The two letters which bear the name of St. Peter
have from the earliest times met with very
different degrees of acceptance. The genuineness of
the First Epistle is attested by the unanimous voice
of primitive Christendom. As it is addressed to Christians
dwelling in different parts of Asia Minor, it is
natural to look for a knowledge of it in those countries.
And nowhere is it earlier noticed. Polycarp, Bishop
of Smyrna, a contemporary of the last surviving Apostle,
and whose martyrdom took place about the middle of
the second century, has repeated quotations from this
Epistle. It was known also to Papias († 163), Bishop
of Hierapolis, and to Melito (170), Bishop of Sardis.
That it was known to the Greeks is seen from the
Epistle to Diognetus, which for a long time was attributed
to Justin Martyr († 165), while the "Shepherd"
of Hermas, written at Rome, testifies that it was
known there also at about the same date. The inclusion
of it in the Peschito-Syriac Version bears
witness to its early circulation in the Eastern Church,
as also does its quotation in the writings of Theophilus
of Antioch (178). Heretics, no less than the faithful,
regarded it as a portion of authoritative Christian
literature. Basilides in Alexandria and the Marcosians
and Theodotus in Syria all knew of and cited this
Epistle. The Latin Church of Africa accepted it, as
we can see from a few quotations in Tertullian († 218)
and a greater number in the writings of Cyprian († 258).
In the Alexandrian Church it is often quoted by both
Clement († 218) and Origen († 254); while for Gaul we
have the testimony of the Church of Vienne in the
touching letter sent by the Christians there to their
"brethren in Asia and Phrygia" (177), and of Irenæus,
who was Bishop of Lyons shortly afterwards, and who,
coming from Asia to fill that see, is a witness both for
the East and the West. From the Christian Church
of the early centuries it is hardly possible to produce
stronger attestation.
But although so abundantly vouched for in ancient
days, the Epistle has not been exempt from the assaults
of modern criticism. Primitive Christendom regarded
St. Peter, St. John, and St. Paul as heralds of one and
the same Gospel, founded on the same promises,
strengthened by the same faith. They were at one
in what they taught and what they opposed. But
some modern thinkers, taking as a thesis that the
Gospel as set forth by the Apostle of the circumcision
differed widely from the doctrines of St. Paul, have
proceeded to make an eclectic Christian literature, out
of which the First Epistle of St. Peter has been rejected.
Its language is too much in harmony with accepted
writings of St. Paul. It can only have been compiled
by some later hand to promote the opinion that there
was no discord between the teachings of the first
Christian preachers. Moreover, it is inconceivable, they
consider, that a letter should be addressed by St. Peter
to the Christians in those very lands where the missionary
labours of St. Paul had been specially exerted,
where the converts were in a peculiar sense his "little
children."
Now in this first letter of St. Peter there is unquestionably
much that corresponds in tone with the
Epistle to the Romans, especially with the twelfth and
thirteenth chapters. In both letters Christians are
exhorted to offer their bodies as spiritual sacrifices,
to shun conformity with the world, to study to be
sober in mind, and to use duly all the gifts which they
possess; the same unfeigned love of the brethren is
inculcated, the same patience under suffering. Christians
are not to retaliate, but to overcome evil with
good; they are to be in subjection to all lawful
authority, and this for conscience' sake, to avoid all
excesses, rioting, drunkenness, chambering, and wantonness,
and to be ever looking forward to the coming of
the Lord.
In like manner there will be found numerous passages
in St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians which
in spirit and tone greatly resemble the words of St.
Peter. At the very outset St. Paul addresses his
converts as "chosen of God in Christ before the
foundation of the world, that they should be holy
and without blemish before Him in love"; tells them
that they were "foreordained unto adoption as sons
through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure
of His will, to the praise and glory of His grace,
which He freely bestowed on them in the Beloved"
(Eph. i. 3-6). Similarly St. Peter writes to "the elect ...
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," and presently
he adds that "according to God's great mercy they
were begotten again by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead" (i. 1-3). In both epistles there is
the same teaching, the same election in love, the same
sonship, the same progress in holiness, the same free
gift through Jesus Christ. But in neither is there a
word that can be taken to militate against independent
authorship. And the same remark applies to all the
resemblances which exist between the two epistles in
the exhortations to servants, wives, and husbands; in
the commendations of humility, pity, courtesy; in the
entreaties to the believers to gird up the loins of
the mind and to lay aside all malice and hatred; in
those passages which speak of them as strangers and
pilgrims, as called from darkness to light, as being a
spiritual house, built upon Christ as the head corner-stone.
Of all these exhortations undoubted parallels are
to be found; but they are only evidence of the common
character which would pervade all the teaching of the
apostolic missionaries where the people addressed were
the same, the times not far apart, and the dangers and
temptations known alike to all the writers. Hence
parallels to St. Peter may be found in St. James too,
but they are no proof that the one Apostle (or, as some
critics say, some one writing under his name) copied
from the other.
Nor is it easy to see reason why St. Peter might not
be expected to write a letter to the congregations formed
first by St. Paul. No Evangelist or Apostle could publish
the message of the Gospel—that is, the life and
works—of Christ without telling of His chosen followers;
and amongst them, if our Gospels be a true picture,
St. Peter must ever have filled a prominent place. The
Churches in Asia assuredly had heard much of him,
and in a time of persecution or impending trial nothing
could be more fit than that the Apostle who had been
most prominent amid Christ's companions should write
from Babylon or from Rome, it may be, where the
signs of the times would proclaim most clearly the
sufferings for which the Christian inhabitants of the
provinces should be prepared, to encourage the believers
in Asia to steadfastness and to remind them that
the same afflictions were being accomplished in their
brethren that were elsewhere in the world.
This was likely enough even had St. Peter never
visited the districts to which his letter was addressed.
But we seem to find traces of him in Corinth (1 Cor.
ix. 5; cf. also xv. 5), and he certainly was not unknown
by name to the Christians of that city. And if so, why
need we question his journeying through Asia Minor?
And he was aware of the labours of his fellow-apostle.
From personal intercourse and discussion, especially in
connexion with the council at Jerusalem, he would be
sure that they were of one mind. It may be that he
had learnt something of St. Paul's letters to the Churches.
Under such circumstances it is not foreign to St. Peter's
character, nay rather quite in harmony with it, that he
should fulfil the Lord's command to "strengthen the
brethren"; that he should send them an earnest assurance
that, spite of sufferings and trials, this was the
true grace of God, in which they should rejoice to
stand.
But there are internal tokens in the Epistle which
seem more powerful evidence of its genuineness than
anything else. The writer calls himself "Peter, an
Apostle of Jesus Christ"; and he declares his personality
by touches and allusions which a forger would never
have fabricated. Thus he says, "All of you gird
yourselves with humility, to serve one another" (v. 5).
The verb which he employs here indicates a sort of
girding about with some towel or apron, which a slave
put on for doing some menial service. It is almost
impossible that the writer had not in his thoughts
the act of Christ when He gave His great lesson of
humility: "If I have washed your feet, ye ought also to
wash one another's feet."
So, too, the Master's exhortation, "Feed My sheep,"
"Feed My lambs," comes to mind as we read, "Tend
the flock of God which is among you, exercising the
oversight, not of constraint, but willingly" (v. 2). And
St. Peter's own words spoken in the house of Cornelius
are reproduced when the Father is declared to be One
"who, without respect of persons, judgeth according
to each man's work" (i. 17).
But it is in the allusions to Christ's passion and
resurrection, those events which marked the deep fall
and the rising again of St. Peter, that the personality
of the Apostle becomes most manifest. He has been
himself "a witness of the sufferings of Christ" (v. 1).
He can speak as an eye-witness of the Lord's death in
the flesh (iii. 18; iv. 1) and His quickening in the
spirit; can exhort men to courage because they are
partakers of the sufferings of Christ (iv. 13). Who
does not feel that the writer of the words, "Let them
also that suffer according to the will of God commit
their souls in well-doing unto a faithful Creator" (iv. 19),
is thinking of the scene on the cross, of the Saviour's
finished work, of the dying cry, "Father, into Thy hands
I commend My spirit"?
Perhaps the most striking instance of this peculiarity,
this tendency to dwell on the events of the Passion, is
found in ii. 19-24. Speaking to servants, he argues,
"What glory is it if when ye sin and are buffeted for
it ye shall take it patiently?" And having used the
word by which the Evangelists describe (Matt. xxvi. 67;
Mark xiv. 65) the insults heaped upon the Lord at His
trial, the writer is carried away in mind to the whole
scene: "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His
mouth; when He was reviled, He reviled not again;
when He suffered, He threatened not, but committed
Himself to Him that judgeth righteously; in His own
self He bare our sins in His own body upon the tree,
that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness,
by whose stripes ye were healed." And in
the last clause especially we see traces of one who had
been present through the painful history. The word
rendered "stripes" means "bruises" or "weals," such
as come from savage blows, and is just the word which
would occur to one who had seen the bruised body
taken down from the cross, but hardly to any one else.
Again, the writer makes you feel without quoting
that he has the words of Jesus constantly in his mind.
Thus in the exhortation, "Cast all your anxiety upon
God, for He careth for you" (v. 7); when he says, "If
ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are
ye" (iv. 14), or "Be sober; be vigilant" (v. 8), or
"Be sober unto prayer" (iv. 7), or commends "not
rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling, but
contrariwise blessing" (iii. 9), at each of the sentences—and
the letter abounds with examples—there rise in the
reader's mind some similar words of Christ, making
him feel that he is perusing a writing of one to whom
the Lord's language was abundantly familiar.
With the marks of personal character and associations
meeting us constantly, and with the unbroken
consensus of antiquity in favour of St. Peter's authorship,
we shall not lightly allow speculations about hypothetical
differences between the teaching of the Apostles
of the Gentiles and of the circumcision to disturb our
acceptance of this letter for what it proclaims itself
to be: the work of the Apostle St. Peter, of one who
was himself a witness of the sufferings of Christ.
Of the Second Epistle the whole history is very
different. It appears to have been little known in the
early Church, and is included by Eusebius (330) among
the ἀντιλεγόμενα, "books to which objection was raised"
as late as his day. It is true that in Clement of Rome
there is a sentence (Ep. i., chap. xi.) which many have
accepted as containing a clear allusion to the passage
(2 Peter ii. 6, 7) which speaks of Lot and the destruction
of Sodom. And if this could be demonstrated
with certainty, it would be most valuable testimony.
It would prove the Epistle to have been accepted at a
very early date and by the important Church in Rome.
But we have so far to go before we come upon any
other notice that the silence makes us doubtful of the
evidence from Clement. Moreover, such other witness
as we do find is not of a very direct character.
Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, about
256 A.D., in a letter of which a Latin version is preserved
among the writings of Cyprian, uses words which
probably indicate that he knew both the epistles of
St. Peter; but he gives no quotation. The Second
Epistle was no doubt meant for the same readers as
the First; and that is addressed, among others, to the
Christians of Cappadocia, so that there is no improbability
in supposing the letter to have been early
known there. Theophilus of Antioch (170) uses the
comparison of the word to a lamp shining in a dark
place in such a way as to give the impression that he
knew the Epistle, and a similar possible reference is
found in the writings of Ephrem Syrus († 378).
Palladius (400), who was a friend of Chrysostom, and
wrote at Rome, makes a clear allusion to 2 Peter; and
in the Apology of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, there is
a passage concerning the destruction of the world by
fire at the last day which is strikingly parallel to
2 Peter iii. 5-7, and can hardly have been written
without a knowledge of the Epistle.
This is a very small amount of early evidence, and
among the more voluminous writers of the first three
centuries we find no mention of the Epistle. We
cannot, therefore, be surprised that by Eusebius it is
classed among the works of less acceptance. But the
same fate befell larger and more important writings
than this Epistle. The Apocalypse and the Epistle
to the Hebrews stand in the same list in Eusebius.
And St. Peter's second letter has not the same general
interest as the first, and therefore is likely to have
been less widely circulated; and this is all that
Eusebius's classification means. The books were not
generally received because there was a less general
knowledge of their existence and history.
But when the Church entered on the settlement of
the New Testament Canon at the Council of Laodicæa
(366), the Second Epistle of St. Peter was accepted;
and no doubt there was evidence then before the
assembled Fathers which time has now destroyed.
Yet in the letter itself there are points which no doubt
weighed with them, and which are patent to us as they
were then. The writer claims to be St. Peter, an
Apostle and the writer of a previous epistle. He
speaks solemnly of his death as near at hand; and
still more solemn, when viewed as evidence, is the
declaration that he had been one of the witnesses of
Christ's transfiguration. It is almost inconceivable
that a forger, writing to warn against false teachers,
writing in the interest of truth, should have thus
deliberately assumed a name and experience to which
he had no claim. These statements must have influenced
the opinion of the Laodicæan Council, and we
know that they did not act on light evidence; they did
not on the strength of a name accept into their canon,
but excluded, works at the time widely circulated and
passing for histories or letters of some of the Apostles.
Moreover, when we consider the kind of teaching
against which St. Peter's epistle is directed, it is
difficult to place it anywhere except at about the same
date as St. Paul's epistles. It speaks of the "fables"
(μῦθοι, i. 16), the groundless, baseless fancies, of the
early heretics in the same manner which we find in
St. Paul (cf. 1 Tim. i. 4; iv. 7). The same greed and
covetousness (πλεονεξία) is noted by both the Apostles
in the teachers against whom their voice is raised
(cf. 2 Peter ii. 3; 1 Tim. vi. 5; Titus i. 11). There
are the same beguiling promises of liberty (cf. 2 Peter
ii. 19; 1 Cor. x. 29; Gal. v. 13), a perversion of the
freedom of which St. Paul speaks so much to the
Galatian converts; and just as he warns against "false
brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to
spy out our liberty" (Gal. ii. 4), so does St. Peter
condemn those "who privily bring in heresies of
destruction" (2 Peter ii. 1). With so many common
features in the two pictures, we can scarcely be wrong
in referring them to the same times. No other period
in early Church history suits the language of St. Peter
so well as the few years before his martyrdom. The
First Epistle may be dated eight or ten years earlier.
There is another morsel of evidence from the New
Testament which is worth notice. St. Peter describes
the heretics against whom he writes as following the
error of Balaam the son of Beor, and notes this among
the tokens of their covetousness. In the Apocalypse
(ii. 14, 15) the same people are described, and in the
same terms, but with an addition. They have received
a definite name, and St. John terms them several times
over "the Nicolaitanes." Such a distinctive title marks
a later date than St. Peter's descriptive one, which is
drawn from the Old Testament. The Apocalypse was
assuredly written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
If then we may take the mention of the Nicolaitanes
by that designation as an indication of a later date than
2 Peter, we are again brought to the time to which we
have already referred the Epistle: some time between
68 and 70 A.D.
Considerable discussion has arisen about the passages
in 2 Peter which are like the language of St. Jude.
There can be no doubt that either one Apostle copied
the words of the other, or that both drew from a
common original. But this point, in whatever way it
be settled, need not militate against St. Peter's authorship.
It is nothing unworthy of the Apostle, if he find
to his hand the words of a fellow-teacher which will
serve his need, to use what he finds. Nay, the letter
itself tells us that he was prepared to do this. For he
refers his readers (iii. 15) to the writings of St. Paul
for support of his own exhortations. St. Peter's seems,
however, to be the earlier of the two epistles, if we
compare his words, "There shall be false teachers,
who shall bring in heresies of destruction," etc. (ii. 1),
with St. Jude, who speaks of these misleading teachers
as already existent and active: "There are certain
men crept in unawares"; "These are spots now existing
in the feasts of charity"; "They are feasting among the
brethren without fear." And St. Jude seems clearly
to be alluding to St. Peter's words (2 Peter iii. 3) when
he says, "Remember ye the words which were spoken
before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how
that they told you there should be mockers" (ἐμπαῖκται)
"in the last time." This word for "mockers" is found
only in St. Peter's epistle. It is nowhere else in the
New Testament; and while St. Peter's words are a
direct utterance, St. Jude's are a quotation.
But there are two or three features of resemblance
between the style of St. Peter's first epistle and the
second which support strongly the genuineness of the
latter. The First Epistle has a large proportion of
words found nowhere else in the New Testament.
There are a score of such words in this short composition.
Now the Second Epistle presents us with the
same peculiarity in rather larger abundance. There
are twenty-four words there which appear in no other
New Testament writing. It seems to have been a
peculiarity of the writer of both letters to use somewhat
uncommon and striking words. Now take the
Second Epistle to have been the work of an imitator.
He would be sure to notice such a characteristic, and
sure also to repeat, for the sake of connexion, some
distinctive expressions of the first letter in the second.
But the case is much otherwise. There is the same
abundance of unusual words in both epistles, but not
a single repetition; the same peculiarity is manifest,
but displays itself in entirely new material. This is
an index of authorship, not of imitation.
There are one or two differences between the two
epistles which in their way are of equal interest. The
first letter was one of encouragement and consolation;
the second is full of warning. Hence, though the
coming of the Lord is dwelt on alike in the two, in the
former it is set forth as a revelation (1 Peter i. 5), as a
day for which believers were looking, and in which
their hopes would be realised, and their afflictions at
an end; in the second letter the same event is called
a coming (παρουσία), an appearing, a presence, but one
which will usher in the great and terrible day of the
Lord, and be the prelude of judgement to them that
have fallen away.
Again, the sufferings of Christ are a theme much
dwelt on in the First Epistle, where they are pointed to
as the lot which Christians are to expect, and the Lord
is the pattern which they are to imitate; in the Second
they are hardly noticed. But was there not a cause for
such reticence? Was it a time to urge on men the
imitation of Christ when the danger was great that
they would deny Him altogether?
No doubt many other points of evidence, which are
lost to us, were presented to the Fathers of the
Laodicæan Council, and with the result that the Second
Epistle of St. Peter was received into the Canon side
by side with the first. But the three centuries of want
of acknowledgement have left their mark on its subsequent
history, and many earnest minds have treated
it as of less authority than other more accepted portions
of the New Testament. Among these is Luther, who
speaks of the First Epistle as one of the noblest in the
New Testament, but is doubtful about the claims of
the Second. Similar was the judgment of Erasmus and
of Calvin.
We cannot, however, go back to the evidence produced
at Laodicæa. Time has swept that away, but, while
doing so, has left us the result thereof; and the acceptance
of the Epistle by the Fathers there assembled will
be judged by most men to stand in lieu of the evidence.
No court of law would permit a decision so authenticated
and of such standing to be disturbed or overruled.
And we ourselves can observe some points still
which draw to the same conclusion. The letter harmonises
in tone with the other New Testament writings,
and some of its linguistic peculiarities are strikingly in
accord with the universally accepted letter of St. Peter.
We are therefore not unwilling, though we have not
the early testimony which we could desire, and though
the primitive Church held its genuineness for doubtful,
to believe that ere this second letter was classed with
the other New Testament writings these doubts were
cleared away, and would be cleared away for us could
we hear all the evidence tendered before those who
fixed the contents of the Canon.
The discovery last year in Egypt of some fragments
of the Gospel and Apocalypse once current under the
name of St. Peter has drawn attention once more to
the genuineness and authenticity of the Second Epistle
in our canon. But the difference in character between
it and these apocryphal documents is very great.
The Gospel ascribed to Peter seems to have been
written by some one who held the opinion, current
among the early heretics, that the Incarnation was
unreal, and that the Divine in Christ Jesus had no
participation in the sufferings at the Crucifixion.
Hence our Lord is represented as having no sense of
pain at that time. He is said to have been deserted by
His "power" in the moment of death. The stature of
the angels at the Resurrection is represented as very
great, but that of the risen Christ much greater. To
these peculiar features may be added the response
made by the cross to a voice which was heard from
heaven, the cross having followed the risen Christ
from the tomb. In the fragments of the Apocalypse
we have a description of the torments of the wicked
utterly foreign to the character of the New Testament
writings, in which the veil of the unseen world is rarely
withdrawn. The circumstance and detail given in the
apocryphal fragment to the punishments of sinners
mark it as the parent of those mediæval legends of
which the "Visions of Furseus" and "St. Patrick's
Purgatory" afford well-known examples.
The study of these fragments, of which the Gospel
may be dated about 170 A.D., sends us back to the
contemplation of the Second Epistle of St. Peter more
conscious than before at what a very early date
errors, both of history and doctrine, were promulgated
among the Christian societies, while at the same time
we are impressed more strongly with the sense that
the accord of the Second Epistle with Gospel history,
where it is alluded to, as well as the simplicity of
Christian doctrine which it enforces, mark it as not
unworthy of that place in the Canon which was
accorded to it in the very earliest councils which dealt
with the contents of New Testament Scripture.