The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (172 page)

T. Schreiner offered three cogent critiques of Bauckham's theory. First, there is a lack of historical awareness of the pseudepigraphical device historically. The early church either
rejected or received the letter based on the belief that it was or was not from Peter.
¹⁰¹
Could the awareness that it was “transparent fiction” really have passed so quickly? Second, Bauckham's theory is that Jews would have readily recognized the device. But, curiously, there is no evidence that the letter was written to Jews; Gentiles are a more likely destination.
¹⁰²
It is also debatable whether all farewell addresses are necessarily fictional; Moses, Jacob, David, Jesus, and Paul, among others, all gave farewell addresses, but are these all fictional? Moreover, not a single undisputed exemplar of the testamentary literature was ever recognized as Scripture. Finally, it is doubtful that 2 Peter fits the testamentary category.103 Thus, the effort to maintain the acceptability of pseudonymity by positing that 2 Peter is an example of the testamentary genre is unconvincing.

One final consideration remains. M. Green noted that most pseudepigraphical literature promoted heretical teaching, filled in historical gaps, represented the creative exercise of the author's imagination, or answered another generation's “insatiable questions.”
¹⁰⁴
Second Peter is decisively not about any of these things. Green concluded, “as a pseudepigraph [2 Peter] has no satisfactory
raison d' être
[reason for its existence].”
¹⁰⁵
The absence of a satisfactory purpose for 2 Peter as a late pseudepigraphical document is yet one more reason that gives pause to embracing any of the alternatives to Peter's authorship.

To sum up, the options for Peter's authorship are that 2 Peter was produced by an unknown pseudepigrapher subsequent to Peter's lifetime (perhaps as Peter's “last testament”) or that the letter was written by the apostle Peter, most likely shortly before his death. In light of the difficulties associated with the former argument; in light of the absence of compelling external or internal evidence against Peter's authorship; and in view of the above-noted convincing connections between 1 and 2 Peter, the view that the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter is preferable to alternative options.
¹⁰⁶

Date

Few books are attributed to such diverse dates as 2 Peter. Those who find the arguments for pseudepigraphy compelling place 2 Peter as late as the mid-second century. If 2 Peter is from the apostle, then it must have been written late in his life. Since 2 Peter probably comes from the pen of the apostle, and in light of the reference to his impending death in 2 Pet 1:14—15, it should be placed near the end of the apostle's life. Church tradition
holds that Peter died during the Neronian persecution
(64—66;
see 1
Clem.
5.4).
¹⁰⁷
The best date for Peter's death is 65 or
66.
¹⁰⁸
Thus the letter was most likely written just prior to Peter's martyrdom.

Provenance

Second Peter makes no mention of a place of origin, but if the discussions of the authorship and the likely date of composition of 2 Peter are correct, the most plausible place of writing is Rome. If 1 Peter is authentic and was written by Peter in Rome (“Babylon”; 1 Pet 5:13) in the early or mid-60s, and if 2 Peter is authentic and was written by Peter as well, it must have been penned a few years after 1 Peter and thus likely originated in the empire's capital as well. Some have tried to adjudicate the origins of the letter based on linguistic evidence, but these attempts are not convincing.109 People can exhibit various types of linguistic traits in myriads of places, which renders determining a place of writing on the basis of linguistic use precarious.
¹¹⁰
Rome continues to be by far the best option for the provenance of the letter.

Destination

Unlike 1 Peter, the second letter does not mention its recipients. However, two clues help us to identify its destination. Since this was the second letter Peter had written to this audience (2 Pet 3:1), and since he showed knowledge of Paul's letters (2 Pet 3:15), it seems reasonable to infer that the destination of 2 Peter was the same as that of 1 Peter (see 1 Pet 1:1).

Moreover, the use of the Grand Asian style of the letter suggests that the author wrote to readers who would appreciate this style of writing. This would have been the case in the eastern part of the empire (but not the western), though not at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.
¹¹¹
On the whole, the evidence points to the same recipients as 1 Peter, Gentile Christians in Asia Minor.

Occasion and Purpose

The occasion for writing 2 Peter was most likely that the apostle was nearing his death (1:15) and needed to address a false teaching that was circulating in the churches to which he wrote (2:1—22). Thus in 3:17—18, Peter admonished his readers to “be on your guard,
so that you are not led away by the error of the immoral and fall from your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

The opponents in 2 Peter apparently considered themselves Christian teachers and not necessarily prophets (2:1,13), although Peter grouped them with false prophets of old. They gathered disciples (2:2) and attempted to draw true believers into their sphere of influence. At the heart of their teaching seems to have been eschatological skepticism.
¹¹²
These false teachers apparently denied the Second Coming and sought to undermine apostolic testimony (see 1:16; 2:18—19; 3:4). Peter's denial that the apostles followed “cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:16) seems to respond to the charge leveled by his opponents that the apostles’ teaching of the resurrection was merely a matter of human fabrication (for a similar instance, see 2 Tim 2:17-18; cf 1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 4:14).

Moreover, the eschatological skepticism of the opponents doubted any sort of divine retribution. The world, according to them, would always remain as it had been (3:4); hence they promised freedom (2:19) expressed in fleshly fulfillment (2:13; cf. 2:10,14). In this they may have used Paul's letters as the foundation for their error, since Peter noted that “the untaught and unstable twist [Paul's letters] to their own destruction” (3:16).
¹¹³
Finally, there seems to be a strong element of greed as the motivation for their ministry (2:14-16).

Many have attempted to connect the opponents in 2 Peter to gnostic philosophy,
¹¹⁴
but this seems unlikely since the date of the letter is prior to full-fledged Gnosticism that did not emerge until the second century and in light of the character of the opponents. The parallels with Epicurean philosophy are quite strong, and many have suggested it as the source of Peter's opponents.
¹¹⁵
But Schreiner is most likely correct in doubting the wholesale identification of the opponents with Epicurean philosophy.
¹¹⁶

It is best to view the opponents as advocating a philosophy otherwise not attested in the NT or extrabiblical literature, similar to the “Colossian heresy,” which was likewise unique in its local expression. If so, it is best to reconstruct the false teaching on the basis of the internal evidence, which suggests that the opponents’ philosophy at the very outset precluded God intervening in the world at any time (3:3—4), whether by sending a flood (thus denying the veracity of the OT Scriptures; see Genesis 6—9) or by having Jesus return at the end of time (a denial of Jesus’ own words and of the apostolic and early church's witness).

Something to Think About: Cultivating Christian Virtues

P
eter did not write his second letter to tell his readers something new, something they didn't already know. Instead, he wrote to remind them of things they already knew (3:1). In this Peter's audience was like many of us who basically know what we should be doing in our Christian lives but who need occasional (or frequent) reminders to help us stay on course or get back on track.

Most distinctive is the “staircase of Christian virtues” Peter listed in the opening chapter of his letter. After assuring his readers that God had given them everything they needed to live a godly life, including his “very great and precious promises” (1:4), he urged his readers to supplement their faith with

goodness

goodness with knowledge

                  knowledge with self-control

                                        self-control with endurance

                                                              endurance with godliness

                                                                                godliness with brotherly affection and

                                                                                                       brotherly affection with love (1:5—7).

There does not appear to be any necessary reason to the order of these virtues as if we must cultivate one before progressing to the next, except that it is probably no coincidence that love is the primary virtue as in other similar lists (see 1 Cor 13:13; Gal 5:22—23). While many of these virtues are standard fare and are found also in Paul's writings (e.g., goodness and self-control are in Gal 5:22—23), one word catches our attention: “godliness” (
eusebeia).
This word occurs three times in 2 Peter 1 (vv. 3,6—7) and once in 3:11, which is four out of 15 NT occurrences (see Acts 3:12; 1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7—8; 6:3,5—6,11; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1). Related forms occur seven times in the NT: the verb
eusebeo
(Acts 17:23; 1 Tim 5:4); the adjective
eusebes
(Acts 10:2,7; 2 Pet 2:9); and the adverb
eusebos
(2 Tim 3:12; Titus 2:12). Interestingly, therefore, the word group only occurs in Acts, the Pastoral Epistles, and 2 Peter.

What this means, most likely, is that
eusebeia
was a term used in the larger Greco-Roman world of the first century, denoting a person's religious piety or devotion, though not necessarily in a Christian sense. Initially, Christians may have been reluctant to incorporate this term into their vocabulary, but at some point they apparently decided to Christianize it. Hence in Acts 10 we find the word characterizing the Gentile centurion Cornelius (10:2) and one of his devout soldiers (10:7).

So it is only in the Pastorals and 2 Peter that believers are urged to “live peaceful…lives in all
godliness
and holiness” (1 Tim 2:2 NIV); and that Timothy is exhorted to “train yourself to be godly,”for
“godliness
has value for all things” (1 Tim 4:7—8 NIV; see 1 Tim 6:11), while false teachers are excoriated for their lack of true godliness (1 Tim 6:5; 2 Tim 3:5). In Titus 1:1, Paul expressed his conviction that the knowledge of the truth leads to
godliness.
Peter told his readers to engage in holy conduct and
godliness
in light of the Second Coming (2 Pet 3:11).

There is therefore nothing wrong for Christians to cultivate Christian virtues. To the contrary, this is strongly encouraged as long as they remember that their quest for godliness is not to be done in self-effort. Engaging in spiritual disciplines such as
the regular study of and meditation on God's Word (Col 3:16; 2 Tim 3:14—17) or continual prayer (1 Thess 5:17; Phil 4:6—7) is indeed vital. Yet, as Peter reminded us, God's divine power has given us everything required for living a godly life (1:3), so the power for advancing in Christian virtues comes not from ourselves but from God.

LITERATURE

Literary Plan

The unity of 2 Peter is not seriously doubted.
¹¹⁷
Some argue that the letter parallels Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions, but this is far from proven.
¹¹⁸
Overall, 2 Peter conforms to the standard epistolary conventions of the day, featuring opening greetings (1:1—2), the body of the letter (1:3-3:13), and concluding remarks (3:14-18). There is wide consensus that 2:1—22 and 3:1—13 constitute literary units. There is less agreement with regard to the material in chap. 1. T. Schreiner divided the letter at 1:12, while D. Moo discerned a break at 1:16.
¹¹⁹
Most likely, both are right as the following outline indicates: the sections are 1:3-11; 1:12-15; and 1:16-21.
¹²⁰

Second Peter 1:3—21 sets forth Peter's challenge to his readers to pursue Christian virtues in light of God's provision of everything required for life and godliness (1:3—11), states Peter's purpose for writing the letter (1:12—15), and issues a defense and countercharge against allegations by the false teachers regarding Peter's preaching on the
parousia
(1:12—21). As further developed in the discussion of Jude below, chap. 2 incorporates in modified form large portions of Jude, while 3:1—13 presents the specifics of the heresy at issue and calls the readers to holy conduct and godliness as they await the Lord's return. On the whole, the letter balances Peter's concern with believers’ pursuit of Christian virtues with his desire to refute the false teaching that denied the reality of the Second Coming.

The important connection between Peter's focus on holiness and the false teaching he was combating ought not to be missed. Apparently, the denial of the Second Coming led directly to antinominianism and licentious behavior. This is confirmed in the references to the judgment of the angels, those in Noah's day, and Sodom and Gomorrah (2:4—9), assuring the readers that God will hold people accountable for their actions. Hence, the
example of the false teachers—whose lack of doctrinal orthodoxy led to a denial of the Second Coming, resulting in an immoral lifestyle—taught the important lesson that believers who affirm the Second Coming must cultivate holiness as they await Christ's return.

OUTLINE

1. GREETINGS (1:1-2)
   
2. ENCOURAGEMENT TO GROWTH IN GODLINESS (1:3-21)
   
   1. The Pursuit of Christian Virtues (1:3—11)
      
   2. The Nature of Peter's Letter (1:12-15)
      
   3. Defense of Peter's and the Prophets’ Testimony (1:16-21)
      
3. CONDEMNATION OF THE FALSE TEACHERS (2:1-22)
   
   1. The Danger and Nature of the False Teachers (2:1-3)
      
   2. God's Judgment in the Past (2:4-10a)
      
   3. The False Teachers’ Godless Character (2:10b—16)
      
   4. The False Teachers Described (2:17-22)
      
4. REFUTATION AND RESPONSE TO THE FALSE TEACHERS (3:1-13)
   
5. CLOSING (3:14-18)