Thursday, August 3, 2017

II Peter 2, False Prophets

In this passage Peter takes on the false prophets (Gnostics?) who have been denying Jesus's role as God and Savior.

2 Peter 2: 1-3, Warning about false prophets
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way  of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

The author is especially worried about "prophets" denying the sovereignty of Jesus.

2 Peter 2: 4-9, Judge and rescuer
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed  by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)-- if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men  from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

The word translated here as "hell" is the word tartarus,  a word for the abyss in Greek mythology.

It is easy to miss the fact that this passage is one long "if-then" statement: if all these things happened to ancients then ... God will rescue the godly.  The passage is a promise more than a warning.

2 Peter 2: 10-11, Slanderous accusations
This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.

I'm not quite sure of the background for this passage. The false prophets have freely slandered others... including "celestial beings"?  (I'd look at a commentary on this ... but I'm traveling this morning.  William Barclay's commentary links this to two popular Jewish stories relating angels -- I need to dig that up.)

2 Peter 2: 12-13, Beasts at our love feasts
But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand.  They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will  perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 

This might be a description of some gnostics who, claiming that the material universe, including their bodies, was irrelevant, might then consider themselves free to engage in any sensual activities they wished, "carousing" in their feasting and partying.  Some manuscripts call the feasts "love feasts", a term that appears in the letter of Jude.

C. S. Lewis, at the end of the seventh book in The Chronicles of Narnia, has intelligent talking beasts denying Aslan's kingship and as a result, changing back into mere brute beasts, losing the divine gift of speech and thought.

2 Peter 2: 14-17, Balaam and a donkey's speech
With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed  brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey--a beast without speech--who spoke with a man's voice and restrained  the prophet's madness.

The word "adultery" need not refer to a sexual acts but a general watering down of morality and ethics.  Peter's words here are sharp and strong, equating this attitude with ancient examples of wickedness.  I am again reminded of C. S. Lewis's play with animal speech in Narnia.

2 Peter 2: 17-19, Slaves promising freedom
These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered  him.

Again, Peter harshly condemns these false prophets as deliberate dishonest manipulators. While promising freedom from any ethical restraints, they are themselves slaves.

2 Peter 2: 20-22, Worse off at the end
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn  their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

The quote in verse 22 about a dog and its vomit is from Proverbs 26:11.

Peter, like the author of Hebrews, has the strongest condemnation for those who understand who Jesus is but then still turn their backs to that knowledge.

1 comment:

  1. There are 2 or 3 options for interpreting the beings of V. 10. They could be angels good or bad, or they could be leaders of the church. Seems to me the example of angels holding their tongues rather than criticizing such beings rules out church leaders, and the implication that such beings might theoretically be open to criticism by good angels rules out other good angels. So on internal evidence "glories" must be bad angels so termed because of their supernatural might. It is not wise to criticize such in the casual way we often hear people talk about the devil--they are far more powerful and could squash us like a bug for starters, plus the implication is that while they are bad, their "glory" as created by God deserves deference. This is consistent with The example of the archangel Michael in Jude 9, who does not rebuke Satan directly but calls on the Lord to do it.

    ReplyDelete