WHY 2ND PETER DOES NOT RELY UPON JUDE

Scholars often attempt to pinpoint the dates when books within the New Testament were composed. The results of these efforts sometimes produce theoretical chronologies for the entire New Testament. Generally speaking, these chronologies are the results of educated guesses based upon historical data found within the New Testament. Some books contain helpful evidence, others not so much. There are additional techniques that are also used, such as comparing different biblical works to one another (e.g., the Synoptic Gospels; Paul’s epistles and Acts; etc.). Sometimes this type of literary analysis is helpful, while at other times it can be counterproductive. One such case involves the question of whether the Epistle of Jude relies upon 2^nd Peter or vice versa. First, it should be understood that determining their relationship and chronology has little impact upon one’s ability to correctly interpret them. Consequently, being wrong about this question does not adversely affect one’s capacity to accurately grasp their messages. And lest we forget, accuracy is the most important goal when studying scriptures; that is, correctly interpreting and applying what they teach into our daily lives. Nonetheless, these epistles provide helpful clues concerning which was composed first and their possible relationship to each other.

The first clue is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, in which Peter wrote “there will also be false teachers among you” (see also 3:3, NASB). In other words, these verses warn that in the future false teachers and mockers would infiltrate the church. Jude’s epistle, however, regrettably announces their arrival (cf. Jude 4). This observation alone supports the conclusion that Jude wrote after 2^nd Peter. Additionally, and more importantly, Jude explicitly confessed his reliance upon the teachings of the “apostles” (17) and then in the very next verse he virtually quotes 2 Peter 3:3.[1]  Does this observation prove that Jude relied upon 2^nd Peter? Well, actually it does not. It is possible that Jude often heard Peter warn about future dangers that the church would face while in Jerusalem during the early days of its existence. One might wonder why Peter warned about this issue when the church was so young. He did so because Jesus had discipled him to do so (e.g., Matt. 7:15-20; 24:11, 23-25). A fact that Peter himself explained 2 Peter 3:2, stating “. . . remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior . . . .” Therefore, Peter understood that the Lord had commissioned him to protect the flock from internal dangers such as false prophets and teachers. Consequently, it should not be surprising that the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write an epistle warning believers about the future arrival of these malicious counterfeits.

Another possibility is that Jude heard other apostles provide similar warnings. This assertion is defensible because the word “apostles” is plural (cf. 17). That being said, guesses about if, when, where, and what Jude may have heard is entirely speculative; therefore, they worthless for proving anything. Moreover, none of these conjectures overcomes the fact that 2^nd Peter predicted the coming of false teachers while the Epistle of Jude declares their arrival. Thus, it is more likely that Jude relied upon 2^nd Peter rather than the reverse.

Another reason for this conclusion is observable by identifying the recipients of both epistles. Peter never identified his audience in 2^nd Peter.  However, in 2 Peter 3:1 he wrote “This is now, beloved, my second letter I am writing to you.” Most Evangelicals recognize that this verse refers to 1^st Peter. Consequently, one must look to 1^st Peter in order to identify the audience for Peter’s second epistle. Peter’s first epistle was addressed to the following recipients: “To those . . . scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia . . .” (1 Pt. 1:1). This observation is significant because it reveals that 1^st and 2^nd Peter were circular letters that were intended for distribution over a wide geographical area in order to be read in churches throughout those areas. The Epistle of Jude, however, appears to have been written to a specific church (cf. vs. 3). Consequently, one is left to wonder which scenario is more likely: (a) that Peter would find a brief letter to a specific church and then depend upon it in order to warn churches concerning a future that demonstrably had already happened; or (b) that Jude would rely upon a widely read epistle written by a recognized apostolic leader in order to support his assertion that the warnings of the Lord and apostles had come to fruition? The more defensible conclusion is obvious.

There are 2 reasons why many secular scholars assert that 2^nd Peter was written after the Epistle of Jude. The first is that they reject Peter’s authorship of 2^nd Peter; as a result, they assert that it is much later than Jude’s epistle (composed well after Peter was martyred). Another reason is that Jude is the shorter letter; consequently, they argue that “the author” of 2^nd Peter depended upon Jude’s epistle. They arrive at this conclusion because often when an author depends upon an earlier work, then the latter composition tends to expand upon contents found in the earlier work (e.g., Luke’s dependence upon Mark’s Gospel). Consequently, latter compositions tend to be longer. While this observation may be helpful with cases involving more complex types of literature (e.g., histories; treatises; Gospels; etc.), it is not a hard rule. The fact is that when it comes to letter writing authors may have more practical concerns that impact a letter’s length, such as the amount of material available, the time available for composition, and a letter’s actual purpose and occasion, etc. Therefore, that Jude is shorter than 2^nd Peter is insufficient evidence for determining their order of composition, not to mention concluding that 2^nd Peter depended upon Jude—especially since evidence found within them leads in the opposite direction. Consequently, while at times literary analysis can be helpful, it appears more probably that Jude depended upon 2^nd Peter while composing his letter.

That being said, the most important take away from these epistles is what they model for today’s church leadership. More specifically, and out of faithfulness to the Lord, Peter and Jude warned churches about the reality of false teachers, false prophets, and demonic mockers. And having done so, they emphatically directed believers not to tolerate them under any circumstances. Consequently, pastors and elders are called to identify and warn believers of their presence, and then to educate their flocks about their immoral natures and destructive doctrines. Regrettably, this essential ministry is sorely lacking in today’s modern and progressive churches.

_{Copyright, © Monte Shanks 2023}  

---

[1]It is recognized that some assert that Peter has quoted Jude 18.

Read Full Post »

HOW CHURCHES BECOME WOLF SANCTUARIES

Wolves are a beloved figure these days. For some they symbolize freedom, strength, and the beauty of America’s untamed past. That’s because few of us have ever been attacked by wolves. Rene Anderson killed a charging wolf while Elk hunting in Idaho in 2011, and in 2010 Candice Berner was killed by wolves while jogging in a remote area of Alaska. The truth is that wolves in the wild are dangerous and unsympathetic towards their prey. If they can track and catch you, then you’re on the menu. In the ancient world wolves could be found virtually everywhere. They were a constant threat to livestock as well as the isolated traveler. The deadliest of all was the rabid crazed wolf. You may survive their attack, but if infected by them, then nevertheless you were as good as dead.

The apostle Paul once warned about wolves, but he wasn’t concerned about the 4-legged kind, instead he warned about the 2-legged variety. He put it this way:

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert,” (Acts 20:28-31a).

The wolves Paul was concerned about have several common characteristics with wolves found in the wild. First, they too are “savage,” and they attack with one goal, to ravage and destroy their prey. Secondly, whenever they attack they intend to spare nothing. Thirdly, they generally come in groups. And having formed a pack they begin to reproduce after their own kind. Like true believers, they also begin making disciples of themselves. However, there are also some unsettling differences. First, Paul said it is a certainty that wolves would come. Wolf attacks in our modern era are extremely rare, in fact since 1900 there have only been 10 recorded fatalities in North America due to wolf attacks. Nevertheless, Paul didn’t say that we may occasionally see a wolf, but that “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come.” He said it is a certainty that wolves will coma and attack the church. Whether we choose to believe it or not, wolves will come. However, what is most startling is where he said they would come from—stating in no uncertain terms that they would come from within the community of believers! And even more tragically, they would come from among the church’s own leadership. Somehow these people will join our fellowships and instead of becoming sheep they will remain wolves.

How can this be you may ask. Did you know that wolf pups and German Shepherds pups are almost indistinguishable? It is only as they mature that their true nature becomes obvious and their differences are noticeable. As puppies they look as cute as domesticated dogs; nevertheless, they are still wolves, and sooner or later little wolves become big wolves. Somehow Paul knew that wolves would eventually join our churches. Maybe it is because we are so hopeful and want to believe the best about everyone, and in our optimism we tolerate “wolf pups,” but inevitably these wolves grow up and devastate our fellowships. But unlike natural wolves, these wolves don’t destroy their prey through their bite, they destroy entire flocks by attacking something more important—the truth. Paul stated that once in leadership these false teachers begin teaching “perversions” among the church body. The focus of their attack is not on individual sheep per se, but on the flock’s strength, which is its unity around the truth. Their strategy is to pervert the truth in such a way that people begin to doubt it, don’t understand it, and stop obeying it. Maybe they will promote distorted theology, maybe they will sanction perverted behavior—all “in the name of love,” or maybe they will degrade the scriptures while promoting “wisdom” that is found in other religions and human philosophies. Regardless of what they promote, it will be perversions of the truth just the same. The ultimate goal is the defamation of the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel, and the end result will be that the flock will cease to exist. Although the sheep will survive, tragically they will be scattered, isolated, and separated from a healthy flock. It is the DNA of these wolves to destroy “flocks.” Flocks are their prey since they are incapable of destroying sheep that belong to the True Shepherd (Jn 10.27-30). Consequently, they seek to destroy the next best thing, which is the unity derived from the truth that binds the flock together.

Having told us of the danger that will certainly come, Paul gave steps for protecting the flock. The first is that the elders and pastors must be on guard for themselves. It is essential that pastors police themselves so that they are not deceived into promoting things that pervert the faith that has once and for all been delivered to the saints. Only as the elders and pastors ensure their own fidelity to the Lord and sound doctrine are they able to take the second step, which is to protect the “entire” flock. That’s right, no more unsupervised clicks within our congregations, and no leadership clicks that insulate us from the very sheep that the Lord has called us to protect. Pastors and elders are tasked with leading “all the flock” to reject the perversions promoted by wolves. By abdicating our responsibility of guarding all of the small groups scattered throughout our congregations we are potentially exposing them to wolves. Unattended sheep are always at risk.

Next, we are to remain vigilant against the presence of wolves. Twice in these few verses Paul ordered pastors to be constantly on guard against wolf attacks. And this is where American Evangelicals have pretty much left the gate unguarded. We are good at identifying wolves outside our churches, which is not hard since they are obvious to almost everybody. We do a fine job at pointing out the Osteens and Copelands of the world, but we are bad at knowing precisely what people in our own fellowships actually believe. Instead, we assume that if they faithfully attend and give, then they must be “good folk,” and then we promote them into positions of leadership. And by doing so we are unwittingly inviting wolves into positions of influence within our churches. The thing about these wolves is they are intelligent and cunning, and they stealthily maneuver into positions from which they can attack. Regrettably, these wolves will simply lie to get what they want and think little of it. They join our churches to get attention, to gain opportunities, and to obtain the authority that makes them feel important. They are not caring shepherds; there are savage wolves that to us look like sheep, lambs, or innocent puppies.

Regrettably, many of today’s modern churches have become “wolf sanctuaries.” A church becomes a haven for wolves when they are willing to tolerate everything, accept all, and promote unity at all costs. In fact, American churches are quickly becoming places where wolves are more tolerated than faithful shepherds. One of the most ignored and politically incorrect verses in the Bible is 1 Corinthians 11.19, where Paul wrote: “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” Paul actually stated that verbal disagreements and theological debates are necessary if for no other reason than to identify those that are authentic followers of Christ from those that are not. Moreover, these discussions also reveal those that can accurately interpret the scriptures from those that cannot. But that is not what happens in churches today. Today’s churches are turning into “safe spaces,” and the only ones that are becoming safer are the wolves. Certainly the true sheep purchased by the blood of Christ are not safer, and neither are the mixed livestock that are congregating with them. Our churches are quickly becoming the tending stalls of slaughterhouses, where all manner of goats, cows, and pigs are awaiting their inevitable fates.

Wolves in the wild instinctively avoid strong and well-armed shepherds because they have a God-given fear of humans. Wolves always avoid powerful adversaries. Their preference is for those that are weak, sick, and isolated. Additionally, it is rare to see wolves during the day. Wolves prefer the night. The same is true of false teachers; they prefer lurking in the shadows, awaiting opportunities to gain an advantage. They hate the light because it exposes them for what they truly are. They know that if they are found out then it is time to move on and find new territory. Let’s be clear, all lost people have the potential to become wolves, but most are not. An antichristian wolf is someone that has heard the truth of the gospel and the scriptures, and has chosen to reject the lordship of Jesus Christ. And having made such a decision they begin seeking opportunities within the church for their own benefit, as well as positions of leadership from which they can pervert the truth of God. Shepherds that the Lord has called to protect his flock should drive these people away. One thing is certain, pretending that wolves do not exist and are not in our churches is no defense against them; instead it’s a sign of naiveté and rejection of biblical truth. Consequently, while sinners are welcome to come to the church, wolves are not. Once a church receives wolves, then the destruction of the flock will inevitably follow, and in the end the Lord’s sheep will be scattered. Shame upon churches that have become wolf sanctuaries, and pity upon the false shepherds that allowed it to happen, when the True Shepherd comes there will be no place for them to hide.

Copyright, © Monte Shanks 2017

Read Full Post »