“…as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures”
as also in all his epistles
Peter says that Paul wrote about the same things in all his “epistles.” “All his epistles” refers to the collection of the Pauline epistles already placed into the canon by Peter’s time. Thus, the collection of canonical Scripture did not begin with the post-apostolic fathers but with the apostles themselves.
speaking in them of these things
Paul spoke about the subject of 2 Peter in his epistles.
in which are some things hard to understand
The Greek word for “hard to understand” occurs this one time in the New Testament. Other literature used this word for something obscure. Peter had difficulty understanding some of Paul’s teachings.
This ought to encourage some of us since we find some things difficult to understand. Keep at it; it will come. Only “some” things are difficult to understand, not most of what Paul wrote. Though Peter did not have a formal education, he understood most of what Paul wrote. Keep in mind that we will never understand everything about God; if we did, we would have to be as smart as He is.
Principle:
Most of the Bible is clear and gives instructions for improving our souls.
Application:
The Bible is the only book inspired by God. All other books contain the inspiration of men, and therefore, contain error. But because God inspired the Bible, it is inerrant, infallible, and unalterable.
We will have to wait until we get to heaven to understand some things in the Bible. However, it is not the Scripture passages that I cannot understand that disturb me, but those passages that I do understand. We read Scripture to critique our souls. We may not like this process, but it is crucial to our spiritual growth.
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).
If we allow the Bible to work in our souls, we will be better for it. If the Bible does not change us, it is because of our unwillingness to listen. We think the poignant passages of the Bible are for someone else: “Oh, that is something that Mrs. Jones needs to hear.”
I realize this is a rather old post but I must insert an error that I see in your assumption that there was a collection of Pauline epistles being circulated as a collective cannon. To begin, Pater and Paul were contemporaries, even though Peter was very reluctant to accept Paul’s claims to be an apostle of Christ. To bring this right to the point, Peter’s name is given to this book as well as the second writing although Peter himself indicates Silas helped him with these writings. (Peter probably spoke some Greek but was not capable of such precise writing in the Greek language. Here again, the original autograph may have been written in Aramaic.) Your reasoning that Peter indicates that there was a collection of Pauline letters cannot be correct. This writing can be quickly dated to around 60 to 65 AD which means that Peter in his travels through Asia Minor would have put him in contact with towns and Christians that held, possibly, the original letters as written by Paul, many of those noted in Acts as being written while Paul was a captive. This would date those Pauline letters at 58 AD and later. So, just because Peter mentions Paul’s letters, this is no proof that a collection of Paul’s letters had been combined to form some type of volume of Pauls works. Also, there is a very real possibility that many of Paul’s letters have been lost or were not preserved by their recipients, as we know from his preserved writings that he mentions several letters that are lost to time. If there had been a collection of Pauls letters being copied and circulated at any time around 60 AD, then it stands to reason copies of the lost letters would have been included. But the truth is, Pauls letters were not being canonized until after the beginning of the second century as is indicated by early Church fathers including Clementine and even the writer of Johns letters, which date as early as 80 AD and as late as 105 AD. There is far to much evidence that apposes your theory of an early collection of Pauline letters, all of which comes from the writings found in the 27 books accepted as “inspired” writings in what we refer to as the New Testament.
Joe, thanks for your comment. I presume you refer to this post: http://versebyversecommentary.com/2-peter/2-peter-315c/
There is a difference between the formal and finalization of the canon and the virtual acceptance of the canon. The formalization of the canon took place many years later.
Peter virtually accepted the inspiration of Paul’s writings. I don’t believe that I asserted that Paul wrote all of his books by the time of the writing of Second Peter. He wrote Galatians, Romans, 1 & 2 Thessalonians and other books before Peter wrote Second Peter. My statement about canonicity was from the viewpoint of the later formalization of the canon. The extant and explicit statement by Peter clearly sets him forth as believing in the inspiration of Paul’s writings.
You are incorrect sir. Please acknowledge and correct your error in a timely manner.
John, please be specific about what I am incorrect about.