2 Peter 2
LenskiCHAPTER II
Part Two
How the Coming Pseudo-Teachers Look and Act, Chapter 2
Their Coming and Their Numerous Following Foretold, v. 1–3
2 Peter 2:1
1 Δέ is transitional and not adversative. Peter has emphasized ἐπίγνωσις, full and true heart-knowledge; all diligence in the whole round of Christian life; the absolute certainty of the prophetic Word of Scripture; the kingdom and the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now he stresses the purpose of it all: the readers will soon have to face one of the worst types of false teachers whose life will be as rank as their teaching.
There occurred also pseudo-prophets among the people as also among you there will be pseudo-teachers, such as will bring in covertly heresies of perdition, denying even the absolute Master who bought them, bringing upon their own selves swift perdition.
The aorist “there occurred” states the historical fact. Καί, “also,” reverts to 1:19–21; yet Peter does not say “pseudo-prophecy” in formal conformity with “prophecy” mentioned in 1:21 but names the false prophets, for what they offered was not “prophecy” but fiction, “myths” (v. 16). Such lying prophets appeared among the people, λαός refers to the people of Israel. They appeared beside God’s true prophets and with their pretended prophecies tried to turn Israel from the true prophets and from the things they uttered by inspiration “from God” (1:21). Formally “pseudo-prophets” matches the ἄνθρωποι mentioned in 1:21, “men who spoke from God borne along by the Holy Spirit.”
Ὡςκαί is exact, “as also among you,” etc. This is misunderstood when it is taken to mean that Israel had its false prophets in correspondence with the readers of this epistle; Peter says: Israel had false prophets as the readers shall have false teachers. The two ἐν indicate that “among Israel” as “among you” such liars appeared and shall appear. Peter does not intend to say that they had or shall have the whole field to themselves but only that they try to invade it and to wrest it from the true preachers.
We do not identify “pseudo-prophets” and “pseudo-teachers.” The former pretended to have received direct revelations from God such as men like Elijah, Isaiah, etc., received. They lied; they themselves made up what they offered with the words, “Thus saith Yahweh.” Among Peter’s readers such prophets would not appear who claimed direct revelation and inspiration; they would be only “lying teachers,” Peter even adds: “such as will bring in covertly heresies of perdition.” They will not pose as prophets or as apostles of Christ; they will merely teach, namely lies that pervert, falsify “the way of the truth.”
Peter writes with clarity and with exactness. We do not introduce 1 Cor. 14 and the charisma of “prophecy” which refers only to the gift of informing others about the divine Word that had already been revealed. Teachers did the same; they only expounded and explained the Word and did not merely state it. There was but little difference between this kind of prophecy and its teaching, and that has no pertinence here. The false prophets that arose among Israel claimed to be on the same high plane with such men as Elijah, etc.; Peter’s readers would have to face only lying teachers.
Peter’s readers are now God’s people as Israel once was. They must not be surprised to learn that something quite similar to what Israel experienced will also come to them. As Israel suffered from lying prophets, so Peter’s readers will be troubled by lying teachers. The devil cannot let God’s people alone; if he can no longer send lying prophets among them he will at least send lying teachers.
Οἵτινες is purely qualitative and intends to characterize and describe: “such as will bring in covertly heresies of perdition,” etc. M.-M. 492 cite only two examples of the use of this verb and think that it means “to introduce.” In the present connection the παρά of the verb has its full force: “to bring in privily” (our versions), sneakingly, covertly, so that unwary, simple people will not note what these teachers are bringing in; B.-P. 997 translates rightly einschwaertzen, which agrees with the subject “lying or false teachers” and with the object “heresies of perdition.”
We also note a tendency to tone down the meaning of αἱρέσεις and to eliminate everything that is adverse from the word. It is reduced in force to Sonderrichtungen, to the opinions of differing philosophical “schools” of thought, where each school has as much right to its opinion as the other. We are likewise referred to the hairesis of the Pharisees and to that of the Sadducees, each being a Jewish party with its own tenets (Acts 5:17; 15:5). Derived from the middle of αἱρέω, the noun etymologically means a view, an opinion, a doctrine that one chooses for oneself and thereby separates oneself from the whole body, from others who choose a different view, etc., and thus form a party within the body.
A hairesis may be mild or grave in varying degrees. In postapostolic times the word came to have the sense in which we now use it: “heresy,” a grave aberration and nothing less. We freely admit that this word had a varied meaning in apostolic times; but here Peter himself plainly refers to what were no less than the gravest kind of heresies; there were even many of them. The meaning of the word cannot be toned down in the present connection.
These are “heresies of perdition.” Peter repeats “perdition”; these lying teachers bring upon their own selves “swift perdition,” i.e., eternal damnation in hell. Ἀπώλεια means no less. The fact that they do it by means of their “heresies of perdition” is rather plain. To be sure, this is a characterizing genitive; the New Testament has many such. That it is Hebraistic, as is claimed, makes no difference. This genitive is far stronger than an adjective and should not be made an adjective: “damnable heresies” (A. V.), “destructive” (R.
V.). All self-chosen views or doctrines that bear the stamp of perdition and bring “swift perdition” upon their advocates are heresies in the gravest sense of the word, no matter when they are held. Tone down the one word as much as one may, the other puts hell (perdition) into it nevertheless.
There is no reason to fault Peter for continuing with two descriptive, iterative present participles. Does καί not often mean “even”? These participles should not be finite verbs. As participles they subjoin, and this is exactly what Peter wants. Articles are not needed, for these would convert the participles into substantives and produce a sense that Peter does not want to express. The first participle: “denying,” etc., makes evident the crime and the guilt of these lying teachers and shows that their heresies merit perdition beyond question; the second stresses the result. Being anarthrous, these participles are attached to and add to the main verb. Καί is to be construed with the object (R. V.) and not with the participle (A. V.).
“Denying even the absolute Master who bought them” implies that these heretics also deny and reject much else. As God is called δεσπότης, so Christ is called the same. Peter has twice called Christ God in the most significant way (1:1, 2). But Peter said: “our God and Savior,” “our God and Lord”; and here he says: “the Despotes who bought them.” Read Trench regarding the difference between δεσπότης and κύριος. A man is the former to his slaves, the latter to his wife (1 Pet. 3:6, Sarah) and his children. From the former we have our word “despot,” which is used in a rather evil sense.
When it is applied to God and to Christ as God the term stresses their absolute, unrestricted power. But the addition “who bought them” conserves the fullest soteriological sense. Christ bought them at the tremendous price of his blood to be his own forever. Despite his absolute might and this act of purchase and ransoming these are men who “deny,” disown, repudiate “even” him. They challenge his absolute power; they ungratefully scorn his buying them. Ingrate rebels!
Here we have an adequate answer to Calvin’s limited atonement: the Sovereign, Christ, bought with his blood not only the elect but also those who go to perdition. Calvin does not accept this epistle as canonical; in his extensive commentary on the New Testament it is not treated. May this clause, perhaps, have been a reason for this omission?
“Bringing upon their own selves swift perdition” states their doom. “Swift” is the same adjective that was used in 1:14, which see. These teachers do this themselves. Arrogantly they run their course; then suddenly perdition strikes them down. “Swift” indicates what happens in the instant of death.
Peter prophesies, as Christ, as Paul do. All three of them foretell in no uncertain words. The prospect that they hold out is terrible. Pseudo-teachers did come; their successors are still here. Their spiritual marks are still the same. As teachers they want place and position, authority and pay right in the church while their teaching smells to heaven of the perdition that awaits them at death.
2 Peter 2:2
2 Truthfully, though sorrowfully, Peter adds: And many shall follow their excesses, through whom the way of the truth will be blasphemed. Although they are false in heart and in doctrine these teachers will have a numerous following in their ἀσέλγειαι, Ausschweifungen, Zuegellosigkeiten, “excesses,” when there is no check or rein of divine truth, when they run into all manner of extremes. “Pernicious ways” (A. V.) is inexact; “lascivious doings” (R. V.) and G. K. 488 leave the impression that this word refers only to sexual aberrations. This is a general characterization, hence this abstract is pluralized; the plural obviates a restriction to sex. All types and all manner of excesses and extremes of immorality are referred to.
When did pseudo-teachers ever lack a following? The “many” referred to are not adherents that are attracted from paganism but from the church, that are attracted away from the diligence of true Christian activity (1:5, etc.) to the libertinism of these teachers who put down the bars, who advocate full freedom for the flesh. That is the bait that is still effective in the case of many. The mediate effect is the fact that “through these many followers the way of the truth shall be blasphemed.” This is the damage that will be done to the church. The Hebrew derek, the Greek ὁδός mean “way” (the plural is sometimes used) in the sense that one puts a doctrine to practice. The articulated genitive “of the truth” does not equal an adjective: “the true way.” “The truth” is the specific truth of the Word or gospel, the ἀλήθεια or “reality” of which it consists, which we embrace and follow by faith and a godly life.
True Christianity is blasphemed, reviled, cursed, condemned by outsiders who see professed Christians running to all manner of excesses. “If that is Christianity,” they will say, “curse it!” When many follow such excesses, outsiders are unable to distinguish and so blaspheme the whole “way.” These false exponents seem true products of the way to them.
2 Peter 2:3
3 Peter adds another characterization. And in covetousness with made-up words they will trade you in—they for whom the sentence this long while is not idle, and their perdition is not nodding in sleep! Because “in covetousness” they are hungry for money they will use “manufactured arguments,” πλαστοῖςλόγοις, “made-up words,” to trade you in, to buy you as their followers so that you may help to pay them well. So many pseudo-teachers are out for what there is in it for them. Peter states this in a striking manner: “they will trade you in,” but will do so with false coin, with λόγοι or “arguments” that are πλαστοί, “made up,” manufactured, molded by themselves for this purpose, so that you may sell yourselves to them cheaply. They want you as so much goods that they have bought in order thereafter to mulct you.
The world is full of examples. They offer no gold gospel coin of “the truth” but only “shinplasters” of false arguments; they have no concern for the sheep but only for shearing their wool.
With indignation and by means of a parallelism like that of the ancient prophets Peter once more adds the doom that is awaiting all such traders. The relative is demonstrative, almost exclamatory: “they for whom,” etc. The κρῖμα is the “sentence” of the divine Judge. It has been handed down from his judgment seat “from of old,” i.e., this long while, and is not inert or idle like the sentence of some earthly judge that is never executed. It is not sitting, twiddling its thumbs, too lazy to apprehend and to execute the miscreants.
“The sentence,” τὸκρῖμα, points to the Judge, “their perdition” (another of Peter’s repetitions) points to the criminals and to the penalty decreed and is thus an advance in thought. “Does not nod in sleep,” νυστάζει = does not forget what it is for. These liars may with their made-to-order arguments persuade themselves that this latter is the case. The double statement is an effective litotes, saying negatively what is true positively: this sentence has from of old been full of the deadliest energy to execute itself; this perdition has fixed its fiery eyes on these heretics who are keen to bring it on themselves. The supposition that Peter refers only to the final judgment at the Parousia contravenes v. 9.
This is prophecy. These are the facts as they will come to pass. This is the most powerful motive for true Christians to abhor all pseudo-teachers and their teaching. This is advance warning and fortification for Peter’s readers. Nowhere do the Scriptures, least of all Jesus and his apostles, deal gently with false teachers of any kind as David wanted Joab, Abishai, and Ittai to deal with Absalom. Do you know of a crime that is more heinous than falsifying the Word?
The Terrors of the Old Testament Judgments and the Deliverance of the Righteous, v. 4–10a
2 Peter 2:4
4 These seven verses constitute one extended sentence: εἰ with the indicative is a long protasis of terrible reality (v. 4–8); v. 9 brings the double apodosis. The structure is skillful in detail, which is so noteworthy because the details that are included are so many. But the main feature is the unification, which no breaking up into a number of sentences could achieve. Up, up, up Peter builds the protasis until in v. 9, 10 he caps it all with the great apodosis. Peter considers three great historical judgments in chronological order. Jude 5, etc., is different although in v. 6, 7 Jude also refers to the angels and to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Indeed, neither the sentence (κρῖμα) is idle, nor the perdition asleep. Take a look into the past. For if God did not spare angels when sinning but, casting them with chains of blackness into Tartarus, delivered them as being kept unto judgment; and, etc. The “if” of reality leads the readers to say: “God certainly did!” Both the aorist participles and the main verbs state historical facts. “Angels sinned”; the article would not be in place; Jude 6: “angels, those who did not keep the principality belonging to themselves but left their own proper habitation.” These are the angels that fell before Adam’s fall. What their sin was neither Peter nor Jude state.
In their comments on this passage and on Jude 6 some interpreters advance the supposition that these were angels who cohabited with women and begot a wicked race which God had to destroy by means of the flood. This is thought to be the meaning of Gen. 6:2, 4. At the end of 1 Pet. 3:22, last paragraph, we have already referred to this interpretation. Verses 4 and 5 are thought to belong together in a special way and recite what God did to these angels and to the race of half-demons which they begot. We cannot take the space to develop this subject here.
In his commentary on Genesis Delitzsch thoroughly refutes what he rightly calls “these fables of the Jewish gnosticizing Haggadah.” We note only that Jesus himself says that angels are sexless, that they cannot marry (Matt. 22:30). Genesis 6 says nothing about angels; it speaks of “the sons of God” (the descendants of Seth) marrying “the daughters of men” (the descendants of Cain who could be called by no higher name). In Genesis 5 the two lines, the genealogies of Seth and of Cain, are given. The Book of Enoch has added many late insertions. Now it makes this, now that the sin of the wicked angels. Its oldest parts speak of a fall and sin of the stars which did not appear at their appointed time. The fiction about evil angels begetting children occurs in the so-called “Noah-Book,” a late edition to the older parts of the Book of Enoch.
God “did not spare” sinning angels although they were angels but, “consigning them to Tartarus with chains of darkness, delivered them as being kept for judgment”—“has kept them for judgment of (the) great day in eternal prison under blackness,” Jude 6.
The aorist participle (one act) ταρταρώσας = “to cast into Tartarus.” The verb does not occur elsewhere in the Bible; it is seldom found in other writings. The noun “Tartarus” occurs three times in the LXX, but there is no corresponding Hebrew term. The word is of pagan origin, an evidence that Peter’s readers are converted pagans. It seems to be used because Peter speaks of angels. Our versions’ “cast them down to hell” is entirely correct. Yet we meet the assertion that “hades” is not referred to, nor “Gehenna,” nor “the realm of the dead” (a late fictional place). “Hades” and “Gehenna” are hell, the place of all the damned, which is “Tartarus,” a term which any Greek would understand in this sense.
Is the correct reading σειροῖς (σιροῖς), “pits” (such as were used for storing grain or fruits), or σειραῖς, “chains”? While textual evidence is in favor of the former, everything else speaks in favor of the latter. The very word “storage pits” is too odd a meaning to be connected with hell; many, therefore, assume that this is a scribe’s mistake. Ζόφος is more than “darkness” even as v. 17 has ὁζόφοςτοῦσκότους. These are “chains of blackness” such as only the infernal place knows. The dative is to be construed with the participle, next to which it is placed; those who construe it with “he delivered” violate the word order. So also we construe: “delivered unto judgment,” the final participle “being kept” rounds out the whole thought.
This is the final public judgment κρίσις (not κρῖμα, “sentence,” v. 3). It is interesting to compare 1 Cor. 6:3 in this connection. It is asked where Peter obtained these facts. One should then also ask where Paul obtained 1 Cor. 6:3. Some think that this information was obtained from the Old Testament (Isa. 24:21, 22 is one such passage), others that it was gleaned from Jewish nonbiblical sources (the Book of Enoch). The apostles had revelation as their source (John 16:13). Inquisitive minds may ask how the evil angels, after being cast into hell, are able to deceive men on the earth. The Scriptures do not say. They leave many questions about hell and the devils unanswered because we are bound for heaven and have no personal interest in hell and its occupants.
2 Peter 2:5
5 “And” joins the next terrible judgment to the first just as in v. 6 another “and” joins the third to the others. This means that v. 4 and 5 cannot be combined so as to refer to one judgment that strikes angels and men because of their sexual union. Peter writes: and spared not an ancient world but guarded as eighth Noah, a herald of righteousness, when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly ones; and, etc. Note the repetition: “he spared not an ancient world” although it was an entire world. Did men think that God’s “sentence” (κρῖμα) had become idle, that their perdition was nodding in sleep (v. 3)?
Peter uses the ἀλλά clauses to introduce opposite thoughts: in verse 4 he uses it to introduce the judgment; now he uses it to introduce Noah’s deliverance. This is a most striking stylistic nuance that was most effective for Peter’s readers. God “guarded” Noah when he brought a deluge upon “a (whole) world of ungodly ones.”
The adjective is predicative: “as an eighth (person),” i.e., with seven others. The thought is not that he was number eight; he was number one but was the last to enter into the ark. It is asked how Peter knew that Noah was “a herald of righteousness” when the Old Testament calls him only “a righteous man.” This seems to be a trivial question. Did Noah keep still during those 120 years? Did God leave the world in ignorance of the impending deluge? Did Peter write without revelation?
That delay of 120 years was an added season of grace. The preaching of Noah was to turn men to righteousness so that God might not be compelled to send the flood. God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if ten righteous had been found there, but there were not even ten (Gen. 18:32); in the whole world of Noah’s time there were only eight. “Righteousness” is the objective genitive, it is not qualitative, not “a righteous herald.” The word is to be understood in the full forensic sense. Noah proclaimed that quality which has God’s judicial approval so that the ungodly might repent and thus be declared righteous by God. But they scorned his words, laughed at his ark, remained “a world of ungodly ones.”
2 Peter 2:6
6 A third witness testifies: and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, by turning them to ashes, he condemned with a catastrophe, setting an example for any in the future living ungodly and rescued righteous Lot, sore wearied by the conduct of the nefarious ones in excess, etc.
Peter varies the wording in a skillful manner. Yet, as in v. 4, he has an aorist participle before the first main verb; κατέκρινεν matches the εἰςκρίσιν occurring in v. 4, “righteous” repeats “righteousness,” and “to act ungodly” repeats “ungodly ones.” Yet there is no ἀλλά to place the condemnation and the rescue in opposition; καί simply places the two side by side. “Of Sodom,” etc., is the appositional genitive; “Sodom” is a Greek plural.
Only three Greek words: “incinerated, condemned with catastrophe.” Now, however, a perfect participle brings out the thought as to what this judgment signifies for all future time. While it is added only here, Peter’s readers see that also the other two tremendous judgments have the same significance, in fact, any other judgments that are prominent in history have this significance. The perfect participle means that, once being set as an example, the judgment remains so.
Μελλόντωνἀσεβεῖν, so apt a construction in the Greek, cannot be duplicated in English. It is a genitive (objective) plural participle with a dependent present infinitive and no article: “any about to be living ungodly,” i.e., any that live so in the future. God has, indeed, set such awful examples of the sudden judgment in the course of history so that all the world may take warning as to what ungodliness must most surely meet. The destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation is most remarkable—lest it be regarded as being merely a piece of ancient history. By a miracle of judgment God has for almost twenty centuries kept the Jews, who are as hardened in obduracy as ever, under the eyes and the noses of the whole world, a ὑπόδειγμα indeed!
2 Peter 2:7
7 It is quibbling to fault Peter for calling Lot “righteous”; Gen. 19:28–32 is plain. Peter describes him as being “so wearied or worn down by the conduct of the ἄθεσμοι in excess” (see ἁσέλγεια in verse 2). Athesmoi (found only here) are homines nefarii qui nec jus nec fas curant (a synonym is found in 1 Pet. 4:3), “nefarious ones” who care for neither law nor conscience. Such were the Sodomites, and in this nefariousness they went to unbridled excess, compare Gen. 19:4–11. God rescued Lot.
2 Peter 2:8
8 The γάρ clause is not a parenthesis but naturally follows what precedes and elucidates what Lot had to bear. It is perfectly plain why this is added: Peter’s readers are in much the same position as Lot; they will be still more so when the pseudo-teachers appear with their libertinistic excesses. Right here is the proper place to add this clause, at the end of the judgments: for by sight and hearing the righteous one, dwelling among them, from day to day kept torturing a righteous soul with lawless works.
Robertson 126 calls βλέμμα an “apparent solecism”; but it is not, as Abbott claims, “baboo Greek,” nor is it like modern “pigeon English.” Since the time of Euripides (also Epictetus, Lucian, one papyrus, and Philo) the word means Anblicken, Sehen (B.-P. 225), which is exactly correct here beside ἀκοή.
It is difficult to understand why this clause should be called schwerfaellig. Its word order is as exact as it can be. Remember, the Greek word order indicates careful emphasis. Here the emphasis rests on the first datives and on the verb; these are placed in the emphatic positions. It was, indeed, just as Peter has stated it: “by sight and hearing … Lot was doing no less than torturing his soul.” Since he is called “righteous Lot” in verse 7, “the righteous one” properly has the article of previous reference; “a righteous soul” also tellingly repeats “righteous” and by omitting the article makes “a righteous soul” pointedly qualitative. “Dwelling among them” is added in an unemphatic position since this only explains that Lot had the wickedness of the Sodomites constantly before his eyes and his ears. There is no indication that Lot felt twinges of conscience for “dwelling among them.”
Unfortunately, Luther follows the Vulgate: aspectu enim et auditu justus erat, habitans apud eos, qui diem de die animam justam iniquis operibus cruciebant: “denn dieweil er gerecht war und es sehen und hoeren musste, quaelten sie die gerechte Seele von Tag zu Tage mit ihren ungerechten Werken.” When the first two datives are regarded as modifying “the righteous one,” and when the singular verb is changed into a plural, Peter is regarded as saying that Lot was constantly made to see and to hear with sneers that he was righteous, and that the Sodomites kept torturing his soul. In other words, why did he not get out of these cities? This interpretation calls for no refutation. It was Lot who kept torturing (not merely “vexing,” our versions) a righteous soul (descriptive imperfect) “with lawless works” (no article, again qualitative), namely his own soul.
One reason that a few commentators complain about the awkwardness of this sentence is the fact that Peter has so many significant touches in this clause. They are plain enough in the Greek, but it is difficult to convey them into other languages in the same clear manner.
2 Peter 2:9
9 Now we have the apodosis, which truly matches the whole protasis (v. 4–8): the Lord knows how to rescue godly ones out of temptation but to keep unrighteous ones for judgment day while being punished, especially those trailing along behind flesh in lust for defilement and despising lordship.
It is overrefinement to say that Peter should write: “then this proves that.” It is quibbling to demand that Peter should speak first of the unrighteous and secondly of the godly. It can readily be seen that Peter puts the unrighteous last because he has much more to say about them.
The subject and the verb are transposed, also the infinitive and the object are twice transposed, which lends them an emphasis that is according. In verse 4 “God” is the proper term when referring to the Old Testament judgments; that does not, however, make “Lord” = “God” when Peter comes to speak about the New Testament and has called Christ “God” in 1:1, 2, and “God and Lord” in 1:2. He certainly knows how to rescue (iterative present) godly ones (the opposite of the “ungodly ones” referred to in v. 5) from temptation. Thus he rescued Noah and Lot.
Δέ, “on the other hand,” he knows how to keep unrighteous ones (opposite of “righteous Lot,” v. 7, “the righteous one,” and “a righteous soul,” verse 8) for judgment day while they are being punished. Τηρεῖν markedly repeats the τηρουμένους used in v. 4 and refers to keeping them in hell as the added participle shows: “while being punished” (“under punishment,” R. V.; not final: “to be punished,” A. V.). While the unrighteous are on earth, Christ still labors to save them; but when all his labor is in vain, he holds them in hell for the day of judgment at his Parousia.
2 Peter 2:10
10 When Peter adds: “especially those trailing along behind flesh,” etc., we see that he refers to the pseudo-teachers mentioned in v. 1, of whom he has already said that they will bring in covertly heresies of perdition, even denying the Master who bought them. These are the worst, and they are thus named “especially.” The present participles describe them as they are here on earth, hence we have the substantivization “those trailing,” etc. They are not leaders, but travel or trail along “behind flesh,” their leader. Anarthrous “flesh” is strongly qualitative and is to be understood in the ethical sense as being the opposite of “spirit.” The addition “in lust for defilement” makes plain all the vileness that Peter has in mind. The genitive is objective: “lust for defilement.” Men ought to shrink from defilement; these men lust after it, crave all its filth. With such lust “flesh” wants men to tag behind it, and it will give that lust all the defilement that it wants.
The other characteristic is even worse: “despising (thinking down on) lordship” (again anarthrous, qualitative). This carries forward the idea of “denying the absolute Master” stated in verse 1. Vile flesh is their leader, lordship that is lordship indeed they utterly despise, repudiate entirely. Of course, Peter has Christ’s lordship in mind; here he speaks in general terms and uses anarthrous nouns; the τούς marks the great class here referred to, the worst of all, which also enables Peter to proceed with smoothness to his further denunciatory description.
Denunciation of the Heretical Leaders, v. 10b–22
10b) This section is poured out in one torrent. It recalls Christ’s denunciation of the Pharisees recorded in Matt. 23:13–39. Peter’s is written in the third person. The tenses vary. The explanation for this is not the fact that some of these heretics were already present when Peter wrote; he describes not some but all of them. They are the ones of whom Peter says in verse 1: “there will be pseudo-teachers.” All of them are still in the future. When he is denouncing them Peter is not pedantically bound to future tenses; he uses the present, the future, the aorist as he needs them: these men are—shall be—did; his readers understand perfectly that Peter refers to the coming liars.
Darers, self-pleasing, they do not tremble when blaspheming glories, where angels, being greater in strength and power, do not bring against them blasphemous judging before the Lord. “Darers” is a noun; “self-pleasing” is an adjective because the Greek has no equivalent noun. The two nominative appositions that are thus placed forward are exclamatory. Peter stands aghast before these “darers” who dare to do what he states; before these “self-pleasers” who let nothing, not even the divine lordship, stand in the way of their pleasure. They blaspheme “glories” without even a tremble. Can daring go farther, blasphemously mocking at the divine when this would interfere with their ἡδονή or pleasure?
Δόζαι, “glories,” are the glorious attributes of Christ that are identical with “the glories” mentioned in 1 Pet. 1:11. In 1 Pet. 1:11 Peter says that the Spirit of Christ testified in advance to the Old Testament prophets the sufferings regarding Christ and the glories after these sufferings. Both the sufferings and the glories pertain to his human nature: the sufferings to his state of humiliation, the glories after the sufferings to his state of exaltation. As the sufferings are manifold (plural), so are also the glories (plural). The singular is more commonly used: “God Father of the glory” (Acts 7:2; Eph. 1:17); “Jesus Christ of the glory” (James 2:1), “the revelation of his glory” (1 Pet. 4:13); “the Lord of the glory” (1 Cor. 2:8); also “the Spirit of the glory and of God” (1 Pet. 4:14). The singular always denotes the sum of the divine attributes shining forth; the plural, “the glories,” which occurs in both epistles of Peter (and in Jude 8) spreads out this sum, each divine attribute of Christ (communicated to his human nature) being one of these great glories.
Any and all of them these false teachers blaspheme with brazen daring and do not even tremble. There is nothing more terrible that a man can do. Will Christ not instantly strike down him who mocks at his glories? When Peter’s readers get to hear such blasphemy must they not be shocked? Such daring is more common than ever now. Whether it is done with a sneer or with polite words, the divine glories are denied to the man Christ Jesus by rationalists and modernists with horrible daring and with no tremor of fear.
Luther makes these doxai “majesties,” our versions “dignities,” leaving unsaid who is referred to. Some think of human magistrates, the majority thinks of angels, good angels, or devils, or both. God forbid that anyone should call the devils “glories”! Evil angels, devils, cannot be blasphemed, for God’s own curse rests upon them. The good angels are called doxai nowhere in Scripture. To point to Eph. 1:21 and Col. 1:16 is unconvincing, δόξαι is the very term that is lacking in these passages. Peter uses it in 1 Pet. 1:11 with reference to Christ.
Peter is speaking of the greatest crime on the part of the coming heretical teachers. How can anyone believe that this climax of crime consists in blaspheming angels, yea, in blaspheming devils? Or in blaspheming human authorities? It consists in blasphemous attacks on the glories of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the God-man. As the “lordship” in verse 10a is Christ’s, so the “glories” are Christ’s; the one is his whole “lordship,” the other all the “glories” through which his divine attributes exercise their lordship. Despising the former in their minds, these men proceed openly to blaspheme also the latter in words.
2 Peter 2:11
11 The enormity of this their crime is made evident when Peter adds “where angels, being greater in strength and power (than these heretics who are mere men), do not bring against them (these men) blasphemous judging before the Lord” although they richly deserve it for blaspheming the Lord’s own glories. The Greek word “blaspheme” and thus also the adjective have a wider application than they have in the English. They are applied not only to God and to things directly connected with him but also to men, when one denounces them in God’s name.
When “angels” (qualitative, no article) is used without modifiers, the word always refers to good angels. They are, indeed, far greater than these blasphemous heretics. Yet when such angels hear these heretics blaspheme such things as the Lord’s own “glories,” in spite of all their burning indignation because of this horrible crime on the part of such worms of dust they do not come to their Lord and bring against these blasphemers a retaliatory act of judging (κρίσις, a word expressing an action) and in mockery hurl back on their own heads the blasphemy they have uttered.
Κατʼ αὑτῶν, “down on, against them,” refers to these “darers, self-pleasing ones,” these blasphemers who deserve “blasphemous judging.” A strange exegesis regards “glories” as the antecedent, “glories” in the sense of devils! The good angels do not blaspheme even the devils! To justify such an exegesis we are told that one should consult Jude 9; yet Jude had not as yet written his epistle. We shall see later what Jude says. Jude, like Peter, would not call devils “glories.”
2 Peter 2:12
12 After stating the supreme crime of the coming heretics Peter foretells their judgment. But these as irrational animals, born (only) as physical for capture and perishing, blaspheming in connection with things they are ignorant of, in this their perishing shall even perish.
We construe “as irrational animals”; this is modified by “born (only) as physical for capture and perishing” as animals generally are; the perfect participle “having been born as physical” states that they are still in this and in no higher state. The A. V. changes the word order and joins φυσικά, in the sense of “natural,” to ζῶα: “as natural brute (ἄλογα) beasts.” These men, Peter says, live as nothing but animals, they are born physically for the purpose that some other animal or man may sooner or later pounce upon them; they are thus born only for the purpose of perishing. A devastating description but one that is literally true. We can see men all about us living and finally perishing just as animals do, being just physical and nothing more.
This is the wider description that applies to any number of men who lead only an animal existence; hence Peter adds the narrower description with reference to these heretics: “blaspheming in connection with things they are ignorant of,” being “irrational” to this frightful extent. The neuter plural ἐνοἷς incorporates its own antecedent. Among the “things” referred to are the “glories” mentioned in verse 10; but the neuter relative includes still more. Many holy things, of which these heretics in reality know nothing, are the objects of their blaspheming. Among men who are leading a mere animal existence these ignorant blasphemers are the most “irrational” and thus the worst. They could at least omit their blaspheming, the more so since they are so densely ignorant about the things at which they direct their blasphemy.
Peter is right: heretics cannot let sacred things alone. Everlastingly, as though the devil is riding them, they cast their slurs, their stabs, their ridicule, etc., at what they have never even learned to know.
These “in this their perishing shall even (shall indeed) perish”; we have ascensive, intensifying καί. The phrase “in this their perishing” has the article of previous reference. Both φθορά have the same meaning: physical perishing; but the verb “in this their (physical) perishing shall indeed perish” is intensified and equals “shall perish far worse than merely physically.”
Peter’s wording has been called rough in comparison with Jude 10. Rough? Why, Peter’s language is concentrated, compact, and thus powerful, trenchant, devastating. Jude 10 is not its equal. Jude plainly repeats in a weaker way what Peter hurls as one blow. Three times blasphemy is used, three times perishing; and not only this, one of each three is not used in the same sense as are the other two; “blasphemous judging” is distinct, “shall indeed perish” is likewise. Jude does not have the equal of such telling expressions. Yes, Peter loves to repeat words (that is readily seen here), but one should also see how he does his repeating.
2 Peter 2:13
13 The long line of participles which follows makes a grand unit of v. 12–17. The whole section is woven as one great piece. The Greek is flexible, and Peter knows how to use its flexibility. He continues: intending to bring away wages of unrighteousness, counting the revel in the daytime a pleasure; spots and blemishes, reveling in their deceits while feasting together with you; etc.
The better reading is κομιούμενοι, which the A. V. follows. This is a future participle, and such future participles are rare in the New Testament and denote purpose. When they are anarthrous they are also volitive. Here the sense is “intending to bring away wages of unrighteousness” (not A. V.: “shall receive,” i.e., bring away). This intent or purpose is very properly mentioned first in Peter’s list, for this purpose and intent casts light on the entire description that follows. It heads the list; we do not connect it with verse 12.
The R. V. accepts the other reading: ἀδικούμενοι and then has difficulty with μισθὸνἀδικίας and translates “suffering wrong as the hire of wrongdoing.” The fact is that this reading causes difficulty for all those who prefer it, all renderings and explanations seem forced and labored. Mayor even asserts: “Another example of the author’s love of farfetched and artificial expressions,” i.e., an irresponsible use of words on Peter’s part. This reading should be given up.
The intent of these libertinists is, in modern slang, “to get away with it.” This explains the following. They propose to bring away “wages of unrighteousness,” what they can get out of unrighteousness (either genitive of origin, subjective, or qualitative genitive). What they will really get verse 12 has already stated.
Peter continues with descriptive present participles: “counting the revel in the daytime a pleasure,” thinking it fun to devote not only the evening or the night but also the whole day to such reveling. The sense of τρυφή is put beyond question by the following ἐντρυφῶντες: revel in luxury (compare Luke 7:25). This is a part of what they intend to get out of unrighteousness. These convivialists begin early, Isa. 5:11.
Peter inserts two nominative nouns between the nominative participles; they are exclamatory as are those occurring in verse 10 and express Peter’s disgust: “spots and blemishes!” or: “filthspots and scabs!” There is no need to combine them with the preceding or with the following participle.
“Reveling in their deceits while feasting together with you”—that is the worst of it. It is not a reveling in food, drink, and gaiety alone; it is reveling “in their deceits,” in putting their lying, libertinistic teaching into practice by deceiving the true Christians. The entire damnableness of such conduct is thus made plain. “Feasting together with you” is added in order to round out the thought. You are to be caught by these deceits of theirs, by which they would persuade you Christians that you have all the right in the world to such revels in deceits. Libertinism catches many by its deceits.
The A. V. is again right in adopting the reading ἀπάταις and rejecting ἀγάπαις, the reading which is adopted by the R. V.: “in their love feasts.” “Their love feasts” is not the same as Jude 12, “your love feasts.” Somebody, it seems, altered Peter’s statement by changing one letter; this was, perhaps, done in order to obtain the same word that Jude has; this, however, destroys the very point of Peter’s clause, the reveling “in deceits.” There is no reason for questioning the reading ὑμῖν: “feasting with you,” as though “you” militates against the future coming of these libertinists and speaks of them as being already present among the readers. “You” will be the same congregations when these deceivers come.
2 Peter 2:14
14 Peter proceeds: having eyes full of an adulteress and unable to cease from sin; this wording is more graphic than “full of adultery” (abstract). The vision of these eyes is filled only with the images of an adulteress. These eyes are unable to cease from sin (C.-K. 182 3, genitive of separation; R. 516, ablative genitive). Peter thinks of Matt. 5:28.
With this goes enticing (baiting) unstable (i.e., weak) souls: luring women to commit adultery and drawing men on to join these lewd fellows in adultery.
Sexual vice and covetousness go together in the New Testament: having a heart exercised (like a gymnast; the perfect to indicate the continuing condition) in covetousness; the genitive after γυμνάζω, a construction that is also found in the classics. Theirs is a heart that is fully trained and is ever training for covetousness. Note how the two ἔχοντες make adultery and covetousness parallels.
Again the exclamation: children of curse! marked by a divine curse. Peter states what they are; he does not curse them. “Darers, self-pleasing!” in v. 10 is what they are for themselves; “spots and blemishes!” in verse 13 is what they are in and for the church; “children of curse!” is what they are for God. These nominative exclamations could not be transposed.
2 Peter 2:15
15 The change from present participles to an aorist finite verb with an aorist participle is made with perfect smoothness. After looking at these libertinists as they constantly act in this and in that respect Peter now looks at them comprehensively in regard to everything that they will do when they come, looks at this prophetically as though it were already past and done: having abandoned a right way, they went astray, following out the way of Balaam, the (son) of Bosor, who loved wages of unrighteousness but had rebuke for his own deviation from law, a dumb beast of burden by speaking in human voice hindered the prophet’s deviation of mind. The right or straight way is the one that is laid down for us by the Lord in his Word; the anarthrous noun is qualitative. This “way” they abandoned and wandered astray (the passive, it seems, is here used in the middle sense).
“Following out the way of Balaam” tells us what way they took; the aorist participle is merely prophetically historical to indicate the fact, and ἐκ indicates that they followed “out” this way to its end. It is the way that Balaam once chose and followed to its end, he being the one “who loved (simple historical aorist) wages of unrighteousness.” Neither in verse 13 nor here are these wages restricted to money but include all that men hope to get out of unrighteousness by working for unrighteousness. Balaam was offered and sought to obtain much more than gold and silver. Ἠγάπησεν is the proper verb: he loved these wages intelligently and with corresponding purpose. He thought it all out, and his actions corresponded with his thought.
The readings for the name of Balaam’s father vary: Bosor (correct) and Beor or Baior (used throughout in the LXX). Josephus and Philo do not have the name at all. The crux is how Peter comes to write “Bosor.” Nobody knows.
2 Peter 2:16
16 Observe that the two statements go together: Balaam “loved wages of unrighteousness but had rebuke for his own deviation from law.” These two facts stand side by side. The wickedness of his love was made plain to him by the rebuke. Did he give up his love? The aorist implies that he did not, and the fact is that he did not.
Peter adds the astounding phenomenon that was connected with the history of Balaam: “a voiceless beast of burden (an ass, Matt. 21:5, voiceless or dumb, able only to bray and not to speak) by speaking (φθέγγομαι, a choice word) in human voice hindered the prophet’s deviation of mind,” gave him his rebuke. Note that παρανομία and παραφρονία correspond. In both words παρά means “by the side of”: Balaam’s action was not on the path of law but off to the side of this path; his mind and thinking were of the same kind. The ass hindered his thinking, but in spite of the rebuke he had received Balaam eventually went to the end of his unlawful way, to a miserable death.
Two points are here brought forward. 1) The perverse way of mind and conduct off to the side of the straight way, the loving of and the clinging to this deviation. 2) The rebuke, the hindrance put in the way; having this and yet in spite of it following out the perverse way to the end. Both apply to the libertinistic teachers as we see them reflected in the history of the prophet Balaam.
Not only does Numbers 22 to 24 give us the full detailed story of Balaam, to which Num. 31:16 (Rev. 2:14) adds the final crime which he perpetrated by advising the Midianites to corrupt the Israelites to idolatry and to fornication (Num. 25:1–3 plus 31:16) and his wretched death (Num. 31:8), but also the entire Bible contains many references to Balaam: Deut. 23:4; Josh. 13:22; 24:9; Neh. 13:1, 2; Micah 6:5; our passage; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14. These make this man stand out as an example. We cannot consider all of the details but recommend Keil’s Commentary on Numbers. Balaam is a fearful example of a man who was “a prophet,” whom God told what not to do, whom God hindered in his wrongdoing by even letting a dumb ass speak to him, but who in spite of everything secretly clung to his love for what he thought he could get out of unrighteousness, and so perished.
He had to bless Israel and thus could not get the rich rewards which Balak promised him if he would curse Israel. Then, it seems, he went to the Israelites in order to reap reward there for having blessed and not cursed Israel at such loss to himself. Failing in getting such wages of unrighteousness from either Balak or from Israel, he gave his cunning advice to the Midianites to corrupt Israel and thus hoped for a high reward from them. These three attempts filled the measure of his wickedness. He was wretchedly slain.
The point which Peter would emphasize is not the fact that Balaam failed to get what he loved but that he so loved it that an ass had to give him a rebuke. Peter has called the coming libertinists “irrational animals”; for this reason he perhaps mentions the dumb ass of Balaam’s story, the ass in this case being more rational than its master who, though he was a prophet, was blinded by his love for wages of unrighteousness.
2 Peter 2:17
17 The pseudo-teachers make a great pretense but disappoint utterly. These are waterless springs, mists driven by whirlwind, for whom the blackness of the darkness has been kept. Two poetic figures to express the same thought. In order to get their full force we should know the Orient where springs are so precious, and mists or fogs are valuable for refreshing all that grows by both moisture and shade (Sirach 43:24: “Against this,” i.e., the sun that burns up what is green, “helps the thick fog, and the dew after the heat refreshes everything again”). These teachers are, however, “waterless springs”; those who expect living water from them will be disappointed. The second figure emphasizes the thought: “mists driven by whirlwind” (λαῖλαψ, Mark 4:37; Luke 8:23), not quietly blanketing the land with reviving moisture and shade but being blown away with a rush.
Without a figure Peter adds: “for whom the blackness of the darkness (= the outer darkness, Matt. 22:13) has been kept” (and is still being kept), i.e., reserved; ζόφος is found also in verse 4. This is the fate that awaits them.
2 Peter 2:18
18 “For” elucidates. For speaking grandiose things of vainness, they entice in connection with lusts by excesses of flesh those just escaping from those conducting themselves in error, promising them liberty, they themselves being slaves of the corruption.
Peter repeats the choice word φθέγγομαι (verse 16) and thereby aptly indicates how these wretched deceivers utter their ὑπέρογκα, grandiose things (“great swelling words”) of vainness. The genitive of the noun derived from μάταιος does not equal empty (which would be κενός). Their grandiose things have a certain content, are not hollow; “vainness” refers to the quality of leading to nothing: all these grand things are useless for any good purpose. When they are speaking them these deceivers only entice (the participle is used in v. 14) by using these grandiose words as bait to dazzle the minds of their poor victims.
But such grandiose words are not enough. These deceivers put them “in connection with lusts” and do their enticing “by excesses of flesh” (dative of means). We note that “lusts” needs no qualifying genitive since the word, especially in the plural and in evil contexts, is itself used in the evil sense. So we combine σαρκὸςἀσελγείαις, “by excesses of flesh”; but see the note on “excesses” in verse 2. Their appeal is made to lusts; the language used by the deceivers is grandiose; the means are excesses of flesh, i.e., taking the reins off the flesh so that it can run wild.
The special victims of these vicious deceivers are the newly converted: “those just escaping from those conducting themselves in error,” i.e., from the Gentiles living around them. The A. V. has translated with an aorist: “those that were clean escaped”; but the participle is a descriptive present: new converts just escaping. It makes no difference whether ὀλίγως is regarded as temporal or as local; the R. V.’s “just escaping” has reproduced the correct idea. These new converts are just getting away from the old pagan life of their neighbors and associates.
On such converts that are still tender, are not yet mature, strong, trained to defend themselves, these monsters pounce and by words, swelling and extravagant, such as no true teacher would dream of using, allure and dazzle their victims by telling them that they can be true Christians, yea, the best kind of Christians and yet indulge their lusts by excesses of the flesh. Can you think of anything more damnable? Matt. 18:6. We note the masterly way in which Peter touches upon the enticing features and brings out the damnableness of the action.
2 Peter 2:19
19 The added participle is effective: “promising them liberty, they themselves (αὑτοί) being slaves of the corruption.” Paul speaks of “the slavery of the corruption” in Rom. 8:21. Monstrous! Men, who are themselves slaves, in grandiose words promise escaping slaves liberty, a liberty that hurls them back into worse slavery! In 1:4 Peter has written: “having escaped from the corruption in connection with lust in the world”; in 2:12: “born for perishing.” Although we are compelled to translate φθορά “corruption” and again “perishing,” this is due only to the English, the Greek word has the same meaning throughout: Vergehen, Untergang. “The corruption” is specific for the worst kind of corruption.
In order to drive home the point about being “slaves” Peter explains: for by what one has been worsted, by that he has also been made a slave, or has been enslaved. This dictum is axiomatic. Note the perfect tenses “has been worsted” so as to remain so; “has been made a slave” so as ever to be one. The agent is often stated by means of the dative; ἡττάομαι often has ὑπό with the genitive to express the agent but also has the dative and even the genitive without a preposition (Liddell and Scott). Our versions have translated “of whom,” but no person is mentioned, and “corruption” in the preceding clause is not personified. One can be defeated and enslaved by something as well as by somebody.
2 Peter 2:20
20 For if such as escaped the defilements of the world in connection with knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are, nevertheless, by these (defilements), on getting entangled again, worsted, the last things have become worse for them than the first, i.e., their last state has become and remains (perfect) worse than their first state was before their escape from paganism.
We should note two points: 1) the anarthrous ἀποφυγόντες, “such as did escape,” is the subject of the sentence; 2) τούτοις is the dative of the agent with the passive ἡττῶνται; it is like the two preceding datives of the agent, in particular like the ᾧ with ἥττηται. It should also be recognized that the anarthrous “such as did escape,” i.e., any of this kind whether they are new or old converts, and the present tense “are worsted” make the statement general; it is like the preceding statement: “by what one has been worsted, by that he has been made a slave.” The aorist participle “on getting entangled again” is inserted in order to show only when and how they are worsted; it happens when they again get entangled with these defilements from which they once escaped.
The discussion as to whether Peter is speaking of the deceivers or of their victims, the new converts, the ἀποφεύγοντες referred to in v. 18, is unnecessary. Peter first says: “Whatever defeats any person, that thing makes a slave of him.” With γάρ he elucidates: “If such as did escape the defilements, etc., are nevertheless (δέ) defeated by their defilements they are in a slavery that is worse than the one in which they were before their escape.” To whom does this apply? Peter himself says to such as once escaped and on getting entangled again are defeated. Peter is warning all his readers: entanglement leads to defeat, defeat to a state that is worse than the original paganism.
Peter’s elucidation is entirely plain. In verse 19 he says, “by what one has been worsted”; now in verse 20, “by these (defilements) are worsted.” One may also be worsted by something else; Peter wants his readers to think of these defilements in which false teachers will again seek to entangle them. The elucidation covers the enslavement. In verse 19: “by this thing has he been enslaved”; in verse 20: “the last state has become worse than the first” for such worsted ones. This seems to be plain enough.
The elucidation includes more. It is a pity to be worsted by the very things from which we have escaped. How is that possible? Peter explains: by getting entangled again (effective aorist). Πάλιν is to be construed with the participle where Peter places it. But τούτοις is not to be construed with the verb: “by these (defilements) are worsted.” Entanglement causes defeat. Peter’s meaning is: By all means keep from getting entangled again! He intends to address this warning to all his readers. The deceivers will work to get them entangled again. “Entangle” is the proper word; nets were used not only to catch animals but also in combat. We are familiar with gladiatorial combats in which one opponent used a net.
In verse 10 Peter has μιασμός, “defiling,” (a word expressing action); now he has μιάσματα, “defilements,” (a word expressing result), actual filth “of the world.” True, this is moral filth, but it should not be separated from falseness and error in faith and in doctrine; the deceivers are to be “pseudo-teachers” (verse 1). In his elucidation Peter adds that “such as escaped” did so “in connection with epignosis (full, true knowledge) of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” This is the same word that was used in 1:2, 3, 8, the key word of this epistle; add gnosis used in 1:5, 6. In those other passages we had the genitive of source: knowledge “from” our Lord; this genitive of source is also proper here: by the great gift of true knowledge that our Lord and Savior gives us we escaped. He enabled us to escape. As our Savior he saved us by means of this escape. All that we have already said in 1:1, 2, 3, 8, 16 on Jesus Christ as “God,” “Savior,” “Lord” belongs also here. Let us add that entanglement in the defilements of the world and the resultant defeat take place only when this epignosis or true heart-knowledge is sadly darkened and lost, when we separate ourselves from him who is its source, “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
2 Peter 2:21
21 Why is the last state of such persons worse than the first? For it were better for them not to have known the way of the righteousness than for them, having gotten to know it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them. Jesus says that where only one devil dwelt at first, this devil later returns with seven others, Matt. 12:45. Not having known, they would eventually receive fewer stripes; knowing and not doing, they have many stripes awaiting them (Luke 12:47); compare also John 15:22. Regarding ἦν and the imperfect to indicate matters of the past (necessary, possible, proper) that the present shows have not turned out as they should see R. 886, etc. The English and the German have difficulty with the indicative because they look from the present back to the past whereas the Greek begins in the past (imperfect) and looks forward to the present.
Therefore the English uses its subjunctive. This is not a conditional clause; no ἄν is used or implied, R. 920.
It were better for them not to have truly known (ἐπεγνωκέναι, to match ἐπίγνωσις used in v. 20) refers to the whole extent of this true knowing. Its object is now stated “the way of the (true) righteousness”; its source is our Lord and Savior, verse 20. This is not the way of the merely moral, righteous life; it includes faith. For without faith there is no righteousness (righteous state) or righteous life. It is “the way of the truth” (v. 2) to be both believed and obeyed; “a straight way” (v. 15), the opposite of “the way of Balaam.” It is better not to have known this divine and blessed way and to have remained in pagan darkness “than for them, having gotten to know it (ἐπιγνοῦσιν, aorist participle to express the past fact, dative to agree with αὑτοῖς), to turn away (aorist: definitely to turn away) from the holy commandment delivered to them” by Christ. It is better to be a pagan, never to get out of pagan ignorance, than to become an apostate by sinking back into paganism.
“The holy commandment” is “the truth” (v. 2) and not only its moral features (the law). “Delivered to them” includes by human preachers, but the agent behind the passive is “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” To turn from his saving gospel commandment is to turn from salvation and from him, the Lord and Savior. That is what becoming entangled again and being worsted by the defilements of the world mean.
2 Peter 2:22
22 The filthiness of these “defilements” is presented in all its disgustingness: There has come to them (perfect: and so continues) this thing (content) of the true proverb: Dog turned to his own vomit! and: Sow washed herself for a wallow of mire! What the true proverb says has come to them. The proverb says it in two ways by using both the dog and the sow as examples. What it says about the dog is taken from Prov. 26:11. What it says about the sow (feminine participle) is taken from secular sources; but Proverbs need not have originated the saying about the dog. This proverb regarding the sow is not otherwise preserved; yet other, and for the most part longer, wordings are found. An interesting one occurs in the history of Ahikar (Harris, in Moulton, Einleitung, 244): “My son, you have acted like a swine which went with decent people to the bath and, when it came out, saw a stinking swamp and went and wallowed therein.”
It is well to note that proverbs are not only naturally terse, but that some, as these two instances, are exclamations; hence we should not translate “a dog,” “a sow.” At the sight of a man who returns to filth of which he was rid people will point their finger at him and rightly exclaim: “Dog returned to his own vomit!” or: “Sow washed herself for wallow in mire!” In the latter we supply nothing, no second participle “turned” to wallow. The two participles are parallel in the exclamations. Yes, it takes a dog, a sow, to do this sort of thing; but the filthy pseudo-teachers will try to make such dogs and such sows of Peter’s readers.
M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Nonliterary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.
G. K. Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.