PT-11 “Introduction to 2 Peter”

EVENING SPIRITUAL DIARY FOR 9/17/2025 9:56 PM

My Worship Time                                                               Focus: PT-11 “Introduction to 2 Peter”

Eight 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.”

            “Some argue that the writing of pseudonymous books (so-called pious forgeries) was an accepted practice.  Since everyone knew that someone else wrote the book in the purported author’s name, no deception was involved.  But the obvious question is, What purpose would there be in writing a pseudonymous document if everyone knew it was pseudonymous?  In the case of 2 Peter, why would a pseudonymous author have included all the personal allusions to Peter if his readers knew Peter did not write the epistle?

            “Despite the claims of some scholars, there is no evidence that the early church accepted the practice of pseudonymity.  On the contrary ‘Now one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged.  I do not know a single example….We are forced to admit that in Christian circles pseudonymity was considered a dishonorable device and, if discovered, the document was rejected and the author, if known, was excoriated’ (L. R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles [cited in Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 272]).

            “From the beginning, the church rejected forged documents.  In 2 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul warned the Thessalonians ‘Not [to] be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.’  Even at that early stage in the church’s history, forgers were circulating letters purporting to be from Paul so they could more easily spread false doctrine.  Hence the apostle warned his readers not to be fooled, and he took steps to authenticate his letters that were genuine (2 Thess. 3:17; cf. 1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18).  The bishop who wrote the pseudonymous work The Acts of Paul and Thecla was removed from office, even though he protested that he had written it out of love for Paul and a desire to honor him (Tertullian On Baptism, XVII; The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 3 [reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 677). The Muratorian Canon, a second-century list of New Testaments books, rejected two forged letters purporting to have been written by Paul ‘since it is not fitting that poison should be missed with honey’ (cited in F. F. Bruch, The Canon of Scripture [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1988], 160).  At about that same time Serapion, the bishop of Antioch, offered the following explanation for rejecting the spurious Gospel of Peter: ‘We, brethren, receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ himself.  But those writings which falsely go under their name, as we are well acquainted with them, we reject, and know also, that we have not received such handed down to us’ (cited in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 6. 12).

            “The New Testament placed a premium on truthfulness (cf. John 19:35; Rom. 3:7; 1 Cor 13:6; 2 Cor. 4:2; 7:14; 13:8; Eph. 4:15, 25; 5:9; Col. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:7; 3:15).  The Holy Spirit, the ‘Spirit of truth’ (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 5:6), could never inspire a forgery.  Therefore, the early rightly rejected all such works.  Had 2 Peter been a forgery, they would have rejected it too.

            “Thus, despite the skepticism and doubts of modern critics, the best answer to the question of who wrote 2 Peter is ‘Simon Peter, a bond servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1).   

            Well that finally ends this rather long section that MacArthur has written to show that we cannot have a problem knowing that Peter did in fact, write 2 Peter, and I have to believe that this section took a lot of investigation for him to write this important introduction part to 2 Peter.

9/17/2025 10:28 PM