Disciples of Paul are always quick to respond to questions regarding Paul's legitimacy by citing 2 Peter 3:15-17, suggesting that Peter couldn't have been opposed to Paul because "Peter calls Paul a brother, calls Paul's writings 'scripture,' and merely says Paul's writing is 'hard to understand'." They say that our problem is that "You just don't understand Paul because you don't have the 'Spirit' of God to help you understand his 'inspired' writings'." In this section, I will prove that Peter doesn't endorse Paul (as we've already seen, if you've read previous sections), nor are Paul's writings inspired. I will also raise the question of whether or not 2 Peter is authentic and written by the Apostle himself.
It's easy to prove that what many Christians call "inspired scripture" isn't. Let's look at some of Paul's own statements to prove this. Paul says the following:
1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
Interesting. Paul has no commandment of the Lord concerning the issue he's writing about. That means whatever he pens after this statement is pure opinion and therefore not inspired. He does the same again in his second epistle to the same group.
2Co 11:17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
Paul departs from sound speaking and takes to foolish boasting. Is this inspired? Proverbs 14:7 says, "Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge." If Paul speaks "foolishly," then he exposes himself as a fool who has no knowledge. Proverbs 15:14 says, "The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness." So is Paul's foolishness inspired? Worthy of attention? Certainly not. Yet, though also un-inspired, no other New Testament writer is so bold and brazen as Paul is in his double-talk as we have seen in his treatment of those who don't eat meat in comparison with those who do. However, despite the easy and plain implication of Paul's very own statements, his own disciples--the ones who sincerely read his writings under the impression that they're all given by God--miss and, or, excuse his statements here. Nevertheless, in addition to these two verses (which are obvious clues), we have Paul's various contradictions to the Prophets, the Torah, Jesus, and Jesus' brother James. Such contradictions once more help prove that whatever Paul says isn't "God-breathed." Why be surprised, though? Paul himself says, to paraphrase, "To the Jew I became a Jew; to the Greek I became a Greek; to those under the law as one under the law; to those not under the law, as one not under the law (...but under the 'law of Christ'...). That I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:20-22). So this brings us the Paulinist's assumption: "Didn't Peter endorse Paul as an author of inspired Scripture?" The short answer is no.
As it's related in a study found on Jesus' Words Only, a website dedicated to returning the hearts of God's people to following the one He sent, we find the following as it relates to Peter's words in his second epistle, third chapter.
In the King James, this passage reads,
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless 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; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood [in Greek, dysnoetas], which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 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.
Douglas DelTondo, of JWO, relates the following from his word study on this passage:
...The Greek word is dysnoetas. Let's see why by examining that word carefully. In Greek, dysnoetas has two parts--the prefix DYS and the word NOETAS. To determine its meaning, you simply have to know the meaning and purpose of each part. Liddell & Scott--renowned and premier authors of a Greek dictionary say Dys as a prefix means--we quote--"always [understood] with the notion of hard, bad, unlucky, etc., ... destroying the good sense of a word, or increasing its bad sense." This quote can be found at page 336, column two, top third, in their 1883 dictionary at this page link .
Hence, we know at the outset that such a word as dysnoetas is intended in a pejorative sense. It has a negative uncomplimentary sense. Think for example of the word "utopia"--an ideal place, versus a "dystopia"--a nightmarish world where one endures great suffering or injustice, typically such as a totalitarian world. So a utopia when the prefix is changed to DYS is a nightmare world--the exact opposite meaning of utopia. See the definition at this link.
Then the conjoined word is NOETAS. 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. What does that mean?
The problem is that writer's words simply don't make any good sense. They defy common sense.
Thus, it is clear the problem begins with Paul's fault by the word DYSNOETAS used by Apostle Peter, according to its traditional authorship. Some of Paul's writings--not all--are said to suffer from DYSNOETAS."
There can be no doubt based on the definition of this word that Peter, if he wrote the passage, isn't exactly endorsing Paul's letters. The word he uses to describe his writings carry a pejorative meaning. One example of Paul's words being "destructive of good sense" is demonstrated in a Pro-Paul article titled What Did Paul Mean by 'Baptism of The Dead'? published by the Gospel Coalition. We read,
The phrase 'baptism for the dead' is so obscure and perplexing,
the meaning so uncertain, and the variety of interpretations so numerous
that it seems wise to say it seems impossible to know what the phrase
means. Given the difficulties, some wonder why we should even bother to
investigate. But baptism for the dead matters, both because Mormons
place extraordinary importance on it, and also because Paul uses it to
defend the coming resurrection of believers.
Because Mormons teach a form of the "works plus faith system," the authors at the
Gospel Coalition are forced to conclude the opposite of them when it
comes to this passage in Paul because they support the "Faith Alone" tradition. They don't want their evangelical readers
to assume Paul advocates for any sort of baptismal regeneration. Still,
the writer of this article admits that Paul was neither strongly for or
against the Corinthian practice of baptizing on behalf of dead,
un-baptized believers. They argue that he [Paul] simply used their [the
Corinthian's] practice as proof that the resurrection is a reality. But
when you read the article, you're left with the conclusion that, in
reality, nobody really knows what Paul is saying--but, yet, "you can be 'certain' he isn't teaching what the Mormon's teach from this
passage." Technically, the Mormons are more consistent with the passage and evangelicals are simply uncomfortable with it. These are the dilemma's that exist for readers of Paul. The confusion goes away when you understand that Paul isn't inspired because he never met the true Jesus. Besides, all of this supposes that Apostle Peter even wrote the Epistle to begin with.
The Apostle Peter is traditionally believed to have died as a martyr in Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero. This is typically dated around 64-68 AD. Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History" (Book II, Chapter 25) mentions Peter's martyrdom under Nero.
As to the authorship of 2 Peter, there is considerable debate among scholars. Obviously, the traditional view is that it was written by Peter himself (possibly in the early 60s AD, shortly before his death). However, many modern scholars argue that 2 Peter might have been written possibly in the late 1st century or early 2nd century due to stylistic and thematic differences from 1 Peter.
In Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown, a renowned biblical scholar, we read,
"Most modern scholars regard the letter as pseudonymous, written in Peter's name some time between AD 100 and 150” (Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1997, p. 767).
Thus the exact date of composition for 2 Peter is uncertain and debated. It is commonly placed somewhere between the 60s AD (if genuinely Petrine) and the early 2nd century (if pseudonymous). So it’s not necessarily accurate to use 2 Peter to prove Paul is legitimate with the assumption Peter himself wrote it because it’s unlikely that he did. Peter died approximately 60AD, and his so-called Second Epistle was penned somewhere between 100-150AD. How can Peter have endorsed Paul from the grave? Because of the meaning of the term dysnoetas having a negative connotation, there is no endorsement of Paul, regardless of whether it was Peter himself or someone writing in Peter's name. Aside from the "Epistles of Peter," we know that the Clementine Homilies are authentic; and in them, we find Peter strongly rebuking the menu items of Paul (meat).