Chapter 4 Promise of Christ's Coming 3:1-16 2 Peter

IV. The Promise of Christ’s Coming: 3:1-16 Behind the Text The beginning of chapter 3 marks another transition within 2 Peter. After the lengthy description and denunciation of the false teachers in chapter 2, Peter returns to his main purpose of warning and encouraging his readers in chapter 3. The redirection of his focus towards his fellow believers is clearly indicated by his description of them as dear friends at the beginning of v 1. Thus, while chapter 2 was characterized by denunciation, chapter 3 is characterized by encouragement and exhortation. With the exception of the first 2 verses of ch 3, the close parallel with the letter of Jude has now ended. It is striking to observe that the beginning of Jude’s transition from attack to encouragement also begins with the phrase dear friends. Both Jude and 2 Peter call their readers to remember the words of the apostles and they issue a warning against scoffers or mockers. After these points of similarity, however, the letters move in different directions towards their respective conclusions. The content of 3:1-16 can be divided into four distinct, but closely related, discussions: 1) The prediction of scoffers (3:1-7), 2) The delay of Christ’s coming (3:8-9), 3) The Certainty of Christ’s coming (3:10), and 4) Concluding exhortations (3:11-16). A. The Prediction of Scoffers (3:1-7) Behind the Text The argument of Peter in vv 1-7 moves through three stages. Peter begins in vv 1-2 by urging his readers to remember the truth that they have learned from the Scripture and from apostolic teaching. Then he warns them in vv 3-4 of scoffers who will mock the true teaching they have learned. Finally, in vv 5-7, Peter rebukes the scoffers for forgetting (that is, “not remembering”) the truth. In this way, the paragraph represented in 3:1-7 is framed around the idea of “remembering” (Moo 1996, 161). 1. Remember the Truth (3:1-2) ■ 1 Peter begins this new section by addressing his readers as dear friends. Literally, the description dear friends (agapētoi) could be translated as “beloved ones.” Peter uses this term of endearment four times in this last chapter (vv 1, 8, 14, 17). Although the false teachers and their errant doctrine will still be mentioned and criticized in this last chapter, Peter’s greatest attention and concern has now reverted back to his fellow believers. Peter tells his readers that this is now my second letter to you. Scholars are greatly divided as to the identity of the first letter. Although the majority of commentators believe that this is a reference to 1 Peter, there are some problems with this conclusion. First, Peter mentions in the next phrase that both letters are intended to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. This description does not match the content of 1 Peter very well. Additionally, Peter seems to know his audience in 2 Peter quite well, whereas the impression of 1 Peter is that his personal knowledge of them is rather limited. Interestingly, many of the scholars who assert that my second letter is an allusion to 1 Peter argue that 2 Peter was written pseudonymously, and that this is the forger’s attempt to lend authority and credibility to his false-ascribed writing. Other scholars have argued that this reference to a second letter points to a previous letter of Peter that has been lost in the passage of time. It is not hard to imagine that Peter may have written more letters than merely the two epistles that have been preserved within the NT, and that some of these letters have been lost. For instance, Paul refers to three letters that he wrote that we do not have in the NT: his “previous letter” to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9), his “sorrowful letter” to the Corinthians (2 Cor 7:8), and a letter to the church in Laodicea (Col 4:16). It does not require a stretch of the imagination to surmise that Peter may have done the same thing. If 2 Peter was indeed written by Peter, it seems most likely that this reference to a second letter is an allusion to an otherwise unknown letter. Thus, it probably refers to a previous letter of Peter to the same readers which, for unknown reasons, was not preserved and passed down to future generations. However, any conclusions about the identity of the previous letter are speculative at best. None of the arguments are decisive. The writer explains that he is writing 2 Peter as a reminder to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. The word translated wholesome (eilikrinē) means literally, “pure, unmixed, uncontaminated.” With the threat of the false teachers’ errant doctrine and immoral lifestyle lurking in the background, Peter wants to ensure that his readers’ understanding will not be distorted or led astray. ■ 2 The reminder that Peter mentions in v 1 is further expounded in v 2. There are two sources of truth that Peter recommends to his readers as a solid foundation for wholesome thinking. First, Peter urges his readers to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets. Thus, the first source of truth is found in the Scriptures of the OT. Some have suggested that Peter may have a specific passage of the OT in mind where the prophets preach against scoffers who mock the delayed judgment of God (e.g., Amos 9:10; Jer 5:12-24; Ezek 12:22). But the general reference to holy prophets probably “broadens the range of the Christian tradition to include the OT prophets and indeed the whole OT” (Harrington 2003, 281). The second source of truth that Peter recommends to his readers is provided by their recollection of the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. The Greek grammar of the phrase given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles is rather awkward, but it seems best to understand the phrase as associating the command to both the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Bauckham (1983, 287) claims that it must mean that “the commandment is primarily Christ’s, but also in a secondary sense the apostles’ because they were the people who preached it to the readers.” In other words, it communicates that “the Lord is the originator of the command, the apostles the transmitters” (Moo 1996, 164). Peter has already asserted in 1:16-19 that the power of the Holy Spirit has enabled both apostles and prophets to bear witness to the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1:16). The letter makes it clear that the false teachers have questioned and denied both of these attributes of Christ. Green observes, “In chapter 2 they are taken to task for denying the authority of the Lord who bought them, and for despising his power. In chapter 3 they will be reproved for doubting the reality of his parousia” (1987, 135). In the midst of these conflicting claims and conclusions, Peter reminds his readers of the Christian precedent for the determination of doctrine and behavior. Namely, Peter appeals in 3:2 to the words of the holy prophets and the teaching of the Lord and Savior as transmitted through the apostles as the indisputable source of truth for true believers. In affirming this foundation for wholesome thinking, Peter “stresses the link between the prophets who foreshadowed Christian truth, Christ who exemplified it, and the apostles who gave an authoritative interpretation of it” (Green 1987, 135). What is the command that Peter mentions as coming from the Lord through the apostles? The same word command (entolē) was also used in 2:21. Moo notes that in all of the approximately sixty occurrences of this word in the NT, “the word always refers to some kind of demand or requirement” (1996, 164). Its usage and meaning here is most probably very similar to its usage and meaning in 2:21. Hence, the singular form of the word command does not refer so much to one particular commandment but rather “to the substance of the Christian faith proclaimed by the apostles” (Harrington 2003, 282-283). As in 2:21, the underlying emphasis of the word carries a strong moral nuance. Peter is not thinking of a list of moral “dos and don’ts” that he wants to impose upon his readers, but he urges them to seek after and conform to the image of Christ. In this regard, the underlying message of 2 Peter is very similar to the message of 1 Peter, in which the bedrock of Peter’s many exhortations to his readers is God’s command to “be holy in all you do...because I am holy” (1:15-16). It must be noted that the language of v 2 has been pointed to by many scholars as providing evidence of the non-Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. For instance, Kelly claims that “the expression your apostles could not of course have been penned by the historical Peter; it inadvertently betrays that the writer belongs to an age when the apostles have been elevated to a venerated group who mediate Christ’s teaching authoritatively to the whole Church” (1969, 354). But this is not so. Bauckham points out the natural meaning of your apostles is that it simply distinguishes the rest of the apostles from those apostles who had preached and founded the churches in the area to which Peter is writing (1983, 287). Thus, there is nothing inherent to the phrase your apostles that necessitates a late date for this letter or that disqualifies Peter as the author. They are their apostles in the sense that they are the ones through whom Peter’s readers had first heard and accepted the gospel, and Peter urges them to recall the moral demands and implications of the gospel that they had heard and received from these original preachers. 2. Warning about Scoffers (3:3-4) ■ 3 Peter tells his readers that it is of primary importance that they should understand that the appearance of scoffers and mockers is to be expected. The opening words of v 3—First of all, you must understand—are the same words (in the Greek) that are used at the beginning of 1:20. This phrase is used to draw special attention to that which follows. Peter wants his readers to understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. It is striking to note that, despite the fact that the scoffers are already present, Peter uses the future tense to say that the scoffers will come. Bauckham argues that the future tense will come indicates that a pseudonymous author, writing in Peter’s name, is quoting a prophecy of the apostle Peter (1983, 288). But it seems more likely that Peter himself uses the future tense to refer to a prediction of Jesus. For instance, in Matthew, Jesus is recorded as saying, “At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive people” (Matt 24:10-11; cf. Matt 7:15; 24:5, 24; Mark 13:22). As the believers face the challenge of false teaching, Peter reminds them that they should not be surprised by the appearance of such things. Indeed, the appearance of false teachers has been predicted. Even though the usage of the future tense will come along with the phrase in the last days might make it appear as if this prediction refers to a period in the distant future, Peter’s discussion of the scoffers in this chapter indicates that he believes that these predictions are already being fulfilled in the false teaching that has arisen in the churches. Throughout the NT, there is evidence that the believers understand themselves as living in the last days. With the advent of Jesus, the last chapter of human history has been opened, even though it has not yet been completed. Green notes that the phrase in the last days “is a fascinating description of the Christian era, and preserves the tension between what is already realized in Christ and what lies ahead” (1987, 137). Thus, as false teachers arise and threaten the church, the believers should not be surprised or puzzled by these things, but they should understand that the appearance of these false teachers marks the necessary birth pains that must precede the ultimate birth of the messianic age and the heralded Second Coming of Christ. In this sense, there is an ironic twist to the passage. “The adversaries who denied the parousia were themselves a proof of its imminence” (Fornberg 1977, 61). In this passage, Peter describes his opponents as scoffers The word scoffers (empaiktai) “is a derogatory term for someone who despises and ignores religion and morality” (Watson 1998b, 355). They are depicted as scoffing and following their own evil desires. Peter often uses the word desires (epithymiai) to describe the ungodly orientation of sinful and sexually immoral people (1:4; 2:8, 10). The emphasis of this depiction is that they follow their own desires and direction instead of the desires and direction of God. Green aptly notes that “cynicism and self-indulgence regularly go together” (1987, 138). The scoffing words and immoral deeds of the false teachers are clear indications that they are the scoffers who were predicted to come in the last days. ■ 4 Although the term scoffers is typically used to describe people who mock the faith in general, it is apparent that Peter is concerned about a group of people who actually claimed to be believers (2:18-22), but they mocked the specific belief that Christ would return in judgment at the end of history. Thus, according to Peter, they mock this belief, saying Where is this “coming” he promised? The rhetorical question beginning with the phrase where is (pou estin) is a standard form used in the OT to express mockery and disbelief. The taunt of the enemies of God’s people is often expressed in the words of the cynical question, “Where is your/their God?” (LXX Ps 41:4, 11; 78:10; Joel 2:17; Mic 7:10). Hence, the question of the false teachers does not reflect an innocent request for information, but it reveals a cynical and mocking challenge to the teaching of Christ’s return. The basis of this challenge is the certain assumption of the false teachers that the return of Christ was long overdue and that its tardy arrival was an indication that it was not going to take place at all. In addition to the past due date of the expected return of Christ, the false teachers also pointed to the unchanging nature of the world as a basis for their denial of Christ’s return. Peter portrays them as saying, Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. Many scholars assume that our fathers refers to the first generation of Christians. Thus, according to these scholars (cf. Bauckham 1983, 291), the false teachers were saying, “The return of Christ was promised to take place before the death of the fathers. The fathers have died and still nothing happens.” On the basis of this interpretation, the reference to the death of the fathers is understood by many to be incontrovertible evidence that a pseudonymous writer must have penned this letter after the death of Peter, who would naturally be understood to belong to the first generation of Christian fathers of the faith. It is certainly possible that our fathers refers to the first generation of Christians. But it is equally possible that our fathers refers to the patriarchs of the OT. In every other occurrence of the phrase in the NT, our fathers refers to the OT fathers (e.g., Acts 3:13; 7:12; Rom 9:5; 11:28; 15:8). The idea that our fathers alludes to the saints of the OT would fit Peter’s argument very well. Peter has mentioned several times in the letter already that the teaching of eschatological judgment is rooted in the OT itself (1:16-19; 3:2). Also, it is very striking to observe that the opponents are not portrayed as saying that everything continues as it has since the coming of Christ; instead, they say that everything continues as it has since the beginning of creation. The phrase the beginning of creation makes the OT background of our fathers much more probable than a NT background. Green writes, “The mockers were twisting the Old Testament Scriptures; it is, appropriately, out of the Old Testament that Peter confounds them” (1987, 140). Thus, the reference to the death of our fathers does not provide intrinsic evidence for the non-Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Peter himself could easily have penned these words as a reflection of the false teachers’ argument that the unchanging nature of the world disproves the Christian belief in Christ’s return and a final day of judgment. 3. The Scoffers have Forgotten the Truth (3:5-7) Behind the Text It should be noted that 3:4-10 reveals a chiastic or envelop structure. In v 4 Peter identifies two arguments of the scoffers against the return of Christ and a day of judgment. First, they deny the return of Christ because it appears to be long overdue. Second, they deny a day of judgment because the nature of the world appears to be unchanging. In typical chiastic fashion, Peter answers these objections in the reverse order in which they are presented. Thus, he addresses the assumption of an unchanging world in vv 5-7, and he responds to the charge of the overdue return of Christ in vv 8-10. The envelop structure of 3:4-10 can be portrayed as follows: A The Parousia of Christ is overdue (v 4a) B The world is unchanging (v 4b) B’ Denial of an unchanging world (vv 5-7) A’ Denial of an overdue Parousia (vv 8-10) ■ 5-6 Peter refutes the idea of an unchanging world. In contrast to Peter and his readers who remember the words spoken by the prophets in Scripture (3:2), the false teachers deliberately forget the lessons of the great flood in Noah’s day. Peter asserts that they can only maintain the immutable nature of the world by blinding their eyes to the lessons of Scripture. The Greek phrase that is translated deliberately forget (lanthanei...thelontas) can also be translated as “in maintaining this, they overlook the fact.” While the Greek root of the word thelontas can mean “to maintain,” it usually conveys the idea of “wish, will, or take pleasure in” (Bauer 1957, 355-356). In this way, Peter insinuates willfulness or deliberateness to the forgetfulness of the false teachers. Thus, the error of the scoffers is not to be attributed to a simple, honest oversight; rather, their error lies in their deliberate and blatant refusal to recognize the lessons of Scripture. What the false teachers have deliberately ignored is the clear teaching of the Scriptures. Namely, the world came into being at a certain point of time (v 5b), and it was also destroyed by God at a certain point of time (v 6). Peter’s meaning in these verses is very easy to comprehend, but the language that he uses is much more difficult to understand. Some of the difficulty arises because of a wordplay on water (hydōr) that he attempts to make. In v 5, he refers to water in the creation of the world; namely, by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. In v 6 he infers that the same water was used to destroy the world: By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. Because of this attempted wordplay, Peter seems to say that by the word of God the world was created by water and it was also destroyed by the same water. Some scholars have asserted that these words reveal Peter’s idea that water was the basic building material of creation. But this is very unlikely. First, Peter does not say that the heavens and the earth were created out of water and by water, but that they existed (ēsan) out of water and by water. Second, the story of creation in Genesis 1:2-10 seems to explain Peter’s strong emphasis upon water. In Genesis 1:2, the earth is described as a watery chaos. At the word of God (“Let there be...”), the sky separates the waters from the waters, and the land appears out of the water by the same word (Gen 1:6-10). Thus, the expression out of water (eks hydatos) is very easy to understand from the Genesis account. The expression by water (di’ hydatos) is much more problematic, but it is probably utilized primarily in order to heighten the sense of the wordplay that Peter develops around the word water. Thus, with the usage of this phrase, both the creation and the destruction of the world can be portrayed as occurring by water (Neyrey 1993, 234). The point of calling on the flood story from Genesis is to demonstrate that the false teachers’ contention that all things have remained the same since the beginning of creation is false. Since their premise (that the world is stable and unchanging) is false, their conclusion (that the world will always remain the same, and there will be no Parousia of Christ) must also be false. ■ 7 After debunking the scoffers’ claim that the return of Christ and the accompanying day of judgment can be disproven by the stability and unchanging nature of the world, Peter affirms that the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire. The connecting link between vv 6 and 7 is the phrase the word of God. Through the word of God (tō tou theou logō; v 6), the world of Noah’s day was destroyed; by the same word (tō autō logō) the world will be destroyed again. Peter asserts that the heavens and the earth are reserved for fire. Literally, the verb reserved (tethēsaurismenoi) means “to store up” or “to save up.” While this verb is usually used in a positive sense to denote a “treasure,” it is used here to convey the idea that God also has a “treasury” of judgment. This is the only passage in the NT (possibly along with 3:10) that clearly teaches that the world will be destroyed by fire. Because of the omission in other NT passages to a worldwide conflagration, it has been claimed by some that 2 Peter has been influenced by Stoic or Iranian (Zoroastrian) eschatology. But one does not need to look beyond Peter’s own Jewish background to find references to destruction by fire. The OT often mentions fire in association with the day of the Lord (Ps 97:3; Is 66:15-16; Dan 7:9-10; Mic 1:4; Mal 4:1). In addition, Matthew’s gospel speaks of the future baptism of fire by the Messiah in which the “chaff” will be burned away (3:11-12). Thus, Peter’s teaching that the heavens and the earth are reserved for fire owes little if anything to sources outside of his Jewish background. The OT portrayal of God’s fiery consumption of all that is wicked is more than sufficient to prompt Peter’s teaching here. The occasion and the purpose of the fire are clearly identified in the last part of v 7. Peter tells his readers that the occasion of the destruction of the world by fire is being kept for the day of judgment. The verb being kept (tēroumenoi) is borrowed from the military world. It summons the image of the watchful guarding of a prisoner by a prison warden. In this context, it vividly emphasizes the certainty that God’s fiery destruction of the heavens and the earth will take place at the day of judgment, despite the denials of the scoffers. The purpose of the fire will be the destruction of ungodly men. Green contends that the association of the fire with the destruction of ungodly men suggests that Peter’s reference to fire is meant to convey the judgment of sinful humanity more than the idea of the destruction of the world (1987, 144). But this is by no means certain. The plain meaning of the passage presumes that the world will be destroyed by fire as a prelude to the Last Judgment (Harrington 2003, 287). This also seems to be the understanding of Melito of Sardis, who wrote the following words towards the end of the second century AD, “There was a flood of water.... There will be a flood of fire, and the earth will be burned up together with its mountains...and the just will be delivered from its fury as their fellows in the ark were saved from the waters of the Flood” (quoted by Hillyer 1992, 215). Thus, in this unique passage Peter teaches that the day of judgment will be heralded by the advent of fire, and that the fire will serve the purpose of destroying all of the ungodly people. From the Text The basis of Christian doctrine and behavior needs to be planted upon the foundation of the Scriptures and the teaching of the apostles. The opponents of Peter in 2 Peter are not the last examples of people who have tried to deny the OT Scripture and to reinterpret the message of Jesus to fit their own agenda and unrighteous behavior. Every era of history has been challenged by similar individuals. Often the method of these individuals follows the path of mockery and lofty-sounding arguments. In modern times the scoffers produce arguments about a closed universe governed by the laws of cause and effect. They assert that these laws of nature eliminate the possibility of miracles or of any kind of divine intervention. But they overlook the fact that the laws of nature are God’s laws, and that the predictability of cause and effect is only attributable to God’s faithfulness (Col 1:16-17). Within the turbulent and changing tides of public opinion and scientific consensus, believers must anchor themselves upon the solid rock of the teachings of Scripture. Perhaps the only reliable way for believers to remain faithful in their Christian doctrine and ethical behavior is to continually remind themselves of the teaching of Scripture and tradition that has been handed down to them. The Bible is not a well-spring from which the believer can drink from only once and then set it aside. Rather, it must become a life-spring from which the believers’ daily sustenance is sought and found. Only through the constant immersion into the living water of God’s word can the believer remain strong and secure. Peter’s teaching in 3:5-7 raises lingering questions about creation and the End Times. Despite his thought-provoking comments about the creation of the world out of water and by water, Peter does not promote the notion that water was the basic building block of creation. More significant is Peter’s insistence that the creation of the world (as well as its destruction through the flood) was the result of the word of God. Scientists and scholars may ponder and debate the origin of the world, but the Biblical record is clear that our world found its true origin in the mind and will of God who spoke the first words ever recorded, “Let there be light.” And there was light. Regardless of which scientific theory about creation might dominate the day, believers should stand firm upon the conviction that everything that exists is a direct result of the creative word of God. Likewise, discussions about the End Times have flourished since before the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. Peter asserts that the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, and scholars debate whether these unique words should be taken literally (as a depiction of the physical destruction of the world through fire) or figuratively (as a depiction of God’s wrath and destruction upon the ungodly). With the ongoing threat of nuclear or biological annihilation, people today do not tend to espouse the belief that the world is unchanging or immortal. But equally dangerous is the God-denying idea that the last days of earth will be determined by fate or chance. While believers should resist the temptation to think that we can know or predict the precise times or the exact events of the last days, we can retain the steadfast certainty that God is in control. He remains active and involved in the events of our lives and in the history of the world. Thus, even while the sinfulness of this world hurtles itself towards an ultimate conflagration of punishment and doom, believers retain their steadfast hope in the God who is still in control. B. The Delay of Christ’s Coming (3:8-9) Behind the Text In vv 8-9 Peter turns his attention to the first objection of the scoffers that he mentions in v 4; namely, the idea that the long overdue return of Christ indicates that there will be no return of Christ nor a day of judgment. Peter refutes this objection with two arguments. First, he reminds his readers that God’s timetable cannot be comprehended from a human perspective of time (v 8). And second, he asserts that God has a positive purpose behind the delay in Christ’s return (v 9). In the Text ■ 8 Peter now turns his attention to the scoffers’ objection about the delay of Christ’s return. As mentioned previously, the idea of remembering is dominant in these verses. Peter mentions in 3:1 that his writing should serve as a reminder to his readers of the truth that is found in the Scriptures and in the teaching of the apostles. In 3:5, he rebukes the false teachers for deliberately forgetting what the Scriptures teach. And now in the present verse, Peter exhorts his readers that they should not forget this one thing. The word forget (lanthanetō) is the same word that Peter uses to depict the deliberate “forgetfulness” of the scoffers. Peter realizes that the scoffing words and actions of the mockers can often distort the thinking of believers, and so he urges them not to allow themselves to forget the truth in the same way that the mockers have deliberately forgotten and distorted the truth. What the believers should not forget is the fact that with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. This “reminder” is derived from Psalm 90:4, which says, “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” The point of this verse is that God does not experience time in the same way that humans do. What might seem like an eternity in the eyes of humans is only a brief moment in time in the eyes of God. It is interesting to note the way that Peter uses this psalm to rebuke the objection of the false teachers. The major emphasis of Psalm 90:4 is to contrast the eternity of God with the brevity of human life. In his argument against those who mock the delay in Christ’s return, though, Peter contrasts the eternity of God with the impatience of human speculations (Green 1987, 146). The divine perspective on time is much different than the human perspective. When humans ignore the divine perspective (like the false teachers have deliberately done), they grow impatient and doubtful about God’s promises. Peter urges his readers to not forget that God views time differently than humans do. This verse was used by many Jewish and early Christian interpreters to predict the timing and course of human history. It was especially influential on the second-century doctrine called “chiliasm,” which taught that Christ’s return on the Day of the Lord would result in a thousand year period of Christ’s reign over the earth (e.g., Justin, Dialogue 81; Epistle of Barnabas 15.4; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.23.2; 5.28.3). This teaching is normally referred to as “premillennialism” today. But this is not Peter’s point. Peter does not say that God’s day equals a thousand years, but that God’s day is like (hōs) a thousand years. In this way, Peter urges his readers not to grow impatient or short on faith when the promises of God are delayed. As Mounce writes, “God is under no compulsion to carry out his promise according to man’s understanding of time” (1982, 141). Thus, it is wrong to grow impatient or doubtful when God’s promises are not fulfilled as quickly as believers might expect or hope. ■ 9 After refuting the idea that the delay of Christ’s return is an indication that the promise will not be fulfilled by God, Peter turns his attention to the purpose of God’s delay of Christ’s return. Peter tells his readers that the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Although Peter often refers to Jesus as Lord (e.g., 1:2, 8, 11, 14, 16; 2:1, 20), the reference to the Lord in v 9 is most naturally understood as referring to God as it does in v 8. The word translated slow (bradynei) “carries the pejorative nuance of ‘slack’” (Kelly 1969, 362). Many scholars believe that Peter’s words in this verse are a reflection of Habakkuk 2:3, which is often used for the problem of delay in Jewish literature (Bauckham 1983, 310). It is important to note that Peter does not deny or rule out any kind of delay of Christ’s return. Instead, he denies that the slowness of Christ’s return (from a human perspective) is an indication of God’s weakness or disinterest in human affairs. The phrase as some understand slowness is most probably an implicit reference to the false teachers themselves. They were undoubtedly teaching that the delay of Christ’s return meant that the apostles’ teaching about Christ’s return and the Day of Judgment was untrue. But Peter insists that delay does not mean non-fulfillment. Christ’s return may be slow, but it does not mean that God has “slacked off” from his promise. He may be late, but he is not too late. The reason why the Lord has delayed Christ’s return is because he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. The idea that God is patient (makrothymei) is often connected to God’s mercy in Scripture (Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Ps 86:15; Jonah 4:2; Rom 2:4; 9:22; 1 Pet 3:20). Other NT passages teach about God’s desire for the salvation and repentance of every person (John 3:16; Rom 2:4; 11:32; 1 Tim 2:4). Similarly, Peter claims in no uncertain terms that God wants everyone to come to repentance. This does not imply that every person will come to repentance, as Peter makes very clear in v 7. But it reveals the heart and desire of God to make salvation possible to everyone who will repent. This passage seems to undermine the Reformed teaching of predestination, whereby God has preordained the salvation and the condemnation of all people before the beginning of time. Some commentators try to preserve the notion of predestination by emphasizing that the phrase with you indicates that God is only patient with those chosen individuals (that is, those of you) whom he has preordained to repentance and salvation (e.g., Moo 1996, 188). But this interpretation neglects the last clause of the verse, where Peter declares that God wants everyone to come to repentance. The word translated everyone (pas) means literally “all.” There is no grammatical or contextual indication in this verse that would indicate that Peter envisions everyone to be limited to only the predestined elect (that is, those of you). Rather, the word everyone reveals Peter’s clear understanding that God has made repentance and salvation possible for every person. The word repentance fits well with Peter’s overall emphasis within this letter. Peter’s battle with the false teachers did not only stem from their rejection of certain teachings of the apostles, but also from their immoral and sinful behavior. Although they claimed to be followers of Christ, they continued to follow shameful ways by which they brought the way of truth into disrepute (2:2). Peter proclaims that true knowledge of Christ brings one to repentance. Whenever the word repentance (metanoia) is used in the NT, it does not simply mean “change of mind,” but it conveys a “change of direction.” It is a complete reversal of direction in the life and behavior of the believer. Peter proclaims that God’s desire is for everyone to come to repentance. The immoral character and behavior of the false teachers were a clear indication that they had not come to repentance and that they were not saved. Ironically, the false teachers interpreted God’s delay of Christ’s return as an indication of his weakness or disinterest in human affairs. In reality, his delay is a signal of God’s patience and mercy, whereby even the false teachers were given the added opportunity to come to repentance. C. The Certainty of Christ’s Coming (3:10) ■ 10 With v 10, Peter moves from argument to affirmation. While the return of Christ may be delayed, Peter affirms that it will certainly come. The readers are reminded that the day of the Lord will come like a thief. By placing the verb will come (hēksei) at the beginning of the sentence, Peter emphatically underscores the certainty of Christ’s return, which reinforces the argument of v 9. But instead of continuing the argument in v 10, the attention of the readers is now drawn to the reality of Christ’s return. The image of a thief is used often in the NT to denote an arrival that is unexpected and without warning (Matt 24:43-44; Luke 12:39-40; 1 Thes 5:2; Rev 3:3; 16:15). Harrington writes, “The image supports the common NT perspective that since the precise time of the day of the Lord remains uncertain one should always be on guard in one’s behavior” (2003, 289). Since the analogy of the thief is so widespread within the NT writings, the readers were undoubtedly familiar with this teaching. Peter reminds them of the simile of the thief so that they would not be lulled into sleep or inattentiveness by the delay of Christ’s return or by the false teaching of the scoffers. As Watson (1998b, 357) insightfully observes, “The simile is quite effective in conveying both the unexpectedness of the parousia and the threat of judgment it brings to those who impose on the impatience of God by delaying their repentance.” With this short analogy, then, Peter calls upon his readers to be watchful and alert at all times. In the remaining portion of v 10, Peter describes the cosmic events that will accompany the day of Christ’s return: The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. It is interesting to note the descending trio of nouns that move from the heavens to the elements to the earth. It is evident that the day of the Lord will have a cataclysmic impact on all of creation. The translation and understanding of this portion of v 10 is filled with difficulties, with grammatical issues lurking behind each of the three phrases. The first problem is represented by the description of the heavens disappearing with a roar. The word that is translated with a roar (roizēdon) means literally, “with a hissing or crackling sound” (Bauer 1957, 744). The idea that the heavens will disappear “with a hiss” does not seem to be very vivid or meaningful. However, the wide range of usages of the word helps to explain Peter’s intention. For instance, as Green points out, the word “can be used of the swish of an arrow through the air, or the rumbling of thunder, as well as the crackle of flames, the scream of the lash as it descends, the rushing of mighty waters, or the hissing of a serpent” (1987, 150). Since fire seems to be so prominent within the context of this verse, the idea of “the roar of a fire” seems to be the sense with which this adverb should be understood. A second problem has to do with the meaning of the word elements (stoicheia). There are two possible meanings that the word stoicheia could have within this context. It could refer to those elements—fire, water, air, and earth—that most Greeks believed were the basic building blocks of the physical universe. If this is the meaning of the word, then Peter asserts that even the basic elements of creation will be destroyed by fire. As an alternative, the word stoicheia could refer to the heavenly bodies: the sun, moon, stars, and planets. The advantage of this second interpretation is that it picks up the language of several OT passages that speak of the destruction of the heavenly bodies in the end times (e.g., Is 34:4). It is difficult to decide between these two options, but the usage of the word elements again in v 12 seems to weigh a bit heavier in favor of the first meaning. In v 12, Peter notes that the day of the Lord will see the heavens destroyed by fire, and the elements will melt in its heat. In this verse, elements seems to include the earth, and so it would seem that Peter is thinking about the basic building blocks of creation—fire, water, air, and earth (which includes the earth)—instead of simply the heavenly bodies. In this way, Peter moves a step further than his assertion in v 7, where he proclaims that the heavens and earth are reserved for fire. In v 10, he declares that the elements of the earth will actually be destroyed by this fire. The third problem in v 10 is complicated by the existence of several textual variants with the last verb of the verse. Depending upon the Greek manuscript that is used, the last phrase could be translated as “the earth and everything in it will be laid bare” (NIV, NRSV), “the earth and its works will be burned up” (NASB, KJV), or “the earth with everything in it will vanish” (TEV). The reading with the strongest manuscript evidence is the second reading: the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. The problem that this translation possesses is that it does not make very good sense, which is probably the reason why several early scribes changed the final verb to create the other textual variants (Metzger 1994, 636). Literally, the verb translated will be laid bare (heurethēsetai) means “will be found” or “will be manifest.” Thus, it is probably best to understand this last phrase to mean that “the earth and ‘all its works’ will be manifest, disclosed in their fullness to God, at the time of judgment” (Moo 1996, 191). Thus, Peter seems to be describing the intense, penetrating judgment of God that will take place at the end of time. At the time of the day of the Lord, all of earth and creation will be laid bare and exposed to the critical judgment of God in terms of their motive, purpose, and existence. Peter asserts that this process of examination will not be limited to humanity only, but the entire earth and everything in it will be exposed to God’s judgmental scrutiny at the Last Day. [Begin Sidebar] Calvin on 1 Peter 3:10 Calvin makes an interesting observation about the purpose of Peter’s description of the events of the Last Day in v 10. Immediately following this apocalyptic description of the end times, Peter exhorts his readers to live holy and godly lives as they anticipate the coming of the Lord (vv 11-12). Calvin argues that Peter’s graphic depiction of the end times in v 10 is intended primarily as a springboard into the exhortations of vv 11-13. Furthermore, he cautions interpreters from looking too closely at this verse as the foundation of some kind of timetable or road map for the events of the end times. Calvin writes, What afterwards follows, respecting the burning of heaven and earth, requires no long explanation, if indeed we duly consider what is intended. For it was not his purpose to speak refinedly of fire and storm, and other things, but only that he might introduce an exhortation, which he immediately adds, even that we ought to strive after newness of life.... Mischievous, then, are those interpreters who consume much labor on refined speculations, since the Apostle applies his doctrine to godly exhortations. Heaven and earth, he says, shall pass away for our sakes; is it meet, then, for us to be engrossed with the things of earth, and not, on the contrary, to attend to a holy and godly life? (1948, 420) From the Text One of the truths that believers must understand is that God’s timetable cannot be equated to our human timetable. So often we tend to despair of the promises of God when they do not happen within the time span that we have deemed expected or reasonable. Noting the danger of our impatience, Watson writes, “We may not scoff verbally, but our prayer life, church attendance, and overall life-style may begin to suffer as we despair of God’s promises” (1998b, 358). But God’s timing is not our own. In times of impatience and disappointment that can often besiege believers who are waiting on the Lord, Peter reminds us of God’s patience and faithfulness to fulfill his promises. God’s work can sometimes appear to be slow from our impatient, finite perspective of life. But as believers pause to recall the faithful record of God’s actions in the past events of their life, it is discovered that his timing is always perfect. In 3:9, Peter declares that the Lord is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. The plain meaning of this verse is that God wants all people to be saved. But this does not mean that all people will be saved. Although God has made provision through Christ for all people to come to repentance and to be accepted into salvation, some will exercise their God-given free will to exclude God and to reject his offer of redemption. In fact, this is what the false teachers had done, even though they had once turned away from their sin and known Christ as their Savior (2:20). Through his great sovereign will, God created all humanity in his image with the freedom of choice to accept or to reject his offer of love and salvation. Unless God should take away the freedom of choice by which we were created in his image, the fact is that some people will be saved and some will indeed perish (v 7). But those who reject God’s offer of salvation do not perish because God wills it. Indeed, as Peter reminds his readers, God does not want anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. D. Concluding Exhortations (3:11-16) Behind the Text In the last section of many NT letters, it is customary for the author to remind his readers of the Coming of Christ and the kind of behavior that believers should display in anticipation of his return (cf. 1 Cor 15:58; Eph 5:10-18; Phil 4:4-9; Col 4:2-6; 1 Tim 6:13-15a; 1 Tim 4:1-5; 1 Pet 5:1-10). Accordingly, the last verses of 2 Peter consist of moral and ethical injunctions to believers. In contrast to the false teachers who mock the return of Christ and demonstrate a lifestyle of moral depravity, Peter urges his readers to anticipate the certainty of Christ’s return while they live holy and godly lives. As is common to other hortatory sections of the NT, the structure of the exhortations is very loose and flowing, with little evidence of any logical or sequential order to the injunctions. ■ 11 In the previous verses (3:3-10), Peter focuses upon the Christian belief concerning the return of Christ at the Last Day. In v 11, he turns his attention to the moral implications of the Christian expectation of the world’s destruction on the day of the Lord. Peter sums up the teaching of the preceding verses with the phrase, since everything will be destroyed in this way. The word everything (toutōn...pantōn; literally, “all these things”) undoubtedly refers to the subjects enumerated in v 10: the heavens, the elements, and the earth. The verb translated will be destroyed is actually not a future, but a present, tense verb. As a result, the opening phrase of v 11 could be translated literally, “Since everything is disintegrating in this way.” Peter probably uses the present tense to emphasize the certainty of imminent (yet future) destruction, but it is also possible that he views the world in the process of destruction or disintegration. Mayor writes, “The seeds of the destruction which will overtake them at the last day are already at work within them” (1978, 161). In either case, the day of the Lord with its incumbent destruction is perceived as being very imminent. With the impending destruction of the world in view, Peter poses the question: what kind of people ought you to be? He answers his own question immediately: You ought to live holy and godly lives. The false teachers’ answer to this question was blatantly obvious in their shamefully self-seeking, greedy, and sexually immoral lifestyle. But for Peter, the certainty of the imminent arrival of the cataclysmic events of the day of the Lord was not a cause for moral abandonment, like the false teachers, or even moral resignation or fear. Rather, it should spur the believers to righteous living. The believers should live holy lives (hagiais anastrophais). The word holy carries a double nuance of “pure, blameless” as well as the idea of being “set apart” for God. In everything they do, believers should reflect God’s character of holiness in their lives. Likewise, they should live godly lives (eusebeiais), reflecting the God that they had come to know in Christ. The language of this phrase is very similar to the language of 1 Peter, where Peter repeatedly urges his readers to conduct themselves (anastrophē) with a life of holiness and righteousness (1:15-16, 22; 2:1-2, 12, 15, 3:1-2, 16). In both letters, Peter asserts that a standard of holiness must permeate every area of a believer’s life. Ball (1966, 303) notes, “This is a personal, ethical requirement and not a positional, imputed righteousness that could overlook conduct not in harmony with the profession made or the standard which the NT announces.” Peter’s exhortation makes it very clear that anything less than holy and godly conduct marks a deficiency in the believers’ preparation for the Lord’s coming. Peter’s language leaves no doubt that he not only considered holiness of heart and life to be possible, but that it was expected of true believers. ■ 12 Peter continues his exhortation in v 12 by maintaining that believers should live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. In light of the graphic language of destruction that Peter uses to describe the coming of the day of the Lord in these verses, it is striking to observe that the day of God is not depicted as a cause of anxiety or fear among the believers, but that Peter actually depicts them as looking forward (prosdokōntas) to the day. The idea of looking forward is a key theme of this section, as the threefold repetition of this verb in vv 12-14 indicates. Moo (1996, 197) observes that “the attitude of expectancy suggested by the word ‘look forward’ is often mentioned in Scripture as particularly appropriate for God’s people (see, e.g., Hab 2:3-4; Matt 11:3; Luke 7:19-20).” This “forward look” reveals the Christian belief that God has a plan towards which all of creation is progressing. The hope that results from this looking forward is often the foundation for the holy lifestyle to which believers are called, as Peter reveals in his first letter (1 Pet 1:13-16). As believers live a life of holiness and godliness, they do not only look forward to the day of God, but they also speed its coming. The verb translated speed (speudontas) can carry several nuances of meaning, including “to hasten, strive, make an effort, be eager.” But in its other occurrences in the NT (Luke 2:16; 19:5, 6; Acts 20:16; 22:18), the verb always carries the sense of “hastening.” Bauckham (1983, 325) writes, “Clearly this idea of hastening the End is the corollary of the explanation (v 9) that God defers the Parousia because he desires Christians to repent.” In other words, from a human standpoint, the believers’ repentance and holy living work together to hasten the return of Christ. The idea of hastening the coming of the Lord may seem strange, but it was firmly entrenched in Jewish thinking. For instance, several of the rabbis maintained that the Messiah would come only if the people of Israel would perfectly keep the law for one day (cf. Bauckham 1983, 325). Interestingly, Luke records a sermon of Peter in Acts 3, in which Peter urges the people to “repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus” (3:19-20). It is sobering to ponder the idea that the only thing delaying the return of Christ is the failure of believers to live holy and godly lives. In the last phrase of v 12, Peter reminds his readers once again that the day of the Lord will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. The phrase will melt in the heat (kausoumena) is only found here in the NT, but it is used in the Septuagint version of Micah 1:4 and Isaiah 34:4 to describe the melting of the mountains at the eschatological coming of God. Peter is undoubtedly drawing upon these OT portrayals for his depiction of the end times. The term elements (stoicheia) probably refers once again to the basic materials of the earth (including the earth itself), as it also does in v 10. The basic image that dominates this depiction of destruction is that of a consuming fire. Peter repeats the portrayal of the fiery destruction of the heavens and earth in v 12 in order to prepare for v 13. ■ 13 The believers do not only look forward to the destruction of the world, but Peter asserts that in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth. The hope for a new heaven and a new earth is almost certainly based upon Isaiah 65:17, which reads, “Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth.” This verse in Isaiah (along with its repetition in 66:22) is the only OT passage in which the idea of a new heaven and earth is expressed. John picks up the same image in his Revelation (21:1). The characteristic of the new heaven and earth is vividly portrayed in the last phrase of v 13; namely, the new heaven and earth will be the home of righteousness. The word translated home (katoikei) is actually a verb that describes “a certain, fixed and durable dwelling” (Zodhiates 1992, 851). In its Greek usage, it is contrasted with the word paroikos, which Peter uses in his first letter to depict the fact that believers are “strangers” in the present world (2:11; cf. 1:17). Peter reminds his readers that, although they live as “aliens and strangers” in the present world, they eagerly look forward to the day when this world will pass away, and they will live in the home of righteousness. With the prospect of this home of righteousness before them, it is not surprising that Peter would depict the believers as looking forward to the day of the Lord. It is this new heaven and earth filled with righteousness that provides the background for Peter’s exhortation to his readers to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming (3:11-12). One’s vision of the future is virtually always the greatest determining factor for one’s behavior in the present. Accordingly, Peter urges his readers to live a holy and godly life that is fit for a future home of righteousness. [Begin Sidebar] The Result of One’s Vision of the Future Barclay writes eloquently about the effect that one’s vision of the future has upon the attitudes of people. He observes, “If there is no end or goal, either for the world or for the individual life, other than extinction, certain attitudes to life become well-nigh inevitable” (1960, 409). With the use of three poignant illustrations, Barclay depicts the kinds of attitudes that result from a person’s vision of the future. Each of these attitudes is revealed in an epitaph that has been found on the tomb of an ancient heathen. He writes,

(i) If there is nothing to come, a man may well decide to make what he can of the pleasures of this world. So we come to an epitaph like this: “I was nothing: I am nothing. So thou who art still alive, eat, drink, and be merry.” (ii) If there is nothing to live for, then a man may well be utterly indifferent. Nothing matters much if the end of everything is extinction, in which a man will not even be aware that he is extinguished. So we come on such an epitaph as this: “Once I had no existence; now I have none. I am not aware of it. It does not concern me.” When life and the world are on the way to nothingness, the value is gone out of life. (iii) If there is nothing to live for by extinction, and if the world is going nowhere, there can enter into life a kind of lostness.... So we come on an epigram like that of Callimachus. “Charidas, what is below?” “Deep darkness.” “But what of the paths upward?” “All a lie.” “And Pluto?” (The god of the underworld). “Mere talk.” “Then we’re lost.” Even the heathen found a certain almost intolerable quality in a world and in a life without a goal. When we have stripped the doctrine of the Second Coming of all its temporary and its local imagery and apparatus, the one tremendous truth which it conserves is that life is going somewhere—and without that conviction there is literally nothing left to live for. (Barclay 1960, 409-410) ■ 14 With the use of the inferential conjunction dio (“therefore, so then”), Peter makes it clear that the exhortations he is about to give in v 14 are based on what he has just written. Thus, the phrase since you are looking forward to this encompasses his teaching of both the destruction and the subsequent new creation of the world. This is the third time in vv 12-14 that Peter uses the verb looking forward (prosdokōntes). Such an attitude of expectancy for the future must make them receptive to instructions and exhortations concerning the present. In the light of their understanding and expectations about the future, Peter calls upon his readers to make every effort to be found spotless, blameless, and at peace with him. Peter used the same verb make every effort (spoudasate) in 1:5, where he urged his readers to make every effort to pursue and practice the moral virtues. Similarly, he calls upon his readers again in v 14 to make every effort to live pure and holy lives before God. The verb to be found (heurethēnai) carries a judicial overtone. It depicts the scene of a court of law where the judge declares whether he has “found” the defendants innocent or guilty (Moo 1996, 207). It is the same verbal form of the word that Peter used in 3:10, where he asserted that the entire earth and everything in it would be laid bare (heurethēsetai; literally, “found out”) through God’s penetrating and infallible judgment at the Last Day. Peter urges the believers to commit themselves to a life of holy living now so that on the day of Christ’s return they will be found spotless and blameless. The words spotless and blameless (aspiloi kai amōmētoi) are essentially synonyms depicting moral purity (Bauckham 1983, 327). It is striking to observe that Peter uses these same terms in 1 Peter 1:19 to depict Christ as “a lamb without blemish or defect.” In essence, when Peter enjoins believers to make every effort to be found spotless and blameless, he is urging them to conform to the spotless, blameless pattern of the life of Christ himself; that is to say, he wants them to be Christlike. The contrast with the lifestyle and behavior of the false teachers could not be more vivid. Peter uses the same words in 2:13 (without the a-negative) to declare that the false teachers are mere “blots and blemishes” (spiloi kai mōmoi) in the sight of God. In contrast, he implores his readers to be found by Christ as spotless and blameless (aspiloi kai amōmētoi), exemplifying a lifestyle that is completely opposite to that of the false teachers. Within the context of the passage, Peter’s emphasis seems to be the same as the apostle John, who calls upon his readers to continue to live a life of purity and faith in Christ “so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming” (1 John 2:28). The phrase at peace with him (eirēnē) is an added quality that Peter places at the end of the verse. Although it could refer to the believers’ sense of tranquility and assurance in the face of Christ’s return, it is more likely that the word peace carries the idea of reconciliation with God (cf. Rom 5:1-2). Thus, the notion that the believers will be found at peace indicates that “in their pursuit of holiness they have put out of their lives all those things that would evoke Christ’s condemnation” (Hiebert 1984b, 332). As is evident throughout this letter, Peter insists that the link between faith and conduct must be maintained. ■ 15a The first phrase of v 15 contains a command that is closely linked to the exhortation for personal holiness in v 14. After summoning his readers to live a life of Christlike purity, Peter goes on to urge them to bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation. Although it is often not translated, the first word of v 15 is the word “and” (kai). With the use of this connective conjunction, Peter closely connects the believers’ quest for personal holiness with a correct evaluation of the delay of Christ’s return. Whereas the false teachers understood the delay of Christ’s coming to be a sign of God’s “slowness” (v 9), the believers should confidently regard the delay as evidence of God’s saving purposes toward mankind. Thus, since it is a sign of God’s patience (makrothymia; same root word as patient in v 9), the delay of Christ’s return should be used by Christians to pursue salvation. Scholars debate whether Peter’s reference to salvation means that he sees the delay of Christ’s return as an opportunity for believers to evangelize unbelievers for salvation or that he sees the delay as an opportunity for believers to secure their own salvation. Probably, he has both elements in mind. Wheaton (1970, 1258) writes, “While God is waiting, He is both giving time for the unbeliever to be saved, and for the believer to be working out his salvation (cf. Phil 2:12, 13) in terms of progress in sanctification.” ■ 15b-16 In the latter half of v 15 and in v 16, Peter appeals to Paul’s writings as a confirmation of his teaching. After urgently reminding his readers that the delay of Christ’s return is a sign of God’s patience that leads to salvation, Peter tells his readers that his teaching is just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. The words just as (kathōs kai) indicate that Peter perceives his own teaching to be in full agreement with Paul’s teaching. Although some scholars have attempted to identify which Pauline writing Peter might have in mind here, any conclusions are merely speculative. Moo notes that the point that Peter has made in vv 14-15 “is very general—Christians need to live holy lives in light of the coming of Christ—and Paul touches on this subject in virtually every letter he wrote” (1996, 210). Thus, the reference to what Paul also wrote you could refer to any one, or even all, of Paul’s letters. Peter notes that Paul wrote according to the wisdom given him. The construction of the verb given is passive, which most scholars agree should be interpreted as a “divine passive,” with God as the implied agent of the action. In other words, Peter emphasizes the fact that Paul’s wisdom in his letters is not due to an innate ability or intelligence on Paul’s part, but it is divinely imparted. God gave Paul the wisdom to understand and explain the gospel to his generation. [Begin Sidebar] Peter and Paul Much ado has been made by scholars about the disagreement between Peter and Paul that is recorded in Galatians 2. But Peter refers to his fellow apostle as our beloved brother Paul. In light of the confrontation of Peter and Paul in Galatians 2, many of the scholars who deny the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter believe that this affectionate description excludes the possibility that Peter could have written this letter. But despite multiple claims of a feud between Peter and Paul by various scholars, there is no biblical evidence of an ongoing disagreement or conflict between these two leading apostles. As a matter of fact, the simplicity of Peter’s designation of Paul as our beloved brother “is in full accord with the warm, familiar relations between leaders in the early church (cf. Acts 15:7, 25; 1 Cor 4:17; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7)” (Hiebert 1984b, 333). Indeed, the simple description of Paul in 3:15 seems to align itself much better with other writings of the first century than with the writings of the second century, where the apostles are routinely described with much more exalted terms (e.g., Clement of Rome: “the blessed Apostle Paul;” Ignatius: “Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly happy;” Polycarp: “the blessed and glorified Paul.” Cf. Hiebert 1984b, 333). Thus, it would be perfectly natural for Peter to call Paul his beloved brother, and this designation fits well with early Christian usage. [End Sidebar] In v 16, Peter observes that Paul writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. Obviously, the reference to all his letters indicates that Peter was familiar with several of Paul’s writings. But the claim that all his letters must refer to the entire collection of Pauline letters is unfounded. By interpreting this phrase as necessarily including all of Paul’s letters, some scholars believe that they have once again found evidence that denies Petrine authorship, for it would be impossible for Peter to be familiar with all of Paul’s canonical letters. But, as Mayor recognizes, the phrase all his letters “does not necessarily include all the epistles which have come down to us under the name of Paul; nor on the other hand is it necessarily limited to them: it means simply ‘all the letters known to the writer’” (1978, 165). For many believers, it is somewhat comforting to hear Peter observe that Paul’s letters contain some things that are hard to understand. The word translated hard to understand (dysnoēta) “is a rare word, with a nuance of ambiguity about it” (Green 1987, 159). The word is used to indicate something difficult to grasp, either because the statement is ambiguous or because it is capable of being misinterpreted. The subsequent reference to ignorant and unstable people who distort the things they read underscores Peter’s understanding that the problem does not lie so much in what Paul has written as it lies in the ignorant perspective of those who distort his writings. Bauckham writes, “The reference is probably therefore to passages which are liable to be misunderstood unless they are interpreted in the light of the rest of Paul’s teaching and of the apostolic teaching generally, rather than to passages which are simply obscure” (1983, 331). Paul himself had to deal with people who distorted his teachings in order to justify their own immoral or selfish behavior (e.g., Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 6:12-20; 10:23-24; Gal 1:6-9; 5:11-13). Likewise, Peter speaks of ignorant and unstable people who distort the writings of Paul. The words ignorant and unstable are only found here in the NT. The words do not describe two different groups, but they designate one group having both characteristics. The adjective ignorant (amatheis) conveys the idea of lack of training more than the idea of lack of knowledge (Strachan 1979, 147). The second adjective unstable (astēriktoi) “refers more to conduct, those whose habits are not fully trained and established” (Strachan 1979, 147). Thus, they were untrained and unrestrained in their interpretation of Paul’s writings. This reference to ignorant and unstable people must be aimed at the false teachers. Evidently, the false teachers were distorting portions of Paul’s writings to justify and legitimize their false teaching and immoral behavior. Not only do these people distort Paul’s letters, but they also distort the other Scriptures. With this phrase, Peter unapologetically places the Pauline letters alongside the other Scriptures as authoritative. Once again, this phrase has been called upon by some scholars as a proof that Peter could not have written 2 Peter. They object that such a high view of Paul’s letters could not have emerged as early as the mid-60s AD, when 2 Peter must have been written if Peter is its author. Admittedly, Peter’s estimation of Paul’s letters as being comparable and equal to the other Scriptures is a bit surprising, but the formation of “authoritative writings” is an arbitrary process for which there is no predetermined timetable. As Blum (1981b, 288) observes, “That Paul’s writings should be considered ‘Scripture’ is not surprising, for from the moment of composition they had the authority of commands of the Lord through his apostle (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 14:37; Gal 1:1).” Peter is very firm and consistent in asserting that those who distort the Scriptures to justify their own actions and beliefs do so to their own destruction. Peter is not speaking here of the person who accidently or honestly misunderstands or misinterprets a passage of Scripture. The word distort (streblousin) means “to twist or wrench.” It is the word that was used in the discussion of torture to describe the stretching of a victim on the rack. Thus, the image that Peter portrays here is the willful distortion of the Scriptures by people who take a passage of Scripture and, like a victim on the rack, try to force it to say what they want it to say. The result of this kind of abuse of the Bible is one’s own destruction. From the Text Peter urges believers to live holy and godly lives (3:11). The call to holiness is not described in terms that would depict a unique “hobby” for a few extremely devout believers. Rather, Peter calls all believers to a lifestyle of holiness as the only appropriate way for Christians to prepare for the coming of the Lord. If there is to be a new heaven and earth, and if this new heaven and earth is to be the home of righteousness (3:13), then obviously believers must make every effort (3:14) to live a life that is fit to dwell in this new world, in which there will be no room for unrighteousness. Peter describes what holy and godly lives look like in 1:5-7, where he urges his readers to seek after and practice the moral virtues. The message of Peter is clear: if believers want to live in the glorious home of righteousness, their faith must demonstrate itself in their daily lifestyle. This is the foundational principle of the Biblical call to holiness of heart and life. Peter’s teaching and exhortation to believers about the Second Coming of Christ reminds us of the close connection that exists between anticipation and preparation. The false teachers denied the return of Christ so that they had no anticipation of Christ’s coming. As a result, their only preparation took the form of selfish and lustful attempts to appease the immoral desires of their physical bodies. For people like them, the day of the Lord will come like a thief, exacting its destruction and decimation unexpectedly and disastrously. True believers, on the other hand, anticipate the day of Christ’s return. As a result they prepare themselves by making every effort to live holy and godly lives so that, at the day of Christ’s appearing, they may be found pure and blameless like Christ himself. Since they are at peace with God, the advent of Christ’s return will not bring condemnation or fear, but confirmation and reward. For this reason, believers eagerly look forward to the day of Christ’s return with the echo of John’s maranatha prayer on their lips: “Come, Lord Jesus, come!” (Rev 22:20). While it is certainly possible for any believer to mistakenly misinterpret and misunderstand a passage of the Bible, this threat is never greater than for the one who is not actively pursuing a holy and godly lifestyle. Sin blinds us to the truth. Like the false teachers who tried to distort the Scriptures to justify their immoral lifestyle, sin tempts us to change the Truth to match our behavior instead of submitting to the Truth in order to change our behavior. For this reason, believers must always be on the guard against easy or convenient interpretations of Scripture. One of the indispensable benefits of regular corporate worship is the opportunity it affords the believer to examine and test one’s own understanding of the Bible and its mandates for a Christian life within a Christian context. Without it, the believer becomes vulnerable to the subtle delusion of sin to justify virtually anything.

Original