BOLD AND ARROGANT, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. 13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done.
Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
Original Meaning
PETER HAS PREDICTED that false teachers would constantly arise to plague the church of Jesus Christ (2:1–3a). He has announced God’s condemnation of them, likening them to sinners and rebels in the Old Testament (2:3b–9). In verse 10a, he began to get more specific, introducing a group of people to whom God’s condemnation especially applied—most certainly the false teachers that were disturbing the peace of the churches to whom he is writing. In the present paragraph, Peter goes on to describe them in more detail.
Verse 10a, then, is transitional: It rounds off Peter’s general discussion of God’s judgment with a particular application and it introduces the subject of the next verses. Indeed, this half verse captures the two characteristics of the false teachers that Peter elaborates and condemns in verses 10b–16: their sensuality (they “follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature”) and their arrogance (they “despise authority”). In typical manner, Peter takes these up in reverse order, exposing the false teachers’ arrogance in verses 10b–13a and their sensuality in verses 13b–16.
The False Teachers’ Arrogance (vv. 10b–13a)
THE REASON MOST translations and commentaries put a break in the middle of verse 10 is because of a change in syntactical construction. The first part of the verse, with the word “especially,” continues the sentence begun in verse 4. But the second part of the verse begins a new sentence, where Peter applies two similar words to the false teachers: “bold” (tolmetai) and “arrogant” (authadeis). It is not easy to find any clear difference in meaning between the two; they function together to draw a picture of “arrogant audacity.”1
The false teachers’ arrogance is manifested in their not being afraid “to slander celestial beings.”2 The NIV rendering “celestial beings” conceals an important ambiguity in the Greek text. The literal translation is simply “glories.” Peter uses this same plural form of the word in 1 Peter 1:11 to refer to the glorious events that Christ experienced after his suffering. In the present passage, clearly “glorious beings” of some kind are meant. A few commentators (more in the past than in the present) think that local church leaders may be meant.3 Now, as an elder in my own local church, I would like to be considered a “glorious being,” but I am not sure that the idea is a biblical one. More likely, as the NIV suggests and most contemporary commentators agree,4 Peter is referring to angels. Furthermore, most also agree that evil angels are meant, since Peter seems to contrast these “glorious ones” reviled by the false teachers with the “angels” in verse 115 (which, since Peter commends their activity, must be good angels). Why is it wrong for the false teachers to slander these evil angels? Presumably because, though fallen, they still bear the impress of their “glorious” origin.
Peter introduces the good angels to contrast their behavior with the disrespectful attitude of the false teachers. Although they are “stronger and more powerful” than the evil angels, they do not “bring slanderous accusations” against these glorious, though fallen, beings. Two interpretive decisions are reflected in this way of paraphrasing verse 11. The Greek text does not at all make clear who it is that the (good) angels are greater than and whom the (good) angels refrain from accusing. I am reflecting the views of most scholars by identifying both with the evil angels. And the NIV agrees with at least the second judgment; its rendering “such beings” clearly refers back to “celestial beings” at the end of verse 10.
Confirming this way of taking the verse is Jude 8–9, which contains a rebuke of false teachers that is similar to that found here in 2 Peter 2:
In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
By referring to the archangel Michael and Satan, Jude makes explicit the contrast between good angels and fallen ones that we have argued is Peter’s intention.
So much for the details. How about the larger picture? What, exactly, are the false teachers doing? And where does Peter get his information about the angels? To begin with the second point: Jewish tradition is probably once more Peter’s source. In the parallel passage in Jude, Jude quotes from a lost Jewish intertestamental book called The Assumption of Moses.6 Peter may also have this tradition in mind. Another possibility, however, is that Peter is continuing to reflect the story about the “watchers” that he used back in verse 4, which finds its greatest elaboration in 1 Enoch. In 1 Enoch 9, the author narrates a scene in which the good angels, hearing the outcry of human beings from the earth as they are being harmed by the evil angels, did not directly intervene, but brought the situation before the Lord. Again, Peter presses into service traditions familiar to his hearers to expose the audacity of the false teachers.
As to the first question (the attitude of the false teachers), we begin with the word blasphemeo. Peter uses this word at the beginning of his denunciation (end of v. 10; NIV “slander”) and again at the end (v. 12; NIV “blaspheme”), and he uses a form of this same word to describe the judgment that the good angels refuse to bring against the evil angels (v. 11; NIV “slanderous”). This Greek word, which we transliterate into English as “blaspheme,” can refer to the reviling of fellow human beings, but it more often denotes words or actions that defame God or people and ideas associated with him. Peter has already accused these false teachers of causing the “way of truth” to be “blasphemed” (2:2; NIV “bring … into disrepute”). Now he suggests that they are also making light of evil angels.
Since the false teachers seemed to be materialistic and thus skeptical about things like the return of Christ and the judgment to come, this “blasphemy” may have taken a very basic form and involved a general denial of the existence of such beings.7 Or, since evil angels in particular were being blasphemed, it is more likely that the false teachers were mocking the possibility that their sins might put them at the mercy of such evil spiritual beings.8 Other possibilities have been suggested, but the fact is that Peter does not give us enough information to be sure about what the problem was. What is clear, however, is that, though fallen, the evil angels still retain a rank higher than that of human beings (that is why Peter can call them “glorious beings”). In their arrogance, the false teachers were in some way denying this fact.
The beginning of verse 12—“But these”—might imply a shift to a new topic. But since Peter continues to talk about the false teachers’ blasphemy, the verse probably continues the topic of arrogance toward evil angels from verses 10b–11.9 Peter uses the adversative “but” because he is shifting grammatical subjects back from the angels (v. 11) to the false teachers (v. 10b). This arrogance, Peter suggests, is partly the result of ignorance. Shouldn’t this excuse the false teachers, then? No, for ignorance in the Bible is often a willful refusal to understand God’s truth; and the sharpness of Peter’s criticism makes clear that this is what he had in mind here.
Peter goes on to compare the false teachers to animals. If he is thinking especially of the false teachers’ libertine lifestyle in this verse, the point of comparison is presumably between the instinctual behavior of animals and the false teachers’ lack of concern for moral guidance. They “behave like animals” by following their natural, fleshly appetites without regard for spiritual guidance. In a word, they are “unspiritual.” But if Peter is still referring to the false teachers’ arrogance toward evil angels (as I think he is), then the point of comparison is between the animals’ lack of rationality and the false teachers’ sinful ignorance.
The NIV translation “brute” comes from a Greek word that means “without reason” (alogos), and this supports the second reading of the comparison. On the other hand, Peter’s adjective physika, “natural,” “unspiritual” (NIV “creatures of instinct”), could point to the first, “moral” comparison. Perhaps, then, Peter uses the comparison with the animals to refer both to the false teachers’ ignorance and to their immorality.
But the apostle’s chief point of comparison between the animals and the false teachers lies in another realm altogether. Picking up a common ancient saying about animals, Peter reminds us that they are “born only to be caught and destroyed.” And, he goes on, “like beasts they [the false teachers] too will perish.” The NIV rendering here is quite interpretive, reflecting two critical decisions about the Greek text. (1) The word phthora (which the NIV does not directly translate) often means “[moral] corruption,” as it does, for instance, in the two other places that Peter uses it (2 Peter 1:4; 2:19). If we give the word this meaning, the end of verse 12 then reads, as in the KJV: “shall utterly perish in their own corruption.” Moral corruption, Peter would be saying, is the reason why the false teachers are condemned. But the word phthora in the first part of the verse means “destruction,” not “corruption” (“born only … to be destroyed”); and this is probably its meaning in the second part of the verse also.
(2) How should we relate this word “destruction” to the verb in the sentence, “will perish” (or “will be destroyed”)? (a) These words come from the same root, so Peter may be adding the noun to the verb simply to emphasize the idea: “they [the false teachers] will surely be destroyed.”10 (b) “In their destruction” could refer to the evil angels: “The false teachers will be destroyed with the evil angels.”11 (c) “In their destruction” could refer to the animals. If so, Peter is saying either that “the false teachers will be destroyed when the animals are destroyed” (see NASB; NRSV), or that “the false teachers will be destroyed like the animals” (NIV; REB; TEV).12 The last of these options is the best, doing justice both to the Greek13 and to the context. Like unreasoning animals, destined only to be slaughtered, the false teachers, in their unreasoning arrogance and sinfulness, are destined also for the slaughter—the slaughter of God’s judgment.
The beginning of verse 13 is also difficult in the Greek text, and commentators suggest two major possible translations: (1) “being defrauded of the profits of their wrongdoing,” or (2) “receiving harm for the harm they have caused.” Almost all the English translations have some kind of variant of the second option, and they are almost certainly correct. Peter uses a word play here to emphasize the idea of just recompense: The false teachers have harmed others; the “reward” they will receive is, in turn, “harm.” The NIV has captured the meaning here pretty well, but I think it is wrong to put a paragraph break at the beginning of verse 13. Rather, as with most other English versions, we should make the first part of verse 13 the end of the sentence begun in verse 12. “Being paid back with harm for the harm they have caused” provides a fitting addition to the prediction of the false teachers’ ultimate destruction.
The False Teachers’ Sensuality (vv. 13b–16)
“SENSUALITY” IS NOT a word that we use all that often, but it is difficult to think of a better one to summarize Peter’s second main accusation against the false teachers. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “sensual” as “relating to or consisting in the gratification of the senses or the indulgence of the appetite.” This is precisely the quality Peter attributes to the false teachers in verses 13b–16. He draws his picture of sensuality with eight brief characterizations.
(1) “Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight.” “Pleasure” can, of course, be a neutral or even positive thing; God has himself created many things to give his people pleasure. But the Greek word here for “pleasure,” hedone, is the word from which we derive “hedonist,” one who lives for only pleasure. The Greeks numbered this kind of pleasure among their four “deadly sins,” sometimes contrasting it with reason (cf. “unreasoning animals” in v. 12). In Peter’s day, as in ours, indulgence of sinful pleasure usually took place under cover of darkness. Practicing such hedonistic activities “in broad daylight” is therefore a sign that the false teachers are completely shameless about their indulgence.
(2) “Blots and blemishes.” These are obviously general descriptions. The best way to define them is to recognize their opposites. Thus, in 3:14, Peter encourages his readers, as they look forward to the return of Christ, to “make every effort to be found spotless, blameless.” Although it is difficult to bring out in English translation, these two italicized words are the exact antonyms of the two words Peter uses here to describe the false teachers (“blot” = spiloi and “spotless” = aspiloi; “blemishes” = momoi and “blameless” = amometoi).
(3) “Reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.” Peter creates a connection with the earlier part of the verse by using the verb “reveling,” which comes from the same Greek root as the word the NIV translates “carouse.” One of Jude’s descriptions of his false teachers makes an interesting comparison with this clause in 2 Peter: “These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves” (Jude 12a). Peter’s reference to the false teachers “feasting with” the Christians to whom he writes suggests the same scenario: the early Christian “love feast” held in conjunction with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This “love feast” was a regular part of the early Christian fellowship, and it is generally recognized that Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 presupposes this practice. While we cannot be sure, then, it is likely that Peter here rebukes the false teachers for indulging their own sinful pleasures even as they continue to join with other Christians in celebrating the atoning work of Christ at the church’s fellowship meals.
(4) “With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning.” Peter’s language is more vivid than the NIV translation; he claims that the false teachers have eyes full of “adulterous women.” By this he means that the false teachers are so addicted to sex that they look at every woman as a potential partner in their lust.14 The NIV also fails to make clear that the phrase “never stop sinning” also refers to “eyes”; cf. REB: “They have eyes for nothing but loose women, eyes never ceasing from sin.”
(5) “They seduce the unstable.” Up to this point, Peter’s description of these people has hardly justified the characterization we have been using (based on vv. 1–3) of “false teachers.” He has said a great deal about their personal moral failings but little about their influence on others. From here to the end of the chapter, however, the “teaching” aspect of their false Christianity is Peter’s focus.
“Seduce” translates a Greek word that has its roots in the world of hunting and fishing; it suggests the bait used to lure a fish to the hook or an animal to the trap. But the word had become used generally of any kind of (especially) moral temptation (see also James 1:14). So we should probably not think that Peter intends a sporting metaphor. The word “unstable” (asteriktous) is again striking by virtue of its antonym; Christians, Peter urged in 1:12, need to be people who are “firmly established [esterigmenous] in the truth.” It is precisely those who fail to become solidly grounded in Christian truth whom false teachers find to be easy prey. Like trees with shallow roots, they are easily swayed and toppled.
(6) “They are experts in greed.” Here again the NIV rendering is accurate but loses some of the force of the original, which, literally translated, is “having a heart that has been trained in greed.” “Train” is a word drawn from the realm of athletics; it suggests that long, hard, and disciplined struggle to become proficient in a sport. These false teachers, Peter implies, are so devoted and consistent in their greed that they must have worked very hard at it for a long time! And it is their “heart”—the very center of one’s being in biblical perspective—that has become so proficient in greed.
The word “greed” (pleonexia) is a broad term. In Ephesians 4:19, for instance, Paul writes about those who have “given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust [pleonexia] for more.” In other words, “greed” need not relate only to money; it can also denote the desire for more sexual pleasure, power, food, and so forth. Since Peter has already used this word to depict the false teachers’ love of money (2:3), the “greed” here is also probably mainly directed to financial gain. But we should probably not restrict the word to this sphere.
(7) “An accursed brood!” (lit., “children of curse”). Again the NIV paraphrases; but the paraphrase is legitimate, for the Old Testament and the Jewish world often attributed a certain quality to people by saying that they were “children of” or a “son of” that quality. Judas, for instance, is “the son of destruction,” that is, “one destined for destruction” (John 17:12); people apart from Christ are “children of wrath,” that is, “people on whom God’s wrath rests” (Eph. 2:3); Christians are “children of light,” that is, “people characterized by light” (1 Thess. 5:5). Peter has already pronounced his condemnation on the false teachers (vv. 3b–10a). Overwhelmed by the enormity of their sinfulness, he once again interjects this reminder of their ultimate fate.
(8) “They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor.” Characterizing a philosophy or a religion as a “way” was common in the ancient world. The imagery suggests a path of belief that one followed. Biblical writers picked up this language; the Christian movement is sometimes simply called “the Way” in the book of Acts (9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). And the path of faithfulness to the Lord can be called “the straight way” (cf. 1 Sam. 12:23; Ps. 106:7; Prov. 2:16; Isa. 33:15). Those who lose their religious bearings are described as people who “wander off” from God’s way; note, for instance, God’s warning to the people of Israel: “I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse … the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn [or wander off] from the way that I command you today by following other gods” (Deut. 11:26–28).
Peter gives a specific twist to this imagery, accusing the false teachers of following “the way of Balaam son of Beor.” Balaam is one of the interesting and enigmatic characters in the Old Testament. He appeared on the scene as the Israelites were camped on the plains of Moab, preparing to enter the Promised Land (Num. 22–24). Balak, king of Moab, desperate to stop the Israelite invasion, sought to hire Balaam, who was some kind of prophet, to curse Israel. Although Balaam consulted God about what he should do, the text makes clear that he was still inclined to go his own way. For though the Lord himself sent Balaam to Balak, he became angry with Balaam as he was going and sent “the angel of the LORD” to block his path. Apparently Balaam’s motives in going were not what they should have been. Balaam could not see the angel, but his donkey did, refusing to move forward and eventually rebuking Balaam.
Chastened, Balaam refused to curse Israel but, to the chagrin of Balak, blessed them four times. Particularly significant for Peter’s use of the episode is the occurrence twice in the narrative of the language of “the way”: in Num. 22:23, “the way of Balaam” is the literal road he was following; in 22:32, the angel rebuked Balaam for taking a “reckless way.” Balaam’s story made a strong impression on later generations, and he became a prominent negative example in Scripture (see Deut. 23:4–5; Josh. 13:22; 24:9–10; Neh. 13:1–2; Micah 6:5; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14).
Peter introduces a couple of twists to this story in his application. First, he calls Balaam “the son of Bosor” (NRSV; REB; TEV; the NIV and NASB “Beor” apparently follows a poorly attested variant). Balaam is called “son of Beor” in the Old Testament, and this name is not found elsewhere. Some have conjectured that “Bosor” may have been Peter’s Galilean pronunciation of “Beor,” but it is more likely that we have a play on words. The Hebrew word for “flesh” is basar, and various Jewish traditions characterized Balaam as a very fleshly person. Peter may, then, be deliberately modifying Balaam’s name to suit his character.15
Jewish tradition may also have played a role in another emphasis in Peter’s application: Balaam’s greed (see the end of v. 15). While hinted at in the Old Testament text, Balaam’s willingness to curse Israel for profit became a staple in Jewish stories about him.16 Moreover, the Jewish stories made Balaam responsible for Israel’s rebellion against God in entering into sexual relationships with the women of Midian (Num. 25). While Peter does not explicitly bring out this element in “Balaam’s way,” it certainly fits perfectly the profile of the false teachers that he has been drawing in verse 13b–14.
In verse 16, Peter highlights the utter foolishness of Balaam by noting how he was rebuked by his own “donkey—a beast incapable of articulate speech.” Indeed, Peter concludes, Balaam must have been “insane.”17 And in noting how even Balaam’s donkey understood more about the spiritual situation than the prophet, Peter implicitly associates Balaam with the false prophets who are like “brute beasts, creatures of instinct” (v. 12).
Two other points Peter makes about Balaam in this verse also seem to reflect Jewish tradition: emphasis on the donkey’s rebuke of Balaam and Balaam’s madness.18 Once again, then, Peter is likely dependent on popular Jewish elaborations of an Old Testament story in his choice of examples. But we should emphasize that the Jewish tradition merely refined and perhaps affected the wording of Peter’s use of the Balaam story; the basic points he makes about Balaam are clear enough in the Old Testament narrative itself.
Bridging Contexts
WE OFTEN FIND it difficult to understand and apply the Bible because the author assumes certain information as he or she writes. Some of the information we lack can be discovered by learning about the biblical world. But other information may be lost to us forever, because it involves matters that the writer and the readers both knew about their special situation but which has not been recorded anywhere. In 2 Peter 2:10b–16 we encounter both types of information.
As we noted in the “Original Meaning” section above, we simply do not know how the false teachers were “blaspheming” evil angels (vv. 10b–12). All that we can do is speculate and admit that whatever conclusions we come to must be tentative. Naturally, we would like to know more about the situation so that we could be more precise in our interpretation. Faced with these gaps, we can go in two possible directions.
Some scholars insist on trying to fill up the gaps by spinning more or less plausible theories about the background situation. I do not want to criticize these efforts; study of these backgrounds is laudable and sometimes turns up genuinely valuable information to help the interpreter. But the tendency among some scholars is to build elaborate theories on the basis of slim and uncertain evidence. Then, despite little—or even conflicting—data, they use these theories as a basis to interpret and apply a biblical text. Some recent interpreters call this process “mirror-reading.” The mirror is the specific background theory; and when a text is reflected in the mirror of a specific background theory, that theory decisively shapes the text.
Perhaps the best example of this process is the spate of recent interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11–15, the passage in which Paul tells Timothy that he does not want women “to teach or to have authority over a man.” Many of these interpretations assume—rightly—that we must interpret Paul’s prohibition in its first-century context. But they then go on to suggest specific background scenarios that usually have little basis in the text of 1 Timothy and sometimes, indeed, little basis in what we know of the first-century world. Yet scholars following this line of “mirror-reading” conclude that Paul’s advice is not directly relevant for the church today because of one of these theoretical background scenarios.
Now, I do not want to be misunderstood, for background study is necessary and often of basic relevance in understanding the Bible. But the problem is obvious: We had better be pretty certain of the influence of a given background situation before we make it decisive in our interpretation. Otherwise, we can make texts say almost whatever we want them to or dismiss as applicable to us almost any passage of Scripture.
A second response to our ignorance about the background situation in a text is despair: We have lost vital information and can never find what we need to understand and apply the passage. At this point, we must come back to our root conviction about the role of God in producing the Bible. We believe that the very words of Scripture are ultimately God’s words, and that he, in cooperation with the human authors, caused to be written what we now have in the pages of our Bibles. What this means, of course, is that God is also in control of what has not been written there. Thus we should be confident that God has preserved for us, in the Bible and in the world he has made, all that we need to know rightly to obey his word to us. In the case of 2 Peter 2:10b–12, then, we are responsible for what the text tells us and need not worry about what we cannot find out about it. In the “Contemporary Significance” section below, we will suggest some ways in which we might apply Peter’s rebuke of the false teachers for their cavalier attitude toward the evil angels.
Our understanding of this passage can be enhanced, however, by some background information that Peter and his readers would have shared but which many of us may not appreciate fully. I refer to the biblical/Jewish teaching about angels. Peter, as I have argued above, refers in 2:10b–12 to two distinct categories of spiritual beings: evil spirits (“glories” or “celestial beings”) and good spirits (“angels”). These two categories of spiritual creatures were familiar to Peter and to his readers. The Bible constantly mentions as factual the existence of spiritual beings who serve God and interact with human beings in various capacities. The most common name for these beings is “angels,” although they are also called “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1); “holy ones” (Ps. 89:5, 7); “spirits” (Heb. 1:14); “watchers” (a literal rendering of Dan. 4:13, 17, 23);and, collectively, “the heavenly host” (e.g., Ps. 148:2, 5). Scripture is silent about how or when they came into being, but they have clearly been created (Neh. 9:6: “You have made the heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host,” NRSV; cf. also Col. 1:16). They are immaterial by nature, but can take on substantial form in order to interact with human beings.
Alongside these good spiritual beings, we also find evil spiritual creatures. The Old Testament has little to say about these beings, although we occasionally encounter “demons” (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37) and several other murky figures that may be demonic in nature: “the hairy ones” (a literal rendering; NIV has “goat idols”—Lev. 17:7; 2 Chron. 11:15; cf. also Isa. 13:21; 34:14), “Azazel” (Lev. 16:8, 10, 26), and “Lilith” (Isa. 34:14).19 And, of course, we also have references to an outstanding evil spiritual being, the “accuser,” Satan (which is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for “adversary”: 1 Chron. 21:1; Job 1:6–2:7; Zech. 3:1–2). And, while not identified as such in the Old Testament, the serpent in the Garden of Eden is also, according to Revelation 12:9, related in some way to Satan.
The Old Testament engages in no speculation about the exact nature of these evil spiritual beings or about their origins. However, since God made all things “good,” it is safe to assume that they were originally good spiritual beings who rebelled against God and lost their original holiness. This “fall” of the angels must have occurred before Genesis 3, where Satan appears on the scene as the evil tempter.20
Angels, demons, and Satan are, of course, prominent in the New Testament. The word “angel” is itself used almost exclusively for good spiritual beings, with only a few possible exceptions.21 The New Testament authors are interested in the involvement of these beings in the lives of Jesus and his followers and contribute little to our understanding of their nature or origins. The closest we get to such speculation is Revelation 12:7–9, which describes in visionary form the casting down to earth of “Satan and his angels” after a war in heaven.
Jews in the intertestamental period sought vigorously to fill in the gaps of this rather vague biblical picture of the spiritual beings, engaging in considerable speculation about various ranks of such beings, their names, and their functions. They displayed great interest especially in the origin of evil spiritual beings, developing, as we noted in the “Bridging Contexts” section on 2:4–10a, a powerful myth about the fall of angels and the origin of evil (based on Gen. 6:1–4).22
Considerable interest in various spiritual beings was also found in the general Graeco-Roman world of Peter’s day. Many people believed that these beings were active in the world, standing behind the powers of government and influencing both one’s individual life and the course of history. Angels were also important in many of the Gnostic systems of thought that began cropping up in the second century A.D. The radical cosmological dualism taught by the Gnostics made it difficult for them to conceive of a holy and majestic God having anything to do with this sinful world. They therefore made the angels mediators between God and this world.
In a word, then, talk about spiritual beings was “in the air” in the first-century world. Belief in them was far more a part of people’s basic worldview than it is in our day. This is not to say, of course, that such views were necessarily adopted by the New Testament authors. But where they touch on such ideas, we can presume the helpfulness of the background. We should not, then, be surprised to find Paul rebuking the Colossians for paying too much attention to them (Col. 1:16–17; 2:10, 15, 18), or the author to the Hebrews arguing that Christ is greater than them (Heb. 1–2).
Clearly, however, the false teachers Peter is dealing with were moving in an opposite direction, at least with respect to evil spiritual beings. Rather than paying too much respect to them, they were paying too little attention to them. Unfortunately, we can only speculate about the precise form of their “blasphemy” of these evil angels. In bridging from Peter’s day to ours, then, we will have to be content with drawing only general parallels between the false teachers’ attitudes and those of contemporary Christians.
Contemporary Significance
“THERE IS NOTHING new under the sun,” laments Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:9. In nothing is this maxim more true than in the case of those who depart from the truth of the Christian faith. Century after century, the same basic doctrinal errors lead people astray, and the same sins gain a hold on them. This paragraph in 2 Peter is a good case in point. Written almost two millennia ago, Peter’s sketch of “the false teachers” seeking to lead the church astray in his day (cf. 2:1, 3, 18–19) could have been drawn by someone analyzing the church in our day. But in chapter 2, and in the present paragraph especially, Peter’s main preoccupation is not with what these people were teaching, but with how they were acting. Why is this?
We can be certain that these people were actively teaching their false ideas of Christianity. But we can also be certain that a lot of their “teaching” came not in words, either written or spoken, but in actions. We all know the proverb, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” The “picture” of Christian living that these people were painting by their actions must have been just as powerful as any formal teaching they could have done. Thus Peter minces no words as he describes their behavior, seeking to show to his readers that the “picture” of Christianity these false teachers were displaying was false and disastrous.
False teaching is often revealed in false living. “By their fruit you will recognize them,” Jesus told his disciples as he warned them about false prophets (Matt. 7:16). And so it always is: Following bad doctrine leads to bad practices. The false teachers of Peter’s day were propagating wrong ideas about Christ’s return in glory and about judgment to come (cf. 1:16–21; 3:3–12). And Peter takes them to task for it. But he also paints this vivid picture of their sinful lifestyle in chapter 2 to show, from another angle, that these people cannot be trusted to represent the true Christian faith.
The test of right behavior is one that we can apply to teachers in our day as well. Of course, the Bible makes clear that no Christian, and no Christian teacher, will be without sin; as James reminds us (as if we needed the reminder!), “We all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). People can teach right things and still do many wrong things. But when we are faced with a teaching that we are not sure about and that we are having a hard time judging against the standard of Scripture, a careful look at the lifestyle of those who propose such teaching will often prove helpful. Do they teach with humility and love? Do they give evidence of seeking to submit all their conduct to the Lordship of Christ? Do they pray with fervor and sincerity? These are the kind of questions that Scripture encourages us to ask of those who would teach us.
What we have said about the connection between teaching and lifestyle is implicit in what Peter writes in 2:10b–16. I want now to turn to the explicit teaching we find in the paragraph. Four points, in particular, are applicable to our day.
(1) The first of these has to do with the false teachers’ attitudes toward spiritual beings. Expanding on his brief reference to the false teachers’ arrogance in verse 10a, Peter in verses 10b–13a lambastes them for “blaspheming” evil spiritual beings—the demons. True, we cannot be at all sure what the specific error of the false teachers in Peter’s day may have been. But as I pointed out above, people in Peter’s day had a lively interest in spiritual beings of all kinds. And, indeed, fascination with the spirit world seems to be endemic in human beings—whether it takes the form of occult practices, seances, ouija boards, or visions. From a Christian perspective, we can understand why this is: God has made us with a spiritual side, and those who do not find it satisfied where it can only finally be satisfied—in a relationship to the only God through his Son Jesus—will seek to satisfy it elsewhere.
Many of our own contemporaries, of course, following the reigning materialistic worldview, are skeptical about the existence of any kind of spirit world. But we also see a renewed interest in spiritual beings. The last few years have seen a spate of books and TV shows about angels. Typical of this latest outbreak of interest in spiritual beings is a focus on good angels who are sent to help us. What people seem to want is a spirit world without any consequences. A vague belief in the existence of good spiritual creatures who are “out there” to help me but who make no demands on me seems the perfect man-made religion.
Against this view of angels, Christians need to reassert biblical teaching at two points. (a) Angels are creatures who do God’s bidding; separating them from the God of the Bible is impossible. (b) There are all kinds of spiritual beings—good and evil. To ignore this and to seek contact with angels apart from commitment to God in Christ is to open oneself to the influence of evil spiritual beings. Satan, we are told, “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14).
As far as we know, preoccupation with good angels was not one of the errors of the false teachers whom Peter rebukes. Rather, they were taking a superior attitude toward evil spiritual beings. Their error stands as a warning to Christians. In my comments on 2:4–10a, I argued that some Christians in recent days have given too much attention to demons. But the opposite problem is certainly common as well. The materialistic world in which we live exerts a subtle but strong bias against any true belief in the supernatural world. Demons are something we read about in the Gospels, see on the movie screen, and may even pay lip service to at the level of our convictions. But do we really, in the depths of our being, reckon with their influence and allow our belief to guide our day-to-day conduct? Paul warned the Corinthians, who prided themselves on their “knowledge,” that their attendance at idol feasts put them in danger of demonic influence (1 Cor. 10:14–22). We need to ask what idols we are toying with, willfully and foolishly ignoring the real spiritual power that may be at work in them.
In talking idly with one of my high-school-age sons, I discovered that he and his friends were reading horoscopes in the newspaper on their lunch hour at school, laughing it up over the foolishness of the whole thing. I did not want to play the heavy-handed father, but I did feel I needed to remind him of the reality of the spirit world and how demons might use the most innocent-appearing things to try to get a foothold in a believer.
I know some of these matters are controversial, and committed Christians will disagree about the presence of demonic influence in many debated practices. But I think Christians need to be cautious about getting involved in the Masons or about role-playing that tinkers with the occult. Reference to the spirit world in such societies and activities may appear to be purely superficial or of simple entertainment value. But we must always reckon with the possibility that below the surface may lurk genuine demonic influence.
Christians will disagree about some of these matters. But no Christian should be in any doubt about the danger we run when we persist in willful sin. Influencing our sinful behavior is the personal power of the Satan and his host. Sins for which we ask and receive God’s forgiveness cannot bring us into spiritual danger, for on the cross, Christ “disarmed the powers and authorities” (Col. 2:15). But when we do not seek God’s forgiveness for our sins or pretend that our sin is not really sin, we run the danger of putting ourselves at the mercy of the demons. This may have been just the error of the false teachers. Bent on their own pleasure, rejecting God’s standards of righteousness, they were, in effect, treating with contempt the evil spiritual beings that stood behind these practices.
(2) If Peter’s attack on the false teachers for their arrogance toward evil spiritual beings (vv. 10b–13a) has much to say to contemporary Christians, his attack on their sensuality (vv. 13b–16) has perhaps even more. Peter accuses them of pursuing hedone, “pleasure” (v. 13). And “hedonistic” might describe our culture better than any other single word. We live in a society whose god is pleasure. We have defined the “pursuit of happiness,” enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, as the pursuit of food, drink, entertainment, wealth, and sex.
Moreover, like the false teachers of Peter’s day, who found themselves in a never-ending pursuit of more and more pleasure (cf. “they never stop sinning” in v. 14), people in our day also find themselves caught in one of the “laws of pleasure”: diminishing returns. The food that used to satisfy no longer does, so we search for ever more exotic and more expensive dishes. What once entertained us now seems blasé; so we demand new media, bigger TVs, more stations. The spousal sex that used to satisfy our natural urges is no longer enough; as a result, we try sex with others and explore various deviant practices to bring the excitement back. Pleasure, in other words, is a goal never reached; it is always somewhere in the distance, urging one on to new and usually more sinful practices, never quite satisfying.
Pleasure from sex or a satisfying meal or a well-acted play is, of course, not sinful. God built within us the capacity to enjoy these things. The problem comes when the pleasure derived from these activities becomes our dominating goal. That is hedonism—and it is rampant among Christians. One specific manifestation is preoccupation with pornography. Peter touches on this when he accuses the false teachers of having “eyes full of [adulterous women]” (v. 14): in other words, they looked at women as sexual objects. I cannot speak for women, but I know that men are taught in our culture from an early age to look at women just in that way. (And if the references among many women in our day to “hunks” means what I suspect it does, women are catching up fast.)
The opportunities—and therefore the temptations—to view women as sex objects have increased dramatically. When I was an adolescent, boys would have to go out of their way to sneak a peak at Playboy. Today, boys can tune in to cable stations when their parents aren’t watching or “cruise the net” and view images of women far more explicit than anything Playboy ever published. Arguing that this explosion of pornography should not bother Christians, since we have the choice of simply ignoring it, misses the point. The more available the material, the easier it is to give in to this powerful temptation, not to speak of the corrupting influence it has on society at large. So successful was Paul’s preaching in Ephesus after a couple of years that people stopped buying the idols of Artemis fashioned by Ephesian silversmiths—so much so that the artisans complained to the civil authorities (Acts 19). Would that our gospel witness was so powerful that pornographers would begin to complain to the government about us!
(3) Another form of hedonism is the desire for money and the pleasures, comfort, and security that money can buy. Peter claims that the false teachers are “experts in greed” (v. 14), imitators of Balaam, who “loved the wages of wickedness” (vv. 15–16). Balaam, you remember, was offered money by Balak to curse Israel. While he piously proclaimed that “I could not do anything great or small to go beyond the command of the LORD my God” (Num. 22:18), he nevertheless invited Balak’s emissaries to spend the night so that he could see what the Lord might tell him in the morning (v. 19). Yet God had already explicitly commanded Balaam not to go with them. In his greed, Balaam sought an answer from God on a question that God had already answered. In other words, love of money can deflect and ultimately bring disaster to a ministry. Just ask Jim Bakker, sent to prison because his greed led him to use illegally money donated to his ministry.
But we who earn money by our ministries need to face up to a more subtle form of greed as well. I refer to letting financial considerations play too large a role in what ministry we decide to engage in. I teach in a seminary in which most students, and their families, work hard and live spartanly for three, four, five years or more to earn their divinity degree. It is entirely appropriate that graduating students consider finances when they are examining various ministry opportunities. But finances must always come a long second (or third or fourth) to other considerations. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that God calls men and women to specific ministries; and, yes, finances may be one way that he makes that call clear. But surely God sometimes calls us to ministries where the money may not be all that we would wish; where financial security cannot be guaranteed; where raising support may be necessary. In fact, considering that the greatest need for Christian ministers is in the countries with the least money, we would expect that God would often call his people to just such financially insecure places.
Lest I be accused of lecturing only to others, let me use myself as an example for a moment. One of the surprises that I have had in my ministry of teaching and writing is the number of opportunities I receive. Evangelical publishers are selling a lot of books, and they need people to write them. So now come two offers. One book promises to sell well and bring in steady royalties over a number of years; the other offers no such prospect, but focuses on a message the church needs to hear. Which do I choose and why? My decision should rest on one and only one consideration—considering my gifts and abilities and the needs of the church and the world, which book is God calling me to write? But with five children and a wife committed to a ministry of home-making, I perennially struggle to balance the checkbook. And I am afraid that there have been times when I have let money play too big a role in deciding what ministry opportunities to accept.
In his first letter, Peter warned church leaders that they were not to be “greedy for money,” but that they were to be “eager to serve” (1 Peter 5:2). When Paul was engaged in planting a church, he refused to receive money from the people in that city, working by day in his own trade to provide for himself, so that no one could accuse him of preaching for money (1 Thess. 2:1–12). In a very “bottom-line”-oriented world, we need constantly to put money in its place—as one, quite minor, consideration in our decision-making. We will be free to do so only when we can say, with Paul, “I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances” (Phil. 4:11). If we are certain that God has called us to do something, we can be certain he will give us everything he deems necessary for us in that situation.
(4) I have been sketching some negative lessons to be learned from Peter’s description of the false teachers. But, as my final point of application, I want to turn from the false teachers to their victims. Peter tells us that the false teachers were “seducing the unstable” (v. 14). This is the way it always is with false teaching. False teachers cannot force their opinions on anybody. They can only persuade people to adopt their ways of looking at things. And false teaching, of course, often has an attractive veneer. People like new ideas; and false teaching, by definition, trades in new ideas. People also like teaching that might make them feel less guilty about their own sins and failings. And certainly the false teaching of Peter’s day held out this advantage.
The point is this: False teaching is often going to be naturally attractive to people. Only a solid grounding in God’s truth and a genuine love for him will be able to protect people. Only Christians who have not taken the time (or have not had the time; see 2:18) to become solidly grounded in their faith fall prey to false teaching.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me reiterate a point I think is absolutely vital in our present circumstances: Too many of our churches are devoting too much energy to the periphery of Christian ministry and too little to its heart. For at the heart of Christian ministry must always be the molding of people into the image of Christ, and the full and faithful teaching of God’s truth is the means the Spirit uses to accomplish this goal. For example, teaching about the various cults in our churches is undoubtedly a useful enterprise and helps Christians understand the errors that are so prevalent in our day. But it is ultimately positive teaching about the Christian faith that will serve as the best protection against heresy, for we can never cover all the possible errors that false teachers might come up with.
Moreover, truth has its own positive impact, in which it strengthens and gives insight to the believer. Faced with false teaching in Ephesus, Timothy is told again and again by Paul to devote himself to “sound [healthy] doctrine” (see esp. 1 Tim. 4:6–8, 11–16). We need more pastors who have devoted themselves to living and teaching “sound doctrine.” We need always to show the relevance of Christian truth and to deal with the issues in our culture that people are wrestling with. What will ultimately produce stable, growing Christians is careful, reverent exposition of God’s Word. J. C. Ryle, writing over a hundred years ago, made this same point:
You live in a world where your soul is in constant danger. Enemies are around you on every side. Your own heart is deceitful. Bad examples are numerous. Satan is always labouring to lead you astray. Above all false doctrine and false teachers of every kind abound. This is your great danger.
To be safe you must be well armed. You must provide yourself with the weapons which God has given you for your help. You must store your mind with Holy Scripture. This is to be well armed.
Arm yourself with a thorough knowledge of the written word of God…. Neglect your Bible and nothing that I know of can prevent you from error if a plausible advocate of false teaching shall happen to meet you…. You are the man that is unlikely to become established in the truth. I shall not be surprised to hear that you are troubled with doubts and questions about assurance, grace, faith, perseverance, etc…. I shall not wonder if I am told that you have problems in your marriage, problems with your children, problems about the conduct of your family and about the company you keep. The world you steer through is full of rocks, shoals and sandbanks. You are not sufficiently familiar either with lighthouses or charts…. You are the man who is likely to be carried away by some false teacher for a time. It will not surprise me if I hear that one of these clever eloquent men who can make a convincing presentation is leading you into error. You are in need of ballast (truth); no wonder if you are tossed to and fro like a cork on the waves.23
If you are a Christian layperson, I challenge you: Learn Christian truth. If you are a Christian minister, I challenge you: Teach Christian truth. May you be able to say, as Paul did when he left the Ephesian church leaders for what he thought was the last time: “You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you…. I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God” (Acts 20:20, 26–27).