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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd Peter predicted the coming of false teachers while the Epistle of Jude declares their arrival. Thus, it is more likely that Jude relied upon 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st Peter. Consequently, one must look to 1st 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 1st and 2nd 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 2nd Peter was written after the Epistle of Jude. The first is that they reject Peter’s authorship of 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd Peter is insufficient evidence for determining their order of composition, not to mention concluding that 2nd 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 2nd 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.
Monte Shanks Copyright © 2023
[1]It is recognized that some assert that Peter has quoted Jude 18.