Charles Ellicott Commentary 2 Peter 2:13

"suffering wrong as the hire of wrong-doing; [men] that count it pleasure to revel in the day-time, spots and blemishes, revelling in their deceivings while they feast with you;" — 2 Peter 2:13 (ASV)

And shall receive. This literally means about to receive (as they are). (Compare to 1 Peter 1:9; 1 Peter 5:4; see also Epistle of Barnabas, 4:12.)

As they who count. We must begin a new sentence here and somewhat modify the translation.

The phrase to riot is too strong. The word actually means “delicate fare, dainty living, luxury.” If this exact meaning is retained, it will require changing the phrase in the daytime. For although rioting in the daytime makes good sense—since revelry, even among professed pleasure-seekers, is usually confined to the night (1 Thessalonians 5:7)—the phrase “dainty fare in the daytime” does not seem to have much point.

The meaning is, perhaps, “for the day,” without thought for tomorrow, counting luxury for the moment a pleasure—this being the doctrine of the Cyrenaics and the instinct of brute beasts.

In the Shepherd of Hermas (Similitude VI, 4:4) there is a passage that may possibly be an echo of this: “The time of luxury and deceit is one hour, but the hours of torment have the power of thirty days; if, then, a man luxuriates for one day,” and so on. (See below on 2 Peter 2:15; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:5.)

Sporting themselves. The word is a compound of the one just translated “luxury”; hence, luxuriating. It is worth noting that the words for spots and blemishes exactly correspond to the words translated without blemish and without spot in 1 Peter 1:19. (See below on 2 Peter 3:14.)

With their own deceivings. It is better translated as in their deceits, if this is the correct reading. However, both here and in Jude 1:12, the reading is uncertain, as authorities are divided between agapai, love-feasts, and apatai, deceits.

In Jude, the context confirms the reading love-feasts; here, the context is neutral or slightly inclines toward love-feasts, to which while they feast with you must in any case refer. Furthermore, if love-feasts is the correct reading in Jude (and this is so probable that we may almost assume it), this in itself provides strong support for the same reading here.

Regardless of which writer is earlier, such a strange change from deceits to love-feasts would hardly have been made deliberately. In contrast, during mechanical copying, the interchange could easily occur, as the words are so similar. This differs from a change like that from spots to rocks , if such a change was deliberately made by either writer. The latter would be a mere variation of the metaphor, while the change between deceits and love-feasts is an alteration of the meaning.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:10, there is possibly an intentional play on the similarity of these two words.