This letter can be appreciated both for its positive teachings and for its earnest warnings. It seeks to strengthen readers in faith (2 Peter 1:1), hope for the future (2 Peter 3:1-10), knowledge (2 Peter 1:2, 6, 8), love (2 Peter 1:7), and other virtues (2 Peter 1:5-6). This aim is carried out especially by warning against false teachers, the condemnation of whom occupies the long central section of the letter (2 Peter 2:1-22). A particular crisis is the claim by "scoffers" that there will be no second coming of Jesus, a doctrine that the author vigorously affirms (2 Peter 3:1-10). The concept of God's "promises" is particularly precious in the theology of 2 Peter (2 Peter 1:4; 3:4, 9, 13). Closing comments at 2 Peter 3:17-18 well sum up the twin concerns: that you not "be led into" error and "fall" but instead "grow in grace" and "knowledge" of Jesus Christ.
Second Peter is clearly structured in its presentation of these points. It reminds its readers of the divine authenticity of Christ's teaching (2 Peter 1:3-4), continues with reflections on Christian conduct (2 Peter 1:5-15), then returns to the exalted dignity of Jesus by incorporating into the text the apostolic witness to his transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18). It takes up the question of the interpretation of scripture by pointing out that it is possible to misunderstand the sacred writings (2 Peter 1:19-21) and that divine punishment will overtake false teachers (2 Peter 2:1-22). It proclaims that the parousia is the teaching of the Lord and of the apostles and is therefore an eventual certainty (2 Peter 3:1-13). At the same time, it warns that the meaning of Paul's writings on this question should not be distorted (2 Peter 3:14-18).
In both content and style this letter is very different from 1 Peter, which immediately precedes it in the canon. The opening verse attributes it to "Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ." Moreover, the author in 2pe 3:1 calls his work a "second letter," referring probably to 1 Peter as his first, and in 2 Peter 1:18 counts himself among those present at the transfiguration of Jesus.
Nevertheless, acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in the early third century. While he himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical, he testifies that others rejected 2 Peter. As late as the fifth century some local churches still excluded it from the canon, but eventually it was universally adopted. The principal reason for the long delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from the apostle Peter.
Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.
The principal reasons for this view are the following. The author refers to the apostles and "our ancestors" as belonging to a previous generation, now dead (2 Peter 3:2-4). A collection of Paul's letters exists and appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the interpretation of them (2 Peter 3:14-16). The passage about false teachers (2 Peter 2:1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 1:4-16, and it is generally agreed that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, not vice versa. Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of "scoffers" who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter.
The Christians to whom the letter is addressed are not identified, though it may be the intent of 2 Peter 3:1 to identify them with the churches of Asia Minor to which 1 Peter was sent. Except for the epistolary greeting in 2 Peter 1:1-2:2 Peter does not have the features of a genuine letter at all, but is rather a general exhortation cast in the form of a letter. The author must have been a Jewish Christian of the dispersion for, while his Jewish heritage is evident in various features of his thought and style, he writes in the rather stilted literary Greek of the Hellenistic period. He appeals to tradition against the twin threat of doctrinal error and moral laxity, which appear to reflect an early stage of what later developed into full-blown gnosticism. Thus he forms a link between the apostolic period and the church of subsequent ages.
The principal divisions of the Second Letter of Peter are the following:
I find it even more curious that what we apparently have here is a contingent of individuals who are engaging in duelling Bible verses.
When one verse is brought up, another one which apparently differs in intent is immediately shot back. The discussion of the first verse is limited to either denial or dispensed with altogether.
The foremost reasons seem to be justification for, well frankly, hubris. I have known many evangelicals and fiercely non-denominational Protestants, as well as Christian liberals, who focus on verses that give them freedom to interpret and do things which amaze and astound, given the Bible as a whole.
I feel sorry for those who are not in full communion with the Church and with God. Why would one not participate in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass instead of being entertained, lectured or shouted at by a man on a stage? Why would one give up rather lengthy community prayer at the Mass? Why would one give up public confession as well as partake of the Sacrament of Reconciliation in favour of pretending that one's inner voice is sufficient? Why would one give up Communion - His Body and Blood, as He commanded - for symbolic crackers and grape juice, or, nothing. Why would one give up whole portions of the Bible, or, as one individual here believes, even dispensing with the Commandments in favour of one's one religion, created by hand-picking selected portions of the Bible regardless of context?
I interpret this as justification for creating God in one's own image. Why else would one reject God's own creation in favour of man-made ones? But what a poor, poor compromise. Heading up one's own theology means that you reject Him. And theoretically, since many of the modern Protestant movements have gone to individual theologies, we could have millions of different and conflicting interpretations of the Bible, with each individual convinced that the Holy Spirit is within them, aiding their interpretation.
One Church of Christ, now fragmented by men. I'm sure that Satan is now laughing with delight...