Deeper Commentary
CHAPTER 2
2:1- see on Gal. 5:1.
But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among
you also there shall be false teachers, who shall secretly bring in
destructive heresies- The failures of natural Israel are
traceable to false teaching from the priesthood / leadership, rather than
purely personal apostasy. All the examples of rejected false teachers
mentioned in 2 Pet. 2 were responsible, and in the ecclesia of their
times. These false teachers had once known the Truth [:12] and would
therefore be reserved to judgment [:9]; they attended the memorial meeting
[:13], they had or claimed to have the gift of prophecy as Balaam did [:15
cp. Heb.6:4-6], and had once left the world, although now they were
returning to it [:20-22]. In other words, they had all the external
trappings of good Christians. We must expect something similar in the
latter day ecclesia.
The appropriacy of the allusion to Israel's history was in the fact
that Peter is writing his letters to his own converts, who were largely
comprised of the Jews he had baptized in Jerusalem at Pentecost.
Denying even the master that bought them, bringing upon
themselves swift destruction- He warns that they even deny the
Lord who bought them (AV). They
even do this- as if denying
the Lord was the worst possible, imaginable sin. And it was the very thing
which he had so publicly done, three times, and had effectively done again
when bowing to Judaist false teaching. They deny “the Lord”- and that had
been Peter’s favourite title for Jesus during the ministry. As he warned
of the evil of the apostate brethren, his own sense of personal failure
and frailty was so evidently shown. And yet it was no reason for him to
simply say ‘So, I can’t judge, I can’t criticize another after what I
did’. What he had learnt from the whole experience of forgiveness and
grace was that the wondrous grace and atonement of Christ
must at all costs be preached and
preserved.
The tragedy is that Israel's rejection of Moses is typical of the
rejection of Christ by those in the new Israel who turn away. The same
word used about Israel
refusing Moses as their deliverer (Acts 7:35) is used
about those who
deny (same word) the Lord
(Jesus) that bought them. This is prefaced by the information that as
there were those who lost their faith in the ecclesia in the wilderness,
so there will be among the new Israel. Therefore "the Lord that bought
them" is an allusion back to Moses as a type of Christ. The illogicality
of Israel's rejection of Moses when he first appeared to them is so
apparent. They were slaves in Egypt, and then one of the most senior of
Pharaoh's officials reveals that he is their brother, and has been sent by
God to deliver them. Yet they preferred the life of slavery in Egypt. This
same illogicality is seen in us if we refuse baptism, preferring to stay
in the world of slavery, or later when we chose the world as opposed to
Christ. We deny, we refuse, we reject, the Lord who bought us by going
back to the world from which he redeemed us. The illogicality of going
back to the world is brought out by the illogicality of Israel's rejection
of Moses. Israel rejected Moses because it was easier to stay where they
were. Such is the strength of conservatism in human nature; such is our
innate weakness of will and resolve. They rejected the idea of leaving
Egypt because they thought it was better than it was, they failed to face
up to how much they were suffering (Num. 11:5). And our apathy in
responding to Christ's redemptive plan for us is rooted in the same
problem; we fail to appreciate the seriousness of sin, the extent to which
we are in slavery to sin- even though the evidence for this is all around
us.
2:2
And many shall follow their destructive ways, by reason of whom
the way of the truth shall be blasphemed- This has to be
connected with the Lord's teaching that "many" (Gk. the majority) would
fall away just before His coming (Mt. 24:12); Peter is perhaps picking
this up, and shewing that this will be due to following false teachers.
"Destructive ways" is literally 'the ways of condemnation'. The heresies
they taught were likewise those of condemnation (:1); and their
condemnation was therefore near (:3 s.w.). There is a great power in
ideas; believing the wrong ones leads to destruction / condemnation.
False prophets bring forth bad fruit; the nature of the teaching
therefore affects the nature of the fruit (Mt. 7:16). False teaching
[which isn’t the same as genuine intellectual failure] therefore elicits a
bad way of life ("their destructive ways"); and the false prophets of the
latter days will result in iniquity abounding (Mt. 24:11). This is why
teaching does matter. Without faith- which comes from holding
the
Faith- it is impossible to please God. True righteousness is the fruit of
the Spirit; the result of the word of the Gospel working within us, the
result of the Spirit of Christ which God has sent forth into the hearts of
His people. Many outside of the Faith appear to in fact be far more
righteous than most of us, in terms of 'good works'. But these good works
are an outcome of their natural personality type; this is how they
are.
But God has sent His Son to the sick who need a doctor, to those
imprisoned by their own thinking, to the tragically blind. Through the
power of the basic Gospel, we have the power to change.
Any student of the New Testament epistles cannot fail to notice these
repeated warnings against false teachers. Peter reminded his readers of
"the words... spoken by the holy prophets [New Testament ones?] and the
apostles... knowing this first [i.e. most importantly], that there shall
come [false teachers and mass apostasy] in the last days" [2 Pet.2:3].
Unless we say that "the last days" is a phrase which has no reference to
our own times, we have to accept that there will be major false teaching
and apostasy within the brotherhood just before Christ's return.
2:3
And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make
merchandise of you- So often, financial advantage figures in
the motivation of the false teachers. They not only taught falsely, but
demanded payment for it. They made their message as attractive as possible
in order to be paid for saying it. Their "feigned words" suggests they
were falsely claiming Divine inspiration for their message; this problem
has been addressed in the immediate context in 1:16-21. They justified
immoral behaviour by assuring believers that a special message from God
had permitted it; and people paid for this to be true, as it were.
Their sentence now from of old does not linger, and their
destruction does not slumber- The essence of the judgment seat
is now. Their sentence and destruction / condemnation had already been
issued and would not delay in fulfilment. This idea of the last day being
somehow 'delayed' is returned to in chapter 3. God is not tuned out
towards human behaviour now, only opening the books and reviewing it at
the last day. He now is sensitive to our actions, and His judgment toward
it is ongoing.
2:4
For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them
down to Tartarus and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved
until judgment-
It was presumably in one of the previous creations that the Angels were
developed. They have knowledge of good and evil, just as fallen man has
(Gen. 3:22). This could suggest that they too had the experience of
temptation and choice between sin and obedience. Job speaks of the angels
who were charged with folly as if this fact was well known (Job 4:18).
John Thomas suggested that the "angels that sinned" in 2 Pet. 2:4 lived at
this time. There is no doubt that this passage in Peter, and the parallel
in Jude, has some reference to Korah's rebellion. However, there are many
such warnings to God's people which combine reference to more than one
historical event, and it could be the same here: as if to say, 'History
repeats itself. The angels that sinned so long ago went through in
principle the same process of apostasy as Korah's company, and you too are
capable of falling from grace in the same basic way'. Apostasy has a long
continuity; all who fall follow a similar pattern, ultimately sharing the
same apotheosis. It could even be that the fall of the Kings of Tyre and
Babylon (Is. 14; Ez. 28) are recorded in the language of an angel /
"anointed cherub" who wanted superiority over the others, and who then
fell from Heaven (Ez. 28:14; Is. 14:13,14 cp. Eph. 4:10). There are strong
similarities between these passages and the Jewish understanding of Angels
that sinned before creation. These similarities would be in order to show
the same kind of historical continuity: between the Angels who once
sinned, and spiritually blessed men who turned away from what they could
have had. The fact that
all the Angels
now are righteous and incapable of sinning (cp. Lk. 20:35,36)
doesn't mean that Angels never sinned in a previous creation. But the
point to note is that they are now in the grave, chained in darkness- not
running around as evil spirits causing mischief. They are "reserved unto
judgment" (2 Pet. 2:4), when "we shall judge angels" (1 Cor. 6:3).
But this passage is of course seriously misunderstood by those who
believe there are currently sinful Angels in existence. But if literal
angels are referred to here, then they are not going around making people
sin, seeing that they are kept safely chained up. They are “under
darkness”, i.e. not openly on the earth nor in heaven. The parallel
passage in Jude 5,6 implies that this is a reference to a well-known fact:
“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this”. There
is no record in any other part of the Bible about angels sinning in Eden;
how then could these Christians be reminded of these things? All the other
examples which Peter and Jude mention are taken from Old Testament
examples which were well known, and this is no exception.
There is no indication that these things happened in Eden. There is no
mention of the angels starting to cause trouble after they sinned – the
implication in Jude 6 is that they were immediately chained up under
darkness. At the creation “all the sons of God (the angels) shouted for
joy” (Job 38:7) and they saw “everything... was very good” (Gen. 1:31);
there was no evil whatever.
The Hebrew and Greek words translated "Angels” can refer to men. These
“angels” are to be judged at “the great day” of the second coming. The
punishment of the unworthy at that day will be total destruction (Mt.
25:41); yet we know that angels cannot die or be destroyed (Lk. 20:35,36)-
an angel walked with Daniel’s three friends in the fiery furnace (Dan.
3:27,28). We read of the angel that appeared to Manoah, “when the flame
went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the Lord
ascended in the flame of the altar” (Jud. 13:20). God “makes his angels
spirits: his ministers a flaming fire” (Ps. 104:4). Therefore these
“angels” who are to be condemned must be human ones, because fire cannot
destroy Angels.
Jude 7 says that Sodom and Gomorrah also (“even as”) “are set forth for
an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (i.e. total
destruction after judgment – Mt. 25:41). This implies that the angels that
sinned were made a public example (as was Sodom) of what would happen to
those who disobey God. However, there is no Biblical record of angels
sinning in Eden – so how are these “angels” “set forth for an example”
(Jude 6)? There is no indication that even Adam and Eve saw the punishment
of anyone apart from the serpent. Remember that sin entered the world “by
one man” – Adam (Rom. 5:12) – not by an angel sinning.
Notice that the words “Devil” and “Satan” do not occur in these
passages. 2 Peter 2:9–11 interprets the reserving of the angels unto
judgment as “The Lord knows how... To reserve the unjust unto the day of
judgment to be punished... them that walk after the flesh in the lust of
uncleanness, and despise government... speak evil of dignities. Whereas
angels... bring not railing accusations”. This is saying that the
counterparts of the sinful angels are the unjust men who follow their
human lusts. That these men are not Angels is shown by the fact that they
speak evil of people, whereas Angels do not. Peter doesn’t imply there are
different categories of angels, sinful and good. He does not say ‘the good
angels do not...’, but rather he refers simply to “angels”, all of whom
are good beings.
“Chains of darkness” represent death in Proverbs 5:22–23 (“cords” in
v. 22 is rendered “chains” in the Septuagint). Thus the ‘angels’ are now
dead. They are “reserved” unto the day of judgment. “Reserved” does not
mean (in the Greek) ‘kept prisoner’, it implies rather that God has made a
note of these people, and will give them their judgment accordingly, at
the second coming of Christ. 2 Peter 2:1 sets the context for :4:
“But there were false prophets also among the people (of Israel, in the
wilderness, cp. Jude 5), even as there shall be false teachers among you”.
Thus the angels that sinned appear to refer to false teachers amongst
Israel in the wilderness. That God “spared not” the sinful ‘angels’
connects with how God “spared not” the sinful Israelites in the wilderness
(Ps. 78:50). Indeed, the idea of God not sparing is often associated with
His attitude to apostate Israel: Dt. 29:20; Jer. 13:14; 21:7; Ez. 7:4,9;
8:18; 9:10. The angels “reserved unto judgment” matches how the Jewish
world was “reserved unto judgment” in AD70 (2 Pet. 3:7).
The immediate context is in 2 Peter 2:3 – the Judaizers were about to
be suddenly punished (in the holocaust of A.D. 70) – “whose judgment now
of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not”. Peter
then reasons that as God immediately punished the ‘angels’ that sinned, so
the judgment and damnation of the Judaizers would not be long delayed. If
the angels were super–human beings who still have the liberty to go about
tempting us to sin, and have had such liberty since the garden of Eden,
then their day of judgment
has lingered, it
has been a long time coming,
and therefore Peter’s use of the angels that sinned as an example of God
quickly punishing sin in v. 4 does not apply. Jude was writing against a
background of belief that sinful Angels were roaming the world and
inciting people to sin. He surely is attempting to debunk this idea by
stressing that “the Angels who kept not their first estate” – whoever we
understand them to be – are safely locked up in chains, unable to
influence anyone on earth today.
We have noted that this incident is probably
concerning human “angels” at some point in the history of Israel, probably
on the wilderness journey, and that it would be well known and documented
in Jewish history (i.e. the Old Testament Scriptures). It also involved a
great public punishment of the wrongdoers which set them “forth as an
example”. The rebellion of the 250 princes of Israel in the wilderness led
by Korah, Dathan and Abiram, as recorded in Numbers 16, seems to fit quite
well.
“Angel” can mean “minister”, “messenger” (as John’s disciples were
messengers or ministers to him, Lk. 7:24). Numbers 16:9 describes the
rebels as “ministers” of the congregation. The Septuagint uses the word
aggelos for “ministers”, which is the same Greek word
translated “Angel” in 2 Peter 2:4. They left their first, or original,
“principality” (Jude 6, A.V. margin); the rebels were princes, but wanted
to be priests as well (Num. 16:2,10). Because of this, the ground opened
and swallowed them (Num. 16:31–33), as a dramatic example to everyone of
the fate of those who rebel against the Word of God. It was especially
dramatic in that it is emphasized that this was the first time that such a
thing had happened (Num. 16:30). Thus they are now dead, “in everlasting
chains under darkness”, in the heart of the earth, to be resurrected and
judged at “the judgment of the great day”. Jude 8 implies that “likewise”,
i.e. like the angels that sinned, the Judaizers “speak evil of dignities”,
e.g. Jesus and Paul. The rebels spoke evil of Moses and Aaron (Num.
16:11–14). “Cast them down to hell” (2 Pet. 2:4). “Hell” in this verse is
tartaroo in the Greek and is used only once in the New
Testament. It was used in pagan Greek mythology to describe a
subterraneous place of darkness for the dead. “Chains of darkness” is
rendered “pits of darkness” in the R.V. The Greek word
serius (pits) indicates an underground granary or prison,
which corresponds with Korah, Dathan and Abiram’s destruction when they
“went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them; and they
perished” (Num. 16:33).
That they were destroyed and were not left alive is shown by a comment
on this incident in Psalm 73. Here Asaph describes how “my steps had well
nigh slipped” (v. 2) because the wicked seemed to be prospering so much.
Then, “I went into the sanctuary (tabernacle) of God; then understood I
their end” (v. 17). This was because the brass censers of the 250 rebels
were melted down after their death and beaten into plates with which the
altar was covered – another example of the angels that sinned being
publicly “set forth as an example” (Jude 7). Asaph would have seen these
and reflected on the fate of the wicked men. Thus he reflects upon the
rebels, the angels that sinned, “surely thou didst set them in slippery
places: Thou castedst them down (by the earth swallowing them) into
destruction” (v. 18) – therefore they are not alive, but in the same way
as Sodom was destroyed with eternal fire, i.e. totally, so, too, were
these “angels” (Jude 6,7).
The language of being cast down to the underworld and the darkness of
the grave all features in the record of Egypt’s judgment in Ez. 31:16–18.
Yet Egypt was not literally cast down from Heaven. The allusion to Egypt
is to show how the apostate Jews in the wilderness were treated as if they
were actually Egyptians – because in their hearts they turned back to
Egypt.
We must understand the immediate context in which Peter uses the idea
of God having judged ‘angels’ [whoever they refer to]. He reasons that
if God didn’t spare ‘angels’ who sinned in the past but judged
them; and
if God punished sinners by a flood but saved Noah; and
if
God overthrew the wicked in Sodom but saved Lot...
then
we can be assured that God knows how to rescue the Godly and to judge
the wicked in a future day of judgment (2 Pet. 2:4–9). The example of
angels being judged must be seen as a warning and a comfort to us in our
day. The implication would surely be that just as the flood and the
destruction of Sodom were well known Biblical examples of Divine judgment,
so must the judgment of the ‘angels’ be. And therefore the interpretation
which associates them with Korah and his rebellion in the wilderness would
seem to be most appropriate. And note that there is
no Biblical record of rebellious Heavenly angels
being judged and thrown down to earth.
2:5
And did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah with
seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when He brought a flood upon
the world of the ungodly- Given this apostasy of the sons of
God and the unwillingness of the world to listen to Noah's preaching (2
Pet. 2:5) the size of the ecclesia must have declined, until it was only 9
strong. H.P. Mansfield claims that 'Methuselah' means 'When he dies, it
shall come'- suggesting that he died a few days or weeks before the flood
came. We can imagine the ecclesia falling away one by one until it was
just that old brother Noah, his wife and his three faithful sons (no doubt
he had other grandchildren and children whom he failed to influence). The
small, declining size of the faithful in our last days and the total
apathy to our preaching should not discourage us- as with all negative
things, a positive message can be read into them in the light of
Scripture. And the message here is that such things clearly indicate that
we are in the last days. The only people to survive the temptations of
these 'last days' before the flood were one family unit. As these events
are so pregnant with latter day relevance, it may be that we are to
perceive here a faint hint that strongly led family units are the way to
survive the last days. Noah is described as “the eighth" (AV), perhaps
alluding to the fact that of the eight people saved in the ark, he was
"the eighth"; he put the others first.
Peter here mentions Noah and Lot together (:6). There are many
connections between Peter’s letters and the Gospels. I calculate that once
every three verses, Peter is alluding to the Lord’s words. And the figure
is probably higher, seeing that we don’t know all the words and actions of
the Lord Jesus, and probably Peter is alluding to incidents and words
which aren’t recorded. Like Paul, Peter’s mind was saturated with the Lord
Jesus. This was the secret of his spirituality, this was why he could cope
with the ministry to the Gentiles which he had so boldly started being
taken away from him and given to Paul, this was why he didn’t slump into a
life of melancholy bitterness. Some of his allusions are conscious
allusions (e.g. those to the transfiguration). Others seem almost
unconscious- e.g. the way he cites both Noah and Lot (2 Pet. 2:5-8) as
warnings for the last generation, when the Lord had likewise used both of
them together (Lk. 17:26-32).
2:6- see on 2 Tim. 2:14.
And turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes,
condemning them to destruction, having made them an example to those that
should live ungodly lives- According to Gen. 18:17-19, the
reason God told Abraham what He would do with Sodom was because Abraham
would teach others, and his descendants would teach others. This implies
that Sodom's destruction was to be a special lesson for all generations.
And 2 Pet. 2:6 says the same- Sodom was to be a perpetual "example unto
those that after should live ungodly"; in this sense Sodom was "set forth
for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7). The
fire was "eternal" in the sense that the example of destruction was to be
to all generations. This paves the way for Sodom's destruction to be
understood as a particularly significant type of the last days.
This warning is in the context of the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem
in AD70. Peter saw Jerusalem, the "holy city" of Judaism, as spiritually
Sodom- just as Isaiah did (also Rev. 11:8). Yet Judaism prided itself on
separation from Gentiles and obedience to Divine law. All this was
covering up an utterly "filthy" and "unGodly" interior.
2:7
And delivered righteous Lot, distressed by the filthy conduct of
the wicked- "Distressed" carries the sense of being oppressed;
it is only elsewhere used in Acts 7:24 of the oppression of Israel in
Egypt. The idea may not be that he was upset and worn down by the
immorality all around him; it could be that he was actively persecuted by
the wicked living people around him. This was why he needed to be
"delivered", not just from the judgment to come upon Sodom, but from his
persecutors. This was highly relevant to the Hebrew Christians being
persecuted by and within Jerusalem, and it was they to whom Peter was
writing. The same word for "delivered" is used of how God knows how to
deliver the Godly from temptation / testing (:9). So Lot's deliverance was
not simply from sharing in Sodom's destruction, but from the temptations
and testing from living amongst such wicked people.
2:8
(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and
hearing, tormented his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless
deeds)- Lot's righteousness was not so great of itself.
Perhaps he too had righteousness counted to him, as his uncle Abraham did.
"Seeing and hearing" suggests a bombardment of his senses with the lawless
deeds of Sodom- which are being used by Peter as parallel with the lawless
deeds of Jerusalem and the temple cult. Their much vaunted keeping of law
was in fact lawlessness, in God's eyes.
The calling of Lot out of Sodom is a type, on the Lord's authority, of
our calling away to judgment. His position immediately prior to the
Angels' coming must therefore connect with our situation now. Lot was in
no way as spiritually strong as he ought to have been, nor as enthusiastic
for the Lord's coming as his complaining about the evils of the city
recorded in 2 Pet. 2:7,8 might lead us to think. The very fact that he
chose to live in the area whilst Abraham steered well clear of it is
testimony enough to his worldliness (Gen. 13:10,11). The offering of his
two daughters to the Sodomites also betrays a certain unspirituality (Gen.
19:8). The fact that Sodom's fate was revealed to Abraham rather than Lot
may also be significant.
2 Pet. 2:8 reveals how Lot "tormented his righteous soul from day to day
with their lawless deeds" (AV). Seeing that he failed to influence his
family to properly appreciate the sins of that city, and that he was so
attached to it that he was unwilling to leave, this must be interpreted as
little more than the sort of middle class, respectable 'tut-tutting' that
present day Christianity abounds with. After all, he had chosen to live
there, he did not have to stay, and the record of his choice of Sodom in
Gen.13 spotlights his unspiritual, worldly thinking in this regard when
compared to Abraham, the stranger and sojourner. Whether this assessment
of Lot's character is felt to be correct or not, it must surely be
accepted that there was a serious dualism in his position which has strong
similarities with ours today- vexing his soul about the sins of the
surrounding world, and yet increasingly involved in it and greatly
benefiting from it materially, at spiritual cost to himself and his
family. Lot was effectively willing to betray his daughters to the men of
Sodom, pointing forward to the Lord's prophecy of how in the holocaust to
come, many will betray each other (Mt. 10:36), family life within the
ecclesia will break up; a spirit of dissension will fall upon natural and
spiritual families.
2:9
Therefore the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of
temptation- ‘The Lord’ to Peter meant ‘the Lord Jesus’. He
comforts them that the Lord Jesus knows how to deliver the Godly out of
temptation. Surely he was referring back to how the Lord Jesus had prayed
for him, knowing the temptation that was to come upon him in the High
Priest’s house, knowing Satan’s desire to have him. And although it might
have seemed that in the short term Peter’s weakness rendered that prayer
powerless, in fact in the end, his faith didn’t fail, just as the Lord had
prayed. And so from his own example he could comfort his readers that
surely their Lord knew how to deliver from temptation, even if like Lot
and like Peter those he delivers may deserve to be left to the outcome of
their own words and actions.
To keep Lot from the great spiritual temptation provoked within him by
that city, God destroyed it. Similarly God's abhorrence of this present
world which Sodom typifies is largely due to the spiritual temptation it
so evidently brings upon His people. And remember that it was thanks to
Abraham's prayers that Lot was saved out of Sodom. Perhaps his prayers had
been especially for Lot's spiritual deliverance from the situation he was
in; and the destruction of Sodom perhaps happened exactly for that reason.
There were surely many societies sinning at the time, but God didn't
destroy them with fire and brimstone. He did so with Sodom because He
realized that Lot wasn't strong enough to quit Sodom, and He wanted Lot's
salvation. And so He destroyed them. All this for the sake of a weak man
who later was to get drunk and sleep with his own daughters. We too pray
that God will not lead us into temptation, and He may e.g. bankrupt the
firm we work for in order to save us from working with the guys who will
lead us to our destruction.
We can observe how Abram was asked to leave his family, so that God would give him a new family through his seed. But he was weak in obedience to this- he left Ur along with his father and Lot. But it was through that weakness that Lot came to be eternally saved, despite Lot's own weakness. God doesn't simply turn away from sin in disgust, but works through it.
And to keep the unrighteous under punishment to the day of
judgment- There is no conscious survival of death. The
sentence for sin is passed now (:3), but they only receive it at the day
of judgment. They are therefore kept "under" that judgment, although dead,
until they are resurrected to face judgment. The idea of keeping or
reserving the wicked unto judgment at the last day is quite common with
Peter (2:4,9,17; 3:7 all use the same word). Likewise our eternal
inheritance and crown is "kept ['reserved'] in heaven" for us (1 Pet.
1:4). The judgment has already been made; but the result of the verdict is
reserved or kept until the last day. As the Psalms make clear, we can know
right now the Lord's judgments; they are revealed to us in His word, which
is His judgments.
2:10- see on Jude 14.
Chief among these are those that walk after the flesh in the lust
of defilement and despise dominion. Daring, self-willed, they are not
afraid to speak evil of dignitaries- Amongst those to be
condemned, there are "chief" and also lesser ones, just as there will be
grades of reward amongst the righteous. These gradations reflect the
Father's huge sensitivity towards human behaviour.
In a sense, the Angels deal with men according to men’s own perceptions
of themselves, and with what can only be described as a certain spiritual
culture. They do not “speak evil of dignities”, as exemplified in the way
the Angelic voice from Heaven addressed the wicked Nebuchadnezzar whom
they were about to depose as “O king Nebuchadnezzar” (Dan. 4:31). This
isn’t only an example to us of not being abrasive to people even if we
know them to be seriously in the wrong. It’s an example of how we should
seek to deal with people within the terms of their own perceptions. It
makes one wonder whether at the judgment, the Lord will address those who
were known in their lives as ‘Doctors’ or ‘Reverends’… obviously making
the point, as the Angel was to Nebuchadnezzar, that human advantage means
so absolutely nothing before the ultimate analysis and set of values of
His judgment.
The "them" of :11 refer to the same "dignitaries"; Angels do not rail
at them but instead say "The Lord rebuke you" (in the parallel Jude 9).
The example of this cited in Jude 9 is a quotation from how in Zechariah,
the Angels rebuke the human adversaries / local government authorities who
were opposing the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The "dignitaries" [doxa]
are not Angels themselves, because :11 goes on to say that
Angels do not talk about "dignitaries" in this way but rather call down
the Lord's rebuke upon them (Jude 9). Seeing there are no sinful Angels,
it cannot be that the "dignitaries" are Angels. Note that
doxa is used of sinful humans and not Angels by Peter in 1
Pet. 1:24.
I noted on 1 Peter that some of Peter's Jewish refugee converts in Asia
were getting in trouble with the local authorities and considered
themselves above the local laws. They slandered "dignitaries" and also
despised "dominion" or "government"; the word is used about human civil
government in Eph. 1:21. These people are here called "self willed". They
considered themselves above the law and had created themselves as the
final arbiter of right and wrong; they were as James says, judging the law
and speaking evil of it by considering themselves as the ultimate law
(James 4:11).
2:11
Whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not dare
bring before the Lord an injurious accusation against them- As
explained on :10, the "them" refers to local government authorities whom
the Jewish false teachers were slandering and setting themselves over. The
parallel in Jude 9 exemplifies this by a quotation from how in Zechariah,
the Angels rebuke the human adversaries / local government authorities who
were opposing the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The Angels are "before the
Lord" in the court of Heaven; and so are all of us, effectively. Yet even
they talk about sinful people on earth with appropriate respect and
restraint, not condemning them of themselves. This is a window into the
awareness of God and the Angels concerning situations on earth, and how
they discuss those situations with respect toward men. Their greater
"might and power" do not make them disrespect those who are weaker. And
that is truly a pattern for us, who each have some greater power than
others in some way.
2:12
But these, as creatures without reason- "Without
reason" is
a-logos, without the
logos of God's word. The parallel in Jude 10 says that they
relied upon their natural knowledge and perception, rather than God's
word.
Born mere animals to be taken and destroyed- The idea
is that they were predestined to this destruction; and yet it was because
they acted in the way they did of their own choice. There is a word play
on the word "destroyed", which carries the idea of 'corruption'. Their
final corruption in condemnation is because of their own corruption. Hence
"in their destroying ['corruption'] they shall be destroyed / corrupted".
Speak reproachfully in matters of which they are ignorant; they
shall in their destroying surely be destroyed- They were
living out their own condemnation; human behaviour is of itself our
judgment. Truly "we make the answer now" to the issues of the future day
of judgment.
2:13
Suffering wrong as the wages of wrong-doing- This
implies that the false teachers were even in this life suffering
a punishment appropriate to the kind of sin they were committing. The
phrase "the wages of wrong-doing" is repeated in :15 regarding how Balaam
loved such wages. The only other usage of the phrase is in Acts 1:18 about
how Judas bought a field with his "wages of wrong-doing". These false
teachers were after money, but that love of money lead them to even now
'suffer wrong', just as happened to Judas. It would seem from some
hints in 1 Peter that the 'wrong' they suffered was at the hands of the
local civil authorities.
The allusion to Judas makes Judas out to be the arch apostate and
betrayer of the Lord Jesus, whose example was followed by these false
teachers. And yet Judas and Peter had committed in essence the same sin of
denying their Lord, and at the very same time. Peter would have intensely
been aware of this. And yet he holds up Judas as a prototype of all who
fall, as if to say: ‘And there, but for the Lord’s grace, nearly went I.
See the terror of it, and turn away from that road. I of all men can tell
you that’.
They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime- One
wonders about the way that Peter describes the apostate believer as drunk
in the day time, when earlier he had dismissed with a confident logic the
claim that he was drunk at Pentecost by saying that it couldn’t possibly
be so, because it was early in the day and people can only get drunk at
night (Acts 2:15). Could it be that his perception of sinfulness and the
grossness of this present evil world had increased by the end of his life?
Spots and blemishes, revelling in their deceivings while they
feast with you- These people were apparently confidently
participating in the breaking of bread meetings. As happened at Corinth,
these meetings were being turned into drunken feasts. They were
unashamedly out to deceive the Lord's people through participating at
these feasts. These were the types who needed to be excluded from the
Lord's supper- not sincere folks who may have failed in some ways or who
honestly misunderstand some of His teachings. They were spots and
blemishes upon the bride of Christ. The Lord Jesus is working to present
us to Himself
without blemish (Jude 24
s.w.). These false teachers were therefore working directly against the
Lord's work and intention.
2:14- see on 2 Pet. 3:16.
Having eyes full of adultery, they cannot cease from sin,
enticing unstable souls- The false teachers, both here and
elsewhere in the New Testament, were sexual predators. The breaking of
bread at Corinth was turned into a drunken feast where the equivalent of
temple prostitutes were used. The Christian church was being operated just
how most other religious cults of the time were- with sexual abandon and
alcohol abuse used as part of their rituals. As suggested on 1 Peter, it
seems that the converts Peter is writing to are those he made in the
thousands in his early preaching to the orthodox Jews at Jerusalem. They
had fallen a long way; from strict orthodox Jews full of faith in and love
for Jesus, who had shared their goods amongst each other and then been
persecuted, and for the sake of their faith had gone into exile in what is
now Turkey... and there, the pressures of the refugee life had taken over.
Bit by bit they had slipped into this state of immorality. We marvel at
how a man can at one point in his life be so committed and spiritual; and
only a few years later, end in the spiritual gutter. But we are surrounded
by examples of it, and therefore the situation we are reading of here is
not impossible to imagine. It is a sober warning that faith must be
maintained. No apparent height of spiritual strength will be retained
unless we in an ongoing sense exercise our hearts in the ways of the
Spirit.
Having a heart exercised in covetousness, children of cursing-
Their tragic decline was because of the bad exercise of their hearts. They
were covetous, just as the orthodox Jews of Lk. 16:14 were. They came to
Christ with great zeal, but that basic problem with coveting remained. It
became the regular mental experience of their minds, and it eventually led
them to this tragic collapse of faith, similar to what Paul laments in
Hebrews concerning the Jerusalem Hebrew Christians who instead of going
into exile, had reverted to Judaism. They were sons of cursing /
condemnation; at that moment, they would be condemned if the Lord returned
or they died. And they could change that.
2:15
Forsaking the right way, they went astray, having followed the
way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of wrongdoing-
These false teachers were home grown within the church, rather than having
entered in from outside it; they had gone astray, they were once in the
right way, having been baptized. The stress is that they had a financial
motive in their misbehaviour. The same term "wages of wrongdoing" is used
about Judas in Acts 1:18. We marvel that love of money could lead to such
awful behaviour, wrong beyond words, of betraying God's Son and destroying
His people. But people commit all manner or murder for relatively small
sums. This is the power of the love of money. No wonder Scripture warns
against it so strongly.
2:16
But he was rebuked for his own transgression: a dumb ass spoke
with a man's voice and hindered the madness of the prophet-
Peter was unafraid to rebuke the high flying intellectuals who were
wrecking the first century ecclesia. He likens his rebuke of them to the
"dumb ass speaking with man's voice" which rebuked Balaam. This was what
he chose to identify himself with; that inspired donkey. There was no
great trained intellect in Peter; yet his zeal for God's word puts us to
shame. As the time of the end progresses, it seems that more and more of
Christ's church (in the Western world) are educated people. In this I see
a tremendous danger. A man who could probably not read, who probably wrote
his inspired letters by dictation because he couldn't write himself, had a
zeal for understanding which puts us to shame. Paul correctly made the
point (and who more aware that his intellectuality could run away with him
than Paul) that God has chosen the weak things to confound the mighty; He
has chosen the simple of this world to confound the wise (1 Cor. 1 and 2).
I get some kind of intuitive feeling that Paul had Peter at the back of
his mind as he wrote this letter to working class Corinth (1 Cor. 1:26).
The deep mutual respect between theologian Paul and fisherman Peter is a
real working model for our ecclesias.
Yet "rebuked" can also be a legal term, meaning 'to convict'. So often
in this passage we encounter this idea that the essence of judgment day is
today. The convictions for sin are going on right now- and should be
responded to. It's as if the guilty verdict and eternal condemnation is
passed down to the guilty right now- but they can change the verdict by
repentance. What urgency should there be therefore, when we are convicted
of sin.
The dumb ass was speaking God's word. But that word was spoken in order
to save Balaam from destruction at the hand of the Angel who stood in
front of him. We see here God's justice and grace working together. God
made the Angel go out to kill Balaam; and made the ass speak to Balaam and
collapse beneath him so that this didn't happen. It's rather like the
Angel of death going out to destroy all the firstborn on Passover night,
including that of the Israelites; but turning away from the houses over
which the Passover Angel hovered. Thus one Angel delivered people from
another Angel. There is no contradiction here; rather an insight into the
careful balance within all God's operations with men. He doesn't simply
operate on auto-pilot.
2:17
These are springs without water- They appeared to be
fountains but had no substance as such. This would allude to how they were
teachers, fountains, sources of water in the desert; but without water.
And mists driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness
has been reserved- These types “are carried with a tempest
[in] the mist of darkness”. The Greek for “carried with a tempest” only
occurs elsewhere in Mk. 4:37 and Lk. 8:23 in description of how Peter and
the disciples, proud of their sailing ability, were driven by the storm /
whirlwind in the darkness. The Greek for “tempest” is highly specific- it
refers only and specifically to the whirlwind storms which can arise on
Galilee. Peter clearly intends the allusion back to the night when he too
was driven in a Galilee whirlwind, and had been rebuked for his lack of
faith. He is really saying that he too has been a condemned man and can
relate to how they feel; yet he was converted out of it, and came to
gracious forgiveness. And so, he implicitly appeals, can each of you my
readers be.
They will be sent to a mist of darkness, as Paul walked about in a mist
and darkness, not knowing where he was going (Acts 13:11). Thick darkness
is associated with God's judgment (Is. 8:22; Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15)- and
recall how the judgment of darkness upon Egypt was so severe that human
movement required 'groping' (Ex. 10:21). Perhaps there will be a literal
element to this in the experience of the rejected. Be that as it may, the
utter
pointlessness of life without God will be so bitterly
apparent. And yet they would not face up to it in their day of
opportunity. This likening of the rejected to scavenging dogs in the
rubbish tips outside Jerusalem lends further support to the suggestion
that the punishment of the wicked will be associated with literal Gehenna,
outside Jerusalem. 2 Sam. 23:6 speaks of how the rejected will be “thrust
away” by the Lord. The Hebrew means to wander, to be chased [and is
translated this way elsewhere in the AV]. Significantly in this
connection, 2 Sam. 23:7 speaks of how the rejected will be consumed in
“the same place” where the seed of David was to overcome wickedness.
Literal Gehenna was in the same vicinity as Golgotha; and this in this
sense His death was a foretaste of the future judgment, as we observe
elsewhere.
2:18
For when they speak- They were teachers within the
church.
Great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts
of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from
those who live in error- The lewdness and lusts of the flesh
all have sexual hints. As noted on :14 and :19, they were justifying
sexual immorality within the church and actually at the breaking of bread
meeting. We recall how there was a false teacher code named "Jezebel" who
taught fornication within the church, claiming that she was speaking
inspired words of prophecy which permitted and commanded fornication (Rev.
2:20). Their words were “swelling”, just as false teaching is likened to
yeast which swells up.
2:19
Promising them liberty, while they are in
fact slaves to corruption. For of whom a person is overcome, of the same
is he also brought into bondage- As noted on :18, the
"liberty" was the libertine sexual freedom to use prostitutes at church
meetings. This was their interpretation of Christian freedom. It may be
that they misquoted Paul's writings to this effect. He states in Rom. 3:8
that his message of grace and freedom from law was indeed wilfully
misquoted in this way. The tension between freedom and slavery is at the
heart of Paul's teaching about baptism in Romans 6. We are made ultimately
free through slavery to the Lord Jesus. These false teachers were offering
apparent moral freedom only because they had been overcome by sin,
personified here as "a person". The same word is used in :20 for how they
had previously been "overcome" by the immorality of the world. It is this
which had overcome the false teachers, and they were trying to bring
others into the same bondage which they were in. This is the same
mentality behind why addicts may seek to get others hooked; there is a
downward tendency in human nature, we wish to bring others down to our
level. The path of the Spirit is what reverses all this.
2:20
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world
through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again
entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the
beginning- See on :19. The having "escaped" suggests a one off
point when they escaped; see on 1:4. That point was surely baptism. It is
through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus that we "escaped" the world; but
theoretical knowledge of doctrine is surely not in view, for one can be
aware of all that but still be entangled in the things of the world.
Indeed, Peter in his letters doesn't appear to need to tackle any major
theological errors (unlike Paul to the Corinthians). "Knowledge" is being
used in the Hebraic sense of 'having a relationship with'. It is living,
two-way relationship with the Lord Jesus which means we find the
attractions of the world and flesh far less attractive. "Entangled" is a
word only elsewhere used in 2 Tim. 2:4 about the spiritual soldier not
entangling himself with the affairs of this life. The obsessive,
entangling nature of the things of secular life are just as much a source
of entangling as the defilements of the world in its worst sense. For
those who have once escaped these things and return to them, their latter
end is worse than at their beginning, when they were ignorant of the
Gospel. For such people are not responsible to judgment. But having known
the Gospel and then returning to the world, the fate will be resurrection
to judgment, seeing the future that has been missed, and then having to
die eternally, "the second death".
2:21
For it were 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- The Jewish converts whom Peter
is addressing, those baptized by him at Pentecost, would have heard John
the Baptist's message. And that message of preparation for the new
covenant is the only teaching described with this same phrase, "the way of
righteousness" (Mt. 21:32). "The holy commandment" is a phrase used only
elsewhere about the old covenant (Rom. 7:12). To turn away from the
covenant was the ultimate sin for Jewish people. Peter is using this
language of the old covenant about the new covenant. To have turned from
the old covenant to the new, and now to turn away from it... meant that
"it were better" not to have been born. The allusion is to Judas (Mt.
26:24), whom Peter sees as the epitome of all that fall; but see on :13.
2:22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb: A dog
returns to his own vomit and a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the
mire- The word for 'washed' means a complete bathing, and
would be appropriate to baptism. These orthodox Jewish converts who had
come from hard line Judaism to being washed in Christ by Peter baptizing
them... were returning to the wallowing in the mud which had been their
former way of life. And that was how Peter therefore esteemed the hard
line legalism of Judaism- a wallowing in mud, as pigs, the classic unclean
animal. In another analogy, their conversion away from Judaism had been a
vomiting up of rotting unclean food; and they were now returning to what
they had once vomited up. Judaism is not at all spirituality, according to
how Peter, Paul, Stephen and others allude to it. The washing of baptism
is likened to a vomiting up of rotten food. Again the implication is that
the vomiting of the old life was a one off act which occurred at a
specific time- their baptism. Baptism is therefore a specific action of
the Spirit upon us in moral terms.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
