Any contention that Peter acknowledges Paul’s apostolic authority isn’t only premature, it’s wrong!
True, 2 Peter 3:14-16 refers to “our beloved brother Paul” or, “ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος.”
However, 2 Peter 1:1 situates Paul within the general fellowship of believers (“to them that have obtained like precious faith” -- “τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν”). Furthermore, neither Petrine epistle recognizes that Paul has any apostolic authority, whatsoever.
Consider that 1 Pet 5:12 addresses “Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you” (“Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ”).
By virtue of 2 Peter 1:1 - or 1 Pet 5:12 – is it justifiable to say that Peter ascribes apostolic status to the general fellowship of believers or to Silvanus, a “faithful brother,” as some might claim he does to Paul, a “beloved brother”? If so, please justify…
--ez
