SO THEN, DEAR friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.
Original Meaning
PETER NOW BRINGS his letter to a close by giving final exhortations to the faithful. He marks the transition to a new paragraph by using the summary conjunction “so then” (dio) and by addressing his readers as “dear friends,” or “beloved ones” (agapetoi; cf. the same expression in vv. 1, 8). The use of this same form of address in verse 17 implies another break, though it is not as strong there, for Peter is resuming his exhortation of verses 14–15a after his parenthesis about Paul and his letters (vv. 15b–16). In vv. 14–15a, Peter uses language and alludes to concepts that have been prominent in his discussion of eschatology in chapter 3; “looking forward” (cf. v. 14a with vv. 12–13) and the fact that God delays the Parousia because he patiently waits for people to repent and to be saved (cf. v. 15a with v. 9). Clearly, Peter in verses 14–16 ties his exhortations closely to the eschatological perspective that he has outlined in verses 3–13.
But Peter’s exhortation in these verses ultimately reaches beyond this immediate context. Note how two of the exhortations here pick up language that Peter used early in the letter:
3:14: “make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him” | 1:5: “make every effort to add to your faith goodness …” |
3:18: “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” | 1:3: “His divine power has given to us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” |
By returning to some of the key ideas at the beginning of the letter, Peter creates a kind of “inclusio.” These ideas and exhortations frame the contents of the letter, setting its tone and suggesting its overall purpose: to make the knowledge of Christ his readers enjoy fruitful in holy living.
Though short, this paragraph divides into four basic parts:
Concluding eschatological exhortation (vv. 14–15a)
Appeal to Paul for confirmation (vv. 15b–16)
Concluding general exhortation (vv. 17–18a)
Doxology to Christ (v. 18b)
Concluding Eschatological Exhortation (vv. 14–15a)
CHRISTIANS ARE TO “look forward” to the “day of God,” when he will destroy and renew the entire universe. They need constantly to look beyond the circumstances of this life and to gauge every thought and every action in light of the eternal state that Christ’s return in glory will introduce. For on the day that Christ returns, believers will “appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). In light of all of that (“since you are looking forward to this”1), Peter urges, “make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.”
“To be found” has judicial overtones. It conjures up the scene of the court of law, where the judge “finds” defendants guilty or innocent. Peter, we suggested, used this same verb in a similar manner in verse 10, speaking about the whole physical earth being “found” before God—that is, “laid bare” to his searching and infallibly correct judgment.
The NIV rendering obscures the fact that in the Greek “spotless and blameless” are associated closely together. Peter used similar language about Christ in his first letter, calling him a lamb “without blemish or defect” (1:19).2 This 1 Peter reference suggests the original context for the language: sacrifice. The Old Testament regularly demands that the sacrifices offered to the Lord be “without spot or blemish.” How much of this original sacrificial association clings to the words in verse 14 here is difficult to say, for the terms had by this time become regularly used of moral purity.
In any case, Peter’s point is clear: Motivated by the Day of the Lord that is coming, believers should work hard to be found perfectly pure and blameless when God in Christ assesses our lives. They should strive to be the opposite of the false teachers, who are “blots and blemishes” (2:13). Remember, however, that this is a goal we are to strive for, not a condition that we will finally be able to achieve.3 For the New Testament makes clear that the believer will always have sin to confess (1 John 1:8) and that our struggle with sin will never finally end until our bodies themselves are “redeemed” (see Rom. 8:23). But this realization should not diminish our sincere effort to get as close to that goal as possible.
As noted above, the Greek text associates “spotless” and “blameless.” “At peace,” then, stands apart as something of an afterthought. This “peace” may be the peace of a satisfied conscience, the tranquillity that the true believer can enjoy at the time of the judgment, knowing that Christ has taken care of the sin problem.4 But the “peace” that Peter has in mind is probably the peace of reconciliation—the restored relationship that the believer enjoys with God through the mediation of Christ (see, e.g., Rom. 5:1–2).
The command in verse 15 is parallel to the one at the end of verse 14.5 As Christians look forward to the end of history, they are not only to strive for holiness, they are also to “bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation.” Christians are therefore to adopt an attitude toward the apparent delay in Christ’s return that is exactly opposite to that of the false teachers. The latter considered (NIV, “understand”) the delay to be a sign of God’s “slowness” (v. 9), concluding that judgment may never come; they were, therefore, quite unconcerned about having to answer for their immoral conduct. Christians, on the other hand, are to “consider” the delay as an opportunity to pursue salvation.6 As Peter has pointed out already (v. 9), God’s delay in sending Christ to judge the earth is a reflection of his “patience.”
The relationship between verses 14 and 15, as well as the flow of thought in verses 12–15 (“day of God”; “his promise”; “our Lord”), therefore, shows that the “Lord” in verse 15 is God, not Christ.7 Christians are to use the opportunity afforded by the delay in Christ’s coming to pursue “salvation” (v. 15a). This may mean that they are to be zealous in evangelism, seeking to bring as many to a knowledge of Christ through the gospel as possible before it is too late. But Peter may also be thinking of the opportunity for Christians to secure their own salvation. The language of salvation in the New Testament usually refers to the ultimate deliverance from sin and death at the very end of life (Peter’s four other uses of the word “salvation” all have this reference [1 Peter 1:5, 9, 10; 2:2]). Peter would not be writing as he does to these believers if some of them, at least, were not in danger of succumbing to the false teachers’ pernicious influence. As a result, he wants them to consider the time they have before Christ’s return as an opportunity to secure their relationship before the Lord.
Appeal to Paul for Confirmation (vv. 15b–16)
WITH THE “JUST as” in the middle of verse 15, Peter appeals to the writings of Paul to confirm what he has just told his readers in verses 14–15a.8 The way Paul is here addressed (“our dear brother”) has led many scholars to conclude that Peter could not have written this letter. For were not Paul and Peter at loggerheads, representing opposite viewpoints on issues such as the law and the inclusion of Gentiles in the Christian community? How could Peter, the doughty defender of a traditional Jewish Christianity, have been so flattering to Paul, that champion of law-free Gentile Christianity?9
The hostile relationship between Paul and Peter suggested in these questions is deeply entrenched in biblical scholarship, and often in the popular imagination as well. This interpretation rests, of course, primarily on Galatians 2:11–14, where Paul describes a conflict between himself and Peter over just such issues. But this is the only evidence for a conflict between the two that we possess. From what we can tell from the New Testament as a whole, Peter and Paul were on the same side theologically (see, for instance, Acts 11:2–18; 15:7–11; note too that the probable amanuensis of 1 Peter, Silvanus [= Silas, 1 Peter 5:12], was from the circle of Paul’s coworkers [Acts 15:40; 1 Thess. 1:1]). Calling Paul his “dear brother” would be perfectly natural for Peter and fits well with early Christian usage, for “brother” is often used to refer to coworkers in the gospel ministry (see 1 Cor. 2:13; Phil. 2:25; 1 Thess. 3:2; 1 Peter 5:12).
We still need to analyze the pronouns Peter uses in this clause. (1) Why does he refer to Paul as “our” beloved brother rather than “my” beloved brother? The plural could be “editorial,” with a singular meaning; but, as Bauckham notes, this usage is almost nonexistent in the New Testament.10 The “our” may then refer to Christians generally11 or, perhaps more likely, to fellow apostles (see v. 2).12
(2) Who is included in the “you” to whom Paul wrote? Scholars who think that 2 Peter was written long after Peter’s death usually think that it includes all Christians, who now possess the canon of Paul’s letters.13 But this kind of argument is weak; the “you” clearly refers to the recipients of 2 Peter, and the letter was clearly not addressed to all Christians. All that we can conclude from this reference, then, is that the readers of 2 Peter have received one or more letters of Paul.14 But since we cannot be sure where the readers of the letter lived, we cannot decide which of Paul’s letters Peter may have in mind. Nor does Peter’s identification of the subject matter of the letter(s) help.15 As we have seen, the connection “just as” indicates that Paul wrote to the readers the same thing that Peter has just said in verses 14–15a. But the point he has made is very general—Christians need to live holy lives in light of the coming of Christ—and Paul touches on this subject in virtually every letter he wrote.
Paul himself often claimed to minister on the basis of the “grace given to me” (Rom. 12:3; 15:15; Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 3:10; Eph. 3:2, 7; Col. 1:25). Peter varies the formula, referring to the “wisdom that God gave him.”16 Paul refers to his ministry generally as a work of God’s grace in and through him; Peter’s language focuses more on the basis for what Paul wrote. What he wrote in his letters came not from his own study or imagination; it came from God himself, who gave Paul the wisdom to understand and apply the gospel in his generation.
But it was not only in what Paul wrote to the readers of 2 Peter that he stressed the connection between the Parousia and godly living. “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters” (v. 16a). Again, critics of the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter think that the reference to “all” Paul’s letters requires a date in the late first or early second century, when Paul’s letters had been gathered together.17 But these critics are guilty once again of an over-interpretation. Peter says no more than that Paul wrote in the same way in all the letters that Peter has seen. The language does not imply that all of Paul’s letters had been written or that they had been put together into a corpus. Similarly, a sportswriter might say, “In all the Bulls’ games, they played great defense.” If written in mid-season, “all the Bulls’ games” would obviously mean “all the games they have played so far”; it would certainly not have to mean “every game of the season.”
Peter now comments further on the letters of Paul generally. He makes one explicit point and one implicit point, both of which are fascinating. Explicitly, Peter remarks that the letters of Paul contain “some things that are hard to understand” and are therefore misinterpreted by “ignorant and unstable people.” “Hard to understand” translates a word that was sometimes applied to Greek oracles—notoriously ambiguous and difficult to apply. The most famous oracle was the Delphi oracle’s reply to a king who wondered if he should go to war or not: “If you go to war, you will destroy a great nation.” Whether this nation was the one the king was attacking or his own was, of course, unclear. So, Peter suggests, Paul’s letters contain passages that can take on more than one meaning.
Many of us feel relieved and comforted when we read Peter’s words here. We do not feel so badly about our problems in interpreting Paul if Peter, a fellow apostle, had the same difficulty! But the context suggests that Peter is making a slightly different point. It is not so much that what Paul wrote was obscure; rather, it could be easy, by looking at what Paul said in the wrong context or in an unbalanced way, to get the wrong meaning out of it.
The letters of Paul themselves reveal situations in which people whom he had taught seized on one of his teachings, took it out of context, and drew the wrong conclusion from it.18 When, for instance, the Corinthians claimed as their slogan, “Everything is permissible for me” (1 Cor. 6:12), they were probably quoting Paul himself. As Paul goes on to show, however, their mistake was in failing to recognize other significant truths along with that one. The letter of James may reflect a similar scenario, as James corrects his readers’ misinterpretation of Paul’s teaching about “justification by faith.”
In other words, Peter is fully aware of “ignorant and unstable” people who “distort” the meaning of what Paul wrote and bring destruction on themselves. Almost certainly he is referring to the false teachers whom he has been rebuking throughout the letter. He uses the same word of them in 2:14 (“unstable,” asteriktos) as he uses here. What Peter suggests, then, is that these false teachers are “twisting” Paul’s own writings as support for their heresies. Peter may be thinking of their faulty eschatology. But he is more likely thinking of their lawless and licentious conduct, which he castigates in chapter 2. We know that not too long after this time, various heretics appealed to passages in Paul to support just such unbridled behavior.
The implicit point Peter is making emerges from his claim that the false teachers distort Paul’s letters “as they do the other Scriptures.” The word “other” (loipos) shows that Peter considers the letters of Paul to belong to the category of “Scripture.”19 Some scholars think that this means no more than that Peter considered Paul’s writings to be authoritative.20 But the word “Scriptures” (graphai) always refers in the New Testament to those writings considered not only authoritative but canonical—in a word, it refers to the Old Testament (see “Bridging Contexts” section, below). Peter therefore implies that the letters of Paul have a status equivalent to that of the canon of the Old Testament itself.
Here again, scholars object that such a view of Paul’s letters is impossible as early as A.D. 63 or so, when 2 Peter must have been written if the apostle Peter is its author. But we have other evidence at about this time that some New Testament material was beginning to be viewed this way. In 1 Timothy 5:18, for instance, Paul introduces as “Scripture” a verse from the Old Testament and a saying of Jesus.21 And there is no doubt that the authors of the New Testament claimed from the first to be speaking from God in a way that put their writings on a par with the Old Testament.
Concluding General Exhortation (vv. 17–18a)
PETER IS AWARE that his reference to the letters of Paul has led him off into a detour from his main line of teaching at this point of the letter. So, addressing his readers again as his “dear friends” (agapetoi, “beloved”) he resumes the exhortations he began issuing in verse 14. Now, however, they are not so clearly tied to eschatology; Peter looks back and brings to bear on his readers the message of the entire letter. Thus, the negative exhortation in verse 17 reflects the warnings about false teachers in chapter 2, while the positive exhortation in verse 18a reiterates a key idea from chapter 1.22
The “you” (hymeis) is emphatic, standing in contrast to the “ignorant and unstable” in verse 16. Bauckham and others who think that 2 Peter is pseudonymous interpret the phrase “since you know all this” as a reference back to the apostle Peter himself; that is, the unknown writer of the letter is reminding the readers of what Peter had taught them.23 But what they know is something much more than what Peter taught; it refers to the “words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles” (3:2), and perhaps to the letter of 2 Peter itself.
If, as we think, Peter is writing this letter, he is then referring generally to the early Christian teaching about eschatology and its moral implications that his readers had received. Peter’s point is that the readers have been amply warned about the danger of false teaching. Forewarned should mean that they are forearmed—ready to resist the perverse attractions of the false teachers’ heresies.
Christians need constantly to “be on [their] guard” (the present tense of the imperative in Greek suggests a constant state of watchfulness). Otherwise, they run the risk of being “carried away by the error of lawless men” (athesmon, a word Peter applied to the false teachers in 2:7). “Error” (plane) can also be translated “wander,” and it is not clear whether Peter is thinking of the false teachers’ own “wandering” from the faith or to their causing others to “wander” from their faith. Perhaps we need not choose; certainly both have been prominent in the letter.24 The danger in any such “wandering” is that it may cause a believer to “fall from” his or her “secure position.”
Conversion to Jesus Christ provides a solid foundation, a security, for spiritual vitality in this life and glory in the next. The word Peter uses implies that Christians can have confidence in this foundation. But he also, of course, warns about “falling from” that foundation. We discussed briefly in our comments on 1:3–11 the whole problem of “eternal security” that warnings like this raise (see the “Contemporary Significance” of 1:3–11). Here in 3:17 we again find the typical New Testament combination of security and warning. Clearly Peter is concerned that believers not view their “security” in Christ (however understood) to condone a careless attitude toward the struggle with sin. Confidence in our status with Christ should never lead to a presumption on God’s grace that leads us to toy with the danger of false teachers or that negates serious striving after holiness.
After his final warning, Peter issues a final positive exhortation: “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” If we are to find a single “key verse” for all of 2 Peter, this would probably be it. Here Peter summarizes his root concern: that his readers, resisting the heresy of the false teachers, continue to grow spiritually, becoming more and more like the Christ whom they confess.
Peter spelled out this growth in holiness in some detail in 1:5–10. The NIV takes both “grace” and “knowledge” to depend on “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (they signal this by using a single article before “grace”). In this case, the “grace of Jesus Christ” will mean the grace that he bestows on us. But “knowledge of Jesus Christ” can mean either the knowledge that Jesus Christ gives us (see 1:5–6), or our knowledge of, our relationship to, Jesus Christ (see 1:2–3, 8). While the Greek word Peter uses here can point to the former interpretation,25 the sweeping nature of the exhortation and the relationship to chapter 1 suggest that the second is correct. This would mean, however, that “of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” relates to the words “grace” and “knowledge” in different ways—describing the source of the former and the object of the latter. This is not impossible; but it may be easier to sever the word “grace” from “of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (e.g., see the REB rendering: “Grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”).26
Doxology to Christ (v. 18b)
MOST NEW TESTAMENT letters end with greetings, references to fellow workers, a request for prayer, and/or grace wishes. Doxologies (ascriptions of glory [Greek doxa]) at the end of these letters are unusual—we find them only here, in Romans 16:25–27 (assuming, as I do, that these verses are original), Philippians 4:20, and Jude 24–25. Why Peter has chosen to end his letter in this way is unclear. The absence of some of the usual epistolary features may suggest that he is sending this letter along with others or that he is writing to a number of churches.
Another unusual feature of the ending is that the doxology is to Christ. Normally glory is ascribed to God; only here, in 2 Timothy 4:18, and in Revelation 1:5–6 do we find doxologies directed to Christ—although we do find a “blessing” of Christ, as God, in Romans 9:5. But this certainly fits the high view of Jesus Christ that Peter presents from the very beginning of his letter (see esp. 1:1).
The doxology is unusual in one other way. New Testament authors usually ascribe to God glory “forever and ever” (Greek eis tous aionas; see, e.g., Jude 25). But Peter uses a different expression—literally translated, “unto the day of eternity” (see NASB; NRSV). The NIV takes this as a way of referring both to the present and the future: “now and forever” (see also KJV; REB; TEV). But this is certainly not the most natural way to interpret the Greek. Better, in light of Peter’s focus on this subject in chapter 3, is to give “day” an eschatological meaning: the “day of the Lord/of God.” Christ’s coming will inaugurate the eschatological age—a “day” that will last forever. We glorify Christ, looking to this day and earnestly waiting for it.
Bridging Contexts
PETER’S SUGGESTION THAT Paul’s letters belong in the category of “Scriptures” cannot be properly understood without some understanding of the formation of the canon of the biblical books and of the significance of this formation.
The word “canon” means a “measuring rod.” Early Christians applied it to those books that they considered the authoritative “measuring rod” by which one could determine what was orthodox and what was heretical. The matter is vigorously debated, but there is good evidence that by the time of Jesus, Jews were already operating with at least a de factocanon of authoritative books.
The New Testament uses the word graphe, usually in the plural, graphai, to refer to these authoritative Jewish Scriptures. Used fifty times in the New Testament, the word always refers to the authoritative writings that we call the Old Testament. The plural is more usual, indicating the collection of books (e.g., Luke 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he [Jesus] explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself”). The singular usually denotes a single text from the Old Testament (e.g., James 2:8: “If you keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right”). Some scholars claim the word is also applied to passages not found in our Old Testament, but the claim cannot be substantiated.27 The New Testament authors’ restriction of the word “Scripture” to those books we now call the Old Testament suggests that they were operating with an implicit, closed canon.28
Other evidence tends to confirm this conclusion. For instance, New Testament writers never quote as an authoritative source any book that is not found in the Old Testament canon. To be sure, Jude does cite passages from the Pseudepigrapha (vv. 9 and 14–15). We will deal with this passage in the commentary below, but suffice to say here that it is not clear that Jude refers to either of these texts as authoritative, nor does he cite them as Scripture or with the kind of introduction we usually find when Scripture is quoted.
An incidental confirmation of the existence of a canon of Scriptures in Jesus’ day that looked much like ours is Matthew 23:35: “And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” Abel is, of course, mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis. The martyrdom of Zechariah son of Berekiah, on the other hand, is described in 2 Chronicles 24:20–21. The point is this: In the Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles is the last book. The order in which Jesus cites these martyrs, therefore, suggests that he was familiar with a Bible in which Genesis comes first and 2 Chronicles last—exactly what we now have in our Old Testament.29
It is against this background, then, that we must assess Peter’s suggestion that Paul’s letters also belong in the category of Scripture. The first thing to note is that Peter does not straightforwardly call Paul’s letters Scripture. He is much less direct, associating Paul’s letters with Scripture rather than identifying them as Scripture. We find the same kind of indirect association in 1 Timothy 5:18, the other relevant New Testament passage: “For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’ ” Here we also find a New Testament text (Luke 10:7) associated indirectly with an Old Testament passage (Deut. 25:4).
Such indirect allusion is just what we might expect at this point in time. As with most doctrines, the idea of New Testament books as Scripture developed only over time, as these books were used and found to be profitable by the early Christians. In fact, it took a couple of centuries before the process of recognizing and accepting a New Testament canon was complete. Peter was certainly not at the point where he could formulate a full-blown concept of the New Testament canon.
If, then, we had the opportunity to ask Peter to clarify and elaborate his point, what might he have said? Would he have argued that the letters of Paul should be added to the canon of authoritative books? This would have been difficult, for, as we have seen, New Testament evidence points to a “closed” first-century canon of Scriptures. Perhaps, then, he would have had to suggest the creation of an additional canon alongside the existing one—in effect, an Old and New Testament. But the fact is that we do not know, and Peter himself had undoubtedly not thought through matters to this extent. What is important is that he suggests that Paul’s letters are like the Old Testament Scriptures.
For Peter, this would have meant two things. (1) Paul’s letters are inspired by God. In this very letter, Peter enunciates this idea of inspiration (see our discussion of 1:20b–21). Paul’s letters also, Peter infers, are the product of God’s Spirit, carrying Paul along so that he wrote what God wanted him to write. Paul likewise made clear that inspiration is an integral quality of Scripture: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).
(2) Paul’s letters are authoritative. Authority is the byproduct of inspiration. Precisely because God, by his Spirit, speaks in them, Paul’s letters are to be heeded as if they were the words of God himself. It is this important and practical point that Peter is most interested in. He has been trying to convince his readers to accept the truth about Christ’s Parousia and so to devote themselves to a holy life. And he wants them to know that Paul supports his own view of things, not that of the false teachers (as the false teachers were perhaps claiming). Associating Paul’s letters with Scripture gives them an authority that his readers should recognize and obey.
Ultimately, of course, Peter writes with the same kind of authority as does “our dear brother Paul.” How he viewed his own writing, whether he had begun to entertain any notion that it, too, was Scripture, is impossible to know. But this does seem to be the implication of what Peter says here about the letters of his fellow apostle Paul.
Contemporary Significance
ONE OF THE difficulties for us in formulating a New Testament canon is the lack of any authority after the New Testament to endorse New Testament books. For the Old Testament, we have the New Testament. But we have, of course, nothing comparable for the New Testament.30 It is for this reason that the implications of passages such as 2 Peter 3:15–16 are so important, for they give us at least a scriptural toehold from which we can build the doctrine of a New Testament canon. We sketched the background for some of this development in the last section, and we drew out the significance of inspired Scripture in the “Contemporary Significance” section on 1:16–21. Here, therefore, we will content ourselves with reiterating the key point.
In the midst of our debates about the nature and implications of inspiration, we must not lose sight of this essential truth: The books of the Bible, breathed out by God himself, uniquely have the power to shape our lives and, ultimately, the world. One of the giants of the modern evangelical movement was Frank E. Gaebelein. Known particularly for his editing work (e.g., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), Gaebelein exuded an authentic, deeply rooted love for God and for his people. One could detect in him a person in whom the “mind of Christ” was well developed. I remember to this day his response to an interviewer who asked what had been the most formative influence on his life. Daily reading of the King James Version of the Bible, he responded. Prolonged immersion in God’s Word has such an effect. Certainly we must read with attention; certainly the Spirit must apply the truth to us. But the Word of God has the power to renew our minds and thus to change our behavior. No other source can do so.
Note the way I put the matter at the end of the last paragraph: “to renew our minds and thus to change our behavior.” The intimate connection between doctrine and practice, between what we believe and think and what we do has been clear throughout 2 Peter. In 3:14–18, the apostle makes the connection clear once again. Specifically, it is “since [we] are looking forward” to the Lord’s coming that we will concentrate our efforts on pleasing our Lord (v. 14). Eschatology leads to ethics. The false teachers, dismissing any notion of Christ’s return and of judgment, were falling into a lazy, sensual lifestyle. By understanding the truth about Christ’s return, believers will be led to develop an energetic, “otherworldly” lifestyle.
It must have been God’s providence that led me, at the very time I was commenting on these verses, to go through a scare about my own life. Though undoubtedly magnified by my own hyperactive imagination (it operates on all eight cylinders in the middle of the night), a medical problem I faced posed genuine concern about the possibility of cancer. For three days, for the first time in some years, I confronted my own mortality. I hated it; sleep was difficult and anxiety was constant. But I also found myself thinking about God and eternity a lot more than usual, reading my Bible with more attention than normal, and caring far less about what I ate and about material things in general. Confronting eternity sharpened my spiritual appetite even as it dulled my sensual impulses. I discovered just today that the medical problem is not cancer, but a relatively minor and easily cured matter. And already I can feel myself slipping back into the usual lackadaisical spirituality.
This seems to me precisely the general point Peter is making here: Serious reckoning with the end of the world puts this world in perspective for us. As Michael Green puts it, “ ‘How will he find me?’ is a very searching question for the Christian to ask himself, whether death (I.14) or the parousia be uppermost in view.”31 What we believe about the course of history, and especially its imminent end, affects the way that we live—or at least it should. For the fact is that many Christians will believe all the right things about eschatology but not find them genuinely changing their attitudes or behavior.
Why is this so? Because eschatology is a doctrine we believe but not a reality we feel and experience. Here is the key, I think, to making the connection between teaching and practice effective and fruitful in our lives: internalizing the truth we hear so that we treat it as reality and not just theory. Somehow we must learn to feel the truth. How? Ultimately, we would all probably answer: the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But through what instruments does the Holy Spirit work? Preaching is clearly one of them. The church desperately needs preachers committed to explaining God’s Word and doing it so vibrantly, imaginatively, and passionately that the Word comes alive and is genuinely appropriated by its hearers.32
Since we are talking especially about eschatology, we might note in passing that the contemporary church seems largely to have turned away from preaching and teaching on eschatology. The old “Prophecy Conferences” have been replaced with “Marriage Seminars” and “Financial Stewardship Workshops.” Certainly we need to address issues of marriage and finances in the church. But the problem is one of balance. In a spirit of condescension toward some of the more intricate eschatological debates, too many pastors and Christians have abandoned eschatological preaching altogether. But effective preaching about “the last things” may be one of the best ways to help Christians internalize a worldview that puts eternity and this world in their right proportion.
One other implication of these verses requires attention in our day: the finality of the Parousia. Peter claims that God’s “delay” in sending Christ back to earth is to allow time for repentance (v. 9) and thus for salvation (v. 15). Implied in this is that repentance and salvation can occur only until the Parousia. Christ’s return or (for those of us who may not live until that day) death marks the end of all opportunity to embrace Christ and thus be saved. In the well-known words of Hebrews, “man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb. 9:27).
Some scholars argue that the New Testament implies the opportunity to respond to God’s offer of salvation even after death. But this is not the case. The finality of our decisions in this life is assumed throughout the New Testament and, as we have seen, in 2 Peter 3 as well. Perhaps there are readers of this commentary who have not yet committed themselves in faith to Christ. For them, of course, the implications of this point are clear: Now is the time to decide; death or the Parousia may forever and at any time end all such opportunity. For those of us who do already know the Lord, the implications are also clear: Now is the time to share the good news of Christ—with your neighbor, your coworker, your fellow team member—before it is too late.