Who wrote 2 Peter?

Question 1158

The short letter we call Second Peter has faced more doubt about its authorship than almost any other book in the New Testament. The letter names Peter as its writer in its opening line, yet critics have long argued that it came from a later hand writing in the apostle’s name. Since the question touches the trustworthiness of a book of Scripture, and since the letter itself warns so solemnly against falsehood, it deserves a careful and confident answer.

The doubts are old, reaching back to the early centuries, and we will not pretend they do not exist. But when the objections are set out plainly and answered one by one, the case for the apostle Peter stands firm, and the letter takes its rightful place as the genuine final word of a man who knew his death was near.

The Letter’s Own Claim

The letter could hardly be plainer about its author. It opens as the word of Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, using the old Hebrew form of his name in a way that fits the apostle himself. The writer speaks as one who was an eyewitness of the Lord’s majesty on the holy mountain, where Jesus was transfigured before him, and he recalls hearing the voice from heaven declaring Jesus to be the beloved Son. Of the whole company, only Peter, James, and John were present at that moment, so the claim is specific and bold.

He refers to a previous letter he has written to the same readers, which points naturally to First Peter. He speaks of his own approaching death as something the Lord Jesus had made clear to him, recalling the words spoken to Peter by the lakeside in John’s Gospel, where the risen Lord foretold the manner of his death. He calls Paul a beloved brother and speaks of Paul’s letters as Scripture, exactly as a fellow apostle might. The letter presents itself, from beginning to end, as the testament of the apostle Peter near the close of his life.

The Objection From Style

The first and most common objection is that the Greek of Second Peter differs in style from First Peter, being rougher and more elaborate. This is true, and it has been noticed since ancient times, but it is easily accounted for. Peter tells us in the first letter that he wrote it with the help of Silvanus, a capable companion, and a skilled assistant of that kind would naturally have shaped the polished Greek of that letter. The second letter may well have been written without that same help, or with a different scribe, or in greater haste as death approached.

A change of secretary readily explains a change of style, as we have seen with the letters of Paul. A fisherman from Galilee who needed help with refined Greek in one letter, and lacked it in another, would leave exactly the kind of difference we find. The argument from style, which is always a matter of impression, cannot bear the weight that is placed upon it.

The Objection From Jude

The second objection notes the close similarity between the middle of Second Peter and the short letter of Jude, and concludes that one writer copied the other, which is thought to count against Peter. Yet shared material proves nothing against his authorship. The two writers were addressing the same kind of false teaching that troubled the churches, and either could have drawn on the other, or both could have drawn on a common body of apostolic warning against the same errors. Such overlap was natural when faithful men confronted a shared danger, and it took place under the guidance of the same Spirit who inspired them both.

That Peter and Jude should sound alike when warning against the same false teachers is no more surprising than two faithful pastors today preaching similar sermons against a common heresy. The likeness points to a shared concern and a shared truth, not to forgery.

The Objection From the Early Church

The third objection is that the letter struggled to gain full and immediate acceptance in the early church, and was discussed and weighed before it was finally received. This is true, and rather than telling against the letter it shows the early Christians were careful and not careless. They did not receive every writing that claimed an apostle’s name, and several books that falsely bore the name of Peter were examined and firmly rejected. That Second Peter was weighed and then received, while those others were weighed and refused, shows a church exercising real discernment.

After that careful process the church received Second Peter into the canon as the genuine work of the apostle, and it has been read as the Word of God ever since. The hesitation of some in the early centuries is better seen as evidence of caution than as a verdict against the letter, for the same caution rejected the obvious forgeries while embracing this letter as true.

Why Forgery Does Not Fit

The theory that a later admirer wrote in Peter’s name sits very uneasily with the letter itself. The writer condemns false teachers who deceive and exploit the people of God with made-up stories, and he stakes the truth of his message on the fact that the apostles did not follow cleverly devised myths but were eyewitnesses of the Lord’s majesty. A forger composing a deceitful letter under a false name, while in that very letter denouncing deceivers and false words, would be a strange and self-condemning figure.

The whole tone of the letter is that of a man who knew his death was near and wanted to leave his readers a faithful reminder of the truth before he went. He writes to stir up their memory, to ground them against the coming errors, and to urge them on in holiness as they await the day of the Lord. This is the voice of a shepherd, not a counterfeiter, and it rings true as the parting word of Peter.

So, now what?

Receive Second Peter as the genuine voice of the apostle, written as his parting word to the church he loved. When you hear it dismissed as a late forgery, remember that the objections rest on style, on its likeness to Jude, and on the early church’s proper caution, and that each of these has a ready and reasonable answer.

Take to heart the warning of a man who saw the Lord’s glory on the mountain and knew his own end was at hand. He calls you to be on your guard against those who twist the truth, and to give yourself instead to growth in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your heart. That is the labour of a lifetime, and it is the very thing this dying apostle longed to see in his readers.

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 2 Peter 1:16

For Further Study

Michael Green’s commentary on Second Peter and Jude defends the apostolic authorship of the letter with care and is a fine place to begin. The New Testament introductions of Donald Guthrie and of D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo both set out the objections and answer them fairly, weighing the evidence for Peter as the author and finding it sufficient.