2 Peter 2:5

2:5 and if he did not spare the ancient world, but did protect Noah, a herald of righteousness, along with seven others, ¹  when God ²  brought a flood on an ungodly world, ³ 

2 Peter 2:9

2:9 – if so, ⁴  then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, ⁵  and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment ⁶  at the day of judgment,

[2:5]  ¹ tn “Along with seven others” is implied in the cryptic, “the eighth, Noah.” A more literal translation thus would be, “he did protect Noah [as] the eighth…”

[2:5]  ² tn Grk “he”; the referent (God) has been repeated here for clarity, although this is somewhat redundant with the beginning of v. 4.

[2:5]  ³ tn Grk “a world of the ungodly.”

[2:9]  ⁴ tn The Greek is one long conditional sentence, from v. 4 to v. 10a. 2Pet 2:4-8 constitute the protasis; vv. 9 and 10a, the apodosis. In order to show this connection more clearly, a resumptive summary protasis – “if so,” or “if God did these things” – is needed in English translation.

[2:9]  ⁵ tn Grk “from trial,” or possibly “from temptation” (though this second meaning for πειρασμός (peirasmo") does not fit the context in which Noah and Lot are seen as in the midst of trials, not temptation).

[2:9]  ⁶ tn The adverbial participle κολαζομένους (kolazomenou") can refer either to contemporaneous time or subsequent time. At stake is the meaning of the following prepositional phrase (at the day of judgment or until the day of judgment). If the participle is contemporaneous, the idea is “to keep the ungodly in a state of punishment until the day of judgment.” If subsequent, the meaning is “to keep the ungodly to be punished at the day of judgment.” Many commentators/translations opt for the first view, assuming that the present participle cannot be used of subsequent time. However, the present participle is the normal one used for result, and is often used of purpose (cf., e.g., for present participles suggesting result, Mark 9:7; Luke 4:15; John 5:18; Eph 2:15; 2 Pet 2:1, mentioned above; for present participles indicating purpose, note Luke 10:25; John 12:33; Acts 3:26; 2 Pet 2:10 [as even most translations render it]). Further, the context supports this: 2:1-10 forms something of an inclusio, in which the final end of the false teachers is mentioned specifically in v. 1, then as a general principle in v. 9. The point of v. 3 – that the punishment of the false teachers is certain, even though the sentence has not yet been carried out, is underscored by a participle of purpose in v. 9.