Inter-Varsity Press

CONTENTS

General preface

Introduction

The authorship of 2 Peter

The occasion and date of 2 Peter

The false teaching in 2 Peter and Jude

The unity of 2 Peter

The authorship of Jude

The character of the letter

The occasion and date of Jude

Jude’s use of apocryphal books

Jude and 2 Peter: where lies the priority?

2 Peter: Analysis

2 Peter: Commentary

Jude: Analysis

Jude: Commentary

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

This Commentary, first published in 1968, and based on the AV, is here reissued, based on the text of the New International Version of the Bible. While adhering to the broad positions adopted in the first edition, I have taken the opportunity afforded by this revision to make a thorough reappraisal of the text of the Epistles and the commentary in the light of modern writing. There is a resurgence of interest in this long-neglected corner of the New Testament, and a willingness to consider fresh possibilities. Many of the commentaries on 2 Peter and Jude which emerged since 1968, such as those of Sidebottom, Kelly and Fuller, have added little to the discussion and have disappointed. But Spicq, Fornberg, Neyrey, and J. A. T. Robinson have done much to break new ground and I wish to express my indebtedness to them.

As will be apparent from the following pages, my biggest debt is to Dr R. J. Bauckham, who has not only written the fullest and incomparably the best commentary on 2 Peter and Jude to appear in English, but has made available to me a detailed supplementary bibliography on these letters, an account of recent research, and a great deal of personal interest and help to one who has exchanged academic life for the parish. …

I am more than ever convinced that these letters have much to teach the modern church, and that they stress areas (such as sexual permissiveness, toleration of false teaching, adherence to New Testament Christianity, and a proper basis for Christian hope together with an appropriate lifestyle) which greatly need our attention.

Michael Green

INTRODUCTION

1. The authorship of 2 Peter

This Epistle has had a very rough passage down the centuries. Its entry into the Canon was precarious in the extreme. At the Reformation it was deemed second-class Scripture by Luther, rejected by Erasmus, and regarded with hesitancy by Calvin. The critical questions which it raises are most perplexing. I have considered them in some detail in my monograph 2 Peter Reconsidered. Because of lack of space, I do not propose to adduce again all the evidence from patristic and other sources for Petrine authorship which is set out in the earlier work. All I shall attempt to do here is to indicate the argument in broad outline.

a. The evidence of the ancient church

The external evidence is inconclusive. No book in the Canon is so poorly attested among the Fathers, yet 2 Peter has incomparably better support for its inclusion than the best attested of the excluded books. …

b. The contrast with 1 Peter

Is it conceivable that these two Epistles, 1 Peter and 2 Peter, should have come from the same hand? The language is different (strikingly so in the original), and the thought is also very different. Let us examine them in turn.

1. The language. There is a very great stylistic difference between these two letters. The Greek of 1 Peter is polished, cultured, dignified; it is among the best in the New Testament. The Greek of 2 Peter is grandiose; it is rather like baroque art, almost vulgar in its pretentiousness and effusiveness. …

2. The thought. Another objection to the authenticity of the Epistle has been raised in modern, though not in ancient times. It is that the thought of 2 Peter is too different from that of 1 Peter for them both to have come from the same mind. Naturally the subject matter of 1 and 2 Peter is quite different, for these Epistles are written to two entirely different situations. ‘It is too often forgotten that these early Christian Epistles are missionary letters written to meet what was often a very urgent need, and not theological treatises penned with meticulous care in the quiet of the study’. 1 Peter envisages Christians facing persecution, 2 Peter Christians facing false teaching of a Gnostic flavour. The keynote of 1 Peter is, accordingly, hope; of 2 Peter, true knowledge. 1 Peter directs the thoughts of the recipients to the great events of the life of Christ for their emulation and comfort; 2 Peter dwells on the great hope of the return of Christ, so as to warn the false teachers and challenge the waverers. …

c. The relationship with Jude

This is a third factor relevant to the authorship of our Epistle. That there is a dependence either of 2 Peter on Jude or of Jude on 2 Peter, of both on some lost document, or that both share a common author, is certain. For of the twenty-five verses in Jude no less than fifteen appear, in whole or in part, in 2 Peter. Furthermore, many of the identical ideas, words and phrases occur in parallel in the two writings, and leave us in no doubt that there is some sort of literary relationship between them. Which way the dependence lies will be discussed (later). The only problem which concerns us here is whether apostolic authorship of 2 Peter must be ruled out if Jude was written first.