Charles Ellicott Commentary 2 Peter 3

This second epistle, beloved, I now write.—Rather, This now second epistle I write, beloved; or, This epistle, already a second one—implying that no very long time has elapsed since his first letter, and that this one is addressed to pretty much the same circle of readers. There is no indication that the first two chapters are one letter, and that this is the beginning of another, as has been supposed. With this use of “now,” or “already,” compare John 21:14.

Pure minds.—The word for “pure” means literally “separated”—according to one derivation, by being sifted; according to another, by being held up to the light. Hence it comes to mean “unsullied.” Here it probably means untainted by sensuality or, possibly, deceit. In Philippians 1:10, the only other place where it occurs in the New Testament, it is translated “sincere.” (Compare 1 Corinthians 5:8; 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 2:17.) The word for “mind” means “the faculty of moral reflection and moral understanding,” which St. Peter, in his First Epistle (2 Peter 1:13), tells his readers to brace up and keep ready for constant use. These very two words are found together in a beautiful passage in Plato’s Phaedo, 66A.

By way of remembrance.—We have the same expression in 2 Peter 1:13, and the translation in both cases should be the same—stir up in putting you in remembrance.

On verses 1-2:

Just as the two halves of the first main portion of the Epistle are linked together by some personal remarks respecting his reason for writing this Epistle (2 Peter 1:12–15), so the two predictions which form the second main portion are connected by personal remarks respecting the purpose of both his Epistles.

By the holy prophets.—Appealed to before in 2 Peter 1:19. (Compare to Jude 1:17.) The coherence of the Epistle as a whole comes out strongly in this last chapter: 2 Peter 3:1 recalls 2 Peter 1:12–13; 2 Peter 3:17 recalls 2 Peter 1:10–12; 2 Peter 3:18 recalls 2 Peter 1:5–8. In this verse the Apostle commends the warnings of the Old Testament and the New Testament, as to the coming of Christ, to Christians throughout all ages.

The commandment of us the apostles of the Lord.—“Of us” is, beyond all doubt, a false reading; it should be “of you,” or “your.” The Greek is somewhat awkward, owing to the number of genitives, but the order of the words is conclusive as to the meaning—the commandment of your Apostles (or rather) of the Lord and Saviour. The commandment is at once a commandment of the Apostles and of the Lord. “The Apostles of the Lord” must not be taken together, as in our version.

The expression “your Apostles” may be taken as a mark of genuineness rather than of the contrary. It is at least not improbable that a true Apostle, having once stated his credentials (2 Peter 1:1), would sink his own personality in the group of his colleagues from a feeling of humility and of delicacy towards those whom he was addressing, especially when they owed their Christianity mainly to other Apostles than himself. It is not improbable that a writer personating an Apostle would have insisted on his assumed personality and personal authority here.

What commandment is meant? Surely not the whole Christian law; but either the command to beware of false teachers (Matthew 7:15; Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:11; Mark 13:22; Romans 16:17; Ephesians 5:6; 2 Timothy 4:3), or, more probably, what is the main subject of this Epistle, to be ready for Christ’s coming (Matthew 24:36–39; Mark 13:35–37; Luke 12:40; 1 Thessalonians 5:2–4).

SECOND PREDICTION: Scoffers shall throw doubt on Christ’s return.

(3) In the last days.—Compare 1 Peter 1:20, Hebrews 1:2, and the parallel passage to this, Jude 1:18. “Know this first, children, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts” is quoted in a homily attributed on doubtful authority to Hippolytus (see above on 2 Peter 2:1).

Scoffers.—The best authorities add “in scoffing,” intensifying the meaning by repetition (as in Ephesians 1:3, Revelation 14:2). There are other repetitions of this kind in the New Testament, which have been rendered by strengthening the verb in some other way (John 3:29; Acts 4:17; Acts 5:28; James 5:17).

Where is the promise?—Not meaning, of course, “In what passages of Scripture is any such promise to be found?”—but, “What has come of it? Where is there any accomplishment of it?” (Psalms 79:10; Jeremiah 17:15; Malachi 2:17).

Of his coming.—“His” instead of “the Lord’s” indicates not merely that only one Person could be meant, but also the irreverent way in which these scoffers spoke of Him.

Since the fathers fell asleep.—What fathers are meant? Four answers have been given to this question:

1. The ancestors of the human race;
2. The patriarchs and prophets;
3. The first generation of Christians;
4. Each generation of men in relation to those following.

Probably nothing more definite than our remote ancestors is intended.

The expression “fell asleep” is used of St. Stephen’s death in Acts 7:60 (1 Corinthians 7:39, where the word is not literally translated; 1 Corinthians 15:6; 1 Corinthians 15:18, and so on). The thoroughly Christian term “cemetery” (=sleeping-place), in the sense of a place of repose for the dead, comes from the same Greek root.

There is a passage quoted by Clement of Rome (circa A.D. 100) which seems at first sight to contain a reference to this verse: “Far be from us this Scripture where He says, Wretched are the double-minded, who doubt in heart and say, These things we heard in the times of our fathers also, but behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened to us” (Epistle to the Corinthians, xxiii.).

But the remainder of this “Scripture,” as quoted by Clement, is so utterly unlike the verse before us, that one suspects some other source. This suspicion is confirmed when we find the same passage quoted in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement (xi.) as “the prophetic word.” (See on 2 Peter 1:19 and on 2 Peter 2:9).

The differences between the two quotations are such that the pseudo-Clement appears to be quoting independently, and not merely borrowing from the true Clement. In neither case does close inspection encourage us to believe that our present verse is the source of the quotation.

But the quotation by the true Clement is important as a complete refutation of the objection that “the fathers” means the first Christians, and consequently no such scoffing argument as this would be possible in the lifetime of St. Peter. This very argument was not only in existence, but was condemned in a document which Clement before the close of the first century could quote as “Scripture.”

Compare to Epistle of Polycarp, chapter vii.: “Whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says there is neither resurrection nor judgment, he is the firstborn of Satan.”

All things continue as they were.—Rather, as they are. The error has probably arisen from a desire to get rid of the slight difficulty of two dates being given:

1. From the death of “the fathers,” and
2. From the beginning of the creation.

The suggestion that “the fathers” are the first progenitors of the human race is another attempt to get rid of the difficulty by making the two dates virtually one and the same.

But the second date is an afterthought, frequent in Thucydides, intensifying and strengthening the first. Since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they are—nay, more, since the beginning of the creation.

This skeptical argument is used with increased force as each generation passes away. It will be at its strongest just before the fallacy of it is irrefragably exposed—on the eve of the day of judgment.

For this they willingly are ignorant of.—Literally, For this escapes their notice of their own will. They voluntarily blind their eyes to this fact—at once an explanation of their argument, and first answer to it, drawn from the Mosaic account of the Creation.

The earth standing out of the water and in the water.—The margin is nearer the true meaning with “consisting” for “standing,” and the same word is translated “consist” in Colossians 1:17. The notion is that of coherence, solidarity, and order, as distinct from chaos. “Out of [the] water” indicates the material out of which the earth was made; not, as our version leads us to suppose, that out of which the earth rose, like an island from the ocean. “In the water” is wrong, and again the error is probably derived from Geneva, though Tyndale has it also.

We should render rather, by means of [the] water. In both clauses the article should perhaps be omitted—the earth consisting out of water and through water. (Psalms 136:6.) In the Clementine Homilies (XI. xxiv.) we have the idea of all things being made by water. In the Greek, by the word of God comes last, not first; emphasis is obtained either way. By the word of God—not by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, not by spontaneous generation.

In the Shepherd of Hermas (I. Vis. I. iii. 4) we read, “Behold, the God of virtues (powers)... by His mighty word has fixed the heaven, and laid the foundation of the earth upon the waters.” (See above on 2 Peter 2:1, 3, 13, 15, 20.) In an Apology of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, addressed to Antoninus Caesar about A.D. 170, there is a passage bearing a considerable amount of resemblance to these verses (2 Peter 3:5–7).