Frank G. Carver Search ⌕

Book Chapter

Chapter 3 False Teachers 2:1-22 2 Peter

2 Peter 2:1-22 · 2 Peter 1:16-2:3 · 2 Peter 2:1 · 2 Peter 2:2 · 2 Peter 2:3 · 2 Peter 2:10-12

This document contains scholarly commentary and structural analysis regarding 2 Peter 2:1-22, focusing on the emergence and characteristics of false teachers. The text examines the historical occasion of the epistle, noting the threat false teachers posed to the faith of believers. It explores the literary relationship between 2 Peter and Jude, discussing parallels in their descriptions of immoral, greedy, and blasphemous teachers, as well as the scholarly debate regarding literary dependence. The author provides a structural analysis of 2 Peter 1:16–2:3, citing Bauckham's chiastic structure, and compares the false teachers of the second epistle to the false prophets of the Old Testament. Additionally, the text includes a sidebar from Green (1987) discussing the practical application of Peter's warnings to contemporary readers regarding various moral temptations.

III. False Teachers and their Teaching: 2:1-22 Behind the Text The occasion that prompted the writing of 2 Peter is the emergence of false teachers who threaten the faith of true believers. In ch 1, Peter clarifies that the essence of the gospel (that is, true saving knowledge) consists of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ that is exemplified in a life of godliness and virtue. After establishing the fact that the true foundation of saving knowledge (and the belief in the Second Coming of Christ, which is apparently one of the main targets of the false teachers’ attack) is based upon the reliability of apostolic eyewitness accounts as well as upon the reliability of the prophetic words of Scripture, Peter turns his attention in ch 2 to the false teachers and their teaching. Many scholars have noted the close parallelism between the writings of Jude and 2 Peter. This parallelism is especially visible in the description of the false teachers and their teaching in ch 2. For instance, both epistles describe the false teachers in the following ways: 1) The false teachers are advocates of immorality, and are themselves immoral (2 Pet 2:2, 13-14, 19; Jude 4, 8), 2) They put forth boastful and extravagant claims (2 Pet 2:18; Jude 16), 3) They are greedy for gain (2 Pet 2:14; Jude 16), 4) They blaspheme angelic beings (2 Pet 2:10-12; Jude 8-10), 5) They are doomed to destruction (2 Pet 2:1, 3, 9, 12; Jude 11, 13)(Barker 1969, 355-356). In addition to these descriptions, the similarities often stretch to the use of unusual words, striking metaphors, and similar OT illustrations, such as references to Sodom and Gomorrah and the prophet Balaam. Because of these parallels, many scholars have concluded that one of the letters is dependent upon the other, with the majority of scholars asserting that 2 Peter is dependent upon Jude. Despite the apparent parallelism between 2 Peter and Jude, it is very striking that there is relatively little verbal agreement between the letters. While there are several theories that attempt to account for the similarities between 2 Peter and Jude, there is not enough positive evidence to draw any firm conclusions about the literary dependence (if any) between the two writings. For more discussion on this topic, see the Introduction. The focus of ch 2 is upon the false teachers and their teaching. In the first section the false teachers are described (2:1-3). Then Peter looks at the fate of the ungodly and the rescue of the righteous (2:4-10a). Finally, Peter condemns the character and the behavior of the false teachers (2:10b-22). A. False Teachers Described (2:1-3) Behind the Text One of the characteristics of 2 Peter is the way that the letter moves smoothly and seamlessly from one topic to the next. Thus, the discussion of the false teachers in ch 2 is closely linked to the last verses of ch 1. In 1:16-2:3, Bauckham (1983, 236) observes the following chiastic (or envelop) structure: A Apostles (1:16-18) B OT prophets (1:19-21) B’ OT false prophets (2:1a) A’ False teachers (2:1b-3) This structure is strengthened by the repetition of the idea of “fabricated stories” in 1:16 and 2:3. This careful construction allows Peter to draw both comparisons and contrasts between the apostles, who are falsely accused of using cleverly invented stories (1:16), and the false teachers, who actually use stories they have made up (2:3) to exploit the Christian faith. Moreover, as Green (1987, 104) observes, the literary structure of these verses “enables Peter to move from defense against the charges of the opposition into attack.” In the Text ■ 1 Even though the word of the OT prophets is reliable, Peter reminds his readers that there were also false prophets among the people during OT times. This is the reason why Peter urges his readers to pay attention (1:19) to the prophetic word. Even during OT times when legitimate prophets were speaking from God while being carried along by the Holy Spirit (1:21), there were also false prophets (pseudoprophētai) who claimed to be speaking for God but were really advancing their own ideas and thoughts. Bauckham (1983, 238) notes that there are three prominent characteristics that OT false prophets commonly shared: 1) they did not speak with divine authority, 2) their message was frequently filled with “good news” of peace and prosperity in contrast to the prophecies of future judgment by the true prophets, 3) they were condemned to punishment by God. Peter applies all three characteristics to the false teachers that he denounces. Just as there were false prophets in OT times, there will be false teachers among you. Unlike the apostles, the false teachers do not speak with divine authority. Like the false prophets of old, these false teachers scorn the idea of a judgment to come (3:3-10). And like the false prophets, they will also be condemned by God (2:13, 20). It is noteworthy that Peter calls his opponents false teachers instead of false prophets. While it is possible that Peter simply uses these two terms interchangeably (Bigg 1905, 271), it seems more probable that the change in terms denotes the fact that Peter’s opponents did not specifically claim prophetic inspiration for their teaching. Nonetheless, as false teachers they bring swift destruction on themselves because they secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them. Many scholars have pointed out Peter’s use of the future tense in these verses: “there will be false teachers among you.” Some scholars interpret the use of the future tense as a verification of their conclusion that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous letter. For instance, Bauckham writes, “The future tense is used, of course, because although the author is referring to a reality of his own time, he is writing in the person of Peter, and so, as was appropriate in a testament, he represents Peter as prophesying the advent of false teachers after his death” (1983, 239). But this is not a requisite conclusion. In fact, Peter oscillates between the usage of present and future tenses throughout his letter (see also 2 Thes 2:3, 7 and 2 Tim 3:1, 5). In 2:1 and 3:3, the arrival of false teachers is spoken of as future; but in other places the false teachers are portrayed as already present (2:11, 17, 20; 3:5). Green points out that “the combination of future and present is intended to stress the correspondence between prophecy and event” (1987, 104, n. 1). Indeed, both the OT prophets (e.g., Deut 12:2-6) and Jesus himself (e.g., Matt 24:24) predicted the threat of false teachers among believers. With the use of both the future and the present tenses, Peter emphasizes that there always have been and always will be false teachers among the people of God, just as Jesus and the OT prophets foretold. Thus, the usage of the future tense is not necessarily an inevitable mark of a pseudonymous author, but it is more likely a literary technique of Peter to his readers. By reminding them of these predictions, Peter would help his readers not to be surprised by the appearance of false teaching within their community (Moo 1996, 92). Peter describes the false teachers as secretly introducing destructive heresies. The verb translated will secretly introduce (pareisaxousin) means literally, “to bring in alongside,” but in its Greek usage, it always carries a connotation of something underhanded or secret. Thus, the false teachers do not openly and publicly oppose the teaching of the apostles, but they work behind the scenes in a secret and devious way. The translation destructive heresies (haireseis apōleias) may be a bit misleading, even though it is a literal translation of the Greek text. The word heresies (plural of hairesis) was not used in a technical sense for the deviation from orthodox teaching until the beginning of the second century (Ignatius, Trallians, vi). Literally, the word hairesis refers to “a private, unauthorized school or party” (Verbrugge 2000, 21). Thus, the translation “destructive opinions” (NRSV) may be a more accurate translation. Nonetheless, the fact that these “opinions” are described as destructive underscores Peter’s point that those who teach and follow this path will bring destruction and condemnation upon themselves. The effect of this destructive teaching is that they were even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them. The Greek word that is translated here as sovereign Lord (despotēs) is only applied to God or Christ four other times in the NT (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Jude 4; Rev 6:10). Literally, the word means “Master,” and it “typically refers either to the head of the household, who has absolute rights over his family and slaves (2 Tim 2:21; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18) or to a ruler with sovereign power, such as the Roman emperors” (Neyrey 1993, 191). Since Jesus is described here as the Master who bought them, the image that Peter obviously has in mind here is that of the head of the household and his slaves. NT writers sometimes speak of Christ as purchasing the freedom of his followers, often at the price of his blood (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Rev 5:9; 14:3-4). While Peter does not clarify how Christ bought them (that is, his followers) nor what price was paid, it is very clear that this is an allusion to Christ’s death on the cross (and subsequent resurrection) for the redemption and salvation of sinners. Despite the fact that Christ bought them and they claim to be believers, the false teachers deny the Lord. But how precisely do the false teachers deny the Lord? There are two possibilities: 1) The false teachers deny the Lord through their skeptical denial of Christ’s Second Coming, or 2) The false teachers deny the Lord by teaching and practicing immorality. The latter is more probable because it fits the context better. The following verse describes the immorality (shameful ways) of the false teachers. Thus, by disobeying the command of their sovereign Lord who bought them to live godly lives, the false teachers implicitly deny the Lord through their shameful ways. In this way, they bring swift destruction on themselves. There is an undeniable sense of tragic irony in this passage. The false teachers proclaimed a freedom from destruction (2:19), they scoffed at the Second Coming of Christ (3:3), and they gave themselves to immoral and shameful ways (2:2). As a result, they will face sure and swift destruction for their immoral way of life at the very day of Christ’s Return that they so vigorously denied. [Begin Sidebar] Liberty and Obligation Green aptly observes that Christ’s atoning death and resurrection includes both liberty and obligation for the believer. He writes, Now these false teachers understood, no doubt, the liberation afforded by the cross of Christ; liberty was one of their war-cries (2:19). But they did not recognize the obligation of holy living imposed by the Crucified. By their lives they denied the Lord who bought them. Christianity is, indeed, a religion of liberty; but it also demands loving bondservice to Jesus the Redeemer. (Green 1987, 106) [End Sidebar] ■ 2-3 After describing the false teachers in v 1, Peter identifies the motive, the method, the effect, and the end result of the false teachers in vv 2-3 (Hillyer 1992, 183-184). The motive of the false teachers is greed (v 3). The word greed (pleonexia) comes from a word group that “means first a. ‘having more’ ..., then b. ‘receiving more,’ and finally c. ‘wanting more’” (Delling 1968, 274). In the NT, this word “is always used in a bad sense and depicts an insatiable craving and grasping for more of that to which one does not have a just right” (Hiebert 1984a, 262). Later in ch 2, Peter uses the same word to describe these teachers as “experts in greed” (v 14). Like Balaam, they “love the wages of wickedness” (v 15). The NT confirms that Christian teachers have the right to financial support (1 Cor 9:1-14; Gal 6:6; 1 Tim 5:17-18), but, as Peter points out in his first letter, they should not be motivated by financial gain (1 Pet 5:2). In contrast to true teachers of God, the false teachers are motivated by greed. The method of the false teachers is to exploit you with stories they have made up (v 3). The word translated exploit (emporeusontai) comes from a commercial background and means literally “make money out of.” With this turn of a phrase, Peter turns the accusations of the false teachers back onto themselves. Whereas the false teachers claim that the Second Coming of Christ is based merely on cleverly invented stories (1:16), Peter proclaims that it is the false teachers who have concocted fanciful stories, and that the purpose of these stories is only to exploit (or literally “cash in on”) the support of their deluded followers. Delling (1968, 272) suggests that there is an apparent pun that Peter intends with the usage of the word exploit. Whereas the false teachers had been bought (2:1) through Christ’s unselfish act of love on the cross, they are now greedily trying to “make money out of” (or exploit) other believers through their cleverly invented stories. Unlike the sovereign Lord they claim to follow, their motive and method are utterly and despicably mercenary. The effect of the false teachers is disastrous. Peter notes that the popularity of the false teaching is undeniable, and many will follow the shameful ways of the false teachers. Unfortunately, there always seem to be some believers who are attracted to new and different teachings, especially if those teachings tiptoe around the requirements of a moral lifestyle and the accountability of believers to a holy and righteous God. But believers should not confuse popularity with reality. Because of the popular, but immoral, teaching of the false teachers, the way of truth will be brought into disrepute. Although the expression the way of truth does not appear elsewhere in the NT, the description of the Christian faith as “The Way” was common in early Christian writings. The disciples of Jesus not only followed the way (hodos) of Jesus, but the Christian movement itself came to be known as “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:19, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 24). Paul often describes the Christian way of life with the metaphor of “walking” (Gal 5:16; Rom 6:4; 13:13; 14:15; Phil 3:17; 1 Thes 2:12), which, as Neyrey points out, “implies that disciples walk in a certain way” (1993, 192). Peter is fond of the term the way, and he contrasts the authentic teachings of the Christian faith—which he describes as the way of truth (2:2), the straight way (2:15), and the way of righteousness (2:21)—with the false teachings of his opponents, which he describes as the way of Balaam (2:15) that is motivated by greed. Unlike the true teachings of Christianity, which lead to truth and righteousness, the teachings of the false teachers lead to shameful ways. Since the way of truth is depicted by a pure moral life filled with all virtue (see 1:4-7), the immoral and shameful ways of the false teachers demonstrate that they are actually denying the Sovereign Lord who bought them. As a result, the Christian faith is brought into disrepute (blasphēmēthēsetai; literally, “will be blasphemed”). Despite the popularity of the false teachers at the present time, the end result of the false teaching of Peter’s opponents will be their inevitable condemnation and destruction (v 3). Peter affirms that the condemnation of the false teachers has long been hanging over them (ouk argei; literally, “is not idle”), and their destruction has not been sleeping. Looking ahead to 3:9, Neyrey (1980, 415) is probably correct with his suggestion that Peter’s words in v 3 here are “already rejecting the opponents’ slur on delayed judgment (‘judgment is idle; destruction naps’).” Despite the appearance to the contrary, the annihilation of the false teachers is inevitable. The certainty of their doom is heightened by the threefold repetition of the word destruction (apōleia) in these first three verses of ch 2. Peter strongly affirms that those who lead others to destruction by means of the introduction of destructive heresies are inevitably doomed to a certain and impending destruction themselves. From the Text In 2:1 Peter describes the false teachers as denying the sovereign Lord who bought them. The Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (i.e. eternal security) is based upon the idea of limited atonement. That is to say, it is the belief that the salvational effects of the death and resurrection of Christ are limited to only those certain individuals whom God predestined to be saved through Christ’s death. Within the framework of this doctrine, Christ’s atonement is limited to those specific individuals whom Christ “bought” through his death on the cross, and these individuals are eternally secure. This doctrine is often referred to in everyday language as “once saved, always saved.” But Peter’s words in 2:1 do not support this teaching. Peter describes the false teachers as denying the sovereign Lord who bought them. The language of this phrase makes it very evident that Christ “bought” (that is, died on the cross) for these false teachers who, although they claimed to be Christians, denied Christ and were heading for destruction. In his comments on 2 Peter 2:1, Wesley (1981, n.p.) notes that the Lord bought them “with his own blood. Yet these very men perish everlastingly. Therefore Christ bought even them that perish.” Despite the claims of some Calvinistic commentators to the contrary (e.g., Blum 1981b, 276-277), 2 Peter 2:1 “remains one of the strongest in support of unlimited atonement” (Chang 1985, 61). The most plain and obvious interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 includes the following: The atonement of Christ is not limited only to those individuals who will ultimately be saved. Even the false teachers who are destined for destruction are described as falling under the gracious, unlimited atonement of Christ, whereby they were bought by the sovereign Lord. However, by their immoral behavior they denied the Lord who bought them, and as a result will face eternal destruction. Christ died for all people (that is to say, his atonement is unlimited in its extent). But only those who trust in Christ for salvation and turn away from ungodliness will be saved. Peter rightfully understands that true Christianity is not simply a matter of intellectually embracing a correct doctrine. A believer also needs to adopt a morally disciplined way of life; a way which leads to life, righteousness, and truth. The truth of the beliefs that Christians accept is made known and exemplified in the way that they live their daily life. Although it may not always be immediately apparent, the way that believers live their lives is noticed by the people around them. Throughout history, there have been countless inspiring testimonies about how a small part of a true believer’s life—an act of kindness, a word of compassionate concern, an unexpected expression of sacrificial love—has influenced another person to place his or her faith and trust in Christ. But, as Watson observes, “The truth can also be maligned by the way we choose to live and can become a source of ridicule for those who have yet to accept the way of truth” (1998b, 346). All professing believers must pose the heart-searching question to themselves: Does the example of my life lead people closer to Christ or do my actions and lifestyle push other people away from Christ? Countless multitudes of people have been drawn to Christ by the upright and morally pure conduct of true Christian disciples. But how many people have rejected the Christian faith because of the poor example of unfaithful Christians? The path to destruction is marked not only by examples of false teaching, but also by misleading examples of a false Christian lifestyle. B. The Fate of the Ungodly and the Rescue of the Righteous (2:4-10a) Behind the Text Peter begins this new section with three examples of God’s judgment upon the ungodly in vv 4-6. Since the transition from v 3 (with its warning of condemnation and destruction upon the false teachers) dovetails so smoothly with the three traditional illustrations of God’s judgment in vv 4-6, some scholars suggest that v 3b should be attached to the following verses so that the new paragraph begins with v 3b (cf. Bauckham 1983, 245; Neyrey 1993, 196). However, since vv 4-10 represent a single sentence in the Greek text, it seems more appropriate to attach v 3 to the previous section of vv 1-3. But v 3 is truly transitional: it concludes the description of the false teachers in vv 1-3 and it introduces the discussion of their fate (along with the fate of the righteous) in vv 4-10. The similarity with the content of Jude should be noted once again. The same examples of the angels and Sodom and Gomorrah that are found in 2 Peter 2:4-6 are also found in Jude 5-7. However, Peter substitutes the example of the Flood for Jude’s example of the Exodus from Egypt. Moreover, Peter places his example of the Flood between Jude’s examples of the angels and Sodom and Gomorrah, so that Peter’s three examples, in contrast to the list of Jude, are represented in chronological order. Although some scholars assert that these similarities betray a dependence of 2 Peter upon the text of Jude, the changes in the chronological ordering of the list of examples and the slightly different verbal expressions of the two letters do not provide a solid foundation for this assertion of dependence. Rather, as Bauckham (1983, 246) expresses it, “There are strong indications that in vv 4-9 2 Peter is independently drawing on a paraenetic tradition similar to that which lies behind Jude 5-7.” Thus, while there are undeniable similarities in the content of 2 Peter 2:4-6 and Jude 5-7, these similarities are more indicative of a shared common tradition instead of a literary interdependence between the two writings. The structure of the argument in 2:4-10a is rather simple. Peter writes one long conditional sentence with a rather lengthy “if clause” (called the “protasis”) and a concluding “then clause” (called the “apodosis”). The “if” part of the sentence is extended with three examples of divine judgment that are coupled with two corresponding examples of divine deliverance. The cumulative weight of the lengthy examples in the first part of the sentence (vv 4-8) makes the main point of the certainty of judgment and deliverance in the second part of the sentence (v 9) all the more forceful and emphatic. The structure of vv 4-10a can be portrayed in this way: IF: v 4: God did not spare angels (negative example) v 5: God did not spare the ancient world (negative example) v 5: God protected Noah (positive example) v 6: God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (negative example) vv 7-8: God rescued Lot (positive example) THEN: v 9a: God knows how to rescue godly men (positive conclusion) vv 9b-10a: God knows how to hold the unrighteous for judgment (negative conclusion) In the Text 1. Three Examples of Judgment and Deliverance (2:4-8) After affirming the certainty of destruction for the false teachers in vv 1-3, Peter proceeds to give three negative examples of God’s impartial judgment upon the unrighteous and two corresponding positive examples of God’s gracious deliverance of the righteous. Peter bases his certainty of divine retribution and divine reward on God’s consistent action in the past. Each of these examples functions to reinforce Peter’s insistence in v 3b that God’s destructive judgment and condemnation of sin is neither idle nor asleep. ■ 4 Peter’s first example of God’s judgment upon wickedness speaks of fallen angels: For if God did not spare angels when they sinned. As mentioned previously, vv 4-10a are represented by a single long sentence in the original Greek. The protasis (the “if clause”) of the sentence is found here in v 4, but the concluding apodosis (the “then clause”) is not found until v 9. While the other two negative examples of the flood (v 5) and Sodom and Gomorrah (v 6) are well-known stories from the OT, the first example of God’s retribution on angels when they sinned does not immediately bring to mind any OT occurrence. In fact, as Moo observes, “Nowhere does the Old Testament cite an unambiguous reference to God’s judgment on angels” (1996, 101). Most scholars believe that this reference to the sin of angels is an allusion to the story in Genesis 6:1-4, in which the “sons of God” (who are understood to be “angels” in this text) lusted after and intermarried with human women. In Genesis, this sin is one of the main factors that precipitated the flood. While sexual sin seems to underlie the story of Genesis 6:1-4, other references to the episode in Jude 6 and Revelation 12:7 identify rebellion against God as the main motive. Several writers in the intertestamental period developed a story about angels who sinned and who were subsequently punished by God at the time of the flood. The most developed form of this story is found in the pseudepigraphical book entitled 1 Enoch. In 1 Enoch (10:4-12) these angels are cast into hell and confined in chains of deepest darkness until the time of the judgment for their sins. Since Peter’s description of the punishment of these angels parallels the punishment described in 1 Enoch, it seems most probable that Peter was influenced by this Jewish tradition about God’s punishment of fallen angels, as it is represented in 1 Enoch. Picking up the Jewish tradition reflected in 1 Enoch, Peter proclaims that God punished the angels and sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment. The word translated hell (tartarōsas) is actually a verb that means “to confine to Tartarus.” Tartarus was the name in classical mythology “for the subterranean abyss in which rebellious gods and other such beings, like the Titans, were punished” (Rogers and Rogers 1998, 585). The word was taken over into Hellenistic Jewish language, however, as a synonym for hell (e.g. LXX: Job 40:20; 41:24; Prov 30:16). In 1 Enoch, the word Tartarus is used to describe the awful abode of the fallen angels until the final day of their judgment and destruction (20:2). Although the translation of Tartarus as hell is appropriate in some contexts, it is perhaps a bit misleading here in 2 Peter. Similar to its usage in 1 Enoch, Peter uses the word Tartarus as a preliminary place of punishment where angels are held for judgment. Thus, in contrast to the modern perception of hell as the place of final and endless punishment, Peter uses the word Tartarus (hell) to depict a place of temporary punishment and confinement of the fallen angels until the time of their inevitable destruction and punishment at the Day of Judgment. Some translations describe God as confining the fallen angels to “chains of darkness” (KJV, NAB, NRSV) instead of gloomy dungeons (literally, “caves of darkness;” sirois zophou). The difference in translation can be attributed to a textual variant in the Greek manuscripts, by which some texts have the word seirais (“chains”) instead of sirois (“caves or pits”). The former word is found in the parallel passage of Jude 6, where the author speaks of the angels as being “bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.” The variant reading “chains” is most probably the result of a scribe familiar with Jude 6 who changed the lesser known word “caves” for the better known word “chains” in 2 Peter 2:4. Thus, the translation gloomy dungeons (NIV) or “pits of darkness” (NASB) is a better representative of the original text. Peter’s purpose in v 4 is to remind his readers that God did not spare the angels when they sinned. The point is that even angels, who enjoy a more exalted status than humankind, were not exempt from the consequences of disobeying God. If the exalted angels were not spared from punishment for their disobedience of God, then the punishment and condemnation of humans is all the more certain and inescapable when they rebel against God and disobey his will. ■ 5 The second example that Peter summons is undoubtedly the most famous story of God’s judgment in the OT; namely, the story of the flood in Noah’s day. The story of Noah and the flood is evidently a favorite of Peter, as his repeated allusions to this story in his writings reveal (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5; 3:5-6). Although the word if is not actually repeated in the Greek text, it is evident that v 5 continues the “if clause” of the conditional sentence. Connecting the first two examples with the repeated phrase did not spare, Peter reminds his readers that God not only did not spare the angels, but he also did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people. The word ungodly (asebōn) “suggests that they had no time whatever for God” (Green 1987, 110). Although Peter does not provide any description of the sins for which the people of the ancient world were guilty, the word ungodly implies their rebellion and opposition to everything associated with God. Unlike the first example of the fallen angels, the second and third negative examples “are also balanced off with the positive examples of Noah and Lot (which are not in Jude)” (Harrington 2003, 266). In contrast to the ungodly people of the ancient world who were not spared, God protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others. It is interesting that Noah is depicted here as a preacher of righteousness (dikaiosynēs kēryka), because the OT never specifically mentions anything about Noah preaching. The reference to preaching could refer to preaching activity not found in the OT but derived from Jewish tradition (e.g., Josephus, Antiquities 1.74; Sibylline Oracles 1.128-129, 148-198) or to the fact that Noah’s righteous lifestyle condemned sin and proclaimed righteousness to his ungodly contemporaries (Gen 6:9). Calvin seems to embrace both possibilities by explaining that Noah could be called a preacher of righteousness “because he labored to restore a degenerated world to a sound mind, and this not only by his teaching and godly exhortations, but also by his anxious toil in building the ark for the term of a hundred and twenty years” (1948, 398). Peter probably uses the word righteousness as a description of Noah’s preaching in order to heighten the contrast between Noah and the ungodly people among whom he lived. Unlike the ungodly people who were not spared by the flood, God protected (ephylaxen) or “preserved” Noah. Peter’s reference to Noah and seven others who were saved in the flood seems to emphasize the small number of those who were saved. In 1 Peter 3:20, Peter observes that “only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water.” Although the word “only” is not used in this passage in 2 Peter, the numerical reference to Noah and seven others probably serves the same function as in 1 Peter to underscore the small number of righteous individuals who were actually protected by God. Moo writes, “The false teachers may be attracting quite a following, and some of Peter’s readers may be discouraged about that. They need to remember that the godly are often few but that God is always faithful to preserve them” (1996, 104). In this second example, then, Peter alludes to Noah and the flood in order to reinforce the certainty of God’s retribution upon those who live disobedient and ungodly lives. Peter reminds his readers that, just as certainly as God destroyed the ungodly and preserved the righteous in Noah’s time, he would also certainly punish the immoral false teachers and their followers in the present day while he rescues his righteous followers. ■ 6 The third negative example that Peter enumerates is the condemnation of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Gen 19). In light of the fact that Peter moves from destruction by water to destruction by fire in 3:6-7, it is not so surprising that he follows the example of the flood with the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God condemned by burning them to ashes. It is striking to observe that Jesus himself paired these two disasters together in his warning about God’s sudden judgment upon frivolous people in Luke 17:26-29. Despite the similarity in the pairing of these disasters, there is little evidence of Peter’s dependence upon this teaching, since Jesus’ point in the examples is the suddenness of judgment while Peter’s point is the certainty of judgment. Jude also refers to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he goes on to specify the sins of the people (v 7), whereas Peter simply notes that the people were ungodly. Another difference between Jude and 2 Peter is the omission in Jude of any reference to the positive example of God’s deliverance of Lot (2 Pet 2:7-8). Once again, the similarities and differences between Jude and 2 Peter seem to point to a common tradition behind the two writings instead of a direct dependence of one writing upon the other. In the OT, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by raining down burning sulfur on them (Gen 19:24). Peter writes that God destroyed these cities by burning them to ashes (tephrōsas). Despite the different language, the two accounts are not contradictory, for the Genesis account describes the means of their destruction while the Petrine account describes the result of their destruction. The image of the smoldering ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah was used by many Jewish writers before Peter (e.g., Philo, Moses 2.56; Josephus, Wars of the Jews 4.483; 4 Ezra 2:9; Wis 10:7). Thus, Peter uses the well-known Hellenistic Jewish image of “burning ashes” to describe the destructive result of God’s condemnation of these two infamous cities. God did not only destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but he also made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly. The word translated example (hypodeigma) means “example, model, or even pattern” (Schlier 1964, 32-33). Hillyer observes, “In other words, there is an inevitable pattern of events: sin, unconfessed and unforsaken, will lead to judgment and destruction” (1992, 189). Peter confirms that the same thing that happened to Sodom and Gomorrah is sure to happen to the ungodly false teachers of his own time, despite their denial and scorn of any coming judgment. ■ 7-8 Like the example of the flood, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has a positive example that Peter describes in vv 7-8. Even though God destroyed the ungodly people of these two wicked cities, he rescued Lot. The word translated rescued comes from the Greek word ryomai, which originally had the meaning “to draw or to drag along the ground.” Eventually, the word developed to convey the idea of drawing or snatching from danger, so that it came to mean “to rescue or deliver.” In the NT, the word is used fifteen times, in each case with God as the deliverer. Zodhiates observes that the word is used “more with the meaning of drawing to oneself than merely rescuing from someone or something” (1992, 1265). In the midst of the godlessness of Sodom and Gomorrah, God drew Lot to himself and rescued him. Lot is described by Peter three times in these verses as a righteous man (dikaios). This is rather surprising because the stories about Lot in the OT do not use the word “righteous” to describe him. Indeed, the biblical description of Lot in Genesis is not very complimentary. Green (1987, 112) writes, “He appears simply as a man of the world (Gen 13:10-14; 19:16) who had strayed a long way from the God of his fathers. Though hospitable (19:1), he was weak (19:6), morally depraved (19:8) and drunken (19:33, 35).” According to Genesis 19:16, Lot was so reluctant to leave the sinful Sodom that he had to be positively dragged out of the city, which may have influenced Peter’s choice of the word ryomai (literally, “rescue by dragging from danger”) to describe his “rescue.” The closest the OT comes to describing Lot as righteous is the inference that Abraham’s intercession in Genesis 18:16-33 implies that he considered Lot to be righteous. It is possible that Peter’s description of Lot as righteous is borrowed from Jewish tradition (Philo, Moses 2. 58; Wis 10:6; 19:17) or that it is intended as a striking contrast in comparison to the lawless deeds and filthy lives of the sinful people of Sodom. Nonetheless, despite the fact that Lot was far from perfect, he never lost his basic orientation to the Lord. Despite Lot’s shortcomings, Peter describes Lot as distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (v 7) and tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard. For Peter’s readers who were surrounded by the distressing wickedness of their own society and confronted by the encroaching immorality represented by the depraved behavior of the false teachers within the church, it must have been an encouraging reminder that God had also rescued Lot from out of the midst of rampant sinfulness and depravity. Harrington writes, “The idea is that Lot’s moral sensitivity made his life among the Sodomites unbearable, just as the life of faithful Christians among the false teachers and those influenced by them will become unbearable” (2003, 267-268). And yet God can be trusted to rescue the righteous anyway, just as he also rescued Lot. 2. The Conclusion: The Certainty of Deliverance and Judgment (2:9-10a) ■ 9 Peter finally comes to the conclusion of his conditional sentence in v 9. If the OT has repeatedly demonstrated how God can be trusted to save the righteous and to punish the wicked, then God knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. The word for rescue (ryesthai) is the same verb that was used of Lot’s deliverance from the destruction of Sodom. The repetition of this positive verb underscores the fact that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is not only the example and pattern of what is going to happen to the ungodly (v 6), but the rescue of Lot is also the pattern of what is going to happen to the righteous. Peter’s affirmation of the deliverance of the righteous is a striking departure from the writing of Jude, which only discusses the punishment of the wicked. Peter affirms that God will rescue the righteous from trials. The word translated trials (peirasmos) is actually a singular noun, and it can mean either “trial” or “temptation.” The meaning “trial” is more appropriate for the context of this passage. Strachan explains, “The idea here is primarily of those surroundings that try a man’s fidelity and integrity, and not of the inward inducement to sin, arising from the desires” (1979, 136). God knows how to rescue godly people of any generation and in any situation from trials; that is, from testings, afflictions, and even temptations that arise from the daily exposure of living among unbelievers and from evil in the present world. Just as God had rescued Noah and Lot from out of the midst of their evil and depraved societies, so can he also be trusted to save the righteous people of future generations from the trials and constraints caused by their sinful surroundings. The examples of God’s retribution upon the fallen angels, the wicked people of Noah’s day, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah also demonstrate that God knows how to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. The last phrase while continuing their punishment (kolazomenous) has been interpreted in two different ways. Literally, the phrase seems to indicate that the wicked will undergo preliminary punishment before the last judgment. This interpretation seems to coincide with Peter’s comments in v 4, where the angels are described as suffering in “hell” (literally, Tartarus) as they await their final doom. However, this last phrase has been interpreted by others as a reference to punishment at the day of judgment. While punishment in an intermediate state might be appropriate for the fallen angels or the wicked people of Noah and Lot’s times, it is not relevant in the case of the false teachers, whom the author specifically has in mind. Although it is possible that Peter infers that an intermediate punishment of the deceased wicked might take place as they await the final judgment, his main point seems to be focused more closely upon the impending fate and doom of the false teachers. Their destruction and condemnation are certain, even though it might not be very apparent at the present time. ■ 10a After establishing the general principle of the certainty of God’s deliverance of the righteous and his annihilation of the wicked, Peter specifically points his finger at the false teachers. The certainty of punishment and destruction is especially true of those who go after flesh in a passionate longing for defilement and who despise authority. Despite their blatant and overt immorality, the false teachers have not escaped God’s control or judgment. Within the context of the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in vv 6-8, the phrase go after flesh in a passionate longing for defilement might be an allusion to the sin of sodomy or homosexuality (Green 1987, 114; Moo 1996, 107), but it would not be limited to only homosexuality. The phrase is a reference to depraved sexual sin in general. The word authority (kyriotētos; literally, “lordship”) in the last phrase who despise authority has been interpreted in several ways. It may refer to some kind of angelic hierarchy, as it does in Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16, where the same word is used. However, despite the strange accusation in v 10b that the false teachers slander celestial beings, there is very little evidence that the false teachers were interested in the different ranks of angels. Others interpret the word authority as referring to the authority of the church. Their apparent dismissal of the teachings of the apostles as cleverly invented stories (1:16) could be an example of the way that they despise the authority of the church and its leaders. A third interpretation of the word authority suggests that it refers to the lordship of Christ, whom the false teachers despise and deny (2:1). Lastly, it is also possible that the word authority carries a more general sense, so that the self-willed and rebellious false teachers despised all authority in general (Moo 1996, 108). While their denial of the Lord and their refusal to follow his instructions in their moral behavior is undoubtedly the worst example of their rejection of authority, the immediate reference to the slandering of celestial beings in v 10b and the inference that they mocked the teaching of the apostles (1:16) seem to indicate that their disdain for authority was more general in nature than simply a rejection of the Lord’s authority. Thus, the reference to their disdain for authority is probably best understood in a more general sense for their universal disregard and contempt of all authority except their own self-seeking desire. From the Text It is not difficult to find the lessons that are presented to us in this passage. As Green (1987, 115) describes it, “Peter faced a curiously modern predicament.” Namely, there were people in the church who lived sexually immoral lives, and they justified it. Mocking the traditional teachings of the church as well as the example and authority of Christ, they rejected the idea that God would bring judgment upon them for “following after their passionate desires” (v 10). What was worse, the infection of their diabolical behavior was spreading in the church. The description of the morally depraved and infectious predicament that Peter faced within his society and even within the church sounds like it could have been taken from the front pages of today’s headlines. In the next chapter, Peter will deal with the delay of the day of judgment. But in this passage, Peter underscores the fact that judgment is coming and it is certain. As in Peter’s time, our modern society flaunts sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and exhibits a blatant disregard of a virtuous and moral lifestyle. Our world scoffs at the idea of personal accountability or a day of judgment for people’s behavior with the hollow excuse that God (if he even exists) would not want to deny the fulfillment of a person’s pleasure or desires, regardless of how depraved or self-obsessed they might be. Peter reminds us along with his original readers that people cannot do this and get away with it in God’s world. It may not always seem like it, but God’s judgment of sin and sinners is certain. As Peter builds his case for the certainty of God’s judgment of sin, he reminds his readers of God’s retribution on the fallen angels as well as the wicked people of Noah and Lot’s days. The pattern of God’s destructive judgment on wickedness and sin is firmly and unavoidably established in the pages of Scripture. But alongside this dark pattern of judgment is a bright and promising pattern of God’s deliverance of anyone who, like Noah and Lot, turns to him and calls for his rescue. The certainty of the day of judgment is like a dark cloud that hovers insistently (although sometimes imperceptibly) above every human who ever lived. The justice of God may be delayed, but it cannot be avoided. But the silver lining of that dark cloud is the promise of God’s grace. As with Noah and Lot, God will rescue those who seek and follow after him. Although his description of Lot as a righteous man is somewhat surprising, there is a subtle comfort and encouragement that Peter’s selection of Lot as an example of God’s deliverance provides. As already mentioned, the OT does not portray Lot as a sterling example of what it means to be a “righteous man.” As a matter of fact, the shortcomings of Lot are well documented in the narrative of the Genesis account. But God rescued Lot anyway. Even though he was surrounded by moral decay and depravity, Lot never lost sight of the Lord. Peter says that Lot was distressed and tormented by the sinfulness around him. Despite the perverse attraction that the sinfulness of his world exerted on him (Gen 19:16), Lot turned away from his life in Sodom, and God rescued him. We could be reminded that Abraham is also connected to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham—whose trust in God was so intense that God “credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6)—had prayerfully interceded for the deliverance of Sodom and Gomorrah. Peter could have used Abraham as his example of God’s deliverance of a “righteous man” in the midst of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he didn’t. Instead, Peter used the example of the weak and often-tempted Lot. Perhaps Peter selected Lot as his example because of the ease with which his readers could identify with him. Very seldom do most believers feel like they can measure up to the standard of faith and righteousness that is exemplified by Abraham. It is much easier to identify with someone like Lot, who was distressed, tormented, and certainly even tempted by the sinfulness that surrounded him. But by the power of his own indescribable grace, God rescues godly people from their trials, just like he rescued Lot. The encouraging implication of Peter’s selection of Lot is very clear: if God could rescue Lot, he can be trusted to rescue us as well. C. The Character and Behavior of the False Teachers (2:10b-22) Behind the Text Most translations and commentators place a break in the middle of verse 10. The reason for this break is due to the fact that the first part of v 10 is a continuation of the Greek sentence that began in v 4. The second part of v 10 marks the beginning of a new sentence, which continues to the end of v 11 and begins Peter’s descriptive denunciation of the false teachers. The entire passage of 2:10b-22 consists of a string of loosely structured denunciations of the false teachers. Once again, there is a strong parallelism between the language and images of 2 Peter and Jude, especially vv 8-13, 16. Although the structure of the denunciations is rather fluid, the negative characterization of the false teachers seems to progress in the following order: 1) Their arrogance (vv 10b-12), 2) their blatant immorality (vv 13-14), 3) their greed (vv 15-16), 4) their hollow and deceptive teachings (vv 17-19), and 5) their revolting apostasy (vv 20-22). In the Text 1. Their Arrogance (2:10b-12) ■ 10b-11 Peter begins his negative characterization of the false teachers by proclaiming that they are bold and arrogant (tolmētai authadeis). Green observes that the first word “smacks of the reckless daring that defies God and man” and that the second word “is used for an obstinate fellow who is determined to please himself at all costs” (1987, 116). The words are actually very similar in meaning, but when used together, they portray the arrogant audacity of a completely self-absorbed and selfish person. The translation and meaning of the rest of vv 10b-11 are very obscure, resulting in uncertainty and division among commentators. Literally, the Greek text can be translated, Bold and arrogant, they do not fear the glorious ones while blaspheming them, whereas angels, although they are greater in strength and power, do not bring slanderous judgments against them before the Lord. The interpretation of this obscure passage depends on one’s understanding of the words glorious ones (doxas) and against them (kat’ autōn). Although some scholars have tried to interpret glorious ones (doxas) as referring to some kind of human authorities, either ecclesiastical or civil, the majority of commentators agree that the word doxas must refer to angelic beings, since v 11 does not otherwise make any sense. But glorious ones can be interpreted to mean evil angelic beings or good angelic beings. Thus, depending upon whether the glorious angelic beings are good or evil, these verses can be interpreted in two ways: 1) The false teachers are accused of insulting and blaspheming the evil fallen angels, which is something that not even the (good) angels do, or 2) The false teachers are accused of insulting and blaspheming the good angels, and this behavior is contrasted with that of the angels, who do not slander the false teachers before the Lord (Bauckham 1983, 261). Both interpretations would be acceptable and make sense of the passage. In the case of such an impasse, the parallel passage in Jude 8-9 tips the scales in favor of the first interpretation. In the passage in Jude, the false teachers are accused of slandering celestial beings, and then Jude writes, “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” Thus, as Mounce concludes, “The argument is that if the angels who did not sin withhold accusation against those who did, then there is no place for man (who is inferior in strength and power) to revile and insult the fallen angels” (1982, 131). In this way, Peter denounces the false teachers who, with arrogant impudence, rush in with their blasphemous judgments where even angels fear to tread. But what exactly were the false teachers doing? The obscurity of Peter’s language makes any specific conclusion about their “blasphemy” speculative at best. However, two suggestions merit mention. Since the false teachers appear to be very materialistic and thus skeptical of the return of Christ or a final day of judgment, Moo suggests that their “blasphemy” may have “taken a very basic form and involved a general denial of the existence of such beings” (1996, 123). The second suggestion connects the false teachers’ blasphemy of the angels more specifically to their arrogant immorality. Bauckham writes, “When they were rebuked for their immoral behavior and warned of the danger of falling into the power of the devil and sharing his condemnation, they laughed at the idea, denying that the devil could have any power over them and speaking of the powers of evil in skeptical, mocking terms” (1983, 262). The fact is that Peter does not provide enough information to know the precise nature of the false teachers’ blasphemy of the angelic beings, but their behavior is portrayed as arrogant, ignorant, and foolhardy. ■ 12 The foolhardy arrogance of the false teachers is demonstrated by the fact that they blaspheme in matters they do not understand. Although the adversative but could indicate that Peter is shifting to a different area of criticism against his opponents, the verb blaspheme connects this verse to the ongoing arrogance of the false teachers against the evil angels in 10b-11. The verb do not understand (agnoousin) is the verbal negation of the Greek word for “knowledge” (gnōsis). With the usage of this verb, Peter is probably taking a jab at the arrogant self-proclaimed “knowledge” of the false teachers. While they claim special knowledge about various spiritual matters—God, Jesus, the angels, the Christian life, the Second Coming, humankind—they are actually completely ignorant of these matters. Harrington (2003, 272) writes, “What they really ‘know’ has nothing to do with true knowledge (epignōsis) regarding God and Jesus (2 Pet 1:2, 3, 8, 12, 16).” In their ignorance, the false teachers can be compared to brute beasts (aloga zōa). Like these beasts (zōa), the teachers are “irrational” (aloga; literally, “illogical”). Furthermore, they are merely creatures of instinct (physika). The adjective physika is used “in contrast to participation in the divine nature” (1:4) and “is applied to humans in their natural state” (Verbrugge 2000, 596). Instead of thinking and behaving like true believers who have been enabled to participate in the divine nature through their saving knowledge (epignōsis) of Christ (1:3-4), the false teachers arrogantly demonstrate their ignorance by thinking and behaving like mere creatures of instinct. It is difficult to determine if Peter compares the false teachers to brute beasts primarily because of their irrational (aloga) ignorance of spiritual realities or because of their sexually immoral behavior, which seems to operate on the lowest level of basic animal instinct (physika). In fact, it seems very likely that Peter has both comparisons in mind (Moo 1996, 124). Peter’s analogy of the false teachers to brute beasts reconnects with the theme of certain destruction, which Peter began in 2:1-3. Like irrational animals, which are born only to be caught and destroyed, the false teachers like beasts will also be destroyed. Literally, this last phrase can be translated as “in their destruction they will be destroyed” (en tē phthora autōn kai phtharēsontai). Although this last phrase can be interpreted several different ways, it seems best to interpret it to mean that the false teachers will suffer a destruction that is similar (either in its suddenness and violence, or in its finality) to the slaughter of animals by hunters (Bauckham 1983, 264). 2. Their Blatant Immorality (2:13-14) ■ 13 The first part of v 13 is a transitional hinge within Peter’s string of denunciations of the false teachers. Peter adamantly asserts that they will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. On the one hand, this statement seems to reiterate the thought of Peter’s denunciation of the arrogant false teachers who are headed for destruction (v 12). On the other hand, as Peter goes on to describe the false teachers’ behavior of immoral sensuality (vv 13-14) and wicked greed (vv 15-16), this statement reminds Peter’s readers that these sinful acts will not go unpunished. Peter uses a word play with the Greek form of the word harm (adikia) in the opening phrase of v 13. Literally, this phrase can be translated, “a reward of harm for the harm they have been doing” (adikoumenoi misthon adikias). In short, Peter asserts in no uncertain terms that the false teachers have harmed others (through their false teaching and immoral behavior); as a result, the “reward” they will receive will be “harm.” As already mentioned, this phrase is a perfect transition between the certain destruction of the false teachers in v 12 and the description of the “harmful” immoral behavior of the false teachers in vv 13-14. In the following section of v 13, Peter begins his attack on the immoral life of his opponents. The verb to carouse (tryphē) is often associated in Greek writings with drunkenness and other forms of sensuality (Bauckham 1983, 265). While “carousing” (literally, “self-indulgence, debauchery”) is typically carried out under cover of darkness, the shameless and blatant nature of the false teachers’ immoral behavior is illustrated by the fact that their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. The Greek word translated pleasure (hēdonē) is the word from which the English term “hedonism” is derived. Moo (1996, 125) observes that “the Greeks numbered this kind of pleasure among their four ‘deadly sins,’ sometimes contrasting it with reason (cf. ‘unreasoning animals’ in v. 12).” The fact that their immoral activity takes place in broad daylight instead of under the concealment of darkness accentuates Peter’s portrayal of his opponents as both shameful and shameless. The behavior of the false teachers is so reprehensible that they are blots and blemishes upon the fabric of the believers’ fellowship. The words blots (spiloi) and blemishes (mōmoi) are general terms that describe the defiling influence of these people upon the church. In direct contrast, Peter will use the Greek a-negative forms of these words in 3:14 to urge his readers to be spotless (aspiloi) and blameless (amōmētoi) as they prepare for the return of Christ. It is evident that the false teachers are participants in the activities of the church because Peter describes them as indulging in their deceitful pleasures while they feast with you. It is worth noting that very similar words are used to describe the false teachers in Jude 12: “These men are blemishes at your love feasts (agapais), eating with you without the slightest qualm.” Peter’s phrase while they feast with you, coupled with the explicit reference to the “love feast” in the parallel text of Jude, makes it almost certain that Peter is referring to the “love feast” (the agapē meal) that was usually held in conjunction with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The fact that the agapē meal could be abused is well-documented by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:17-34). With a word play that must have been very striking for his original readers, Peter does not describe the feasts of his readers as a “love feast” (agapais), but because of the participation of the false teachers, he calls them “deceit feasts” (apatais). What should have been a celebration of love (agapē) at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was in danger of becoming a celebration of deceit and lust (apatē) because of the self-indulgent participation of the false teachers. ■ 14 With the use of a very poignant phrase, Peter describes the way that the false teachers defile the sacred gatherings of the believers: With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning. Literally, Peter writes, “They have eyes full of an adulteress.” Bauckham (1983, 266) explains that this is “a vivid expression which means that their eyes are always looking for a woman with whom to commit adultery.” Even as the believers gathered together to celebrate the most sacred moment of communion, the false teachers never stop sinning as they lustfully ogle the women as potential partners in their sexual escapades. Kelly observes, “The errorists have so lost moral self-control that they cannot look at a woman without imagining or wishing themselves in bed with her” (1969, 342). Not satisfied with their own depravity, they also seduce the unstable. The word translated seduce (deleazontes) is derived from the language of hunting and fishing. Literally, the word means “to catch with bait,” and it describes the practice of setting out bait to lure a fish to the hook or to entice an animal to the trap. As illustrated in James 1:14, the word came to be used to describe any kind of moral temptation. The victims of the false teachers’ schemes are the unstable (astēriktous). In contrast to those believers who are firmly established in the truth (1:12), the unstable probably consist mostly of recent converts (cf. 2:18) who are not yet able to discern the destructive threat of the false teachers’ immoral behavior and teaching. This is why the false teachers represent such a potent danger to them. Furthermore, they are experts in greed. The insatiable nature of the greed of the false teachers is graphically portrayed in the Greek language of this phrase. Literally, the phrase can be translated as “having a heart that is trained in greed.” The word for “trained” (gegymnasmenēn) is the term from which the English word “gymnasium” is derived. Moo notes that the word “is drawn from the realm of athletics; it suggests that long, hard, and disciplined struggle to become proficient in a sport” (1996, 126). In contrast to the unstable inexperience of the converts whom they are targeting, the false teachers are experts who have worked long and hard at their deceptive schemes. And their area of expertise is nothing less than selfish greed. The word for greed (pleonexia) can have a much broader scope than simply the love of money. In Ephesians 4:19, Paul uses this same word to describe people “who have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust (pleonexia) for more.” Thus, the word “greed” can relate to much more than just money; it can also denote the desire for more sexual pleasure, power, food, and other things. Peter already referred to greed in 2:3 to describe the mercenary motivation of the false teachers. In vv 15-16, he will write more specifically about their wicked greed, and so the reference to greed in v 14 undoubtedly carries some connotation of the love of money. But within the immediate context of his discussion of the false teachers’ lustful eyes that never stop sinning and their seduction of the unstable, the word greed probably conveys a broader meaning of the “lust for more,” including the gratification of their own sexual lusts as well as their greed for more money. In this way, the word greed provides a fitting transition from Peter’s discussion of his opponents’ immoral sexual behavior to their mercenary love of money, which he will denounce in vv 15-16. Before turning to a denunciation of his opponents’ greed, Peter calls his opponents an accursed brood. Literally, the phrase an accursed brood (kataras tekna) means “children of a curse.” The use of the phrase “children of...” is a “Hebraism” for identifying the quality or character of someone (Bauckham 1983, 267). Thus, a certain quality (positive or negative) could be attributed to someone by asserting that they are “children of” or a “son of” that quality. Thus, in the Septuagint, Isaiah condemns the wicked as “children of destruction,” which is another way of saying that they are characterized by and doomed for destruction. Likewise, in 1 Peter 1:14, Peter calls his readers “children of obedience,” which affirms that they are characterized by the quality of obedience. In the present verse, Peter exclaims that the false teachers are “children of a curse;” that is to say, they are characterized by a curse that God has placed upon them, and they are doomed for eternal condemnation. The phrase is a strong exclamation of condemning judgment upon the false teachers because of their reprehensible behavior. 3. Their Greed (2:15-16) ■ 15 Peter provides another reason why the false teachers are under the curse of God. They are cursed because they have left the straight way and wandered off. Peter has already talked about the way of truth in 2:2. In the ancient world, it was customary to talk about a philosophy or a religion as “a way.” In the OT, obedience to God was often referred to as the right or straight way (cf. 1 Sam 12:23; Hosea 14:9). But the false teachers have left (kataleipontes; literally, “abandoned”) the straight way and wandered off. The word translated wandered off (eplanēthēsan) is the passive form of a word that means “to lead astray” or “to go astray.” Within the NT, the action of “going astray” is not characterized as accidental or harmless; rather, it is deliberate and culpable. Braun notes that “to be a Christian is to have left behind the time of straying” (1968, 243). The fact of the matter is that, when people abandon the straight path of obedience to God, they get lost. Specifically, the false teachers have become lost because they have wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor. The story of Balaam is found in Numbers 22-24. When the Israelites were beginning their conquest of the Promised Land, Balak, the king of Moab, hired Balaam to place a curse upon them. Although Balaam consulted God as to what he should do, the text makes it very clear that Balaam was much inclined to follow his own way instead of the way of God. When Balaam went to meet with Balak, God sent an angel to stand in his path. Balaam was blind to the angel’s presence, but his donkey saw the angel and refused to follow the path. After Balaam hit the donkey several times, the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey to rebuke Balaam and his blindness. In Numbers 22:32, after the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes to the presence of the angel, the angel rebuked Balaam for following a “way of recklessness.” Not surprisingly, Jewish tradition has expanded upon the story of Balaam, depicting him as a notorious liar, a proponent of sexual immorality, and above all, a classic example of a person driven by greed and avarice (Neyrey 1993, 211). For Peter, then, the comparison of the false teachers to Balaam served his purpose in several significant ways. First and foremost, the correlation of the false teachers to Balaam vividly illustrates the motivation of greed that drives the false teachers. This is undoubtedly the main point of the analogy of Balaam, whom Peter explicitly describes as one who loved the wages of wickedness. Second, Numbers 31:16 attributes the sexual immorality of the Israelites in Baal-Peor (Num 25) to the evil influence of Balaam. Within the context of Peter’s condemnation of his opponents’ blatant immorality in vv 13-14, Balaam represents a striking prototype of the immoral false teachers who are solely motivated by financial gain. Third, the description of the way of Balaam as a “way of recklessness” (Num 22:32) presents a vivid contrast to the straight way of truth which the false teachers have left behind. With these three censorious characterizations of Balaam, Peter strongly denounces the behavior and the motivation of the false teachers. ■ 16 Peter emphasizes the complete foolishness of Balaam by noting that he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey. In the narrative of Numbers, it is the angel who rebukes Balaam rather than the donkey, who simply voices his complaint against Balaam’s unjust beatings. But in Jewish tradition, a speech is attributed to the donkey “in which she rebukes Balaam for his foolishness in supposing that he can curse Israel when he is unable even to curse his donkey” (Bauckham 1983, 268). It is possible that Peter’s description of his opponents as brute beasts in v 12 prompted him to bring in the story of Balaam. The irony of the story of Balaam is very profound: Balaam, the prophet of God who is supposedly able to see God’s will and to speak about the purpose and judgment of God, is unable to see an angel standing right in front of him. Meanwhile, his dumb donkey is not only able to see the angel but is also able to pronounce a prophetic rebuke of Balaam. Bauckham (1983, 270) writes, “Balaam’s judgment was swayed by his greed so that he actually thought he could succeed in his plan of opposing God’s will. Similarly the false teachers, who deny the reality of God’s judgment, foolishly imagine they can sin with impunity. But in Balaam’s case even his donkey knew better!” 4. Their Hollow and Deceptive Teaching (2:17-19) While Peter’s denunciation of the false teachers runs from v 10 until the end of the chapter at v 22, there is a noticeable shift in emphasis that occurs in v 17. In vv 10-16, the aim of Peter’s criticism of the false teachers focuses upon their character. Thus, they are arrogant, shamelessly immoral, and greedy. In vv 17-22, Peter directs his attention to the teaching of his opponents and the destructive impact of this false teaching on other people. ■ 17 The opening words of v 17, these men (houtoi), is used repeatedly in Jude to mark a transition. Although Peter has already used this same phrase in v 12, he does not use it as frequently as Jude, nor does he use it as transition marker. Peter begins his description of the unfulfilling and unsatisfactory nature of the false teachers with the use of two striking metaphors. First, he describes them as springs without water. In the arid climate of the Middle East, springs of water are highly valued. Van Houwelingen observes that the image of “a water-rich spring or well of water is an ancient image of wisdom (Prov 13:14; 18:14; Sirach 24:23-31)” (1988, 192). Their existence gives life and, in many cases, even saves life. Peter compares the teaching of his opponents to a spring—a promising source of water and wisdom—which turns out to be empty and useless. Second, he describes the teachers as mists driven by a storm. The word translated mists (homichlai) is a rare word that is used only here in the NT and also very seldom in other Greek literature. In one of its rare occurrences, though, Aristotle (Meteor. 1.346b) “tells us that the homichlē is the haze which heralds dry weather, but is so easily dispersed by a sharp gust of wind” (Green 1987, 126). This metaphor speaks of the instability and lack of substance of the false teachers. Taken together, these two metaphors emphasize the “disappointing emptiness” (Fuhrman 1967, 332) of the false teachers and their teaching. The last phrase of v 17 picks up the theme of judgment again. Peter proclaims that blackest darkness is reserved for them. Some scholars have criticized the jump in imagery here, since it is difficult to understand how blackest darkness could be reserved for springs or mists. But this criticism misses the point of Peter’s assertion here. The darkness is not reserved for the springs and mists, but for the false teachers. Within Jewish thought, darkness is often depicted as the judgmental fate of the wicked (e.g., Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6, 13). Calvin correctly envisions a correspondence of the false teachers’ punishment with their crime. He writes, “By naming the mist or the blackness of darkness, he alludes to the clouds which obscure the air; as though he had said, that for the momentary darkness which they now spread, there is prepared for them a much thicker darkness which is to continue for ever” (Calvin 1948, 407). ■ 18 The conjunction for (gar) indicates that the following verses are explanatory. Peter explains that the false teachers are like waterless springs and mists because they mouth empty, boastful words. The language of Peter in this phrase is full of sarcastic derision. The verbal phrase they mouth (phthengomenoi) is the same verbal root that was used to describe the speaking of Balaam’s donkey. It is a subtle reminder to Peter’s readers that even a donkey “mouthed” better insight and doctrine than these false teachers. In addition, the word boastful (hyperonka) means literally, “unnaturally swollen,” and it depicts the speech of these men as high-sounding and haughty. But their lofty and high-sounding verbosity is without substance; it is empty. Moo observes that the word empty (mataiotētos) “suggests the idea of futility or frustration—of something that can never quite attain its goal” (1996, 142). Peter tells his readers that the words and teaching of the false teachers might sound impressive, but they are deceptive and ultimately worthless. The false teachers attract the attention and imagination of their gullible hearers by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature. The word translated lustful (aselgeiais) means literally, “licentiousness,” and it denotes an exorbitant excess in lifestyle. The word is used ten times in the NT, “mostly in vice lists, where it is often linked with other sexual sins” (Verbrugge 2000, 76). Peter already used the word in 2:2 to describe the shameful ways of the false teachers as well as in 2:7 to depict the filthy lifestyle of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is used here to describe the excessively lustful desires of the “flesh” (sarx) to which the false teachers appeal in order to win people to their side. Thus, Peter scornfully notes that the false teachers employ two deceptive means to attract followers: they mouth high-sounding and lofty words to attract listeners and they appeal to the lustful desires of the human flesh. As Bigg insightfully observes, “Grandiose sophistry is the hook, filthy lust is the bait” (1905, 285). By means of their impressive sounding rhetoric and their appeal to sinful lust, the false teachers entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. The verb entice (deleazousin) was used in v 14 to describe the way that these men seduce the unsuspecting and the unstable. It denotes the action of setting out bait in order to lure someone into a trap. A textual variant in the Greek manuscripts provides a significantly different meaning to this verse in terms of the “target group” of the false teachers. The text in some manuscripts read that the false teachers target people who have “fully escaped” (ontōs apophygontes) from those who live in error. But the most reliable manuscripts contain the reading that the people targeted by the false teachers are those who have “just escaped” (oligōs apopheugontas) from those who live in error. The second option is preferable not only because it is represented in manuscripts that are earlier and more reliable, but also because it makes more sense of the verse. It does not make sense that the false teachers would target those who had fully escaped from their past life of sin, but it makes great sense that they would target recent converts (that is, those who had “just escaped”) who were not yet very stable (v 14) in their knowledge and understanding of the faith. The word error (planē) is used regularly in the Bible to describe pagans and their “errant” way of life (cf. Rom 1:27; Titus 3:3). The word that is translated those who live (anastrephomenous) is a favorite of Peter, and it is used ten times in his letters (1 Pet 1:15, 17, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16; 2 Pet 2:7, 18; 3:11). Peter knows that recent converts from paganism are an easy target for the impressive sounding but worthless teaching of his opponents. Peter’s passionate and condemnatory description of the false teachers in this chapter is undoubtedly due in large part to his abhorrence of their habit of preying on those weak and unstable believers who had only recently been converted. ■ 19 Peter continues his description of the methods of the false teachers. Not only do they entice recent converts with their lofty words and their appeal to lustful immorality, but they also promise them freedom. Peter does not specify what the false teachers’ promise of freedom entailed. But he does point out the irony of the fact that they promise freedom while they themselves are slaves of depravity (phthora). The word phthora can be translated as “depravity” or as “corruption.” It can denote the idea of “moral corruption” (which is the basic idea of “depravity”) or the idea of “physical corruption” (which is essentially represented by mortality). Thus, the promise of freedom that the false teachers advocated can probably be narrowed down to two main possibilities: 1) they promised their followers freedom from eschatological judgment or 2) they promised their followers freedom from any external moral constraint. Support for the first option is found in the fact that the false teachers were obviously skeptical about the return of Christ and the judgment that is associated with Christ’s return (1:16-21; 3:3-12). As a result, it is possible that they taught that they were free from judgment. Support for the second option is found in the fact that Peter has repeatedly criticized the false teachers’ shamelessly immoral lifestyle (2:2, 10, 13-16, 18). Consequently, it is possible that they taught that they were free from moral requirements. While both possibilities are acceptable, the latter is perhaps a bit more probable. Moo writes, “The language of slavery in this verse and the focus on immorality in verse 20 suggests that Peter is thinking along these lines rather than in terms of eschatological judgment” (1996, 144). Green aptly articulates the irony of their situation in this way: “In their quest for self-expression, they fell into bondage to self” (1987, 128). Even while they proclaim their personal freedom from the restraints of sexual morality, their immoral lifestyle belies their own slavery to depravity. Peter concludes v 19 with a proverb: for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. Jesus confirmed a similar idea when he said, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). The proverb that Peter quotes is derived from the practice of enslaving enemies who are captured in battle. Peter affirms that puffed-up claims of freedom are rendered meaningless by the reality of the immoral sin that characterizes and controls the lifestyle of the false teachers. 5. Their Revolting Apostasy (2:20-22) ■ 20 The they of verse 20 is ambiguous. It could refer either to the false teachers or to their followers who are just escaping from those who live in error (v 18). If they refers to the false teachers, then vv 20-22 continue Peter’s denunciation of the false teachers. If they refers to their followers, then vv 20-22 are a warning to these vulnerable believers against the false teachers by identifying the serious consequences that are in store for them if they continue to listen to these men. Since the closest antecedent to v 20 is a reference to the false teachers in v 19, most commentators correctly believe that the pronoun they refers to the false teachers. Thus, it is best to understand vv 20-22 as a continuation of Peter’s condemnatory description of the false teachers. Verse 20 consists of a conditional “if-then” sentence that describes the apostasy and resulting predicament of the false teachers. In the first element of the protasis (the “if” clause), Peter describes the former condition of the false teachers with the words, If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The language makes it obvious that the false teachers were once orthodox Christians. Both of these phrases—escaped the corruption of the world (1:4) and knowledge (epignōsis) of Christ (1:3)—are used earlier by Peter to positively describe the experience of true believers. Thus, Peter does not debate or question the reality of the prior conversion of his opponents, but he candidly describes them with the same language that he used in ch 1 to describe true believers. Despite their prior conversion, though, the false teachers have fallen away. In the second part of the “if” clause, Peter asserts that they are again entangled in it and overcome. The antecedent of it is the word corruption. In other words, even though they had once escaped from the corruption of the world, they are now again entangled in it. Green suggests that the word entangled (emplakentes) renews the fishing metaphor that Peter has been using to describe the false teachers’ devious methods (“seduce,” “entice,” or “lure” in vv 14 and 18). If this is true, then the tragic irony of the false teachers’ predicament is very vivid; namely, they have become entangled in the very nets that they had set out for their prey. The word overcome (ēttōntai) is derived from the same word as the verb mastered in the proverb at the end of v 19. Thus, the false teachers are portrayed not only as dabbling with dangerous teaching and practices, but they have been overcome and mastered by their own fallacious thinking and behavior. The predicament of these teachers is portrayed in the apodosis (the “then” clause) of the conditional sentence. Peter declares that these men who had once experienced true salvation through Jesus Christ but who had allowed themselves once again to become entangled and overcome by sin are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. Peter’s conclusion is very reminiscent of the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 12:43-45: When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, “I will return to the house I left.” When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation. For Peter, Jesus’ grim prophecy of “how it will be with this wicked generation” has been fulfilled in the depravity of the false teachers. As Green (1987, 130) observes, “A servant who willfully disobeys his master is far more culpable than one who disobeys through ignorance.” For those who have knowingly and deliberately rejected the truth, God’s judgment will be even worse than it otherwise would have been. ■ 21 Peter reiterates the idea that ignorance of the truth is preferable to outright rejection of it. Watson notes that “verse 21 repeats v 20 in the form of a Tobspruch, a proverbial form expressing the idea of one state’s being better than another” (1998b, 352). Accordingly, Peter proclaims that 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. As noted previously, Peter uses “the way” language often in this letter. He contrasts the way of Balaam (2:15) with the Christian way of life, which he has earlier described as the way of truth (2:2) and the straight way (2:15). Here Peter describes the Christian way of life as the way of righteousness. The phrase the way of righteousness (hē hodos tēs dikaiosynēs) is common in the Greek translation of the Bible (Job 24:13; Prov 21:16, 21) as well as in the NT (Matt 21:32). Righteousness (dikaiosynē) refers in this context to “right behavior,” and Peter undoubtedly has the immoral behavior of the libertines in mind. The language of v 21 also reinforces the idea expressed in v 20 that the false teachers were true converts at one time. The two verbs that are translated as known (derived from epiginōskein) in this verse are verbal cognates of the noun knowledge (epignōsis), which Peter uses to describe true believers (1:2, 3, 8; cf. 2:20). It is notable that Peter does not say that the false teachers had merely claimed to know the way of righteousness; rather, he says that they had known it. Moreover, he asserts that the sacred command...was passed on to them. Bauckham observes that the phrase the sacred command “is here used in the same way as ‘the way of righteousness,’ as a description of Christianity considered as a body of ethical teaching” (1983, 278). Thus, Peter does not have one particular command in mind here, but he uses the singular word command (entolē) to summarize the totality of Christian teaching with a special emphasis upon its ethical demands. The phrase was passed on (paradotheisēs) “is an important NT term for the transmission of the Christian faith” (Blum 1981b, 282-283), as Paul’s usage of the same term in 1 Corinthians 15:3 indicates. There can be no doubt that the false teachers had undergone a genuine experience of conversion; they had known the true Christian way of life and the correct teachings of the faith had been faithfully passed on to them. Nonetheless, they decided to turn their backs (hypostrepsai; literally, “to turn away and go back”) on their Christian faith. Although Peter does not specify in v 21 the “worsened condition” that results from the false teachers’ denial and rejection of the faith they once possessed, the implication is that their fate and condemnation will be all the more horrific. ■ 22 Peter illustrates the revolting nature of the false teachers’ apostasy with the use of two proverbs, one derived from Scripture and one derived from the secular world. The proverbs are closely related to each other, as is indicated by the fact that Peter uses the singular form of proverb (paroimia) to refer to them. The singular form is most probably used because the two proverbs are intended to make the same point. It should also be noted that both the dog and the pig were considered by the Jews to be unclean animals. The first proverb—A dog returns to its vomit—is derived from Proverbs 26:11, which reads, “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.” This proverb fits perfectly within Peter’s discussion of the apostasy of the false teachers who have turned their backs on the Christian faith in order to return to a life of immorality and sin. Dunham reflects insightfully upon the way that this proverb segues with Peter’s declaration in v 20 that they are worse off at the end than at the beginning. He writes, “What satisfaction can a dog find in vomit if before that he could not even digest that food when it was fresh? The very thought is disgusting and is a picture of irrational reflex action” (Dunham 1983, 50). The second proverb—A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in mud—is derived from a well-known Greek saying. There are several versions of the saying about a pig that prefers mud to clean water, but one very striking version of this saying is found in an ancient oriental proverb, which is preserved in the Story of Ahiqar. This ancient proverb reads, “My son, you have been to me like the pig who went into the hot bath with people of quality, and when it came out of the hot bath, it saw a filthy hole and it went down and wallowed in it” (8:15; cf. Bauckham 1983, 279). Like the first proverb, the second proverb provides a vivid image of a disgusting return to filth and decay. Dunham makes the following observations about the similarity of the proverbs and their applicability to Peter’s discussion: “In each case there is the ‘before’ condition: the dog had eaten undigestible food; the sow had been dirty. In each case a return is mentioned: eating vomit by the dog, and wallowing by the sow. They are similar to a Christian who has received Christ, repenting of his life of sin, but is then won back into his former habits by temptations...” (Dunham 1983, 50). Peter’s usage of these two proverbs to conclude his disparagement of the false teachers is very appropriate. Peter had already alluded to animals in his negative depiction of his opponents in this chapter (vv 12 and 16). In this last verse, he revives the animal theme by referring to two animals that the Jewish mind considered to be filthy and disgusting. Having once been washed clean by their faith in Jesus Christ, the false teachers have nevertheless reverted back to the immoral dirt and filth of the pagan world. In this way, they are like a dog that vomits out undigestible food, but then goes back and eats it again; or they are like a pig which, even though it has been thoroughly cleaned, cannot resist the urge to go back and wallow in the mud again. In each case, the return is depicted as revolting and disgusting. From the Text Admittedly, Peter’s criticism of the false teachers is extremely harsh and negative. Taken within the context of Jesus’ directive that believers should “love your enemies” (Matt 5:44), Peter’s disparagement of the false teachers can even seem to be unchristian. In this regard, a couple of observations should be considered. First, in Peter’s time, it was a commonly accepted practice to portray one’s enemies in the worst possible light. It was socially acceptable to associate one’s opponents with a variety of negative images in order to undermine their influence and diminish their appeal to those who might be attracted to their teaching and behavior. Thus, Peter’s attacks against his opponents conformed to the social parameters of his time. Obviously, the social customs of the 21st century are very different from those of Peter’s time. While modern believers still need to speak out against false and dangerous teaching, it needs to take a form that is effective within the social parameters of our own times. With the possible exception of the mud-slinging techniques of many modern politicians, the kind of negative portrayals that Peter applies to his opponents would be considered by most people to be inappropriate and unacceptable if they were duplicated in our own time. Thus, the language and style of Peter’s denunciation of his opponents should not be propagated as the normative response of believers towards their opponents, nor should it be considered as a justification for believers to engage in arbitrary tirades against every form of opposition. Second, despite the shocking language of Peter’s negative portrayal of his opponents, one must not forget the insidious threat that the false teachers represented to the Christian faith. It is bad enough that they opposed the teaching of the apostles while they shamelessly taught and practiced an immoral lifestyle, but they also targeted the most vulnerable Christians; namely, recent converts and young believers who were yet unstable in their faith. With his harsh attack against the false teachers, Peter used a socially accepted method of his own time to oppose this serious challenge to the faith. While the methods will undoubtedly vary, modern believers must also oppose false teaching and challenges to the faith. The problem that confronts Christianity today is the fact that relativism has eroded the conviction of many believers that falsehood should be opposed. Even more threatening is the treacherous doubt created by relativism that “falsehood” even exists. It is frightening to think that the objection that many modern believers harbor against Peter’s flagrantly negative language against the false teaching of his opponents might not be so much an objection against his language as it is an objection to the fact that Peter even dared to call the false teachers wrong. If Christianity is to survive, it must recognize and oppose false teaching. One of the emphases that repeatedly surfaces in 2 Peter is the innate connection between belief and behavior. Peter’s denunciation of the false teachers targets their behavior as much if not more than it targets their teaching. This is not to say that wrong teaching is less serious than wrong behavior. Rather, it emphasizes the fact that what people truly believe will ultimately affect the way that they behave. This fact is immediately apparent in the example of the false teachers. The false teachers do not believe in the Second Coming of Christ or in the day of judgment that his return will inaugurate. As a result, they engage in sexually immoral behavior and mock the idea of accountability for their actions. But the connection of belief and behavior is also relevant for believers. In ch 1, Peter proclaims that genuine faith in Christ (“true knowledge”) will result in a virtuous life. The underlying conviction of Peter’s portrayal of the true believer is based upon the assumption that true knowledge of Christ (that is, true belief) will inevitably reveal itself in righteous and virtuous behavior (1:3-9). Thus, Peter’s letter reminds Christians of the serious responsibility of all believers to be faithful stewards of Christian tradition and teaching. Peter denigrates the lofty, high-sounding doctrine of the false teachers because it is empty. It is all show and no substance like a waterless spring or an evaporating mist. Christian leaders must be sure to establish their teaching on the solid rock of Scripture. Fine sounding arguments or lofty words can never be substituted for the rich substance of the faith as taught in Scripture. The fruit of our teaching will become evident in the lifestyle and behavior of our hearers. The innate connection between belief and behavior is also evident in Peter’s undeniable assertions that Christians can backslide in their faith. Salvation is not only dependent upon a profession of faith; it is also exemplified in righteous and virtuous behavior. If a profession of faith alone were sufficient for salvation, the false teachers would not be subject to condemnation, for they certainly continued to profess their salvation through faith in Christ. However, their immoral behavior betrayed their lack of genuine faith and true salvation. Good works and righteous behavior can never earn salvation, but they are the inevitable fruit of salvation. For this reason, Peter urges his readers to diligently pursue the virtues in order to prevent their “knowledge of Christ” (that is, salvation) from becoming ineffective or unproductive (1:8). The false teachers pursued sexual immorality instead of the virtues; accordingly, they lost the salvation that they had once experienced. The same danger of apostasy lurks for every believer who falls prey to the erroneous idea that a person can be saved while they continue to engage in sinful behavior. It is true that all believers can slip and fall into sin. But true believers do not try to justify or accommodate the existence of sin in their life. Rather, they confess their sin to God, seek Christ’s forgiveness, and pray for the Spirit’s power to avoid and defeat that sin. [Begin Sidebar] Be careful lest you fall! Green provides a very fitting conclusion to Peter’s denunciation of the false teachers in ch 2. The content of this chapter is not the result of an unbalanced man’s uncontrolled tirade. Rather, Peter carefully and passionately sounds an important alarm to unwary and unsuspecting believers. Green writes, Why has Peter expended so much powder and shot on the false teachers in this chapter? Because he is primarily a pastor. He is concerned to feed his Master’s sheep (cf. John 21:15-17; 1 Pet 5:1ff.), and he is furious to find them being poisoned by lust masquerading as religion. It does our generation little credit that such passion for truth and holiness strikes an alien note in our minds. Peter’s plain speaking in this chapter has a very practical purpose, just as Jesus’ warnings had: “What I say to you I say to everyone: ‘watch’!” We would be mistaken to assume, “It could never happen to us.” Both Scripture and experience assure us that it could. “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall” (1 Cor 10:12). Covetousness, sophistical arguments, pride in knowledge, gluttony, drunkenness, lust, arrogance against authority of all kinds, and, most of all, the danger of denying the lordship of the Redeemer—are these not all the paramount temptations of money-mad, sex-mad, materialistic, anti-authoritarian, twentieth-century man? (Green 1987, 133) [End Sidebar]

OL

Cite this document

Carver, Frank G. “Chapter 3 False Teachers 2:1-22 2 Peter.” Book Chapter, n.d.. The Frank G. Carver Archive.

Filed under

Related in the archive

Book Chapter

Chapter 2 True Knowledge 1:3-21 2 Peter

A scholarly commentary on 2 Peter 1:3-21, focusing on the nature of 'true knowledge' in the Christian faith. The document provides a linguistic and exegetical analysis of the Greek text, specifically examining the particle 'hōs' in verse 3 and the implications for paragraph structure. It explores the source of true knowledge as divine power (theia dynamis) for godliness (eusebeia), the virtuous nature of such knowledge, and its foundation in the testimony of eyewitnesses and Scripture. The text includes discussions on the grammatical antecedents of 'his divine power,' the distinction between conversion-based knowledge (epignōsis) and subsequent moral development, and the relationship between biblical truth and personal experience.

2 Peter 1:3-21 · 2 Peter 1:3 · 2 Peter 1:4

Lecture

Chapter 7 - Faith of Israel

A lecture transcript discussing the historical context of Second Temple Judaism as a prerequisite for understanding the historical-critical study of Jesus of Nazareth. The text defines Second Temple Judaism by its period (c. 520/515 BC to AD 70), its formative influences (Ezra and Nehemiah), and its key features, including the continuity of the priesthood and festivals alongside the emergence of the synagogue and new feasts like Purim and Hanukkah. The document addresses the impact of Hellenistic culture, the Maccabean revolt, and the development of the Hebrew Scriptures canon. It also references scholarly shifts in understanding the period, specifically citing the work of Martin Hengel regarding Hellenism and E.P. Sanders regarding the rejection of the 'legalistic' view of Judaism.

Torah · Former Prophets · Latter Prophets

Book Chapter

Commentary Draft 1 John 4 Chapter for submission to Rick

A draft commentary on 1 John 4:1-21, divided into sections titled 'Behind the Text' and 'In the Text.' The author examines the use of dualistic language (e.g., Spirit of God vs. spirit of the antichrist) in the Johannine epistles, noting connections to the Gospel of John and the shared vocabulary of the Qumran community. The text explores the biblical concept of false prophets, drawing comparisons to Old Testament figures (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) and New Testament warnings in the Synoptic Gospels. The commentary further analyzes the Greek imperative to 'test the spirits' (dokimazete), discussing the linguistic nuances of testing and the practical application of Christian love as a means of discerning truth and demonstrating God's presence.

1 John 4:1-21 · 1 John 4:1-6 · 1 John 4:3

Bible Study

Ezra-Nehemiah 1--Introduction

An introductory lecture or study guide for a series on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The document begins with a reading of Ezra 1:1-11, focusing on the decree of King Cyrus of Persia and the return of the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem. The author provides historical context for the Persian period (550-333 B.C.), discussing the roles of Ezra, a priest and scribe, and Nehemiah, a cupbearer to Artaxerxes I. The text also addresses the historical unity of Ezra and Nehemiah as a single document in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts prior to the Latin Vulgate, and outlines the chronological scope of the books from 538 B.C. to approximately 400 B.C.

Ezra 1:1-11 · Ezra 1:8 · Ezra 2:2