Text -- 2 Peter 2:6 (NET)

2:6 and if he turned to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when he condemned them to destruction, having appointed them to serve as an example to future generations of the ungodly,

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 2Pe 2:6

Turning into ashes ( tephrōsas ).

First aorist participle of tephroō , late word from tephra , ashes (in Dio Cassius of an eruption of Vesuvius, Philo), here alone in N.T.

Robertson: 2Pe 2:6

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ( poleis Sodomōn kai Gomorrās ).

Genitive of apposition after poleis (cities), though it makes sense as possessive genitive, for Jud 1:7 speaks of the cities around these two. The third example, the cities of the plain. See Gen 19:24.

Robertson: 2Pe 2:6

Condemned them ( katekrinen ).

First aorist active indicative of katakrinō , still part of the protasis with ei .

Robertson: 2Pe 2:6

With an overthrow ( katastrophēi ).

Instrumental case or even dative like thanatōi with katakrinō in Mat 20:18. But Westcott and Hort reject the word here because not in B C Coptic.

Robertson: 2Pe 2:6

Having made them ( tetheikōs ).

Perfect active participle of tithēmi .

Robertson: 2Pe 2:6

An example ( hupodeigma ).

For which see Jam 5:10; Joh 13:15. Cf. 1Pe 2:21.

Robertson: 2Pe 2:6

Unto those that should live ungodly ( mellontōn asebesin ).

Rather, "unto ungodly men of things about to be"(see Heb 11:20 for this use of mellontōn ). But Aleph A C K L read asebein (present active infinitive) with mellontōn = asebēsontōn (future active participle of asebeō ), from which we have our translation.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:6

Turning into ashes ( τεφρώσας )

Only here in New Testament.

Vincent: 2Pe 2:6

Having made them an example ( ὑπόδειγμα τεθεικώς )

Compare 1Pe 2:21. The word for example is condemned as unclassical by the Attic grammarians, and παράδειγμα is substituted, which means, properly, a sculptor's or a painter's model, or an architect's plan.

JFB: 2Pe 2:6

"TO overthrow" [ALFORD].

JFB: 2Pe 2:6

"of (the fate that should befall) those who in after-time should live ungodly." Compare Jud 1:7, "set forth for an example."

Clarke: 2Pe 2:6

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrha - See the notes on Genesis 19 (note), for an account of the sin and punishment of these cities

Clarke: 2Pe 2:6

Making them an ensample - These three words, ὑποδειγμα, παραδειγμα, and δειγμα, are used to express the same idea; though the former may signify an example to be shunned, the second an example to be followed, and the third a simple exhibition. But these differences are not always observed.

Calvin: 2Pe 2:6

6.The cities of Sodom This was so memorable an example of Divine vengeance, that when the Scripture speaks of the universal destruction of the ungodly, it alludes commonly to this as the type. Hence Peter says, that these cities were made an example. This may, indeed, be truly said of others; but Peter points out something singular, because it was the chief and a lively image; yea, rather, because the Lord designed that his wrath against the ungodly should be made known to all ages; as when he redeemed his people from Egypt, he has set forth to us by that one favor the perpetual safety of his Church. Jude has also expressed the same thing, calling it the punishment of eternal fire. [Jud 1:7.]

Defender: 2Pe 2:6

The "overthrow" of the unspeakably wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, with their "filthy conversation" (2Pe 2:7) and their rampant "sodomy" was not worldwide but regional, evidently involving a great earthquake and volcanic eruptions (Genesis 19). The Greek for "overthrow" is katastrophe rather than kataklusmos, for the one was local and the other global. From these words, we obviously derive our words "catastrophe" and "catastrophism" on the one hand and "cataclysm" on the other. There has been only one cataclysm so far in world history, but many catastrophes. (2Pe 3:3-10)."

TSK: 2Pe 2:6

turning : Gen 19:24, Gen 19:25, Gen 19:28; Deu 29:23; Isa 13:19; Jer 50:40; Eze 16:49-56; Hos 11:8; Amo 4:11; Zep 2:9; Luk 17:28-30; Jud 1:7

making : Num 26:10; Deu 29:23; 1Co 10:11

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 2Pe 2:6

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes - Gen 19:24-25. This is a third example to demonstrate that God will punish the wicked. Compare the notes at Jud 1:7. The word here rendered "turning into ashes" τεφρωσας tephrōsas , occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is from τέφρα tefra , ashes, and means to reduce to ashes, and then to consume or destroy.

Condemned them with an overthrow - By the fact of their being overthrown, he showed that they were to be condemned, or that he disapproved their conduct. Their calamity came expressly on account of their enormous sins; as it is frequently the case now that the awful judgments that come upon the licentious and the intemperate, are as plain a proof of the divine disapprobation as were the calamities that came upon Sodom and Gomorrah.

Making them an ensample ... - That is, they were a demonstration that God disapproved of the crimes for which they were punished, and would disapprove of the same crimes in every age and in every land. The punishment of one wicked man or people always becomes a warning to all others.

Poole: 2Pe 2:6

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrha which being the chief of the five, include Admah and Zeboim, Zoar, the fifth, being spared for Lot’ s sake, Gen 14:18 , compared with Gen 19:25 .

Condemned them with an overthrow i.e. punished them with a total subversion, or brought that destruction upon them to which he had condemned them.

Making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly of his wrath and vengeance ready to be poured out upon others that should live ungodly, to deter them from the imitation of the sins of those that had so miserably perished. The word may be rendered a type, (as it is, Heb 8:5 , and Heb 9:23 ), viz. of hell-fire, which is to be the punishment of wicked men at the last day: Jud 1:7 implies as much. As the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt was a kind of type of the deliverance of all God’ s people to the end of the world; so the subversion of these cities was so memorable an instance of Divine vengeance, that the Scripture frequently alludes to it, as a type or pattern, when it speaks of the general destruction of the wicked of the world.

Gill: 2Pe 2:6

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes,.... By raining brimstone and fire upon them from heaven, Gen 19:24 which soon reduced them to ashes, with Admah and Zeboiim, Deu 29:25, cities delightfully situated, which were as the garden of God, and the land of Egypt, together with the inhabitants of them; and after they had received a signal mercy, in being rescued by Abraham from the kings who had carried them captive; and though Abraham, the friend of God, interceded for them, and righteous Lot dwelt among them. The first of these cities is in the Hebrew language called Sedom; Philo the Jew ^w calls it Sodoma, as in Rom 9:29 and in the Septuagint on Gen 13:10 here it is said to be a city, and Josephus ^x always calls it the city of the Sodomites, but in Mat 10:15 we read of the land of Sodom; and so Philo ^y the Jew speaks of χωρα, the region or country of the Sodomites; here the word is of the plural number, as in Mat 10:15 as it is also in the Septuagint in Gen 10:19 and in Philo the Jew ^z, and so is Gomorrah in some copies of this, place, as in Mat 10:15. Solinus, the historian, gives an account of these cities, in agreement with this;

"a good way off of Jerusalem (he says ^a) is opened a sorrowful gulf, which the black ground, "in cinerem soluta", "reduced to ashes", shows it to be touched by heaven; there were two towns, or cities, the one called Sodom, and the other Gomorrah; where an apple is produced, which, although it has an appearance of ripeness, cannot be eaten; for the outward skin that encompasses it only contains a sort of soot, or embers within, which, ever so lightly squeezed, evaporates into smoke and dust;''

and so the author of the book of Wisdom 10:7 speaking of the five cities, on which fire fell, says,

"of whose wickedness, even to this day, the waste land that smoketh is a testimony; and plants bearing fruit, that never come to ripeness.''

Philo the Jew ^b says, that

"there are showed to this day in Syria monuments of this unspeakable destruction that happened; as ruins, ashes, sulphur, smoke, and a weak flame, breaking forth as of a fire burning:''

condemned them with an overthrow; by this sad "catastrophe" God condemned the sins of those men of Sodom and Gomorrah, and condemned their persons to everlasting damnation; of which their temporal punishment was an emblem and figure; see Jud 1:7, the word "overthrow" is generally used when this destruction is spoken of, Deu 29:23 and therefore retained by the apostle here:

making them ensamples unto those who after should live ungodly; in the commission of any sins, and be open, bold, and impudent in them, and declare them as they did; and especially that should live in the commission of the same sins, those unnatural lusts and uncleannesses, which to this day go by the name of "sodomy", and "sodomitical" practices; now the punishment of the inhabitants of these cities was an ensample to such wicked conduct, showing what they must expect, and was a representation of those everlasting burnings, which such sinners, as a righteous retaliation for their burning lusts, shall be cast into. The Jews say ^c the same of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah as of the old world;

"the men of Sodom have no part in the world to come, as is said Gen 13:13 "but the men of Sodom were wicked, and sinners before the Lord exceedingly"; wicked in this world, and sinners in the world to come;''

See Gill on JuDeu 1:7.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 2Pe 2:6

¹ tc Several important witnesses omit καταστροφῇ (katastrofh, “destruction”; such as Ì^72* B C* 1241 1739 1881 pc), but this is probably best explained as an accidental omission due to homoioarcton (the word following is κατέκρινεν [katekrinen, “he condemned”]).

tn Or “ruin,” or “extinction.” The first part of this verse more literally reads “And [if] he condemned to annihilation the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, by turning them to ashes.”

sn The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is detailed in Gen 18:16—19:29.

² tn The perfect participle τεθεικώς (teqeikw") suggests an antecedent act. More idiomatically, the idea seems to be, “because he had already appointed them to serve as an example.”

³ tn “To serve as” is not in Greek but is implied in the object-complement construction.

⁴ tn Grk “an example of the things coming to the ungodly,” or perhaps “an example to the ungodly of coming [ages].”

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.

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 2:3-6

Men are apt to think that a reprieve is the forerunner of a pardon, and that if judgment be not speedily executed it is, or will be, certainly reversed. But the apostle tells us that how successful and prosperous soever false teachers may be, and that for a time, yet their judgment lingereth not. God has determined long ago how he will deal with them. Such unbelievers, who endeavour to turn others from the faith, are condemned already, and the wrath of God abideth on them. The righteous Judge will speedily take vengeance; the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. To prove this assertion, here are several examples of the righteous judgment of God, in taking vengeance on sinners, proposed to our serious consideration.

I. See how God dealt with the angels who sinned. Observe, 1. No excellency will exempt a sinner from punishment. If the angels, who excel us vastly in strength and knowledge, violate the law of God, the sentence which that law awards shall be executed upon them, and that without mercy or mitigation, for God did not spare them. Hence observe, 2. By how much the more excellent the offender, by so much the more severe the punishment. These angels, who had the advantage of men as to the dignity of their nature, are immediately punished. There is no sparing them for a few days, no favour at all shown them. 3. Sin debases and degrades the persons who commit it. The angels of heaven are cast down from the height of their excellency, and divested of all their glory and dignity, upon their disobedience. Whoever sins against God does a manifest hurt to himself. 4. Those who rebel against the God of heaven shall all be sent down to hell. There is no place nor state between the height of glory and the depth of misery in which they shall be allowed to rest. If creatures sin in heaven, they must suffer in hell. 5. Sin is the work of darkness, and darkness is the wages of sin. The darkness of misery and torment follows the darkness of sin. Those who will not walk according to the light and direction of God's law shall be deprived of the light of God's countenance and the comforts of his presence. 6. As sin binds men over to punishment, so misery and torment hold men under punishment. The darkness which is their misery keeps them so that they cannot get away from their torment. 7. The last degree of torment is not till the day of judgment. The sinning angels, though in hell already, are yet reserved to the judgment of the great day.

II. See how God dealt with the old world, even in much the same way that he dealt with the angels. He spared not the old world. Here observe, 1. The number of offenders signifies no more to procure any favour than the quality. If the sin be universal, the punishment shall likewise extend to all. But, 2. If there be but a few righteous, they shall be preserved. God does not destroy the good with the bad. In wrath he remembers mercy. 3. Those who are preachers of righteousness in an age of universal corruption and degeneracy, holding forth the word of life in an unblamable and exemplary conversation, shall be preserved in a time of general destruction. 4. God can make use of those creatures as the instruments of his vengeance in punishing sinners which he at first made and appointed for their service and benefit. He destroyed the whole world by water; but observe, 5. What was the procuring cause of this: it was a world of ungodly men. Ungodliness puts men out of the divine protection, and exposes them to utter destruction.

III. See how God dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah; though they were situated in a country like the garden of the Lord, yet, if in such a fruitful soil they abound in sin, God can soon turn a fruitful land into barrenness and a well-watered country into dust and ashes. Observe, 1. No political union or confederacy can keep off judgments from a sinful people. Sodom and the neighbouring cities were no more secured by their regular government than the angels by the dignity of their nature or the old world by their vast number. 2. God can make use of contrary creatures to punish incorrigible sinners. He destroys the old world by water, and Sodom by fire. He who keeps fire and water from hurting his people (Isa 43:2) can make either to destroy his enemies; therefore they are never safe. 3. Most heinous sins bring most grievous judgments. Those who were abominable in their vices were remarkable for their plagues. Those who are sinners exceedingly before the Lord must expect the most dreadful vengeance. 4. The punishment of sinners in former ages is designed for the example of those who come after. "Follow them, not only in the time of living, but in their course and way of living. "Men who live ungodly must see what they are to expect if they go on still in a course of impiety. Let us take warning by all the instances of God's taking vengeance, which are recorded for our admonition, and to prevent our promising ourselves impunity, though we go on in a course of sin.

Barclay: 2Pe 2:4-11

Here is a passage which for us combines undoubted power and equally undoubted obscurity. The white heat of its rhetorical intensity glows through it to this day; but it moves in allusions which would be terrifyingly effective to those who heard it for the first time, but which have become unfamiliar to us today. It cites three notorious examples of sin and its destruction; and in two of the cases it shows how, when sin was obliterated, righteousness was rescued and preserved by the mercy and the grace of God. Let us look at these examples one by one.

(1) The Sin Of The Angels

Before we retell the story which lies behind this in Jewish legend, there are two separate words at which we must look.

Peter says that God condemned the sinning angels to the lowest depths of hell. Literally the Greek says that God condemned the angels to Tartarus (tartaroun, 5020). Tartarus was not a Hebrew conception but Greek. In Greek mythology Tartarus was the lowest hell; it was as far beneath Hades as the heaven is high above the earth. In particular it was the place into which there had been cast the Titans who had rebelled against Zeus, the Father of gods and men.

The second word is that which speaks of the pits of darkness. Here there is a doubt. There are two Greek words, both rather uncommon, which are confused in this passage. One is siros or seiros which originally meant a great earthenware jar for the storing of grain. Then it came to mean the great underground pits in which grain was stored and which served as granaries. Siros has come into English via Provencal in the form of silo, which still describes the towers in which grain is stored. Still later the word went on to mean a pit in which a wolf or other wild animal was trapped. If we think that this is the word which Peter uses, and according to the best manuscripts it is, it will mean that the wicked angels were cast into great subterranean pits and kept there in darkness and in punishment. This well suits the idea of a Tartarus beneath the lowest depths of Hades.

But there is a very similar word seira (4577), which means a chain. This is the word which the King James Version translates when it speaks of chains of darkness (2Pe 2:4). The Greek manuscripts of Second Peter vary between seiroi (4577), pits, and seirai (4577), chains. But the better manuscripts have seiroi (4577), and pits o darkness makes better sense than chains of darkness; so we may take seiros (4577) as right, and assume that here the King James Version is in error.

The story of the fall of the angels is one which rooted itself deeply in Hebrew thought and which underwent much development as the years went on. The original story is in Gen 6:1-5. There the angels are called the sons of God, as they commonly are in the Old Testament. In Job, the sons of God come to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan comes amongst them (Job 1:6; compare Job 2:1; Job 38:7). The Psalmist speaks of the sons of gods (Psa 89:6). These angels came to earth and seduced mortal women. The result of this lustful union was the race of giants; and through them wickedness came upon the earth. Clearly this is an old, old story belonging to the childhood of the race.

This story was much developed in the Book of Enoch, and it is from it that Peter is drawing his allusions, for in his day that was a book which everyone would know. In Enoch the angels are called The Watchers. Their leader in rebellion was Semjaza or Azazel. At his instigation they descended to Mount Hermon in the days of Jared, the father of Enoch. They took mortal wives and instructed them in magic and in arts which gave them power. They produced the race of the giants, and the giants produced the nephilim (05303), the giants who inhabited the land of Canaan and of whom the people were afraid (Num 13:33).

These giants became cannibals and were guilty of every kind of lust and crime, and especially of insolent arrogance to God and man. The apocryphal literature has many references to them and their pride. Wisdom (Wis 14:6) tells how the proud giants perished. Ecclesiasticus (Sir 16:7) tells how the ancient giants fell away in the strength of their foolishness. They had no wisdom and they perished in their folly (Bar 3:26-28). Josephus says that they were arrogant and contemptuous of all that was good and trusted in their own strength (Antiquities 1.3.1). Job says that God charged his angels with folly (Job 4:18).

This old story makes a strange and fleeting appearance in the letters of Paul. In 1Co 11:10Paul says that women must have their hair covered in the Church because of the angels. Behind that strange saying lies the old belief that it was the loveliness of the long hair of the women of the olden times which moved the angels to desire, and Paul wishes to see that the angels are not tempted again.

In the end even men complained of the sorrow and misery brought into the world by these giants through the sin of the angels. The result was that God sent out his archangels. Raphael bound Azazel hand and foot and shut him up in darkness; Gabriel slew the giants; and the Watchers, the sinning angels, were shut up in the abysses of darkness under the mountains for seventy generations and then confined for ever in everlasting fire. Here is the story which is in Peter's mind; and which his readers well knew. The angels had sinned and God had sent his destruction, and they were shut up for ever in the pits of darkness and the depths of hell. That is what happens to rebellious sin.

The story does not stop there; and it reappears in another of its forms in this passage of Second Peter. In 2Pe 2:10Peter speaks of those who live lives dominated by the polluting lusts of the flesh and who despise the celestial powers. The word is kuriotes (2963), which is the name of one of the ranks of angels. They speak evil of the angelic glories. The word is doxai (1391), which also is a word for one of the ranks of angels. They slander the angels and bring them into disrepute.

Here is where the second turn of the story comes in. Obviously this story of the angels is very primitive and, as time went on, it became rather an awkward and embarrassing story because of its ascription of lust to angels. So in later Jewish and Christian thought two lines of thought developed. First, it was denied that the story involved angels at all. The sons of God were said to be good men who were the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men were said to be evil women who were the daughters of Cain and corrupted the good men. There is no scriptural evidence for this distinction and this way of escape. Second, the whole story was allegorised. It was claimed, for instance by Philo, that it was never meant to be taken literally and described the fall of the human soul under the attack of the seductions of lustful pleasures. Augustine declared that no man could take this story literally and talk of the angels like that. Cyril of Alexandria said that it could not be taken literally, for did not Jesus say that in the after-life men would be like angels and there would be no marrying or giving in marriage (Mat 22:30)? Chrysostom said that, if the story was taken literally, it was nothing short of blasphemy. And Cyril went on to say that the story was nothing other than an incentive to sin, if it was taken as literally true.

It is clear that men began to see that this was indeed a dangerous story. Here we get our clue as to what Peter means when he speaks of men who despise the celestial powers and bring the angelic glories into disrepute by speaking slanderously of them. The men whom Peter was opposing were turning their religion into an excuse for blatant immorality. Cyril of Alexandria makes it clear that in his day the story could be used as an incentive to sin. Most probably what was happening was that the wicked men of Peter's time were citing the example of the angels as a justification for their own sin. They were saying, "If angels came from heaven and took mortal women, why should not we?" They were making the conduct of the angels an excuse for their own sin.

We have to go still further with this passage. In 2Pe 2:11it finishes very obscurely. It says that angels who are greater in strength and in power do not bring a slanderous charge against them in the presence of God. Once again Peter is speaking allusively, in a way that would be clear enough to the people of his day but which is obscure to us. His reference may be to either of two stories.

(a) He may be referring to the story to which Jude refers in Jd 9 ; that the archangel Michael was entrusted with the burying of the body of Moses. Satan claimed the body on the grounds that all matter belonged to him and that once Moses had murdered an Egyptian. Michael did not bring a railing charge against Satan; all he said was: "The Lord rebuke you." The point is that even an angel so great as Michael would not bring an evil charge against an angel so dark as Satan. He left the matter to God. If Michael refrained from slandering an evil angel, how can men bring slanderous charges against the angels of God?

(b) He may be referring to a further development of the Enoch story. Enoch tells that when the conduct of the giants on earth became intolerable, men made their complaint to the archangels Michael, Uriel, Gabriel and Raphael. The archangels took this complaint to God; but they did not rail against the evil angels who were responsible for it all; they simply took the story to God, for him to deal with (Enoch 9).

As far as we can see today, the situation behind Peter's allusions is that the wicked men who were the slaves of lust claimed that the angels were their examples and their justification and so slandered them; Peter reminds them that not even archangels dared slander other angels and demands how men can dare to do so.

This is a strange and difficult passage; but the meaning is clear. Even angels, when they sinned, were punished. How much more shall men be punished? Angels could not rebel against God and escape the consequences. How shall men escape? And men need not seek to put the blame on others, not even on angels; nothing but their own rebelliousness is responsible for their sin.

(2) The Men Of The Flood And The Rescue Of Noah

The second illustration of the destruction of wickedness which Peter chooses may be said to lead on from the first. The sin introduced into the world by the sinning angels led to that intolerable sin which ended in the destruction by the deluge (Gen 6:5). In the midst of this destruction God did not forget those who had clung to him, Noah was saved together with seven others, his wife, his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives. In Jewish tradition Noah acquired a very special place. Not only was he regarded as the one man who had been saved; but also as the preacher who had done his best to turn men from the evil of their ways. Josephus says, "Many angels of God lay with women and begat sons, who were violent and who despised all good, on account of their reliance on their own strength.... But Noah displeased and distressed at their behaviour, tried to induce them to alter their dispositions and conduct for the better" (Antiquities 1.3.1).

Attention in this passage is concentrated not so much on the people who were destroyed as on the man who was saved. Noah is offered as the type of man who, amidst the destruction of the wicked, receives the salvation of God. His outstanding qualities were two.

(i) In the midst of a sinning generation he remained faithful to God. Later Paul was to urge his people to be not conformed to the world but transformed from it (Rom 12:2). It may well be said that often the most dangerous sin of all is conformity. To be the same as others is always easy; to be different is always difficult. But from the days of Noah until now he who would be the servant of God must be prepared to be different from the world.

(ii) The later legends pick out another characteristic of Noah. He was the preacher of righteousness. The word for preacher used here is kerux (2783), which literally means a herald. Epictetus called the philosopher the kerux (2783) of the gods. The preacher is the man who brings to men an announcement from God. Here is something of very considerable significance. The good man is concerned not only with the saving of his own soul but just as much with the saving of the souls of others. He does not, in order to preserve his own purity live apart from men. He is concerned to bring God's message to them. A man ought never to keep to himself the grace which he has received. It is always his duty to bring light to those who sit in darkness, guidance to the wanderer and warning to those who are going astray.

(3) The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah And The Rescue Of Lot

The third example is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the rescue of Lot.

The terrible and dramatic story is told in Gen 18-19. It begins with Abraham's plea that God should not destroy the righteous with the guilty and his request that, if even ten just men are found in these cities, they may be spared (Gen 18:16-33). Then follows one of the grimmest tales in the Old Testament.

The angelic visitors came to Lot and he persuaded them to stay with him; but his house was surrounded by the men of Sodom demanding that these strangers might be brought out for them to use for their unnatural lust (Gen 19:1-11). By that terrible deed--at once the abuse of hospitality, the insulting of angels and the raging of unnatural lust--the doom of the cities was sealed. As the destruction of heaven came upon them Lot and his family were saved, except his wife, who lingered and looked back and turned into a pillar of salt (Gen 19:12-26). "So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt" (Gen 19:29). Here again is the story of the destruction of sin and the rescue of righteousness. As in Noah, we see in Lot the characteristics of the righteous man.

(i) Lot lived in the midst of evil, and the very sight of it was a constant distress to him. Moffatt reminds us of the saying of Newman: "Our great security against sin lies in being shocked at it." Here is something very significant. It often happens that, when evils first emerge, people are shocked at them; but, as time goes on, they cease to be shocked at them and accept them as a matter of course. There are many things at which we ought to be shocked. In our own generation there are the problems of prostitution and promiscuity, drunkenness and drugs, the extraordinary gambling fever which has the country in its grip, the breakdown of the marriage bond, violence, vandalism and crime, death upon the roads, still-existing slum conditions and many others. In many cases the tragedy is that these things have ceased to shock and are accepted in a matter-of-fact style as part of the normal order of things. For the good of the world and of our own souls, we must keep alive the sensitiveness which is shocked by sin.

(ii) Lot lived in the midst of evil, and yet he escaped its taint. Amidst the sin of Sodom he remained true to God. If a man will remember it, he has in the grace of God an antiseptic which will preserve him from the infection of sin. No man need be the slave of the environment in which he happens to find himself.

(iii) When the worst came to the worst, Lot was willing to make a clean break with his environment. He was prepared, however much he did not want to do so, to leave it for ever. It was because his wife was not prepared to make the clean break that she perished. There is a strange verse in the Old Testament story. It says that, when Lot lingered, the angelic messengers took hold of his hand (Gen 19:16). There are times when the influence of heaven tries to force us out of some evil situation. It may come to any man to have to make the choice between security and the new start; and there are times when a man can save his soul only by breaking clean away from his present situation and beginning all over again. It was in doing just this that Lot found his salvation; and it was in failing to do just this that his wife lost hers.

Barclay: 2Pe 2:4-11

2Pe 2:9-11give us a picture of the evil man. Peter with a few swift, vivid strokes of the pen paints the outstanding characteristics of him who may properly be called the bad man.

(i) He is the desire-dominated man. His life is dominated by the lusts of the flesh. Such a man is guilty of two sins.

(a) Every man has two sides to his nature. He has a physical side; he has instincts, passions and impulses which he shares with the animal creation. These instincts are good--if they are kept in their proper place. They are even necessary for the preservation of individual life and the continuation of the race. The word temperament literally means a mixture. The picture behind it is that human nature consists of a large variety of ingredients all mixed together. It is clear that the efficacy of any mixture depends on each ingredient being there in its proper proportion. Wherever there is either excess or defect the mixture is not what it ought to be. Man has a physical nature and also a spiritual nature; and manhood depends on a correct mixture of the two. The desire-dominated man has allowed his animal nature to usurp a place it should not have; he has allowed the ingredients to get out of proportion and the recipe for manhood has gone wrong.

(b) There is a reason for this loss of proportion--selfishness. The root evil of the lust-dominated life is that it proceeds on the assumption that nothing matters but the gratification of its own desires and the expression of its own feelings. It has ceased to have any respect or care for others. Selfishness and desire go hand in hand.

The bad man is he who has allowed one side of his nature a far greater place than it ought to have and who has done so because he is essentially selfish.

(ii) He is the audacious man. The Greek is tolmetes (5113), from the verb tolman (5111), to dare. There are two kinds of daring. There is the daring which is a noble thing, the mark of true courage. There is the daring which is an evil thing, the shameless performance of things which are an affront to decency and right. As the character in Shakespeare had it: "I dare do all becomes a man. Who dares do more is none." The bad man is he who has the audacity to defy the will of God as it is known to him.

(iii) He is the self-willed man. Self-willed is not really an adequate translation. The Greek is authades (829), derived from autos (846), self, and hadon, pleasing, and used of a man who had no idea of anything other than pleasing himself. In it there is always the element of obstinacy. If a man is authades (829), no logic, nor common sense, nor appeal, nor sense of decency will keep him from doing what he wants to do. As R. C. Trench says, "Thus obstinately maintaining his own opinion, or asserting his own rights, he is reckless of the rights, opinions and interests of others." The man who is authades (829) is stubbornly and arrogantly and even brutally determined on his own way. The bad man is he who has no regard for either human appeal or divine guidance.

(iv) He is the man who is contemptuous of the angels. We have already seen how this goes back to allusions in Hebrew tradition which are obscure to us. But it has a wider meaning. The bad man insists on living in one world. To him the spiritual world does not exist and he never hears the voices from beyond. He is of the earth earthy. He has forgotten that there is a heaven and is blind and deaf when the sights and sounds of heaven break through to him.

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 2:4-10

B. The Consequences of False Teaching 2:4-10a

Peter next described the consequences that follow false teaching to help his readers see the importance of avoiding it.

"Verses 4-10a form one long, complex conditional sentence; verses 4-8 form the conditional statement, and verses 9-10a the conclusion. This long sentence skillfully combines the different aspects involved in God's judicial dealings with mankind."⁸⁵

"Now Peter will give us three examples of apostates in the past. His first example is of the angels who sinned (v. 4), and it is an example of how the Devil works. His second example is that of the world of Noah's day (v. 5), and it is the example of the world. The third example (v. 6) is the turning of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, and that is the example of the flesh."⁸⁶

2:4 We could translate the "ifs" in verses 4, 6, and 7 "since."⁸⁷ Angels are in many respects superior to humans, yet God judged even them for sinning by consigning them to tartarosas (hell). This is the only reference to "Tartarus" in the Bible. This term evidently originated in Greek mythology.⁸⁸ This is probably the same angelic rebellion to which Jude referred (Jude 6). Tartarus is evidently a holding place of darkness and bondage.⁸⁹ God will send these angels from Tartarus to the lake of fire, their terminal place of punishment, after He judges them finally (cf. Matt. 25:41). These angels appear to be those that rebelled with Satan. However since they are in bondage now they are evidently not the demons that assist Satan in his work on earth now.⁹⁰ We should probably not equate these angels with the "sons of God" that Moses wrote about in Genesis 6:1-4.⁹¹

2:5 God did not spare the sinners in the ancient world of Noah's day. Consequently there is no basis for supposing that He will spare any sinner in the world today. Both types of sinners are ungodly. Peter called Noah a herald of righteousness here (cf. 1 Pet. 3:19). By his words and deeds Noah proclaimed righteousness to his ungodly neighbors. By referring to seven others whom God saved with Noah (i.e., his family members), Peter was probably hinting that he was the beginning of a new creation.

"The reason for this stress is perhaps to be found in the eschatological symbolism of the number eight, which represented an eighth day of new creation, following the seven days of the old creation's history (cf 2 Enoch 33:1-2; Barn. 15:9). Early Christians associated this symbolism with Sunday, the eighth day' (Barn. 15:9: Justin, Dial. 24.1: 41.4; 138.1). Sunday was the eighth day because it was the day of Christ's resurrection in which the new creation was begun . . .

"Noah, preserved from the old world to be the beginning of the new world after the Flood, is a type of faithful Christians who will be preserved from the present world to inherit the new world after the judgment."⁹²

Many Bible students believe that the pattern of Noah's deliverance before the Flood prefigures the pretribulation rapture of Christians.

2:6 God already demonstrated that He would judge ungodly sinners with fire when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The ungodly from then on should not expect to escape the same fate, though the fire that will judge them will be eternal. God also delivered Lot and his family before He brought fiery judgment on his world (cf. the pretribulation rapture; 1 Thess. 5:9-10).

"Undoubtedly the author sees the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire as a pattern for the fiery judgment of the ungodly at the Parousia (3:7)."⁹³

"It has well been said that if God spares today's cities from judgment, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."⁹⁴

All three of Peter's examples (vv. 4-6) deal with unbelievers. These were the primary focus of Peter's warning. If there were some believers among the false teachers, Peter undoubtedly intended that they should take these warnings to heart even though they would not suffer the same eternal judgment as unbelievers.

2:7-9 This example shows that God will not only punish the wicked but He will also extricate the righteous from the judgment He will send on the ungodly that surround them. This example, as well as the example of Noah (v. 5), assured Peter's faithful readers that God would not lose them in the mass of sinners whom He would judge. The destruction of Jerusalem was going to destroy the unbelieving Jews living there in A.D. 70.⁹⁵ However the primary warning deals with eschatological deliverance and punishment at the return of Christ.⁹⁶

Of course, many righteous people have died along with the ungodly in what have appeared to be God's judgments. One example of this is the faithful remnant in Israel who died in the wars that resulted in Israel and Judah's captivities. Note that Peter said God is able to deliver the righteous. He did not say that He would do so in every case. This is still a ground for comfort. If the will of God be so, the righteous will not suffer with the wicked. In the end God will separate these two groups eternally, and no righteous person will suffer eternal judgment (cf. Matt. 13:30).

Had Peter not told us Lot was a righteous man we might have concluded otherwise. This strengthens Peter's illustration.

"Righteous' is a relative term; and in this case we must look at Lot both in comparison with the defective morality of the age and also with the licentiousness of those with whom he is here contrasted. Moreover, in the midst of this corruption he preserves some of the brighter features of his purer nomad life."⁹⁷

We cannot always tell who the righteous are, but God knows. How a person behaves may be misleading. Not only may some unbelievers appear to be saints, but some believers, such as Lot, appear to be unsaved. If every genuine believer gives evidence of his salvation by his good works, as some interpreters assert, then Lot was the exception to the rule. It seems more likely that Lot was what the New Testament calls a carnal believer.

"It is possible for a Christian to live close to sin, but he may barely escape with his life."⁹⁸

2:10a Here is another indication that the false teachers Peter warned of indulged their fleshly passions (v. 2). To do so they had to despise the authority of the apostles, the teaching of their Bibles, and God. However, Peter's reference to "authority" is probably a general one indicating the principle of authority.⁹⁹

"Those who subject themselves to the flesh cannot be subject to the Lord."¹⁰⁰

"False teaching and false behaviour ultimately always produce suffering and disaster, be it in Lot's day, in Peter's, or in our own."¹⁰¹

"The main idea in these verses comes across clearly: God judges those who obstinately disregard his commands while he protects those who stay faithful to him."¹⁰²

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

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: 2Pe 2:6

Witnessing to homosexuals . I had an angry lesbian heckle me one Friday night while speaking in Santa Monica in front of a large crowd. I was so pleased to have the Law of God as a weapon. When she insisted that she was born with homosexual desires, I told her that I was too. I was born with a capacity to be a homosexual, to fornicate, commit adultery, lie, and steal. I said that it was called ‘sin,’ and that we all had it in our nature. It diffused her intent on making me seem like a ‘gay-basher.’ I could see the frustration on her face when she wasn’t able to take the discourse in the direction she wanted. Instead of seeming the poor victim, she found herself in the public hot-seat of having sinned against God.

The way to witness to a homosexual is simply to follow the biblical guidelines and use the Law.

See Mat 19:17-22 footnote.

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