Sermon Tone Analysis

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.