2 Peter 3:1-7 “Remember the Words”

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church Manhattan KS, 10 Mar. 2024
Omit the greyed-out text to keep delivery time under 45 minutes.

Introduction

v. 1-2 – To rouse/stir up/stimulate you to remember the words of the prophets and apostles.

v. 3-4 – Mockers Will Come, Denying That God Will Judge.

v. 5-7 – The Word of God brings Creation and Judgment

In Conclusion




Comparison of Bible Translations of 2 Peter 3:1-7

GNTA

NAWB

KJVC

MurdockD (Peshitta)

RheimsE (Vulgate)

1̈ Ταύτην ἤδηF, ἀγαπητοίG, δευτέρανH ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν, ἐν αἷςI διεγείρωJ ὑμῶνK ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἰλικρινῆL διάνοιανM,

1 Loved ones, this is already a second letter I am writing to y’all, in [both of] which I am rousing your sincere thinking by means of a reminder,

1 This second epistle, be­loved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure mind[s] by way of re­membrance:

1 This sec­ond epistle, [my] beloved, I now write to you; in both of which I stir up your honest mind by admoni­tion:

1 Behold this second epis­tle I write to you, [my] dearly be­loved, in which, I stir up by way of admonition your sincere mind:

2̈ μνησθῆναιN τῶν προειρη­μένωνO ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίωνP προφητῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀπο­στόλων Qὑμῶν ἐντολῆςR τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆροςS·

2 so y’all may be reminded of the words previously-spoken by the holy prophets, as well as of the command­ment from the Lord and Sav­ior through your apostles.

2 That ye may be mind­ful of the words which were spoken before by the holy proph­ets, and of the com­mandment of us the apos­tles of the Lord and Saviour:

2 that ye may be mindful of the words which were formerly spoken by the holy pro­phets, and of the injunc­tion of [our] Lord and Redeemer by [the hand of] the legates:

2 That you may be mindful of those words which I told [you] before from the holy prophetX and of your apos­tles, of the precept[s] of the Lord and Saviour.

3̈ τοῦτο πρῶτονT γινώσκοντεςU ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτωνV τῶν ἡμερῶν W[εν εμπαιγ­μονη] ἐμπαῖκ­ταιX, κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι

3 Know this first, that during the last days, mockers will come with scoffing, conducting themselves according to their own lusts

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

3 knowing this previous­ly, that there will come in the last days scoffers, who [will] scoffX, walking ac­cording to their own lusts;

3 Knowing this first: That in the last days there shall come de­ceitful scof­fers, walking after their own lusts,

4̈ καὶ λέγοντες· ποῦ ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ; ἀφ᾿ ἧςY γὰρ οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησανZ, πάντα οὕτω διαμένειAA ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.

4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For, ever since the fathers were laid to rest, all things continue to remain thus from the beginning of creation.”

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things con­tinue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for, since our fathers fell asleep, every thingX re­maineth just as from the beginning of the creation.

4 Saying: Where is his promise [or] his coming? For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as [they were] from the be­ginning of the creation.

λανθάνειAB γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτοAC θέλονταςAD ὅτι οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαιAE καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατοςAF καὶ δι᾿AG ὕδατος συνεστῶσαAH τῳ῀ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ,

5 For they are unaware of them willful­ly, namely that, by the word of God, the heavens have come into being of old, and the earth has stood together out of water and through water

5 For this they willing­ly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

5 For this they willing­ly forget, that the heavens were of old; and the earth rose up from the water[s], and by means of water, by the word of God.

5 For this they are wil­fully ignorant of: That the heavens were before, and the earth out of water and through wat­er, consisting by the word of God:

δι᾿ ὧνAIτότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶςAJ ἀπώλετο·

6 (through which [waters] the world back then perished by being flooded in water),

6 Whereby the world that then was, being over­flowed with water, perished:

6 And, by means of these waters, the world which then was, be­ing submerged [again] per­ished in [the] water[s].

6 Whereby the world that then was, being over­flowed with water, perished.

7̈ οἱ δὲ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τῳ῀ AKαὐτοῦ λόγῳ τεθησαυρισ­μένοιAL εἰσὶ πυρίAM τηρούμενοι εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων.

7 but the present heavens and earth having been safeguarded by His word, are being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly men by fire.

7 But the heavens and the earth, [which are] now, by the same word are kept in store, re­served unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

7 And the heavens [that] now [are], and the earth, are by his word stored up, be­ing reserved for [the] fire at the day of judgment and the perdition of wicked men.

7 But the heavens and the earth [which are] now, by the same word are kept in store, re­served unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men.


1Matthew Henry offered a slightly-different take: “[T]hose are all dead to whom the promise was made, and it was never made good in their time, and there is no likelihood that it ever will be in any time…” (so also Fausset). D.F. Zeller also gave a tip of the hat to this, “It may also be that there were some who misunderstood the promise of Mt. 24:332-34...”
Gordon Clark framed my interpretation in the words, no doubt, of fellow philosophy professors: “The positivitistic laws of history are uniform, and irruptions ab extra have been shown to be impossible, if not yet by David Hume, at least by Aristotle and Epicureans.”

2Scoffers also delight in mocking the Bible. Take, for instance the Presbyterian Church’s Auburn Affirmation of 1924: “There is no assertion in the Scriptures that their writers were kept ‘from error.’ … The doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the Scriptures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life…”

3The LXX is ἀρχῇ, used in 2 Peter 3:4, but a synonymous word ekpalai is employed in 2 Pet 3:5.

4The LXX reads ἐποίησεν, but it is the verb of being that is used to recap the event in Gen. 1:2, that Peter picks up on.

5Job 28:20ff uses several of the same Greek words: “Whence then is wisdom found? and of what kind is the place of understanding? It has escaped the notice of every man, and has been hidden from the birds of the sky. Destruction and Death said, We have heard the report of it. God has well ordered the way of it, and he knows the place of it. For he surveys the whole earth under heaven, knowing the things in the earth:” (Brenton)

6θαλασσῶν ἐθεμελίωσεν – synonymous to Peter’s ἐξ ὕδατος ... συνεστῶσα “stood together out of water”

7ἐστερεώθησαν (“firm/strong”) is reminiscent of Peter’s verb regarding the earth (“confirm/stand together”).

8κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας, another synonymous way of describing God’s creation of the world.

9Kent Hovind’s paraphrase. Matthew Henry expounded: “[T]hey do not know because they do not care to know. But let not sinners think that such ignorance as this will be admitted as an excuse for whatever sin it may betray them into. Those who crucified Christ did not know who he was; for had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8); but, though ignorant, they were not therefore innocent; their ignorance itself was a sin, willing and wilful ignorance, and one sin can be no excuse for another.”

10ἀρχαίου (“ancient/original”), cf. εκπαλαι (“of old”) in 3:5.

11Gen. 9:11 “Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” (NKJV)

12https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/03/twenty-one-reasons-noahs-worldwide-flood-never-happened/

13http://www.icr.org/article/more-whopper-sand

14“The present tense [‘being kept’] denotes that God is at the present time constantly watchful over and withholding his wrath against ‘the present heavens and the earth’ … Not only would the heavens and earth not retain the state they had held if God did not maintain that status, but if God did not keep or retain it under guard until judgment, His wrath would be let loose on ‘ungodly men’ before that awful day.” ~D.F. Zeller

A1904 "Patriarchal" edition of the Greek Orthodox Church, as published by E-Sword in June 2016. Annotated by NAW where the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland GNT differs.

BNathan A Wilson’s translation

CKing James Version of the Holy Bible (a.k.a. Authorized Version), 1769 edition, as published by E-Sword in July 2019.

DTranslation of the Peshito Syriac New Testament into English by James Murdock. Published in 1851. Republished by E-sword in June 2016.

ERheims New Testament first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582, Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner, A.D. 1749-1752, as published by E-sword in June 2016.


FD.F. Zeller noted, “This has something of a temporal quality… a hint that this letter was written shortly after the previous letter.”

G“‘beloved,’ hereby evidencing that he added to godliness brotherly-kindness” (1:17) ~Matthew Henry

H“It is the predicate use of deuteran epistolēn in apposition with tautēn, not ‘this second epistle.’” ~A.T. Robertson

IA. T. Robertson and Blass & Debrunner considered this plural relative pronoun to refer to both of Peter’s epistles. This interpretation was followed by the KJV, NIV, and ESV, but not the Geneva or NAS Bibles.

JA. T. Robertson suggested,“[P]erhaps conative, ‘I try to stir up.’” D. F. Zeller followed up with “probably a conative.”

KMoule noted that this pronoun “of y’all” goes with the last two words in the verse (“sincere mind”) and is displaced from them for emphasis.

LLit. “sun-judgment.” As an adjective, only here and Philip. 1:10 in the Greek Bible, but as a noun, also in 1 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 1:12, & 2:17. “εἵλη, to which this meaning is traced, means the heat, and not the light of the sun. Others derive it from the root of the verb εἱλίσσω, to roll, and explain it as that which is separated or sifted by rolling, as in a sieve. In favor of this etymology is its association in classical Greek with different words meaning unmixed.” ~Vincent
“The word pure can mean unbiased or unconfused… but… can also mean morally pure.” ~G. Clark
“Opposite to ‘having the understanding darkened.’” ~A.R. Fausset

Mcf. 1 Peter 1:13 “... girding up the loins of y'all's mind...” (NAW) Gordon Clark naturally suggested “intellect.”
Calvin interpreted this as a future goal: “I stir up your mind [that it may be] pure and bright,” but his editor (Owen) corrected him, writing, “The Apostle evidently admits that they had a sincere or a pure mind, that is, freed from the pollutions referred to in the last chapter…” Nevertheless, Calvin’s application is good: “[T]he sloth of the flesh smothers the truth once received, and renders it inefficient, except the goads of warnings come to its aid.”

N“The infinitive here is epexegetical (appositional) to the previous verse, ‘that you should remember.’” ~Robertson’s Grammar (via Hanna). Moule & Lenski agreed, but Robertson’s Word Pictures and D. F. Zeller labeled it purposive.

OCompound of “before” and “speak.” ESV and NET interpreted as “prediction,” but all the other English versions interpreted it as speech in the past.

P“...‘holy’ … in contrast to the… ‘false prophets’ of 2:1.” ~D. F. Zeller

QThe Textus Receptus departed from the Majority text, following 5 manuscripts (the oldest being from the 9th century) which read “our” instead of “your” (although the more-ancient Peshitta also has this reading). The difference is only one letter in Greek, but the Greek Orthodox and critical GNT’s follow the majority reading “your.” The parallel passage in Jude 1:17, however, reads “our Lord.”
Gordon Clark commented, “It is likely that Peter and Jude at some time ministered to the same congregations… These churches would think of them as particularly their apostles.”
“The meaning is that they should remember the teaching of their apostles and not follow the Gnostic libertines.” ~ATR

Rcf. 2:21. “By the commandment of the apostles he means the whole doctrine in which they had instructed the faithful.” ~J. Calvin

S“of the commandment of the Lord and Saviour transmitted by the apostles to you” ~Hanna

T“‘first’ ... indicates that... It is important to get the apologetic for this negative factor straight in one’s thinking before going on with his argument. One must face the world as it is and realize there are those who deny such a thing as Christ’s coming before one can appreciate the great value of it... He presents the negative position of the false teachers/prophets first, then the truth.” ~D. F. Zeller

Ucf. 2 Peter 1:20knowing, first-of-all, that not any prophecy of Scripture originates from a private interpretation,” (NAW) “The participle  occurs instead of a finite verb because of anacoluthon (i.e., the failure to complete a sentence as originally conceived), ‘know this.’” ~Robertson’s Grammar (via Hanna). Calvin, Geneva, NAS, NET, NIV, and NLT also interpreted this participle as an imperative verb, but the other English versions (KJV, ESV) rendered it as a simple participle. ATR called it a “nominative absolute.” D. F. Zeller argued against it being an imperative in favor of a “participle of means… [that is] how to ‘remember the words spoken...’”

VThe majority of Greek manuscripts (the oldest of which is a 9th century minuscule), followed by the Textus Receptus and one of the Greek Orthodox editions, read with a singular spelling (“last day” – matching the parallel passage in Jude 18), but the Patriarchal Greek Orthodox and the critical editions follow about 16 manuscripts (including all 5 pre-9th century ones) which read with a plural spelling. However, all the versions I consulted (even the KJV which normally followed the TR) read plural “last days.” This adjective, which is presumably attributive, is written in a predicate form without a definite article. Moule thought it was just missing its definite article, Blass solved it by taking “last” as a neuter substantive which could have its own prepositional phrase “of the days,” and Hanna suggested that eschatos was “definite enough without the use of the article,” citing 1 Peter 1:5 & 20. Cf. Jude 1:18. The “last days” began around the first coming of Christ (Acts 2:17, 1 Cor. 10:11, 2 Tim. 3:1, Heb. 1:2).

WThe majority of Greek manuscripts (the oldest of which is a 9th century minuscule), followed by the Textus Receptus and the Greek Orthodox editions, read simply “scoffers,” but the critical editions and ancient Greek and Latin and Coptic versions follow about 14 manuscripts (including all 5 pre-9th century ones) which insert εμπαιγμονη “scoffers with scoffing” (also adding the preposition εν/“with” found in a half-dozen of those manuscripts, but already denoted by the dative case of the word). This word appears nowhere else in the Greek Bible or Apocryphal literature, although a cognate is in Heb. 11:36. It is easier to imagine a redundancy dropping out than being added, but since it is basically the same word twice, little is lost in the traditional omission of the participial phrase. The NET Bible notes called it “a Semitism designed to intensify the word it is related to.”

XIn the Greek Bible only here, Isa. 3:4 (“caprices will rule over them”) and the parallel passage in Jude 1:18. The verb form shows up often in the Greek OT and the synoptics (but nowhere else in the GNT), mostly concerning Jesus before and during crucifixion (Mat. 2:16; 20:19; 27:29,31,41; Mark 10:34; 15:20,31; Luke 14:29; 18:32; 22:63; 23:11,36). There are synonyms, however in places like Psalm 1 (“seat of scoffers/λοιμῶν”), Psalm 119:51, and Isaiah 28.

YAbout half the time in the GNT, this phrase means literally “which came out” (Mk. 16:9, Luke 8:2, Heb. 7:13, & 11:15), but the other half of the time it indicates “since the time” (Luke 7:45, Acts 20:18, 24:11, Col. 1:6 & 9), and this seems to be a case of the latter.

ZThe only other verse in the Bible which has a form of “father” and a form of the verb “laid to rest” is Acts 13:36 "For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption” (NKJV) “Fathers” may refer to the ancient “patriarchs” from the book of Genesis.

AARobertson commented in his Grammar, that the present tense of this verb “has a progressive sense in which the past and present time are gathered into one phrase, ‘all things have continued as they are.’”

AB“...in contrast to 2 Pet. 3:8, ‘Be not ignorant of this.’” ~A.R. Fausset

ACThe Greek literally reads “of them, this.” The “of them” matches the accusative plural participle “willfully,” but it is challenging to make “them willfully” the accusative of “they are unaware.” (The NIV’s attempt resulted in changing the verb from plural to singular.) The touto (“this”) is, by all accounts, nominative neuter, but what it is the subject of? Most English versions make it the object of “forget” rather than the subject. I tried to translate it in apposition to the subsequent nominative phrases (“the heavens have come into being of old and the earth has stood together”).

ADATR and R&R identified this as “almost adverbial,” but DFZ identified it as a participle of manner – “the manner in which they have ignored the facts… willful...”

AEThe only other instance of this compound in the Greek Bible is in 2 Peter 2:3 “...the judgment from of old is not inactive…” (NAW)

AFThe only other two places in the Greek Bible where you have this phrase “out of water” is in Ezekiel 19:10 “...her fruit and her shoot abounded by reason of much water.” (Brenton) and John 3:5 “...unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (NKJV) This is not directly quoting the Genesis account.

AGCalvin explained this in terms of the air being displaced with water. Tittman, Bengel, Huther, Salmond, Fausset, and Vincent explained in terms of it being water which causes earth to stick together, but Owen preferred the meaning of “surrounded by water” (which is also the reading of the NLT). Hanna, citing Moule, commented, “the preposition  with the genitive probably has a spatial sense, meaning ‘continuous land, rising out of and extending through water.’” (ATR and DFZ agreed.). The only other instances of this phrase “through water” in the GNT seem to be speaking of purification rather than creation: Num. 31:23 (“whatever shall not pass through fire shall be passed through water.”) Isa. 43:2 (“...when you pass through the waters...”); 1 Pet. 3:20 (“eight souls were saved through water”), and 1 Jn. 5:6 (“This is the One who came through water and blood…”).

AHAlthough this word is not found in the creation account of the LXX, it is found with several of the same key words in Job 28:20ff. Although it is feminine singular, referring to earth … agreement is often attracted to the number and gender of the nearest noun. Since too the concluding phrase by the word of God presumably belongs with heavens as well as with an earth, the intervening words also would seem to attach to both heavens and earth.~Gordon Clark
Most of the N.T. uses of this word are translated “commend,” but Col. 1:16-17 is most like this use in 2 Peter. The allusion might be to a poetic recounting of Gen. 1:9. Unfortunately, the Geneva Bible deleted this verb, while the NLT added a verb (“surrounded”) and changed the feminine subject of this verb (“earth”) to a masculine “He”! Meanwhile, the NAS, NIV, NET, and ESV all changed the active voice of this verb (“it stood together”) to a passive (“was formed”).

AIThis relative pronoun “which” is plural, and could be any gender. The only plural noun in the context is “heavens,” and, although G. Clark tried to make a case for “heavens” being what destroyed the earth in terms of the heavens containing the rain that destroyed the earth, it is not convincing. “Scoffers” is the only other plural noun in the context, but it would have to be accusative rather than genitive to be the referrent. Beza and Whitby suggested it referred to “the heavens and the earth” (which makes no sense because it would make them both the object of destruction and the means of destruction), Macknight suggested it referred to Christ and God (an unacceptable stretch of the grammar), and Owen and Mayor thought it was a misspelling which should have been singular referring to “word” (which is extremely unlikely, since it is plural in every known Greek manuscript – except for two of the more recent ones). DFZ was adamant that it referred to “the word of God,” but he attributed the irregularity to the “tricky” nature of Greek neuters rather than to an error, which is more plausible. Most interpreters, however, combine the two singular instances of the neuter noun “water” as the antecedent (Fausset, ATR).
“It hence appears that the power of nature is not sufficient to sustain and preserve the world, but that on the contrary it contains the very element of its own ruin, whenever it may please God to destroy it... We now see how egregiously they err, who stop at naked elements, as though there was perpetuity in them, and their nature were not changeable according to the bidding of God. By these few words the petulance of those is abundantly refuted, who arm themselves with physical reasons to fight against God.” ~J. Calvin

AJWallace & DFZ agree with me that this is a participle of means, but there are other opinions: NET = temporal, KJV & NASB = simple participle, and NIV & ESV = indicative verb.

AK“By His word” is the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts (including 2 of the 5 oldest-known ones) and of the traditional Greek Orthodox editions. (The original Textus Receptus also reads this way, except it dropped the definite article, which doesn’t change the meaning.) The NASB and Peshitta reflect this reading. However, all the other English versions read, “By the same word,” reflecting 18 Greek manuscripts (including 3 of the 5 oldest-known ones) which read αυτω instead of αυτου. It is especially curious that the Geneva and KJV followed the minority variant, and this resulted in the variant being published in Scrivner’s 1894 edition of the Textus Receptus, even though Stephens’ 1550 edition followed the majority.

ALThis is a perfect paraphrastic in an unusual reverse order with the perfect participle followed by the present verb of being. The Perfect paraphrastic normally retains the Perfect tense meaning; the NASB alone opts for the present tense. Wallace noted in his Greek Grammar that a distinction should be made between the English Perfect tense (which indicates uninterrupted action in the past) and the Greek Perfect tense (which emphasizes the current condition).
The only other time in the Bible that God is said to “treasure up” something is Proverbs 2:7 “...he treasures up salvation for them that walk uprightly...” (Brenton, cf. Romans 2:5)

AMThis phrase “they are in fire” is awkward to translate. The dative case for “fire” leads me to believe it is speaking of the means by which the destruction will come, although all the other English versions interpreted it as objective or purpos­ive “for/unto fire.” DFZ called it a “dative of destination,” but Wallace did not list this as an instance of such a dative.
Although liberal theologians have suggested that this is just Greek Stoic philosophy rehashed, Gordon Clark noted that “Stoicism cannot be the source of the apostle’s ideas… In Stoicism the final conflagration is a gradual, natural, [cyclical] process inherent in the constitution of matter… Peter, on the other hand, announces a sudden, non-cyclical, virtually instantaneous cataclysm... of... divine punishment.”

2