Introduction
The study of the use of the OT in 2 Peter is beset with several challenges.
(1) Clearly, either 2 Peter borrows from Jude, or Jude borrows from 2 Peter. Though in briefer compass, the challenge is not unlike the way 1–2 Chronicles uses antecedent material or the way the Synoptic Gospels display interdependencies. Most scholars today accept that Jude was written first, and that 2 Peter quotes extensively from it. Although that is probably correct, I will nevertheless present the material in canonical order. More important, perhaps, is the fact that Jude clearly cites extrabiblical material (as do some other NT books), and this has prompted a preponderance of scholars to read the OT allusions through the lenses of those extrabiblical books. The case is more plausible in Jude than in 2 Peter (though even there it needs some qualification), but because most scholars hold that 2 Peter depends on Jude, tendencies ostensibly found in Jude are then too easily read back into 2 Peter. The following commentary tries to avoid the worst of these pitfalls.
(2) A related but broader perception is that the OT allusions in 2 Peter, regardless of any influence from Jude, are largely mediated through the lenses of the literature of Second Temple Judaism; that is, that literature’s interpretation of the foundational OT passages becomes the interpretation of those OT passages found in 2 Peter. That is not intrinsically improbable, of course, but dependence is frequently not an easy thing to demonstrate. At the very least, one must make an effort to see if 2 Peter is developing a parallel interpretation or an interpretation somewhat modified from the one found in other sources of early Judaism.
(3) Some scholars insist that there are no OT quotations at all in 2 Peter, but only allusions. Others classify some words in 2 Pet. 3:13 a quotation—the only one in the letter. Terminological disputes aside, the allusive nature of Peter’s use of the OT in this epistle means that sometimes the reader is uncertain as to which passage or passages Peter has in mind, let alone precisely how he reads them. The peculiar challenges of this document mean that the procedure adopted in the commentary on 1 Peter will be modified here. In the case of 1 Peter, quotations were treated to the full sweep of the recommended editorial structure: NT context, OT context, context in Judaism, textual matters, and so on. Allusions were handled more briefly and discursively. Here in 2 Peter, however, some allusions will receive the full gamut of steps. But as in 1 Peter, the interests of brevity demand that we skip over a handful of passages treated as allusions or echoes by some scholars.
The “word of the prophets made more certain” (NIV) almost certainly refers to the OT Scriptures. Since no particular Scripture is mentioned, it is best to think of the OT Scriptures as a whole (which may suggest that there was more canonical awareness than many are willing to concede). We should pay attention to this word, Peter writes, “as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (TNIV). God’s word is often compared to a light, both in the OT (e.g., Ps. 119:105) and in other Jewish literature (e.g., Wis. 18:4). The expression “dark place” is not found elsewhere in either the LXX or the NT, but Davids (2006: 208) draws attention to 4 Ezra 12:42: “For of all the prophets you alone are left to us, like a cluster of grapes from the vintage, and like a lamp in a dark place, and like a haven for a ship saved from a storm.” There is no direct dependence, of course, but the parallel shows that the image was a natural one waiting to be called up by both authors.
The imagery of the morning star probably derives from Num. 24:17: “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will arise out of Israel.” The oracle in which it is set (Num. 24:15–19) is introduced with Balaam’s announcement of what Israel will do to Balak’s people “in the latter days” (ESV; “in days to come,” NIV). The phrase regularly signals not only something in the future but also something with eschatological overtones, even on occasion more immediate events that themselves point to the future. Certainly the coming of a “star” is widely connected in early Judaism with the coming of a messianic figure, sometimes understood to be a new priest, sometimes a ruler (e.g., “a prince of the congregation”)—for example, T. Levi 18:3; T. Jud. 24:1; CD-A VII, 18–20; 1QM XI, 6–7; 4Q175 9–13. None of these texts modifies “star” with “morning” (though see Rev. 22:16, which speaks of Jesus as the “bright morning star”), but this is doubtless Peter’s way of signaling the coming of the eschatological age, in line with the way other NT writers deploy the night/day contrast (e.g., Rom. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:4–9). What is in view is Jesus’ return, a theme certainly of interest to Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 3:10–13). In that light, the phrase “and the morning star rises in your hearts” most likely does not refer to inner enlightenment (Mayor 1979; Spicq 1966). Nor should we think that the expected apocalyptic parousia has been transmuted into an individual experience (Schelkle 1980; Kelly 1969), but that at the “dawn,” at the parousia, we will no longer see through a glass darkly, we will no longer need the mediating revelation of Scripture, for Christ will rise in our hearts (so Bauckham 1988; Davids 2006).
A. NT Context: “Angels” Not Spared. This is the first of five allusions compressed into 2:4–10a, the general purpose of which is to demonstrate that God has always been perfectly willing and able “to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment” (2:9 TNIV). Yet the interpretation of who these angels are depends on a matrix of several interlocking interpretive challenges: (1) what Gen. 6:1–4 means (on which, see below); (2) the relationship of this passage to 1 Pet. 3:18–22, and the interpretation of the latter; (3) how this passage relates to Jude, what the latter means, and whether 2 Peter means the same thing.
Despite the view of some interpreters, 2 Peter does not simply take over Jude 4–18 in a block quotation. Close comparison shows that the former is “a rather free paraphrase” of the latter (see Sidebottom 1967: 95, 112; Callan 2004). Peter and Jude both mention judgment on “angels” and on Sodom and Gomorrah, but only the former mentions the flood, only the latter mentions judgment on Israel after the exodus, and the latter does not set things out in chronological order. More importantly, Peter interweaves into his list the preservation of the righteous, in particular Noah and Lot, while Jude omits all mention of the righteous. The result is that where the two documents substantially overlap, each nevertheless develops its own distinctive rhetorical emphases (see Charles 2005). Schreiner (2003: 335) helpfully sets forth the logic of 2 Pet. 2:4–10 that distinctively incorporates mention of the righteous:
If God judged the angels (v. 4)
and if he judged the flood generation (v. 5), while at the same time sparing Noah (v. 5),
and if he judged Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 6), while at the same time preserving Lot (vv. 7–8)
then it follows that the Lord will preserve the godly in the midst of their trials (drawing this conclusion from the examples of Noah and Lot)
and it also follows that the Lord will punish the ungodly on the day of judgment (drawing this conclusion from the three examples of the angels, the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah).
B. OT Context. Under the assumption that the OT background to 2 Pet. 2:4 is Gen. 6:1–4, we must ask what the latter passage means. There have been three primary interpretations: (1) the “sons of God” are angels who crossed species lines and married human women, producing “Nephilim,” who were “heroes of old, men of renown” (Gen. 6:4); (2) the “sons of God” were kings, judges, and other members of aristocratic nobility who displayed their own greatness by indulging in polygamy and creating harems; (3) the “sons of God” were human males from the putatively godly line of Seth who freely married women from ungodly lines.
Nowadays the majority of interpreters from across the theological spectrum accept the angel interpretation (the list of supporters is very long, but see esp. the discussion in Dexinger 1966; see also Wenham 1987: 138–41). This interpretation is assumed by the LXX and is supported by most early Jewish exegesis, though not quite all (see below), as well as by all the earliest church fathers and some later ones (including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius), but not by some later fathers (Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret). “Sons of God” (in the plural) refers elsewhere in the OT to angels—certainly so in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, and probably so in Ps. 29:1; 89:7; Dan. 3:25 (where bar-ʾĕlāhîn underlies the traditional rendering “mighty ones” or the like found in most English versions). Yet the interpretation does not easily fit the context of the flood, since that judgment is pronounced against humanity (cf. Gen. 6:3–5; note “flesh” in 6:3 [NIV: “mortal”]). According to Jesus, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25), and although excellent efforts have been undertaken to avoid this and other objections to the angel interpretation (e.g., Brown 2002: 52–71; vanGemeren 1981), the niggles make it less than a sure thing.
Those who take the view that the expression “sons of God” refers to kings, nobles, and other aristocrats (e.g., Cassuto 1973; Kline 1961–1962) understand them to be lusting after power, the multiple women being the signs of their success. Kline suggests that they are “divine kings”—that is, kings viewed as in some sense divine owing to the dominant religious commitments of the time. In other words, instead of administering justice under God, they forsook their proper place, claimed deity for themselves, violated God’s will by forming royal harems, and lusted after power. Their children were the Nephilim-heroes (6:4), “evidently characterized by physical might and military-political dominance” (Kline 1993: 115). On the face of it, this explanation makes best sense of “and they took any of them they chose” (Gen. 6:2) and admirably sets the stage for the pronouncement of judgment against “flesh” in the flood. Negatively, however, there is no linguistic warrant outside Gen. 6:1–4 for supposing that “sons of God” refers to “divine kings” or, more generally, to aristocratic ruling figures, whereas the reading of “angels” has a long track record, including the LXX.
The view that “sons of God” refers to the line of Seth, while “daughters of human beings” refers to non-Sethian women, not only suffers from an absence of philological support but also has few elements in its favor compared with the “divine kings” view.
A few scholars have suggested the possibility that the first and second interpretations might be combined; that is, human rulers (the second interpretation) who claimed some sort of divine status might still fit the requirement of some kind of “angelic” encroachment (the first interpretation) if they were viewed as somehow demon possessed (so Clines 1979; Waltke 2001: 115–17; Gispen 1974: 221).
A few scholars over the years, however, have argued that Gen. 6:1–4 is not the OT background to 2 Pet. 2:4, but rather that Peter has in mind the prehistoric fall of angels. Some sort of prehistoric fall of the embodied serpent (Gen. 3) is doubtless presupposed by Genesis, but one is hard-pressed to find explicit discussion of the event. This interpretation of Gen. 6:1–4 sounds a bit like the interpretation of the scarcely known by the still yet more unknown.
C. The Context in Judaism. The interpretation of Gen. 6:1–4 that takes “the sons of God” to be angels (often called “Watchers”) who have sexual intercourse with women is widespread in early Judaism (e.g., 1 En. 6–19; 21; 86–88; Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD-A II, 17–19; 1QapGen ar II, 1; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 6:1–4; T. Reub. 5:6–7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10–14). True, a minority rabbinic tradition pronounces a curse on those who take the angel view (Gen. Rab. 26:5; cf. R. Simeon b. Yohai), but this probably does not go back earlier than the mid-second century AD.
Three further comments on this literature should be addressed. First, although various themes are emphasized by these assorted texts from early Judaism, the most extensive tradition is found in 1 En. 6–19. Bauckham (1988: 51) argues that originally the fall of the Watchers in this tradition “was a myth of the origin of evil” but became detached from such mythology about the middle of the first century AD. The account tells how, in the days of Jared (Gen. 5:18), two hundred angels, under the leadership of Šemiḥazah and ʿAšaʾel, rebelled against God, lusted after the beautiful daughters of men, descended to Mount Hermon, and took human wives. Their children were giants who ravaged the earth. The fallen angels themselves taught human beings things that they should not know and many kinds of sin. Ultimately, then, the fallen angels were responsible for the corruption and degradation that brought down from the hand of God the punishment of the flood. The fallen angels, the Watchers, were punished by being bound under the earth until the final judgment; the giants were condemned by being abandoned to destroy each other in incessant battle, and their spirits became the evil spirits finally responsible for the evil in the world between the flood and the day of judgment. What is striking about these accounts is the attempt to shift blame for the flood from human beings to fallen angelic beings.
Second, both Jude and 2 Peter apparently pick up on at least some of these themes. Yet what is picked up is not the entire “package” taught by 1 Enoch but rather only that these “angels” (angeloi) are kept in darkness, bound in eternal chains awaiting the day of judgment (see further below). Jude picks up on one further factor (see §C of commentary on Jude 6).
Third, some have suggested that Peter (and Jude before him) knows of, and is perhaps dependent on, the Greek myth of the Titans, recounted in Hesiod’s Theogony. Certainly some Jewish writers identified the Titans with fallen angels or with their giant progeny (see Josephus, Ant. 1.73; Sir. 16:7; Jdt. 16:6). In this myth the Titans were imprisoned in “Tartarus,” the word that Peter here uses for “hell.” This may be nothing more than the vocabulary choice of someone influenced by Hellenistic Judaism; it is hard to be sure, for already the word is used in the LXX of Job 40:20; 41:24 (Tartarus of the abyss); Prov. 30:16 (apparently parallel to Hades). In other words, appeal to ostensible Petrine knowledge of Hesiod is premature. The issue is compounded by a difficult textual variant, to which we now turn.
D. Textual Matters. However we understand “the sons of God” in the Hebrew of Gen. 6:1–4, the LXX refers to them as angeloi, which word is picked up in 2 Pet. 2:4 and, in the NT, is almost always used of angels, rarely of “messengers,” and never of aristocratic figures such as kings and nobles. In other words, on the basis of philology alone, the angel interpretation seems most credible, unless one accepts the synthesis of Waltke and others who see that the “divine kings” are “possessed” by fallen angels, combining the strengths of the first two interpretations.
In 2 Pet. 2:4 there is a very difficult decision between seirais (“bonds, ropes, chains”) and seirois/sirois (“pits”). Jude 6 uses desmois (“bonds”). Peter may have chosen a more elegant word than Jude’s (he makes this sort of change elsewhere), thus opting for seirais, and a later scribe “corrected” it to seirois, perhaps because it seems to fit better with zophou (“of darkness”). Alternatively, Peter wrote seirois zophou (“pits of darkness”), whether under the influence of Hesiod or not, and a scribe “corrected” it to seirais zophou (“bonds of darkness,” “chains of darkness” [TNIV], obviously understood metaphorically) under the influence of Jude 6. The external evidence is evenly divided.
E. Peter’s Use of the OT in 2:4. The nature of the sin is less specific in 2 Pet. 2:4 than in Jude 6–7, which mentions that the “angels” not only abandoned their place but also, apparently by analogy with Sodom, engaged in sexual sin. Crossing the species line is central to the sin in Jub. 5; that is not explicit in either Jude or 2 Peter. Peter is interested in the inevitability of the judgment of these “angels,” whoever they are, rather than in the precise nature of their sin.
F. Theological Use. “The point of this verse is that these fallen angels await eternal judgment. . . . The eschatological judgment of the angels who sinned is sure. They are already in prison. How much more sure is the judgment of those who have denied the Christ who purchased them” (Davids 2006: 226). That is entirely right, even if there remains some uncertainty regarding the referent of “angels.”
2:5
A. NT Context: The Flood and Noah—a Bad Example and a Good One. The next two allusions, the second and third, one negative and one positive, are packed into this verse. God did not spare the antediluvian world but rather brought catastrophic judgment on its ungodly people; on the other hand, God did spare Noah, “a preacher of righteousness,” and his family (Gen. 6–9). Unlike Jude, Peter, by giving a positive example as well as a negative one, shows that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials” as well as how “to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment” (2:9).
B. OT Context. There is no doubt that Peter is referring to the flood narrative of Gen. 6–9. Brown (2002: 94–98) usefully lists the minor linguistic connections, but they shed little light on how Peter is reflecting on this passage for his own use. Genesis 6:11–12 establishes that the reason why God sent this devastating judgment was the unmitigated violence and corruption on the earth. The singular exception was Noah. At the end of it, God promises with a covenant sign that he will never destroy the earth the same way again, which in the narrative reads as a singular mark of divine grace, for the earth surely will deserve the destruction.
Since the world is destroyed because of its corruption, and Noah and his family are saved, it is a fair inference that they are, by contrast, righteous; and that point is made the more explicit when God tells Noah to build an ark, and Noah does so, simply because he is committed to doing what God commands. The OT text nowhere explicitly states that Noah is “a preacher of righteousness,” though probably imaginative reading of the narrative presupposes that Noah would have to provide some sort of rationale for his activity before the ungodly watching world. The literature of Second Temple Judaism, as we will see, makes the inference explicit.
Other writers in the OT refer back to the flood to testify to Yahweh’s omnipotent rule over creation (Ps. 29; perhaps Ps. 104:3–4) in order to provide imagery to depict the judgment of God that will overtake the wicked (Isa. 24:1, 4, 18; cf. Job 22:15–17; Nah. 1:8 LXX) and to depict trials and tribulations that the righteous must face and from which only God can save them (e.g., Ps. 18:16; 46:1–3; 65:5–8). For a full trajectory of flood imagery through the OT and early Judaism, see Yoshikawa 2004.
C. The Context in Judaism. Mention of the flood narrative is extraordinarily frequent in the literature of early Judaism. It shows up in Wisdom literature and historical books (e.g., Wis. 10:4; 14:6–7, connecting the flood with the time of the giants; 3 Macc. 2:4; 4 Macc. 15:31, where Noah’s ark is a metaphor for the guardian of the law) and very often in apocalyptic literature (Jubilees, 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras), where quite commonly the fallen angels of Gen. 6:1–4 contribute to the corruption of humankind before the flood. The Dead Sea Scrolls preserve many references (CD-A II, 17–21; V, 1; 1QapGen ar; 1Q19 + 1Q19 bis; 4Q176; 4Q244; and numerous other passages [for which, see García Martínez 1999]). The tendency in this literature is to correlate Noah with the righteous remnant that the community constituted, while associating the rebellious Watchers of the flood generation with the corrupt Jewish priestly line in Jerusalem, all the while fostering an awareness of the end times. Philo can deal with Gen. 6–9 as straightforward historical narrative (e.g., Abraham 41–45; Confusion 23–24; Moses 2.54, 59), use it to promote moralizing stances under the threat of judgment (e.g., On Dreams 1.74; Moses 2.59), and interpret it in several allegorical ways—for example, the flood stands for a rush of evil passions and lust that wash over the soul (Flight 191–193; QG 2.15, 18, 45; Confusion 23–25).
The most interesting use for our purposes is the interpretation of Josephus (esp. Ant. 1.72–119), for here we have the longest imaginative description of Noah pleading with his compatriots to change their ways and then becoming afraid of them because they are so displeased with him (Ant. 1.74; elsewhere, see also Sib. Or. 1:128–129, 150–198; Jub. 20–29; Eccles. Rab. 9:15; b. Sanh. 108).
D. Textual Matters. Probably kataklysmon kosmō asebōn epaxas (“when he brought the deluge on the world of ungodly people”) echoes Gen. 6:17 LXX: epagō ton kataklysmon hydōr epi tēn gēn (“I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth”).
E. Peter’s Use of the OT in 2:5. The thrust of Peter’s appropriation of the flood narrative, the account of Noah’s part in it included, is plain enough: it is part of his controlling bifurcation throughout these verses, to the effect that God knows how to rescue the godly and punish the ungodly. Moreover, by moving on from “angels”—however they are understood—to ordinary human beings, he is bringing the threat closer to the false teachers whom he is opposing. Two further comments are in order. First, the righteousness of righteous Noah, in this context, surely has to do with his behavior, not with imputed righteousness or the like (contra Schreiner 2003: 339). Second, the slightly odd expression ogdoon Nōe, “Noah the eighth person” (contrast the form of language in 1 Pet. 3:20; Jude, of course, does not mention Noah), is a classical construction (see BDAG, s.v. “ὄγδοος”) meaning “Noah along with seven others,” clearly his wife, three children, and their respective spouses.
F. Theological Use. A moralizing use of the OT by the NT is far from unknown (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:1–13; Heb. 3:7–19). Here the failure of the Israelites to enter the promised land, even though God had saved them from slavery in Egypt, is ascribed to their unbelief and disobedience. In short, the people of Israel did not persevere—and Christians who have been saved from their former slavery to sin need to persevere in faith and obedience to the end if they are to enter the consummated kingdom. Of course, this reading of both 1 Cor. 10:1–13 and of Heb. 3:7–19 depends also on a typological connection between Israel and the church, while the former passage also includes a complex analogy of the “rock” (1 Cor. 10:4) and the latter rushes on to develop a salvation-historical argument (Heb. 4:1–13). Here in 2 Pet. 2:5, however, none of these complexities is present. The language is simply moralizing by way of analogy: if God distinguished between Noah (including those with him) and the rest of the ancient world and brought judgment on the latter, how can we escape the conclusion that at the end judgment will fall but that some will be saved? And what does that say about the kind of people we ought to be?
2:6–8
A. NT Context: The Contrast between Sodom and Lot. These final two allusions (the fourth and the fifth) to the OT—one to Sodom and one to Lot—must be taken together because the interpretation of each is linked with the interpretation of the other, as we will see. The general point that Peter is making, however, is again clear: he contrasts the judgment that fell on the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness (“an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly” [2:6]) with the rescue of Lot (“a righteous man who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless” [2:7]). Moreover, by going on from water to fire, he is advancing to consideration of the final day of judgment.
B. OT Context. There have been two longstanding exegetical debates concerning the interpretation of Gen. 19 that have a bearing on our understanding of how 2 Peter may be reading this OT chapter. First, what, precisely, is the nature of the Sodomites’ sin? The dominant alternatives are sexual perversion (both homosexual and heterosexual) and betrayal of ancient Near Eastern hospitality codes. Second, is there any reasonable ground in the OT text itself for thinking that Lot’s behavior is honorable? In particular, his willingness to sacrifice his daughters to protect his visitors strikes many contemporary readers as sexist, selfish, weak, and thoughtless, regardless of how important hospitality was to the culture of the time. So does the claim that Lot is “righteous” depend far more on later Jewish traditions about Lot than on the OT text itself? Is Peter’s “use” of the OT really in this instance a twisting of it based on the wishful thinking of interpreters who promulgated their views under Second Temple Judaism?
Recently Morschauser (2003) has attempted a reconstruction and interpretation of Gen. 19 that attempts to address both of these exegetical points simultaneously (I am indebted to Scott J. Hafemann for the reference). Morschauser attaches voluminous ancient Near Eastern parallels to the points that he makes; here I can do no more than sketch the most important elements of his thesis. (1) According to Gen. 19:1, Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city when the two visitors showed up. In the social structure of the day this meant that Lot was one of the elders, possibly sitting there in some sort of official capacity. In other words, when he invited the visitors into the city and into his home, he was not acting in the capacity of a private citizen. (2) The throng that gathered before Lot’s house, specifically described as “young and old,” is not made up of all the men of the town (otherwise 19:12 would make little sense) but rather constitutes the representative ruling elite; that is the overtone of “young and old.” (3) This event occurs only a few chapters after the raid against Sodom described in Gen. 14. Doubtless some people were nervous about the possibility of visitors being spies. Lot’s strong insistence that the visitors spend the night not in the square but rather with him in his house (19:2–3) not only displays generous hospitality but also might well be understood as Lot making sure that his visitors did not roam through the city freely. As an official in the gate, Lot, by bringing them into his home, was also keeping an eye on them. (4) When the crowd, “young and old,” demands that the visitors be sent outside so that the crowd might “know” (yādaʿ) them, we are not to think of sexual assault (TNIV: “Bring them out so that we can have sex with them” [19:5]). Certainly this Hebrew verb for “know” can be a euphemistic way of referring to sexual intercourse—indeed, that is unmistakably the meaning in 19:8—but the verb itself has a broad semantic range, and can be used in other contexts. In Ps. 139:1–2, 23 it is parallel to ḥāqar (“search out”). In the present context the crowd is asking to “get to know” these visitors, to “interrogate” them, not least to find out if they are spies. Of course, “interrogation” in those days could itself be a fairly brutal business. (5) The one dramatic exception to the ethics of generous hospitality in the culture of the time was the visit of spies. If the visitors were spies, then obviously they could not claim protection under the “rules” of hospitality (note Gen. 42:5–14, where Joseph can handle his visiting brothers roughly once he “determines” that they are spies; Josh. 2–3 and the demand to Rahab to turn over her visitors). But what makes the demand of this crowd so inappropriate is that Lot is not now a private citizen. He is an official in the gate, he has exercised his judgment in good faith, and they have no right to question him this way. (6) What Lot proposes, then, is not that his daughters be sent outside to satisfy the lust of the perverted throng but rather that his daughters be temporarily held, overnight until the strangers leave town, as a kind of pledge, a hostage exchange. The arrangement was both legal and humane. Providing a kind of hostage was the course that Reuben and Judah took at a later period (Gen. 42:37; 43:9). Even the expression “And you can do what you like with them” is, Morschauser asserts, formulaic for “They are in your hands [and of course the protocol is that you keep them safe until this matter is resolved by the departure of my visitors in the morning].” (7) What happens, however, is that this mob of ruling elite will have none of the arrangement and wants to bring about their proposed interrogation by force. Instead of treating Lot with the respect that he deserves, they respond with atavistic rage, dismiss him as a foreigner, and challenge his authority (19:9). What they are trying to do, against a recognized official, is simply anarchic, and God judges them for it. But Lot himself comes out as a righteous man who acts honorably throughout.
It will be interesting to see how this proposal fares when all of Morschauser’s parallels are scrutinized closely by experts in ancient Near Eastern literature and culture. My impression at this juncture is that there may well be something to Morschauser’s reconstruction, but several elements of it make one pause. First, the proximity of the verb yādaʿ (“know”) in 19:8 with an unambiguously sexual sense colors the meaning of the verb in 19:5 more than Morschauser admits. Second, and more importantly, the narrative relating the separation of Abraham and Lot (Gen. 13) depicts the latter as selfish and materialistic. He chooses Sodom and the well-watered plains, even though 13:13 specifies clearly that this is a wicked city terribly offensive to God. The account of Abraham’s intercession in Gen. 18:16–33 also presupposes that Sodom is notoriously wicked. If Lot had become an official in the city, sitting in the gate in his official capacity, what does this say about his moral course? At the very least, he is living a terribly compromised existence even before the events of Gen. 19. Third, the parallels of Reuben and Judah offering themselves as substitute “hostages” prompt another reflection: why does not Lot offer himself as hostage, the way Reuben and Judah do, instead of his daughters, until the morning? Fourth, the parallel account in Judges of the estate owner who takes in the Levite and his concubine in the town of Gibeah cannot be set aside as quickly as Morschauser attempts to do. He thinks that the big difference is that the crowd banging on the door is described as “sons of Belial”—they are already a dangerous lot. Their initial demand, that they may “know” the visitor (Judg. 19:22), was also, as in Gen. 19, a demand to interrogate the man. But one wonders if this is a naive reading. The entire account shows how threatened the Levite and his concubine were as they traveled, and even how unsafe staying in the town square of Gibeah was likely to be. In other words, the estate owner’s insistence that they spend the night with him and not remain in the square has nothing to do with preventing them from casing the city but rather with trying to keep them safe. Similarly with respect to Gen. 19: granted that the city is already declared to be wicked, and granted that there is not a hint that Lot is trying to prevent the visitors from roaming freely through the city to prevent any possible spying activity, Morschauser’s reconstruction sounds too neat, not to say naive. Here and there it feels like exegesis by knowledge of comparable social custom that has to be read into the text rather than a straightforward reading of the text.
What must be said, however, is that even if part of Morschauser’s reconstruction is correct, and even if in consequence Lot appears more righteous than he otherwise would, he remains a flawed figure. But why should that surprise us? Abraham is a man of faith, beloved by God, but he is also a liar, and the latter does not undo the former. Despite his faith, he sleeps with Hagar because he cannot at that point see how God will provide him with the promised progeny by any other means. David is repeatedly said to be a man after God’s own heart, yet this man after God’s own heart seduces his neighbor’s wife and arranges for the death of her husband. One wonders what he would have done had he not been a man after God’s own heart! So also Lot: he is sufficiently a man of faith, a righteous man, that he joins his uncle Abraham in following the Lord, leaving Ur to travel they know not where. Although he makes the flawed decision to settle in the cities of the plains despite their reputation, there is no evidence that he becomes morally indistinguishable from them, and two important pieces of evidence suggest that he maintains some God-centered and righteous distinctions: (1) he listens to the angelic visitors when he is told to flee; (2) when Abraham pleads for the cities (Gen. 18) by appealing to the number of “righteous” people who may still be there, clearly he is including Lot in their number.
Sodom becomes proverbial for wickedness and judgment in the rest of the OT (see Isa. 1:9–10; Jer. 23:14; 50:40; Ezek. 16:46–56; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9).
C. The Context in Judaism. The literature of early Judaism boasts a very high number of references to Sodom (for summaries, see Brown 2002: 185–92; Loader 1990: 75–117). Some of the references spell out the sins of Sodom, primarily homosexuality and arrogance (e.g., 3 Macc. 2:5; Sir. 16:8; T. Levi 14:6; T. Naph. 3:4; Jub. 16:5–6; 2 En. 10:4. Wisdom 10:7 points to the barren wasteland of the Dead Sea plain as “evidence” (martyrion, “witness”) of God’s judgment, and 3 Macc. 2:5 specifically asserts that the destruction of the city makes them “an example to those who should come afterward” (RSV). By and large, the theme of Sodom’s judgment is not developed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it plays a major role in the thought of Philo and of Josephus. The NT likewise mentions Sodom in an almost proverbial way (e.g., Matt. 10:15; Luke 10:12; 17:29), though quite remarkably Jesus appeals to Sodom in Matt. 11:20–24 to argue that the city proverbial for its wickedness will have an easier time on the day of judgment than will the towns of Galilee in which Jesus disclosed himself in word and deed—a powerful way of making the point that in God’s accounting there are degrees of responsibility grounded in how much access to revelation we enjoy.
No less important for our purposes is how the literature of early Judaism refers to Lot. In some references Lot merely locates the Sodomites (e.g., they are “neighbors of Lot” [Sir. 16:8]). More commonly, however, Lot’s righteousness is emphasized. In Wis. 10:6 we are told that Wisdom “rescued” (errysato) this “righteous man” (dikaion)—terminology close to what is found in 2 Pet. 2:7. The same chapter puts Lot into a “righteous” category along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Israel under Moses (see also Wis. 19:17). Elsewhere, Jub. 12:30 puffs Lot a bit by making him Abraham’s adopted son and heir; in 1QapGen ar XX, 22–24 it is Lot who intercedes for Abraham when the latter is down in Egypt, and the same book refuses to mention Sodom’s wickedness when Lot and Abraham separate. Philo presents Lot as a thoroughly flawed individual (often in contrast to Abraham [e.g., Abraham 211–238; Moses 2.58]). His drunkenness and consequent incestuous relations with his daughters are categorized as willful ignorance (Drunkenness 162–164). By contrast, although Josephus’s account of Lot (largely scattered through Ant. 1.151–205) is fairly faithful to the biblical text, there is a tendency to make him a little more righteous than he is, primarily on the grounds that he is Abraham’s nephew and David’s ancestor.
D. Textual Matters. If the words katastrophē katekrinen (“he condemned them to extinction” [ESV]) are original, then it is quite possible that Peter is quoting Gen. 19:29 LXX directly. The combination of dikaion (“righteous man”) and errysato (“he rescued”) in 2 Pet. 2:7 (kai dikaion Lōt kataponoumenon hypo tēs tōn athesmōn en aselgeia anastrophēs errysato, “he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the impious”) makes it at least possible that Peter is relying on Wis. 10:6 (where the same two Greek words appear [on which, see §C above), though the two words are such obvious choices in this narrative that one cannot be sure.
E. Peter’s Use of the OT in 2:6–8. Whereas Jude appeals to the example of Sodom to underscore its eternal destruction, Peter again (as in the case of the flood and Noah) underscores a contrast—this time the contrast between the destruction of Sodom and the rescue of Lot. The differentiation between the two depends on Lot’s righteousness, of course, and so that point is elaborated in 2:8. Lot’s rescue ultimately was not from the Sodomites but rather from the wrath of God that befell the city. How much Peter’s emphasis on Lot’s righteousness is influenced by parallel Jewish sources from early Judaism we cannot ascertain. Peter’s emphasis may have been a parallel development based on similar inferences.
F. Theological Use. Peter’s concern is not only to show that God has made a distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous in the past but also thereby to argue that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment” (2:9) in the future and thus to influence behavior.
2:11
A brief note may be introduced here, rather exceptionally, to rule out an OT allusion. The parallel passage in Jude (v. 9) introduces the archangel Michael disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. At the very least, that requires today’s readers, when studying Jude, to think about the relationship between Deut. 34 (on the death of Moses) and later Jewish literature, in particular the lost Assumption of Moses (see commentary on Jude). Yet although 2 Pet. 2:11 is related to Jude 9 in some way, it makes no explicit mention of either Michael or Moses. Moreover, the passage has been so thoroughly rewritten that it is far from clear that Peter is duplicating Jude’s argument (for the options, see Davids 2006: 234–35). Even if Peter is following Jude’s general line of thought, however, because of the omission of Michael and Moses the most that can be said is that Peter is generalizing what Jude says. Since the allusion in Jude depends on the specificity of the mention of Moses, it follows that on any interpretation of 2 Pet. 2:11, where Moses has been dropped, the allusion is lost.
2:13
On the day of judgment the false teachers will be paid back (adikoumenoi) for the wrong (adikias) that they have done (2:13), although the false teachers themselves apparently deny that there will be any final day of judgment (3:3–5). Peter then adds a further charge: adapting the language of Jude 12, he accuses them of self-indulgence: “Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight.” This phrase “in broad daylight” is one of the factors that seem to make their offense particularly odious (the other is that they engage in their reveling even at the meal that some early Christians enjoyed together in connection with the Lord’s Supper: “reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you” [NIV]). Several OT writers view carousing during the daylight hours as particularly worthy of denunciation: “Woe to you, O land . . . whose princes feast in the morning” (Eccles. 10:16); “Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks” (Isa. 5:11). Similar denunciations can be found in the literature of early Judaism (e.g., T. Mos. 7:4).
2:15–16
A. NT Context: Wandering from the Truth toward Greed. Peter has already charged the false teachers with greed. Now he fleshes out this charge by providing an OT counterpart. Worse yet, these teachers were at one point faithful. Now “they have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness” (TNIV). The Greek behind “wandered off” (eplanēthēsan) is cognate with Jude’s mention of Balaam’s “error” (planē), although Balaam is the only one of the three persons whom Peter picks up from Jude 11 (the others are Cain and Korah). The rebuke that Balaam received from the donkey (2:16) was the result of miraculous intervention by God, but Peter emphasizes the ironic symbolism: Balaam’s sin was irrational, and he was rebuked by an irrational beast.
B. OT Context. The initial account of Balaam (Num. 22–24) provides such grist that Balaam’s name is picked up in many later OT texts (Num. 31:8, 16; Deut. 23:4–5; Josh. 13:22; 24:9–10; Neh. 13:2; Mic. 6:5). Most of these texts stress how God intervened so that Balaam was unable to pronounce the curses on Israel that Balak wanted to hear. The hint of the bad advice that Balaam gave Balak anyway comes in Num. 31:16. That bad advice, advocating the kind of enticement to sin that would bring God’s wrath down on Israel’s head, is what is picked up in Rev. 2:14 (though not, as we will see, in 2 Pet. 2).
C. The Context in Judaism. Balaam’s love for money surfaces in the work of Philo (Moses 1.268; Cherubim 33–34). Especially in the rabbinic literature one finds a strong emphasis on the view that Balaam ultimately received the appropriate “wages” of his wickedness: he was killed by Israel (Num. 31:8; cf. Sipre Num. 157 on Num. 31:9; Num. Rab. 22:4). For the rich lore of rabbinic tales on Balaam, most and perhaps all of which are later than 2 Peter, see the chart in Davids 2006: 253–56. Many of them assert that Balaam himself was sexually perverted—an interpretation grounded in the advice that he gave Balak to encourage cross-religious (and thus, from the perspective of the covenant, highly illegal) marriages.
D. Textual Matters. Several commentators (e.g., Neyrey 1993: 211–12; Bauckham 1988: 268; Davids 2006: 242–43) note that in the three Targumim on Numbers (Pseudo-Jonathan/Yerušalmi, Neofiti, Fragmentary Targum) the donkey actually rebukes Balaam instead of merely asking why he is being beaten (the biblical narrative leaves the actual rebuke for Balaam’s actions to the angel).
E. Peter’s Use of the OT in 2:15–16. When Peter says that the false teachers whom he is opposing have left “the straight way,” he is picking up on a locution not uncommon in the LXX (1 Kgdms. 12:23 [1 Sam. 12:23 ET]; Ps. 106:7 [107:7 ET]; Prov. 2:13, 16; Isa. 33:15; Hos. 14:10 [14:9 ET]), though it is not obvious that he is thinking of any particular passage. Apparently, what has made these false teachers wander away is greed, as Jude (11) also asserts with respect to those whom he is confronting. Many commentaries suggest that when Peter asserts, “But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey” (2:16 [Jude does not make this point]), he is in fact either relying on some source now unknown to us or reflecting the kind of tradition found in the Targumim (see above), the rabbis, and even in Philo (Names 203). This may be inferring too much. Compared with some of these accounts, Peter’s prose is remarkably sparse, and the words just cited need not require us to think that Peter holds that the entire content of the rebuke came from the donkey.
F. Theological Use. It is easy enough to compile a list of biblical warnings against a focus on wealth (see the admirable balance in Blomberg 1999). Closest in theological conception to this passage is perhaps 1 Tim. 6:3–10, where false teachers are denounced not only for the content of their instruction but also because they seem to think that godliness is a means to financial gain (6:5). “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered [apeplanēthēsan] from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (6:10). This is of a piece with Peter’s insistence that believers must live in the light of the prospect of a new heaven and a new earth (2 Pet. 3:8–13)—an emphasis that goes back to the teaching of the Lord Jesus himself (e.g., Matt. 6:19–21).
2:17
While Jude 12 asserts that the false teachers are “clouds without rain,” he probably is alluding to Prov. 25:14: “Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of gifts he does not give.” In 2 Pet. 2:17 Peter modifies “clouds without rain” and says the false teachers are “springs without water.” Both images picture promise without delivery, spiritual charlatans. The false teachers promise nurturing, refreshing “water” but provide none. The Bible is replete with images that connect water with wisdom, the law, instruction from God, and blessing, whereas aridity is linked to fruitlessness, chaff that must be burned, and forsaking God (e.g., Ps. 1:3–4; Prov. 13:14; 18:4; Jer. 2:18–19; 14:3; 17:5–8).
2:22
A. NT Context: The Unclean Return to the Unclean. Although Peter is making just one point—the false teachers are returning to their own unclean domain—he uses two proverbs to do so: (1) “A dog returns to its vomit”; (2) “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” Only the first is drawn from the OT (Prov. 26:11). Neither animal would have enjoyed a host of pleasant associations in the ancient world. For both pagans and Jews, dogs sometimes were used for various things (Isa. 56:10 can speak of a watchdog, and Job 30:1 of a sheepdog), but they were not regarded as pets or as “man’s best friend,” and most of the thirty-two OT occurrences of “dog” hold the animal in contempt. Pigs were kept and eaten in pagan circles but were regarded as ritually unclean by Jews, who therefore did not keep pigs at all. Jesus himself can link them in a highly negative context (Matt. 7:6). Here what makes them disgusting is that their very nature makes them return to what is disgusting or dirty.
B. OT Context. Proverbs 26 largely focuses on the behavior of the fool (vv. 1–12) and the sluggard (vv. 13–16), with the remainder of the chapter canvassing various forms of wicked and foolish behavior. Regarding 26:11, Murphy (1998: 200) writes, “The comparison to the dog’s action underlines the continuousness and sameness of the actions of fools; they never get out of the rut they are in, and they keep on making the same gaffes.” The proverb “juxtaposes a fool with the contemptible dog; his destructive folly with the dog’s vomit; and the fool’s incorrigibility with the dog’s repulsive nature to return to its vomit, to sniff at it, to lick it, and finally to eat it” (Waltke 2005: 354).
C. The Context in Judaism. Dogs continue with their unsavory reputation in the literature of early Judaism. More interesting perhaps for our investigation is the second proverb, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” We have no direct source, but there are comparable sentiments elsewhere. In Ahiqar, the Arabic version addresses the son: “Thou hast been to me like the pig who went into the hot bath with people of quality, and when it came out of the hot bath, it saw a filthy hole and it went down and wallowed in it” (cited in Bauckham 1988: 279).
D. Textual Matters. The second of the two proverbs in 2 Pet. 2:22 is missing the finite verb “returns” or “has returned,” which means that it is just barely possible to read eis kylismon borborou (“to wallow in the mud”) with lousamenē (“after washing”) to produce “a sow that washes herself by wallowing in the mire.” But this is as unnecessary as it is awkward, for proverbs often omit the main verb, which in any case is here presupposed from the first proverb.
E. Peter’s Use of the OT in 2:22. Peter does not have in view people who have been enthusiastic false teachers from the beginning of their professional lives, nor is he thinking of genuine Christians who, sadly, have slipped into some sort of temporary backsliding. The context shows (esp. 2:20–22) that these people once lived sinful and perhaps debauched lives but then for a time “escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2:20), but now they are again entangled in the world and all its corruptions. This is so serious a retrogression that Peter can declare, “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them” (2:21 TNIV). And so the two proverbs prove true (2:22), which means that the true nature of these people never changed. A dog may leave its vomit for a while but will return to it; a sow might well be spruced up and look clean but will still find a mud pit enticing.
F. Theological Use. A widespread NT theme insists that genuine believers persevere to the end (e.g., John 8:31; 1 Cor. 15:2; Col. 1:23; Heb. 3:6, 14; cf. 2 Pet. 1:10). Indeed, 1 John 2:19 makes it clear that if some leave the Christian community, their departure shows that at some deep level they never really belonged. One of the themes of the Epistle to the Hebrews is that the failure to persevere (see 3:14) is equivalent to apostasy (6:4–6; 10:26–31; cf. 1 Kings 21:27–29; 22:8, 37; Matt. 12:43–45). The two proverbs that Peter deploys in 2 Pet. 2:22 powerfully make the same point by insisting that the fundamental nature of such people remains unchanged.
This pair of verses refers to two huge events: the creation (Gen. 1–2) and the flood (Gen. 6–9). These two references make the same point, and that point is a little removed from the conclusion that Peter draws from his reference to the flood in the preceding chapter (2:5). There the distinction between what happened to people at large and what happened to Noah and his family establishes that God is perfectly willing and able to bring about a decisive judgment that makes crucial distinctions among people. Here the double reference to creation and flood is set in the context of scoffers who mock the notion of a second coming and disavow that there ever will be a catastrophic judgment. They hold to what would today be called uniformitarianism: “everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation” (3:4). But Peter says this sneering derision shows they “deliberately forget” (KJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, TEV, TNIV—almost certainly the correct rendering; the ESV has “deliberately overlook”) the creation and flood. When God made everything by his powerful word (Ps. 33:6; 148:5; cf. Heb. 11:3—a point also confessed by Wis. 9:1), heaven, water, earth all appeared, the latter apparently by the water withdrawing (Gen. 1:6–10). Lest anyone respond by saying, “Yes, yes—but since the creation, everything continues as it was,” Peter rushes on to add the flood: this creation that God made, God himself has already destroyed once. The Greek of 3:6 begins with di’ hōn (lit. “by these”), probably referring to the waters. This seems more plausible than the view that the deluge came about by water and word (Bauckham 1998: 298); although that is true, the point does not seem to be made until 3:7. Peter here seems to argue that by the same waters that were part of the creation, God brought about the deluge (recall Gen. 7:11 with two groups of waters combining to form the deluge; cf. similarly 1 En. 83:8). By the same powerful word by which God brought about creation and flood, Peter goes on to aver, the present heavens and earth are heading for the final destruction (3:7). In other words, God has not left himself without witness that he is willing and able to bring his own creation to decisive judgment, so sneering condescension is the very antithesis of a wise attitude to take when God announces that that is what is coming.
3:8
A. New Testament Context: God’s Timing Is Not Ours. Instead of refuting the false teachers directly, who have apparently been sneering at the notion of a second coming (3:3–7), Peter now turns to his Christian readers (note the “dear friends”) who, influenced perhaps by the skepticism of their opponents, are at least troubled by the delay: “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (3:9). Apparently there is an allusion to Ps. 90:4 (89:4 LXX): “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”
B. Old Testament Context. Psalm 90 (89 LXX) is described in the superscript as a “prayer of Moses the man of God.” The quoted words about a thousand years are part of a winsome and colorful argument to remind readers of God’s eternality and therefore his utterly stable reliability: “Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (90:1–2). In comparison, human life is utterly transient: “Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death—they are like the new grass of the morning: In the morning it springs up new, but by evening it is dry and withered” (90:5–6 TNIV). None of this powerful and colorful imagery, of course, is meant to establish an exact equivalence, as if Moses were interested in establishing that one thousand of our years is precisely equivalent to one day of God’s experience.
C. The Context in Judaism. Early Judaism (much of it later than 2 Peter) and early Christianity appealed to Ps. 90:4 “(1) to define the length of one of the days of creation, (2) to explain why Adam lived one thousand years after his sin, (3) to calculate the length of the Messiah’s day, and (4) to explain the length of the world” (Neyrey 1993: 238, with appropriate references). Some scholars have appealed to such passages as 2 En. 33:1–2 to suggest that our passage, 2 Pet. 3:8, is asserting that the day of judgment will be one thousand years long (e.g., von Allmen 1966: 262). Bauckham (1988: 308–9) links a number of passages together (Pirqe R. El. 28; Apoc. Ab. 28–30; 2 Bar. 43:12–13; L.A.B. 19:13) to argue that Ps. 90:4 was used in apocalyptic contexts to encourage believers to recognize that the End could be long delayed, even if in God’s time it was short, and that therefore the argument in 2 Pet. 3:8 plausibly derives from a Jewish apocalypse. Davids (2006: 276–77), rightly, is more cautious: there is no convincing evidence of dependence by Peter on any Jewish apocalypse, but the argument that Peter advances was “in the air,” and seems like a reasonable enough inference from Ps. 90:4 that more than one exegete could have drawn it at about the same time.
D. Textual Matters. As is common with allusions, the point of connection between these texts is so brief that textual matters do not come into play.
E. Peter’s Use of the OT in 3:8. Although Ps. 90:4 is designed to underscore God’s eternality and therefore his unfailing reliability over against human transience and without reference to the End, Peter’s application of this truth to how one thinks about God’s own perspective on how “soon” or “quickly” the End will come does not seem like much of a reach. It is an obvious inference, and is mirrored in others drawing a similar inference. Certainly it is far removed from the highly speculative literal inferences, without literary sensitivity, drawn from Ps. 90:4 by others about the length of creation days and the like.
F. Theological Use. Two further things must be said. First, the theological conclusion that the return of the Lord may be long delayed is of a piece with a large strand of NT evidence. For example, in Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25), Jesus can on the one hand tell a parable to warn his hearers that the coming of the Son of Man could be at any time, so they should always be ready (Matt. 24:36–43), and on the other tell a further parable to warn them that they need to make preparations for a long delay (Matt. 25:1–13). Second, God’s motives in what appears to us to be delay (2 Pet. 3:9) are tied with his desire that “everyone come to repentance”—and here, too, there is complementary NT witness (e.g., Rom. 2:4).
3:10
The expression “day of the Lord” appears about twenty times in the OT, especially in the prophets where it signals a visitation by God that brings in both salvation and judgment. It is impossible to nail down any one OT passage here as the background that Peter had in mind. It is more likely that he is picking up terminology that was standard by the time he wrote. In the NT, “the day of the Lord” is equivalent to “the day of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16).
3:12–13
A. NT Context: Waiting for the Consummation. These verses come at the end of a unit (3:3–13) in which Peter exhorts his readers to live in the light of the anticipated consummation. Living one’s life as if this world is all that matters is both shortsighted and stupid; worse, it belongs to the scoffers who “deliberately forget” (3:5) the patterns of God’s thorough judgment in the past, not least in the deluge. The only reason that the final judgment has not already taken place is that God “is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (3:9 [cf. Rom. 2:4]). But “the day of the Lord” (3:10) will come. Christians who live in the light of that anticipated judgment and consummation understand that it shapes how they live right now: “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells” (3:11–13 TNIV). In these lines Peter has picked up at least three OT allusions. One of them, “day of the Lord” or “day of God” (and the NT adds “day of Christ”), as we have seen, is so common that it cannot be traced to a single OT text, but the other two found in the present passage are distinctive.
B. OT Context. The two distinctive OT allusions are as follows. (1) Peter says that his readers “look forward to” the day of God, but he also says that they “speed its coming” (3:12). This latter clause ultimately depends on Isa. 60:22. The entire chapter of Isa. 60 has been promising the future glory of Israel, God’s covenant people. The language is spectacularly evocative. And at the end of it God promises, “I am the LORD; in its time I will hasten it.” Here, of course, it is the Lord who is hastening the day, not his obedient people. (2) Peter says that the day of the Lord brings both catastrophic judgment and triumphant renewal. On the one hand is the conflagration that burns up everything (3:12b); on the other hand is the promise of “a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells” (3:13). Here too Peter is drawing from Isaiah: “‘Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. . . .’ ‘As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,’ declares the LORD, ‘so will your name and descendants endure’” (Isa. 65:17; 66:22 NIV).
C. The Context in Judaism. (1) The notion of God hastening the day of judgment or vindication is picked up in the literature of early Judaism, for the most part making it clear that God, not the believers, is hastening the day (e.g., Sir. 36:10; 2 Bar. 20:1–2; 54:1; 83:1; L.A.B. 19:13). In rabbinic circles another tradition affirms that God hastens or delays the day based on Israel’s repentance or lack of repentance (see esp. b. Sanh. 97b–98a; see also y. Taʿan. 1:1; b. Yoma 86b), though it is uncertain that any of these traditions reach back to Peter’s time. Some have interpreted Acts 3:19–20 in the same light: “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah. . . .” (2) The need for a renewal of creation is also widely recognized in this literature, though usually not with the terminology of “a new heaven and a new earth” or the like (e.g., Jub. 1:29; 1 En. 45:4–5; 91:16; 2 Bar. 32:6; 47:2; 4 Ezra 7:71; L.A.B. 3:10). For a fuller discussion, see Bauckham 1988: 326.
D. Textual Matters. (1) The notion of hastening is found in the MT. It appears that the LXX translator had difficulty with the notion of God “hastening” the day, and gave an entirely different meaning (“I the Lord will gather them according to the time”). Nevertheless the “hastening” idea reverberates (as we have seen) through later Jewish thought. It should be remembered that the context of the Isaiah reference includes descriptions of cosmic phenomena (60:18–21, overlapping with, though not identical to, those found in 2 Pet. 3:10–13) and mention of the people’s eternal righteousness (cf. 2 Pet. 3:13, which thinks of the new heaven and the new earth, promises in Isa. 65 and 66, as “the home of righteousness”). The verb rendered “look forward to” or “wait for” in 2 Pet. 2:12 is prosdokeō; the corresponding verb in Isa. 60:22 LXX is hypomenō. Aquila’s Greek translation of the verb, however, coincides with that of 2 Peter, as does the usage in 2 Bar. 83:4. Peter may be relying on a Greek translation other than the LXX. (2) In 2 Pet. 2:13 Peter follows the LXX’s singular “heaven” rather than the Hebrew plural “heavens.”
E. Peter’s Use of the OT in 3:12–13. The appeal to the OT to point forward to the consummation of the kingdom is in line with the structure of NT eschatology elsewhere. That Isa. 60—a passage filled with promises for the restoration of Israel—can be cited in this regard and applied to the consummation of the entire church presupposes one of the commonest typologies that link the OT and the NT.
It may go beyond the evidence to argue that Acts 3:19–20 argues for a set of assumptions to the effect that Christians can actually hasten the time of Christ’s coming by their conduct (see §C above); strictly speaking, it does no such thing but instead simply insists that certain things must take place before the return of Christ, including the wiping out of the sins of many. There is no hint that if a greater number repent, or repent more quickly, then the times of refreshing and the return of Christ will thereby be expedited. Here in 2 Pet. 3:11–12, however, the notion of hastening the day of the Lord’s return is unavoidable. In one sense, of course, this is the corollary of God’s delaying the parousia in order to give more people time to repent (Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). “Their repentance and holy living may therefore, from the human standpoint, hasten its coming. This does not detract from God’s sovereignty in determining the time of the End . . . , but means only that his sovereign determination graciously takes human affairs into account” (Bauckham 1988: 325 [cf. Moo 1996: 198–99]).
F. Theological Use. The Isaianic promise of “a new heaven and a new earth” (LXX) is also picked up by Revelation’s final vision: Rev. 21:1, with its promise of a new heaven and a new earth, introduces the glorious description of the final state that follows the millennium and the judgment of God. The same vision can be cast without using the same words that Peter uses: the apostle Paul talks about the anticipated liberation of the entire creation from its bondage to decay (Rom. 8:18–25). It is doubtful that either Christian steadfastness or Christian morality, let alone Christian spirituality and Christian eschatology, can long be maintained without the dominance of this vision.
Bibliography
Avioz, M. 2006. “Josephus’s Portrayal of Lot and His Family.” JSP 16: 3–13.
Bauckham, R. J. 1988. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco: Word.
Begg, C. 1901. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Blomberg, C. L. 1999. Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions. NSBT 7. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Brown, D. E. 2002. “The Use of the Old Testament in 2 Peter 2:4–10A.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Callan, T. 2004. “Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter.” Bib 85: 42–64.
Calvin, J. 1979 [1551]. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. Translated by J. Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Cantinat, J. 1973. Les Épîtres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude. SB. Paris: Gabalda.
Cassuto, U. 1973. “The Episode of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Man.” Pages 29–40 in Biblical and Oriental Studies. Vol. 1. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Charles, J. D. 2005. “The Angels under Reserve in 2 Peter and Jude.” BBR 15: 39–48.
Clines, D. J. A. 1979. “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode [Genesis 6:1–4] in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ [Genesis 1–11].” JSOT 13: 33–46.
Davids, P. H. 2006. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dexinger, F. 1966. Sturz der Göttersöhne; oder, Engel vor der Sintflut? Versuch eines Neuverständnisses von Genesis 6, 2–4 unter Berücksichtigung der religionsvergleichenden und exegesegeschichtlichen Methode. WBT 13. Vienna: Herder.
Elliott, J. H. 1982. I–II Peter, Jude. ACNT. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
García Martínez, F. 1999. “Interpretations of the Flood in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 86–108 in Interpretations of the Flood. Edited by F. García Martínez and G. P. Luttikhuizen. TBN 1. Leiden: Brill.
Gispen, W. H. 1974. Genesis 1–11. COT. Kampen: Kok.
Green, E. M. B. 1968. The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Grundmann, W. 1974. Der Brief des Judas und der zweite Brief des Petrus. THKNT 15. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
Hillyer, N. 1992. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. NIBCNT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
James, M. R. 1912. The Second Epistle General of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. CGTSC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelly, J. N. D. 1969. The Epistles of Peter and of Jude. BNTC. London: Black.
Kline, M. G. 1961–1962. “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4.” WTJ 24: 184–204.
———. 1993. Kingdom Prologue. South Hamilton, MA: M. G. Kline.
Kraftchick, S. J. 2002. Jude, 2 Peter. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon.
Loader, J. A. 1990. A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Tradition. CBET 1. Kampen: Kok.
Mayor, J. B. 1979 [1901]. The Epistles of Jude and II Peter. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Moffatt, J. 1928. The General Epistles: James, Peter and Jude. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Moo, D. J. 1996. 2 Peter, Jude. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Morschauser, S. 2003. “‘Hospitality,’ Hostiles, and Hostages: On the Legal Background to Genesis 19.1–19.” JSOT 27: 461–85.
Murphy, R. E. 1998. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville: Nelson.
Neyrey, J. H. 1993. 2 Peter, Jude. AB 37C. New York: Doubleday.
Reicke, B. 1964. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. AB 37. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Schelkle, K. H. 1980. Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief. 5th ed. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder.
Schreiner, T. R. 2003. 1, 2 Peter, Jude: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.
Sidebottom, E. M. 1967. James, Jude and 2 Peter. NCB. London: Nelson.
Spicq, C. 1966. Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre. SB. Paris: Gabalda.
vanGemeren, W. H. 1981. “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?).” WTJ 43: 320–48.
Vögtle, A. 1994. Der Judasbrief, der 2. Petrusbrief. EKKNT 22. Solothurn: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
von Allmen, Daniel. 1966. “L’apocalyptique juive et le retard de la parousie en II Pierre 3:1–13.” RTP 16: 255–74.
Waltke, B. K. 2001. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
———. 2005. Proverbs 15–31. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wenham, G. J. 1987. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco: Word.
Yoshikawa, S. T. 2004. “The Prototypical Use of the Noahic Flood in the New Testament.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.