as μίασμα, G3621, “defilement,” “corruption,” “pollution,” used frequently in the OT (Ezek 33:31, etc.). There is a good possibility that the specific vocabulary was purposefully arranged for apologetic effect, that it includes concepts and terms calculated to explain properly the passage of the OT perverted by the heretics. There are a number of words used only once (hapax legomena) or used very infrequently in the NT that assume special significance in 2 Peter. A sampling yields: ἀκατάπαυστος, G188, “restlessly,” “unceasingly” as in 2:14, “They have eyes full of adultery, unceasingly (looking) for sin”; αμώμητος, “unmarked,” “blameless,” “unblemished,” in 3:14; απόθεσις, “slough off,” “get rid of” (1 Pet 3:21; 2 Pet 1:14); ἐξέραμα, G2000, “vomit,” “vomitus,” and in the same context, κυλισμός, G3243, “rolling,” “wallowing”; ὑπέρογκος, G5665, “swollen,” “puffed up,” “haughty,” 2:18; and occurring twice in 1:7, φιλαδελφία, G5789, “love of the brethren.” In all the text contains some fifty-six words found nowhere else in the NT. In regard to the lower critical aspects of the text the number of unusual terms has caused a wide variety of orthographic and some minor morphological variants among the various MS traditions. Most noteworthy are the readings of the Uncial Codex B which differs at a number of points from the other codices, the papyri and the majority of minuscules. The defining of distinct syntactical usages is somewhat more difficult; certain generalizations, however, may be made about the forms of 2 Peter. A number of nouns with qualifiers take the phrase formulation: article-adjective or participle-noun, for example ὁ τότε κόσμος, “the world at that time” (3:6). In many other occurrences these formulations are expanded into elaborate literary forms, giving the book a peculiar but dramatic quality. Thus occur: ἡ ἐν τῳ κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορα, “the depravity in the world because of passion” in 1:4; ὀπίσω σαρκος ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πουρευέσθαι, “follow after the flesh in polluting desire” in 2:10; and the magnificent phrase, κατὰ̀ τῆν δοθεῖσαν ἀυτῷ σοφίαν, “according to the wisdom granted to him,” which Peter applies to Paul (3:15). The seeming irregular omission of the Gr. definite article is actually a point of very careful and precise grammar, requiring studied exegesis. The handling of the article in other arrangements also is similar to that of Hel. Jewish writings. The moods and tenses of the verbs are complicated by two factors: the primary one is the frequent quotations of prophetic and imprecatory material from the LXX, and the secondary is the reduction of the intricacies of the classical sequence of moods. It has been observed that the use of idioms, relatives, negatives, cases, and the genitive absolutes in 2 Peter are more nearly like the classical Gr. usage than any other of the NT epistles. There is also a definite attempt to conform the prose to certain poetic regulations, such as alliteration with a fine sense of the classical poetic euphony of π, β, φ; κ, γ, χ; τ, δ, θ, as in 1:16, 17, 19-21. The unique forms of certain rare words, such as μυωπάζω, G3697, “to be myopic,” “to be shortsighted,” are used in 1:9, and thereafter in Christian lit. exclusively. The text of 2 Peter contains various literary fragments. There are ancient invocations and greetings (1:2) and personal reminiscences (1:14, 17, 18). Some phrases possibly are from sermons that the apostle had preached (1:5-7), and the sections are ended by liturgical phrases—most likely ancient doxologies of the Early Church (3:18). These various forms, however, by no means lend credence to the thesis that the book is a patchwork of Christian notions tied together by some later redactor. The text and its many parts are properly arranged to produce a unified epistle wherein the apostolic author sought to establish his converts “in the present truth.”

10. Relationship to 1 Peter. The differences in style and vocabulary that can be demonstrated between 1 and 2 Peter are fully explicable in view of the differences in theme and purpose. The many likenesses in detail between the two often are overlooked by critics. Although there are 599 divergent readings in the lexica of the two books, there are one hundred agreements along with a few terms that are used only in the two Petrine epistles. Some terms appear in the gospel and epistulary texts of the NT and 2 Peter but not in 1 Peter; thus 2 Peter 1:16 contains the term παρουσία, G4242, in the phrase, “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This term also occurs in the prophetic context of other NT books (Matt 24; 1 and 2 Cor; Phil; 1 and 2 Thess; James, 1 John), although there is not one occurrence in 1 Peter. In 1 Peter the term is ἀποκάλυψις, G637, also used frequently in other parts of the NT. The 2 Peter usage seems to be later in time, after the fuller meanings of Christ’s prophecies became more apparent to the Church; thus the usage of 1 Peter is logically followed by 2 Peter. The introductions and salutations of the two epistles match well, further indicating a common authorship. As to the gospel narrative to which both epistles occasionally refer, 1 Peter includes more open personal recollections and paraphrases of the earthly life of Christ. Second Peter includes brief references, but without any paraphrases of the teachings of Jesus and only to strengthen apologetic points. The 19th cent. exegetes, aware as they were of more romantic and intuitive aspects, saw this as a lack of personal intensity or warmth. It seems more accurate, however, to accept the intense and earnest desire of the apostle to warn and not merely guide in the second letter. The tone of 2 Peter is grave—almost foreboding; this mood, however, is relieved by the insistence upon the me rcy of God, even in the divine punishments. Scholars often have depreciated the Gr. of the epistles by reference to the supposed Aram. originals of the apostolic preaching. The style of 2 Peter shows less Hebraic or generally Sem. influence than prob. any other book in the NT. By the same insight, it is highly unlikely that the book ever went through a number of revisions if its circumstances were as severe as 1:13, 14 would indicate. The epistle was providentially preserved, and was not a long and studied production. This sense of concern and immediacy is vital to understanding the epistle.

11. Relationship to Jude and the Pauline epistles. Out of the twenty-five vv. in the short epistle written by Jude (q.v.), nineteen are reiterated in some fashion in 2 Peter. Literary borrowing and primacy has been a longstanding issue. Widespread heresy of that period prompted similar responses from various apostles and other church leaders; therefore a common core of apologetic lit. developed. This can account for the duplication of content in 2 Peter and Jude. Jude is prior since it has fuller and more complete renderings of the OT phrases quoted. Jude, however, lacks the personal reminiscences of the gospel accounts common to 1 Peter and found twice in 2 Peter (1:13, 15, 16-18).

The argument of 2 Peter depended ultimately on the authenticity of its authorship; therefore, Peter distinguished himself in the prologue even more exactly than in 1 Peter and reinforced this with reference to the 1 Peter teachings (2 Pet 3:1). On the other hand, the author of Jude effaced his own personality as a younger brother of the Lord Jesus by his selfless assertion in Jude 1:1 that he is merely the “brother of James.”

Second Peter contains the only interconnective reference from one apostolic epistle to another (3:15, 16). This approval upon the writings of Paul demonstrates the truth of Paul’s authority. It, in turn, shows the extensive distribution that the epistles must have enjoyed even before a formal canon had been determined. It is highly probable that this statement endorsing the Pauline writings was directed against certain false notions of the Judaizers (a notion still treasured by some scholars) that Peter and Paul were at odds personally and theologically. Thus Peter stated his agreement with Paul’s view of the resurrection as seen in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere. That “all his epistles” are mentioned leaves little room for debate as to how many were accepted. Obviously it means all those known to Peter. This may include all now included in the canon if the ancient tradition is correct that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome after the death of Paul. It is necessary to define the meaning of Scripture at this point. Too often the essential quality of witnessing to Christ has been overlooked. God’s Word explains and answers the situations of life. To separate 2 Peter from life is to remove its authority. The phrase used by Peter in describing Paul’s letters—that he wrote “according to the wisdom given him”—makes apparent that Peter gave to the message of Christ and to the discussions of its meaning more than common authority. The phrase refers back to the phrase in 2 Peter 1:16, “we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” The objectivity of God’s special revelation is thus made plain—first, through the apostolic experience and second, through the apostolic word. Of greater importance is the characterization of the Pauline writings—that they are set equal to the OT ὡς καὶ̀ τὰ̀ς λοιπὰ̀ς γραφὰ̀ς, “as also the other scriptures.” At this early date, Pe ter recognized the authority of the OT revelation in Paul’s explanation of the parousia (3:16).

12. Relationship to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Some vv. in 2 Peter seem to relate to the angelology and apocalypticism of the late Jewish sectarian lit. The restraint of the angels in 2:11 is similar in intent to the story mentioned in Jude 9 that is an allusion to the Apoc. Assumption of Moses, whereas many of the symbols used to describe the awful fate of the wicked are similar to statements in the DSS. As in Jude and in occasional references in the Pauline epistles, this was prob. an accomodation to the literary concepts of the age and to the mistaken use of these apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works by the heretics. To these perverse expectations concerning a political Messianism Peter answers with the truth about the divine parousia at the end of the world. The contents of ch. 3 were designed to correct false assumptions and warn those propagating them.

13. Content.

14. Theology. Few documents in the theological lit. contain so much overview of the Christian message and its ramifications for history than 2 Peter. It covers creation, prophecy, law, imprecation, judgment, cosmology, atonement, and all points of the classical ordo salutis. It is of special value for its attestation of the objectivity of the apostolic witness in 1:16. Because of this, 2 Peter is of prime importance in the understanding of inspiration, revelation, and inerrancy. The terminology of the book is made up of two clear sources: the OT and its interpretation in the gospels and epistles. Peter mixed and combined both strands as no other NT author did. The ethical application of the principle of the Parousia is carried throughout the book. Peter was not allegorizing the Second Coming, but he was demonstrating the important concern that each age has a response and a duty to perform until Christ’s coming. The book adds to the NT the all-encompassing interpretation that is provided by the OT prophetic visions. The basic motive of the Christian religion—that of creation-fall-redemption-restoration—is repeated several times with differing emphases in each case. Peter defined false teaching as false teaching about the Scriptures. For Peter the OT and the apostolic writings were truth—any divergence, falsification, or perversion of this truth is error. The greatest of all errors, according to Peter, is the frustration of the purpose of revelation. The Church would be dependent on the written descriptions of the truth in Christ that the apostles had left. Peter fully realized this and provided the Church with a compendium of the Christian faith in the face of unbelief. Nowhere in the epistle is the Church instructed to take up a course of action against these people; their fate and their condemnation is left to a patient God. The theology of 2 Peter is eminently the theology of the NT.

In the theological development of 2 Peter the portrayal of Christ is central. In the first v. Peter is an apostle of Jesus Christ by virtue of faith. In the succeeding vv. Christ is presented as Lord, Gr. Κυρίος, as authority of truth, as deliverer of the believers, as the escape for Christians from worldly pollutions, and as coming and eternal King. The authority of Peter and the apostles to warn and teach is derived from their functions as apostles, servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. One of the themes developed in the book is the OT concept that ethical and religious commitments determine empirical situations. The historical judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah took the form of a physical calamity, thus the apostle illustrates God’s providence. The surety of the resurrection and final triumph of the believer is rooted in this same providential care. The passage in v. 8 indicates clearly the idea of God’s eternity and of the created nature and structure of time. The Parousia is related directly to this, to remove it from mere humanistic theory. Finally, grace is related to knowledge. This is the positive theological principle of the epistle—that knowledge of life and death, the world that is and that which is to come, are bound up in the knowledge of Christ and His atonement.

Bibliography J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, Eng. tr. (1855); E. A. Abbott, “On the Second Epistle of St. Peter,” EXP, 2nd. Series, III (1882), 49-63, 139-153, 204-219; B. B. Warfield, “The Canonicity of Second Peter,” The Southern Presbyterian Journal, XXXIII (1882), 45-75; F. Spitta, Das Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (1885); J. E. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude (1887); F. W. Farrar, “The Second Epistle of Peter and Josephus,” EXP, 3d Series, VIII (1888), 58-69; G. A. Chadwick, “The Group of the Apostles, II Peter,” EXP, 3d Series, IX (1889), 189-199; J. R. Lumby, The Epistles of Peter (1893); A. E. Simms, “Second Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” EXP, 5th Series, VIII (1898), 460-471; A. Plummer, The Second Epistle of Peter (1900); H. N. Bate, “The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude,” JTS, III (1902), 622-628; R. H. Falconer, “Is Second Peter a Genuine Epistle to the Churches of Samaria?” EXP, 6th Series, V (1902), 459-472; J. B. Mayor, “Notes on the Text of Second Epistle of Peter,” EXP, 6th Series, X (1904), 284-292; J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (1907); R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, I-II (1913); E. I. Robson, Studies in the Second Epistle of Peter (1915); F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Peter: Prince of Apostles (1927); V. Taylor, “The Message of the Epistles, Second Peter and Jude,” ExpT, XLV (1933-1934), 437-441; J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (1934); T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. II (1953); C. E. B. Cranfield, I and II Peter and Jude (1960); B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (1964); Wm. White, “A Laymen’s Guide to O’Callaghan’s Discovery,” Eternity (June, 1972).