The parts of this epistle, written not long before St. Peter's death, and the destruction of Jerusalem, with the same design as the former, are likewise three:
2. By describing the great day, adding suitable exhortations, 10-14 III. The conclusion, in which he,
1. Declares his agreement with St Paul, 15,16
2. Repeats the sum of the epistle, 17,18
Adam Clarke
Introduction to the Second Epistle of Peter.
CLA_2PE.PDF, source PDF p. 3
INTRODUCTION TO THE
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
As the preface to the preceding epistle embraces the question of the authenticity of both epistles, and also considers several matters common to both, I need not take up the subject here afresh; but simply consider those matters which are peculiar to the epistle before me, and which have not been examined in the foregoing preface.
“This epistle, as appears from 2 Peter 3:1, (says Michaelis,) was written to the same communities as the first epistle; and the author gives us thus to understand, that he was the person who wrote the first epistle; that is, the Apostle Peter. He calls himself likewise, 2 Peter 1:1, συμεων πετρος, δοςλος και αποστολος ινσου χριστου, Symeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ; and 2 Peter 1:16-18 says that he was present at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount. The notion therefore entertained by Grotius, that this epistle was written by a bishop of Jerusalem of the name of Simeon, is absolutely inadmissible; and we have no other alternative than this: either it was written by the apostle St. Peter, or it is a forgery in his name.
“The ancients entertained very great doubts whether St. Peter was really the author. Eusebius, in his chapter where he speaks of the books of the New Testament in general, reckons it among the αντιλεγομενα, those not canonical. He says that tradition does not reckon, as a part of the New Testament, the second epistle ascribed to Peter; but that, as in the opinion of most men, it is useful, it is therefore much read. Origen had said, long before, that Peter had left behind him one epistle universally received, and perhaps a second, though doubts are entertained about it. “The old Syriac version, though it contains the Epistle of St. James, which Eusebius likewise reckons among the αντιλεγομενα, does not contain the Second Epistle of St. Peter. Now it cannot be said that the other books of the New Testament were translated into Syriac before St. Peter’s second epistle was written; for St. Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy was written certainly as late, and yet is contained in this very version. And if an epistle, addressed only to an individual, was known to the Syriac translator, it may be thought that a circular epistle addressed to communities dispersed in several countries in Asia, would hardly have escaped his notice. The circumstance, therefore, that the old Syriac translator did not translate the Second Epistle of St. Peter as well as the first, may be used as an argument against its antiquity, and of course against its authenticity. “It appears then that, if the authenticity of this epistle were determined by external evidence, it would have less in its favour than it would have against it. But, on the other hand, the internal evidence is greatly in its favour; and indeed so much so, that the epistle gains in this respect more than it loses in the former. Wetstein, indeed, says that since the ancients themselves were in doubt, the moderns cannot expect to arrive at certainty, because we cannot obtain more information on the subject in the eighteenth, than ecclesiastical writers were able to obtain in the third and fourth, centuries. Now this is perfectly true as far as relates to historical knowledge, or to the testimony of others in regard to the matter of fact, whether St. Peter was the author or not. But when this question is to be decided by an examination of the epistle itself, it is surely possible that the critical skill and penetration of the moderns may discover in it proofs of its having been written by St. Peter, though these proofs escaped the notice of the ancients. After a diligent comparison of the First Epistle of St. Peter with that which is ascribed to him as his second, the agreement between them appears to me to be such, that, if the second was not written by St. Peter as well as the first, the person who forged it not only possessed the power of imitation in a very unusual degree, but understood likewise the design of the first epistle, with which the ancients do not appear to have been acquainted. Now, if this be true, the supposition that the second epistle was not written by St. Peter himself, involves a contradiction. Nor is incredible that a pious impostor of the first or second century should have imitated St. Peter so successfully as to betray no marks of a forgery; for the spurious productions of those ages, which were sent into the world in the name of the apostles, are for the most part very unhappy imitations, and discover very evident marks that they were not written by the persons to whom they were ascribed. Other productions of this kind betray their origin by the poverty of their materials, or by the circumstance that, instead of containing original thoughts, they are nothing more than a rhapsody of sentiments collected from various parts of the Bible, and put together without plan or order.
“This charge cannot possibly be laid to the Second Epistle of Peter, which is so far from containing materials derived from other parts of the Bible, that the third chapter exhibits the discussion of a totally new subject. Its resemblance to the Epistle of Jude will hardly be urged as an argument against it; for no doubt can be made that the Second Epistle of St. Peter was, in respect to the Epistle of St. Jude, the original, and not the copy. Lastly, it is extremely difficult, even for a man of the greatest talents, to forge a writing in the name of another, without sometimes inserting what the pretended author either would not or could not have said; and support the imposture in so complete a manner as to militate, in not a single instance, either against his character or against the age in which he lived. Now, in the Second Epistle of St. Peter, though it has been a subject of examination full seventeen hundred years, nothing has hitherto been discovered which is unsuitable either to the apostle or the apostolic age. Objections, indeed, have been made on account of its style; but the style of the second epistle, when compared with that of the first, warrants rather the conclusion that both were written by the same person. We have no reason, therefore, to believe that the Second Epistle of St. Peter is spurious, especially as it is difficult to comprehend what motive could have induced a Christian, whether orthodox or heretic, to attempt the fabrication of such an epistle, and then falsely ascribe it to St. Peter. “Having shown that the supposition that this epistle is spurious is without foundation, I have, in the next place, to show that there are positive grounds for believing it to be genuine. The arguments in favour of its genuineness are of two kinds, being founded on the similarity of the two epistles, either in respect to their materials, or in respect to their style. The arguments of the former kind are as follow:—
“The design of the first epistle was to assure the uncircumcised Christians that they stood in the grace of God. Now it was not generally known that this was the design of it; and therefore we cannot suppose that any person whose object was to forge an epistle in St. Peter’s name should have observed it. But the design of the second epistle was certainly the same as that of the first, as appears from the address, 2 Peter 1:1: τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσι πισθιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου. To them who have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God. If we explain ημιν, as denoting ‘us apostles,’ the address will imply what was wholly unnecessary, since no one could doubt that the faith of other Christians might be as good as the faith of the apostles; and it will sound likewise rather haughty and assuming; but if we explain ημιν as denoting ‘us who were born Jews,’ and consider that the second epistle, as well as the first, was directed to persons who were born heathens, the address becomes clear and consistent: δικαιοσυνη του θεου, will then signify the impartiality of God in estimating the faith of native heathens as highly as the faith of native Jews, which St. Peter has extolled in other places. We shall likewise be able to explain 2 Peter 1:8-10, which appears to contain the tautology that those who are diligent in good works are not idle; whereas, if this epistle be explained from the design of the first, we shall perceive the meaning of the passage to be this, that they who are diligent in good works need not fear the reproach that they observe not the Levitical law, since their good works, which are the fruit of their religious knowledge, will be the means of making their calling and election sure. (See the note on this place.)
“The deluge, which is not a common subject in the apostolic epistles, is mentioned both in 1 Peter 3:20, and in 2 Peter 2:5; and in both places the circumstance is noted, that eight persons only were saved; though in neither place does the subject require that the number should be particularly specified. Now it is true that St. Peter was not the only apostle who knew how many persons were saved in the ark; but he only, who by habit had acquired a familiarity with the subject, would ascertain the precise number, where his argument did not depend upon it. The author of the first epistle had read St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans; and the author of the second epistle speaks in express terms, 2 Peter 3:15, 16, of the epistles of St. Paul. Now, no other writer of the New Testament has quoted from the New Testament; consequently, we have in these epistles a criterion from which we may judge that they were written by the same author.
“Before I consider the arguments which are derived from the style of these epistles, I must observe that several commentators have on the contrary contended that the style is very different; and hence have inferred that they were written by different authors; but it is extremely difficult to form from a single epistle so complete a judgment of the author’s style and manner as to enable us to pronounce with certainty that he was not the author of another epistle ascribed to him. The style of the same writer is not always the same at every period of his life, especially when he composes not in his native, but in a foreign, language.
“From what has been said in the course of this section, it appears that even the second chapter of the second epistle has some resemblance both in style and contents to the first epistle. This is to be particularly noted, because even the advocates for the second epistle have in general granted that the style of this chapter is not the usual style of St. Peter. Bishop Sherlock, for instance, acknowledges it; nor, though I contend that there is some similarity, as in 2 Peter 2:5-7, will I assert that there is no difference. But it will not therefore follow that the whole epistle was not written by St. Peter: and if it is allowable to draw a conclusion from one or two passages, it will be no other than this, that the second chapter is spurious, because the style of it is said to be as different from the first and third chapters as it is from the first epistle. This conclusion, however, no one will draw who has examined the connection of the whole epistle; in fact the difference in question is rather of a negative kind; for though I am unable to discover any remarkable agreement in style between the first epistle and the second chapter of the second epistle, I do not perceive any remarkable difference. This second chapter has indeed several words which are unusual in other parts of the New Testament, but the same may be said of the first epistle: and some of the expressions which to us appear extraordinary were borrowed perhaps from the Gnostics, whose doctrines are here confuted; for it is not unusual in combatting the opinions of a particular sect to adopt their peculiar terms. Thus in 2 Peter 2:17, the Gnostics are called ‘clouds, agitated by a tempest;’ and we know that the Manicheans, who had many doctrines in common with the Gnostics, taught that there were five good and five bad elements, and that one of the latter was called ‘tempest.’ In like manner they frequently speak of darkness under the name of ζοφος, which occurs more than once in this chapter. The Epistle of St. Jude has a still greater number of unusual figurative expressions; and it is not impossible that these also were borrowed from the Gnostics. The Second Epistle of St. Peter must have been written only a short time before his death; for he says, 2 Peter 1:14, ‘shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.’ St. Peter here alludes to his conversation with Christ after the resurrection, recorded in John 21:18-22, where Christ had foretold his death in the following manner: ‘When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.’ Hence St. Peter might very easily conclude that he would not survive the coming of Christ to judge Jerusalem. But Christ has declared that Jerusalem would be destroyed before one generation passed away. St. Peter, therefore, after a lapse of thirty years, that is, in the year 64, necessarily considered his death as an event not far distant. As to the design of this epistle, it appears that St. Peter wrote against certain persons who, though members of the Church, denied the doctrine of a general judgment and a dissolution of the world. They inferred that this event, because it had been long delayed, would never take place; to which objection St. Peter replies by saying, That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day: that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering, not willing that any man should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Farther, St. Peter argues, that as the earth has already undergone a great revolution at the deluge, another revolution equally great is not incredible; and that since the former event was at the time when it happened as unexpected as the latter will be, we ought to believe in God’s declaration, that the world will one day be totally destroyed. This destruction, St. Peter says, will be effected, not by water, as at the deluge, but by fire. ‘The elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up.’ Now, a general conflagration will be more easily admitted by those who are unacquainted with the state of the earth, than a universal deluge; for though it may be difficult to comprehend whence a sufficient quantity of water could be brought to cover the whole earth, yet no one can deny that the bowels of the earth abound with inflammable matter, and that fiery eruptions may spread themselves throughout the surface of the globe. (See the notes on 2 Peter 3:9-11.)
“It must be observed that St. Peter’s appeal to the deluge in the time of Noah implies that the adversaries whom he combats admitted that the Mosaic account of it was true, since it would have been useless to have argued from a fact which they denied. This must be kept in view, because it will assist us in determining who these adversaries were. “St. Peter describes these false teachers, 2 Peter 2:10-12, as calumniators of the angels; which the apostle highly censures, even though the calumny should be directed against the fallen angels, since some respect is due to their former greatness and power. St. Peter says, ‘angels themselves, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord; but these as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things which they understand not.’ Here we have a description of these false teachers, which points them out more distinctly than any of the preceding accounts, and shows they were Gnostics. For the ecclesiastical history furnishes many examples of improper adoration paid to the angels. I know of no sect which calumniated them, except that of the Gnostics. Now the Gnostics calumniated the angels by their doctrine in respect to the creation of the world. They raised certain angels to the rank of creators; but described the creation as very imperfect, and the authors of it as wicked and rebellious against the supreme Being.
“Having thus shown that St. Peter in his second epistle combats the opinion of a Gnostic sect, I will now venture to go a step farther, and attempt to determine the name which the orthodox gave to this particular sect in the first century. St. Peter describes them, 2 Peter 2:15, as following the way of Balaam, that is, as following the religious doctrine of Balaam. The doctrine of Balaam, as St. John says, Revelation 2:14, was to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. And since Nicolaus, in Greek, has the same meaning as Balaam in Hebrew, the followers of Balaam are called by St. John, Revelation 2:15, Nicolaitans. Now it is well known that the Nicolaitans were a sect of the Gnostics; and therefore it was probable that this was the sect against which St. Peter wrote. To this opinion it has been objected, that if St. Peter had meant the Nicolaitans, he would have called them, not followers of Balaam, but by their proper name, Nicolaitans; first, because in general proper names are retained and not translated; and, secondly, because in the present instance, no one before Cocceius observed the analogy between the Hebrew word Balaam and the Greek word Nicolaus. But neither of these reasons are true. For to say nothing of the general custom which once prevailed among the literati of Germany, of translating their names into Greek or Latin; I could produce examples of such translations amongst the Jews, of which it will be sufficient to mention that which occurs in Acts 9:36. And the derivation of the Nicolaitans from Balaam must have been long known, at least in Asia; for in the Arabic version published by Erpenius, we find an instance of it in Revelation 2:6, where τα εργα των νικολαιτων is rendered [Arabic] that is ‘works of the Shuaibites.’ Now the Arabic word [Arabic] (Shuaib) is equivalent to the Hebrew Balaam. Shuaib is mentioned in the Koran (Surat vii. 86; xxvi. 176, and in other places) as the prophet of the Midianites. Some suppose that by Shuaib is meant Jethro; but in my opinion no other person is meant but Balaam, who was sent for by the Midianites as well as by the Moabites. At least I cannot comprehend how the Nicolaitans, or any other heretics, could be considered as followers of Jethro. The Arabic verb [Arabic] shaaba, signifies he destroyed, and the noun [Arabic] shaabon, the people. It is not improbable, therefore, that the Arabs adopted the word [Arabic] shuaib, as corresponding to the Hebrew word בלעם Balaam, which is compounded of בלע bala, he swallowed up or destroyed, and עם am, the people. So nikolaov, Nicolas, is from nikaw, to overcome, and laov, the people.”-See Michaelis’s Introduction.
I shall not attempt to dispute the propriety of these derivations and etymologies; but I must make one remark on the Shuaibites. In general, the Arabic writers say that Shuaib was Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, and that God had sent him, according to the Koran, to preach pure morality to the Midianites; but I do not remember to have met with a sect of idolaters or heretics called Shuaibites. In both the places of the Koran mentioned above, Shuaib is spoken of with respect. But the conjecture that Shuaib and Balaam are the same is exceedingly probable; and this makes the etymology the more likely.
We may safely conclude from all the evidence before us, 1. That St. Peter, the apostle, was the author of this, as well as of the other, epistle. 2. That it was written to the same persons. 3. That they were in a state of persecution, and had also to contend with Gnostics or other heretics in the Church. 4. That it was written a short time after the first epistle, and not long before St. Peter’s martyrdom; but the precise year cannot be ascertained.
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5568.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5562.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5552.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4064.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4288. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3820. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4419.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2408.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3162. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1000.
-Year of the era of Nahonassar, king of Babylon, 809.
-Year of the CCIXth Olympiad, 4.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 807. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 811. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 813.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 372.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 108.
-Year of the Julian era, 105.
-Year of the Spanish era, 98.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ, according to Archbishop Usher, 64. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 60.
-Year of Claudius Felix, governor of the Jews, 8.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 11.
-Jesus, high priest of the Jews, 1.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 61.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 4; or the second after the first embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 1; or two years before the first embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 13.
-Dominical Letter, it being the Bissextile, or Leap Year, FE. -Day of the Jewish Passover, the second of April, which happened in this year on the fourth day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the sixth of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 3.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 11.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectlvely, (beginning with January,) 11, 13, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 21, 21.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 12.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Cæsar, the fifth Roman monarch, computing from Octavianus, or Augustus Cæsar, properly the first Roman emperor, 7.
-Roman Consuls, the Emperor Nero Augustus, the fourth time, and Cossus Cornelius Lentulus.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 784
SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF
PETER.
PREFACE
This second epistle of Peter is supposed to have been written many years after the former, namely, A.D. 67, a short time, before his martyrdom, which happened in 68, and to which he alludes in one or two places. The authority of it was, for some time, doubted of in the Christian Church, as Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and others, have observed. What made the ancients call it in question was, first, its being omitted, (together with that of James, the 2d and 3d of John, and that of Jude,) in the first Syriac translation of the New Testament, which is supposed to have been made in the second century. But the only conclusion that can be drawn from the omission is, that the author had not seen these epistles, or rather, that they were not generally known, when he made his version. Now this might easily happen, if, as it is probable, he was a Syrian Jew. For Syria being at a great distance from Pontus, Galatia, &c., (to the Christians of which countries these epistles were originally sent,) it would be a considerable time before copies of them were dispersed among the people, for whom the Syriac version of the New Testament was made. So that the author might think it useless to translate them. Another reason why the authority of this second epistle of Peter was called in question was, the supposed difference of its style, particularly of the second chapter, from that of the other parts of St. Peter’s writings. But “I cannot,” says Blackwall, “find any great difference between the style of the first and second epistle: it is to me no more than we find in the style of the same persons at different times. There is much the same energy and clear brevity, the same rapid run of language, and the same commanding majesty, in them both. Take them together, and they are admirable, for significant epithets, and strong compound words; for beautiful and sprightly figures; adorable and sublime doctrines; pure and heavenly morals, expressed in a chaste, lively, and graceful style.” As to the style of the second chapter, thought by some to be peculiarly different from that of other parts of St. Peter’s writings, Bishop Sherlock supposes that the apostle, describing in that chapter the character of such seducers as endangered the faith of the Christian converts, adopts the language and sentiments of some Jewish author, (as St. Jude also is supposed to have done, see verse 14,) containing a strong description, in the eastern manner, of some false prophets in that or an earlier age. But for complete satisfaction on that subject, the reader is referred to that writer’s Discourses on Prophecy, Disc. 1. Diss. 1; and to the second part of Dr. Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel History. But, to prove the authenticity of this epistle, it may be sufficient to refer to the epistle itself, where we find divers marks of its being the genuine work of St. Peter. 1. The writer of it expressly calls himself, in the inscription, and in 2 Peter 3:2, “an apostle.” 2. In other places he ascribes to himself things which agree to none but to Peter the apostle. For example, 2 Peter 1:14, “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus hath showed me;” alluding to John 21:19, where we are told that Jesus signified to Peter by what death, when old, he should glorify God. Chapter 1:16, this writer affirms that he was one of the three apostles who were with Jesus at his transfiguration, when, by a voice from God, he was declared to be “his beloved Son.” 2 Peter 3:15, this writer calls Paul his “beloved brother,” in allusion, no doubt, to his having given Paul the right hand of fellowship: withal he commends his epistles as “Scriptures,” that is, divinely-inspired writings. Having, therefore, thus repeatedly taken to himself the name and character of an inspired apostle, the writer, if he was an impostor, must have been the most profligate of men. 3. By calling this his second epistle, the writer intimates that he had written to them formerly; he intimates the same thing, 2 Peter 1:12-15; and, by so doing, shows himself to be the same Peter who wrote the first epistle. 4. The matters contained in this epistle are highly worthy of an inspired apostle; for, besides a variety of important discoveries, all tending to display the perfections of God and the glory of Christ, we find in it exhortations to virtue, and condemnations of vice, delivered with an earnestness and feeling, which show the author to have been incapable of imposing a forged writing upon the world, and that his sole design in this epistle was to promote the interests of truth and virtue among mankind. In the preface to the former epistle it has been observed, that they were both addressed to the same people, as appears from 2 Peter 3:1. This epistle, therefore, like the former, was addressed to the whole of the brethren, whether of Gentile or Jewish extraction, who were dispersed in the widely-extended countries mentioned in the inscription of the former. And, as the matters which it contains were admirably calculated for confirming them in the faith of the gospel, and for comforting them under the persecutions to which they were exposed for their religion, it must have been of great use to all the brethren in these countries to have them in writing from an inspired apostle; and the epistle which contained them could not fail to be exceedingly valued by them, especially as it is written in a higher strain than common, both of discovery and of language; written also in the prospect of his soon dying a martyr for the truths which he had all along taught, during the course of a long life.
The general design of this epistle was to confirm the doctrines and instructions delivered in the former, to excite the Christian converts to adorn, and steadfastly adhere to, their holy religion, as a religion proceeding from God, notwithstanding the artifices of false teachers, whose character is at large described, or the persecution of their bitter and inveterate enemies. To be a little more particular: having congratulated the Christian converts on the happy condition into which they were brought by the gospel, I. He exhorts them, in order to secure the blessings of it, to endeavour to improve in the most substantial graces and virtues, 2 Peter 1:1-11. II. To engage their attention the more effectually, he reminds them both that he wrote in the near view of eternity, and that the subjects on which he discoursed were not cunningly-devised fables, but attested by a miraculous voice from heaven, and by divinely-inspired prophecies, verses 12-21. III. He cautions them against the false teachers, whose character he describes, reminding them of the judgments executed on the apostate angels, on the old world, and on Sodom, and of the deliverance of Noah and of Lot; considerations calculated, on the one hand, to terrify such ungodly wretches; and, on the other, to comfort and establish the hearts of upright and pious Christians, 2 Peter 2:1-9. IV. He further describes the character of these seducers, warning all true Christians of the danger of being perverted by them, and them of the dreadful destruction to which they exposed themselves, verses 10-22. V. That the persons to whom he was writing might be more effectually guarded against the artifices of those who lay in wait to deceive, they are directed to adhere steadily and closely to the sacred Scriptures, and to consider the absolute certainty, and awful manner, of the final destruction of this world: and then the whole is concluded with several weighty and pertinent exhortations, chap. 3. throughout. See Macknight and Doddridge.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Second Epistle of Peter.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 358
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF
PETER.
EUSEBIUS, in his ecclesiastical history, book 3. chap. 3, says, “One epistle of Peter, called his first, has by general consent been received as genuine, because the worthy ancients have in former ages quoted it in their writings, as of undoubted and undisputed authority. But with regard to that called his second epistle, we have been told by our predecessors that it was not acknowledged as part of the new testament. Notwithstanding, because to many it seemed useful, it was diligently read, together with the other scriptures.”
The ancients laboured under great defects of general knowledge; they had not the advantages of the press, which opens a flood of intelligence from all the world. Dr. Lardner, in vol. 2. of his credibility of the gospel, has proved that Eusebius was uninformed of the use which the ancients made of this epistle. St. Clement, of Rome, makes three allusions to the second chapter, and one to the third. It is twice referred to in the Pastor by Hermes, is clearly cited by Justin Martyr, and often so by subsequent writers. But as Peter speaks in strong words of the deity of Christ, heretics were not deficient in caveats and scruples. They urge that it was not admitted into the Syrian canon of the new testament.
The epistle contains its own defence. The name, Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. He also mentions his great age, and the approximation of his martyrdom; the glory he saw, and the voice he heard at the transfiguration. In all, we find the same apostle, the same style, diversified only by years and circumstances, and the same paternal spirit breathing through the whole. He speaks with the dignity of an apostle, and calls Paul his beloved brother. What more can hypercriticism require?
The aim and design of the two epistles coincide. He writes generally to all christians, illustrating the strong foundation of their faith and hope. He enforces divine precepts by the weight of ancient example, and alarms the conscience of sinners by the approaching judgment of a vindictive God.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 300
2 PETER
INTRODUCTION
THE external evidence of St. Peter’s authorship of this epistle is not strong. Several of the Fathers, as Clement of Rome, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, use expressions strikingly similar to some found in the epistle, which may have been quotations from it, and, again, may have been phraseology current among Christians, or allusions to the Old Testament. The Apology of Melito, however, refers to the final conflagration in terms that seem evidently based on 2 Peter 3:6, 7. In the Latin translation of Origen by Rufinus, the epistle is twice quoted; but Eusebius cites him as doubting it, and in his works extant in Greek he impliedly excludes it. Firmilian, in the third century, in a letter to Cyprian, says, “The blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, in their epistles cursed heretics;” and only in the second does St. Peter denounce them. Eusebius classes it with the doubtful. Jerome says, St. Peter “wrote two epistles, the second of which is by most denied to be his, on account of its difference in style from the first.” It was accepted by the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 367, and by the Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, and by most of the writers of the fourth century. It is not in the Muratorian canon, or in the Peshito; yet it is inserted as an accepted book in the chief ancient catalogues. After the fourth century, its acceptance became universal; but at the Reformation the question was taken up anew. At the present time it is accepted by most anti-Rationalists.
The historical argument against the authenticity of the epistle rests chiefly: except as stated by Jerome, on omission. No ancient writer denies St. Peter’s authorship on historical grounds. The epistle existed; it also had external credentials by which it was authenticated, or it could not have been anywhere received. From its character it is evidently a document which would come slowly into circulation, and be less frequently cited than some others. Jerome’s statement suggests the real difficulty, which seems to have originated at Alexandria.
The internal evidence, however, is very strong. The epistle, in its first words, claims to have been written by St. Peter; and it asserts itself as a “second epistle” of the same author, written to the same people, and with a like purpose. 2 Peter 3:1. The writer declares himself to have been an eye-witness of the glory of the transfiguration, and to have heard the “voice” which came “from the excellent glory.” Only St. Peter, or a most daring impostor, could have been the author; and that a forgery so glaring could have escaped detection on its first appearance seems hardly conceivable. Moreover, a comparison of the Greek text shows peculiar words and terms common to the two epistles, and also certain words that belong to St. Peter, as seen by his speeches in the Acts, which go very far in favor of an identity of authorship.
The “difference in style,” which incited the doubts of the Alexandrian critics, is no more than might be expected from the difference in the subjects treated. In the first, it is the encouragement and assurance of loving and rejoicing believers, by the familiar truths of the gospel, especially the redemption by Christ and the hope of the glory to be revealed. The style and diction are those of the tender, sympathetic pastor. In the second, the apostle has his eye upon heretics, deniers of the lordship of Christ, rebels against his authority, subverters of the gospel, and scoffers at his predicted advent. His purpose is, to build up against the error by firmly asserting the opposing truth, and to expose and denounce the principles and conduct of those who were undermining the very foundations of the gospel. Naturally, instead of the “Christ” and “Jesus Christ”—not once using Saviour—of the first epistle, he declares him in the second, as “Jesus our Lord,” “the Lord and Saviour,” and “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” always careful to assert his high dignity. In the first epistle, the second advent is “the revelation of Christ” for the glory and joy of his saints; in the second, it is presented in the sterner aspect of “the day of judgment,” “the day of the Lord,” and “the day of God,” when fit retribution shall fall upon the corrupt and the scornful. Equally different is the light in which the gospel is viewed. In the first, the attention of the reader is fixed upon hope, salvation, grace, truth, and the word of truth: in the second, “the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” is fundamental to all spiritual life, and an increasing knowledge of him is essential to genuine spiritual character and growth; while a departure from it leads to the destruction so forcibly described.
Plan of the Epistle.
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 302
The antinomian “false teachers” of this epistle were Gnostics; but they cannot be identified with any one of the several classes of heretics that at a later day developed more or less of their characteristics. Those sects were as yet existing only in the germ; but there was an agreement in the fundamental principle that all evil resided in matter. There is a singular unanimity among the Fathers in ascribing the origin of these heresies to Simon Magus. St. Paul early discerned the beginning of the evil that threatened the Church, and failed not to sound the alarm. Acts 20:29; 1 Timothy 4:1-8; 2 Timothy 3:1-5. St. Peter, too, saw the inevitable tendency of the prevalent speculations, as well as the tainted fruit already borne, and in brave, earnest words predicted the terrible consequent demoralization and corruption, hoping, as is evident from his concluding words, to check the error by holding his brethren to the gospel. If, as seems probable, St. Peter was arrested at Babylon, that must have been the place of the writing of the epistle. We place it in the last year of his life, and among his closing labors—probably late in A.D. 67 or early in A.D. 68.
PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.
I. EARNEST APPEAL FOR CHRISTIAN GRACES AND SOLEMN DILIGENCE 2 Peter 1:1-21
1. Peter’s address to those of like faith; and benediction, 2 Peter 1:1, 2
2. God’s great gifts and promises call for rich Christian culture and graces 2 Peter 1:3-9
3. And for diligence to secure our election and heavenly entrance 2 Peter 1:10, 11
4. Hence, this his solemn apostolic reminder, specially in view of his near decease 2 Peter 1:12-15
5. For no fable is our gospel; being confirmed by the transfiguration voice 2 Peter 1:16-18
6. And by more sure Spirit-moved prophecy 2 Peter 1:19-21 II. WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS SOON TO APPEAR 2 Peter 2:1-22
1. Their doctrine, influence, and doom 2 Peter 2:1-3
2. Certainty of their punishment shown from three historic precedents 2 Peter 2:4-12
4. Their corruption and utter apostasy 2 Peter 2:19-22 III. THE ERROR OF EXPECTING AN IMMEDIATE ADVENT CORRECTED 2 Peter 3:1-18
1. Fatal error of expecting Christ’s immediate coming, from the immediateness in the terms in which it is predicted 2 Peter 3:1-13
2. By the true interpretation of time in the prophecies of the second advent believers may be preserved from apostasy, and attain salvation 2 Peter 3:14-18
John Wesley
Notes on the Second Epistle General of St. Peter.
WES_NTN2.PDF, source PDF p. 377
NOTES ON THE SECOND
EPISTLE GENERAL OF ST.
PETER.
The parts of this epistle, written not long before St. Peter's death, and the destruction of Jerusalem, with the same design as the former, are likewise three:
I. The inscription, 2 Peter 1:1, 2
II. A farther stirring up of the minds of true believers, in which,
1. He exhorts them, having received the precious gift, to give all diligence to "grow in grace," 3-11
2. To this he incites them,
1. From the firmness of true teachers, 12-21
2. From the wickedness of false teachers, 2 Peter 2:1-22
3. He guards them against impostors,
1. By confuting their error 2 Peter 3:1-9
2. By describing the great day, adding suitable exhortations, 10-14 III. The conclusion, in which he,
1. Declares his agreement with St Paul, 15,16
2. Repeats the sum of the epistle, 17,18
Adam Clarke
Introduction to the Second Epistle of Peter.
CLA_2PE.PDF, source PDF p. 3
INTRODUCTION TO THE
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
As the preface to the preceding epistle embraces the question of the authenticity of both epistles, and also considers several matters common to both, I need not take up the subject here afresh; but simply consider those matters which are peculiar to the epistle before me, and which have not been examined in the foregoing preface.
“This epistle, as appears from 2 Peter 3:1, (says Michaelis,) was written to the same communities as the first epistle; and the author gives us thus to understand, that he was the person who wrote the first epistle; that is, the Apostle Peter. He calls himself likewise, 2 Peter 1:1, συμεων πετρος, δοςλος και αποστολος ινσου χριστου, Symeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ; and 2 Peter 1:16-18 says that he was present at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount. The notion therefore entertained by Grotius, that this epistle was written by a bishop of Jerusalem of the name of Simeon, is absolutely inadmissible; and we have no other alternative than this: either it was written by the apostle St. Peter, or it is a forgery in his name.
“The ancients entertained very great doubts whether St. Peter was really the author. Eusebius, in his chapter where he speaks of the books of the New Testament in general, reckons it among the αντιλεγομενα, those not canonical. He says that tradition does not reckon, as a part of the New Testament, the second epistle ascribed to Peter; but that, as in the opinion of most men, it is useful, it is therefore much read. Origen had said, long before, that Peter had left behind him one epistle universally received, and perhaps a second, though doubts are entertained about it. “The old Syriac version, though it contains the Epistle of St. James, which Eusebius likewise reckons among the αντιλεγομενα, does not contain the Second Epistle of St. Peter. Now it cannot be said that the other books of the New Testament were translated into Syriac before St. Peter’s second epistle was written; for St. Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy was written certainly as late, and yet is contained in this very version. And if an epistle, addressed only to an individual, was known to the Syriac translator, it may be thought that a circular epistle addressed to communities dispersed in several countries in Asia, would hardly have escaped his notice. The circumstance, therefore, that the old Syriac translator did not translate the Second Epistle of St. Peter as well as the first, may be used as an argument against its antiquity, and of course against its authenticity. “It appears then that, if the authenticity of this epistle were determined by external evidence, it would have less in its favour than it would have against it. But, on the other hand, the internal evidence is greatly in its favour; and indeed so much so, that the epistle gains in this respect more than it loses in the former. Wetstein, indeed, says that since the ancients themselves were in doubt, the moderns cannot expect to arrive at certainty, because we cannot obtain more information on the subject in the eighteenth, than ecclesiastical writers were able to obtain in the third and fourth, centuries. Now this is perfectly true as far as relates to historical knowledge, or to the testimony of others in regard to the matter of fact, whether St. Peter was the author or not. But when this question is to be decided by an examination of the epistle itself, it is surely possible that the critical skill and penetration of the moderns may discover in it proofs of its having been written by St. Peter, though these proofs escaped the notice of the ancients. After a diligent comparison of the First Epistle of St. Peter with that which is ascribed to him as his second, the agreement between them appears to me to be such, that, if the second was not written by St. Peter as well as the first, the person who forged it not only possessed the power of imitation in a very unusual degree, but understood likewise the design of the first epistle, with which the ancients do not appear to have been acquainted. Now, if this be true, the supposition that the second epistle was not written by St. Peter himself, involves a contradiction. Nor is incredible that a pious impostor of the first or second century should have imitated St. Peter so successfully as to betray no marks of a forgery; for the spurious productions of those ages, which were sent into the world in the name of the apostles, are for the most part very unhappy imitations, and discover very evident marks that they were not written by the persons to whom they were ascribed. Other productions of this kind betray their origin by the poverty of their materials, or by the circumstance that, instead of containing original thoughts, they are nothing more than a rhapsody of sentiments collected from various parts of the Bible, and put together without plan or order.
“This charge cannot possibly be laid to the Second Epistle of Peter, which is so far from containing materials derived from other parts of the Bible, that the third chapter exhibits the discussion of a totally new subject. Its resemblance to the Epistle of Jude will hardly be urged as an argument against it; for no doubt can be made that the Second Epistle of St. Peter was, in respect to the Epistle of St. Jude, the original, and not the copy. Lastly, it is extremely difficult, even for a man of the greatest talents, to forge a writing in the name of another, without sometimes inserting what the pretended author either would not or could not have said; and support the imposture in so complete a manner as to militate, in not a single instance, either against his character or against the age in which he lived. Now, in the Second Epistle of St. Peter, though it has been a subject of examination full seventeen hundred years, nothing has hitherto been discovered which is unsuitable either to the apostle or the apostolic age. Objections, indeed, have been made on account of its style; but the style of the second epistle, when compared with that of the first, warrants rather the conclusion that both were written by the same person. We have no reason, therefore, to believe that the Second Epistle of St. Peter is spurious, especially as it is difficult to comprehend what motive could have induced a Christian, whether orthodox or heretic, to attempt the fabrication of such an epistle, and then falsely ascribe it to St. Peter. “Having shown that the supposition that this epistle is spurious is without foundation, I have, in the next place, to show that there are positive grounds for believing it to be genuine. The arguments in favour of its genuineness are of two kinds, being founded on the similarity of the two epistles, either in respect to their materials, or in respect to their style. The arguments of the former kind are as follow:—
“The design of the first epistle was to assure the uncircumcised Christians that they stood in the grace of God. Now it was not generally known that this was the design of it; and therefore we cannot suppose that any person whose object was to forge an epistle in St. Peter’s name should have observed it. But the design of the second epistle was certainly the same as that of the first, as appears from the address, 2 Peter 1:1: τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσι πισθιν εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου. To them who have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God. If we explain ημιν, as denoting ‘us apostles,’ the address will imply what was wholly unnecessary, since no one could doubt that the faith of other Christians might be as good as the faith of the apostles; and it will sound likewise rather haughty and assuming; but if we explain ημιν as denoting ‘us who were born Jews,’ and consider that the second epistle, as well as the first, was directed to persons who were born heathens, the address becomes clear and consistent: δικαιοσυνη του θεου, will then signify the impartiality of God in estimating the faith of native heathens as highly as the faith of native Jews, which St. Peter has extolled in other places. We shall likewise be able to explain 2 Peter 1:8-10, which appears to contain the tautology that those who are diligent in good works are not idle; whereas, if this epistle be explained from the design of the first, we shall perceive the meaning of the passage to be this, that they who are diligent in good works need not fear the reproach that they observe not the Levitical law, since their good works, which are the fruit of their religious knowledge, will be the means of making their calling and election sure. (See the note on this place.)
“The deluge, which is not a common subject in the apostolic epistles, is mentioned both in 1 Peter 3:20, and in 2 Peter 2:5; and in both places the circumstance is noted, that eight persons only were saved; though in neither place does the subject require that the number should be particularly specified. Now it is true that St. Peter was not the only apostle who knew how many persons were saved in the ark; but he only, who by habit had acquired a familiarity with the subject, would ascertain the precise number, where his argument did not depend upon it. The author of the first epistle had read St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans; and the author of the second epistle speaks in express terms, 2 Peter 3:15, 16, of the epistles of St. Paul. Now, no other writer of the New Testament has quoted from the New Testament; consequently, we have in these epistles a criterion from which we may judge that they were written by the same author.
“Before I consider the arguments which are derived from the style of these epistles, I must observe that several commentators have on the contrary contended that the style is very different; and hence have inferred that they were written by different authors; but it is extremely difficult to form from a single epistle so complete a judgment of the author’s style and manner as to enable us to pronounce with certainty that he was not the author of another epistle ascribed to him. The style of the same writer is not always the same at every period of his life, especially when he composes not in his native, but in a foreign, language.
“From what has been said in the course of this section, it appears that even the second chapter of the second epistle has some resemblance both in style and contents to the first epistle. This is to be particularly noted, because even the advocates for the second epistle have in general granted that the style of this chapter is not the usual style of St. Peter. Bishop Sherlock, for instance, acknowledges it; nor, though I contend that there is some similarity, as in 2 Peter 2:5-7, will I assert that there is no difference. But it will not therefore follow that the whole epistle was not written by St. Peter: and if it is allowable to draw a conclusion from one or two passages, it will be no other than this, that the second chapter is spurious, because the style of it is said to be as different from the first and third chapters as it is from the first epistle. This conclusion, however, no one will draw who has examined the connection of the whole epistle; in fact the difference in question is rather of a negative kind; for though I am unable to discover any remarkable agreement in style between the first epistle and the second chapter of the second epistle, I do not perceive any remarkable difference. This second chapter has indeed several words which are unusual in other parts of the New Testament, but the same may be said of the first epistle: and some of the expressions which to us appear extraordinary were borrowed perhaps from the Gnostics, whose doctrines are here confuted; for it is not unusual in combatting the opinions of a particular sect to adopt their peculiar terms. Thus in 2 Peter 2:17, the Gnostics are called ‘clouds, agitated by a tempest;’ and we know that the Manicheans, who had many doctrines in common with the Gnostics, taught that there were five good and five bad elements, and that one of the latter was called ‘tempest.’ In like manner they frequently speak of darkness under the name of ζοφος, which occurs more than once in this chapter. The Epistle of St. Jude has a still greater number of unusual figurative expressions; and it is not impossible that these also were borrowed from the Gnostics. The Second Epistle of St. Peter must have been written only a short time before his death; for he says, 2 Peter 1:14, ‘shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.’ St. Peter here alludes to his conversation with Christ after the resurrection, recorded in John 21:18-22, where Christ had foretold his death in the following manner: ‘When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.’ Hence St. Peter might very easily conclude that he would not survive the coming of Christ to judge Jerusalem. But Christ has declared that Jerusalem would be destroyed before one generation passed away. St. Peter, therefore, after a lapse of thirty years, that is, in the year 64, necessarily considered his death as an event not far distant. As to the design of this epistle, it appears that St. Peter wrote against certain persons who, though members of the Church, denied the doctrine of a general judgment and a dissolution of the world. They inferred that this event, because it had been long delayed, would never take place; to which objection St. Peter replies by saying, That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day: that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering, not willing that any man should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Farther, St. Peter argues, that as the earth has already undergone a great revolution at the deluge, another revolution equally great is not incredible; and that since the former event was at the time when it happened as unexpected as the latter will be, we ought to believe in God’s declaration, that the world will one day be totally destroyed. This destruction, St. Peter says, will be effected, not by water, as at the deluge, but by fire. ‘The elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up.’ Now, a general conflagration will be more easily admitted by those who are unacquainted with the state of the earth, than a universal deluge; for though it may be difficult to comprehend whence a sufficient quantity of water could be brought to cover the whole earth, yet no one can deny that the bowels of the earth abound with inflammable matter, and that fiery eruptions may spread themselves throughout the surface of the globe. (See the notes on 2 Peter 3:9-11.)
“It must be observed that St. Peter’s appeal to the deluge in the time of Noah implies that the adversaries whom he combats admitted that the Mosaic account of it was true, since it would have been useless to have argued from a fact which they denied. This must be kept in view, because it will assist us in determining who these adversaries were. “St. Peter describes these false teachers, 2 Peter 2:10-12, as calumniators of the angels; which the apostle highly censures, even though the calumny should be directed against the fallen angels, since some respect is due to their former greatness and power. St. Peter says, ‘angels themselves, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord; but these as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things which they understand not.’ Here we have a description of these false teachers, which points them out more distinctly than any of the preceding accounts, and shows they were Gnostics. For the ecclesiastical history furnishes many examples of improper adoration paid to the angels. I know of no sect which calumniated them, except that of the Gnostics. Now the Gnostics calumniated the angels by their doctrine in respect to the creation of the world. They raised certain angels to the rank of creators; but described the creation as very imperfect, and the authors of it as wicked and rebellious against the supreme Being.
“Having thus shown that St. Peter in his second epistle combats the opinion of a Gnostic sect, I will now venture to go a step farther, and attempt to determine the name which the orthodox gave to this particular sect in the first century. St. Peter describes them, 2 Peter 2:15, as following the way of Balaam, that is, as following the religious doctrine of Balaam. The doctrine of Balaam, as St. John says, Revelation 2:14, was to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. And since Nicolaus, in Greek, has the same meaning as Balaam in Hebrew, the followers of Balaam are called by St. John, Revelation 2:15, Nicolaitans. Now it is well known that the Nicolaitans were a sect of the Gnostics; and therefore it was probable that this was the sect against which St. Peter wrote. To this opinion it has been objected, that if St. Peter had meant the Nicolaitans, he would have called them, not followers of Balaam, but by their proper name, Nicolaitans; first, because in general proper names are retained and not translated; and, secondly, because in the present instance, no one before Cocceius observed the analogy between the Hebrew word Balaam and the Greek word Nicolaus. But neither of these reasons are true. For to say nothing of the general custom which once prevailed among the literati of Germany, of translating their names into Greek or Latin; I could produce examples of such translations amongst the Jews, of which it will be sufficient to mention that which occurs in Acts 9:36. And the derivation of the Nicolaitans from Balaam must have been long known, at least in Asia; for in the Arabic version published by Erpenius, we find an instance of it in Revelation 2:6, where τα εργα των νικολαιτων is rendered [Arabic] that is ‘works of the Shuaibites.’ Now the Arabic word [Arabic] (Shuaib) is equivalent to the Hebrew Balaam. Shuaib is mentioned in the Koran (Surat vii. 86; xxvi. 176, and in other places) as the prophet of the Midianites. Some suppose that by Shuaib is meant Jethro; but in my opinion no other person is meant but Balaam, who was sent for by the Midianites as well as by the Moabites. At least I cannot comprehend how the Nicolaitans, or any other heretics, could be considered as followers of Jethro. The Arabic verb [Arabic] shaaba, signifies he destroyed, and the noun [Arabic] shaabon, the people. It is not improbable, therefore, that the Arabs adopted the word [Arabic] shuaib, as corresponding to the Hebrew word בלעם Balaam, which is compounded of בלע bala, he swallowed up or destroyed, and עם am, the people. So nikolaov, Nicolas, is from nikaw, to overcome, and laov, the people.”-See Michaelis’s Introduction.
I shall not attempt to dispute the propriety of these derivations and etymologies; but I must make one remark on the Shuaibites. In general, the Arabic writers say that Shuaib was Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, and that God had sent him, according to the Koran, to preach pure morality to the Midianites; but I do not remember to have met with a sect of idolaters or heretics called Shuaibites. In both the places of the Koran mentioned above, Shuaib is spoken of with respect. But the conjecture that Shuaib and Balaam are the same is exceedingly probable; and this makes the etymology the more likely.
We may safely conclude from all the evidence before us, 1. That St. Peter, the apostle, was the author of this, as well as of the other, epistle. 2. That it was written to the same persons. 3. That they were in a state of persecution, and had also to contend with Gnostics or other heretics in the Church. 4. That it was written a short time after the first epistle, and not long before St. Peter’s martyrdom; but the precise year cannot be ascertained.
THE SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF PETER.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5568.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5562.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5552.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4064.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4288. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3820. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4419.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2408.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3162. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1000.
-Year of the era of Nahonassar, king of Babylon, 809.
-Year of the CCIXth Olympiad, 4.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 807. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 811. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 813.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 372.
-Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 108.
-Year of the Julian era, 105.
-Year of the Spanish era, 98.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ, according to Archbishop Usher, 64. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 60.
-Year of Claudius Felix, governor of the Jews, 8.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 11.
-Jesus, high priest of the Jews, 1.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 61.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 4; or the second after the first embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 1; or two years before the first embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 13.
-Dominical Letter, it being the Bissextile, or Leap Year, FE. -Day of the Jewish Passover, the second of April, which happened in this year on the fourth day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the sixth of April.
-Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 3.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 11.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectlvely, (beginning with January,) 11, 13, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 21, 21.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 12.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Cæsar, the fifth Roman monarch, computing from Octavianus, or Augustus Cæsar, properly the first Roman emperor, 7.
-Roman Consuls, the Emperor Nero Augustus, the fourth time, and Cossus Cornelius Lentulus.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 784
SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF
PETER.
PREFACE
This second epistle of Peter is supposed to have been written many years after the former, namely, A.D. 67, a short time, before his martyrdom, which happened in 68, and to which he alludes in one or two places. The authority of it was, for some time, doubted of in the Christian Church, as Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and others, have observed. What made the ancients call it in question was, first, its being omitted, (together with that of James, the 2d and 3d of John, and that of Jude,) in the first Syriac translation of the New Testament, which is supposed to have been made in the second century. But the only conclusion that can be drawn from the omission is, that the author had not seen these epistles, or rather, that they were not generally known, when he made his version. Now this might easily happen, if, as it is probable, he was a Syrian Jew. For Syria being at a great distance from Pontus, Galatia, &c., (to the Christians of which countries these epistles were originally sent,) it would be a considerable time before copies of them were dispersed among the people, for whom the Syriac version of the New Testament was made. So that the author might think it useless to translate them. Another reason why the authority of this second epistle of Peter was called in question was, the supposed difference of its style, particularly of the second chapter, from that of the other parts of St. Peter’s writings. But “I cannot,” says Blackwall, “find any great difference between the style of the first and second epistle: it is to me no more than we find in the style of the same persons at different times. There is much the same energy and clear brevity, the same rapid run of language, and the same commanding majesty, in them both. Take them together, and they are admirable, for significant epithets, and strong compound words; for beautiful and sprightly figures; adorable and sublime doctrines; pure and heavenly morals, expressed in a chaste, lively, and graceful style.” As to the style of the second chapter, thought by some to be peculiarly different from that of other parts of St. Peter’s writings, Bishop Sherlock supposes that the apostle, describing in that chapter the character of such seducers as endangered the faith of the Christian converts, adopts the language and sentiments of some Jewish author, (as St. Jude also is supposed to have done, see verse 14,) containing a strong description, in the eastern manner, of some false prophets in that or an earlier age. But for complete satisfaction on that subject, the reader is referred to that writer’s Discourses on Prophecy, Disc. 1. Diss. 1; and to the second part of Dr. Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel History. But, to prove the authenticity of this epistle, it may be sufficient to refer to the epistle itself, where we find divers marks of its being the genuine work of St. Peter. 1. The writer of it expressly calls himself, in the inscription, and in 2 Peter 3:2, “an apostle.” 2. In other places he ascribes to himself things which agree to none but to Peter the apostle. For example, 2 Peter 1:14, “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus hath showed me;” alluding to John 21:19, where we are told that Jesus signified to Peter by what death, when old, he should glorify God. Chapter 1:16, this writer affirms that he was one of the three apostles who were with Jesus at his transfiguration, when, by a voice from God, he was declared to be “his beloved Son.” 2 Peter 3:15, this writer calls Paul his “beloved brother,” in allusion, no doubt, to his having given Paul the right hand of fellowship: withal he commends his epistles as “Scriptures,” that is, divinely-inspired writings. Having, therefore, thus repeatedly taken to himself the name and character of an inspired apostle, the writer, if he was an impostor, must have been the most profligate of men. 3. By calling this his second epistle, the writer intimates that he had written to them formerly; he intimates the same thing, 2 Peter 1:12-15; and, by so doing, shows himself to be the same Peter who wrote the first epistle. 4. The matters contained in this epistle are highly worthy of an inspired apostle; for, besides a variety of important discoveries, all tending to display the perfections of God and the glory of Christ, we find in it exhortations to virtue, and condemnations of vice, delivered with an earnestness and feeling, which show the author to have been incapable of imposing a forged writing upon the world, and that his sole design in this epistle was to promote the interests of truth and virtue among mankind. In the preface to the former epistle it has been observed, that they were both addressed to the same people, as appears from 2 Peter 3:1. This epistle, therefore, like the former, was addressed to the whole of the brethren, whether of Gentile or Jewish extraction, who were dispersed in the widely-extended countries mentioned in the inscription of the former. And, as the matters which it contains were admirably calculated for confirming them in the faith of the gospel, and for comforting them under the persecutions to which they were exposed for their religion, it must have been of great use to all the brethren in these countries to have them in writing from an inspired apostle; and the epistle which contained them could not fail to be exceedingly valued by them, especially as it is written in a higher strain than common, both of discovery and of language; written also in the prospect of his soon dying a martyr for the truths which he had all along taught, during the course of a long life.
The general design of this epistle was to confirm the doctrines and instructions delivered in the former, to excite the Christian converts to adorn, and steadfastly adhere to, their holy religion, as a religion proceeding from God, notwithstanding the artifices of false teachers, whose character is at large described, or the persecution of their bitter and inveterate enemies. To be a little more particular: having congratulated the Christian converts on the happy condition into which they were brought by the gospel, I. He exhorts them, in order to secure the blessings of it, to endeavour to improve in the most substantial graces and virtues, 2 Peter 1:1-11. II. To engage their attention the more effectually, he reminds them both that he wrote in the near view of eternity, and that the subjects on which he discoursed were not cunningly-devised fables, but attested by a miraculous voice from heaven, and by divinely-inspired prophecies, verses 12-21. III. He cautions them against the false teachers, whose character he describes, reminding them of the judgments executed on the apostate angels, on the old world, and on Sodom, and of the deliverance of Noah and of Lot; considerations calculated, on the one hand, to terrify such ungodly wretches; and, on the other, to comfort and establish the hearts of upright and pious Christians, 2 Peter 2:1-9. IV. He further describes the character of these seducers, warning all true Christians of the danger of being perverted by them, and them of the dreadful destruction to which they exposed themselves, verses 10-22. V. That the persons to whom he was writing might be more effectually guarded against the artifices of those who lay in wait to deceive, they are directed to adhere steadily and closely to the sacred Scriptures, and to consider the absolute certainty, and awful manner, of the final destruction of this world: and then the whole is concluded with several weighty and pertinent exhortations, chap. 3. throughout. See Macknight and Doddridge.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Second Epistle of Peter.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 358
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF
PETER.
EUSEBIUS, in his ecclesiastical history, book 3. chap. 3, says, “One epistle of Peter, called his first, has by general consent been received as genuine, because the worthy ancients have in former ages quoted it in their writings, as of undoubted and undisputed authority. But with regard to that called his second epistle, we have been told by our predecessors that it was not acknowledged as part of the new testament. Notwithstanding, because to many it seemed useful, it was diligently read, together with the other scriptures.”
The ancients laboured under great defects of general knowledge; they had not the advantages of the press, which opens a flood of intelligence from all the world. Dr. Lardner, in vol. 2. of his credibility of the gospel, has proved that Eusebius was uninformed of the use which the ancients made of this epistle. St. Clement, of Rome, makes three allusions to the second chapter, and one to the third. It is twice referred to in the Pastor by Hermes, is clearly cited by Justin Martyr, and often so by subsequent writers. But as Peter speaks in strong words of the deity of Christ, heretics were not deficient in caveats and scruples. They urge that it was not admitted into the Syrian canon of the new testament.
The epistle contains its own defence. The name, Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. He also mentions his great age, and the approximation of his martyrdom; the glory he saw, and the voice he heard at the transfiguration. In all, we find the same apostle, the same style, diversified only by years and circumstances, and the same paternal spirit breathing through the whole. He speaks with the dignity of an apostle, and calls Paul his beloved brother. What more can hypercriticism require?
The aim and design of the two epistles coincide. He writes generally to all christians, illustrating the strong foundation of their faith and hope. He enforces divine precepts by the weight of ancient example, and alarms the conscience of sinners by the approaching judgment of a vindictive God.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 300
2 PETER
INTRODUCTION
THE external evidence of St. Peter’s authorship of this epistle is not strong. Several of the Fathers, as Clement of Rome, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, use expressions strikingly similar to some found in the epistle, which may have been quotations from it, and, again, may have been phraseology current among Christians, or allusions to the Old Testament. The Apology of Melito, however, refers to the final conflagration in terms that seem evidently based on 2 Peter 3:6, 7. In the Latin translation of Origen by Rufinus, the epistle is twice quoted; but Eusebius cites him as doubting it, and in his works extant in Greek he impliedly excludes it. Firmilian, in the third century, in a letter to Cyprian, says, “The blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, in their epistles cursed heretics;” and only in the second does St. Peter denounce them. Eusebius classes it with the doubtful. Jerome says, St. Peter “wrote two epistles, the second of which is by most denied to be his, on account of its difference in style from the first.” It was accepted by the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 367, and by the Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, and by most of the writers of the fourth century. It is not in the Muratorian canon, or in the Peshito; yet it is inserted as an accepted book in the chief ancient catalogues. After the fourth century, its acceptance became universal; but at the Reformation the question was taken up anew. At the present time it is accepted by most anti-Rationalists.
The historical argument against the authenticity of the epistle rests chiefly: except as stated by Jerome, on omission. No ancient writer denies St. Peter’s authorship on historical grounds. The epistle existed; it also had external credentials by which it was authenticated, or it could not have been anywhere received. From its character it is evidently a document which would come slowly into circulation, and be less frequently cited than some others. Jerome’s statement suggests the real difficulty, which seems to have originated at Alexandria.
The internal evidence, however, is very strong. The epistle, in its first words, claims to have been written by St. Peter; and it asserts itself as a “second epistle” of the same author, written to the same people, and with a like purpose. 2 Peter 3:1. The writer declares himself to have been an eye-witness of the glory of the transfiguration, and to have heard the “voice” which came “from the excellent glory.” Only St. Peter, or a most daring impostor, could have been the author; and that a forgery so glaring could have escaped detection on its first appearance seems hardly conceivable. Moreover, a comparison of the Greek text shows peculiar words and terms common to the two epistles, and also certain words that belong to St. Peter, as seen by his speeches in the Acts, which go very far in favor of an identity of authorship.
The “difference in style,” which incited the doubts of the Alexandrian critics, is no more than might be expected from the difference in the subjects treated. In the first, it is the encouragement and assurance of loving and rejoicing believers, by the familiar truths of the gospel, especially the redemption by Christ and the hope of the glory to be revealed. The style and diction are those of the tender, sympathetic pastor. In the second, the apostle has his eye upon heretics, deniers of the lordship of Christ, rebels against his authority, subverters of the gospel, and scoffers at his predicted advent. His purpose is, to build up against the error by firmly asserting the opposing truth, and to expose and denounce the principles and conduct of those who were undermining the very foundations of the gospel. Naturally, instead of the “Christ” and “Jesus Christ”—not once using Saviour—of the first epistle, he declares him in the second, as “Jesus our Lord,” “the Lord and Saviour,” and “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” always careful to assert his high dignity. In the first epistle, the second advent is “the revelation of Christ” for the glory and joy of his saints; in the second, it is presented in the sterner aspect of “the day of judgment,” “the day of the Lord,” and “the day of God,” when fit retribution shall fall upon the corrupt and the scornful. Equally different is the light in which the gospel is viewed. In the first, the attention of the reader is fixed upon hope, salvation, grace, truth, and the word of truth: in the second, “the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” is fundamental to all spiritual life, and an increasing knowledge of him is essential to genuine spiritual character and growth; while a departure from it leads to the destruction so forcibly described.
Plan of the Epistle.
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 302
The antinomian “false teachers” of this epistle were Gnostics; but they cannot be identified with any one of the several classes of heretics that at a later day developed more or less of their characteristics. Those sects were as yet existing only in the germ; but there was an agreement in the fundamental principle that all evil resided in matter. There is a singular unanimity among the Fathers in ascribing the origin of these heresies to Simon Magus. St. Paul early discerned the beginning of the evil that threatened the Church, and failed not to sound the alarm. Acts 20:29; 1 Timothy 4:1-8; 2 Timothy 3:1-5. St. Peter, too, saw the inevitable tendency of the prevalent speculations, as well as the tainted fruit already borne, and in brave, earnest words predicted the terrible consequent demoralization and corruption, hoping, as is evident from his concluding words, to check the error by holding his brethren to the gospel. If, as seems probable, St. Peter was arrested at Babylon, that must have been the place of the writing of the epistle. We place it in the last year of his life, and among his closing labors—probably late in A.D. 67 or early in A.D. 68.
PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.
I. EARNEST APPEAL FOR CHRISTIAN GRACES AND SOLEMN DILIGENCE 2 Peter 1:1-21
1. Peter’s address to those of like faith; and benediction, 2 Peter 1:1, 2
2. God’s great gifts and promises call for rich Christian culture and graces 2 Peter 1:3-9
3. And for diligence to secure our election and heavenly entrance 2 Peter 1:10, 11
4. Hence, this his solemn apostolic reminder, specially in view of his near decease 2 Peter 1:12-15
5. For no fable is our gospel; being confirmed by the transfiguration voice 2 Peter 1:16-18
6. And by more sure Spirit-moved prophecy 2 Peter 1:19-21 II. WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS SOON TO APPEAR 2 Peter 2:1-22
1. Their doctrine, influence, and doom 2 Peter 2:1-3
2. Certainty of their punishment shown from three historic precedents 2 Peter 2:4-12
a. First case—The fallen angels 2 Peter 2:4
b. Second case—The antediluvians 2 Peter 2:5
c. Third case—The cities of the plain 2 Peter 2:6
3. Their viciousness of life 2 Peter 2:13-18
4. Their corruption and utter apostasy 2 Peter 2:19-22 III. THE ERROR OF EXPECTING AN IMMEDIATE ADVENT CORRECTED 2 Peter 3:1-18
1. Fatal error of expecting Christ’s immediate coming, from the immediateness in the terms in which it is predicted 2 Peter 3:1-13
2. By the true interpretation of time in the prophecies of the second advent believers may be preserved from apostasy, and attain salvation 2 Peter 3:14-18