EVENING SPIRITUAL DIARY FOR 9/11/2025 8:30 PM
My Worship Time Focus: PT-5 “Introduction to 2 Peter”
Two 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 begin to continue to quote from this sub-point “Petrine Authority Disputed.”
“It is true that the external attestation to 2 Peter in the writings of the church fathers is less extensive than that for most of the other New Testament books. It, however, far more complete than the attestation given to any of the books excluded from the cannon. In fact, 2 Peter was never rejected as spurious (even by Fathers who had questions about its authenticity—such as Eusebius), nor was it ever attributed to anyone other than Peter.
“While Origen was the first to attribute 2 Peter to Peter, others before him were familiar with the epistle. Origen was an astute literary critic, and he would not likely have been taken in by a recent forgery. Moreover, he repeatedly quoted the epistle as Scripture, strongly implying that 2 Peter was known and accepted as canonical long before his time. The epistle’s inclusion in the third-century Bodmer papyrus P72 also indicates that it was considered part of the canon by that time. (The monumental fourth-century manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Alexandrinus also include 2 Peter.)
“Origen’s teacher, Clement of Alexandria, wrote a commentary on the catholic (general) epistles, including 2 Peter (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 6. 14.1). By writing a commentary on the book, Clement indicates that he considered 2 Peter to be Scripture (and therefore authentic). Furthermore, Clement’s testimony provides strong evidence that the epistle’s canonicity was generally accepted by the church in the first half of the second century.
“Further evidence of the epistle’s existence and acceptance at that time comes from Justin Martyr (C. A. D. 100-165). In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin wrote, ‘And just as there were false prophets contemporaneous with your [the Jews] holy prophets, so are there now many false teachers amongst us, of whom our Lord forewarned us to beware’ (82.1). That passage bears a striking resemblance to 2 Peter 2:1, ‘But false prophets also arouse among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.’ That Greek word translated ‘false teachers’ (pseudodidaskaloi) appears before Justin’s time only in 2 Peter 2:1 further suggests that Justin was borrowing from 2 Peter.
“The apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter, dating from the first half of the second century, shows clear evidence of literary dependence on 2 Peter. In the early part of the second century, the Epistle of Barnabas 15:4, declares ‘In six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years,’ appears to have been drawn from 2 Peter 3:8: ‘But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.”
Lord willing we will continue looking at this section tomorrow evening.
9/11/2025 9:00 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment