BUT THERE WERE also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Original Meaning
WITH THESE VERSES, Peter introduces the subject that will occupy the rest of the letter body: a denunciation of false teachers. Peter hinted at the existence of these false teachers in 1:16, implying that they were accusing him and the other apostles of basing their prediction of the Parousia on “cleverly invented stories.” Now he turns full attention to them.
Peter begins simply by introducing them and briefly characterizing them (2:1–3). The key word in these verses is “destruction/destructive”: the false teaching itself is destructive (v. 1) and will bring destruction on the false teachers themselves (vv. 1, 3). He develops the theme of condemnation in 2:4–10a, citing biblical examples of judgment to make his case. Then come two paragraphs of further characterization (2:10b–16 and 17–22). Finally, the argument comes full circle as Peter returns to the issue of the Parousia, showing that the false teachers’ skepticism is unwarranted (3:1–10) and urging his readers to live in light of the coming day of judgment (3:11–13).
Introduction of the False Teachers (v. 1a)
THE “ALSO” IN verse 1 suggests a close connection between this verse and what has preceded in chapter 1. This connection is to be found in the topic of “prophets.” Because God himself speaks reliably through his prophets, we must pay close attention to their words (1:19–21). “But,” Peter reminds us, “there were also false prophets among the people.” Indeed, the history of God’s people in the Old Testament is strewn with examples of people who claimed to be speaking for God but were really advancing their own ideas or programs. As Richard Bauckham has noted, these Old Testament false prophets regularly shared three characteristics: (1) they did not speak with divine authority; (2) their message was one of “good news,” promising peace and security in contrast to the warnings about judgment given by true prophets; and (3) they were shown to be worthy of condemnation.1 Peter applies all three characteristics to the “false teachers” he denounces. And we should especially take note that these false teachers, like the false prophets of old, scorn the idea of a judgment to come (see 3:2–10).
Two points about Peter’s initial reference to these false teachers should be noted. (1) Peter refers to them as “false teachers” rather than “false prophets.” The latter designation would have seemed more likely, both because Peter has already used that phrase to describe their Old Testament counterparts and because it was widely used in Jewish, New Testament, and early Christian predictions about the future (cf. Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:36; Acts 13:6). “False teachers,” on the other hand, are never explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, although Paul does refer, in a passage similar to this one, to “teachers” who “say what [people’s] itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3; cf. also 1 Tim. 4:1). If the phrase is not simply a stylistic variant of “false prophets,” then “false teachers” may have been deliberately chosen by Peter because he knew that these people did not claim prophetic authority.2
(2) Peter uses the future tense: “there will be false teachers among you.” And this is no stray reference or slip of the pen, for Peter continues to describe them with this future tense in verses 1–3: “they will secretly introduce destructive heresies”; “many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute”; “these teachers will exploit you.” These references should be compared with 3:3: “in the last days scoffers will come….” Why the future tenses here? Three explanations have been offered.
(a) The unknown author of 2 Peter, writing after Peter’s death, quotes predictions from the apostle Peter about the rise of heresy in the last days, which the author applies to the situation he is addressing. This explanation, of course, assumes that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, a view we have found good reason to reject (see the introduction).
(b) Peter wants to warn his readers about false teaching that has not yet affected his readers but which he knows to be present elsewhere and suspects will be bothering them shortly. But this explanation does not account satisfactorily for the realistic description of the false teachers in verses 10–22 and in 3:4–13, where Peter uses the present (e.g., 2:11, 17, 18) and aorist tenses (3:15) to describe them.
(c) I prefer, then, to think that Peter is himself “quoting” early Christian prophecies about the rise of false teaching. Jesus himself warned his followers about such false teaching (see esp. Matt. 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22). Since these predictions of Jesus come in the Olivet Discourse, some interpreters think that they have relevance only to the period just before the end of history. But, in fact, the section of the Olivet Discourse from which these predictions are taken is better seen as a description of the entire period between Jesus’ first coming and his second. Jesus is warning his disciples not to be surprised at the deviant teaching that will quickly begin to compete with the true teaching of the gospel. Paul sounded similar warnings as he addressed church leaders (e.g., Acts 20:29–31; 2 Tim. 3:1–6). Thus Peter refers his readers to these predictions as a means of indicating to them that the false teaching infecting their communities should be no surprise.3
A Profile of the False Teachers (vv. 1b–3)
IN THE REST of this opening paragraph, Peter gives a brief profile of these false teachers. He avoids specifics at this point, painting with broad brush strokes to impress on his readers the seriousness of the threat they pose for the community. He makes eight points, in rapid succession.
(1) They are devious in their manner. Realizing that an open resistance to apostolic teaching would be useless, they introduce their false ideas “secretly.” Paul used a form of this same word to characterize the Judaizing false teachers who had “infiltrated” the ranks of some believing communities (Gal. 2:4).4 Since Peter accuses the false teachers of arrogance later in the chapter, he probably does not mean that they are hiding what they are teaching. Rather, he suggests, they are covering up the degree to which their teaching differs from the accepted apostolic teaching.
(2) They are perpetrating a serious error: “even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” “Sovereign Lord” translates despotes (from which we get our word “despot”), a term applied to God or Christ only four other times in the New Testament (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Jude 4; Rev. 6:10). It carries a strong sense of commanding authority, and Peter probably uses the title here to underscore the seriousness of the false teachers’ denial. As in Jude 4, a somewhat parallel text, the “sovereign Lord” is here probably Christ—an identification suggested also by the qualifier “who bought them.” As the New Testament testifies elsewhere, Jesus paid the price of his life at the cross that he might buy out, or “redeem,” human beings from their slavery to sin (the same verb, agorazo, describes this transaction in 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:3–4).
But how were these false teachers “denying” the Lord? Was it a theological denial, related to their skepticism about Christ’s return in glory? Or was it a practical denial, according to which their licentious lifestyle amounted, in effect, to a denial of the Lord? The parallel in Jude 4 and the reference to their “shameful ways” in verse 2 suggest that the latter was part of the picture. But Peter also emphasizes their teaching in this context. Probably, then, the denial involved both teaching and practices that were incompatible with acknowledging Jesus as Lord.5
(3) The outcome of their teaching is destruction (a fair paraphrase of the Greek here, rendered “destructive [heresies]” in the NIV). This word here (and in v. 3) refers to eschatological condemnation. As a metaphor for judgment, the word does not carry the literal meaning of “annihilate” or “cease to exist,” but, with “salvation” as its opposite (2 Cor. 2:15), denotes the eternal loss of fellowship with God (see also John 12:25; Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 1:18; 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:10).
The NIV reinforces the seriousness of the false teachers’ doctrine by labeling it “heresies.” But this translation may go too far. In the New Testament period, the Greek word Peter uses (hairesis; our English “heresy” is taken from it) generally means “party, sect” (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; 28:22), or “faction” (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal 5:20). Only in the late first century A.D. does the word come to have the technical sense “heresy”: deviation from orthodox teaching. So while the NIV certainly captures the basic point, a translation such as “destructive opinions” (NRSV) may be more accurate. In any case, Peter’s point is clear enough: Those who follow the theology of the false teachers will be led not to final salvation but to condemnation.
(4) The destiny of these false teachers is, like those who follow them, “destruction.” In saying that this destruction will be “swift,” Peter may mean that the eschatological judgment will soon take place. And certainly such an idea of imminence, in the sense of a conviction that the last day could come at any time, is widespread in the New Testament. But rather than predicting the time of the judgment, “swift” probably indicates its certainty. Peter makes the same point at the end of verse 3: “Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.” The false teachers may think that they will not have to reckon with God’s judgment, since they hold the view that this world will continue indefinitely as it is now (see 3:2–5). But “destruction” for leading others to “destruction” is inevitable.
(5) The popularity of these false teachers is great. “Many will follow their shameful ways.” Sadly, there are always those within the church who are attracted to new and different teaching, especially if, like the ideas peddled by these false teachers, it removes the bounds of moral constraint and accountability to a holy judge.
(6) Their impact on the Christian movement is disastrous. For by following this erroneous teaching and lapsing into the kind of licentious behavior that Peter ascribes to the false teachers in 2:10–22, professing Christians bring “the way of truth into disrepute.” The New Testament writers borrowed the term way from the Old Testament and Jewish world to summarize the Christian way of life—the beliefs and practices that characterized followers of Jesus (see esp. Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22). When believers deviate from that way, and especially when they live immoral lives while professing Christ as Lord, they cause the Christian movement to be “blasphemed” (blasphemeo; NIV “bring … into disrepute”). Paul expressed a similar concern about the effect of false teaching (1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:5), and Peter himself, in his first letter, urged believers to lead exemplary lives before unbelievers so that their “blasphemies” against the Christian way would be shown to be groundless (1 Peter 4:4).
(7) The false teachers are motivated by greed (v. 3). Peter alludes to this motivation later in the chapter as well, comparing the false teachers to Balaam, “who loved the wages of wickedness” (2:15; cf. v. 14: “experts in greed”). The ancient world was filled with wandering teachers who had the reputation of propagating almost any doctrine that would earn them a living. So the false teachers, Peter claims, are “exploiting” the believers, trading in “stories that they have made up.”
(8) This phrase brings us to the final characteristic of the false teachers: The basis of their teaching is “stories they have made up.” Peter probably intends us to see here a contrast with 1:16: It is the false teachers, not the apostles, who build their doctrine on the basis of “cleverly invented stories,” that is, on fabrications and forgeries.6
Bridging Contexts
PETER’S DESCRIPTION OF the false teachers in these verses is so general that it might seem we could apply what he says to almost any group of false teachers in the history of the church. However, we need to examine two issues before we can so confidently make such application: the eschatological setting of the false teaching; and the seriousness of the teaching.
(1) As argued above, Peter uses future tenses to describe the false teachers because he is paraphrasing early Christian predictions about deviant teaching that will arise “in the last days.” Perhaps the most important text comes in Jesus’ own words in Matthew 24:4–5, 10–11, 23–24:
Jesus answered, “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many…. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear to deceive many people…. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.”
Many interpreters question whether Peter can be quoting this text as relevant to his own day, because they think that in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (where these words occur) he predicts only what will happen at the very end of history, when he returns in glory. Jesus’ return in glory is, indeed, the climax of this discourse (see Matt. 24:29–31). But the earlier part is devoted to a description of what will prevail before his return (see the transition in v. 29: “immediately after the distress of those days”). At this point, we must remember that, from Jesus’ perspective, the time period of this situation is undefined. Not knowing “the day or the hour” of his glorious return (see v. 36), Jesus likewise does not know how much time will elapse before the end. This being the case, we doubt that he is thinking in verses 4–28 of a period of time at the end of history, distinct from the rest of the time between his ascension and the Parousia. Rather, Jesus is predicting the situation that his followers will be facing throughout the “church age.”7
What we need to do, I think, is to adjust our thinking about eschatology (teaching about the end of time). The New Testament certainly predicts that a short time of special distress will immediately precede the return of Christ (see, e.g., 2 Thess. 2:3–11). But the New Testament writers more typically portray the entire period from Jesus’ ascension to his second coming as a time of various kinds and degrees of tribulation. John reminds us that while a climactic Antichrist will come at the end of the world, even now “many antichrists have come” (1 John 2:18). The apostles and early Christians were convinced, in other words, that they were already living in “the last days” (see, e.g., Acts 2:16–21). Eschatology was not just future; it was also a present reality. From this perspective, we see how natural it is for Peter to apply Jesus’ predictions to the false teachers disturbing the security of the church in his day. At the same time, we in our day, still living in these last days, should not be surprised at false teaching that continues to crop up on all sides—for Jesus has warned us to expect it.
(2) If we are to apply Peter’s strong denunciation of and warning about false teachers, we also need to have some idea about what kind of teaching he has in mind. For Peter would not want his strictures to apply to every case of doctrinal disagreement or moral failure. The New Testament allows diversity among believers on certain issues. The most famous examples are the disputes about eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8–10 and about “kosher” food in Romans 14:1–15:13. In each passage, Paul urges that the disagreeing parties learn to live with one another without insisting on a uniform belief or practice.
Balance at this point is essential. It is contrary to the New Testament, on the one hand, to lump every detail of doctrine and practice into the category of Christian essentials. One thinks in this regard of those Christians who insist, for instance, that everyone must read the same version of the Bible or believe exactly the same things about the sequence of events at the end times. On the other hand, it is fatal to allow complete tolerance on every issue that comes along. Christianity would then be evaporated of its essence and consist of little more than a vague reverence for “God.” Certain strands of the ecumenical movement err in just this direction. In the interests of Christian unity, they reduce the faith to its lowest possible common denominator.
So how do we achieve the right balance? How do we know when to apply Peter’s denunciations? The answer is simple, although not always easy to put into practice: We must determine what the New Testament deems essential. Once we have done that, we must hold tenaciously to what it requires while, at the same time, practice tolerance about what it does not. What makes this principle difficult in practice, of course, is disagreement about what the New Testament plainly requires and what it does not. Some Christians, for instance, are convinced that the Scriptures plainly teach a pretribulation rapture of the church. They will therefore have difficulty extending tolerance to those who hold a different view. Other Christians, however, do not think the biblical data on this matter are at all clear, and they are happy to work with those who hold different views. But regardless of disagreements over what is essential and what is not, we must begin by agreeing to let the Word stand over us in such matters.
And we have one other resource to help us make decisions about what is essential and what is not: the voice of history. Without subscribing to the Roman Catholic view that elevates church tradition to virtually an equal status of authority with the Word, we may still learn a great deal from the decisions reached by other Christians in other times and places about what is “orthodox” and what is not. Special attention is often given in this regard to the ecumenical councils of the early church—those gatherings of theologians in the first six centuries that were regarded as representative of the Christian church as a whole. Scripture must, of course, stand as the ultimate arbitrator in these matters; but we Protestants, especially, have too often neglected the rich resource of orthodox tradition that is available to us.
Now Peter makes clear that the false teaching he is countering is a serious doctrinal and practical error. These teachers are “denying the Sovereign Lord who bought them,” are teaching matters that lead to eternal condemnation, and are themselves bound for that same condemnation. His words, therefore, are appropriately applied only to teaching that clearly runs counter to what the New Testament requires Christians to believe and to do.
Contemporary Significance
PETER’S WARNINGS ABOUT false teachers are, unfortunately, as appropriate today as they were in his time. Indeed, as we have seen, our Lord has warned us to expect such deviations from the faith. The church will always have to contend with both the outright opposition of those who reject Christ entirely as well as the more subtle threats of those who claim the name of Christian but twist and distort the Christian message. Indeed, precisely because they are more subtle, the latter threat is often the more dangerous one.
We can argue that the danger of false teaching is greater in our day than it has ever been. Why? Because we live in an era that is deeply suspicious of absolute truth. It used to be that people would argue about what religion, philosophy, or system of ethics was “right.” English literature classes in college debated about the “correct” interpretation of Charles Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend. However, college classes today discuss differing perspectives—often mutually contradictory—that one might validly see in Dickens’s great novel. The idea of “a correct interpretation” is dismissed at the outset. And when people discuss religion these days, they usually content themselves with a claim such as, “It works for me,” or, “It’s not for everybody, but it’s my road to spiritual fulfillment.”
Our society has embraced pluralism and tolerance as its new gods. Observers of society and its intellectual movements have dubbed this new viewpoint “postmodernism,” signaling the shift from the typically modernist pursuit for truth to the current preoccupation with “whatever works for you.” Basic to this new way of approaching reality is an “incredulity towards metanarratives.”8 “Translated, this means: distrust any voice that purports to tell you that ‘that’s the way it is.’ ”9 We live at a time when everything is tolerated—except intolerance. In such a climate of opinion, Christians often find it both uncomfortable and difficult to take a stand for absolute truth. “What right do you have to impose your morality, or your religion, on me?” people will ask when we take a stand for the faith.
As a result, many Christians have conceded the debate over truth and increasingly rely on a defense of the faith more congenial to our age: that of utilitarianism. “Our witness today is witness to our own faith, and in affirming its validity we may become less interested in its truthfulness that [sic] in the fact that it seems to work.”10 It is not hard to imagine the disastrous consequences of this move for the Christian faith. For the Scriptures claim Jesus Christ is “the way” to the Father, not one among many others. Absolute truth is built into the warp and woof of Christianity.
The implications of this “paradigm shift” (as some are calling it) for the topic that Peter addresses in this paragraph are not hard to figure out. As Christians focus more and more on defending their faith on the basis of practicality—going to church has helped my family; my commitment to Christ has given me a better self-image—they will be less and less concerned to know the truth. Feeling replaces thinking. Such a situation provides a golden opportunity for false teachers to enter our ranks and prey on those who simply do not know much about what they believe or why.
The challenge is especially great because, as Peter reminds us, false teachers are often deceptive, mixing enough truth with their error so that well-meaning but uninformed Christians will be taken in by them. I think at this point of some of the more radical “health-and-wealth” gospel advocates on TV and radio. They constantly harp on genuine biblical promises such as, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer” (Matt. 21:22). They make their message sound very biblical. But they can do so only by selective quotation. The problem is one of balance, but it is not a problem that those who do not know their Bibles well will spot. Most sects and cults operate in just this way.
Perhaps, then, the most significant point of application to emerge from this paragraph in our own day is the assumption Peter makes about the utterly disastrous consequences of false teaching. The false teachers who have embraced and are propagating these heresies, says Peter, are “bringing swift destruction on themselves” (v. 1); “their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping” (v. 3). The heresies themselves, says Peter, are “destructive”: Any who buy into them find themselves on the road to eternal condemnation.
The specific false teaching Peter is addressing seems to have had its basis in a doctrinal error—denial of the return of Christ in judgment (see 1:16–21; 3:3–10)—and to have led to serious moral failings (see the “shameful ways” of 2:2, 10–22). But application of Peter’s warnings should not be confined to this one particular “heresy.” As we suggested in the previous section, it is hermeneutically appropriate to extrapolate from this particular false teaching to other false teachers. Any denial of clearly revealed biblical truth falls under the strictures that Peter gives here. Thus, as much as we may respect the moral seriousness of Mormons, for instance, their denial of the deity of Christ puts their doctrine into the category that Peter discusses here. Examples can be multiplied endlessly; and false teaching, while taking many similar forms throughout history, is always emerging with new nuances and permutations of errors. But it is the broad principle that we must latch hold of here: What we believe matters—and matters eternally.
What we are advocating is not a “heresy hunt”—becoming so ultrasensitive to every fine nuance of expression that we read people out of the kingdom on the basis of the most subtle theological differences. Of this kind of unbiblical intolerance we have tragic examples from the past. Yet as much as we may deplore the way some Christians have been too eager to brand those who disagree with them as heretics, we should at least recognize that they have a sense of the importance of truth.