Bible Question:
Am I wrong to think that the driving concern/error being addressed in 2 Peter is anitnomianism? To me it seems to absolutely be so yet I have not seen any commentators view it as such yet. Here are verses to notice throughout the book. Especially note 2Pet 3:17,18 where the final exhortation is not to be carried away by the error of lawless people. 2Peter 1:3,4,9,12 2:2,9,10,13,14,15,18,19,20-22 3:11,14,17 In Christ, Beja |
Bible Answer: Dear Pastor Beja, I haven't read through all the threads, but here are a couple of thoughts. I am not a Greek scholar, but I am blessed with having elders in my church who are, and who teach Biblical Greek at the local universities and seminaries. How is that for cool? It is interesting that you ask that question, since we we wrapped up an exegetical study of Peter's epistles this year. (It was followed by a study of Jude, that took about six weeks, and now we have begun Deuteronomy. I think we'll be there quite a while!) Let me see if I can remember what was discussed: The professor who wrote the lessons and taught them, commented more than once on the difficulty of working with Peter in the Greek. Conceptually, Peter sounds very reminiscent of other NT writers. Linguistically, though, he stands apart. Indeed, more than once in his epistles, Peter uses Greek words that we do not find elsewhere in the NT. That is the problem with the word translated by the ESV as "lawless" in 2 Peter 3:17. As you know, we get the word "antinomian" from the Greek roots "anti" (against) and "nomos" (law). Peter does use the word "anomos" in 2 Peter 2:8, but he uses "athesmos" in 2:7 and 3:17. (Note the ESV translates the word as "wicked" in v2:7, but "lawless" in v2:8). An aside: As has been pointed out, Jewish teachers will, indeed, call Gentiles lawless. However there are these senses in which lawlessness is used: (1) peoples who do not abide by the Law; (2) peoples who have not yet heard the Law; (3) people who live lives in violation to the Law; (4) peoples who are not subject to the Law. (Remember, in Judaic thinking, Gentiles are not subject to the Mosaic Law, only to the Nohaic Law.) Now, we would have to say that in vv2:7-8, Peter is not speaking about the false teaching of antinomianism. Instead, he is using the word "anomos" in the 3rd sense as descriptive of the environment in which Lot lived. Had he been addressing antinomianism, he certainly would have used "anomos" more specifically... wouldn't he? 2 Peter 3:17, on the other hand, is making use of this other word, "athesmos." Although we do see "athesmos" and "anomos" paired in the same thought in chapter 2, this word is contrasting the recipients of grace (vv1:1-4, 3:14). Of course, any reference to antinomianism as we understand it -- J. I. Packer, in his Concise Theology, identifies six distinct forms -- would be something only in its embryonic form. (Ignatius of Antioch mentions it scant decades after Peter wrote his epistles.) Certainly antinomianism would be something that the "unlearned and unstable" would fasten upon; certainly antinomianism is/was promulgated by false teachers; and certainly Peter would have us eschew it. Nevertheless, I think that Peter was painting with a much broader brush. So, I would not agree that "the driving concern/error being addressed in 2 Peter is anitnomianism" (sic). However, I would affirm that antinomianism would certainly be one of the various errors that Peter warned about. Filter through the above... hold to what you find of value, and feel free to dispense with the rest. :-) In Him, Doc |