If a translator ends verse 13 with an incomplete sentence as in Revised Standard Version, it will be necessary to begin this verse with a connecting word such as “since” or “because.”

The putting off of my body is literally “the putting off of my tent” (as in Good News Translation “I shall soon put off this mortal body”)—which is another way of saying simply “my death.” The figure is not perfect here, since a tent is actually folded and not taken off like a garment. But such mixing of metaphors is quite frequent in the Scriptures (see, for example, 2 Cor 5.1-4). If the metaphor of body has been used in the previous verse, it will be helpful for a translator to keep the same metaphor in the present verse. But if the translator has avoided the metaphor in verse 13 and used a word for “alive,” it will make a better balance to talk about “dying” in this verse; for example, “I know that very soon I will die.” Note that Good News Translation has added the word “mortal” to “body.” In some languages this idea can be expressed as “this body, which will die,” or “this impermanent body.” Will be soon points to the nearness of Peter’s death. Some commentaries want to understand this to mean violent and unexpected death, but such an interpretation seems to be influenced by reading this passage in the light of John 21.18, where Jesus refers to the way Peter will die some day. The Greek word itself simply suggests swiftness, not violence.

The verb translated showed me can also mean “inform” or “indicate” and is used of special revelations (as in 1 Cor 3.13; 1 Peter 1.11). In the testament form of writing, the hero usually receives some kind of advance warning of his approaching death, and in this context that warning comes from the Lord. That Jesus gives a special communication to Peter is made clear in some translations; for instance, Good News Translation has “as our Lord Jesus Christ plainly told me,” and New English Bible “indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has told me so.” This is perhaps a reference back to John 21.18.

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 goes back to the subject of the second coming of Christ, which was first mentioned in 1.16 but which has been interrupted by the lengthy discussion regarding the false teachers.

First of all is a way of expressing priority and importance, hence “above all.” The use of First may present a problem in translation, especially in languages that require a second point if a first point is mentioned. In such cases a natural way of expressing priority should be used without necessarily mentioning a number. See comments on 1.20, where the same phrase occurs, for other translation models.

For you must understand this, see comments on 1.20. It is not clear in the Greek text if what follows is intended to be part of the prophetic message and of the Lord’s teachings, all of which the readers have just been told to remember; however, the context seems to indicate that this is the case. In the last days is equivalent to “In the last time” in Jude 18, for which see discussion there. The expression in the last days is actually the more familiar one and is used frequently in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (see Gen 49.1; Jer 30.24 [37.24 in the Septuagint]; Dan 2.28; Hos 3.5; Micah 4.1) and in many writings during the period after the apostles.

One of the features of the last days is the appearance of people who make fun of God’s message. For scoffers see also comments on Jude 18. The two verses are very similar, with these differences: Jude has only “scoffers following,” while 2 Peter has scoffers will come … with scoffing, following …; and 2 Peter has passions while Jude has “ungodly passions.” The emphasis of both statements is that the scoffers are following their own will and not God’s. It is not clear whether these scoffers are the same people as the false teachers in chapter 2, but it makes sense to understand the two groups as one and the same. Scoffing is the action that scoffers do; its double use here, scoffers … with scoffing, is perhaps a form of Hebrew idiom signifying intensity or emphasis. In some cases the two terms can be combined into one to produce a more natural translation; for example, “they will mock you,” or Good News Translation “they will make fun of you,” and New English Bible “men who scoff at religion.” Other ways to translate scoffing are “making jokes about” or “laughing at.” The mocking statements are found in verse 4, and for this reason it is desirable to put “mock” right before that verse.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• The most important thing is that you understand that in the days just before the end time, some people will appear whose lives are controlled by their own lusts (or, evil desires). They will mock you by saying …

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 .

Did not spare means in this context “did not refrain from punishing” or “God punished the angels who sinned. He threw them into….”

The angels are mentioned in Jude 6. The most likely background for this account is Gen 6.1-4, in which case the angels are identified with the heavenly beings (“sons of God”) who came down to earth and married mortal women. Later writings built on the Genesis account, telling of the sins of these heavenly beings and their subsequent punishment. The account in Jude 6 is based on these writings, and the present passage in turn is based on the Jude account (see Jude 6).

Cast (literally “hand over,” “deliver”) can also be “threw” (Good News Translation), “banished,” “consigned,” or “hurled.” Hell is the Greek word Tartarus, which in classical Greek mythology was an abyss under the earth reserved for the punishment of rebellious gods and human beings. There is a Greek legend to the effect that the Titans, ancient giants, were imprisoned in Tartarus by Uranus, who was known as the god of heaven and whose wife Sonia was known as the goddess of the earth. Uranus’ own son Kronos, the youngest Titan, overthrew his father and set the Titans free. Kronos, however, was overthrown by his son Zeus, who again imprisoned the Titans in Tartarus.

This legend forms the background for the reference in Enoch regarding fallen angels taking human wives and thus giving birth to evil giants.

It is possible that the term “Tartarus” was used as a substitute for the Hebrew term Sheol, since both terms have common components of meaning. At any rate, the term “Tartarus” came into use in Judaism also and is present in some writings of that time (for instance, 1 Enoch 20.2, and the Septuagint translation of Job 40.20b “he causes joy to the quadrupeds of the deep”; Job 41.31 [Greek 41.24] “the lowest part of the deep”; Prov 30.16). In some languages the closest natural equivalent of Tartarus is “the place of fire.” The danger of this rendering is that those who live in cold places may actually want to go there! Where a natural equivalent does not exist, it is possible to render the expression in a general way; for example, “a very very bad place” or “a place of punishment.” The phrase cast them into hell in many languages will need a directional word that is the equivalent of the English “down”; for example, “cast them down into hell” or “hurled them down into hell.”

The expression pits of nether gloom is taken from Jude 6 but with some modification. Nether gloom is marked as a place in Jude, “the nether gloom,” whereas in 2 Peter the same word can be understood as a quality of the pits. Another difference is that 2 Peter uses pits here, which Jude 6 uses “chains.” There is also a textual problem in 2 Peter, as indicated by the footnote in Good News Translation. Some manuscripts have “chains of nether gloom,” although the word for “chains” is different in Greek from the word used in Jude. It is difficult to understand nether gloom as describing “chains,” and some manuscripts have pits (Greek sirois) rather than “chains” (Greek seirais), thus making possible the translation pits of nether gloom, “dark dungeons” (An American Translation), or “gloomy dungeons” (New International Version). Translations based on the manuscripts that have “chains” here are “chains of deepest darkness” (New Revised Standard Version) and “chained in darkness” (Good News Translation). The textual evidence is evenly balanced between the two alternatives, but the UBS Greek New Testament has adopted seirais “chains,” and translators are advised to do the same. For a translation of “chains” see Jude 6.

The word for nether gloom is literally “darkness,” or “gloom,” and is used by the Greeks to describe the underworld or the world of the dead. If translators understand nether gloom to be a quality of “chains,” then in many languages it will be necessary to restructure this phrase; for example, “deepest darkness that surrounded them like chains,” “deepest darkness that imprisoned them like chains.” The word “eternal” that is in Jude does not appear in 2 Peter. It is clear from the text that here the state is temporary; these angels are to be chained until the judgment, which refers to the final judgment at the end of the world and which will be ushered in by the return of Christ. Judgment here should not be understood as determining whether these angels are guilty or innocent, but rather as carrying out the punishment they deserve as a result of their evil deeds. It may be necessary therefore to make this clear, and translate judgment as “punishment” or “doom” (An American Translation): “until the Day of Judgment when they will receive the punishment they deserve.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• For if God did not refrain from punishing the angels when they sinned, but hurled them down into hell, where deepest (or, thick) darkness surrounded them like chains, as they waited for the Day of Judgment when he will punish them as they deserve….

Or:
• God did not refrain from punishing the angels when they sinned, but hurled them down into hell where they are kept chained in darkness, waiting for the Day when he will judge 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 .

Therefore connects this verse with the verses before it, primarily with the thought of the day of the Lord and the resulting end of the existing creation. For comments on beloved see Jude JUD.1.3.

Since you wait for these translates a participial phrase that can be interpreted either in a temporal sense, as in Good News Translation “as,” or as expressing reason, since, as in Revised Standard Version and New International Version. Some translations can be understood in an ambiguous way, like New English Bible “With this to look forward to.” For wait see comments on verse 12. These is translated “that Day” by Good News Translation rather than as “these things.” Either interpretation is possible in this context. These things will happen on the day when God judges the world.

Be zealous is the same verb translated “hastening” in verse 12. It may also be “do your best” (Good News Translation), “make every effort,” “do your utmost,” “make certain,” “strive,” “be diligent.” The word speaks of intense effort. For further comment see 1.10.

To be found translates a verb which is the basis of “may be found” in verse 10. Some take this as an argument for regarding “may be found” as the preferred reading in that verse; however, this is not as decisive as it looks, since it is possible that the present verse may have been read back into verse 10. To be found may also be expressed as “that God may find you…” or “that God may see that you are….”

By him may also be translated as “in him,” “in his sight,” or “with him.” The phrase can refer to Christ, but more likely God is meant, as in Good News Translation “in God’s sight.”

Without spot or blemish is taken from the vocabulary of the Jewish sacrificial system. These are the characteristics of animals that are acceptable as sacrifices. For without spot, see comments on Jude 24. This form of the word for without … blemish is used only here in the New Testament; in ordinary Greek it is used in an ethical sense, hence “morally blameless.” The two terms taken together compare Christians to perfect sacrificial animals and characterize Christian life as morally faultless and ethically irreproachable.

Peace may be interpreted as a state characterized by serenity, tranquility, contentment and freedom from trouble, or right relationship with one another, or more likely, right relationship with God. The third interpretation is reflected in Good News Translation (so also New English Bible, New International Version).

The Greek words in this clause (literally, “strive to be spotless and blameless in him [or, by him] to be found in peace”) can be put in different orders, depending on the meaning that the translator wants to bring out. Among the possibilities are the following:

1. “Strive to be found by him spotless and blameless and in peace.” This is the meaning reflected in Revised Standard Version.

2. “Strive to be found at peace with him, spotless and blameless in his sight.” This is the meaning reflected in Good News Translation.

3. “Strive to be spotless and blameless, so that you will be found by him to be at peace.” This is the meaning reflected in Jerusalem Bible, “do your best to live lives without spot or stain so that he will find you at peace.”

Alternative translation models for this verse, following the three possible interpretations mentioned above, are:
• Therefore, my friends, as you wait for the day when God will judge the world, you must do your best to have him find you pure and faultless and with peaceful hearts.

Or:
• Therefore, my friends … you must do your best to have him find you pure and faultless and at peace with him.

Or:
• Therefore, my friends … you must do your best to be pure and faultless, so that God sees that you are living at peace (or, with peaceful hearts) when he comes.

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 expression by which (Good News Translation “In this way”) may refer to what comes immediately before, in which case it is through God’s glory and goodness that we receive God’s promises. More likely, however, by which refers to all of verse 3, especially the first part. What Peter is saying then is that, when Christ (or God) gives us all that we need to live a godly life, he also gives to us those blessings that he has promised. Another way of saying by which, then, is “Because of this…” or “Because of these things….”

For he has granted see 1.3. In both instances the perfect tense is used, indicating that the promises have already been given and continue to be effective even into the unknown future. He most probably refers to God, and this can be made clear in the translation, especially if in verse 3 translators have identified “him” in the final clause as Jesus.

The word for promises is used only here in the New Testament and is usually understood in one of two ways: it can refer to the things promised, that is, the content of these promises (for example, “blessings,” or Good News Translation “gifts”), or it can refer to promises for the future that are mentioned in the latter part of the letter, such as the promise of a new heaven and a new earth (3.4, 9, 13, and other verses). As we shall see, a decision on which meaning to take depends somewhat on how the second part of verse 4 is interpreted.

The gifts are described as precious and very great. Precious translates a Greek word that refers to high honorable status when used of people, and to having considerable worth or value when used of things. In the present case precious can therefore be rendered as “valuable,” or even “invaluable” or “priceless” (that is, it is impossible to estimate its worth). The Greek word translated very great puts emphasis on importance, so it may be translated “very important” or even “extremely important.” These two attributes taken together stress the extreme significance and value of the gifts.

Through these can mean “by means of God’s blessings” (as in Good News Translation “by means of these gifts”) or “by means of God’s promises,” that is, by receiving the blessings that come as a result of the fulfillment of God’s promises. It is more likely, though, that “gifts” are meant here. Therefore another possible rendering is “by using these gifts.” This translation helps to avoid the impression that the “gifts” caused the escape. Rather, they are the means used to escape.

The result of all this is that the believers escape from the corruption that is in the world and become partakers of the divine nature. The word for escape is used only in this letter in the New Testament (see also 2.18, 20). The Greek form (aorist participle) clearly indicates that escaping from corruption comes before participating in the divine nature. Escape here does not mean “run away from” or “flee” but puts the main focus on being free or being delivered from something, which in this case is the corruption that is in the world. So the phrase through these you may escape from may be rendered “through these gifts you may be free from,” or even “that these gifts may help you to avoid,” or “that these things (or, blessings) that God has given to you may help you to avoid.”

Corruption literally refers to the decomposition of a dead body after it is buried; this has led many scholars to understand it primarily in a physical sense, with the stress being on the fact that life here on earth is temporary and not permanent. However, there are others who understand the term to include an ethical aspect as well, referring to moral deterioration and the resulting loss of character and immortality.

This corruption is described as being in the world, which can be understood simply as the created order, which is temporary and exposed to decay, or it can be understood as an evil force opposed to God and therefore subject to God’s judgment. Furthermore this corruption is related to or caused by passion. The Greek word used here means generally “desire” but in a negative sense means “sinful desire,” “evil desire,” “lust” (Good News Translation), that is, desire to do evil or sinful things, desire for things that are against the will of God. While Greek concepts are used here, particularly the opposition between the material and the spiritual, yet Greek thought is also modified in the sense that corruption is not simply a natural result of the physical world but is caused by sinful and evil desire.

How are these three words (corruption, world, passion) related to one another? One possibility is simply to follow the ordering of the Greek, in which case corruption is located in the world and is caused by passion (as in Revised Standard Version, and note Phillips “to escape the inevitable disintegration that lust produces in the world”). Another way is to understand corruption as a quality of passion, hence, evil desires that destroy, as in Good News Translation “destructive lust that is in the world.” Still another way is to understand passion as a quality of the world (as in Jerusalem Bible “to escape corruption in a world that is sunk in vice”). All of these are possible interpretations of the Greek text, although the first two are preferred by the majority of commentaries and modern translations. Therefore, keeping in mind these two interpretations, the clause you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion may be rendered in many languages as “you may escape from the evil desires (or, lusts) in the world that destroy people” or “the evil desires (or, lusts) in the world that destroy people will not corrupt you.”

Having escaped from corruption, the believers can now become partakers of the divine nature, which can be understood in two ways: being given some characteristics that are reserved for the divine, in this case immortality and incorruptibility, and sharing in the life and nature of God himself (as in Phillips “to share God’s essential nature,” and New English Bible “to share in the very being of God”). We may also render this phrase as “to share in God’s own nature,” “become like God,” “share in God’s heart.”

Many commentators note here the use of Greek concepts. The word for divine (see also 1.3) is used in only one other place in the New Testament, and that is in Acts 17.29, as part of Paul’s speech to the Athenians at the Areopagus, and in which he aptly uses a term that is popularly known, especially among the educated Greeks (Revised Standard Version “a [divine] representation”). The Greeks believed that human beings had in themselves a part of the divine nature which, however, was obscured by the material and physical elements. It was by escaping from the material world that they would come to share fully in the very nature of the gods. Salvation therefore was escape from the bondage of the physical and material. Peter uses what is popular in Greek thought, but he modifies it in such a way that it becomes compatible with Christian thought. He makes it clear that people become partakers of the divine nature, not because they already have it, or because of their own efforts, but primarily because of God’s grace and goodness; it is God and God alone who makes this possible.

We should note that there is a change here from the first person plural (us) to the second person plural (you). From this point on until verse 15, Peter addresses his readers directly. This change of pronouns is also found in verses 16-21, where the first person plural pronoun is used in verses 16-19a, and the second person from verse 19b to the end of the chapter.

A further question to be resolved in this verse is when all of this takes place. When will believers escape from corruption and decay and share in the divine nature? Firstly, this may be understood as a present reality, in which case escape from corruption and sharing in the divine nature are related to the Christian experience of conversion and baptism. Secondly, this may be understood as referring to the last days, in which case escape from corruption and sharing in the divine nature are related to the Christian experience at the end of time. The highly ethical nature of the immediately following verses (verses 5-15) favors the first alternative, while the many other references to the end of all things in the letter itself favor the second. At any rate, the first alternative goes well with the understanding that the promises are the blessings and gifts that are contained in it; while the second possibility goes well with the understanding that the promises are for the future, and their fulfillment will be at the end of the age. We propose that the former is the most likely interpretation.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• Through all this God has given us the very great and precious gifts that he promised. By using these gifts we can escape from the evil desires in the world that destroy people, and may come to have a part in God’s own nature.

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 a great deal of similarity with Jude 11.

Forsaking the right way they have gone astray is related to “Balaam’s error” in Jude 11. Right is used here in the sense of “correct,” “right,” “true.” Way is literally a road, but it is also used metaphorically to mean “a course of conduct,” “a way of doing things.” In the Bible “straight path” (Good News Translation) is used to describe proper and upright conduct (see 1 Sam 12.23; Hos 14.9; Acts 13.10). Some have taken the right way here as equivalent in meaning to “the way of truth” in 2 Peter 2.2 (for which see discussion there). Other ways of expressing the right way are “behave in a just or righteous way,” “have good conduct,” or “walk good lives.”

Forsaking can also be “They have abandoned” (New English Bible). It is a present participle in the Greek, but most modern translations understand it to function as a perfect tense, “having forsaken.” It may be simply translated as a perfect verb, which is what Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation (and most translations) have done. Forsaking the right way may also be expressed as “They have left the way of righteousness,” “They have stopped doing good,” “Their conduct has become evil,” or “They no longer walk good lives.”

The result of all this is that the false teachers have gone astray, a most logical conclusion. This expression is used figuratively here to mean they have been corrupted both spiritually and morally; they have accepted and followed doctrines and disciplines of life that led them to reject God rather than trust in him. In some languages this may be translated as “their hearts have become corrupt (or, evil),” or “they do evil things.”

So, instead of following the right way, they follow the way of Balaam, the son of Beor. Balaam is also mentioned in Jude 11. In the Old Testament Balaam’s father is named “Beor” (see Num 22.5; 24.3, 15), which explains why “Beor” is the form in many of the Greek manuscripts. It is very likely, however, that the variant form “Bosor” is the original in the Greek. In any case, rendering “Bosor” as “Beor” is justified here on the principle of using only the more common name when someone or something is known by two or more names. The clause they have followed the way of Balaam may be expressed as “They have done exactly what Balaam … did,” “They have imitated Balaam…,” or “They have followed the example of Balaam….”

The way of Balaam is not explained any further; there are three suggested possible points of comparison: greed, leading people to sin, and claiming to be God’s prophet or teacher. Perhaps the first of these, namely “greed,” is the most probable point of comparison, since it is mentioned in verse 14. This also fits what follows, since Balaam is described as one who loved gain from wrongdoing. We are told in the Old Testament that it was love of money that caused Balaam to lead Israel to sin (see Num 22-24; 31.16, and especially Jude 11 for further discussion of Balaam). In certain languages gain will need to be rendered as “the money he would be paid,” or in the active as “the money they would pay him.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• They have stopped doing good and turned to evil ways (or, their hearts have become corrupt). They have followed the example of Balaam, who loved the money people would pay him for doing evil.

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 .

Will see to it translates the same verb used in verse 5 (Revised Standard Version “make every effort”) and in verse 10 (Revised Standard Version “be the more zealous”). The future tense of the verb has created some problems for translation and interpretation. Some possible ways of understanding the future tense are as follows:

1. It is possible that Peter is here referring to a future effort that will remind his readers of these things even after his death. This effort most probably includes a letter, but one which is not the same as the present letter. Some have even speculated that such a letter was written, but that it has been lost. Others conjecture that what is meant here is Mark’s Gospel, since the ancient church regarded it as related to Peter and enshrining his testimony regarding Jesus Christ. Most if not all of this is of course speculative, that is, based only on what some think is possible.

2. The verse does not refer to the writing of any letter, either in the present or in the future, but to Peter’s effort of insuring that his testament (that is, the things mentioned in the present letter) is preserved and remembered even after his death.

The verb see to it can be rendered in many different ways; for example, “try as hard as I can” or “do whatever I can to.”

Departure is a very dignified euphemism, or way of avoiding the unpleasant word “death.” (The same euphemism is used in Luke 9.31.) A literal translation may give the wrong idea, such as the departure of the soul from the body, which is a Greek but not a Christian idea. Instead of translating literally, an equivalent euphemism can be used in the translation; for instance “after I am gone” (New English Bible) or “after I have passed away.” It is advisable to use the same expression as in verse 14 if a euphemism is used there. If no euphemism is available, then the meaning can be stated directly, as in Good News Translation “after my death.”

You may be able at any time to recall these things is literally “you may be able always to have remembrance of these things.” These things refers to the contents of Peter’s testament, which as suggested above is perhaps identical to the present letter. It is important for the readers of Peter’s letter to have continuous access to these important matters, even and especially after Peter’s death, since that is the main purpose of a testament. The expression for recall appears only here in the whole letter. For you may be able Good News Translation has “provide a way for you”; this is an excellent model for translators. Another way to say this is “cause you to.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• I will try very hard, then (or, as hard as I can), to give you a way (or, cause you) to remember these matters continually after I have passed away (or, died).

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 .

For coming see comments on 1.16. The second coming of Jesus Christ as judge is a very important part of apostolic teaching and is echoed in some words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels (for instance, Matt 24.3; Mark 9.1). The delay of this event created tremendous problems for the early church, as can be seen in some of Paul’s letters, such as his letters to the Thessalonians. This same problem is a major concern of the readers of 2 Peter. Apparently some people (most probably the false teachers mentioned in chapter 2) have been raising questions about this doctrine, or even denying its truth, and making fun of those who still hold on to it. So these people ask Where is the promise of his coming? In the Old Testament, doubts or denials are frequently expressed in the form of a rhetorical question with the same structure as above, as in Mal 2.17, “Where is the God who is supposed to be just?” (Good News Translation) or Jer 17.15, “Where are those threats the Lord made against us? Let him carry them out now!” (Good News Translation; see also Psa 42.3; Jer 17.15; Luke 8.25). So this rhetorical question form is very appropriate to express the cynical attitude of those who reject the Parousia because of its delay. Promise here refers to statements regarding the Parousia; these may be Old Testament prophecies, or teachings of the apostles, or even the very words of Jesus himself in which he spoke of his imminent return. Where is the promise seems to ask for the location of the promise, but in fact this is an idiomatic expression that means “Where is the fulfillment of the promise?” The aim of the question is not to find out where these promises are, but to express doubt and skepticism regarding them. Good News Translation offers a model for restructuring:
• “He promised to come, didn’t he? Where is he?”

Another way is to put this in the passive:
• “Hasn’t it been promised that he would come? What happened to that promise?”

(See also Knox: “What has become of the promise that he would appear?”) Another possibility is to change the rhetorical question into statements such as
• “His promise to come is not true! He is not coming at all!”

Or even:
• “He lied when he said, ‘I am coming again.’ Actually he is not coming at all.”

In restructuring rhetorical questions, translators must make sure that the impact of the text is retained in the translation, namely, that this is an emphatic statement.

Some commentators take fathers to refer to important people in the Old Testament, since the word was used with this meaning in the literature of that time. In the present context, however, it makes more sense to take it as referring to the first generation of Christians, that is, the first Christian disciples who were given the promise of the early return of Christ, and in whose lifetime this event was expected to happen. “Died” is literally fell asleep, a euphemism or indirect way of referring to dying. Ever since marks the beginning of the period that concerns the doubters: the period from the death of the first-generation Christians to the time of the writing of the letter. The sense of the Greek is captured in Good News Translation: “Our fathers have already died, but….” (See also New English Bible “Our fathers have been laid to their rest, but still….”)

All things have continued as they were: the Lord’s return has been proclaimed as coming with upheavals of various kinds in the world. The mockers contend that all things are exactly the same, and in fact things have been this way ever since the beginning of creation. The regularity of the world and the stability of existence are used as arguments against the Parousia. Creation refers to “the creation of the world” (Good News Translation, also New English Bible “since the world began”), with God as the agent, hence we can also say “from the time God created the world.” The statement all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation is of course an exaggeration, but this should be clearly marked in the translation. One way of doing it is shown in Good News Translation, where an exclamation point is used at the end of the statement. Similar rhetorical devices may be employed as far as they are appropriate in the receptor language.

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 .