Introduction Second Peter is arguably the most neglected book in the NT. Although its opening verse claims it was written by the apostle Simon Peter, there are more doubts about the authenticity of 2 Peter than any other NT writing. The unpopularity of this book is intensified by the fact that its outlook is primarily argumentative and negative. The original readers of the letter were threatened by the immoral lifestyle and errant doctrine of false teachers. Consequently, its author attacks and rebukes these opponents extensively and mercilessly. Accustomed to turning to Scripture for nurture or inspiration, many readers are put off by the aggressive onslaught of 2 Peter’s criticism of false doctrine and its teachers. Nonetheless, 2 Peter offers a message today’s believers should not be so quick to pass by. Believers can learn from the ancient message of 2 Peter to be on guard against postmodern forms of ethical relativism and theological pluralism. This letter reminds Christians that the only solid foundation for truth is found in the Scriptures and the apostolic tradition. It warns believers of the risk of being carried away by lofty-sounding arguments or a lifestyle of selfish convenience. Sometimes believers need to be reminded of the dangers of false teaching and the condemning lies of its proponents as well as the truth of God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. Second Peter is the passionate broadcast of these important reminders. Authorship Second Peter begins with the assertion that it was written by Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ (1:1). The author claims to have been an eyewitness of Jesus’ Transfiguration (1:16-18). He refers to Paul as his dear brother (3:15) in such a way that he “appears to put his own authority on the same level as that of the apostle to the Gentiles” (Martin 1978, 383). As a result, this letter has traditionally been identified as the second Petrine epistle with the apostle Peter as its author. The Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, however, has been widely rejected by modern scholars. Kelly writes, “Scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous” (1969, 235). Thus, most believe 2 Peter was written at a later date and attributed to Peter by an unknown writer. The arguments against Petrine authorship are numerous and varied. But for each objection, counterarguments have been posed in rebuttal. The scope of the present commentary prohibits an extensive discussion of the complex arguments and counterarguments for and against Petrine authorship. But we will give attention to many of them in the course of our interpretation of the text of 2 Peter. The following is an overview of the discussion (see Blum 1981b, 258-260). Arguments against Petrine Authorship Counterarguments 1) The letter was not widely known or recognized by the early church. 1) Lack of popularity could be due to brevity of the letter. Also, the lack of circulation could be attributed to an original audience in a sparsely populated area outside of main travel routes. 2) Letter’s style is very different from 1 Peter. 2) Evaluation of style differences is highly subjective. Style differences could be explained by the use of different amanuenses (secretaries) to write the letters. 3) Peter’s name was used in connection with some Gnostic literature 3) The fact the early church ended up recognizing and accepting 2 Peter as authentic despite the existence of many Gnostic writings in his name argues in favor of the genuine Petrine authorship of this letter.
4) 2 Peter seems to be dependent upon the letter of Jude. 4) It is impossible to demonstrate almost any literary argument.
5) The language and concepts are too Hellenistic for a Galilean fisherman. 5) There is too little information about the influence of Hellenism upon Peter to deny Petrine authorship. Additionally, the use of an amanuensis to write the letter could explain Hellenistic influence. 6) The problem of the delay of Christ’s return is a second-century issue. 6) Various texts demonstrate the delay of Christ’s return was already a concern in the first century (see Matt 25:1-13; John 21:20-23; Acts 1:6-11; 2 Thess 2:1-4; Heb 9:28).
7) The collection of Pauline letters referred to in 3:15-16 was not made until the second century. 7) The reference to Paul’s letters in 3:15-16 does not necessarily include all of Paul’s letters; it probably refers only to those letters known to the author. 8) The letter sounds like “early Catholicism” rather than the first generation of Christians. 8) The idea that a concern for orthodoxy and tradition is a sign of “early Catholicism” and could not have been articulated by Peter is very subjective and arbitrary. 9) If Peter wrote it, why is there so much doubt about it and reluctance to accept it by the early church? 9) Doubt and reluctance would be perfectly normal if Peter wrote to Christians in a remote area that prevented earlier circulation of the letter. In addition, the circulation of heretical letters under Peter’s name would cause the early church to be more hesitant to accept the letter.
The arguments concerning the authorship of 2 Peter are thus complex and problematic. Gilmour observes that “those defending the traditional view and those positing some form of non-Petrine production often use similar arguments to prove their case” (2001, 291). The result is an impasse. “The arguments for and against have been repeated time and again but the fact remains that there is simply not enough evidence to achieve a consensus” (Gilmour 2001, 308). [Begin Sidebar: Pseudonymous Writings A presuppositions widely held among scholars is the idea that the practice of falsely ascribing a letter or writing to a famous teacher or leader (called “pseudepigraphy”) was widely established and accepted by early Christians. But the evidence suggests that pseudonymous writings and their authors were emphatically condemned by the early Church. For instance, when an Asian presbyter admitted writing a document entitled Acts of Paul pseudonymously in Paul’s name, both the writing and the author were condemned. Tertullian (AD 160-230) declared that “the writer of such a work was not considered fit to hold office in a Christian church, despite the fact that he claimed to have done it from the highest motive, for love of Paul” (Guthrie 1970, 679). Walls writes that This suggests that deliberate pseudepigraphy was not, as is often stated, an established and acceptable convention. To this day, though hundreds of writings of a pseudepigraphic nature from the early Christian centuries have survived, the overwhelming majority of them are more or less affected by Gnostic or other tendentious influences, and many were clearly written to propagate such views.... The contrast with the works in the emergent canon is unmistakable. (1979, 638-639). Likewise, Serapion of Antioch (AD 190) wrote the following words to a church in Cilicia when he discovered they were using the pseudonymous Gospel of Peter: “We receive both Peter and the other Apostles of Christ; but as experienced men we reject the writings falsely ascribed with their names, since we know that we did not receive such from our fathers” (cited by Guthrie 1970, 679). Beyond the works cited above further reading on the early church’s reluctand to accept pseudonymour writings see Donald Guthrie, “The Development of the Idea of Canonical Pseudepigrapha in New Testament,” 14-39 in Kurt Aland, Ed.,. The Authorship and Integrity of the New Testament (London, SPCK, 196), and the recent thorough treatment by Terry L. Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception (Lanham Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 2004). A standard discussion of the contrasting view is Kurt Aland, “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries”, 1-13 in Aland 1965 above. End of Sidebar] Given the early church’s evident reluctance (if not outright refusal) to accept pseudonymous writings, the suggestion that 2 Peter was written pseudonymously must be seriously questioned. The early church accepted this letter on the basis of its ultimate conclusion that Peter was indeed the author. It was 2 Peter’s perceived apostolic teaching, not its authorship, that gave it authority. Thus, the decision about authorship is primarily a historical judgment, not a value judgment. Credible, confessing Christians have taken both sides of the debate. There is not a right or wrong side, just different sides, with different consequences. Ultimately, the inclination of one’s own presuppositions draws the final straw and places its small but decisive weight upon the evenly balanced scale of decision. The author of the present commentary has significant misgivings about the Petrine authorship. The fact that 2 Peter seemed to be virtually unknown in the first two hundred years of the early church is baffling. Moreover, the close parallel of 2 Peter with the shorter letter of Jude is also very suspicious. However, 2 Peter displays no Gnostic or doctrinally distinctive views that would earmark it as a necessary product of the second century. Moreover, although the early church had doubts, it ultimately accepted 2 Peter along with an understanding of its Petrine origin. Thus, despite some significant misgivings, the present commentary cautiously affirms the apostle Peter as the author of 2 Peter. The relationship between 2 Peter and Jude The similarities between 2 Peter and Jude are striking. Both letters are written against a false teaching, and the false teaching appears to be almost the same. Additionally, the words and descriptions used to denounce the false teaching are expressed in similar terms. Some of the more striking parallels include the following: Jude
2 Peter 4 the false teachers’ “condemnation” from the past 2:3 4 [they] “deny” the “Sovereign [and] Lord” 2:1 6 angels confined for judgment—“gloomy” (2 Peter) and “darkness” (Jude) translate the same Greek word (zophos) 2:4 7 Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of judgment of gross evil 2:6 8 [they] “reject [Jude]/despise [2 Peter] authority” 2:10 9 angels do not bring “slanderous accusation[s]” 2:11 12 [the false teachers are] “blemishes” 2:13 12 Jude: “clouds without rain, blown along by the wind” Peter: “springs without water and mists driven by a storm” 2:17 18 “scoffers” following “their own evil [Peter]/ungodly [Jude] desires” 3:3 (Moo 1996, 16)
The parallels are not lengthy, but they are remarkable. Many involve words and expressions not used elsewhere in the NT, and they occur in essentially the same order in both letters. Most agree these parallels necessitate some kind of literary or oral dependence. Three possibilities have been suggested: 1) Peter could have borrowed material from Jude; 2) Jude could have borrowed material from Peter; 3) Both Jude and Peter could have borrowed from a common source no longer in existence. Traditionally, scholars believed Jude borrowed material from 2 Peter. “This judgment seems to have been influenced by the sense that the Apostle Peter would hardly have borrowed from a lesser figure, Jude, whereas the converse was quite plausible” (Neyrey 1993, 120). More recently, however, most believe 2 Peter borrowed material from Jude for a variety of reasons. First, the similarities in Jude are found in a compact and succinct form in one brief chapter. By contrast, the similarities are spread out over three chapters in 2 Peter. It is more probable 2 Peter borrowed randomly from Jude than that Jude selected and condensed the material from 2 Peter. Second, 2 Peter discusses the delay of Christ’s return, but Jude does not. The delay of Christ’s coming is considered to be a problem that arose later in the early church. Thus, Jude’s omission of this concern indicates an earlier date. Third, 2 Peter places the OT historical examples in chronological order. In addition, Jude’s extra-biblical examples (the archangel Michael and the prophet Enoch) are omitted in 2 Peter. Both changes are explained as editorial corrections on the part of 2 Peter (see van Houwelingen 1993, 18; see Robinson 1976, 193-194, for the theory that Jude wrote both epistles). On closer inspection, these arguments prove to be largely subjective. In the first example, there is no reason why Jude could not have condensed the material of 2 Peter into a more succinct format. “In addition to originality, brevity can also point to a later work of summarization” (van Houwelingen 1993, 18). In terms of the Second Coming, the lack of discussion in Jude could be explained by the simple fact it was not an issue for his readers. Arguments from silence (i.e., Jude is silent about the delay of Christ’s return) are not compelling arguments, nor do they indicate an earlier date of composition. Lastly, Jude could have easily added extra-biblical examples to his letter because he thought they would be relevant and meaningful for his audience. In summary, the evidence is simply not compelling. Moo writes, “My own conclusion is that none of the three usual theories has enough positive evidence in its favor to accept as even a working hypothesis” (1996, 18). Thus, while all three theories are thought-provoking and plausible, the evidence pertaining to the literary interdependence of Jude and 2 Peter is simply too ambiguous to provide a basis for a certain conclusion. “The problem, like so many other purely literary problems of NT criticism, must be left unresolved” (Guthrie 1970, 925). In the commentary, parallels between 2 Peter and Jude will often be noted. But no assumption will be made in terms of the dependence of one writer upon the other. Audience Some scholars assume 2 Peter is written to the same audience as 1 Peter. Evidence for this conclusion is found in the comment that “this is now my second letter to you” (3:1). If this refers to 1 Peter, then the letter is addressed to Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). However, the reference to a previous letter probably does not pertain to 1 Peter but to an otherwise unknown letter that was lost. If it refers to 1 Peter, it is difficult to understand why he made “virtually no use of the content of that first letter” (Hillyer 1992, 10). The two letters have little in common in terms of subject matter, despite Peter’s description of both letters as “reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking” (3:1). Additionally, Peter displays very little familiarity with his widely-scattered audience in 1 Peter. In contrast, the auther of 2 Peter seems to know his audience very well; he may even have completed a preaching mission to them (1:16). Thus, the reference to a second letter does not necessarily imply that 1 Peter was the first letter. Consequently, the audience of 2 Peter is probably different than that of 1 Peter. In this letter Peter probably has a predominantly Gentile audience in mind. It is addressed “to those who have received a faith as precious as ours” (1:1). This statement seems to compare the readers’ faith to that of the Jewish Christians. Moreover, Peter describes his readers as escaping the corruption in the world caused by evil desires (1:4). This depiction “fits Christians from a Gentile background better than Jewish Christians” (Moo 1996, 25). These factors point toward a Gentile audience. Peter assumes his readers are familiar with Paul, as the phrase “our dear brother Paul” indicates (3:15). Some suggest this indicates the audience must live somewhere in the region of Asia Minor, where Paul spent much of his time evangelizing. Second Peter was accepted as authentic and authoritative at an early date in Asia Minor, unlike most other regions. This fact seems to lend credibility to the possibility of an Asia Minor audience. But this is far from certain. There is not enough evidence to determine the destination of the letter with any degree of certainty. Place and Date The letter’s place of origin is also unknown. Many favor Rome as the place of origin because Peter is known to have been there. But the letter reveals no information about Peter’s situation or location at the time of writing. Since Peter traveled widely, the letter could have been written anywhere as far east as Palestine, as far west as Rome, or anywhere in between. The date depends on one’s conclusion concerning authorship. As a result, the letter has been dated as early as A.D. 60 and as late as A.D. 160. The reference to Paul and “all his letters” (3:16) indicates that a number of Pauline letters must have been written and circulated already before 2 Peter’s composition. This sets the earliest possible date for 2 Peter around A.D. 60. Some mistakenly interpret “all his letters” as a reference to “a fixed collection of Paulines already recognized as canonical” (Green 1987, 41). Thus, they try to date he letter as late as A.D. 160. But this is certainly incorrect. The allusion to all Paul’s letters means simply “all the letters known to the writer” (Mayor 1978, 165). If Peter was not the author, then 2 Peter was probably composed sometime between A.D. 80-120. If Petrine authorship is accepted, the letter was probably written between A.D. 64-68, shortly before Peter’s death (see 1:13-14). The apostle probably sensed his martyrdom (John 21:18-19) was approaching, and so he wrote this last letter of advice and warning before his death. Genre and Unity of the Letter The unity of 2 Peter has been challenged by various scholars (see van Houwelingen 1993, 26-27). For some, the polemical digression in ch 2 against the false teachers and its close association with the letter of Jude indicates that ch 2 was composed separately from the other two chapters of 2 Peter. Others contend 3:1 marks the beginning of a separate letter. Thus, chapters 1 and 2 represent the previous letter to which 3:1 refers. Despite these objections, most scholars recognize the cohesive unity of 2 Peter. The letter displays a remarkable structural unity within its three chapters. The first chapter establishes the true teaching of the Christian faith, especially as it relates to Christ and moral behavior. Chapter two describes the depravity which characterizes the false teachers who deny the true teaching of the Christian faith. In the last chapter, the Christian teaching about the end times is explained, especially as it pertains to the promised return of Christ and the ethical behavior expected of true Christians. The seamless transition from one topic and chapter to the next testifies to the inherent unity of the letter. Bauckham argues that 2 Peter “belongs to two literary genres, the letter and the testament” (1983, 131). One, the epistolary genre, is especially evident at the beginning, where the typical elements of a letter—salutation (1:1), greeting (1:2), identification of the occasion of the writing (1:12-15)—are visible. Moreover, the author identifies his writing as a “letter” in 3:1. Thus, 2 Peter follows the literary patterns of an ancient letter. In addition to the genre of a letter, 2 Peter also “uses the literary conventions of a testament, that is, a farewell discourse in which a departing hero tells the future and gives advice on proper behavior in the present and future” (Harrington 2003, 229; see Deut and John 14-17). In testamentary style, Peter knows he is about to die (1:12-15), he presses his readers to remember his teaching and example (1:12-15; 3:1-2), he makes predictions about the future (2:1-4; 3:3), and he issues moral exhortations his readers are urged to follow (1:5-7; 3:11-18). Thus, although the writing follows the basic genre of an ancient letter, elements of the testament genre can also be discerned. Purpose of the Letter Second Peter was written to remind its readers of the true tenets of the Christian faith and to warn believers against the deceptive message of false teachers. The specific occasion of the letter is Peter’s recognition that his life expectancy was growing short (1:13-14). Also, his readers were facing the grave danger posed by false teachers (2:1-3). Peter reminds his readers that faith in Jesus Christ is not based upon myths or clever stories (1:16). Rather, its foundation is laid in the sure revelation of God and the testimony of eyewitnesses and apostles (1:16-21). Peter urges believers to continue to grow in their saving knowledge of Christ. Christians can be confident of their salvation as they persistently pursue Christian moral virtues in ever increasing measure (1:5-10). Peter also warns his readers of false teachers (2:1-22) who deny the Second Coming of Christ (3:3-4) and live immoral and greedy lives (2:1-3, 13-16). As Christians await the certain return of Christ, they must remain alert to error while they prepare themselves for the return of Christ by living holy and godly lives (3:11-18). The Identity of the False Teachers Many attempts have been made to identify Peter’s opponents. From Peter’s arguments against them, they were probably libertines who promised a freedom that, in practice, amounted to nothing more than moral license for sexual depravity (2:19). They considered themselves Christians (2:20-21), but they denied the lordship of Christ (2:1). Peter calls them “false teachers” (2:1) whose greedy and immoral lifestyle brings the Christian faith into disrepute (2:2-3). It is difficult to ascertain the precise nature of the false teachers’ doctrine. But they reject the belief in the Second Coming (3:4), which they dismiss as based upon “cleverly invented stories” of the apostles (1:16). They also reject the reality of any final day of judgment (2:3, 9-10). The targets of the false teachers are recent converts or those who are not yet established in the Christian faith (2:18). Their deceptive appeal seems to rest upon a tripartite foundation: 1) they use rhetoric that sounds lofty and impressive (2:18); 2) they appeal to the lusty desires of sinful human nature (2:18); and 3) they probably misinterpret and distort the teachings of Paul to justify their own understanding of the Christian life (3:16). Peter declares they are deceiving themselves (2:12-14). As a result, God has reserved ultimate destruction and condemnation for them (2:3, 9-10). Traditionally, the false teachers have been equated with Gnostics. Gnostics were often associated with sexual immorality, which Peter denounces in the letter. Moreover, Gnostics claim that salvation is acquired through the special revelation of knowledge (gnōsis). Peter emphasizes saving knowledge (epignōsis) in contrast to the knowledge (gnōsis) of his opponents. Despite these arguments, the traditional identification of the false teachers as Gnostics has been convincingly rejected. “There is no evidence of cosmological dualism (spirit versus matter), which is often taken as a defining feature of Gnosticism” (Harrington 2003, 235). Moreover, Peter uses both terms for knowledge (epignōsis and gnōsis) without any indication of a biased preference for either term. As Bauckham notes, “Careful study shows that in fact ‘knowledge’ in 2 Peter (epignōsis and gnōsis) is free of polemical overtones and cannot have been a catchword of the opponents” (1983, 157). Neyrey suggests the false teachers may have espoused a doctrine similar to the beliefs of the Epicureans (1993, 122-128; 1980, 407-431). The Epicureans embraced the complete transcendence of God; that is, God is completely unconcerned with the issues of humanity. Epicureans did not believe God worked in the world according to some kind of divine plan. Instead, the world was made by chance and humanity possessed the freedom to live as they pleased. There is no such thing as divine judgment upon human affairs. Consequently, the Epicureans denied the afterlife with its promised rewards or punishments. Because of these beliefs, Epicureans were infamous even among pagans “as immoral people whose ‘theology’ encouraged wickedness and vice” (Neyrey 1993, 123). Epicurean thought certainly could have influenced the false teachers of 2 Peter. But that is as far as the evidence goes. Like the members of any society, the false teachers were undoubtedly influenced by a large number of popular ideas and beliefs current in their time. Epicureanism was certainly one of these influences. However, there is not enough evidence to identify the false teachers in any exclusive sense as Epicureans. Not every false teaching can be neatly identified and categorized under a convenient label. In the case of the false teachers of 2 Peter, there is simply not enough historical information about the audience, their location, or even the false teachers themselves to make a conclusive identification. Themes of the Letter Several striking themes surface in 2 Peter. The letter strongly affirms Christ’s return accompanied by the Day of Judgment. God’s perspective on time is different than the human perspective. While Christ’s return may appear to be tardy and overdue from a human viewpoint, it is not so for God (3:8). The delay in Christ’s return is due to the patience of God. This patience allows more time for believers to pursue holiness and for the ungodly to repent (3:9, 15). But Christ will certainly return at an unexpected time, when all humanity and even the world itself will be exposed and subjected to judgment (3:9-10). At that time the ungodly will be condemned and destroyed (2:1, 3b, 9-10a, 12; 3:7, 16). But believers will be given a warm welcome and entrance into the eternal kingdom (1:11), where they will dwell in a new heaven and a new earth (3:13). God’s intervening judgment on the last day is based on his acts of judgment recorded in the OT. God did not spare the fallen angels whom he sent to hell (2:4). He did not spare the world in the time of Noah (2:5). He did not spare Sodom and Gomorrah (2:6). Therefore, believers should know he will not spare the ungodly at the Day of Judgment (2:9). Likewise, the fact God rescued righteous Noah and Lot from judgment and destruction proves he will also save the righteous on the Last Day (2:5-9). Second Peter is the only NT writing that explicitly describes the judgment of God as accompanied by the destruction of the world by fire (3:7, 12). The creation of the world took place by the power of God’s word. Likewise, the power of God’s word destroyed the world with water at the time of Noah. In the same way, the word of God will be the agent of God’s judgment and destruction of the world by fire at the Last Day (3:5-7). “It is presumed that this same Word of God will also create the new heavens and the new earth, where only righteousness can dwell (3:11-13)” (Watson 1998b, 330). Peter connects the Second Coming of Christ with the Day of Judgment. While God is consistently portrayed as the Judge of the Last Day (3:5-10), this day corresponds with the day of Christ’s coming (3:4). Second Peter strongly asserts that orthodox Christian doctrine is based on the dual foundation of Scripture and apostolic tradition (1:16-21; 3:2). The false teaching is based on empty, lofty-sounding arguments that appeal to the lustful desires of sinful human nature (2:18). In contrast, Peter urges his readers to recall the words of the holy prophets (Scripture) and the teachings of Jesus (tradition) as they were passed down through the apostles (3:2). With his repeated appeal, Peter establishes Scripture and apostolic tradition as the litmus test for orthodox Christian teaching. One of the NT’s greatest statements about divine inspiration is contained in this letter. The holy Scriptures are not the result of the prophets’ own interpretation. Rather, Scripture is divinely inspired because the prophets spoke the words of God as they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (1:21). Likewise, the apostles’ testimony is inspired inasmuch as they were eyewitnesses of Christ’s majesty (1:16) and they heard the voice of God concerning Christ (1:17-18). Surprisingly, Peter considers a collection of Paul’s letters (the letters involved are unknown) as inspired Scripture (3:16). Just as the OT prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, Paul wrote his letters “with the wisdom that God gave him” (3:15). This precedent facilitated the later church’s establishment of a Christian canon that was deemed both authoritative and inspired and was placed on an equal footing with the OT Scriptures. A final theme is the emphasis on the believers’ holy lifestyle as an inherent reflection of their faith in Christ. The false teachers’ denial of Christ’s return and a Day of Judgment led them down a path of immoral sensuality and greed. In contrast, Peter emphasizes that saving knowledge of Christ leads believers down a path of truth and righteousness that enables them to escape corruption caused by evil desires (1:4). Everything needed for salvation and a moral life of virtue is grounded in the knowledge of Christ (1:3-4). “Christians must make every effort to grow in righteousness in order to confirm Christ’s call and election (1:3, 11; 3:18)” (Watson 1998b, 330). This moral effort includes pursuing and nurturing the moral virtues, which prevent believers from becoming ineffective and unproductive (1:5-8). Peter calls his readers to live holy and godly lives as they anticipate the certain return of Christ. The day of Christ’s return should find believers at peace with Christ, which is only possible as they emulate Christ in their daily behavior (3:14). According to 2 Peter, bad teaching results in bad behavior. Likewise, incorrect behavior reflects an incorrect faith. “Immoral behavior is an affront to Christ’s status as Lord and Savior. It amounts to denying his authority and maligning the way of truth (2:1-2)” (Watson 1998b, 331). Thus, one of the pervasive themes of 2 Peter is that true saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will motivate believers to make every effort to live a virtuous and holy life. For Peter, true faith is exemplified by a holy lifestyle.
DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 8/27/2009 DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 8/27/2009 2 Peter Introduction
Or “more doubts are experessed”? Reinserted Reinserted as a sidebar. If there is to be a treatment of this topic in NBBC 2 Peter is the obvious place. Make sure that I have condensed your treatment accurately yet satisfactorily. I reinserted him in your bibliography. I inserted these sources into your bibliography. You need to get Wilder’s book in hand and see if you want to revise/strengthen this sidebar. I got it through Link. Do you want to use this word twice in these two paragraphs. It would be better if you had an equally adequate synonym. You are aware that NBBC policy does not demand that you accept the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. But since in the course of your exegesis you attempt to counter the arguments against it, I take it as your sincere position. I reinserted him in your bibliography. But is this note worth keeping? I reinserted him in your bibliography. But is this note worth keeping? Help me, was revelation a part of their concept of knowledge? If so, how about “a special knowledge (gnōsis) revealed to them”? Is this what you intend?