The New Testament Letters of Peter and the Challenge of Biblical Interpretation

Ancient manuscript
containing parts of 1 Peter 2

This morning, a bit of musing. This post takes up the question of the relationship between the letters known as First and Second Peter. From there, it highlights a few aspects of biblical interpretation.

So, what is the connection between First and Second Peter? It might not be as strong as we might imagine.

2 Peter 3:1 begins with these words: "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." From there, it's a short step to the following conclusion: The Apostle Peter wrote two letters. First, he wrote First Peter. Later, he wrote Second Peter. Not only that, in this verse, he refers to the first letter when writing the second letter. But is it that simple? A few points to consider:

1. In 1 Peter 1:1, the author identifies himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." In 2 Peter 1:1, the signature is slightly different, "Simon [actually, Simeon] Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ." This is a very rare occurrence of Simeon as a reference to the man we sometimes call Simon Peter. Only one other time is he called Simeon, and that's in Acts 15:14, when James, the brother of the Lord, calls him that. If Peter called himself that, then this is the only example we have.

2. The recipients of these two letters are addressed differently:

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1b)

To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours (2 Peter 1:1b).

The first verses of each letter suggest something different. Whereas the beginning of First Peter is quite specific, the beginning of Second Peter is general. So there is a bit of tension with the view that 2 Peter 3:1 points to the recipients of the first letter.

3. When the author of Second Peter announces the purpose of both letters he has written, the themes do not match up very well with the ones we find in 1 Peter. Here is what the author says in 2 Peter 3:1-4:

I have written both [letters] as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

These verses do not raise anything like an absolute inconsistency. But they do seem a bit skewed. The two letter we have in the New Testament bearing the name of Peter are not that much alike.

So here I want to ask: When the author of Second Peter says this is his second letter (2 Peter 3:1), was the previous letter the one we call First Peter? If the answer we gave was "No," would the situation be unprecedented? 

You might remember that in 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul refers to an earlier piece of correspondence that is not longer available to us. It appears, then, that what we call First Corinthians is, at best, Second Corinthians. So, is it possible that the first letter referred to in 2 Peter 3:1 is not First Peter? It is certainly possible. Is it probable? That question is difficult to answer.

Now, what is the upshot of all of this probing and questioning?

1. At the very least, we should say that First and Second Peter must be read and understood on their own terms. In other words, First Peter should not be read as the first half of The Letters of Peter. And, Second Peter should not be approached as a continuation of First Peter, a sort of First Peter, Part II.

2. We also conclude that there are some things we just don't understand. Or, if we really do understand them, our conclusion will not necessarily command the assent or agreement of everyone else. There is a real distance between us and the texts we find in the Bible, and treating that distance as though it isn't there is not wise.

3. Wrestling with such questions reminds us that although the books of the Bible were written for us, they were not written to us. If they were written to us, they would not be in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They would be in English. (See the photo above. The fragment was part of an ancient copy of First Peter). We are not in the same position as those who wrote and first read the books of the Bible. This is true not only of the broad, general context of the Bible, it is also true of the specific context of the Bible. For example, consider the challenge of interpreting a letter. Imagine that you went for a walk and found a letter that read as follows:

Dear Jim,

We are hoping Joe will be released by the weekend. Mollie can hardly wait. The old gang is planning the usual party at Charlie's place. Please bring Tracy. See you there, Peggy.

The reader of this letter will likely have many, many questions:

• Who is Jim?
• Joe has been scheduled to be released. Is he in the county jail, a maximum security prison, the hospital, a psychiatric ward, the military?
• Who is Molly? Why is it that she can hardly wait for Joe to be released? 
• Who is Peggy?
• Who is the "the old gang"?
• Who is Charlie? What and where is his place? Is the reference to Charlie's house? His tavern?
• What's going to happen when "the old gang" meets once again at Charlie's place?

The list of questions goes on and on. And it's very short letter. Of course, Peggy and Jim know all the answers to all of these questions. They don't need a commentary on the text of the letter. To them, writing a set of comments on this letter would not only be unnecessary, it would be weird.

Yet, even when we do our best to retrieve all of the information we'd like to have in order to understand the books of the New Testament, including the letters, we sometimes come to a point where we have to say "I don't know."

At the very same time, we enter the study of Scripture with the expectation that God can and will speak to us, that the Lord will reveal to us his will for our lives so that our faith will be informed and rekindled, so that we will be encouraged and filled with hope. It's a bit of a paradox isn't it? There is so much we do not know. There are only a few things we absolutely must know.

Note: I first wrote this post while reading several works on the Letters of Peter written by a variety of New Testament scholars. I do not now remember who all I was reading then. So I am unable to cite my sources here.