Verses 1-22
Chapter 2
2:1 There were times
when false prophets arose among the people, even as amongst you too
there will be false teachers, men who will insidiously introduce
destructive heresies and deny the Lord who bought them; and by so doing
they will bring swift destruction on themselves.
That there should arise false prophets within the Church was
something only to be expected, for in every generation false prophets
had been responsible for leading God's people astray and for bringing
disaster on the nation. It is worth while looking at the false prophets
in the Old Testament story for their characteristics were recurring in
the time of Peter and are still recurring today.
(i) The false prophets were more interested in gaining
popularity than in telling the truth. Their policy was to tell people
what they wanted to hear. The false prophets said, "Peace, peace, when
there is no peace" (Jeremiah 6:14). They saw visions of peace, when the Lord God was saying that there was no peace (Ezekiel 13:16).
In the days of Jehosaphat, Zedekiah, the false prophet, donned his
horns of iron and said that Israel would push the Syrians out of the way
as he pushed with these horns; Micaiah the true prophet foretold
disaster if Jehosaphat went to war. Of course, Zedekiah was popular and
his message was accepted; but Jehosaphat went forth to war with the
Syrians and perished tragically (1 Kings 22:1-53
). In the days of Jeremiah, Hananiah prophesied the swift end of the
power of Babylon, while Jeremiah prophesied the servitude of the nation
to her; and again the prophet who told people what they wished to hear
was the popular one (Jeremiah 28:1-17
). Diogenes, the great cynic philosopher, spoke of the false teachers
of his day whose method was to follow wherever the applause of the crowd
led. One of the first characteristics of the false prophet is that he
tells men what they want to hear and not the truth they need to hear.
(ii) The false prophets were interested in personal gain. As
Micah said, "Its priests teach for hire, and its prophets divine for
money" (Micah 3:11). They teach for filthy lucre's sake (Titus 1:11), and they identify godliness and gain, making their religion a money-making thing (1 Timothy 6:5).
We can see these exploiters at work in the early church. In The
Didache, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which is what might be
called the first service-order book, it is laid down that a prophet who
asks for money or for a table to be spread in front of him, is a false
prophet. "Traffickers in Christ," the Didache (compare Greek #1322)
calls such men (The Didache 11). The false prophet is a covetous
creature who regards men as dupes to be exploited for his own ends.
(iii) The false prophets were dissolute in their personal life.
Isaiah writes: "The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink; they
are confused with wine" (Isaiah 28:7).
Jeremiah says, "In the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible
thing; they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands
of evil-doers.... They lead my people astray by their lies and their
recklessness" (Jeremiah 23:14; Jeremiah 23:32). The false prophet in himself is a seduction to evil rather than an attraction to good.
(iv) The false prophet was above all a man who led other men
further away from God instead of closer to him. The prophet who invites
the people: "Let us go after other gods," must be mercilessly destroyed (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 18:20). The false prophet takes men in the wrong direction.
These were the characteristics of the false prophets in the
ancient days and in Peter's time; and they are their characteristics
still.
In this verse Peter has certain things to say about these false prophets and their actions.
(i) They insidiously introduce destructive heresies. The Greek for heresy is hairesis (Greek #139). It comes from the verb haireisthai (compare Greek #140),
which means to choose; and originally it was a perfectly honourable
word. It simply meant a line of belief and action which a man had chosen
for himself. In the New Testament we read of the hairesis (Greek #139) of the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Nazarenes (Acts 5:17; Acts 15:5; Acts 24:5). It was perfectly possible to speak of the hairesis (Greek #139)
of Plato and to mean nothing more than those who were Platonist in
their thought. It was perfectly possible to speak of a group of doctors
who practised a certain method of treatment as a hairesis (Greek #139). But very soon in the Christian Church hairesis (Greek #139) changed its complexion. In Paul's thought heresies and schisms go together as things to be condemned (1 Corinthians 11:18-19); haireseis (Greek #139)
(the plural form of the word) are part of the works of the flesh; a man
that is a heretic is to be warned and even given a second chance, and
then rejected (Titus 3:10).
Why the change? The point is that before the coming of Jesus,
who is the way, the truth, and the life, there was no such thing as
definite, God-given truth. A man was presented with a number of
alternatives any one of which he was perfectly free to choose to
believe. But with the coming of Jesus, God's truth came to men and they
had either to accept or to reject it. A heretic then became a man who
believed what he wished to believe instead of accepting the truth of God
which he ought to believe.
What was happening in the case of Peter's people was that
certain self-styled prophets were insidiously persuading men to believe
the things they wished to be true rather than the things which God had
revealed to be true. They did not set themselves up as opponents of
Christianity. Far from it. They set themselves up as the finest fruits
of Christian thinking; and so it was gradually and subtly that people
were being lured away from God's truth to other men's private opinions,
which is what heresy is.
(ii) These men denied the Lord who had bought them. This idea of
Christ buying men for himself is one which runs through the whole New
Testament. It comes from his own word that he had come to give his life a
ransom for many (Mark 10:45).
The idea was that men were slaves to sin and Jesus purchased them at
the cost of his life for himself, and, therefore, for freedom. "You were
bought with a price," says Paul (1 Corinthians 7:23). "Christ redeemed us (bought us out) from the curse of the law" (Galatians 3:13).
In the new song in the Revelation the hosts of heaven tell how Jesus
Christ bought them with his blood out of every kindred and tongue and
people and nation (Revelation 5:9).
This clearly means two things. It means that the Christian by right of
purchase belongs absolutely to Christ; and it means that a life which
cost so much cannot be squandered on sin or on cheap things.
The heretics in Peter's letter were denying the Lord who bought
them. That could mean that they were saying that they did not know
Christ; and it could mean that they were denying his authority. But it
is not as simple as that; one might say that it is not as honest as
that. We have seen that these men claimed to be Christians; more, they
claimed to be the wisest and the most advanced of Christians. Let us
take a human analogy. Suppose a man says that he loves his wife and yet
is consistently unfaithful to her. By his acts of infidelity he denies,
gives the lie to his words of love. Suppose a man protests eternal
friendship to someone, and yet is consistently disloyal to him. His
actions deny, give the lie to, his protestations of friendship. What
these evil men, who were troubling Peter's people, were doing, was to
say that they loved and served Christ, while the things they taught and
did were a complete denial of him.
(iii) The end of these evil men was destruction. They were
insidiously introducing destructive heresies, but these heresies would
in the end destroy themselves. There is no more certain way to ultimate
condemnation than to teach another to sin.
2:2-3 And many will
follow the way of their blatant immoralities and through them the true
way will be brought into disrepute. In their evil ambition they will
exploit you with cunningly forged arguments. Their sentence was settled
long ago, and now it is not inactive, and their destruction is not
asleep.
In this short passage we see four things about the false teachers and their teaching.
(i) We see the cause of false teaching. It is evil ambition. The word is pleonexia (Greek #4124); pleon (Greek #4119) means more and -exia comes from the verb echein (Greek #2192), which means to have. Pleonexia (Greek #4124)
is the desire to possess more but it acquires a certain flavour. It is
by no means always a sin to desire to possess more; there are many cases
in which that is a perfectly honourable desire, as in the case of
virtue, or knowledge, or skill. But pleonexia (Greek #4124)
comes to mean the desire to possess that which a man has no right to
desire, still less to take. So it can mean covetous desire for money and
for other people's goods; lustful desire for someone's person; unholy
ambition for prestige and power. False teaching comes from the desire to
put its own ideas in the place of the truth of Jesus Christ; the false
teacher is guilty of nothing less than of usurping the place of Christ.
(ii) We see the method of false teaching. It is the use of
cunningly forged arguments. Falsehood is easily resisted when it is
presented as falsehood; it is when it is disguised as truth that it
becomes menacing. There is only one touchstone. Any teacher's teaching
must be tested by the words and presence of Jesus Christ himself.
(iii) We see the affect of the false teaching. It was twofold.
It encouraged men to take the way of blatant immorality. The word is
aselgeia (Greek #766)
which describes the attitude of the man who is lost to shame and cares
for the judgment of neither man nor God. We must remember what was at
the back of this false teaching. It was perverting the grace of God into
a justification for sin. The false teachers were telling men that grace
was inexhaustible and that, therefore, they were free to sin as they
liked for grace would forgive.
This false teaching had a second effect. It brought Christianity
into disrepute. In the early days, just as now, every Christian was a
good or bad advertisement for Christianity and the Christian Church. It
is Paul's accusation to the Jews that through them the name of God has
been brought into disrepute (Romans 2:24).
In the Pastoral Epistles the younger women are urged to behave with
such modesty and chastity that the Church will never be brought into
disrepute (Titus 2:5).
Any teaching which produces a person who repels men from Christianity
instead of attracting them to it is false teaching, and the work of
those who are enemies of Christ.
(iv) We see the ultimate end of false teaching and that is
destruction. Sentence was passed on the false prophets long ago; the Old
Testament pronounced their doom (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
It might look as if that sentence had become inoperative or was
slumbering, but it was still valid, and the day would come when the
false teachers would pay the terrible price of their falsehood. No man
who leads another astray will ever escape his own judgment.
2:4-11 If God did not
spare even angels who had sinned, but condemned them to the lowest hell
and committed them to the pits of darkness, where they remain kept for
judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved in safety
Noah, the preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when he
despatched the flood on a world of impious men; if he reduced the cities
of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, when he sentenced them to destruction
and so gave an example of what would happen to those who would one day
act with impiety, but rescued righteous Lot, who was distressed by the
blatantly immoral conduct of lawless men, for, to such a man, righteous
in his looking and in his hearing, it was torture for his righteous soul
to live his daily life amidst such people and amidst such lawless
deeds--if all this is so, you can be sure that the Lord knows how to
rescue truly religious men from trial and how to preserve the
unrighteous under punishment, until the day of judgment comes,
especially those whose lives are dominated by the polluting lusts of the
flesh and who despise the celestial powers. Audacious, self-willed men
they are. they do not shrink from speaking evil of the angelic glories,
whereas angels who are greater in strength and power do not bring an
accusation of evil against them in the presence of the Lord.
Here is a passage which for us combines undoubted power and
equally undoubted obscurity. The white heat of its rhetorical intensity
glows through it to this day; but it moves in allusions which would be
terrifyingly effective to those who heard it for the first time, but
which have become unfamiliar to us today. It cites three notorious
examples of sin and its destruction; and in two of the cases it shows
how, when sin was obliterated, righteousness was rescued and preserved
by the mercy and the grace of God. Let us look at these examples one by
one.
(1) The Sin Of The Angels
Before we retell the story which lies behind this in Jewish legend, there are two separate words at which we must look.
Peter says that God condemned the sinning angels to the lowest
depths of hell. Literally the Greek says that God condemned the angels
to Tartarus (tartaroun, Greek #5020).
Tartarus was not a Hebrew conception but Greek. In Greek mythology
Tartarus was the lowest hell; it was as far beneath Hades as the heaven
is high above the earth. In particular it was the place into which there
had been cast the Titans who had rebelled against Zeus, the Father of
gods and men.
The second word is that which speaks of the pits of darkness.
Here there is a doubt. There are two Greek words, both rather uncommon,
which are confused in this passage. One is siros or seiros which
originally meant a great earthenware jar for the storing of grain. Then
it came to mean the great underground pits in which grain was stored and
which served as granaries. Siros has come into English via Provencal in
the form of silo, which still describes the towers in which grain is
stored. Still later the word went on to mean a pit in which a wolf or
other wild animal was trapped. If we think that this is the word which
Peter uses, and according to the best manuscripts it is, it will mean
that the wicked angels were cast into great subterranean pits and kept
there in darkness and in punishment. This well suits the idea of a
Tartarus beneath the lowest depths of Hades.
But there is a very similar word seira (Greek #4577), which means a chain. This is the word which the King James Version translates when it speaks of chains of darkness (2 Peter 2:4). The Greek manuscripts of Second Peter vary between seiroi (Greek #4577), pits, and seirai (Greek #4577), chains. But the better manuscripts have seiroi (Greek #4577), and pits o darkness makes better sense than chains of darkness; so we may take seiros (Greek #4577) as right, and assume that here the King James Version is in error.
The story of the fall of the angels is one which rooted itself
deeply in Hebrew thought and which underwent much development as the
years went on. The original story is in Genesis 6:1-5.
There the angels are called the sons of God, as they commonly are in
the Old Testament. In Job, the sons of God come to present themselves
before the Lord, and Satan comes amongst them (Job 1:6; compare Job 2:1; Job 38:7). The Psalmist speaks of the sons of gods (Psalms 89:6).
These angels came to earth and seduced mortal women. The result of this
lustful union was the race of giants; and through them wickedness came
upon the earth. Clearly this is an old, old story belonging to the
childhood of the race.
This story was much developed in the Book of Enoch, and it is
from it that Peter is drawing his allusions, for in his day that was a
book which everyone would know. In Enoch the angels are called The
Watchers. Their leader in rebellion was Semjaza or Azazel. At his
instigation they descended to Mount Hermon in the days of Jared, the
father of Enoch. They took mortal wives and instructed them in magic and
in arts which gave them power. They produced the race of the giants,
and the giants produced the nephilim (Hebrew #5303), the giants who inhabited the land of Canaan and of whom the people were afraid (Numbers 13:33).
These giants became cannibals and were guilty of every kind of
lust and crime, and especially of insolent arrogance to God and man. The
apocryphal literature has many references to them and their pride.
Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon 14:6) tells how the proud giants perished. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach 16:7)
tells how the ancient giants fell away in the strength of their
foolishness. They had no wisdom and they perished in their folly (Baruch 3:26-28).
Josephus says that they were arrogant and contemptuous of all that was
good and trusted in their own strength (Antiquities 1.3.1). Job says
that God charged his angels with folly (Job 4:18).
This old story makes a strange and fleeting appearance in the letters of Paul. In 1 Corinthians 11:10
Paul says that women must have their hair covered in the Church because
of the angels. Behind that strange saying lies the old belief that it
was the loveliness of the long hair of the women of the olden times
which moved the angels to desire, and Paul wishes to see that the angels
are not tempted again.
In the end even men complained of the sorrow and misery brought
into the world by these giants through the sin of the angels. The result
was that God sent out his archangels. Raphael bound Azazel hand and
foot and shut him up in darkness; Gabriel slew the giants; and the
Watchers, the sinning angels, were shut up in the abysses of darkness
under the mountains for seventy generations and then confined for ever
in everlasting fire. Here is the story which is in Peter's mind; and
which his readers well knew. The angels had sinned and God had sent his
destruction, and they were shut up for ever in the pits of darkness and
the depths of hell. That is what happens to rebellious sin.
The story does not stop there; and it reappears in another of its forms in this passage of Second Peter. In 2 Peter 2:10
Peter speaks of those who live lives dominated by the polluting lusts
of the flesh and who despise the celestial powers. The word is kuriotes (Greek #2963), which is the name of one of the ranks of angels. They speak evil of the angelic glories. The word is doxai (Greek #1391), which also is a word for one of the ranks of angels. They slander the angels and bring them into disrepute.
Here is where the second turn of the story comes in. Obviously
this story of the angels is very primitive and, as time went on, it
became rather an awkward and embarrassing story because of its
ascription of lust to angels. So in later Jewish and Christian thought
two lines of thought developed. First, it was denied that the story
involved angels at all. The sons of God were said to be good men who
were the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men were said to be
evil women who were the daughters of Cain and corrupted the good men.
There is no scriptural evidence for this distinction and this way of
escape. Second, the whole story was allegorised. It was claimed, for
instance by Philo, that it was never meant to be taken literally and
described the fall of the human soul under the attack of the seductions
of lustful pleasures. Augustine declared that no man could take this
story literally and talk of the angels like that. Cyril of Alexandria
said that it could not be taken literally, for did not Jesus say that in
the after-life men would be like angels and there would be no marrying
or giving in marriage (Matthew 22:30)?
Chrysostom said that, if the story was taken literally, it was nothing
short of blasphemy. And Cyril went on to say that the story was nothing
other than an incentive to sin, if it was taken as literally true.
It is clear that men began to see that this was indeed a
dangerous story. Here we get our clue as to what Peter means when he
speaks of men who despise the celestial powers and bring the angelic
glories into disrepute by speaking slanderously of them. The men whom
Peter was opposing were turning their religion into an excuse for
blatant immorality. Cyril of Alexandria makes it clear that in his day
the story could be used as an incentive to sin. Most probably what was
happening was that the wicked men of Peter's time were citing the
example of the angels as a justification for their own sin. They were
saying, "If angels came from heaven and took mortal women, why should
not we?" They were making the conduct of the angels an excuse for their
own sin.
We have to go still further with this passage. In 2 Peter 2:11
it finishes very obscurely. It says that angels who are greater in
strength and in power do not bring a slanderous charge against them in
the presence of God. Once again Peter is speaking allusively, in a way
that would be clear enough to the people of his day but which is obscure
to us. His reference may be to either of two stories.
(a) He may be referring to the story to which Jude refers in Jd 9
; that the archangel Michael was entrusted with the burying of the body
of Moses. Satan claimed the body on the grounds that all matter
belonged to him and that once Moses had murdered an Egyptian. Michael
did not bring a railing charge against Satan; all he said was: "The Lord
rebuke you." The point is that even an angel so great as Michael would
not bring an evil charge against an angel so dark as Satan. He left the
matter to God. If Michael refrained from slandering an evil angel, how
can men bring slanderous charges against the angels of God?
(b) He may be referring to a further development of the Enoch
story. Enoch tells that when the conduct of the giants on earth became
intolerable, men made their complaint to the archangels Michael, Uriel,
Gabriel and Raphael. The archangels took this complaint to God; but they
did not rail against the evil angels who were responsible for it all;
they simply took the story to God, for him to deal with (Enoch 9).
As far as we can see today, the situation behind Peter's
allusions is that the wicked men who were the slaves of lust claimed
that the angels were their examples and their justification and so
slandered them; Peter reminds them that not even archangels dared
slander other angels and demands how men can dare to do so.
This is a strange and difficult passage; but the meaning is
clear. Even angels, when they sinned, were punished. How much more shall
men be punished? Angels could not rebel against God and escape the
consequences. How shall men escape? And men need not seek to put the
blame on others, not even on angels; nothing but their own
rebelliousness is responsible for their sin.
(2) The Men Of The Flood And The Rescue Of Noah
The second illustration of the destruction of wickedness which Peter
chooses may be said to lead on from the first. The sin introduced into
the world by the sinning angels led to that intolerable sin which ended
in the destruction by the deluge (Genesis 6:5).
In the midst of this destruction God did not forget those who had clung
to him, Noah was saved together with seven others, his wife, his sons,
Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives. In Jewish tradition Noah
acquired a very special place. Not only was he regarded as the one man
who had been saved; but also as the preacher who had done his best to
turn men from the evil of their ways. Josephus says, "Many angels of God
lay with women and begat sons, who were violent and who despised all
good, on account of their reliance on their own strength.... But Noah
displeased and distressed at their behaviour, tried to induce them to
alter their dispositions and conduct for the better" (Antiquities
1.3.1).
Attention in this passage is concentrated not so much on the
people who were destroyed as on the man who was saved. Noah is offered
as the type of man who, amidst the destruction of the wicked, receives
the salvation of God. His outstanding qualities were two.
(i) In the midst of a sinning generation he remained faithful to
God. Later Paul was to urge his people to be not conformed to the world
but transformed from it (Romans 12:2).
It may well be said that often the most dangerous sin of all is
conformity. To be the same as others is always easy; to be different is
always difficult. But from the days of Noah until now he who would be
the servant of God must be prepared to be different from the world.
(ii) The later legends pick out another characteristic of Noah.
He was the preacher of righteousness. The word for preacher used here is
kerux (Greek #2783), which literally means a herald. Epictetus called the philosopher the kerux (Greek #2783)
of the gods. The preacher is the man who brings to men an announcement
from God. Here is something of very considerable significance. The good
man is concerned not only with the saving of his own soul but just as
much with the saving of the souls of others. He does not, in order to
preserve his own purity live apart from men. He is concerned to bring
God's message to them. A man ought never to keep to himself the grace
which he has received. It is always his duty to bring light to those who
sit in darkness, guidance to the wanderer and warning to those who are
going astray.
(3) The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah And The Rescue Of Lot
The third example is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the rescue of Lot.
The terrible and dramatic story is told in Genesis 18:1-33; Genesis 19:1-38.
It begins with Abraham's plea that God should not destroy the righteous
with the guilty and his request that, if even ten just men are found in
these cities, they may be spared (Genesis 18:16-33). Then follows one of the grimmest tales in the Old Testament.
The angelic visitors came to Lot and he persuaded them to stay
with him; but his house was surrounded by the men of Sodom demanding
that these strangers might be brought out for them to use for their
unnatural lust (Genesis 19:1-11).
By that terrible deed--at once the abuse of hospitality, the insulting
of angels and the raging of unnatural lust--the doom of the cities was
sealed. As the destruction of heaven came upon them Lot and his family
were saved, except his wife, who lingered and looked back and turned
into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:12-26).
"So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God
remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when
he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt" (Genesis 19:29).
Here again is the story of the destruction of sin and the rescue of
righteousness. As in Noah, we see in Lot the characteristics of the
righteous man.
(i) Lot lived in the midst of evil, and the very sight of it was
a constant distress to him. Moffatt reminds us of the saying of Newman:
"Our great security against sin lies in being shocked at it." Here is
something very significant. It often happens that, when evils first
emerge, people are shocked at them; but, as time goes on, they cease to
be shocked at them and accept them as a matter of course. There are many
things at which we ought to be shocked. In our own generation there are
the problems of prostitution and promiscuity, drunkenness and drugs,
the extraordinary gambling fever which has the country in its grip, the
breakdown of the marriage bond, violence, vandalism and crime, death
upon the roads, still-existing slum conditions and many others. In many
cases the tragedy is that these things have ceased to shock and are
accepted in a matter-of-fact style as part of the normal order of
things. For the good of the world and of our own souls, we must keep
alive the sensitiveness which is shocked by sin.
(ii) Lot lived in the midst of evil, and yet he escaped its
taint. Amidst the sin of Sodom he remained true to God. If a man will
remember it, he has in the grace of God an antiseptic which will
preserve him from the infection of sin. No man need be the slave of the
environment in which he happens to find himself.
(iii) When the worst came to the worst, Lot was willing to make a
clean break with his environment. He was prepared, however much he did
not want to do so, to leave it for ever. It was because his wife was not
prepared to make the clean break that she perished. There is a strange
verse in the Old Testament story. It says that, when Lot lingered, the
angelic messengers took hold of his hand (Genesis 19:16).
There are times when the influence of heaven tries to force us out of
some evil situation. It may come to any man to have to make the choice
between security and the new start; and there are times when a man can
save his soul only by breaking clean away from his present situation and
beginning all over again. It was in doing just this that Lot found his
salvation; and it was in failing to do just this that his wife lost
hers.
2 Peter 2:9-11
give us a picture of the evil man. Peter with a few swift, vivid
strokes of the pen paints the outstanding characteristics of him who may
properly be called the bad man.
(i) He is the desire-dominated man. His life is dominated by the lusts of the flesh. Such a man is guilty of two sins.
(a) Every man has two sides to his nature. He has a physical
side; he has instincts, passions and impulses which he shares with the
animal creation. These instincts are good--if they are kept in their
proper place. They are even necessary for the preservation of individual
life and the continuation of the race. The word temperament literally
means a mixture. The picture behind it is that human nature consists of a
large variety of ingredients all mixed together. It is clear that the
efficacy of any mixture depends on each ingredient being there in its
proper proportion. Wherever there is either excess or defect the mixture
is not what it ought to be. Man has a physical nature and also a
spiritual nature; and manhood depends on a correct mixture of the two.
The desire-dominated man has allowed his animal nature to usurp a place
it should not have; he has allowed the ingredients to get out of
proportion and the recipe for manhood has gone wrong.
(b) There is a reason for this loss of proportion--selfishness.
The root evil of the lust-dominated life is that it proceeds on the
assumption that nothing matters but the gratification of its own desires
and the expression of its own feelings. It has ceased to have any
respect or care for others. Selfishness and desire go hand in hand.
The bad man is he who has allowed one side of his nature a far
greater place than it ought to have and who has done so because he is
essentially selfish.
(ii) He is the audacious man. The Greek is tolmetes (Greek #5113), from the verb tolman (Greek #5111),
to dare. There are two kinds of daring. There is the daring which is a
noble thing, the mark of true courage. There is the daring which is an
evil thing, the shameless performance of things which are an affront to
decency and right. As the character in Shakespeare had it: "I dare do
all becomes a man. Who dares do more is none." The bad man is he who has
the audacity to defy the will of God as it is known to him.
(iii) He is the self-willed man. Self-willed is not really an adequate translation. The Greek is authades (Greek #829), derived from autos (Greek #846),
self, and hadon, pleasing, and used of a man who had no idea of
anything other than pleasing himself. In it there is always the element
of obstinacy. If a man is authades (Greek #829),
no logic, nor common sense, nor appeal, nor sense of decency will keep
him from doing what he wants to do. As R. C. Trench says, "Thus
obstinately maintaining his own opinion, or asserting his own rights, he
is reckless of the rights, opinions and interests of others." The man
who is authades (Greek #829)
is stubbornly and arrogantly and even brutally determined on his own
way. The bad man is he who has no regard for either human appeal or
divine guidance.
(iv) He is the man who is contemptuous of the angels. We have
already seen how this goes back to allusions in Hebrew tradition which
are obscure to us. But it has a wider meaning. The bad man insists on
living in one world. To him the spiritual world does not exist and he
never hears the voices from beyond. He is of the earth earthy. He has
forgotten that there is a heaven and is blind and deaf when the sights
and sounds of heaven break through to him.
2:12-14 But these,
like brute beasts, knowing no law but their instincts, born only for
capture and corruption, speak evil of the things about which they know
nothing; they will be destroyed with their own corruption, and, like a
man who is cheated, they will even lose the reward at which their
iniquity aimed. They regard daylight debauchery as pleasure. They are
spots and blots, revelling in their dissipations, carousing in their
cliques amongst you. They have eyes full of adultery, eyes which can
never gaze their fill on sin. They entrap souls which are not firmly
founded in the faith. They have a heart which is trained in unbridled
ambition for the things they have no right to have. They are accursed.
Peter launches out into a long passage of magnificent
invective. Through it glows the fiery heat of flaming moral indignation.
The evil men are like brute beasts, slaves of their animal
instincts. But a beast is born only for capture and death, says Peter;
it has no other destiny. Even so, there is something self-destroying in
fleshly pleasure. To make such pleasure the be-all and the end-all of
life is a suicidal policy and in the end even the pleasure is lost. The
point Peter is making is this, and it is eternally valid--if a man
dedicates himself to these fleshly pleasures, in the end he so ruins
himself in bodily health and in spiritual and mental character, that he
cannot enjoy even them. The glutton destroys his appetite in the end,
the drunkard his health, the sensualist his body, the self-indulgent his
character and peace of mind.
These men regard daylight debauchery, dissipated revelling,
abandoned carousing as pleasure. They are blots on the Christian
fellowship; they are like the blemishes on an animal, which make it
unfit to be offered to God. Once again we must note that what Peter is
saying is not only religious truth but also sound common sense. The
pleasures of the body are demonstrably subject to the law of diminishing
returns. In themselves they lose their thrill, so that as time goes on
it takes more and more of them to satisfy. The luxury must become ever
more luxurious; the wine must flow ever more freely; everything must be
done to make the thrill sharper and more intense. Further, a man becomes
less and less able to enjoy these pleasures. He has given himself to a
life that has no future and to pleasure which ends in pain.
Peter goes on. In 2 Peter 2:14
he uses an extraordinary phrase which, strictly, will not translate
into English at all. We have translated it: "They have eyes full of
adultery." The Greek literally is: "They have eyes which are full of an
adulteress." Most probably the meaning is they see a possible adulteress
in every woman, wondering how she can be persuaded to gratify their
lusts. "The hand and the eye," said the Jewish teachers, "are the
brokers of sin." As Jesus said, such people look in order to lust (Matthew 5:28). They have come to such a stage that they cannot look on anyone without lust's calculation.
As Peter speaks of this, there is a terrible deliberateness
about it. They have hearts trained in unbridled ambition for the things
they have no right to have. We have taken a whole phrase to translate
the one word pleonexia (Greek #4124)
which means the desire to have more of the things which a man has no
right even to desire, let alone have. The picture is a terrible one. The
word used for trained is used for an athlete exercising himself for the
games. These people have actually trained their minds to concentrate on
nothing but the forbidden desire. They have deliberately fought with
conscience until they have destroyed it; they have deliberately
struggled with their finer feelings until they have strangled them.
There remains in this passage one further charge. It would be
bad if these people deluded only themselves; it is worse that they
delude others. They entrap souls not firmly founded in the faith. The
word used for to entrap is deleazein (Greek #1185),
which means to catch with a bait. A man becomes really bad when he sets
out to make others as bad as himself. The hymn has it:
All the mischief we have wrought,
All forbidden things we've sought,
All the sin to others taught:
Forgive, O Lord, for Jesus' sake.
Every man must bear the responsibility for his own sins, but to
add to that the responsibility for the sins of others is to carry an
intolerable burden.
2:15-16 They have left
the straight road and have gone awandering, and have followed the road
of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the profit which unrighteousness
brings and who was convicted of his lawlessness. A dumb ass spoke with a
man's voice and checked the prophet's folly.
Peter likens the evil men of his time to the prophet Balaam. In
the popular Jewish mind Balaam had come to stand as the type of all
false prophets. His story is told in Numbers 22:1-41; Numbers 23:1-30; Numbers 24:1-25.
Balak, King of Moab, was alarmed at the steady and apparently
irresistible advance of the Israelites. In an attempt to check it he
sent for Balaam to come and curse the Israelites for him, offering him
great rewards. To the end of the day Balaam refused to curse the
Israelites, but his covetous heart longed after the rich rewards which
Balak was offering. At Balak's renewed request Balaam played with fire
enough to agree to meet him. On the way his ass stopped, because it saw
the angel of the Lord standing in its path, and rebuked Balaam.
It is true that Balaam did not succumb to Balak's bribes, but if ever a man wanted to accept a bribe, that man was he. In Numbers 25:1-18
there follows another story. It tells how the Israelites were seduced
into the worship of Baal and into lustful alliances with Moabite women.
Jewish belief was that Balaam was responsible for leading the children
of Israel astray; and when the Israelites entered into possession of the
land, "Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword" (Numbers 31:8).
In view of all this Balaam became increasingly the type of the false
prophet. He had two characteristics which were repeated in the evil men
of Peter's day.
(i) Balaam was covetous. As the Numbers story unfolds we can see
his fingers itching to get at the gold of Balak. True, he did not take
it; but the desire was there. The evil men of Peter's day were covetous;
out for what they could get and ready to exploit their membership of
the Church for gain.
(ii) Balaam taught Israel to sin. He led the people out of the
straight and into the crooked way. He persuaded them to forget their
promises to God. The evil men of Peter's day were seducing Christians
from the Christian way and causing them to break the pledges of loyalty
they had given to Jesus Christ.
The man who loves gain and who lures others to evil for ever stands condemned.
2:17-22 These people
are waterless springs, mists driven by a squall of wind; and the gloom
of darkness is reserved for them. With talk at once arrogant and futile,
they ensnare by appeals to shameless, sensual passions those who are
only just escaping from the company of those who live in error.
promising them freedom, while they themselves are the slaves of moral
corruption; for a man is in a state of slavery to that which has reduced
him to helplessness.
If they have escaped
the pollution of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, and if they allow themselves again to become involved in
these things and to be reduced to moral helplessness by them, the last
state is for them worse than the first. It would be better for them not
to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then to
turn back from the holy commandment which was handed down to them. In
them the truth of the proverb is plain to see: "A dog returns to his own
vomit" and "The sow which has been washed returns to rolling in the
mud."
Peter is still rolling out his tremendous denunciation of the evil men.
They flatter only to deceive. They are like wells with no water
and like mists blown past by a squall of wind. Think of a traveller in
the desert being told that ahead lies a spring where he can quench his
thirst and then arriving at that spring to find it dried up and useless.
Think of the husbandman praying for rain for his parched crops and then
seeing the cloud that promised rain blown uselessly by. As Bigg has it:
"A teacher without knowledge is like a well without water." These men
are like Milton's shepherds whose "hungry sheep look up and are not
fed." They promise a gospel and in the end have nothing to offer the
thirsty soul.
Their teaching is a combination of arrogance and futility.
Christian liberty always carries danger. Paul tells his people that they
have indeed been called to liberty but that they must not use it for an
occasion to the flesh (Galatians 5:13). Peter tells his people that indeed they are free but they must not use their freedom as a cloak of maliciousness (1 Peter 2:16).
These false teachers offered freedom, but it was freedom to sin as much
as a man liked. They appealed not to the best but to the worst in a
man. Peter is quite clear that they did this because they were slaves to
their own lusts. Seneca said, "To be enslaved to oneself is the
heaviest of all servitudes." Persius spoke to the lustful debauchees of
his day of "the masters that grow up within that sickly breast of
yours." These teachers were offering liberty when they themselves were
slaves, and the liberty they were offering was the liberty to become
slaves of lust. Their message was arrogant because it was the
contradiction of the message of Christ; it was futile because he who
followed it would find himself a slave. Here again in the background is
the fundamental heresy which makes grace a justification for sin instead
of a power and a summons to nobility.
If they have once known the real way of Christ and have relapsed
into this, their case is even worse. They are like the man in the
parable whose last state was worse than his first (Matthew 12:45; Luke 11:26).
If a man has never known the right way, he cannot be condemned for not
following it. But, if he has known it and then deliberately taken the
other way, he sins against the light; and it were better for him that he
had never known the truth, for his knowledge of the truth has become
his condemnation. A man should never forget the responsibility which
knowledge brings.
Peter ends with contempt. These evil men are like dogs who return to their vomit (Proverbs 26:11)
or like a sow which has been scrubbed and then goes back to rolling in
the mud. They have seen Christ but are so morally degraded by their own
choice that they prefer to wallow in the depths of sin rather than to
climb the heights of virtue. It is a dreadful warning that a man can
make himself such that in the end the tentacles of sin are inextricably
around him and virtue for him has lost its beauty.
-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)