PT-10 “Introduction to 2 Peter”

EVENING SPIRITUAL DIARY FOR 9/16/2025 8:37 PM

My Worship Time                                                               Focus: PT-10 “Introduction to 2 Peter”

Seven days ago on my SD on 2 Peter I began to look at “Petrine Authority Disputed” which speaks of how those who could well be titled as apostates were saying that 2 Peter was not really written by the Apostle Peter, and in this rather long section with different sub-points in it John MacArthur defends the truth that Peter really did write this letter that we find in our New Testament.  I have stated that God is and always was in control of what was written in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and that reason is good enough for me to know that 2 Peter is a part of the New Testament.  Now I will continue to quote from this sub-point “Petrine Authority Disputed.”

            Let me just say that with all of the verses that are written about in this introduction it makes it harder for me to type, as it seems that the older that I get the harder it is for me to type all those verse notices.  I will just take my time and get through it for this has to be very important otherwise I don’t think that John MacArthur would have taken so much time to compose it.

            “Although the different themes of each epistle required Peter to address different doctrinal issues, there is nonetheless a commonality in their teaching.  Both letters speak of God’s prophetic word revealed in the Old Testament (1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:19-21), the new birth (1 Peter 1:12; 2 Peter 1:4), God’s sovereign choice of believers (1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:10), the need for personal holiness (1 Peter 2:11-12; 2 Peter 1:5-7), God’s judgment on immorality (1 Peter 4:2-5; 2 Peter 2:10-22), the second coming of Christ (1 Peter 4:7, 13; 2 Peter 3:4), the judgment of the wicked (1 Peter 4:5, 17; 2 Peter 3:7), and Christ’s lordship (1 Peter 1:3; 3:15; 2 Peter 1:8, 11, 14, 16; 2:20; 3:18).

            “There are only two possibilities regarding the authorship of 2 Peter.  Either it was written by Peter as it claims, or it is pseudonymous and the work of a forger who pretended to be Peter.  If the latter is true, the author would have been a hypocrite as well as a liar—a deceiver condemning false teachers for being what he himself was and giving severe warning about divine judgment.

            “Furthermore, if the book was written by a forger, it is difficult to see what the forger’s motive was.  The authors of pseudonymous works usually attached the name of a prominent person to their writings to give credence to their false teaching.  But 2 Peter contains no teaching that contradicts the rest of the New Testament.  Since it is entirely orthodox, the epistle could have easily gone out under the author’s own name. The author even notes that the false teachers (whom he is condemning) rejected the apostolic authority of Paul (3:16).  In fact, they were unimpressed with authority of any kind (2:1, 10).  Thus, a forged appeal to apostolic authority would not have added much to the author’s argument (especially since, in so doing, he would have been guilty of the very hypocrisy he was denouncing).

            “Pseudonymous works were also sometimes written because people were fascinated to know more about the significant figures of the early church.  But 2 Peter contains no new information about Peter.

            “There are numerous other difficulties with the view that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.  For example, the difference in style between the two epistles is hard to account for, since most pseudonymous authors attempted to copy the style of the person they were pretending to be.  Also, a forger would not have had Peter confess his inability to understand Paul’s writings (3:15-16; pseudonymous authors tended to glorify their heroes (the stated ‘authors’) and exaggerate their abilities.  Nor would a pseudonymous author have refereed to Paul as ‘our beloved brother’ (3:15). The writings of the early church do not speak of the apostle in such familiar terms.  For instance, Polycarp referred to him as ‘the blessed and glorious Paul’ (Epistle to the Philippians, 3:1), Clement called him ‘the blessed Paul’ (1 Clement, 47:1), and Ignatius described him as ‘Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation; in whose footsteps I would fain be found treading’ (Epistle to the Ephesians 12:2).”

9/16/2025 9:09 PM