EVENING SPIRITUAL DIARY FOR 9/9/2025 9:10 PM
My Worship Time Focus: PT-3 “Introduction to 2 Peter”
“PETRINE AUTHORSHIP DISPUTED”
This evening I begin a fairly long section which will be quoted from John MacArthur’s introduction of commentary on 2 Peter, a book that he combined the book of Jude with, but we have already looked at earlier. I have mentioned that it bothers me that people can challenge who has written the different books found in the Word of God. God, through His Holy Spirit is the author of the Word of God, and therefore I find it hard to argue that what is in the Bible did not come from the God of the Bible. Now when I say this I know that it is the original copies of the Bible that are perfectly put together, and so all one has to do is look at how the scribes in the Old Testament have taken the time to copy these words from the original authors. I have read that when these scribes would copy these letters that they would count the letters that they have copied and if there is one too many or one less that they would destroy the paper and begin again. It is my belief that since God is perfect that His Word is perfect too. So let us begin to see what John MacArthur has to say in this section of his introduction to his commentary on 2 Peter.
“While not normally wanting to dignify unbelieving skeptics, in this case it is helpful to see how this epistle rises to inspired integrity in the face of assaults on its legitimacy.
“The authorship of 2 Peter has been disputed more sharply and to a greater extent than the authorship of any other New Testament book. Yet the letter itself plainly claims to have been written by ‘Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1). The Greek text actually reads, ‘Simon Peter, using the Hebrew form of Peter’s name used elsewhere on him only in Acts 15:14. Such only strengthens the author’s claim to be Peter, since a forger would not likely have used an obscure form of Peter’s name. In 1:14 the author referred to Christ’s prediction of his death (cf. John 21:18); in 1:16-18 he claimed to have been an eyewitness (of which there were only three; Matt. 17:1) of the Transfiguration; in 3:1 he referred to an earlier letter (1 Peter) that he wrote to his readers; and in 3:15 he referred to Paul as his ‘beloved brother,’ thus making himself the great apostle’s spiritual peer. Those personal allusions further strengthen the letter’s claim to have been written by Peter—a claim that should be allowed to stand unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. As will be seen shortly, no such evidence exists.
“Perversely, many critics view the personal allusions as the work of a forger attempting to pass himself off as Peter. Ironically, many of those same critics argue that 1 Peter was not written by Peter either—precisely because 1 Peter lacks sufficient personal allusions to him. As Daniel B. Wallace remarks, ‘In reading the literature, one cannot help but see an element of caprice and double standard, where scholars have already made up their minds despite the evidence’ (‘Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline’ [Biblical Studies Press: www.bible.org, 2000]).
“In addition to the epistle’s personal allusions to events in Peter’s life, there are similarities between the language of 2 Peter and Peter’s speeches in Acts. The verb translated ‘received’ (1:1) appears only three other times in the New Testament, one of which is in Acts 1:17; ‘godliness’ is used four times in 2 Peter (1:3, 6, 7, 3:11), but elsewhere (outside of the Pastoral Epistles) only by Peter in Acts 3:12 (NKJV); the ‘day of the Lord’ (3:10) appears in Acts 2:20, and only in 1 Thessalonians 5:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:2 in the rest of the New Testament. The use of those uncommon words further suggests that the apostle Peter penned this epistle.”
Lord willing, more tomorrow from this section.
9/9/2025 9:39 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment