Untitled Sermon (9)

Introduction:

Background:

Verse 10a functions as a transition to these verses, and two reasons for the judgment declared in vv. 4–9 are identified: the sexual sin and rebelliousness of the false teachers. Moo is correct in suggesting that vv. 10b–16 unpack these two themes in reverse order—the arrogance of the teachers in vv. 10b–13a and their sensuality in vv. 13b–16.66 Actually, we should specify a third reason for the judgment: their greed for money. All three of these themes were mentioned in vv. 1–3, where the teachers denied the Lord who purchased them (v. 1), seduced others with their sensual teaching (v. 2), and exploited others with their covetousness (v. 3). The focus on the same three sins in 2:10–16 demonstrates that the argument of 2:1–16 falls into an A B A pattern.

A The sins of the false teachers recounted: 2:1–3

B Therefore the teachers will be judged: 2:4–10

A´ The sins of the false teachers elaborated: 2:10–16

The detailing of the false teachers’ sins provides reasons why the judgment of 2:4–10 is justified. Neither should we collapse 2:1–3 and 2:10b–16 as if the arguments are identical in every respect. Second Peter 2:1–3 focuses on the adverse affect the false teachers had on others, while 2:10b–16 zeroes in on the evil of the teachers, without noting their influence on others. Verses 10b–16 are more graphic and descriptive, so that the readers had no doubt of the evil of the false teachers.

The verses are also effective rhetorically, something that is more difficult to detect in English. The argument of vv. 10–12 is carried along by the words blasphēmountes (“slander,” v. 10), blasphēmon (“slanderous,” v. 11), and blasphēmountes (“blaspheme,” v. 12). In v. 12 words of destruction are featured: phthoran (“destroyed”), phthora (omitted in NIV), phtharēsontai (“perish”). The parallels are easily missed since the NIV translates the first use of the noun phthora as “killed.” In v. 13 we see another play on words, which the NIV captures quite nicely, adikoumenoi misthon adikias (“They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done”). The next line contains alliteration: hēdonen hēgoumenoi tēn en hēmera (“their idea of pleasure … in broad daylight”). The word tryphēn (“carouse”) has a cognate later in the verse, entryphōntes (“reveling,” v. 13). The exact phrase misthon adikias is used in vv. 13, 15 (“wages of wickedness”), but the duplication is missed by the NIV in v. 15 precisely because the NIV aptly translates the expression in v. 13 with a play on words in English, demonstrating that it is impossible for any English translation to communicate every nuance of the text. Finally, in v. 16 the term paraphronian (“madness”) probably plays off the term paranomias (“wrongdoing”).

Proposition:

I. The Severe Rebellion of the False Teachers (2:10b-12)

2 Peter 2:10b–12 (NKJV) — 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption,

2:10b The rebelliousness of the false teachers is communicated with the two terms: “bold” (tolmētai) and “arrogant” (authadeis).67 The two words overlap in meaning—the former occurring in both Philo (Joseph, 222) and Josephus (J.W. 3.475), while the latter is a bit more common in the literature (Gen 49:3, 7; Prov 21:24; Titus 1:7; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.189; 4.263; 1 Clem 1:1). Together they could be translated “boldly arrogant.”68 The false teachers were blessed with an extraordinary confidence, but unfortunately this confidence was not leavened with wisdom or humility.

The arrogance of the false teachers is reflected in that they were “not afraid to slander celestial beings.” Literally, “they do not tremble” (tremousin) in slandering “glories” (doxas). The NIV provides an interpretation here since the word “glories” could refer to human beings—either church leaders or civil authorities (cf. Ps 149:8; Isa 3:5; 23:8; Nah 3:10; 1QpHab 4:2; 4QpNah 2:9; 3:9; 4:4; 1QM 14:11).69 It seems more likely that angels are designated as glorious beings (Exod 15:11, LXX; T. Jud. 25:2; T. Levi 18:5; 1QH 10:8). We might also think that the reference is to good angels since describing evil angels as “glories” seems inappropriate. Nevertheless, the context suggests that evil angels are indeed in view, as will be argued from the next verse.70

2:11 Verse 11 functions as a contrast with v. 10. The false teachers, as suggested above, had no fear in reviling evil angels. But good angels, on the other hand, even though they were “stronger and more powerful” than evil angels, did not venture to utter a negative judgment from the Lord against these evil angels. The verse could be construed quite differently. We could read it to say that angels that are “stronger and more powerful” than the false teachers do not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment against these false teachers before the Lord. But this latter interpretation is improbable for several reasons.71 First, it is obvious that angels are stronger than false teachers, and so this scarcely needs to be said in this instance. Conversely, we can understand why Peter might have wanted to say that good angels are superior in strength to evil angels since the latter share angelic status. Second, the idea of angels pronouncing a judgment against the false teachers does not seem to fit well in the context. Why would the angels have any role whatsoever in a judgment against the false teachers? Nothing in the context prepares us for this notion. Indeed, the Scriptures teach that human beings will judge angels, not vice versa (1 Cor 6:3). Third, the most natural antecedent from v. 10 is “glories.” It seems most sensible if we are told that angels are stronger than the glories just mentioned at the end of v. 10 instead of the antecedent being the false teachers who sneer at the “glories.”72 Fourth, the parallel from Jude points us in the same direction. There Michael did not dare to pronounce judgment against the devil on his own authority. Similarly, Peter argued the same thesis, though he broadened the point. Good angels do not venture to announce judgment over evil angels. They leave such judgment to the Lord. It is difficult to believe that Peter and Jude, since their texts are so similar here, would communicate different ideas. Finally, an interesting, though inexact, parallel exists in 1 Enoch 9, where human beings lament the evil brought on them by fallen angels. The good angels in response do not act directly to assist humans but commend the matter to the Lord.73

In conclusion, the false teachers did not fear demonic powers. Peter called them “glories,” not because they were good but simply because they were created by God himself, even though subsequently they fell into sin. Perhaps the teachers did not tremble before them because they disbelieved in their existence. This would fit nicely with the skeptical worldview they adopted about the coming of the Lord (3:3–7). Or they may have ridiculed any idea that human beings should be frightened about the power of spiritual beings. Bauckham and Moo suggest that the teachers ridiculed the notion that their sins would make them the prey of evil angels.74 By way of contrast, good angels do not even declare God’s judgment against evil angels. They leave it with the Lord. The prepositional phrase in Greek may mean, as the NIV translates, “in the presence of the Lord.”75 In this case, however, the NRSV has a more fitting translation, “from the Lord.” The angels do not venture to declare a judgment from the Lord, but they entrust the fate of demons to the Lord’s judgment.

2:12 The false teachers prided themselves on their insight and wisdom, thinking that not trembling before evil angels is one manifestation of their understanding (v. 10b). In contrast (de, “But,” NIV) to their high estimate of themselves, Peter compared them to “irrational animals” (NRSV, aloga zōa), rendered by the NIV “brute beasts.” In the Greek text Peter began the verse by stressing their irrationality, but the NIV reverses the order and places the statement on blaspheming first. I will follow the order of the Greek here. The irrationality of the teachers is emphasized in the phrase “creatures of instinct” (zōa … physika).76 Like animals, the opponents operated on the basis of desires and feelings instead of reason. Peter considered the fate of animals that are hunted. They are born to be captured and destroyed by human beings. The false teachers were comparable to animals since the latter are bereft of rationality. The teachers believed they were reasonable, but they displayed their foolishness in criticizing what they did not comprehend. The phrase en hois is translated by the NIV as “in matters,” referring to the things the opponents did not grasp. Bauckham suggests that en hois refers to the “glories” of v. 10, so that Peter continued to emphasize their incomprehension of demonic powers.77 This seems unlikely. The autōn (“their”) in v. 11 is the last reference to the “glories,” and it is quite distant from en hois. Furthermore, we would expect an accusative if the reference were to angels, and en hois is used elsewhere in a general sense (e.g., Phil 4:11; 2 Tim 3:14). In saying that the adversaries reviled what they did not comprehend, demons, of course, are included. The statement is general, however, and applies to other matters as well.

The verse concludes by identifying the fate of the opponents with the fate of animals. The NIV translates this “and like beasts they too will perish.” The idea is correct, but the repetition of the noun phthora (“destruction”) is omitted, so that its connection with phtharēsontai (“will perish”) is lacking. The NRSV, in this respect, is preferable in its rendering, “When those creatures are destroyed, they also will be destroyed.”78 Bauckham understands the verse differently, arguing that the false teachers would be destroyed and judged when demons perish.79 He understands the pronoun “their” (autōn) to refer back to hois, which in turn he relates to the noun “glories” (doxas). We have already seen, however, that the NIV rightly renders en hois “in matters.” Furthermore, the most natural antecedent of “their” (autōn) is “beasts” (zōa), not the angelic glories. So the NIV has the basic meaning correct. The false teachers would experience destruction, just as animals are eventually captured and destroyed.80 The fate of hunted animals is a picture of the fate of the wicked. When we analyze the destiny of animals and the false teachers more closely, we see that the NIV is preferable to the NRSV on another point. It is possible that the verse means that the opponents will perish “when” (NRSV) animals do. But this is an unlikely reading, for Peter thought of the final judgment, which has not yet occurred and will not happen until the second coming. The NIV captures the sense of the verse in comparing the fate of the teachers and animals. Their destiny is similar, but not at the same time.81 Peter could not go long without emphasizing that the opponents will be judged for their ungodliness.

II. The Severe Sensuality of the False Teachers (2:13-14)

2 Peter 2:13–14 (NKJV) — 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children.

2:13 Verse 12 concludes with an assertion that the opponents would face judgment and destruction. A string of participles and adjectives explain why they will be judged—the NIV smooths out the Greek here by using a number of brief sentences. Peter began with a wordplay, “They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done” (adikoumenoi misthon adikias). Literally the phrase can be translated “being harmed for an unrighteous wage.” It is difficult to make sense out of the phrase, and we are not surprised to learn that a number of manuscripts, especially the majority text, read “receiving” (komioumenoi) instead of “being injured” (adikoumenoi).82 The variant reading is attractive because the meaning of the phrase is clarified. Nevertheless, the reading represented in the NIV is to be preferred as the difficult reading, and scribes who changed the text failed to see the play on words.83 We could understand Peter to have been saying that the teachers would not enjoy the profits gained by their evil actions.84 But the pun suggests another interpretation. Peter simply said in a colorful way that the teachers would reap what they sowed.85 Those who live unrighteously will be injured by God at the last judgment. We have here the standard Jewish teaching that judgment is according to works, that people will get what they deserve.

The theme of sensuality emerges in the next clause. The opponents were so consumed by and fascinated with evil that they could not even wait until dark, the time when evil is typically practiced (cf. Rom 13:12–13). Ecclesiastes 10:16 says, “Woe to you, O land whose king was a servant and whose princes feast in the morning.” Similarly, we read in Isa 5:11, “Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine.” They make evil an all day affair and even use the daytime, the period when ordinary people work, to indulge in their pleasures (see also T. Mos. 7:4). As members of the church the opponents were “blots and blemishes” (spiloi kai mōmoi). Jude said the intruders were “hidden reefs” (spilades, Jude 12) in the congregation, whereas Peter emphasized that they stained and defiled the church. At the conclusion of the letter Peter exhorted his readers to be precisely the opposite of the teachers; instead of being “blots and blemishes,” they should be “spotless” (aspiloi) and “blameless” (amōmētoi) before God (2 Pet 3:14). Apparently the opponents were blemishes in terms of their sensuality. For Peter returned to their passion for pleasure, framing “blots and blemishes” (2:13) with “carouse” (tryphēn) on one side and “reveling” (entryphōntes) on the other. The NIV translates the text “reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.” Literally, the Greek reads “reveling in their deceitfulness [apatais] while they feast with you.” The NIV understands “deceitfulness” probably in terms of deceitful pleasures. The word “deceitfulness” is somewhat surprising, especially when we compare Peter with Jude, for the latter referred to hidden reefs “in your love feasts” (agapais, Jude 12). Furthermore, both Peter and Jude immediately referred to eating with other believers (syneuōchoumenoi).86 A number of manuscripts in Peter, in fact, have the term “love feasts” instead of “deceitfulness.” The insertion of “love feasts” is clearly an example of assimilation from Jude. Peter engaged again in wordplay, since he did not believe the behavior of the teachers was worthy of the appellation “love feasts.” Hence, he identified their participation as “deceitfulness.” When they ate together with other believers, presumably in meals that culminate in the Lord’s Supper, they were deceitfully pursuing their own pleasures rather than seeking the good of others.

14 While 2 Peter does not say it explicitly, part of the agenda of these teachers at the celebrations of the Lord’s Supper may have been the women (although we would not want to rule out self-indulgent eating, for that went on in Corinth, although for other reasons, as 1 Corinthians 11 shows), since his next charge is that they have “eyes full of adultery.” Whether the context is the Lord’s Supper or not, our author’s point is that these men are not safe. The expression itself is possibly a play on a saying found in Plutarch, Moralia 528E, in which, using a play on words, the shameless person does not have pupils in his eyes but prostitutes,47 while the virtuous sees the purity of womanhood. Whether or not this or a similar expression is in our author’s mind, he clearly views these teachers as sexual predators and thus unsafe for the community, for they are compulsive.48 Yet he does not dwell on this charge, instead adding that they “seduce the unstable,” a charge that he expresses using a verb found in biblical literature only in this chapter (2:14, 18) and in Jas 1:14. The idea of seduction is that of being drawn away from what one should be doing by something that one views as attractive—originally the term indicated attraction by a bait—but this attraction is appealing only to the unstable, for the stable should in 2 Peter’s eyes see through the ruse.

Again our author does not answer our question as to whether this seduction is a seduction to join them in adultery or to other forms of libertine behavior. Instead he hurries on to what is likely a more major concern, “they are experts in greed.” A more formally equivalent translation is more vivid: “they have hearts exercised/trained in greed.” The unstable whom they seduce are not “trained” enough in the faith, but these teachers are trained, stable individuals. However, their training is in greed. They will happily exploit those whom they have seduced from the truth. One is reminded of a man who lured a woman away from her husband only to live off her wages, which meant that she had to slave at multiple jobs to support them. Clearly this exasperates our author. He interjects a Hebraism, “cursed children.” This expression is literally “children of cursing,” similar to expressions found in Isa 57:4 (“children of destruction”); Hos 10:9 (“children of wrongdoing”); Eph 2:3 (“children of wrath”); 5:8 (“children of light”); 1 Pet 1:14 (“children of obedience”); Barn. 7:1 (“children of gladness”).49 The point is that these individuals are subject to divine judgment (“cursing”), a thought interjected with intense emotion. Our author is a pastor, and he is upset by what he sees happening to unstable individuals in the community.

III. The Severe Old Testament Association Of False Teachers

(2:15-16)

2 Peter 2:15–16 (NKJV) — 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.

15 Having already mentioned the greed of the teachers he is attacking, 2 Peter now discusses this charge in a fuller form, using the negative example of Balaam, which he extracts from Jude 11 as the only one of the three individuals mentioned there (the other two are Cain and Korah) and whose main sin was greed. The constant theme in the charges against the teachers is that they once knew better than to do what they are doing. It is not that they have acted in ignorance, but that they have “left the straight way and wandered off.” The idea of wandering (eplanēthēsan) is taken from Jude 11, where the reference is to Balaam’s error (planē), but the image also reflects the imagery of the Hebrew Scriptures. The “straight way” is mentioned in the Greek translation of 1 Kings 12:23; Ps 106:7; Prov 2:13, 16; Isa 33:15; Hos 14:10, while the idea of wandering from it is referred to in Deut 11:28; Wisd 5:6.50 The two ideas fall together in Prov 2:13, which speaks of people “who leave the straight paths to walk in dark ways.” Naturally many Jewish writers used similar imagery. For our purposes the most interesting use is in a saying of Jesus, who reverses the image in that the way of life is not straight or easy (Matt 7:13), but is still a road to be traveled and from which one should not turn. Similarly, Acts 13:10 refers to twisting the way of God (“Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?”). These teachers castigated by 2 Peter have left the right way (meaning, way of life) to go in another way, so one has the contrast of departing from following Jesus with starting to follow someone or something else. The apostolic group may not have followed “myths” (1:16, the other use of the term for following in 2 Peter), but these people have followed Balaam.51

Balaam is known well enough from the Hebrew Scriptures (Num 22–24; 31:8, 16; Deut 23:4–5; Josh 13:22; 24:9–10; Neh 13:2; Mic 6:5) and by the time of the NT he had become proverbial (e.g., Rev 2:14). The point being made here as in Jude is that “he loved the wages of wickedness.”52 In saying that Balaam “loved” the “wages of wickedness” 2 Peter has amplified Jude, for Jude mentions only an error for “wages,” and here we are told that Balaam “loved” (one of the negative uses of agapē) the “wages of wickedness.” In saying this both Jude and 2 Peter reflect the type of traditions that we find in later rabbinic reflection on Balaam.53 The rabbis also argued that Balaam had received his “wages,” “They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites paid him his full salary, and did not deprive him because he had come to give them [the Moabites] counsel” (Sifré Numbers 157 on Num 31:8; see also Num. R. 22.4).

16 This behavior of Balaam was irrational, and the crowning touch was his being rebuked by an irrational beast. In writing this, 2 Peter is probably following the Targumic tradition, for in the version of the narrative in the Hebrew Scriptures (Num 22:21–35) Balaam’s animal only complains of mistreatment and reasons with the prophet as to whether his treatment of his beast was justified. In Numbers it is the angel who rebukes Balaam for his behavior. In three Targumim (Pseudo-Jonathan/Yerushalmi, Neofiti, and Fragment Targum) the donkey is the one who rebukes Balaam.54 The allusion to these expansions of the text serves a double purpose. On the one hand, it means that the prophet was warned about his “madness”/“foolishness” (both Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan on Num 22:30 refer to him as “foolish,” while Philo, De mutatione nominum 203, speaks of Balaam as being “overthrown by his own insane wickedness, and having received many wounds, he perished amid the heaps of wounded”), and, on the other hand, it indicates that this was done by an animal that is by nature speechless (animals were considered dumb or speechless because they did not possess articulate speech) and thus by a subhuman creature, which made it a humiliation. The teachers 2 Peter opposes were, according to him, “unthinking animals.” Thus they are also like Balaam, who was rebuked by a dumb animal, which is perhaps one step lower than being such an animal oneself. They have “eyes full of adultery,” and Balaam counseled sexual entrapment. The parallels are striking. And the implication is that just as Balaam perished in the divine judgment on Midian (Num 31:8),55 along with those he persuaded to act immorally (Num 31:15–17), so these teachers will perish when the judgment of God falls upon them.

17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”