What do you think?
Rate this book
The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter
The second book of Peter has long troubled biblical scholars and interpreters. Not only is its authorship debated, but it seems to predict an imminent Second Coming, making many dispensationalists claim that it can only be understood in light of modern events. In this study, Peter Leithart offers a preterist reading of the epistle, arguing that it describes first-century events and not the end of the world. At the same time, he maintains orthodoxy, avoiding hyper-preterism and affirming the epistle's authenticity. Leithart's accessible style and convincing arguments make a valuable addition to the study of the Bible's apocalyptic prophecies.
111 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2004
17 people are currently reading
146 people want to read
About the author
Peter J. Leithart
130 books365 followersPeter Leithart received an A.B. in English and History from Hillsdale College in 1981, and a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1986 and 1987. In 1998 he received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England. He has served in two pastorates: He was pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (now Trinity Presbyterian Church), Birmingham, Alabama from 1989 to 1995, and was founding pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, and served on the pastoral staff at Trinity from 2003-2013. From 1998 to 2013 he taught theology and literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho, where he continues to teach as an adjunct Senior Fellow. He now serves as President of Trinity House in Alabama, where is also resident Church Teacher at the local CREC church. He and his wife, Noel, have ten children and five grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
March 29, 2025
For such a short commentary, there is a lot of good information here. The subtitle could have been “An exposition of 2nd Peter and a defense of partial preterism” as Leithart uses an extensive amount of space to argue his case. I always thought that the language used in portions of Scripture like Matthew 24 and elsewhere speaking of “This generation” is a compelling example of how Christ and the Apostles saw the coming desolation. Leithart is able to pick up on these sort of themes and defend them well.
August 1, 2022
Not sure I entirely buy the preterist interpretation, but Leithart certainly knows how to make a good case for it. Helpful insights to be had here either way.
June 15, 2022
An enjoyable little commentary on 2 Peter. Concise and clear. Wish there was more! For a more thorough exegetical commentary specifically on 2 Peter 3 and “The New Heavens and New Earth”, check out David Chilton’s paper at AmericanVision.org. It goes together quite nicely with this book!
September 18, 2025
Great exposition of Second Peter. Very well done.
March 6, 2021
Loved it. Thought Leithart did a great job showing that a preterist reading fits best.
February 26, 2012
I came to the Reformed faith reading partial preterists. I saw it as the obvious alternative to dispensationalism. I then moved away from it for a while. Having been a fan of Leithart, I decided to read his commentary.
While he holds to the basic preterist position, he makes a few exciting mutations. Most partial preterists, when they get to this book, simply reassert that it took place in AD 70. Well and good, but that is not an argument. Leithart introduces what he calls "knock-out" arguments for partial preterism in 2 Peter. There are five of them. He sets the stage for saying that without a preterist understanding of 2 Peter, Peter's comments do not make sense.
Here is an example:
Peter says he wrote his letter (2 Peter) on the theme of the coming of Jesus, which he says was also a theme of his 1 letter (1 Peter). Since 1 Peter's teaching about the coming of Jesus highlights its imminence, 2 Peter must be dealing with the same looming event (14).
Btw, when all five arguments are seen together, they are quite compelling. Do not judge this argument standing alone.
Leithart also adds a Hebraic element to the interpretation. Peter's audience are dispersed Jews (and he quotes a plethora of passages showing how Peter's language directly mirrors exilic Jews in the OT). In short, AD 70 was not simply Rome destroying Jerusalem and that kind of conveniently looks like Matthew 24. No, it is a destruction of the Old Creation world. (Leithart then draws parallels showing how the temple symbolized the cosmos).
I really enjoyed it. Definite recommendation. However, it is not a key for sermon prep. It is more for eschatology than sermon, although it makes for good biblical theology.
The question/problem remains, though, is that this is not how the Holy Fathers read this book, and they are the ones who transmitted both The Faith and the Canon, meaning they probably understood this book better than us.
I think the problem can be salvaged, though. If one sees The Divine Liturgy as a form of eschatology (interestingly, since Leithart's eschatology is a form of destruction upon the Jewish covenantal order, then would this also apply to the Divine Liturgy?), then it works.
While he holds to the basic preterist position, he makes a few exciting mutations. Most partial preterists, when they get to this book, simply reassert that it took place in AD 70. Well and good, but that is not an argument. Leithart introduces what he calls "knock-out" arguments for partial preterism in 2 Peter. There are five of them. He sets the stage for saying that without a preterist understanding of 2 Peter, Peter's comments do not make sense.
Here is an example:
Peter says he wrote his letter (2 Peter) on the theme of the coming of Jesus, which he says was also a theme of his 1 letter (1 Peter). Since 1 Peter's teaching about the coming of Jesus highlights its imminence, 2 Peter must be dealing with the same looming event (14).
Btw, when all five arguments are seen together, they are quite compelling. Do not judge this argument standing alone.
Leithart also adds a Hebraic element to the interpretation. Peter's audience are dispersed Jews (and he quotes a plethora of passages showing how Peter's language directly mirrors exilic Jews in the OT). In short, AD 70 was not simply Rome destroying Jerusalem and that kind of conveniently looks like Matthew 24. No, it is a destruction of the Old Creation world. (Leithart then draws parallels showing how the temple symbolized the cosmos).
I really enjoyed it. Definite recommendation. However, it is not a key for sermon prep. It is more for eschatology than sermon, although it makes for good biblical theology.
The question/problem remains, though, is that this is not how the Holy Fathers read this book, and they are the ones who transmitted both The Faith and the Canon, meaning they probably understood this book better than us.
I think the problem can be salvaged, though. If one sees The Divine Liturgy as a form of eschatology (interestingly, since Leithart's eschatology is a form of destruction upon the Jewish covenantal order, then would this also apply to the Divine Liturgy?), then it works.
January 15, 2009
Very good.
January 23, 2023
I listened to the audio version of this. Which, is not the best way for me to read books-especially books like this one. I have trouble fully grasping what is being said when I’m not able to see the words and underline, etc.
I probably only grasped/ tracked with 10% (maybe 20% if I’m being generous with myself) of the author’s argument.
It’s interesting—but I’d have to read the physical copy and do more studying to actually engage conversationally on this topic.
I probably only grasped/ tracked with 10% (maybe 20% if I’m being generous with myself) of the author’s argument.
It’s interesting—but I’d have to read the physical copy and do more studying to actually engage conversationally on this topic.
October 27, 2020
Very, very good.
March 4, 2021
Really good. Lots to think about and come back to.
February 11, 2023
Excellent. One of his best books yet.
December 10, 2023
In Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter, Peter Leithart proposes to show that the eschatological teachings of 2 Peter are the central point (see page 21) of this letter and that they correspond to events that were fulfilled in the first century, in the dissolution of the Jewish state and the abolition of the sacrificial system, mainly the destruction of the temple. In support of this thesis Leithart gives five "knock-down" arguments as he calls them while exegetically going through 2 Peter.
Is Leithart successful? As the germans say: "Jein" (Yes is Ja in german, and No is Nein)
Why? Because I do not think that the eschatological teaching is the main point of those letters, but I do agree that some of the eschatological teachings of the Petrine letters concern first century events, even though I do not follow Leithart's preterist understanding.
(It is necessary to say that this books assumes a conservative dating of 2 Peter and a Petrine authorship. Leithart gives a quick defence of both.)
Let us go through his arguments while offering passing remarks then I will conclude.
1) First argument, 2 Peter is dealing with the same thing 1 Peter is dealing with, that is, the coming revelation of Jesus Christ.
My quarrel with that argument is that 1 & 2 Peter's eschatological teaching whatever it may be about, is not the main purpose of the letters and that it is not enough to find similarities between the letters to infer that they must be concerned about the same topics. It is actually not the case that they are dealing with the same topics, nor is it the case that the eschatological teaching is the main teaching. It clearly is not. So the argument proves too much.
Leithart then defends the (mainly) Jewish audience position (contra the Gentile audience). Who is Peter writing to? There is not much to say here as both sides make good arguments and it is hard to be certain. but one may wonder why Leithart reckons 1 Peter 1:1 "exiles of the Dispersion" is best taken literally, instead of spiritually/metaphorically (even though 1 Peter 2 goes on to clarify with the expression "as sojourners and exiles" which seems spiritual) while he later on takes 2 Peter 2:14 "They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin" figuratively and not literally. This comes later in the book where the false teachers are discussed. According to Leithart, those are Jewish believers who apostatised making the figurative interpretation necessary. Indeed the jews' adultery could only be spiritual and not physical as the laws of Moses obviously forbade sexual immorality and we know that jews did have a history of spiritual adultery (see page 59). This seems convenient.
2) The second argument is Peter's defence of Christ's promises by an appeal to his witness of the Transfiguration.
I have no quarrel with this at all except in Leithart's and most preterists' understanding of the nature and timing of that coming. He writes "The transfiguration is a preview of the glorification of the Son in His powerful coming to Jerusalem in A.D 70." It is true that the transfiguration is a preview of the glorification of the Son, but when was the Son glorified? Was he not glorified in his ascension in fulfilment of Daniel 7, when he received power, dominion and glory? Is this not the coming (parousia) of the Son that Daniel mentions when he talks about one like a Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days? If this is so, then the coming happened in A.D. 30 and the judgement on Israel is something else. In truth, the destruction of the temple and the Jewish state IS the sign that Jesus did come as he said he would. He came to his Father. The events from 66 to 73 A.D. act as markers that vindicate Jesus' claims of kingship and divinity.
Moreover, ideas of Jesus' coming in A.D. 70 are a slippery slope to full preterism and not supported by Scripture. At least Leithart comments that there are other texts in Scripture that talk about the coming of the Son at the end of history (if Matthew 24 and parallels are not about the final coming of Christ, which is also left to debate and actually assumed in this book).
3) The third argument is based on 2 Peter 2 leading up to 2 Peter 3 by Peter's denunciation of false teachers. The argument is that their destruction, which must come soon, is connected to the destruction of the heavens and the earth and their replacement with new ones.
Leithart makes the case that the false teachers are Jewish Believers who went back to Judaism, thus their destruction and condamnation can lead us to infer that the destruction of the H&E is tied to their identity as Jewish people. This enables us to see that the language used in 2 Peter 3 is metaphorical for the Jewish state and Mosaic Economy.
One might wonder if this is not a non-sequitur.
It is not obvious that the false teachers are Jewish believers. They could also be gentiles. This is the same problem as the audience issue on the first argument. Aside that, the case is made that the destruction of those false teachers is imminent. I agree that those false teachers were swiftly destroyed. What is not entirely clear is whether Peter only had those false teachers in mind or also any subsequent ones.
4 & 5) This is really just one argument. It deals with the mockers of 2 Peter 3 who question the Christ because of the apparent delay of his coming. First, Jesus' prophecies must have included a time limit, and second this time limit must have been within the time of apostolic generation.
Leithart correctly remarks that Jesus' predictions carried with them a time limit, mainly, the life of the apostles. It is amazing that futurist don't seem to see it.
Yet, it is not clear that this should lead us to see 2 Peter 3 as referring to first century events. 2 Peter 3 could very well be talking about things as they are going to be until the very end. Alsowe could grant a new heavens and earth in A.D.70, a whole new creation, purely in a spiritual sense. But then what about the New Heaven and Earth of Revelation 21. Is that fulfilled as well? (this would inevitably lead to full preterism). If not, then why are those new heavens and earth different? Another pitfall is that the New Creation came at the Cross, not in A.D. 70. More on that swiftly...
Leithart goes to show that the mockers' question is a threat to the church. Since Jesus has not come back and many apostles already died, then Jesus was a liar of was deceived. Leithart suggests that the only solution is that Jesus came in 70 A.D. thus putting this objection at rest. But this is not the only option as I have shown. The mockers' question only shows their unbelief. The church did not need an extra evidence of God's power to believe and the vindicate Christ. His resurrection was more than enough. Preterist tend to put so much emphasis on A.D. 70 to the detriment of the Cross. This is unnecessary. Besides 2 Peter 3 ends with "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity."
Peter tells them "You don't need to worry about those false teachers, and let not yourself be carried away in their unbelief and their claims, instead grow in the knowledge you already have about your God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Who is Lord NOW".
Leithart exegetes the metaphors of 2 Peter 3 that say "the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. [...] all these things are thus to be dissolved..."
He indicates other NT passages that indicate fire for judgement and relates them, without much defence, to A.D. 70 events. Most concerning is his use of Mat 13:40-42 which he places as foreshadowing A.D.70 and states clearly that this does not concern the end of history. The problem is that every use of the expression "cast into the lake of fire (alternatively, throw into outer darkness), in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" is always about the end of history and not A.D. 70. This does not beg the question in virtue of the analogy of faith principle.
He then proposes a discussion on the heavens and earth. In his estimation this would be covenantal language: the destruction of the old creation (that is the Mosaic Covenant) and its replacement with the new. The interesting part is the idea that only the heavens are destroyed, but the earth and its works are "revealed/exposed". Instead of giving my thoughts on this, we can offer this suggestion: whether this pertains to first century events, or refers to the very last days of the history of the world, why not think Peter was very smart and wrote in such a way as to imply both?
So in the end, though there are in my estimation some issues on the eschatological interpretation Leithart offers from a preterist standpoint, the direction is correct. Many NT prophecies were about first century events.
What is more annoying about this book is that reading it would make one feel like eschatology is Peter's main concern while reading 1 and 2 Peter clearly shows this not to be the case, though it might be in the background in some places and of course prominent in 2 Peter 3. Another issue that I noticed in passing is that Leithart believes that the 70 weeks of Daniel are about the coming of the Messiah. It is most likely not the case. One major proof would be that it is never referred in the NT as a Messianic prophecy, another proof is that it accords best with a fulfilment in Antiochus Epiphanes.
Nevertheless, there are some good insights in this book. Page 32 contains encouragements valuable for christians, the scholarship is good and he brings in other commentators. I would definitely recommend it for reading.
As a final point I want to mention that this book does not promote anti-semitism. If that were the case then, the God of the Bible himself would be an antisemite since the whole history of Israel is God chastening his people for their sins. But we should not forget, first that he keeps a remnant, and second that he actually chastises both Jews and Gentiles, as many as those who are his children whom he loves. In fact Jesus (himself a jew) prophesied the destruction of the jews quite clearly. Does that make him an antisemite? And does pointing to that scriptural data makes one an antisemite? No to both, in virtue of the fact that love is involved and the judgement comes only because of the stiff-neckedness of people who reject God's love. This is in the end the warning that Peter gives in his letter.
Is Leithart successful? As the germans say: "Jein" (Yes is Ja in german, and No is Nein)
Why? Because I do not think that the eschatological teaching is the main point of those letters, but I do agree that some of the eschatological teachings of the Petrine letters concern first century events, even though I do not follow Leithart's preterist understanding.
(It is necessary to say that this books assumes a conservative dating of 2 Peter and a Petrine authorship. Leithart gives a quick defence of both.)
Let us go through his arguments while offering passing remarks then I will conclude.
1) First argument, 2 Peter is dealing with the same thing 1 Peter is dealing with, that is, the coming revelation of Jesus Christ.
My quarrel with that argument is that 1 & 2 Peter's eschatological teaching whatever it may be about, is not the main purpose of the letters and that it is not enough to find similarities between the letters to infer that they must be concerned about the same topics. It is actually not the case that they are dealing with the same topics, nor is it the case that the eschatological teaching is the main teaching. It clearly is not. So the argument proves too much.
Leithart then defends the (mainly) Jewish audience position (contra the Gentile audience). Who is Peter writing to? There is not much to say here as both sides make good arguments and it is hard to be certain. but one may wonder why Leithart reckons 1 Peter 1:1 "exiles of the Dispersion" is best taken literally, instead of spiritually/metaphorically (even though 1 Peter 2 goes on to clarify with the expression "as sojourners and exiles" which seems spiritual) while he later on takes 2 Peter 2:14 "They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin" figuratively and not literally. This comes later in the book where the false teachers are discussed. According to Leithart, those are Jewish believers who apostatised making the figurative interpretation necessary. Indeed the jews' adultery could only be spiritual and not physical as the laws of Moses obviously forbade sexual immorality and we know that jews did have a history of spiritual adultery (see page 59). This seems convenient.
2) The second argument is Peter's defence of Christ's promises by an appeal to his witness of the Transfiguration.
I have no quarrel with this at all except in Leithart's and most preterists' understanding of the nature and timing of that coming. He writes "The transfiguration is a preview of the glorification of the Son in His powerful coming to Jerusalem in A.D 70." It is true that the transfiguration is a preview of the glorification of the Son, but when was the Son glorified? Was he not glorified in his ascension in fulfilment of Daniel 7, when he received power, dominion and glory? Is this not the coming (parousia) of the Son that Daniel mentions when he talks about one like a Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days? If this is so, then the coming happened in A.D. 30 and the judgement on Israel is something else. In truth, the destruction of the temple and the Jewish state IS the sign that Jesus did come as he said he would. He came to his Father. The events from 66 to 73 A.D. act as markers that vindicate Jesus' claims of kingship and divinity.
Moreover, ideas of Jesus' coming in A.D. 70 are a slippery slope to full preterism and not supported by Scripture. At least Leithart comments that there are other texts in Scripture that talk about the coming of the Son at the end of history (if Matthew 24 and parallels are not about the final coming of Christ, which is also left to debate and actually assumed in this book).
3) The third argument is based on 2 Peter 2 leading up to 2 Peter 3 by Peter's denunciation of false teachers. The argument is that their destruction, which must come soon, is connected to the destruction of the heavens and the earth and their replacement with new ones.
Leithart makes the case that the false teachers are Jewish Believers who went back to Judaism, thus their destruction and condamnation can lead us to infer that the destruction of the H&E is tied to their identity as Jewish people. This enables us to see that the language used in 2 Peter 3 is metaphorical for the Jewish state and Mosaic Economy.
One might wonder if this is not a non-sequitur.
It is not obvious that the false teachers are Jewish believers. They could also be gentiles. This is the same problem as the audience issue on the first argument. Aside that, the case is made that the destruction of those false teachers is imminent. I agree that those false teachers were swiftly destroyed. What is not entirely clear is whether Peter only had those false teachers in mind or also any subsequent ones.
4 & 5) This is really just one argument. It deals with the mockers of 2 Peter 3 who question the Christ because of the apparent delay of his coming. First, Jesus' prophecies must have included a time limit, and second this time limit must have been within the time of apostolic generation.
Leithart correctly remarks that Jesus' predictions carried with them a time limit, mainly, the life of the apostles. It is amazing that futurist don't seem to see it.
Yet, it is not clear that this should lead us to see 2 Peter 3 as referring to first century events. 2 Peter 3 could very well be talking about things as they are going to be until the very end. Alsowe could grant a new heavens and earth in A.D.70, a whole new creation, purely in a spiritual sense. But then what about the New Heaven and Earth of Revelation 21. Is that fulfilled as well? (this would inevitably lead to full preterism). If not, then why are those new heavens and earth different? Another pitfall is that the New Creation came at the Cross, not in A.D. 70. More on that swiftly...
Leithart goes to show that the mockers' question is a threat to the church. Since Jesus has not come back and many apostles already died, then Jesus was a liar of was deceived. Leithart suggests that the only solution is that Jesus came in 70 A.D. thus putting this objection at rest. But this is not the only option as I have shown. The mockers' question only shows their unbelief. The church did not need an extra evidence of God's power to believe and the vindicate Christ. His resurrection was more than enough. Preterist tend to put so much emphasis on A.D. 70 to the detriment of the Cross. This is unnecessary. Besides 2 Peter 3 ends with "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity."
Peter tells them "You don't need to worry about those false teachers, and let not yourself be carried away in their unbelief and their claims, instead grow in the knowledge you already have about your God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Who is Lord NOW".
Leithart exegetes the metaphors of 2 Peter 3 that say "the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. [...] all these things are thus to be dissolved..."
He indicates other NT passages that indicate fire for judgement and relates them, without much defence, to A.D. 70 events. Most concerning is his use of Mat 13:40-42 which he places as foreshadowing A.D.70 and states clearly that this does not concern the end of history. The problem is that every use of the expression "cast into the lake of fire (alternatively, throw into outer darkness), in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" is always about the end of history and not A.D. 70. This does not beg the question in virtue of the analogy of faith principle.
He then proposes a discussion on the heavens and earth. In his estimation this would be covenantal language: the destruction of the old creation (that is the Mosaic Covenant) and its replacement with the new. The interesting part is the idea that only the heavens are destroyed, but the earth and its works are "revealed/exposed". Instead of giving my thoughts on this, we can offer this suggestion: whether this pertains to first century events, or refers to the very last days of the history of the world, why not think Peter was very smart and wrote in such a way as to imply both?
So in the end, though there are in my estimation some issues on the eschatological interpretation Leithart offers from a preterist standpoint, the direction is correct. Many NT prophecies were about first century events.
What is more annoying about this book is that reading it would make one feel like eschatology is Peter's main concern while reading 1 and 2 Peter clearly shows this not to be the case, though it might be in the background in some places and of course prominent in 2 Peter 3. Another issue that I noticed in passing is that Leithart believes that the 70 weeks of Daniel are about the coming of the Messiah. It is most likely not the case. One major proof would be that it is never referred in the NT as a Messianic prophecy, another proof is that it accords best with a fulfilment in Antiochus Epiphanes.
Nevertheless, there are some good insights in this book. Page 32 contains encouragements valuable for christians, the scholarship is good and he brings in other commentators. I would definitely recommend it for reading.
As a final point I want to mention that this book does not promote anti-semitism. If that were the case then, the God of the Bible himself would be an antisemite since the whole history of Israel is God chastening his people for their sins. But we should not forget, first that he keeps a remnant, and second that he actually chastises both Jews and Gentiles, as many as those who are his children whom he loves. In fact Jesus (himself a jew) prophesied the destruction of the jews quite clearly. Does that make him an antisemite? And does pointing to that scriptural data makes one an antisemite? No to both, in virtue of the fact that love is involved and the judgement comes only because of the stiff-neckedness of people who reject God's love. This is in the end the warning that Peter gives in his letter.
November 7, 2017
I've been persuaded of the preterist position for a while now, but hadn't really moved past the gospels and Revelation in my understanding of the outworkings of a preterist reading of these books meant until very recently.
While studying 1 Peter, which my pastor has been preaching through, I began seeing things in the epistles that had not caught my notice in prior readings. I quickly arrived at a preterist interpretation of 1 Peter, without reading any commentators on the book. I purchased this, hoping it would validate or invalidate the direction I was going with 1 Peter.
Leithart does make a strong case for a preterist reading of 1 Peter, though not at great length, only enough to make necessary connections between the two letters. He does go outside of 1 Peter frequently, but the book is mostly a brief exposition of the letter.
He does make a convincing case, in what he calls his five knock-down arguments for a preterist reading of the letter. I don't know that these arguments are as convincing as he says, since most commentators have far too much theological baggage that they're bringing to bear upon such a short epistle to be so easily convinced.
That being said, I do believe the arguments are very strong, and taken by themselves should give serious pause to those that would take issue with Leithart's basic position.
This is a short commentary, if it can properly be called that, so it isn't thorough, but it does provide the framework for a preterist reading of the book, while contextualizing the book within a preterist reading of the New Testament. This is a great book.
While studying 1 Peter, which my pastor has been preaching through, I began seeing things in the epistles that had not caught my notice in prior readings. I quickly arrived at a preterist interpretation of 1 Peter, without reading any commentators on the book. I purchased this, hoping it would validate or invalidate the direction I was going with 1 Peter.
Leithart does make a strong case for a preterist reading of 1 Peter, though not at great length, only enough to make necessary connections between the two letters. He does go outside of 1 Peter frequently, but the book is mostly a brief exposition of the letter.
He does make a convincing case, in what he calls his five knock-down arguments for a preterist reading of the letter. I don't know that these arguments are as convincing as he says, since most commentators have far too much theological baggage that they're bringing to bear upon such a short epistle to be so easily convinced.
That being said, I do believe the arguments are very strong, and taken by themselves should give serious pause to those that would take issue with Leithart's basic position.
This is a short commentary, if it can properly be called that, so it isn't thorough, but it does provide the framework for a preterist reading of the book, while contextualizing the book within a preterist reading of the New Testament. This is a great book.
December 28, 2022
Very interesting and quite a fun read/listen. This being my second Leithart book I am tremendously pleased with him as a writer. He is imminently readable while being academically thorough.
Personally still working through preterist understandings of many parts of the scriptures, and thus not agreed with Leithart at this point, he makes very strong arguments that i must wrestle with further. Will try to get a physical copy at some point and read more slowly (this was the audiobook of the week).
Highly recommend.
Personally still working through preterist understandings of many parts of the scriptures, and thus not agreed with Leithart at this point, he makes very strong arguments that i must wrestle with further. Will try to get a physical copy at some point and read more slowly (this was the audiobook of the week).
Highly recommend.
March 9, 2019
In this book Leithart defies all scholarship on the epistle known as Second Peter by arguing that it was 1) written by Peter himself and 2) that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. No one takes these ideas seriously, and his book's argument collapses once these two basic facts are accepted. The book is also full of anti-semitism, Leithart seeing the primary enemy of the author being the Jews, whom he demonizes, and that Jerusalem's destruction was God's righteous vengeance upon the Jews for rejecting Jesus.
January 16, 2025
An excellent exposition of 2 Peter from a preterist perspective. I deeply appreciate Leithart's insights into the text.
That being said, this book is unlikely to convince anyone of the preterist position who is not already at least partial to it. This is not so much due to some lack in Leithart as it is the nature of 2 Peter.
Peter wrote the letter to refute a segment of the community that was scoffing at Christ's promised coming because the fathers (i.e. the first generation disciples) were beginning to die off. "Where is the promise of His coming?" Second Peter answers this question.
What is that coming? What does it entail? The presupposition carried to the text will largely dictate the interpretation. Leithart argues that 2 Peter makes the most sense if it is seen as a "defense" of Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 24 (and other gospels) where Christ promises that everything He predicts will happen to His listeners within this "generation" a word that always connotates about a 40 year timespan in the biblical text. His coming, then, is His coming in judgment upon the covenant breaking community (the Jews) to destroy the elemental system of the Old Covenant.
If you are interested in preterism (partial preterism/postmillennailism), I would still start with Chilton's Paradise Restored.
That being said, this book is unlikely to convince anyone of the preterist position who is not already at least partial to it. This is not so much due to some lack in Leithart as it is the nature of 2 Peter.
Peter wrote the letter to refute a segment of the community that was scoffing at Christ's promised coming because the fathers (i.e. the first generation disciples) were beginning to die off. "Where is the promise of His coming?" Second Peter answers this question.
What is that coming? What does it entail? The presupposition carried to the text will largely dictate the interpretation. Leithart argues that 2 Peter makes the most sense if it is seen as a "defense" of Jesus's prophecy in Matthew 24 (and other gospels) where Christ promises that everything He predicts will happen to His listeners within this "generation" a word that always connotates about a 40 year timespan in the biblical text. His coming, then, is His coming in judgment upon the covenant breaking community (the Jews) to destroy the elemental system of the Old Covenant.
If you are interested in preterism (partial preterism/postmillennailism), I would still start with Chilton's Paradise Restored.
November 19, 2017
Simply amazing work! Leithart concisely shows that every reference to the coming judgement in 2 Peter is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Leithart’s arguments are always looking to the grand biblical narrative for direction and shed light on both the Old & New Testaments.
I believe that a part of the reason our Bible seems so strange to us, is because we refuse to read it on its own terms. Rather than seeing that much of the New Testament is speaking to specifically 1st century issues, we make a direct application to 21st century individuals. In doing so we do not only miss what the divine word is saying, we also misconstrue much of the real application it does indeed have for us 21st century individuals.
Leithart’s work shows that a first century focus on the New Testament does not make the Word less relevant to modern readers. Rather, it opens the whole Bible to our modern minds that are in such need of it!
I highly recommend this work!
Leithart’s arguments are always looking to the grand biblical narrative for direction and shed light on both the Old & New Testaments.
I believe that a part of the reason our Bible seems so strange to us, is because we refuse to read it on its own terms. Rather than seeing that much of the New Testament is speaking to specifically 1st century issues, we make a direct application to 21st century individuals. In doing so we do not only miss what the divine word is saying, we also misconstrue much of the real application it does indeed have for us 21st century individuals.
Leithart’s work shows that a first century focus on the New Testament does not make the Word less relevant to modern readers. Rather, it opens the whole Bible to our modern minds that are in such need of it!
I highly recommend this work!
February 8, 2021
Punchy little book, if only because Leithart sets himself in a boxing ring against more popular readings. He leans into the eschatology of 2 Peter, but makes sure not to skip over the first chapter, which might not seem so relevant to that issue at first glance. Some good arguments for his preterist perspective here, but I do wonder how it would go with the not-already-convinced.
A good reminder that the Bible is indeed full of Very Weird Stuff, try though we might to tame it, or at least keep its claws filed.
A good reminder that the Bible is indeed full of Very Weird Stuff, try though we might to tame it, or at least keep its claws filed.
May 12, 2020
Enjoyed it - enjoyed the playful writing
Leithart mixes a little fun with the serious task of exposition. Argues the preterist position with force. I was, however, very disappointed with the kindle edition. Full of mistakes (almost every paragraph contains some wierd spelling, or splitting of words in half, or joining words together). The content helped me to stay with it, but it was a frustrating task trying decipher what was being said among all those errors.
Leithart mixes a little fun with the serious task of exposition. Argues the preterist position with force. I was, however, very disappointed with the kindle edition. Full of mistakes (almost every paragraph contains some wierd spelling, or splitting of words in half, or joining words together). The content helped me to stay with it, but it was a frustrating task trying decipher what was being said among all those errors.
September 13, 2020
I love Leithart. He puts forward a strong case for a preterist reading of 2 Peter but one that fails to convince. Some of his strongest arguments require other assumptions for them to be persuasive (e.g. a certain take on the Olivet Discourse, dating of 2 Peter, the dating and meaning of Revelation, the “end of the world judgment language” in the prophets being fulfilled in their own day, etc.)
January 31, 2023
A very interesting book reading 2 Peter from a preterist perspective. While I’m not convinced of the hermeneutical grid for the book, Leithart does an excellent job proving an internally consistent reading. The book stretched me in a unique way that I very much enjoyed. His writing style, as always, is wonderful.
January 30, 2025
Leithart walks through 2 Peter and shows how the whole letter actually exegetically points to 70ad and God delivering his people in the midst of that judgement.
Short overview that is really good and isn’t trying to give a detailed verse by verse exposition so 2 Peter 2:1 and 2 Peter 3:9 are able to sit in the text rather than needing to be worked out for a debate on Calvinism.
Short overview that is really good and isn’t trying to give a detailed verse by verse exposition so 2 Peter 2:1 and 2 Peter 3:9 are able to sit in the text rather than needing to be worked out for a debate on Calvinism.
January 6, 2018
This is not your average exegetical commentary. It’s ridiculously concise and easy to read. This short 100 paged book gives you exactly what you need to fully comprehend and understand the meaning of 2 Peter.
June 18, 2018
Too much preterist, too little Peter. To be fair, Leithart lays his cards out from the beginning, still, being unconvinced, I found this to be an imposition of Preterism rather than an exposition of Peter.
September 24, 2018
A concise and helpful preterist interpretation of 2 Peter. Leithart makes a compelling case for Peter’s letter being about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad. He’s given me much to chew on and think about, which is what I’ve come to expect from Leithart.
January 22, 2022
One of the best books I’ve ever read that takes a preterist approach to 2 Peter. For a more in-depth analysis of some of the key concepts and features that Leithart tackles in this commentary, see his Delivered from the Elements of the World.
April 30, 2018
Dad: Is that your book about Second Peter?
Me: Yes.
Dad: Who wrote it?
Me: Peter.
Dad: ...
Me: Yes.
Dad: Who wrote it?
Me: Peter.
Dad: ...
April 2, 2019
Brilliant, yet easy to understand, walk-through of 2 Peter pointing toward a partial preterist reading of the letter. Five knock-down arguments will shift your paradigms, guaranteed. :)
April 28, 2020
Wonderfully clarifying.
April 6, 2021
Great argument for a partial preterist reading. Wish he would have addressed full preterism more, however.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews