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 .

This verse continues the thought of verse 10 and mentions in a positive way the reward that comes to believers as they make sure of their call and election. It begins with the word so (Good News Translation “In this way”), again referring back to the virtues mentioned earlier. In many languages this can be rendered as “By doing all these things….”

The idea of an entrance being richly provided stresses that people have the right to enter not because they deserve it but because the privilege is given to them as a free gift. This is captured in many modern translations such as Good News Translation “you will be given the full right to enter,” and New English Bible “you will be afforded full and free admission.” Some other translations interpret richly provided as indicating a warm welcome; hence “a rich welcome awakes you as you enter,” and New International Version “you will receive a rich welcome.” However, many languages cannot reproduce this passive form, so translators will need to state directly the agent (God) of the “providing” and say “God will give you the full right,” “God will open the door wide for you,” or “God will welcome you.” Phillips has “God will open wide to you the gates of the eternal kingdom.” Some languages will need to use a direct quotation here, such as “God will generously say to you, ‘Come….’ ”

The eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ focuses both on a place and a reign, that is, a place where Jesus Christ will reign eternally. The idea of Christ’s kingdom as eternal is also found in Luke 1.33 (and see Rev 11.15). Jesus in his ministry proclaimed the kingdom of God, but in The Second Letter from Peter, what is proclaimed is the kingdom and the glory of Christ himself. This kingdom will be fully revealed at the end of the age, and in particular at the second coming of Christ, at which time Christians will be united with their God through Christ. This kingdom is eternal in the sense that Jesus Christ will be king forever in this kingdom, and those who are in union with him will be citizens of this kingdom forever. In many languages it will be necessary to use a verbal expression for kingdom. In such a case we may say “to enter the place where our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ rules eternally (or, forever).”

Jesus Christ is here referred to as Lord and Savior. This exact combination is found in the New Testament only in this letter (see also 2.20; 3.2, 18). Lord translates a word that can mean “owner” or “master” but has the more precise meaning of one who rules and who is acknowledged as king and as worthy to be served and obeyed (see the comments on 1.2). For Savior see comments on 1.1. The pronoun our should be understood as inclusive, referring to all believers. In some languages it will be necessary to make it clear that Lord and Savior refer to the same person. We can render this as “of our Lord who is our Savior Jesus Christ.”

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 .

Peter ends his indictment of the false teachers by applying to them two proverbs that were obviously popular during that time. These proverbs appropriately explain what really happened to the false teachers. While there are two proverbs mentioned, Peter simply describes these as the true proverb; it may be better in translation to talk of two proverbs rather than one.

A proverb is a popular saying drawn from the world of nature, or of animals, or of ordinary human relationships, and which is used to express a certain truth demonstrated in the life of people, both individually and in their relation with others. In Hebrew the proverb is usually a doublet; that is, it consists of two lines, with the second line reinforcing the first, either as a parallel or in contrast to it. The important thing for translators at this point is to recognize the literary form of the proverb in their own language, together with its function, and then to translate these proverbs according to the demands of their language. For example, if a proverb is usually poetic in form in a language, then these two sayings should, as far as possible, be translated according to that poetic form. If a proverb usually has two lines, then these proverbs should also consist of two lines in the translation.

The first proverb deals with a dog and his vomit. The quotation here is from Prov 26.11, although there are some variations. The point of the saying is that a dog may get rid of its filth (represented by the vomit) but cannot resist going back to it, to sniff at it or even to eat it. The second proverb is about a pig and mud. The message seems to be that no matter how clean a pig becomes, it always goes back to dirty itself in the mud, because part of the pig’s nature is to wallow in mud to keep cool. This second proverb is not found in the Bible, but there are similar proverbs that are common both in Greek and Rabbinic literature. Both proverbs use animals that were considered by Jews as dirty and ritually unclean. This reminds the readers of Peter’s description of the false teachers as “irrational animals” in verse 12 (and see also verse 16), which is now made worse by their being compared to unclean dirty animals. The message of both proverbs is clear: the false teachers had once become clean through the forgiveness of their sins, but they have now gone back to wallow in the immorality and wickedness that characterized their pagan past. See the similar statement in 1.9.

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 .

False prophets is a term used for people who claim to be sent by God to proclaim his message, when in fact God has not sent them at all. See, for example, Deut 18.22 (Good News Bible), “If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and what he says does not come true, then it is not the Lord’s message.” The word “prophet” itself is sometimes used to refer to someone who predicts events in the future, but in most cases it refers to someone who is called and sent by God to proclaim a certain message. Therefore prophets may be effectively translated as “people who speak for God” or “people who proclaim God’s message.” False prophets can then be rendered as “fake (or, counterfeit) prophets,” “people who pretend to speak God’s message,” or “people who pretend to speak on behalf of God.” There were many false prophets who appeared among the Israelites at various times in their history. The punishment for false prophets was usually death: “But if any prophet dares to speak a message in my name when I did not command him to do so, he must die for it” (Deut 18.20, TEV; and see also Jer 14.15; 23.15; 28.16-17).

Arose translates the past tense of the verb “to be” and indicates that this refers to an event or events “in the past” (Good News Translation), that is, in the history of Israel. Other ways of rendering “in the past” are “in olden times,” “long ago,” “years that are gone,” or “many generations ago.” People here refers to the Israelites as God’s chosen people. To make this clear it is possible to translate people as “God’s people.”

Just as: in many languages translators will need to begin the verse with these words; for example, “Just as false prophets … so also false teachers….”

The equivalent of false prophets in the present is false teachers. The focus here is not so much that these people claim to be sent by God when in fact they are not, or that they lay claim to the office of teacher to which they have no right, but that they have been teaching ideas and doctrines that are wrong. Their teachings are based not on any revelation from God but on their own ingenious inventions. This is made clear by the statement that these false teachers will secretly bring in destructive opinions. False teachers may be translated using the same sort of expressions as those used for false prophets. In certain languages false teachers can be expressed idiomatically; for example, “Teachers who weave lies with their mouths.”

Secretly bring in translates a Greek verb that appears only here in the New Testament and that means either to bring in without indicating how it is done, or “to bring in under false pretenses.” In this context secrecy is perhaps intended; they will introduce these teachings without anyone noticing it. Another word that fits this context is “unobtrusively.” In some languages translators will be able to find an idiomatic expression like “slip in”; for example, “slipped in destructive opinions” (see Gal 2.4, where Paul uses the same Greek word but in a different context).

Heresies: in Greek thought the term “heresy” was used to refer to a particular school of thought or the teachings of such a group. This positive sense was later lost, and the negative sense of “faction” (as in 1 Cor 11.19) or “false teaching” became its primary meaning. In the present context heresies refers to teachings or doctrines that are false and against accepted Christian teaching (as in Good News Translation “untrue doctrines”). These heresies taught by the false teachers are also described as destructive. It is possible, as some commentators suggest, that there were some heresies that were positive and useful, and that the addition of the term destructive indicates that these particular teachings were not useful. It is more likely, though, that destructive here refers not to the teachings themselves but to the bad effects of these teachings on the members of the Christian community. They are destructive because those who follow them become immoral and are therefore subject to judgment. And so destructive can also be rendered as “cause people to go astray” or “cause people to come under judgment.” Some commentators notice irony here: the false teachers taught that there would be no final judgment; but in reality their teaching had the effect of leading people to experience the judgment that these teachers themselves had denied.

One part of these false doctrines is now mentioned: denying the Master who bought them. The Greek word translated deny can also mean “disown” or “renounce.” Here the focus is on their not acknowledging the Master. Master can be used for either God or Christ, but in the present context it clearly refers to Christ. The Greek word translated Master is the general term for “owner.” Bought strengthens the idea of ownership and gives the sense that, since Christ has bought them, he now owns them and they belong to him. (For further discussion, please see Jude 4.) In certain languages it will be necessary to include the name “Christ” in this context and say “who do not acknowledge Christ as their Master,” or “who do not recognize Christ as their Lord,” or even “who say that they no longer belong to Christ.”

The word translated bought is the general word for buying anything, including slaves; here it is used with the extended sense of “ransom” or “redeem.” The terms “ransom” and “redeem” include the component of paying a price and therefore raise the problem of who paid what to whom. This theological problem is at least avoided by stressing that we are here dealing with figurative language: by dying on the cross Christ gave his life as a “payment” for us, enabling us to be free from the power of sin and to belong to Christ, who now owns us. So we may translate the phrase who bought them as “who set them free,” “who set them free from the power of sin,” or even “who ransomed (or, paid for) them and set them free (from sin).”

The results of the activities of these false teachers are now mentioned. They will first of all bring swift destruction upon themselves. That this is a result is made clear in Good News Translation by the use of “and so.” The word swift can also be translated “fast,” “speedy,” “sudden” (Good News Translation), “quick.” The focus here is twofold: the suddenness with which destructive forces come upon the false teachers, and the quickness with which the teachers are destroyed. Destruction translates the same word translated destructive in destructive heresies earlier in this verse; perhaps a play on words is intended: in much the same way that these false teachers introduce teachings that destroy people’s faith, so also these false teachers will be destroyed. Other ways of saying this are “and so they will cause themselves to suddenly receive destruction” or “Because they do this, God will destroy them suddenly.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• Just as people who pretended to speak God’s message appeared long ago, so false teachers will appear among you. They will slip in untrue teachings that will cause people to stop believing in Christ (or, people’s beliefs to be destroyed). These false teachers will even refuse to acknowledge Christ as their Master who owns them and freed them from the power of sin. In this way they will cause themselves to be destroyed suddenly.

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 .

All these things refers both to the “heavens” and to the “elements” mentioned in verse 10. The phrase may or may not include the earth and everything in it, depending on which textual variant is chosen in verse 10.

Are … to be dissolved translates a present participle, which may give the sense that these things are even now in the process of being destroyed, thus stressing the extreme urgency of the situation. The present participle, however, can be taken with a future sense, as Revised Standard Version and most translations have done (note Good News Translation “will be destroyed”). Thus, or “in this way,” refers back to verse 10; dissolved translates the same Greek word used there.

The words what sort of persons ought you to be may be interpreted in various ways:

1. As the beginning of a question that includes verse 12. This is the position represented by Revised Standard Version.

2. As a question, with the answer following immediately. This is the position reflected in Good News Translation (also New International Version, and Phillips “what sort of people ought you to be? Surely men of good and holy character…”).

3. With an imperative sense (“you ought to,” “it is necessary for you”). Many translations take this position; for example, Jerusalem Bible “you should be living holy and saintly lives,” An American Translation “what holy and pious lives you ought to lead,” and New English Bible “think what sort of people you ought to be, what devout and dedicated lives you should live!”

The Greek text allows for all three interpretations. However, in the UBS Greek New Testament, verses 11 and 12 are treated as one sentence and are punctuated not with a question mark but with a period. This seems to indicate that the second and third possibilities are closer to the meaning and intent of the Greek text. This also makes it possible for the long Greek sentence to be restructured into two or more sentences.

For godliness see comments on 1.3. Holiness (literally, “holy behavior”) is used here in a moral sense, describing a life characterized by dedication to God, dislike of anything evil or sinful, and blameless moral conduct. In the Greek both holiness and godliness are plural, which perhaps indicate various forms of godly and holy conduct. The phrase in lives of holiness and godliness may also be rendered as “You should live lives that are pure and dedicated to God” or “You should walk your lives in a holy (or, blameless) way, dedicated to 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 .

As indicated in Revised Standard Version, the first name of Peter (Simon) is given in its Hebrew spelling Simeon, which is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew form. This spelling is used only here and in Acts 15.14, although several other people in the New Testament have the name “Simeon” (see Luke 2.25, 34; 3.30; Acts 13.1; Rev 7.7).

There are some scholars who find the use of Symeōn significant here, especially since the Greek form “Simon” is the more popular form in the New Testament. Among the reasons given for the use of the Hebrew form are:

1. to emphasize the Jewish origin of Peter;

2. to stress the fact that Peter was an eyewitness of the events in Jesus’ life, and therefore to affirm his authority as valid in opposition to the false teachers mentioned in the letter; and

3. to establish the authenticity of the letter.

Many interpreters, however, do not see any particular significance in the use of the Hebrew form, and simply understand it as a variation of the Greek form that was more commonly used during the first century.

At any rate, since “Simon” is the more common and familiar form, it means that in all likelihood Symeōn was the form used to designate the author of this letter. A formal type of translation will reflect this feature of the text, which is what Revised Standard Version has done. In such a case it is important to make sure that the name is spelled according to the way words are formed in the translator’s language. For instance, in a language that lacks the cluster “sym,” Symeōn will have to be spelled according to what is allowed in the language, such as “Simeon” or “Simyon.” However, in translations that focus on meaning, especially on a common language level, the variations in the spelling of a name do not have to be retained. What is more important is that the reader is aware that a particular name refers to a particular person. That is why, in common language translations, only one name (and one spelling) is used for a person, even if that person is known by different names, or even if there are different spellings of the same name.

Peter calls himself a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. The Greek word for servant is literally “slave,” which puts emphasis on being owned by Jesus Christ and being committed to follow and obey him completely. It is possible, however, and even likely, that the Greek word for “slave” here translates the Hebrew word (literally “servant”), in which case the emphasis is on serving Christ rather than being a slave of Christ. In the Old Testament the term “servant” is used as an honorific title of many Israelite leaders, including Abraham (Psa 105.42), Moses (Neh 9.14), David (Psa 89.3), and Daniel (Dan 6.20). In the New Testament the term is used both of believers in general and of particular individuals. The focus is on their being called by God and designated to perform certain tasks within the Christian fellowship, and as a result to become examples to all the believers of what it really means to be a follower of Christ.

Certain languages maintain a clear distinction between a person who works for a fixed salary and one who is a personal servant or attendant supported by his master but who does not have a fixed salary. It is this latter term that should be used in this context, if it is necessary to make such a distinction. There are also languages where people say “I am Jesus Christ’s man,” meaning “I work for Jesus Christ.”

For apostle see discussion on Jude 17.

The apostles were recognized as having authority in the early church. They traveled from one place to another, encouraging the believers and taking care of problems encountered by the congregations, especially in matters of doctrine and church government. Peter uses the title here to remind his readers not only that he is one of the twelve original disciples, but that what he writes should be taken seriously, since he writes as one whose authority comes from Jesus Christ himself.

In many languages it is impossible to maintain the structure Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, in which a noun phrase is in apposition with the name of a person. In such cases we may translate this sentence as “I, Simeon Peter, who am a servant and….” Some translators will find it helpful to begin this epistle in a way that is more natural to letter writing in their own languages, instead of following the English or Greek; for example, “I, Simon Peter, who am a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, write this letter to…” or “This letter comes from me, Simeon Peter, who am a servant and….” It also may be necessary in certain languages to combine the initial clause with what follows and say, for example, “I, Simeon Peter, who am … write this letter to those who….” The phrase To those may also be rendered as “to those people,” or even “to those people among you.”

The readers are not identified in terms of race, nationality, or geographical location. Any statement regarding them must be derived from a study of the letter itself. If it can be assumed that those who received the letter are the same as those who received The First Letter from Peter, then we can know more definitely who they are and what their situation is, since The First Letter from Peter makes various references to the situation of its readers. In fact some scholars accept this position, primarily because of 3.1, where this letter refers to a first letter. However, such an assumption is held in doubt by many scholars. It is therefore necessary to examine the letter itself in order to identify the readers, and to understand the situation in which they find themselves, together with the problems that confront them. The letter tells us that those it is addressed to have also received Paul’s letters (3.15). Because of this some have come to the conclusion that they are primarily Gentiles. However, this is hard to justify, since Paul wrote to churches that were composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

The word for obtained (Good News Translation “has been given”) primarily means “to receive.” In translating this term we should avoid the idea that faith is acquired through a person’s own effort or that it is given as a reward for what a person has done. Faith itself, or the power to trust in Jesus Christ, is a gift from God. In the phrase To those who have obtained (Good News Translation “To those who … have been given”), it is clear that God is the one who causes people to accept or receive this faith. Therefore it is possible to translate this phrase as “To you whom God has caused to receive the….”

What does faith mean in this case? It can refer to trust in and commitment to Jesus Christ, or to a body of authoritative teaching, or else, to the Christian faith as a religious movement. There is, however, no one view among commentaries or translations as to what faith here means. While English translations in general retain the word faith, they show their preference by the use of an indefinite article (for instance, a faith, as in Moffatt, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation) or by the absence of an article (as in Knox, New English Bible).

In the light of our interpretation above, we may translate To those who have obtained a faith as “To you who have received the teachings about Jesus Christ,” or “To you whom God has caused to trust in Jesus Christ,” or even “To you whom God has caused to receive the teachings of the Christian religion.” Note also the discussion of the term in the comments on Jude 3.

The phrase of equal standing may be understood with the meaning “of the same kind” or “of equal value,” thus accenting the quality of such a faith. These possibilities are expressed in translations such as New International Version, the Spanish common language version (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy), and Good News Translation by the phrase “as precious as ours.” The choice of meaning is in some sense influenced by how faith is understood (see above). If faith in this context is understood to mean “a body of teaching,” then we may translate the phrase obtained a faith of equal standing as “received teachings about Jesus Christ just like the ones we did” or “received the same teachings about Jesus Christ as we did.” If, however, faith is understood as trust in Jesus Christ, then the phrase may be translated “trusted in Jesus Christ in the same way we did” or “who trust in Jesus Christ as fervently as we do.”

The pronoun ours may refer: (1) to Peter and the other apostles, as contrasted with the intended readers, who were not apostles or eyewitnesses; (2) to Peter and the other Jewish Christians, as contrasted with the intended readers, who were most probably non-Jewish believers; or (3) to Peter and the Christian community to which he belongs, as contrasted with the intended readers, who obviously don’t belong to Peter’s immediate group. All three are possible, but most commentaries choose either the first or the second possibility. It seems, however, that the first possibility is to be preferred for the following reasons: firstly, the Jewish-Gentile conflict is not in focus in the letter; and secondly, in the light of 1.16-18 it is more likely that Peter is referring to the apostles as eyewitnesses rather than to Jewish Christians as a whole. Therefore ours can be translated as “that of us apostles.” In any case, whatever possibility is chosen, the pronoun ours should be understood and translated as exclusive, that is “we” (Peter and others) excluding “you” (the intended readers).

This faith is given in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. The expression our God and Savior Jesus Christ may also be rendered as “our God and the Savior Jesus Christ,” as the Revised Standard Version footnote shows. The problem here can be made clear by a question: does the expression refer to two persons (God and Jesus Christ), or to only one person (Jesus Christ)? Those who interpret the expression as referring to both God and Jesus Christ put forth the following arguments:

1. The very next verse (verse 2) clearly distinguishes between God and Jesus Christ.

2. Similar expressions within the letter refer to Jesus Christ not as “God” but as “Lord.”

3. The term “God” is rarely used of Jesus in the New Testament.

Arguments for understanding the expression as referring only to Jesus Christ include the following:

1. The Greek text itself favors this position. A word-for-word translation looks like this: “… of the God our and of Savior Jesus Christ.” That the text favors the understanding that the whole expression refers to Christ is shown by the presence of only one definite article, which is placed before God. If the expression were intended to refer to both God and Jesus Christ, a definite article would have been placed before “Savior.”

2. Elsewhere in the letter the same grammatical construction is used, and it is clear that in those other contexts the whole phrase refers to Jesus Christ (for example, 1.11; 3.18, except of course that in these expressions “Lord” is used instead of “God”).

3. The term “God” is used of Christ elsewhere in the New Testament (see John 1.1; 2 Thes 1.12; and possibly Titus 2.13; 1 John 5.20) and in extra-biblical writings by the beginning of the second century (as in Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians 1.1; 7.2; 18.2; 19.3; and so on).

Considering all the arguments, it is probably best to understand the expression as referring to one person, namely, Jesus Christ, rather than to both God and Christ.

The other title used of Jesus Christ is Savior, for which see the discussion on Jude 25.

The expression in the righteousness can also be understood as “by the righteousness” or “through the righteousness” (Good News Translation). This is because the Greek preposition en can mean “in,” “by,” or “through.” In the last case the faith is given to the readers through or by means of the righteousness of Christ. But what does righteousness mean here? This word is one of those biblical terms that are rich in meaning and can be translated in various ways, depending on their context. For example, the expression “the righteousness of God” appears in different contexts with different meanings and emphases. In Rom 1.17 the righteousness of God refers to God’s activity of putting people into a right relationship with himself (as Good News Translation correctly translates). In Matt 6.33, however, the righteousness of God refers to what he requires people to do in order that they will be pleasing to him. In the present verse righteousness has been interpreted in the following ways:

1. It refers to Christ’s righteous, redemptive work. It is through Christ’s righteousness (that is, his dying on the cross) that Christians are given the power to put their trust in him.

2. It refers to Christ’s righteous character as Savior and Redeemer. It is because of Christ’s righteousness (that is, his sinlessness, holiness, uprightness, goodness) that he is able to do his work as Savior and redeemer.

3. It refers to Christ’s righteous sense of justice, generosity, fairness and impartiality. This means that Christ is no respecter of persons; he plays no favorites. When applied in the realm of faith, it means that Christ makes it possible for anyone, Jew or Gentile, apostle or nonapostle, to have the same faith.

In the light of the context, and in the light of the usage of “righteousness” in the rest of the letter, the second and third meanings seem to be the more logical choices. A literal translation (as in Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, and most other translations) will of course allow all three possibilities, but it is not meaningful to most readers, since it does not give them any clue as to what the word really means. A much better approach, although a more risky one, is to make a choice in the translation and put alternative renderings in the notes, provided these alternatives can be justified. Therefore it is possible to translate the phrase in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ as “who through the fairness and impartial generosity of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” or “through the goodness and uprightness of Jesus Christ.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• I, Simon Peter, who am a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, write to you. You have received through the fairness and impartial generosity of our [inclusive] God and Savior Jesus Christ the same teachings about him as we did.

Or:
• I, Simon Peter, who am a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, write to you. Our God and Savior Jesus Christ has been fair and generous. He has impartially given you the same teachings about him as we received.

Or:
• I, Simon Peter … write this letter to you who through the goodness of our [inclusive] God and Savior Jesus Christ have come to trust in him as we did.

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 .