From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain Second Peter
and Jude Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2018
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
CHAPTER 2:12-22
WEB: But
these, as unreasoning creatures, born natural animals to be taken and
destroyed, speaking evil in matters about which they are ignorant, will in their
destroying surely be destroyed,
Young’s: and
these, as irrational natural beasts, made to be caught and destroyed -- in what
things they are ignorant of, speaking evil -- in their destruction shall be
destroyed
Conte (RC): Yet truly, these others, like irrational
beasts, naturally fall into traps and into ruin by
blaspheming whatever they do not understand, and
so they shall perish in their
corruption,
The word rendered
“natural” (which, however, is lacking in several manuscripts), means “as they
are by nature,” following the bent of their natural appetites and
passions. The idea is,
that they exercised no more restraint over their passions than beasts do over
their propensities. They were entirely
under the dominion of their natural appetites, and did not allow their reason
or conscience to exert any constraint.
The word rendered “brute,” means without reason; irrational. Man has reason, and should allow it to
control his passions; the brutes have no rational nature, and it is to be
expected that they will act out their propensities without restraint. Man, as an animal, has many passions and
appetites resembling those of the brute creation, but he is also endowed with a
higher nature, which is designed to regulate and control his inferior
propensities, and to keep them in subordination to the requirements of
law. [31]
As animals are
trapped through their eagerness to satisfy their appetite, so self-indulgence
betrayed these men to their ruin. [45]
made to be taken
and destroyed. If a man sinks himself to the level of brutes,
he must expect to be treated like brutes; and as wild and savage
animals--lions, and panthers, and wolves, and bears--are regarded as dangerous,
and as “made to be taken and destroyed,” so the same destiny must come upon men
who make themselves like them. We are
not to suppose that this teaches that the only object which God had in view in
making wild animals was that they might be destroyed; but that people so regard
them. [31]
Or: Literally, born naturally for
capture and destruction. “Natural” comes
in better here as a kind of adverb than as an additional epithet to
beasts. The force of it is that these
animals cannot help themselves—it is their nature to rush after what will prove
their ruin; but the false teachers voluntarily seek their own destruction
against nature. [46]
speak evil of the
things that they understand not. Do not rightly comprehend. [14]
Of objects whose worth and value they cannot
appreciate. This is no uncommon thing
among people, especially in regard to the works and ways of God. [31]
The senseless and malignant reviling indulged in by
these men in matters which they are incapable of understanding, and in which
ignorance should command silence, shows how like they are to the irrational
beasts. And as they resemble these in
their mode of life, Peter goes on to say, they shall resemble them in their
destiny. [51]
and shall utterly
perish in their own corruption. We cannot improve on the English rendering,
but it fails to give the emphasis which is found in the Greek from the
repetition of the same root both in the noun and the verb. Literally the clause runs, they
shall be corrupted in and by their corruption, i.e. in Paul’s words, of
which these are in fact the echo, “they that sow to the flesh shall of the
flesh reap corruption” (Galatians 6:8). [38]
Two interpretations: Many good interpreters give the ethical
meaning to the word “destruction” here.
In this case the sense will be, as the A.V. gives it, “shall utterly
perish in their own corruption,” or (as it is more fully put, e.g., by
Alford), shall go on practicing the corrupt life to which they have sold
themselves with increasing appetite until they are themselves destroyed by
it. The idea, however, is rather this: in the destruction which they bring upon
others, they shall yet bring destruction upon themselves. So Humphry (Comm. on Revised Version, p. 451) makes it
= while causing destruction to others, shall accomplish their own destruction;
with which non-ethical sense of the verb and noun he compares (with Wordsworth)
1 Corinthians
WEB: receiving
the wages of unrighteousness; people who count it pleasure to revel in the
daytime, spots and blemishes, reveling in their deceit while they feast with
you;
Young’s: about
to receive a reward of unrighteousness, pleasures counting the luxury in the
day, spots and blemishes, luxuriating in their deceits, feasting with you,
Conte (RC): receiving the reward of injustice,
the fruition of valuing the delights of the day:
defilements and stains, overflowing with self-
indulgences, taking pleasure in their feasts
with you,
Interpreting based upon a NASB style rendering: “Suffering wrong as the hire of
wrong-doing.” The Revised Version
imitates a play upon words in the Greek—adikoumenoi,
“suffering wrong;” adikia, “wrong-doing.” The natural meaning of the Revised Version as
English is—Having done wrong to others, deceived,
cheated, robbed, they incur the retribution of being similarly wronged
themselves. But this can scarcely be the
meaning of the Greek; the whole context is concerned with the total ruin of
these men by Divine punishment, and there is nothing to lead up to the special
and limited idea of the suffering of sinners at the hands of fellow sinners. (On
the other hand, what better short term punishment from an angry God than that
that those who act to hurt others are themselves harmed by just as twisted
individuals? Today the adage would be
“what goes around comes around.” The
point would be that people receive punishment not only at the final assize but
in this world as well. [rw])
Again, in verse 15, “the hire of wrong-doing” means the gratification and advantage which men hope to attain from sin. Hence we should rather translate “being defrauded of the hire,” &c., i.e. sin promises pleasures, which its votaries fail to obtain.
Another
reading is, “being about to receive the hire,” &c., “hire” being used
sarcastically; they sinned for hire, with a view to pleasure, and will receive
hire, but it will be destruction. Cf.
Romans 6:23, “The wages of sin is death.”
The manuscripts, &c., are divided between the two readings, and
neither gives a very good sense. [45]
as they that
count it pleasure to riot [carouse, NKJV] in the day time. Nighttime is the most “natural” setting for
that which conscience or society condemns as evil. When one does so “in the day time,” then one
has unquestionably thrown overboard any possible impediments to self-indulgence. [rw]
In the East it was a shameful disgrace to be drunken in the daytime. So 1 Thessalonians 5:7 describes the custom:
“They that be drunken are drunken in the night;” but
rioting by day would be a pleasure to these
heretical profligates. [39]
Or: Probably “in a day” is the equivalent of “to
a day,” and the sense is “count the revel of a day a pleasure,” with reference
to the transient nature of the pleasure.
[16]
As Vulgate and Calvin, “the luxury which is but
for a day”: so Hebrews 11:25, “the pleasures of sin for a season”;
that is, to be their chief good and highest enjoyment. [20]
spots they are and
blemishes. That is, they are like a dark spot on a
pure garment, or like a deformity on an otherwise beautiful person. They are a scandal and disgrace to the
Christian profession. [31]
We have the negatives of these two terms in the
description of the lamb “without blemish and without
spot” in 1 Peter
spots. [Greek word] only here and
Ephesians
blemishes. The term,
which means properly blame, and then blemish, occurs only
here. Its verb [form] is found in 2
Corinthians 6:3; 2 Corinthians 8:20. [51]
sporting themselves
with [carousing in, NKJV] their own deceivings
deceptions, NKJV]. They blatantly and brazenly act this way no
matter how extreme and destructive their agenda may be. They have rationalized away their guilt and,
perhaps, even transformed what should be ashamed of in their agenda into
things they are quite proud of. They are
not only the most brazen of sinners, but they act as if it is something to be
proud of. [rw]
while they feast
with you. In Jude these persons are designated as
“hidden rocks” in the love feasts (verse 12).
[16]
They don’t even
try to hide these attitudes and behavior from you. They do it right in front of you! Don’t you have eyes to see and grasp what is
going on? [rw]
WEB: having
eyes full of adultery, and who can't cease from sin; enticing unsettled souls;
having a heart trained in greed; children of cursing;
Young’s: having
eyes full of adultery, and unable to cease from sin, enticing unstable souls,
having an heart exercised in covetousnesses,
children of a curse,
Conte (RC): having eyes full of adultery and of
incessant offenses, luring unstable souls, having a
heart well-trained in avarice, sons
of curses!
full of adultery. It
properly signifies, their having an adulteress
continually before their eyes. [17]
The word “full” is designed to denote that the
corrupt passion referred to had wholly seized and occupied their minds. The eye was, as it were, full of this
passion; it saw nothing else but some occasion for its indulgence; it expressed
nothing else but the desire. [31]
The phrase is probably connected with a recollection
of our Lord’s words as to the sin of looking on a woman, to lust after her,
being equivalent to adultery (Matthew
and that cannot
cease from sin. They
have destroyed their own free will. God
did not “make them that way.”
Their constant indulgence while refusing to attempt the uncomfortable
path of moral change doomed them to it—not as the proverbial “wild oats” of
rebellious youth, but as a permanent lifestyle.
[rw]
Or: [Cannot cease] not for want of natural power,
but of disposition. [14]
The expression here does not mean that they have no
natural ability to cease from sin, or that they are impelled to it by any
physical necessity, but only that they are so corrupt and unprincipled that
they certainly will sin always. [31]
beguiling [enticing,
NKJV]. The word rendered beguiling means to
bait, to entrap, and would be applicable to the methods practiced in
hunting. Here it means that it was one
of their arts to place specious allurements before those who were known not to
have settled principles or firmness, in order to allure them to sin. Compare 2 Timothy 3:6. [31]
unstable souls. Those who are not strong in Christian principle, or who are
naturally fluctuating and irresolute.
[31]
unstable. Not firmly established in faith and
piety. [20]
an heart they
have exercised [trained, ESV] with covetous practices [in greed, ESV]. For their hearts had continual
practiced in this vice. In verses 13 and 14 three kinds of
wrong-doing are spoken of: (1) luxurious living;
(2) licentiousness; (3) covetousness—and all these feed one another. [50]
cursed children. By
calling them cursed or execrable children, he may be understood
to mean, that they were so either actively or passively, that is, that they
brought a curse with them wherever they went, or that they deserved a
curse. [35]
The Apostle falls back on the old Hebrew idiom of
expressing character by the idea of sonship. So we have “children of obedience in 1 Peter
WEB: forsaking
the right way, they went astray, having followed the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of wrongdoing;
Young’s: having
forsaken a right way, they did go astray, having followed in the way of Balaam
the son of Bosor, who a reward of unrighteousness did
love,
Conte (RC): Abandoning the straight path, they
wandered astray, having followed the way of Balaam,
the
son of Beor, who loved the wages of iniquity.
There may possibly
be a reference to “the way of truth” in 2 Peter 2:2 and to the general use of
“the way” for the sum and substance of the doctrine of Christ. It may be noted that the charge thus brought
against the false teachers by Peter is identical with that which Paul brings
against Elymas of “perverting the right ways of the
Lord” (Acts
In the Shepherd of Hermas (I. Vis. III. vii. 1) we
have “Who have believed indeed, but through their doubting have
forsaken their true way.” [46]
and are gone
astray.
If one has “forsaken”
the right path, by definition one has automatically gotten lost and
“gone astray.” [rw]
following the way of
Balaam the son of Bosor. His conduct and manner of
life. His history is given in
Numbers 22:1-24:25; 31:8-16; Joshua 13:22.
[50]
[They had done so:]
1. In respect of their false
doctrine: for, as Balaam was disobedient to God, and, against his command, went
to Balak; so these men forsook the way of truth
prescribed by God in his word. 2. In respect of their wicked lives: Balaam
taught Balak to entice the children of
who loved. Earnestly desired, though he did not dare to take, the reward of
unrighteousness--the money which Balak would have
given him for cursing
the wages of
unrighteousness. After God had told him that he should not go
with the elders of Moab and Midian, and after God had
told him that the people were blessed by Him, he yet desired the messengers to
tarry one night more that he might know what the Lord would say unto him
further, evidently desiring that God would reverse His blessing in order
that he might receive Balak’s rewards of
divination. [41]
In depth: Balaam’s
attitude was one of not cursing
(1) The elders of
(2) Balaam was disposed to go with them, and was
restrained from going at once only by a direct and solemn prohibition from the
Lord, Numbers
(3) Not withstanding this solemn prohibition, and not withstanding he said to the ambassadors from Balak that he would do only as God directed, though Balak should give him his house full of silver and gold, Numbers 22:18, yet he did not regard the matter as settled, but proposed to them that they should wait another night, with the hope that the Lord would give a more favorable direction in reference to their request, thus showing that his heart was in the service which they required, and that his inclination was to avail himself of their offer, Numbers 22:19.
(4) When he did obtain permission to go, it was
only to say that which the Lord should direct him to say, Numbers 22:20; but he
went with a perverse heart, with a secret wish to comply with the desire of Balak, and with a knowledge that he was doing wrong,
Numbers 22:34, and was restrained from uttering the curse which Balak desired only by an influence from above which he
could not control. Balaam was
undoubtedly a wicked man, and was constrained by a power from on high to utter
sentiments which God meant should be uttered, but which Balaam would never have
expressed of his own accord.
This attitude of seeking
financial gain by someway subverting
In depth: Speculation
on why Balaam’s father is described as the son of Bosor
instead of the son of Beor [38]. The form Bosor,
instead of Beor, may represent the mode of
pronouncing the guttural letter that enters into the Hebrew name (ע) which prevailed in
Another
explanation, not, however, incompatible with this, has been found in the
conjecture that as the Hebrew word Bashar
signifies “flesh,” the Apostle may have used the form of the name which
conveyed the thought that Balaam was “a son of the flesh,” carnal and base of
purpose. Like explanations have been
given of the change of Sychem (= a portion) into Sychar (= a lie) (John 4:5), of Beelzebub (= lord of flies)
into Beelzebul (= lord of dung) (Matthew
WEB: but
he was rebuked for his own disobedience. A mute donkey spoke with a man's voice
and stopped the madness of the prophet.
Young’s: and
had a rebuke of his own iniquity -- a dumb ass, in man's voice having spoken,
did forbid the madness of the prophet.
Conte (RC): Yet truly, he had a correction of his
madness: the mute animal under the yoke, which,
by speaking with a human voice, forbid the folly
of the prophet.
Literally,
But had a conviction of his own transgression—i.e., was convicted of it, or
rebuked for it. His transgression
was that, although as a prophet he knew the blessedness of
for his iniquity. Those wanting to use him to hurt God’s
people had their own condemnation. This
was uniquely “his.” He was willing to
let himself be used. [rw]
the dumb ass
speaking with man's voice. A strong antithesis is intended
here. A senseless ass had to rebuke the
senselessness of a prophet. [34]
Literally, a dumb beast of burden. The same word is rendered “ass” in Matthew
21:5, in the phrase “foal of an ass.” In
Effort to prove that
the donkey spoke through actions
rather than explicit words: “The apostle does not mean that the
ass forbade Balaam, in so many words, to go with the princes of Moab; but that
her unwillingness to proceed in the journey, her falling down under him rather
than go on, her complaint in man’s language of his smiting her three times for
not going on, and her saying, Was I ever wont to do so to thee, were
things, so extraordinary, especially her speaking, that Balaam, from that
miracle at least, ought to have understood that the whole was a rebuke from God
of his foolish project.” [47] Interesting scenario, but it seems
very hard to reconcile this with Peter’s assertion that the animal was
“speaking with a man’s voice” since, in this reconstruction, there was
no voice actually speaking. One
conceivably could argue that in order to summarize “speaking through actions”
in only a few words, that one might come up with “speaking with [a] man’s
voice,” but it still seems a stretch. [rw]
forbad. The “forbade” of the A.V. does not
fairly represent the sense of the original.
The meaning is prevented, checked, or, as the R.V. very happily
gives it, “stayed.” The offence was
interdicted, but not left uncommitted. [51]
the madness. Namely, his endeavor to contradict the will of God, which might well be called madness, because it could have no effect but to bring the curse of God upon himself. [47]
The word here rendered “madness” means, properly,
being aside from a right mind. It is not
found elsewhere in the New Testament. It is used here to denote that Balaam was
engaged in an enterprise which indicated a headstrong disposition; an acting
contrary to reason and sober sense. [31]
of the prophet. That
Balaam was indeed a prophet of God, and well acquainted with his revelations,
the history in the book of Numbers will not suffer us to doubt: for those words, “I cannot go beyond the
commandment of my God, to do good or evil” (Numbers 22:18), show he was not
unacquainted with the true God (see also 24:4); though after, through a
covetous desire of gain, he used enchantments.
[4]
The scenario that the cursing/blessing of Israel was the only time that
Balaam actually had a genuine communication from Jehovah: Though Balaam is termed a soothsayer
(Joshua 13:22), and is said to have used enchantments (Numbers 24:1), Peter
justly calls him a prophet, on account of God’s speaking to him, and giving him
a very remarkable prophecy, recorded [in] Numbers 24:15. However, being a very bad man, he may often
have feigned communications with the Deity to draw money from the
multitude. Perhaps the only
communications he ever had with God were on this occasion; and they may have
been granted to him, that by uttering them in the hearing of Balak, and of the princes of
In depth: The logic
of what the donkey said [41]. The
reader is, of course, aware of the objections which have been made to this
account, and the ridicule which has been cast upon it. Now if the ass had been made to utter some
revelation, or to prophesy, or to disclose something which was utterly above
the range of a brute creature, there might be something in the objections
urged, but the ass simply does what an ass might well do if God were to open
his mouth: he remonstrates at being
ill-treated, and he pleads his good behavior ever since he had belonged to
Balaam. The miracle was wrought simply
to arrest Balaam and to convince him that he must not say a word beyond what
the Lord put in his mouth. The
difficulty is not in any of the circumstances of the narrative, but in God
choosing by such a man as Balaam to make known His designs respecting
In depth: What should
Balaam be classified as: a true prophet
losing control of his scruples or as a false prophet from the beginning [50]?
Balaam is a strange character.
Some like Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, have
regarded him as a thoroughly godless and false prophet—a prophet of the devil;
while Tertullian, Jerome, and others have maintained
that he was a true prophet, who fell through covetousness and ambition. The true view lies between the two extreme
views. He was a heathen soothsayer, and
yet God used him and made him the bearer of His revelations.
We have here Apostolic testimony to the truth of the history of
Balaam and his ass. We are not to regard
this as a legend, nor as a vision on the part of Balaam in an ecstatic state,
nor as a mere imagination of his own mind, but as an external, objective
occurrence.
Wordsworth: “The ass saw the angel which the prophet
could not see; and showed more of reason and knowledge than her master who rode
upon her, and who, though endued with many spiritual gifts, was then blinded by
disobedience. In like manner, the most
unlearned person, who receives the history of Balaam as true—a history
guaranteed by the testimony of the inspired Apostle Peter, and by that of the
Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who received all the Old Testament as true—is
really a far more intelligent and clear-sighted person than the Infidel
Philosopher and Biblical Expositor who reject that history as false. The believer sees the angel; the unbelieving Philosopher and Expositor are
blind.”
WEB: These
are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom
the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever.
Young’s: These
are wells without water, and clouds by a tempest driven, to whom the thick
gloom of the darkness to the age hath been kept;
Conte (RC): These ones are like fountains without
water, and like clouds stirred up by whirlwinds. For
them, the mist of darkness is
reserved.
What a disappointment to
those who are thirsting! [7]
One who sets up to be a teacher ought to be a
fountain of wisdom. These men yield
none. [37]
The language employed both by Peter and Jude is
singularly terse, pointed, and emphatic.
Nothing to an oriental mind would be more expressive than to say of
professed religious teachers, that they were “wells without water.” It was always a sad disappointment to a
traveler in the hot sands of the desert to come to a well where it was expected
that water might be found, and to find it dry.
It only aggravated the trials of the thirsty and weary traveler. Such were these religious teachers. In a
world, not unaptly compared, in regard to its real
comforts, to the wastes and sands of the desert, they would only grievously
disappoint the expectations of all those who were seeking for the refreshing
influences of the truths of the gospel. [31]
Their apparent piety
leads to the illusion that they have something of real substance to offer: It is
possible that the figure points to the apostasy of the men “who bear the
semblance of teachers, just as, for a little time, a place in Eastern lands
where water has flowed will continue green, but disappoint the
thirsty traveller who may be led by a little verdure
to hope for water” (Lumby). But it is rather in respect simply of the
pretence which they make, and the deception which they practice, that they are
likened to waterless springs. The force
of the imagery, which has a special appropriateness in Eastern lands, will be
seen by comparing those passages in which God Himself is designated a “fountain
of living waters” (Jeremiah 2:13), or those in which men who turn from sin are
likened to a “spring of water, whose waters fail not” (Isaiah 58:11); but best
of all by comparing such passages as those in which the “mouth of the
righteous” is said to be as a “well of life,” and the “law of the wise” is
described as “a fountain of life” (Proverbs 10:11; 13:14). See also the imagery used by Christ Himself
in John 4:10, 14;
clouds [mists, ESV, NASB] that are carried. Literally, “clouds being driven by (literally, under) a tempest. [3]
“Clouds without water” is the figure in Jude 12. [16]
This probably is a reminiscence of Proverbs 25:14,
“Whoso boasteth himself of a false gift (as of
prophecy) is like clouds and wind without rain.” Mists or clouds seemingly full of rain, but
driven across the sky so that no rain falls from them to water the earth
below. [41]
More accurately, mists
driven about by a whirlwind, the better MSS giving “mists” instead of
“clouds.” The word was probably
chosen as indicating what we should call the “haziness” of the speculations of
the false teachers. [38]
with a tempest. Revision, by a storm.
The [Greek] word occurs only twice elsewhere--Mark
to whom the mist
[blackness, NKJV]. Mists might supply some moisture, or
protect from the burning sun, but when driven by the wind, as these teachers by
their passions, they can only blind and distress. [7]
Did Peter’s mind go back to that scene, so that he
saw, in the wild whirling mists that brought the risk of destruction, a parable
of the storm of heresies by which the Church was now threatened? [38]
of darkness is reserved. [This] refers to the punishment of these persons (Jude 13). [16]
Compare Jeremiah’s description of the false prophets, whose “way shall be unto them as slippery ways in
the darkness” (Jeremiah
for ever. Permanently. [rw]
It asserts the Divine certainty, the hopelessness, the perpetuity of the doom of these apostates. [51]
In depth: “Wells” and “cloud”—indications of a Hebrew language original for both 2 Peter and Jude [46]? A Hebrew word which occurs only twice in the Old Testament is translated by the LXX in the one place (Genesis 2:6) by the word here used for “well,” and in the other (Job 36:27) by the word used in Jude verse 12, for “cloud.” Thus the same Hebrew might have produced “wells without water” here and “clouds without water” in Jude. This is one of the arguments used in favor of a Hebrew original of both these Epistles.
Coincidences of this kind, which may easily be mere
accidents of language, must be shown to be numerous before a solid argument can
be based upon them. Moreover, we must
remember that the writers in both cases were Jews, writing in Greek, while thinking
probably in Hebrew, so that the same Hebrew thought might suggest a different
Greek expression in the two cases. When
we have deducted all that might easily be accounted for in this way, and also
all that is perhaps purely accidental, from the not very numerous instances of
a similar kind that have been collected, we shall not find much on which to
build the hypothesis of these Epistles being translations from Hebrew
originals.
WEB: For,
uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh,
by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error;
Young’s: for overswellings of vanity speaking, they do entice in desires
of the flesh -- lasciviousnesses, those who had truly
escaped from those conducting themselves in error,
Conte (RC): For, speaking with the arrogance of
vanity, they lure, by the desires of fleshly pleasures,
those who are fleeing to some extent, who are
being turned from error,
Hollow,
vain phrases, “proud words with nothing to back them” (Luther). [50]
For when they
speak. Literally, “For
speaking . . . .” The adjective
is used by classical writers both literally and figuratively of excessive
magnitude. It indicates what we should
call the “high-flown” character of the language of the false teachers. “Vanity” is used in its proper sense of
“emptiness.” There was no substance
below their show of a transcendental knowledge.
Here again we trace a parallel with Paul’s language, “Knowledge puffeth up” (1 Corinthians 8:1). [38]
The writer proceeds
now to justify what he has just said, either as to the doom of the false
teachers, or as to their character as pretenders and deceivers. The verb used for “speaking” is one which
occurs in the New Testament only in Acts
great swelling words. The phrase rendered
“great swelling things” is found only here and in the parallel passage in
Jude. It describes what is over-large
or immoderate, and is applied in the late Classics to a ponderous, verbose style. [51]
of vanity [emptiness, NKJV]. The “great swelling words of vanity” were those in which they promised them liberty—but what sort of liberty? Not liberty to serve God in perfect freedom, not the liberty in which the truth makes free but that liberty which consists in unhallowed license. [41]
Here bluster is one of the means by which they delude their dupes. [45]
they allure. The
action ascribed to them is that of enticing as with a bait;
such is the force of the verb, the use of which in the New Testament is
limited to those two verses in the present chapter (14, 18) and James 1:14. [51]
through the lusts of
the flesh. The “means” which it is here said they
employed, were “the lusts of the flesh;” that is, they promised unlimited
indulgence to the carnal appetites, or taught such doctrines that their
followers would feel themselves free to give unrestrained liberty to such
propensities. This has been quite a
common method in the world, of inducing people to embrace false doctrines. [31]
through much wantonness [lewdness, NKJV]. Evil and immoral in behavior, often easily
carrying the overtones of extremely so--a point made emphatic by adding the
“much” to the description—and yet still not caring. They were getting so much “pleasure” out of
their evil, that had become their only god. And, if at all possible, not suffering any
temporal consequences for it from those individuals they have abused--and their
avenging families. [rw]
those that were
clean escaped [actually escaped, NKJV]. ὀλίγως
is rendered in the Vulgate by paululum, for a
little time: it is an uncommon word, but
is found meaning “in a slight degree” and (inapplicable here) “quickly.” The
escape is recent or incomplete. [37]
[That is:] The
persons whom these false teachers are seducing are those who have but lately
been converted—just escaping from the heathen who still live in error—and
who are not yet fully established in the faith.
[50]
The guilt of those apostate teachers, therefore, is
exhibited as aggravated by the fact that the persons whom they plied with the
vile bait of sensual indulgence were those least fit to resist it, not
men who were established in the new faith, but men who had but recently broken
off from the ranks of heathenism, or who had as yet got but a few paces, as it
were, in the process of separating themselves from their old pagan life. [51]
Or: The Greek participle is of the present tense,
indicating an escape in progress, not accomplished. [44]
Some of the better MSS give “those
who were a little (or partially) escaping. . . .” In the one case, stress is laid on the
fact that the work of a real and true conversion was marred by the impurity
into which the victims were afterwards betrayed; in the other, on the fact that
their conversion had been but incomplete, and that therefore they yielded
readily to the temptation. A possible construction
of the sentence would be to take the last clause in the Greek in apposition
with the first, “those that had partially escaped, those that live in error,”
but the English version gives a preferable meaning. [38]
from them who live
in error. The “error” of the false
teachers is spoken of in
The verb used here for “live” is the one which
denotes the manner of life, the conduct, and is connected with
the noun for “life” or “conversation,” which meets us most frequently in Peter
(1 Peter 1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1-2, 16; 2 Peter 2:7; 3:11); occasionally in Paul
(Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 4:22; 1 Timothy 4:12); and elsewhere only in Hebrews
13:7; James 3:13. [51]
WEB: promising
them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man
is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him.
Young’s: liberty
to them promising, themselves being servants of the corruption, for by whom any
one hath been overcome, to this one also he hath been brought to servitude,
Conte (RC): promising them freedoms, while they
themselves are the servants of corruption. For by
whatever a man is overcome, of this also is he the
servant.
True
religion always promises and produces liberty (see John
Men have been found
in all ages to say either openly or in effect:
“Rules made for weaker brethren do not apply to me: I have penetrated into the mysteries of
divine things, and know that what my body does cannot affect my soul.” But this, as our writer points out, is just
where they are mistaken; they become slaves of the most abject kind to their
habits and passions. Yet, slaves as they
are, they dare to promise freedom to others!
[37]
We have here the
characteristic feature of the teaching which Peter condemns. It offered its followers freedom from the
restraints which the Council of Jerusalem had imposed alike on participation in
idolatrous feasts and on sins of impurity (Acts
they themselves are
the servants [slaves, NKJV]. Not
really the “free men and women” they picture themselves as, making avant garde moral decisions
before most folk even realize the “alternative” is either available or
ethical. In their self-delusion they
have actually become slaves rather than “independent thinkers”—slaves of their
own worst instincts and desires.
Everyone who refuses to embrace their delusion must be degraded as
bigoted and prejudiced in order to protect one’s own self-centered delusionary world.
It would be funny if the results were not so serious. [rw]
From those who were themselves slaves of corruption
what kind of liberty could come, but a liberty defiant of law, a liberty used “for an occasion to the flesh”
(Galatians
of corruption. Making “provision for the flesh,” to satisfy its cravings, comply with its directions, and obey its commands. Their minds and hearts are so far corrupted and depraved that they have neither power nor will to refuse the task that is imposed on them. [5]
for of whom [by
whom, NKJV; by what, NASB] a man is overcome. The Greek leaves it uncertain whether the
pronouns refer to a person, or to a more abstract power—“wherein
a man is overcome, to that he is enslaved.” On the whole the latter seems preferable.
Here again we have an echo of Paul’s language in Romans
The Revised Version margin “of what” is preferable,
the reference being to the evil desires which mastered the false teachers. [45]
of the same is he
brought in bondage. In his contrast between the boast of liberty
and the actual bondage to corruption we may trace a reproduction of our Lord’s
teaching in John
There is nothing improbable in Peter being well
acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans during the last years of his life;
the improbability would rather be in supposing that he did not know it. [46]
WEB: For
if, after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge
of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in it and
overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
Young’s: for,
if having escaped from the pollutions of the world, in the acknowledging of the
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and by these again
being entangled, they have been overcome, become to them hath the last things
worse than the first,
Conte (RC): For if, after taking refuge from the
defilements of the world in the understanding of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they again become
entangled and overcome by these things, then the
latter state becomes worse than the
former.
Or:
This does not necessarily mean that they had been true Christians, and
had fallen from grace. People may
outwardly reform, and escape from the open corruptions which prevail around
them, or which they had themselves practiced, and still have no true grace at
heart. [31] To
the extent to which this is true at all, it applies to those who have
“converted” to keep family or kin happy or who need a pious veneer to be
religiously and socially acceptable in their community. They “convert” not out of respect for Jesus
but for convenience sake--something profoundly different. [rw]
The word “escaped”
had been used above (2 Peter
the pollutions
[defilements, ESV, NASB] of the world. Following
God in the ways He intends can never do you harm; it can only morally improve
you. Choosing the behaviors the world
tolerates and encourages that violate the Divine norm can only do you and
others harm. Rather than elevate you,
they “defile” you and those you encourage to act in a similar manner. [rw]
through the knowledge
of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They had the “knowledge” of Christ—not they pretended
to have knowledge. Again
affirming that they were once genuine and devoted followers of Christ. Even the fallen should be given credit and
acknowledgement for what they once were—and, in some cases at least, could be
again, if they somehow summon the will to set their lives aright. [rw]
Or: Neither does this imply that they were true
Christians, or that they had ever had any saving knowledge of the
Redeemer. There is a
knowledge of the doctrines and duties of religion which may lead sinners
to abandon their outward vices, which has no connection with saving grace. They may profess religion, and may know
enough of religion to understand that it requires them to abandon their vicious
habits, and still never be true Christians. [31]
knowledge. Greek, “full and accurate
knowledge.” [20]
they are again
entangled therein. The word rendered “entangled,” (ἐμπλέκω emplekō) from which is
derived our word “implicate,” means to braid in, to interweave; then to involve
in, to entangle. It means here that they
become implicated in those vices like an animal that is entangled in a
net. [31]
They had not at first contemplated the ultimate
results of their teaching. It was their
boast of freedom which led them within the tangled snares of the corruption in
which they were now inextricably involved.
[38]
and overcome. To
stumble and do something morally foolhardy is one thing; to become an “addict”
of that sin so that it becomes part of the normal course of one’s life is to
surrender oneself to one’s worst instincts.
[rw]
the latter end is
worse with them than the beginning. More inexcusable. [15] Presumably since,
in the interim, they had had personal experience of what the gospel could offer
them. [rw]
Or—become even more
extreme in their behavior:
This is usually the case.
Apostates become worse than they were before their professed
conversion. Thus, it is with those who
have been addicted to any habits of vice, and who profess to become religious,
and then fall away. The “reasons” for
this may be: (1) that they are willing
now to show to others that they are no longer under the restraints by which
they had professedly bound themselves; (2) that God gives them up to indulgence
with fewer restraints than formerly; and, (3) their old companions in sin may
be at special pains to court their society, and to lead them into temptation,
in order to obtain a triumph over virtue and religion. [31]
Hence the possibility
of their ever repenting again is crippled. The condition into which they have
fallen since they have backslidden is worse than that in which they were before
their conversion, for there is less hope of their repentance and conversion,
they having fallen under a greater bondage and slavery to sin and lust than
ever before. [50]
An echo of Christ’s
personal teaching? The last
words are so distinctly a citation from our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 12:45,
that we are compelled to think of Peter as finding in the history of the false
teachers that which answered to the parable of the unclean spirit who was cast
out of his house and returned to it with seven other spirits more wicked than
himself. [38]
In depth: The ongoing warning to Christians not to apostasize from their faith and the moral character expected of believers [4]. From verses 18, 20, 21, it seemeth to be strongly argued, that they who were once truly faithful may totally and finally fall away. For, first, that the persons here mentioned were once truly faithful, seems evident from this, first, that they had once “truly,” and entirely “escaped from them that live in error” (verse 18), being not then “entangled with,” nor “overcome by the pollution’s which are in the world, through lust,” but having escaped them “through the knowledge of Christ Jesus:” that they “turned from the holy commandment” in which they formerly had walked: that they were once washed from that “mire” to which they returned (verse 22). All which cannot be truly said of hypocritical professors, who are “still in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity.”
That these men afterwards fell away totally and finally, we learn from these expressions, that they “were again allured to wantonness,” that they were “again entangled and overcome by the pollution’s which were in the world, through lust,” and therefore “brought in bondage;” that they “turned from the holy commandment delivered to them;” yea, “with the dog to the vomit, and the washed sow to the wallowing in the mire:” and this so far, as that “it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness.”
The claim that this is pushing too much into the intent of the passage [51]: The “knowledge” of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which is attributed here to these apostates is the same kind of knowledge as has been already spoken of in 2 Peter 1:2-3, 8. Hence it is urged that the statement is entirely antagonistic to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, and indeed that there is, “perhaps, no single passage in the whole extent of New Testament teaching more crucial than this in its bearing on the Calvinistic dogma of the indefectibility of grace” (Plumptre).
The bearing of the passage, however, upon that doctrine is by no means
so definite and absolute. It institutes
a solemn comparison between two different conditions of the same
individuals. It contrasts two different
stages of impure living, and pronounces the one worse than the other. But beyond that it
does not go, neither can it be regarded as of decisive importance in regard to
the different views of grace advocated by different schools of theology. The whole statement is introduced simply in
confirmation of what was said in the previous verse of the bondage in which
those live who are overcome of sin. [51] This objection only makes sense if one
assumes that their “conversion” was faked and a pretense. If it was genuine and real, what other
conclusion could reasonably be drawn than that one can voluntarily forfeit
one’s salvation through intentional neglect and abandonment? [rw]
In depth: Do verses 20-22 have in mind the false
teachers who have deceived new or recent converts or does the text have their
victims in mind [45]? It is
a matter of controversy whether these verses refer to the false teachers or to
the recent converts whom they had led astray.
In favor of referring them to the false teachers, we have the following
points:
(a)
They would form a natural climax of the description of the guilt and doom
of those teachers.
(b)
As it is the teachers who are
“overcome” in verse 19, “overcome” in 20, will probably refer to the same
persons.
(c)
If they verses are referred to converts who had been deceived and
betrayed through weakness and inexperience they seem unduly harsh.
In favor of referring the verses to the recent converts, we have:
(a)
Those who, in verse 20, are entangled in defilements after they have
escaped are naturally identified with those who, in verse 19, are enticed by
lust when they are just escaping. In
answer to this, it is said that the same persons would not be spoken of in two
consecutive verses as “just escaping” and “having escaped.” Yet these varying expressions might denote
the same state looked at from different points of view. Because their conversion was recent, they
were “just escaping;” but they might also be thought of as “having escaped,”
because conversion in the New Testament is commonly described as a single
complete act.
(b)
If these verses are referred to the teachers they involve a recognition of their having once attained to full
Christian status. Such recognition is
not found elsewhere in the Epistle, unless it be in 2:1, and would have been
definitely stated and not merely implied if it had been in the writer’s mind.
(c)
The utter and hopeless ruin which these teachers brought upon their
misguided disciples would be a very effective climax; it would bring out most
clearly the pernicious character of the teaching, and would be an impressive
appeal to any of the readers who were likely to be led astray.
The weight of
authority supports the reference to the teachers.
To
my mind this falls just short of “much to do about nothing.” When the new/recent converts have returned to
their old pre-Christian lifestyle, are they exempted from the punishment coming
upon those teachers who encouraged them to embrace that path? Hence even if we argue that it is the
teachers specifically in mind, how can we avoid the conclusion that the
language conveys the implicit warning to their disciples of their own ultimate
fate as well? [rw]
WEB: For
it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than,
after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
Young’s: for it
were better to them not to have acknowledged the way of the righteousness, than
having acknowledged it, to turn back from the holy command delivered to them,
Conte (RC): For it would have been better for
them not to have known the way of justice than,
after acknowledging it, to turn away from that holy
commandment which was handed on to
them.
The verb for “known” is, like the noun in the
preceding verse, that which implies the fullest form of knowledge, as in 1
Corinthians 13:12; 2 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 4:3. [38]
Had they never known
the gospel, there would have been some hope that its influence might have
reached and saved them; but now it has been tried and failed, and there is no
more effective means of salvation. So
Hebrews 6:4-6, “As touching those who were once enlightened . . . it is
impossible to renew them again unto repentance;” and Hebrews 10:26, “If we sin
willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins.” [45]
the way of
righteousness. The “way of righteousness” is like the
“way of truth” in 2 Peter 2:2, a comprehensive description of the religion of
Christ as a whole, regarded here in its bearing on life, as there in its
relation to belief. [38]
That which from a doctrinal point of view is “the way
of truth” (2 Peter 2:2), from a moral point of view is “the way of
righteousness.” So also “the faith
delivered to the saints” of Jude verse 3, is the doctrinal equivalent of “the
holy commandment delivered unto them” of this verse. [46]
than, after they
have known it.
Ignorance can’t be claimed.
They know what is right. And do
the wrong anyway. [rw]
to turn from the
holy commandment. Each
and every commandment given by Christ and through His apostles was “holy.” So whatever specific commandment they
violated was the violation of a “holy commandment.” The adjective “holy” was especially relevant
since Peter is targeting their violation of moral commandments in
particular. Whichever they chose to
ignore was treating the “holy” with unholy contempt. [rw]
“Commandment” (entole): a
single ordinance, as distinguished from nomos, “law,” a
legislative system. It is noteworthy
that here, as in 3:2 and 1 Timothy
Or: It may be asked, what is this holy
commandment delivered to them? In the
former verse it is said that they have escaped the pollutions of the world
through the knowledge of Christ; is the holy commandment the same? Not I think, necessarily. It is not, we humbly hope, turning from
Christ Himself as from the strictness of the law of Christ. [41]
delivered unto them. Cf. Jude
3, “The faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” [45]
No one can presume upon a past religious experience,
whether it was real or imaginary. Each
one must, and will, increase his knowledge of Christ by a diligent cultivation
of Christian graces in case he is to find an “entrance into the eternal
kingdom.” [7]
WEB: But
it has happened to them according to the true proverb, "The dog turns to
his own vomit again," and "the sow that has washed to wallowing in
the mire."
Young’s: and
happened to them hath that of the true similitude; 'A dog did turn back upon
his own vomit,' and, 'A sow having bathed herself -- to rolling in mire.'
Conte (RC): For the truth of the proverb has
happened to them: The dog has returned to his own
vomit, and the washed sow has returned to her
wallowing in the mud.
Or: They
had either fallen back into the same sins that had characterized them before
conversion due to never maturing spiritually or human weakness found them in a
situation where old habits seemed far easier than the new demands of faith. Albert Barnes insists, “The dog and the swine
had never been anything else than the dog and the swine, and these persons had
never been anything else than sinners” even after their purported
conversion. The New Testament emphasis
on becoming a “new” man in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) argues that converts
undergo a fundamental change in nature—if they permit the gospel to do
its full work of making them “transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans
12:2). They are, to use the canine
language of Peter, no longer the “dog” they once were, but when those past ways
are permitted to regain control they lose all the constructive changes they
have made. They return to what they once
had been. [rw]
according to the true
proverb.
More literally, There has happened
to them what the true proverb says; “but” is of very doubtful authority. The word for “proverb” is the one used
elsewhere only by
The two proverbs which are here quoted are taken from
the two animals which are held in greatest contempt in the East. Peter uses the singular, because the proverbs
have one and the same meaning, and he calls it “true,” because in the
case of these false teachers it has also proved true. [50]
The dog is
turned to his own vomit again. In the[se] words
that follow we have another of Peter’s references, without a formal citation,
to the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 26:11).
The form in which he gives the proverbs is participial. “The dog returned to his own vomit; the
washed sow to her wallowing in the mire.”
We have, however, the colloquial, allusive form which the proverb had
assumed in common speech rather than an actual quotation, and the second part
of the proverb is not found in the passage referred to. [38]
and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. There is no scriptural parallel to this saying. [45]
In both cases stress is
laid on the fact that there had been a real change. The dog had rejected what was foul; the sow
had washed herself, but the old nature returned in both cases. Those who after their baptism returned to the
impurities they had renounced, were, in the Apostle’s eyes, no better than the
unclean beasts. In the union of the two
types of baseness we may, perhaps, trace a reminiscence of our Lord’s teaching
in Matthew 7:6. [38]
Possible allusions to this in
other texts: This second proverb has no definite
parallel in the Old Testament, and is taken, therefore, from the mouth of the
people. Compare, however, the comparison
of a “fair woman without discretion” to a “jewel of gold in a swine’s snout”
(Proverbs
It
is quite possible that both proverbs come from popular tradition,
and not from Scripture at all. If,
however, the Book of Proverbs be the source of the quotation, it is worth while
noting that no less than four times in as many chapters does Peter recall
passages from the Proverbs in the First Epistle (1 Peter 1:7; 2:17; 4:8, 18). [46]
Heretical insistence that such actually did no harm: The word
for “mire,” not a very common one, is used by Irenæus
of the Gnostic false teachers of his day, who taught that their fine spiritual
natures could no more be hurt by sensuality than gold by mire. “For in the same way as gold when plunged in
mire does not lay aside its beauty, but preserves its own nature, the mire
having no power to injure the gold, so they say that they, no matter what kind
of material actions they may be involved in, cannot suffer any harm, nor lose
their spiritual essence.” (chapter vi. 2). But it is not probable that Irenæus knew our Epistle.” [46]
BOOKS/COMMENTARIES
UTILIZED IN THIS STUDY:
1 [Anonymous]. Teacher’s Testament/Nelson’s Explanatory
Testament
Thomas
Nelson & Sons;
2 Marvin
R. Vincent, D.D. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
Charles
Scribner’s Sons;
3 Robert
Young. Commentary
on the Holy Bible. A. Fullarton & Co;
4 Daniel
Whitby, D.D. and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase
on the New Testament. Carey Hart,
5 Matthew
Henry. Vol. IV: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible.
6 Rev. Dr
C. G. Barth. The Bible Manual.
1865
7 Charles
R. Erdman. The
General Epistles.
Press, 1918.
8 Joh. Ed. Huther, Th. D., Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
General
Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude
[Meyer’s Commentary
on the New Testament].
9 Professor
Bernhard Weiss, D.D. A
Commentary of the New Testament Vol. IV.
10 Charles
Simeon, M.A. Horae
Homileticae Vol. XX.
and Ball, 1833.
11 Rev. S.
T. Bloomfield, M.A. Recensio
Symoptica Annotations Sacrae
[
12 George
Leo Haydock. Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary
UTS,
13 Howard
Crosby, D.D. New
Testament, With Brief Explanatory Notes. New
14 Anonymous [Justin
Edwards]. The New
Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This edition has more notes, but Edwards’ name is
attached to a shorter
edition of the
same material at UTS,
15 John
Wesley, M.A. Explanatory Notes upon
the New Testament.
16 Orello Cone, D.D. International Handbooks to the N.T. Vol. 3:
The Epistles. New York:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons / Knickerbocker Press,
1901.
17 Philip
Doddridge, D.D. The Family Expositor
(Paraphrase and Version of
the New
Testament [American edition]).
Amherst, Ms.: J. S. & C.
Adams,
and L. Boltwood;
18 Adam
Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., etc.
The New Testament of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ Vol. VI.
19 Donald
Fraser, M.A., D.D. Synoptical
Lectures of the Books of Holy Scripture Vol.
II.
20 Rev.
Robert Jamieson, D.D. Rev. A. R. Fausset, A.M. Rev. David Brown D.D. A
Commentary, Critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments Vol. II The S. S. Scranton Company
21 Martin
Luther. The Epistles of St. Peter and
St. Jude Preached and
Explained (
Gillett.
22 Barton
W. Johnson. People’s New Testament. Internet Edition. 1891.
23 Arno Gaebelein. Annotated Bible. Internet Edition. 1920s.
24 John R. Dummelow. Dummelow’s Commentary on the Bible. Internet Edition. 1909.
25 Robert Hawker. Poor Man’s Commentary. Internet Edition. 1828.
26 Johann
A. Bengel. Gnomon of the New
Testament. Internet Edition.
1742.
27 Alexander
MacLaren. Exposition of the Holy Scriptures. Internet Edition.
18--.
28 Matthew
Poole. English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
Internet Edition.
1685.
29 John Trapp. Complete Commentary. Internet Edition.
Written 1600s;
1865-1868 edition.
30 Joseph Sutcliffe. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. Internet
Edition. 1835.
31 Albert Barnes. Notes on the New
Testament. Internet Edition. 1870.
32 James Gray. Concise Bible Commentary. Internet Edition. 1897-1910.
33 F. B. Meyer. Thru The Bible
(Commentary). Internet Edition. 1914 edition.
34 John and Jacob Abbott. Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament. Internet
Edition. 1878.
35 John Calvin. Commentaries. Internet Edition. Written in 1500s. Printing:
1840-1857.
36 William R. Nicoll,
editor. Expositor’s Greek Testament. Internet
Edition.1897-1910.
37
38
E. M. Plumptre. Internet Edition. 1890.
39 D. D. Whedon. Commentary on the New Testament;
volume 5: Titus to
Revelation. Internet Edition.
40 Ariel A. Livermore. The Epistles to the Hebrews, the Epistles
of James,
Peter, John, and Jude and the Revelation of John the Divine[:] Commentary
and Essays. Internet Edition.
1881.
41 M[ichael] F.
Sadler. The General Epistles of SS.
James, Peter, John, and
Jude. Second
Edition.
42 Robert S. Hunt. The Epistle to the
Hebrews and the General Epistles.
In
the Cottage Commentary series.
43 A. T. Robertson. New Testament Interpretation (Matthew to
Revelation):
Notes on Lectures. Taken stenographically. Revised Edition by William
M.
Fouts and Alice M. Fouts.
44 William G. Humphry. A Commentary on the Revised Version of the
New
Testament.
45 W. H. Bennett. The General Epistles: James, Peter, John and Jude. In the
Century Bible series.
46 A. J. Mason. “First Epistle of Peter” in Ellicott’s New
Testament
Commentary for English
Readers. Internet Edition. 1884.
47 Joseph Benson. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. Internet
Edition. 1811-1815.
48 William B. Godbey. Commentary on the New
Testament. Internet Edition.
1896-1900.
49 James Nisbett,
editor. Church
Pulpit Commentary. Internet Edition. 1876.
[Note: this is not “The Pulpit
Commentary.”]
50 Revere F. Weidner. Annotations on the General Epistles of
James, Peter,
John,
and Jude. In the Lutheran
Commentary series.
Literature Company, 1897.
51 Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament.
Internet
Edition.
1879-1890.