💾 Archived View for tilde.pink › ~eriounious › jesuswordsonly › articles › 2ndpeterreference.gmi captured on 2023-09-08 at 17:24:59. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This passage reads in the King James as:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood [Greek, dysnoetas], which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (2 Peter 3:15-17 KJV.)
Many suppose this supports Paul. However, it speaks several negatives:
1. This speaks of "brother" Paul, not "apostle Paul."
2. Paul spoke with "wisdom given unto him," not inspiration. Thus, in the early church, when Paul is quoted, it is not "the Bible" tells us, or "Paul by the Holy Spirit said," as we incessantly are told today. Instead, in the early church, we were told to "hear" Paul who "proclaims these things 'according to the wisdom given him in ministry'...," quoting Second Peter. (Origen ca. 200 AD, Homolies on Genesis & Exodus, Book 8 (Ed. Ronald Heine, 2010) p. 316.)
Polycarp (69-155 AD) spoke likewise. Polycarp was an early enthusiastic supporter of Paul's doctrines in the next generation. However, listen in this famous quote whether inspiration or wisdom is the source of Paul's words: "For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you...." Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891) at 178.
Please note that Polycarp says "he cannot follow" the wisdom of Paul, meaning it is hard to comprehend or understand -- just like Second Peter says.
(The full quote from Polycarp is in the Notes below.)
3. Paul speaks of some things "hard to be understood." This is more correctly translated as that Paul speaks some "nonsensical" things or things "destructive of good sense." The Greek word is "dysnoetas."
In Greek, DYS as a prefix means "DESTROYING THE GOOD SENSE OF A WORD" that follows (Liddel & Scott quoted at Dictionary.com]. Then the word that follows is NOETAS, and it means SENSIBLE. See Francis E. Peter, Greek Philosophical Terms: An Historical Lexicon(1967) at 130 ("logoi noeton" = "sensible things"); 128 (noeton = "intelligible") Cf. NOETA = thought.
Hence, DYSNOETAS means "nonsensical thoughts" or "unintelligible thoughts" to reflect that the writer lacks any sense to what he or she is writing. The problem is the words simply don't make any good sense. They defy common sense. Thus, it is clear the problem is Paul's fault by the word DYSNOETAS used by Apostle Peter, according to its traditional authorship. Some of Paul's writings are said to suffer from DYSNOETAS. What does that convey?
In the Latin Vulgate of 2 Peter 3:16 from the early 400s, it is translated as "difficulty in intelligence" -- a Latin expression meaning similar to the Greek that the writer has a deficiency in making intelligent sense. If the reader misunderstands, the mistake began initially with the writer. Hence, Second Peter is a criticism of Paul's content - his writing is sometimes lacking sense, with grave consequences -- a lawless life and personal destruction of Paul's reader.
It is true that Second Peter then blames the readers in part for having an unstable ignorance, likely of Jesus' words. This then leads them to accept their understanding of Paul's nonsensical words, and adopt "lawless" principles, so says Second Peter, "to their own destruction," and thereby lose their "steadfastness in Christ." (2 Peter 3:17-18.)
Peter thus lays at Paul's feet PART OF THE BLAME for the loss of stedfastness in Christ and falling into a lawless and destructive life of error.
Second Peter explains this clearly. It says that many construe Paul's DYSNOETAS -- nonsense -- in his writings to support the "error of the lawless" and thereby "fall away from their steadfastness in Christ." (2 Peter 3:18.) These LISTENERS are criticized for a different fault than Paul's fault; the listeners' fault which leads them away from Christ's teaching when reading Paul's writings is they are "ignorant and unstable," and this results in them "perverting" the truth to support "lawless" teaching to their own "destruction."
Why did these listeners to Paul end up there? What exactly is their contributing fault? For being "unlearned" and "unstable" -- they are not firmly rooted in Jesus' words. For had they been STABLE, and STUDIED Jesus' words -- "stedfast in Christ" as Peter explains, Paul's nonsensical words would not have thrown them off, causing them to lose their "steadfastness in Christ." Hence, Paul's words contribute to their loss of salvation, but Peter's message is we can protect ourselves from Paul's "nonsense" by not being "ignorant" or "unstable." Instead, Peter implies we must endeavor with a greater effort than these destroyed brothers to keep "stedfast" in Christ - obviously remaining in Jesus' teachings. This will protect us from Paul's “sometimes” nonsense.
This analysis was given by Calvin, one of the founders of the Reformation in a famous and blunt way. I have had Calvin's discussion set forth in an online article on 2 Peter 3:16 for over six years. See link. Calvin in the 1500s saw Second Peter as highly critical of Paul in saying some of Paul's writings are hard to understand. Calvin concluded that Second Peter 3:16-17 was an anti-Paul remark and this alone justified rejecting Second Peter as canonical. Calvin explained that Apostle Peter would never speak this way about Paul's writings, i.e., calling them DYSNOETAS, and hence Calvin concluded that Second Peter was not authentically written or reviewed by Apostle Peter. See link.
Hence, dysnoetas is a term typically used as ridicule whose constituent parts make clear -- "dys" - destructive of, "noetas" good sense. The Greek dysnoetas was used this very way by another Christian early 'father' -- Lucian -- referring to a false prophet who replied to Lucian's inquiries with multiple responses which Lucian said were "silly and nonsensical" (dysnoetas) -- every one." (Lucian's work Alexander the False Prophet, para. 54.)
4. Paul is lowered not raised by equating him with "other graphe" -- other writings. It is not the term "holy writings," which is how Paul himself referred to an inspired writing unless "writings" in context clearly referred to a passage in the Law or prophets. Non-inspired writings are simply called graphe in the Bible unless the context implies a reference to the Law or Prophets. Paul is thus equated by Second Peter with non-inspired writings, as Second Peter makes no implied reference to the Law or Prophets. It is a modern phenomenon that we hear the word writing when given as the capitalized synonymn Scripture, and we imply into it Holy Scripture -- a meaning far removed from Second Peter's intent. This is more fully explained below.
5. The unstable "wrest" from Paul's "nonsensical" writings an "error" which the "lawless" (Greek, athesmon) prefer, and thereby fall from their "steadfastness" in Christ. This is all toned down by translators. Yet, we can find it under the covers by using an interlinear Greek New Testament, and double-checking the key words.
Then when #5 is read together with Second Peter's critique in chapter 2, verses 18-22, about "false teachers" who for gain "arrogantly use nonsense," it is clear Paul and his followers are included in this earlier description. Listen intently:
18 They arrogantly use nonsense [Greek, mataiot?tos, synonymn to dysnoetas] to seduce people by appealing to their sexual desires, especially to sexual freedom. They seduce people who have just escaped from those who live in error. 19 They promise these people freedom, but they themselves are slaves to corruption. A person is a slave to whatever he gives in to.
20 People can know our Lord and Savior Yeshua Christ and escape the world’s filth. But if they get involved in this filth again and give in to it, they are worse off than they were before. 21 It would have been better for them never to have known the way of life that God approves of than to know it and turn their backs on the holy life God told them to live. 22 These proverbs have come true for them: “A dog goes back to its vomit,” and “A sow that has been washed goes back to roll around in the mud.” (Names of God Bible, 2 Peter 2:18-22.)
Second Peter in chapter two is clearly saying ones who knew Christ and thereby escaped the world's filth were promised freedom from legal constraints on behavior by false teachers who "arrogantly used nonsense." Now they have been duped by this false promise, and are worse off than when they did not yet know Christ, and had thereby escaped the world and been washed clean of sin. This is because their disobedience - given license by the false teachers who speak nonsense -- has led them to return to their filfth and vomit.
Don Flemming comments on 2 Peter 2 in a very telling way in his highly regarded commentary - the AMG Concise Bible Commentary (Chatanooga, Tennessee, 1994). He writes: "In it, he [Peter] opposed the false teachers who claimed that faith was not related to behavior, and therefore immoral practices were not wrong for those with higher spiritual knowledge."
More precisely, Flemming means these teachers said immoral practices had no serious risk of loss of salvation for those with "faith" -- the higher spiritual knowledge. This is Paul's doctrine in many places, such as 1 Corinthians 8:7-8.
Second Peter thus presents a subtle yet obvious highly negative picture of Paul, not a positive one. One has to lift completely out of context the word "scripture" in 2 Peter 3:17, and then improperly spin it to ignore or discount these multiple negatives.
Those who seek to claim Paul is as inspired as Moses or Jesus rely upon 2 Peter 3:15-17 which says some twist Paul like they "do other Scripture" to their destruction. The same passage is otherwise very unflattering to Paul -- first denigrating his writings as "difficult to understand" using the Greek word "dysnoetas." As mentioned above, this is a term used as ridicule meaning "nonsensical." The Greek dysnoetas was used this very way by another Christian early 'father' -- Lucian -- referring to a false prophet who replied to Lucian's inquiries with multiple responses which Lucian said were "silly and nonsensical" (dysnoetas) -- every one." (Lucian's work Alexander the False Prophet, para. 54.) In the same pattern of denigrating Paul, Second Peter continues, calling Paul a "brother" (not an apostle) who had "wisdom as God gave him" (rather than inspiration).
These multiple negatives make it very hard for those who wish to rely upon the "other Scripture" reference as a positive to accept Second Peter as entirely inspired. Hence, at least one -- Calvin -- who knew what dysnoetas really meant -- rejected Second Peter as authentic for using this term in reference to Paul's writings. Moreover, those who rely upon the 'other scripture' reference also read far too much into this as a supposed positive, as we shall see.
Is Second Peter Truly Canonical?
The first question is whether anyone, including those endorsing Paul or those disputing Paul's validity (as myself) can truly rely upon 2 Peter 3:15-17 as inspired writ. The oldest voice on the issue was Eusebius. He was part of Constantine's Roman church that was extremely pro-Paul because he gave verses that could do away with Jewish traditions. So there is some possible bias to shield Paul from Second Peter. He was writing in the early 300s, as the orthodox historian, and said:
"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. But we have learned that his extant second epistle, does not belong to the canon. Yet as it has appeared profitable, it has been used with the other scriptures." (Eusebius, History of the Church 3:3:1, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. I at 254.)
Similarly, Calvin, one of the leaders of the Reformation of the 1500s, disliked Second Peter's criticism of Paul. For this reason Calvin concluded it could not have been written by Peter, as mentioned above.
Calvin regarded the fault Peter found about Paul as "difficult to understand" in 2 Peter 3:15-17 outweighed any positives stated by Second Peter. The words attributed to Peter implies, as the Bethel Church of God explains:
Based on the above texts, as well as others, there is only one way to understand Paul’s Epistles. They must be interpreted by the clear texts in the Bible, texts that are not difficult to understand. ("Understanding Paul," Bethel Church of God (2012).)
Thus, Calvin disliked this implication because it means to interpret Paul, you must begin by excluding Paul from consideration. You would then have to start with Jesus and the apostles whose words are clear, and only then would you see how and to what extent Paul is compatible. Then if Paul's words are at odds with Jesus or the apostles, then one must dismiss those words of Paul as "difficult to understand." Paul would become essentially irrelevant if we heeded 2d Peter 3:15-17.
But Calvin adored the doctrines he found in Paul of predestination of the lost, sovereignty of God over evil (i.e., God makes all evil happen and no man has free will), and once you experienced regeneration, you could commit no sin that would cause the loss of salvation ("once in grace, always in grace"). Most of those doctrines can only be articulated from Paul's teachings.
Calvin acknowledged therefore that if Peter truly criticized Paul as "difficult to understand" this undercuts Paul's inspiration and anyone's right to meaningfully use Paul to interpret Christianity. Calvin realized Second Peter is a profound and deep cut on Paul. Thus, Calvin concluded Second Peter was not written personally by Peter, relying principally on this issue of the criticism Second Peter contains of Paul.
Calvin's introductory comment to 2d Peter is at link. Calvin says "doubts...ought not keep us from reading it...." "there are probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another than Peter." "If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author." However, in this introduction, Calvin never tells us it is canonical. This is because he later disaffirms any true apostolic support for its supposed inspiration.
When it comes to the key passage that says "Paul is difficult to understand" which leads into it saying that Paul's words are misconstrued as "other Scripture," Calvin realizes that to take any arguable good from this Epistle requires taking a very bad pill which undermines Paul. So Calvin disaffirms the entire Epistle was written by Peter. Calvin writes:
And yet, when I examine all things more narrowly, it seems to me more probable that this Epistle was composed by another according to what Peter communicated, than that it was written by himself, for Peter himself would have never spoken thus. (Bible Study Guide.)
The importance of this comment is explained by the famous William Barclay. He records that in the commentary, Calvin recognized 2d Peter criticizes Paul, and thus Calvin finally came down with the view that Peter did not write this epistle:
"With its reference to Paul and its tinge of criticizm of him, this is one of the most intriguing passages in the New Testament. It was this passage which made reformer John Calvin certain that Peter did not write himself 2 Peter because, he says, Peter would not have spoken about Paul like this." (William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter (Westminster, John Knox Press, 2003) at 401.)
So if 2d Peter is inspired, it conveys several direct criticisms / subtle put-downs about Paul. And 2d Peter's anti-Paul slant is precisely the primary reason why Calvin did not accept 2d Peter as actually written by Peter. It supposedly got garbled somehow. Calvin first doubted it in the introduction to his commentary on Second Peter. Then Calvin in the main commentary disaffirmed Second Peter as having a truly reliable source -- Peter himself as author, reviewer or editor. Thus, Calvin can only be construed as having knocked away any canonical basis for Second Peter's joinder to the Bible if you want to keep Paul as an inspired figure.
While I truly wish 2d Peter were canonical so I could exploit fully the important flaw in Paul identified in 2d Peter, there are apparently reasons to agree with Calvin that Second Peter is a fabrication. For example, some say it is important that the author of Second Peter mispelled the name of Simon Peter as Simeon Peter? In 2 Peter 1:1, it is "Simeon Peter," unlike in 1 Peter and everywhere else in the NT except Acts 15:14. ("Authorship of Petrine Epistles," Wikipedia.) However, Peter himself was a fisherman in Galilee and likely never learned Greek. He would have to rely upon a translator scribe, and thus the error belongs to someone other than Peter. So this ground is not as persuasive as one might think at first blush.
Many other reasons are discussed below why Second Peter is supposedly a pseudograph, and only emerged in the NT canon at a very late stage --- 367 A.D. It would take my lifetime to go through each, and dismiss them, and thus I bow to this scholarship for the moment, although I support efforts to refute it all as rubbish.
To refute it, one must review the five-volume Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (published by Abingdon Press of the United Methodist church with 8400 articles by 900 scholars "in service of the church") which contains J.B. Meyer's article. He explains his view that Second Peter is falsely attributed to Peter after setting out the facts:
The author has adopted the name of the foremost apostle Peter, to enhance the authority of his letters - a practice not unknown in the early church. We have evidence of a rich Petrine literature. Fragments of a Gospel of Peter, an Acts of Peter, and an Apocalypse of Peter have survived... Second Peter belongs to this class of literature. Both internal and external evidence show with cumulative force the impossibility of ascribing the letter to Peter, the disciple and apostle... No theory of secretarial aid can explain the differences in style and thought between 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
Hence, this conservative treatise agrees that 2d Peter is a pseudo-graph and not written by Peter.
Yet, you can find arguments for 2 Peter as truly by Apostle Peter at this link. To repeat, I wish these arguments were persuasive and accepted because 2 Peter aids the case against Paul as an authority. For precisely how 2 Peter perfectly proves the Jesus' Words Only Principle even if Paul were inspired, see our "The Jesus' Words Principle Explained."
However, I am forced to concede for now with defenders of Paul like Calvin that I cannot fully exploit 2d Peter as inspired unless I have months to study this single issue. Calvin found fault with 2 Peter because it criticized Paul, and thus Calvin dismissed it as truly canonical. Scholarship has come overwhelmingly to the defense of Calvin's conclusion. Therefore I unfortunately cannot use it to authoritatively provide an inspired statement that "Paul is difficult to understand" or that Peter truly only regarded Paul as a "brother" (not an apostle) or Peter only thought Paul spoke with the "wisdom God gave him" (rather than inspiration).
For the same reason, defenders of Paul who are intent to use the "other Scripture" reference which is part of this very same passage -- misunderstood anyway as explained next -- cannot use it to salvage Paul as inspired. For 2d Peter, it appears, they too must concede for now was a pseudograph, until someone can refute the list of alleged discrepancies.
Even if 2d Peter were inspired (and I wish it were), 2d Peter tells us what people in the 300s were saying about Paul. The first question to interpret is whether this reference to Paul's writings as among "other Scripture" truly meant by "Scripture" what we mean today by the term "Scripture" -- inspired writ. We have shortened "holy scripture" down to "Scripture," but in the days of Peter "scripture" did not mean necessarily an inspired writing.
The term "scripture" in this verse was simply the term GRAPHE. This is a term that simply means a writing or writings. It could be noninspired writings Peter had in mind that the unstable twist to their own destruction. Nothing in context suggests it is only holy writings. Had Peter such intent, all he had to do is call it holy scripture as Paul does elsewhere.
Even if we assume GRAPHE referred to the Bible, it likely was at best a reference to the third part of the three-fold division of the Jewish Bible at that time. It was called the "Writings" or "Scripture" section.
In those days, "Scripture" did not mean 100% inspired-writ, which is precisely why a writing such as Daniel's prophecy was put in the third section -- the "Writing/Scripture" section -- before his Messianic prophecy was validated in the time of Christ. By the time of Jesus, Jews did not yet place Daniel in the "Prophets" section because they still thought it an uninspired work. They kept it in the "Scripture" (Writings) section because one day it may prove to be prophetic but at that time it was not yet established to be so.
Hence "Writings" or "Scriptures" to a Jew meant this category of writings included in the Bible for safe-keeping / edification, intended to identify it as either entirely not yet recognized as inspired (e.g., Daniel) or partly inspired and partly not, e.g., Psalms. See "Writings Section of Original Jewish Bible." Hence, to say something belonged to that "Writings" section, one would say in Greek that it was "Scripture" -- and thus the term "Scripture" was used 180 degrees opposite of what we mean today by "Scripture." Thus, we are reading into Second Peter something it did not intend to apply. We are using our modern concept of "Scripture" to interpet a 1st century meaning which was OPPOSITE of our meaning.
Thus, Second Peter did not intend to elevate Paul's words to inspired status by placing it among the "Scripture." Rather, it sought at best that we see Paul's words as on par with the "Writings" aka Scripture / third section of the OT. The Writings/Scripture was regarded as edifying and only sometimes inspired. This third section was distinct from Torah (Law) and Prophets which were regarded as 100% inspired. Thus, it is important that Second Peter does not categorize Paul as a prophet, and instead placed him on par with the "Scripture." It was a slight, not a compliment.
Our modern use of the word "Scripture" has become more broad than what it meant in the day that Second Peter was written. Our modern misconception was due to a mistranslation of 2 Tim. 3:16. This was mistranslated by adding the italicized word is in this sentence: "All scripture is inspired of God is useful for edification and teaching." (See Writings Section of Original Jewish Bible.) The KJV translators said in the 1611 Preface that any italicized word is not present in Greek, and you are free to ignore it if you do not agree it makes more sense being present.
Thus remove the is, and all it says is "All scripture inspired of God is useful for edification and teaching." It does not say all scripture is inspired of God - investing the word "scripture" standing alone as implying always it is inspired. A major mistake has led to a misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:15-18.
Why does removing is added by the KJV make more sense? Because the word "graphe" only means "writings" of all types. So to say "all writings of all types are inspired of God is useful for edification," etc., is rubbish. Not all writings of all types are inspired. Only God's word is inspired. Thus, when you remove the is, it now makes perfect sense: "all scripture inspired of God is useful," etc.
Modern scholars have finally corrected this mistranslation of 2 Tim. 3:16. However, this long indulgence in a wrong translation has led to an exaggerated importance of the term "Scripture." Thus, when reading 2 Peter 3:15-18 with this wrong light on the word "Scripture," this improperly gave Paul a presumed equality with the words of our Divine Lord.
Also, the fact Paul mentions several times he is not speaking any message from the Lord and other times says he is speaking such a message from the Lord (link) would imply Paul had the view of himself as simply a general writing, just as Second Peter implies. For sometimes Paul believes he speaks with inspiration (when he says the Lord gave him a message). Other times, Paul believes he is not speaking with inspiration. For these passages in Paul's own words, see "Paul Admits He Often Speaks without Inspiration."
Thus, the reference to Paul's writings as "Scripture" in 2 Peter did not have a meaning that it was inspired. This is using the modern meaning of "Scripture" to apply the same meaning as true when Second Peter was written. This is untrue as a matter of history. It is born of a wrong addition of the word is to 2 Tim. 3:16 where it did not belong.
Another reason I wish 2d Peter were inspired is because it identifies what was the aim of those "twisting" Paul as they do "other Scripture." They were trying to find "lawless" positions from what Paul wrote about against the Law.
Let's read 2 Peter 3:16-17 (NIV) again to see this:
16 There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.
Indeed, traditional Christian leaders and most Christians do interpret and twist Paul’s writings to their and their followers’ own destruction. Additionally, they are carried away with the error of the lawless - those who oppose the Law given Moses which Jesus specifically endorsed in Matthew 5:17-19. The result is to cause themselves and others to be found WITH “spot or blemish” instead of without!
Do not casually miss the enormously important information Second Peter provides in verse 17 - a warning that applies now just as much as then. The LAWLESS (anti-torah) people are the ones Second Peter explicitly warns us about when it says we are not to be "carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability." Furthermore, the stability to which he refers is at least in part the stability provided by reverence and observance of God's eternal Law!
P.S. Peter in 1st Peter quotes Isaiah’ promise that the word of the Lord stands forever, meaning it will never be revoked, annulled, etc. See 119 Ministries Video.