2 Petrus 2:4

2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, ¹  but threw them into hell ²  and locked them up ³  in chains ⁴  in utter darkness, ⁵  to be kept until the judgment,

2 Petrus 2:6

2:6 and if he turned to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when he condemned them to destruction, ⁶  having appointed ⁷  them to serve as an example ⁸  to future generations of the ungodly, ⁹ 

2 Petrus 2:9

2:9 – if so, ¹⁰  then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, ¹¹  and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment ¹²  at the day of judgment,

2 Petrus 2:18

2:18 For by speaking high-sounding but empty words ¹³  they are able to entice, ¹⁴  with fleshly desires and with debauchery, ¹⁵  people ¹⁶  who have just escaped ¹⁷  from those who reside in error. ¹⁸ 

2 Petrus 2:22--3:1

2:22 They are illustrations of this true proverb: ¹⁹  “A dog returns to its own vomit,” ²⁰  and “A sow, after washing herself, ²¹  wallows in the mire.” ²² 

The False Teachers’ Denial of the Lord’s Return

3:1 Dear friends, this is already the second letter I have written ²³  you, in which ²⁴  I am trying to stir up ²⁵  your pure mind by way of reminder:

[2:4]  ¹ tn The participle ἁμαρτησάντων (Jamarthsantwn) could either be attributive (“who sinned”) or adverbial (“when they sinned”). The relation to the judgment of the false teachers in v. 3 suggests that the objects of God’s judgment are not in question, but the time frame for the execution of justice is. If the participle is taken temporally, the point of comparison is not as acute. The objection that the illustrations following (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) are viewed temporally does not mitigate this translation, for in both instances only the time of executing judgment is in view. Further, in both instances the OT notes that God withheld punishment for a long time.

[2:4]  ² tn Grk “casting them into Tartarus” or “holding them captive in Tartarus.” This verb, ταρταρόω (tartarow), occurs only here in the NT, but its meaning is clearly established in both Hellenistic and Jewish literature. “Tartarus [was] thought of by the Greeks as a subterranean place lower than Hades where divine punishment was meted out, and so regarded in Israelite apocalyptic as well” (BDAG 991 s.v.). Grammatically, it has been translated as an indicative because it is an attendant circumstance participle.

[2:4]  ³ tn Grk “handed them over.”

[2:4]  ⁴ tc The reading σειραῖς (seirai", “chains”) is found in Ì⁷² P Ψ 33 1739 Ï vg sy, while σιροῖς (sirois [or σειροῖς, seirois], “pits”) is found in א A B C 81 pc. The evidence is thus fairly evenly divided. Internally, the reading adopted here (σειραῖς) is a rarer term, perhaps prompting some scribes to replace it with the more common word. However, this more common term is not a synonym and hence does not follow the normal pattern of scribes. As well, the use of the genitive ζόφου (zofou) in “chains of darkness” is a bit awkward (a rare genitive of place), perhaps prompting some scribes to change the imagery to “pits of darkness” (in which case ζόφου is an attributive genitive). A further point that complicates the issue is the relationship of 2 Peter to Jude. Jude’s parallel (v. 6) has δεσμοῖς (desmois, “chains”). Apart from the issue of whether 2 Peter used Jude or Jude used 2 Peter, this parallel suggests one of two possibilities: either (1) since these two books obviously have a literary relationship, σειραῖς is original, or (2) early scribes, recognizing that these two books shared their material, changed σειροῖς to σειραῖς to conform the wording, at least conceptually, to Jude 6. On balance, σειραῖς looks to be original because scribes were not prone to harmonize extensively between books other than the Gospels (although 2 Peter and Jude do display some of this harmonizing). Further, such harmonization is often, if not usually, verbally exact, but δεσμοῖς is not a variant here.

[2:4]  ⁵ tn The genitive ζόφου (zofou) is taken as a genitive of place. See previous note for discussion.

[2:6]  ⁶ tc Several important witnesses omit καταστροφῇ (katastrofh, “destruction”; such as Ì^72* B C* 1241 1739 1881 pc), but this is probably best explained as an accidental omission due to homoioarcton (the word following is κατέκρινεν [katekrinen, “he condemned”]).

[2:6]  tn Or “ruin,” or “extinction.” The first part of this verse more literally reads “And [if] he condemned to annihilation the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, by turning them to ashes.”

[2:6]  sn The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is detailed in Gen 18:16—19:29.

[2:6]  ⁷ tn The perfect participle τεθεικώς (teqeikw") suggests an antecedent act. More idiomatically, the idea seems to be, “because he had already appointed them to serve as an example.”

[2:6]  ⁸ tn “To serve as” is not in Greek but is implied in the object-complement construction.

[2:6]  ⁹ tn Grk “an example of the things coming to the ungodly,” or perhaps “an example to the ungodly of coming [ages].”

[2:9]  ¹⁰ tn The Greek is one long conditional sentence, from v. 4 to v. 10a. 2Pet 2:4-8 constitute the protasis; vv. 9 and 10a, the apodosis. In order to show this connection more clearly, a resumptive summary protasis – “if so,” or “if God did these things” – is needed in English translation.

[2:9]  ¹¹ tn Grk “from trial,” or possibly “from temptation” (though this second meaning for πειρασμός (peirasmo") does not fit the context in which Noah and Lot are seen as in the midst of trials, not temptation).

[2:9]  ¹² tn The adverbial participle κολαζομένους (kolazomenou") can refer either to contemporaneous time or subsequent time. At stake is the meaning of the following prepositional phrase (at the day of judgment or until the day of judgment). If the participle is contemporaneous, the idea is “to keep the ungodly in a state of punishment until the day of judgment.” If subsequent, the meaning is “to keep the ungodly to be punished at the day of judgment.” Many commentators/translations opt for the first view, assuming that the present participle cannot be used of subsequent time. However, the present participle is the normal one used for result, and is often used of purpose (cf., e.g., for present participles suggesting result, Mark 9:7; Luke 4:15; John 5:18; Eph 2:15; 2 Pet 2:1, mentioned above; for present participles indicating purpose, note Luke 10:25; John 12:33; Acts 3:26; 2 Pet 2:10 [as even most translations render it]). Further, the context supports this: 2:1-10 forms something of an inclusio, in which the final end of the false teachers is mentioned specifically in v. 1, then as a general principle in v. 9. The point of v. 3 – that the punishment of the false teachers is certain, even though the sentence has not yet been carried out, is underscored by a participle of purpose in v. 9.

[2:18]  ¹³ tn Grk “high-sounding words of futility.”

[2:18]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “they entice.”

[2:18]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “with the lusts of the flesh, with debauchery.”

[2:18]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “those.”

[2:18]  ¹⁷ tn Or “those who are barely escaping.”

[2:18]  ¹⁸ tn Or “deceit.”

[2:22]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “the [statement] of the true proverb has happened to them.” The idiom in Greek cannot be translated easily in English.

[2:22]  ²⁰ tn The quotation is a loose rendering of Prov 26:11. This proverb involves a participle that is translated like a finite verb (“returns”). In the LXX this line constitutes a subordinate and dependent clause. But since the line has been lifted from its original context, it has been translated as an independent statement.

[2:22]  ²¹ tn Or “after being washed.” The middle verb may be direct (“wash oneself”) or permissive (“allow oneself to be washed”).

[2:22]  ²² tn The source of this quotation is uncertain. Heraclitus has often been mentioned as a possible source, but this is doubtful. Other options on the translation of the second line include a sow, having (once) bathed herself (in mud), (returns) to wallowing in the mire, or a sow that washes herself by wallowing in the mire (BDAG 181 s.v. βόρβορος). The advantage of this last translation is that no verbs need to be supplied for it to make sense. The disadvantage is that in this context it does not make any contribution to the argument. Since the source of the quotation is not known, there is some guesswork involved in the reconstruction. Most commentators prefer a translation similar to the one in the text above.

[3:1]  ²³ tn Grk “I am already writing this [as] a second letter.” The object-complement construction is more smoothly rendered in English a bit differently. Further, although the present tense γράφω (grafw) is used here, English convention employs an epistolary past tense. (The Greek epistolary aorist might have been expected here, but it also occurs in situations unlike its English counterparts.)

[3:1]  ²⁴ tn The relative pronoun is plural, indicating that the following statement is true about both letters.

[3:1]  ²⁵ tn Or “I have stirred up, aroused.” The translation treats the present tense verb as a conative present.