2 Peter 2:1-11

Introduction:

Background:

Proposition:

Interrogative:

I. False Teaching Described (2:1-3)

2 Peter 2:1–3 (NKJV) — 1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

A. The Comparison - 1

B. The Description - 1b

1. who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them,

2. and bring on themselves swift destruction.

C. The Problem - 2

1. And many will follow their destructive ways,

2. because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.

D. The Method: By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words - 3a

E. Their Demise: - 3b

1. For a long time their judgment has not been idle,

2. and their destruction does not slumber.

1. The Impact of False Teachers (2:1–3)

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

It now becomes evident why the readers needed to be reminded about the importance of a godly life and why they needed to maintain the truth of Jesus’ future coming. False teachers had arisen within the church who denied the former and questioned the latter. If there is no future coming of the Lord, the foundation for ethics vanishes, and the way is opened for a dissolute lifestyle. The words in chap. 1 do not represent an abstract thesis on Christian growth. Peter urgently responded to a threat to the churches, to false teaching that was inevitably accompanied by an evil lifestyle.

The connection between the end of chap. 1 and the beginning of chap. 2 is prophecy. Peter concluded the first chapter by emphasizing that his readers should pay heed to the prophetic word as their source of illumination and teaching. The prophetic Scriptures should be trusted because both the revelation and its interpretation are from God, since the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets. Now in chap. 2 he remarked that not all prophets were from God. As the Old Testament amply demonstrates, false prophets also existed among God’s people. Indeed, it was prophesied that false teachers would also arise in the church. The prediction about the arrival of false teachers, according to Peter, had now been fulfilled. Errant teachers were in the midst of God’s people, and they were introducing teachings that would lead people to eternal destruction. People would suffer judgment because they denied the Lord Jesus Christ by both their behavior and teaching, despite the fact that as their master he bought them and made them his servants. When Peter thought of denying the Lord, he considered the penalty that comes from such denial—swift destruction. In vv. 2–3 the influence of the false teachers is sketched in. Many would be attracted to their antinomian sensual teaching, and their dissolute lifestyle would bring criticism upon the gospel of truth. The false teachers were motivated by covetousness, and they would exploit others with their rhetorical artistry. Nonetheless, though judgment seemed to be far off, it would come. They would not escape forever.

2:1 Peter had just emphasized in vv. 19–21 that his readers should apply themselves to the prophetic word, since the prophetic Scriptures are wholly from God both in terms of the vision given and the interpretation of the vision. He did not want his readers to draw the conclusion that everyone who claims to be a prophet speaks God’s words. False prophets were in Israel as well. Many texts in the Old Testament warn Israel about the danger of false prophets (Deut 13:1–5; 1 Kgs 22:5–28; Isa 9:15; 28:7–8; 29:9–12; Jer 2:8, 26; 5:31; 14:13–15; 23:9–40; 27:9–18; 28:1–29:8; Ezek 13:1–23; Mic 3:5–12; Zeph 3:4). The pattern has not changed, though surprisingly the opponents are described as “false teachers” instead of “false prophets.” Justin Martyr, probably depending on Peter, used similar words: “And just as there were false prophets contemporaneous with your holy prophets, so are there now many false teachers amongst us” (Dial. 82:1).1 The appellation “teachers” may stem from their refusal to be called prophets, perhaps because they rejected any notion of prophetic inspiration at all.2 Peter, nonetheless, thought they were like the false prophets of old in that they were promulgating a message contrary to God’s truth. Bauckham nicely summarizes three characteristics of false prophets: (1) they lack divine authority, (2) they promise the people peace when God threatens judgment, and (3) they will certainly be judged by God.3 Each of these applies nicely to the false teachers in 2 Peter. In particular, they denied divine judgment since they did not foresee the culmination of history with the coming of Jesus Christ.

One of the puzzling elements of the text is how Peter consistently used the future tense in vv. 1–3 with reference to the false teachers. Some interpret this to say that the false teachers had not yet arrived in the church.4 They were wreaking havoc elsewhere, and Peter warned that they would arrive soon. This view fails to persuade because the rest of the letter plainly demonstrates that the opponents were already affecting the church. In 2:13 they are described as eating even now in the love feasts held in the churches. The present tense is used in 2:17 and in 3:5, indicating that the opponents were already present. The adversaries are also described with the aorist tense in 2:15, “they wandered off” (eplanēthēsan), but this should not be interpreted to say that the opponents had departed. We can be quite sure that Peter spoke of people who were already on the scene and continued to threaten the church. Others explain the change in tense as a device in a pseudonymous letter. The predictions made by Peter and the other apostles were being fulfilled after the death of the apostles.5 This theory is only convincing to those who think the letter is pseudonymous, and it has already been argued in the introduction that there are good reasons to accept its authenticity. It is more likely that Peter alluded to prophecies uttered in the early church, predicting the coming of false prophets (cf. Matt 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; cf. also Deut 13:2–6).6 He reminded his hearers that the advent of the false teachers was foreknown beforehand and hence that God reigns even in such perilous times. It is instructive to note that in 1 Tim 4:1 and 2 Tim 3:1 the future tense is also used to predict the arrival of opponents, though it is evident their false teaching was already subverting the churches addressed.

The verb pareisagō is interpreted by the NIV in a negative sense, “They will secretly introduce destructive heresies.” The verb does not necessarily have a negative connotation, and we could retranslate the NIV to say “will introduce destructive heresies.” Nonetheless, the context suggests a nefarious purpose, so that the NIV reading is preferable.7 A parallel term in Gal 2:4 has a similar sense: “But because of false believers secretly brought in [pareisaktous], who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus” (NRSV). Similarly, Jude refers to opponents who “infiltrated” (pareiseduēsan) the church (Jude 4). The difference between Peter and Jude is significant. In the latter instance the opponents came from outside and were intruders and interlopers. In Peter’s case it seems that the resistance sprang up within the church and surreptitiously introduced false teaching.8

The word translated “heresies” (haireseis) is also disputed. The singular form of the noun may refer to a sect, without any suggestion of false teaching. For instance, Acts refers to the sects of the Sadducees (5:17) and Pharisees (15:5; 26:5). Josephus also uses the term for various Jewish sects, such as the Essenes, Pharisees, and Saducees, and perhaps Zealots (Life 12; J.W. 2.118; Ant. 13.171, 293). In Acts the term is used to describe the Christian “sect,” and it does not clearly mean “heresy” in these texts, though the accounts in Acts indicate that serious questions were being raised about the messianic sect (24:5, 14; 28:22). The word can also refer to factions or dissensions in a church (Gal 5:20; 1 Cor 11:18). Hence, many scholars think Peter did not refer to false teaching here but the introduction of factions into the church. The word hairesis clearly refers to false teaching by the beginning of the second century when Ignatius wrote his letters (Eph. 6:2; Trall. 6:1). In this instance, in accord with the NIV translation, the context supports the idea that false teaching is in view. The opponents are called “false teachers,” and hence it makes sense to say that they introduced “false teaching,” that is, heresies into the church.9 They insinuated themselves into the church and under the cover of the church’s blessing were introducing wrong doctrines. These doctrines are “destructive heresies.” The word “destructive” indicates that they led to destruction or eschatological punishment presumably because they encouraged people to lead immoral lives.10

The root problem with these false teachers is conveyed in the phrase “even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” The NIV captures precisely the meaning of kai by translating it “even.”11 The Greek word despotēs is not the usual one for “Lord,” and again the NIV’s rendering is felicitous (“sovereign Lord”). The word designates earthly masters of slaves in several texts (1 Tim 6:1–2; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), or it emphasizes God’s lordship (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim 2:21; Jude 4; Rev 6:10; cf. Gen 15:2, 8; Isa 1:24; 3:1; 10:33). This verse may be the only text in the New Testament where the term refers to Jesus Christ, though Jude 4 may be another instance. A reference to Jesus Christ is likely in the phrase he “bought them” (cf. Rev 5:9). The verb for “bought” (agorazō) is part of the redemption word group in the New Testament.12 Jesus as Lord bought them as his slaves, and he purchased them through his atoning death on the cross. Peter would not speak of the false teachers as bought by the death of the Lord if they were pagan outsiders. The expression indicates that the false teachers were part of the church Peter addressed, that they professed faith in Jesus Christ. At one time they were loyal servants of Jesus Christ, but now they denied the Lord who spilled his blood for them.

The language of denial alludes to Jesus’ words, “Whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (Matt 10:33, NRSV). Those who deny Jesus will experience eschatological judgment when he denies them forever before his Father. From the remainder of 2 Peter it is evident that the denial of Jesus’ lordship was practical, in that they rejected his moral authority over their lives. It is harder to discern whether specific Christological errors were part of the denial.13 Probably the denial of the second coming of Christ should be included here, for in doing so they in effect rejected his lordship (cf. 2 Pet 3:4–7).14 Those who introduce false teaching and deny the Lord Jesus Christ will bring “swift destruction on themselves.” Peter used the same word for “destruction” (apōleia) that was appended to the word “heresies” in this verse. The word is a common one in the New Testament for the eschatological punishment to come. We already noted that those who deny Jesus will be denied before the Father. Peter clarified here that the false teachers were not guilty of minor defections but that judgment awaited them if they did not repent. The word “swift” (tachinēn) could also be translated “sudden.”15 We do not need to choose between these ideas. The judgment will be sudden, and it will be soon. Bauckham rightly remarks that Peter did not repudiate an imminent eschatology, even though he refused to calculate when the end would arrive.16

In the history of theology two issues have arisen in the interpretation of this verse, and they are related. Was Peter teaching that believers can commit apostasy and lose their salvation? Furthermore, did he teach what is called “unlimited atonement,” that is, the idea that Christ died for all people, but only those who believe in Christ receive the benefit of the atonement that was offered to all? We should reject the interpretation defended by J. Owen, for he argued that the “buying” done by Christ was nonsoteriological in this text, so that Peter did not even have spiritual salvation in mind.17 The problem with this view is that the New Testament nowhere else uses the word for redemption in association with Christ in a nonsoteriological sense (cf. 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; 1 Pet 1:18–19; Rev 5:9; 14:3–4).18 The interpretation suffers from special pleading since redemption is invariably soteriological.

We should note that many scholars who defend “unlimited atonement” also think that believers cannot lose their salvation. But a problem also arises for their interpretation. The verse seems to say that eschatological judgment will be the destiny of those who were bought by the Lord, who were members of the church, who, apparently, acknowledged Jesus Christ at some point as their Lord and Savior. The verse does not refer to people in general who are the potential beneficiaries of Christ’s death. It speaks of false teachers who were part of Peter’s church and had now rejected the gospel they first embraced. The entire discussion on limited atonement in this verse cannot be segregated from the issue of whether believers can truly apostatize. That is an issue we will face again in this chapter since Peter spoke of those who “have left the straight way” (2:15), of those who have escaped the clutches of the world through knowing Christ but have subsequently been entangled and conquered by the world again (2:20), of those who have known the way of righteousness but have now turned from it (2:21). The issue raised by these verses will be discussed in 2:17–22. We must see, however, that 2:1 raises fundamentally the same question.

The easiest solution, in some ways, would be to take the verse straightforwardly. Some who submit to Christ’s lordship subsequently deny him and are therefore damned forever.19 This is now the view of most commentators, and it has the virtue of providing a lucid and uncomplicated understanding of the text. At one level the proposed interpretation is correct. Some members of the Christian community had departed from the Christian faith. The issue is whether those who are genuinely Christians can commit apostasy. Peter taught elsewhere that those who are called by God’s grace are effectually called by his own glory and excellence (2 Pet 1:3), and 1 Pet 1:5 clearly says that those who belong to God will be preserved by his power through faith so that they will possess eschatological salvation.20 When we add to this many other texts that teach that those whom God has called will never perish (e.g., Rom 8:28–39; 1 Cor 1:8–9; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23–24), it suggests that we should consider another interpretation. I would suggest that Peter used phenomenological language. In other words, he described the false teachers as believers because they made a profession of faith and gave every appearance initially of being genuine believers. Peter did not refer to those who had been outside the community of faith but to those who were part of the church and perhaps even leaders among God’s people. Their denial of Jesus Christ reveals that they did not truly belong to God, even though they professed faith. Peter said that they were bought by Jesus Christ, in the sense that they gave every indication initially of genuine faith. In every church there are members who appear to be believers and who should be accepted as believers according to the judgment of charity. As time elapses and difficulties arise, it becomes apparent that they are wolves in the flock (Acts 20:29–30), that though they called on Jesus as Lord their disobedience shows that he never knew them (Matt 7:21–23), that they are like the seed sown on rocky or thorny ground that initially bears fruit but dries up and dies when hard times come (Matt 13:20–22).

2:2 Peter turned in this verse to the impact the false teachers have on others and the consequence of that influence. He did not expect their influence to be minimal, so that everyone would recognize how inauthentic they are. Instead “many” will become devoted to them, following their unethical example. The word translated “shameful ways” by the NIV (aselgeiais) often refers to sexual sin in the New Testament (Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 4:19; probably 1 Pet 4:3; Jude 4; cf. Wis 14:26).21 The same is likely true here as well. What attracts people to these false teachers is that they advocate a licentious lifestyle, and therefore many people are only too glad to follow their example.22

The infection from the false teachers spreads to others, but it does not stop there. The unbelieving world sees the impact on the church and responds by maligning and ridiculing “the way of truth.” “The way of truth” is a reference to the gospel. The term “way” (hodos) was popular in the early church. According to Acts the early Christian movement was designated “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). The gospel is also described as “the way to be saved” (Acts 16:17), “the way of the Lord” (Acts 18:25), and “the way of God” (Acts 18:26). Peter said that the false teachers “have left the straight way … to follow the way of Balaam” (2 Pet 2:15). He remarked in 2:21 that it “would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness.” The language of the two ways also was prominent in the writings that succeeded the New Testament (e.g., Barn. 18:1–21:9; Did. 1:1–6:3). Peter’s main point was that the gospel, which he designated as the way of truth, would be maligned because of the impact of the false teachers. When unbelievers see the moral effect produced by the opponents in the lives of their followers, they will conclude that the way of truth is a way of error. They will think that any message that leads to dissolute behavior cannot be from God. Paul indicted the Jews similarly in Rom 2:24, quoting Isa 52:5. The Gentiles maligned God’s name because of the disobedience of the Jews. Christian slaves were to honor their masters so that God’s name and Christian teaching would not be criticized (1 Tim 6:1). Young believing wives were to live in a godly way so that people would not revile God’s word (Titus 2:5; cf. also 1 Thess 4:12; 1 Pet 2:12, 15; 3:16).

2:3 We saw in v. 2 that the false teachers would captivate many and thereby bring criticism on the gospel. Peter pounced on their central motive in v. 3. They were not disinterested teachers of truth, impartially and sacrificially seeking to help others. They were motivated by greed, a desire for the comforts of this life. The word translated “exploit” (emporeuomai) often in Greek literature refers to engaging in business (cf. Jas 4:13). The NIV rightly renders it “exploit” here since it is associated with the words “in greed.” These teachers were not selling a product to help their hearers. They were hawking defective goods (morally speaking) for their own financial advantage. As 2:14 says, “They are experts in greed.” We have seen two characteristics of the false teachers in vv. 2–3. They were sexually licentious and motivated by greed. These two vices often appear in the lives of false teachers. Peter said that they would exploit others with “stories they have made up.” Literally the phrase means “fabricated words” (plastois logois). The reference probably is to their teaching about the future, in which they denied the coming of the Lord and the future judgment (3:3–7). The false teachers charged the apostles with devising myths to support the Lord’s coming (1:16), but the opponents themselves distorted the truth.23 Such teaching paves the way for an immoral lifestyle that the false teachers allege will face no consequences.

What people think about judgment, of course, does not necessarily square up with reality. Peter assured his readers that the judgment would come. Probably the point is that the judgment has been planned for them for a long time (cf. Jude 4). Literally Peter said “it is not idle” (ouk argei). The false teachers should not conclude from the elapse of a long period of time that the judgment would never come (3:3–4). The next line expresses the same truth in a complementary way. The word for “destruction” (apōleia) is a common word for the consequences of the future judgment. To say that their destruction is not sleeping is to say that it will certainly come.24 The “fabricated words” will be exposed in all their hollowness on the day of judgment.

Transition:

II. The Examples of God’s Dealings - 2:4-8

2 Peter 2:4–8 (NKJV) — 4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)—

A. The Example of the Fallen Angels - 4

B. The Example of the Ancient World in Noah’s day - 5

C. The Example of Sodom and Gomorrah - 6-8

2:4 The “for” (gar) links v. 4 with v. 3b and introduces the first of three examples that illustrate God’s judgment in the past and guarantee it for the future. Hence, the judgment functions typologically. The first judgment relates to the angels whom God did not spare when they sinned. Peter differed from Jude in that he emphasized the judgment without giving specifics of the angels’ sin.27 Some scholars in the history of interpretation have identified this as the prehistoric fall of angels. It is doubtful, however, that Peter referred to this event in this particular text, even if it is a legitimate deduction theologically. Instead, we can be almost certain that Peter followed Jewish tradition at this point and referred to the sin angels committed with women in Gen 6:1–4 (1 Enoch 6–19, 21, 86–88; 106:13–17; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD 2:17–19; 1QapGen 2:1; T. Reu. 5:6–7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10–14; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.73).28 Under Jude v. 5 I have summarized more completely the Jewish tradition that identifies the sons of God in Gen 6:1–4 with angels, and I also briefly explain there why such a view is a plausible reading of Genesis 6. The sin committed by angels was sexual intercourse with the daughters of men. Three reasons support the view that Peter thought of angels who committed sexual sin in Gen 6:1–4. First, such an interpretation, as the texts above indicate, was widespread in Jewish tradition. Peter’s readers would naturally have understood the account in terms of such a tradition unless Peter indicated clearly that he was departing from the common understanding of his day. Peter gave no indication, however, that he differed from the tradition. Second, nor would such an understanding be difficult for Peter’s readers. The Greeks also had the story of the Titans, which is similar in some respects to Gen 6:1–4 (Hesiod, Theogony [713–35]). Third, Jude almost certainly understood the story of Gen 6:1–4 to refer to angels who sinned, given that he was influenced by 1 Enoch, and the account is more prominent in 1 Enoch than any other work. It is quite unlikely that Peter veered off in another direction from Jude, for regardless of the question of literary dependence, it is obvious that Jude and 2 Peter both drew from common tradition in some form.

The second half of the verse conveys the judgment experienced by the angels. The NIV says that the angels were sent to “hell.” But Peter did not use the word gehenna here, the usual word for “hell,” but the Greek verbal participle tartarōsas, from which we get our word “Tartarus.” Tartarus in Greek literature refers to the underworld, and here we have another indication that Peter desired to communicate with his readers in terms of their own idiom. The word “hell” is misleading if it suggests final punishment since the verse makes clear that the climactic judgment still awaits the angels.29 Nor does the use of the term indicate that Peter was familiar with Greek literature, for he simply employed the common currency of the day, and hence we should not conclude that Peter was necessarily familiar with Greek classics simply from the use of this word. Indeed, the word is used by other Jewish writers, so that it was even available from the Septuagint (Job 40:20; 41:24; Prov 3:16; cf. 1 Enoch 20.2; Sib. Or. 2:303; 4:186; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.240; Philo, Rewards, 152; Embassy, 103).30

The angels confined to Tartarus were confined to “gloomy dungeons.” A significant textual variant exists here between the Greek words sirois and seirais. Nestle-Aland27 prefers the latter, which could be translated “chains” or “cords.” This reading is reflected in the NRSV, which says God “committed them to chains of deepest darkness” (cf. KJV, NKJV, HCSB).31 The NIV translation favors sirois, translating it as “dungeons” (cf. RSV, NASB). The textual evidence is evenly divided, so internal evidence probably is more important. Some scholars think Peter substituted a more elegant term for Jude’s desmois (“chains”).32 But it is more likely that scribes conformed Peter’s wording to Jude’s since the texts are parallel, and seeing sirois (“pits”) they altered it to seirais (“chains”).33 In any case, the term Tartarus suggests that the angels are both confined and restrained because of their sin. The language of confinement could be interpreted literally, as if the angels are restricted to a physical locality. More likely the language is symbolic, conveying the idea that the angels who sinned are now restrained in some way because of their sin, that God has now limited their sphere of operation.34 The last phrase in the verse, “held for judgment,” conveys a similar idea. The future judgment of these angels is certain, and presently they are being kept by God for their punishment on the eschatological day. In the case of the angels, then, the punishment has two dimensions—the restriction imposed immediately as a result of their sin and the punishment they will receive on the day of the Lord’s return.

2:5 The second example of judgment is the flood that deluged the world in the time of Noah (Gen 6:5–7:24).35 The words “did not spare” are repeated from v. 4, emphasizing that the judgment was a reality and at the same time eliminating any hope that God might show mercy and relent from judging the world. Peter also referred to the judgment of the flood in 3:6, when he countered the false teachers who denied the second coming. It is evident, therefore, that the deluge was crucial for Peter’s argument against the opponents since it provided concrete evidence that God judges sin and functions as a type of the future judgment.36 One of the reasons the flood functions well as a type is that it includes the whole world. Peter used the word “world” (kosmos) twice in the verse (it is translated “people” in the second instance by the NIV). The universality of the judgment in Noah’s day functions well as a preview of the universal judgment at the end of the age. No one will be spared, or, more precisely, none of the ungodly (asebōn) will escape. The reference to the ungodly indicates that the focus is on the people who were destroyed rather than focusing on the flood as embracing the entire world.37 Perhaps, though, both ideas are intended.38

Peter did not focus only on the judgment of the wicked but also the preservation of the righteous. God is the one who preserved and protected (ephylaxen) Noah from the judgment. Peter’s lesson for his readers is evident. God will protect those who resist the enticements of the false teachers. The faithful will be vindicated by God. Noah was not alone in his righteousness, but he was preserved along with seven others—his wife, his three sons, and their wives. The Greek text actually uses the word “eighth” (ogdoon), which is conveyed in the KJV translation he “saved Noah the eighth person.” Why did Peter use the word “eighth”?39 In early church writings the number eight was considered the number of perfection since Jesus was raised on the eighth day—Sunday.40 Hence, it may be that Noah is portrayed here as the beginning of a new creation after the flood, and similarly believers are a new creation in Christ. It is unclear, however, that any New Testament writer used the number eight symbolically, nor does the context indicate such a use here.41 In 1 Pet 3:20 we see that the number eight was used to convey the idea that God’s people, though few in number, were saved by God during the flood. Since we have the same author and even the same subject, a similar conclusion should be drawn here. Even if the righteous are completely outnumbered, they will prevail because God is faithful to his people.

We are also told that Noah was “a preacher of righteousness.” The description here elicits interest because the Old Testament never informs us that Noah preached to his contemporaries. The idea that Noah entreated his generation to repent, however, is common in Jewish tradition (Josephus, Ant. 1.74; Jub. 7:20–29; Sib. Or. 1:128–29, 150–98; cf. 1 Clem 7:6; 9:4). As Josephus said, “But Noah, indignant at their conduct and viewing their counsels with displeasure, urged them to come to a better frame of mind and amend their ways” (Ant. 1.74). That Noah proclaimed God’s righteousness is a fair deduction from the Old Testament itself, since it is quite unlikely that he did not share with his contemporaries why he was building the ark. The verse is marked by duality. God did not spare the ancient world, but he protected Noah. He destroyed many people but saved a few. Noah was preserved as a preacher of righteousness, but the world of the ungodly was destroyed. Most commentators understand “righteousness” to refer to God’s justice in judging the ungodly,42 and certainly Noah proclaimed such a standard. But we have already noted that Jewish tradition also taught that Noah preached repentance. I think such an idea is implicit in “righteousness” as well. In emphasizing God’s righteous judgment of sinners, Noah also invited the people of his age to repent and to enjoy God’s forgiveness, his saving righteousness. This fits with what Peter said about God’s righteousness in 1:1, which is a gift received by believers. Those who enjoy God’s saving righteousness repented of their sins and turned to God, acknowledging his righteous judgment against them. The ungodly refuse to hear God’s word of judgment against them, insisting, as Noah’s contemporaries did, that any notion of a future condemnation is laughable. Similarly, the false teachers in the Petrine churches rejected a future judgment, maintaining that the world will continue to follow the same course (3:4). Thereby they abandoned God’s righteous standards and refused to accept his saving righteousness.

2:6 The third example of God’s judgment focuses on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Unlike Jude (v. 7), Peter did not identify the sin of the cities but directed attention to their judgment. Probably there was no need to highlight the sin since it was well known both from the Scriptures and postbiblical tradition.43 In any case, Peter emphasized the result of God’s judgment in that the cities were reduced “to ashes” (teprōsas). The Old Testament itself does not say the cities were burned to ashes, though it is a fair deduction from the fire that leveled the cities (Gen 19:23–29). It was likely a common idea that the cities turned to ashes, for Philo attests this very idea (Drunkenness 223; On the Life of Moses 2.56). Perhaps Peter brought attention to this phenomenon since it functioned as hard evidence in his day that the cities were indeed destroyed, for this theme emerged in postbiblical writings. “Evidence of their wickedness still remains: a continually smoking wasteland, plants bearing fruit that does not ripen” (Wis 10:7). Josephus said: “In fact, vestiges of the divine fire and faint traces of five cities are still visible. Still, too, may one see ashes reproduced in the fruits, which from their outward appearance would be thought edible, but on being plucked with the hand dissolve into smoke and ashes. So far are the legends about the land of Sodom borne out by ocular evidence” (J.W. 4.484–85).44 Philo made similar remarks (Abraham 141): “Even to this day there are seen in Syria monuments of the unprecedented destruction that fell upon them, in the ruins, and ashes, and sulphur, and smoke, and the dusky flame which still is sent up from the ground as of a fire smouldering beneath” (Moses 2.56).

It is difficult to know whether the word katastrophē is part of the original text. It is omitted in the NIV, but it appears in the NASB, “condemned … to destruction” (cf. also KJV, RSV, NRSV).45 Once again the textual evidence is finely balanced.46 I suspect that Metzger’s suggestion that some scribes overlooked the word katastrophē since the next word “condemned” (katekrinen) begins with the same letters (kat) is correct.47 The inclusion of the word fits with Peter’s emphasis on the results of the judgment. Perhaps Peter alluded here to the Septuagint, for Gen 19:29 says that God sent Lot away from the middle of “the destruction” (tēs katastrophēs).

Jude emphasized that the judgment of the cities forecast the fiery nature of the future judgment, but Peter stressed that God appointed the cities as an example for the ungodly still to come. The words translated “made them” probably designate God’s appointment since the verb tithēmi often has this sense in the New Testament (Matt 22:14 par.; Acts 1:7; 13:47; 20:28; Rom 4:17; 1 Cor 12:18, 28; 1 Thess 5:9; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11; Heb 1:2; 1 Pet 2:8), and it makes good sense here since Peter emphasized that God appointed the judgment of these cities to provide a picture of what is to come for the ungodly. The judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah is not merely a historical curiosity but functions as a type of what God will do in the future.48 It previews the condemnation of the false teachers of Peter’s day and those who succumbed to the influence of these teachers. The word “example” (hypodeigma; cf. Jude’s deigma in v. 6) is rightly translated “example” here instead of “pattern” or “model” (cf. Heb 8:5; 9:23).49 The word clearly means “example” in a number of texts (John 13:15; Heb 4:11; Jas 5:10), and the latter makes better sense in the context of 2 Peter.

The verse closes with another difficult textual problem. The NIV translates “an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly” (hypodeigma mellontōn asebesin). Alternatively, the Greek could be rendered “an example for those who will live in an ungodly way” (hypodeigma mellontōn asebein).50 Once again the textual evidence is evenly divided, so making a decision on external grounds is quite difficult. The reading in the NIV is preferred on internal grounds because it is slightly more likely that Peter would emphasize the judgment to come rather than the ungodly who will come. The former theme fits with the entire letter, where the certainty of the second coming and as a corollary the future judgment are taught.

2:7 Not everyone was destroyed at Sodom and Gomorrah. Just as Noah and his family were preserved during the flood, so God delivered Lot from the judgment imposed on Sodom and Gomorrah. Many readers of Genesis have wondered why Peter described Lot as righteous, for they find fault with him for living in Sodom, for being hesitant to leave, and for getting drunk with the result that his daughters had sexual relations with him (see Genesis 19).51 Writers in the postbiblical tradition thought of Lot as righteous (e.g., Wis 10:6). First Clement 11:1 confirms such an interpretation: “Because of his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from Sodom, when the entire region was judged by fire and brimstone.” Neither was Peter violating the meaning of the Old Testament. Abraham prayed in Genesis 18 that the Lord would preserve Sodom if there were even ten righteous within it. The Lord more than answered Abraham’s prayer, for he rescued from the city the one person who was righteous.52 The Judge of all the earth does not destroy the righteous along with the wicked (Gen 18:25). The narrator of Genesis, by recording the rescue of Lot, intimates that he was righteous.53 And other hints are in the narrative as well. Only Lot showed the angels hospitality when they arrived in the city (Gen 19:1–3). Lot remonstrated with the men who wanted to have sexual relations with the visitors, when he could have spared himself trouble by abandoning the angels (Gen 19:5–9). Modern readers, of course, are struck by the fact that he offered his daughters, and clearly Lot was not without fault. Nonetheless, ancient readers would have saluted his courage in trying to protect those who were in his house, a matter of great danger when the whole city was at his doorstep. Indeed, Lot’s godliness was all the more remarkable given the context in which he lived. We are prone, from the safe offices and homes in which we write and read, to criticize Lot, but most of us have never been even close to death in a conflict with others. Nor have any of us ever lived in a city like Sodom with no comrades to strengthen us in the faith. Lot wavered and doubted, but Peter addressed readers who also were wavering because of the appearance of false teachers. Just as Peter was confident that the believers he addressed would resist the opponents, so too Lot was different from the rest of Sodom. That is why the Lord rescued him. Peter informs us that Lot was oppressed by living in Sodom, that their ungodly conduct took a toll on him psychologically. The word translated “filthy” by the NIV renders the Greek word aselgeia, which often designates sexual sin (note the NASB “sensual conduct”).54

2:8 The oppression Lot experienced is expanded on in v. 8, which is connected to v. 7 by “for” (gar). Hence, the parenthesis in the NIV is justified in that v. 8 elaborates on Lot’s distress from v. 7. Peter repeated that Lot was “righteous” (dikaios), standing in stark contrast to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. The emphasis on his righteousness is also communicated by the phrase “his righteous soul.” One indication of righteousness is torment and distress over those who live unrighteously, and the main point of this verse is that Lot was so tormented. Since he lived in the midst of them, he experienced daily the distress of their “lawless deeds.” How was he aware on a regular basis of the antinomian lifestyle of such sinners? Peter informs us that he was confronted with their evil by what he saw and heard.

Transition:

III. God’s dealings - 9-11

2 Peter 2:9–11 (NKJV) — 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.

A. God’s Understanding - 9

1. The Lord knows how

2. to deliver the godly out of temptations and

3. To reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgement

B. A Comparison - 10

1. The False Prophets/Teachers

a. and especially those who walk according to the flesh

b. in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority.

c. They are presumptuous, self-willed.

d. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries,

2. The Angels

a. who are greater in power and might,

b. do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.

1, 2 Peter, Jude 2. The Certain Judgment of the Ungodly and the Preservation of the Godly (2:4–10a)

2:9 The long protasis, beginning with the “if” in 2:4, finally reaches its conclusion in the apodosis in this verse. Having given three examples of divine judgment (angels, flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah) and two of divine preservation (Noah and Lot), Peter now draws the threads together and presents a conclusion from the particular examples. The conclusion has two distinct parts. First, the Lord knows how to preserve the godly in their trials. Second, he knows how to keep the unrighteous for the future day of judgment. We will examine both of these points in order. The word “rescue” (rhyesthai) picks up the same verb that was used with reference to Lot in v. 7, and it overlaps in meaning with “protected” (ephylaxen) with reference to Noah in v. 5. The NIV uses the plural “trials,” but the external evidence supports the singular “trial” (peirasmou), though the singular is generic and thus includes the idea of many trials. The NRSV renders the original text more accurately “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials.” The word peirasmou could be rendered “temptation” (cf. Jas 1:13–14), but in this context the focus is not on internal inclinations to sin (as in James) but on external situations that are difficult and could lead to sin. In this instance the difficulty comes from the false teachers. The line between the English “temptation” and “trials” is a slender one, for they represent the same Greek word. The external situation (“trials”) may become the occasion in which believers are “tempted” internally, so perhaps we should not press the difference between the two.55 There probably is an allusion to the Lord’s Prayer, in which believers are urged to pray that the Lord would deliver them from temptation (Matt 6:13; cf. Luke 11:4; Matt 26:41). The danger in a time of trial is apostasy (Luke 8:13; 22:28). God is faithful and promises to keep his people in a time of trial (1 Cor 10:13; Rev 3:10; cf. Sir 33:1). Hence, some scholars detect a reference to the test of faith that will conclude history.56 We should not separate the final test, however, from the tests oppressing Peter’s readers at the time the letter was written, for any trial becomes an occasion in which one’s faithfulness to the Lord is tested. Thus Moo rightly says that “trial” refers to “all those challenges to faith that Christians experience in this world.”57

The parallel texts noted above are important because Peter could be understood to say that believers will not have to experience times of trial, in the sense that God will exempt them from facing any trials at all. This is most emphatically not what the text means. Both Noah and Lot lived in the midst of the wicked and were confronted by a great majority of evil people. Similarly, Peter’s readers were oppressed and tormented (like Lot) by the false teachers of their day. Peter was not promising that such teachers would be removed immediately from the scene. Nor was Peter communicating the idea that true believers never sin. His point was that those who are godly and righteous will be prevented from committing apostasy. God will guard them so that in the end they will not forsake him. We should not read this to say that the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, but some actually fall anyway. Instead, all the godly will be preserved by the Lord. He will keep them from apostasy, just as he guarded Noah and Lot so that they did not depart from him.

The second point is derived from the three examples of judgment in history. If the Lord judged the angels who sinned, the flood generation, and Sodom and Gomorrah, he will also “hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment.” The angels, the flood generation, and Sodom and Gomorrah were not judged immediately. They pursued their sin for some time before the fateful day of judgment. Hence, Peter’s readers were not to be discouraged or wonder if God is faithful simply because the false teachers were prospering. God was granting them time to repent before the end arrives (3:9). For those who do not repent, the eschatological judgment is certain. The one difficulty here is the present participle kolazomenous. The present participle might suggest that the wicked are being punished even now.58 This would fit with the example of angels who are confined before their future punishment (2:4). Intermediate punishment also seems to be taught in Luke 16:23–24 (cf. 1 Enoch 22:10–11; 4 Ezra 7:79–87). The NIV adopts this interpretation by translating the participle as a present reality: the Lord keeps “the unrighteous for the day of judgment while continuing their punishment.” The wicked, on this view, are suffering punishment even now while awaiting the judgment of the final day. Though this interpretation is possible, present participles do not necessarily denote present time (cf. 2 Pet 3:11).59 Context is the decisive criterion. I think it is quite unlikely that Peter depicted the present judgment of the wicked. The false teachers in the letter gave every appearance of current prosperity.60 They may have influenced some for this very reason, for they mocked the coming of the Lord without suffering any ill consequences. Hence, it seems more likely that Peter reminded his readers of the final judgment, the day when the opponents will experience condemnation.61

2:10a The paragraph ends with two reasons that explain why the future judgment is fitting. The NIV, as usual, renders the word “flesh” (sarx) by “sinful nature.” The “corrupt desire” of the flesh followed by these men likely refers to sexual sin.62 We have already seen a reference to their sexual sin in 2:2. The sin of the angels (2:4) and Sodom and Gomorrah (2:6) included sexual deviation, and 2:7 indicates that Lot was oppressed in part by their sensual perversity. Since the opponents repudiated any future judgment, they lived dissolute lives sexually, without any thought of a reckoning on the last day.63 The second sin of the teachers is that they “despise authority,” which is close to Jude’s statement that they “reject authority” (v. 8). The word for “authority” here is kyriotēs. Some see a reference to angels (Eph 1:21; Col 1:16), but the singular indicates that angels probably were not intended. Even less likely is the idea that the reference is human authorities, whether leaders in the churches or governmental officials.64 Probably the focus is on Christ’s sovereignty and authority that is rejected by the adversaries, but by refusing to submit to Christ, they reveal their insubordination and rebelliousness in general.65 These people will not submit to anyone, being supremely confident of their intellectual ability.

Concluding Application: