Challenges: Some scholars believe 2 Peter used Jude as a source, suggesting it was written some time after Jude and therefore not by Peter. The letter's vocabulary and concepts are considered too Greek for a Galilean fisherman like Peter. Stylistic and theological differences to 1 Peter are used to raise doubts about a common author. False teachers described in the letter are seen by some as second-century Gnostics, suggesting a later date. Peter's appeal to Paul's letters as Scripture is argued to be a post-Pauline development during the time when the letters were collected and canonized. 2 Peter is not widely cited in the early church.
Pseudepigraphy: Bauckham argues that 2 Peter belongs to the "testament" genre, a farewell speech written after the speaker's death. He believes readers would have recognized the letter as fictional in nature, not believing Peter actually wrote it. The shift between future and present tenses is explained as providing a literary purpose, not implying actual future events. Bauckham suggests a late first-century date, before Paul's letters became widely known, and the author was not Peter, but a colleague who knew Peter's writings and messages.
Response: The differences in style between 1 and 2 Peter can be explained by the different situations addressed and the possibility of different secretaries, but the similarities between 1 and 2 Peter suggest a common author. Peter's use of Greek terms can be explained by his exposure to Hellenistic culture and the need to communicate effectively with his audience. Peter's reference to Paul's letters as Scripture does not require a late date for 2 Peter. The letter's eschatology and ethics are compatible with Petrine authorship. While the letter could be interpreted as a testament, this was not a recognized genre by earlier scholars and 2 Peter lacks usual features of a testament. No evidence suggests early Christians accepted pseudonymous documents as Scripture. 2 Peter does not advance new or esoteric teachings, a common motive for pseudepigraphy, so there is no clear motive for using a pseudonym.
Internal evidence: The letter explicitly claims to be written by Peter (1:1). It uses the Hebraic form of his name, Simeon Peter, which is unique to this letter and Acts 15:14. The author claims to be an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus (1:16-18). Paul is referred to as a "beloved brother" and the author knows about the wisdom of God granted to Paul (3:15-16). It also claims to be the second letter written by Peter (3:1).
External evidence: The Muratorian Canon does not mention 2 Peter, but neither does it mention 1 Peter. Possible allusions to 2 Peter exist in the Apostolic Fathers (e.g., Epistle of Barnabas, 2 Clement). Origen cited 2 Peter six times, suggesting he accepted its authenticity. Even though Eusebius mentions that 2 Peter was disputed, he notes that most accepted it. 2 Peter is included in the Bodmer papyrus (𝔓72) from the third century and other early codices.
This depends on ones views of authorship and the date of Peter's death. The most likely date falls between A.D. 60 and 68, and the most probable destination is Asia Minor if 2 Peter refers to 1 Peter.
Peter warns that danger was approaching from false teachers who would spread impious inventions. Identifying the precise theological identity of the opponents remains challenging. While Gnosticism and Epicureanism offer some potential connections, the evidence is inconclusive. We are left with a general picture of false teachers within the church who denied the parousia and future judgment, advocated for a libertine lifestyle, and misused Paul's writings. He describes the character and manners of those who would, by their corruptions, pollute Christianity. He especially draws his pen against Lucianic men, who abandon themselves to every wickedness, and take a profane license to show contempt to God, and treat with ridicule the hope of a better life.
The design is to show, that those who have once professed the true faith of Christ, ought to respond to their calling to the last. After having then extolled, in high terms, the grace of God, he recommends to them holiness of life, because God usually punishes in hypocrites a false profession of his name, with dreadful blindness, and on the other hand he increases his gifts to those who truly and from the heart embrace the doctrine of religion. He, therefore, exhorts them to prove their calling by a holy life. And, to give a greater weight to his admonitions, he says that he is already near his end, and at the same time, excuses himself that he so often repeated the same things, his object being that they who should remain alive on the earth after his death, might have what he, when alive, wrote, more deeply fixed in their minds.
Historicity of the Gospel: As the foundation of true religion is the certainty and truth of the gospel, he shows, first, how indubitable is its truth by this fact, that he himself had been an eyewitness of all things which it contains, and especially that he had heard Christ proclaimed from heaven to be the Son of God; and, in the second place, it was God's will that it should be borne witness to, and approved by the oracles of the prophets.
Inspiration: The infallibility and divine authority of the Scriptures are due to the fact that they are the word of God; and they are the word of God because they were given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost: "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:21). It is God speaking to man, God speaking by man, God speaking as man, God speaking for man!
Second coming: He exhorts the faithful, not only to look always for the coming of Christ with suspended and expectant minds, but also to regard that day as present before their eyes, and in the meantime to keep themselves unpolluted for the Lord: in which doctrine he makes Paul as his associate and approver; and to defend his writings from the calumnies of the ungodly, he severely reproves all those who pervert them.
Repentance: The covenant of works allowed no repentance; there it was: sin and die. Repentance came in by the gospel. Christ has purchased us with his blood so that repenting sinners shall be saved. The law required personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience. It cursed all who could not come up to this: “Cursed is everyone that does not continue to do all things which are written in the book of the law” (Gal 3:10). It does not say, “He that does not obey all things, let him repent;” instead, it says “let him be cursed.” Thus repentance is a doctrine that has been brought to light only by the gospel.
I. Greeting (1:1-2)
II. God’s Grace: Foundation for Godliness (1:3-11)
III. Peter’s Apostolic Reminder (1:12-21)
IV. On False Teachers (2:1-22)
V. Reminder: The Day of the Lord (3:1-18)
I. Greeting (1:1-2)
II. God’s Grace: Foundation for Godliness (1:3-11)
A. Divine Provision (1:3-4)
B. Purse a Godly Life Diligently (1:5-7)
C. Godly Virtues are Necessary (1:8-11)
III. Peter’s Apostolic Reminder (1:12-21)
A. To Stir Them for Action (1:12-15)
B. The Return: Eyewitness Testimony
(1:16-18)
C. The Return: Prophetic Word (1:19-21)
IV. On False Teachers (2:1-22)
A. The Impact of False Teachers (2:1-3)
B. Judgment and Preservation (2:4-10a)
C. Rebellion and Sensuality (2:10b-16)
D. Impact of the False Teachers (2:17-22)
V. Reminder: The Day of the Lord (3:1-18)
A. Scoffers Doubt the Coming Day (3:1-7)
B. God's Timing Is Different than Ours
(3:8-10)
C. Righteous Living due to that Day (3:11-18)
Thomas R. Schreiner, New American Commentary: Vol.37 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Broadman & Holman, 2003.
Michael J. Kruger, The Authenticity of 2 Peter, JETS 42.4 (Dec. 1999), 645-671.
Phillip David Strickland, The Curious Case of P72: What An Ancient Manuscript Can Tell Us about the Epistles of Peter and Jude, JETS 60.4 (2017), 781-91.
Alistar Begg, A Study in 2 Peter.
Daniel Ragusa, 2 Peter with Daniel Ragusa.
Kevin DeYoung, Exploring 2 Peter: The Promise and the Path.