Obviously, no book of the Bible was “designed” for a debate that largely surfaced in the sixteenth century. What is meant by this title is that the literary purpose behind 2 Peter directly addresses the core disagreement between eternal security advocates and those who hold the traditional view. This core disagreement is over the place of post-conversion sins. Do they no longer carry the ability to sever someone from God, or can they dislodge someone from the saving relationship they have previously received? 2 Peter is far from the soteriological grandeur of Romans or Galatians, which some naturally gravitate toward to settle this debate. However, the context of 2 Peter is more focused on the issue at hand and in my opinion, it should take pride of place for this matter.So, let us begin with this context that makes 2 Peter such an important letter for solving this crucial debate.
Peter is writing to a church that has encountered what seems to be Epicurean teachers. This is not to say his opponents were Epicureans per say. Rather, what is clear about his opponents matches an Epicurean school of thought that had infected Judaism in the late first century. These doctrines are a dismissal of a future judgement leading inevitably to moral indifferentism.
Similar to the Gnosticism that would plague the second-century church, they considered salvation to belong to the soul alone. Thus, once one receives the knowledge to save one's soul, their ethical conduct becomes irrelevant. It is unlikely that 2 Peter is combatting Gnostics, but there are similarities that would point to Epicureanism being the foundation for later Gnostic soteriological doctrines. For example, Ignatius in 107 A.D. combats heretics who also deny the need for love in the Christian life, and imply a disregard for the resurrection.[1] Polycarp, immediately after, writes regarding heretics who “say that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment.”[2] Irenaeus connects the dots between these ideas and the concept of eternal security; writing against Gnostics in the latter part of the second century, he explains their theology as such: “it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.”[3]
Though Peter’s opponents were not those of Irenaeus, his statement summarizes the view of Peter’s opponents well; the spiritual man cannot be corrupted by indulging in immoral behaviors. Oxford scholar Michael Green summarizes Peter’s opponents in a manner quite similar to Irenaeus’s opponents: “No doubt these teachers maintained that the salvation of the immortal soul is all that mattered.” After the imparting of knowledge, “it mattered little what a man did with his body.”[4]
Before we even dive in, this sounds quite similar to many conceptions of eternal security. Andrew Farley for example explains his concept of eternal security in The Grace Message as a person who is allergic to eggs. Likening this person to he who is saved, sin, like eating eggs, will make their life miserable, but will not cause them to lose their salvation. This article is not limited to this view. It will certainly be shown to be applicable to all strands of eternal security. The question now remains whether Peter understood post-conversion sin to also have no effect on one’s salvation.
The main passages that will be examined are 2 Peter 2:18-22: “For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’”
Prima fascia, these passages at least seem to be teaching that one can lose their salvation. Language of escaping the world’s defilement, being in a worse state than before, and a pig returning to filth after being cleansed of it seems straightforward. But let us take a deeper look by addressing some objections advocates of eternal security may have.
Objection 1: Their “knowledge of our Lord and Savior” (v. 20) was a superficial knowledge, not genuine saving faith.
This is probably the most common interpretation for those on the eternal security side of the debate. The late Norman Geisler writes: “a closer look at the context reveals that those who are denying the Lord (v.1) were never true believers.”[5] Oncesaved.org has similar remarks concerning our passage in question: “Peter says they escaped “through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Notice that it says, ‘knowledge of,’ and not, ‘faith in.’ Peter did not use any words that mean salvation.”[6]
To address this, we must first understand what Peter meant by ἐπίγνωσις (knowledge). This word, translated as knowledge in verse 20, Robert Sungenis notes, is “more accurately translated as ‘full knowledge’ and fully known due to the presence of the prefix ἐπί.”[7] However, being fully aware of the Christian faith and fully knowledgeable about it does not mean one is saved. But there’s more to Peter’s use of ἐπίγνωσις. David Strange in an exegetic analysis of the word, recognizes that Peter uses two Greek words for knowledge: “2 Peter uses γνωσις for the knowledge Christians can gain and develop as they go along, but ἐπίγνωσιςalways means that basic saving knowledge which is the foundation for the whole Christian life.”[8] So which word is used in 2:20? The latter.
To make this more explicit, let us examine some other uses of this saving knowledge in 2 Peter. Chapter 1 verses 8 and 9 read: “For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.” This passage lists various virtues one must add to their knowledge (v. 5-7), if one does not, then they are taking their past forgiveness of sins for granted. The foundation is forgiveness through ἐπίγνωσις which should then lead to virtue. This kind of knowledge is the bedrock to “grow in grace” (3:18) as evidenced in (1:2).
Even more enlightening is 2:20’s connection with 1:3-4: “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις) of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.” This passage has several identical and near-verbatim similarities with chapter 2 verse 20 that are also clear in the English. One of these is the salvific use of “knowledge” by which one has “escaped from the corruption of the word.” These are undoubtedly the same people Peter is referring to in verse 20. The literary similarities necessitate such a conclusion. Most importantly, we have greater insight into what Peter understood ἐπίγνωσις to mean in the context of salvation. Thus, those who have escaped the world’s corruption were not superficial believers rather, they partook of God’s own nature and therefore his own “life and godliness” (1:3).
It is also without doubt that the message of 2:20 is that these men have fallen into sin and therefore God’s wrath. They have become ἐμπλακέντες (entangled) in sin (which is the same word used in 2 Tim. 2:4 for soldiers mixing with civilian life) and γέγονεν (overcome) by it (the same word used in the previous verse [2:19] for the slaves of sin and in 2:1 to describe false profits who he clearly states are bound for hell [see the answer to objection 3 for a full examination of the destruction ascribed to these teachers]), therefore, they are worse than before. Thus, Martin Luther concludes that knowing Christ “means knowing what he is, namely, our savior, who forgives our sins out of pure grace. Through this knowledge, we escape wickedness and the defilement of the world. But when they have escaped this in baptism, they are later thrown back into it again.”[9] Therefore, as Gary from Oncesaved.org concludes that Peter’s consistent use of “they” proves that the subjects of 2:20 are the heretics teachers, the same logic concludes that those subjects had saving knowledge.
Peter finishes the chapter by stating that they are now worse than before and that it would have even been better if they had never known “the way of righteousness” (v. 21) than to have known it and then turned from it again. Peter likens this to a dog who returns to his vomit or a pig who is washed and returns to the mud. Michael Green connects this analogy to the previous passage: “The gospel is a basin which cleanses us from all our dirt and stains, but there are many pigs who, immediately after they have washed, roll back again in the mud. Thus, the godly are warned to beware of both dangers if they do not want to be included in the ranks of dogs and pigs.”[10]
Though Peter’s primary concern is those who have newly entered the faith (2:18) and are therefore most susceptible to apostasy (Paul would consider these believers to be one spiritual “milk” and not yet solid food [1 Cor. 3:2]) 2 Peter 3:17 excludes no one from the warning: “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.”
This is no mere loss of eternal rewards for believers as the NIV study Bible will claim.[11] The word “lose” or sometimes translated as “fall” is the same word used in Gal. 5:4 and of shipwreck in Acts 27:26, 29. “carried away” is also used to describe Barnabas’s succumbing to the Judaizers in Gal. 2:13. The word “stability” although it is a Hapax Lagomana (used once in Scripture) we can gauge what it means well by its root, extrabiblical use, and context. Strange is correct is recognizing that this stability is the foundation upon which he exhorts his believers to grow in God’s grace in the following verse. This corresponds to the opening passages of the letter where Peter prays for an increase of grace in the ἐπίγνωσις of God. The root for this Greek word is also used by Jesus in Luke 22:32 when he commissions Peter to “strengthen” his brethren. Outside the New Testament, it’s used in reference to the fixation of the stars or the steadiness of light emanating from an object. Peter also contrasts those who are stable and orthodox, with the unstable, who, as noted in the previous verse, twist Paul’s letters to their eternal destruction. This is a criminally brief word study and exegesis, but to conclude, “stability” is not a mere assurance of one's own salvation, but the foundation of salvation itself. All this is to say that one may make a shipwreck of the foundation of saving knowledge one has set in Christ, and succumb to the teaching of lawless men. The doer of such lawlessness Peter considers a slave to sin and under God’s judgment.
Returning again to the objection, as reiterated by R.C. Sproul: “their profession was not genuine. It never too root.”[12] This view cannot be sustained, Peter uses ἐπίγνωσις only in a salvific sense. In conjunction with divine communion (1:4), grace (1:3), and the forgiveness of sins (1:9).
Objection 2: The analogy of dogs and pigs indicates that these were always unholy and defiled people, as dogs and pigs were symbols of uncleanness (Matt. 7:6). Thus, they were never really changed into truly saved Christians, they never really received salvation.
This objection is used by Oncesaved.org as evidence for a merely morally transformative escape from the world and not true salvation. It is also implied by Sproul and the folks at the popular evangelical ministry “Got Questions.”[13]
Peter is not using the analogy in the sense that they were always dogs or pigs and never truly clean. But those who have defiled their salvation are foolish and have acted like dogs and pigs and have become unclean. An analogy cannot be pressed too far like this objection does. The focus is on the return to that which is unhealthy or dirty, not the nature of the animal. Not to say Peter didn’t use these unclean animals for a reason. Unclean animals are a good analogy for those who would choose slavery and defilement over freedom and purity. Take the analogy used in Isiah 5:1-7. If one read it as Gary from Oncesaved.org reads 2 Peter 2:22, one would conclude that God chose the best people from the earth to be his people. For the analogy says that “planted it with choice vines” (5:2). However, the analogy is simply trying to say that God made all provisions for his people as the vineyard owner made all possible provisions for a good crop.
We know the point of the analogy is not the unchanging nature of the animals/people because it’s based on the situation presented in verse 20. Green notes of those who doctrinally object to losing salvation: “One must still face the fact that these men are said to have known (and knowledge means personal acquaintance in Peter’s usage, see 1:2, 2:20, 3:18) the way of righteousness and to have escaped, once upon a time, from the world’s defilement… Apostacy would seen to be a real and awful possibility.”[14] This is what the analogy depicts. Interpreting an analogy and reverse engineering an interpretation into that which the dog/pig passage is an analogy of, is a poor exegetical technique, to say the least.
Gary’s (from Oncesaved.org) assertion that the corruption spoken of in 2:20 is moral corruption and not true salvation (like how an atheist can reform his moral life but not be saved) has no real evidence apart from the fact that it must mean that to fit his theology. David Strange’s examination of Peter’s Greek for the “defilement of the world” (v. 20) provides only one possible interpretation, though he often gives several possible ones for various other verses. The defilement spoken of is the sin of the world.[15] In chapter 2 Peter consistently speaks about the eternal destruction that awaits these false teachers (2:4-10, 12). There is nothing internally to suggest he has now switched to mere moral reform as he reaches the climax of his teaching.
The biggest problem however for Gary’s theory is that Peter directly links the knowledge of 2:20 to forgiveness of sins. In 2 Peter 1:9 our author writes that he who does not add virtue to his ἐπίγνωσις “is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.” This makes explicit what was stated earlier in the chapter; contrasting partakers of God’s nature with “the corruption that is in the world” (1:4). So, while mere moral reform may be plausible from the analogy alone, the primary concern of the passage is with the eternal aspects of saving knowledge and living in the world corruption.
Objection 3: Those spoken of in 2:20 are the false teachers in the previous verse and not saved believers.
Oncesaved.org and R.C. Sproul both make the claim that the men spoken of in verse 20 are the heretical teachers and not true saved believers. This is a curious objection, the most it would prove is that these false teachers were once believers. The website mentioned above spends a great deal of time proving that those mentioned in verse 20 refers to the aforementioned false teachers as if it is really going to help his position. One must grapple with verse 20’s statement that those who have become mastered by sin once had saving knowledge, whether this refers to the false teachers or the Christian community as a whole.
Furthermore, there is evidence from chapter 2 that these false teachers were in fact true believers. This allows us to dive into a few more passages that further solidify 2 Peter as firmly in the anti-eternal security camp. In verse 1 of chapter 2 Peter states that there will be false teachers who bring "destructive heresies, even denying the master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." This word translated as "bought" isagorazōwhich is only used once in the letter and is most often in reference to monetary purchases. Howerver, Paul usesagorazōtwice in a salvific context (like this one in 2 Peter) in 1 Cor. 6:20; and 7:23 which clearly indicate a genuine salvation: "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (6:20; KJV). Whenever the New Testament uses this word in a context of salvation as 2 Peter uses it, it means the ransoming of sinners from their sins and bringing them to Christ which is clearly only applicable to genuinely saved people.
There is also abundant evidence that this is a message about salvation. For the heresies are said to bringapōleia ("destruction") in Greek. Which the KJV renders as damnable. This is the same word used by Jesus in Matt. 7:13 to describe the result of those who walk the wide path opposed to the narrow path to eternal life. This rendering seems to best fit the context as verse 4 connects these heretics to the fallen angels who sinned and God consequently "cast them into hell." verse 6 likens them to the "ungodly" people of Sodom and Gomorrah who God "condemned" and the ungodly are reserved until the final judgment to be punished (verse 9). For all these "the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved" (verse 17). It is unavoidable that destruction in this chapter is a reference to eternal death.
Because of these men "the way of truth" is reviled and they exploit "you." For reviling the true path attacks those upon that path. As a reminder, "you" means Peters audience who have "obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (1:1). Clearly then, the way of truth is for those who have obtained righteousness by faith. This is important because as we move down to 2:15 Peter states that these false teachers have "forsaken the right way." For Peter then, one can be on the path of truth and righteousness and turn from that path to eternal death. Clearly then, if those in verse 20 are false teachers, the passage fully supports these false teachers being former true believers purchased by God, but revolted as the fallen angels did.
Objection 4: There are passages in 2 Peter that teach eternal security. The context of Peter’s letter certainly suggests that if eternal security could be taught anywhere it would be here, it is present in 2 Peter 1:1 and 2:9.
As mentioned in the objection, Peter is combatting teachers who are pulling young converts away from the faith. They claim that once one is saved, they are free to live as they please. If Peter never mentions the doctrine of eternal security, it would be odd to say that he held it. Granted, this is an argument from silence, but I think it carries some weight within this cumulative case. So let us look at the passages Oncesaved.org puts forward.
1:1 has nothing to say about eternal security. It affirms that the righteousness of God is obtained through faith. He is probably asserting that if salvation can be lost then salvation is by works, and therefore our own righteousness. For he later claims that if salvation can be lost, then it contradicts Eph. 2:8-9. This is a topic beyond the scope of this article, but this is a deficient view of what faith is. He claims “our obedience or disobedience plays no role in our salvation.”[16] On the other hand, Paul believed in “the faith of obedience” (Rom. 1:5) and nothing matters but a “faith that works by love” (Gal. 5:6), love, of course, being inseparable from obedience (John 14:15). Faith without obedience, for Paul, is no faith at all. Suffice it to say, that this passage has nothing to say about eternal security. Those who affirm that salvation can be lost understand salvation to be by faith and through God’s righteousness and not our own.
2:9 also has to be pressed pretty hard for it to speak of eternal security. It simply affirms that God is the one who delivers one from temptation. Of course, this is true. This passage could only mean eternal security if one has no role to play in avoiding temptation and God simply does it for them. God always provides a way out of sinning (1 Cor. 10:13) but it is our job to choose that path and John tells us that all continue to sin (1 John 1:7-8). To say that this passage teaches eternal security would be to say that saved Christians will never sin because God is the deliverer of those in temptation. Which John tells us is false. This objection neglects the role man has in choosing God’s provided way out. This is why Jesus tells the apostles of the great tribulations to come and warns: “he who perseveres to the end will be saved” (24:13). One must continue to “live by faith” (Rom. 1:17), choosing God, while recognizing that the ability to do so is by his strength alone.
Objection 5: The “worse for them than the first” is a clear use of Matt. 12:43-45 indicates that these are not saved believers, because the person in Matthew 12 was not a saved person.
This is not a great argument. To begin with, one can certainly be exercised of a demon, refuse to come to faith, and be worse off than before, while it is also true that this applies to apostates as well. This objection forces an unnecessary either/or dichotomy. As a thought experiment, suppose losing salvation is a real possibility, would that person not be worse off after than before? Of course, he would. Why could Peter not apply Jesus’s teaching in Matthew to another area of theology if it was applicable there as well? This argument must presuppose losing salvation is not a possibility to get off the ground, and it still does not adequately address the internal evidence for the sense that Peter is most likely using it for, apostasy.
Imagine someone quoting from another who stated that people should be given a second chance in the context of a case against capital punishment. I could use the same principle (people should be given second chances) without carrying the same context. I may use it in reference to a student who failed a test, or someone who cheated in a board game. Using the principle does not mean I am addressing the same context. The logic of this objection is rather odd. If this argument was taken to its logical conclusion, one would have to say that because Peter used the principle (worse now than before) he is not only referring to men who were never saved, but men who were all possessed. If you are going to argue that the context of a principle must always be carried with it, you can’t pick and choose which parts of the context. It would of course be absurd to claim that Peter’s opponents were all possessed simply because he used a principle Jesus applied to an exorcised man that could be applied elsewhere.
Objection 6: It’s a hypothetical situation.
The classic exegetical punt if you will. I find this to be an interpretive cop-out too often applied in Protestant circles. Look no further than James White’s explanation of Paul’s warnings for behavior that will bar one from heaven,[17] George Buttrick’s commentary on Rom. 2:6-7’s emphasis on judgment according to deeds,[18] or Andrew Farley’s exegesis of James 5:14’s teaching that through the presbyters the sick man’s sins will be forgiven.[19] However, let us give the objection a look.
Peter Davids anticipates such an objection due to the passage's clear denunciation of never losing one’s salvation: “If you have ‘asked Jesus into your heart (itself not a biblical phrase) it no longer matters how you live, although lifestyle may affect the reward that you get in heaven. This is a teaching with which our author would have had no patience.”[20] Responding to our objection: “Nor is this previous escape and later entanglement a hypothetical condition, since in Greek it is what is called a ‘real condition’ (using the indicative rather than the subjunctive).”[21]
Additionally, if Peter believed that one’s subsequent behavior after true conversion doesn’t affect one’s eternal destiny because a believer can never be tainted from sin again, where does he say it? If we would expect a teaching such as this anywhere it would be here considering the context. Rather, Peter exhorts his audience to “be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall” (2 Peter 1:10). The passage necessitates that one’s election to eternal life is not secure and is influenced by the way we live. Davids again notes that “be… diligent” is a term related to effort or zeal. This means that attaining eternal life requires energy, as used similarly in Hebrews 4:11: “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.” Which necessitates that falling short would be possible at all (and that obedience is certainly most necessary to receive eternal rest).
Sproul makes the astounding claim that “Peter is talking about assurance of salvation”[22] in this passage. How? By preloading Peter’s use of “elect” with the Calvinist meaning of “elect to final salvation.” He points to nothing in the basis but his own concept of what “elect” means, and considers the passage to teach eternal security. Only claiming: “if they have it, they will never lose it; if they lose it, they never had it.”[23] It is incredible how little Sproul actually engages the passage, he spends most of his commentary on this passage explaining what elect should mean (from nothing in the passage) and applying it to the verse. In actuality, this passage plainly contradicts his reformed notion of monergistic salvation. As Richard Bauckum notes in his commentary: “The ethical fruits of Christian faith are objectively necessary for the attainment of final salvation.”[24]
It would be odd if Peter, seeking to protect and guide his flock to salvation, exhorts his readers by elaborating on hypothetical situations that in no way correspond to reality. He leaves his readers with the goal to “be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish” (3:14). Which again is a useless statement if those he considered to be “beloved” and therefore members of the Christian community and brothers and sisters in Christ could never be again be blemished by sin. The entire letter is consistent with the doctrine that one could in fact lose their salvation. Unless one wants to class the whole letter as hypothetical with no real purpose despite Peter writing it to fortify his audience in practical Christian living, he must have taught that salvation can be lost.
To conclude, 2 Peter presents one of the best places to dialogue on the topic of eternal security, considering its opponents and literary purpose. We find that Peter believed one can receive forgiveness through Christ, and once again be plunged into the world's destructive corruption. In fact, the only people we find to be holding anything akin to eternal security, are those who deny a future judgment, that one should live morally at all, or, like the later Gnostics, that flesh and creation itself are not evil.
[1] Smyrnaeans, 6.2; 7.1.
[2] Philippians, 7.1.
[3] Against Heresies, 1.6.2.
[4] Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 138.
[5] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: Sin, Salvation (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), 328.
[6] Gary, “Does 2 Peter 2:20 Prove Salvation Can Be Lost? Nope!,” Once Saved.Org, accessed October 10, 2023, https://oncesaved.org/does-2-peter-2-20-prove-salvation-can-be-lost-nope/.
[7] Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996), 291n93.
[8] David Strange, An Exegetical Summary of 2 Peter. Second Edition (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2003), 197.
[9] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Volume 30. The Catholic Epistles, ed. by Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis, MS: Concordia Publishing House, 1967), 190.
[10] Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 143.
[11] NIV Study Bible. New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 2118.
[12] R.C. Sproul, 1 and 2 Peter (Wheaton, Il: Crossway, 2011), 271.
[13] 1. GotQuestions.org, “Home,” GotQuestions.Org, accessed October 10, 2023, https://www.gotquestions.org/dog-returns-to-its-vomit.html..
[14] Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 142.
[15] Strange, An Exegetical Summary of 2 Peter, 196.
[16] Gary, “Does 2 Peter 2:20 Prove Salvation Can Be Lost? Nope!,” Once Saved.Org, accessed October 10, 2023, https://oncesaved.org/does-2-peter-2-20-prove-salvation-can-be-lost-nope/
[17] See his debate with Trent Horn on eternal security: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72TRODe8BdA&t=11s&pp=ygUNSG9ybiB2cyBXSGl0ZQ%3D%3D.
[18] See George Buttrick, The Interpreters Bible (New York, NY: Abingdon Press, 1954), 409.
[19] See Andrew Farley, Twisted Scripture: Untangling 45 Lies Christians Have Been Told (Washington D.C.: Salem Books, 2019; “Lie” 34 I believe.
[20] Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 246.
[21] Ibid, 248.
[22] Sproul, 1 and 2 Peter, 220.
[23] Ibid, 222.
[24] Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 188.
