I. 1 has the great defect of an equivocal or erroneous rendering of iv (that frequent stumblingblock of the Revisers), and this in a text so much the more important as it is often pressed dogmatically, not seldom wrongly, owing to this very error. I do not dwell on “a” more than once used needlessly here, as this has been frequently noticed elsewhere; but “faith with us in the righteousness” suggests in our idiom the object believed in. This is not the aim of the passage. The Apostle means that the Christian Jews, to whom he is for the second time addressing himself, obtained like precious faith with us “your apostles” (3:2) in virtue of (or through) the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ; as the Revisers rightly give the last words in their text, though not in the margin. There were special promises to the fathers about the blessing of their seed, and God was righteous in fulfilling them. There has always been a believing remnant of that people, if of no other continuously. Jesus, not more truly man than the Lord God of Israel, has been faithful to that word of distinguishing favor; and if those Jews to whom Peter was writing received faith, like precious faith with the apostles, it was in virtue of His making good the promise to them and their children by giving them to believe. Such is the righteousness here meant. Hence “through” in the Authorized Version is substantially correct, as being less ambiguous than “in” of the Revised Version, which is apt to mislead by suggesting His righteousness as the thing believed in, instead of pointing out His fidelity to promise in bestowing faith on them. It may be well to make no abrupt severance of 3 from 2; but surely it is still more requisite not to mar the connection of 3, 4, with 5, the former being a sort of protasis, as the latter is an apodosis in sense. Hence, if it be right to close 2 with a semicolon, it is intolerable to put a period after 4, and to begin 5 as a new sentence. “Since His divine power hath granted to us all things that are for life and godliness.... yea, and for this very reason, adding on your part all diligence, in your faith furnish,” &c. All our old English Versions fail in this; none more than the Revised Version.
There is, however, an important correction which closes verse 3 (the margin of the Authorized Version being better than its text), as it had been in Tyndale and Cranmer. But the Geneva Version went all wrong, following Beza who knew the true reading but slighted it for an inferior one, and even mistranslated the inferior one through his inability to make out its meaning: “ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ, que lectio in paucis admodum codicibus, iisque dubiae fidei, a nobis est inuenta neque mihi sane probari potest.” Now there are a dozen cursives at least, not to speak of four of the great uncials, in favor of ἰδίᾳ δ. κ. ἀ.; so that there is ample and excellent authority. And any reasoning on God's being denied elsewhere to call us to His glory cannot swamp the clear force here of being called by it. Then follows fresh reasoning on ἀρετῇ, the upshot being “mihi quidem multo probebilius uidetur, διἀ praepositionem pro εἰς usurpatam, sicut etiam annotatiuimus Rom. 6 a. 4, et ἀρετὴν idem atque ἁγιασμὸν, declarare,” &c. No doubt the majority of copies support διὰ δ. κ. ἀ. it. In meaning the only difference that results is that the more ancient text adds “His own,” but in any case it is “by,” not “to.” Adam innocent enjoyed the good around and gave God thanks; Israel was governed as well as tested by the law. God called us “by His own glory,” outside and above all that is seen, and “by virtue,” the spiritual courage that refuses the snares which would entice us from the path that leads there. Compare Rom. 23, 5:2.
In 4 is corrected the error of Tyndale, &c., and of the Authorized Version following them. They ought to have gathered from the preceding verse that δεδ. is, if not a deponent, middle in sense, not passive. The change of order in “precious and very great promises” is abundantly sustained; indeed, the precise form in the Text. Rec. has scarce any support, but with a slight change many copies give it, some however having ὑμῖν for ἡ. mistakenly. In 5 “And beside this” of the Authorized Version is as untenable as any other of the older English. The Revised Version is much better, save as we have seen the dislocation by their punctuation. But “in” your faith is right, as well as “supply,” not “add to,” and so throughout 6 and 7. Only the italic “your” six times over is needless. In 8 “idle [marg. Authorized Version] nor unfruitful” is an improvement without “to be;” but surely die here means “as to” or “as regards,” not “unto” of the Revised Version any more than “in” of the Authorized Version. The Revisers give, like the Authorized Version, rather a paraphrase of 9 than a close version. In 11 the sense is “richly furnished” or supplied, not “ministered.” In 12 the true reading is μελλήσω, “I shall be ready,” (à A B C P &c., with the most ancient versions), not οὐκ ἀμ. as in the Text. Rec. and the Authorized Version, “I will not be negligent.” The change at the close seems uncalled for, due probably to Dean Alford. The rendering of 16, 17, is loose, not only in general form but even to the diluting ύπό “by,” to ἀπό “from” at the close. But 19 is given much better by the Revisers, the inspired contrast of the lamp of prophecy with daylight dawning and the day or morning star arising in the heart being clearly given. But it may be doubted whether the textual “private” or the marginal “special” of 20 gives the true force of ἰδίας. Divine prophecy is a vast connected whole, and none of it comes of its own or an isolated solution. For none (21) was ever ("in old time” was the error of Beza, &c.) brought by man's will; but moved by the Holy Spirit men spoke from God. It all converges on Christ's glory. There is no doubt a serious conflict of readings: ἅγιοι, (Text. Rec. οἱ ἅ) instead of ἀπὸ has à K L &c., ἅγιου τοῦ A. ἀπὸ θ. ἅγιοι C. &c. But the critics generally prefer the text of B and several cursives supported by the Bodleian Syr. and the Coptic, which omit ἅγιοι.
In 2:1 the Revisers give rightly “the Master” (δεσπότην) that bought them; for it is purchase, not redemption, which is in question. Purchase is universal; not so redemption, which is inseparable from faith in Christ and the forgiveness of offenses. It is clear from the passage before us that the most wicked are “bought” by the Master, whom they deny to their own swift destruction; that they were “redeemed” is mere assumption, and, in fact, a grave error. In 2 it is “the” truth. In 4 it is “angels when they sinned,” not “the angels that sinned,” which would require τῶν ἀ. τῶν ἁ.. and then would mean the whole; whereas the apostle speaks only of a part even of those that fell. Ταρταρώσας is the word translated “cast down to hell,” and occurs here only in the New Testament. It means hurling into the lowest abyss. In the same verse there is a question of reading on which turns either “pits” or “chains,” the more ancient copies inclining to the former, while the expression of Jude may have suggested the latter. In 5 “N. an eighth” means with seven others. If the Revisers render τηρουμένους in 4 “to be reserved,” and in 3:11 λυομένων “to be destroyed,” why not κολαζομένοθς in 9 “to be punished “? Does not this suit εἰς ἡμ. κρ. better than “under punishment"? It is a class so characterized. In 11 it is not “which are greater,” &c., but “greater as they are,” &c. In 12, 13 are hazardous changes, not “shall utterly (or, also) perish in their own corruption,” as in the Authorized Version, but “shall in their destroying surely be destroyed,” and “suffering wrong as the hire of wrong-doing,” instead of “receiving as they shall wages of unrighteousness.” Here the Revisers have been induced, probably by Drs. Westcott and Hort, not without other support, of course, to accept the reading of B àp.m. ἀδικούμενοι. But will the reading, even if feasible on so slender a basis, bear the version?— “In the day-time” is a questionable reading of ἐν ἡμ. in this connection, and, as has been remarked, hardly consistent with τρυφἠν, delicacy or indulgence of life, which might be by day quite as much as by night. Hence interpreters who differ widely in general, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, C. à Lap., De Wette, &c., prefer “ephemeral.” There is another singular choice, not of rendering but of reading in the verse, ἀγάπαις Acorr B against the overwhelming evidence of à A m. C K L P, almost all the cursives, and most ancient Versions, not to speak of early citations, for ἀπάταις followed by the Authorized Version. Is “stayed,” in 16, a real improvement on “forbad” of the Authorized Version, as rendering ἐκώλυσεν? “Withstood” might represent it better than either, or Mr. Green's “checked.” In 17 “springs” and “mists” are right; but the evidence in favor of “forever” is strong. In 18 τ. ὀλίγως ἀποφεύ. is the true text, not τ. ὄντως ἀποφυ. They were just escaping, not “clean escaped,” or even “just fled.” In 20 γέγονεν “is become,” not merely “is.” In 22 the Revisers may rightly omit the copula, but there is the usual laxity in expressing both the presence and the absence of the article: there hath happened to them the [import, pith, spirit] of the true proverb, A dog turned again to his own vomit, and, A sow washed to wallowing in mire.
In 3:2 the Revisers rightly read and translate “the command of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,” ἡμῶν having quite inconsiderable support, even if it could then bear the Authorized Version. In 3 the Authorized Version after Text. Rec. wrongly omits “with mocking.” The rather difficult verses 5-7 seem to be fairly given, though connecting πυρί with τεοη., rather than τη. as in the Authorized Version and most others. Of course “his” supplants “the same” in 7. In 9 it is rightly “to you” on preponderant authority; but there is some question between δἰ or εἰς, the former of which Tischendorf adopts in his last edition with à A, half a dozen cursives, and the ancient Versions generally. It would mean “on your account.” In 10 the Revised Version omits rightly “in the night.” Here again we see how lax are their views of the article. In 11 “there,” not “then,” is preferred by the Revisers on small but good authority, the copies greatly differing. “All” is an effort in the Revised Version, as in the Authorized Version, to express the plural which expresses every form of behavior and godliness. In 12 they justly discard the influence of the Vulgate in “hasting unto” (as indeed the margin of the Authorized Version suggests); but whether “earnestly desiring,” as in the Bodleian Syriac, adequately conveys the meaning is another matter. If they mean hastening the coming of that day in heart, for aught more seems far-fetched or worse, I believe them right; but this is rather exposition or application than rendering. Nor is their version of δἰ ἥν, “by reason of which,” though of course correct grammatically, the only one that is sure. The temporal sense is no less just. It is a question of context which suits best here. Bengel construes it with παρουσία. The Revisers scarcely seem justified in giving αὐτῷ (14) so defined a force as “in His sight.” Even Winer does not go so far. It might be “for” no less than “of” Him. From 15 we learn that Paul wrote to the Jewish Christians, as Peter did in his two Epistles. For it is idle to argue from i. 14, ii. 10, or iv. 3, to set aside the plain force of the address. Nobody doubts that every word is for U8 who were Gentiles; but as little should it be doubted that they are both addressed simply to the Jewish dispersion in the parts designated. These scattered Jews had, before they believed, fallen largely into the evil and even heathen ways of those who surrounded them. Wieseler's notion of Gentiles in chap. 2:25 is at issue with both Paul and Peter. But if this be so, the reference to the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews is unmistakable, which speaks much of “the day.” The Revisers translate ἐν χ. κ. τ. γ. (18) no better than the Authorized Version. They have no right to say “in the grace,” &c., any more than the Authorized Version “in the knowledge.” The insertion of our definite article here misleads. It is more correct to say “in grace and knowledge,” &c.