Introduction

In 2 Peter 3:12 believers are admonished to be “waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God”¹ (προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας τὴν παρουσίαν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμέρας). The translation of the second participle, σπεύδοντας, as “hastening” is not without question, though. A few translation prefer he alternate reading “as you wait eagerly”² or note the range of meaning for σπεύδοντας by adding a footnote for this participle.³ The difference in translation between the active process of “hastening” the Parousia or the passive act of “eagerly awaiting” the same event are significant and carry substantial exegetical and theological implications.⁴

This paper examines the morphological, syntactical, and contextual issues of the pericope to determine the best translation. It will be argued that the transitive use of σπεύδοντας in 2 Pet 3:12 is distinct from the intransitive usages in the Luke-Acts corpus and the LXX. Additionally, the syntactical structure places the participle σπεύδοντας in a parallel rather than a contrastive relationship with προσδοκῶντας. The structural patterns within the verse and the surrounding context further corroborate the parallelism. Finally and contrary to Richard Bauckham, the proper context of the passage should not be the Messianic expectations of Second Temple Judaism, but rather a Christian authors defense that God acts sovereignly in history against accusations of a Parousia delay.

Historical Overview

History of Translations

The translation of σπεύδοντας in the sense of “hastening” is attested in Bible translations dating back to the Vulgate (4th century) and early translations starting in the Reformation period (16th century). Importantly, Jerome seems to realize the difficulty of the translation of σπεύδοντας and adds a preposition in the Latin translation that does not exist in the Greek: “exspectantes et properantes in adventum Dei diei” (awaiting and hastening to the coming of the day of God).⁵ The additional preposition is significant as it turns the transitive verb into an intransitive. In other words, while Jerome translates σπεύδοντας in the sense of “hastening”, the preposition changes the object of the hastening: It is not the Parousia that can be hastened, but instead the believer himself/herself hastens towards the coming. The concept of preparation for the Parousia event is thus emphasized.

All early Reformation translations follow Jerome’s example and add a preposition after “hastening.”

Table 1. Early Translations of 2 Peter 3:12

Subsequent translations drop the preposition, significantly altering the meaning of the passage. See for example the 1984 update to the Luther translation “die ihr das Kommen des Tages Gottes erwartet und erstrebt”⁶ or the NKJV (1982) “looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God.” While the later translations are correct that the preposition is not present in the Greek manuscripts, a reevaluation of the meaning of σπεύδοντας or it’s transitive/intransitive nature seems not to have been a part of the deliberations for this passage.

Though the translators haven’t left us with explanations why they chose to translate the passage as such two assumptions can be inferred. First, the various scholars translated the participle σπεύδοντας most likely in the sense of “hastening” in 2 Peter 3:12 based on the use of σπεύδω in the rest of the NT. Second, the translators added the preposition as they did not understand this passage to emphasize human being’s ability to influence God’s timing of the Parousia but rather God’s sovereignty. In this sense, the hastening functions reflexively on the believer, not the event of the coming day of God.

Early Discussion on σπεύδοντας

Calvin’s commentary might be one of the first commentaries that specifically addresses the complicated nature of σπεύδοντας. Calvin translates the passage as “waiting in haste for the coming of the day of God”⁷ by understanding the participle as functioning adverbially to the previous participle. Additionally, he points out the “contrarious” concepts of the two participles “in opposition”: “For as quietness and waiting are the peculiarities of hope, so we must always take heed lest the security of the flesh should creep in; we ought, therefore, strenuously to labor in good works, and run quickly in the race of our calling.”⁸

In contrast to Calvin’s own words, the editor of Calvin’s Commentaries felt it necessary to include a footnote pointing out the lexico-semantic difficulty of Calvin’s commentary. He critiques Calvin for connecting σπεύδοντας adverbially to the preceding participle προσδοκῶντας rather than the main verb and argues that σπεύδοντας is “followed as here by an accusative case” and therefore “has often the secondary meaning of earnestly desiring a thing. It is so taken here by Schleusner, Parkhurst, and Macknight; ‘Expecting and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God.’ — Ed.”⁹

In recent years Richard Bauckham has employed a new line of argument in support of the translation of “hastening” on the basis of Second Temple Judaism.

Bauckham’s Contribution

Among commentators on 2 Peter 3 few have shaped the conversation as significantly as Richard Bauckham. Beginning with an article on “The Delay of the Parousia” in 1980 and later in his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter in the Word Biblical Commentary series Bauckham promotes a new perspective based on “relevant Jewish parallels which, so far as I can tell, the commentators have not noticed.”¹⁰ In his article he particularly notes two points: First, the Rabbinic discussions referencing Abraham driving the birds of prey from the covenant offering as an apocalyptic end-time judgment scenario of the Gentiles in which Abraham’s one day is considered a thousand years before God (Apocalypse of Abraham 28-30). Second, the Apocalypse of Baruch, just like 2 Pet 3:8, harkens back to Psalms 90:4 and “reflects on the contrast between the transience of man and the eternity of God.”¹¹

After establishing the similarities in the treatment of Psalm 90:4 and apocalyptic literature in the first century A.D., Bauckham develops his ideas further. Based on references in the Babylonian and Jerusalem, Talmud discussions between Rabbis also included questions regarding the delay of the Messianic figure. He summarizes the current debate:

R. Joshua maintains the traditional apocalyptic appeal to the sovereignty of God, who has determined the time of the End. When the appointed time arrives, the eschatological redemption will come as God’s sovereign grace to Israel, in no way dependent on Israel’s preparation. R. Eliezer, on the other hand, makes the coming of redemption conditional on Israel’s repentance.¹²

Furthermore, the Apocalypse of Baruch plays on both the negative and positive aspects of the delay of the Messianic figure. On the one hand it allows for the destruction of Jerusalem, but on the other hand “the delay in judgment is also founded on the character of God, on his longsuffering, which restrains his wrath towards the wicked (but therefore also delays his mercy to the righteous).”¹³ In summary then, Bauckham’s argument is: “In fact the passage 3:5–13 contains nothing which could not have been written by a non-Christian Jewish writer”¹⁴ because “the author of 2 Peter, then, met the problem of delay as posed by the ‘scoffers’ from the resources of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition.”¹⁵

With the background of this Second Temple understanding of the Parousia delay, Bauckham writes his commentary on 2 Peter and specifically verse 12. Here he notes the morphological range of meaning for the participle σπεύδοντας but concludes that “the Jewish background is decisive in favor of ‘hastening.’”¹⁶ Bauckham is aware that the Old Testament views God as the sole agent of the Parousia: “usually, as in Isa 60:22, it is God who is said to hasten the coming of the End.” But he explains that the author of 2 Peter bases his logical development on the Jewish background of the Rabbinic debates, rather than the Old Testament sources. Thus, “R. Eliezer’s view implies that, since God hastens in response to repentance, repentance itself might be said to hasten the End.”¹⁷ Bauckham’s position is largely accepted by most commentators today.¹⁸

Questions Regarding Bauckham’s Interpretation

Bauckham’s position does raise a few questions though: First, in regard to the interpretation of the particple σπεύδοντας Bauckham overextends the significance of the Jewish writings. The passages he cites contain discussions on the tension of God’s sovereignty and his longsuffering and express comments regarding Psalms 90:4, but they do not resolve the issues one way or another. The extra-biblical passages focus on the struggle and complexity of the topic rather than the solution to the dilemma. The debate between the Rabbis is not resolved, nor does the Apocalypse of Baruch have a singular focus. Second, the epistle is a Christian epistle, written to strengthen Christian believers in regard to the second appearance of Jesus. The setting of the Jewish writings, largely bemoaning the absence of a Messianic deliverer against the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, is vastly different. In the first instance the absence of Jesus can be measured in decades and He has already revealed his glory (1:16-18), in the latter case the Messiah is still nondescript and his absence is measured in millenia. In the first the Parousia includes a cosmic destruction (3:10-11), in the second instance the authors expect a Messianic restoration of the Jewish nation. The assumption that Jewish writings and their setting are the best socio-historical background for 2 Peter is not readily clear. Third, the passages Bauckham cites largely focus on the idea that God delays judgment in order that people can repent (3:9). The issue in verses 11-12, however one translates σπεύδοντας, is no longer repentence but godly living (v. 11). At this point for the Petrine author, repentence is assumed. Bauckham connects the “hastening” in verse 12 to the delay of verse 9, but in the process ignores the immediate context and syntactical dependent construction of verse 11. More on this later. Finally, the emphasis on the scriptures as assurance from God to be heeded with care (1:18-21) and the opposition to human agents and interpretations (1:16; 2:1-3; 3:1) puts into the question Bauckham’s proposition to view Rabbinic or Jewish apocalyptic writings as lens through which the author of 2 Peter views the Old Testament.

Contrary to Bauckham then, this paper will argue that the immediate context of chapter 3 and the references to the Old Testament should guide the interpretation of the troublesome passage rather than a construction of a Jewish discussion.

Brief Excursus: Missiological Interpretation

Some have proposed a call to evangelism or mission in 3:12. In this understanding God is delaying his return so that believers can bring unbelievers to repentance (3:9), thus believers can be said to be “hastening the coming of the day of God.” Craig Keener argues this point: “Christians hasten the coming of the end by missions and evangelism (cf. Mt 24:14), thereby enabling the conversion of those for whose sake God has delayed the end (2 Pet 3:9, 15).”¹⁹ Michael Pocock also points to mission as the central concept, summarizing the section in 2 Peter 3 as: “Avoid being complacent about completing the Great Commission.” At the same time he notes that the passage itself refers only to godly living and he then places evangelization as an extension of godly living. The “hastening” then refers to “a combination of personal and corporate holiness in the church, an attitude of eagerness about the Lord’s return, and involvement in that for which history now continues—the evangelization of the lost.”²⁰

As appealing as the missiological emphasis sounds, the passage itself makes no reference to evangelism or the spreading of the good news. The participles in verse 12, προσδοκῶντας and σπεύδοντας, instead modify the previous main clause “it is necessary for you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (v. 11). The subject “you” of the clause is a reference to the believers’ collective or personal action in daily life, often mentioned in lists of vices in the New Testament both positive (2 Pet 1:5-10)²¹ as well as negative (Mark 7:21-23). In this instance not the conversion of unbelievers but the sanctification of believers is important to Peter.

The central claim for Peter is the twofold call to “holy conduct and godliness.”²² As Thomas Duke explains “Peter is primarily concerned with eschatology, not soteriology, seeking to confirm in the minds of his readers the certainty of Christ’s Parousia for the purpose of motivating them to holy living.”²³ Bauckham is more blunt in dealing with the missiological interpretation: “The Christian mission is not here in view.”²⁴

This is not to say that evangelism and mission are not important to the Christian cause—far from it. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus connects the concepts of eschatology and the spreading of the Good News in the Olivet discourse (24:14) and in His parting words to the disciples He commissions every believer to be a messenger of the teachings of Christ (28:19-20). Nonetheless, Peter’s focus, in this passage is not the missionary endeavor but the assurance of the coming Parousia. Here Peter places a similar emphasis as Paul: In light of the coming of the Lord with “the voice of an archangel and the sound of the trumpet” (1Thess 4:13-18) we should “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands” (1Thess 4:11).²⁵

A Re-evaluation of σπεύδοντας in 2 Peter 3:12

After the initial observations about the state of scholarship on 2 Peter 3:12, this paper will present a three-fold approach to revisit the ambiguous participle σπεύδοντας.²⁶ First, this study will examine the morphological range of the word group along with its usage and setting in the Petrine pericope. Second, syntactical issues will be addressed. Finally, the study will conclude with an examination of the rhetorical flow of the pericope.

Morphological Considerations

Dictionaries

The dictionaries form a consensus regarding the word σπεύδω and its most frequent related forms σπουδή, and σπουδάζω. They all designate the word group to carry the range of meaning consisting of “hasten” and “being diligent, exceedingly” and note a distinct usage whether the word is used in a transitive and intransitive setting.

The NIDNTTE summarizes the concept succinctly: “This word group (from an IE root *(s)peud-, ‘to press, hurry’) expresses first of all quick movement in the interests of a person or cause, but hurrying to do something usually reflects eagerness, and so early on the terms suggest what we might call ‘inner movement’ or a strong desire and exertion in carrying out of a matter.”²⁷ The article continues to demonstrate both the usage of “hurry, haste” and “earnestness, eagerness” throughout Classical and Koine Greek and across the verbal, adjectival, and nominal forms within the word group. Thus Homer describes Agamemnon as “eager [σπεύδω] for battle” (Il. 4.225). In regard to the noun σπουδή, Homer (Od. 21.409), Plato (Symp. 192c), and Herodotus (Hdt. 6.107.3), among others use the noun in the sense of “eagerness.” The adjective σπουδαῖος and the verb σπουδάζω “seldom used the meaning ‘in haste’” instead preferring “earnest, serious.”²⁸

The LXX largely employs the verb as “rendering of מהר I H4554 pi., ‘to hasten, hurry’ (e.g., Gen 18:6 [2x]; 1 Sam 25:18 et al.)”²⁹ in intransitive constructions, though several references refer to “eagerness, zeal” (Wis 14:17; 1Esd 6:9; Sir 27:3)³⁰ and even “the sense ‘fright’ (e.g., Jer 15:8 [for ָהָלהבֶּ H988].”³¹ Contrary to the use in the LXX, in the Jewish writings of Philo and Josephus “the sense ‘haste’ is relatively infreq. in both, whereas ‘earnestness’ is prominent (e.g., Philo Congr. 112, in a list of virtues; Jos. A.J. 4.214, of judges who have zeal for righteousness).”³²

The New Testament uses the word group σπουδάζω/σπουδή/σπουδαῖος thirty times overwhelmingly in the sense of “earnestness” or “eagerness.”³³ Paul specifically (20 of 30 references) employs the word group predominantely to emphasis a “zeal” or “eagerness” for exemplary Christian conduct and responsibility towards others inside and outside of the community. “For Paul, earnestness or diligence is a necessary expression of the life of the Christian community, determining its ethical actions and behavior.”³⁴ This same idea is expressed by the three references to σπουδάζω in 2 Peter (1:10, 15; 3:14).³⁵

The specific use of σπεύδω in the New Testament is limited to a total of six reference including the ambiguous passage in 2Pet 3:12 under consideration. The five other references are all in Luke-Acts and are exclusively rendered as “hastening”: The shepherds hastened to see Jesus (Luke 2:16); Zacheaus hurried from the tree (Luke 19:5-6); Paul hastened to return to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16); and was commanded to “make haste and get out of Jerusalem” (Acts 22:18).

In summary, the word family σπεύδω and its use in the sense of “haste” and “exceedingly” is well attested in the various settings of Greek literature, though at times one usage is preferred over the other. Along with Paul, the first century Jewish writers Philo and Josephus prefer the sense of “exceedingly,” while the LXX and Luke make more frequent use of the meaning “haste.”

Assessment of σπεύδω in 2 Peter 3:12

Two arguments can be advanced in favor of translating σπεύδοντας in the sense of “hastening:” First, all other New Testament references translate the verb in the sense of “hastening.”³⁶ Second, the context of 3:9 indicates a delay for the sake of repentance and the participle σπεύδοντας harkens back to this concept. The first argument will be addressed first based on the information mentioned above and subsequently the syntactical discussion; the second argument will be addressed in the section on the context below.

Addressing the first point above and based on the aforementioned information from the dictionaries, three arguments speak in favor of translating σπεύδω in the sense of “eagerly awaiting” instead of “hastening:” First, despite the overwhelming support for the meaning of “hastening” in the NT and large parts of the Old Testament, σπεύδοντας in 2 Peter 3:12 stands out because of its transitive use. Since Luke exclusively retains the intransitive form of the verb, the reference in 2 Peter 3:12 stands out among all comparative entries in the New Testament.³⁷ Pointing out this fact the NIDNTTE claims: “The remaining example [2 Peter 3:12], a trans. use, is remarkable.”³⁸ The distinct usage of σπεύδω breaks with all other NT references and therefore encourages a distinct examination based on the context of 2 Peter 3:12. It is not possible to apply indiscriminately the meaning of σπεύδω in Luke-Acts or the LXX into the context of 2 Peter.³⁹ Lexical semantics has long noted this problematic approach and Peter Cottrell and Max Turner summarize a long discussion by noting: “Etymology cannot be counted on for determining meaning of words, but only synchronic analysis of the language will aid accurate interpretation.”⁴⁰

Second, the Petrine context already uses the same word group in the sense of “exceedingly” and “earnestly.” Besides the verb in question, the verb σπουδάζω and the noun σπουδή appear a total of four times in 2 Peter and most significantly in a parallel construction two verses after the ambiguous reference of σπεύδω. In 2 Peter 3:14 the author employs the phrase “προσδοκῶντες σπουδάσατε” in order to remind the reader of two previous passages: 1) Peter points back to the almost identical wording of “προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας” two verses earlier (v. 12). The parallels of wording (προσδοκῶντας) and the word group σπουδάζω/σπουδή/σπεύδω are a progression of thought, not a contrast. Peter first outlines the practical implications of the surety of the Parousia (“since all these things are thus to be dissolved”, v. 11) for the community “what sort of people is it necessary for you to become” (ποταποὺς δεῖ ὑπάρχειν ὑμᾶς, v. 11) by pointing to Christian living, “holy living and godliness” (ἁγίαις ἀναστροφαῖς καὶ εὐσεβείαις), which is further defined in light of the Parousia as “waiting and eagerly anticipating the day of God” (προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας). In verse 14 Peter repeats the idea of verses 11-12 but now steps up the rhetoric by appealing to the audience to act on this earlier statement. He accomplishes this by replacing the interrogative opening with the vocative “beloved!” (ἀγαπητοί, v. 14) and employing the imperative voice instead of a double participle “waiting for these things, be diligent!” (προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας). The appeal to Christian living is worded in adjectives “without spot or blemish” (ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι, v. 14) but is analogous to verse 11-12.⁴¹

Table 2. Comparison of 2Peter 3:11-12 and 14

2) Peter links back to two usages of σπουδάζω in 2 Peter 1:10, 15. In chapter 1 Peter first calls his audience to godly living (1:5-9), introduced by σπουδή (1:5), and climaxes in a call to be “earnest” in covenant faithfulness (σπουδάζω, 1:10). Finally, Peter affirms his own commitment (“And I will make every effort” σπουδάζω, v. 15) to the message which “our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me” (1:14).

Peter’s use of the entire word family clearly favors the meaning of “earnestness” and “zeal.” The ambiguous verb σπεύδω should be viewed in light of Peter’s own usage of the word group rather than Luke-Acts or the LXX. This is particularly true in light of the same theme of Christian living connected to all of the references and the specific parallelism between 3:11-12 and 3:14.

A third argument favors the translation of σπεύδω as “eagerly awaiting.” The common theme of a virtuous Christian life, already explored above in 2 Peter, connects closely to the Pauline use of moral development in the same usage of the word family.

For Paul, earnestness or diligence is a necessary expression of the life of the Christian community, determining its ethical actions and behavior: “Do not lag in zeal [τῇ σπουδῇ], be ardent [ζέοντες] in spirit, serve the Lord” (Rom 12:11 NRSV). It is a gift of God that must be developed. Its power should be seen in the effort to maintain unity (Eph 4:3), to aid other Christians (Gal 2:10; 2 Cor 8:7–8, 16–17), to make good of a wrong done (7:11–12), and to exercise the leadership of the church (Rom 12:8).⁴²

The common theme in both Petrine and Pauline usage seems to indicate a closer thematic correspondence than the Luke-Acts corpus, which focuses on the physical movement of individuals from one place to another.

In summary, the morphological discussion notes not only the possibility of translating the participle σπεύδοντας in 2 Peter 3:12 with the sense of “eagerly” or “earnestly,” but the distinct plausibility based on the transitive use in Peter compared to the intransitive use in the rest of the biblical record, the parallel and unambiguous use of the word family in 2 Peter, and the similar thematic use of the word family in the Pauline material. Syntactical and contextual discussions will further advance the argument.

Syntactical considerations

The traditional translation of the participle σπεύδοντας as “hastening” produces an interesting conundrum: The idea of “hastening” is antithetical to the idea of “waiting.”⁴³ Commentators explain the contrast by distinguishing between passive waiting and active waiting, the later resulting in missionary endeavors.44 Others consider the participle προσδοκῶντας to refer to the “expectation” rather than the “waiting” and in essence subordinate to the idea of “hastening.”⁴⁵ Nonetheless, the traditional understanding produces stark contrast between προσδοκῶντας and σπεύδοντας, in which the latter is used in contrast to the former.

There are two difficulties though to this approach: First, the syntactical construction of two adverbial participles connected by a καὶ and modifying a single finite verb do not naturally function in contrast to each other. Second, the context of this section is full of word parallels that express overlapping rather than contrasting senses.

The first proposition against the traditional understanding examines more closely the syntactical interaction between the two participles προσδοκῶντας and σπεύδοντας (3:12). In the sentence both participles, connected by the conjuction καὶ, modify the same main clause ποταποὺς δεῖ ὑπάρχειν ὑμᾶς (3:11). This construction is common place in the New Testament and deserves in and of itself no particular mention.⁴⁶ Alone to note that this construction is either synonymous, that is the semantic range of the second participle almost completely covers the semantic range of the first participle (“agitating and stirring up,” Acts 17:23; “singing and making melody,” Eph 5:19), or progressive, that is the second participle expands on the idea of the first participle (“rooted and built upon him [Jesus],” Col 2:7; “bearing one another and forgiving each other,” Col 3:13). But in 2 Peter 3:12 neither the coordinating conjunction καὶ, nor the parallel use of participles indicates an adversative syntactical construction.

The author of 2 Peter is not without choice to establish a contrasting relationship.⁴⁷ He could have accomplished this in three ways: 1) The perhaps easiest approach of indicating a contrast between προσδοκῶντας and σπεύδοντας would have been to use an adversative conjunction (ἀλλά, πλήν; “but, only, except”), disjunctive conjunction (ἤ, “or”), or at least a correlative conjunction (μέν…δέ, “on the one hand…on the other”).⁴⁸ In fact, the pericope actually features two such contrastive parallelisms. In verse 9 Peter employs ἀλλά (“but”) twice: “not delaying…but patient” and “not wishing any to perish, but that all receive repentance”). Considering that he is acquainted and even employs contrastive disjunctions in the same context, the coordinating conjunction in verse 12 seems a deliberate choice by the author. 2) The author could have used personal or demonstrative pronouns to point out contrast. The pronouns can place the contrast “either of kind (antithetical) or degree (comparison).”⁴⁹ 3) The syntactical use of a concessive participle could have also indicated a definitive contrast. The sentence construction then would have required a few changes: Concessive participles are found in subclauses that modify the finite verb in the main clause (“although being blind, now I see” τυφλὸς ὢν ἄρτι βλέπω, John 9:25). Additionally, the concessive participle usually precedes the main verb it modifies and often uses markers (such as καίπερ and καίτοιγε) to indicate the contrast.⁵⁰ Since the clause in 2 Peter 3:11-12 does not use any of the contrastive or concessive options available to the to the author, and instead employs coordinating elements, the participles are best understood as parallel to each other. The syntax encourages the reader to understand σπεύδοντας in the sense of “eagerly awaiting” rather than “hastening.”

In addition to the immediate structure, the second syntactical reason for translating σπεύδοντας as “eagerly awaiting” is the overall style of the pericope. The epistle of 2 Peter exhibits a distinct poetic style, but chapter 3 is particularly replete with parallelisms both in parallel lexemes and parallel syntactical structures. The clause (vv. 11-12), as noted above, parallels “holy conduct” with “godliness” (ἐν ἁγίαις ἀναστροφαῖς καὶ εὐσεβείαις, v. 11) in the main clause and it links closely in wording and structure to verse 14 (προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας and προσδοκῶντες σπουδάσατε) as discussed in the previous section. Additionally, the final clause in the sentence (v. 12) contains an elaborate parallelism:

Table 3. Parallelism in 2 Peter 3:12c

As can be seen in table 2, verse 12c ends with a twofold parallel outlining the destruction of the heavens (οὐρανοὶ) and the heavenly bodies (στοιχεῖα).⁵¹ Each of these is further described by the same syntactical structure of an adverbial participle followed by a verb. The participles (πυρούμενοι and καυσούμενα) and the verbs (λυθήσονται and τήκεται) in both sections parallel each other. The close poetic parallelism does not describe two separate events but elaborates the same event in parallel fashion, both syntactically and morphologically.

This intricate structure at the end of verse 12 additionally harkens back to verse 10 in which Peter describes the results of the coming of the Day of the Lord affecting the realms of heaven, heavenly bodies, and the earth:⁵²

Table 4. Parallelism in 2 Peter 3:10

Verse 10 and 12c are similar to each other not only in describing the effects of the Parousia,⁵³ the two verses share a number of key words: “heavens” (οὐρανοὶ, v. 10,12) and “heavenly bodies” (στοιχεῖα, v. 10,12) and the two words “burning” (καυσούμενα, v. 10,12) and “it will be destroyed” (λυθήσεται, singular in v. 10; plural in v. 12).⁵⁴

This style of parallelism within the sentence and then the pericope also helps note a further point of connection: In verse 12 Peter uses the unprecedented form of “Day of God” instead of the more typical reference of “Day of the Lord” found in verse 10.⁵⁵ Based on Peter’s style noted in this section and the multiple connections between verse 10 and 12, the “Day of God” then is a parallel that poetically enhances the reference to the more common “Day of the Lord” mentioned in verse 10.⁵⁶

Finally, the pericope contains numerous additional complementary parallelisms. These parallels exist in verse 7 (τεθησαυρισμένοι… τηρούμενοι, “being stored up…being kept”; εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως καὶ ἀπωλείας τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀνθρώπων, “day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly humans”) and verse 13 καινοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινὴν, (“new heavens and new earth”).

In summary, complementary parallelisms are an abundant stylistic feature of the pericope of 2 Peter 3:1-14. Some parallels are limited to the immediate clause, some are between clauses, and some connect over larger stretches within the pericope. Additionally, some are thematic parallels, some syntactical, but many parallels are based on repeated lexemes. In particular verse 12 exhibits multiple levels of complementary parallels that connect within clauses but also to the larger context (v. 10, 14). The author employs disjunctive conjunctionsm (ἀλλὰ), to express contrast in verse 9 further supporting the coordinative use of καὶ in verse 12. Thus it best to read προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας as a coordinating parallelism in which “waiting” is followed by “eagerly awaiting” or “eagerly desiring.”

The Rhetorical Development of 2 Peter 3:1-14

In the final section, this study will explore Peter’s response to the scoffers regarding the “delay” of the Parousia. In particular verse 9 is of interest, as most scholars cite this as the referent for the “hastening” in verse 12.⁵⁷

The Scoffers Claim

The identity of the scoffers at the beginning of the chapter (vv. 3-4) is not as important or certain⁵⁸ as their twofold critique of the prophets’ words:⁵⁹ They “mock the delayed judgment of God (Amos 9:10; Mal 2:17; cf Ezek 12:22; Zeph 1:12) and their [the prophets’] predictions of divine judgment on them (Isa 5:18–20; Jer 5:12–24; Amos 9:10).”⁶⁰ With a rhetorical question and two examples, the death of ancestors and the continuity of the material world, the scoffers present their claims. This two-fold claim can be summarized⁶¹ as questioning the reality of God’s judgment due to the delay of the Parousia by asking “where is the promise of his coming?” (v. 4)⁶² and denying the possibility of divine intervention, since “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation” (v. 4).⁶³

Both issues which the scoffers purportedly bring up, deal with God’s limited ability to act; once pointing out His perceived temporal limitation, then addressing His perceived historical limitations. Recognizing the dual accusation in the scoffers’ claim is instrumental to follow Peter’s dual retort.

Peter’s Dual Response

Overview

In reverse order Peter addresses both of the claims. First Peter defends God’s divine intervention by using the examples of creation and the flood as supreme acts of divine intervention (vv. 5-7). He then turns to the issue of God’s time by parallel the twofold witness above with a twofold prophetic witness: First, he quotes from Psalms 90:4 “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years” and complements the statement with the opposite claim “a thousand years as one day” (v. 8). Second, Peter paraphrases in verse 9 an extended references to God’s coming judgment from Habakkuk 2:3: “For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay.”⁶⁴

Peter divides the two responses with an introductory phrase for each retort, namely λανθάνω (“overlook”, vv. 5,8). In the first instance he indicts the scoffers that they deliberately “overlook” the facts of God’s intervention at creation and the flood. Their focus is limited to a selective time frame that suits their viewpoint, excluding all evidence to the contrary. In his second response he appeals to the readers to not follow the pattern of the scoffers: μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς, ἀγαπητοί (“Beloved, [you – emphatic] do not overlook!” v. 8) the prophetic evidence in the Old Testament.

Additionally, the twofold examples for each question mirror each other. The Psalmist speaks of the thousand years as a day in the context of creation: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2) and Habakkuk’s vision refers to the destruction the Chaldeans will bring upon the nation of Israel (Hab 1:5-11). The interrelatedness also extends to the concept of time. The creation account is lined with references to time including the night-day cycle, the weekly cycle as inaugurated by the Sabbath, the months, and seasons.⁶⁵ Equally, the flood account makes frequent reference to time, both durational and specific (Gen 7:4, 6, 10-14, 17, 24; 8:3-6, 10, 12-14). In all examples, God’s timing is predetermined and cannot be influenced by man.⁶⁶

Peter employs the four examples to prefigure the Parousia event. God can and has intervened constructively and destructively in human history, through the creation event and judgment events, such as the flood and the destruction by the Babylonians. At the Parousia both events occur again: the heavens, heavenly bodies, and the earth are destroyed but the believers are redeemed and restored. The imagery of the new creation (3:13 and fully developed in Revelation) is alluded here in the reversal imagery. More significantly for this discussion, all events in question are predetermined events in which God is in complete control of time, regardless of human activity.⁶⁷

The “Delay” in Verse 9

Verse 9 deserves specific attention as it is commonly viewed as the referent for the participle σπεύδοντας in the traditional view. The structure of the verse is as follows:

• A οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας

• B ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται

• C ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς

• A’ μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι

• C’ ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.

Two interpretative possibilities have been advanced. On the surface the emphatic opening of the main clause of verse 9 with a particle of negation (οὐ) signifies that “the Lord does not delay his promise.”⁶⁸ Others, on the other hand, argue that the dependent clauses mitigating the opening clause, arguing that there is a delay. In this view the negative phrase (“The Lord is not delayed”) must then be understood in a relative sense.

The statement is not meant to rule out any kind of delay, for in his reference to the Lord’s forbearance in the second half of this v the author clearly acknowledges a deferment of the Parousia, at any rate from the human point of view. What he here denies is that the Lord is “late,” in the sense that he has failed to fulfill the promise (so Harnisch, Existenz, 107). The meaning is almost (see Note): “The Lord is not too late to fulfill the promise.”⁶⁹

But this reading stretches the meaning of the passage considerably. First, the morphological range of the word βραδύνω in Classical as well as Koine Greek does not feature another passage with this relative use. This would be the only instance.⁷⁰ Particularly clear passages such as Sirach 35:19 (καὶ ὁ κύριος οὐ μὴ βραδύνῃ, “The Lord is not delayed”) and Isaiah 46:13 (καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ οὐ βραδυνῶ, “and my salvation will not delay”) point to an absolute use of βραδύνω instead. Second, the parallel structure of the passage and A’ points to an absolute reading. The dependent participial clause A’ with the μὴ negation (“not wanting any to perish”) is undoubtedly absolute in nature. Since the actor, in this case “the Lord,” is the same for A and A’ it is not clear why the main clause A should be relative and the dependent clause A’ absolute. Finally, the context of this statement is the thematic reference to creation, flood, and the passages of Psalms and Habbakuk, as noted above. The development of the argument against the scoffers in chapter 3 is not a relative argument in which the scoffers are partially right. Peter instead fully repudiates the scoffers in each of their arguments. Thus it is best to read Peter’s defense as a full assertion of God’s sovereignty. God has dramatically altered the history of the earth through creation and the flood. He is fully in control of time as well. He is not delayed. It is then best to read the second part of verse 9 not as a defense of slowness, but an explanation of the interim time: The all-inclusiveness of τινας gives even the scoffers have opportunity to repent.

Summary

In summary, this paper presents three arguments in favor of reading the participle σπεύδοντας in 2 Peter 3:12 as “eagerly awaiting.” First, the semantic range of the word allows both “hastening” and “eagerly awaiting.” The Classical and first century Greek prefer the sense of “eagerness, zeal” for the word σπεύδω, while the biblical writings (LXX and Luke-Acts) favor “haste.” In contrast with the biblical texts though, σπεύδοντας in 2 Peter 3:12 is in a transitive instead of an intransitive construction and needs to be considered carefully. The parallel construction to 2 Peter 3:14 and Peter’s use of the word family (σπουδάζω/σπουδή/σπεύδω) give preference to the reading of “eagerness, zeal.” Second, the syntactical construction of the clause προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπεύδοντας (“waiting for and eagerly desiring”) mirrors Peter’s extensive use of parallelisms in the passage. In light of the close connection to 3:10 and 14, and the stylistic feature in the chapter, the word σπεύδοντας should not be taken as a contrastive statement to προσδοκῶντας but rather as a complementary parallelism. Finally, the development of Peter’s argument against the scoffers is a repudiation of their twofold accusation that God doesn’t intervene in history and that God is delayed. Peter argues that the creation and flood demonstrate God’s powerful intervention and he uses Psalms 90:4 and Habakkuk 2:3 to demonstrate that the Parousia and the associated judgment are not delayed.

Contrary to commentators then, Peter builds his argument on the Old Testament writings of Genesis, Psalms, Habakkuk, and Isaiah rather than apocryphal texts of Second Temple Judaism. The Parousia for Peter is a reflection of God’s sovereignty that is accompanied by a cosmic event of destruction (3:10.12) and the rebuilding of a new heaven and a new earth (3:13). The interim time between the predetermined events of the first and second coming is an age of human action: All have the opportunity for repentance (3:9) and the believers are called to godly living and godliness (3:11). This godly lifestyle is described at the outset of the letter (1:5-7) and supplemented by the patient and eager willingness to wait for the Parousia (3:12).

1. Davids transitions from the discussion on προσδοκῶντας to σπεύδοντας by noting: “But one does not simply ‘look forward to’ or ‘await’ or ‘watch’ passively.” Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 290. Green argues: “Christians are expected to look for the coming of the Lord; had not Jesus himself told them to watch? But this does not mean pious inactivity. It means action. For, wonderful as it may seem, we can actually ‘hasten it on’ (NEB) (not ‘hasting unto’ as in AV).¹⁶ In other words, the timing of the advent is to some extent dependent upon the state of the church and of society… It is intended to be a time of active co-operation with God in the redemption of society.” Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 164.