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 3:10-18
WEB: But
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens
will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will be dissolved with
fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
Young’s: and it
will come -- the day of the Lord -- as a thief in the night, in which the
heavens with a rushing noise will pass away, and the elements with burning heat
be dissolved, and earth and the works in it shall be
burnt up.
Conte (RC): Then the day of the Lord shall arrive
like a thief. On that day, the heavens shall pass
away with great violence, and truly the elements
shall be dissolved with heat; then the earth, and
the works that are within it, shall be completely
burned up.
That is, the day in
which he will be manifested. It is called his day, because he will then be the
grand and prominent object as the Judge of all.
Compare Luke 17:27. [31]
This expression
usually, but not always, refers to the second advent. Such is the meaning here. [22]
“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief.” The order of the words in Greek emphasizes the certainty of the coming of the day of judgment, and its unexpected suddenness is expressed by as a thief (Matthew 24:43-44; Luke 12:39-40; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; Revelation 16:15). Peter does not describe the different stages and events of the Second Coming of Christ minutely. With him six great events are closely connected:
(1) the Second Coming of Christ;
(2) the resurrection of believers (1 Peter
(3) the resurrection of the wicked (2 Peter 2:9; 3:7);
(4) the day of judgment (2 Peter 2:4, 9; 3:7);
(5) the end of the world (1 Peter
(6) the manifestation of a new heavens and a new earth.
Peter, in his prophetic vision, sees the whole
history of the consummation of all things in one glance as taking place in one
Great Day of the Lord. The coming of the
Day of God and the end of the world are to him one event. [50]
Old Testament
precedent for the language: The day which in 2 Peter
will come as a
thief in the night. Unexpectedly; suddenly. [31]
The suddenness,
therefore, and unexpectedness of the coming of the day of the Lord, and the
terror which it will occasion to the wicked, are the circumstances in which it
will resemble the coming of a thief, and not that it will happen in the
night-time. [47]
The confidence of the Apostle that this will be the
end of the history of the human race is not shaken by the seeming “slackness”
in its approach. Either reproducing the
thought which he had heard from his Master’s lips (Matthew 24:43), or echoing
the very words of Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:2), he declares that it will come,
and will come suddenly, when men are not looking for it. [38]
in the which the
heavens shall pass away. That is, what seems to us to be the heavens. It cannot
mean that the holy home where God dwells will pass away; nor do we need to
suppose that this declaration extends to the starry worlds and systems as
disclosed by modern astronomy. The word
is doubtless used in a popular sense--that is, as things appear to us; and the
fair interpretation of the passage would demand only such a change as would
occur by the destruction of this world by fire. If a conflagration should take place,
embracing the earth and its surrounding atmosphere, all the phenomena would
occur which are here described; and, if this would be so, then this is all that
can be proved to be meant by the passage.
Such a destruction of the elements could not occur without “a great
noise.” [31]
Perhaps based on the saying
recorded in Mark 13:24, “In those days . . . the sun shall be darkened, and the
moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and
the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken.” Cf. Isaiah 34:4, “All the host of heaven
shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fade away;” also
51:6 and the quotation of these passages in Hebrews
with a great
noise [roar, NASB]. Either swiftly and
violently, or with such a noise as is usually caused by such violent and speedy
motions. [28]
The last four words answer to
one Greek adverb, not found elsewhere, which implies the “whizzing” or
“rushing” sound of an arrow hurtling through the air (Hom.
Il. xvi. 361). The “heavens” (in
the plural, after the common mode of speech both in the Old and New Testament)
shall, in that great day, be the scene of a great convulsion. [38]
“With a great noise” (roizedon). Only here in the N.T. The noun, roizos, is used of the whizzing of an arrow or a scourge, or of the rustling of winds. Here it refers to the crackling and roaring of fire. [45]
Or:
Better, with a rushing noise. The expression occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament, but some such idea as that in Isaiah 34:4, Revelation 6:14, is
probably indicated—not the roar of flames or the crash of ruins, but the
parting and rolling up of the heavens.
(Compare Revelation 20:11.) [46]
However with the explicit mention of “melting” and being “burned up”—the
presence of “fire” in some painful and significant sense—seems incredibly
difficult to remove. [rw]
and the elements. The word
“elements” may possibly stand for what were so called in some of the physical
theories of the time, the fire, air, earth, water, out of which all existing
phenomena were believed to be evolved (compare Wisdom 19:18). The word was, however, used a little later on
for what we call the “heavenly bodies,” sun, moon, and stars (Justin Mart. Apol. ii. 4. 4), and that
meaning, seeing that the “elements” are distinguished from the “earth,” and
that one of the four elements is to be the instrument of destruction, is
probably the meaning here. [38] Also see “in depth” discussion
below. [rw]
shall melt. [Revised
Version,] shall be dissolved—Authorized, “shall
melt.” The Greek does not contain the
idea of melting from heat, but simply that of dissolution. It occurs in John 2:19,
“Destroy this temple.” [44]
The word itself
may not imply the source of the melting, but note carefully the cause
the apostle immediately proceeds to add!
[rw]
with fervent heat. Naturally—since it takes significant heat to
melt just about anything and an
intense heat to melt earthly minerals. [rw]
the earth also. Nothing escapes this all consuming
conflagration. [rw]
and the works that are therein. That is, whether they are the works of God or man--the whole vegetable and animal creation, and all the towers, the towns, the palaces, the productions of genius, the paintings, the statuary, the books, which man has made. [31]
Equivalent to “the earth and the fullness thereof,”
“works” being used in a comprehensive sense for products both of nature and
art. The moral work of each individual
is not meant; consequently, a reference to 1 Corinthians
shall be burned up
[will be laid bare, NIV; will be exposed, NASB]. Neither
this reading nor “disappear” (aphanisthesontai) are very strongly supported. The best attested reading is “discovered” (eurethesetai),
which does not make sense. The original
reading has perhaps disappeared, but it must have been a word meaning “burned
up,” or “disappeared,” or something similar.
[45]
In depth: Meaning of “the elements” in our text [51]. The phrase “with fervent heat,” which is given by the A.V. and retained by the R.V., represents a participle which means “burning fiercely,” or “consumed with fierce heat.” The question of difficulty here, however, is what we are to under stand by these “elements.”
Some (e.g. Bengel, Alford, Plumptre, etc.) suppose that the heavenly bodies are meant, these being, as it were, the elements making up the heavens. This view is held to be supported by such considerations as these: the fact that the sun, moon, and stars are introduced into other biblical descriptions of the day of the Lord (Isaiah 13:9-10; 24:23; 34:4, etc.), and especially in Christ’s own announcement of it (Matthew 24:29); the relation in which this clause stands to the preceding statement about the heavens themselves; the employment of the term by early Christian writers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Apol. ii. 5, Trypho, xxiii.) in this sense; and the apparent distinction drawn here between these elements and both the heavens and the earth.
Others (Bede, etc.) take the four elements of the physical universe, earth, air, water, fire, to be in view. In this case there is the awkwardness of representing the writer as speaking of the dissolution of fire by fire; hence it is proposed to limit the expression to three of these elements, or even to air and water alone (Estius).
All these views, however, as well as other modifications of them (such e.g. as the idea that the stars in particular are meant), attribute to Peter a more sharply-defined meaning than was probably intended.
The great objection to the first view is that the term does not appear to denote the heavenly bodies in any other passage of Scripture. In Classical Greek it seems to mean primarily the several parts of a series, the components which make up something; whence it came to be used of the simple series of sounds which form the elements of language, the first principles or elementary data of science, such as the points, lines, etc. of geometry, and, in Physics, the component parts of matter, which were reduced to four in the philosophical schools.
In the New Testament it occurs only seven times, viz. in the present verse and again in 2 Peter 3:12, in Galatians 4:3; Galatians 4:9, in Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20, and Hebrews 5:12. In the Petrine passages it clearly has a physical sense; in the others an ethical.
Here it is applied, with no reference to scientific
or philosophical ideas, but in a broad and popular sense, to the parts of which
the heavens in particular, or the system of things
generally, are made up. It may denote,
therefore, much the same as is covered by the phrase “the powers of the
heavens” in Matthew 24:29 (so Huther), the idea being
that these heavens shall pass away by having their constituent parts
dissolved. Or it may refer in the wider
sense to the whole framework of the world, as that world was conceived to
consist of heavens and earth (so Wordsworth, etc.).
In depth: The problem of the closing words of the verse [51]. Instead of “burnt up,” some of the very best documentary authorities, including the two most ancient manuscripts, give another reading, which means “shall be found.” It is supposed, however, that this reading is one of those in which the earliest documents themselves have gone astray, and that, as the reading followed by the Received Text is supported by far inferior authorities, this is one of a few passages in which the original text has not been preserved in any of our existing authorities. The reading of the oldest manuscripts is supposed by the latest critical editors to have arisen from a corruption of another, which would mean “shall flow (or, melt) away” (see Westcott and Hort, vol. 2 p. 103).
Those who retain the reading which the ordinary laws of evidence would lead us to adopt, get a satisfactory sense out of it by interpreting it “shall be discovered,” that is, found out judicially, or made to appear as they are. This would fit in very well with the idea of the next verse, which is that of the manner of life which the thought of the judicial end should recommend. Some propose to hold by the ordinary sense of the verb, and to turn the sentence into an interrogation—“Shall the earth and the works that are therein be found (i.e. shall they continue) then?”
There is no uncertainty as to the sense which is meant to be conveyed. The uncertainty attaches only to the particular expression which was given to that sense.
But this forms, in view of the singular results which are shown by the documents, one of the most perplexing problems in the criticism and history of the text. One of the primary manuscripts has another reading, which means “shall disappear.” A later Syriac Version inserts the negative, and gives “shall not be found.” The wide variety of reading is a witness to the early uncertainty of the text here, and to the difficulty felt with the term which was transmitted by the oldest documents.
It is well to know, on the testimony of those who
have devoted their lives to such questions as these, that the passages
affected by anything amounting to substantial variation “can hardly form more
than one-thousandth part of the entire text,” and that “the books of the New
Testament as preserved in extant documents assuredly speak to us in every
important respect in language identical with that in which they spoke to those
for whom they were originally written” (Westcott and Hort’s
New Testament in Greek, ii. pp. 2, 284).
In depth: Destruction of the earth by fire in pagan intellectuals [39]. The expectation of the destruction of the world by a diluvium ignis— deluge of fire—analogous to the diluvium aquae—deluge of water—was a traditional idea among the ancients, both poets and philosophers, especially the Stoics. We give passages from Wetstein. The philosopher Seneca says: “At that time the foam of the sea, released from laws, was borne on without restraint. By what cause, do you inquire? By the same cause by which the conflagration will take place when to God it seems good to establish a better order of things, and to close the old. Water and fire rule terrene things: from the former comes origination; from the latter, destruction.”
Cicero says: “Our philosophers suppose that at last the whole world will take fire, when, the moisture being consumed, neither the earth can be nourished nor the air circulate, so that nothing will be left but fire; from which, again, under the animating power of God, a renovation of the earth will take place, and the same fair order will be reproduced.”
Eusebius
says: “It is the opinion of the Stoic philosophers, that
all substance should go into fire, as a seed, and from it again should spring
the same organization as before.”
In depth: Case for a purified planet rather than the literal destruction of the earth [7]. Of these circumstances Peter mentions only the physical convulsions which precede and attend the appearing of Christ. The language he employs is highly figurative and when taken literally leads to strange conclusions. He borrows his figures from the last two chapters of Isaiah and from the Eighteenth Psalm; the latter is describing a severe storm, as it declares that “the foundations of the world were laid bare:” so Peter declares, “The earth and the works that are therein shall be discovered” (margin). Isaiah described the blessedness of the return from captivity, that was to be, for the Jews, like enjoying “new heavens and a new earth.” In no case does it mean that the coming of the Lord is to destroy this earth.
When Peter declares that “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and works that are therein shall be burned up” he is merely referring to the “signs” attending the coming of Christ to which the Master Himself referred when He said: “The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” “But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh.”
Peter is merely giving a picture of coming
judgments. The issue of these
convulsions, whatever their nature, is “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness”; not a new globe, for the nations
of the world are pictured as still here; as in Isaiah and the two closing
chapters of the Bible, the “new earth” is this same old world, purified,
glorified, redeemed, and the scene of righteousness and blessedness and
universal peace.
A second case for the
purification scenario [50]: If we accept the reading “shall be found or discovered” instead of “shall
be burned up,” this clause must be pointed as an interrogative sentence: Shall
the earth and the works that are therein be found? The general thought would be the same. These works
refer to all which man has made.
The destruction here
spoken of does not involve actual annihilation.
It involves rather a change of the forms and qualities of the earth, and
not the blotting out of the substance.
It is a transmutation, a transformation, the regeneration of which
Christ speaks in Matthew 19:28. Burning
is not annihilation, but involves only a change of form, and the melting
of the elements leaves their substance untouched (
The fire spoken of, as
well as in verse 12, is to be thought of as a fire of purification, and not one
of annihilation. There is no foundation
for the theory of the annihilation of this world in the analogies drawn from
nature, in the deductions of science, or in the teachings of Scripture.
Weymouth: Since all
these things are thus pre-destined to dissolution, what sort of men ought you
to be found to be in all holy living and godly conduct,
WEB: Therefore
since all these things will be destroyed like this, what kind of people ought
you to be in holy living and godliness,
Young’s: All
these, then, being dissolved, what kind of persons doth it behove
you to be in holy behaviours and pious acts?
Conte (RC): Therefore, since all these things will
be dissolved, what kind of people ought you to be?
In behavior and in piety, be holy,
shall be. Greek,
“are being (in God‘s appointment, soon to be fulfilled) dissolved”; the
present tense implying the certainty as though it were actually
present. [20]
The Greek participle
is in the present tense, and is probably used to convey the thought that even
now the fabric of the earth is on its way to the final dissolution. If with some of the better MSS we read “shall
thus be dissolved,” instead of “then,” the participle
must be taken as more definitely future, being coupled, as in that case it must
be, with the manner as well as the fact of the dissolution. [38]
what manner of persons ought ye to be. Since we have no abiding home on this earth and seek one beyond, we should live in a state of preparation. [22]
The verb for “be” is that which emphatically
expresses a permanent and continuous state.
The thought implied is that the belief in the transitoriness
of all that seems most enduring upon earth should lead, as a necessary
consequence, to a life resting on the eternal realities of truth and
holiness. [38]
in all holy conversation [conduct, NKJV]. If
one is to be “godly” (which is invoked next) how can anyone function without
honorable and moral behavior? It would
be like expecting a human body to be alive though it lacks a heart! [rw]
The qualities themselves are denoted by plural nouns
meaning literally “holy modes of living” and “godlinesses,”
in reference to all the various forms in which the holy walk and godliness
exhibit themselves. [51]
and godliness. The two
words are in the plural number, “In all holy conducts and pieties,”
demonstrating the many ways in which we can show holy conduct and piety. [41]
“Seeing that the world shall pass away, and
that all must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, let us live in the
true fear of God, serve Him in all forms of holy behavior and piety, and
carefully guard against sin” (Augustine).
[ - ]
WEB: looking
for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, which will cause the
burning heavens to be dissolved, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
Young’s: waiting
for and hasting to the presence of the day of God, by which the heavens, being
on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt;
Conte (RC): waiting for, and hurrying toward,
the advent of the day of the Lord, by which the
burning heavens shall be dissolved, and the
elements shall melt from the heat
of the fire.
The “looking
for” is expressed by the term which is rendered “wait for” in Luke 1:21; Luke
8:40; Acts 10:24, “expect” in Acts 3:5, “be in expectation”
in Luke 3:15, etc. [51]
and hasting unto
[speed its coming, NIV]. The Greek word rendered “hasting,” (σπεύδω speudō) means to urge
on, to hasten; and then to hasten after anything, to await with eager
desire. This is evidently the sense here--Wetstein and Robinson.
The state of mind which is indicated by the word is that when we are
anxiously desirous that anything should occur, and when we would hasten or
accelerate it if we could. The true
Christian does not dread the coming of that day. He looks forward to it as the period of his
redemption, and would welcome, at any time, the return of his Lord and
Savior. [31]
I am inclined to adopt, with Alford, Huther, Salmond, and Trence, the transitive meaning, hastening on; i.e., “causing the day of the Lord to come more quickly by helping to fulfill those conditions without which it cannot come; that day being no day inexorably fixed, but one the arrival of which it is free to the church to hasten on by faith and by prayer” (Trench, on “The Authorized Version of the New Testament”). See Matthew 24:14: the gospel shall be preached in the whole world, “and then shall the end come.” Compare the words of Peter, Acts 3:19: “Repent and be converted,” etc., “that so there may come seasons of refreshing” (so Revision, rightly); and the prayer, “Thy kingdom come.” Salmond quotes a rabbinical saying, “If thou keepest this precept thou hastenest the day of Messiah.” This meaning is given in margin of [the] Revision. [2]
the coming of the
day of God. Called “the day of God,” because God will then be manifested in His
power and glory. [31]
A unique phrase; elsewhere “coming” (parousia) is
either followed by “Christ,” “Lord,” or some other person, or used absolutely
to mean “the coming of the Lord;” and similarly we have “the day of the Lord,”
&c., never “of God.” Perhaps we
should translate “The coming of Christ in the day of God.” Some copyists have substituted the more usual
“Lord” for “God.” [45]
wherein [because of which, ESV, NKJV]. “By reason of which:” Either the coming or the day, it makes no difference to the sense. The purpose of the present heavens and earth is to serve the present dispensation, the close of which is a sufficient reason for their dissolution. [45]
The sense remains substantially the same whether we
refer “which” to “the coming,” or “to the day of God.” This coming
of Christ which ushers in the day of God
is the occasion which brings about
the dissolution of the heavens and the earth.
[50]
the heavens being
on fire. The atmospheric elements. [39]
shall be dissolved. Its substance will be gutted into
non-existence: the “heavens” were there
and now it’s not. What was there
has ceased to exist. [rw]
and the elements
shall melt. “Melt” is
here correct, being quite a different word from that rendered “melt” in 2 Peter
Macknight thinks that, by the
elements, in this verse, we are not to understand, as in 2 Peter
with fervent heat? The mechanism that will
accomplish the result. “Fire” and “heat” go hand in hand, one
producing the other. [rw]
WEB: But,
according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, in which
righteousness dwells.
Young’s: and
for new heavens and a new earth according to His promise we do wait, in which
righteousness doth dwell;
Conte (RC): Yet truly, in accord with his promises,
we are looking forward to the new heavens and the
new earth, in which justice lives.
look for new
heavens and a new earth. It is a grave misfortune that these new
heavens and new earth have not been far more insisted upon than they have been
as forming the inheritance of the saints.
It would have made the future state of the blessed not a dreamy
abstraction but an almost tangible reality.
[41]
Raised as it were out of the ashes of the old; we
look for an entire new state of things. [15]
There are two words for “new” in Greek; one looks
forward, “young” as opposed to “aged;” the other looks back, “fresh” as opposed
to “worn out.” It is the latter word
that is used here and in Revelation 21:1-2.
Both are used in Matthew 9:17, but the distinction is not marked in our
version—“They put new wine into fresh wine-skins.” [46]
Overview of
interpretive options: The
word “new,” applied to the heavens and the earth that are to succeed the
present, might express one of the following three things--that is, either of
these things would correspond with all that is fairly implied in that
word: (a) If a new world was literally
created out of nothing after this world is destroyed; for that would be in the
strictest sense “new.” That such an
event is possible no one can doubt, though it is not revealed. (b) If an inhabitant of the earth should
dwell after death in any other of the worlds now existing, it would be to him a
“new” abode, and everything would appear new.
Let him, for instance, be removed to the planet “Saturn,” with its
wonderful ring, and its seven moons, and the whole aspect of the heavens, and
of the world on which he would then dwell, would be new to him. The same thing would occur if he were to
dwell on any other of the heavenly bodies, or if he were to pass from world to
world. (c) If the earth should be
renovated, and suited for the home of man after the universal conflagration, it
would then be a new abode. [31] A fourth alternative—an adaptation of
point “b”--is that heaven itself could rightly be described as a “new heavens
and new earth” because it will be new to us and what is beneath our feet
will surely be considered “earth” and what is above our heads “heaven.” It is our inherent (?) internal mechanism for
“placing” ourselves in our surrounding environment [rw]
Interpreted as a rejuvenated and purified earth on the
current planet: After all, the world will be renewed rather
than destroyed: compare Revelation 21:5.
[24]
By “new earth” we may understand this present earth,
renewed or made new in beauty, and splendor, and purity, such as was the garden
of Eden before the fall, fit to gladden the eyes and minds of God’s
people: in this case, all which has been
said of the destruction of the world must mean, not its annihilation, but such
destruction as came upon it in the deluge, which might be called its
purification or cleaning; or the destruction may mean its being “dissolved”
into its component elements, which will be brought together again to form the
new earth; new in quality and character, though not in matter. And with this will agree the expression,
“There shall be no sea,” which seems to imply that there shall be real and
material land. [42]
Other Biblical texts
allegedly pointing to a “replacement earth” where the present one currently is: Some expositors
suppose that these lower heavens and this earth, having been melted down by a
general conflagration, shall thereby be refined, and that God will form them
into new heavens and a new earth for the habitation of the righteous; a
supposition which seems to be favored by Peter, Acts 3:21, where he speaks of the
restitution of all things, which God hath promised by the mouth of all his holy
prophets; by Paul, Romans 8:21, where he says, The creation itself shall
be delivered from the bondage of destruction; and also by the Lord Jesus
himself, whose words (Revelation 21:5) are, Behold, I make all things
new. As Peter had a revelation from
Christ that he would create new heavens and a new earth, he might justly call
that his promise; but the patriarchs and believing ancients were not
without the expectation of such an inheritance.
See Genesis 17:7; Daniel 12:2; Hebrews 11:10-16. [47]
wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Righteousness, of course, is
the abstract for the concrete; the quality is put for the persons that exhibit
it. And just as the condition of being
at home in this present material world is the possession of flesh and blood, so
is it impossible for anything but purity to be at rest in, or even to enter
into that future world. [27]
This again reproduces the thought of Isaiah (Isaiah
65:25) that “they shall not hurt (LXX, “act unrighteously”)
nor destroy in all my holy mountain,” and John’s
account of the new Jerusalem that “there shall in no wise enter into it
anything that defileth” (Revelation
In depth: These new heavens and earth cannot be identical with the millennium of Revelation 20? [4] That this cannot refer to the millennium, supposed to be promised in the Revelation of John, appears, not only because this epistle was writ before the Revelation, which, saith Irenaeus, was seen, “ad finem Domitiani imperii, about the end of the reign of Domitian,” whereas Peter suffered martyrdom in the reign of Nero; but also,
(1) because the millennium of John is peculiar to the martyrs, and those who have suffered for the cause of Christ; the “new heavens and earth,” here mentioned, are the common expectation of all Christians, who upon this account are admonished to be “found of him without spot, and unblameable, in peace” (verse. 14).
(2) I grant, that the apostle is here speaking of the destruction, not only of the sublunary heavens and earth (verse 12) by fire: but this concession is so far from doing any service to the hypothesis of the millennium of John, that it doth perfectly destroy it: for this conflagration of the world is contemporary with the day of “judgment, and perdition of ungodly men:” and by that very fire which consumes the world, are they to perish (verse 7). So doth the Scripture constantly express the punishment of the wicked, saying, that “at the end of the world the angels shall cast them into a furnace of fire” (Matt. xiii. 28), and that Christ shall “come in flaming fire to take vengeance” on them (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8).
Whereas the millennium of John must be at an end
before that day: for after he had spoken
of “the first resurrection,” and the conclusion of one thousand years, in which
they were to reign who were then raised, and of the insurrection of Gog and Magog against them: I say, after the conclusion of those years,
doth he introduce One “sitting on a great white throne, and the dead both small
and great standing before him, and being judged out of those things which were
written in the book, according to their works” (Revelation 20:13, 14).
WEB: Therefore,
beloved, seeing that you look for these things, be diligent to be found in
peace, without blemish and blameless in his sight.
Young’s: wherefore,
beloved, these things waiting for, be diligent, spotless and unblameable, by Him to be found in peace,
Conte (RC): Therefore, most beloved, while
awaiting these things, be diligent, so that you
may be found to be immaculate and unassailable
before him, in peace.
be diligent. That is,
in securing your salvation. The effect of such hopes and prospects should be to
lead us to an earnest inquiry whether we are prepared to dwell in a holy world,
and to make us diligent in performing the duties, and patient in bearing the
trials of life. [31]
that ye may be found of Him. Found by him when he returns in such a state as to secure your eternal peace. [31]
This could
refer simply to the lifestyle God expects us to be living at the time of His
return or, less likely, to His formal positive judgment of us at the Judgment
Day tribunal. Logically, however, the
latter is impossible without the former!
[rw]
in peace. Both with God and with one another. [41]
“Peace” is used in its widest Hebrew sense, as
including every element of blessedness, peace with God, and therefore peace
with man, the peace which Christ gives, not as the world gives (John 14:27),
the peace which passes understanding (Philippians 4:7). [38]
“In peace” cannot well refer to differences between
Jewish and Gentile Christians, a subject quite foreign to this Epistle. It may possibly refer to the false teachers
and the discord caused by them; but more probably it has no special reference. It expresses at once the condition and the
consequence of being “spotless and blameless.”
“There is no peace, saith my God, for the
wicked.” [46]
without spot and
blameless. The words are nearly identical with those
which describe the character of Christ as “a lamb without blemish and without
spot” in 1 Peter 1:19, and their re-appearance is a
fresh link in the chain of evidence as to identity of authorship. They who expect the coming of Christ should
be like Him in their lives. The first of
the two words may be noticed as used also by James (James
The pair of epithets, “spotless and blameless,”
should be noticed as forming a marked contrast to the false teachers, who are
called “spots and blemishes” (2 Peter
without spot. For if we are expecting the bridegroom we should keep our garments white and clean. [7]
and blameless. “Without spot” utilizes a physical image;
“blameless” a moral one. If moral
matters were mortal ones, then we could see our purity by whether our clothes
had “spots” on them. [rw]
WEB: Regard
the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according
to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you;
Young’s: and
the long-suffering of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our
beloved brother Paul -- according to the wisdom given to him -- did write to
you,
Conte (RC): And let the longsuffering of our
Lord be considered salvation, as also our most
beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom
given to him, has written to you,
If this is correct, and “our Lord” means Jesus Christ, “then throughout this weighty passage the Lord Jesus is invested with the full attributes of Deity.” Here, possibly, as also in 2 Peter 1:1, the expression points to the writer’s entire belief in the unity of the two Persons. [46]
Evidence
for the two alternatives: Is it the
“Lord Jesus” or the “Lord God” (= the Father) who is specifically under
consideration? If Christ is referred to here,
the passage becomes one of great importance in relation to the doctrine of His
Person, as it speaks of Him in the same terms as have been already applied to
God, and indirectly claims for Him Divine prerogatives. And this is made on the whole the more
probable reference both by general N.T. use, and by the phrase, “our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ,” which comes in subsequently in the same paragraph (2
Peter 3:18). On the other hand, it is
argued that the application of the title “Lord,” in 2 Peter 3:8-10, 12, 14,
rules its application here, and points to God in the large O.T. sense as
the subject. [51]
is salvation. His delay to come to judgment is designed not
to show that He will never come, but to give men opportunity to secure their
salvation. [14]
The Divine delay is to be interpreted as
“salvation,”—as the suspension of judgment with a view to a prolonged offer of
grace. [51]
even as our beloved
brother Paul. [This] designates Paul not only as a friend,
or a fellow-Christian, but as one with whom Peter feels himself most intimately
connected in official relationship.
Hoffmann, on the other hand, presses the plural [= our beloved
brother], and thinks that by it the apostle, with a view to his Gentile
readers, would unite the Jewish Christians with himself, so as to show that the
apostle of the Gentiles was a beloved brother to them as well as to him. [8]
From this reference to Paul the following things are
clear: (1) that Peter was acquainted
with his writings; (2) that Peter presumed that those to whom he wrote were
also acquainted with them; (3) that Peter regarded Paul as a “beloved brother,”
notwithstanding the solemn rebuke which Paul had had occasion to administer to
him, Galatians 2:2ff.; (4) that Peter regarded Paul as an authority in
inculcating the doctrines and duties of religion; and (5) that Peter regarded
Paul as an inspired man, and his writings as a part of divine truth. See 2 Peter 3:16. [31]
The terminology as an
argument for this being a genuine (rather than counterfeit imitation) of the
apostle Peter: The
commentators remark that no one in the next century forging this epistle would
speak thus familiarly of Paul. Ignatius
calls him “the sanctified, the martyred, the worthily-called blessed,” and Polycarp “The blessed and glorious Paul.” [41]
A writer of the sub-Apostolic age would not easily be
able to free himself from the feeling of the age in this respect. Clement of
also according to
the wisdom given unto him. Adopting
Paul‘s own language, 1 Corinthians 3:10, “According to the grace of God
which is given unto me as a wise master-builder.” Supernatural
and inspired wisdom “GIVEN” him, not acquired in human schools of
learning. [20]
Polycarp, in his Epistle to
the Philippians (2 Peter iii. 2), says, “Neither I nor any one else like me can
equal the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who . . . wrote letters to
you, into which if ye look diligently, &c. &c.” This seems to show that Paul’s letters had
already become the common property of the churches. [46]
hath written unto
you. Greek aorist, “wrote,” as a thing
wholly past: Paul was by this time either dead, or had ceased to
minister to them. [20]
It is not necessary to suppose that Paul had written
any epistles addressed specifically, and by name, to the persons to whom Peter
wrote. It is rather to be supposed that
the persons to whom Peter wrote (1 Peter 1:1) lived in the regions to which
some of Paul’s epistles were addressed, and that they might be regarded as
addressed to them. The epistles to the
Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians were of this description, all addressed to
churches in Asia Minor, and all, therefore, having reference to the same people
to whom Peter addressed his epistles. [31]
What particular passage is referred to in the
epistles of Paul cannot certainly be identified. Perhaps no individual place was meant, but a
general reference made to various passages in his epistles. [40]
In depth: Theories of what epistle(s) Peter has specifically mind [46]. Few points in this Epistle have been more debated. The following are some of the many answers that have been given to the question:
(1) a lost Epistle;
(2) Hebrews, because of Hebrews 9:26-28; Hebrews 10:23-25, 37;
(3) Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, because our Epistle is supposed to be addressed to the Christians of Asia Minor;
(4) Ephesians only, for the reason just stated, and
because Colossians and Galatians contain little or no mention of the day of judgment; also because of Ephesians
(5) 1 Corinthians, because of 1 Corinthians 1:7-9;
(6) Romans, because of Romans 2:4 and Romans 9:22-23;
(7) 1 and 2 Thessalonians, because of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11, 23, because 2 Peter 3:10 recalls 1 Thessalonians 5:2, also because “things hard to be understood” admirably describes much of 2 Thessalonians 2, which treats of the time of Christ’s coming, the very subject here under discussion.
Of these seven theories, (1) can neither be proved nor disproved; (3) and (4) lose much of their weight when we consider that the persons addressed in 2 Peter are nowhere defined, excepting that to some extent they are identical with those addressed in 1 Peter.
Of the remaining four, (7) seems to be very probable,
both on account of the large amount of coincidence, and also because of the
early date of those Epistles, allowing an interval of fifteen years, in which
the two Epistles might easily have become well known in other churches. Still it is difficult to find a passage in
them about the longsuffering of God, such as Romans 2:4;
In depth: Which epistle(s) of Paul that Peter has in mind hinge upon what subject matter and what specific individuals are in Peter’s mind [51]. To what Pauline writing or writings may Peter be supposed to refer? The question has been keenly debated and very variously answered. It turns upon two prior questions, those, namely, touching the subjects immediately in view and the persons immediately addressed.
Those who think that the verse deals only with the subject last mentioned, namely the “long-suffering of our Lord,” naturally look for statements made by Paul on that particular theme, and identify the writing with the Epistle to the Romans which, in such passages as Romans 2:4, Romans 9:22, takes that strain.
Those who regard this Second Epistle as directed not so much to Asiatic Christians as to Christians generally, conclude that the writing intended may be such an Epistle as that to the Hebrews, especially in view of the declarations in Hebrews 9:26, etc., Hebrews 10:25, 37. Others fix on First Corinthians, in which so much is said on the subject of wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:7-9, etc.).
Others, who take the mysterious subject of the Second Advent as the special difficulty on which Peter appeals to Paul, are of opinion that the Epistles to the Thessalonians are meant, both because their early date affords time for their general circulation even among remote Christians, and because they are so much engaged (e.g. in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:2, and the Second Epistle throughout) with the Lord’s Coming.
There is little reason, however, to suppose that Peter alludes only to the one subject of the Divine long-suffering, as that is specified in the same verse. That is itself but a part of the general exhortation in 2 Peter 3:14-15. It is most reasonable, therefore, to regard him as referring, in this remarkable tribute to Paul, to the general subject which he has been engaged with—the end of the present system of things, the Lord’s Coming, the duties to be inferred from the prospect, and the seductive errors of the false teachers.
The “wrote unto you” seems also clearly to identify the writing or writings with communications made to the same circle of readers as Peter himself addresses, and these readers, as the Epistle itself indicates (2 Peter 3:1), are substantially those to whom the former Epistle was directed. Among the Pauline Epistles we have several addressed to this Asiatic circle, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, not to speak of the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16).
And of these, if we are entitled to identify the
writing with any of the extant Epistles, those to the Colossians and Ephesians
best fulfill the conditions. In the
former (e.g. Colossians
WEB: as
also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there
are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled
twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Young’s: as
also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which
things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught and unstable do
wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction.
Conte (RC): just as he also spoke in all of his
epistles about these things. In these, there are certain
things which are difficult to understand, which the
unlearned and the unsteady distort, as they also do
the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction.
Or: The English represents the Greek accurately
enough, but the absence of the article in the original should be noted as
showing that there was not yet any complete collection of St Paul’s
Epistles. All that can be legitimately
inferred from the expression is that Peter knew of other Epistles (probably 1
and 2 Thessalonians , 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans) besides those—or that—to
which he had referred in the preceding verse (= Ephesians and
Corinthians). [38]
speaking in them of
these things. Paul, in all his epistles, says Dr. Macknight, has spoken of the things written by Peter in
this letter. For example, he has spoken
of Christ‘s coming to judgment, 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:14-18; 2 Thessalonians
1:7-10; Titus 2:13. And
of the resurrection of the dead, 1 Corinthians
in which are some
things. Not yet established in what they have
learned; shaken by every seeming difficulty; who, in perplexing texts, instead
of waiting until God by His Spirit makes them plain in comparing them with
other Scriptures, hastily adopt distorted views. [20]
What subject matter is
under consideration? The “in which” refers,
according to the best reading, not to the “things” of which Paul spake, but to the Epistles themselves. The adjective “hard to be understood” occurs
only here. Some suppose the reference to
be particularly to Paul’s doctrine of the Second Coming, as given in such
passages of his Epistles as 1 Corinthians 15:12-58, 1 Thessalonians 4:13, etc.;
others to his doctrines of justification and Christian freedom, which engaged
so much of his teaching, and were peculiarly
open to perversion. It is also suggested that the more mystical
sections of his doctrine, those found, e.g., in Ephesians 2:5, etc.,
Colossians 2:12, may be specially in view, as these were capable of being
turned to the advantage both of the party of immoral licence,
and of errorists like Hymenaeus
and Philetus, who taught that the resurrection was
past already (Hofmann). [51]
The
correct Greek text reading here? According to the greatest number of
MSS the apostle does not say, εν αις, in
which epistles, but εν οις, in or
among which things; namely, the things which Paul had written concerning
Christ’s coming to judgment, the burning of the earth, the heavenly country,
and the introduction of the righteous into that country. The Alexandrian, however, and six other MSS
read here, εν αις, in
which epistles. This, Beza says, is the true reading, because he thinks it would
have been improper in Peter to say that Paul had written obscurely concerning
subjects of which Peter himself had written more things hard to be understood
than any Paul had written in any part of his epistles. Nevertheless “the common reading may be
retained, because the antecedent to the neuter relative, οις, may be a word not
expressed, but understood, namely, γραμμασι,
which signifies letters or epistles, Acts 28:21. On this
supposition Peter’s meaning will be, In
which epistles there are some things hard to be understood.” Barclay, in his Apology, explains
this of the 9th chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, in which there are
some things that seem to be contrary to God’s long-suffering to all, and which
are very liable to be perniciously wrested.
[47]
hard to be
understood. “There is scarce anything drawn from the
obscure places, but the same in other places may be found most plain”
[Augustine]. It is our own prejudice, foolish expectations, and carnal fancies, that make Scripture difficult [Jeremy Taylor]. [20]
We are left to conjecture what these were. We might think of the mysterious predictions of
“the man of sin” in 2 Thessalonians 2, or the doctrine of the “spiritual body”
in 1 Corinthians 15:44, 2 Corinthians 5:1-4, but it is not easy to see how
these elements of Paul’s teaching could have been perverted to the destruction
of men’s spiritual life. On the whole,
therefore, it seems more likely that the Apostle finds in the “unlearned and
unstable” the party of license in the Apostolic Church, who claimed to be
following Paul’s assertion of his freedom, by eating things sacrificed to idols
and indulging in sins of impurity, or who quoted his words “that a man is
justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28) as sanctioning a
profligate Antinomianism. [38]
Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, not by
works, and of subjection not under the law, but under grace, readily lent
itself to such perversion; and has always been more or less perverted in this
way by professing Christians. When the
false teachers “promised their disciples liberty” (
which they that are
unlearned. ἀμαθής
is not used elsewhere in the N.T. It signifies not so much “unlearned” as
“uneducated”; a mind untrained and undisciplined in habits of thought, lacking
in the moral qualities of a balanced judgment.
[36]
Unlearned, not trained in the study of Scripture,
e.g. to give a modern application, not trained to interpret a passage by its
context and according to the whole teaching of the work in which it stands, and
in view of the circumstances and intention of the author; but taking isolated
fragments in any sense that the mere words could be made to bear. [45]
The evil here adverted to is that which arises in
cases where those without competent knowledge undertake to become expounders of
the word of God. It is not said that it
is not proper for them to attempt to become instructed by the aid of the sacred
writings; but the danger is, that without proper views of interpretation, of
language, and of ancient customs, they might be in danger of perverting and
abusing certain portions of the writings of Paul. Intelligence among the people is everywhere
in the Bible presumed to be proper in understanding the sacred Scriptures; and
ignorance may produce the same effects in interpreting the Bible which it will
produce in interpreting other writings.
Every good thing is liable to abuse.
[31]
and unstable. Who have
no settled principles and views. The evil here
adverted to is that which arises where those undertake to interpret the Bible
who have no established principles. They regard nothing as settled. They have no landmarks set up to guide their
inquiries. They have no stability in
their character, and of course nothing can be regarded as settled in their
methods of interpreting the Bible. They
are under the control of feeling and emotion, and are liable to embrace one
opinion today, and another directly opposite tomorrow. [31]
wrest. Pervert; misunderstand and misapply. [14]
Only here in New Testament. Meaning, originally, to hoist with a
windlass or screw; to twist or dislocate the limbs on a rack. It is a singularly graphic word applied to the
perversion of Scripture. [2]
“The original word, στρεβλουσιν,
signifies to put a person to the torture, to make him confess some crime laid
to his charge, or reveal some secret which he knows. Applied to writings it signifies, by
far-fetched criticisms and unsupported senses of words, to make a passage speak
a meaning different from what the author intended. Hence in our language we have the expression,
to torture words. Of this vice
they are most commonly guilty who, from pride of understanding, will receive
nothing but what they can explain.
Whereas, the humble and teachable receive the declarations of revelation
according to their plain, grammatical, unconstrained meaning, which it is their
only care to attain, by reading the Scriptures frequently and with attention.”
— Macknight. [47]
We can only conjecture what these utterances of Paul
were, which were perverted by the ignorant and unsteadfast. Commentators refer to the Pauline doctrine of
freedom (Galatians 5:1; Romans
as they do also the other scriptures. The
other scriptures may mean the Old Testament, or New Testament writings already
written. The point to be noted is that
already when Peter wrote Paul's epistles were accepted as a part of the
Scriptures. [22]
The word “Scriptures,” as used by a Jew, had a
technical signification--meaning the inspired writings, and was the common word
which was applied to the sacred writings of the Old Testament. As Peter uses this language, it implies that
he regarded the writings of Paul as on a level with the Old Testament; and as
far as the testimony of one apostle can go to confirm the claim of another to inspiration, it proves that the writings of Paul are
entitled to a place in the sacred canon.
It should be remarked, also, that Peter evidently speaks here of the
common estimate in which the writings of Paul were held. He addresses those to whom he wrote, not in
such a way as to declare to them that the writings of Paul were to be regarded
as a part of the inspired volume, but as if this were already known, and were
an admitted point. [31]
That an Apostle should speak of the writings of a
brother-Apostle in the same terms as the books of the Old Testament—viz., as
Scripture—need not surprise us, especially when we remember the large claims
made by Paul for his own words (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15;
Ephesians 3:3-5. Compare Acts 15:28;
Revelation 22:18-19). [46]
Case that the
terminology was intended to cover other first century Christian writers as
well: Few passages are more
important than this in its bearing on the growth of the Canon of the New
Testament. It shows (1) that the distinctive
term of honor used of the books of the Old Testament was applied without
reserve to Paul’s writings; (2) that probably other books now found in the
Canon were also so recognized. The last
inference is confirmed (1) by the use of the term “Scripture” as connected with
a quotation from Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18; (2) by St Paul’s reference to
“prophetic writings” or “Scriptures” as unfolding the mystery which had been
hid from ages and generations in Romans 16:26, and probably by the tests which he
gives in 2 Timothy 3:16 as the notes by which “every inspired Scripture, or
writing,” might be distinguished from its counterfeit. [38]
unto their own
destruction. By embracing false
doctrines. Error destroys the
soul; and it is very possible for a man so to read the Bible as only to confirm
himself in error. He may find passages
which, by a perverted interpretation, shall seem to sustain his own views; and,
instead of embracing the truth, may live always under delusion, and perish at
last. It is not to be inferred that
every man who reads the Bible, or even every one who undertakes to be its
public expounder, will certainly be saved.
[31]
The passage has been seized on in support of the
Roman Catholic doctrine of the obscurity of Scripture, its possible
injuriousness to the private student, and the danger of leaving it in the hands
of the people without an authoritative interpretation. What Peter is warning against, however, is
the perils of a misuse of Scripture.
What he states is not that Scripture is unsafe in the hands of the
people, but that there are certain things in it which are capable of being
perverted by a particular class. And
while he gives this caution to the “ignorant and unstable,” he speaks of Paul
as writing “according to the wisdom given unto him,” and earnestly
enjoins upon all these Gentile Christians scattered throughout the Asiatic
Churches “to be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy
prophets, and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior”
(2 Peter 3:2). [51]
WEB: You
therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried
away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your
own steadfastness.
Young’s: Ye,
then, beloved, knowing before, take heed, lest, together with the error of the
impious being led away, ye may fall from your own stedfastness,
Conte (RC): But since you, brothers, know these
things beforehand, be cautious, lest by being drawn
into the error of the foolish, you may fall away from
your own steadfastness.
seeing ye know these things before [beforehand,
NKJV]. Being aware of this
danger, and knowing that such results may follow. People should read the Bible with the feeling
that it is possible that they may fall into error, and be deceived at
last. This apprehension will do much to
make them diligent, and candid, and prayerful, in studying the Word of
God. [31]
Seeing that I have forewarned you
of the certain appearance, conduct, and success of these false teachers and
scoffers. “Forewarned,
forearmed.” [46]
Beware. Be on your
guard. [47]
lest ye also. This has already happened to others; it can
happen to you as well. Do not be blind
to the danger! [rw]
being led away
[carried away, ESV, NASB]. The phrase “carried away with” is an
extremely forcible one. It is the phrase
which Paul applies to the action of Barnabas when he dissembled with Peter
himself at
It is noticeable that while Paul had used the word
for being “led away” of Barnabas as being influenced by the Judaizing
teachers at
with the error of
the wicked. Both their doctrinal and
their moral error. Whether existing separately or together, they
are both fatal to the soul. [rw]
fall from your own
steadfastness. Your firm adherence to the
truth. [31]
The “steadfastness” of the readers of the Epistle as
contrasted with the unstable or unsteadfast of 2 Peter
Implicit evidence that 2 Peter was written before Jude? The entire absence of directions—which Jude gives rather elaborately—as to how these evil men and their victims are to be treated by sound Christians is in favor of the priority of this Epistle. When evil men begin to arise, the first impulse is to avoid them and their ways, and to this course Peter exhorts his readers. When such men have established themselves and gained proselytes, people begin to consider how to deal with the seducers and to win back the seduced, and to these points Jude directs his readers. [46]
WEB: But
grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
Young’s: and
increase ye in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ; to him is the glory both
now, and to the day of the age! Amen.
Conte (RC): Yet truly, increase in grace and in the
knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To
him be glory, both now and in the day of eternity.
Amen.
Don’t be
content with what you are—your spiritual knowledge or spiritual maturity. Always attempt to grow stronger and deeper in
both. [rw]
in grace. There is nothing mystical and remote from the experience of daily life in this exhortation: “Grow in grace”; and it is not growth in some occult theological virtue, or transcendent experience, but a very plain, practical thing, a daily transformation, with growing completeness and precision of resemblance, into the likeness of Jesus Christ. [27]
and in the knowledge. The knowledge of a person is not the same as
the knowledge of a creed or of a thought or of a book. We are to grow in the knowledge of Christ,
which includes but is more than the intellectual apprehension of
the truths concerning Him. He might turn
the injunction into—“Increase your acquaintance with your Savior.” Many Christians never get to be any more
intimate with Him than they were when they were first introduced to Him. They are on a kind of bowing acquaintance
with their Master, and have little more than that. They have got no nearer Jesus Christ than
when they first knew Him. Their
friendship has not grown. It has never
reached the stage where all restraints are laid aside and there is perfect
confidence. [27]
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Peter here, as in 1:2, lays stress
on an ever increasing knowledge of the person, and the offices, and the
benefits of Christ. A true knowledge of Christ[’s importance] is the cause of all Christian
activity. [50]
to Him be glory. The word
“glory” in the Greek has the article, which makes it include all the glory
which men were wont, in their doxologies, to ascribe
to God. The Apostle has learnt the full
meaning of the words “that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the
Father” (John
An abbreviated version of Jude [verse] 25; cf. also
the doxologies, Romans 9:5,
both now. Whatever
you may have done in the past, there is no reason to continue in those
behavioral and doctrinal errors. You can
never change “yesterday,” but only “today.”
Likewise if you have been doing the right thing,
that is no excuse for slacking off.
You must continue in the here and “now”—not to mention “tomorrow” as
well. [rw]
and for ever. Revised Version margin, “Greek, ‘unto the day of eternity;’ literally ‘of the age.’ ” The phrase is different from that used
in the doxologies just referred to, and only occurs here in the New
Testament. The phrase occurs in Ecclus.
An expression naturally flowing
from that sense which the apostle had felt in his soul throughout this whole
chapter. Eternity is a day
without night, without interruption, without end. [47]
Amen. Dr. Benson
remarks, that when this word is placed at the beginning of a sentence, it is an
earnest asseveration. In the conclusion
of a sentence, it imports an earnest wish that it may be so. [47]
The lack of personal
salutations at the close of the epistle:
The absence of any salutations,
like those with which the First Epistle ended, is, perhaps, in part due to the
wider and more encyclical character which marks the Second. The Apostle was content that his last words
should be on the one hand an earnest entreaty that men should “grow” to
completeness in their spiritual life, and, on the other, the ascription of an
eternal glory to the Lord and Master whom he loved. [38]
In depth: The “doxology” of verse 18 as evidence of genuine Petrine authorship [46]. The Epistle comes to a most abrupt conclusion, without any personal remarks or greetings. This is so unlike the First Epistle, so unusual in Apostolic letters generally, that an imitator, and so accomplished an imitator as the writer of this Epistle must have been, would scarcely have omitted so usual and natural an addition.
The addition would have been doubly natural here, for the [im]personator (if the writer of the Epistle be such) is [im]personating Peter near the end of his life, writing to congregations whom he is not likely either to see or address again. Surely the circumstances would have seemed to him to demand some words of personal greeting and tender farewell; and Acts 20:18-35; 2 Timothy 4:6-18, would have supplied him with models. But nothing of the kind is inserted.
Assume that Peter himself is the writer, and
then we can understand how he came to disappoint such natural
expectations. His heart is too full of
the fatal dangers which threaten the whole Christian community to think of
himself and his personal friends. As to
his death, which cannot be far off, he knows that it will come swiftly at the
last, and his chief fear is lest it should come upon him before he has left on
record these words of warning and exhortation (2 Peter 1:13-15). Therefore, at the opening he hurries to his
subject at once, and presses on, without pause or break, until it is exhausted;
and now that he has unburdened his heart he cares to say no more, but ends at
once with a tribute of praise to the Master that bought him.
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.