Who Wrote 2 Peter?

We are starting a new series this week leading up to Christmas, 2 Peter: The Promise of His Coming. 2 Peter is a neglected book that speaks to a church fending off attacks that Christ is not coming so the ethical demands of the faith are not binding. Not exactly a "Christmas cheer" message. The coming of Christ is often associated with hope and the good news of Jesus making the world right. What is sometimes glossed over is that to make the world right, judgment must come.

The letter is short and attributed to Simon Peter (cf. Acts. 15:14), a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:1). He writes that he is going to die soon (1:14), witnessed Jesus' baptism and transfiguration (1:18-19), and that this is the second letter he wrote (3:1). He also has read some of Paul's letters and affirms them as scripture (3:15-16). But there are significant stylistic differences to 1 Peter and its apparent dependence on the book of Jude (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1-17) make it difficult for many to accept a date prior to Peter's martyrdom in the mid- to late 60s AD. For these and other reasons, the authorship of 2 Peter has been heavily disputed, more so than any other book in the New Testament. This was true even in the early church and part of the reason it was among the few books that faced an uphill battle to be included in the NT canon.

The significance is whether 2 Peter is a reliable testimony from an eye witness and apostle of Jesus Christ – the infamous Simon Peter, the "rock," who ministered in Rome. It also matters based on how we read the letter and its circumstances. While it cannot be definitively proven, Richard Bauckham has demonstrated 2 Peter has the qualities of being a "last testament," a Jewish genre often written shortly after the death of a notable hero and accepted as consistent with their teaching. Bauckham therefore argues for a mediating view between traditional authorship and outright rejection that Peter was behind it at all. He contends that it was written by a close associate of Peter, perhaps Linus who was Clement's predecessor in Rome, published after his death in the 70's to 90's AD. He also argues this does not infringe on the letter's integrity or its acceptance as divinely inspired scripture for inclusion in the canon.

But Michael Green and others have argued that we can accept the letter as written by Peter. It still received far greater support than apocryphal works attributed to Peter. 1 Peter's more refined style can be due to the help of Silvanus (1 Pet. 5:12). There is little reason to think just because Peter felt free to use Jude's arguments he could not have penned it or that it would have been too early for that to be possible. The theological concern about the delay of Christ's coming is seen in early Christian writings that are widely accepted so it is not a later development (cf. 1 & 2 Thessalonians). Peter Davids makes an excellent point that both Green and Bauckham offer a reasonable defense for their conclusions but based on historical grounds alone; we simply do not know enough about Peter's life or have a large enough sample of his work to definitely say he did or did not write 2 Peter. The tie then goes to internal testimony of the letter itself combined with church tradition. The best evidence we have is the letter itself.

Accepting that Peter wrote it, late in his life but before his death which Jesus' foreshadowed (John 21), we have his final words to the church. He was pleading with them to remember his testimony to who Jesus was and how we should live in light of his coming. He sharply warns them against those who would lead them astray and again pleads they remain faithful. The coming of the Lord compels us to live by kingdom ethics and his delay is so that as many people as possible may have an opportunity to respond to him in faith (2 Pet. 3:8-10).

_________________________________________________________________________________

Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983.

Peter Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2006.

From Pastor Jason: Stop. And Listen.

One of my heroes, the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was addressing a room full of budding preachers. He was speaking about the importance of personal Scripture reading …

"Here I want to say something that I regard as in many ways the most important discovery I have made in my life as a preacher. I had to discover it for myself, and all to whom I have introduced it have always been most grateful for it. When you are reading your Scriptures in this way–it matters not whether you have read little or much–if a verse stands out and hits you and arrests you, do not go on reading. Stop immediately, and listen to it."

A brief guide to Hebrews, 11:8-21

By Faith they sought a heavenly city

There is no question Abraham is a massively important figure in the Bible.  Naturally, the writer spends a large portion of chapter eleven talking about Abraham and his descendants.  The story of Abraham begins in Genesis 12 (his genealogy appears in 11), climaxes in Genesis 22, and continues until his death in Genesis 25.  In the Bible, he is the quintessential picture of a life of faith.  God’s covenant with Abraham included two things: land and descendants.  Both of these were hugely important to ancient people and intimately connected.  Hebrews stresses Abraham took God at his word at every turn and obeyed God, having faith he would provide land and descendants.  His life was a nomadic one and he never settled in the land God called him to but he never returned to the land he was called out of.  Isaac and Jacob also had opportunities to return to their father’s homeland but did not, even though they too never really settled in Canaan.  They all died in faith, which the writer argues reveals they were not trusting in a earthly homeland but a heavenly city built by God himself.  God miraculously provided a son, Isaac, through Abraham’s wife Sarah even though both of them were close to death and incapable of having children.  For years, Abraham struggled to follow God and was by no means perfect in trusting God, but he never gave up hope.  The climax of his life is when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac.  It appears that God gave a command contradictory to his promise, but Hebrews testifies that Abraham believed God was capable of resurrecting Isaac.  Romans 4:20-21 tells us Abraham’s great faith is demonstrated in that he considered the conundrum between God’s command and promise to be God’s problem to sort out.  Abraham merely took God at his word and obeyed.  Thus, while he never saw the full promises of God fulfilled, he saw them in part, for he was given a son and God always provided what they needed to stay in Canaan, particularly when the Hittites gave him a place to bury Sarah (Gen. 23:4).  Isaac and Jacob both passed on the promises of God to their descendants and maintained faith throughout their lives, even though they faced their own challenges and struggles with God along the way.

By Faith demonstrated righteousness

What should be understood is not just the great faith the patriarchs had in God and his promises, but also that they were flawed characters whose faith in God enabled them to do what was right at critical times.  They left Ur and never returned.  Abraham permitted his nephew Lot to take the seemingly better land (Gen. 13).  He did not take the spoils of war and tithed to the righteous worshipper of Yahweh, Melchizedek (Gen. 14).  God considered him righteous on account of his faith (Gen. 15), and Abraham obeyed God when called to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22).  Isaac ensured that the promises and blessings of God were passed on to his son Jacob, even though Esau was overlooked (Gen. 27:27-40).  Jacob blessed his two grandsons by Joseph with the blessings and promises of God (Gen. 48).  None of them realized the full promises of God, but all of this reveals they were not trusting in a temporal city, but an eternal one that God himself would build.

A brief guide to Hebrews, 11:5-7

By Faith Enoch

Enoch is an obscure biblical character that stands out in Genesis 5:18-24 (cf. 1 Chr. 1:3; Lk. 3:37).  He is also quoted in a strange passage in Jude 14, but Hebrews does not rely on the same sources as Jude for stories about Enoch.  Enoch is most well known for a strange event: that he “was taken up so that he should not see death.”  The old King James renders it rather literally, “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” The word metatithemi (taken up or translated) has the meaning of being transferred or put in another place, thus implying from earth to heaven.  He walked with God, and as a reward for a life lived by faith, Enoch didn’t die (for the differences between “walked” and “pleased” see footnote).

Enoch’s life of faith was rewarded by presence with God.  Enoch is the only person in Genesis 5 who is not simply mentioned as being born, having an heir and then dying.  This points to the reality that God was providing hope for the faithful beyond the grave.  This naturally transitions into 11:6 where it says, “without faith it is impossible to please God.”  It is not because someone is righteous that God is pleased with them, but because they trust in God by faith he is pleased.  The relationship with him becomes the source and motive for their personal righteousness by his grace through faith.  But where some may go wrong here is thinking that belief in God in general is sufficient.  This is inconsistent with Hebrews as a whole and the particulars of this verse.  One must believe in the God of the Bible as he has revealed himself through Christ (Heb. 1:3).  It is faith in this God that results in salvation for those who diligently seek him.

By Faith Noah

Noah is a much more familiar person in scripture (cf. Gen. 5:28-9:27; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5).  Verse 11:7 harks back to 11:1, about believing in the unseen, with Noah’s faith that a flood was coming.  He took God at his word and made preparations despite how ridiculous it seemed to his contemporaries.  He feared God and became an heir of righteousness that comes by faith.  The language of being an heir of righteousness has been used in Hebrews before concerning Jesus as the heir of all things (1:2).  Like the other people mentioned so far, Genesis makes no mention of Noah’s faith, but merely that he found favor in God’s eyes and walked with God.  Noah’s building of the ark both reveals the condemnation of the world and his faith in God’s word.  Therefore, the flood becomes a symbol of the eternal judgment of the wicked and the salvation of the righteous (cf. 1 Pet. 3:20).  Like Abel and Enoch, Noah’s faith and righteousness are inseparable.  It is easy to look back into the OT stories and conclude God was pleased with some people because they were good.  But God was pleased with them because they had faith in him and they acted in accordance with that faith.  Their actions demonstrated their righteousness.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

^{1 Hebrews consistently quotes Septuagint (LXX).  The LXX is a Greek translation of the Old Testament commonly used in the first century.  It has a tendency to make the language less anthropomorphic and exalting the transcendence of God.  So in this case the anthropomorphic language of “walking with God” is translated from the original Hebrew to the Greek as “having pleased God.”}

A Brief Guide to Hebrews, 11:1-4

Overview

Hebrews 11 is a well known chapter, and beloved by many Christians.  It depicts the “heroes” of the faith.  It begins with what characterizes faith (11:1-3), examples of faith from Abel and Noah (11:4-7), of Abraham and his descendants (11:8-22), of Moses (11:23-28), and of other OT saints (11:29-40).  The dominant theme throughout Hebrews is the superiority of Jesus to various aspects of Judaism.  This theme has not been abandoned, for the faith of these saints was in the promises of God which have been brought about by Christ (cf. 11:13-16, 39-40).  We have a tendency to think that all these people had supernatural faith, but really it was not the quantity of their faith but its quality.  Lets look more closely at what is said about faith in the first verse.  The issue involves two key words: “assurance/confidence” and “conviction/assurance” (ESV/NIV).  The root words are hypostasis and elenchos.  Some may remember that hypostasis is a key word used by the early church fathers in settling debates on the Trinity and the Incarnation (recall the hypostatic union – two natures in one person).  This word appears in Heb. 1:3 as nature (“he is the exact imprint of his hypostasis”), and in 3:14 as confidence (“if indeed we hold our original hypostasis”).  So, is the old KJV right in stressing the objective nature of faith and rendering it “substance” (hypostasis) and “evidence” (elenchos)?  Or are modern translations correct in stressing the subjective nature of faith and rendering it “assurance” and “conviction?”  The problem here is when people tend to see this verse as a definition of faith.  This is troublesome because it does not clearly state what the object of our faith is – Jesus Christ (cf. 12:2) – so people tend to describe faith as something to maintain in the absence of evidence.  The overall context ought to be our guide in clarifying the sense of a word.  Therefore, I think Ellingworth is correct when he states: “It is more natural, in the light of the chapter as a whole, to think of v. 1 as a summary of what faith does: faith binds the believer securely to the reality of what he does not (yet) see, but for which he hopes,” (Ellingworth, 566.) This combines the objective and subjective elements of faith.  Hence both translations are correct, which the overall context ought to make clear.

Abel as the first example of righteousness by faith

It is worth making a brief comment about Abel (Gen. 4:1-10; cf. Matt. 23:35; 1 Jn. 3:12).  Why was Abel’s sacrifice better than Cain’s?  Some have speculated it was because of the type of offering that was given.  Others have argued it was because Abel offered “firstfruits” and not leftovers.  Neither is satisfactory because the crucial idea is that righteousness and faith cannot be separated.  The sacrifices God approves of are not determined by the content of the offerings, but by the content of one’s heart.  Biblically, it is clear that the righteous will live by faith.  Because God says Abel was righteous it must be true that he obeyed out of faith.  Not because he thought he was worthy, but because he knew God was worthy.

¹ Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1993), 566.

A Brief Guide to Hebrews, 10:1-39

Overview

This chapter has two parts.  The first finishes the section (8:1-10:18) on the significance of Christ’s sacrifice which inaugurated the New Covenant.  The second works out the implications of Christ’s sacrifice for our lives (10:19-39).  The law was not able to bring spiritual transformation in a clean conscience; the sacrifices did not clean the internal stain of human sin.  Christ’s sacrifice accomplishes what the law and the sacrifices could not.  Thus, Christ’s sacrifice is unique because his offering was obedience and his own blood (10:1-18).  Obedience is what God always desired and this is what makes Jesus’ sacrifice applicable to everyone and effective for anyone.  Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone because his sacrifice is utterly unique.  Because of this, we have the full assurance of faith to obey God in love (10:19-26).  But we must be careful not to reject it through continuing in sin (10:27-31).  This is the fourth warning of Hebrews and among the most difficult to unpack.  The warning is that to continue in sin with knowledge of the gospel is to be worthy of God’s judgment.  Unrepentant habitual disobedience reveals that one has rejected the gospel and is not a Christian.  However just like before, the writer of Hebrews trusts his readers are not those people (10:32-39).  Regardless of the positive characteristics he has seen they must continue to endure by faith.

The Implications of Christ’s unique sacrifice

Hebrews is not simply arguing for the superiority of Jesus Christ to Judaism, but to all religions and worldviews.  If salvation from the human condition and access to God can not be achieved through moral or spiritual accomplishments, then no religious devotion is good enough.  Christ’s sacrifice is “once for all,” (Heb. 10:10).  He offered his body up “for all time,” (10:12).  “By a single offering he has perfected for all time” those who are being saved (10:14).  The finality and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice not only makes the old covenant sacrifices obsolete, it also means salvation is found in Christ alone.  The uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice is what makes its reach so universal.  The hardest message to communicate today regarding Christianity (and the same one that got Christians martyred in the early church) is that Jesus Christ is the only savior.  He is not just the savior for Jews, but also for gentiles.  There is a plethora of reasons why people, and even Christians, do not want to believe this.  How can Jesus be the only way when he has not revealed himself to all?  God chooses whom he wills (Rom. 9).  Nevertheless, Paul argues this is why God saved us and called us to evangelism (Rom. 10).  How can all these good people who are so devoted to another faith be wrong?  Their problem is not just moral, but spiritual.  No one is righteous and no one does what is good (Rom. 3).  At the same time, God alone is the judge; he will judge people according to the light they have received (Rom. 2:12-16), and he will do this in light of who Jesus is.  Is it not arrogant to say you are saved and not any other person?  One has not understood Christian salvation if it has become a source of pride and not humility.  We are saved not by knowing more, or doing more, or by being good, but by grace alone through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-10) which enables us to do good.

A Brief Guide to Hebrews, 9:1-28

Overview

The last section talked about the New Covenant being superior to the Old.  In this chapter, the author is addressing the ways in which the Old Covenant tabernacle and sacrifices were not the complete picture and that the New Covenant sacrifice is better.  The first part describes the sanctuary under the Old  Covenant (9:1-5) and the rituals (9:6-10); these were temporary and were not meant to be eternal.  The author then progresses to Christ’s blood sacrifice as superior to the blood of animals (9:11-28).  He recounts the description of the tabernacle and notes its temporary (i.e. earthly) nature (see footnote).  The ritual sacrifices had temporary characteristics too, since they were only done once a year, had to be repeated every year, and only the high priest could enter the holy of holies — even he needed the covering of sacrificial blood.  The ceremonial law was a blueprint for the heavenly reality of Christ that would bring about the reformation of Israel’s religion from external realities, to internal and spiritual realities of the heart.  But the real issue was that these material forms of worship could not penetrate the human conscience and the heart.  Inward transformation was necessary in order to bring free access to God for acceptable service and worship.  This was effected through the blood of Christ offered on the cross.  His resurrection and ascension prove he was not only from heaven, but also that his work of atonement was acceptable to God.  Because Christ’s sacrifice worked on a spiritual level he is able to free us from the inward bondage and bring perfection to our worship.

The Earthly Copy and Blood Sacrifices

There are two concepts in particular that are especially important.  The first is the need for blood sacrifices, as verse 9:22 makes clear.  The nature of sacrifice within the Bible is different than in religious mythologies.  Modern people struggle with the necessity of substituting the life of one living thing for the sins of another; a God who requires blood sacrifice seems cruel, and indeed many pagan deities were.  But the principle is that the result of sin is death.  Atonement through blood sacrifice served to restore divine relationship with the source of life himself.  As reviewed above, the external ritual was not effective under the Old Covenant.  The New was needed to bring the internal change and eternal redemption through Christ.  The second concept is that the earthly form of worship was a “copy” of the heavenly one.  Ancient people considered their temples to literally be houses for their gods that replicated the deities’ heavenly houses.  Biblically, the tabernacle represented God’s presence among his people, and in the New Testament he dwells within his people, the church, through his Spirit.  Jesus is the one who not only was the presence of God himself among us (Jn. 1:14) but also is our perfect high priest who dwells in the very presence of God eternally.  Thus, believers have direct access to the Father, through the Son, by his Spirit.

^{1 The reason why he focuses on the tabernacle and not the temple is not entirely clear.  Perhaps the temporary nature of the tabernacle as a tent versus the temple as a permanent building is why.  But there is little textual cues for this.  Regardless, he is making a biblical argument and the layout of the tabernacle was virtually identical to the temple.  The theological and biblical argument is the same whether he decides to use the tabernacle or the temple.}