2 Peter

The author of this letter identifies himself as “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).  Peter, which means “rock” in Greek, was the name given by Jesus to Simon, one of Jesus’ most prominent disciples (Mark 3:16; Matthew 16:16-19).  He was also called Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5), which also means “rock” but in Aramaic (John 1:42).  He was a former fisherman whom Jesus called into discipleship early in his ministry (Matthew 4:18-20).

Although the writer identifies himself as Simon Peter, there were many in the early church who doubted that the letter was truly written by Peter.  In fact, a large number of scholars today doubt its authenticity.¹Kistemaker, Simon J., and William Hendriksen. Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Vol. 16. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001. 212-14.  There are a number of reasons that might cause one to doubt Peter’s authorship.

First of all, some people point to the fact that the author uses the combination of names “Simon Peter” (2 Peter 1:1), which in the most reliable Greek manuscripts is actually written “Simeon Peter” reflecting the more Hebraic form of the name Simon.  This combination of “Simeon Peter” appears nowhere else in Scripture.  However, for that very reason one would doubt that a forger would use this name for the apostle Peter.  If a forger wanted to make their letter more believable, they would surely use the most common name for the apostle.  Peter could simply have used his name’s Hebraic form because he was fond of it and its connection to his Jewish heritage (Acts 15:14; see Luke 2:25-35; 3:30; and Acts 13:1 for other Jewish believers named Simeon).

Some also point to the fact that 2 Peter is not quoted by name by an early church father until Origen (AD 185 to 254), more than 100 years after the death of Peter.  Even after quoting it Origen comments that it is doubted by some.²Roehrs, Walter H., and Martin H. Franzmann. Concordia Self-Study Commentary. Electronic ed. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1998.^,3Schaller, John, Loren A. Schaller, and Gary P. Baumler. The Book of Books: A Brief Introduction to the Bible. The People’s Bible. Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Pub. House, 1990. 287.  However, the early church fathers were quite cautious using writings that could possibly be false, and the fact that Peter must have wrote this letter so close to his death would naturally lead many of them to question its authenticity as it was slowly distributed among the early churches.  Also, even if it is not quoted by the early church fathers by name it is still alluded to “unmistakably, showing that they were familiar with it.”⁴Schaller, John, Loren A. Schaller, and Gary P. Baumler. The Book of Books: A Brief Introduction to the Bible. The People’s Bible. Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Pub. House, 1990. 287.

Others will comment on the fact that it is closely related in subject matter to another disputed book of the New Testament, the book of Jude.  The connection in content between Jude and 2 Peter chapter 2 is undeniable.  Both letters confront the same false teachings and both include a reference to the apocryphal Book of Enoch (Jude 9; 2 Peter 2:11), though the reference in 2 Peter is not as explicit.  The fact that Jude was not an apostle, as well as the fact that he references an apocryphal writing, cause many to discount both Jude and 2 Peter.  However, containing a reference to a commonly known writing, even if it was apocryphal, does not mean the book of Jude was not inspired by God.  Also, while Peter might have been using Jude’s letter as a reference for the subject matter of chapter 2 (or vice versa), the fact that Jude was an active in the ministry of the church (see the introductory page for the book of Jude) and would undoubtedly have known Peter personally actually give credit to Peter’s genuine authorship.

Yet another argument is that the Greek language used in writing the letter is of a much different style than Peter’s first letter (1 Peter).  While this is true, Peter very clearly states in his first letter that he was writing through Silas (1 Peter 5:12), and therefore the Greek of 1 Peter was most likely Silas’ and not Peter’s.  Peter makes no such statement in this letter, and therefore its Greek most likely reflects Peter’s use of the language.

In light of all of these arguments we see no convincing reason to reject Peter as this letter’s genuine author.⁵For a fuller presentation of the arguments on both sides of the issue of genuine authorship, see Kistemaker’s introductory material to 2 Peter (pages 212-219) in Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude.  Not only does the letter agree with the personality and teaching of the apostle Peter (for example, 2 Peter 1:19-21; 1 Peter 1:10-12),⁶“Notice the similarities between I Peter and II Peter. In both letters the writer rouses the readers from spiritual lethargy (see 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7; 2 Peter 1:5, 10; 3:17). In these two epistles, Peter exhorts the readers to be mindful of the judgment day (compare 1 Peter 2:12; 2 Peter 3:12). And in these writings, the author exhorts the recipients to follow the example of Jesus Christ.” Kistemaker, Simon J., and William Hendriksen. Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Vol. 16. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001. 224. there are also a number of statements made throughout that show the insight of an eyewitness (for example, 2 Peter 1:16-18; see Matthew 17:1-8).  Thus, while the authenticity of this letter has been spoken against throughout the centuries, the reader of 2 Peter can still read it with the confidence of reading God’s Word.