Text -- 2 Peter 2:1-2 (NET)

The False Teachers’ Ungodly Lifestyle

2:1 But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves. 2:2 And many will follow their debauched lifestyles. Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

But there arose ( egenonto de ).

Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai (cf. ginetai in 2Pe 1:20).

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

False prophets also ( kai pseudoprophētai ).

In contrast with the true prophets just pictured in 2Pe 1:20. Late compound in lxx and Philo, common in N.T. (Mat 7:15). Allusion to the O.T. times like Balaam and others (Jer 6:13; Jer 28:9; Eze 13:9).

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

False teachers ( pseudodidaskaloi ).

Late and rare compound (pseudēs , didaskalos ) here alone in N.T. Peter pictures them as in the future here (esontai , shall be) and again as already present (eisin , are, 2Pe 2:17), or in the past (eplanēthēsan , they went astray, 2Pe 2:15).

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

Shall privily bring in ( pareisaxousin ).

Future active of pareisagō , late double compound pareisagō , to bring in (eisagō ), by the side (para ), as if secretly, here alone in N.T., but see pareisaktous in Gal 2:4 (verbal adjective of this same verb).

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

Destructive heresies ( haireseis apōleias ).

Descriptive genitive, "heresies of destruction"(marked by destruction) as in Luk 16:8. Hairesis (from haireō ) is simply a choosing, a school, a sect like that of the Sadducees (Act 5:17), of the Pharisees (Act 15:5), and of Christians as Paul admitted (Act 24:5). These "tenets"(Gal 5:20) led to destruction.

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

Denying ( arnoumenoi ).

Present middle participle of arneomai . This the Gnostics did, the very thing that Peter did, alas (Mat 26:70) even after Christ’ s words (Mat 10:33).

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

Even the Master ( kai ton despotēn ).

Old word for absolute master, here of Christ as in Jud 1:4, and also of God (Act 4:24). Without the evil sense in our "despot."

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

That bought them ( ton agorasanta autous ).

First aorist active articular participle of agorazō , same idea with lutroō in 1Pe 1:18. These were professing Christians, at any rate, these heretics.

Robertson: 2Pe 2:1

Swift destruction ( tachinēn apōleian ).

See 2Pe 1:14 for tachinēn and note repetition of apōleian . This is always the tragedy of such false prophets, the fate that they bring on (epagontes ) themselves.

Robertson: 2Pe 2:2

Lascivious doings ( aselgeiais ).

Associative instrumental ease after exakolouthēsousin (future active, for which verb see 2Pe 1:16). See 1Pe 4:3 for this word.

Robertson: 2Pe 2:2

By reason of whom ( di' hous ).

"Because of whom"(accusative case of relative, referring to polloi , many). Autōn (their) refers to pseudodidaskaloi (false teachers) while polloi to their deluded followers. See Rom 2:23. for a picture of such conduct by Jews (quotation from Isa 52:5, with blasphēmeō used as here with di' humas , because of you).

Robertson: 2Pe 2:2

The way of truth ( hē hodos tēs alētheias ).

Hodos (way) occurs often in N.T. for Christianity (Act 9:2; Act 16:17; Act 18:25; Act 22:4; Act 24:14). This phrase is in Gen 24:48 as "the right road,"and that is what Peter means here. So Psa 119:30. See again 2Pe 2:15, 2Pe 2:21.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

But

Introducing a contrast with those who spake by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21).

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

There were ( ἐγένοντο )

Rev., better, there arose.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

There shall be

Note that Peter speaks of them as future, and Jude (Jud 1:4) as present.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

False teachers ( ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι )

Only here in New Testament.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

Who ( πὅτινες )

Of that kind or class which, etc.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

Privily shall bring in ( παρεισάξουσιν )

Only here in New Testament. The kindred adjective occurs Gal 2:4, " false brethren privily brought in " (παρεισάκτους ) . The metaphor is of spies or traitors introducing themselves into an enemy's camp. Compare Jud 1:4, crept in unawares. The verb means, literally, to bring (ἄγειν ) into (εἰς ) by the side of (παρά ) .

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

Damnable heresies ( αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας )

Lit., heresies of destruction. Rev., destructive heresies. Heresy is a transcript of αἵρεσις , the primary meaning of which is choice; so that a heresy is, strictly, the choice of an opinion contrary to that usually received; thence transferred to the body of those who profess such opinions, and therefore a sect. So Rev., in margin, sects of perdition. Commonly in this sense in the New Testament (Act 5:17; Act 15:5; Act 28:22), though the Rev. has an odd variety in its marginal renderings. See Act 24:14; 1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20. The rendering heretical doctrines seems to agree better with the context; false teachers bringing in sects is awkward.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

Denying

A significant word from Peter.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

The Lord ( δεσπότην )

In most cases in the New Testament the word is rendered master, the Rev. changing lord to master in every case but two - Luk 2:29; Act 4:24; and in both instances putting master in margin, and reserving lord for the rendering of κύριος . In three of these instances the word is used in direct address to God; and it may be asked why the Rev. changes Lord to Master in the text of Rev 6:10, and retains Lord in Luk 2:29; Act 4:24. In five out of the ten occurrences of the word in the New Testament it means master of the household. Originally, it indicates absolute, unrestricted authority, so that the Greeks refused the title to any but the gods. In the New Testament δεσπότης and κύριος are used interchangeably of God, and of masters of servants.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:1

Swift ( ταχινὴν )

Used by Peter only. See on 2Pe 1:14.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:2

Shall follow

See on 2Pe 1:16.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:2

Pernicious ways ( ἀπωλείαις )

The true reading is ἀσελγείαις , lascivious doings. So Rev. See on 1Pe 4:3. The use of the plural is rare. Compare Jud 1:4.

Wesley: 2Pe 2:1

As well as true.

Wesley: 2Pe 2:1

Of Israel. Those that spake even the truth, when God had not sent them; and also those that were truly sent of him, and yet corrupted or softened their message, were false prophets.

Wesley: 2Pe 2:1

As well as true. Teachers among you, who will privately briny in - Into the church.

Wesley: 2Pe 2:1

They first, by denying the Lord, introduced destructive heresies, that is, divisions; or they occasioned first these divisions, and then were given up to a reprobate mind, even to deny the Lord that bought them. Either the heresies are the effect of denying the Lord, or the denying the Lord was the consequence of the heresies.

Wesley: 2Pe 2:1

Both by their doctrine and their works.

Wesley: 2Pe 2:1

With his own blood. Yet these very men perish everlastingly. Therefore Christ bought even them that perish.

Wesley: 2Pe 2:2

By those who blend all false and true Christians together.

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

In contrast to the prophets "moved by the Holy Ghost" (2Pe 1:21).

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

As well as the true prophets (2Pe 1:19-21). Paul had already testified the entrance of false prophets into the same churches.

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Israel: he is writing to believing Israelites primarily (see on 1Pe 1:1). Such a "false prophet" was Balaam (2Pe 2:15).

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Already symptoms of the evil were appearing (2Pe 2:9-22; Jud 1:4-13).

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Teachers of falsehood. In contrast to the true teachers, whom he exhorts his readers to give heed to (2Pe 3:2).

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Such as (literally, "the which") shall.

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Not at first openly and directly, but by the way, bringing in error by the side of the true doctrine (so the Greek): Rome objects, Protestants cannot point out the exact date of the beginnings of the false doctrines superadded to the original truth; we answer, Peter foretells us it would be so, that the first introduction of them would be stealthy and unobserved (Jud 1:4).

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Literally, "of destruction"; entailing destruction (Phi 3:19) on all who follow them.

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Self-chosen doctrines, not emanating from God (compare "will-worship," Col 2:23).

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Going even to such a length as to deny both in teaching and practice. Peter knew, by bitter repentance, what a fearful thing it is to deny the Lord (Luk 22:61-62).

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Him whom, above all others, they ought to confess.

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

"Master and Owner" (Greek), compare Jud 1:4, Greek. Whom the true doctrine teaches to be their OWNER by right of purchase. Literally, "denying Him who bought them (that He should be thereby), their Master."

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Even the ungodly were bought by His "precious blood." It shall be their bitterest self-reproach in hell, that, as far as Christ's redemption was concerned, they might have been saved. The denial of His propitiatory sacrifice is included in the meaning (compare 1Jo 4:3).

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Compare "God bringing in the flood upon the world," 2Pe 2:5. Man brings upon himself the vengeance which God brings upon him.

JFB: 2Pe 2:1

Swiftly descending: as the Lord's coming shall be swift and sudden. As the ground swallowed up Korah and Dathan, and "they went down quick into the pit." Compare Jud 1:11, which is akin to this passage.

JFB: 2Pe 2:2

Out: so the Greek.

JFB: 2Pe 2:2

The oldest manuscripts and Vulgate read, "licentiousness" (Jud 1:4). False doctrine and immoral practice generally go together (2Pe 2:18-19).

JFB: 2Pe 2:2

"on account of whom," namely, the followers of the false teachers.

JFB: 2Pe 2:2

"blasphemed" by those without, who shall lay on Christianity itself the blame of its professors' evil practice. Contrast 1Pe 2:12.

Clarke: 2Pe 2:1

But there were false prophets - There were not only holy men of God among the Jews, who prophesied by Divine inspiration, but there were also false prophets, whose prophecies were from their own imagination, and perverted many

Clarke: 2Pe 2:1

As there shall be false teachers among you - At a very early period of the Christian Church many heresies sprung up; but the chief were those of the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Nicolaitans, Menandrians, and Gnostics, of whom many strange things have been spoken by the primitive fathers, and of whose opinions it is difficult to form any satisfactory view. They were, no doubt, bad enough, and their opponents in general have doubtless made them worse. By what name those were called of whom the apostle here speaks, we cannot tell. They were probably some sort of apostate Jews, or those called the Nicolaitans. See the preface

Clarke: 2Pe 2:1

Damnable heresies - Αἱρεσεις απωλειας· Heresies of destruction; such as, if followed, would lead a man to perdition. And these παρεισαξουσιν, they will bring in privately - cunningly, without making much noise, and as covertly as possible. It would be better to translate destructive heresies than damnable

Clarke: 2Pe 2:1

Denying the Lord that bought them - It is not certain whether God the Father be intended here, or our Lord Jesus Christ; for God is said to have purchased the Israelites, Exo 15:16, and to be the Father that had bought them, Deu 32:6, and the words may refer to these or such like passages; or they may point out Jesus Christ, who had bought them with his blood; and the heresies, or dangerous opinions, may mean such as opposed the Divinity of our Lord, or his meritorious and sacrificial death, or such opinions as bring upon those who hold them swift destruction. It seems, however, more natural to understand the Lord that bought them as applying to Christ, than otherwise; and if so, this is another proof, among many

1.    That none can be saved but by Jesus Christ

2.    That through their own wickedness some may perish for whom Christ died.

Clarke: 2Pe 2:2

Many shall follow - Will follow, because determined to gratify their sinful propensities

Clarke: 2Pe 2:2

Pernicious ways - Ταις απωλειαις· Their destructions; i.e. the heresies of destruction, or destructive opinions, mentioned above. But instead of απωλειαις, destructions, ασελγειαις, lasciviousnesses or uncleannesses, is the reading of ABC, and upwards of sixty others, most of which are among the most ancient, correct, and authentic. This is the reading also of both the Syriac, all the Arabic, the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ecumenius, and Jerome. A very few, and those of little repute, have the word in the text

The word lasciviousnesses is undoubtedly the true reading, and this points out what the nature of the heresies was: it was a sort of Antinomianism; they pampered and indulged the lusts of the flesh; and, if the Nicolaitans are meant, it is very applicable to them, for they taught the community of wives, etc. Griesbach has received this reading into the text

Clarke: 2Pe 2:2

By reason of whom - These were persons who professed Christianity; and because they were called Christians, and followed such abominable practices, the way of truth - the Christian religion, βλασφημηθησεται, was blasphemed. Had they called themselves by any name but that of Christ, his religion would not have suffered.

Calvin: 2Pe 2:1

1.But there were As weak consciences are usually very grievously and dangerously shaken, when false teachers arise, who either corrupt or mutilate the doctrine of faith, it was necessary for the Apostle, while seeking to encourage the faithful to persevere, to remove out of the way an offense of this kind. He, moreover, comforted those to whom he was writing, and confirmed them by this argument, that God has always tried and proved his Church by such a temptation as this, in order that novelty might not disturb their hearts. “Not different,” he says, “will be the condition of the Church under the gospel, from what it was formerly under the law; false prophets disturbed the ancient Church; the same thing must also be expected by us.”

It was necessary expressly to shew this, because many imagined that the Church would enjoy tranquillity under the rein of Christ; for as the prophets had promised that at his coming there would be real peace, the highest degree of heavenly wisdom, and the full restoration of all things, they thought that the Church would be no more exposed to any contests. Let us then remember that the Spirit of God hath once for all declared, that the Church shall never be free from this intestine evil; and let this likeness be always borne in mind, that the trial of our faith is to be similar to that of the fathers, and for the same reason — that in this way it may be made evident, whether we really love God, as we find it written in Deu 13:3.

But it is not necessary here to refer to every example of this kind; it is enough, in short, to know that, like the fathers, we must contend against false doctrines, that our faith ought by no means to be shaken on account of discords and sects, because the truth of God shall remain unshaken notwithstanding the violent agitations by which Satan strives often to upset all things.

Observe also, that no one time in particular is mentioned by Peter, when he says there shall be false teachers, but that all ages are included; for he makes here a comparison between Christians and the ancient people. We ought, then, to apply this truth to our own time, lest, when we see false teachers rising up to oppose the truth of God, this trial should break us down. But the Spirit reminds us, in order that we may take the more heed; and to the same purpose is the whole description which follows.

He does not, indeed, paint each sect in its own colors, but particularly refers to profane men who manifested contempt towards God. The advice, indeed, is general, that we ought to beware of false teachers; but, at the same time, he selected one kind of such from whom the greater danger arose. What is said here will hereafter become more evident from the words of Jude, [Jud 1:4,] who treats exactly of the same subject.

Who privily shall bring in By these words he points out the craftiness of Satan, and of all the ungodly who militate under his banner, that they would creep in by oblique turnings, as through burrows under ground. ¹⁶³ The more watchful, then, ought the godly to be, so that they may escape their hidden frauds: for however they may insinuate themselves, they cannot circumvent those who are carefully vigilant.

He calls them opinions of perdition, or destructive opinions, that every one, solicitous for his salvation, might dread such opinions as the most noxious pests. As to the word opinions or heresies, it has not, without reason, been always deemed infamous and hateful by the children of God; for the bond of holy unity is the simple truth. As soon as we depart from that, nothing remains but dreadful discord.

Even denying the Lord that bought them Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them. ¹⁶⁴

Calvin: 2Pe 2:2

2.And many shall follow. It is, indeed, no slight offense to the weak, when they see that false doctrines are received by the common consent of the world, that a large number of men are led astray, so that few continue in true obedience to Christ. So, at this day, there is nothing that more violently disturbs pious minds than such a defection. For hardly one in ten of those who have once made a profession of Christ, retains the purity of faith to the end. Almost all turn aside into corruptions, and being deluded by the teachers of licentiousness, they become profane. Lest this should make our faith to falter, Peter comes to our help, and in due time foretells that this very thing would be, that is, that false teachers would draw many to perdition.

But there is a double reading even in the Greek copies; for some read, “lasciviousness,” and others, “perdition.” I have, however, followed what has been mostly approved. ¹⁶⁵

By reason of whom the way of truth This I consider to have been said for this reason, because as religion is adorned when men are taught to fear God, to maintain uprightness of life, a chaste and virtuous conduct, or when at least the mouth of the wicked is closed, that they do not speak evil of the gospel; so when the reins are let loose, and every kind of licentiousness is practiced, the name and the doctrine of Christ are exposed to the reproaches of the ungodly. Others give a different explanation — that these false teachers, like filthy dogs, barked at sound doctrine. But the words of Peter appear to me on the contrary to intimate, that these would give occasion to enemies insolently to assail the truth of God. Though then they would not themselves assail the Christian faith with calumnies, yet they would arm others with the means of reproaching it.

Defender: 2Pe 2:1

Even during the time that God's holy prophets were transmitting the Old Testament Scriptures, Satan had sent false prophets among the people to deceive and confuse them (Deu 18:20-22; Deu 13:1-5). The same proved true in New Testament times as false prophets arose to counteract the teachings of those with God's true gift of prophecy (Mat 7:15; Act 13:6; 2Co 11:13). As the New Testament neared completion, this true gift of prophecy began to (1Co 13:8) be superseded by the permanent gift of teaching God's revealed Word (Rom 12:6, Rom 12:7; 1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11). But, Satan continues to send false teachers (2Ti 4:3; Tit 1:10, Tit 1:11) and even occasional false teachers who claim to be prophets (1Jo 4:1; Rev 2:20; Mar 13:22). Warning against them, Peter describes many of their teachings and attitudes. This warning is very appropriate today, for false teaching in the name of Jesus is rampant today as never before, ranging from subtle heresies to flagrant denial of His divine/human nature.

Defender: 2Pe 2:1

The Greek word for "damnable" is apoleia. It is translated also as "destruction" (2Pe 2:1); "pernicious ways" (2Pe 2:2); "damnation" (2Pe 2:3); "perdition" (2Pe 3:7) and "destruction" (2Pe 3:16). Its basic meaning is "ruin."

Defender: 2Pe 2:1

The Lord's redemption price (1Co 6:20), which He paid in His own blood, was sufficient to purchase salvation for all who are lost, even those who deny Him and His redemption. However, if they choose to remain enslaved to sin and Satan, He will allow them to bring upon themselves the ruin they deserve.

Defender: 2Pe 2:1

Especially in the last days, many will follow such false teachers (2Ti 4:3). Today, cults, liberal churches, occult movements and false doctrines of every sort are proliferating rapidly all over the world, all speaking in the name of "Jesus" or "the Christ" but never "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"."

Defender: 2Pe 2:2

Literally, this means "blaspheming the way of truth." In this chapter, as well as other Scriptures, such false teachers are fully described. Some of their characteristics are as follows. They (1) deny the doctrine of redemption by the blood of Christ (2Pe 2:1), (2) deny the lordship of Christ (2Pe 2:10 - in this verse "government" is the same word as "lordship;" this denial is also evident in 2Pe 2:1), (3) twist the Scriptures to reflect their own beliefs (2Pe 1:19-21; 2Pe 3:16), (4) bring in their false teachings subtly (2Pe 2:1 - note "privily;" - and 2Pe 2:3 - note "feigned" words, or literally "plastic" words), (5) speak evil or sarcastically of true Biblical doctrine (2Pe 2:2, 2Pe 2:12), (6) ridicule divinely approved "dignities" - that is "glories" (Greek doxa), possibly God's holy angels and other representatives of His power, (7) covet money and prestige (2Pe 2:3, 2Pe 2:14, 2Pe 2:15), (8) are eloquent crowd-pleasers (2Pe 2:18), (9) are deceitful (2Pe 2:13), (10) are lustful and seductive, promoting carnality (2Pe 2:10, 2Pe 2:14), (11) are thorough going evolutionary uniformitarians (2Pe 3:4), and (12) deny Christ's bodily second coming (2Pe 3:3)."

TSK: 2Pe 2:1

there were : Deu 13:1-3; 1Ki 18:19-22, 1Ki 22:6; Neh 6:12-14; Isa 9:15, Isa 56:10,Isa 56:11; Jer 14:13-15, Jer 23:16, Jer 23:17, Jer 23:25-32, Jer 27:14, Jer 27:15, Jer 28:15-17, Jer 29:8, Jer 29:9, Jer 29:31, Jer 29:32; Jer 37:19; Lam 2:14; Ezek. 13:3-18; Hos 9:8; Mic 2:11, Mic 3:5, Mic 3:11; Zec 13:3, Zec 13:4; Mat 7:15; Luk 6:26; Rom 16:18

even : Mat 24:5, Mat 24:11, Mat 24:24; Mar 13:22; Luk 21:8; Act 20:29, Act 20:30; 1Co 11:19; 2Co 11:13-15; Gal 4:17; Eph 4:14; Col 2:8, Col 2:18; 2Th 2:3-12; 1Ti 4:1-3; 2Ti 3:1-9, 2Ti 4:3; Tit 1:11; 1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:19, 1Jo 2:26, 1Jo 4:1; Jud 1:18; Rev 2:9, Rev 13:14

privily : 2Pe 2:3; Gal 2:4

damnable : 2Pe 2:3; Gal 5:20; Tit 3:10

denying : Mat 10:33; Luk 12:9; Act 3:13, Act 3:14; 2Ti 2:12, 2Ti 2:13; Jud 1:4; Rev 2:13, Rev 3:8

bought : Deu 32:6; Act 20:28; 1Co 6:20, 1Co 7:23; Gal 3:13; Eph 1:7; Heb 10:29; 1Pe 1:8; Rev 5:9

and bring : 2Pe 2:3; Mal 3:5; Phi 3:19

TSK: 2Pe 2:2

many : Mat 24:10-13, Mat 24:24; Mar 13:22; 1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:19; Rev 12:9, Rev 13:8, Rev 13:14

pernicious ways : or, lascivious ways, as some copies read, by reason. Rom 2:24; 1Ti 5:14; Tit 2:5, Tit 2:8

ways : 2Pe 2:15, 2Pe 2:21; Psa 18:21; Isa 35:8; Jer 6:16; Mat 7:14, Mat 22:16; Mar 12:14; Joh 14:6; Act 13:10, Act 16:17, Act 18:26, Act 19:9, Act 24:14

evil : 2Pe 2:12; Act 14:2; 1Pe 2:12; Jud 1:10,Jud 1:15

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 2Pe 2:1

But there were false prophets also among the people - In the previous chapter, 2Pe 2:19-21, Peter had appealed to the prophecies as containing unanswerable proofs of the truth of the Christian religion. He says, however, that he did not mean to say that all who claimed to be prophets were true messengers of God. There were many who pretended to be such, who only led the people astray. It is unnecessary to say, that such men have abounded in all ages where there have been true prophets.

Even as there shall be false teachers among you - The fact that false teachers would arise in the church is often adverted to in the New Testament. Compare Mat 24:5, Mat 24:24; Act 20:29-30.

Who privily - That is, in a secret manner, or under plausible arts and pretences. They would not at first make an open avowal of their doctrines, but would, in fact, while their teachings seemed to be in accordance with truth, covertly maintain opinions which would sap the very foundations of religion. The Greek word here used, and which is rendered "who privily shall bring in,"( παρεισάγω pareisagō ,) means properly "to lead in by the side of others; to lead in along with others."Nothing could better express the usual way in which error is introduced. It is "by the side,"or "along with,"other doctrines which are true; that is, while the mind is turned mainly to other subjects, and is off its guard, gently and silently to lay down some principle, which, being admitted, would lead to the error, or from which the error would follow as a natural consequence. Those who inculcate error rarely do it openly. If they would at once boldly "deny the Lord that bought them,"it would be easy to meet them, and the mass of professed Christians would be in no danger of embracing the error. But when principles are laid down which may lead to that; when doubts on remote points are suggested which may involve it; or when a long train of reasoning is pursued which may secretly tend to it; there is much more probability that the mind will be corrupted from the truth.

Damnable heresies - αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας haireseis apōleias . "Heresies of destruction;"that is, heresies that will be followed by destruction. The Greek word which is rendered "damnable,"is the same which in the close of the verse is rendered "destruction."It is so rendered also in Mat 7:13; Rom 9:22; Phi 3:19; 2Pe 3:16 - in all of which places it refers to the future loss of the soul The same word also is rendered "perdition"in Joh 17:12; Phi 1:28; 1Ti 6:9; Heb 10:39; 2Pe 3:7; Rev 17:8, Rev 17:11 - in all which places it has the same reference. On the meaning of the word rendered "heresies,"see the Act 24:14 note; 1Co 11:19 note. The idea of "sect"or "party"is that which is conveyed by this word, rather than doctrinal errors; but it is evident that in this case the formation of the sect or party, as is the fact in most cases, would be founded on error of doctrine.

The thing which these false teachers would attempt would be divisions, alienations, or parties, in the church, but these would be based on the erroneous doctrines which they would promulgate. What would be the particular doctrine in this case is immediately specified, to wit, that they "would deny the Lord that bought them."The idea then is, that these false teachers would form sects or parties in the church, of a destructive or ruinous nature, founded on a denial of the Lord that bought them. Such a formation of sects would be ruinous to piety, to good morals, and to the soul. The authors of these sects, holding the views which they did, and influenced by the motives which they would be, and practicing the morals which they would practice, as growing out of their principles, would bring upon themselves swift and certain destruction. It is not possible now to determine to what particular class of errorists the apostle had reference here, but it is generally supposed that it was to some form of the Gnostic belief. There were many early sects of so-called "heretics"to whom what he here says would be applicable.

Even denying the Lord that bought them - This must mean that they held doctrines which were in fact a denial of the Lord, or the tendency of which would be a denial of the Lord, for it cannot be supposed that, while they professed to be Christians, they would openly and avowedly deny him. To "deny the Lord"may be either to deny his existence, his claims, or his attributes; it is to withhold from him, in our belief and profession, anything which is essential to a proper conception of him. The particular thing, however, which is mentioned here as entering into that self-denial, is something connected with the fact that he had ""bought""them. It was such a denial of the Lord "as having bought them,"as to be in fact a renunciation of the uniqueness of the Christian religion. There has been much difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word "Lord"in this place - whether it refers to God the Father. or to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Greek word is Δεσπότης Despotēs . Many expositors have maintained that it refers to the Father, and that when it is said that he had "bought"them, it means in a general sense that he was the Author of the plan of redemption, and had causeD them to be purchased or redeemed. Michaelis supposes that the Gnostics are referred to as denying the Father by asserting that he was not the Creator of the universe, maintaining that it was created by an inferior being - Introduction to New Testament , iv. 360. Whitby, Benson, Slade, and many others, maintain that this refers to the Father as having originated the plan by which men are redeemed; and the same opinion is held, of necessity, by those who deny the doctrine of general atonement. The only arguments to show that it refers to God the Father would be,

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the word used here Δεσπότην Despotēn is not the usual term ( κύριος kurios ) by which the Lord Jesus is designated in the New Testament; and,

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the admission that it refers to the Lord Jesus would lead inevitably to the conclusion that some will perish for whom Christ died.

That it does, however, refer to the Lord Jesus, seems to me to be plain from the following considerations:

(1) It is the obvious interpretation; that which would be given by the great mass of Christians, and about which there could never have been any hesitancy if it had not been supposed that it would lead to the doctrine of general atonement. As to the alleged fact that the word used, Δεσπότης Despotēs , is not that which is commonly applied to the Lord Jesus, that may be admitted to be true, but still the word here may be understood as applied to him. It properly means "a master"as opposed to a servant; then it is used as denoting supreme authority, and is thus applied to God, and may be in that sense to the Lord Jesus Christ, as head over all things, or as having supreme authority over the church. It occurs in the New Testament only in the following places: 1Ti 6:1-2; Tit 2:9; 1Pe 2:18, where it is rendered "masters;"Luk 2:29; Act 4:24,; Rev 6:10, where it is rendered "Lord,"and is applied to God; and in Jud 1:4, and in the passage before us, in both which places it is rendered "Lord,"and is probably to be regarded as applied to the Lord Jesus. There is nothing in the proper signification of the word which would forbid this.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he phrase is one that is properly applicable to the Lord Jesus as having "bought"us with his blood. The Greek word is ἀγοράζω agorazō - a word which means properly "to market, to buy, to purchase,"and then to redeem, or acquire for oneself by a price paid, or by a ransom. It is rendered "buy"or "bought"in the following places in the New Testament: Mat 13:44, Mat 13:46; Mat 14:15; Mat 21:12; Mat 25:9-10; Mat 27:7; Mar 6:36-37; Mar 11:15; Mar 15:46; Mar 16:1; Luk 9:13; Luk 14:18-19; Luk 17:28; Luk 19:45; Luk 22:36; Joh 4:8; Joh 6:5; Joh 13:29; 1Co 7:30; Rev 3:18; Rev 13:17; Rev 18:11 - in all which places it is applicable to ordinary transactions of "buying."In the following places it is also rendered "bought,"as applicable to the redeemed, as being bought or purchased by the Lord Jesus: 1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:23, "Ye are ‘ bought’ with a price;"and in the following places it is rendered "redeemed,"Rev 5:9; Rev 14:3-4. It does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It is true that in a large sense this word might be applied to the Father as having caused his people to be redeemed, or as being the Author of the plan of redemption; but it is also true that the word is more properly applicable to the Lord Jesus, and that, when used with reference to redemption, it is uniformly given to him in the New Testament. Compare the passages referred to above.

It is strictly and properly true only of the Son of God that he has "bought"us. The Father indeed is represented as making the arrangement, as giving his Son to die, and as the great Source of all the blessings secured by redemption; but the "purchase"was actually made by the Son of God by his sacrifice on the cross. Whatever there was of the nature of "a price"was paid by him; and whatever obligations may grow out of the fact that we are purchased or ransomed are due particularly to him; 2Co 5:15. These considerations seem to me to make it clear that Peter referred here to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he meant to say that the false teachers mentioned held doctrines which were in fact a "denial"of that Saviour. He does not specify particularly what constituted such a denial; but it is plain that any doctrine which represented him, his person, or his work, as essentially different from what was the truth, would amount to such a denial.

If he were Divine, and that fact was denied, making him wholly a different being; if he actually made an expiatory sacrifice by his death, and that fact was denied, and he was held to be a mere religious teacher, changing essentially the character of the work which he came to perform; if he, in some proper sense, "bought"them with his blood, and that fact was denied in such a way that according to their views it was not strictly proper to speak of him as having bought them at all, which would be the case if he were a mere prophet or religious teacher, then it is clear that such a representation would be in fact a denial of his true nature and work. That some of these views entered into their denial of him is clear, for it was with reference to the fact that he had bought them, or redeemed them, that they denied him.

And bring upon themselves swift destruction - The destruction here referred to can be only that which will occur in the future world, for there can be no evidence that Peter meant to say that this would destroy their health, their property, or their lives. The Greek word ( ἀπώλειαν apōleian ) is the same which is used in the former part of the verse, in the phrase "damnable heresies."See the notes. In regard, then, to this important passage, we may remark:

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hat the apostle evidently believed that some would perish for whom Christ died.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 f this is so, then the same truth may be expressed by saying that he died for others besides those who will be saved that is, that the atonement was not confined merely to the elect. This one passage, therefore, demonstrates the doctrine of general atonement. This conclusion would be drawn from it by the great mass of readers, and it may be presumed, therefore, that this is the fair interpretation of the passage.

(See the supplementary 2Co 5:14 note; Heb 2:9 note for a general view of the question regarding the extent of the atonement. On this text Scott has well observed: "Doubtless Christ intended to redeem those, and those only, who he foresaw would eventually be saved by faith in him; yet his ransom was of infinite sufficiency, and people are continually addressed according to their profession."Christ has indeed laid down such a price as that all the human family may claim and find salvation in him. An unhappy ambiguity of terms has made this controversy very much a war of words. When the author here says, "Christ died for others besides those who will be saved,"he does not use the words in the common sense of an actual design, on the part of Christ to save everyone. The reader will see, by consulting the notes above referred to, how much disputing might be saved by a careful definition of terms.)

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 t follows that people may destroy themselves by a denial of the great and vital "doctrines"of religion. It cannot be a harmless thing, then, to hold erroneous opinions; nor can men be safe who deny the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. It is truth, not error, that saves the soul; and an erroneous opinion on any subject may be as dangerous to a man’ s ultimate peace, happiness, and prosperity, as a wrong course of life. How many men have been ruined in their worldly prospects, their health, and their lives, by holding false sentiments on the subject of morals, or in regard to medical treatment! Who would regard it as a harmless thing if a son should deny in respect to his father that he was a man of truth, probity, and honesty, or should attribute to him a character which does not belong to him - a character just the reverse of truth? Can the same thing be innocent in regard to God our Saviour?

\caps1 (4) p\caps0 eople bring destruction "on themselves."No one compels them to deny the Lord that bought them; no one forces them to embrace any dangerous error. If people perish, they perish by their own fault, for:

(a)\caps1     a\caps0 mple provision was made for their salvation as well as for others;

(b)\caps1     t\caps0 hey were freely invited to be saved;

©\caps1     i\caps0 t was, in itself, just as easy for them to embrace the truth as it was for others; and,

(d)\caps1     i\caps0 t was as easy to embrace the truth as to embrace error.

Barnes: 2Pe 2:2

And many shall follow their pernicious ways - Margin: "lascivious."A large number of manuscripts and versions read "lascivious"here - ἀσελγείαις aselgeiais - instead of "pernicious"- ἀπωλείαις apōleiais (see Wetstein), and this reading is adopted in the editions of the Greek Testament by Tittman, Griesbach, and Hahn, and it seems probable that this is the correct reading. This will agree well with the account elsewhere given of these teachers, that their doctrines tended to licentiousness, 2Pe 2:10, 2Pe 2:14, 2Pe 2:18-19. It is a very remarkable circumstance, that those who have denied the essential doctrines of the gospel have been so frequently licentious in their own conduct, and have inculcated opinions which tended to licentiousness. Many of the forms of religious error have somehow had a connection with this vice. People who are corrupt at heart often seek to obtain the sanction of religion for their corruptions.

By reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of -

(1)\caps1     b\caps0 ecause they were professors of religion, and religion would seem to be held responsible for their conduct; and,

(2)\caps1     b\caps0 ecause they were professed teachers of religion, and, by many, would be understood as expounding the true doctrines of the gospel.

Poole: 2Pe 2:1

2Pe 2:1-6 The apostle foretelleth the appearance of false

teachers, the impiety of them and their followers,

and the judgments that would overtake them.

2Pe 2:7-9 The godly shall be delivered, as Lot was out of Sodom.

2Pe 2:10-19 The wicked principles and manners of these seducers

described.

2Pe 2:20-22 The mischief of relapsing into sin.

But there were false prophets also: the apostle having

been exhorting them to continuance and progress in faith, admonishes

them here of such as might labour to draw them from it; and having

made mention of the Old Testament prophets, holy men of God, he hereby

takes occasion to tell them of, and caution them against, false

teachers which would be among themselves. This also in the text

plainly relates to what went before: q.d. Together with those

prophets which were sent by God, there were likewise false prophets,

such as were not sent of him.

Among the people the people of Israel.

Even as there shall be false teachers teachers of false doctrine,

Mat 7:15 Act 20:29 .

Among you among you Jewish, as well as among the Gentile

Christians; or, among you as Christians and God’ s people under the New

Testament, in opposition to the people of God under the Old.

Who shall privily bring in: the Greek word signifies either to

bring in slily and craftily, under specious pretences, and without

being observed, Gal 2:4 Jud 1:4 ; or, to bring in over and above,

or beside the doctrine of the gospel, which they did not renounce; or

both may be implied.

Damnable heresies Greek, heresies of destruction, i.e.

destructive, such as lead to destruction, viz. eternal, or damnation.

Even denying either in their words or their practices, either

directly, or by consequence of their doctrines or actions; they that

profess they know God, but contradict that profession in their lives,

are said to deny him, Tit 1:16 .

The Lord either:

1. God the Father, so called, Luk 2:29 Act 4:24 , &c., and probably

Rev 6:10 ; nor is there any necessity, but, Jud 1:4 , the

word may be understood of God the Father. Or rather:

2. Christ.

That bought them: if we understand it of God the Father, the sense

is, either:

1. Denying God that bought them, or acquired them and made them his,

viz. by calling them out of the darkness and gross wickedness of

the world, to the knowledge of Christ and the gospel, and the

fellowship of his church. In this general sense the word buying is

sometimes taken, Isa 55:1 Rev 3:18 . Or:

2. Denying God that bought the people of Israel (whereof these false

teachers that should be among the Christian Jews were to be a part)

out of Egypt, to make them his peculiar people, whereof they would

boast themselves, and yet by their wicked practices deny that God

that bought them; the words seem to be taken out of Deu 32:6 :

Is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? As likewise from

2Pe 2:5 of that chapter. Peter calls them spots, 2Pe 2:13

of this chapter.

But if we understand it of Christ, which seems most probable, the

sense is, either:

1. That Christ bought or redeemed them, (in which sense the word is

sometimes taken), in that by his death he purchased the continuance

of their lives, and the staying of their execution, and rescued

them from that present destruction which, without Christ’ s

interposition, had seized on them, as it had likewise on the whole

visible creation immediately upon the apostacy of mankind. Or:

2. This is spoken not only of their pretences, that they should

profess themselves redeemed by Christ, but in the style of the

visible church, which should judge them to be so till they declared

the contrary by their wicked actions; and it likewise holds true in

a forensical or judicial style, according to which whosoever

professeth himself to be redeemed by Christ, and yet denies him in

his deeds, is said to deny the Lord that bought him; it being alike

as to the greatness of the crime, whether he be really redeemed,

or, professing himself to be so, denies his Redeemer.

And bring upon themselves swift destruction shall hasten their

own destruction, it may be temporal in this world; to be sure, eternal

in the other. It may be called

swift as coming upon them

unawares, and when they think least of it, as 1Th 5:3 .

Poole: 2Pe 2:2

And many shall follow their pernicious ways Greek, their destructions, i.e. those ways of error which are attended with destruction (the effect being put for the cause by a metonymy); and the sense is, that as these false teachers shall bring destruction upon themselves by their heresies; so others, running with them into the same errors, shall fall into the same destruction.

By reason of whom or, by whom, viz. these false teachers, or their followers, or both.

The way of truth the gospel, so called, as being the doctrine of saving truth. It is called the way, Act 9:2 19:9 22:4 ; the way of salvation, Act 16:17 ; the way of God, Act 18:26 .

Shall be evil spoken of blasphemed, whether by false teachers themselves and their followers, or by others taking occasion by them: see Rom 2:24 1Ti 6:1 Tit 2:5 .

PBC: 2Pe 2:1

{2Pe 1:16} "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

Before we examine 2Pe 2:1-22 and 2Pe 3:1-18 in detail, we need to review some global issues and ideas. First of all, we must not overlook that Peter wrote this letter to believers regarding false teachers; he did not write the letter to false teachers. From the letter we can form our methods for equipping people to deal with the impact of false teachers. We cannot reach any specific conclusions regarding how to deal with the false teachers themselves.

Despite some rather intense-at times a bit uncomfortable-language about the false teachers, the primary emphasis of 2 Peter appears in 2Pe 1:1-21 and the closing verses. Peter sees his primary objective as one of equipping people to avoid the snares of false teachers. He does not take us on a witch-hunt or direct us into a massive conspiracy theory. Any teaching or lifestyle that focuses on such negative issues is bound eventually to fail. As the anecdotal story goes, a man wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, criticizing his church. He had attended for years, but he couldn’t recall a single sermon the pastor had preached, so why continue going. A few days later another local citizen wrote a letter to the editor in response. His letter noted that he’d been married for forty years. He couldn’t recall the full details of a single meal that his wife had prepared for him over the years. However, he had enjoyed the good taste and nutrition of every meal she had prepared, and he was thankful for her devotion and skill as a cook. In our intensely self-focused world this " What’s in it for me?" mindset dominates many Christians as pervasively as non-Christians. Christians look for a church that meets their needs, that satisfies their personal appetite. They barely think of finding a church that glorifies God; that faithfully adheres to the literal teachings of the New Testament as closely as possible.

Lastly, we need to distinguish between godly teachers who may not believe every point of doctrine or practice as we and a devious false teacher. Peter deals with the second category, the false teacher, not with the errant brother who may at times teach things that need course correction from other believers. We must not confuse the two. Nor should we ever treat an errant brother as if he were a false teacher. Throughout our study of this sometimes difficult book, we must strive to maintain balance.

Second Peter and Jude, as fully as any of our inspired Biblical letters, come to us with a specific objective of dealing with the unpleasant fact of false teachers and their insidious influence on weak or young believers in the faith. Perhaps for this reason many contemporary Christians tend to avoid these two letters. Do we live in the sheltered viewpoint of thinking that we can survive by merely pretending that error doesn’t exist? The post-modern, post-Christian mind of many, even among those who profess to be Christians, dismisses any attempt to expose false teachers or their teachings on the premise that sincerity alone pleases God. We must rightly avoid a " witch-hunt" mentality that sees heresy in every idea that differs, however insignificantly, from ours. None of us has mastered all of God’s truth. However, our inability to master divine truth should not become a blanket rationalization by which we validate every aberrant view that we encounter as simply another way to God or another acceptable interpretation of Scripture.

We acknowledge the need for Biblical Christian liberty among believers. When we arrive in heaven, we will all have a profound transformation of faith, including many less-than-perfect ideas that we held dearly and sincerely during our lifetime. Notwithstanding our present imperfection and incomplete knowledge, we should hold tightly to major and clearly revealed Biblical doctrines that appear with emphasis in Scripture. The ancient and accepted doctrine of the " perspicuity of Scripture," the clarity of certain core or essential truths in Scripture, should guide our minds in our choice of essential versus non-essential doctrines. If God viewed something as highly important, He gave it more ink and greater clarity in the various forms of its explanation in the Bible. While God included nothing valueless in Scripture, He did include other things that are not as clearly or repeatedly set forth. It seems reasonable that we identify those major doctrines of Scripture that Biblical writers set forth with frequency and clarity as essential doctrines, while viewing those doctrines that appear with less frequency and clarity as non-essentials; important and Biblical truths, but truths that Bible-believing Christians may view somewhat differently without considering the other party as heretical or as departing from an essential doctrine. The continuum of essential versus non-essential doctrines should be approached with godly wisdom and caution. Excessive divisiveness itself becomes the mark of Biblical heresy; study the meaning of the word in the language in which the New Testament was first written. Excessive tolerance eradicates historical and Biblical Christianity from existence. Balance and godly wisdom must control our minds. Herein appears the necessity for balance in our study of this theme.

I offer a couple of examples that illustrate the way in which I attempt to apply charity in non-essentials to people who hold to different views than I I do not offer these examples as a rule for anyone else to follow, but as a personal practice. Regardless of our attempts to the contrary, to some extent, the distinction between essential and non-essential Biblical teachings involves a measure of subjectivity. I do not offer these examples as an endorsement of any idea or interpretation different from mine, but as my personal effort to show liberty toward others with whom I interact at times.

First I hold to the historical and, I believe, Biblical view that the Lord Who created this universe will at some future time terminate it in its present form, return in power to transform it and to judge-either punitively or declaratively-all sin, and all sinners. This will be the last event of time as we know it and the first event of eternity as we anticipate it from Scripture. Ask ten Christians of different backgrounds what they believe about the details of this doctrine of eschatology, the doctrine of final things, and you will almost certainly get ten answers. Each person will speak with deep and sincere conviction about their belief of this obviously epochal era in God’s purpose and plan for the universe that He created, including His ultimate judgment of the sentient, moral creatures that He brought into it. I strongly hold to a straightforward view of eschatology that rejects many of the popular notions of our era. I reject the idea of a secret rapture because Scripture teaches that, when the Lord returns, " ... every eye shall see him." I am inclined to reject the idea of a literal thousand year transitional dispensation between this world as we now know it and eternity, including most of the ideas presented under the broad umbrella of " dispensational" theology. However, as I study Scripture and the various views that claim longstanding historical acceptance in the faith, I hesitate to draw lines of essential distinction between my view and those historical views. Example; the view of a literal thousand years during which the Lord returns and rules the earth, though I do not embrace it, claims ancient and credible Christian acceptance. This view is significantly different from the contemporary secret rapture dispensational views popularized by Darby, Scofield, and Tim LaHaye in his Left Behind series of novels. The major tenets of the modern dispensational view cannot claim historical standing prior to around 1827 when J. N. Darby first introduced them. While I differ from many of the various historically accepted views, I grant proponents of those views liberty to hold them without any desire to break fellowship with them. Scripture clearly teaches that God shall terminate this world as we know it with a shout, the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to raise the dead, transform the living, judge all, apply the appropriate sentence to them (eternal punishment to the wicked and the ultimate realization of mercy through the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ to the elect), and initiate eternity with His people. When we begin probing the finer details of dispensational theology, Scripture is not so clear.

Second example; I hold that in regeneration, in bringing about the new birth, God works immediately (without an intermediate agent) and directly. Most people of other fellowships, even those who hold to the doctrines of grace similarly to my views, hold that God uses an intermediate agent, typically the gospel, in bringing about the new birth. When I encounter people who are willing to discuss these ideas without emotion or acrimony, I will gladly discuss them.

I must clarify that the strategy I follow with people from other fellowships may differ somewhat from my perspective when discussing these doctrines with people inside my fellowship. Christians from different fellowships should seek common ground where possible, not magnify differences. Thus in dialogue with someone from another fellowship, I will look for that common ground and seek to develop it in our conversation. Not only my own Primitive Baptist fellowship but all fellowships develop their own rules of tolerance or intolerance regarding various doctrines that they hold to be central to their unique interpretation of Scripture. Primitive Baptists have been accused of being anti-evangelical because we believe in the Holy Spirit’s immediate work in regeneration. Some of our folks have given our critics reason for the criticism, but our culture is not anti-evangelical. We hold to the immediate work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration because we believe it is taught in Scripture. We also hold to evangelical responsibility because it too is taught in Scripture. Thus, for someone within our fellowship to confuse the nature of the work of regeneration is more objectionable, given our history, than for someone outside our fellowship to do so.

In dialogue with people outside my fellowship I have reached the point that I will ask a central question, " Do you believe that faith precedes or follows regeneration?" If they say that they believe that faith comes before regeneration, I immediately understand that they and I have a significant theological difference. If they respond that they believe that regeneration comes before faith, I will acknowledge that they and I may not agree in all the points of this doctrine, but I will not attempt to engage them in intense dialogue over the nuances beyond this common belief. If they believe that the new birth occurs before faith, they and I have common ground. I celebrate the opportunity to underscore in their minds the fact that regeneration precedes faith. If they truly hold that position, both logically and Biblically, they must eventually come to the position that regeneration is immediate and direct by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Faith, which comes after regeneration, can hardly be viewed as either causative or as an essential agent in a work that occurred prior to faith.

That said, I reject any dispensational notion that unregenerate sinners will receive a "second chance" to claim salvation after death, along with the whole concept of a secret rapture, as violating essential Biblical teaching regarding the nature of the atoning work of Christ and the Second Coming. I also reject ideas that make the gospel causative or an intermediate agent in regeneration as also violating essential Biblical doctrine.

Based on the intensity of Peter’s teaching in the second chapter of his second letter, it is my belief that the degree of error, both in teaching and in conduct, that he opposed is far more insidious and destructive to the character of essential Christianity than either of the ideas that I used as examples above. Both in teaching and in conduct, their teaching would have destroyed the whole character of Biblical Christianity. In quite specific terms Peter directs us to oppose these teachings.

It appears that the false teachers that Peter exposes in this letter had accused him and the other apostles of contriving " cunningly devised fables" in their teaching of Jesus’ Incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. Without question, the accusation related to Peter’s, and the other apostles’, teachings regarding the Incarnation, but Peter’s use of the word " coming," coupled with his specific emphasis on the truth of the Second or final Advent in the third chapter of this letter, distinctly indicates that their accusation included the apostolic teaching regarding both the first and the Second Advent. Rejection of the Second Coming of Christ at the end of time (Or should we say at the beginning of eternity?) clearly was part of the error held by these false teachers. The fact that, after dealing in detail with false teachers and their ways in the second chapter, Peter would immediately confront the skeptical rejection of the Second Coming in 2Pe 3:1-18 of the same letter, cannot be viewed as incidental. Can we reasonably avoid the link between the two chapters? Behavior of false teachers in the second chapter and skeptical rejection of the Second Coming in the third chapter cannot be viewed as unrelated issues.

As we read through 2Pe 2:1-22 of the letter, we cannot specifically identify the precise details of the false teachings that Peter opposed. Then as we examine 2Pe 3:1-18, it becomes clear that the false teachers so directly opposed in chapter two in some way rejected the doctrine of the Second Coming. As we study both chapters, we will observe several links between the two. The fact that the false teachers rejected the Incarnation opens the door to the first century gnostic error that attempted to invade Christianity.

Another possible error that fits Peter’s points is ancient Epicureanism. We have grown to associate this name with the " good life;" food, drink, or other indulgence of one’s senses and appetites without constraint. While ancient Epicureans believed in " the good life," they also held to unique religious ideas that would surprise most twenty-first century readers. Their primary objective was mental peace more than satisfaction of one’s physical appetites. In fact, according to their first century thinking, some indulgences would actually impair their ultimate peace. While believing in gods, ancient Epicureans would have fiercely rejected what most Christians refer to as providence. They believed that the gods had nothing to do with life or activities on earth. They also rejected any concept of an afterlife. Thus they, like the gnostics, would reject both Jesus’ first appearance on earth, as well as His Second Coming and judgment.

If you believed that God exists, but that He has nothing to do with anything that occurs on earth, you would necessarily reject the Incarnation, as well as any concept of Jesus’ final return or judgment of mankind. What impact would such religious ideas have on your lifestyle? I suggest that they would have no impact whatever on the way you live life or view the question of moral issues. Right or wrong, good or bad; apart from the Second Coming and final divine Judgment, moral and ethical questions are little more than a measure of personal taste. This point fits Peter’s accusation of the false teachers.

Peter accuses the false teachers of promising liberty to their converts while themselves being subject to slavery. The Roman moralist Seneca is credited with this quote, " To be enslaved to oneself is the heaviest of all servitudes." Although Seneca was not a Christian at all, his observation in this quote makes a true Christian point. Why did Jesus impose self-denial and the taking up of one’s cross as essentials of discipleship?

Although Peter wrestles with two implications of the false teachers and their errors, he never specifically identifies them or the precise nature of their error. We will interact with Peter’s words and his exposure of the two features of their error that he does surface throughout the next several chapters. Perhaps it is good that we do not know precisely what these ancient false teachers believed. It is instructive for our present situation to take note that the two features that Peter clearly identifies in these ancient false teachers are quite common among false teachers of almost every era of time, including our own. What distinguishes these false teachers in infamy? First, they are greedy, more motivated by what enhances them and their self-worth than by what is right or what is good for others. If self-gain, material and otherwise, is their primary objective, any idea of spiritual truths dealing with the Lord’s Second coming would clash with their basic perspective and, therefore, be fiercely rejected by them. Secondly, they despise authority.. They despised the authority of Peter and the apostles. They would likely have as readily despised any other authority. They are self-willed at the heart of their being and nature.

While Peter never precisely identifies these false teachers or the details of their false teaching, he deals at length with their conduct and character. We sometimes make a similar point. Doctrine relates to practice. Occasionally we attempt to neatly segregate our theological processes and ideas into two tidy packages, one named Doctrine and one named Practice. Scripture tightly-inseparably integrates the two. If a person holds to a significant error in doctrine, we may expect this same person to demonstrate his error through false living.

Regardless of the specific details of error that any particular false teacher might propagate, the behavioral patterns that Peter clearly describes in this letter will appear. This may further explain why he avoids a specific identification of the false teachers that he opposed or of the details of their error. By leaving us in doubt as to the detailed nuances of error in this case, he instructs us to watch the conduct of those who teach. You may well discern a problem in their attitude and conduct long before you will become aware of an error in their thinking or teaching.

Peter will briefly take note of the unstable and unlearned people who are vulnerable to populist false teachers, but he will keep the primary focus throughout the next two chapters of his letter on the false teachers themselves.

If we maintain our faith’s emphasis on the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, we may not know what error will next appear, but we will be equipped to discover it and counter it. I qualify this observation with one point. Private meditation alone will not equip us to identify false teachers or their teachings. Only a Biblical study and emphasis will properly equip us. Remember Peter’s emphasis in the first chapter on the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Why did Paul {Eph 6:1-24} refer to Scripture as the sword of the Spirit, the one offensive weapon in the Christian armor depicted in that chapter? Scripture alone, not our private sentimental ideas, is to govern our faith. Study the textbook.

*************************************************************************************

False Teachers: Inevitable[i]

2Pe 2:1-9 "1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:"

Peter begins this rather difficult section of his letter with a simple statement. Just as false prophets constantly buffeted Old Testament saints, false teachers will steadily assault New Testament saints. In his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter Richard Bauckham observes three constant traits of the Old Testament false prophets, equally applying these traits to the false teachers in 2 Peter and Jude.

1. They did not speak with divine authority.

2. Their message was one of " good news," promising peace and security in contrast to the warnings about judgment given by true prophets.

3. They were shown to be worthy of condemnation.

Although Peter surfaces brief excerpts from the false teachings of these people, he never delves into details regarding their errors. However, he spares no details in exposing and rejecting their character and conduct.

What two points does he make regarding their teachings? In 2Pe 1:1-21 he implies that he, unlike these false teachers, did not follow " cunningly devised fables" when he preached the gospel that emphasized the Incarnation and Second " coming" of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then in 2Pe 3:1-18 he goes into significant details regarding the skeptics’ (surely the same false teachers emphatically examined and rejected in 2Pe 2:1-22) rejection of the Second Coming.

In 2Pe 2:1-2, the verses that we examine in this chapter, Peter already begins his spotlight examination of the character and conduct of these false teachers. What does he write about their character and conduct?

1. They are false teachers, literally pseudo-teachers. They pretend to be something that they are not at all. Thus they are dishonest.

2. They present their false teachings " privily," secretly or craftily, another disclosure of their essential dishonesty. They know that, if openly and honestly presented, their ideas would be immediately and soundly rejected. Rather than repenting or changing their minds, they attempt to use verbal sleight of hand to trick people into believing their false teachings.

3. They introduce damnable (literally, deserving of eternal punishment) heresies. The word translated heresies means " 1 act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city. 2 choosing, choice. 3 that which is chosen. 4 a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party). 4a of the Sadducees. 4b of the Pharisees. 4c of the Christians. 5 dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims." [ii]  They are knowingly and intentionally divisive. Their aim is to attract followers to themselves. Do not overlook the nuance in the definition of taking someone captive. Later in the chapter {2Pe 2:19} we will see that they promise freedom to their followers, though they themselves are enslaved.

4. Peter describes their ways as pernicious, the same Greek word as " damnable" in this context. Not only are their teachings damnable, so is their conduct.

5. Because of their character and conduct, the way of peace (They seek to enslave and capture the minds of people; they are at war with the saints, not peace.) shall receive evil reports. People will see them, claiming to be Christians and literally acting like the devil, and speak evil of all who profess faith in Christ.

6. They " deny the Lord that bought them." This clause is one of the most hotly disputed in the whole chapter. Did Jesus die for them? Were they saved people acting in such disgraceful ways? If we allow Peter to lead our minds with his inspired words, we will find it difficult to conclude anything other than that these false teachers were not saved, and therefore, not " bought" by the redemptive price paid by Jesus’ blood. Since the Old Testament doctrine of redemption was an altogether familial affair, its mold clearly appears in the leading New Testament doctrines that deal with our redemption through Jesus’ death. The Greek word translated " Lord" in this clause comes from the root for our word " despot." It refers to a sovereign ruler, but not to a family redeemer. Whatever Peter intended in this expression, it seems clear that he had no reference to the sin-redemption that the elect have in Jesus. If we allow the " perspicuity of Scripture" to rule our interpretation, the lack of clarity or specificity in this point should nudge us to leave it with Peter and the Holy Spirit to enlighten. Whatever interpretation we apply, we should do so with a soft grip and a generous measure of charity toward other interpretations. John Gill associates the term with the Old Testament people who dealt with their false prophets; specifically, he refers this term to God’s " purchase" of His people out of Egypt. Those false prophets denied the sovereign Lord Who bought them out of Egypt. Although we should not in every way think of Jude as a precise mirror of 2 Peter, much of Jude’s writings reflect an incredible similarity. Many scholars debate who copied from whom? Did Jude copy from Peter or Peter from Jude? I suggest that the omniscient Holy Spirit directed both men, writing to their individual audiences, to address a common problem that both would soon face in their faith. False teachers with very similar, if not identical, false notions would invade both groups and seek to neutralize their Christ-centric faith. Jude 1:4 accuses the false teachers with whom Jude deals as denying " the only Lord God, and perhaps the emphatic " even" our Lord Jesus Christ." In Jude’s words the false teachers deny either any reference to God, or they deny specifically the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I suggest the probability that Peter intends the same character in his false teachers as Jude in his. If these people can make any credible case for being teachers of Christian people, they must in some way pretend to be Christians. However, the impact of Peter’s words indicates that they deny the very unique work of Christ that bought His true people from the mass of sinful, fallen humanity. In other words they deny what they pretend to claim, but factually don’t.

This last point is one of the most difficult in the chapter. Regardless of the interpretation we apply to the clause, we run into one or another difficulty. I dare not insist that you accept my tentative explanation with anything more than gentle suggestion. In my way of thinking, it sets up fewer and less difficult problems than the alternative interpretations that I have found among the variety of confused and seeking commentators who join we lesser believers who also struggle with the idea. Applying the " perspicuity of Scripture" rule to the whole chapter, we cannot doubt the damnable (including a likely eternal consequence) character and conduct of the false teachers that Peter describes. We cannot doubt their abominable character and conduct, for Peter devotes sufficient ink and clarity to those points that we can have no doubt as to his inspired assessment of them. We do well to allow Peter to lead, and we respectfully follow in the clear direction that he takes us. We should not allow our interest in this expression to detract our minds from the insidious character and conduct of false teachers. Nor should we overlook the truth that our best inoculation against them is a fully absorbed mind in the holy writings that God has given to us in Scripture.

In the third verse Peter continues his emphasis on the malicious character of the false teachers. However, at this point he shifts the focus from the character of the false teachers to the preeminent judgment of God against them. When we become too focused on false teachers, we are liable to forget God’s sovereignty, even over false teachers. Peter helps us see the healthy balance between the two. He will not adopt a passive, fatalistic " Leave them to God" attitude. Neither will he become so obsessed as to think that the false teachers are his personal responsibility.

Before exploring the certain judgments of God against these people, let’s examine Peter’s continuing assessment of the false teachers’ character.

1. They are covetous, but not for money or material possessions. They covet control over people. They reduce other people, believers in Christ, to their own personal possession.

2. They freely employ hypocritical, pretentious words to deceive the people who listen to them. Here the idea of " feigned" words suggests false or fabricated words, crafted to deceive, as opposed to sincere words of wisdom designed to inform. Self is the dominant force in their teachings. Rather than truth, as defined by God in Scripture and its object, glorifying God in all things, a false teachers’ objective is self-exaltation.

3. They " make merchandise" of other believers. A merchant trades in wares for the purpose of growing a profit, of personal gain. For these people, according to Peter, personal gain is the dominant motive of false teachers.

The over-arching theme of Peter’s assessment of the false teachers’ character is that of depraved, self-serving greed. We need go to no other passage to understand the intense condemnation that Peter lays upon these people. However, when you contrast their character with the New Testament description of a godly teacher and minister of the gospel, their true disposition becomes even more detestable. They are in every point opposite to the Biblical model of a godly teacher.

Having clearly established the evil nature of the false teachers against whom he writes, Peter now shifts the focus of his message to the certainty of God’s judgment against them.

1. Their "judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." When we study 2Pe 3:1-18, we will see this point in greater detail. For the moment let’s simply follow Peter’s points here. We are inclined to think that God suspends all judgment or punishment of evil till the final judgment. Some teachers propose that at death God simply suspends the soul in a state of unconscious existence. They typically will illustrate their ideas with the metaphor of taking a tape out of a tape player. At death God merely takes the soul out of the body and stores it on the shelf till the resurrection. Peter rejects this notion. The idea of suspended judgment or of "soul sleep" will not stand under Peter’s words, nor under examination against the clear teaching of many other Biblical passages.

2. Peter illustrates the point of immediate judgment with three examples. The first example may refer to some event prior to the creation, or it may refer to the common Jewish idea that sinning angels contributed to the intense growth of sin just prior to the flood. Given the lack of clear and concise Biblical commentary, we might better allow the point to stand on the information that Peter provides rather than speculating. Jude 1:6 seems to refer to a similar event. The Jewish idea of angels fathering children with wicked women cannot find significant support in the Genesis narrative of Noah’s flood. The most direct and natural reading of that account is that the children of godly parents began to compromise their faith in God through marriages with ungodly partners. Rather than reforming their ungodly partners, the wicked partners corrupted their faith. Within a few generations the evil had multiplied and evoked divine judgment in the form of the flood. Some commentators will refer this passage to Isa 14:1-32 and the Lucifer passage. While that passage may refer to an angel that sinned, it hardly affords solid confirmation of the idea. Given the choice of speculating or stretching a passage beyond its comfort zone, I prefer to allow Peter and Jude to serve as our primary source of information. Accept what they wrote without embellishment. Rather than exemplifying suspended judgment, the example of sinning angels clearly makes the point that God immediately executed judgment against them, holding them in a state of conscious punishment until the final judgment that remains in the future.

Further, the two historical examples that Peter introduces, the flood and God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, both reinforce the point made in the example of the fallen angels. Although God clearly has a future and final judgment in store for them, He immediately executed judgment against their fierce rejection of His authority. Judgment was immediate, not long suspended.

[i] Normally I attempt to keep my weekly chapters to one page in length. Given the significant transition that Peter makes as he begins the second chapter of his letter, I have actually included two chapters as one to give you greater continuity in your reading. 

[ii] Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible: Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (139). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Haydock: 2Pe 2:1

Lying teachers among you, some of which were already come, and many more were to follow, who shall bring in sects, [1] (heresies) leading to perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them, denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer; such were the disciples of Simon, and many after them. (Witham) ---

Sects of perdition; that is, heresies destructive of salvation. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

as this Greek word sometimes signifies; witness Aristotle, 4. Eth. where he puts as apposite, Greek: kata doxan, kai kat aletheian.

Haydock: 2Pe 2:2

Many shall follow their luxuries, or lasciviousness, such as are related of the Nicolaites and Gnostics, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed, or ill spoken of, by those who made no distinction betwixt true and false Christians. (Witham)

Gill: 2Pe 2:1

But there were false prophets also among the people,.... As well as holy men of God, who gave out prophecies, by the inspiration and impulse of the Holy Spirit; that is, among the people of the Jews, God's professing people, whose God was the Lord, and who had chosen them to be a special and peculiar people, above all people of the earth; and had distinguished them by his favours from all others: among these, though the Syriac version reads "in the world", there were false prophets, who ran, and were not sent; and who prophesied, and the Lord spake not to them: of these there were many in Jeremiah's time, and in the times of Ezekiel; and in Ahab's time, besides the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal, slain by Elijah, there were four hundred that called themselves the prophets of the Lord; among whom went forth a lying spirit, encouraging Ahab to go up to Ramoth Gilead, promising him prosperity and success; Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah, with whom Micaiah, the true prophet, had much contention, was at the head of them; and such there were among that people in all ages, until the times of Christ, and in his likewise; see Mat 7:15 now from these, by an easy transition, the apostle proceeds to another part of his design in this epistle, to describe the characters of false teachers under the present dispensation, that saints may beware, and avoid their pernicious principles and practices:

even as there shall be false teachers among you; which need not to be wondered at, or stumble any, it being no new or strange thing, but what was always more or less the case of the people of God. This is a prophecy of what should be, and agrees with the prediction of our Lord, Mat 24:11 and which regards not only the times immediately following, in which it had a remarkable fulfilment, for false teachers now began to arise, and appeared in great numbers in the age succeeding the apostles, but to all periods of time from hence, to the second coming of Christ; and these were to spring from, and be among such that bore the Christian name, and so regards not Mahometans and Deists; and it is to be observed, that the phrase is varied in this clause, and these are called not "prophets" but "teachers": because as prophecy was more peculiar to the former dispensation, so is teaching to the present:

who privily shall bring in damnable heresies: errors in the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel; such as relate to a trinity of persons in the Godhead; and to the person of Christ, to his proper deity, distinct personality, eternal sonship, and real humanity; and to his office as Mediator, rejecting him as the true Messiah, and as the only Saviour of sinners; denying his sacrifice and satisfaction, and the imputation of his righteousness; and to the Holy Spirit, his deity, personality, and divine influences and operations: these are "damnable", or "destructive", or "heresies of destruction"; which lead to eternal destruction both those that introduce and propagate them, and those that embrace and profess them; for they remove, or attempt to remove, the foundation of eternal life and happiness: the manner in which these are usually introduced is "privily"; at unawares, secretly, under a disguise, and gradually, by little and little, and not at once, and openly; and which is the constant character and practice of such men, who lie in wait to deceive, creep into churches at unawares, and into houses privately; and insinuate their principles under specious pretences and appearances of truth, using the hidden things of dishonesty, walking in craftiness, handling the word of God deceitfully, and colouring things with false glosses and feigned words: and even denying the Lord that bought them; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the Father; for the word κυριος is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the Lord, but δεσποτης; and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants ⁱ, and which God has over all mankind; and wherever this word is elsewhere used, it is spoken of God the Father, whenever applied to a divine person, as in Luk 2:29 and especially this appears to be the sense, from the parallel text in Jud 1:4 where the Lord God denied by those men is manifestly distinguished from our Lord Jesus Christ, and by whom these persons are said to be bought: the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Act 20:28 whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ's purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for nought; but the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord; both by words, delivering out such tenets as are derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections, and which deny one or other of them, and of his purposes, providence, promises, and truths; and by works, turning the doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness, being disobedient and reprobate to every good work; that they should act this part against the Lord who had made them, and upheld them in their beings and took care of them in his providence, and had followed them with goodness and mercy all the days of their lives; just as Moses aggravates the ingratitude of the Jews in Deu 32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2Pe 2:12 compared with Deu 32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exo 15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them:

and bring upon themselves swift destruction; either in this life, being suddenly cut off in the midst of their days, and by the immediate hand of God, as Arius and other heretics have been; or eternal damnation in the other, which their tenets lead unto, and which will swiftly come upon them when they are promising themselves peace and safety.

Gill: 2Pe 2:2

And many shall follow their pernicious ways,.... Their principles and their practices, which lead to destruction, The Complutensian edition, the Alexandrian copy, and six copies of Beza's, and others, read "their lasciviousnesses"; and so the Vulgate Latin version renders it, "their luxuries"; and all the Oriental versions seem to have read in like manner. The Syriac version renders it, "their impurity"; and the Arabic version, "their unchastities"; and the Ethiopic version, "their lust"; and which seems to have respect to the impure conversation of the followers of Simon Magus, the Nicolaitans, the Gnostics, Carpocratians, and others, who indulged themselves in all unnatural lusts and uncleanness; and generally, when men make shipwreck of faith, they also do of a good conscience, and become immoral in their conversations; and yet, as destructive as their principles, and as dishonourable and scandalous as their practices be, many were, and are their followers; so it was foretold by Christ, Mat 24:11, and so it has been, Rev 13:3. The road both of error and wickedness is a broad one, in which many walk; and a multitude is no proof of the truth of a church or of the principles of men, nor to be followed:

by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of; that is, either Christ, who is truth itself, and the true way to eternal life and happiness; or the Gospel, the word of truth, which holds forth Christ the truth, and points to him, and every other truth, and nothing but truth; or the Christian religion, which is the true way, in opposition to all sects and heresies; and is what should be blasphemed and spoken against, either by these men or their followers; for the phrase may be rendered, "by whom", as it is in the Vulgate Latin version, and the meaning be, that they should, in a blasphemous way, speak and write against Christ and his truths, reproach and revile them, and in a virulent manner oppose them, and trample them under foot: "or for the sake of them", as other versions read; and as we do; "by reason of them"; they should be the occasion, by their impure lives, of the name of Christ, and his doctrines, being blasphemed by profane and irreligious men; see Rom 2:24. The Alexandrian copy, and one of Stephens's, read "the glory of truth"; and so the Ethiopic version, "the glory of his truth".

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 2Pe 2:1

¹ sn There will be false teachers among you. Peter uses the same verb, γίνομαι (ginomai), in 2 Pet 2:1 as he had used in 1:20 to describe the process of inspiration. He may well be contrasting, by way of a catchword, the two kinds of prophets.

² tn Grk “who”; verse 1 is one sentence in Greek, the second half constituting a relative clause.

³ sn By the use of the future tense (will infiltrate), Peter is boldly prophesying the role that false teachers will have before these Gentile believers. It was necessary for him to establish both his own credentials and to anchor his audience’s faith in the written Word before he could get to this point, for these false teachers will question both.

⁴ tn Grk “will bring in,” often with the connotation of secretiveness; “your midst” is implied.

⁵ tn Or “destructive opinions,” “destructive viewpoints.” The genitive ἀπωλείας (apwleia") could be taken either attributively (“destructive”) or as a genitive of destination (“leading to destruction”). Although the preferable interpretation is a genitive of destination, especially because of the elaboration given at the end of the verse (“bringing swift destruction on themselves”), translating it attributively is less cumbersome in English. Either way, the net result is the same.

⁶ tn Grk “even.” The καί (kai) is ascensive, suggesting that the worst heresy is mentioned in the words that follow.

⁷ tn Grk “bringing.” The present participle ἐπάγοντες (epagonte") indicates the result of the preceding clause.

NET Notes: 2Pe 2:2

¹ tn “Debauched lifestyles” is literally “licentiousnesses,” “sensualities,” “debaucheries.”

² tn Grk “because of whom,” introducing a subordinate clause to the first part of the verse.

³ tn Or “blasphemed,” “reviled,” “treated with contempt.”

Geneva Bible: 2Pe 2:1

But ^{( 1 )} there were false prophets also among the ^{( a )} people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

^{( 1 )} As in times past there were two kinds of prophets, the one true and the other false, so Peter tells them that there will be true and false teachers in the Church, so much so that Christ himself will be denied by some, who nonetheless will call him redeemer.

^{( a )} Under the law, while the state and policy of the Jews was yet standing.

Geneva Bible: 2Pe 2:2

^{( 2 )} And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

^{( 2 )} There shall not only be heresies, but also many followers of them.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 2Pe 2:1-22

1 He foretells them of false teachers, shewing the impiety and punishment both of them and their followers;

7 from which the godly shall be delivered, as Lot was out of Sodom;

10 and more fully describes the manners of those profane and blasphemous seducers, whereby they may be the better known, and avoided.

Maclaren: 2Pe 2:1

The Owner And His Slaves

Denying the Lord that bought them.'--2 Peter 2:1.

THE institution of slavery was one of the greatest blots on ancient civilisation. It was twice cursed, cursing both parties, degrading each, turning the slave into a chattel, and the master, in many cases, into a brute. Christianity, as represented in the New Testament, never says a word to condemn it, but Christianity has killed it. Make the tree good and its fruit good.' Do not aim at institutions, change the people that live under them and you change them. Girdle the tree and it will die, and save you the trouble of felling it. But not only does Christianity never condemn slavery, though it was in dead antagonism to all its principles, and could not possibly survive where its principles were accepted, but it also takes this essentially immoral relation and finds a soul of goodness in the evil thing, which serves to illustrate the relation between God and man, between Christ and us. It does with slavery as it does with war, uses what is good in it as illustrating higher truths, and trusts to the operation, the slow operation of its deepest principles for its destruction.

So, then, we have one Apostle, in his letters, binding on his forehead as a crown the designation, Paul,' a slave of Jesus Christ,' and we have in my text an expanded allusion to slavery. The word that is here rendered rightly enough, Lord,' is the word which has been transferred into English as despot,' and it carries with it some suggestion of the roughness and absoluteness of authority which that word suggests to us. It does not mean merely master,' it means owner,' and it suggests an unconditional authority, to which the only thing in us that corresponds is abject and unconditional submission. That is what Christ is to you and me; the Lord, the Despot, the Owner.

But we have not only owner and slave here; we have one of the ugliest features of the institution referred to. You have the slave-market, the Lord that bought them,' and because He purchased them, owns them. Think of the hell of miseries that are connected with that practice of buying and selling human flesh, and then estimate the magnificent boldness of the metaphor which Peter does not scruple to take from it here, speaking of the owner who acquired them by a price. And not only that, but slaves will run away, and when they are stopped, and asked who they belong to, will say they know nothing about him. And so here is the runaway's denial, denying the Lord that bought them.' Now I ask you to think of these three points.

I. Here We Have The Owner Of Us All.

I do not need, I suppose, to spend a moment in showing you that this relationship, which is laid down in our text, subsists between Jesus Christ and men, and it subsists between Jesus Christ and all men. For the people about whom the Apostle is saying that they have denied the Lord that bought them' can, by no construction, be supposed to be true Christians, but were enemies that had crept into the Church without any real allegiance to Jesus Christ, and were trying to wreck it, and to destroy His work. So there is no reference here to a little elected group out of the midst of humanity, who especially belonged to Jesus Christ, and for whom the price has been paid; but the outlook of my text in its latter portion is as wide as humanity. The Lord--that is, Jesus Christ--owns all men.

Let me expand that thought in one or two illustrations which may help to make it perhaps more vivid. The slave's owner has absolute authority over him. You remember the occasion when a Roman officer, by reflecting upon the military discipline of the legion, and the mystical power that the commander's word had to set all his men in obedient activity, had come to the conclusion that, somehow or other, this Jesus whom he desired to heal his servant had a similar power in the material universe, and that just as he, subordinate officer though he was, had yet--by reason of the fact that he was under authority,' and an organ of a higher authority--the power to say to his servant, Go,' and he would go; and to another one, Come,' and he would come; so this Christ had power to say to disease, Depart,' and it would depart; and to health, Come,' and it would come; and to all the material forces of the universe, Do this,' and obediently they would do it. That is the picture, in another region, of the relation which Jesus Christ bears to men, though, alas, it is not the picture of the relation which men bear to Christ. But to all of us He has the right to say, wherever we are, Come,' the right to say, Go,' the right to say, Do,' the right to say, Be this, that, and the other thing.'

Absolute authority is His; what should be yours? Unconditional submission. My friend, it is no use your calling yourself a Christian unless that is your attitude. My sermon to-night has something else to do than simply to present truths to you. It has to press truths on you, and to appeal not only to your feelings, not only to your understandings, but to your wills. And so I come with this question: Do you, dear friend, day by day, yield to the absolute Master the absolute submission? And is that rebellious will--which is in you, as it is in us all--tamed and submitted so as that you can say, Speak, Lord! Thy servant heareth'? Is it?

Further, the owner has the right, as part of that absolute authority of which I have been speaking, to settle without appeal each man's work. In those Eastern monarchies where the king was surrounded, not by constitutional ministers, but by his personal slaves, he made one man a shoeblack or a pipe-bearer, and the man standing next to him his prime minister. And neither the one nor the other had the right to say a word. Jesus Christ has the right to regulate your life in all its details, to set you your tasks. Some of us will get what the world vulgarly calls more important duties'; some will get what the world ignorantly calls more insignificant' ones. What does that matter? It was our Owner that set us to our work, and if He tells us to black shoes, let us black them with all the pith of our elbows, and with the best blacking and brushes we can find; and if He sets us to work, which people think is more important and more conspicuous, let us do that too, in the same spirit, and for the same end.

Again, the owner has the absolute right of possession of all the slave's possessions. He gets a little bit Of land in the corner of his master's plantation, and grows his vegetables, yams, pumpkins, a leaf of tobacco or two, or what not, there. And if his master comes along and says, These are mine,' the slave has no resource, and is obliged to accept the conditions and to give them up. So Jesus Christ claims ours as well as us--ours because He claims us--and whilst, on the other hand, the surrender of external good is incomplete without the surrender of the inward will, on the other hand the abandonment and surrender of the inward life is incomplete, if it be not hypocritical, without the surrender of external possessions. All the slave's goods belonged to the owner.

And the owner has another right. He can say, Take that man's child and sell him in the market!' and he can break up the family ties and separate husband and wife, and parent and child, and not a word can be said. Our Master comes, not with rough authority, but with loving, though absolute authority, and He sometimes untwines the hands that are most closely clasped, and says to the one of the two that have grown together in love and blessedness, Come!' and he cometh, and to the other Go!' and she goeth. Blessed they who can say, It is the Lord! Let Him do what seemeth Him good.'

Now, dear friends, this absolute authority cannot be exercised by any man upon another man, and this unconditional submission, which Jesus Christ asks from us all, ought not to be rendered by any man to a man. It is a degradation when a human creature is put even in the external relation of slavery and servitude to another human creature, but it is an honour when Jesus Christ says to me, Thou art Mine,' and I say to Him, I am Thine, O Lord, truly I am Thy servant; Thou hast loosed my bonds.' In the old Saxon monarchies, some antiquarians tell us, the foundation of our modern nobility or aristocracy is found in that the king's servants became nobles. Jesus Christ's slave is everybody else's master. And it is the highest honour that a man can have to bow himself before that Lord, and to take His yoke upon him and learn of Him. So much, then, for my first point; now a word with regard to the second.

II. The Sale, And The Price.

The Lord that bought them.' You perhaps remember other words which say, Ye are bought with a price; be not the servants of men'; also other words of this Apostle himself, in which he speaks, in his other letter, of being bought with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.' Now notice, Christ's ownership of us does not depend on Christ's Divinity, which I suppose most of us believe, but on Christ's sacrifice for us. It is perfectly true that creation gives rights to the Creator. It is perfectly true that if we believe, as I think the New Testament teaches, that He, who before His name was Jesus was the Eternal Word of God, was the Agent of all Creation, and therefore has rights. But Christ's heart does not care for rights of that sort. It wants something far deeper, far tenderer, far closer than any such. And He comes to us with the language that is the language of love over all the universe, as between man and woman, as between man and man, as between man and God, as between God and man, upon His lips, and says, Thou must love Me, for I have died for thee.' Yes, brother; the only ground upon which absolute possession of a man can be rested is the ground of prior absolute surrender to Him. Christ must give Himself to me before He can ask me to give myself to Him. So all that was apparently harsh in the relationship, as I have been trying to set it forth to you, melts away and disappears. No owner ever owned a slave as truly as a loving woman owns her husband, or a loving husband his wife, because the ownership is the expression of perfect love on both sides. And that is the golden bond that binds men's souls to Christ in a submission which, the more abject it is, the more elevating it is, just because He loved me, and gave Himself for me.'

I do not dwell upon any cold theological doctrine of an Atonement, but I wish you to feel that deep in this great metaphor of our text there lie the two things; first, the price that was paid, and, second, the bondage from which the slave was delivered. He belonged to another master before Christ bought him for Himself. He that committeth sin is the slave of sin.' Some of you are your own despots, your own tyrants. The worse half of you has got the upper hand. The mutineers that ought to have been down under hatches, and shackled, have taken possession of the deck and clapped the captain and the officers, and all the sextants and log-books, away into a corner, and they are driving the ship--that is, you--on to the rocks, as hard as they can. A man that is not Christ's slave has a far worse slavery in submitting to these tyrant sins that have tempted him with the notion of how fine it is to break through these old-womanly restraints and conventional fads of a narrow morality, and to have his fling, and do as he likes and follow nature. Ay, some of you have been doing that, and could write a far better commentary than any preacher ever wrote, out of your own experience, on the great words, Whilst they promised them liberty, they themselves are the slaves of corruption!' Young men, is that true about any of you--that you came here into Manchester to a situation, and lonely lodgings, comparatively innocent, and that somebody said, Oh, do not be a milksop! come along and see life,' and you thought it was fine to shake off the shackles that your poor old mother used to try to put upon your limbs? And what have you made of it? I will tell you what a great many young men have made of it --I have seen scores of them in the forty years that I have been preaching here: His bones are full of the iniquity of his youth, which shall lie down with him in the dust.'

There is a slavery which is blessedness, and there is a slavery which at first is delightsome to the worst part of us, and afterwards becomes bitter and deadly. And it is the bondage of sin, the bondage to my worst self, the bondage to my indulged passions, the bondage to other men, the bondage to the material world. Jesus Christ speaks to each of us in His great sacrifice, by which He says to us, The Son will make you free, and you shall be free indeed.' The Lord has bought us. Have you let Him emancipate you from all your bondage? Dear friends, bear with me if I press again upon you, I pray God that it may ring in your ears till you can answer that question, Jesus Christ having bought me, do I belong to Him?

III. And Now, Lastly, Notice The Runaways.

Did it ever occur to you what a pathetic force there is in Peter's picking out that word denying' as the shorthand expression for all sorts of sins? Who was it that thrice denied that he knew Him? That experience went very deep into the Apostle; and here, as I take it, is a most significant illustration of his penitent remembrance of his past life, all the more significant because of its reticence. The allusion is one that nobody could catch that did not know his past, but which to those who did know it was full of meaning: and o.f pathos:--Denying the Lord, as I did on that dismal morning, in the High Priest's palace. I am speaking about it, for I know what it comes to, and the tears that will follow after.

But what I desire to press upon you, dear friends, is just this: That in that view of the lives of people who are not Christians there is suggested to us the essential sinfulness, the black ingratitude, and the absolute folly of refusing to acknowledge the claims of Him to whom we belong, and who has bought us at such a price. You can do it by word, and perhaps some of us are not guiltless in that respect. You can do it by paring down the character and office of Jesus Christ, and minimising the importance of His sacrifice from the world's sins, and thinking of Him, not as the Owner that bought us, but as the Master that teaches us. You can do it by cowardly hiding of your colours and being too shamefaced, too sensitive to the curled lip of the man that works at the next bench, or sits at the next desk, or the student that is beside you, or somebody else whose opinion you esteem, which prevents you from saying like a man, I belong to Jesus Christ, and whomsoever other people serve, as for me, I am going to serve Him.' And you can do it, and many of you are doing it, by simply ignoring His claims, refusing to turn to Him, not yielding up your will to Him, not turning your heart to Him, not setting your dependence upon Him. Is it not a shame that men, whose hearts will glow with thankfulness when another man, especially if he is a superior, comes to them with some gift, valuable, but nothing as compared with the transcendent gift that Christ brings, will yet let Him die for them and not care anything about Him? I can understand the vehement antagonism that some people have to Christ and Christianity, but what I cannot understand is the attitude of the immense mass of people that come to services like this, who profess to believe that Jesus Christ's love for them brought Him to the cross, and yet will not even pay the poor tribute of a little interest and a momentary inclination of heart towards Him. Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by,' that Jesus Christ died for you? He bought you for His own. Let me beseech you to yield yourselves' servants, slaves of Christ, and then you will be free, and you will hear Him say in the very depth of your hearts, Henceforth I call you not slaves, but friends.'

MHCC: 2Pe 2:1-9

Though the way of error is a hurtful way, many are always ready to walk therein. Let us take care we give no occasion to the enemy to blaspheme the holy name whereby we are called, or to speak evil of the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. These seducers used feigned words, they deceived the hearts of their followers. Such are condemned already, and the wrath of God abides upon them. God's usual method of proceeding is shown by examples. Angels were cast down from all their glory and dignity, for their disobedience. If creatures sin, even in heaven, they must suffer in hell. Sin is the work of darkness, and darkness is the wages of sin. See how God dealt with the old world. The number of offenders no more procures favour, than their quality. If the sin be universal, the punishment shall likewise extend to all. If in a fruitful soil the people abound in sin, God can at once turn a fruitful land into barrenness, and a well-watered country into ashes. No plans or politics can keep off judgments from a sinful people. He who keeps fire and water from hurting his people, Isa 43:2, can make either destroy his enemies; they are never safe. When God sends destruction on the ungodly, he commands deliverance for the righteous. In bad company we cannot but get either guilt or grief. Let the sins of others be troubles to us. Yet it is possible for the children of the Lord, living among the most profane, to retain their integrity; there being more power in the grace of Christ, and his dwelling in them, than in the temptations of Satan, or the example of the wicked, with all their terrors or allurements. In our intentions and inclinations to commit sin, we meet with strange hinderances, if we mark them When we intend mischief, God sends many stops to hinder us, as if to say, Take heed what you do. His wisdom and power will surely effect the purposes of his love, and the engagements of his truth; while wicked men often escape suffering here, because they are kept to the day of judgment, to be punished with the devil and his angels.

Matthew Henry: 2Pe 2:1-3

I. In the end of the former chapter there is mention made of holy men of God, who lived in the times of the Old Testament, and were used as the amanuenses of the Holy Ghost, in writing the sacred oracles; but in the beginning of this he tells us they had, even at that time, false prophets in the church as well as true. In all ages of the church, and under all dispensations, when God sends true prophets, the devil sends some to seduce and deceive, false prophets in the Old Testament, and false Christs, false apostles, and seducing teachers, in the New. Concerning these observe, 1. Their business is to bring in destructive errors, even damnable heresies, as the business of teachers sent of God is to show the way of truth, even the true way to everlasting life. There are damnable heresies as well as damnable practices; and false teachers are industrious to spread pernicious errors. 2. Damnable heresies are commonly brought in privily, under the cloak and colour of truth. Those who introduce destructive heresies deny the Lord that bought them. They reject and refuse to hear and learn of the great teacher sent from God, though he is the only Saviour and Redeemer of men, who paid a price sufficient to redeem as many worlds of sinners as there are sinners in the world. 4. Those who bring in errors destructive to others bring swift (and therefore sure) destruction upon themselves. Self-destroyers are soon destroyed; and those who are so hardened as to propagate errors destructive to others shall surely and suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

II. He proceeds, in the second verse, to tell us the consequence with respect to others; and here we may learn, 1. Corrupt leaders seldom fail of many to follow them; though the way of error is a pernicious way, yet many are ready to walk therein. Men drink in iniquity like water, and are pleased to live in error. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the people love to have it so. 2. The spreading of error will bring up an evil report on the way of truth; that is, the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life. The Christian religion is from the God of truth as the author, leads to true happiness in the enjoyment of the true God as the end, and works truth in the inward part as the means of acceptably serving God. And yet this way of truth is traduced and blasphemed by those who embrace and advance destructive errors. This the apostle has foretold as what should certainly come to pass. Let us not be offended at any thing of this in our day, but take care that we give no occasion to the enemy to blaspheme the holy name whereby we are called, or speak evil of that way whereby we hope to be saved.

III. Observe, in the next place, the method seducers take to draw disciples after them: they use feigned words; they flatter, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple, inducing them to yield entirely to the opinions which these seducers endeavour to propagate, and sell and deliver themselves over to the instruction and government of these false teacher, who make a gain of those whom they make their proselytes, serving themselves and making some advantage of them; for all this is through covetousness, with a desire and design to get more wealth, or credit, or commendation, by increasing the number of their followers. The faithful ministers of Christ, who show men the way of truth, desire the profit and advantage of their followers, that they may be saved; but these seducing teachers desire and design only their own temporal advantage and worldly grandeur.

Barclay: 2Pe 2:1

That there should arise false prophets within the Church was something only to be expected, for in every generation false prophets had been responsible for leading God's people astray and for bringing disaster on the nation. It is worth while looking at the false prophets in the Old Testament story for their characteristics were recurring in the time of Peter and are still recurring today.

(i) The false prophets were more interested in gaining popularity than in telling the truth. Their policy was to tell people what they wanted to hear. The false prophets said, "Peace, peace, when there is no peace" (Jer 6:14). They saw visions of peace, when the Lord God was saying that there was no peace (Eze 13:16). In the days of Jehosaphat, Zedekiah, the false prophet, donned his horns of iron and said that Israel would push the Syrians out of the way as he pushed with these horns; Micaiah the true prophet foretold disaster if Jehosaphat went to war. Of course, Zedekiah was popular and his message was accepted; but Jehosaphat went forth to war with the Syrians and perished tragically (1Ki 22 ). In the days of Jeremiah, Hananiah prophesied the swift end of the power of Babylon, while Jeremiah prophesied the servitude of the nation to her; and again the prophet who told people what they wished to hear was the popular one (Jer 28 ). Diogenes, the great cynic philosopher, spoke of the false teachers of his day whose method was to follow wherever the applause of the crowd led. One of the first characteristics of the false prophet is that he tells men what they want to hear and not the truth they need to hear.

(ii) The false prophets were interested in personal gain. As Micah said, "Its priests teach for hire, and its prophets divine for money" (Mic 3:11). They teach for filthy lucre's sake (Tit 1:11), and they identify godliness and gain, making their religion a money-making thing (1Ti 6:5). We can see these exploiters at work in the early church. In The Didache, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which is what might be called the first service-order book, it is laid down that a prophet who asks for money or for a table to be spread in front of him, is a false prophet. "Traffickers in Christ," the Didache (compare 1322) calls such men (The Didache 11). The false prophet is a covetous creature who regards men as dupes to be exploited for his own ends.

(iii) The false prophets were dissolute in their personal life. Isaiah writes: "The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink; they are confused with wine" (Isa 28:7). Jeremiah says, "In the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing; they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evil-doers.... They lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness" (Jer 23:14; Jer 23:32). The false prophet in himself is a seduction to evil rather than an attraction to good.

(iv) The false prophet was above all a man who led other men further away from God instead of closer to him. The prophet who invites the people: "Let us go after other gods," must be mercilessly destroyed (Deu 13:1-5; Deu 18:20). The false prophet takes men in the wrong direction.

These were the characteristics of the false prophets in the ancient days and in Peter's time; and they are their characteristics still.

Barclay: 2Pe 2:1

In this verse Peter has certain things to say about these false prophets and their actions.

(i) They insidiously introduce destructive heresies. The Greek for heresy is hairesis (139). It comes from the verb haireisthai (compare 140), which means to choose; and originally it was a perfectly honourable word. It simply meant a line of belief and action which a man had chosen for himself. In the New Testament we read of the hairesis (139) of the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Nazarenes (Act 5:17; Act 15:5; Act 24:5). It was perfectly possible to speak of the hairesis (139) of Plato and to mean nothing more than those who were Platonist in their thought. It was perfectly possible to speak of a group of doctors who practised a certain method of treatment as a hairesis (139). But very soon in the Christian Church hairesis (139) changed its complexion. In Paul's thought heresies and schisms go together as things to be condemned (1Co 11:18-19); haireseis (139) (the plural form of the word) are part of the works of the flesh; a man that is a heretic is to be warned and even given a second chance, and then rejected (Tit 3:10).

Why the change? The point is that before the coming of Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, there was no such thing as definite, God-given truth. A man was presented with a number of alternatives any one of which he was perfectly free to choose to believe. But with the coming of Jesus, God's truth came to men and they had either to accept or to reject it. A heretic then became a man who believed what he wished to believe instead of accepting the truth of God which he ought to believe.

What was happening in the case of Peter's people was that certain self-styled prophets were insidiously persuading men to believe the things they wished to be true rather than the things which God had revealed to be true. They did not set themselves up as opponents of Christianity. Far from it. They set themselves up as the finest fruits of Christian thinking; and so it was gradually and subtly that people were being lured away from God's truth to other men's private opinions, which is what heresy is.

(ii) These men denied the Lord who had bought them. This idea of Christ buying men for himself is one which runs through the whole New Testament. It comes from his own word that he had come to give his life a ransom for many (Mar 10:45). The idea was that men were slaves to sin and Jesus purchased them at the cost of his life for himself, and, therefore, for freedom. "You were bought with a price," says Paul (1Co 7:23). "Christ redeemed us (bought us out) from the curse of the law" (Gal 3:13). In the new song in the Revelation the hosts of heaven tell how Jesus Christ bought them with his blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation (Rev 5:9). This clearly means two things. It means that the Christian by right of purchase belongs absolutely to Christ; and it means that a life which cost so much cannot be squandered on sin or on cheap things.

The heretics in Peter's letter were denying the Lord who bought them. That could mean that they were saying that they did not know Christ; and it could mean that they were denying his authority. But it is not as simple as that; one might say that it is not as honest as that. We have seen that these men claimed to be Christians; more, they claimed to be the wisest and the most advanced of Christians. Let us take a human analogy. Suppose a man says that he loves his wife and yet is consistently unfaithful to her. By his acts of infidelity he denies, gives the lie to his words of love. Suppose a man protests eternal friendship to someone, and yet is consistently disloyal to him. His actions deny, give the lie to, his protestations of friendship. What these evil men, who were troubling Peter's people, were doing, was to say that they loved and served Christ, while the things they taught and did were a complete denial of him.

(iii) The end of these evil men was destruction. They were insidiously introducing destructive heresies, but these heresies would in the end destroy themselves. There is no more certain way to ultimate condemnation than to teach another to sin.

Barclay: 2Pe 2:2-3

In this short passage we see four things about the false teachers and their teaching.

(i) We see the cause of false teaching. It is evil ambition. The word is pleonexia (4124); pleon (4119) means more and -exia comes from the verb echein (2192), which means to have. Pleonexia (4124) is the desire to possess more but it acquires a certain flavour. It is by no means always a sin to desire to possess more; there are many cases in which that is a perfectly honourable desire, as in the case of virtue, or knowledge, or skill. But pleonexia (4124) comes to mean the desire to possess that which a man has no right to desire, still less to take. So it can mean covetous desire for money and for other people's goods; lustful desire for someone's person; unholy ambition for prestige and power. False teaching comes from the desire to put its own ideas in the place of the truth of Jesus Christ; the false teacher is guilty of nothing less than of usurping the place of Christ.

(ii) We see the method of false teaching. It is the use of cunningly forged arguments. Falsehood is easily resisted when it is presented as falsehood; it is when it is disguised as truth that it becomes menacing. There is only one touchstone. Any teacher's teaching must be tested by the words and presence of Jesus Christ himself.

(iii) We see the affect of the false teaching. It was twofold. It encouraged men to take the way of blatant immorality. The word is aselgeia (766) which describes the attitude of the man who is lost to shame and cares for the judgment of neither man nor God. We must remember what was at the back of this false teaching. It was perverting the grace of God into a justification for sin. The false teachers were telling men that grace was inexhaustible and that, therefore, they were free to sin as they liked for grace would forgive.

This false teaching had a second effect. It brought Christianity into disrepute. In the early days, just as now, every Christian was a good or bad advertisement for Christianity and the Christian Church. It is Paul's accusation to the Jews that through them the name of God has been brought into disrepute (Rom 2:24). In the Pastoral Epistles the younger women are urged to behave with such modesty and chastity that the Church will never be brought into disrepute (Tit 2:5). Any teaching which produces a person who repels men from Christianity instead of attracting them to it is false teaching, and the work of those who are enemies of Christ.

(iv) We see the ultimate end of false teaching and that is destruction. Sentence was passed on the false prophets long ago; the Old Testament pronounced their doom (Deu 13:1-5). It might look as if that sentence had become inoperative or was slumbering, but it was still valid, and the day would come when the false teachers would pay the terrible price of their falsehood. No man who leads another astray will ever escape his own judgment.

Constable: 2Pe 2:1-22

IV. THE DANGER TO THE CHRISTIAN 2:1-22

Peter next warned his readers of the false teachers who presented a message contradictory to that of the apostles to help them avoid their influence. In chapter 1 Peter stressed the importance of building oneself up spiritually. In chapter 2 he described the reason it is important that we are strong. He began by describing the characteristics of false teachers, then the consequences of their teaching, then their conduct, and finally their condemnation. The connecting link with the end of chapter 1 is the reference to the Old Testament prophets.

"Only Christ's withering woes on hypocritical leaders in Matthew 23 and the parallel picture in the Epistle of Jude convey the same severe denunciation of false teachers contained in this chapter."⁷¹

This whole chapter gives evidence of being written out of great emotional concern. Peter did not discuss his subject of false teachers in a cool, logical fashion. He kept returning to previous thoughts and adding additional information. Some of his sentences are quite long and involved. His thoughts seem to have been rushing ahead of his ability to state them.

Constable: 2Pe 2:1-3

A. The Characteristics of False Teachers 2:1-3

2:1 "The people" in view are God's people in Old Testament times, the times to which Peter had just been referring (1:19-22). False prophets in Old Testament times sought to lead God's people away from the revelations of the true prophets. False teachers in Peter's time would try to lead God's people away from the teaching of the apostles. These men--they were typically males in Peter's day--would arise from the believers (cf. Jer. 5:31; 23:9-18; Acts 20:29). The term "false prophets" (Gr. pseudoprophetai) may refer to those who falsely claim to be prophets of God and or those who prophesy falsely. Likewise "false teachers" (Gr. pseudodidaskaloi) can refer to those who claim to be teachers of God's truth but whom the churches' leaders do not recognize as teachers and or those who teach falsehood.⁷² Evidently the false teachers that Peter warned about did not claim to be prophets.

"Secretly introduce" literally means to bring in alongside. The heretics would seek to add some other teaching to the orthodox faith and or some other teaching as a substitute for the truth (cf. Gal. 2:4). The implication is that they would seek to do this in some underhanded way. They would unobtrusively change the doctrinal foundation of the church and thereby make it unstable. "Heresies" refers to ideas inconsistent with the revealed truth of God.

These men would go as far as even repeatedly or typically denying (present participle in Greek) teaching and practices associated with Christ. The inconsistency of their position is that they deny the Person they profess to submit to as Christians, their Master (Gr. despoten) Jesus Christ.⁷³ When Jesus Christ died, He paid the penalty for everyone's sins and redeemed (purchased, Gr. agorasanta) every human being in this sense, even unbelievers (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 4:10; Acts 17:30; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2). This verse supports the doctrine of unlimited atonement, the view that Jesus Christ died for everyone, not just for those whom He would later save.

One limited atonement advocate believed that the whole case for unlimited atonement hangs on this verse.⁷⁴ This is an over-simplification, though another writer said, ". . . no assertion of universal redemption can be plainer than this."⁷⁵

Peter was not claiming that all the false teachers were Christians. In view of how he described them, most of them appear to have been unbelievers (cf. vv. 4-6). However some of them could have been believers.

". . . New Testament writers sometimes use the language of Christian conversion for such people [non-Christians] on the basis of their appearance."⁷⁶

The destruction of these heretics will be swift in the sense that when their judgment descends it will be sudden, not that it was about to descend as Peter wrote. They were saying that the Lord was slow in coming to exercise judgment (3:9), but their own judgment was imminent (Gr. taxinen). Their spiritual rather than their physical destruction seems to be in view primarily. In the case of Christian false teachers who departed from the truth they previously embraced, they too brought sudden spiritual ruin on themselves. This ruin would come on them at Jesus Christ's judgment seat (2 Cor. 5:10) if not sooner.

"Ironically, the false teachers incur judgment by teaching that there will be no future judgment and thereby leading themselves and others into immorality."⁷⁷

". . . destruction' for leading others to destruction' is inevitable."⁷⁸

"False teachers are better known for what they deny than for what they affirm."⁷⁹

2:2 Reckless and hardened immorality would accompany their doctrinal error.

"Clearly they permitted and defended immorality in a very broad sense."⁸⁰

When people abandon God's standard of truth they usually adopt a lower standard of morality. Since sensuality appeals to the flesh many people follow the example of heretics believing that they are correct in doing so because of the rationalizations of their teachers.

"No doctrine, however senseless and monstrous, which under the guise of a religious faith ministers to the sensual appetites of men, will ever want followers."⁸¹

This "religion" brings great dishonor on the church because unbelievers identify the immoral as professing Christians and judge their behavior as hypocritical.

2:3 False teachers typically desire to satisfy themselves rather than God. This leads them to take advantage of their audiences.

". . . Peter pointed out that the false teachers used feigned words.' The Greek word is plastos, from which we get our English word plastic. Plastic words! Words that can be twisted to mean anything you want them to mean! The false teachers use our vocabulary, but they do not use our dictionary. They talk about salvation,' inspiration,' and the great words of the Christian faith, but they do not mean what we mean. Immature and untaught believers hear these preachers or read their books and think that these men are sound in the faith, but they are not."⁸²

"There are also plastic preachers who can be molded and shaped by the people that they serve."⁸³

Peter personified their "judgment" and "destruction." His point was that God is never late or asleep in executing justice, though He is patient (cf. 3:9).

"We can argue that the danger of false teaching is greater in our day than it has ever been. Why? Because we live in an era that is deeply suspicious of absolute truth."⁸⁴

College: 2Pe 2:1-22

2 PETER 2

B. WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS (2:1-22)

1. The Coming of False Teachers (2:1-3)

¹ But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves. ² Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. ³ In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

With this section Peter gets to the heart of his reason for writing the letter. False teachers are about, and their teachings are not only wrong but absolutely destructive to Christian living. They will be severely punished, but they will first do terrible harm to God's people. Peter wants to ensure that his readers are not among those who will be led astray.

One of the great questions for the interpretation of this chapter concerns the time referent. Peter speaks of what the false teachers will do (future tense) in verses 1-3, yet in the remainder of the chapter speaks of what they are doing (present) or have done (past). A number of explanations have been offered. 1) A standard explanation of many critical scholars is that the letter was actually written long after the death of Peter, when the false teachers were active. The writer attributed these words to Peter as a prophetic warning for a later generation. The writer chose Peter either because his teachings were consistent with those of Peter or because he simply wanted to use a name which carried authority. The different tenses, then, are the result of the writer not carrying through with his fiction about Peter writing well before the events. The writer slipped up, so to speak, and revealed himself to be from a later generation. 2) The future tense is used in the early verses because Peter expects the situation to get worse. That is, false teachers were present, but more were to come. 3) The use of the future tense was simply a rhetorical device, and no time reference was intended. 4) The false teachers are not yet with Peter's readers, but he anticipates that they soon will be. He therefore speaks of their future arrival, but he knows of their present and past teachings and lifestyles. 5) In verses 1-3 Peter is quoting the substance of prophetic warnings from Jesus and early Christian prophets. For example, in the Olivet Discourse Jesus speaks of coming false teachers (Matt 24:11,24). Peter's "quotation" of earlier warnings therefore includes their use of the future tense. Peter thereby implies that even Jesus warned of these heretics, giving his readers even greater courage to reject the false teaching.

It is argued in the introduction to the commentary that there is no overwhelming reason to deny the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Therefore the first solution above should be rejected. It is difficult to know which of the other explanations may be correct, although I favor option 2 or 4. Fortunately, having the right answer to this question is not essential for understanding this section of the letter.

A further matter already discussed in the introduction is the question of this letter's relation to Jude. The great similarities to Jude begin in these verses, and it is probable that the two are somehow related literarily. However, we cannot be certain whether Jude used Peter's work or vice versa. Our understanding of these verses will therefore not be based on any theory of dependence.

2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.

Peter's discussion of prophets who "spoke from God" in the previous verses provides the transition to the present warning that "there will be false teachers among you." Here Peter turns the tables on the false teachers, by arguing that it was not the biblical prophets who spoke falsely about the Second Coming - it is rather the false teachers who are playing the role of the Old Testament "false prophets." It is interesting that Peter uses the term "false teachers" for his opponents rather than "false prophets." Most likely these men did not claim to be prophets.

They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Peter attacks in the strongest of terms, exposing these men on several fronts. First, they do their work "secretly." This probably suggests that they have pretended to be what they are not, in order to gain a hearing. Second, their teachings are "destructive." Since the term translated "heresies" was not yet a synonym for "unorthodox teaching," the emphasis here is probably on the destructive nature of their opinions. Peter will shortly give abundant evidence for his teaching that false thinking leads to sinful behavior that eventually leads to destruction. Third, the false teachers go so far as to "deny the sovereign Lord." Only here is it implied that they deny Christ, and one might think that the denial of Christ (as Messiah or as Son of God) would be the central concern of Peter in this letter. For that reason, most think that they were denying Christ by denying his future return or by denying his lordship in practice (by immoral behavior). Either or both of these may be in Peter's thoughts.

The mention of "the sovereign Lord who bought them" reminds Peter's readers that Christ has an absolute claim on Christians as their new master. The (common) metaphor pictures Christians as slaves, purchased by a "sovereign Lord," the NIV's translation of the unusual term despovth" (despotçs), from which arose the English word "despot." The purchase price in Peter's mind was without doubt the cross. Peter's point is that these false teachers by their teaching and actions were in fact denying the very one who died in order to free them from their former masters, sin and death. This can only bring "swift destruction" on them. God will not long tolerate this deliberate rebellion.

2:2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Unfortunately, false teachers usually gain a following. The reason is that the false teaching always has an attractive element to it, in this case its "shameful ways." The term normally indicates sensual immorality, most often of a sexual nature. Peter will be much more specific about these sins later in this chapter, where he writes of their sexual excesses and greed.

Tragically, their sins will harm not only themselves but also "the way of truth." This phrase is roughly equivalent to "the Christian way of life," pointing to the ethical conduct of Christians. The verb translated "bring . . . into disrepute" (blasfhmevw, blasphçmeô) shows that Peter is alluding to the Greek translation of Isaiah 52:5: "Because of you my name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles." Peter's concern here is that non-Christians will speak badly of the Christian way of life, severely hindering the church from carrying out its mission.

2:3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.

This is the first of several times Peter accuses his opponents of greed. How is it that they were profiting from their activity? They were almost certainly being supported by the churches in which they taught. After all, Jesus said, "The worker deserves his wages" (Luke 10:7), and Paul further argued the point in 1 Corinthians 9.

There are few hints to help the modern interpreter know what sort of "stories" the false teachers may have told. However, contending that they have "made up" the stories is Peter's way of using his opponents' arguments against them. They accused the apostles of following "cleverly invented stories," according to 1:16. So Peter here writes that they are the ones who are making things up.

Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Peter states that the condemnation of these false teachers was pronounced long ago. Perhaps he means that the Old Testament pronouncements against false prophets apply to these men. More likely, though, he is thinking that the destruction that came upon people like them in the Old Testament is clear enough evidence that the same will come upon these false teachers. The next seven verses, rehearsing the destruction of many ungodly groups, are the explanation of this sentence, as the beginning "for" in verse 4 indicates.

Most interestingly, Peter apparently is using the false teachers' words against them. They probably were ridiculing the idea of the Second Coming by statements such as, "God's judgment is idle, and his punishment is asleep." Peter's quotation of their taunt in 3:4 and his response in 3:9 further suggest the possibility of such statements. If they indeed uttered such words, Peter's choice of words is very deliberate: "Their condemnation . . . has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep" (NRSV).

Readers should pay close attention to the nature of the false teaching here in 2 Peter and throughout the New Testament. Those who are labeled "false teachers" are typically those who are denying a central doctrine of Christianity. For example, some denied that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4:2); others taught that the resurrection of believers had already taken place (1 Timothy 2:18). Many others taught that sins of the flesh were of no concern. When central Christian teachings are being denied, Christians must do as Peter, Paul, and John did. We must stamp out the error. However, some have taken texts about false teachers out of context and applied them to everyone who holds a different opinion from theirs. Modern Christians should take their cue from the apostles and attack only those who uphold the sort of teachings of the false teachers in the New Testament.

2. The Condemnation of False Teachers (2:4-10a)

⁴ For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, ^a putting them into gloomy dungeons ^b to be held for judgment; ⁵ if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; ⁶ if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; ⁷ and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men ⁸ (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) - ⁹ if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. ^{c 10} This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature ^d and despise authority.

^a 4 Greek Tartarus ^b 4 Some manuscripts into chains of darkness ^c 9 Or unrighteous for punishment until the day of judgment ^d 10 Or the flesh

Verses 4-9 comprise one of the longest sentences in the NIV Bible. The translators were unable to follow their usual practice of breaking long sentences into smaller ones, because verses 4-8 provide a protasis (the "if" statement) and verse 9 (and verse 10 in the original) give the apodosis (the "then" statement). The point could hardly be clearer: God has always brought certain destruction upon those who rebelliously follow their sinful desires, and at the same time he has protected those who remain faithful to him. If he did so then, he can be counted on to do the same with regard to these Christians and the false teachers who are afflicting them (see v. 3b).

Peter reminds these believers of three stories of God's judgment upon rebellious sinfulness, two of which include God's protection of godly people in the midst of the those who were destroyed. There are obvious parallels with Jude 5-7.

2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;

The next two examples of God's judgment (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) are much easier to understand than this one concerning sinning angels. There is no absolutely clear Old Testament text which describes such an event. The mysterious allusions to fallen angels in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:12-17 are possibly in Peter's mind, but there is no reference to gloomy dungeons in hell in those texts. It is far more likely, as many scholars have suggested, that Peter has in mind Genesis 6:1-4 and the Jewish traditions about these verses. The Genesis story is about the sons of God (a frequent designation for angels) who married and had children with "the daughters of men." The intertestamental writing 1 Enoch tells the story of God punishing these angels by confining them to the darkness of the underworld (see 1 Enoch 10:4-6). The story therefore fits very well Peter's allusion.

Several observations further suggest that Peter has in mind this story. First, the parallel passage in Jude alludes to the same story (verse 6), and Jude explicitly quotes 1 Enoch in verses 14-15. Second, Peter apparently makes reference to these confined angels ("spirits in prison") in 1 Peter 3:19 (see comments there). Third, Peter's three examples of God's judgment are probably intended to be in chronological order (Gen 6:1-4; 6:5-8:22; 19:1-29).

The word translated "cast . . . into hell" in the NIV is actually a word from Greek mythology meaning "cast into Tartarus." Tartarus was the underworld into which rebellious spirits and humans were sent. Peter makes it clear that this is a (horrible) holding place for them until the day of judgment. It is thus not quite the same as hell. The phrase, "gloomy dungeons," is an accurate description of the place of punishment described in 1 Enoch.

2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

Peter's second example of God's judgment is closely related to the first. In Genesis 6:5 and in the story in 1 Enoch the sinful "sons of God" are partly responsible for the growing sinfulness of humanity which leads to the flood. In Peter's former story, the angels are punished. In this story, the people are punished.

It is not surprising that Peter uses the flood story to remind his readers that "the ancient world" was destroyed because the people were "ungodly." Nor is it surprising that he mentions Noah and those with him being "protected." After all, his goal is to give confidence to his godly readers while warning them about the ungodly false teachers. It may be surprising, though, that he calls Noah "a preacher of righteousness." The Genesis story never mentions Noah's preaching, although a number of nonbiblical Jewish works fill in that void. Peter may be referring to these traditions, or he may be referring to the unspoken "preaching" of building an ark for 120 years.

The mention of "seven others" obscures the original, "the eighth Noah," an idiom which means, "Noah and seven others." The reference to eight in the original reminds the attentive reader of 1 Peter 3:20, which also mentions the eight who were saved, immediately after the mention of the "spirits in prison" (see verse 4). More importantly, the number reminds the believers that the godly are often found in small numbers.

2:6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

Peter's third story of punishment for the ungodly and protection for the righteous is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and of Lot. It may be worth noting that this story, like the earlier two, seems to revolve around punishment for sexual sin. The angels in verse 4 lust and have illicit sexual relations with women, leading to their punishment. The offspring of this sexual union lead the world even further into rebellion, and all but eight people are destroyed. Similarly, in Genesis 19 it is the men following their basest sexual desires that leads to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Peter refers to the "filthy lives of lawless men" in the next verse.) In verses 13-14 Peter will accuse his opponents of the same. Here he assures his readers that their fate will also be like that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

2:7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 2:8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) -

Peter's readers can be assured that God will take care of them as he took care of Lot (and Noah). Even in the midst of people destined for utter destruction, God's people will be "rescued."

Modern readers are somewhat surprised that the adjective "righteous" is used to describe Lot. The Genesis narratives show him to be wavering and cowardly (although some later Jewish writings improved upon his moral stature). However, Lot does emerge from the stories a righteous, though tragic, character. The Genesis narrative shows him to be one who believed and trusted God, despite some obvious failings. He protected his visitors from the men of Sodom and pleaded with the Sodomites not to do "this wicked thing." For Peter, Lot's being "distressed" about their "filthy lives" is what shows his righteousness, since he mentions again that Lot was "tormented in his righteous soul." Peter assumes that this occurred "day after day," since Lot was "living among them." Perhaps one can be considered "righteous" if, even though weak, he is distressed and tormented by the evil around and within him.

2:9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

After four "if" statements, Peter finally provides the "then." If God has been faithful in the past, then he will be so in the future. The "godly men," Noah and Lot, were rescued from God's worst destruction against the ungodly. This must have been comforting to Peter's readers, who were being told that there would be no final judgment for the immoral and thus no salvation or protection for those who are distressed and tormented by immorality.

The Greek term translated "while continuing their punishment" may also be understood to mean that the ungodly are going "to be punished" at the day of judgment (rather than while waiting). However, the NIV has chosen the more natural grammatical understanding and that which is supported by verse 4. "The unrighteous" who are being punished while awaiting "the day of judgment" include at least the fallen angels who were consigned to the gloomy dungeons. But does Peter imply here that all the unrighteous dead are experiencing punishment while they await judgment? This is probably his intention since this was the common early Christian opinion and since this statement would appear to refer to more than simply the fallen angels.

2:10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

Peter does not have to refer specifically to the false teachers for all readers to know he has them in mind. The two broad categories of sin of which they are guilty are 1) "indulging their flesh in depraved lust" (NRSV, a better translation here than that of the NIV), and 2) "despising authority." The terms used in the first charge suggest that in their sexual sins they have made a god of "the flesh" (savrx, sarx ). The term means not "the physical body" but, as the NIV well translates, "the sinful nature" or the sinful tendency within human beings.

The false teachers' contempt for authority has been hinted at already. They apparently have spoken against the apostles (1:16) and the prophets (1:20). They also "slander celestial beings," as the next sentence states (2:10b). Most seriously, they also deny "the sovereign Lord" (2:1). Peter's statement here probably refers to all of these (and more). These men are unwilling to answer to any but themselves and their lusts. However, willing or not, they will answer to the God who has always punished willful sinfulness.

3. The Sins of the False Teachers (2:10b-16)

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; ¹¹ yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. ¹² But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

¹³ They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. ^{a 14} With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed - an accursed brood! ¹⁵ They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. ¹⁶ But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey - a beast without speech - who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

^a 13 Some manuscripts in their love feasts

Peter has already written of the coming of the false teachers and their future condemnation. He has also offered Old Testament examples of the sort of destruction that awaits them. In this section he gives his most detailed description of their attitude and behavior. They are ignorant, arrogant, adulterous, and greedy.

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;

"These men," the false teachers, not only despise authority, but they are "bold and arrogant" about it. Since they do not believe in a final judgment, they are afraid of nothing and no one. Already we learned that they did not accept the words of the apostles (1:16) or that of the prophets (1:20). Peter now writes that they "slander celestial beings." The NIV rendering is again interpretive, understanding the term "glorious ones" (dovxa", doxas ) as "celestial beings," without naming them as good (angels) or evil (demons). Although a few have argued that human authority figures should be included in this term, there are good reasons for the NIV interpretation. First, in the parallel text, Jude 8, the term clearly refers to angelic beings. (Note that Jude goes on to mention the story of the archangel Michael disputing with the devil, but not slandering him.) Second, the next verse in 2 Peter makes most sense if these beings are spiritual beings rather than human beings (see below).

But just who are these celestial beings the false teachers are slandering? And why are they slandering them? Peter gives few hints. We will never know for sure, but we can make some educated guesses. Perhaps the slandered spiritual beings are demonic forces, whose very existence the false teachers deny. Perhaps the false teachers have not accepted teachings such as those of Paul, who writes, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12). It is not difficult to imagine that they ridiculed those who would warn them that their sinful behavior puts them in great danger of coming under the control of these forces.

2:11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.

The celestial beings of verse 10 must be evil spiritual beings, since "even" angels refrain from accusing them. But why does Peter note that angels do not slander "such beings?" And to what story is he alluding? The parallel in Jude may shed light in this case, since it provides an example of an angel who refrained from accusing an evil spiritual being. Jude 9 refers to an intertestamental Jewish writing called the Assumption of Moses , in which the archangel Michael argues with the devil over the body of Moses. Even though the devil has slandered Moses by accusing him of murder, Michael leaves the accusation of the devil up to God, saying, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Angels are "stronger and more powerful" than human beings, as evidenced by many biblical stories. Perhaps the first in the mind of Peter's readers would be the angels who came to Abraham to tell him of the future destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. These angels struck blind the men of Sodom, and they later called down burning sulfur on the cities.

The point is that even with their God-given power, angels do not take lightly the power of evil spiritual beings. The devil and his forces are not to be underestimated. They have destroyed many foolish victims.

Much has been said and written in recent years about "spiritual warfare," guardian angels, demonic forces and the like. Much of this has been speculation, and some has been clearly unbiblical. A lot of bad advice has been given about how to do battle against the demonic powers. However, it is also dangerous to underestimate the power of spiritual forces, as this text suggests.

2:12 But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand.

It is always poor judgment to speak against that which one does not understand. It is especially foolish to revile those with superior power and a desire to destroy. The fact that these teachers are ignorant about these forces is no excuse, because they are ignorant by their own choice. It is a common theme throughout Scripture that those who have chosen to ignore the truth are just as guilty as those who know it and disobey.

They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. 2:13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done.

Peter draws an important distinction between humans and mere animals, categorizing these foolish men with the "brute [a[loga, aloga , "unreasoning"] beasts" that were "born only" to be slaughtered for their meat. Rather than following reason and revelation, the false teachers are guided only by their ignorance and sinful desires. Their arrogance and their passion for wealth and sexual indulgence (vv. 13-16) will ensure that "they too will perish." Peter then employs a pun to state that the coming destruction of the false teachers will be God's retribution: they will receive harm for inflicting harm.

Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight.

This sentence begins Peter's clearest description of their sins, the first of which is that they "carouse." The term trufhv (tryphç) implies self-indulgence, the gratification of the basic appetites without restraint. The false teachers are shown to be bold and arrogant even in their carousing, since they practice it "in broad daylight." Sexual sin, drunkenness, and other sensual excesses were generally practiced at night in the first century, just as now.

They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

The interpretation of this sentence may be helped by noting its parallel in Jude 12. There Jude speaks of the false teachers as "blemishes at your love feasts" (Jude 12). The term "love feasts" (ajgavpai", agapais ) there refers to the fellowship meals during which the Lord's supper was eaten. This may explain Peter's reference to the "feasting" in this verse. The term agapais (love feasts) may also have suggested Peter's term for pleasures, ajpavtai" ( apatais ).

Peter's terms, "blots and blemishes," are another pair of synonyms. The terms look ahead to 3:14, where Christians are encouraged to be found " without spot or blemish" at the Second Coming. The terms therefore also look back to the Jewish sacrificial system: the sacrificial animals were to be without blemish. Peter's point, then, is that these men are sinful and unacceptable blemishes on what is otherwise a holy gathering of Christians.

The false teachers not only follow their sinful desires ("reveling in their pleasures"), but they do so when the church is gathered to "feast" together. As in Jude 12, the reference is probably to the regular shared meals of the church. Perhaps we are to understand that the false teachers were guilty of gluttony and drunkenness at the very time they were supposed to have been celebrating their redemption from sin in the cross of Jesus.

2:14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable;

The phrase, "eyes full of adultery," means literally that they are always looking for an adulteress. The next words, "they never stop sinning," also refers to the eyes of these men. They are constantly seeking someone with whom they can commit adultery. Unfortunately, they are sometimes successful, because there are among the Christians some who are not well grounded. These "unstable" Christians are without doubt the target of much of the "teaching" of these false teachers. Peter accuses them in verse 18 of preying upon new converts.

they are experts in greed - an accursed brood!

As mentioned in 2:3, Peter's antagonists are greedy. The term in Greek is much like the term in English. A person can be greedy for money, sex, power, and more. But it probably refers primarily to financial gain, since the next verse recalls a greedy Old Testament false prophet. The false teachers have found a way to profit financially from their activities, probably being supported by the church for their teaching. The NIV attempts with the word "expert" to translate a vivid phrase, "having hearts well trained [gegumnasmevnhn, gegymnasmençn] in greed." Not only are they greedy - they have worked at it and perfected it.

Writing that they are "an accursed brood" is Peter's way of reminding his readers again that these men are doomed to destruction. No matter how impressive and successful they appear to be, they stand under God's curse.

2:15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness.

Peter has already mentioned "the way of truth" in 2:2. Now he writes of "the straight way," a common metaphor in Jewish and early Christian literature. The straight way is the way of holy living, but these men have "wandered off" the path, just as Balaam the son of Beor did. The NIV translation ignores the fact that the best Greek manuscripts read "son of Bosor" rather than "son of Beor." Balaam is nowhere else called by this name, but the term may be an intentional mixing of the term "Beor" with the term for "flesh" (Hebrew basar). Perhaps Peter is calling Balaam the "son of the flesh." "The way of Balaam" is a double entendre, referring to the sinful desire of Balaam as well as the literal path on which he rode the donkey, a path that he was forced to "wander off" because of the angel.

Balaam was, of course, the prophet whom the king of Moab tried to hire to curse Israel, according to Numbers 22-24. The Israelites were poised to enter Canaan, and Moab's king was terrified of them. Balaam wanted to receive the fee from the king, but he knew that he must first consult the Lord. The Lord first refused but later allowed him to go to the king of Moab. Apparently because of Balaam's wrong intentions (to curse Israel for money), God sent an angel to stop him, but only his donkey could see the angel. When the donkey turned off the road, crushed Balaam's foot, and finally stopped, he threatened the donkey, after which God opened his eyes to see the angel.

Balaam had long since become a standard negative example, in the Old Testament and in later Jewish literature (Deut 23:4-5; Josh 13:22; 24:9-10; Neh 13:1-2; Micah 6:5). Jewish tradition states what the Numbers narrative implies, that Balaam's sin was his desire to prophesy what the king desired in exchange for money. Therefore the phrase, "the wages of wickedness," refers to the financial gain a prophet or teacher receives for speaking.

2:16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey - a beast without speech - who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

The assumption is that Balaam had decided to prophesy against Israel for the money. So the "brute beast" (from verse 12) proved more reasonable than the man who, like the false teachers, was following his worst impulses. The donkey acts as the man should, and the man acts like the donkey, that is, irrationally ("madness").

4. The Future Suffering of the False Teachers (2:17-22)

¹⁷ These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. ¹⁸ For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. ¹⁹ They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity - for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. ²⁰ If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. ²¹ It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. ²² Of them the proverbs are true: ''A dog returns to its vomit," ^a and, ''A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

^a 22 Prov. 26:11

In this section Peter continues to attack the false teachers, especially with regard to their teaching of others. The emphasis is that their teaching leaves those who follow them even worse off than they were before becoming Christians. Peter's vivid metaphors reflect his attitude toward the false teachers.

2:17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.

Since water sustains life, water is a common metaphor for the teachings of God. Jesus speaks, for example, of the living water which he could give the Samaritan woman so that she would never thirst again (John 4:14). Peter accuses the false teachers of promising water but failing to deliver. They are like springs that have run dry and mists that are quickly blown away before they can refresh.

Since the last six words are exactly the same as those in Jude 13, many think that Peter is following Jude here. If so, he has altered the metaphor that in Jude referred to "wandering stars" forever consigned to darkness. Peter's reference to "darkness" is just like that which was common among Jews and Christians. For example, Jesus warns that some "will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt 8:12).

2:18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.

Peter now explains how the false teachers are like springs and mists that promise water but cannot produce. They make great claims, but there is in fact nothing to them. Their success in reality comes from their appeal to the sinful desires of people. Here those desires are called "lustful," probably implying sexual desire. Unfortunately, those who are most likely to follow them are recent converts who are not yet established in faith and practice. They are "enticed" back into the sinful ways of their former pagan friends ("those who live in error"). They have not yet had time to grow out of their desire for their former practices.

Perhaps a word is in order at this point about those who appeal to the worst in people in order to further their personal agendas. Modern Christian leaders who preach the health and wealth gospel would be good examples. Similarly, those who deny biblical teachings on sexual matters regarding premarital sex and homosexuality may also fall into this category.

2:19 They promise them freedom,

Peter now explains one of the boastful claims that these teachers have falsely made. Though empty, their promise of freedom must have sounded impressive and, in fact, very much like one of the great claims of the early Christians. Paul especially calls his churches to freedom in Christ, making such statements as, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1).

From the earliest times there have been Christians whose misunderstanding of God's grace has led them to be unconcerned about sin (see Rom 6:1-3). The false teachers opposed by Peter may have shared such a doctrine of grace, and they may have misread Paul's letters in order to support their understandings (see 3:16). However, their freedom from moral concerns was also related directly to their disbelief in the final judgment at the Second Coming of Christ. Their "no final judgment" doctrine led to their loose living.

while they themselves are slaves of depravity - for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

The term fqovra ( phthora ) translated "depravity" might also be translated "corruption," the destruction to be brought upon evildoers. In either case, Peter notes the irony that the so-called freedom of the false teachers actually leads to slavery. If Peter means that they have become slaves of (future) destruction, this is certainly true. However, he probably means that they have become enslaved by their sinful desires. The next statement concerning their having been "mastered" favors this view. This was most likely a well-known proverb in Peter's day. As applied to the false teachers, it means that they were no longer in control of their own lives, since their passions had taken charge.

2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

Peter continues to speak of moral corruption. But to whom does he refer when he writes, "they have escaped?" Are "they" the false teachers or those whom they are enticing? The Greek is ambiguous, as is the NIV. Although many modern commentators favor the false teachers, there are two reasons for thinking otherwise. First, this section returns to the idea introduced in verse 13 concerning the "harm" which these teachers are doing. Second, Peter has nowhere suggested that these false teachers ever lived holy lives that proclaimed Jesus Christ as Lord. It seems better to take verse 19 as a parenthetical comment, so that "they" in verse 20 refers to the "people who are just escaping" in verse 18. (Of course, this verse presents a terrible truth, no matter which group Peter has in mind.)

"Knowing" Jesus as "Lord and Savior," according to Peter, leads to freedom from the sinfulness of the world. But he knows that it is possible to become involved again in ungodly living. The terms "entangled" and "overcome" suggest how Christians often revert to earlier sins. It is rarely a conscious choice to do what is wrong. More often such Christians assume they can handle the situation, only to find themselves trapped and overpowered. Peter's primary point is found in the final words in this verse: those who return to lives dominated by sin are actually "worse off" than they were before becoming Christians. The English reader will probably miss the fact that these words are almost exactly those of Jesus in Matthew 12:45: "The final condition of that man is worse than the first." Jesus spoke these words at the end of his discussion about the evil spirit that left a man but then found no better place to live. When it returned and found its former home unoccupied, it brought seven other worse spirits to live there, too. Peter's use of Jesus' words is further explained in verse 21.

2:21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Restating in stronger terms what he has just written, Peter argues that they would be better off if they had never experienced the Christian life than to "turn their backs" on holy living. The general import of the statement is clear - it would be better at the judgment never to have been a Christian, because God will punish more severely those who knew the truth but gave it up.

The phrase "the way of righteousness" recalls the earlier phrases, "the way of truth" in 2:2 and "the straight way" in 2:15. All three refer to the "way" of holy living. The "sacred command that was passed on to them" refers most likely to the command to live lives of holiness, rather than any of the specific instructions they were given when they became Christians.

2:22 Of them the proverbs are true: ''A dog returns to its vomit," and, ''A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

The final statements in this section are Peter's quotation of two well-known and distasteful proverbs. Both involve animals that were unclean to Jews and generally regarded as disgusting by all. This is the third comparison in this chapter of unholy lives to the ways of animals (see verses 12 and 16). The point of the analogy is painfully obvious.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

ABOUT a.d. 66 OR 67

By Way of Introduction

Most Doubtful New Testament Book

Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of 2 Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour. One has to admit that the case concerning 2 Peter has problems of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that an adverse decision against the authenticity of 2 Peter stands by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books. It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without full knowledge of all the evidence.

Slow in General Acceptance

It was accepted in the canon by the council at Laodicea (372) and at Carthage (397). Jerome accepted it for the Vulgate, though it was absent from the Peshito Syriac Version. Eusebius placed it among the disputed books, while Origen was inclined to accept it. Clement of Alexandria accepted it and apparently wrote a commentary on it. It is probable that the so-called Apocalypse of Peter (early second century) used it and the Epistle of Jude either used it or 2 Peter used Jude. There are undoubted allusions also to phrases in 2 Peter in Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome. When one considers the brevity of the Epistle, the use of it is really as strong as one can expect. Athanasius and Augustine accepted it as genuine, as did Luther, while Calvin doubted and Erasmus rejected it. It may be said for it that it won its way under criticism and was not accepted blindly.

Claims Petrine Authorship

Not only so, but in fuller form than 1Pe_1:1, for the writer terms himself " Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon (Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in Act_15:14) is the real name (Joh_1:42) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas, the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the fact remains that 2 Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and orthodox teaching.

And Personal Experiences of Peter

The writer makes use of his own contact with Jesus, especially at the Transfiguration of Christ (Mar_9:2-8; Mat_17:1-8; Luk_9:28-36). This fact has been used against the genuineness of the Epistle on the plea that the writer is too anxious, anyhow, to show that he is Symeon Peter (2Pe_1:1). But Bigg rightly replies that, if he had only given his name with no personal contacts with Jesus, the name would be called " a forged addition." It is possible also that the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration may have been suggested by Peter’s use of exodos for his own death (2Pe_1:15), the very word used by Luke (Luk_9:31) as the topic of discussion between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. There is also in 2Pe_1:13 the use of " tent" ( skēnoma ) for the life in the body, like Peter’s use of " tents" ( skēnas ) to Jesus at that very time (Mar_9:5; Mat_17:4; Luk_9:33). In 2Pe_1:14 Peter also refers to the plain words of Jesus about his coming death (Joh_21:18.). In 2Pe_1:15 Peter speaks of his own plan for preserving the knowledge of Jesus when he is gone (possibly by Mark’s Gospel). All this is in perfect keeping with Peter’s own nature.

And yet the Epistle Differs in Style from First Peter

This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words ( epichorēgeō in 2Pe_1:10, 2Pe_1:19, bebaios in 2Pe_1:12, 2Pe_1:13, 2Pe_1:15, prophēteia in 2Pe_1:20; 2Pe_3:3, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in 1 Peter. " This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in 1 Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in 2 Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in 1 Peter than in 2 Peter, though some do occur in 2 Peter. Besides those already given, note 2Pe_1:8 (Luk_13:7.), 2Pe_2:1 (Mat_10:33), 2Pe_2:20 (Mat_12:45; Luk_11:26), 2Pe_3:4 (Mat_24:1.), and possibly 2Pe_1:3 to Christ’s calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in 2 Peter, 231 in 2 Peter not in 1 Peter. There are 686 hapax legomena in N.T., 54 in 2 Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for 1 Peter (1Pe_5:12). Mark was Peter’s usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for 2 Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from Act_4:13 that Peter and John were considered unlettered men ( agrammatoi kai idiōtai ). 2 Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. 2 Peter may have more of Peter’s real style than 1 Peter.

He Accepts Paul’s Epistles as Scripture

This fact (2Pe_3:15.) has been used as conclusive proof by Baur and his school that Peter could not have written the Epistle after the stern rebuke from Paul at Antioch (Gal_2:11.). But this argument ignores one element in Peter’s impulsive nature and that is his coming back as he did with Jesus. Paul after that event in Antioch spoke kindly of Peter (1Co_9:5). Neither Peter nor Paul cherished a personal grudge where the Master’s work was involved. It is also objected that Peter would not have put Paul’s Epistles on the level with the O.T. and call them by implication " Scripture." But Paul claimed the help of the Holy Spirit in his writings and Peter knew the marks of the Holy Spirit’s power. Besides, in calling Paul’s Epistles Scripture he may not have meant to place them exactly on a par with the Old Testament.

The Resemblance to the Epistle of Jude

This is undoubted, particularly between Jude and the second chapter of 2 Peter. Kuhl argues that 2 Peter 2:1-3:2 is an interpolation, though the same style runs through out the Epistle. " The theory of interpolation is always a last and desperate expedient" (Bigg). In 2 Peter 2 we have the fallen angels, the flood, the cities of the plain with Lot, Balaam. In Jude we have Israel in the wilderness, the fallen angels, the cities of the plain (with no mention of Lot, Cain, Balaam, Korah). Jude mentions the dispute between Michael and Satan, quotes Enoch by name. There is rather more freshness in Jude than in 2 Peter, though 2 Peter is more intelligible. Evidently one had the other before him, besides other material. Which is the earlier? There is no way to decide this point clearly. Every point is looked at differently and argued differently by different writers. My own feeling is that Jude was before (just before) 2 Peter, though it is only a feeling and not a conviction.

Anachronisms

It used to be said that it was impossible for 2 Peter to have been written in the first century, because it had the atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that argument. In 2Pe_3:8 occurs the quotation of Psa_90:4 about the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to have such a swing. Peter’s use of it suits the first century, not the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in 2 Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul’s troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. " Every feature in the description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in the apostolic age" (Bigg).

The Readers

The author says that this is his second Epistle to them (2Pe_3:1), and that means that he is writing to the saints in the five Roman provinces in Asia Minor to whom the first Epistle was sent (1Pe_1:1). Spitta and Zahn deny this on the ground that the two Epistles do not discuss the same subjects, surely a flimsy objection. Zahn even holds that 2 Peter precedes 1 Peter and that the Epistle referred to in 2Pe_3:1 has been lost. He holds that 2 Peter was addressed to the church in Corinth. He considers the readers to be Jews while 1 Peter was addressed to Gentiles. But " there is nothing in 2 Peter to differentiate its first readers from those of 1 Peter" (Bigg).

The Purpose

Certainly Peter is here concerned chiefly with the heresies of that general region in Asia Minor that so disturbed Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, Pastoral Epistles) and John (Gospel, Epistles, Apocalypse). Paul early foresaw at Miletus these wolves that would ravish the sheep (Act_20:29.). In 1 Peter he is concerned chiefly with the fiery persecutions that are upon them, but here with the heretics that threaten to lead them astray.

Balance of Probability

There are difficulties in any decision about the authorship and character of 2 Peter. But, when all things are considered, I agree with Bigg that the Epistle is what it professes to be by Simon Peter. Else it is pseudonymous. The Epistle more closely resembles the other New Testament books than it does the large pseudepigraphic literature of the second and third centuries.

The Date

If we accept the Petrine authorship, it must come before his death, which was probably a.d. 67 or 68. Hence the Epistle cannot be beyond this date. There are those who argue for a.d. 64 as the date of Peter’s death, but on insufficient grounds in my opinion.

JFB: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS.--If not a gross imposture, its own internal witness is unequivocal in its favor. It has Peter's name and apostleship in its heading: not only his surname, but his original name Simon, or Simeon, he thus, at the close of his life, reminding his readers who he originally was before his call. Again, in 2Pe 1:16-18, he mentions his presence at the Transfiguration, and Christ's prophecy of his death! and in 2Pe 3:15, his brotherhood with Paul. Again, in 2Pe 3:1, the author speaks of himself as author of the former Epistle: it is, moreover, addressed so as to include (but not to be restricted to) the same persons as the first, whom he presupposes to be acquainted with the writings of Paul, by that time recognized as "Scripture" (2Pe 3:15, "the long-suffering of God," compare Rom 2:4). This necessarily implies a late date, when Paul's Epistles (including Romans) already had become generally diffused and accepted as Scripture in the Church. The Church of the fourth century had, besides the testimony which we have of the doubts of the earlier Christians, other external evidence which we have not, and which, doubtless, under God's overruling providence, caused them to accept it. It is hard to understand how a book palpably false (as it would be if Peter be not the author) could have been accepted in the Canon as finally established in the Councils of Laodicea, A.D. 360 (if the fifty-ninth article be genuine), Hippo, and Carthage in the fourth century (393 and 397). The whole tone and spirit of the Epistle disprove its being an imposture. He writes as one not speaking of himself, but moved by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21). An attempt at such a fraud in the first ages would have brought only shame and suffering, alike from Christians and heathen, on the perpetrator: there was then no temptation to pious frauds as in later times. That it must have been written in the earliest age is plain from the wide gulf in style which separates it and the other New Testament Scriptures from even the earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. DAILLE well says, "God has allowed a fosse to be drawn by human weakness around the sacred canon to protect it from all invasion."

Traces of acquaintance with it appear in the earliest Fathers. HERMAS [Similitudes, 6.4] (compare 2Pe 2:13), Greek, "luxury in the day . . . luxuriating with their own deceivings"; and [Shepherd, Vision 3.7], "They have left their true way" (compare 2Pe 2:15); and [Shepherd, Vision 4.3], "Thou hast escaped this world" (compare 2Pe 2:20). CLEMENT OF ROME, [Epistle to the Corinthians, 7.9; 10], as to Noah's preaching and Lot's deliverance, "the Lord making it known that He does not abandon those that trust in Him, but appoints those otherwise inclined to judgment" (compare 2Pe 2:5-7, 2Pe 2:9). IRENÆUS, A.D. 178 ("the day of the Lord is as a thousand years"), and JUSTIN MARTYR seem to allude to 2Pe 3:8. HIPPOLYTUS [On Antichrist], seems to refer to 2Pe 1:21, "The prophets spake not of their own private (individual) ability and will, but what was (revealed) to them alone by God." The difficulty is, neither TERTULLIAN, CYPRIAN, CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, nor the oldest Syriac (Peschito) version (the later Syriac has it), nor the fragment known as Muratori's Canon, mentions it. The first writer who has expressly named it is ORIGEN, in the third century (Homily on Joshua; also Homily 4 on Leviticus, and Homily 13 on Numbers), who names it "Scripture," quoting 2Pe 1:4; 2Pe 2:16; however (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.25]), he mentions that the Second Epistle was doubted by some. FIRMILIAN, bishop of Cappadocia, in Epistle to Cyrpian speaks of Peter's Epistles as warning us to avoid heretics (a monition which occurs in the Second, not the First Epistle). Now Cappadocia is one of the countries mentioned (compare 1Pe 1:1 with 2Pe 3:1) as addressed; and it is striking, that from Cappadocia we get the earliest decisive testimony. "Internally it claims to be written by Peter, and this claim is confirmed by the Christians of that very region in whose custody it ought to have been found" [TREGELLES].

The books disputed (Antilegomena), as distinguished from those universally recognized (Homologoumena), are Epistles Second Peter, James, Second and Third John, Jude, the Apocalypse, Epistle to Hebrews (compare EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.3,25]). The Antilegomena stand in quite a different class from the Spurious; of these there was no dispute, they were universally rejected; for example, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (A.D. 348) enumerates seven Catholic Epistles, including Second Peter; so also GREGORY NAZIANZEN (A.D. 389), and EPIPHANIUS (A.D. 367). The oldest Greek manuscripts extant (of the fourth century) contain the Antilegomena. JEROME [On Illustrious Men], conjectured, from a supposed difference of style between the two Epistles, that Peter, being unable to write Greek, employed a different translator of his Hebrew dictation in the Second Epistle, and not the same as translated the First into Greek. Mark is said to have been his translator in the case of the Gospel according to Mark; but this is all gratuitous conjecture. Much of the same views pervade both Epistles. In both alike he looks for the Lord's coming suddenly, and the end of the world (compare 2Pe 3:8-10 with 1Pe 4:5); the inspiration of the prophets (compare 1Pe 1:10-12 with 2Pe 1:19-21; 2Pe 3:2); the new birth by the divine word a motive to abstinence from worldly lusts (1Pe 1:22; 1Pe 2:2; compare 2Pe 1:4); also compare 1Pe 2:9 with 2Pe 1:3, both containing in the Greek the rare word "virtue" (1Pe 4:17 with 2Pe 2:3).

It is not strange that distinctive peculiarities of STYLE should mark each Epistle, the design of both not being the same. Thus the sufferings of Christ are more prominent in the First Epistle, the object there being to encourage thereby Christian sufferers; the glory of the exalted Lord is more prominent in the Second, the object being to communicate fuller "knowledge" of Him as the antidote to the false teaching against which Peter warns his readers. Hence His title of redemption, "Christ," is the one employed in the First Epistle; but in the Second Epistle, "the Lord." Hope is characteristic of the First Epistle; full knowledge, of the Second Epistle. In the First Epistle he puts his apostolic authority less prominently forward than in the Second, wherein his design is to warn against false teachers. The same difference is observable in Paul's Epistles. Contrast 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; Phi 1:1, with Gal 1:1; 1Co 1:1. The reference to Paul's writings as already existing in numbers, and as then a recognized part of Scripture (2Pe 3:15-16), implies that this Epistle was written at a late date, just before Peter's death.

Striking verbal coincidences occur: compare 1Pe 1:19, end, with 2Pe 3:14, end; "His own," Greek, 2Pe 1:3, 2Pe 2:16; 2Pe 3:17 with 1Pe 3:1, 1Pe 3:5. The omission of the Greek article, 1Pe 2:13 with 2Pe 1:21; 2Pe 2:4-5, 2Pe 2:7. Moreover, two words occur, 2Pe 1:13, "tabernacle," that is, the body, and 2Pe 1:15, "decease," which at once remind us of the transfiguration narrative in the Gospel. Both Epistles refer to the deluge, and to Noah as the eighth that was saved. Though the First Epistle abounds in quotations of the Old Testament, whereas the Second contains none, yet references to the Old Testament occur often (2Pe 1:21; 2Pe 2:5-8, 2Pe 2:15; 2Pe 3:5-6, 2Pe 3:10, 2Pe 3:13). Compare Greek, "putting away," 1Pe 3:21, with 2Pe 1:14; Greek, "pass the time," 1Pe 1:17, with 2Pe 2:18; "walked in," 1Pe 4:3, with 2Pe 2:10; 2Pe 3:3; "called you," 1Pe 1:15; 1Pe 2:9; 1Pe 5:10, with 2Pe 1:3.

Moreover, more verbal coincidences with the speeches of Peter in Acts occur in this Second, than in the First Epistle. Compare Greek, "obtained," 2Pe 1:1 with Act 1:17; Greek, "godliness," 2Pe 1:6, with Act 3:12, the only passage where the term occurs, except in the Pastoral Epistles; and 2Pe 2:9 with Act 10:2, Act 10:7; "punished," 2Pe 2:9, with Act 4:21, the only places where the term occurs; the double genitive, 2Pe 3:2, with Act 5:32; "the day of the Lord," 2Pe 3:10, with Act 2:20, where only it occurs, except in 1Th 5:2.

The testimony of Jude, Jud 1:17-18, is strong for its genuineness and inspiration, by adopting its very words, and by referring to it as received by the churches to which he, Jude, wrote, "Remember the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts." Jude, therefore, must have written after Second Peter, to which he plainly refers; not before, as ALFORD thinks. No less than eleven passages of Jude rest on similar statements of Second Peter. Jud 1:2, compare 2Pe 1:2; Jud 1:4, compare 2Pe 2:1; Jud 1:6, compare 2Pe 2:4; Jud 1:7, compare 2Pe 2:6; Jud 1:8, compare 2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:9, compare 2Pe 2:11; Jud 1:11, compare 2Pe 2:15; Jud 1:12, compare 2Pe 2:17; Jud 1:16, compare 2Pe 2:18; Jud 1:18, compare 2Pe 2:1; 2Pe 3:3. Just in the same way Micah, Mic 4:1-4, leans on the somewhat earlier prophecy of Isaiah, whose inspiration he thereby confirms. ALFORD reasons that because Jude, in many of the passages akin to Second Peter, is fuller than Second Peter, he must be prior. This by no means follows. It is at least as likely, if not more so, that the briefer is the earlier, rather than the fuller. The dignity and energy of the style is quite consonant to what we should expect from the prompt and ardent foreman of the apostles. The difference of style between First and Second Peter accords with the distinctness of the subjects and objects.

THE DATE, from what has been said, would be about A.D. 68 or 69, about a year after the first, and shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, the typical precursor of the world's end, to which 2Pe 3:10-13 so solemnly calls attention, after Paul's ministry had closed (compare Greek aorist tense, "wrote," past time, 2Pe 3:15), just before Peter's own death. It was written to include the same persons, and perhaps in, or about the same place, as the first. Being without salutations of individuals, and entrusted to the care of no one church, or particular churches as the first is, but directed generally "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us" (2Pe 1:1), it took a longer time in being recognized as canonical. Had Rome been the place of its composition or publication, it could hardly have failed to have had an early acceptance--an incidental argument against the tradition of Peter's martyrdom at Rome. The remote scene of its composition in Babylon, or else in some of the contiguous regions beyond the borders of the Roman empire, and of its circulation in Cappadocia, Pontus, &c., will additionally account for its tardy but at last universal acceptance in the catholic Church. The former Epistle, through its more definite address, was earlier in its general acceptance.

OBJECT.--In 2Pe 3:17-18 the twofold design of the Epistle is set forth; namely, to guard his readers against "the error" of false teachers, and to exhort them to grow in experimental "knowledge of our Lord and Saviour" (2Pe 3:18). The ground on which this knowledge rests is stated, 2Pe 1:12-21, namely, the inspired testimony of apostles and prophets. The danger now, as of old, was about to arise from false teachers, who soon were to come among them, as Paul also (to whom reference is made, 2Pe 3:15-16) testified in the same region. The grand antidote is "the full knowledge of our Lord and Saviour," through which we know God the Father, partake of His nature, escape from the pollutions of the world, and have entrance into Christ's kingdom. The aspect of Christ presented is not so much that of the past suffering, as of the future reigning, Saviour, His present power, and future new kingdom. This aspect is taken as best fitted to counteract the theories of the false teachers who should "deny" His Lordship and His coming again, the two very points which, as an apostle and eye-witness, Peter attests (His "power" and His "coming"); also, to counteract their evil example in practice, blaspheming the way of truth, despising governments, slaves to covetousness and filthy lusts of the flesh, while boasting of Christian freedom, and, worst of all, apostates from the truth. The knowledge of Christ, as being the knowledge of "the way of righteousness," "the right way," is the antidote of their bad practice. Hence "the preacher" of righteousness, Noah, and "righteous Lot," are instanced as escaping the destruction which overtook the "unjust" or "unrighteous"; and Balaam is instanced as exemplifying the awful result of "unrighteousness" such as characterized the false teachers. Thus the Epistle forms one connected whole, the parts being closely bound together by mutual relation, and the end corresponding with the beginning; compare 2Pe 3:14, 2Pe 3:18 with 2Pe 1:2, in both "grace" and "peace" being connected with "the knowledge" of our Saviour; compare also 2Pe 3:17 with 2Pe 1:4, 2Pe 1:10, 2Pe 1:12; and 2Pe 3:18, "grow in grace and knowledge," with the fuller 2Pe 1:5-8; and 2Pe 2:21; and 2Pe 3:13, "righteousness," with 2Pe 1:1; and 2Pe 3:1 with 2Pe 1:13; and 2Pe 3:2 with 2Pe 1:19.

The germs of Carpocratian and Gnostic heresies already existed, but the actual manifestation of these heresies is spoken of as future (2Pe 2:1-2, &c.): another proof that this Epistle was written, as it professes, in the apostolic age, before the development of the Gnostic heresies in the end of the first and the beginning of the second centuries. The description is too general to identify the heresies with any particular one of the subsequent forms of heresy, but applies generally to them all.

Though altogether distinct in aim from the First Epistle, yet a connection may be traced. The neglect of the warnings to circumspection in the walk led to the evils foretold in the Second Epistle. Compare the warning against the abuse of Christian freedom, 1Pe 2:16 with 2Pe 2:19, "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption"; also the caution against pride, 1Pe 5:5-6 with 2Pe 2:18, "they speak great swelling words of vanity."

JFB: 2 Peter (Outline)

• ADDRESS: EXHORTATION TO ALL GRACES, AS GOD HAS GIVEN US, IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST, ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO LIFE: CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF APOSTLES, AND ALSO PROPHETS, TO THE POWER AND COMING OF CHRIST. (2Pe. 1:1-21)
• FALSE TEACHERS TO ARISE: THEM BAD PRACTICES AND SURE DESTRUCTION, FROM WHICH THE GODLY SHALL BE DELIVERED, AS LOT WAS. (2Pe. 2:1-22)
• SURENESS OF CHRIST'S COMING, AND ITS ACCOMPANIMENTS, DECLARED IN OPPOSITION TO SCOFFERS ABOUT TO ARISE. GOD'S LONG SUFFERING A MOTIVE TO REPENTANCE, AS PAUL'S EPISTLES SET FORTH; CONCLUDING EXHORTATION TO GROWTH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST. (2Pe. 3:1-18)

TSK: 2 Peter 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

2Pe 2:1, He foretells them of false teachers, shewing the impiety and punishment both of them and their followers; 2Pe 2:7, from which the godly shall be delivered, as Lot was out of Sodom; 2Pe 2:10, and more fully describes the manners of those profane and blasphemous seducers, whereby they may be the better known, and avoided.

Poole: 2 Peter 2 (Chapter Introduction)

PETER CHAPTER 2

MHCC: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

This epistle clearly is connected with the former epistle of Peter. The apostle having stated the blessings to which God has called Christians, exhorts those who had received these precious gifts, to endeavour to improve in graces and virtues. They are urged to this from the wickedness of false teachers. They are guarded against impostors and scoffers, by disproving their false assertions, 2Pe 3:1-7, and by showing why the great day of Christ's coming was delayed, with a description of its awful circumstances and consequences; and suitable exhortations to diligence and holiness are given.

MHCC: 2 Peter 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(2Pe 2:1-9) Believers are cautioned against false teachers, and the certainty of their punishment shown from examples.

(2Pe 2:10-16) An account of these seducers, as exceedingly wicked.

(2Pe 2:17-22) But as making high pretences to liberty and purity.

Matthew Henry: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Second Epistle General of Peter

The penman of this epistle appears plainly to be the same who wrote the foregoing; and, whatever difference some learned men apprehend they discern in the style of this epistle from that of the former, this cannot be a sufficient argument to assert that it was written by Simon who succeeded the apostle James in the church at Jerusalem, inasmuch as he who wrote this epistle calls himself Simon Peter, and an apostle (2Pe 1:1), and says that he was one of the three apostles that were present at Christ's transfiguration (2Pe 1:18), and says expressly that he had written a former epistle to them, 2Pe 3:1. The design of this second epistle is the same with that of the former, as is evident from the first verse of the third chapter, whence observe that, in the things of God, we have need of precept upon precept, and line upon line, and all little enough to keep them in remembrance; and yet these are the things which should be most faithfully recorded and frequently remembered by us.

Matthew Henry: 2 Peter 2 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, having in the foregoing chapter exhorted them to proceed and advance in the Christian race, now comes to remove, as much as in him lay, what he could not but apprehend would hinder their complying with his exhortation. He therefore gives them fair warning of false teachers, by whom they might be in danger of being seduced. To prevent this, I. He describes these seducers as impious in themselves, and very pernicious to others (2Pe 2:1-3). II. He assures them of the punishment that shall be inflicted on them (2Pe 2:3-6). III. He tells us how contrary the method is which God takes with those who fear him (2Pe 2:7-9). IV. He fills up the rest of the chapter with a further description of those seducers of whom he would have them beware.

Barclay: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND LETTER OF PETER

The Neglected Book And Its Contents

Second Peter is one of the neglected books of the New Testament. Very few people will claim to have read it, still less to have studied it in detail. E. F. Scott says "it is far inferior in every respect to First Peter"; and goes on "it is the least valuable of the New Testament writings." It was only with the greatest difficulty that Second Peter gained entry into the New Testament, and for many years the Christian Church seemed to be unaware of its existence. But, before we approach its history, let us look at its contents.

The Lawless Men

Second Peter was written to combat the beliefs and activities of certain men who were a threat to the Church. It begins by insisting that the Christian is a man who has escaped from the corruption of the world (2Pe_1:4 ) and must always remember that he has been purged of his old sins (2Pe_1:9 ). There is laid upon him the duty of moral goodness, which culminates in the great Christian virtue of love (2Pe_1:5-8 ).

Let us set out the characteristics of the men whom Second Peter rebukes. They twist Scripture to make it suit their own purpose (2Pe_1:20 ; 2Pe_3:16 ). They bring the Christian faith into disrepute (2Pe_2:2 ). They are covetous of gain and exploiters of their fellow-men (2Pe_2:3 ; 2Pe_2:14-15 ). They are doomed and will share the fate of the sinning angels (2Pe_2:4 ), the men before the Flood (2Pe_2:5 ), the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah (2Pe_2:6 ), and the false prophet Balaam (2Pe_2:15 ). They are bestial creatures, ruled by their brute instincts (2Pe_2:12 ), and dominated by their lusts (2Pe_2:10 ; 2Pe_2:18 ). Their eyes are full of adultery (2Pe_2:14 ). They are presumptuous, self-willed and arrogant (2Pe_2:10 , 2Pe_2:18 ). They spend even the daylight hours in unrestrained and luxurious revelry (2Pe_2:13 ). They speak of liberty but what they call liberty is unbridled licence and they themselves are the slaves of their own lusts (2Pe_2:19 ). Not only are they deluded, they also delude others and lead them astray (2Pe_2:14 ; 2Pe_2:18 ). They are worse than those who never knew the right, because they knew what goodness is and have relapsed into evil, like a dog returning to its vomit and a sow returning to the mud after it has been washed (2Pe_2:20-22 ).

It is clear that Peter is describing antinomians, men who used Godgrace as a justification for sinning. In all probability they were Gnostics, who said that only spirit was good and that matter was essentially evil and that, therefore, it did not matter what we did with the body and that we could glut its appetites and it made no difference. They lived the most immoral lives and encouraged others to do so; and they justified their actions by perverting grace and interpreting Scripture to suit themselves.

The Denial Of The Second Coming

Further, these evil men denied the Second Coming (2Pe_3:3-4 ). They argued that this was a stable world in which things remained unalterably the same, and that God was so dilatory that it was possible to assume that the Second Coming was never going to happen at all. The answer of Second Peter is that this is not a stable world; that it has, in fact, been destroyed by water in the Flood and that it will be destroyed by fire in the final conflagration (2Pe_3:5-7 ). What they regard as dilatoriness is in fact God withholding his hand in patience to give men still another chance to repent (2Pe_3:8-9 ). But the day of destruction is coming (2Pe_3:10 ). A new heaven and a new earth are on the way; therefore. goodness is an absolute necessity if a man is to be saved in the day of judgment (2Pe_3:11-14 ). With this Paul agrees, however difficult his letters may be to understand, and however false teachers deliberately misinterpret them (2Pe_3:15-16 ). The duty of the Christian is to stand fast, firmly founded in the faith, and to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ (2Pe_3:17-18 ).

The Doubts Of The Early Church

Such are the contents of the letter. For long it was regarded with doubt and with something very like misgiving. There is no trace of it until after A.D. 200. It is not included in the Muratorian Canon Of A.D. 170 which was the first official list of New Testament books. It did not exist in the Old Latin Version of the Scriptures; nor in the New Testament of the early Syrian Church.

The great scholars of Alexandria either did not know it or were doubtful about it. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote outlines of the books of Scripture, does not appear to have included Second Peter. Origen says that Peter left behind one epistle which is generally acknowledged; "perhaps also a second, for it is a disputed question." Didymus commented on it, but concluded his work by saying: "It must not be forgotten that this letter is spurious; it may be read in public; but it is not part of the canon of Scripture."

Eusebius, the great scholar of Caesarea, who made a careful investigation of the Christian literature of his day, comes to the conclusion: "Of Peter, one Epistle, which is called his former Epistle, is acknowledged by all; of this the ancient presbyters have made frequent use in their writings as indisputably genuine; but that which is circulated as his second Epistle we have received to be not canonical although, since it appeared to be useful to many, it has been diligently read with the other Scriptures."

It was not until well into the fourth century that Second Peter came to rest in the canon of the New Testament.

The Objections

It is the well-nigh universal judgment of scholars, both ancient and modern, that Peter is not the author of Second Peter. Even John Calvin regarded it as impossible that Peter could have spoken of Paul as Second Peter speaks of him (2Pe_3:15-16 ), although he was willing to believe that someone else wrote the letter at Peterrequest. What, then, are the arguments against Peterauthorship?

(i) There is the extreme slowness, and even reluctance, of the early church to accept it. If it had been truly Peter there can be little doubt that the Church would have welcomed and honoured it from the first. But the case was very different. For the first two centuries the letter is never quoted at all in any certain instance; it is regarded with doubt and suspicion for more than another century; and only late in the fourth century is it accepted.

(ii) The contents make it difficult to believe that it is Peter There is no mention of the Passion, the Resurrection and the Ascension of Jesus Christ; no mention of the Church as the true Israel; no mention of that faith which is undefeatable hope and trust combined; no mention of the Holy Spirit, of prayer, of baptism; and no passionate desire to call men to the supreme example of Jesus Christ. If one took away these great verities from First Peter there would be little or nothing left, and yet none of them occurs in Second Peter.

(iii) It is wholly different in character and style from First Peter. This was realized as early as Jerome who wrote: "Simon Peter wrote two Epistles which are called Catholic, of which the authenticity of the second is denied by many because of the difference of the style from the first." The Greek style of this letter is very difficult. Clogg calls it ambitious, artificial and often obscure, and remarks that it is the only book in the New Testament which is improved by translation. Bishop Chase writes: "The Epistle does produce the impression of being a somewhat artificial piece of rhetoric. It shows throughout signs of self-conscious effort. The author appears to be ambitious of writing in a style which is beyond his literary power." He concludes that it is hard to reconcile the literary character of this letter with the supposition that Peter wrote it. Moffatt says: "Second Peter is more periodic and ambitious than First Peter, but its linguistic and its stylistic efforts only reveal by their cumbrous obscurity a decided inferiority of conception, which marks it off from First Peter."

It might be claimed, as Jerome claimed, that, while Peter used Silvanus for First Peter, he used a different amanuensis for Second Peter and that this explains the change in style. But J. B. Mayor compares the two letters. He quotes some of the great passages of First Peter and then says: "I think that none who read these words can help feeling that, not even in Paul, not even in John, is there to be found a more beautiful or a more living description of the secret of primitive Christianity, of the force that overcame the world, than in the perfect quaternion of faith and hope and love and joy, which pervades this short epistle (i.e. First Peter). No one could make the same assertion with regard to Second Peter: thoughtful and interesting as it is, it lacks that intense sympathy, that flame of love, which marks First Peter.... No change of circumstances can account for the change of tone of which we are conscious in passing from one epistle to the other." It is the conclusion of that great and conservative scholar that no explanation, other than difference of authorship, can explain, not so much the difference in style as the difference in atmosphere between First and Second Peter. It is true that from the purely linguistic point of view there are 369 words which occur in First Peter which do not occur in Second Peter; and there are 230 words which occur in Second Peter and not in First Peter. But there is more than a difference in style. A writer can change his style and his vocabulary to suit his audience and his occasion. But the difference between the two letters in atmosphere and attitude is so wide that it is hardly possible that the same person should have written both.

(iv) Certain things within Second Peter point well-nigh irresistibly to a late date. So much time has passed that men have begun to abandon hope of the Second Coming altogether (2Pe_3:4 ). The apostles are spoken of as figures of the past (2Pe_3:2 ). The fathers, that is the founders of the Christian faith, are now figures of the almost dim and distant past; there have been generations between this letter and the first coming of the Christian faith (2Pe_3:4 ).

There are references which require the passing of the years to explain them. The reference to Peterapproaching death looks very like a reference to Jesusrophecy in Joh_21:18-19 , and the Fourth Gospel was not written until about A.D. 100. The statement that Peter is going to leave something which will continue his teaching after he has gone looks very like a reference to MarkGospel (Mar_1:12-14 ).

Above all there is the reference to the letters of Paul (2Pe_3:15-16 ). From this it is quite certain that Paulletters are known and used throughout all the Church; they are public property, and furthermore they are regarded as Scripture and on a level with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe_3:16 ). It was not until at least A.D. 90 that these letters were collected and published, and it would take many years for them to acquire the position of sacred Scripture. It is practically impossible that anyone should write like this until midway through the second century A.D.

All the evidence converges to prove that Second Peter is a late book. It is not until the third century that it is quoted. The great scholars of the early church did not regard it as Peteralthough they did not question its usefulness. The letter has references which require the passing of the years to explain them. The great interest of Second Peter lies in the very fact that it was the last book in the New Testament to be written and the last to gain entry into the New Testament.

In PeterName

How, then, did it become attached to the name of Peter? The answer is that it was deliberately attached. This may seem to us a strange proceeding but in the ancient world this was common practice. Platoletters were written not by Plato but by a disciple in the mastername. The Jews repeatedly used this method of writing. Between the Old and the New Testament, books were written under the names of Solomon, Isaiah, Moses, Baruch, Ezra, Enoch and many another. And in New Testament times there is a whole literature around the name of Peter--The Gospel of Peter, The Preaching of Peter, The Apocalypse of Peter.

One salient fact makes this method of writing even more intelligible. The heretics used it. They issued misleading and pernicious books under the names of the great apostles, claiming that they were the secret teaching of the great founders of the Church handed down by word of mouth to them. Faced with this, the Church retaliated in kind and issued books in which men set down for their own generation the things they were quite sure that the apostles would have said had they been facing this new situation. There is nothing either unusual or discreditable in a book being issued under the name of Peter although Peter did not write it. The writer in humility was putting the message which the Holy Spirit had given him into the mouth of Peter because he felt his own name was unworthy to appear upon the book.

We will not find Second Peter easy to read; but it is a book of first-rate importance because it was written to men who were undermining the Christian ethic and the Christian doctrine and who had to be stopped before the Christian faith was wrecked by their perversion of the truth.

FURTHER READING

2 Peter

C. Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude (ICC; G)

C. E. B. Cranfield, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Tch; E)

J. B. Mayor, The Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude (MmC; G)

J. Moffatt, The General Epistles: James, Peter and Jude (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC : Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

NCB: New Century Bible

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: 2 Peter 2 (Chapter Introduction)

False Prophets (2Pe_2:1)

The Sins Of The False Prophets And Their End (2Pe_2:1 Continued)

The Work Of Falsehood (2Pe_2:2-3)

The Fate Of The Wicked And The Rescue Of The Righteous (2Pe_2:4-11)

The Picture Of The Evil Man (2Pe_2:4-11 Continued)

Deluding Self And Deluding Others (2Pe_2:12-14)

On The Wrong Road (2Pe_2:15-16)

The Perils Of Relapse (2Pe_2:17-22)

Constable: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

This epistle claims that the Apostle Peter wrote it (1:1). It also claims to follow a former letter by Peter (3:1) that appears to be a reference to 1 Peter, though Peter may have been referring to a letter we no longer have. The author's reference to the fact that Jesus had predicted a certain kind of death for him (1:14) ties in with Jesus' statement to Peter recorded in John 21:18.

The earliest external testimony (outside Scripture) to Petrine authorship comes from the third century.¹ The writings of the church fathers contain fewer references to the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter than to the authorship of any other New Testament book. It is easy to see why critics who look for reasons to reject the authority of Scripture have targeted this book for attack. Ironically in this letter Peter warned his readers of heretics who departed from the teaching of the apostles and the Old Testament prophets, which is the very thing these modern critics do. Perhaps that is another reason some contemporary teachers question its authenticity. Not all who reject Petrine authorship are false teachers, however. The arguments of these modern critics have convinced some otherwise conservative scholars who retain belief in the epistle's inspiration.

Regardless of the external evidence, there is strong internal testimony to the fact that Peter wrote the book.² This includes stylistic similarities to 1 Peter, similar vocabulary compared with Peter's sermons in Acts, and the specific statements already mentioned (i.e., 1:1, 14; 3:1). In addition, the writer claimed to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration (1:16-18) and to have received information about his own death from Jesus (1:13-14; cf. John 21:18).

Assuming Peter's reference to his former letter (3:1) is to 1 Peter, he seems to have sent this epistle to the same general audience. That audience was primarily Gentile but also Jewish Christians living in northern Asia Minor (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1). The background of the readers and the situation they faced, as Peter described these, fit such an audience well.³

Peter's reference to his imminent departure from this life (1:13-15) suggests that the time of composition may have been just before Peter suffered martyrdom.⁴ The writings of church fathers place Peter's death at A.D. 67-68 in Rome.⁵ Consequently a date of composition about that time seems most likely. Early church tradition also says Peter spent the last decade of his life in Rome.

"Second Peter is the swan song of Peter, just as 2 Timothy is the swan song of Paul. There are striking similarities between the two books. Both epistles put up a warning sign along the pilgrim pathway the church is traveling to identify the awful apostasy that was on the way at the time and which in our time has now arrived. What was then like a cloud the size of a man's hand today envelops the sky and produces a storm of hurricane proportions. Peter warns of heresy among teachers; Paul warns of heresy among the laity."⁶

The similarities between 2 Peter 2 and the Book of Jude, especially Jude 4-18, have raised several questions. Did Peter have access to Jude's epistle, or did Jude have a copy of 2 Peter? Which book came first? Did one man use the other's material, or did both draw from a common source? The commentators and writers of New Testament introductions deal with these questions thoroughly. See them for further explanations.⁷

Suffice it to say that the church through the ages has recognized the end product of both 2 Peter and Jude as epistles that God inspired. As far as which came first, we may never know for sure until we get to heaven. The consensus among scholars now is that Jude probably wrote before Peter (or his agent) composed 2 Peter.⁸ I tend to favor the priority of 2 Peter as do many conservative authorities.⁹

"Most scholars, in fact, date 2 Peter in the early part of the second century and consider it the last New Testament book to have been written. The author's claim to Petrine authorship, therefore, is part of the phenomenon of pseudonymity' in the ancient world, whereby the authority and tradition of a revered religious figure were attributed to a later work by an anonymous author."¹⁰

This quotation reflects the majority of scholarly opinion but not the conviction of many conservatives including myself.

"The purpose of 2 Peter is to call Christians to spiritual growth so that they can combat apostasy as they look forward to the Lord's return."¹¹

Message¹²

Peter wrote this epistle, as he did 1 Peter, to establish believers in their faith. He wrote both letters in obedience to Jesus' instructions to him to "strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:32). Both epistles contain reminders of fundamental Christian teaching. Both evidently went to the same audience (2 Pet. 3:1). Both deal with how to handle various kinds of trials among other things, suffering in 1 Peter and false teachers in 2 Peter. Both also emphasize God's grace.

The differences between these two epistles are also significant.

The first epistle ends, "Stand firm in it [grace]" (5:12). Its theme is the sufficiency of God's grace. We need to stand fast in grace as Christians.

The second epistle ends, "Grow in grace" (3:18). Its theme is the responsibility of grace. We also need to keep growing in grace. This letter builds on the first. We do not only need to stand fast in grace, but we also need to keep growing in it.

We could state the message of the book therefore as follows: fulfill your responsibilities as recipients of the true grace of God. The message of 1 Peter was, "Stand firm in the true grace of God."

Let me identify the major revelations of this letter.

First, as recipients of God's grace we have resources that create responsibilities. Peter emphasized two of our resources.

Our first resource is the power of God (1:3). God's power grants us everything we need for godly living. Godly living becomes possible when we come to know God by saving faith. We grow in our knowledge of God as we get to know Him better through study of the Scriptures. We also do so as we respond to our increasing knowledge of Him properly by abiding in Him.

One area of life that God's power transforms is our spiritual vitality, energy. God wants us to be vital Christians (John 10:10; cf. James). The opposite condition is to have no spiritual energy. God's power enables us to demonstrate His own "glory" by giving us spiritual vitality (1:3). Peter saw the glory of God manifested through Jesus Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration (1:17). God wants to manifest His glory through every Christian (3:18). People can see God's glory in our spiritual vitality. The clearest illustration of spiritual vitality is Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.

Another area of life that God's power transforms is our conduct, more specifically. By conduct I mean how we conduct ourselves in thought, word, and deed--what we do, and what we do not do. God wants us to be godly Christians as well as glorious Christians. He wants us to be virtuous as well as vital. The opposite condition is ungodly and unclean. The false teachers reflected the opposite condition, and Peter described their conduct quite fully in chapter 2. God's power enables us to demonstrate His own "excellence" by making us godly (1:3). Peter heard the excellence of God testified to on the Mount of Transfiguration when he heard God say of Jesus Christ, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (Cf. 1:17-18). God wants to manifest His excellence through every Christian (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9). People can see God's excellence in our godly conduct.

The second resource Peter emphasized that every Christian has is the promises of God (1:4). God's promises grant us everything we need to realize our potential and to maintain our purity in godly living. These promises are "magnificent" because they are essentially great and wonderful. They are "precious" to us because they are gifts of our loving heavenly Father and because they are the keys to our realizing our potential and maintaining our purity.

One area of life that God's promises transforms is our character. God wants us to partake of His nature. We receive His nature (i.e., the Holy Spirit) initially when we believe His promise that Christ died for our sins. However, He wants us to partake of that nature fully in this life. When we do so, we realize our potential as the children of God. We do so by continuing to believe God's promises to us. As we began the Christian life by faith, we should continue to walk by faith (cf. James). Because the false teachers rejected the promises of God they failed to realize their potential as human beings. They did not become partakers of the divine nature.

Another area of life that God's promises transforms is, more specifically, our morality. Again we receive future deliverance from the penalty of sin by believing that Christ died for our sins. Nevertheless we also receive present deliverance from the power of sin by believing other of God's promises to us. For example, God promises us that sin will no longer have enslaving power over us (Rom. 6:14; cf. 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11). He also promises us that He will give us a way of escape in temptation (1 Cor. 10:13). He also promises us that He will give us the desire and the ability to obey Him (Phil. 1:6). One of the promises that Peter emphasized especially in this epistle was the promise that Jesus Christ would return (3:4, 9, 13). He discussed this promise in 3:4-16. When Christ returns He will perfect us. God has given us many more promises. Relying on these is key to maintaining our purity as Christians. Because the false teachers rejected the promises of God, they failed to maintain moral purity. They did not escape the corruption that is in the world through lust.

These then are the resources that create our responsibility: God's power within us, and God's promises in His Word. You can succeed in life and in ministry because you have these resources.

Next let us notice what Peter appealed to his readers to do in view of their resources. He called them to give diligence to two things.

First, we should diligently appropriate our resources (1:5-8). We do this be responding responsibly. We must respond by fulfilling our responsibility as well as by trusting God to fulfill His. We must exercise effort and self-discipline to develop qualities God wants to perfect within us (1:5-8). No one can become a strong Christian without self-discipline.

Second, we should diligently avoid our perils. We do this by remembering God's promises (1:9, 12-13; 3:1-2). Our tendency is to forget God's power and our responsibilities (1:9; 3:5). Our tendency is also to forget God's promises (3:4). Peter's concern was mainly that his readers not forget the promise of the Lord's return (3:9, 13). This promise should affect us by encouraging us to live pure lives (3:14). Because the false teachers chose to forget it, they failed to fulfill the responsibilities of God's grace. Scripture memorization and review are valuable activities because they help us remember God's promises.

These are the major revelations in the book. As recipients of God's grace we have resources that create responsibilities, namely God's power and promises. We also need to give diligence to our responsibilities of responding to God's power and remembering God's promises.

I would also like to point out some applications of this epistle's message to our lives.

First, God's resources do not free us from responsibility to cultivate godliness diligently. They increase that responsibility. The Christian life is a combination of trusting and toiling. We must balance these things. When we neglect either responsibility, we get into trouble (1:5). We are partners with God.

Our sanctification is a process in which we labor together with God.

We are responsible to trust and to obey, to exercise faith in God and to work. We frustrate the Holy Spirit's work of sanctifying us if we do not trust or if we do not obey. The Christian life is a lot like water skiing. We have to lean back and let God pull us out of the stuff that holds us down. However we also have to hold on to the rope, to keep following His leading. When we do both things He enables us to overcome. We can even fly over what formerly held us in its clutches.

Second, we should cultivate habits that will help us remember our resources: God's power and promises. One of the most important reasons we should read our Bibles regularly is that they remind us of things we need to remember. The same is true of memorizing Scripture, attending church services, and having fellowship with other Christians. Peter said it is better not to know Scripture than to forget it (2:21).

Third, God intended the promise of the Lord's return and the events that will follow to be important motivations for us. This is our hope. If we neglect the prophetic portions of Scripture, our motivation for godly living will sag (3:14).

Constable: 2 Peter (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-2

II. The condition of the Christian 1:3-11

A. The believer's resources 1:3-4

B. The believer's needs 1:5-9

C. The believer's adequacy 1:10-11

III. The authority for the Christian 1:12-21

A. The need for a reminder 1:12-15

B. The trustworthiness of the apostles' witness 1:16-18

C. The divine origin of Scripture 1:19-21

IV. The danger to the Christian 2:1-22

A. The characteristics of false teachers 2:1-3

B. The consequences of false teaching 2:4-10a

C. The conduct of false teachers 2:10b-19

D. The condemnation of false teachers 2:20-22

V. The prospect for the Christian 3:1-16

A. The purpose of this epistle 3:1-2

B. Scoffing in the last days 3:3-6

C. End-time events 3:7-10

D. Living in view of the future 3:11-16

VI. Conclusion 3:17-18

Constable: 2 Peter

2 Peter

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. Alford's Greek Testament. 4 vols. New ed. London: Rivingtons, 1884.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barbieri, Louis A. First and Second Peter. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago Moody Press, 1978.

Barnes, Albert. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1964.

Barclay, William. The Letters of James and Peter. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960.

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Bennett, W. H. "The General Epistles, James, Peter, John, and Jude." In The Century Bible: A Modern Commentary. London: Blackwood, Le Bass & Co., n.d.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. International Critical Commentary series. 2nd ed. and reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1961.

Blum, Edwin A. "2 Peter." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Grank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Caffin, B. C. "The Second Epistle General of Peter." in The Pulpit Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950.

Calvin, John. "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter." In Calvin's Commentaries. Translated by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.

Cedar, Paul A. James, 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

Chang, Andrew D. "Second Peter 2:1 and the Extent of the Atonement." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):52-63.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Culver, Robert D. Daniel and the Latter Days. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1954.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Desjardins, Michel. "The Portrayal of the Dissidents in 2 Peter and Jude: Does It Tell Us More About the Godly' Than the Ungodly'?" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (June 1987):89-102.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. S.v. "Peter, Epistles of," by S. J. Case.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. S.v. "Peter, Second Epistle of," by F. H. Chase.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dunham, Duane A. "An Exegetical Study of 2 Peter 2:18-22." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):40-54.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Peter and Jude." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 437-71. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fischel, H. A. "The Uses of sorites (Climax, Gradatio) in the Tannaitic Period." Hebrew Union College Annual44 (1973):119-51.

Fornberg, T. An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter. Coniectanea biblica. New Testament series. Lund, Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1977.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "2 Peter." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 859-79. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Green, Michael. The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vol. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary. Greenville, S.C.: Unusual Publications, 1989.

_____. "Directives for Living in Dangerous Days." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:564 (October-December 1984):330-40.

_____. "The Necessary Growth in the Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:5-11." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:561 (January-March 1984):43-54.

_____. "A Portrayal of False Teachers: An Exposition of 2 Peter 2:1-3." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:563 (July-September 1984):255-65.

_____. "The Prophetic Foundation for the Christian Life: An Exposition of 2 Peter 1:19-21." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):158-68.

Hodge, Charles Systematic Theology. 3 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887.

Hodges, Zane C. "Exposition of Second Peter." The KERUGMA Message 1:1 (May-June 1991):3-4; 1:2 (July-August 1991):3-4; 1:3 (November-December 1991):2-3; 2:1 (Spring 1992):2-3; 2:2 (Winter 1992):2-4, 6; 3:1 (Spring 1993):2-3; 3:1 (January-March 1994):1, 3-4.

Howe, Frederic R. "The Christian Life in Peter's Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:627 (July-September 2000):304-14.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. S.v. "Peter, The Second Epistle of," by William G. Moorehead.

Ironside, H. A. Expository Notes on the Epistles of Peter. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1947.

Jamieson, Robert; A. R. Fausset; and David Brown; eds. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude. Thornapple Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Kennard, Douglas W. "Petrine Redemption: Its Meaning and Extent." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:4 (December 1987):399-405.

Kruger, Michael J. "The Authenticity of 2 Peter." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:4 (December 1999):645-71.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scripture. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 12: James--Revelation, by J. P. Lange, J. J. Van Oosterzee, G. T. C. Fronmuller, and Karl Braune. Enlarged and edited by E. R. Craven. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert and Evelina Moore.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lillie, John. Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.

Long, Gary D. Definite Atonement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977.

McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Calif.: Thru the Bible Radio, 1983.

McNab, Andrew. "The General Epistles of Peter." in The New Bible Commentary. Edited by F. Davidson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Merrill, Eugene H. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter and Jude. The NIV Application Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1952.

Nieboer, J. Practical Exposition of 2 Peter Verse by Verse. Erie, Pa.: Our Daily Walk Publishers, 1952.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "A Study of 2 Peter 3:10-13." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):354-71.

Paine, Stephen W. "The Second Epistle of Peter." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1453-62. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 3 vols. New York: Frank & Wagnalls, 1884.

Plummer, Alfred. "The Second Epistle General of Peter." In Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

Rakestraw, Robert V. "Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997):257-69.

Richard, Ramesh P. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Ryrie, Charles C. "Apostasy in the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1984):44-53.

_____. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Scott, Walter. Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.

Senior, Donald. "The Letters of Jude and Second Peter." The Bible Today 25:4 (July 1987):209-14.

Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889.

Sidebottom, E. M. James, Jude, 2 Peter. 1967. New Century Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publishers, Ltd., 1982.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Strachan, R. H. "The Second Epistle General of Peter." In The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 (1910):81-148. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. 5 vols. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900-10.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. The Apostle Peter: Outline Studies in His Life, Character, and Writings. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Wheaton, David H. "2 Peter." In The New Bible Commentary, Revised. Third edition. Edited by Donald Guthrie and J. A. Motyer. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1970.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

Williams, Nathaniel Marshman. "Commentary on the Epistles of Peter." In An American Commentary on the New Testament. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n.d.

Witmer, John A. "The Truth about Error." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):248-53.

Wolston, W. T. P. Simon Peter: His Life and Letters. 2nd ed. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1896.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

THE

SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER,

THE APOSTLE.

INTRODUCTION.

This epistle, though not at first received [by some Churches] as canonical, was acknowledged as such [by all Churches] about the end of the fourth age [century]. See Eusebuis, lib. iii. History of the Church, chap. iii.; St. Jerome, de Vir. Illust. Tillem. art. 33. The design, as it appears, Chap. i. 13. and Chap. iii. 1. was to give them admonitions and instructions against teachers of false doctrine, particularly against the Simonites. It seems to have been written a little before his martyrdom, about the year 66. (Witham) --- In this epistle St. Peter says, (Chap. iii.) "Behold this is the second epistle I write unto you:" and before, (Chap. i. 14.) "Being assured that the putting off of this my tabernacle is at hand." This shews that it was written a very short time before his martyrdom, which was about thirty-five years after our Lord's ascension. In this epistle he admonishes the faithful to be mindful of the great gifts they received from God, and to join all other virtues with their faith. He warns them against false teachers, by describing their practices and foretelling their punishments. He describes the dissolution of this world by fire, and the day of judgment. (Challoner) --- This epistle may be considered as the spiritual testament or last will of the apostle, as it contains his last admonitions to the faithful. He first calls their attention to the care they should have of their sanctification and perfection, next to the perils that concern the Church one the part of heretics, those that menaced her in her infant state, and those that will assail her in the latter days, which includes an invincible proof of her perpetuity; for is is the same infallible and indefectible Church that is to encounter the latter as the former trials, but always with promised success. Hence the great St. John Chrysostom says: the same day that shall see the Church of God ended, shall see the end of the world; and to these continued struggles shall succeed perfect peace, to be enjoyed through a blissful eternity. If some are still found to object, that the present epistle was not written by St. Peter, on account of the marked difference of the style, St. Jerome removes this objection thus: St. Peter employed different interpreters, sometimes Glaucias, and sometimes St. Mark; hence the difference of the style, from the diversity of his scribes. St. Mark was with him when he penned the first, but was not with him when he dictated the present. The present epistle contains, as we said above, an account of the last dreadful trials that are to assail the faithful before the end of time; but all that faith teaches us on that subject is: first, That the world will have an end; secondly, that it will end by fire; and thirdly, that the world will not be destroyed, but changed and perfected. Hence all that is said with regard to the duration of the world; on the nature and quality of the fire that is to burn and purify the world; if it be to precede or follow the last judgment, all is problematical, all is doubtful. Hence the Christian knows a good deal, who knows how to entertain proper doubts.

====================

Gill: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 2 PETER

Though there was, among the ancients, a doubt concerning the authority of this epistle, which is first mentioned by Origen ^a, and afterwards by Eusebius ^b and Jerom ^c, yet it prevailed not among the churches, nor hindered the diligent reading and use of it, together with other Scriptures; it appearing to be useful and profitable, as Eusebius declares; and in process of time this doubt was entirely removed, and it was universally received by fathers and councils into the canon of the Scriptures, where it is justly retained, it having plain signatures of its divine original. Nor is there anything in it unworthy of so great an apostle, whose name it bears; but the whole of it is agreeable to the analogy of faith, to the rest of the sacred writings, particularly to the epistle of Jude, between which, and the second chapter of this, there is a great likeness. The only reason of the doubt of the genuineness of this epistle, and whether it was written by the Apostle Peter, is the difference of its style from the former; but the Holy Ghost, the dictator of the sacred writings, is not limited to a man's natural style, but could vary it as he pleased: besides, a man's style is not the same at different times, and when writing on different subjects; add to which, that this objection can only regard the second chapter, for the first and third agree with the former epistle. And some have thought that the second chapter is an extract out of some ancient Hebrew book, describing the characters of the old false prophets; which book Peter and Jude having before them, took the characters of the old prophets, and, under divine direction, applied them to the false teachers of the present age; and if so it is not to be wondered at that the style of the epistle should differ from the former, and even from itself in this part. But that it was written by the Apostle Peter, not only the inscription shows, which, if false, would indeed discredit the genuineness of the book, but the account that is given of the writer of it, as one that was with Christ at his transfiguration, 2Pe 1:16. Now there were only the three following disciples there, Peter, John, and, James. The last of these had been dead some time when this epistle was written, and it was never ascribed by any to the Apostle John, and therefore it remains that Peter must be the writer of it. As for Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, that succeeded James, whom Grotius would suggest as the author of it, the character does not agree with him; he was not with Christ on the holy mount, nor heard the voice from heaven, asserting the sonship of Christ, and the divine complacency in him: moreover, this epistle is called a "second epistle", 2Pe 3:1 and supposes a first, and manifestly refers to the former epistle of Peter's, about which there never was any doubt, as the authors before mentioned observe. It was written by the apostle in his old age, when upon the decline of life, just as he was about to put off his tabernacle, 2Pe 1:13 a little before his martyrdom, in the year 68, though Dr. Lightfoot places it in 66; and it is sent to the same persons as his first, namely, to the believing Jews scattered throughout several parts of Asia, he being the minister of the circumcision; see 1Pe 1:1 compared with 2Pe 3:1. The scope and design of it are, to put them upon a concern for a larger increase of grace and spiritual knowledge; to confirm and establish them in the present truth of the Gospel; to warn them against false teachers, which he largely describes; and he puts them in mind of the dissolution of all things, and of what will precede and follow it; from whence he draws several useful hints and inferences.

Gill: 2 Peter 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 2 PETER 2

This chapter contains a description of false teachers, that were then in Christian churches, as there had been false prophets among the Jews; and they are described by the doctrines, which they privily introduced; in general, damnable heresies; in particular, denying the Lord that bought them; and by their success, having many followers of them in their pernicious ways; and by the sad effects following hereupon; with respect to the way of truth, that was blasphemed; with respect to their hearers, they, through the covetousness of these false teachers, were made merchandise of; and with respect to themselves, swift and sure destruction would be brought upon them, 2Pe 2:1, which is illustrated and confirmed by the instances of punishment in the angels, the men of the old world, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, 2Pe 2:4 and whereas, in these instances, notice is taken of the deliverance of some righteous persons, as Noah and Lot, when wicked men were destroyed; the apostle draws this conclusion from the whole, that the Lord knows both how to deliver the saints out of afflictions, and to reserve wicked men until the day of judgment, then to be punished, 2Pe 2:9, especially such shall be then punished, who are described by their impure course of lift, their contempt of civil government, and their presumption and selfwill, 2Pe 1:10 which sins of theirs are aggravated by the different conduct of angels, superior to them; and by their being like brute beasts, as ignorant as they, and even below them; whose punishment will be to perish in their corruption, as the just reward of their unrighteousness, since they are open in sin, take pleasure in it, and sport themselves with it, and are spots and blemishes in Christian societies, 2Pe 2:11 and these, who are no other than the false teachers before spoken of, are further described by their adulterous eyes, which cannot cease from sin; by their beguiling unstable souls; by the covetous practices their hearts were exercised with; by their just desert, cursed children; by the course they steer, forsaking the right way, going astray from it, and following the way of Balaam in his covetousness, and other wicked practices, for which he was reproved by his ass; and by various metaphors, which express the emptiness of these persons, and which also point at their destruction, and describe their boasts and brags, and the influence they have, through their lasciviousness and uncleanness, on some persons, who have been outwardly reformed, 2Pe 2:14 and this they obtain over them in a very stupid and senseless way, by promising them liberty, when through being overcome by them, and drawn into sin, they were brought into bondage, and become servants of corruption; and so their case is worse than it was before their reformation, and profession of religion; and better it would have been not to have had the knowledge they had, than after it to turn from the paths of truth and holiness, which is illustrated by a true Scripture proverb, which expresses the filthy nature of sin, the character of these men, and their irrecoverable state and condition, 2Pe 2:19.

College: 2 Peter (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

This commentary is written for serious students of the Bible, including Bible class teachers, preachers, college students, and other motivated readers. However, it is written on a popular rather than a scholarly level, so that readers need not be familiar with Greek or scholarly methods or jargon.

The goal is to help the modern reader to hear the message of 2 Peter as its first readers heard it. Our assumption is that we must know what it meant before we can know what it means . Peter wrote for a particular group of Christians facing a particular set of problems. The letter was therefore not written to us (although we believe that it was written for us). To be faithful to Peter's intent, we must attempt to place ourselves in the shoes of the earliest readers.

This is a difficult task for a couple of reasons. First, this "book" of the New Testament is a letter. This means we are reading someone else's mail. The problem is that both Peter and his readers knew the situation, so that Peter only makes allusions to what was going on. For example, we would like to know much more about the false teachers. However, Peter had no need to discuss in detail what both he and his readers already know. We are left to read between the lines in order to reconstruct the situation. Second, we are dealing with literature written in an ancient language to an ancient culture. They had a very different worldview, lived very different lifestyles, and practiced very different customs from those with which we are familiar.

Our task is therefore difficult, but it is not hopeless. We will never grasp the details of this letter exactly as the first readers did, but we can have confidence that we are understanding the larger picture. Greek scholars, historians, specialists in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, and others have spent countless hours studying this and other ancient documents. We are fortunate to stand on their shoulders.

Finally, we must mention the nature of this letter. Many dislike it because it is largely negative. After all, it is Peter's scathing denunciation of false teachers. Everyone prefers the message of grace to the message of judgment. However, it is sometimes necessary to expose error, even if the task is not enjoyable. This letter ought to remind Christians of the importance of guarding the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. As Peter makes painfully clear, bad doctrine leads to bad living, which leads to sure judgment. Christians must never shrink from the unpleasant task of fighting heresy.

The reader will quickly discover that I am greatly indebted to the fine commentaries of Douglas J. Moo and especially Richard Bauckham. Moo offers excellent comments from an evangelical perspective. Bauckham's detailed discussion of linguistic, historical, and literary matters is without equal. The reader is referred to his commentary in numerous footnotes simply because his discussion is the most thorough available.

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

Second Peter claims to have been written by Simon Peter, the apostle of Jesus (1:1) and eyewitness to his transfiguration (1:16-18). Since he writes of his approaching death (1:14-15), Peter must have written this letter by the mid-60s of the first century A.D. (The tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome under the emperor Nero is probably reliable.)

A large number of modern scholars, however, are convinced that Peter could not have written this letter. In fact, this New Testament writing more than all others is believed to be pseudonymous (written under a false name). A number of reasons are given for this belief.

First, there is the language and style of the original Greek. Second Peter is written in elaborate Greek, often using rare and poetic terminology. Many believe that a Galilean Jew could not have written in this style. More significantly, 2 Peter is very much unlike 1 Peter. Most argue that the writer who wrote 1 Peter could not have written this letter. In response it must be admitted that this is an argument of some weight. However, conservative scholars are not convinced. First, no one can really know what Peter could and could not have written at different times in life and to different audiences. The style argument always involves considerable subjectivity. Second, many conservative commentators admit that the style of 2 Peter disallows thinking that Peter wrote it himself. They suggest that an amanuensis probably wrote the letter for Peter, as Silvanus may have done in 1 Peter (5:12). A trusted "secretary" may well have written Peter's thoughts in a different style from that of Peter.

A second argument against Petrine authorship is that even some of the early Christians had their doubts about this letter. The evidence is quite complex and difficult to analyze, but a few facts are fairly clear. Origen (3rd century) notes that 2 Peter was a disputed letter, although he believes that Peter wrote it. Eusebius (4th century) rejects its authenticity, although he suggests that the majority accepted it. Jerome (end of 4th century) writes that many rejected it because it was so unlike 1 Peter; yet he contends that Peter probably used two different amanuenses (secretaries). In response, it must again be granted that this is a substantive claim. More than any other New Testament book, 2 Peter was late in being universally accepted. However, evangelical scholars underscore the fact that it was accepted; and it was accepted at a time when a number of works falsely attributed to Peter were being rejected. The evidence from the early church is not unanimous, but it is clearly for the authenticity of 2 Peter.

A third argument for the pseudonymity of 2 Peter concerns the time references regarding the false teachers. At times the writer speaks of false teachers who will come, but at other times he makes it clear that they are already present. The argument is that the actual writer attempts to write as if Peter is predicting the future. In reality he betrays the fact that he is actually living during the times of the false teachers. In response, conservatives note that there are many possible reasons for the changing tenses. The possibility that the pseudonymous writer forgot to continue his fiction is not the most likely. Perhaps the false teachers had not arrived yet but were known because they were already present in other locations. The full discussion is found in the comments on 2:1.

Fourth, many think that the inference in 3:16 that Paul's letters are "Scripture" betrays a late date. Paul's letters, it is argued, were not considered Scripture until at least the late first century. Those who accept Petrine authorship must admit that Peter's words are somewhat surprising. However, it cannot be ruled out that the written words of one regarded as an inspired apostle would be called Scripture. Scholars are often too sure that they know what early Christians could and could not think.

Fifth, many who deny that Peter wrote this letter do so on the basis that it is a "testament," a final address of a leader before his death to the group which reveres him (see comments on 1:11). Most often, a testament was written well after the death of the hero whose name is attached to it, and it addressed the needs of the later generation. Many believe therefore that someone wrote this testament in Peter's name in order to lend his authority to the crisis provoked by the false teachers. Conservatives have responded that there are certainly some elements of the testament genre in 2 Peter, but that these elements do not make 2 Peter a testament like others. Furthermore, testaments need not be pseudonymous. Peter certainly could have written this way at the end of his life.

Sixth, many scholars reject 2 Peter on the basis of the false teaching it opposes. Many think that the heresy is Gnosticism, which developed in the second century. However, while there are minor similarities to that heresy, there is nothing in 2 Peter that would identify the false teachers as second-century Gnostics. The sort of false teaching in 2 Peter is already seen in Paul's letters.

Finally, some also argue that the apostle Peter would not have borrowed from the letter of Jude (see section on "Relation to Jude"). However, this argument is really quite weak. It is not clear why Peter would not have borrowed useful material from another source. Neither is it certain that Peter borrowed from Jude. Jude may have borrowed from Peter, or both may have borrowed from another source, whether oral or written.

In the final analysis, most conservative scholars argue that the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter. They know that this can never be proven and that the decision is in part based on faith and tradition. Nonconservative scholars make significant arguments against Petrine authorship, but they wrongly claim that they have proven that Peter did not write this letter. We find their arguments weighty but not conclusive. In this commentary we will assume that Peter wrote 2 Peter.

OCCASION

Peter wrote to a specific church (or group of churches) facing specific problems, namely the coming of false teachers. Second Peter may have been written to the same churches as 1 Peter (churches in Asia Minor, according to 1:1), since 2 Peter mentions an earlier letter to this group (3:1). However, the fact that he may have written letters to other churches means that we cannot be sure.

Peter wrote this letter primarily because false teachers were 1) denying the Second Coming of Jesus, and 2) living without moral restraint and encouraging others to do so. Peter writes that they denied the teachings of prophets and apostles and that they arrogantly slandered spiritual beings. They denied the Second Coming, arguing that the world was simply continuing on its course as it had since the creation.

Their belief that there would be no Second Coming (and therefore no final judgment) led these false teachers into ungodly lifestyles. They willfully satisfied their sinful desires, including greed, sexual immorality, and gluttony. They encouraged others to follow their sinful examples, especially recent converts who were just escaping these very sins.

Readers of 2 Peter would like to know more about these teachers of error. There is much that we do not know, because of the nature of a letter. (Both author and recipients knew the situation, so there was no need to rehearse the details.) It would be helpful to know more precisely the identity of the false teachers, their background, their practices, and their teaching. This lack of information has led scholars to speculate regarding the identity of the troublemakers. Many have theorized that they were Gnostics, a group of second-century heretics who argued that knowledge was the key to salvation. They believed in a strict dualism between the spiritual and the physical worlds. Therefore they did not believe that Christ was actually human. They also tended to discount the importance of sins involving the body, such as sexual sin. The body, they claimed, belonged to the evil physical world that was created by an inferior god.

There is no evidence in 2 Peter that the false teachers were Gnostics since there is not a trace of the developed Gnostic systems of the second century. Furthermore, all of the teachings which Peter attacked are also found in Paul's letters. For example, in 1 Corinthians Paul writes against some who deny the resurrection (15:12-34) and others who argue for the right to engage in sexual sin (5:1-2; 6:12-20). The most that can be said is that 2 Peter's antagonists may have been the predecessors of what would later be called Gnostics.

A better and more cautious approach is to call these false teachers simply libertines. Their libertine approach seems to have sprung from their (false) understanding of grace and their denial of the judgment at the Second Coming of Jesus.

Another reason Peter wrote 2 Peter is that he was nearing the end of his life. This may have been his last opportunity to offer his teachings concerning sin, judgment, and false teachers. This was especially important because he was an eyewitness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. As an apostle, it was his responsibility to testify to the truth about Jesus and to destroy the efforts of the false teachers.

RELATION TO JUDE

Portions of 2 Peter and Jude are remarkably similar. This applies not only to their contents but also to their order. They use the same examples of destruction for sinfulness: evil angels cast into hell and the judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah. They use similar metaphors, such as clouds or mists driven by a storm. They speak in the same way of the false teachers, including their slander of celestial beings and their following the way of Balaam. They speak of their opponents as "scoffers" and their readers as "friends."

Most scholars think that the resemblance between the two letters is simply too close to be coincidental. It is remotely possible that both may be relying on an oral body of teaching against false teachers. However, it is likely that there is a literary dependence between the two letters. It could be that Peter has used Jude, Jude has used Peter, or that both have used another written source. Very few argue for a third (unknown) source used by both, since this only compounds the problem. Most think that Peter used Jude, and they may be correct. It does seem more plausible that Peter adapted and expanded Jude than that Jude used only a portion of 2 Peter and added very little to it.

However, the fact is that all theories about the literary relationship are conjectural. Fortunately, we need not know the direction of influence in order to interpret the letter. It is obvious that both writers are facing similar problems. Their churches were facing so-called Christian teachers who not only taught false doctrine but lived ungodly lives.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2 PETER

Bauckham, Richard. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1983.

Green, Michael. The Second General Epistle of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Hillyer, Norman. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude . Harper's New Testament Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1969.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter: Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Comments. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 (orig. 1907).

Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter and Jude. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: 2 Peter (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - 1:1-15

A. Salutation and Greeting - 1:1-2

B. Preface: Exhortation to Godly Living - 1:3-11

C. Occasion: The Approaching Death of Peter - 1:12-15

II. BODY OF LETTER - 1:16-3:13

A. Reasons for Believing in Christ's Return - 1:16-21

1. Peter's Eyewitness Testimony - 1:16-18

2. The Sure Prophetic Word - 1:19-21

B. Warning against False Teachers - 2:1-22

1. The Coming of False Teachers - 2:1-3

2. The Condemnation of False Teachers - 2:4-10a

3. The Sins of the False Teachers - 2:10b-16

4. The Future Suffering of the False Teachers - 2:17-22

C. The Necessity of Believing in Christ's Return - 3:1-13

1. The Content of the False Teaching - 3:1-7

2. The Sure Return of Christ - 3:8-10

3. Christian Living in Light of Christ's Return - 3:11-13

III. FINAL EXHORTATIONS - 3:14-18

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV