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, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16
Some people believe that Peter in 2 Peter 3:15–16, refers to Paul as a beloved brother who writings are deep and difficult to understand. They think in that verse, Peter clearly acknowledges the complexity of Paul’s writings. They see that verse as explaining that because there are parts difficult in Paul’s letters, “ignorant and unstable people” often twist or distort them—just as they do with other Scriptures—to their own destruction.
To them the “difficulty” Peter mentions likely refers to Paul’s deep theological arguments regarding the patience of God, justification by faith, and the end times.
But no, that was not Peter was staying the doctrine which he was writing to them, of which Paul had also written to them in all his epistles, had some difficult-to-understand aspects which those who are unlearned wrestled with and twist, just as they wrestle with other teachings of scripture.
This problem of interpreting 2Peter 3:15-16 arises with poor translators and their translations. When you look at the grammatical structure of the original Greek text rather than just the common English phrasing, you find a subtle but important nuance that corrects the error.
The Nuance in the Greek
In 2 Peter 3:16, the phrase “in which” (en hois / ἐν οἷς) is the key.
The Traditional View: Many readers assume the “which” refers to Paul’s letters as a whole.
No, the Greek relative pronoun hois (which) is neuter plural, points back to the subject matters (toutōn / τούτων) that Peter was just discussing—specifically the return of Christ, the patience of God, and the coming judgment.
Essentially, Peter is saying: “I am talking about the end times and God’s patience. Our brother Paul also wrote to you about these same topics. In these topics, there are things that are difficult to understand.”
Why This Matters
This matters because Peter’s point was not on Paul’s writing style but the theological depth of the topics he was. So, It isn’t that “Paul is hard to read”; it’s that the mysteries of God’s timing and salvation (which both Peter and Paul addressed) are inherently complex.
Peter and Paul were “on the same page.” Paul wasn’t an outlier; he was simply teaching the same deep, difficult truths that Peter was also teaching. The “unstable people” aren’t just confused by Paul’s vocabulary; they are distorting the nature of the Day of the Lord, which is the core subject of the chapter.
Peter isn’t critiquing Paul’s “penmanship” or clarity; he is acknowledging that the divine mysteries which both Paul and himself wrote to them about are naturally challenging for the human mind to grasp without them being twisted.
Modern Scholars see 2Peter 3:15-16 as a “defense of Paul,” showing that Paul’s complex theology is consistent with the difficult truths Peter is also teaching.Peter and Paul are both on the same page on a complex truth.
Also, Historical Commentators emphasize that the “difficulty” is the sublime nature of the mysteries (salvation, judgment, eternity).

1. Richard Bauckham (Word Biblical Commentary)
   Bauckham is one of the most respected scholars on the Petrine epistles. In his commentary, he notes that the “hard to understand” (dysnoēta) refers to the themes of eschatology (the end of the world) that both Peter and Paul were addressing. He argues that Peter is validating Paul’s teaching on these “difficult things” to show they are in agreement, despite how others might twist them.
2. John Calvin (Commentaries)
   While Calvin acknowledges Paul’s depth, his commentary on this verse leans toward the idea that the topics themselves are the source of the difficulty. He suggests that the “unstable” people mentioned by Peter take these high, difficult doctrines (like the delay of Christ’s return) and use them as an excuse for “filthy security” or doubt.
3. Dr. Michael Heiser and “The Naked Bible” Perspective
   The late Dr. Heiser often discussed how 2 Peter 3 relates to the “Divine Council” and complex apocalyptic themes. He argued that Peter is identifying Paul as a fellow “herald” of these deep mysteries. In this view, the “difficulty” is the supernatural and prophetic nature of the subject, which is consistent across both apostles’ teachings.
4. Bengel’s Gnomon: Points out that en hois refers to the subjects (the “things”), indicating that it is the depth of the mysteries—like the “Day of the Lord”—that are hard to grasp.
5. Matthew Poole’s Commentary: Notes that the Greek relative pronoun is of a different gender than “epistles” and concludes that Peter is referring to the doctrines rather than the letters of Paul.

Lastly, a little understanding of Greek grammar and pronoun antecedents will clarify the fact that the “difficulty” Peter points out lies in the “things” he was writing about rather than in Paul’s specific writing style. The Greek interlinear for 2 Peter 3:16 reveals a “gender mismatch” that settles the debate for those who holds a different view:
…As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,…
The Letters: The word for “letters” (epistolais) is feminine plural.
The Topics: The word for “these things” (toutōn) is neuter plural.
The “In Which”: Peter uses the phrase en hois (“in which”), which is neuter plural.
In Greek grammar, a relative pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. Since en hois is neuter, it cannot grammatically refer back to the feminine “letters.” It must refer back to the neuter “these things” (the difficult subject matter). Therefore, grammatically, “which” (en hois) being neuter refers back to the neuter “these things” (toutōn)—the topics of the end times and judgment—not the “letters” which is feminine.