Welcome
Prayer
Sing word to Music
Silence
And when we come back we’ll pick it up at verse 12.
Alright, last week we continued to study Peter’s strong imprecations upon the false teachers of his day.
At this point, beginning at verse 12, he holds very little back. I mean he eviscerates these people.
A couple of things to remember in reading our text.
First Peter is talking about people who at some point in time were considered and in my opinion were actually BELIEVERS.
Now, the question that comes up is “how much did these false teachers once believe?”
According to scripture there seems to be some variable levels or stages of belief in the lives of people.
For example prior to Jesus death and resurrection we read Jesus say in John 7:38
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
But then John adds in the next verse:
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
In other words this is a case where they were able to believe but they had not yet received the Holy Spirit – showing that there can be a difference between believing and having the Holy Spirit.
I think we can put it this way – not all who believe have received the Holy Spirit but all who have received the Holy Spirit believe.
In Acts chapter 8 we read the following account:
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Again, the people here did not receive the Holy Spirit first but instead believed first, then were baptized in water, and then they received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands of the apostles.
Four chapters later we read the following from the ministry of Paul and Apollos.
19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” And they said unto him, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.”
3 And he said unto them, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” And they said, “Unto John’s baptism.”
4 Then said Paul, “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.
So once again we see that people believed but had yet been recipients of the Holy Spirit – which at that time was delivered to them by an apostolic laying on of hands.
The gradation of conversion levels ranging between “belief and being vessels of the Holy Spirit” is illustrated (or evinced) in a healing Jesus performed on a blind man (the account is found in Mark 8).
In my estimation the physical healings Jesus and the apostles performed were types and pictures of the conversion of the human heart to Him. In this light we read beginning at verse 22 of Mark 8:
22 And Jesus cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
24 And he looked up, and said, “ I see men as trees, walking.”
25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
From all of these New Testament accounts we can see that there can be a difference between believing and being fully converted.
So the question is at what stage were these false teachers who were at one time AT LEAST believers?
Peter gives us some insight when he says at verse 21 of this chapter:
2nd Peter 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
I say this gives us insight because the Greek for
“For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,
(this first known, as in not to have known the way of righteousness is in the perfect active infinitive of epiginôskô which means to “fully know.”
And then the verse goes on, “than, after they have known it,”
(Which is in the “second aorist active participle of epiginôskô in the dative plural (which agrees with the words, “for them”).
So both mean fully known either in the perfect ongoing sense or in the sense of having fully known).
So we are talking about false teachers who were once fully knowing believers, which I would suggest means that they believed AND the Holy Spirit bore witness to them.
And it is my belief that these facts are what lead Peter to speak of them SO darn harshly.
In other words if they were merely people who believed but had yet to have the witness of the Holy Spirit he may have gone after them a bit but since they were fully faithful (so to speak) he gives them both barrels saying (at verse 12)
2nd Peter 2.12-16
February 14th 2016
Meat
12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
Okay back to verse 12.
Back in verses 9 and 10 he has touched on their character then in verse 11 he introduces the character of angels and says:
11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
Then he jumps back to the false teachers and says “BUT THESE . . .”
12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
By comparing them “to natural brute beasts,” he’s likening their nature or character to beasts of the forrest and field who exist by utterly natural inclinations in terms of eating, sexual appetites, and domination through violence.
Natural brute beasts are not domesticated in the least – they are wholly selfish in all areas of existence as see existence through the eyes of flight or fight, wants and immediate desires and flesh.
If you have spent any amount of time with unregenerated males it doesn’t take too awfully long before you come in contact with some who represent such irrational animals which Peter writes
“are made to be taken and destroyed.”
And it seems that the comparison is that they are AS fierce and savage beasts that exercise no control over their appetites, and have reach a point where, like bloodthirsty bears or mountain lions that appear to have been made only to be destroyed.
The word natural here, (which, however, is not found in a number of early manuscripts,) means as they follow their
natural appetites and passions.
The word brute refers to without reason – irrational.
Unlike the crocodile Man has reason and therefore should be moved to let this reason control our passions.
Natural brute beasts have no rational nature – with some of them getting so far from rationality that they do not even consider surroundings or the presence of law.
I am convinced that every human being is capable of falling to such depths of depravity if they allow themselves to go there – believers or not.
The vast majority won’t (thank goodness) being restrained by common sense, a love for God, man or self, fear or consequences, but one of the wonders of being a believer is that the internal presence of the Holy Spirit draws us away from this inner beast to the point that it presence become repulsive.
In the case of utterly depraved individuals they are not merely useless they are dangerous, and for this reason Peter says that they are like wild beasts that were “made to be taken and destroyed.”
Now, the line, “made to be taken and destroyed,” seems to support the idea that God made or created them for the purpose of them to be captured and then destroyed.
I would like to refute this by the Greek but I’m not sure I can as the word made here is “Ghen-ah-o” which speaks to birth or origin.
The only thing I can say in defense is Peter IS likening them to animals and says, they are AS brute beasts that were made to be taken and destroyed and the “AS” gives us an out meaning, God did not create these humans in His image to be taken and destroyed but they became so debased they became as brute beasts which were created to be taken and destroyed.
Now, we know that they are lascivious in nature but after having described them as brute beasts Peter says something that does not refer to their character but to their position as false teachers and says:
They “speak evil of the things that they understated not.”
Contextually it seems that this refers to verse 12 where Peter tells us that the angels would not cast a railing accusation against Satan BUT these brute beasts feel the right to “speak evil” (so they are condemning or mocking) things they do not understand.
I tell you, the longer I like the more I see a great personal need for me to shut my mouth when it comes to condemning people and things.
I have been a very brute beast in my life, speaking evil of almost everything I have not understood – and isn’t that the case – we are probably lacking some insight or another (meaning we are not understanding something about whatever we are condemning) and yet we speak anyway.
I am personally committed to holding my ill-informed and or uninformed tongue and if I choose to speak I pray God will let the words build and encourage and teach rather than condemn. And if I desire this in the things among men (which I fail to understand things) I doubly desire it in the things of God (into which I am all but blind).
Peter adds:
“And they shall utterly perish in their own corruption.”
Just as the wild animal would be captured and put to death due to their bloodthirst so will these brutes meet the same end for failing to restrain their false insights and commentary.
Young’s literal translation of this line is:
“In their destruction they will be destroyed,” which intimates that “in the midst of all the destruction they bring to the Body they will be destroyed.” (verse 13)
13 “And (they) shall receive the reward of unrighteousness . . .”
We teach and preach that God is Good and that He is Just and merciful and will recompense all things to all men.
I believe this.
I think scripture is clear on this matter and that here, in the New Testament church Peter is describing the rewards these false teachers would get – it would be the reward of unrighteousness.
In the last chapter of Revelation, given to the believers in the seven churches of Asia minor Jesus says:
Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
It seems that Jesus was returning with rewards for righteousness and unrighteousness – and distributed them perfectly upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
It also appears that the principle of rewards continues today though I have had people strongly disagree with me on this point.
Let me strongly disagree back. So while I am convinced that God’s wrath has been quelled and appeased by and through the final offering of His Son on behalf of the world I am also convinced that God continues to reward all people with His love and blessings – to the extent they merit them by and through faith and love in this life.
So where I do not believe people are inflicted by His wrath in the afterlife (that would be counter intuitive to His having had the victory over all things) I do believe strongly that all people reap what they sow and that the reaping is somehow predicated on the faith and love a person acquired and used in this life.
Think of it this way – the after life is like a giant field of golden fruit and the orchards are open to everyone all of the time.
But reaping and harvesting the fruit requires knowledge on how to operate the threshing equipment (which comes by the presence of agape love) and therefore all people are only able to reap (harvest) what they have sown in love.
Something like that.
In any case, we know for these false teachers Peter says that they were going to reap “the rewards of unrighteousness,” then he continues to describe their ways, adding descriptions of their lifestyles, saying:
“as they that count it pleasure to
riot in the day time.
Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings
while they feast with you;”
So first of all they enjoy day time revelries.
We might suppose that this was quite the temptation in that day – getting bombed in the day.
We know in Acts chapter two that even the new believers were accused of being drunk at the third hour.
Paul writes in 1st Thessalonians 5 6-8:
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
He goes on and says:
“Spots they are and blemishes,” probably a reference to Old Testament signs of leprosy – which is a disease showing up in the midst of healthy skin which, when manifesting, should mean sending the person away because they represent a danger to the group.
“Sporting themselves with their own deceivings.”
The Greek word doesn’t necessarily mean sporting the way we define sporting but it best mean “they use their views and the things they say to live in riot and luxury.
In other words under the garb of being professing Christians they give indulgence to the most corrupt passions.
And apparently all of this luxury and false teaching and adulterous ways were going on in and around feasts. Let’s reread the overall description of how Peter seems them:
13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
It seems that these false teachers took advantage of their false views to turn even the sacred feasts of charity (or perhaps the Lord’s Supper itself) into an occasion of sensual indulgence.
The Greek term for, while they feast with you is “soon yoo oh kay o” which means revelry with, amidst a feast presumably either in some festival the Christians celebrated – one which could have turned riotous, full of revelry and drink and seduction. And it’s even possible that it was surrounding the Lord supper, something that Paul faced at Corinth too.
Part and parcel of the bacchanalia occurring here in what Peter witnesses was not just turning the feast into a time of riotous living but one for these lascivious teachers to feed their adulterous natures – so Peter adds (at verse 14):
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
If we took all the Greek terms used in this passage we are talking about one carnal description.
The purpose of their gathering was to sit about, postulate on things which they did not understand, get people supporting their views, which at the base of them was carnal licentiousness, and then with their support to turn the feasting into riotous revelry which only served to fill their eyes with adulterous ideas – whether the acts were carried out literally or not can’t be determined – but it was at the heart of their objectives.
Apparently these brute beasts were so far gone that they turned every event into opportunities for illicit talk, then sex.
And when Peter says that they possess hearts that they have exercised with covetous practices, the coveting was that of other men’s wives, a drive that seized their minds.
The interesting thing about the Greek here is the term translated beguiling in the King James is del-eh-ad-zo and it means to hunt or trap.
Add in the line, “beguiling unstable souls,” and when we put them together we get the following picture:
“These false teachers would appear at Christian feasts and festivals, they would openly discuss on matters upon which they had no real understanding about, and through their words would get unstable souls all riled up as a means to capitalize on their financial support and the women present.”
For me these are clear warnings and insights into situations that have ever since Peter wrote these words have existed in para-Christian groups:
There is present a false teacher.
There are feasts and festivals.
The senses are engaged.
Strange doctrines are introduced to tease those senses.
There is a gathering or focus on obtaining financial support, and then finally
There is adultery or fornication of some sort – typically adultery because the beguiling teachers love to own other men’s wives.
Look at almost any false teacher in almost any para-Christian cult and you will discover these elements.
Peter add that they are, Cursed children” which in the Hebrew means, children of the curse,” presumably of the Adamic curse of maintaining their fallen nature.
And at verse 15 and 16 we are given even more description of them:
15 Which . . . have forsaken . . . the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
Unquestionably evidence that believers can forsake the right way and go astray, and in this particular case of these false teachers, they have . . .
followed the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
(and verse 16)
16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
Let’s talk about Balaam for a moment. His name means (appropriately) several different things including “lord of the people,” “foreigner” or “glutton.”
As mentioned here he was the son of Beor and a man of some rank among the Midianites.
He lived in a place called Pethor which was in Mesopotamia.
Apparently, though he must have dwelt among idolaters being from Mesopotamia he had some knowledge of the true God and was held in such esteem
that it was supposed that he whom he blessed was blessed, and he whom he cursed was cursed.
When the Israelites were encamped on the east of Jordan, by Jericho, Balak, king of the Midianites sent for Balaam “from Aram, out of the mountains of the east,” to curse the COI but by interfering protection from God the Nation of Israel was protected from Baalam’s imprecations and Balak’s desires were not granted.
When Balaam failed to curse Israel he suggested a mode by which divine displeasure might come down on the nation instead.
This “doctrine of Balaam” or this mode is mentioned in Revelation 2:14-15 where Jesus himself says to the church at Pergamous:
Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Note the similarities in what Peter says here about these false teachers and their character and what Jesus says to the Church at Pergamos.
Both mention stumbling believers (which was the trick Balaam suggested Balik employ to get God’s anger turned upon the Nation of Israel and what the false teachers were doing in Peter’s day).
Both refer to sexual licentiousness (where Peter said that the false teachers of his day were of this ilk due to their following the false teachings of those among them) the and Jesus mentions that there were those in Pergamos who embraced idol-worship and fornication . . .
And Peter mentions that the false teachers of his day were in it to capitalize on the people monetarily (which enabled them to live in luxury) but where Jesus does not say this, he does say that among the church of Pergamos there were those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which, he adds, “is a thing I hate.”
Very powerful words from the Lord.
But what was the doctrine of the Nicolaitans? Remember, Jesus does mention Balaam and Balak here and He also points out several crimes that seem to be associated with them, namely getting people to worship idols which lead to fornication.
But the doctrine of the “Nico ah ee tace “ is debated. Let me touch on what the older commentators have to say (as I like them better than the new)
PEOPLE’s NEW TESTAMENT
“Opinions are not agreed concerning this sect, but it is probable that the followers of a Nicolaus are meant who taught that Christian liberty meant license to commit sensual sins.”
Pretty simple. And if its true its something Jesus hates.
According to Adam Clarke (who wrote a lot more on this subject:
“These were, as is commonly supposed, a sect of the Gnostics, who taught the most impure doctrines, and followed the most impure practices.
They are also supposed to have derived their origin from Nicolas, one of the seven deacons mentioned Acts 6:5.
The Nicolaitanes taught the community of wives, that adultery and fornication were things indifferent, that eating meats offered to idols was quite lawful; and mixed they mixed several pagan rites with the Christian ceremonies.
Augustine, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian all spoke of them.
ADAM CLARKE ADDS MORE INFORMATION TO THE GROUP in his commentary on 2nd Peter and says:
“I will now venture to go a step farther, and attempt to determine the name which the orthodox gave to this particular sect in the first century.
St. Peter describes them, 2Pe 2:15, as following the way of Balaam, that is, as following the religious doctrine of Balaam.
The doctrine of Balaam, as St. John says, Re 2:14, was to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication. And since Nicolaus, in Greek, has the same meaning as Balaam in Hebrew, the followers of Balaam are called by St. John, Revelations 2:15, Nicolaitans.
Now it is well known that the Nicolaitans were a sect of the Gnostics; and therefore it was probable that this was the sect against which St. Peter wrote.
Erpenius, in his Arabic translation of Revelation wrote instead of Nicolaitanes Shuaibites (which is the Arabic way of saying Baalam so again we have evidence that the crime of Baalam was the crime of the Nicolataines which was the crime of the false teachers in 2nd Peter.
And then in the Koran where the biblical Baalam is mentioned he is called Shuaib. There is debate in Islam regarding to who is referring to but after a long protracted study of the subject it seems like the best solution is Baalam.
JAMISON FAUSETT BROWN WRITES
Revelation abounds in such duplicate Hebrew and Greek names: as Apollyon, Abaddon: Devil, Satan: Yea (Greek, “Nai”), Amen.
The name, like other names, Egypt, Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic – That is, professing Christians who, like Balaam of old, were false. It is the attempt to introduce into the Church a false freedom, that is, licentiousness; this was a reaction in the opposite direction from Judaism, and was a first danger the Church combated in the council of Jerusalem, and by Paul in the Epistle to Galatians.
These symbolic Nicolaitanes, or followers of Balaam, abused Paul’s doctrine of the grace of God into a plea for lasciviousness.
ALBERT BARNES SAYS of the Nicolaitenes_
Various conjectures have been formed respecting this class of people, and the reasons why the name was given to them.
I. In regard to the origin of the name, there have been three opinions:
Irenoeus, and some of the other early church fathers say that the name was derived from Nicolas, one of the deacons ordained at Antioch as mentioned in Acts 6:5.
This is doubtful because first there is no proof whatever that Nicolas the deacon ever apostatized from the faith and became the founder of a sect; and if a name had been assumed in order to give credit to a sect and extend its influence, it is much more probable that the name of an apostle would have been chosen, or of some other prominent man, than the name of an obscure deacon of Antioch.
Commentator Vitringa, and most commentators since his time, have supposed that the name Nicolaitanes was intended to be a symbol, and was not designed to designate any sect of people, but to denote those who resembled Balaam, and that this word is used in the same manner as the word Jezebel in Re 2:20, which is supposed to be a symbol too. As we’ve seen this is the view of Adam Clarke.
I wonder about this because the passage in Revelation 2:15 seem to separate both the acts of those who follow Balaam and those acts of the Nicolaitanes.
It has been supposed that others that the founder of the group is now unknown, probably of the name Nicolas, or Nicolaus.
To add to all of it we also have the following:
Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. i. 26) says that their characteristic tenets were the lawfulness of promiscuous intercourse with women, and of eating things offered to idols. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 29) states the same thing, and refers to a tradition respecting Nicolaus, that he had a beautiful wife, and was jealous of her, and being reproached with this, renounced all intercourse with her, and made use of an expression which was misunderstood by those who followed him implying that illicit pleasure was proper rather than improper. Tertullian speaks of the Nicolaitanes as a branch of the Gnostic family, and as, in his time, extinct. Mosheim (De Rebus Christian. Ante Con. 69) says that “the questions about the Nicolaitanes have difficulties which cannot be solved.” Neander (History of the Christian Religion, as translated by Torrey, i. pp. 452, 453) numbers them with Antinomians
Whoever or whatever they really were, Jesus himself said their doctrine is a thing I hate.
We’ll pick up here next week.
Q and A
