Albert Barnes Commentary 2 Peter 2

CHAPTER II

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

The general subject of this chapter is stated in the first verse, and it embraces these points:

1. That it might be expected that there would be false teachers among Christians, as there were false prophets in ancient times;
2. That they would introduce destructive errors, leading many astray; and,
3. That they would be certainly punished.

The design of the chapter is to illustrate and defend these points.

I. That there would be such false teachers the apostle expressly states in 2 Peter 2:1; and incidentally in that verse, and elsewhere in the chapter, he notices some of their characteristics, or some of the doctrines which they would hold.

1. They would deny the Lord that bought them (2 Peter 2:1). See the notes on 2 Peter 2:1.
2. They would be influenced by covetousness, and their object in their attempting to seduce others from the faith, and to induce them to become followers of themselves, would be to make money (2 Peter 2:3).
3. They would be corrupt, beastly, and licentious in their conduct; and it would be one design of their teaching to show that the indulgence of gross passions was not inconsistent with religion (2 Peter 2:10, that walk after the flesh, in the lust of uncleanness; 2 Peter 2:12, as natural brute beasts; shall perish in their own corruption; 2 Peter 2:14, having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; 2 Peter 2:22, the dog has returned to his own vomit again).
4. They would be proud, arrogant, and self-willed; men who would despise all proper government, and who would be thoroughly radical in their views (2 Peter 2:10, and despise government; presumptuous are they and self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities; 2 Peter 2:18, they speak great swelling words of vanity).
5. They were persons who had been formerly of corrupt lives, but who had become professing Christians. This is implied in 2 Peter 2:20–22. They are spoken of as having escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; as having known the ways of righteousness, but as having turned again to their former corrupt practices and lusts; it has happened to them according to the true proverb, etc. There were various classes of persons in primitive times, coming under the general appellation of the term Gnostic, to whom this description would apply, and it is probable that they had begun to broach their doctrines in the times of the apostles. Among those persons were the Ebionites, Corinthians, Nicolaitanes, etc.

II. These false teachers would obtain followers, and their teachings would be likely to allure many. This is intimated more than once in the chapter: 2 Peter 2:2, and many shall follow their pernicious ways; 2 Peter 2:3, and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; 2 Peter 2:14, beguiling unstable souls. (Compare to 2 Peter 2:18).

III. They would certainly be punished. A large part of the chapter is taken up in proving this point, and especially in showing from the examples of others who had erred in a similar manner, that they could not escape destruction. In doing this, the apostle refers to the following facts and illustrations:

1. The case of the angels that sinned, and that were cast down to hell (2 Peter 2:4). If God brought such dreadful punishment on those who were once before His throne, wicked men could have no hope of escape.
2. The case of the wicked in the time of Noah, who were cut off by the flood (2 Peter 2:5).
3. The case of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter 2:6).
4. The character of the persons referred to was such that they could have no hope of escape.
   1. They were corrupt, sensual, presumptuous, and self-willed, and were even worse than the rebel angels had been—men that seemed to be made to be taken and destroyed (2 Peter 2:10–12).
   2. They were spots and blemishes, sensual and adulterers, emulating the example of Balaam, who was rebuked by even a dumb ass for his iniquity (2 Peter 2:13–16).
   3. They allured others to sin under the specious promise of liberty, while they were themselves the slaves of debased appetites, and gross and sensual passions (2 Peter 2:17–19). From the entire description in this chapter, it is clear that the persons referred to, though once professors of religion, had become eminently abandoned and corrupt. It may not, indeed, be easy to identify them with any particular sect or class then existing and now known in history, though not a few of the sects in the early Christian church bore a strong resemblance to this description; but there have been those in every age who have strongly resembled these persons; and this chapter, therefore, possesses great value as containing important warnings against the arts of false teachers, and the danger of being seduced by them from the truth. (Compare Introduction to the Epistle of Jude, sections 3 and 4).

But there were false prophets also among the people. In the previous chapter (2 Peter 1:19–21), Peter had appealed to the prophecies as containing unanswerable proofs of the truth of the Christian religion. He says, however, that he did not mean to say that all who claimed to be prophets were true messengers of God. There were many who pretended to be such, who only led the people astray. It is unnecessary to say that such men have abounded in all ages where there have been true prophets.

Even as there shall be false teachers among you. The fact that false teachers would arise in the church is often adverted to in the New Testament. (Compare to Matthew 24:5, 24; Acts 20:29–30).

Who privily. That is, in a secret manner, or under plausible arts and pretenses. They would not at first make an open avowal of their doctrines, but would in fact, while their teachings seemed to be in accordance with truth, covertly maintain opinions which would sap the very foundations of religion.

The Greek word here used, and which is rendered who privily shall bring in (pareisagō), means properly to lead in by the side of others; to lead in along with others. Nothing could better express the usual way in which error is introduced. It is by the side, or along with, other doctrines which are true; that is, while the mind is turned mainly to other subjects, and is off its guard, gently and silently to lay down some principle, which, being admitted, would lead to the error, or from which the error would follow as a natural consequence.

Those who inculcate error rarely do it openly. If they would at once boldly deny the Lord that bought them, it would be easy to meet them, and the mass of professed Christians would be in no danger of embracing the error. But when principles are laid down which may lead to that; when doubts on remote points are suggested which may involve it; or when a long train of reasoning is pursued which may secretly tend to it, there is much more probability that the mind will be corrupted from the truth.

Damnable heresies. aireseis apōleias. “Heresies of destruction;” that is, heresies that will be followed by destruction. The Greek word which is rendered damnable is the same which in the close of the verse is rendered destruction. It is so rendered also in Matthew 7:13; Romans 9:22; Philippians 3:19; 2 Peter 3:16—in all of which places it refers to the future loss of the soul. The same word also is rendered perdition in John 17:12; Philippians 1:28; 1 Timothy 6:9; Hebrews 10:39; 2 Peter 3:7; Revelation 17:8, 11

—in all which places it has the same reference. On the meaning of the word rendered heresies, see the notes on Acts 24:14; see the notes on 1 Corinthians 11:19.

The idea of sect or party is that which is conveyed by this word, rather than doctrinal errors; but it is evident that in this case the formation of the sect or party, as is the fact in most cases, would be founded on error of doctrine. The thing which these false teachers would attempt would be divisions, alienations, or parties, in the church, but these would be based on the erroneous doctrines which they would promulgate.

What would be the particular doctrine in this case is immediately specified, namely, that they would deny the Lord that bought them. The idea then is that these false teachers would form sects or parties in the church, of a destructive or ruinous nature, founded on a denial of the Lord that bought them.

Such a formation of sects would be ruinous to piety, to good morals, and to the soul. The authors of these sects, holding the views which they did, and influenced by the motives which they would be, and practicing the morals which they would practice, as growing out of their principles, would bring upon themselves swift and certain destruction.

It is not possible now to determine to what particular class of errorists the apostle had reference here, but it is generally supposed that it was to some form of the Gnostic belief. There were many early sects of so-called heretics to whom what he says here would be applicable.

Even denying the Lord that bought them. This must mean that they held doctrines which were in fact a denial of the Lord, or the tendency of which would be a denial of the Lord, for it cannot be supposed that, while they professed to be Christians, they would openly and avowedly deny Him.

To “deny the Lord” may be either to deny His existence, His claims, or His attributes; it is to withhold from Him, in our belief and profession, anything which is essential to a proper conception of Him. The particular thing, however, which is mentioned here as entering into that self-denial, is something connected with the fact that He had bought them.

It was such a denial of the Lord as having bought them, as to be in fact a renunciation of the peculiarity of the Christian religion. There has been much difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word “Lord” in this place—whether it refers to God the Father, or to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Greek word is despotēs. Many expositors have maintained that it refers to the Father, and that when it is said that He had bought them, it means in a general sense that He was the Author of the plan of redemption, and had caused them to be purchased or redeemed.

Michaelis supposes that the Gnostics are referred to as denying the Father by asserting that He was not the Creator of the universe, maintaining that it was created by an inferior being (Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 360). Whitby, Benson, Slade, and many others, maintain that this refers to the Father as having originated the plan by which men are redeemed; and the same opinion is held, of necessity, by those who deny the doctrine of general atonement. The only arguments to show that it refers to God the Father would be:

1. That the word used here (despotēs) is not the usual term (kyrios) by which the Lord Jesus is designated in the New Testament; and,
2. That the admission that it refers to the Lord Jesus would lead inevitably to the conclusion that some will perish for whom Christ died.

That it does, however, refer to the Lord Jesus, seems to me to be plain from the following considerations:

1. It is the obvious interpretation; that which would be given by the great mass of Christians, and about which there could never have been any hesitancy if it had not been supposed that it would lead to the doctrine of general atonement. As to the alleged fact that the word used (Despotēs) is not that which is commonly applied to the Lord Jesus, that may be admitted to be true, but still the word here may be understood as applied to Him.

   It properly means a master as opposed to a servant; then it is used as denoting supreme authority, and is thus applied to God, and may be in that sense to the Lord Jesus Christ, as head over all things, or as having supreme authority over the church. It occurs in the New Testament only in the following places: 1 Timothy 6:1–2; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18, where it is rendered masters; Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Revelation 6:10, where it is rendered Lord, and is applied to God; and in Jude 1:4, and in the passage before us, in both which places it is rendered Lord, and is probably to be regarded as applied to the Lord Jesus. There is nothing in the proper signification of the word which would forbid this.

2. The phrase is one that is properly applicable to the Lord Jesus as having bought us with His blood. The Greek word for “bought” here is from agorazō (ἀγοράζω)—a word which means properly to market, to buy, to purchase, and then to redeem, or acquire for oneself by a price paid, or by a ransom. It is rendered buy or bought in the following places in the New Testament: Matthew 13:44, 46; 14:15; 21:12; 25:9, 10; 27:7; Mark 6:36, 37; 11:15; 15:46; 16:1; Luke 9:13; 14:18, 19; 17:28; 19:45; 22:36; John 4:8; 6:5; 13:29; 1 Corinthians 7:30; Revelation 3:18; 13:17; 18:11—in all which places it is applicable to ordinary transactions of buying. In the following places it is also rendered bought, as applicable to the redeemed, as being bought or purchased by the Lord Jesus: 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23, You are bought with a price; and in the following places it is rendered redeemed: Revelation 5:9; 14:3-4.

It does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It is true that in a large sense this word might be applied to the Father as having caused His people to be redeemed, or as being the Author of the plan of redemption; but it is also true that the word is more properly applicable to the Lord Jesus, and that, when used with reference to redemption, it is uniformly given to Him in the New Testament.

Compare the passages referred to above. It is strictly and properly true only of the Son of God that He has bought us. The Father indeed is represented as making the arrangement, as giving His Son to die, and as the great Source of all the blessings secured by redemption; but the purchase was actually made by the Son of God by His sacrifice on the cross.

Whatever there was of the nature of a price was paid by Him; and whatever obligations may grow out of the fact that we are purchased or ransomed are due particularly to Him (2 Corinthians 5:15). These considerations seem to me to make it clear that Peter referred here to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he meant to say that the false teachers mentioned held doctrines which were in fact a denial of that Savior.

He does not specify particularly what constituted such a denial; but it is plain that any doctrine which represented Him, His person, or His work, as essentially different from what was the truth, would amount to such a denial. If He was Divine, and that fact was denied, making Him wholly a different being; if He actually made an expiatory sacrifice by His death, and that fact was denied, and He was held to be a mere religious teacher, changing essentially the character of the work which He came to perform; if He, in some proper sense, bought them with His blood, and that fact was denied in such a way that according to their views it was not strictly proper to speak of Him as having bought them at all, which would be the case if He were a mere prophet or religious teacher, then it is clear that such a representation would be in fact a denial of His true nature and work. That some of these views entered into their denial of Him is clear, for it was with reference to the fact that He had bought them, or redeemed them, that they denied Him.

And bring upon themselves swift destruction. The destruction here referred to can be only that which will occur in the future world, for there can be no evidence that Peter meant to say that this would destroy their health, their property, or their lives. The Greek word (apōleian) is the same which is used in the former part of the verse, in the phrase damnable heresies. See Notes. In regard, then, to this important passage, we may remark:

1. That the apostle evidently believed that some would perish for whom Christ died.
2. If this is so, then the same truth may be expressed by saying that He died for others besides those who will be saved; that is, that the atonement was not confined merely to the elect. This one passage, therefore, demonstrates the doctrine of general atonement. This conclusion would be drawn from it by the great mass of readers, and it may be presumed, therefore, that this is the fair interpretation of the passage.
3. It follows that men may destroy themselves by a denial of the great and vital doctrines of religion. It cannot be a harmless thing, then, to hold erroneous opinions; nor can men be safe who deny the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. It is truth, not error, that saves the soul; and an erroneous opinion on any subject may be as dangerous to a man's ultimate peace, happiness, and prosperity, as a wrong course of life. How many men have been ruined in their worldly prospects, their health, and their lives, by holding false sentiments on the subject of morals, or in regard to medical treatment! Who would regard it as a harmless thing if a son should deny in respect to his father that he was a man of truth, probity, and honesty, or should attribute to him a character which does not belong to him—a character just the reverse of truth? Can the same thing be innocent in regard to God our Savior?
4. Men bring destruction on themselves. No one compels them to deny the Lord that bought them; no one forces them to embrace any dangerous error. If men perish, they perish by their own fault, for:
   1. Ample provision was made for their salvation as well as for others;
   2. They were freely invited to be saved;
   3. It was, in itself, just as easy for them to embrace the truth as it was for others; and
   4. It was as easy to embrace the truth as to embrace error.

And many shall follow their pernicious ways. A marginal note suggests lascivious. A large number of manuscripts and versions read lascivious here (aselgeiaiv), instead of pernicious (apwleiaiv), (see Wetstein), and this reading is adopted in the editions of the Greek Testament by Tittman, Griesbach, and Hahn. It seems probable that this is the correct reading. This will agree well with the account given elsewhere of these teachers, that their doctrines tended to licentiousness (2 Peter 2:10, 14, 18, 19).

It is a very remarkable circumstance that those who have denied the essential doctrines of the gospel have been so frequently licentious in their own conduct and have inculcated opinions that tended to licentiousness. Many of the forms of religious error have somehow had a connection with this vice. Men who are corrupt at heart often seek to obtain the sanction of religion for their corruptions.

By reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

1. Because they were professors of religion, and religion would seem to be held responsible for their conduct;

2. Because they were professed teachers of religion and, by many, would be understood as expounding the true doctrines of the gospel.

And through covetousness. This shows one of the things that influenced them—a thing which, like licentiousness, usually exerts a powerful influence over the teachers of error. The religious principle is the strongest that is implanted in the human heart; and men who can obtain a livelihood in no other way, or who are too unprincipled or too indolent to labor for an honest living, often become public teachers of religion, and adopt the kind of doctrines that will likely give them the greatest power over the purses of others. True religion, indeed, requires its friends to devote all that they have to the service of God and to the promotion of His cause; but it is very easy to pervert this requirement, so that the teacher of error will take advantage of it for his own aggrandizement.

Shall they with feigned words. Greek: formed, fashioned; that is, those which are formed for the occasion—feigned, false, deceitful. The idea is that the doctrines they would defend were not maintained by solid and substantial arguments, but that they would use plausible reasoning made up for the occasion.

Make merchandise of you. This means they treat you not as rational beings, but as a bale of goods, or any other article of traffic. That is, they would endeavor to make money from them, and regard them only as suited to promote that object.

Whose judgment. Whose condemnation (Jude 1:1–4).

Now for a long time does not linger. Greek: “of old; long since.” The idea seems to be that justice had long been attentive to their movements and was on its way to their destruction. It was not a new thing—that is, there was no new principle involved in their destruction; but it was a principle that had always been in operation, which would certainly be applicable to them, and for a long time justice had been impatient to do the work it was accustomed to do. What had occurred to the angels that sinned (2 Peter 2:4), to the old world (2 Peter 2:5), and to Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter 2:6), would occur to them; and the same justice that had overthrown them might be regarded as on its way to effect their destruction .

And their damnation does not slumber. Their condemnation (See 1 Corinthians 11:29), yet here referring to future punishment. “Mr. Blackwell observes that this is a most beautiful figure, representing the vengeance that will destroy such incorrigible sinners as an angel of judgment pursuing them on the wing, continually approaching nearer and nearer, and in the meantime keeping a watchful eye upon them that he may at length discharge an unerring blow.” —Doddridge. It is not uncommon to speak of ‘sleepless justice;’ and the idea here is that however justice may have seemed to slumber or to linger, it was not really so, but that it had an ever-watchful eye on them and was on its way to do what was right in regard to them. A sinner should never forget that there is an eye of unslumbering vigilance always upon him, and that everything that he does is witnessed by one who will yet render exact justice to all men. No man, however careful to conceal his sins, however bold in transgression, or however unconcerned he may seem to be, can hope that justice will always linger, or destruction always slumber.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned. The apostle now proceeds to the proof of the proposition that these persons would be punished. It is to be remembered that they had been, or were even then, professing Christians, though they had really, if not in form, apostatized from the faith (2 Peter 2:20–22); and a part of the proofs, therefore, are derived from the cases of those who had apostatized from the service of God.

He appeals, therefore, to the case of the angels that had revolted. Neither their former rank, their dignity, nor their holiness saved them from being thrust down to hell; and if God punished them so severely, then false teachers could not hope to escape. The apostle, by the angels here, refers undoubtedly to a revolt in heaven—an event referred to in Jude 1:6 and everywhere implied in the Scriptures.

When that occurred, however—why they revolted, or what was the number of the apostates—we do not have the slightest information, and on these points conjecture would be useless.

There is no improbability in the supposition that it occurred, for there is nothing more absurd in the belief that angels have revolted than that men have. If there are evil angels, as there is no more reason to doubt than that there are evil men, it is morally certain that they must have fallen at some period from a state of holiness, for it cannot be believed that God made them wicked.

But cast them down to hell. The Greek word is tartarwsav—"thrusting them down to Tartarus." This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, though it is common in classical writers.

It is a verb formed from tartarov (Tartarus), which in Greek mythology was the lower part, or abyss of hades, where the shades of the wicked were supposed to be imprisoned and tormented, and corresponded to the Jewish word Gehenna—Gehenna.

It was commonly regarded as beneath the earth, entered through the grave, dark, dismal, gloomy, and a place of punishment (compare Job 10:21-22 and Matthew 5:22).

The word here is one that properly refers to a place of punishment, since the whole argument relates to that, and since it cannot be pretended that the "angels that sinned" were removed to a place of happiness on account of their transgression. It must also refer to punishment in some other world than this, for there is no evidence that this world is made a place of punishment for fallen angels.

And delivered them into chains of darkness. "Where darkness lies like chains upon them"—Rob. Lex. The meaning seems to be that they are confined in that dark prison-house as if by chains. We are not to suppose that spirits are literally bound; but it was common to bind or fetter prisoners who were in dungeons, and the representation here is taken from that fact.

This representation that the mass of fallen angels are confined in Tartarus, or in hell, is not inconsistent with the representations which elsewhere occur that their leader is permitted to roam the earth and that even many of those spirits are allowed to tempt men.

It may still be true that the mass are confined within the limits of their dark abode. It may even be true also that Satan and those who are permitted to roam the earth are under bondage, are permitted to range only within certain bounds, and are so secured that they will be brought to trial at the last day.

To be reserved unto judgment. Jude 1:6, to the judgment of the great day. They will then, with the revolted inhabitants of this world, be brought to trial for their crimes. That the fallen angels will be punished after the judgment is apparent from Revelation 20:10. The argument in this verse is that if God punished the angels who revolted from Him, it is a fair inference that He will punish wicked men, though they were once professors of religion.

And spared not the old world. The world before the flood. The argument here is that He cut off that wicked race, and thus showed that He would punish the guilty. By that dreadful act of sweeping away the inhabitants of a world, He showed that people could not sin with impunity, and that the incorrigibly wicked must perish.

But saved Noah the eighth person. This reference to Noah, like the reference to Lot in 2 Peter 2:7, seems to have been included in the course of the argument as an incidental remark, to show that the righteous, however few in number, would be saved when the wicked were cut off.

The phrase "Noah the eighth" means Noah, one of eight; that is, Noah and seven others. Dr. Bloomfield notes that this idiom is found in the best writers—from Herodotus and Thucydides onward (see examples in Wetstein).

The meaning here, then, is that eight persons, and only eight of that race, were saved, thus showing that while the wicked would be punished, however numerous they might be, the righteous, however few, would be saved.

A preacher of righteousness. In Genesis 6:9, it is said of Noah that he was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God; and it may be presumed that during his long life he was faithful in reproving the wickedness of his age and warned the world of the judgment that was preparing for it .

Bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. Upon all the world except for that pious family. The argument here is that if God would cut off a wicked race in this manner, the principle is settled that the wicked will not escape.