Introduction Second Peter is arguably the most neglected book in the New Testament. Despite the fact that its first verse claims that it was written by the apostle Simon Peter, there are more doubts about the authenticity of 2 Peter than any other NT writing. The lack of popularity for this writing is intensified by the fact that its outlook is primarily argumentative and negative. The original readers of the letter were obviously being threatened by the immoral lifestyle and errant doctrine of false teachers, and so the author of the letter attacks and rebukes these opponents extensively and mercilessly. Most people do not like to focus on the negative. Thus, when they turn to the pages of Scripture for nurture or inspiration, the aggressive onslaught of 2 Peter’s criticism against false doctrine and its teachers typically causes the casual or inspirational reader to shy away. Nonetheless, 2 Peter contains and offers a message which today’s believers should not be so quick to pass by. With the current, deceptive popularity of false teachings such as relativism and post-modernism, believers need to be reminded of the inherent connection between belief and behavior which this epistle provides. Second Peter reminds Christians that the only solid foundation for truth is found in the Scriptures and the apostolic tradition, and 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 negative dangers of false teaching and the condemning lies of its proponents in order to appreciate the positive benefits and truth of God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. Second Peter is the passionate broadcast of this important reminder. Authorship Second Peter begins with the assertion that it was written by Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ (1:1). In addition, the author claims to have been an eyewitness of Jesus’ Transfiguration (1:16-18) and 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 has been widely rejected by modern scholars. Kelly (1969, 235) notes, “Scarcely anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.” That is to say, most scholars believe that 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. Blum (1981b, 258) mentions no less than eleven arguments that have been offered against Peter as the author of this epistle: 1) The letter was not widely known or recognized by the early church; 2) Its style is very different from that of 1 Peter; 3) Peter’s name was used in connection with some Gnostic literature; 4) Knowledge of 2 Peter was limited to only a few geographic areas; 5) It seems to be dependent upon the letter of Jude; 6) The language and concepts are too Hellenistic for a Galilean fisherman; 7) The problem of the delay of Christ’s return is a second-century issue; 8) The collection of Pauline letters referred to in 3:15-16 was not made until the second century; 9) Christian writers do not mention 2 Peter in the second century; 10) The letter sounds like “early Catholicism” rather than the first generation of Christians; 11) If Peter wrote it, why is there so much doubt about it and reluctance to accept it? Confronted by such an imposing and lengthy number of objections, the majority of NT scholars reject 2 Peter as authentic. For each objection, however, there are compelling rebuttals. Although the scope of the present commentary prohibits an extensive discussion of each of the objections, the following observations can be made concerning these specific arguments against Petrine authorship (cf. Blum 1981b, 258-260). 1) The lack of popularity and recognition of the letter in the early days of the church can be explained by the brevity of the letter or the time-consuming process of copying and transmitting the letter. Also, if the letter had been sent to an area less populated which was located outside of the main travel routes, or if the recipients of the letter fell victim to a sudden uprising of persecution, the normal pattern of the circulation of the letter could have been greatly delayed. 2) The evaluation of style differences has proven to be extremely subjective. Furthermore, the style differences that exist between 1 and 2 Peter could be explained by the use of different amanuenses (“scribal secretary”) in the writing of each letter. 3) Peter’s name was indeed connected to various Gnostic writings. However, the fact that the early church ended up recognizing and accepting 2 Peter as authentic despite the existence of many Gnostic writings in his name is actually an argument in favor of the genuine Petrine authorship of this letter. 4) The geographically limited recognition of 2 Peter could easily be explained by its brevity or the remote location of its original audience. 5) The literary dependence of 2 Peter upon Jude has not been conclusively demonstrated. 6) 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 a Hellenistic influence. 7) Various texts of the NT demonstrate that the delay of Christ’s return was already a concern in the first century (cf. Matt 25:1-13; John 21:20-23; Acts 1:6-11; 2 Thes 2:1-4; Heb 9:28). 8) The reference to Paul’s letters in 3:15-16 does not necessarily include all of Paul’s letters, but it probably refers only to those letters that were known to the author. 9) The lack of references to 2 Peter in the second century could be attributed to the letter’s brevity, its remote destination, or the persecution of its recipients. 10) The arguments about “early Catholicism” are based upon questionable assumptions. 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. 11) The early church’s doubt about 2 Peter and its reluctance to accept it would be perfectly normal if Peter wrote this letter to Christians in a remote area or if the original audience had undergone an early persecution that prevented the letter from being circulated earlier. In addition, the existence and circulation of heretical letters under Peter’s name would have caused the early church to be more circumspect and cautious in their acceptance of the letter. One of the presuppositions that is widely held among scholars who argue for the non-Petrine authorship of 2 Peter 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 despite the many claims that the early church readily accepted pseudonymous writings, there is no evidence to support this assumption. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that pseudonymous writings and their authors were emphatically condemned. 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 by the early church. 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). 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). In an article on the NT canon, Walls discounts the idea that falsely ascribed writings were accepted in the early church. Referring to the case of Tertullian’s condemnation of the Asian presbyter, Walls writes: 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. (Walls 1979, 638-639) It must be observed that 2 Peter displays absolutely no Gnostic or doctrinally distinctive views that would seem to require presentation under an assumed name like that of the apostle Peter. 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. While it is undoubtedly possible that the early church failed to recognize the pseudonymous nature of 2 Peter, it should be recognized that the early church accepted this letter on the basis of its ultimate conclusion that Peter was indeed the author. The arguments concerning the authorship of 2 Peter are complex and problematic. Gilmour notes the interesting fact 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). Ultimately, with the plethora of compelling arguments both for and against Peter’s authorship of this letter, 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. Thus, the author of the present commentary affirms, with the admission of some misgivings, the apostle Peter as the author of 2 Peter. The relationship between 2 Peter and Jude The similarities between 2 Peter and Jude are quite striking. Both letters are not only written against a false teaching, but the false teaching they oppose appears to be almost the same. Additionally, the words and descriptions that they use 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)
As can be seen, the parallels are not lengthy, but they are very notable. Many of the similarities involve words and expressions that are not used elsewhere in the New Testament, and they essentially occur in the same order in both letters. Because there are so many similarities and parallels between 2 Peter (mainly in ch 2) and Jude, most scholars agree that some kind of literary or oral dependence seems necessary. Three suggestions have been offered to explain the literary similarities of 2 Peter and Jude: 1) Peter could have borrowed material from Jude; 2) Jude could have borrowed material from Peter; 3) Both Jude and Peter could have borrowed material from a common source that is no longer extant. Traditionally, most scholars believed that Jude borrowed material from 2 Peter. Neyrey explains that “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” (1993, 120). In more recent times, however, the majority of scholars believe that 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 the one brief chapter of Jude, whereas the similarities are spread out over three chapters in 2 Peter. It is argued that it is more probable that 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. Since the delay of Christ’s coming is considered to be a problem that arose later in the early church, it is argued that Jude’s omission of this discussion is an indication of its earlier date. Third, the historical examples of the OT that are used in both letters are placed in chronological order in 2 Peter. In addition, Jude’s examples about two figures from extra-biblical sources (the archangel Michael and the prophet Enoch) are omitted in 2 Peter. Both of these changes are explained as “corrections” on the part of 2 Peter (cf. van Houwelingen 1993, 18). On closer inspection, however, all of these arguments prove to be extremely 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. As Van Houwelingen observes, “In addition to originality, brevity can also point to a later work of summarization” (1993, 18). In terms of the Second Coming, the lack of any discussion about its delay in Jude could be explained by the simple fact that it was not an issue for his readers. Arguments from silence (that is, Jude is “silent” about the delay of Christ’s return) are not compelling arguments, nor do they function as inherent indications of an earlier date of composition. And lastly, Jude could have easily added extra-biblical examples to his letter because he believed that they would be relevant and meaningful for his audience. In addition, as Counet points out, “Those who assign Jude priority will have to explain why 2 Peter 2:12 distorts the pure Greek in Jude 10 into a Semitism” (2006, 408). This example of Jude’s correction of a Semitism into a better Greek form is typically regarded as an indication of a later work, not an earlier work. Despite the apparent readiness of many scholars to accept the dependence of 2 Peter upon Jude, the evidence is simply not compelling. As a matter of fact, none of the three solutions that have been offered to explain the similarities between 2 Peter and Jude is very convincing. 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 of the suggested theories are thought-provoking and plausible, none of them rests upon enough necessary positive evidence to be fully convincing. One suggestion that is worth mentioning is the creative theory proposed by Robinson. It has often been observed by scholars that the situation that is addressed by 2 Peter and Jude is the same. Namely, the readers are at risk not from persecution but from error. In this regard, Mayor writes, “The moral corruption described in the two epistles is the same even in its minutest points; the cause of the corruption is the same, the misinterpretation and misuse of Paul’s doctrine of God’s free grace (Jude 4; 2 Pet 2:19; 3:16; cf. Rom 3:5-8). The agents use the same methods and are described in the same terms” (1978, clxxiv). Moreover, the language and style of the two letters are so similar that they could be described as “indistinguishable” (Robinson 1976, 193; cf. Mayor 1978, xxvi-lxvii). With these elements in mind, Robinson suggests that both epistles were written by Jude. He writes, “Jude begins by saying that he was fully engaged in writing to his readers about their common salvation when he was forced to break off to send them an urgent appeal to close ranks against the danger of false teachers from within (3f.). I suggest that what he was composing, in the name of the apostle, was 2 Peter” (Robinson 1976, 193). Thus, while he was in the process of serving as the scribe for Peter in transcribing the text of 2 Peter, Jude “first wrote off a hurried letter on his own authority to counter the immediate menace of the new heretics” (Robinson 1976, 193). This scenario, according to Robinson, would explain the similarities in language and style between the two letters as well as the fact that there is no discernible difference in the situation between the two epistles. While Robinson’s theory is very creative and thought-provoking, it suffers from the same lack of positive evidence as the three usual theories. It certainly possesses the advantage of avoiding the unproven assumption that one or both of the letters is the result of a pseudonymous author. Moreover, it would seem to offer an explanation for the striking fact that, despite the similarity of the sequence of the argumentation and some of the imagery that is used, there is actually very little verbal agreement between 2 Peter and Jude except for the shared use of a few unique words of vocabulary (with the one exception of 2 Pet 3:3 and Jude 17-18). If one writer was using the material of the other, as most scholars suggest, one would expect this dependence to display itself in verbal agreements of identical phrases or even the occasional identical sentence instead of merely the few, isolated, identical terms that connect 2 Peter and Jude. If Jude was the actual scribe of both letters, the phenomenon of similar patterns and vocabulary without the evidence of longer passages of verbal agreement could be more easily explained. Nonetheless, the suggestion of Robinson suffers from the suspicious silence of even a suggestion within early church tradition that Jude and Peter worked together or, for that matter, were even acquainted with one another. Thus, while Robinson’s theory contains some very attractive elements, there is simply not enough positive evidence to warrant its acceptance. The evidence pertaining to the literary interdependence of Jude and 2 Peter is simply too ambiguous to provide a basis for a certain conclusion. Guthrie concludes, “The problem, like so many other purely literary problems of New Testament criticism, must be left unresolved” (1970, 925). Nevertheless, if the present commentary were forced to make a decision, it would decide in favor of the priority of 2 Peter, with Jude represented as the writer of dependence. The reason for this cautious conclusion is based upon the remarkable similarity that exists in one of the texts from both letters. As mentioned previously, the verbal agreements between Jude and 2 Peter are usually limited to a single word or term, except for the instance of 2 Peter 3:3 and Jude 17-18. The comparison of these two texts is very striking: 2 Peter 3:3: “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.” Jude 17-18: “But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, ‘In the last days there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.’” The verbal agreements between these two passages include no less than seven identical Greek terms. As Moo observes, “The text from Jude reads very much like a quotation of 2 Peter 3:3” (1996, 18). While the evidence is still too uncertain to support any decisive conclusions, the weight of this example would seem to push the balancing scale towards a dependence of Jude upon 2 Peter. Nonetheless, in the commentary itself, the 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 It is thought by some scholars that 2 Peter is written to the same audience as 1 Peter. Evidence for this conclusion would seem to be provided by Peter’s comment in 3:1 that this is now my second letter to you. 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, it is very likely that the reference to a previous letter does not pertain to 1 Peter but to a lost letter that Peter wrote (see the commentary discussion of 3:1). If Peter’s comment in 3:1 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 very little in common as far as subject matter is concerned. Additionally, there is little evidence in the first letter that Peter was very familiar or acquainted with his widely-scattered audience. In contrast, he seems to know his audience in 2 Peter very well, and it would even appear from 1:16 that he is known to his readers as a result of a preaching mission to them. In light of these observations, it seems very probable that the reference in 3:1 does not pertain to 1 Peter but to a different letter of Peter that was lost. Although the ethnic background of the audience is widely debated, there are indications in the letter that seem to point to a predominantly Gentile audience. The letter is addressed to those who have received a faith as precious as ours (1:1). The impression of this statement is that Peter is comparing the faith of his readers to that of other Jewish Christians. In 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul as our dear brother and places the authority of Paul on an equal footing with the OT Scriptures. These comments would be much more readily accepted by a Gentile audience, for whom Paul is generally known as the “apostle to the Gentiles,” than by a Jewish audience. Moreover, Peter’s description of his readers as escaping the corruption in the world caused by evil desires (1:4) “fits Christians from a Gentile background better than Jewish Christians” (Moo 1996, 25). These factors seem to point most strongly towards a Gentile audience of 2 Peter. Because of the recipients’ familiarity with Paul, many scholars suggest that the audience lived somewhere in the region of Asia Minor, where Paul spent much of his time evangelizing. The fact that 2 Peter was accepted as authentic and authoritative at an early date in Asia Minor (whereas its authenticity was viewed with much skepticism in other areas) would seem to favor this idea, but this suggestion is far from certain. There is simply not enough evidence available to determine the destination of the letter with any degree of certainty. Place and Date The place of origin from which Peter wrote this letter is also unknown. There is no reliable information for fixing the place where the letter was written. Many scholars favor Rome as the place of origin because Peter is known to have been there. But the letter reveals no information about Peter’s own 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 of the letter depends inseparably upon one’s conclusion concerning the identity of the author. The letter has been dated by scholars as early as AD 60 and as late as AD 160. The reference to Paul and all his letters (3:16) indicates that a number of Pauline letters must have already been written and circulated before 2 Peter’s composition. This would seem to set the earliest possible date for 2 Peter somewhere around AD 60. Green notes that some scholars have mistakenly interpreted all his letters as a reference to “a fixed collection of Paulines already recognized as canonical” (1987, 41). As a result, they have attempted to date 2 Peter as late as AD 160. But this is certainly incorrect. As Mayor points out, the allusion to all Paul’s letters means simply “all the letters known to the writer” (1978, 165). If Peter was not the author, then the pseudonymously written 2 Peter was probably composed sometime between AD 80-90 by one or more of Peter’s followers after his death. If the apostolic authorship of the letter is accepted, then 2 Peter was probably written sometime between AD 64-68, shortly before Peter’s death, as the comments in 1:13-14 seem to suggest. The apostle probably sensed that the Lord’s prophecy about 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 over the centuries (cf. van Houwelingen 1993, 26-27). Some have argued that the polemical digression in ch 2 against the false teachers and the close association of this chapter with the letter of Jude indicates that ch 2 was composed separately from the other two chapters of 2 Peter. Others have contended that 3:1 marks the beginning of a separate letter, and that chapters 1 and 2 represent the previous letter to which 3:1 refers. Despite these few objections, the majority of scholars recognize the cohesive unity of this second letter of 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 those 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 that is 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). The epistolary genre of the writing is especially evident in the beginning of the document, 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 himself identifies his writing as a letter in 3:1, where he states that this is now his second letter that he has written to his readers. Thus, it is unmistakable that 2 Peter follows the literary patterns of an ancient letter. While the structure of 2 Peter conforms to the genre of a letter, there are several indications that “it 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). Like a testament, Peter knows that he is about to die (1:12-15), he impresses the need for 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 that his readers are urged to follow (1:5-7; 3:11-18). Thus, although the format of the writing is best described as following the basic genre of an ancient letter, there are certain elements of the testament genre that can also be identified within the letter. Purpose of the Letter Second Peter was written as a reminder to its readers of the true tenets of the Christian faith and as a warning to believers against the deceptive message of false teachers. The specific occasion of the letter seems to be Peter’s recognition that his own life expectancy was growing short (1:13-14) and that 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), but its foundation is laid in the sure revelation of God and the testimony of eyewitnesses and apostles (1:16-21). While urging them to continue to grow in their saving knowledge of Christ, Peter explains that they can be confident of their salvation as they persistently pursue Christian moral virtues in ever increasing measure (1:5-10). Peter also writes to warn 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 Since much of the material of 2 Peter is directed against false teachers, many attempts have been made to identify Peter’s opponents more specifically. From Peter’s arguments against them, it is clear that they were libertines who promised a freedom that, in practice, amounted to nothing more than moral license for sexual depravity (2:19). Although they undoubtedly considered themselves to be Christians (2:20-21), they denied the lordship of Christ (2:1). Calling them specifically false teachers (2:1), Peter states that their greedy and immoral lifestyle brings the Christian faith into disrepute (2:2-3). Although it is difficult to ascertain the precise nature of the false teachers’ doctrine, it is clear that they reject the belief in the Second Coming (3:4), which they dismiss as being based upon cleverly invented stories of the apostles (1:16). Closely connected to their denial of the Second Coming is the false teachers’ rejection of the reality of any final day of judgment (2:3, 9-10). The targets of the false teachers appear to be recent converts or those who are not yet established in the Christian faith (2:18). The deceptive appeal of the false teachers 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 unequivocally declares that in their efforts to deceive others, they are deceiving themselves (2:12-14), and that God has reserved ultimate destruction and condemnation for them (2:3; 9-10). Traditionally, the false teachers of 2 Peter have been equated with Gnostics. The adherents to this theory usually point to the evidence of sexual immorality (which is often characteristic of Gnosticism) and Peter’s emphasis upon “saving knowledge” (epignōsis) which, in other polemical documents against Gnosticism, is often used in contrast to the false “knowledge” (gnōsis) of the Gnostics. But this older hypothesis has been convincingly rejected by many scholars in recent years. Harrington writes, “There is no evidence of cosmological dualism (spirit versus matter), which is often taken as a defining feature of Gnosticism” (2003, 235). Moreover, Peter uses both terms for “knowledge” (epignōsis and gnōsis) without any indication of a biased preference for either term. Bauckham observes that “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). Thus, although the opponents may have exhibited some Gnostic tendencies, they cannot be identified as Gnostics. Neyrey makes the compelling suggestion that the false teachers may have espoused a doctrine that is similar to the beliefs of the Epicureans (1993, 122-128; 1980, 407-431). The Epicureans embraced the idea of the complete transcendence of God; that is, God is completely unconcerned with the issues of humanity. Accordingly, the Epicureans did not believe that God worked in the world according to some kind of divine plan. Instead, they believed that the world was made by chance and that humanity possessed the freedom of choice to live as they pleased. Thus, they taught that the delay of justice upon the wicked was not surprising because 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 their denial of the afterlife and their rejection of the idea of divine judgment upon human behavior, Epicureans were recognized even among other pagans “as immoral people whose ‘theology’ encouraged wickedness and vice” (Neyrey 1993, 123). There are some striking similarities between the attitude and behavior of the false teachers and that of the Epicureans. Epicurean thought certainly could have influenced the false teachers of 2 Peter. But that is as far as the evidence can take us in identifying the background of the false teachers. Like the members of any society, the false teachers were undoubtedly influenced by a large number of popular ideas and beliefs that were current in their time. Epicureanism was certainly one of these influences. However, there is not enough evidence to identify the false teachers as Epicureans. It must be recognized that 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 There are several striking themes that surface in the midst of 2 Peter. Catalyzed by the false teachers’ denial of the Second Coming of Christ, Peter strongly affirms Christ’s return along with the Day of Judgment that his return will precipitate. 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). Peter explains that the delay in Christ’s return is due to the patience of God, by which God is allowing 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, and all the works of humanity and the world 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). The reality of God’s intervening judgment on the last day is based upon his acts of judgment that are recorded in the OT. Since God did not spare the fallen angels whom he sent to hell (2:4); since he did not spare the world in the time of Noah (2:5); and since God did not spare Sodom and Gomorrah (2:6), then believers should know that he will not spare the ungodly at the Day of Judgment (2:9). Likewise, the fact that God rescued the righteous Noah and Lot from judgment and destruction proves that God will also save the righteous on the Last Day (2:5-9). Second Peter is the only book in the NT that explicitly describes the judgment of God as being accompanied by the destruction of the world by fire (3:7, 12). Peter emphasizes that the creation of the world took place by the power of God’s word; likewise, it was the power of God’s word that 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). Watson points out, “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)” (1998b, 330). It is also notable that 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 is clearly identified as corresponding with the day of Christ’s coming (3:4). Another significant theme of 2 Peter is the strong assertion that orthodox Christian doctrine is based upon the dual foundation of Scripture and apostolic tradition (1:16-21; 3:2). The false teaching that is denounced in 2 Peter is based upon 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 as they were passed down through the apostles (3:2). With this repeated appeal to the Scriptures and to the teaching of the apostles, Peter establishes Scripture and apostolic tradition as the true litmus test of any Christian teaching. In one of the NT’s greatest statements about divine inspiration, Peter declares that the holy Scriptures are not the result of the prophets’ own interpretation; rather, the Scriptures are divinely inspired because the prophets spoke the words of God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (1:21). Likewise, the testimony of the apostles 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). It is striking to observe that Peter also 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 to give their prophecies, Paul is described as writing his letters with the wisdom that God had given to him (3:15). This precedent of identifying writings that were considered to be divinely inspired as “Scripture” facilitated the later church’s establishment of a “Christian canon” that was deemed both authoritative and inspired and that was placed on an equal footing with the OT Scriptures. A final theme of 2 Peter that should be mentioned is the emphasis upon 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 the saving knowledge of Christ leads believers to a path of truth and righteousness that enables them to escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires (1:4). Christ’s gift of salvation and everything needed for a moral life of virtue is grounded in the knowledge of Christ (1:3-4). Watson writes, “Christians must make every effort to grow in righteousness in order to confirm Christ’s call and election (1:3, 11; 3:18)” (1998b, 330). This moral effort includes pursuing and nurturing the moral virtues, which will 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. According to Peter, 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, it is clear that bad teaching results in bad morals. But at the same time, the letter seems to insinuate that incorrect behavior is a reflection of an incorrect faith. Watson correctly observes that, for the author of 2 Peter, “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)” (1998b, 331). Thus, one of the pervasive themes of 2 Peter is the idea 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 will be exemplified by a holy lifestyle.