Peter’s reference to the prophetic message now leads him to expound on the nature of prophecy and how it is interpreted. It is possible, as has been suggested in the discussion of the previous passage, that the false teachers have raised this issue and have objected to the way the prophetic word is being used to prove the truth of certain Christian teachings. It is in answer to these objections that Peter now explains the nature of prophecy. In this verse an individualistic approach to the interpretation of prophecy is rejected.

The expression First of all you must understand this marks out the statement that follows as very important and deserving of special attention. Similar phrases are used in other parts of the New Testament, such as Luke 12.39 (“But know this”), Gal 3.7 (“So you see”), and 2 Tim 3.1 (“But understand this”). In many languages the mention of “first” demands a “second,” but since there is no “second,” then the sense of importance needs to be substituted for “first”; for example, “The most important thing is that you understand….” It is not clear whether the information about to be shared is new or already known to the readers.

What is the meaning of the statement no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation? Scripture most certainly refers to the Old Testament, and prophecy to particular parts of the Old Testament, primarily those parts that foretell future events. However, it is possible to take prophecy here and in verse 21 with the meaning “message from God,” in which case prophecy of scripture can be translated “the message of God contained in the Scriptures,” or possibly “a message announced by one of God’s messengers, which is contained in the Scriptures.”

Interpretation is a Greek word that occurs only here in the New Testament. Both the noun and the related verb are used for the explanation of riddles, puzzles, dreams, parables, and difficult passages of scripture. The Greek word translated is a matter of in this context can also be translated “belongs to” or “comes under the scope of.” But who is referred to in the expression one’s own interpretation? As we will see, the answer to this question is decisive in determining the meaning of the whole statement, as the following possibilities show:

1. If one’s own is understood as referring to any person, then the statement can mean that no one can explain or interpret a prophecy of scripture with the use of his or her own powers alone. This meaning is echoed in some translations such as Good News Translation “no one can explain by himself a prophecy in the Scriptures,” Phillips “no prophecy of scripture can be interpreted by a single human mind,” and An American Translation “no prophecy of scripture can be understood through one’s own powers.” This connects the interpretation to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as stated in verse 21.

2. The statement can mean that what is being denied is private individual interpretation of prophecy; in this case what is being indirectly affirmed is the importance of the church or the Christian community. This is echoed in some translations as well; for example, Jerusalem Bible “the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual.”

3. If, however, one’s own is taken to refer to the prophet himself, then the statement would mean that the interpretation of scripture is not dependent on the prophet’s own ideas or efforts. Again, this is echoed in some translations; for example, New International Version “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.”

Of these three alternatives, the first two seem preferable, with the second having a slight preference over the first. Taken as a whole, then, the statement is not suggesting that personal reading, reflection and interpretation of scripture is wrong. Rather the statement most probably asserts that the prophetic message should not be interpreted according to a person’s whims and fancies. This is of course directed at the false teachers referred to in the next two chapters, who are diluting Christian teaching and twisting it to suit their own fanciful ideas.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• The most important thing is that you understand that no one is able through his own ability (or, power) to explain a prophecy of God (or, a message announced by one of God’s spokesmen) which is contained in the Scriptures.

Or:
• … that you understand that one’s own interpretation of prophecy in the Scriptures is not the most important.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The Lord may refer either to God or to Christ, but in the context of this whole passage it may be best to take Lord in these three verses as referring to God.

Slow comes from a verb that can mean “to delay,” “to linger,” “to be slack,” “to be late,” especially in reference to a designated or determined time. What is being denied here is the allegation of some people that God is slow about his promise, that is, he is negligent in fulfilling his promise at the appointed time. Promise ties this statement to the question in verse 4. Apparently the delay of the Parousia had been interpreted to mean that God was either indifferent or powerless to fulfill what he had promised. The phrase not slow about his promise may also be rendered as “not negligent (or, slow) in making what he promised to do happen.” As some count slowness can be expanded in translation; for example, “as some people think…” or “as some people think slowness means.”

Peter accepts that there is some delay, but he says that the delay has a positive purpose. It shows first of all that God is forbearing. This word, sometimes rendered as “longsuffering” or “patient,” is that quality of God which allows him to be somewhat lenient with sinners, in the sense that he refrains from punishing them immediately, but instead gives then an opportunity to turn back from their sins and thus escape receiving the punishment they deserve. (See also how “God’s patience waited” in 1 Peter 3.20.) God’s patience is here made to relate directly to the readers of the letter: he is patient toward you. Forbearing is literally “long-souled” and may be translated idiomatically in some languages as “having a big heart” or “large-hearted.”

As the Revised Standard Version footnote shows, there is a textual problem here. Instead of the preposition toward (Greek eis), some manuscripts have “on account of” (Greek dia), which is reflected in some translations such as Moffatt “he is longsuffering for your sake.” The meaning is not all that different, since both single out the readers as the object of God’s patience, and both equally affirm that this is for their own benefit. Most modern translations follow the text reflected in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. You is strange in this context, since he has been speaking about others, especially scoffers; perhaps it is used here to indicate God’s great concern for the readers of the letter, but it is also possible that many of the readers have begun to succumb to the influence of the false teachers, and therefore would need sufficient time to renounce their heretical beliefs and ungodly practices. At any rate, the strangeness of you in this verse remains, and this has led to the change of you to “us” in some manuscripts, as the UBS Greek New Testament indicates (and see King James Version “is longsuffering to us-ward”). It is clear, however, from the conclusions of textual scholars, that the primary reading here is not “us” but you.

Related to God’s patience is his not wishing that any should perish. Wishing comes from a verb that means “to want,” “to desire,” “to will.” Perish is “be lost” (New English Bible) or “be destroyed” (Good News Translation) as a result of God’s judgment. The phrase not wishing that any should perish may be rendered in some languages as “not wanting anyone to receive destruction” or “not wanting anyone to suffer destruction.” Any emphasizes God’s encompassing desire to save people from punishment; he doesn’t want even one person to be destroyed. The last part of the verse expresses the same idea positively: as a patient God, he wants all to reach repentance, that is “to turn away from their sins” (Good News Translation). The term repentance includes the negative element of turning away from evil and the positive element of doing God’s will. Thus we may translate as “turn away from evil and follow God’s will,” or idiomatically as “change their hearts and return to God.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• The Lord is not slow in making (or, causing) what he promised to do happen, as some people think slowness means (or, is). Instead, he is big-hearted toward you, because he doesn’t want anyone to suffer destruction, but wants all people to turn away from their sins and return to him.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

In the previous verse Peter mentioned the unrighteous, a general term for sinners. In the present verse he moves on from the general statement and identifies two kinds of acts that will meet with the most severe punishment: sexual immorality and defiance of authority.

Especially translates an adverb in the superlative degree. Here it indicates that the Lord will mark the sinners mentioned here as deserving punishment more than any other sinners. Translators may have to use other ways of saying this, such as “and he will punish more than anyone else those who…,” or “most of all, punishment will fall upon those who…,” or changing to a superlative adjective phrase, “and the most evil will be those who….”

Indulge in the lust of defiling passion is literally “go (or, walk) after the flesh in desire (or, lust) of defilement (or, pollution).” Indulge, or “walk,” has the extended meaning of “order one’s life,” “conduct oneself,” “follow a certain course of action.” “Flesh” here is used in the ethical or moral sense, “totally depraved human nature,” and is related to corrupt and unlawful sexual acts. “To walk after the flesh” therefore means, in this context, habitually engaging in sinful sexual practices. “Desire” is here used in the bad or derogatory sense of lust. Defiling translates a word that can literally mean “spot” or “stain” and is often used to describe a state of being ritually unclean. In this context, however, it is used in a moral sense referring primarily to impurity as a result of evil actions. The whole expression lust of defiling passion then means lust that is corrupt, “filthy bodily lusts” (Good News Translation), “lust that makes people impure,” or “lust that pollutes people.” The first clause may also be expressed as “habitually engage in sinful (sexual) practices that make them morally impure.”

Despise authority is related to a similar expression in Jude 8. However, there are some differences in meaning and emphasis. Whereas in Jude it is possible to interpret authority as referring to angelic beings or even to human authority in general, here the meaning is more likely to be the authority of God or the authority of Christ. And since Lord in verse 9 most probably refers to God, then the authority spoken of here is probably God’s more than Christ’s. If, however, the present verse is related to 2.1, then it is Christ’s authority that is in focus. In any case, the former seems to be the most likely interpretation in this context. Other ways to say this are “refuse to obey God when he commands them” or “consider that God has no right to rule over them.”

The false teachers are first described as Bold and wilful and not afraid to revile the glorious ones. The word for Bold can also mean “daring” or “audacious,” but here it is used in a negative sense, “reckless,” “brazen,” “presumptuous” (for which see Jude 9 “did not presume,” Good News Translation “did not dare”). The word for wilful can mean “stubborn,” “arrogant,” “headstrong,” “self-willed,” “obstinate,” and is a fitting description of people who feel sufficient to themselves and who always want to have their own way regardless of the consequences. In certain languages wilful may be expressed idiomatically. Examples are “having a high heart or liver” or “having a rising heart or liver,” but used in a negative, uncomplimentary, contemptuous, or unflattering manner.

The false teachers show their recklessness and obstinacy in their attitude toward the glorious ones. This is the same term found in Jude 8, where it is interpreted to mean angels, particularly good ones. Here, however, since the glorious ones are compared to angels in verse 11, it is rather difficult to say that in this context they are the same as the “glorious ones” in Jude. Some of the suggestions as to the identity of the “glorious ones” are as follows:

1. They are human authorities, either ecclesiastical or civil. But this is unlikely, since the term “glorious ones” is usually used of celestial beings.

2. They are heavenly beings other than angels. In ancient times there was a prevalent belief in the existence of spiritual beings other than God or angels (for example, demons). These spiritual beings were not necessarily bad. In the New Testament, however, these beings were regarded as evil and as being under the leadership of Satan (the Devil).

3. They are bad angels, perhaps the fallen angels mentioned in verse 4. “Angels” in verse 11 then refers to good angels, and “them” in that verse refers to the bad angels. The sense of the verse would be that, while the false teachers dare to insult the Devil and his angels, the good angels themselves do not dare do this (that is, insult the Devil and his angels).

4. The glorious ones are the same angels mentioned in verse 11. In this case “them” in verse 11 refers to the false teachers, giving the sense that, while the false teachers dare to insult angels, these same angels do not even say bad things about the false teachers. This, however, goes against the most natural reading of the Greek text, which seems to make a distinction between “glorious ones” in verse 10 and “angels” in verse 11.

Many translations render glorious ones literally and therefore avoid the problem of identifying who they are. Good News Translation “the glorious beings above” follows the second of these possibilities. In some languages there are special expressions reserved for beings such as these; for example, “the Sacred Beings.”

Revile translates the verb “blaspheme,” which is the same word translated “reviled” in 2 Peter 2.2 and has the general meaning of “speak evil of,” “insult,” “show irreverence to.” Afraid is literally “tremble, quiver,” but it is used figuratively here to mean “be afraid” or “respect.” The relation between not afraid and revile is interpreted in two different ways by Revised Standard Version and TEV. In Revised Standard Version not afraid goes with revile, hence, “they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones.” In Good News Translation, however, “not afraid” and “insult” are two parallel terms both describing the false teachers’ attitude toward the glorious ones, so “they show no respect for the glorious beings above; instead, they insult them.” This Handbook recommends TEV’s interpretation as the more likely one for this context.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Therefore connects this verse with verses 8 and 9, meaning, in effect, “in the light of the blessing in verse 8 and the warning in verse 9….” At the same time it recalls verse 3, where God’s call is first mentioned. Brethren is a common form of address in early Christian letters and is used in a general sense to refer to all believers, including women. This general sense should be reflected in the translation; that is, whenever possible, a term that is inclusive of both men and women should be used. We may also translate this expression as “(my) fellow Christians,” or “(my) elders and youngers.”

The word for zealous is used in the New Testament for moral effort (Heb 4.11; Eph 4.3; see also 2 Peter 1.15 and 3.14). The whole expression be the more zealous means strive harder, eagerly exert greater effort (as in Good News Translation “try even harder,” and Jerusalem Bible “work all the harder”). Other ways of saying this are “You must make a greater effort than before” or “You must try even harder than before.”

The verb confirm can be understood in a legal sense as meaning “to ratify,” “to guarantee,” “to make certain of,” “to make sure,” “to make secure.”

Call and election is yet another example of Peter’s use of a pair of words of very similar meaning. If a distinction is to be made between them, we can say that election is a prior decision to select someone from a group (as, for example, God selecting Israel out of the nations to be his people), while call is the actual process of inviting the elected ones to share in the privileges and responsibilities of their election. The one who does the calling and choosing is God; this information can be included in the translation (as Good News Translation has done). These two terms stress the fact that it is through God’s initiative that people experience a new relationship with God.

But how do people confirm their call and election? We should of course avoid translating this in such a way as to make the calling and election dependent on human action rather than on divine initiative. God is the one who calls, but those who are called must show by their action that their call is real and that their election is absolutely certain. In this way they themselves, as well as people from outside the church, won’t have any doubt regarding the genuineness of God’s call. This emphasis on the importance of the human role in the Christian life serves to remind the readers that there are teachers who would like to lead them into a morally lax existence. Some translators will find even Good News Translation‘s model a difficult one. In such cases it is possible to restructure the ordering of these clauses completely and say, for example, “My brothers, God has called you to follow him and has chosen you to be his people. So, if you want to ensure that this experience lasts permanently, you must try even harder than you have up to now” or “… Therefore try even harder to act in a way that will prove to yourselves and others that God has really called you to follow him and has chosen you to be his people.”

If you do this can refer to what comes immediately before, that is, making sure of your call and election, or else to the virtues in verses 5-7, since literally this reads “if you do these things.” The word for fall is literally “stumble,” which in this context can refer to committing error or sinning, or falling away from the faith and becoming unfaithful to Christ. Some commentators take this in a future sense, taking “stumble” as referring to the inability of reaching final salvation. The Greek negative here is emphatic, with the sense of “never, never,” or “never at any time.” If the translator understands the phrase if you do this to refer to the virtues listed in verses 5-7, and fall to refer to “becoming unfaithful to Christ,” an alternative translation model is the following:
• “If you follow these qualities you will never stop trusting in Christ.”

However, if fall is understood as committing error or sinning, then one can translate
• “if you follow these qualities you will never fall into sin.”

However, if translators understand if you do this to refer to what comes immediately before this text, an alternative translation model is the following:
• “if you ensure that God has called you and chosen you, you will never stop trusting in Christ (or, never fall into sin).”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse expands on the previous verse, asserting that it would have been much better for these people to remain heathen, rather than to become Christians and then to turn their backs on the Christian way of life. The connection of this verse to the verse before it is expressed by the connective For, which has the sense of “Because” or “It is a fact.”

It would have been better (literally, “it was better” or “it were better”) expresses a judgment on a present state that is considered unsatisfactory, and a preference for a previous state that does not now exist. The present state that is regarded as unsatisfactory is to have known the way of righteousness only to be unfaithful to it; whereas the previous state, which is preferred, is never to have known the way of righteousness. Peter uses the word “know” again here, for which see comments on “knowledge” in the discussion of 1.2.

The way of righteousness is a new term introduced by Peter at this point. Righteousness is one of those words in the New Testament that has a variety of meanings. Some understand the way of righteousness to be equivalent to the Christian faith or the Gospel, and to mean the same as “the way of truth” in verse 2. However, the emphasis here may be on its moral aspects: right conduct, a godly life, a life lived according to the will of God, the Christian way of life. Way is a term used to refer to the Christian life and has already been discussed in 2 Peter 2.2.

The expression translated turn back indicates a change of mind, or a change in a course of action, either for better or for worse. Here, of course, it is for the worse, for these people turn back from the holy commandment. Here again Peter introduces a new technical term. Holy commandment seems to be parallel to the way of righteousness in the first part of the verse; here it probably refers to Christian teaching as a whole, with emphasis on its ethical and moral demands. This commandment is described as holy because it originates from God and is sustained by God. This source is the significance of the term delivered, which is the same term used in Jude 3; see comments there for further discussion. The unnamed agent is perhaps Jesus Christ, but he acts through the apostles, who are given the responsibility of instructing new converts to the faith. In many languages the phrase holy commandment delivered to them may be expressed as “the sacred command that they received,” or the translator may use an impersonal pronoun to avoid the passive and say “the sacred command that they (agents not named) have given to them.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse explains why verse 20 is true. The first assertion is that the interpretation of the prophetic message is not dependent on human power, because the prophetic message did not come about by the impulse of man. Another way of saying it is that no prophecy is of human origin, since it always originates from God. This first clause may also be rendered “Because no one from his own power (or, intelligence) ever announced God’s message,” or we can say “No prophecy ever originated in a human being.”

The second assertion, however, defines the place of people in the interpretation of prophecy: people are moved by the Holy Spirit. Men here does not refer just to males, but means people in general (human beings). It was God’s Spirit that carried them along and enabled them to say what God wanted them to say. Apart from the Spirit, the prophetic message does not exist and cannot be understood. It is of course clearly understood that the Spirit belongs to the church, which is created by the same Spirit and therefore plays an important role in the interpretation and preservation of the prophetic message. So people who are moved by the Holy Spirit are enabled to proclaim and interpret the prophetic message. The term for moved can also be translated “carried away,” “have their hearts stirred up,” or “The Holy Spirit stirred up their hearts” (note Good News Translation “under the control,” New English Bible “impelled,” Phillips “inspired,” New International Version “carried along”); and this somehow suggests a state of ecstasy in which the Holy Spirit takes full control of a person. At any rate, this expression belongs to the vocabulary of prophetic inspiration that was in use within the Greek-speaking section of Judaism. In certain languages translators will need to render this clause in the active rather than the passive; for example, “But the Holy Spirit stirred up people’s hearts (or, inspired them) as they spoke the message that came from God.”

The third assertion is that these people spoke from God. The vocabulary may have been their own, but the message that they proclaimed “came from God” (Good News Translation). This anticipates chapter 2, where false prophets are mentioned; in contrast to true prophets, these people proclaimed a message that did not come from God but was a product of their own mind.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

It should be noted that Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation are different here, in that Good News Bible starts a new paragraph, whereas Revised Standard Version treats this verse as part of the paragraph that started in verse 8. In view of the fact that verses 8-15a seem to form a single unit dealing with the reasons for the delay of the Parousia and how Christians should live during the period of the delay, it seems best to follow the Revised Standard Version paragraphing at this point.

But connects this verse with the verse before it; it clears up any misunderstanding that may arise as a result of the assertion that the delay of the Parousia is due to God’s patience and his desire for everyone to be saved from judgment. Despite all of this, it is certain that the Lord will return, and the day of judgment will come. This is made clear by the word order in the Greek, in which will come is placed first and therefore is emphatic.

The day of the Lord is a popular biblical expression used for the end time. In the Old Testament the Day of the Lord refers to any event where God’s people (Israel) are victorious over God’s enemies (other nations). The defeat of God’s enemies is considered as God’s judgment on those people. It was only later that this act of judgment was understood to apply to Israel as well. In the present passage, as in the rest of the New Testament, this expression is used primarily for the Parousia, that is, when Jesus Christ returns in victory to judge all peoples, both living and dead. This can be made clear in translation; for example, “the day of the Lord’s coming,” “the day of the Lord’s return,” or “the day when the Lord returns.” The coming of the Lord is compared to the coming of a thief, which is unexpected or sudden, and this is brought out in many translations (for instance, Phillips “suddenly and unexpectedly as a thief,” New English Bible “unexpected as a thief”). Other possible translations are “The Lord will come as unexpectedly as a thief does in the night,” or even “The Lord will come when no one expects him, just as a thief comes when no one is expecting him.” It is also possible to remove the figure of thief and simply translate the basis or ground of the comparison: “the day of the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly” or “The Lord will come suddenly at a time when he is not expected.” It is also suggested that the use of the picture of the thief carries with it an element of threat, especially for those who continue in their unrepentant ways. The use of this picture as a figurative expression for the end that is coming is common in the teachings of Jesus (see, for example, Matt 24.43-44; Luke 12.39-40), and in other parts of the New Testament (1 Thes 5.2; Rev 3.3; 16.15). It is important here to indicate clearly the ground or basis of comparison with a thief (unexpectedly, suddenly), in order to avoid the interpretation that the Lord is himself a thief.

And then refers back to day, hence Good News Translation “On that Day.” For heavens see comments on 2 Peter 3.5 above. Pass away is “disappear” (Good News Translation) or “vanish.”

With a loud noise translates the Greek word hroizēdon, which is considered to be onomatopoeic, that is, a word that sounds like the thing it names. In this case hroizēdon is used of hissing, crackling, and rushing sounds, sounds that are made by a snake, a fire, or an arrow. Here the sound being described is that of fire, referring to the roaring and crackling sounds of the sky as it burns down. Some translations try to do justice to this feature: Good News Translation “a shrill noise,” New English Bible “a great rushing sound,” Phillips “a terrific tearing blast,” Translator’s New Testament “a roaring sound,” Moffatt “a crackling roar.” In languages that use ideophones, translators should consider using one here.

What are the elements that are going to be dissolved with fire? There are at least four possible interpretations:

1. They are the rudiments of knowledge. This is based on the historical origin of the Greek word stoicheia, which can be literally rendered “things arranged in a row,” as, for instance, the letters of the alphabet. This meaning is reflected in Heb 5.12, where stoicheia is translated “first principles,”Good News Translation “first lessons.” This meaning, however, does not fit the present context.

2. They are the physical elements, namely earth, air, fire, and water. This was a common meaning of elements (Greek stoicheia). A prevalent idea among the Stoics was that, in the final conflagration, these four elements will be dissolved into the primary element, namely fire. Considering the Greek background of 2 Peter, this interpretation has some validity; it is, however, rather inappropriate in the present context, since elements comes right after the mention of heaven and before the mention of earth.

3. They are angelic or spiritual beings. In Paul’s letters, stoicheia is used in a similar manner, referring to spiritual powers (see for example, Gal 4.3; Col 2.8, 20).

4. They are the heavenly bodies: the sun, the moon, the stars, the planets. In other biblical references, these are also referred to as “the powers of the heavens” (see, for example, Isa 34.4; Matt 24.29). The use of stoicheia in this sense is attested in the literature of that time, both from Greek and Christian writers.

This last meaning is what most commentaries prefer, and consequently it is reflected in many translations, such as Good News Translation “the heavenly bodies,” and Moffatt “the stars.” Taking this meaning relates this part of the verse with the first part, which talks of the sky, whereas this second part refers to things located in the sky. This also makes the first two parts parallel to the third part of the verse, which talks of the earth and everything in it. A literal translation of elements here allows for all four possibilities but sacrifices clarity in the process, and so should be avoided. As is often said, if it means everything, it does not mean anything.

Dissolved is literally “destroyed.” With fire translates a Greek medical term for body temperature, particularly in connection with a high fever. So the expression can be rendered literally as “destroyed in the heat.” The picture here is that the heat is so intense that the heavenly bodies begin to melt and eventually are reduced to nothing. Some translations try to reflect this meaning: Good News Translation “burn up and be destroyed,” Jerusalem Bible “catch fire and fall apart,” New English Bible “disintegrate in flames,” Moffatt “be set ablaze and melt.”

And the works that are upon it is literally “its works,” which can mean all the results of both human and divine activity on earth, or in a wider sense, everything that is in the earth; hence Good News Translation “with everything in it,” Jerusalem Bible “and all that it contains,” New English Bible “with all that is in it.”

As can be seen from the Good News Translation text and footnote, there is a textual problem related to will be burned up. The UBS Greek New Testament has in its text “will be found,” and this is reflected in the New Revised Standard Version text “will be disclosed” and also New English Bible “will be laid bare.” Translator’s New Testament follows the UBS Greek text but translates this part as a rhetorical question: “will the earth and everything in it remain?” with “No” as the unspoken answer. Another way of understanding “will be found” is to take it as a so-called “divine passive” and interpret it as meaning “will be found by God,” that is, ready for God to examine. The picture that we have in the whole verse of the UBS Greek text is that, when heaven and all that is in it are destroyed, the earth will be laid bare, and all peoples will face the judgment of God. Revised Standard Version and Jerusalem Bible follow a variant found in a number of manuscripts. Good News Translation translates another variant, namely “will vanish.” Yet another variant is represented by An American Translation, “will melt away.” Two things should be noted here: first, that in the UBS Greek New Testament the rating given is “D,” which means that there is a very high degree of uncertainty with regard to the reading selected for the text; and secondly, treating the statement as a rhetorical question (as in Translator’s New Testament above) will result in a translation similar to TEV, with “will vanish” representing the unspoken answer to the rhetorical question. Since there is no clearly favored text, the translator may choose to follow any of the variant readings, with perhaps New Revised Standard Version and Good News Bible a slightly better choice. Or it may be wise to follow the choice of a translation in a related language that is known and widely used. In any case, translators should provide a footnote similar to that of Good News Translation. In some languages we may translate TEV’s “will vanish” as “will no longer exist.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• But the Lord will come when no one expects him, just as a thief does (or, comes when no one is expecting him). On that Day there will be a great roaring sound as the heavens (or, sky) disappear (or, vanish). The bodies in the sky will burn up and disintegrate, and the earth and everything that is in it will no longer exist (or, melt away).

Or for the final sentence:
• … and God will find the earth and all that is in it ready for him to judge …

Or:
• … When all this happens, will the earth and everything in it still remain?

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse has some similarities with Jude 9. However, Peter omits any reference to the story of Michael and the body of Moses, and instead comes up with a general statement. Could it be that he could assume a knowledge of Jude among his readers? A more probable reason is that this is in keeping with his tendency to reduce if not eliminate altogether quotations from and allusions to literature outside the Old Testament. (See, for example, comments on his treatment of Jude 6 in 2.4, and on Jude 7 in 2.6).

The verse starts with whereas, which marks the contrast of what follows to the previous statement. In some languages it will be quite natural to express this contrast as follows: “Consider the angels (or, God’s messengers)! They are so….”

The angels are described as greater in might and power. Might and power are words of similar meaning. Their being mentioned together may be either a hendiadys (two expressions for a single idea), with might describing power, hence “mighty power,” or a way of marking intensification, hence “having so much more power.” A third possibility may be mentioned, and that is to interpret might as emphasizing outward physical strength, and power as emphasizing inward, spiritual virtue. It should be noted, however, that power can also be used to describe physical strength, and it is clearly understood as spiritual strength when properly marked as such by the context. Therefore the phrase angels, though greater in might and power may also be rendered as “angels, though they are much more powerful physically and spiritually (in their hearts)” or “angels, who are so much more powerful….”

The Greek text does not make clear who the angels are being compared with. Are they being compared with the false teachers or with the “glorious ones” in verse 10? Either alternative seems to be acceptable, depending on how them (in do not pronounce … upon them) is interpreted. The verse then can be saying one of the following:

1. The false teachers insult the glorious ones, but in contrast the angels, who are much more powerful than the false teachers, do not even do this (that is, insult the glorious ones). Here them refers to the false teachers, and the ones that the angels do not insult are the glorious ones.

2. The false teachers insult the glorious ones, but in contrast the angels, who are even more powerful than the glorious ones, do not even do this (that is, insult the glorious ones.) Here them is interpreted as referring to the glorious ones rather than to the false teachers.

3. The false teachers insult the glorious ones, but in contrast the angels, who are even more powerful than the false teachers, do not insult the false teachers. Here them refers to the false teachers, who are also the ones the angels do not insult.

4. The false teachers insult the glorious ones, but in contrast the angels, who are more powerful than the glorious ones, do not insult the false teachers.

Good News Translation takes the first of these interpretations, except that it is not very clear who are the ones that the angels do not insult. It seems clear in New International Version that the angels do not insult the glorious ones, but it is not clear with whom the angels are being compared. An American Translation follows the second of these alternatives: “even angels far superior to these beings in strength and power bring no abusive charge before the Lord.” Most other translations leave all these ambiguities alone.

It is best to resolve the above ambiguities in translation. For the purposes of this Handbook, the first two alternatives seem preferable, and of these two the second is slightly favored.

Reviling judgment is similar to the expression found in Jude 9, and we may refer to the discussion there. As the New Revised Standard Version footnote indicates, there is a textual problem connected with before the Lord: “Other ancient authorities read before the Lord; others lack the phrase.” Some very important manuscripts have the reading “from the Lord,” whereas some other manuscripts omit the phrase altogether. The difference in Greek between “from the Lord” and “before the Lord” is a matter of a suffix only: para kuriou (genitive case) as against para kuriō (dative). Most modern translations follow the reading “before the Lord,” which means “in the presence of the Lord” (Good News Translation), who functions as judge. “Lord” here most probably refers to God. The picture is that of a heavenly court, where the “glorious ones” are on trial, and the angels are witnesses, but they refrain from harsh and insulting words in their testimony. The phrase before the Lord may also be expressed as “when they were before the Lord (God),” “when they were in the presence of God,” or in certain languages it will be necessary to say “when they were standing before God.” If “from the Lord” is the accepted reading, then the Lord will not be judge but accuser, and the angels are the Lord’s messengers, who, however, do not use slanderous words in presenting the Lord’s accusations before the court, because of their respect for these celestial beings. The omission of the words before the Lord in some manuscripts can be explained as an influence of the text of Jude 9.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• Consider the angels (or, God’s messengers)! They are much more powerful than the false teachers. But they do not use insulting language when they accuse these teachers in the presence of God.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .