2 Peter 3
LenskiCHAPTER III
Part Three
Denial of the Parousia of the Lord, chapter 3
“Where Is the Promise of His Parousia?” v. 1–7
2 Peter 3:1
1 First, the libertinism of the pseudo-teachers who shall come (chapter 2); secondly, their denial of Christ’s Parousia (chapter 3). This denial supports their libertinism. The connection is obvious. Who could let himself go into immoral excess if he believed that the Lord is ready to return to judgment at any time? The climax of the “heresies” mentioned in 2:1 is the denial of Christ’s Parousia. Peter crushes this denial and thereby destroys all the other lesser heresies that cluster around this main one.
The claim that the libertinists referred to in chapter 2 are not the same as the heretics mentioned in chapter 3 is untenable. All moral laxity must have and always has the necessary false doctrinal support. The claim that chapter 2 is a late interpolation is the extreme of the other claim that Peter opposes two sets of future false teachers.
Peter begins with a little preamble which resembles the longer one found in 1:12–15. This already, beloved, I am writing to you as a second epistle, in which (plural: both) I am stirring your sincere mind in a reminder to remember the utterances spoken in advance by the holy prophets and the commandment of your apostles from the Lord and Savior.
Peter makes a division at this point. For the fourth time he addresses his readers as “beloved” (v. 8, 14, 17), lets his heart go out to them, and draws their hearts to him. His loving heart is writing “this already as a second epistle.” Δευτέρανἐπιστολήν is either appositional or predicative to ταύτην.
The opinion that this other epistle is our First Peter has been answered in the introduction. These two epistles are not addressed to the same readers, are not the same kind of a reminder of the prophecies of the Parousia. Peter himself says that the two letters addressed to his present readers have the same subject and the same purpose. See the fuller details in the introduction. Those are probably right who hold that the first epistle that was written to the present readers has been lost. The two epistles here mentioned were written in rather close succession.
Peter says that in both of them “I am stirring your sincere mind in a reminding or reminder,” the epexegetical infinitive (R. 1086) states the result (R. 127) that he hopes to achieve by this reminding: “to remember” or “that you remember” (aorist: effectively), etc. Reminding causes effective remembering in those who are reminded. In 1:13 Peter has used the same expression: διεγείρεινἐνὑπομνήσει, “to stir up in a reminding.”
Instead of saying, as he does in 1:13, “stir you up,” he says more, namely, “stir up your sincere mind.” Of course, the διάνοια, the thinking mind, receives the reminding and does the remembering, but the adjective is important. Peter’s twofold reminding is directed toward his readers’ “sincere mind,” εἰλικρινής, “pure” as being free from wrong considerations (see Trench). A mind like that of the false teachers mentioned in chapter 2 would refuse to be stirred up, would scorn any reminding that Peter could offer, would only the more strenuously cling to its false ideas. Peter says significantly “your sincere (pure) mind” and credits his readers with having such a mind. His own pure mind contacts their pure mind, his reminder thus produces their effective remembering. All of the apostles were somehow masterful psychologists!
2 Peter 3:2
2 Peter wants effective remembering “of the utterances spoken in advance (the perfect to indicate permanence, the speaking still continues in Holy Writ) by the holy prophets” in the Old Testament; “holy,” so that when the false teachers deny the truth of these prophetic utterances they become guilty of no less than blasphemy. Note what Peter has already said about the inspiration of the prophets (1:21). These Old Testament prophecies are the first things to remember effectively.
But Peter’s readers have in addition “the commandment of your apostles from the Lord and Savior.” Note how correctly Peter places the two genitives: “of your apostles” between τῆς and ἐντολῆς; “of the Lord,” etc., after, because this is again a genitive of origin or source (as in 1:2, 8; 2:20). Some translators and some commentators seem to misunderstand these genitives. Chase would insert a διά: “through your apostles”; our versions “by.” “Of the Lord,” etc., is placed outside of the article, hence it is to be understood differently than the genitive that is inside. The Lord is the author of the ἐντολή of the apostles. He sent these apostles with this his commandment, which becomes theirs only in this way.
The holy prophets—the apostles—the Lord and Savior: mark this order. It will make clear that “apostles” is not to be understood in the wider sense so that apostolic assistants may be included. Peter says “your apostles.” One may say that he refers to the Twelve including Paul (verse 15), for they had the identical “commandment,” and the faith of all Christians had this apostolic foundation (Eph. 2:20). But “your apostles” must refer to the ones with whom the readers had come into personal contact. We know that they had such contact with Peter and with Paul (verse 15); this is sufficient to justify the wording “your apostles.”
One may understand “the commandment” in the broader sense: “whatsoever I did command you” (Matt. 28:20), all of the Lord’s teaching that we are commanded to believe and to follow; the entire context that follows, however, justifies us in understanding this expression in a narrower sense, namely as referring to the Lord’s commandment to look for and to be ever ready for his Parousia. Of this the prophets made advance utterance, and this the apostles preached as coming “from the Lord and Savior” (the title is the same as that used in 1:11).
2 Peter 3:3
3 Peter is stirring up the mind of his readers effectively to remember these things: knowing this first that there shall come at the days’ ends mockers in mockery, proceeding according to their own lusts and saying: Where is the promise of his Parousia? for since the fathers fell asleep all things remain on in this manner, from creation’s beginning.
Peter has written τοῦτοπρῶτονγινώσκοντες in 1:20; it is a turn of phrase which he probably used frequently when he was teaching and preaching. He did not feel that he should here use the accusative and not the nominative because an infinitive precedes, the implied subject of which is ὑμᾶς. To call this an anacoluthon as though it were an irregularity is unjustified. Peter proceeds ad sensum, and none of his readers would feel this as an irregularity.
Yes, the first thing they should know or realize is that “mockers shall come at the days’ ends,” meaning that the second thing to realize is the Parousia itself which shall come after these mockers have appeared. We have the same future tense as in 2:1: “there shall be pseudo-teachers, such as shall bring in covertly heresies of perdition.” In 2:1 and 3:3 Peter is prophesying. First Peter 1:20 has the singular: “at the times’ end” (Jude 18: “at the time’s end”); Peter has the plural: “at the days’ ends.” We see that Peter can vary his expressions. These ending days really began after Pentecost, and they are called so because nothing more is in prospect except the return of Christ in his Parousia. Always, however, no date is assigned for the Parousia.
There shall come “mockers in mockery” emphasizes the mocking by adding the cognate phrase, which is good Greek and should not be termed Hebraistic. By placing the verb first and the subject last Peter makes both emphatic: come they shall … and that mockers (no article, qualitative). They certainly have come; we still hear their voices. Bigg calls ἐμπαιγμονή “an impossible formation,” but this statement is on a par with the assertion that the whole verse is not a part of the prophetic apostolic message. Although it has not yet been found elsewhere the word is formed as a number of others are. Wohlenberg offers four samples. Since they have been warned in advance Peter’s readers are not to be surprised when such mockers appear; forewarned is forearmed.
When Peter adds the fact that such mockers will proceed with their mockery “according to their own lusts” he indicates that they are of the same nature as the men described in chapter 2, and that he now describes their worst crime, their blasphemous mockery. Mockery and lusts will go together. These are their marks. The appearance of such men is a sign of the days’ ends.
2 Peter 3:4
4 Peter quotes their mockery. His revelation is detailed, complete. His readers are to know all about it before they hear it uttered. Peter shows them the entire hollowness of this heretical mockery. His readers are armed and made ready. This mockery is concentrated in the question which the heretics will fling at the readers: “Where is the promise of his Parousia,” i.e., where is its fulfillment? They mean: “You say that Jesus promised a great Parousia; well, show it to us, where is it?” Catch the sneer in this. Catch also the folly. When the Parousia occurs, such sneers will die in the mocking throats. Compare Isa. 5:19; Jer. 17:15; Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:26–30. On “Parousia” see “the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and Parousia” in 1:16.
These mockers will even present an argument: “for since the fathers fell asleep all things remain on in this way (οὕτως: so, as they are) from creation’s beginning”; ἀφʼ ἧς (ἡμέρας) = “since” (R. 978), really ἀπʼ ἐκείνηςἡμέραςἧ (dative, R. 719): “from that day on which” the fathers fell asleep (aorist). These are “the fathers” of the Christians who are living when these mockers shall arrive; the fathers are formerly living but now departed believers. Did all of these not die without anything happening? Since they died, “are not all things remaining in this manner (progressive present, R. 880), just as they are from the very beginning of the creation onward?” “The fathers” are not Old Testament people but any and all Christians who are dead when the mockers point derisively at them. Even now, they say, everything moves on just as it did from creation’s beginning onward.
This type of argument is strong because it ignores a good deal. So is many another argument. It upsets those who fail to see what is ignorantly or purposely ignored. The crushing answer to all such arguments and thus also to this one is to show what they omit or ignore. This is the logic involved. All conclusions that are based on some facts but omit other, contrary facts are false in toto. It is a fact that all things have gone on in their accustomed way for ages and ages, in particular since Jesus lived on earth. The time since these arguments were used has now been extended to almost 2, 000 years. Ergo, quit talking about this Parousia of Jesus!
We note that denial of the Parousia involves very much more. In 2:1 we see that it signifies no less than denying the one who bought us. It denies his own Word and promise and that of all the apostles and the prophets. How many facts that are revealed by the Word may be thus denied Peter does not indicate. The present denials of the Parousia include the rejection of Christ’s deity and of all the great saving facts. The longer the world stands as it is, the surer the mockers are that their fallacy is sound. Their predecessors operated with this hollow soundness from the start as Peter told his readers they would.
5, 6) Mockers shall come saying: “Where, etc.?” For it escapes them in making this claim that there were heavens of old and an earth existing out of water and between water by the Word of God, by means of which things (those presented in this whole situation) the then world by being flooded perished; on the other hand (it escapes them, that) the present heavens and the earth by the same Word have been treasured up for fire, being kept for a day of judging and of perdition for the ungodly men.
In this way Peter answers the assumption of the mockers and their reasoning that there will never be a Parousia of Christ. He simply states the two facts that escape these wise fellows. The one fact lies in the past, namely, the Flood; the other in the future. The Word of God that by its original creation put the world into such a condition that all living things on its surface perished “by water,” that same Word is keeping the present heavens and earth “for fire” in order to send the ungodly to perdition, these mockers being among them.
Τοῦτο is to be construed with θέλοντας and means bei dieser Behauptung (B.-P. 554), “in making this claim,” the one mentioned in v. 4; or dies im Sinne habend, “having this in their minds.” Since these mockers have half-facts in their minds such as those advanced in v. 4, the facts mentioned in v. 5–7 escape them. The first forgotten fact is stated in v. 5, 6: there were heavens of old and an earth “existing out of water and between water by the Word of God,” and by means of these things, i.e., these situations of the heavens and of the earth, the world of that time, i.e., the κόσμος of men, “inundated by water (κατακλυσθείς, see 2:5, κατακλυσμός) perished.” Strange that this fact should escape the notice of anybody! But it does so to this day. All things have not been just so (οὕτως) as they are; at one time the whole cosmos of men perished (historical aorist; the passive participle is also an aorist).
Peter mentions the ancient heavens because they rained torrents. He describes the earth as existing (the second perfect feminine participle συνεστῶσα is to be understood in this sense, B.-P. 268) “out of water (having risen out of it) and between water” (that above in the clouds, that below in the fountains of the deep). Genesis 7:11: “The same day were all the fountains of the deep broken up, and the windows (literally, floodgates) of heaven were opened.”
We translate διʼ ὕδατος “between water”; see R. 580 for the “between” idea of διά. Some commentators have difficulty with this phrase, some think that the solid earth “consists” of water. How did the heavens of old and the earth get to be thus? “By the Word of God.” These mockers go back to the “beginning of creation”; so does Peter, but he goes back to the time when God by his Word made the heavens and the earth with water above, all around, and under the earth.
Διʼ ὧν puzzles some interpreters; they seek for the antecedent of this plural, and some of them change it into the singular: “by means of which λόγος.” The antecedent is not the two kinds of water; not the logos (Word) and the water; and also not heavens and earth. The antecedent is the neuter plural: “by means of which things,” i.e., the existence of heavens from of old and the existence of an earth with water in the relation described. Without these things which were so through God’s own creative Word there could have been no Flood. Three times Peter says, “water,” for he is writing about the Flood. Note that κόσμος is used as it was in 2:5: “the world” of men; in v. 7 we have “the ungodly men.”
2 Peter 3:7
7 We have already noted in 2:5, etc., that the Flood is a type of the last judgment, to which Peter now turns with δέ, “on the other hand.” He once more points upward to “the present heavens,” for in his Parousia Christ will descend from them and to “the earth.” Will they, indeed, always remain “thus” (οὕτως) as we now see them, as these mockers dream and claim they will? “By the same Word” that made both to be as described in v. 5 “they have been treasured up for fire.” At one time water brought judgment; finally fire shall do so. At one time water descended from the heavens upon the earth; finally fire shall alter both the heavens and the earth completely. The periphrastic perfect “have been treasured up” emphasizes the duration. To be thus treasured up for fire = to have fire applied at last. Do not ask me what kind of fire this will be. God has all the varieties of fire that he needs for his purposes: the fire to burn wood, the electric fire of the lightning bolt that strikes in an instant in the sky, the fire that burns in the sun, the fire to change the heavens and the earth at the last day, and another most terrible unquenchable fire for the devils and the damned in hell.
The durative present participle completes the prophecy: “being kept for a day of judging and of perdition (ἀπώλεια is found twice in 2:1) for ungodly men” (objective genitive). This will be a day when Christ judges and sends all the ungodly to perdition. Critics ask where Peter got this information and then search for an answer in Jewish apocalyptic sources such as the Book of Enoch, also in Persian or in Egyptian sources or elsewhere. Peter had the Old Testament, the instruction of Jesus, the immediate revelation of the Spirit himself: “He shall show you things to come,” John 16:13. “Treasured for fire” is further explained in v. 10–13.
“The Day of the Lord Will Come as a Thief,” v. 8–13
2 Peter 3:8
8 Moreover, let not this one thing escape you, beloved, that one day with the Lord (is) as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Entirely too much escapes the mockers, hence their ignorant mocking (v. 5–7). This is a point that may escape even Peter’s readers, which he, therefore, wants them to note well: “that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” This is Peter’s own statement which is based on Ps. 90:4: “A thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday when it is passed and as a watch in the night.” God created time. “In the beginning,” Genesis 1:1, is the first tick of the clock of time. It has ticked ever since that time, never faster, never slower. Thus we have the seconds, the minutes, the hours that to us are “a day” and finally a year and a thousand years. As time began, so it shall end (Rev. 10:6), time shall no longer exist, the last tick has been reached.
With the Lord time is evidently not what it is to us who live in time. He is above time. Peter does not say that the Lord is timeless, which he, of course, is, but that his relation to time must never be confused with our relation to time. A day seems short to us, a thousand years a very long period. With the Lord a single day is “as a thousand years,” and vice versa. Let us not overlook the two ὡς, “as.” Peter does not say: “A single day is a thousand years, and a thousand years are a single day.” Peter does not use ὡς as being equal to “like” or as a mere conception of the mind but in the sense of “as in reality.” Whether it be a day or a thousand years as we count time, both are really the same with the Lord; neither hampers nor helps him.
Those who apply this dictum to the word “day” in Genesis 1 and make “day” in Genesis 1 = a period that consists of millions of years find no support in this passage. Nor does Peter refer to the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20.
2 Peter 3:9
9 Peter himself tells us what he means: Not slack (or delaying) is the Lord with his promise as some consider slackness (or delay), but he is long-suffering in regard to you, not intending that some perish, but that all have room for repentance.
Τῆςἐπαγγελίας is the genitive of separation: “the Lord does not hold back from the promise, from fulfilling it (B.-D. 180, 5), as some count holding back.” These “some” are not the mockers who claim that all this talk about the Parousia is nothing, these are some of the Christians who will be disturbed by these mockers. Since the Parousia has not yet come, and since time keeps going on, “some” who are unable to account for this ever-increasing delay and who let what verse 8 states escape them get uneasy and think that the mockers are perhaps right in claiming that there is nothing to this whole promise of Christ’s return.
Peter furnishes the correct answer: God uses time so as to serve his purposes of grace. For that purpose a single day is as a thousand years to him, a thousand years as a single day. To him time, whether it be brief or long, is an entirely minor matter just so his gracious purpose is accomplished. Look at it in this way. Then you will not think of delay, dilatoriness, emptiness of the promise. Then you will see that the Lord’s waiting is his longsuffering toward you, his holding out long with the blessed intention (βούλομαι is often used in this sense, notably in 1 Tim. 2:8; 5:14; Titus 3:8; etc.) that none are to perish (aorist), but that all are to have room (i.e., fully have time and opportunity, aorist) for μετάνοια, repentance, change of mind and heart by contrition and faith.
This longsuffering extends the time, puts off the Parousia. What is a thousand years to the Lord if he can thereby bring many to repentance?
The Lord alone knows how to extend his longsuffering. We now look back upon almost 2, 000 years; see how many have repented. Does that in any way affect the certainty of the fulfillment of his promised return? The mockers, who scorn repentance, scoff at that promise because their wish is father to their thought (θέλοντας, verse 5). Woe to them if that promise is true!
2 Peter 3:10
10 Peter has settled the question of the Lord’s delay. He now tells his readers how the Lord’s day will come. The delay may be one of a thousand years or of several thousands for that matter, all are “as a single day” with the Lord; but when the time of longsuffering is at an end, the Parousia and the tremendous things that accompany it will not require a thousand or several thousands of years; then one day will be “as a thousand years.” Suddenly, instantaneously the end will come. The Lord will need no time at all. But there will come the Lord’s day as a thief, in which the heavens with a cracking crash (M.-M. 564) shall pass away; moreover, elements, being heated, shall be dissolved, and earth and the works in it shall be burned up.
Peter purposely describes what shall occur on that day of the Lord. There will be a sudden conflagration of the universe. Since Peter puts this forward twice (note verse 12) he leaves the impression that the mockers will not care to dwell on this feature. Peter, however, makes the application only to his readers. The verb is placed emphatically forward: “there shall come indeed.” Although it is without the article, ἡμέρα is definite, is made so by the genitive. Jesus already used the comparison of a thief (Matt. 24:43; Luke 12:39). While it is briefer Peter’s thought is the same; a thief comes and aims to come when no one expects him. The suddenness of the coming is meant in this sense—as far as we are concerned. So will the Lord’s day come.
The description is the main feature. On that day the heavens, which at one time sent down torrents for the Flood (verse 5), will themselves pass away ῥοιζηδόν, with a sudden crackling, sizzling, sputtering roar, mit sausendem Geraeusch, mit Gezisch, unter Geprassel, mit rauschender Schnelligkeit, B.-P. 1182. Δέ, “on the other hand,” the elements, being heated, shall be dissolved. Nearly every time the word occurs there is some discussion as to the meaning of στοιχεῖα. Because “earth” follows, some take the “elements” to be the stars. Peter makes no such restriction. Καυσούμενα means “heated” and explains “shall be dissolved.”
Καί combines what is said about the elements and about the earth and the works in it, i.e., all that men have built on earth: earth and all these works shall be burned up. Jesus said: “The heaven and the earth shall pass away,” Mark 13:31; Matt. 24:35. We consider the variant reading εὑρεθήσεται, “shall be found or discovered,” out of the line of thought.
2 Peter 3:11
11 By repeating and thus emphasizing the things that shall occur Peter strikes the hortatory note already at this point. All these things thus being dissolved, what kind of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, expecting and eager for the Parousia of the day of God, on account of which heavens, set on fire, shall be dissolved, and elements, being heated, shall be melted!
The present tense of the genitive absolute is without a reference to time. Such a reference is not required in the Greek since the λυθήσεται occurring in verse 10 has already taken care of it. So we do not say that λυομένων aims to state that the dissolving is as certain as if it were already taking place.
Ποταπούς is not used in indirect questions and thus should be regarded as exclamatory with a note of hortation: “What kind of persons ought you to be!” The word δεῖ is used to express every kind of necessity or obligation, the specific kind will be determined according to the context. It is here indicated by the “in holy conduct (a word that is used several times in First Peter) and godliness.” Peter uses a number of abstract nouns in the plural. It would be awkward to translate these into English, yet they are pertinent here where each of the readers has his own conduct and godliness. Peter makes the phrase weightier by using two nouns: “in holy conduct and godliness.”
2 Peter 3:12
12 He also uses two participles: “expecting and being eager for the Parousia of the day of God.” One may expect and yet not be eager regarding what he expects; also eagerness is to fill the hearts. We need not labor the sense by taking σπεύδω in the sense of “hasten,” speed up the coming of the day of the Lord, so that it will come sooner than it would otherwise come. We question whether the holy conduct of Christians can hasten the day of judgment, whether this is the teaching of the Bible. The decline of faith and the coldness of love would have more of a tendency to hurry the day along. This verb is widely used in the sense of “to be eager” (see Liddell and Scott for illustrations), which fits perfectly here as an intensifying synonym of “expecting.”
In 1:16 we have “the power and Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ”; in 3:4 “his Parousia”; now “the Parousia of the day of God.” On παρουσία see 1:16. It fits both the Lord and the day since either can be present. Here “the Lord’s day” precedes in verse 10, and so we have “the Parousia of the day”; but “of the day of God”—at which we pause since Peter twice uses “God” when he is naming Jesus Christ (see 1:1, 2). We regard “Lord’s day” (verse 10) and now “God’s day” as naming the same person: Jesus Christ.
In verse 10 Peter writes only “in which,” now he says “on account or because of which” (day). That day shall bring to an end the whole present universe and thus shall be the cause that “heavens, set on fire, shall be dissolved, and elements, heated, shall be melted.” Peter repeats verse 10 but now varies the wording. Both “heavens” and “elements” are qualitative because they are anarthrous. Although they are heavens they shall be “dissolved,” for they, too, are “elements.” “Set on fire” or “being fired” expounds the adverb “with a crackling crash” which was used in verse 10: they shall pass away, be dissolved in a roar of fire (Isa. 51:6, “like smoke”). The participle “being heated” is repeated with “elements,” but in place of “shall be dissolved” we have the synonym “shall be melted” or rather the preferred reading “are melted” (present tense), which, like the genitive absolute, disregards the point of time. These variations between v. 10 and v. 12 are important for showing us how v. 7 is to be understood: “the present heavens and the earth treasured up for fire.”
2 Peter 3:13
13 But new heavens and an earth new according to his promise (ἐπάγγελμα, a term that denotes result: the promise as it stands) we are expecting, in which righteousness dwells. The two “new” are placed chiastically and thus bring “heaven and earth” together. Καινός is new over against old. Heavens and earth are to be new in this sense and not in the sense of νέος, just called into existence. This is also the sense of Rev. 21:1. We are expecting them according to Christ’s promise, at which the mockers may scoff all they please (v. 4). Nor is the Lord slow and slack with this promise (v. 9); he is only longsuffering. In v. 11 Peter says “you”; with “we are expecting” he now joins his readers in confessing his sure hope.
The old universe was spoiled by the fall. Sin permeated it with its effects. That includes all of nature, animate and inanimate, the heavenly bodies, and the heavens also. All shall become new. On that day fire shall make them new so that in them “righteousness dwells,” even every trace of unrighteousness being forever removed. We may call this a sort of personification of this quality (righteousness) on which the approval of the Lord’s eternal verdict rests. Read Rev. 21:1–5.
The question is raised as to whether this universe shall be annihilated, and a new heaven and earth shall be created ex nihilo. In order to answer it one should not stop with passages like Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Jer. 34:4; Matt. 24:35; Mark 13:31; Heb. 1:11; Rev. 20:11. One should include also Rom. 8:19–22; 1 Cor. 7:31; Rev. 21:1–5. The heavens and the earth shall be renovated, renewed, purified, made perfect. There shall be no further separation between earth and the abode of God; they shall be one at last. Besides Rev. 21:1–5 one should read the whole of Rev. 21:10–27 and close with Heb. 11:10.
Look for These Things and Be Ready, v. 14–18
2 Peter 3:14
14 Wherefore, beloved, expecting these things, be diligent to be found by him as spotless and unblemished in peace. We once more have the loving address, now in connection with Peter’s final admonition. He repeats “expecting” from v. 12. The connection is causal: “since you expect these things, be diligent to be found.” Αὑτῷ is the dative of the agent with the passive verb, R. 542 and A. V. It is strange that R. 537, B.-D. 192 (“dativus ethicus”), and the R. V. (“in his sight”) should labor to make it a dative with the adjectives when the dative next to the passive infinitive is a dative of the agent. “Be found by him” undoubtedly refers to the judicial finding of Christ, the Judge, at the day of his Parousia.
Peter calls the libertinists and the mockers σπῖλοικαὶμῶμοι in 2:13, “spots and blemishes”; the readers are to be the opposite, ἄσπιλοικαὶἀμώμητοι, “spotless and unblemished.” Both adjectives are predicative and are thus nominatives with the infinitive; they need not be accusatives. We are spotless and unblemished when we have daily forgiveness and live in obedience and expectation of the day of judgment. “In peace” is the same peace that Peter wants multiplied for his readers in 1:2. To be found “in peace” at the Parousia means in the peace which Christ has established, the condition when all is well between him and us. The best commentary is Matt. 25:34–40. “Be diligent” repeats the effective imperative from 1:10; and we may note Peter’s own diligence in regard to his readers in 1:15.
2 Peter 3:15
15 In addition (καί) Peter urges: And consider our Lord’s longsuffering as salvation even as also our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given to him has written to you, as also in all (his) letters when speaking in them of these things; etc. Peter reverts to verse 9 and now uses the noun “longsuffering” in place of the verb and also the same verb “consider.” The delay in the Lord’s return is “longsuffering” on his part; this silences the mockery (verse 4) which laughs at the Parousia as being something that will never come. Peter says: Consider the Lord’s longsuffering in thus waiting “as salvation.” Verse 9 has indicated how it is salvation: the Lord does not intend that some should perish, but that all have room for repentance. When the readers see this longsuffering and see it as salvation for so many they will be fortified against all mockers of the promise of the Parousia.
What Peter adds is most interesting. First the clause: “even as also our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him wrote to you.” To Peter and to his readers Paul is “our beloved brother Paul,” dearly loved and highly regarded. “According to the wisdom given him” names and emphasizes Paul’s wisdom as being one that has been given to him by the Lord; δοθεῖσαν is the very participle that Paul himself uses so often when he speaks of the grace “given to me.” This is true wisdom from on high. The letter which Paul wrote to the people whom Peter addresses was written in toto according to the wisdom which was bestowed on Paul by the Lord. That is why Peter appeals to it as seconding what he tells his readers regarding how they should live in the expectation of the Lord’s Parousia.
Peter says “our beloved brother Paul”; he has already said “your apostles” in 3:2 when he had Paul and himself in mind. Peter himself has written a letter to these his readers (3:1); including the one that Peter is now writing them they will have three, all of them being to the same effect. Paul and Peter agree perfectly. We scarcely need to say this, for all the apostles agree perfectly since one and the same Lord and Spirit bestow one and the same revelation and inspiration upon them (John 16:13, 14). There is no peculiar Pauline, Petrine, Johannine doctrine.
It is inconceivable that Paul should write to people among whom only Peter and other apostles had worked (Rom. 14:20), and equally inconceivable that such people should have been Jewish and not Gentile Christians. The reason for Peter’s writing First Peter to Christians that belonged to Paul’s great field is clear (see the introduction to First Peter). A similar situation in which Paul could have written to people who lived in a field that belonged to Peter is hard to conceive. The very fact that we know Paul’s history so well and Peter’s only as far as Acts takes us leaves us at sea in regard to 2:1, 2, 15. To whom could these two men be “our apostles” who had worked among them, each of whom had written them a letter, to whom Peter is now writing another and referring to his own and to Paul’s earlier one? No plausible answer to this question has ever been given.
The fact that v. 1 cannot refer to First Peter is plain. That letter has been lost. Have we this letter of Paul’s to which Peter refers? Many say that we have, but when they try to identify it, there is complete disagreement. Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews, even Laodiceans (Col. 4:16) have been mentioned. For ourselves we admit that the letter written by Paul, to which Peter refers, has been lost to us.
We know of two other letters of Paul’s that have been lost; he refers to the one in 1 Cor. 5:9, to the other in Col. 4:16. We confess that it seems strange that valuable apostolic letters should have become lost, at least two of Paul’s and one of Peter’s. But struggle as we may, all struggling is in vain. Arguing about God, and how God could permit such a thing is hypothetical human reasoning and is too thin to support any conclusion.
All this means—to our great regret—that we cannot identify the readers of Second Peter, to whom both Peter and Paul had already written a letter. Someone has said, although in another connection, that when we really do not know, the scientific—and let us add, the honest and the sensible—thing to do is to say so.
2 Peter 3:16
16 Peter adds: “as also in all (his) letters when speaking concerning these things,” the ones that Peter speaks of in this letter, i.e., coming heretics, libertinists, mockers, Christ’s Parousia, the way in which Christians should expect it and be in constant readiness. Peter is acquainted with Paul’s letters, and his readers are acquainted with them, at least with a good many of them. Ἐνπάσαιςἐπιστολαῖς, without ταῖς, is the correct reading (R. 773). If the article were used, the sense would be that of a fixed collection of all the Pauline letters; the assertion of B.-P. 275, 1, that the article dare not be absent is thus incorrect.
The assumption that Paul was already dead is unwarranted. Peter died in 64, Paul died after this date. The fact that churches to whom Paul had written a letter should have secured copies of other letters of his is easy to understand. What is so difficult to understand is the fact that two letters that were written directly to them by two such great apostles as Paul and Peter were should not have been copied and widely spread and thus have been preserved from becoming totally lost.
The participle λαλῶν is restrictive: “when speaking of these things.” Paul’s letters cover more territory; just now Peter’s interest centers in “these things” about which he himself writes in this his own letter. All that Paul had written up to this time, and all that Peter now writes are in complete agreement. This is said so that Peter’s readers may be certain and may stand firm when the heretics arrive.
Peter adds: in which (feminine: letters of Paul) there are some things difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable wrest, as also the rest of the Scripture, to their own perdition.
The reading ἐναἷς is assured and not ἐνοἷς, “among which things.” In Paul’s various letters there are some things that are difficult to understand. To regard this as a criticism of Paul on the part of Peter is to misunderstand the words. Paul wrote a good deal; Peter has already noted the divinely bestowed wisdom with which he wrote. Such wisdom always penetrates to the bottom of its subjects and does not skim over the top as a shallow mind does. The effort to understand some parts of such writings naturally taxes the νοῦς or thinking faculty. That is what the mind is for. We have but two brief letters of Peter, yet even in them everything is not written in ABC fashion.
The point that Peter makes is the fact that some people, namely the ignorant and unstable, wrest these difficult things in Paul’s letters, “torture” them, “put them on the rack” (M.-M. 593), sodass sich ein falscher Sinn ergibt (B.-P. 1237), force them, like some poor victim under torture, to say what their torturers want them to say. These difficult things are chosen for torture because the easier things cannot so readily be forced and twisted.
These ignorant persons do not stop with certain things in Paul’s letters; they do the same with the rest of the Scriptures; they would be compelled to because all inspired writing speaks the same thing with the same wisdom. But those who wrest such writings do it “to their own perdition.”
Peter is speaking of what is being already done (“wrest,” present tense); he does not need to add that the heretics, whose coming he has foretold, will follow the same course. We know that they have always done so, are now doing so. Because in 2:14 Peter uses “unstable souls” as a designation for the future victims of false teachers is no reason for denying that such future false teachers will also themselves not wrest the Scriptures.
To what writings does καὶτὰςλοιπὰςγραφάς refer? Zahn, Introduction, 277: to books in general, of course, those of a religious character, such as would claim recognition among Christian readers. This view is based on the use of λοιπός; if the Old Testament were referred to, it is said that ἄλλος or ἕτερος should have been used. The linguistic point has been labored by saying that if “the rest of the writings” referred to the Old Testament, this would make the whole Old Testament an appendix to Paul’s letters, in fact, would say that the ignoramuses wrest all the Old Testament books and the whole of each book. So the Old Testament writings are ruled out or are only allowed a place by the side of other writings, chiefly, however, uninspired writings. Zahn’s argument emphasizes the fact that an adjective such as “holy” is omitted.
But what about “the rest of the writings”? What about 1:19–21 with its reference to “every prophetic writing” and the assertion that these were truly inspired? Peter wrote 1:19–21 with a view to chapter 3. To say that the ignoramuses wrest not only some things in Peter’s letters but do this as well with religious writings in general is merely saying that this is a sort of habit which they have. B.-P. 753 is not impressed by the argument derived from λοιπός, for he translates die andern Schriften just as our versions do. Mayor sums up: “The result of the whole discussion is practically to compel us to take τὰςλοιπὰςγραφάς in the obvious sense ‘the rest of the Scriptures’ [not just ‘writings’], and we cannot escape the conclusion that the epistles of Paul are classed with these. The intention of the author of Second Peter seems to be to regard the Pauline epistles, or those of them that he knew, as γραφαί because they were read in the churches along with the lessons from the Old Testament.”
We add John 16:13. Also Bigg’s remark: “It does not necessarily follow that St. Peter placed his fellow apostles on the same level with Moses and the old prophets; but he may very well have placed them even higher.” Let that settle the argument.
“For their own perdition” repeats the word ἀπώλεια that was used in 2:1, 3; 3:7. It is perversion of Scripture that insures “perdition.” Be careful of Scripture!
2 Peter 3:17
17 Οὗν resumes the admonition. You on your part, then, realizing (these things) in advance, keep on guarding yourselves lest by having been led off with the error of the nefarious ones you fall from your own stability! Forewarned is forearmed. The middle means “keep guarding yourselves,” and ἵναμή = lest as it does with verbs of fear. The danger is that of being led away by the error of the nefarious ones (see 2:7) and thus falling from (out of) your own stability; note “unstable” in verse 16, “unstable souls” in 2:14, and “having been made stable in the present truth.” The aorists mean actually being led off and actually falling from. This would be a calamity indeed.
2 Peter 3:18
18 But keep growing in grace and knowledge from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! This is the positive side. We again have the present imperative to denote continuance. One grows in grace and knowledge by assimilating more and more of the divine favor and of its gifts and of the divine truth. The key word “knowledge” again appears here at the very end of the epistle (1:5, 6; the compound in 1:2, 3; 2:20, 21).
The genitive is obviously to be construed with both “grace and knowledge”; it is obviously the same kind of a genitive with both. Some commentators note the latter and disagree with those who make “of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” a genitive of source with grace and an objective genitive with “knowledge.” Yet they separate the genitive from “grace” and let “grace” stand alone. Why is it so difficult to see that “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” is the source and fountain of both “grace and knowledge”? Here we have additional evidence that also in 1:1 the genitive is that of source: “righteousness from our God and Savior Jesus Christ”; “knowledge from our God and Lord Jesus Christ”; so also in 2:20; 3:2, “commandment from the Lord and Savior.” On “our Lord” see 1:2; “our Savior,” 1:1.
Peter closes with a doxology: To him the glory both now and for eon’s day! The “amen” is a late addition. Peter’s doxology fits his letter exactly and is entirely unique. The uniqueness lies in “both now and for eon’s day.” Only Sirach 18:8 has “in eon’s day,” but he understands “day” in the sense of the “eon” or eternity in which the longest earthly life is as a drop in the ocean. Some understand Peter’s εἰςἡμέραναἰῶνος in the same way and make the genitive an apposition. Better is the view that it is the qualitative genitive (C.-K. 94), but this is not satisfactory enough.
Still better is the view of G. K. 199, where, however, the phrase is divided: εἰςἡμέραν (sc. Κυρίου) and εἰςτὸναἰῶνα. We disregard the division but keep the reference to the Lord, which undoubtedly = v. 10: “there shall come ἡμέραΚυρίου, the Lord’s day.” We regard it as a possessive genitive: the last, great “day” of the Lord which no longer belongs to “now” or to time but to the “eon,” eternity.
The burden of this epistle is that “day.” We have been told what shall occur then. Although that day is called “day” it cannot be a day of twenty-four hours or an earthly day. It belongs to eternity. All glory belongs to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ now and specifically at the time of that wondrous day when he shall return in eternal glory, when that day ushers in eternity for the universe.
Soli Deo Gloria
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
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.
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Nonliterary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
G. K. Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel.