Sequels in the New Testament
The Second Epistle of Peter is a sequel, and should be read as such.
Depending on your perspective, that may or may not sound like a surprising claim. After all, the letter has “Second” in the title, so obviously it is a “sequel,” right? Well, Paul writes many letters, but they are only sequels if the they are two the same audience and incited by the same occasioning incident (so 2 Corinthians is likely a sequel, but 2 Timothy maybe not). 2 Peter could just be another letter of Peter. But it’s not, and the reason we know it’s not is because Peter explicitly tells us “this is the second letter I am writing to you,” and further clarifies that both letters have to same purpose “to remind you.” We will come back to this.
Other readers, familiar with the history of scholarship on 2 Peter, will know that the academy (at least the non-evangelical academy) almost never reads 2 Peter as a sequel. Mainly this is because they don’t think it is by Peter or by the same author as 1 Peter. The result is that they proceed to read 2 Peter as a completely detached epistle, neither informed by nor informing the way we read 1 Peter.
That, I think is a mistake, and the reason it is a mistake is because even if 2 Peter wasn’t written by Peter (which it was, but let’s grant it for the sake of argument) the author signals at 3:1 (“this is my second letter”) that he wants this letter to be read as a sequel. They are supposed to be read together.
That’s the point of this post. Reading 2 Peter with 1 Peter actually changes the way both books are read.
Reading 2 Peter with 1 Peter
What changes when we read these books together? I’d like to suggest here three things.
First. it directs the reader back to something that they have already received and appropriated. They are supposed to read this new letter in light of that older one, and, as per the nature of sequels, they can also can productively read the old letter in light of the new one. Thus, by stitching the two letters together Peter is encouraging re-reading, re-appropriating, and also, in effect, establishing an interpretative trajectory for both letters within his exhortational legacy with respect to this audience. The focus on the differences between the two letters obscures a more fundamental similarity at the exhortational level. The differences are in the circumstances, not the underlying exhortation. The first letter was an encouragement to godliness and perseverance in the midst of external persecution; the second is the same, now focused on internal confusion. Reading these letters together provides a comprehensive eschatological ethic; the church is to be holy as it faces enemies within and enemies abroad.
Second, the phrase “this is now the second letter” also serves to increase the urgency and significance of the topic at hand. As any child knows, when a parent warns “a second time,” matters are indeed serious.18 Peter is not involved in off-hand instruction or idle musings; he considers this issue paramount for the health and success of the church, and if the Lord had granted him more time in this world, perhaps we would be having a similar discussion about 3 Peter (2 Peter 1:13-15)
Finally, if 2 Peter is genuinely what it claims to be, it provides us with an historical window into the state of the church in the late 60s CE. Because of the academic bias against the authenticity of 2 Peter, it has been largely ignored as a historical witness to the early church. This is a massive loss. What new investigations might be possible from such a scholarly upheaval? What might 2 Peter tells us about Jew-Gentile relations among Christians at this time, or about Peter’s relationship with Paul, or about the reception of, and opposition to, apostolic tradition within the apostolic period? It is my contention that 2 Peter provides data for exactly these kinds of questions precisely because it is a genuine sequel to 1 Peter.
