In all likelihood, this pseudonymous work was chronologically the last book of the NT to be written; and, as we shall see, despite a somewhat bland first impression, it has been the subject of acrimonious debate today.

1. The Background

   Since we are accustomed to begin by treating the work as it stands, what background on Peter is assumed beyond that already presented for 1 Pet. The author invokes the historical career of Symeon Peter (1:1) by using for this "apostle of Jesus Christ" a Greek form of his personal name close to the Hebrew original (not "Simōn" but "Symeōn" from Šimĕʿoōn - elsewhere for Peter only in Acts 15:14) and by emphasizing his presence as an eyewitness at the transfiguration (2:16-18). He wraps himself in the mantle of the author of 1 Pet in "This, beloved, is the second letter I write to you" (3:1). He knows what "our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters" (3:15-16). Indeed, with some condescension, Symeon Peter alludes to his own superior teaching position as an interpreter of the Scriptures, since in Paul's letters "there are things difficult to understand which the ignorant and unstable distort for their own destruction, as they do with other writings (Scriptures)". Without naming his source, he quotes large parts of the letter of James' brother Jude (modifying what might be objectionable), thus relying on a tradition revered by those Christians for whom "the Lord's brethren" were authorities. Gone are the struggles where Paul made disparaging remarks about James and Cephas (Peter) as "so-called pillars" of the Jerusalem church and confronted Cephas face to face (Gal 2:9,11).

   We are much closer to the perspective of 1 Clement 5:2-5, written from Rome between 96 and 120, which speaks of Peter and Paul as pillars of the church. If, in the 2nd century, the Jewish Christians of the pseudo-Clementine literature exalted James against the evil Paul, and if Marcion exalted Paul as the only apostle and rejected the Jewish heritage, the Simeon Peter who gives instructions in 2 Pet is a bridge figure who seeks to hold the different heritages together. In this sense, this epistle is very "Catholic".

2. General Analysis of the Message
   1. Opening Formula: 1:1-2

      This opening formula is the only substantial gesture from 2 P to a letter format. It gives a general description of the recipients as "those who have received a faith of the same value as ours." It is not a matter of assuring Gentile converts that they have the same faith as Jewish Christians (as in Acts 11:17), but of affirming that, by "the divine justice of our God and Savior Jesus Christ," all Christians have the same faith as Jesus' first companions, of whom Simeon Peter is the spokesperson par excellence (1:16). In other words, as in Eph 4:5, there is only one Christian faith. Many point out that "faith" here is a repository of belief rather than the Pauline sense of trust, even though Paul could write about "faith" in a more objective sense (e.g., Gal 1:23). The greeting "grace and peace be multiplied" is copied from 1 Pet 1:2. The "knowledge of Jesus our Lord" (2 Pet 1:2) is a theme that will be repeated later in 2 Pet, for it is the antidote to false teaching.

   2. Body: 1:3-3:16
      1. Exhortation to progress in virtue: 1: 3-21

         This exhortation uses terms that pile up on top of each other with luxuriant abundance (e.g., 1:5-7: faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, piety, mutual affection, love). In one memorable phrase, the author wants his recipients to "become partakers of the divine nature" (1:4), a more abstract way, in Greek, of formulating 1 Pet 5:1 "partaker of the glory that is to be revealed" (or from 1 Jn 1:3: koinōnia with the Father and the Son). Christians who do not progress become blind and forget that they have been cleansed of their sins (2 Pet 1:9) - a theology of baptism as an illumination (cf. Heb 6:4) and a washing. Speaking as Peter in the face of death, the author of 1:12-15 wants to leave the recipients with this reminder so that after he is gone they can remember that he spoke of such things. He has the authority to do so because the truths about Christ that he (and the other apostles: "we") proclaimed were not "cleverly devised myths," but the eyewitness testimony of God's own revelation from heaven at the time of the transfiguration, recognizing Jesus as the beloved divine Son (1:16-19). The reference to the transfiguration is probably 2 Pet's exegesis of 1 Pet 5:1 where Peter describes himself as "partaking of the glory that is to be revealed." We must ask, however, why does 2 Pet consider the transfiguration such a useful source of assurance, instead of appealing, for example, to the famous appearance of the risen Christ to Peter (1 Cor 15:5; Luke 24:34)? Does the transfiguration serve in 1:16 to affirm the promised "parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ" (which is denied by the scoffers [3:3-4]) because it was closer to the type of theophany expected in the last days than was a resurrection appearance? Is there an appeal to the transfiguration because the author wants to establish a certain priority of Peter over Paul (3:15-16), who could claim to have seen the risen Christ but not the transfigured Christ of the ministry? Is the authority of the transfiguration more secure than that of a resurrection appearance because the writer wants to reject the myths of the Gnostic visionaries who very frequently used the risen Christ as a source of discourse establishing their doctrine?

         Prophecy also enters the picture in 2 Pet 1:14. According to 1 Pet 1:14, Jesus foretold the (coming) death of Peter - a tradition also found in Jn 21:18-19. Similarly, in 2 Pet 1:19, after the "we" who were on the holy mountain for the transfiguration, "we have the prophetic word made sure", which probably means the OT prophecies of God's appearance in the last days. This brings us to the most famous passage of 2 Pet 1:20-21: "Every prophecy of Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation, for a prophecy is never brought forth by human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit have spoken from God." Who is meant by the term "personal"? Some understand it to mean the prophet (who is not given the power to formulate a prophecy on his own); others understand it as the recipient of the prophecy. In the latter explanation, the passage seems to challenge the right to private interpretation of Scripture, and has been attacked as an aspect of the "early Catholicism" of 2 Pet. Similarly, although the passage speaks specifically of (OT) prophecy, it has been used to defend the divine inspiration of all Scripture. Such questions should not blind us to the fact that the author's primary intention was to support the truthfulness of Christ's expected parousia.

      2. Condemnation of false teachers (polemic from Jude): 2: 1-22

         The polemic feeds into this objective by comparing the opponents to the false prophets who troubled Israel. The fact that the author has a specific false claim about the parousia in mind will become apparent in 3:3-4, but to set the stage he uses a polemic that could be applied to almost any teacher in error. Indeed, although he never informs his readers, he has taken up this polemic from Jude en masse, using all or part of nineteen of Jude's twenty-five verses. Several features of the difference should be noted. Jude's "non-canonical" examples (the dispute over the body of Moses and the prophecy of 1 Enoch) are not used, apparently because the author of 2 Pet had a more precise sense of what constituted Scripture. From the triad of Jude 5-7 on God's punishments, namely the people in the wilderness, the angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah, 2 Pet 2:4-8 retained the second and third but substituted the flood for the first, probably under the influence of the use of the flood in 2 Pet 3:20. There is a more Hellenized version of the punishment of the angels: in eternal chains and darkness for Jude 6, but in Tartarus for 2 Pet 2:4. Unlike Jude, 2 Pet 2:5-9 focuses on those who were exempted from divine punishment - Noah from the flood, Lot from Sodom and Gomorrah - as evidence that God knows how to save the godly from trial. Moreover, 2 Pet omits the reference to unnatural lust that was present in the allusion in Jude 7 to Sodom and Gomorrah. When 2 Pet 2:10-16 also echoes Jude 8-13, there are still differences, e.g., Balaam's donkey (2:16) becomes part of this biblical reference. In 2:17-22, 2 Pet repeatedly emphasizes a particular aspect of the wickedness of the false prophets that is not highlighted in Jude. They have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ, and now they have become entangled again, so that their final state is worse than the first. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to turn back after having known it. By way of illustration, 2:22 quotes a biblical proverb about the dog returning to its vomit, taken from Prov 26:11, and another about the pig who, after being washed, wallows in the mud. The latter, which does not come from the OT, was known in Semitic wisdom (Ahiqar, the Syriac version 8:18) and Greek tradition (Heraclitus, Democritus, Sextus Empiricus).

      3. Delay of the second coming: 3: 1-16

         The controversy continues, adapting elements of Jude 16-17. Until now, the accusations have been so general (as they were in Jude) that we could not say much about what the actual false prophets/teachers might say, if anything; but 2 Pet 3:4 becomes specific, apparently citing the mockery that is its target. The false teachers deny the promise of the parousia on the grounds that the leaders ("fathers") of the first Christian generation are dead and "all things remain as they were from the beginning of creation." To refute this, the author uses several strategies.

         1. First (3:1), he invokes prestige by draping himself in the mantle of Peter who, in an earlier letter (1 Pet), had shown a correct understanding.

         2. Secondly (3:2), he makes it clear that the object of this understanding, which supports the parousia, consists of the predictions of the prophets and the apostles. As Simeon Peter, he can be an authority on both prophecy and apostleship: in 1:19 he states, "We have the prophetic word made more certain," and in 1:1 he identifies himself as "an apostle of Jesus Christ" - in fact, he spoke as "we" for the other apostolic eyewitnesses (1:16-18). In 3:14-16 he adds the testimony of "our dear brother Paul" who told them in his letters to strive to be found blameless in the eyes of God at the coming judgment, even if the ignorant and unstable distort his words.

         3. Third (3:5-7), the writer provides evidence that all things did not continue as they were at the beginning of creation. The God who manifested his power in creation flooded the world; and this same God will judge the created heaven and earth by fire, destroying the ungodly, punishing the false teachers and ensuring the parousia.

         4. Fourth (3:8-10), he rejects the "delay" of the parousia in terms of the inscrutability of divine "time" which is not our time: In the eyes of the Lord, a thousand years are a day (Ps 90:4). If there is a delay, it is because the Lord is forgiving and wants to allow time for repentance (3:9) - a view that explains why 2 Pet drew attention to Noah and Lot who were spared in a time of divine punishment. However, as Jesus predicted in Mark 13:32 and 36, the day of the Lord will come unexpectedly, like a thief, and the earth and all its works will be discovered. Therefore (3:11-16), in the face of this final dissolution, the recipients must live a life of holiness and godliness in order to be found without spot or blemish.

   3. Concluding Exhortation and Doxology: 3:17-18

      It is an effective synthesis of what has gone before. In the literary format of this discourse, which is drawing to a close, Simeon Peter issues a final warning to the recipients to be on their guard against the deception of the lawless who will cause them to lose their stability. Then he returns to his initial wish (1:5-8) that they progress, not only in grace, but also in the knowledge of "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." The doxology gives glory not only now but until the day of eternity, a day which Simeon Peter has given assurance will surely come (3:7).

3. By and To Whom, Where, and When?
   1. By Whom?

      In discussing 1 P, we saw that serious scholars argued that Simon Peter was the author (through a scribe), even though the odds favored pseudonymity somewhat. A comparison of 1 P and 2 P shows that the same author did not compose both works, as Jerome already noted in the fourth century. For example, there are quotations from the OT in 1 Pet but not in 2 Pet; about 60 percent of the vocabulary of 2 Pet is not found in 1 Pet; the style of 2 Pet is more solemn, even pompous and laborious; and the mood on issues such as the second coming is quite different. These elements, together with factors that will be discussed later in the section on dating, make it clear that 2 Pet is a pseudonym, written presumably by someone in the Petrine tradition. Indeed, the pseudonymity of 2 Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work.

   2. When?

      At one end of the spectrum, 2 P certainly existed before the year 200, since the text is preserved in the 2nd century Bodmer papyrus P⁷² and was known to Origen. At the other end of the spectrum, a number of "afters" indicate a date no earlier than 100, e.g.: after the apostolic generation had died and expectations of the second coming in their lifetime had been disappointed (2 Pet 3:4 - so after AD 80); after 1 Pet (2 Pet 3:1), which may have been composed in the 80s; after Jude, which may have been composed around AD 90; after there was a collection of Pauline letters (2 Pet 3:15-16), which probably did not take place until AD 100; after these letters were apparently regarded as Scripture (3:16: "like other writings [Scriptures]") - an attested development for Christian writings in the early 2nd century; after there was a well-known tradition of a prediction by Jesus of Peter's death (1:14) - John's prediction is found in a section (21:18-19) that was probably not added to the Gospel until after AD 100, even if it contained an earlier tradition. Other features indicate a delay, e.g., the harmonization of Peter and Paul as consonant authorities with an implicit superiority accorded to Peter; a sensitivity to excluding non-canonical references in the material taken from Jude. Yet within the dating spectrum of 100 to 200, nothing cited in this paragraph requires a date later than the first half of the second century. Thus, a date of 130, within a decade, would best fit the evidence.

   3. From Where?

      2 Pet was written from a place where Peter was an authority even after his death (which is appealed to in 1:14-15) and where 1 Pet, a collection of Pauline letters, and Jude would have been known. If the Roman community was founded from Jerusalem, it may eventually have known of Jude, a letter written under the auspices of James' brother, the head of the Jerusalem church. Paul wrote in Rome and eventually died there. 1 Pet was written from Rome, and that city where Peter died a martyr would have been a most appropriate site to compose 2 Pet as a kind of farewell address to the great apostle. The images of Peter and Paul were harmonized in Rome, as evidenced by 1 Clement 5. Rome is thus at least a plausible candidate for the composition of 2 P within a Petrine "school."

   4. To Whom?

      1 Pet (1:1) was addressed to areas of Asia Minor, areas perhaps evangelized by Jerusalem but which, after the destruction of Jerusalem, Rome could now address in the name of Peter, who had spent much of his life in the Jerusalem church before coming to Rome. 2 Pet 1:1 is addressed "to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours," which could mean all Christians. Yet 3:1 assumes the same audience as 1 Pet. Moreover, 2 Pet 3:15-16 assumes that the audience has been addressed by Paul and knows all (or many) of his letters. Thus, not all Christians are targeted, but those in the eastern Mediterranean (probably Asia Minor). The Hellenization of 2 Peter (e.g., Tartarus in 2:4) would also correspond to this region. The very general instructions and polemics of 2 Pet do not allow us to diagnose the theological problems of the recipients (other than the disappointment of Jesus' non-return); rather, they make 2 Pet an epistle applicable to many situations and times.

   5. An epistle or a letter?

      In the examination of Jude, an entire section was devoted to literary genre, including the question of whether it was an epistle or a letter. This does not seem necessary here. The first two verses do follow the format of a letter, but with an address applicable to all Christians. The doxology at the end is much less extensive than that of Jude and is not really indicative of a letter. The exhortation and instruction that make up much of the work are not precise, and the polemic against the false teachers is taken en masse from Jude. Thus, specific communities that could be named and their problems do not seem to be considered. The author presents a homily that is Peter's last testament to Christians who would be influenced by his reputation - a homily adapted to the minimal format of a letter. Even allowing for the diversity of Hellenistic letters, "Epistle" better describes 2 Pet than "Letter."

4. Canonicity and Early Catholicism

   Of the twenty-seven books of the NT, Book 2 P received the least support in antiquity. In the western church (unlike Jude), 2 Pet was either unknown or ignored until about 350 AD, and even after that, Jerome reported that many rejected it because it differed in style from 1 Pet. In the Eastern Church, Origen recognized disputes about it. Bodmer P⁷² (2nd century) shows that 2 P was copied in Egypt; yet, in the early 4th century, Eusebius did not consider it canonical, and most of the great writers of the Antiochian church ignored it. Nevertheless, during the 4th century, 2 P appears in some Eastern and Western church lists (Athanasius); and by the early 6th century, even the Syriac-speaking church accepts it. Despite this eventful history, Luther did not relegate 2 Pet to the end of his 1522 NT (as he did with Jas, Jude, He, and Rev), probably because he had no great difficulty with its teaching. In modern times, however, especially among more radical Protestant scholars, 2 Pet has been attacked; and an occasional voice has been raised to remove it from the canon because of an aversion to its "early Catholicism."

   The biblical scholar Käsemann is the main defender of the designation "early Catholicism" attributed to 2 Pet. In his attempt to correct the Gnostics who rejected the parousia, the author of the epistle would have emphasized that faith was a set of beliefs. The prophetic Scriptures were not a matter of personal interpretation, but were to be interpreted by authoritative teachers, such as Peter. A chain of apostolic authority from the eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry was now assumed. Käsemann also complains about the absence of the Pauline ideas of faith as trust and justification, and the substitution of Hellenistic philosophical terminology ("partakers of the divine nature") for the existential language of the early books. In Käsemann's eyes (a Lutheran), all of this would eventually produce the type of Christianity exemplified by Roman Catholicism and represented a wrong direction. He asks passionately:

   What are we to say about a Church, which is so concerned to defend herself against heretics, that she no longer distinguishes between Spirit and letter; that she identifies the Gospel with her own tradition and, further, with a particular religious world-view; that she regulates exegesis according to her system of teaching authority and makes faith into a mere assent to the dogmas of orthodoxy? (An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology" in Essays on NT Themes, p. 195)

   A logical implication would be that the Church made a mistake in canonizing 2 P, and indeed, radical voices have been raised to demand its removal.

   Disagreement with this approach was expressed on two points.

   1. First, the right of interpreters to decide that what is favorable to their theology and church inclination is the true message of the NT and that what is not is a distortion has been challenged. To what extent is the objection to early Catholicism a reflection of Protestant disagreement with aspects of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Wouldn't it be healthier to recognize that different church traditions have capitalized on certain ideas in the NT, and that dialogue between the churches will be facilitated if each tradition held itself accountable for what it has overlooked? If Christian groups can eliminate from the canon what they disagree with, how does Scripture have the capacity to challenge them?

   2. Second, other biblical scholars have questioned the accuracy of Käsemann's analysis of 2 P's thinking as early Catholicism. Did the author of 2 P really defend the approaches indicated by Käsemann's quote so simply? In the thesis of early Catholicism, do we not read the author's reaction to a particular set of problems in light of much later Reformation issues? Moreover, many of the ideas at issue (faith as believed truths, the importance of apostolic authority, authoritative interpretations, the danger of non-traditional private teachers) are found extensively in the NT, including the undisputed Pauline letters. 2 Pet may provide an opportunity to discuss the validity of these ideas, but the dialectical isolation of them may not facilitate a valid exegesis of the author's intent.

5. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. Faith" as a repository of beliefs (2 Pet 1:1) is often contrasted pejoratively with the Pauline sense of faith as trust in what God has done in Christ. If one accepts that one must respond to God's grace with faith as trust and commitment, is it likely that Christianity could have continued without formulating its beliefs? Confessions such as "Jesus is the Messiah, the Lord, etc." were necessary not only so that those who were asked to make a commitment would know what God's grace was, but also possibly because others rejected that identity. Today, some Christian churches refuse to formulate a creed outside of scripture, but this should not obscure the fact that there is a body of belief that is born out of the scriptures themselves. Thus, faith as a trust and faith as a body of beliefs can be seen as complementary.

   2. Although some adaptation to the language of Greek philosophy, which contrasts this world with that which is eternal, is discernible in several later NT works, such as Acts and the Pauline Pastorals, it is nowhere more apparent than in 2 Pet, for example, an ideal of godliness (1:3,6,7; 3:11), and participation in the divine nature by escaping the corrupt world (1:4). If one accepts that this was not the original language of Jesus' message, is it a corruption of that message, as some opponents of "early Catholicism" claim, or is it an inevitable outgrowth of the proclamation of a gospel of the incarnation? In the latter direction, might it not be argued that when preachers refused to articulate the gospel in the language and culture of other peoples, they weakened their mission and limited the understanding of what God has done in Christ? Such reformulation need not mean the rejection of previous expressions and formulations or the loss of past insights.

   3. 2 Pet 3:7, 12-13 presents the NT claim that heaven and earth will be destroyed by fire at the end of time, to be replaced by a new heaven and a new earth. The apocalyptic idea of a new heaven and a new earth echoes Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; fire is a traditional element of divine punishment (Matt 3:10; 5:22; 13:40, 50; 18:8-9). In addition to reflecting the biblical idiom, the author perhaps also makes himself intelligible to those whose early training included the Stoic doctrine of an immense conflagration that would consume the finite and be followed by regeneration in an endless cycle. From a theological point of view, the belief that 2 Pet is an inspired writing could assure the truth of the parousia (the final fulfillment of the kingdom of God through Christ) which is a major point of this epistle; but did the author have a divine revelation about what would happen at the end of time? Should Christians believe in the destruction by fire of the world as we know it?

   4. In many ways, 2 Pet is similar to 2 Tim. Each is the last testament of a famous apostle; and each appeals to the testimony of the apostle, Peter and Paul respectively. Both are concerned about the intrusion of false teachers on whom opprobrium is cast. For guidance, each assumes a deposit of faith. It is interesting to note other theological parallels to illustrate how similar attitudes and responses were developing in different sections of the church in the late NT period.