2 Peter 2:9-11

New English Translation

Footnotes

1. 2 Peter 2:9 tn The Greek is one long conditional sentence, from v. 4 to v. 10a. 2 Pet 2:4-8 constitute the protasis; vv. 9 and 10a, the apodosis. In order to show this connection more clearly, a resumptive summary protasis—“if so,” or “if God did these things”—is needed in English translation.
2. 2 Peter 2:9 tn Grk “from trial,” or possibly “from temptation” (though this second meaning for πειρασμός (peirasmos) does not fit the context in which Noah and Lot are seen as in the midst of trials, not temptation).
3. 2 Peter 2:9 tn The adverbial participle κολαζομένους (kolazomenous) can refer either to contemporaneous time or subsequent time. At stake is the meaning of the following prepositional phrase (at the day of judgment or until the day of judgment). If the participle is contemporaneous, the idea is “to keep the ungodly in a state of punishment until the day of judgment.” If subsequent, the meaning is “to keep the ungodly to be punished at the day of judgment.” Many commentators/translations opt for the first view, assuming that the present participle cannot be used of subsequent time. However, the present participle is the normal one used for result, and is often used of purpose (cf., e.g., for present participles suggesting result, Mark 9:7; Luke 4:15; John 5:18; Eph 2:15; 2 Pet 2:1, mentioned above; for present participles indicating purpose, note Luke 10:25; John 12:33; Acts 3:26; 2 Pet 2:10 [as even most translations render it]). Further, the context supports this: 2:1-10 forms something of an inclusio, in which the final end of the false teachers is mentioned specifically in v. 1, then as a general principle in v. 9. The point of v. 3—that the punishment of the false teachers is certain, even though the sentence has not yet been carried out, is underscored by a participle of purpose in v. 9.
4. 2 Peter 2:10 tn Grk “those who go after the flesh in [its] lust.”
5. 2 Peter 2:10 tn There is no “and” in Greek; it is supplied for the sake of English convention.
6. 2 Peter 2:10 tn The translation takes βλασφημοῦντες (blasphēmountes) as an adverbial participle of purpose, as most translations do. However, it is also possible to see this temporally (thus, “they do not tremble when they blaspheme”).
7. 2 Peter 2:10 tn Δόξας (doxas) almost certainly refers to angelic beings rather than mere human authorities, though it is difficult to tell whether good or bad angels are in view. Verse 11 seems to suggest that wicked angels is what the author intends.
8. 2 Peter 2:11 tn Grk “whereas.”
9. 2 Peter 2:11 tn Grk “who are greater in strength and power.” What is being compared, however, could either be the false teachers or “the glorious ones,” in which case “angels” would refer to good angels and “the glorious ones” to evil angels.
10. 2 Peter 2:11 tn Or “insulting.” The word comes from the same root as the term found in v. 10 (“insult”), v. 12 (“insulting”), and v. 2 (“will be slandered”). The author is fond of building his case by the repetition of a word in a slightly different context so that the readers make the necessary connection. English usage cannot always convey this connection because a given word in one language cannot always be translated the same way in another.
11. 2 Peter 2:11 tc Several witnesses lack παρὰ κυρίῳ (para kuriō; so A Ψ 33 81 436 442 1505 1611 1735 1881 2344 2464 al vg co), while others have the genitive παρὰ κυρίου (para kuriou; so P⁷² 5 1241 al sy^ph,mss,h**). The majority of witnesses (including א B C P 1175 1243 1739 1852 2492 M) read the dative παρὰ κυρίῳ. The genitive expression suggests that angels would not pronounce a judgment on “the glorious ones” from the Lord, while the dative indicates that angels would not pronounce such a judgment in the presence of the Lord. The parallel in Jude 9 speaks of a reviling judgment against the devil in which the prepositional phrase is entirely absent. At the same time, in that parallel Michael does say, “The Lord rebuke you.” (Hence, he is offering something of a judgment from the Lord.) The best options externally are the dative or the omission of the phrase, but a decision is difficult. Internally, the omission may possibly be a motivated reading in that it finds a parallel in Jude 9 (where no prepositional phrase is used). All things considered, the dative is to be preferred, though with much reservation. NA²⁸ has the omission preceded by a diamond in the apparatus, indicating a toss-up as to the initial text.