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 .

Instead of the account of the murmurings of the Israelites in Egypt, which is found in Jude, Peter substitutes the story of the Flood, perhaps for the following reasons:

1. In various writings of that time, the Flood was closely connected with the fallen angels; in fact the flood was supposed to have been punishment that resulted from the activity of the fallen angels and their offspring.

2. It is likely that this choice was influenced by 1 Peter (see 3.20).

3. The Flood story has overtones of the last judgment, since it reminds people of the end of the world.

4. Finally, the Flood account serves as a good example of God’s act of punishing sinners and rewarding the righteous, and is therefore appropriate to 2 Peter.

The world denotes not only the world of human beings but also the universe as a whole. The Flood is understood to have a universal scope and thus is an appropriate reminder of the coming judgment that will also affect the whole world. However, for practical purposes in languages that do not have words or expressions that can refer to both the world of humans and the universe at the same time, translators should use a word that applies to the “world” of humans (world of the ungodly in the final sentence). The world before the flood is characterized as ancient. Peter seems to divide history into three stages: the ancient world, the present world, and the new world that will come about as a result of the day of the Lord. Ancient may be rendered as “a long time ago” or “many generations ago.”

The world of the ungodly means the same as the ancient world and echoes Gen 6.5-7, 12-13. The word for ungodly is used in other parts of this letter and is a favorite word also in (see Jude 4 and the discussion there). In Jewish tradition the people who lived at the time of the flood committed the same sins as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Ungodly may also be expressed as “people who disobey God,” “people who do not worship God,” “people who have no use for God,” or “people who are not faithful to God.”

Noah, however, was saved from the Flood. In the Genesis account Noah is described as a good man with no faults (Gen 6.9-10; 7.1). He is held up by Jewish tradition as an example of moral excellence. Noah then stands for those faithful Christians who will be saved from the judgment that is coming.

Noah is described as a herald of righteousness (Good News Translation “who preached righteousness”). While the Old Testament does not contain any account of Noah as a preacher, there are many references in Jewish (and Christian) tradition regarding his preaching to the people of the Flood generation. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus writes that Noah was “displeased” at the behavior of the people and tried to persuade them “to change their dispositions and their acts for the better”. In another publication known as “The Sibylline Oracles,” a long sermon of Noah is recorded. Righteousness here is an ethical term, with the meaning of upright moral behavior, or in its wider sense, living according to God’s will and purpose. A herald of righteousness will need to be radically restructured in many languages; for example, “who proclaimed (taught, announced, said) that people should live good lives according to God’s will and purpose.”

The word for preserved can also be “saved,” “protected,” “kept safe,” or even “protected from death.” In addition to Noah, the seven others saved were his wife, his three sons, and their wives (Gen 8.18). It is worth noting that the Greek is literally “Noah the eighth person,” which is an idiomatic way of saying “Noah with seven other people.” At any rate, the number of people saved in the Flood is eight, and many commentaries find this number significant. It is noted, for instance, that the eighth day is associated with the new creation, since the old creation was accomplished in seven days. Christians have associated the eighth day with Jesus’ resurrection, which in turn is linked with the new creation. It is not certain, however, whether Peter had all of this in mind, although it should be noted that the number eight also appears in relation to Noah and the flood in 1 Peter 3.20. What is important for the translator is that, if the number eight is regarded as significant, then it should at least be retained in the translation; for example, “but protected the eighth person Noah, who preached righteousness, and seven other people from death, when he brought…,” or “but protected Noah and seven other people from death, when he brought … Noah, who was the eighth person, preached that people should live good lives following the will and purpose of God,” or even “but protected Noah the eighth person, who was the one who preached that people … He and seven others did not drown when God caused the Flood to cover the world of people who did not worship him.”

One other thing needs to be noted. Revised Standard Version follows the ordering of the Greek text. It is clear, however, from the grammar of the text that the note about Noah is an embedded clause, and that when he brought … connects directly with the ancient world. Good News Translation has restructured the verse so that the embedded clause is put at the end of the verse. In many languages a similar restructuring needs to be done in order to ensure that the translation is clear and conforms to the rules of naturalness in these languages. The clause when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly can be restructured as “when he caused a flood to cover the world where people who disobeyed him lived” or “when he caused water to entirely cover the world where people who disobeyed him lived.”

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 .

Count may be rendered as “think about” or “consider.” “Look on” (Good News Translation) is an idiom that may be too difficult, and translating it literally should not be attempted.

The forbearance of our Lord recalls verse 9. Lord is again ambiguous, referring either to God or to Christ; in the light of verse 9, perhaps God is meant here, but Christ is also possible. Salvation primarily refers to deliverance from judgment at the end of the age and the gift of blessedness as a result of fellowship with God. For further comment see 1.1 (“Savior”) and 1.4 (“divine nature”). The whole expression defines the purpose of God’s patience, that is, it gives people the opportunity to repent and to receive salvation. Good News Translation makes this clear: “Look on our Lord’s patience as the opportunity he is giving you to be saved.” In certain languages salvation will require mentioning a specific danger from which one is saved; for example, “salvation from judgment.” Or the whole expression may be restructured as follows: “as the way he is providing you to escape from the coming judgment.”

The apostle Paul is now brought into the argument to give support to the ideas just expressed. It is not clear, however, what So also refers to. It can refer either to what comes immediately before, namely, the relation between the Lord’s patience and salvation, or, less likely, to all of verses 14 and 15. Paul is described as our beloved brother, which is obviously a term of endearment; brother has the general meaning of “fellow believer” and the special meaning of “fellow worker,” that is, a colleague in the Christian ministry. If the former is meant, then our has to be interpreted as inclusive, meaning “all of us Christians.” However, if the special meaning “fellow worker” is intended, then our would be interpreted as exclusive, that is, “we the apostles.” It is more likely that the inclusive sense is intended. Paul is further described as one who wrote to you, that is, to the readers of 2 Peter. Wrote to you may also be expressed as “wrote to you in a letter.”

According to the wisdom given him is a divine passive, and God is certainly meant as the source of wisdom; this gives real importance to Paul’s letters and raises them to the level of Scripture. In many languages this divine passive construction may have to be abandoned in favor of mentioning God as the source and giver of this wisdom; for example, “according to the wisdom that God has given him” or “according to the wisdom that he received from God.” Wisdom is not simply knowledge; it includes the application of such knowledge to life. Wisdom as the gift to writers inspired by God is found in a few writings at that time. Which letter of Paul is referred to is not indicated; many suggestions have been put forward, such as 1 Thessalonians, which deals with the problem of the Parousia, or Romans, which deals with the new creation. Fortunately for translators, we don’t have to be sure of this information in order to translate meaningfully, since it is not necessary to identify which letter of Paul is meant.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• Think about (or, Consider) our Lord’s patience as the way he is providing for you to escape from the coming judgment, just as Paul, our beloved fellow believer, wrote in a letter to you, using the wisdom that God gives him.

Or:
• Think about how our Lord shows patience … This is what Paul our beloved colleague wrote about in a….

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 .

Having reminded his readers of their great and glorious destiny, he now invites them to demonstrate this in their lives, that is, to lead lives that are morally and ethically acceptable.

For this very reason can refer to verse 4 (“Because you are meant to share the divine nature”), or more likely to verses 3-4 (“Because Christ [or, God] has done all this”); or we can say “Because of what God has done for us.” Others understand it with the sense “to attain this” (so Jerusalem Bible; and note also the Living Bible “But to obtain these gifts”).

The expression for make every effort is found only here in the whole New Testament and is an invitation to do your best, regardless of the cost (see Jerusalem Bible “You will have to do your utmost yourselves,” and Phillips “you must do your utmost from your side”). In its secular usage the expression is an appropriate introduction to a list of virtues. This imperative may be rendered in many languages as “you must do your best” or “you must try as hard as you can.”

The word for supplement presents some difficulties in translation. The word can also mean “to furnish” or “to provide at one’s own expense.” The noun form of the verb was used of prominent and wealthy citizens who underwrote the expenses for the choirs needed in the performance of Greek plays. Later on the verb came to mean “to give lavishly” or “to give generously” (see verse 11, “will be richly provided”). In this context it stresses the great efforts that Christians must make to ensure that their basic faith in Christ is supplemented by other important virtues as well. In many languages, when translating the list of qualities that follow, it will be necessary to follow the Good News Translation word order (action-virtue-faith) rather than that of Revised Standard Version (action-faith-virtue) and translate supplement your faith, for example, as “add the following qualities to your trust in Christ.” The whole clause make every effort to supplement your faith can be expressed as “you must try as hard as you can to add the following qualities to your trust in Christ” or “along with trusting Christ you should make every effort to add these following qualities.”

What follows is a string of eight qualities that were familiar in Greek culture in general, and to Stoic thought in particular. There seems to be no apparent underlying reason for the order in which these qualities are listed; the only thing significant is that the list begins with faith and ends with love (verse 7), thus giving the impression that these qualities are needed in order to live a truly Christian life. The number 8 has significance, for it symbolized perfection in the ancient world. These eight qualities are in pairs, with the second member of each pair becoming the first member in the next pair.

Faith here is basically trust in and commitment to Jesus Christ, although it is possible to understand it as loyalty to Christ or faithfulness to Christian teaching. The fact that it is mentioned first is significant, indicating that faith is the basis of all Christian life.

Virtue (Good News Translation “goodness”) can be understood in a general sense, referring to moral excellence, or in a more restricted sense, referring to moral courage or strength. In this context it probably has the first sense, namely, “moral excellence.” This can be rendered in some languages as “beautiful goodness” or even “the ability to do good and beautiful deeds.” Good News Translation‘s “goodness,” however, is a very general virtue, and to translate it generally in some languages may be too vague. So it will be necessary to say, for example, “ability to be good toward other people.”

Knowledge can be understood generally as either philosophical knowledge or understanding and discernment of God’s will and purpose in the world, and in a narrower sense as either knowing the difference between good and evil or the wisdom and discernment that Christians need in order to live virtuous lives. In non-Christian lists, knowledge is usually first or last, but in Christian lists it has been replaced in this position by faith and love. In many languages it will be necessary to say what kind of knowledge is referred to; for example, “knowledge about God,” or “knowing more of what it means to be a Christian,” or “knowing what it means to be part of God’s people.”

Keeping in mind what we have said above, an alternative translation model for this verse is:
• Because God has done all this for us, you must try as hard as you can to add the following things to your trust in Christ: first of all you must add goodness; then to your goodness add knowledge about God.

However, in many languages it will be difficult to talk about adding abstract Christian qualities to a person’s Christian life. Therefore it may be necessary to rephrase the verse as follows:
• Because God has done all this for us, along with your trust in him you must try as hard as you can to gain the ability to be good to other people along with your trust in God; and this goodness should be accompanied by true knowledge 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 .

Balaam, however, did not get away with his wickedness; in fact, he was rebuked for his own transgression.

Rebuked may also be rendered as “scolded.” Instead of the passive form was rebuked, some languages will employ an expression using the equivalent of the English word “suffer” and say “But he suffered scolding for his sins”; but in other languages it will be necessary to use the active and say “But God scolded him for his sins” or “But God scolded him for the evil he had done.” Transgression translates a word that means “lawlessness,” “evil act” (Good News Translation “sin”), and refers to a particular action, perhaps Balaam’s readiness to accept a bribe, or even his readiness to curse Israel.

The reference to the dumb ass speaking to Balaam is found in Num 22.21-35. The word for ass (Good News Translation “donkey”) is a term that is literally “under the yoke”; that is, it means a beast of burden, or an animal that is used to carry things—a fitting description for a donkey. Dumb here means “unable to speak,” not “unable to think.” This dumb donkey, however, spoke with human voice, that is, it used human language to communicate with Balaam. The account in Numbers mentions an angel who spoke after the donkey spoke, but Peter is apparently not intending to be thorough at this point. It is not the details that he is interested in but the result of such an unusual event: it restrained the prophet’s madness. Balaam is here called a prophet, that is, he was a person who spoke for God and who proclaimed the message that God revealed to him. (For further discussion of prophet see 2.1.) Here prophet stands in sharp contrast to dumb ass. See comments on 2 Peter 2.1 for ways to translate “prophet.” Restrained translates a verb that means “hinder,” “prevent,” “forbid,” “stop.” Madness on the other hand means “insanity” (as in Good News Translation), “senselessness.” Balaam is therefore described as someone who was not in his right mind in agreeing to curse Israel for the sake of material gain. However, his stupidity was stopped by the human voice of a dumb ass. The whole expression is translated by Knox as “to bring a prophet to his senses.” The final clause restrained the prophet’s madness may also be rendered “stopped the prophet from doing an insane thing” or “stopped the prophet from acting irrationally.”

There is humor here as well as irony. In verse 12 the false teachers were compared to “irrational animals.” Here they are compared to a stupid and insane prophet, who is rebuked by a dumb donkey.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• But God scolded him for the evil that he had done. His donkey spoke using human language and stopped the prophet from acting irrationally.

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 this context we refers to Peter and the other apostles, hence it is exclusive, since it does not include the readers of the letter. The switch from the singular “I” to the plural “we” is a device by which Peter identifies himself with the group of apostles who were with Jesus on earth and who therefore have authority over the church.

Did not follow may be rendered in some languages as “did not use,” “did not depend on” (see Good News Translation), here denying the implied idea that these myths were regarded by the apostles as true and valid. In certain languages this first clause will be expressed idiomatically; for example, “We did not weave made-up stories….”

Myths here is used in a derogatory, negative sense, referring to stories that are not true or that are just imaginary tales, but which are proclaimed and believed by some people to be true. This has not always been the understanding of the term “myth.” The old Greek myths, for instance, were used to express religious, moral, and philosophical truths, and therefore were regarded very highly. So what were these cleverly devised myths that Peter is referring to here? Commentaries suggest two possibilities:

1. They were speculations of the Gnostic teachers regarding God, the origin of the world, and especially regarding Jesus Christ. In contrast to these Gnostic teachers, Peter is saying that what he and the other apostles proclaim about Christ is solidly founded on history and prophecy and not on speculations.

2. The apostles’ message about Jesus was being branded as “myth” in the derogatory sense by Peter’s enemies, and Peter is answering that charge. It is very likely that what is especially being attacked as false is the Christian proclamation regarding the Parousia, or the second coming of Christ, which is mentioned in the second half of the verse and is the subject matter of much of chapter 3. The difficulties related to the Parousia, particularly the long delay in its coming, had led some believers to ridicule this belief, and false teachers had taken advantage of the situation in order to accuse the apostles of confusing myth with the truth. Peter vehemently denies all this. Instead he asserts that his message about Christ, and particularly about his second coming, is based both on prophecy and on reliable historical evidence.

Cleverly devised translates a Greek word that can also mean “cleverly made up,” “cleverly concocted,” “invented,” or “fabricated.” Cleverness here is understood in a derogatory sense. Myths can be translated in this context as “stories” (Good News Translation), “tales,” “legends,” “fairy tales.” In certain languages it is possible to talk about “binding stories,” meaning “making up stories cleverly,” or, as in English, we can say “spinning clever tales.”

We made known to you translates a verb that is frequently used in the New Testament for imparting a mystery or a special message received from God (see as examples Luke 2.15; John 15.15; Rom 16.26; Eph 6.19 “proclaim”; Col 1.27). This may also be rendered as “We told you.” What is made known here is the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Power and coming is another pair of words that may be interpreted in two ways:

1. They can be taken separately, with power being an attribute of Christ that was shown during his life and ministry, and especially at his resurrection. Coming, on the other hand, is a Greek term for the appearance of a god (parousia); when used of Christ it refers primarily to his future coming in glory (see Matt 24.3, 27; 1 Cor 15.23; 1 Thes 3.13; 4.15; James 5.7-8; 1 John 2.28). Some translations indicate clearly that these terms are taken separately: Jerusalem Bible “the power and the coming,” and New English Bible “the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming.”

2. On the other hand, the two terms can be taken together and treated as a hendiadys, with power describing coming, hence “coming with power,” “coming in power,” “powerful coming,” or “mighty coming” (Good News Translation). In other parts of the New Testament, power is closely linked with the second coming of Jesus (Matt 24.30; Mark 9.1; 13.26; Luke 21.27).

There is also another opinion to the effect that coming refers not to a future coming, but to Jesus’ first coming, that is, to his ministry, death, and resurrection. The reasons for this are, firstly, that the event referred to in this section is the Transfiguration, which in the Gospel narratives points forward to the resurrection rather than to the second coming, and secondly, that the writer at this point would not refer to an event that has not yet taken place, since he wants to argue from things that he was directly involved in.

Against the above it is argued that the term parousia is not used elsewhere in the New Testament for Jesus’ first coming, but only for his future coming. There is also some slight evidence in the early church that the Transfiguration was interpreted as anticipating the future coming of Christ.

On the whole, then, it is best to take coming here as referring to the return of Christ, and power as describing this return. Therefore in many languages the clause we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ can be rendered as “we told you how our Lord Jesus Christ will be coming in power” or “we told you how … will come and reveal his power.”

Peter describes himself and the apostles as eyewitnesses. The Greek word for this occurs only here in the New Testament; it was a technical term in the mystery religions, used of people who had gone through all the stages of initiation and were then allowed to watch the secret ritual. It is possible that this usage is echoed here, and that Peter was aware that, as eyewitnesses of the Transfiguration, he and the two other disciples had been privileged to see with their own eyes a special revelation from God. It is, however, also possible that the term is used here in its ordinary sense of being a spectator (see 1 Peter 2.12 and 3.2, where the verb form is used with this ordinary meaning, “see”). Good News Translation‘s “with our own eyes we saw” is a good alternative model.

What the disciples saw with their own eyes was Jesus’ majesty; the Greek word is usually used of divine greatness (Luke 9.43; Acts 19.27). Here it accents the supernatural quality of Jesus and the divine majesty that he received from God at the Transfiguration. Majesty may be translated in many languages as “dazzling light” or “splendor,” and the final sentence may be expressed as “We saw his dazzling light (or, splendor) with our own eyes.”

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 .

They deliberately ignore this fact can also be translated as “In taking this view they lose sight of the fact” or “they are inclined to forget….” This second alternative is arrived at by translating the Greek text as “They can assert this (verse 4b) only because they have overlooked (or, have forgotten) that….” The first alternative translates the Greek text as “They can assert this (verse 4b) because they willfully ignore….” The choice then is between deliberate ignoring and involuntary forgetting. Both are possible, and it is difficult to say which is more correct; most modern translations, however, prefer the first interpretation. Ignore may be expressed as “choose to overlook” or “choose to not notice.”

By the word of God recalls Gen 1.3; Psa 33.6, 9, and other Old Testament verses that stress the creative power of God’s word. In Hebrew thought a person’s word can act on behalf of that person, since it embodies both spirit and personality. God’s word, then, is God’s agent in creation. In the Greek text this comes at the end of the verse, and there are three ways of relating it to the rest of the verse:

1. It could relate only to the heavens. This is a possible reading of the text, but it goes against the biblical evidence that both heaven and earth came about as a result of God’s word.

2. It could relate to both heaven and earth. This is the most natural interpretation and is made clear in Good News Translation. (See also New English Bible: “there were heavens and earth long ago, created by God’s word….”)

3. It could relate only to earth. Some translations take this position (for instance, Knox “… earth which God’s word had made…”).

It may be difficult in some languages to translate this literally, in which case a restructuring similar to Good News Translation will be appropriate, with word being translated as a verb: “God spoke, and….”

Heavens refers not to the place where God dwells, but to the dome-like structure that is above the earth and shields the earth from the water that is above the dome. In languages where there is a distinction between these two kinds of “heaven,” the word for the dome-like structure should be used here. Heavens is plural in form but singular in meaning; its plural form is influenced by Hebrew usage, where the word for “heaven” is always plural. Many translations retain the plural here; however, it may be more natural to speak of “heaven” in the singular, as indeed many other translations have done.

Long ago goes back to the beginning of creation and emphasizes the vast age of the created order. The Greek text connects this grammatically with heavens (so Revised Standard Version and many other translations); it is possible, however, to connect long ago with both earth and the heavens (so Good News Translation, Knox, An American Translation). For ways to translate long ago, see the comments on Jude 4; 2 Peter 2.3.

An earth formed out of water and by means of water is literally “earth standing out of water and through water.” The background of this expression includes the many creation stories in the Near East, in which the sky and the earth arose out of an ocean of water (see Prov 8.27-29; Psa 136.6). But it primarily recalls Gen 1.1-10, which tells of how the earth, initially engulfed by a chaotic ocean, was formed by creating the sky to divide the stormy water into two (above and below the sky), and finally by gathering the water below the sky into one place. Out of water expresses this idea, namely, that the earth emerged out of the water, and not, as some commentaries hold, that water was the original or basic element from which all other things were made. By means of water may express the idea that God used water as the element in creating the earth; some translations in fact can be read with this meaning (such as New English Bible “with water”). It is more likely, however, that what is being emphasized here is that water is the instrument of creation in the sense that it was by doing something to the water (dividing and gathering it) that God gave the earth its existence. Thus we may translate “By his word he separated the earth from the ancient waters and brought the dry land out through the water.”

For languages that do not use the passive, an alternative translation model for this verse is the following:
• They deliberately ignore the fact that many many generations ago God spoke and the heavens came into being. By his word he separated the earth from the ancient waters and brought the dry land out through the water.

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 .

A third example is now given: after judgment by water, there is judgment by fire. The case of Sodom and Gomorrah is also found in Jude 7, but the differences are so significant that it is perhaps best to discuss the present passage separately.

The account of Sodom and Gomorrah is found in Gen 19.1-29. In that account God rained burning sulphur on the two cities, and they were burned to the ground. In the present passage the focus seems to be the state of the cities after the burning is over; they were turned to ashes. The term for ashes appears only here in the New Testament and can be literally translated as “covering of ashes,” as in a volcanic eruption. Here again there are similarities with Jewish tradition. For example, this very term is used in some writings to describe Sodom and Gomorrah, and the region around the Dead Sea is known as “the land of ashes.” Fire and the source of the fire (from heaven, from God) are implicit in the Greek and may need to be made explicit in the translation, otherwise, people may assume that it is a natural fire; for example, “by causing fire to burn the cities … until they were ashes.”

He condemned them to extinction is interpreted by some as “condemned them with an overthrow” (the King James Version [ King James Version]), with “overthrow” referring to an earthquake that presumably followed the fire and resulted in the sinking of the cities and in the formation of the Dead Sea. This, however, is neither biblical nor historical but is part of the legends that came into being to explain why the Dead Sea was the way it was. Most modern translations, however, understand the text in the same way as Revised Standard Version (for instance, New English Bible “condemned them to total destruction,” Phillips “sentenced them to destruction,” Jerusalem Bible “he condemned … he destroyed them completely”). The meaning seems to be that God completely destroyed the cities and made it impossible for them to be rebuilt.

God did this to make these cities an example of what will happen to the ungodly if they do not repent. The word for example can be either positive (as in James 5.10) or somewhat negative, hence a “warning” (An American Translation; New English Bible “object-lesson”). Made them an example can also be rendered “used them as a warning.” For ungodly see 2 Peter 2.5 above. There is a textual problem here, as many manuscripts contain the variant reading followed by Revised Standard Version, to those who were to be ungodly. This is reflected in some translations; for example, New English Bible “godless men in future days,” Jerusalem Bible “anybody lacking reverence in the future,” Knox “the godless of a later time.” With this in mind, possible alternative translation models for this verse are:
• If God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed them completely by causing fire to burn them until they were ashes, and made them a warning of what will happen to those people who disobey him….

Or:
• God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, causing them to burn until they were ashes. He made them a warning to people of what will happen to those who disobey 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 .