Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Peter 3:16

As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

16. as also in all his epistles ] The English represents the Greek accurately enough, but the absence of the article in the original should be noted as shewing that there was not yet any complete collection of St Paul’s Epistles. All that can be legitimately inferred from the expression is that St Peter knew of other Epistles (probably 1 and 2 Thessalonians , 1 and 2 Cor., and Romans) besides those or that to which he had referred in the preceding verse.

speaking in them of these things ] i.e. of the coming of the Lord and of the end of the world. Here, on the assumption made in the previous verse, we may find a reference, as to 1Th 4:5 and 2 Thessalonians 2; so also to Rom 8:19-21; Rom 13:11-12; 1Co 3:13; 1Co 4:5 ; 1Co 15:51-54.

in which are some things hard to be understood ] We are left to conjecture what these were. We might think of the mysterious predictions of “the man of sin” in 2 Thessalonians 2, or the doctrine of the “spiritual body” in 1Co 15:44, 2Co 5:1-4, but it is not easy to see how these elements of St Paul’s teaching could have been perverted to the destruction of men’s spiritual life. On the whole, therefore, it seems more likely that the Apostle finds in the “unlearned and unstable” the party of license in the Apostolic Church, who claimed to be following St Paul’s assertion of his freedom, by eating things sacrificed to idols and indulging in sins of impurity (see note on chap. 2Pe 2:19), or who quoted his words “that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28) as sanctioning a profligate Antinomianism.

which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest ] Both words are peculiar to this Epistle in the New Testament. The latter had been used in chap. 2Pe 2:14. The word for “wrest” expresses the action of a windlass that twists what is submitted to its action.

as they do also the other scriptures ] Few passages are more important than this in its bearing on the growth of the Canon of the New Testament. It shews (1) that the distinctive term of honour used of the books of the Old Testament was applied without reserve to St Paul’s writings; (2) that probably other books now found in the Canon were also so recognised. The last inference, though it might be said that the “other Scriptures”did not necessarily mean other writings than those of the Old Testament Canon, is confirmed (1) by the use of the term “Scripture” as connected with a quotation from Luk 10:7 in 1Ti 5:18; (2) by St Paul’s reference to “prophetic writings” or “Scriptures” as unfolding the mystery which had been hid from ages and generations in Rom 16:26, and probably by the tests which he gives in 2Ti 3:16 as the notes by which “every inspired Scripture, or writing,” might be distinguished from its counterfeit. See notes bearing on this subject on 1Pe 1:10-12; 1Pe 4:11; 2Pe 1:20-21.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

As also in all his epistles – Not only in those which he addressed to the churches in Asia Minor, but in his epistles generally. It is to be presumed that they might have had an acquaintance with some of the other epistles of Paul, as well as those sent to the churches in their immediate vicinity.

Speaking in them of these things – The things which Peter had dwelt upon in his two epistles. The great doctrines of the cross; of the depravity of man; of the divine purposes; of the new birth; of the consummation of all things; of the return of the Saviour to judge the world, and to receive his people to himself; the duty of a serious, devout and prayerful life, and of being prepared for the heavenly world. These things are constantly dwelt upon by Paul, and to his authority in these respects Peter might appeal with the utmost confidence.

In which – The common reading in this passage is en hois, and according to this the reference is to the subjects treated of – in which things – referring to what he had just spoken of – speaking of these things. This reading is found in the common editions of the New Testament, and is supported by far the greater number of mss., and by most commentators and critics. It is found in Griesbach, Tittman, and Hahn, and has every evidence of being the genuine reading. Another reading, however, ( en hais,) is found in some valuable mss., and is supported by the Syriac and Arabic versions, and adopted by Mill (Prolegomena 1484), and by Beza. According to this, the reference is to the epistles themselves – as would seem to be implied in our common version. The true construction, so far as the evidence goes, is to refer it not directly to the epistles, but to the things of which Peter says Paul wrote; that is, not to the style and language of Paul, but to the great truths and doctrines which he taught. Those doctrines were indeed contained in his epistles, but still, according to the fair construction of the passage before us, Peter should not be understood as accusing Paul of obscurity of style. He refers not to the difficulty of understanding what Paul meant, but to the difficulty of comprehending the great truths which he taught. This is, generally, the greatest difficulty in regard to the statements of Paul. The difficulty is not that the meaning of the writer is not plain, but it is either:

(a)That the mind is overpowered by the grandeur of the thought, and the incomprehensible nature of the theme, or

(b)That the truth is so unpalatable, and the mind is so prejudiced against it, that we are unwilling to receive it.

Many a man knows well enough what Paul means, and would receive his doctrines without hesitation if the heart was not opposed to it; and in this state of mind Paul is charged with obscurity, when the real difficulty lies only in the heart of him who makes the complaint. If this be the true interpretation of this passage, then it should not be adduced to prove that Paul is an obscure writer, whatever may be true on that point. There are, undoubtedly, obscure things in his writings, as there are in all other ancient compositions, but this passage should not be adduced to prove that he had not the faculty of making himself understood. An honest heart, a willingness to receive the truth, is one of the best qualifications for understanding the writings of Paul; and when this exists, no one will fail to find truth that may be comprehended, and that will be eminently adapted to sanctify and save the soul.

Are some things hard to be understood – Things pertaining to high and difficult subjects, and which are not easy to be comprehended. Peter does not call in question the truth of what Paul had written; he does not intimate that he himself would differ from him His language is rather that which a man would use who regarded the writings to which he referred as true, and what he says here is an honorable testimony to the authority of Paul. It may be added,

(1) That Peter does not say that all the doctrines of the Bible, or even all the doctrines of Paul, are hard to be understood, or that nothing is plain.

(2) He says nothing about withholding the Bible, or even the writings of Paul, from the mass of Christians, on the ground of the difficulty of understanding the Scriptures; nor does he intimate that that was the design of the Author of the Bible.

(3) It is perfectly manifest, from this very passage, that the writings of Paul were in fact in the hands of the people, else how could they wrest and pervert them?

(4) Peter says nothing about an infallible interpreter of any kind, nor does he intimate that either he or his successors were authorized to interpret them for the church.

(5) With what propriety can the pretended successor of Peter – the pope – undertake to expound those difficult doctrines in the writings of Paul, when even Peter himself did not undertake it, and when he did not profess to be able to comprehend them? Is the Pope more skilled in the knowledge of divine things than the apostle Peter? Is he better qualified to interpret the sacred writings than an inspired apostle was?

(6) Those portions of the writings of Paul, for anything that appears to the contrary, are just as hard to be understood now, as they were before the infallible church undertook to explain them. The world is Little indebted to any claims of infallibility in explaining the meaning of the oracles of God. It remains yet to be seen that any portion of the Bible has been made clearer by any mere authoritative explanation. And,

(7) It should be added, that without any such exposition, the humble inquirer after truth may find enough in the Bible to guide his feet in the paths of salvation. No one ever approached the sacred Scriptures with a teachable heart, who did not find them able to make him wise unto salvation. Compare the notes at 2Ti 3:15.

Which they that are unlearned – The evil here adverted to is that which arises in cases where those without competent knowledge undertake to become expounders of the word of God. It is not said that it is not proper for them to attempt to become instructed by the aid of the sacred writings; but the danger is, that without proper views of interpretation, of language, and of ancient customs, they might be in danger of perverting and abusing certain portions of the writings of Paul. Intelligence among the people is everywhere in the Bible presumed to be proper in understanding the sacred Scriptures; and ignorance may produce the same effects in interpreting the Bible which it will produce in interpreting other writings. Every good thing is liable to abuse; but the proper way to correct this evil, and to remove this danger, is not to keep the people in ignorance, or to appoint some one to be an infallible interpreter; it is to remove the ignorance itself by enlightening the people, and rendering them better qualified to understand the sacred oracles. The way to remove error is not to perpetuate ignorance it is to enlighten the mind, so that it may be qualified to appreciate the truth.

And unstable – Who have no settled principles and views. The evil here adverted to is that which arises where those undertake to interpret the Bible who have no established principles. They regard nothing as settled. They have no landmarks set up to guide their inquiries. They have no stability in their character, and of course nothing can be regarded as settled in their methods of interpreting the Bible. They are under the control of feeling and emotion, and are liable to embrace one opinion to-day, and another directly opposite to-morrow. But the way to prevent This evil is not by attempting to give to a community an authoritative interpretation of the Bible; it is to diffuse abroad just principles, that men may obtain from the Bible an intelligent view of what it means.

Wrest – Pervert – streblousin. The word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is derived from a word meaning a windlass, winch, instrument of torture streble and means to roll or wind on a windlass; then to wrench, or turn away, as by the force of a windlass; and then to wrest or pervert. It implies a turning out of the way by the application of force. Here the meaning is, that they apply those portions of the Bible to a purpose for which they were never intended. It is doubtless true that this may occur. Men may abuse and pervert anything that is good. But the way to prevent this is not to set up a pretended infallible interpreter. With all the perversities arising from ignorance in the interpretation of the Bible; in all the crude, and weak, and fanciful expositions which could be found among those who have interpreted the Scriptures for themselves – and they are many – if they were all collected together, there would not be found so many adapted to corrupt and ruin the soul, as have come from the interpretations attempted to be palmed upon the world by the one church that claims to be the infallible expounder of the word of God.

As they do also the other scriptures – This is an unequivocal declaration of Peter that he regarded the writings of Paul as a part of the holy Scriptures, and of course that he considered him as inspired. The word Scriptures, as used by a Jew, had a technical signification – meaning the inspired writings, and was the common word which was applied to the sacred writings of the Old Testament. As Peter uses this language, it implies that he regarded the writings of Paul as on a level with the Old Testament; and as far as the testimony of one apostle can go to confirm the claim of another to inspiration, it proves that the writings of Paul are entitled to a place in the sacred canon. It should be remarked, also, that Peter evidently speaks here of the common estimate in which the writings of Paul were held. He addresses those to whom he wrote, not in such a way as to declare to them that the writings of Paul were to be regarded as a part of the inspired volume, but as if this were already known, and were an admitted point.

Unto their own destruction – By embracing false doctrines. Error destroys the soul; and it is very possible for a man so to read the Bible as only to confirm himself in error. He may find passages which, by a perverted interpretation, shall seem to sustain his own views; and, instead of embracing the truth, may live always under delusion, and perish at last. It is not to be inferred that every man who reads the Bible, or even every one who undertakes to be its public expounder, will certainly be saved.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things] Paul, in all his epistles, says Dr. Macknight, has spoken of the things written by Peter in this letter. For example, he has spoken of Christ’s coming to judgment; 1Th 3:13; 1Th 4:14-18; 2Th 1:7-10; Tit 2:13. And of the resurrection of the dead, 1Co 15:22; Phil 3:20-21. And of the burning of the earth; 2Th 1:8. And of the heavenly country; 2Co 5:1-10. And of the introduction of the righteous into that country; 1Th 4:17; Heb 4:9; Heb 12:14; Heb 12:18; Heb 12:24. And of the judgment of all mankind by Christ; Ro 14:10.

In which are some things hard to be understood] . That is, if we retain the common reading , in or among which things, viz., what he says of the day of judgment, the resurrection of the body c., c., there are some things difficult to be comprehended, and from which a wrong or false meaning may be taken. But if we take the reading of AB, twelve others, with both the Syriac, all the Arabic, and Theophylact, , the meaning is more general, as must refer to , epistles, for this would intimate that there were difficulties in all the epistles of St. Paul and indeed in what ancient writings are there not difficulties? But the papists say that the decision of all matters relative to the faith is not to be expected from the Scriptures on this very account, but must be received from the Church i.e. the Popish or Romish Church. But what evidence have we that that Church can infallibly solve any of those difficulties? We have none! And till we have an express, unequivocal revelation from heaven that an unerring spirit is given to that Church, I say, for example, to the present Church of Rome, with the pope called Pius VII. at its head, we are not to receive its pretensions. Any Church may pretend the same, or any number of equally learned men as there are of cardinals and pope in the conclave; and, after all, it would be but the opinion of so many men, to which no absolute certainty or infallibility could be attached.

This verse is also made a pretext to deprive the common people of reading the word of God; because the unlearned and unstable have sometimes wrested this word to their own destruction: but if it be human learning, and stability in any system of doctrine, that qualifies men to judge of these difficult things, then we can find many thousands, even in Europe, that have as much learning and stability as the whole college of cardinals, and perhaps ten thousand times more; for that conclave was never very reputable for the learning of its members: and to other learned bodies we may, with as much propriety, look up as infallible guides, as to this conclave.

Besides, as it is only the unlearned and the unestablished (that is, young Christian converts) that are in danger of wresting such portions; the learned, that is, the experienced and the established in the knowledge and life of God, are in no such danger; and to such we may safely go for information: and these abound everywhere, especially in Protestant countries; and by the labours of learned and pious men on the sacred writings there is not one difficulty relative to the things which concern our salvation left unexplained. If the members of the Romish Church have not these advantages, let them go to those who have them; and if their teachers are afraid to trust them to the instruction of the Protestants, then let them who pretend to have infallibly written their exposition of these difficult places, also put them, with a wholesome text in the vulgar language, into the hands of their people, and then the appeal will not lie to Rome, but to the Bible, and those interpretations will be considered according to their worth, being weighed with other scriptures, and the expositions of equally learned and equally infallible men.

We find, lastly, that those who wrest such portions, are those who wrest the other scriptures to their destruction; therefore they are no patterns, nor can such form any precedent for withholding the Scriptures from the common people, most of whom, instead of wresting them to their destruction, would become wise unto salvation by reading them. We may defy the Romish Church to adduce a single instance of any soul that was perverted, destroyed, or damned, by reading of the Bible; and the insinuation that they may is blasphemous. I may just add that the verb , which the apostle uses here, signifies to distort, to put to the rack, to torture, to overstretch and dislocate the limbs; and hence the persons here intended are those who proceed according to no fair plan of interpretation, but force unnatural and sophistical meanings on the word of God: a practice which the common simple Christian is in no danger of following. I could illustrate this by a multitude of interpretations from popish writers.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

As also in all his epistles; to make the sense complete, we must supply here from the former verse, he hath written.

Speaking in them of these things; viz. concerning the second coming of Christ, and end of the world, the patience that should be exercised in waiting for it; about avoiding scoffers that deny these truths, and the other instructions contained in these two Epistles, but especially in the two latter chapters of this Second Epistle.

In which are some things hard to be understood; in which Epistles, or rather, in which things contained in Pauls Epistles, for the Greek relative is of a different gender, and cannot agree with Epistles: q.d. Some of the doctrines delivered by Paul in his Epistles are hard to be understood. And so this doth not prove Pauls Epistles, much less the whole Scripture, to be obscure and dark: the style and expression may be as clear as the nature of the things will bear, and yet the things themselves so expressed may be hard to be understood, either by reason of their own obscurity, as prophecies, the excellency and sublimeness of them, as some mysterious doctrines, or the weakness of mens minds, and their incapacity of apprehending spiritual things, 1Co 2:14, compared with 1Co 13:9,10.

Which they that are unlearned; they that are ignorant of the Scripture, unskilful in the word of righteouness, Heb 5:13; or indocible, that will not be instructed.

And unstable; such as are ill grounded, and therefore unstedfast, and easily deceived, 2Pe 2:14; see Eph 4:14.

Wrest; pervert the Scripture, and offer violence to it, and, as it were, rack and torture it to make it confess what it never meant.

To their own destruction; eternal destruction, viz. while they use the Scriptures to countenance their errors; or stumble at some things in them, which are obscure, thereby taking occasion to deny the truth of God; and so make the Scripture the instrument of their perdition, which God appointed to be the means of salvation.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

16. also in all his epistlesRo 2:4 is very similar to 2Pe3:15, beginning. The Pauline Epistles were by this time becomethe common property of all the churches. The “all”seems to imply they were now completed. The subject of the Lord’scoming is handled in 1Th 4:13;1Th 5:11; compare 2Pe 3:10;1Th 5:2. Still Peterdistinguishes Paul’s Epistle, or Epistles, “TOYOU,” from “all his (other) Epistles,”showing that certain definite churches, or particular classes ofbelievers, are meant by “you.”

in whichEpistles.The oldest manuscripts read the feminine relative (hais); notas Received Text (hois), “in which things.”

some things hard to beunderstoodnamely, in reference to Christ’s coming, forexample, the statements as to the man of sin and the apostasy, beforeChrist’s coming. “Paul seemed thereby to delay Christ’s comingto a longer period than the other apostles, whence some doubtedaltogether His coming” [BENGEL].Though there be some things hard to be understood, there are enoughbesides, plain, easy, and sufficient for perfecting the man of God.”There is scarce anything drawn from the obscure places, but thesame in other places may be found most plain” [AUGUSTINE].It is our own prejudice, foolish expectations, and carnal fancies,that make Scripture difficult [JEREMYTAYLOR].

unlearnedNot thosewanting human learning are meant, but those lacking thelearning imparted by the Spirit. The humanly learned havebeen often most deficient in spiritual learning, and have originatedmany heresies. Compare 2Ti 2:23,a different Greek word, “unlearned,” literally,”untutored.” When religion is studied as a science, nothingis more abstruse; when studied in order to know our duty and practiceit, nothing is easier.

unstablenot yetestablished in what they have learned; shaken by every seemingdifficulty; who, in perplexing texts, instead of waiting until God byHis Spirit makes them plain in comparing them with other Scriptures,hastily adopt distorted views.

wreststrain and twist(properly with a hand screw) what is straight in itself (forexample, 2Ti 2:18).

other scripturesPaul’sEpistles were, therefore, by this time, recognized in the Church, as”Scripture”: a term never applied in any of the fiftyplaces where it occurs, save to the Old and New Testament sacredwritings. Men in each Church having miraculous discernment ofspirits would have prevented any uninspired writing from beingput on a par with the Old Testament word of God; the apostles’ livesalso were providentially prolonged, Paul’s and Peter’s at least tothirty-four years after Christ’s resurrection, John’s to thirty yearslater, so that fraud in the canon is out of question. The three firstGospels and Acts are included in “the other Scriptures,”and perhaps all the New Testament books, save John and Revelation,written later.

unto their owndestructionnot through Paul’s fault (2Pe2:1).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

As also in all [his] epistles,…. From whence it appears, that the Apostle Paul had, by this time, wrote several of his epistles, if not all of them; and they were all written according to the same wisdom, and under the influence of the same spirit, as his epistle to the Hebrews:

speaking in them of those things; of the same things, Peter had been speaking of, of the coming of Christ, as that he should appear a second time to them that look for him, and would come as a thief in the night, and that the fashion, scheme, and form of this world should pass away, and that saints should look and wait for his coming, and love it: something of this kind is said in all his epistles; see Heb 9:28; and also of mockers, scoffers, seducers, and wicked men that would arise in the last days; see 1Ti 4:1,

in which are some things hard to be understood. The phrase, “in which”, refers either to the epistles, or the things spoken in them. The Alexandrian manuscript, and three of Robert Stephens’s copies, read , “in which” epistles, but the generality of copies read

, “in”, or “among which things”, spoken of in them, concerning the subject here treated of, the coming of Christ; as the time of Christ’s coming, which is sometimes represented by the apostle, as if it would be while he was living; and the manner of his coming in person with all his saints, and his mighty angels, with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and trump of God, things not easily understood; and the destruction of antichrist at his coming, which will be with the breath of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming; as also the resurrection of the dead, of the saints that will rise first, and that with spiritual bodies; and likewise the change of the living saints, and the rapture both of living and raised saints together, in the, clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and the standing of them before the judgment seat of Christ, and the account that everyone must give to him, 1Th 4:15

1Co 15:44;

which they that are unlearned; untaught of God, who have never learned of the Father, nor have learned Christ, nor have that anointing which teacheth all things; who, though they may have been in the schools of men, were never in the school of Christ; and though they have been ever learning, yet will never come to the knowledge of the truth; for men may have a large share of human literature, and yet be unlearned men in the sense of the apostle; and very often it is, that such wrest and pervert the Scriptures to the ruin of themselves, and others:

and unstable; unsettled in their principles, who are like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine; the root of the matter is not in them; nor are they rooted and built up in Christ, and so are not established in the faith; they are not upon the foundation Christ, nor do they build upon, and abide by the sure word of God, or form their notions according to it, but according to their own carnal reasonings, and fleshly lusts; and so

wrest the word of God, distort it from its true sense and meaning, and make it speak that which it never designed; dealing with it as innocent persons are sometimes used, put upon a rack, and tortured, and so forced to speak what is contrary to their knowledge and consciences; and so were the words of the Apostle Paul wrested by ill designing men, as about the doctrines of grace and works, so concerning the coming of Christ; see Ro 3:8;

as [they do] also the other Scriptures; the writings of Moses, and the prophets of the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the other epistles of the apostles of the New Testament: and which is eventually

unto their own destruction; for by so doing they either add unto, or detract from the Scriptures, and so bring the curse of God upon them; and they give into doctrines of devils, and into heresies, which are damnable, and bring upon themselves swift destruction, which lingers not, and slumbers not. Now from hence it does not follow, that the Scriptures are not to be read by the common people; for not all the parts of Scripture, and all things in it, are hard to be understood, there are many things very plain and easy, even everything respecting eternal salvation; there is milk for babes, as well as meat for strong men: besides, not the Scriptures in general, but Paul’s epistles only, are here spoken of, and not all of them, or anyone whole epistle among them, only some things in them, and these not impossible, only difficult to be understood; and which is no reason why they should be laid aside, but rather why they should be read with greater application and diligence, and be followed with fervent prayer, and frequent meditation; and though unlearned and unstable men may wrest them to their perdition, those that are taught of God, though otherwise illiterate, may read them to great profit and advantage.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

As also in all his epistles ( ). We do not know to how many Peter here refers. There is no difficulty in supposing that Peter “received every one of St. Paul’s Epistles within a month or two of its publication” (Bigg). And yet Peter does not here assert the formation of a canon of Paul’s Epistles.

Speaking in them of these things ( ). Present active participle of . That is to say, Paul also wrote about the second coming of Christ, as is obviously true.

Hard to be understood (). Late verbal from and (in Aristotle, Lucian, Diog. Laert.), here only in N.T. We know that the Thessalonians persisted in misrepresenting Paul on this very subject of the second coming as Hymenaeus and Philetus did about the resurrection (2Ti 2:17) and Spitta holds that Paul’s teaching about grace was twisted to mean moral laxity like Gal 3:10; Rom 3:20; Rom 3:28; Rom 5:20 (with which cf. 6:1 as a case in point), etc. Peter does not say that he himself did not understand Paul on the subject of faith and freedom.

Unlearned (). Old word (alpha privative and to learn), ignorant, here only in N.T.

Unsteadfast (). See on 2:14.

Wrest (). Present active indicative of , old verb (from twisted, , to turn), here only in N.T.

The other scriptures ( ). There is no doubt that the apostles claimed to speak by the help of the Holy Spirit (1Thess 5:27; Col 4:16) just as the prophets of old did (2Pe 1:20f.). Note (rest) here rather than (other). Peter thus puts Paul’s Epistles on the same plane with the O.T., which was also misused (Matt 5:21-44; Matt 15:3-6; Matt 19:3-10).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Hard to be understood [] . Only here in New Testament. They that are unlearned and unstable [ ] . Both words are peculiar to Peter. On the latter, see on ch. 2Pe 2:14.

Wrest (streblousin). Only here in New Testament. Meaning, originally, to hoist with a windless or screw; to twist or dislocate the limbs on a rack. It is a singularly graphic word applied to the perversion of scripture. The other scriptures [ ] . Showing that Paul ‘s epistles were ranked as scripture. See on Mr 12:10.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “As also in all his epistles.” (Greek hos kai) “as even” (en pasais epistolais) “in all his epistles (formal letters).

2) “Speaking in them of these things.” (Greek peri touton) concerning those things” — scoffings and cynicisms of false prophets and concerning the coming day of the Lord.

3) “In which are some things hard to be understood.” (en ais) “In which” (epistles) (Greek tina) “some things” (estin) “is” (are) (Greek dusnoeta) “hard to understand,” Rom 8:19-23; 1Co 15:24; 2Th 1:4-10.

4) “Which they are unlearned and unstable wrest,” (ha oi amatheis) “that which the unlearned ones” (kai asteriktoi) “and unsteady ones” (Greek streblousin) twist, distort, or turn about.”

5) “As they do also the other scriptures.” The brethren of the Asia churches Peter addressed twisted the meaning of all Paul’s writings as they did even the other Scriptures (the Old Testament writings), (hos kai tas loipas graphas) “as also the remaining Scriptures.” These brethren had failed to “rightly divide” both Paul’s writings and the other holy writings, 2Ti 2:15; 2Pe 1:19-21.

6) “Unto their own destruction.” (pros) “to or toward” (Greek tan idian auton apoleian) “Their own (self made) or chosen destruction or ruin.” False, lying teachers and prophets, cynics and scoffers at divine truths and moral and ethical values, always twist, distort, or pervert the Holy Scriptures, to their own damnation, because they are unregenerate and have not the Spirit, 1Co 2:14; 2Co 11:13-15.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

16. In which are some things. The relative which does not refer to epistles, for it is in the neuter gender. (185) The meaning is, that in the things which he wrote there was sometimes an obscurity, which gave occasion to the unlearned to go astray to their own ruin. We are reminded by these words, to reason soberly on things so high and obscure; and further, we are here strengthened against this kind of offense, lest the foolish or absurd speculations of men should disturb us, by which they entangle and distort simple truth, which ought to serve for edification.

But we must observe, that we are not forbidden to read Paul’s Epistles, because they contain some things hard and difficult to be understood, but that, on the contrary, they are commended to us, provided we bring a calm and teachable mind. For Peter condemns men who are trifling and volatile, who strangely turn to their own ruin what is useful to all. Nay, he says that this is commonly done as to all the Scripture: and yet he does not hence conclude, that we are not to read it, but only shews, that those vices ought to be corrected which prevent improvement, and not only so, but render deadly to us what God has appointed for our salvation.

It may, however, be asked, Whence is this obscurity, for the Scripture shines to us like a lamp, and guides our steps? To this I reply, that it is nothing to be wondered at, if Peter ascribed obscurity to the mysteries of Christ’s kingdom, and especially if we consider how hidden they are to the perception of the flesh. However the mode of teaching which God has adopted, has been so regulated, that all who refuse not to follow the Holy Spirit as their guide, find in the Scripture a clear light. At the same time, many are blind who stumble at mid-day; others are proud, who, wandering through devious paths, and flying over the roughest places, rush headlong into ruin.

(185) It is in the feminine gender in some MSS. The authority as to the copies and versions is nearly equal. The difference is not much as to the sense, only “in which epistles,” reads better. So thought Beza, Mill, and others.

It has been a question as to the particular epistle referred to by Peter; for that he alludes to some particular epistle is evident from the manner in which he writes. The difficulty has arisen from connecting the reference made to Paul, only with the former part of the 15 verse, while that part ought to be viewed only as an addition to the former verse; and the former verse stands connected with the new heavens and the new earth. So that the subjects in hand are the day of judgment, the future state, and the necessity of being prepared for it; and that these are the things referred to is evident from this, that he says, that Paul speaks of them in all his epistles, which is not true, as to what is said at the beginning of the 15 verse. The passage then ought to be thus rendered: —

14. Therefore, beloved, since ye expect these things, diligently strive to be found by him in peace, unspotted and unblamable; 15. and deem the long-suffering of our Lord to be for salvation: even as Paul, our beloved brother, has, according to the wisdom given 16. to him, written to you; as also in all his epistles, when speaking in them of these things; in which (epistles) there are some things difficult to be understood,” etc.

Now the special epistle referred to was most probably the epistle to the Hebrews, one particular design of which was to direct the attention of the Jews to the country promised to their fathers. Some, indeed, hold that that epistle was written to the Jews in Judea; but others maintain that it was written to converted Hebrews generally, whether in Judea or elsewhere; and this passage seems to favor the latter opinion.

If the view given here is right, that is, that the subjects on which reference is made to Paul, are those mentioned in the 12 th, the 13 th, and 14 th verses, then there is no epistle of Paul which could be more appropriately referred to than that to the Hebrews, as the new heavens and the new earth answer exactly to “the better and heavenly country,” mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews. See Heb 11:16. Besides, the exhortations and warnings of that epistle wholly coincide with the exhortation given here by Peter. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

2Pe. 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Expanded Translation

as also is true in all his epistles (letters), speaking in them concerning these very things (of which I have just spoken). In these epistles certain things (statements) are hard to understand, which the unlearned, (uninstructed, ignorant) and unstedfast (unsettled, unstable) wrench, distort, and pervert, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction, ruin, and damnation.

_______________________

as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things

The letters of Paul, particularly those addressed to the Thessalonians, say much concerning the very subjects treated in this epistle (and especially of matters pertaining to the end of the world, which seems primarily to be meant by these things).
It is well to note here that many of Pauls writings were now in circulationand so well-known that Peter assumes his readers are acquainted with them. As was mentioned in the Introduction, this fact, of necessity, points to a relatively late date for this epistle. Notice, also, that Peter believed Pauls writings to be inspired, for he placed them alongside the other scriptures. Therefore to deny that Pauls writings deserve to be classified as scripture, is also to impeach the truthfulness and inspiration of Peter.

wherein are some things hard to be understood

That is, some of the subjects and statements treated in Pauls epistles. Any careful student of his writings will not find it hard to admit this truth! But notice that Peter does not say, for this reason cast them aside and do not study them! The book of Revelation certainly is not easily understood, but the Holy Spirit says, Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are written therein . . . (Rev. 1:3).

which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction

The word rendered wrest (strebloo) is akin to streble, a windlass, wrench, instrument of torture, rack. Thus the word properly means to distort (or stretch) the limbs on a rack. Used here metaphorically, the reference is to one who wrests or tortures language (Thayer), i.e., the language and words of scripture.

And who does this? The ignorant and unstedfastoften members of the same class. If they would admit their ignorance, seek out the truth, and abide by it, all would be well for them. But persisting in such ways, their only end is destruction. See notes, 2Pe. 2:1. (On destruction, apoleia, see under 2Pe. 3:6, perished.)

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(16) As also in all his epistles.All those known to the writer. The expression does not necessarily Imply that St. Paul was dead, and that his Epistles had been collected into one volume. That each church made a collection of them as they became known to it, and that in the great centres they became known soon after they were written, are conjectures of great probability.

Speaking in them of these thingsviz., of the return of Christ and of the destruction of the world. Some, however, understand the words as meaning the exhortations to holiness here given.

Some things hard to be understood.Certainly the difficulties with which 2 Thessalonians 2 bristles are well described by this expression, and they relate to the very point in questionthe time of Christs coming. Moreover, scoffers could easily turn them to account by arguing that the man of sin had not yet appeared, and that therefore there was no likelihood of the end of the world coming just yet. But in admitting that 2 Thessalonians 2 is among the passages alluded to here, we are not committed to the theory that 1 and 2 Thess. are alluded to in 2Pe. 3:15. Many refer these words to St. Pauls doctrine of justification by faith as wrested to mean faith without works. So, again, Eph. 2:5-6, and Col. 2:12 might be wrested to mean that the resurrection is past already (2Ti. 2:18). (See Note on Rom. 3:8 respecting perversion of his teaching.)

Unlearned and unstable.The word for unlearned here is not the same as that translated unlearned in Act. 4:13. (See Note there.) That signifies without special study; this means without ordinary instruction. Ignorance naturally produces instability; those who have no clear principles of Christian doctrine easily fall victims to seductions of all kinds. (Comp. 2Pe. 2:14.)

Wrest.Literally, torture by means of the rack; and hence strain, distort. That St. Pauls doctrine of Christian liberty, as opposed to the bondage of the Law, was seen by himself to be liable to great abuse, and had already begun to be abused, we learn from his own writings (1Co. 6:12-20; Gal. 5:13-26; where see Notes. Comp. Rev. 2:20.)

The other scriptures.The Old Testament cannot well be meant. St. Peter would scarcely have placed the writings of a contemporary side by side with the Scriptures of the Old Testament (the canon of which had long since been closed) without some intimation of a grouping which at that time must have been novel, and probably was quite unknown. It is much more probable that Christian writings of some kind are intended, but we can only conjecture which, any of the canonical writings of the New Testament then in existence, and perhaps some that are not canonical. That an Apostle should speak of the writings of a brother-Apostle in the same terms as the books of the Old Testamentviz., as Scriptureneed not surprise us, especially when we remember the large claims made by St. Paul for his own words (1Th. 2:13; 2Th. 2:15; Eph. 3:3-5. Comp. Act. 15:28; Rev. 22:18-19). In 1Pe. 1:12, Evangelists are almost made superior to the Old Testament Prophetsa statement indicating a view which harmonises well both with 2Pe. 1:15-19 and with the view set forth here; for in 2Pe. 1:15 he assigns to this Epistle much the same purpose as in 2Pe. 1:19 he assigns to the Old Testament Prophets. Moreover, we have seen how Clement of Rome uses the term Scripture of a passage which comes from some uncanonical book (see above on 2Pe. 3:4). See Introduction, I. c. . 4.

Unto their own destruction.The Greek is very emphatic as to its being their own. (Comp. Bring upon themselves swift destruction, 2Pe. 2:1.) It is their own doingSt. Paul and other writers of Scripture are not to blame; and it befits themthey will find the end they deserve. This passage gives no countenance to the Roman doctrine that all Scripture is hard to understand, and therefore not to be read by the people. All that is here said is that some Scripture is hard to understand, and that bad men make a bad use of the fact. The inference drawn from this by St. Peter is not, Do not read Scripture, nor even Pass over what seems to be hard, but Be on your guard against being led astray by interpretations contrary to the spirit of the gospel.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

16. These things The second advent and its apparently near approach.

Hard to be understood Without due explanation as to the law of prophetic time.

Unlearned Ignorant of the true law.

Unstable Fickle in moral character, and ready at any difficulty to waver.

Wrest Twist, as with a windlass or hand-screw. They so put their forcible screws onto the time-words in the predictions of the judgment day as to declare them unfulfilled, and to maintain that no judgment day will ever come, and that Christianity itself is a fiction.

Other scriptures The same unlearned and fickle perversity will find plenty of other difficulties in scripture to wrest to their own destruction. He who wants a cavil will never fail to find one. And here it is to be noted that Paul’s epistles are ranked by Peter as scriptures, and are held by him to be authoritative scriptures for the Christian Church. Even so early as the writing of this epistle a canon of New Testament scriptures was recognised in the Church of these Hebrews, and St. Paul’s writings were included in it with the express endorsement of St. Peter.

Destruction The same as the perdition of 2Pe 3:7, and these apostates are of the same class as the ungodly men of that verse.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.’

However, he acknowledges that some of what Paul says is ‘hard to understand’, being open to false manipulation. This may well have been referring to his doctrine of justification by faith alone without works as especially found in Romans and Galatians. Such teaching in unwise and unscrupulous hands could be twisted to mean that men could live as they liked. This may well have been what these false teachers were doing.

Some twist God’s word because they are ‘ignorant’. They are ill-taught. Others do it because they are unscrupulous. But they should all beware, for it could result in their own destruction. The word ‘wrest’ is very vivid and means to ‘subject to torture’.

The comparison of Paul’s letters (such as had come to Peter’s attention at the time) with ‘the other Scriptures’ (the word graphai always means the Scriptures) demonstrates in what high regard apostolic letters were held. They were seen as Scripture (compare 2Pe 3:1-2 above where the teaching of the prophets and the Apostles is spoken of in the same breath). This is not surprising. Paul had made quite clear when he was writing that his letters were of great authority, and that he expected his readers to recognise the fact (2Th 3:14; 1Co 2:16; 1Co 7:17 ; 1Co 14:37-39; see also Col 4:16; 1Th 5:27). And Jesus had Himself emphasised that His Apostles would be guided into all truth (Joh 16:13). These Apostolic men were the founders of the new teaching. That was why the later church sought to separate their writings off from all others.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2Pe 3:16. In which are some things hard, &c. “In which epistles of his are some things, &c.” And it is most true, that in St. Paul’s epistles there are some difficult points, which were greatly abused and perverted even in that age, and which have been perverted by unstable men in almost every age since; such as those of free-grace,election,reprobation, &c. This is no reflection at all upon St. Paul or his epistles, or upon his manner of writing: some objects are more difficult than others, and it requires more study and attention to understand them. They maybe expressed with the utmost justness and propriety, and as perspicuously as the nature of the things treated of will bear; and yet, to hasty and inconsiderate readers, they may have things in them hard to be understood. The most judicious writers are often the most profound; but then they will bear a second or third reading; and the more they are studied, the more they are esteemed. This is the glory of St. Paul’s epistles, in the estimation of all who have examined them with care and attention in humble dependance on the Divine blessing. The expression, , wrest, or put to the torture, plainly implies, that violence is done by these bad men to some passages of scripture, to make them speak an unnatural sense, which may answer their own purposes: and truly he must know little of the history of theological controversies, who has not observed many deplorable instances of this.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

2Pe 3:16 . [ ] ] sc . . By this adjunct the epistle of Paul, referred to in , is definitely distinguished from his other epistles; but what is true of the former is asserted also of the latter, i.e. that they contain the same exhortations, a statement, however, which is more precisely limited by . The difference in the reading, that is, whether the article is to be put with or not, is of trifling importance for the meaning, since it is unwarranted to suppose that marks the epistles of Paul as forming a formally completed collection (Wiesinger), the article only showing that the epistles of Paul were already known as such.

] is not for: (Pott), but it means: “ when in them ( i.e. in his epistles) he speaks of these things .” can only have the same reference as , 2Pe 3:15 ; that is, then, not strictly to the teaching as to the Parousia as such, but chiefly “to the exhortation given in 2Pe 3:14 f.” (Wiesinger), and what is connected with it.

The remark in what follows alludes to that which occasioned the mention of Paul’s epistles.

or ] It can hardly be decided which is the true reading: or . Schott thinks that for the sense it is immaterial, since, if be read, the must be limited to the passages where Paul happens to speak ; and if , the reference can be to those things or questions not generally, but only in the way in which they are discussed by Paul. Reiche holds a different view; in his opinion, refers to those things in themselves, to the epistles generally; this can, however, hardly be correct, for it is scarcely conceivable that the author should let fall a remark closely conjoined with what had gone before, which departs so entirely from the connection of thought. Besides, deserves the preference not only on account of the external authorities, but because of the following: (Wiesinger, Brckner, Reiche, Hofmann; Schott otherwise.) is generally regarded as the subject, and as the predicate belonging to it; the position of the words, however, decides that . must be taken together as subject (Schott, Hofmann). By must not be understood, with Schott, “the things which in themselves are opposed to the human mind,” but the expressions in which Paul speaks of them; Steinfass correctly: “ are words, not objects;” for to the things the verb is not suited. What the apostle meant can only be gathered from the connection; consequently the reference here cannot be to utterances of the Apostle Paul with respect to the Parousia itself (Schott), and therefore not to any statements of his, such as are to be found in 1Th 4:13 ff.; 1Co 15:12-58 . Still less does the connection appear to justify the assumption that “the Pauline doctrine of freedom” (Wiesinger) is meant. Since, however, Paul’s statements with regard to Christian freedom stand in close relation to the final completion of salvation, and the idea of it forms such a characteristic feature of Paul’s teaching, which could only too easily be distorted by misunderstanding, it is certainly possible, indeed it is probable, that the author had it chiefly in mind in using this somewhat indefinite expression [105] .

] , . ., according to de Wette, equivalent to “unteachable, with the implied idea of stubbornness and of unbelief.” This is incorrect, means only “ ignorant ;” no doubt the secondary idea given by de Wette may be connected with this (as in the passages quoted, Joseph. Antiq . i. 4. 1, and iii. 14. 4), but here it is not to be presupposed, since the idea connected with , although denying strength of faith, does not deny faith itself; with , cf. chap. 2Pe 2:14 . Most interpreters assume that the reference here is to the seducers, the Libertines and deniers of the Parousia formerly mentioned; but as a designation of them the expressions are too weak; chap. 2Pe 2:14 , too, is opposed to this (Schott).

, . ., strictly: “to turn with the .” Here it means: “ to distort the words ,” i.e. to give them a sense other than they actually have; equivalent to (cf. Chrysostom on 2Co 10:8 : ); the word is to be found in another figurative sense in 2Sa 22:27 , LXX.

] This addition is somewhat surprising, not only because all more precise statement of the referred to is wanting, but because by it , which formerly had reference only to the in the epistles of Paul, is here extended to entire writings; for to interpret by “passages of Scripture” (de Wette), is arbitrary.

It is very improbable that the reference is to the O. T. Scriptures (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass), since the author would certainly have defined them more nearly as such [106] (Brckner); probably, then, other writings are meant, which, at the time of the composition of this epistle, served, like the epistles of Paul, for the instruction and edification of the Christian churches; it is possible, therefore, that these included other writings of the N. T.; but that they were only such, cannot be proved. That the words presuppose a collection of N. T. writings properly so called, is without any reason asserted by de Wette (Brckner).

] serves to intensify : “ to their own destruction ” (cf. chap. 2Pe 2:1 ); the wresting of Scripture has this consequence, inasmuch as they make use of the distorted expressions, in order to harden themselves in their fleshly lust.

[105] According to Hofmann, it is passages such as Eph 2:5 f., Col 2:1 , that are meant, “for with these and similar statements the teaching of a Hymenaeus and a Philetus could be combined, that the resurrection was already past, and that no other resurrection than that which takes place in regeneration is to be looked for. This doctrine, combined with the other, that the world of sense has nothing related to God, would produce that justification of immorality predicted in chap. 2.”

[106] Although in other parts of the N. T. always means the O. T. Scriptures, still the addition of proves that other Scriptures are here referred to; it would be different were not added.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Ver. 16. Hard to be understood ] See my True Treasure. In things necessary the Scripture is plain and easy; and the very entrance thereinto giveth light, saith David, Psa 119:30 ; yea, subtilty and sagacity, saith Solomon, Pro 1:4 . And for the more dark and difficult places, Legum obscuritates non assignemus culpae scribentium, sed inscitiae non assequentium, saith he in Gellius, the fault is not to be laid upon the Scriptures, but upon our uuskilfulness and inability to understand them.

Which they that are unlearned and unstable ] That for want of sacred learning are unsettled, ill-bottomed; and do therefore, like Peter on the water, walk one step and sink another. Our forefathers (saith Speed out of Walsingham) did not without great reason distinguish the people into learned and lewd; because such are commonly lewd who are not learned. Sure we are out of this text, that they are unstable that are unlearned; and that men therefore err because they know not the Scriptures in the right sense of them, Mat 2:2 ; they err in heart because they know not God’s ways, and become a prey to seducers, because “ever learning, but never come to the knowledge of the truth,” 2Ti 3:7 ; “The simple believeth every word,” saith Solomon, Pro 14:1 . The blind man swalloweth many a fly, saith our English proverb. The god of this world blinds the minds of his vassals, keeps them ignorant, and then doth what he will with them, as the Philistines did with Samson when they had digged out his eyes. He useth the same method ordinarily to carry on his designs, that he took in the Parlamentum iudoctum, the lack learning Parliament, held here A. D. 1404, in the reign of Henry IV (Speed, 775); or as in the Council of Ariminum. The Arians have procured the exile of the orthodox learned bishops, and perceiving the company that was left, though they were very unlearned, yet they would not be persuaded directly to disannul anything that had been before concluded in the Council of Nice, did abuse their ignorance in proposing the matter, and drawing them to their side. For they demanded of them whether they would worship , or Christ? These not understanding the Greek word, rejected it with execration, being, as they thought, opposed unto Christ, (Ruffin. Eccles. Hist. lib. x.)

Wrest, as they do, &c. ] When we strive to give unto the Scriptures, and not to receive from it the sense, when we factiously contend to fasten our conceits on God, like the harlot, take our dead and putrefied fancies, and lay them in the bosom of the Scriptures, as of a mother, when we compel them to go two miles which of themselves would go but one, when we put words into the mouths of these oracles by mis-inferences or mis-applications, then are we guilty of this sin of wresting the Scriptures. Tertullian speaketh of some that murder the Scriptures to serve their own purposes. And the same author fitly calleth Marcion, the heretic, Murem Ponticum, the rat of Pontus, because of his gnawing and tawing the Scripture to make it serviceable to his errors ( Caedem Scripturarum faciunt ); this is a very dangerous sin, when men shall writhe the Scripture, and set it on the tenters to fit it to their fancies, as Scyron and Procrustes are said to have fitted their guests to the bed of brass which they had framed to their own size.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

16 .] as also in all ( his , but not expressed: with the it would mean, in all his Epistles as a finished whole : without it, in all Epistles which he writes , leaving room for the possibility that the number of those Epistles was not complete, but still being added to) Epistles, speaking in them (as he does: the pres. part. contains the justification of the assertion: not as Huther, “when he speaks”) of these things (viz. the coming of our Lord, and the end of the world), in which (Epistles, if be read: if , “ in which sayings of his :” not, “in which things,” “in which subjects,” as some (e. g. Bengel) have rendered by way of escape from the supposed difficulty: for is correlative with , and must therefore designate some writings previously mentioned: or else the sentence is stultified) are some things difficult to understand (De W. especially refers to 2Th 2:1 ff.: and it is not improbable that this may have been particularly in the Apostle’s mind. See note on 2Ti 2:18 . Grot. is clearly wrong in extending the list to difficulties about faith and works, &c.), which the ignorant (unintelligent, uninformed: hardly, as De W., with an understood meaning of rebellion and unbelief: for that would be too much here. may arise from many causes: but the misunderstanding of difficult Scriptures is common to the in general) and unstable (ref.: those who, wanting firm foundation and anchorage, waver and drift about with every wind of doctrine. Such persons are stirred from their Christian stability by every apparent difficulty: are rendered anxious and perplexed by hard texts: and shewing more anxiety to interpret them somehow, than to wait upon God for their solution, rush upon erroneous and dangerous ways of interpretation) distort ( , properly, to twist with a handscrew or windlass, : , sch. Suppl. 441. Hence to torment with the : and then met., to distort, pervert, strain, in meaning. c. gives for it ), as also the other Scriptures (or, passages of Scripture having reference to this great subject: as we have Joh 19:37 , (see note) 2Ti 3:16 . Whichever be understood, it is plain, 1. that by these words St. Paul’s Epistles are reckoned among the Christian scriptures: 2. that there were at this time besides those Epistles, other writings holding a similar place, known as ; probably, at least, the three Gospels (and Acts?), and some of the earlier written catholic Epistles. That by should be meant the O. T. scriptures, is not probable: these would have been more fully designated than by being placed in the same category with the inspired writings of recent or living men), to (as a contribution to towards, so as to help towards) their own perdition ( , more strongly reflective than with one of these merely).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

2Pe 3:16 . . This statement implies neither the inclusion of all the epistles that have come down to us, nor the formation of a canon. It is much more natural to take it as referring to a collection of letters made not long after Paul’s death, and read in the churches. The term in 2Pe 3:15 would seem to refer to one whose memory is still quite fresh in the hearts of the readers. : “where he touches on these subjects” (Mayor), indicates a widening of the reference to include Paul’s treatment of the whole question of the Second Coming. The mention of Paul’s name here implies a desire on the part of the writer to show that on this point the Pauline and Petrine teaching are at one. The false teachers founded their Antinomian doctrine on Paul’s teaching about the Grace of God. , . . . This clearly involves that a collection of letters is meant. . “What are the referred to? “Probably St. Paul’s doctrine of God’s free grace (Rom 3:5-8 ), with his apparent disparagement of the law in Rom 3:20-28 ; Rom 4:15 ; Rom 5:20 ; Rom 6:4 ; Rom 7:4-11 ; his teaching with regard to the , 1Co 1:15 ; with regard to the strong, whom he seems to justify in their neglect of the rule made at the Apostolic Council, as to (Act 15:29 ; Rom 14 ; 1Co 8 ; 1Co 10:25 ); as regards the Resurrection in baptism (Rom 6:3-11 ; Col 3:1 ; 1Co 15:12 ); perhaps as regards predestination (Rom 9:11-21 ), and the Parousia (2Th 2 .)” (Mayor). . is not used elsewhere in the N.T. It signifies not so much “unlearned” as “uneducated”; a mind untrained and undisciplined in habits of thought, lacking in the moral qualities of a balanced judgment. refers more to conduct, those whose habits are not fully trained and established. The reference of . . is of course not to the Libertines, but to a class among the readers. In 2Pe 3:17 is used of the readers, in distinction to the False Teachers, who are called . : of persons, “to torture,” of things, “to wrest” or “twist”.

. (1) There has been much discussion among commentators as to the meaning of . Spitta takes in sense of “writings,” and concludes that these were by companions of the Apostle Paul; but this is a very unusual sense of unless the name of an author is given. Mayor and others interpret as the O.T. Scriptures; while some who are prepared to assign a late date in the second century to the epistle, think that both Old and New Testament Scriptures are meant. On every ground the hypothesis of = O.T. Scriptures is to be preferred. (2) The difficulty in connexion with the meaning of is largely occasioned by the phrase . Does this mean that the Epistles of St. Paul are regarded as Scripture? Attempts have been made ( e.g. , by Dr. Bigg) to cite classical and other parallels that would justify the sense for , “the Scriptures as well”. In these, certain idiomatic uses of and other words are referred to, but no real parallel to this sense of can be found, and the connexion implied in is closer than . The result of the whole discussion is practically to compel us to take in the obvious sense “the rest of the Scriptures,” and we cannot escape the conclusion that the Epistles of Paul are classed with these. The intention of the author of 2 Peter seems to be to regard the Pauline Epistles, or those of them that he knew, as because they were read in the churches along with the lessons from the O.T.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

also, &c. = in all his epistles also.

speaking. App-121.7.

some. App-124. (neut).

hard, &c. Greek. dusnoetos. Only here.

unlearned. Greek. amathes. Only here. Compare Act 4:13. 1Co 14:16. 2Ti 2:23.

unstable. See 2Pe 2:14.

wrest. Greek. strebloo. Only here and in Septuagint of 2Sa 22:27 (m. wrestle). It means to strain or twist, and so to torture. Occurs in Apocrypha.

also, &c. = the other (App-124.) Scriptures also. Note that St. Paul’s epistles are called “Scripture”.

unto. App-104.

destruction. Same as “perdition”, 2Pe 3:7.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

16.] as also in all (his, but not expressed: with the it would mean, in all his Epistles as a finished whole: without it, in all Epistles which he writes, leaving room for the possibility that the number of those Epistles was not complete, but still being added to) Epistles, speaking in them (as he does: the pres. part. contains the justification of the assertion: not as Huther, when he speaks) of these things (viz. the coming of our Lord, and the end of the world), in which (Epistles, if be read: if , in which sayings of his: not, in which things, in which subjects, as some (e. g. Bengel) have rendered by way of escape from the supposed difficulty: for is correlative with , and must therefore designate some writings previously mentioned: or else the sentence is stultified) are some things difficult to understand (De W. especially refers to 2Th 2:1 ff.: and it is not improbable that this may have been particularly in the Apostles mind. See note on 2Ti 2:18. Grot. is clearly wrong in extending the list to difficulties about faith and works, &c.), which the ignorant (unintelligent, uninformed: hardly, as De W., with an understood meaning of rebellion and unbelief: for that would be too much here. may arise from many causes: but the misunderstanding of difficult Scriptures is common to the in general) and unstable (ref.: those who, wanting firm foundation and anchorage, waver and drift about with every wind of doctrine. Such persons are stirred from their Christian stability by every apparent difficulty: are rendered anxious and perplexed by hard texts: and shewing more anxiety to interpret them somehow, than to wait upon God for their solution, rush upon erroneous and dangerous ways of interpretation) distort (, properly, to twist with a handscrew or windlass, : , sch. Suppl. 441. Hence to torment with the : and then met., to distort, pervert, strain, in meaning. c. gives for it ), as also the other Scriptures (or, passages of Scripture having reference to this great subject: as we have Joh 19:37, (see note) 2Ti 3:16. Whichever be understood, it is plain, 1. that by these words St. Pauls Epistles are reckoned among the Christian scriptures: 2. that there were at this time besides those Epistles, other writings holding a similar place, known as ; probably, at least, the three Gospels (and Acts?), and some of the earlier written catholic Epistles. That by should be meant the O. T. scriptures, is not probable: these would have been more fully designated than by being placed in the same category with the inspired writings of recent or living men), to (as a contribution to-towards,-so as to help towards) their own perdition ( , more strongly reflective than with one of these merely).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

2Pe 3:16. , in all) Peter wrote this epistle very shortly before his own martyrdom and that of Paul. Therefore Paul had written nearly all his epistles long before, even the epistles to those to whom Peter writes. Peter therefore read all the epistles of Paul, which were perhaps sent to him by Paul himself: nor did he take it ill, that Paul had written respecting Peter in such terms as he had to the Galatians, ch. 2. Who can doubt, that the epistles of Paul were, at an early period, collected into one body?- , concerning these things) Concerning the coming of the Lord, which is delayed through His long-suffering, but yet is near and sudden, and the things which will happen at His coming and before it. When Paul appeared to delay the day of the Lord to a longer period than the other apostles, there were some who either doubted or denied His coming altogether.- , in which things)-, hard to be understood. It is one thing to be hard to be understood, and another thing to be beyond the reach of the understanding.-) some things, not all.-) which things, which subjects, and so even the writings of Paul. With this corresponds the expression which follows, they wrest the Scriptures, and so even the subjects mentioned in them. The one is to be understood as included with the other.- , the unlearned) who are without heavenly learning.-) twist, whereas they are straight in themselves. There is an instance, 2Ti 2:18.- ; the other Scriptures) It follows from this that the epistles of Paul already formed part of the Scriptures. Comp. has written, 2Pe 3:15.-, to) so that they seem to agree with the abandoned perception of the wicked.-, their own) without any injury to St Paul.-, destruction) ch. 2Pe 2:1.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

in all: 1Pe 1:1

speaking: Rom 8:1-39, 1Co 15:1-58, 1Th 4:1 – 1Th 5:28, 2Ki 1:1-18

hard: 1Ki 10:1, Heb 5:11

unstable: 2Pe 2:14, Gen 49:4, 2Ti 3:5-7, Jam 1:8

wrest: Exo 23:2, Exo 23:6, Deu 16:19, Psa 56:5, Hab 1:4

the other: Jer 23:36, Mat 15:3, Mat 15:6, Mat 22:29

unto their own: 2Pe 2:1, Phi 3:19, 1Pe 2:8, Jud 1:4

Reciprocal: Pro 1:6 – dark Pro 9:8 – rebuke Pro 9:12 – General Pro 11:9 – through Pro 28:23 – General Isa 28:13 – that Joh 6:60 – This 1Co 7:40 – I think 2Co 11:6 – not 1Ti 5:15 – General 2Ti 3:15 – the holy 1Pe 2:6 – it

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2Pe 3:16. Peter here makes a more general reference to the epistles of Paul, and says that in all of them he speaks of the same things that the present letter treats. This shows that Peter was familiar with the Pauline writings and that he had great respect for them. Since both apostles wrote about so many items that pertain to the kingdom of God, it would be unnecessary to try pointing out which Peter means by these things. All of the words hard to be understood are from the one Greek word DUSNOETOS, which Thayer defines with the same four words. Robinson defines it, “difficult of perception.” We should note it does not say that it is impossible to understand them, hence the expression does not contradict the general idea of the simplicity of the Gospel. Moreover, it merely says there are some things like this, which would not be surprising in documents that have to do with performances of both God and man and of both bad men and Satan. Besides, the only ones who had any serious trouble were those who were unlearned (uninformed) and unstable (unsettled in their convictions). But even these are not to be excused for they could do better, since they wrest (twist) the scriptures which means to force them out of their obvious meaning. And since they wilfully misuse the sacred writings Peter says it will be unto their own destruction.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

2Pe 3:16. as also in all (his) epistles, speaking in them of these things; a statement from which we are not entitled to infer that the Pauline Epistles already formed a collection which could be spoken of as one whole.

in which are some things hard to be understood. The in which refers, according to the best reading, not to the things of which Paul spake, but to the Epistles themselves. The adjective hard to be understood occurs only here. Some suppose the reference to be particularly to Pauls doctrine of the Second Coming, as given in such passages of his Epistles as 1Co 15:12-58, 1Th 4:13, etc.; others to his doctrines of justification and Christian freedom, which engaged so much of his teaching, and were peculiarly open to perversion. It is also suggested that the more mystical sections of his doctrine, those found, e.g., in Eph 2:5, etc., Col 2:12, may be specially in view, as these were capable of being turned to the advantage both of the party of immoral licence, and of errorists like Hymenaeus and Philetus, who taught that the resurrection was past already (Hofmann).

which the ignorant and unstable wrest. These three words ignorant, unstable, wrest, are peculiar to this passage. The first, which is rendered unlearned by the A. V. and ignorant by the R. V., has not quite the same sense as the unlearned applied to Peter and John in Act 4:13. Here it means unskilled, or uninformed in Christian truth. With the second compare chap. 2Pe 2:14. The third means primarily to twist, e.g. with a windlass, or with a screw, or upon an instrument of torture like the rack, or to wrench, as e.g. in the case of a dislocated limb. Thence it comes to mean to twist or distort the sense of words.

as they do the other scriptures. Those who wrest particular statements in one section of the Scriptures are next represented as apt to make the same perverted use of Scripture generally. In the N. T. the phrase the Scriptures is regularly applied to the O. T. writings. The singular may be used of a particular passage or portion of Scripture, as in Joh 19:37; and is once employed where the words in question cannot be identified with any in the Bible as we have it (Jas 4:5). But in some fifty occurrences the plural seems never to be used but of the O. T. This is a strong reason for supposing that the O. T. Scriptures are also meant here, and that Pauls Epistles, therefore, are already ranked along with them. On the other hand, it is urged that Peter would scarcely have placed the O. T. in this unqualified manner in the same category with the Epistles of a contemporary of his own, and that it is probably other writings of the New Testament period that are referred to. Even thus it appears that there were already so many writings which were recognised as Christian Scriptures, and spoken of in terms similar to those applied to the ancient and venerated collection of the O. T. Scriptures, and that the Epistles of Paul were reckoned among these. The implicit testimony contained in this statement to the authority of certain writings as Scripture also deserves to be noticed. It is observed that, as Peter closes his Epistles with this testimony, so Malachi brings the O. T. to its end with a charge to remember the law of Moses with the statutes and judgments; John concludes the four Gospels with a similar testimony (Joh 20:31); Paul closes his Epistles with a solemn statement on the profitableness of inspired Scripture (2Ti 3:14-17); Jude closes the Catholic Epistles with an injunction to remember the words spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ (Jud 1:17); while the Apocalypse ends with the promise of blessing to those who keep, and of the opposite to those who take from or add to, the sayings of the book (Wordsworth).

to their own destruction. The words carry us back to the heresies of destruction mentioned in chap. 2Pe 2:1, the emphatic own, however, intimating that in this case the destruction comes upon the men not by the seductions of others, but by their own misuse of Scripture. The passage has been seized on in support of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the obscurity of Scripture, its possible injuriousness to the private student, and the danger of leaving it in the hands of the people without an authoritative interpretation. What Peter is warning against, however, is the perils of a misuse of Scripture. What he states is not that Scripture is unsafe in the hands of the people, but that there are certain things in it which are capable of being perverted by a particular class. And while he gives this caution to the ignorant and unstable, he speaks of Paul as writing according to the wisdom given unto him, and earnestly enjoins upon all these Gentile Christians scattered throughout the Asiatic Churches to be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour (chap. 2Pe 3:2).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

2Pe 3:16. As also in all his epistles From this it appears that Peter had read Pauls epistles; and, as he speaks not of some but of all of them, it is probable that Paul was dead when St. Peter wrote this, namely, a little before his martyrdom, as appears from 2Pe 1:14. And seeing that Paul, in his epistle to the Rom 2:4, and to the Heb 10:36; Heb 10:38, wrote that the long-suffering of God was intended for salvation, by mentioning that circumstance, Peter intimated that he knew Paul to be the author of the epistles to the Romans, and to the Hebrews. Speaking in them of these things Paul, in all his epistles, hath spoken of the things written by Peter in this letter. For example: he hath spoken of Christs coming to judgment, 1Th 3:13; 1Th 4:14-18; 2Th 1:7-10; Tit 2:13; and of the resurrection from the dead, 1Co 15:22; Php 3:20-21; and of the burning of the earth, 2Th 1:8; and of the heavenly country, 2Co 5:1-10; and of the introduction of the righteous into that country, 1Th 4:17; Heb 4:9; Heb 12:14-24; and of the judgment of all mankind by Christ. In which are some things hard to be understood According to the greatest number of MSS. the apostle does not say, , in which epistles, but , in or among which things; namely, the things which Paul had written concerning Christs coming to judgment, the burning of the earth, the heavenly country, and the introduction of the righteous into that country. The Alexandrian, however, and six other MSS. read here, , in which epistles. This, Beza says, is the true reading, because he thinks it would have been improper in Peter to say that Paul had written obscure ly concerning subjects of which Peter himself had written more things hard to be understood than any Paul had written in any part of his epistles, Nevertheless the common reading may be retained, because the antecedent to the neuter relative, , may be a word not expressed, but understood, namely, , which signifies letters or epistles, Act 28:21. On this supposition Peters meaning will be, In which epistles there are some things hard to be understood. Barclay, in his Apology, explains this of the 9th chapter of Pauls epistle to the Romans, in which there are some things that seem to be contrary to Gods long-suffering to all, and which are very liable to be perniciously wrested; which they that are unlearned Who are not taught of God, or are unteachable, as Estius translates the word , here used; namely, persons whose passions blind their understanding, and make them averse to the truth, or whose prejudices, indispose them to admit it: and the unstable The wavering, unsettled, double-minded, or men of two minds, as St. Jamess word, , signifies; who have no real, steady love of piety, but sometimes follow it, sometimes desert it, as good or bad inclinations happen to predominate in them. Whereas the stable are those who have a firm, unshaken, and warm attachment to the religion of Jesus: wrest The original word, , signifies to put a person to the torture, to make him confess some crime laid to his charge, or reveal some secret which he knows. Applied to writings it signifies, by far-fetched criticisms and unsupported senses of words, to make a passage speak a meaning different from what the author intended. Hence in our language we have the expression, to torture words. Of this vice they are most commonly guilty who, from pride of understanding, will receive nothing but what they can explain. Whereas, the humble and teachable receive the declarations of revelation according to their plain, grammatical, unconstrained meaning, which it is their only care to attain, by reading the Scriptures frequently and with attention. Macknight. As they do also the other scriptures In this clause Peter expressly acknowledges Pauls epistles to be a part of the Scriptures, and therefore to have been written by divine inspiration. The affection with which Peter on this occasion speaks of Paul, and the honourable testimony which he bears to his writings, deserves great praise. He had been formerly rebuked by Paul before the brethren at Antioch for refusing to keep company with the Gentile converts; but if at that time he felt any displeasure at Paul for that rebuke, which we nowhere learn that he did, he had long ago laid it aside, and probably, instead of thinking ill of Paul on that account, had for many years admired him for his bold and steady testimony to the truth.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 16

In which; in which things, that is, in the truths revealed in respect to the end of the world and the general judgment. The difficulties which the apostle here refers to are not difficulties in Paul’s writings, but in the subject which he has himself been discussing. This the original conclusively shows.–Which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest; in the manner already explained in 2 Peter 3:3-5.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; {13} in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

(13) There are some things that are obscure and dark which the ignorant use to overthrow men who are not established, wrestling the testimony of the scripture for their own destruction. But this is the remedy against such deceit, to labour that we may daily more and more grow up and increase in the knowledge of Christ.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

"These things" probably refers generally to future events (cf. 2Pe 3:11; 2Pe 3:14) and the importance of Christians living godly lives in view of them (e.g., 1Co 15:51-58; 1Th 4:13-18; 2Th 2:1-12).

"It is not only possible, but probable, that St. Peter received every one of St. Paul’s Epistles within a month or two of its publication. We cannot imagine that one apostle should have remained in ignorance of what other apostles were doing, and it is quite inconceivable that St. Peter should not have read Galatians and I Corinthians." [Note: Bigg, pp. 300-1.]

If Peter wrote this epistle in A.D. 67 or 68, it is possible that he could have read every one of Paul’s 13 inspired epistles. It is somewhat comforting to learn that even the Apostle Peter found some of what Paul wrote hard to understand! Peter also wrote some things in his two epistles that tax our understanding. The "untaught" (Gr. amatheis) are those who had not received teaching concerning all that God had revealed. The "unstable" (Gr. asteriktoi) are those who were not always consistent in their allegiance to God or the world, namely, double-minded, fence-straddling compromisers. These types of people misunderstood and, in some cases, deliberately misrepresented the meaning of Paul’s writings. However this only added to their own guilt before God.

"The verb ’distort’ (streblousin), occurring only here in the New Testament, means ’to twist or wrench,’ specifically, ’to stretch on the rack, to torture’ [James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, p. 593]. They take Paul’s statements and twist and torture them, like victims on the rack, to force them to say what they want them to say." [Note: Hiebert, "Directives for . . .," p. 335.]

Note that Peter regarded Paul’s writings as having equal authority with the Old Testament Scriptures. This statement reiterates what he said previously about the apostles’ teaching being equal with the (Old Testament) prophets’ writings (2Pe 1:12-21; 2Pe 3:2).

"That an Apostle should speak of the writings of a brother-Apostle in the same terms as the books of the Old Testament-viz., as Scripture-need not surprise us, especially when we remember the large claims made by St. Paul for his own words (1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 15; Eph. iii. 3-5. Comp. Acts xv. 28; Rev. xxii. 18, 19)." [Note: Plummer, 8:462.]

"In attempting to destroy the Bible men destroy themselves." [Note: Williams, p. 111.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)