Albert Barnes Commentary 2 Peter 3

2 Peter 3—Analysis of the Chapter.

The principal design of this chapter is to demonstrate, in opposition to the objections of scoffers, that the Lord Jesus will return again to this world; that the world will be destroyed by fire, and that there will be a new heaven and a new earth; and to show what effect this should have on the minds of Christians. The chapter, without any very exact arrangement by the author, essentially consists of two parts.

1. The argument of the objectors to the doctrine that the Lord Jesus will return to the world, and that it will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:1–4). In doing this, the apostle (2 Peter 3:1–2) calls their attention to the importance of attending diligently to the things which had been spoken by the prophets, and to the commands of the apostles. He reminds them that it was to be expected that in the last days there would be scoffers who would deride the doctrines of religion, and who would maintain that there was no evidence that what had been predicted would be fulfilled (2 Peter 3:3).

   He then (2 Peter 3:4) refers to the argument on which they professed to rely: that there were no signs or indications that those events were to take place; that there were no natural causes in operation which could lead to such results; and that the fact of the stability of the earth since the time of the creation demonstrated that the predicted destruction of the world could not occur.

2. The argument of Peter, in reply to this objection; a strong affirmation of the truth of the doctrine that the Lord Jesus will return; that the earth and all which it contains will be burned up; that there will be a new heaven and a new earth; and the effect which the prospect of the coming of the Lord Jesus, and of the destruction of the world by fire, should have on the minds of Christians (2 Peter 3:5–18).

   1. The arguments of Peter, in reply to the objection from the long-continued stability of the earth, are the following:

      1. He refers to the destruction of the old world by the flood—a fact against which the same objections could have been urged beforehand, which are urged against the predicted destruction of the world by fire (2 Peter 3:6–7). With just as much plausibility it might have been urged then that the earth had stood for thousands of years, and that there were no natural causes at work to produce that change.

         It might have been asked where the immense amount of water necessary to drown a world could come from; and perhaps it might have been argued that God was too good to destroy a world by a flood. Every objection which could be urged to the destruction of the world by fire could have been urged to its destruction by water; and as, in fact, those objections, as the event showed, would have had no real force, so they should be regarded as having no real force now.

      2. No argument against this predicted event can be derived from the fact that hundreds and thousands of years are allowed to pass before the fulfillment of the predictions (2 Peter 3:8–9). What seems long to men is not long to God. A thousand years with Him, in reference to this point, are as one day. He does not measure time as men do.

         They soon die; and if they cannot execute their purpose in a brief period, they cannot do so at all. But this cannot apply to God. He has infinite ages in which to execute His purposes, and therefore no argument can be derived from the fact that His purposes are long delayed to prove that He will not execute them at all.

      3. Peter says (2 Peter 3:15 and following) that the delay observed in executing the plans of God should not be interpreted as proof that they would never be accomplished, but as evidence of His long-suffering and patience. In illustration of this, he refers to the writings of Paul, in which he says that the same sentiments were advanced.

         There were indeed, he says, in those writings, some things that were hard to understand; but on this point they were plain.

   2. A strong affirmation of the truth of the doctrine (2 Peter 3:9–10, 2 Peter 3:13). He declares that these events will certainly occur, and that they should be expected to take place suddenly, and without any prior indications of their approach—as the thief comes at night without announcing his coming.

   3. The practical suggestions which Peter intersperses in the argument, illustrating the effect these considerations should have on the mind, are among the most important parts of the chapter:

      1. We should be holy, devout, and serious (2 Peter 3:11).

      2. We should look forward with deep interest to the new heavens and earth which are to succeed the present (2 Peter 3:12).

      3. We should be diligent and watchful, that we may be found on the return of the Saviour without spot and blameless, (2 Peter 3:14).

      4. We should be cautious that we are not seduced and led away by the errors that deny these great doctrines (2 Peter 3:17), and

      5. we should grow in grace, and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18).

This second epistle, beloved, I now write to you. This expression proves that he had written a former epistle, and that it was addressed to the same persons as this. (Compare Introduction, Section 3).

In both which I stir up your pure minds, etc. That is, the main object of both epistles is the same—to call to your remembrance important truths which you have heard before, but which you are in danger of forgetting, or from which you are in danger of being turned away by prevailing errors.

Compare to the comments on 2 Peter 3:12 and following. The word rendered pure, eilikrinēs, occurs only here and in Philippians 1:10, where it is rendered sincere.

The word properly refers to that which may be judged of in sunshine; then it means clear, manifest; and then sincere, pure—as that in which there is no obscurity.

The idea here perhaps is that their minds were open, frank, candid, sincere, rather than that they were pure. The apostle regarded them as disposed to see the truth, and yet as liable to be led astray by the plausible errors of others. Such minds need to have truths often brought fresh to their remembrance, though they are truths with which they had before been familiar.

That ye may be mindful of the words. He means the doctrines, the truths, the prophetic statements. Jude 1:18 states that it had been foretold by the apostles that in the last days there would be scoffers. Peter refers to the instructions of the apostles and prophets in general, though he evidently intended his remarks to focus particularly on the fact that there would be scoffers.

Which were spoken before by the holy prophets. These are the predictions of the prophets before the coming of the Savior, concerning His character and work. Peter had previously appealed to them (2 Peter 1:19–21) as furnishing important evidence regarding the truth of the Christian religion and valuable instruction concerning its nature.

See Notes on that passage.

Many of the most important doctrines concerning the kingdom of the Messiah are stated as clearly in the Old Testament as in the New (compare Isaiah 53), and the prophecies therefore deserve to be studied as an important part of Divine revelation.

It should be added here, however, that when Peter wrote, there was a special reason why he referred to the prophets: the canon of the New Testament was not then completed, and he could not appeal to it.

He could and did appeal to some parts of the writings of Paul (2 Peter 3:15–16), but probably only a very small part of what is now the New Testament was known to those to whom this epistle was addressed.

And of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior. By this, they are shown to be equally entitled with the prophets to state and enforce the doctrines and duties of religion. It may be observed that no one would have used this language unless he regarded himself and his fellow apostles as inspired and on a level with the prophets.

Knowing this first. As among the first and most important things to be attended to—as one of the predictions which demand your special regard. Jude 1:18 says that the fact that there would be mockers in the last time, had been particularly foretold by them. It is probable that Peter refers to the same thing, and we may suppose that this was so well understood by all the apostles that they made it a common subject of preaching.

That there shall come in the last days. In the last dispensation; in the period during which the affairs of the world will be wound up. The apostle does not say that that was the last time in the sense that the world was about to come to an end; nor is it implied that the period called "the last day" might not be a very long period, longer in fact than either of the previous periods of the world.

He says that during that period it had been predicted there would arise those whom he calls scoffers. On the meaning of the phrase "in the last days," as used in the Scriptures (see Acts 2:17, Hebrews 1:2, and Isaiah 2:2).

Scoffers. In Jude 1:18 the same Greek word is rendered mockers. The word means those who deride, reproach, ridicule. There is usually in the word the idea of contempt or malignity towards an object. Here the sense seems to be that they would treat with derision or contempt the predictions respecting the advent of the Saviour, and the end of the world.

It would appear probable that there was a particular or definite class of men referred to; a class who would hold peculiar opinions, and who would urge plausible objections against the fulfillment of the predictions respecting the end of the world, and the second coming of the Saviour—for those are the points to which Peter particularly refers.

It scarcely required inspiration to foresee that there would be scoffers in the general sense of the term—for they have so abounded in every age, that no one would hazard much in saying that they would be found at any particular time. But the eye of the apostle is evidently on a particular class of men, the special form of whose reproaches would be the ridicule of the doctrines that the Lord Jesus would return; that there would be a day of judgment; that the world would be consumed by fire, etc. Archbishop Tillotson explains this of the Carpocratians, a large sect of the Gentiles, who denied the resurrection of the dead, and the future judgment.

Walking after their own lusts. Living in the free indulgence of their sensual appetites (see 2 Peter 2:10, 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 2:14, 2 Peter 2:18, 2 Peter 2:19).

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? That is, either where is the fulfilment of that promise, or where are the indications or signs that he will come? They evidently meant to imply that the promise had utterly failed, that there was not the slightest evidence that it would be accomplished, and that those who had believed this were entirely deluded.

It is possible that some of the early Christians, even in the time of the apostles, had undertaken to fix the time when these events would occur, as many have done since; and that as that time had passed by, they inferred that the prediction had utterly failed. But whether this was so or not, it was easy to allege that the predictions respecting the second coming of the Saviour seemed to imply that the end of the world was near, and that there were no indications that they would be fulfilled. The laws of nature were uniform, as they had always been, and the alleged promises had failed.

For since the fathers fell asleep. Since they died—death often being represented in the Scriptures, as elsewhere, as sleep (see notes on John 9:11 and 1 Corinthians 9:30). This reference to the "fathers," by such scoffers, was probably designed to be ironical and contemptuous.

Perhaps the meaning may be expressed this way: "These old men, the prophets, indeed foretold this event. They were much concerned and troubled about it, and their predictions alarmed others and filled their hearts with dread. They looked out for the signs of the end of the world and expected that that day was drawing near. But those good men have died. They lived to old age and then died as others; and since they have departed, the affairs of the world have gone on very much as they did before. The earth is allowed to have rest, and the laws of nature operate in the same way that they always did."

It seems quite likely that the immediate reference in the word fathers is not to the prophets of former times, but to aged and pious men of the apostles' times, who had dwelt much on this subject and made it a topic of conversation and preaching. Those old men, said the scoffing objector, have died like others; and, despite their confident predictions, things now move on as they did from the beginning.

All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. That is, the laws of nature are fixed and settled. The argument here—for it was doubtless designed to be an argument—is based on the stability of the laws of nature and the uniformity of the course of events.

So far, all these predictions had failed. Things continued to go on as they had always done. The sun rose and set, the tides ebbed and flowed, the seasons followed each other in the usual order, and one generation succeeded another, as had always been the case; and there was every indication that those laws would continue to operate as they had always done.

This argument for the stability of the earth, and against the prospect of the fulfilment of the Bible's predictions, would have more force with many minds now than it had then, for eighteen hundred more years have rolled away, and the laws of nature remain the same. Meanwhile, the expectations of those who have believed that the world was coming to an end have been disappointed; the time set for this by many interpreters of Scripture has passed by; men have looked out in vain for the coming of the Saviour, and worldly affairs move on as they always have done.

Still, there are no indications of the coming of the Saviour; and perhaps it would be said that the farther men search, with the aid of science, into the laws of nature, the more they become impressed with their stability, and the more firmly they are convinced of the improbability that the world will be destroyed in the manner predicted in the Scriptures. The specious and plausible objection arising from this source, the apostle proposes to meet in the following verses.

For this they willingly are ignorant of. The Greek is lanyanei gar autouv touto yelontav. There is some considerable variety in the translation of this passage. In our common version, the Greek word (yelontav) is rendered as if it were an adverb, or as if it referred to their ignorance regarding the event. This means that while they might have known this fact, they made no effort to learn it, or they preferred to keep its recollection far from their minds. So Beza and Luther render it.

Others, however, take it as referring to what follows, meaning, "being so minded; being of that opinion; or affirming." This view is held by Bloomfield, Robinson (Lexicon), Mede, Rosenmuller, and others. According to this interpretation, the sense is, "They who thus will or think—that is, they who hold the opinion that all things will continue to remain as they were—are ignorant of this fact: that things have not always remained this way, and that there has been a destruction of the world once by water." The Greek seems rather to demand this interpretation. The sense of the passage would then be, "It is concealed or hidden from those who hold this opinion that the earth has once been destroyed."

Whichever interpretation is adopted, it is implied that the will was involved. They were influenced by their will rather than by sober judgment and reason. Whether the word refers to their ignorance or to their holding that opinion, there was obstinacy and perverseness in it.

The will has usually more to do with the denial and rejection of the Bible's doctrines than the understanding has. The argument to which the apostle appeals in reply to this objection is a simple one. The adversaries of the doctrine affirmed that the laws of nature had always remained the same, and they affirmed that they always would.

The apostle denies the fact they assumed, in the sense in which they affirmed it. He maintains that those laws have not been so stable and uniform that the world has never been destroyed by an overwhelming visitation from God. It has been destroyed by a flood; it may be again by fire. So far as the argument from the stability of the laws of nature is concerned, there was the same improbability that such an event would occur in the one case as there is in the other. Consequently, the objection has no force.

That by the word of God. By the command of God. He spake, and it was done. (Compare to Genesis 1:6, 9; Psalms 33:9).

The idea here is that everything depends on His word or will. As the heavens and the earth were originally made by His command, so by the same command they can be destroyed.

The heavens were of old. The heavens were formerly made (Genesis 1:1). The word heaven in the Scriptures sometimes refers to the atmosphere, sometimes to the starry worlds as they appear above us, and sometimes to the exalted place where God dwells. Here it is used, doubtless, in the popular signification, as denoting the heavens as they appear, embracing the sun, moon, and stars.

And the earth standing out of the water and in the water. The marginal reading is consisting. The Greek is sunestwsa. The Greek word, when used in an intransitive sense, means to stand with, or together; then, tropically, to place together, to constitute, place, or bring into existence—Robinson. The idea our translators seem to have had is that in the formation of the earth, a part was out of the water and a part was under the water. They believed that the former, or the inhabited portion, became entirely submerged, and thus the inhabitants perished.

This was not, however, probably Peter's idea. He doubtless refers to the account of the earth's creation in Genesis 1, where water played such an important part. The thought in his mind seems to have been that water entered materially into the formation of the earth, and that in its very origin, the means existed by which it was later destroyed. The word translated as "standing" should instead be rendered consisting of or constituted of. The meaning is that the creation of the earth resulted from divine agency acting on the mass of elements called waters in Genesis (Genesis 1:2, 6, 7, 9).

There was at first a vast fluid, an immense unformed collection of materials, called waters, and from that the earth arose. The point of time, therefore, in which Peter looks at the earth here, is not when the mountains, continents, and islands seem to be standing partly out of the water and partly in the water, but when there was a vast mass of materials called waters from which the earth was formed.

The phrase "out of the water" (ex udatov) refers to the origin of the earth. It was formed from, or out of, that mass. The phrase "in the water" (di udatov) more properly means through or by. It does not mean that the earth stood in the water in the sense that it was partly submerged. Instead, it means not only that the earth arose from that mass called water in Genesis 1, but also that this mass called water was, in fact, the grand material from which the earth was formed.

It was through or by means of that vast mass of mingled elements that the earth was made as it was. Everything arose out of that chaotic mass; through that, or by means of that, all things were formed. And, because the earth was thus formed out of the water, or because water entered so essentially into its formation, causes existed that ultimately resulted in the deluge.