MSB Book Intro notes:
Letter has always been identified with the name of the author.  This is how general epistles (like Peter, James, John, and Jude) always are.  Rather than by the recipient, as the Pastoral epistles, or the church location, as the church epistles.

Peter was the leader among the apostles.  The gospels talk about Jesus more than about Peter, but no one else is talked about more.  He was from a family of fishermen - commercial fishermen is probably appropriate - who lived first in Bethsaida and then Capernaum.  He was married, and it appears that his wife accompanied him in his ministry (Mk 1:29-31, 1CO 9:5)

Peter's triumphs and weaknesses are covered in some detail in the gospels and in Acts.  After Pentecost, it was Peter who preached that first sermon in Jerusalem.  Tradition says he was forced to watch as his wife was crucified, and then he begged to be crucified upside down because he was unworthy of being crucified as Jesus was.  This request, per tradition, was granted.  I had never heard this about his wife before.  He was crucified around 67-68 AD.
2023 - Note that Peter wrote this 2 or 3 years before he died.  Note later in the notes that Peter was probably in Rome when it was written.  Wasn't Paul there also at that time?  Paul died in Rome in 67-68 AD, at the end of his second imprisonment.  His first imprisonment ended around 62-64 AD.  Apparently we aren't very positive about this.  Even so, this does create an overlap between Peter's time and Paul's time in Rome.  Note particularly that both of them are believed to have died around 67-68 AD.  
2023 - It seems that a lot of the authors of the NT books died or were martyred before 70 AD.  Strange that almost none of them - John being the notable exception - lived to see that event and so explain to us where that destruction fits in prophecy.
2023 - This was written about 30 years after the resurrection, by a man who "lived" with Jesus almost constantly.  30 years is a recollection, not a legend.

Many early documents falsely claimed to be written by Peter.  However, the way 1Peter is written leaves little if any doubt that Peter was its author.  The material closely resembles his messages in Acts.  The early church universally recognized the letter as being written by Peter.

The only critique that Peter is not the author is based on the more formal Greek that the letter uses.  Peter was a fisherman, not an educated rabbi, trained in the Greek language.  The answer is that Peter seems to have dictated the letter to Silvanus (Silas), and Silas may well have been Greek himself and educated.  Silas was also a prophet, and could have helped to "formalize" what Peter was saying.  Silvanus probably carried the letter to its intended readers (though they are a rather nebulous bunch, per the introduction.  Maybe Peter had specific readers in mind, but didn't go into detail about where they were lest they become targets of persecution because of it.  2024 - This is a good point, and I don't know if I am making it or it came from the MSB introduction.  But after Rome was burned in 64 AD the persecution of Christians was cranked up to fever pitch.  So the books that are dated after that would have surely taken that "pressure" being applied to Christianity very seriously.  Haha...See next sentence, that one from MSB.  I was thinking about Peter's death in 67-68 AD, not the date of this letter, which was very near the date that Rome burned.)

MSB says the letter was most likely written just before or after July, 64 AD when the city of Rome burned, so about 64-65 AD.

When Rome burned, the people believed Nero had set the fire, to wipe out the old so he could build anew.  The fire wiped out much of the basis of Roman culture because temples were consumed along with household idols.  Many died in the fire, and far more were made homeless.  The people were bitter and resentful, and were directing both at Nero.  So Nero needed a scapegoat.

Christians were a convenient target.  Romans already hated Christians because they associated them with the Jews, and they were seen as hostile to Roman culture.  Nero spread the word that Christians had set the fires, kicking off vicious persecution that spread from Rome itself to the far reaches of the empire.  Most of these were Gentiles, in areas where Paul had preached and started churches, and these all felt the persecution emanating from Rome.  Peter's letter is to encourage those scattered Christians, that he calls aliens, and strengthen them in the faith.
2023 - Vs 1 makes it clear that this letter is to the Dispersion.  It is written to Jews.  I would say that there were a lot more Gentiles subject to persecution than there were Jews, just because there were SO MANY Gentiles.  While many of the encouragements in the letter apply to both Jew and Gentile, we ought to keep in mind exactly to whom the letter is written.

The letter says it was written from Babylon, but most believe this was a code word - and an appropriate one - for Rome.  Peter didn't want to invite even more persecution on the Christians in Rome, or indeed give any information about them, and so is believed to have claimed Babylon as his location to deflect the persecutors away.

MSB has this sentence:  "Peter wished to impress on his readers that by living an obedient, victorious life under duress, a Christian can actually evangelize his hostile world. (Many references.)  It goes on to stay that one way Satan and his demons attack the church and Christianity is to find Christians whose lives are not consistent with the Word, and parade them before unbelievers to show what a sham Christianity is.  

Peter's letter recounts many blessings that come with Christianity, with salvation, with following Christ.  But he weaves into these positive elements the fact that the world will be hostile to believers, and treat them in an unjust manner - even a violent and hostile manner.  Jesus' suffering and ultimate victory are held up as the prime example.  Peter also emphasizes that the true citizenship of a Christian is not in this world at all, but in the world to come.

Peter also addresses many practical questions about how a Christian should live.  Among them, is a priesthood needed for intercession, how do we behave toward civil government, particularly when it is unjust, how do we behave towards unjust masters/employers, and so on.

Under "Interpretive Challenges", 1Pt 3:18-22 is called one of the most difficult NT texts to translate and then interpret.  The intro poses many questions generated by these verses, and promises to address them in the notes at that point.  Here are those verses:
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. [1Pe 3:18-22 ESV]

All this is introduction, and the chronological schedule says all five chapters of the book are to be read in one day.  This is the fault I find with this reading schedule.  It just seems to rush through the NT, after spending months and months on the old.  I would rather it was the other way around.  And today, as on a few other days, my brain is tired from reading the intro, and now I have the chapters to read.  I wonder if I should do this the other way.  I could always skip the intro if time is short...
2022 - Note:  This time through the Bible, from late Feb 2021 and around the calendar, I am not using the chronological, but a schedule where, most days, I read some in both the old and the new.  I have usually made a point of reading the NT chapter or chapters first, and as a result, I have been pretty worn out occasionally before I got to the OT.  That seems fair, and I am planning to use this same schedule again next year, and so emphasize the NT for a second year.  I think the NT notes that have been added this year show that spending more time on it than the chronological allows has opened it up to me in greater measure.

NOTE:  After much debate with myself, I think 2:12, which has some notes below, shows that this letter is written to elect Jews, with Jews being a very key word.  Peter is not writing this to Gentiles except perhaps in the most peripheral way.  This is food for the Jews, and the dogs might get a few crumbs, but this is not for us.

Chapter 1
Starts with a sort of Pauline introduction:
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, [1Pe 1:1 ESV].  
Addressed to the Dispersion.  That is a name for scattered Jews, calling into question what the intro said about most of it being to Gentiles.  Maybe not the case...(2023 - See revised reference to Gentiles above.)
2023 - Vs 1 qualifies even the Dispersion to a subset.  This is to "Elect exiles of the Dispersion".  Paul is writing to Jews who have converted to Christianity...and we might make a case that he also writes to unconverted Jews who WILL BE converted.  But he certainly is not writing to ALL Jews.  This is corroborated in vs 2 when Paul says this is all according to the foreknowledge of God.  I think he means elect according to the foreknowledge.

2025 - Here is an interesting phrase:  
2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. [1Pe 1:2 ESV].  Compare this to:
24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. [Heb 12:24 ESV].  
Are we totally missing the point of this connection between the New Covenant, between Jesus, and the murder of Abel?  Or is it the connection between Jesus and the sacrifice that Abel  brought before he was murdered?  Abel's acceptable sacrifice led directly to his death at the hands of one jealous of his acceptance by God.  In the same way, the Jews vindictively caused the death of Jesus, because he was perfect and they were not.  The key is understanding from Peter that the saved are "sprinkled with his blood".  Jesus as sacrifice, and the blood he shed, seems to tie back to the sacrifice that Abel made - perhaps the first blood sacrifice offered to God by man, the foundation stone of the first covenant?  Wow.  That all works pretty well.  Copying it to Hebrews also.

In anticipation of the verses that will be difficult, I note what Peter says here:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, [1Pe 1:3 ESV]
Born again through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.  Not from Jesus' own baptism.  Not from our baptism.  Born again through resurrection from the dead.  From Jesus' resurrection specifically.  Would Peter say this if the moment of water baptism was where Christian regeneration occurred?  He might, I suppose...but this verse needs to be kept in mind.
2021 - It does not seem reasonable to assume that 1Pet is a treatise on baptism.  And if it is not that, it is not reasonable to think that he starts in talking about baptism in the introduction to the book.  No reason to put it there.  So "sprinkling with his blood" is a reference to Jesus' blood being shed for sinners - (2022) purifying us, making us holy, as the sprinkling of blood at the dedications of Tabernacle and Temple were made holy by sprinkling blood.  This is figurative language (2024 - and is presenting a practice that would have been VERY familiar to Jews, but not so much at all to Gentiles!), as no real blood is sprinkled under the New Covenant.  Peter is writing to Jews, and speaking in metaphors they will readily understand.
2023 - This is about the gospel.  Christ born, crucified, and raised from the dead.  This is what the elect believe - when they hear it.

We are all in fact covered by the blood of Christ, and sprinkling is likely a rhetorical device - remembering that the intro says the Greek in this book is more formal than Peter himself might have managed, but Silvanus could do so.  And since this verse is not a "how to" for pastors on baptizing converts, we shouldn't read just a whole lot into it.  Vs 3 I think bears this out.  It is the resurrection of Christ that accomplishes rebirth as a new creature.  It very specifically says this.  

Vs 5 recounts a blessing of salvation - the unfading, imperishable inheritance we have in heaven, and contrasts that in vs 6 with suffering various trials in this life.  
2022 - So even at this early stage of the letter, Peter's aim is to focus the thoughts of his readers on the rewards, the perfection to come, and get them off of the present persecution.
2024 - Note also that vs 5 says we are "guarded by faith" to a "last times" salvation.  That is about the salvation we will have at our resurrection - at the rapture.  That is when our bodies go up and get renewed.  To the tripartite people, both body and soul go up at this "last day".  Faith guards what we have been promised until that day.  There is nothing here that says we must "accumulate" faith, act on our faith, or anything else that might be construed as "works based" between the moment of salvation and the last day.  I can readily believe that the rewards of the last day will be based on what we've done with the opportunities that God gives us.  The size of the crown may change based on works, but NOT whether or not we, or any part of us, will be saved.

2022 - A couple of items to note - and copy to the judgment study:
4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, [1Pe 1:4 ESV].  Noteworthy that this is about an inheritance, not about a reward.  It is kept in heaven, because only there do these adjectives apply.
And also this one:
7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith--more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire--may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. [1Pe 1:7 ESV]
Peter is holding out two future benefits of perseverance in faith through trials and persecutions.  An inheritance in heaven in vs 4, and now in vs 7, praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  If we theorize that these three items reference our coming rewards, this says they will be conveyed to us at "the revelation of Jesus Christ".  What word is used for revelation?  Is it parousia, as is used generally of the rapture, or some other word?  The word here is Strong's G602, transliterated apokalypsis.  This word apokalypsis appears 18 times in both mGNT and TR, and 12 of those times is translated "revelation".  Here is the Outline of Biblical Usage:
1.              laying bare, making naked         
2.              a disclosure of truth, instruction         
    1.                      concerning things before unknown                 
    2.                      used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all                 
3.              manifestation, appearance         
The ideas here in Biblical usage do not seem to point to the rapture.  This word is more about something that was hidden being transferred, or revealed permanently.  Something that comes and stays, rather than something that comes and retrieves us.

2023 - A couple of things:  First, note that in vs 5, Peter uses the phrase "last time".  In Greek this is "kairos eschatos", eschatos being the Greek word from which we get eschatology.  So the inheritance comes during the last time.  Now we just need to figure out when that is?  Is it the rapture he's talking about?  Note also that Peter is not saying rewards, he's saying inheritance.  And remember most of all that he is talking to elect Jews.  So...don't they "inherit the promises" during the Millennial?  Then in vs 7, Peter uses the phrase "at the revelation of Jesus Christ".  The Greek word translated revelation is "apokalypsis".  After a little more study this morning, I would say that today, I think Peter is referencing the second coming, and not the rapture at all.  Here are some verses that seem pretty relevant to that conclusion:
25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages [Rom 16:25 ESV]
6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? [1Co 14:6 ESV]
7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. [2Co 12:7 ESV]
7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels [2Th 1:7 ESV]
I do not get the impression of suddenness, of the "twinkling of an eye" where "revelation/apokalypsis" is used.  In each case there is revealed knowledge, understanding...it's a 2x4 upside the head kind of a moment.  Paul on the Damascus road had an apokalypsis.  and that last verse, in adding that Jesus will be revealed with his angels, seem to specifically be tied to the second coming, on the white horses in the white robes.  That is also when the Jews will receive the land promised as an inheritance to Abraham's offspring. So this seems to be so clear now that I wonder why I was previously confused....This I would say is apokalypsis.  So I will keep that in mind as I go on.

Still 2022:
And here are some of the verses that I think are helpful in this discussion:
2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. [Gal 2:2 ESV].  Truth revealed, truth conveyed and permanently present afterward.
3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. [Eph 3:3 ESV].  Again, the idea of full and permanent disclosure.
7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels [2Th 1:7 ESV].  In the whole context of this passage, 2Th 1:5-10, we are pretty certainly talking about the S&G judgment, not the GWT, and not the rapture at all.
13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. [1Pe 1:13 ESV].  A very similar usage to 1:7, in the same chapter by the same author.  Set your minds on the future, when judgment will take place.  No judgment at the rapture that I have yet found any certainty about.
13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. [1Pe 4:13 ESV].  Hmm...Is his glory revealed at the rapture, or the other two judgments?  Surely not the rapture.  He comes with his armies at the S&G, in white linen, with King of Kings and Lord of Lords written on him.  Surely that is the second advent - a manifestation and an appearance, and he is coming to stay.  
It seems pretty sure to me that the praise, glory, and honor will be "awarded" at the S&G judgment.  And again, that seems like a "works" judgment, and these awards that Peter is speaking about are given for "the tested genuineness of faith".  For the works that evidence faith.  
We also must either assume that these rewards are ONLY for the saved Millennial Sheep, or that the saints that come back from heaven with Christ will also receive their rewards at this time.  Makes sense if they will serve in the Millennial Kingdom, as the rewards seem to reflect rank in the kingdom.  Maybe.

Here are some more verses addressing the mechanism of salvation, as did vs 3 above:
8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. [1Pe 1:8-9 ESV]
We can't see him, yet we love him, and believe in him.  That is a way of saying that we have faith.  And through that faith, we obtain salvation - which is the outcome we seek in the first place.  Again, a mention of water would not be out of place here if water baptism regenerated.  But it doesn't "have" to be mentioned.
2023 - Note that the word "outcome" is translated from the Greek "telos", which is about the final end, the ultimate objective.  So the "last thing that happens" is that our souls are saved by faith.  Shortened, it might read "You do not see, but you believe, and rejoice, and finally obtain the salvation of your soul.

2023 - The salvation of your souls, referenced here in so many words, has not one inkling of a suggestion that works are involved in this at all.

Paul urges his readers to put their hope in Jesus' revelation (the second coming?  the rapture?).  This as opposed to looking for honor and glory in this present world?  He goes on to clarify that he means they are to live holy lives because they are now called to this, instead of to the worldly lives they previously led.  Heavenly values instead of earthly.  Spiritual rather than bodily.  

2023 - This verse:
13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. [1Pe 1:13 ESV].  Here is "apokalypsis" again.  Peter is again telling them not to focus on "now" but on what is to come in the future when Christ is revealed to all.  Hmm...to all rather than just to the elect exiles.  So...is Peter telling these Jews, whom we know died before the apokalypsis, that THEY themselves personally will participate in the Millennial and receive the inheritance there?  If so, these things he is saying are about the Jews who will be alive at the second coming, not all Jews in all times...and as it turned out, not the Jews he was thinking of when he wrote this.  OR, is he saying that ALL the elect exiles will have been raptured, and return WITH Christ to inherit the land during the Millennial?  As worded in this verse, that second one seems to be the idea.
2024 - A further implication of the last sentence above is that if these New Covenant Jews are to return, would the church not be included in that?  Would there be a distinction between Jesus second coming accompanied by New Covenant Jews but NOT New Covenant Gentiles?  Pretty hard for me to go there.  So....is this a pretty good argument that the church IS Israel at the Millennial, inheriting the promises right along with the Jews?  Hmm....Based on this passage, this seems to be a pretty good proof text for that!

2022 - Another judgment reference here:
17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, [1Pe 1:17 ESV]  This certainly says there will be a judgment based on "deeds", that is, on works.  It could well be that all these refer to the S&G.  But will those who return with Christ, who have already seen heaven, not be rewarded until this point?  Surely the martyrs under the throne in Revelation are ready to get on with the judgment.  So maybe this does make good sense...

Vs 18 mentions that they were "ransomed" from those former ways.  I just recently read that same thing elsewhere - one of Paul's letters, saying that since we were paid for, we owe thanks/allegiance/service to the one who ransomed.  It was 1Tim 2:5,6, where Jesus paid the ransom for all.  See notes there. 

Then look at this Trinitarian statement on the deity of Christ:
20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you [1Pe 1:20 ESV]
If you were there before creation, then you were not created.  Christ is not a created being.  He was there, but was manifest - made visible as human man - for our sakes, that is for our salvation.  He was the culmination of God's saving plan, to make him both just and justifier!
2023 - This leaves little doubt about "when" foreknowledge is talking about.  It means BEFORE creation.

Another verse that might bear on 3:18-22:
22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, 23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; [1Pe 1:22-23 ESV]
Purification - often accomplished by washing with water.  In fact I would say almost always requiring water.  But here, the washing is not with water but with obedience.  Purity is through obedience.  Then he talks about regeneration specifically using the phrase "born again", which he just barely avoided using earlier.  Regeneration is said to be through the living and abiding word.  The word was with God, the word was God.  Messianic.  Christ.  This can go straight back to our being born again through the resurrection of Christ, the Word.  Water is left out again.
2021 - It seems that I was obsessed with making things about baptism last year.  In context, I don't think Peter is talking about baptism at all.  That's not on his mind, that's not what this book is about, or what this chapter is about or what this verse is about.  Peter is giving a pep talk to those who are being persecuted as fallout from Nero's scapegoating them.  These people are being pursued, abused, and blamed for something of which they couldn't possibly have been a part.  Peter's point then is that they need to focus on living blameless lives to put the lie to the accusations against them, and that though they may be hated by the world, there is that coming day when they will stand before Christ and receive the reward of their patient and unwavering faith, which is refined and purified by persecution - if one remains faithful.  That's what this is about.  Purification by trial - as gold by fire.  THAT is the point so far.

2024 - How have I never noticed that final phrase in this chapter before:  "And this word is the good news that was preached to you".  Peter says this first chapter is in fact the gospel.  Or...not.  The word translated "gospel" here is transliterated "ray-ma" from Greek.  It is used 70 times in the KJV and is translated "word" 56 of those times.  The list of ways the word is translated does not include "gospel" at all, even though in this very verse the KJV translates it as gospel.  Why would that not be there...except and unless this is not the "word" translated "good news"  So I looked for those words...and did not find them either.  Here is the exact phrasing:
KJV:  this is the word which by the gospel is preached
ESV: this word is the good news that was preached
NASB95: this is the word which was preached.
Looking at the BLB forward inline, I would say the NASB95 is the only one that isn't "adding to the scripture".  "Word" is there in the Greek.  But "good news" is, in my study of the verse, entirely missing in either Tr or mGNT.  They both read the same in Greek.  So it looks to me as if the translators of the KJV and ESV have indeed ADDED interpretation to this verse by ADDING two words which simply are not there.  Elsewhere, it is the word "euangelizo" that is translated "good new".  This is Strong's G2097.  Does that word show up at all in this verse?  And there it is...this word IS used in this verse, but in a very strange, very LONG, form.  It is shown as an aorist passive participle.  The definition of the root word is "to bring good news, to announce glad tidings". It is translated "preach" or "preach the gospel" 45 of the 55 times it is used in the KJV.  So...that tense is what sends the translations in so many different directions as they try to translate the aorist that does not exist in English into a phrase that conveys what the Greek aorist really means.  It is always the aorist that causes problems for translators!  And this is an aorist participle.  I think it is the very first time I've seen that.  I can now comfortably accept the ESV translation as a worthy attempt at translation, and NOT an interpretation!  This took some time, but was well worth it...and I feel pretty good that the comment starting with 2024 above is also a worthy comment.

Chapter 2
2022 - This first verse of 2:
1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. [1Pe 2:1 ESV].  The word is "so", but could just as easily be "Therefore", and indicating that this verse is the conclusion of the points made in the previous chapter.  Why do they keep doing this in the chapter breaks?  
1 ended by saying life here is short, and we are just sojourners here.  We who are saved are a new, changed, different, "alien" people among the lost.  If we are not "of" them, then we should behave differently than they do.  Rather than reacting with "nukes to hand grenades", or lying, or claiming to be the same as the persecutors to avoid the persecutors, or wishing we could be like them, or just bad mouthing them all the time...Do none of these things.  Go instead back to 1:22 and "...love one another from a pure heart."  No subterfuge.  I can't help but think of it..."Always tell the truth, or at least don't lie".  Peterson has distilled so many truths, and stated them in easy to understand language, and then attributed them to human evolution rather than recognize where they really came form.  I admire his advice, but I fear it is a deliberately deceitful parallel, preaching God's revealed truth as man's independent discovery.  Who would orchestrate such a deception, such a misleading, hidden, obscured fork in the road?  Only one masquerading as an angel of light.

This phrasing:
5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [1Pe 2:5 ESV]
Several thoughts:  Jesus was the chief cornerstone, mentioned as such the verse before.  Peter means rock, and Jesus had changed his name.  He is using his own history as an analogy of the change Jesus brought.  Stones are used to build.  Another analogy.  We are used to build a spiritual house - a spiritual temple that replaces the earthly temple made with physical brick and mortar.  The Law was brick and mortar, the new "law" is spiritual, we can't touch it with hands, it is based on faith and not ritual.  We are our own priesthood, needing no other since the new temple is spiritual.  The sacrifices we offer are inward, spiritual, invisible, made in the spiritual temple of our ourselves, without need of or regard for an external, separate priesthood.  These are acceptable - these spiritual instead of blood sacrifices - through Christ who tore the veil, giving us access to God directly instead of through an earthly priesthood.  We offer our spiritual sacrifice from our position IN Christ, our high priest.  We have direct access to God through Jesus.

2025 - What though, exactly, constitutes a spiritual sacrifice?  A physical sacrifice requires the death of an animal - an animal without blemish, perfect as far as can be observed - and the shedding of blood.  What "perfect thing" do we possess, spiritually, that we can "end" as an offering to God?  What can that be?  
I found this:
1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. [Rom 12:1 ESV].  We make ourselves holy, and then we worship?  No...in this verse to worship is present our bodies for his use.  To be the "doulos" of God.  That's what Paul calls himself.  A slave who's life is only of value if given for his master, living every millisecond for the direct benefit of his master.
Maybe this one has some application here also:
2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [Eph 5:2 ESV]
15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. [Heb 13:15 ESV]

2023 - This verse:
8 and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [1Pe 2:8 ESV].  
It seems that Peter is very certain that election - which he spoke about in 1:2, and now we see the other side of the coin.  In 1:2 he speaks of those who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God, and here, he speaks of those "destined" to disobey.  It is hard to interpret either of these in any other way than to say that there was no other way it could have gone.  Those who reject God were ALWAYS going to reject him.  All I can say about that is "See Grudem, Chapter 32" for a full treatment of this doctrine.  The short version is that God decided, in his infinite wisdom that we have no chance of glimpsing much less comprehending, that he would save some and send others to hell.  This because his glory - and his characteristic of being just - requires that some go to hell.  God must see his glory and justice as higher priorities than the absolutely free exercise of will by mankind.  That's all that I will say here...there are notes on Grudem.  This same verse is quoted under the topic of Reprobation.
2023 - Looked in MSB, which is NASB, and worded this way:
8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this [doom] they were also appointed. [1Pe 2:8 NASB95].  MSB says this does not mean that some were appointed to disobedience - so MSB does not go along with reprobation it seems.  What was appointed was that those who DID disobey were doomed from the beginning, as in God had decided the fate of all who would disobey...but had not decided particularly who would disobey.

This verse:
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. [1Pe 2:9 ESV]  Can there be any doubt that Peter is writing to converted Jews?  I don't see any indication that he is talking here about the spiritual sons of Abraham.  Chosen race and holy nation as references to the Jews seems pretty unarguable.  
2023 - Why "royal" priesthood?  Why would he use that term?  MSB says this comes from Ex 19:6;
5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel." [Exo 19:5-6 ESV].  Because of their apostasy, Israel never "realized" this combination of King and Priest.  It was "temporarily" forfeited and will be ultimately wholly realized during the Millennial when Christ reigns.  However, MSB says that currently the church is a royal priesthood, united with Christ (in Christ?) who is the Royal Priest.  The concept of a royal priest means not only a priesthood that belongs to and serves the king, but one that also exercises rule.

Another verse:
10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. [1Pe 2:10 ESV]
Who is addressed here?  It would seem to be addressed to Gentiles, barbarians, pagans in contrast to the nation of Israel, a chosen people.  But then, the Jews were not a people either until Abraham left Ur.  MSB says this refers to Hos 1:6-10, which speaks explicitly of a nation made up of both Jews and Gentiles.  So MSB makes this inclusive.  The verses in Hosea must be plainer to MSB than they are to me.  There is this one verse that might be seen as inclusive:  
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children of the living God." [Hos 1:10 ESV]
2022 - I still don't really agree with MacArthur here, but I would qualify what I've been saying - about this letter being written exclusively to Jews.  There is one more parameter...Peter is writing to saved Jews, to "Christian Jews" who believe in Christ as resurrected Messiah, as God's Son, and as fully God.  So looked at that way, we as Gentile Christians do partly share in Peter's address.  We too are Christian, and as to that his admonitions are more general.  So should Christian Jews in Nero's time "love their neighbors"?  Yes, that's who Peter means.  But should all Christians in all times love instead of hate in the face of the world's hatred aligned to persecute them?  Again, most certainly yes.
2023 - In vs 10 I can make a case that the people now God's could refer either to Israel or to the church in our time/in Peter's time.  God made Israel a nation where no nation had been and gave them a country - gave them some geography that made them a nation.  The Gentiles, until Christ came, were just a scattered bunch of nobody's.  Now they are all one people, God's people, the church.  

(2024 - A Spiritual nation!  God now looks after the church in the spiritual kingdom as he previously looked after Israel as a physical nations.  And that gets me once again to this:  The Millennial will see physical promises kept to the physical nation of Israel and the church will receive the spiritual promises of the rapture, and as the bride of Christ because we are a spiritual nation.)  

The second phrase also, about mercy, is the same.  The elect Jews to whom Peter is writing were saved.  They had received mercy.  All those in the church, of whatever race, creed, color, have equally received God's mercy.  I THINK, however, that we must read this verse as being about those elect Jews from Chapter 1.  I don't think that "comforting phrase" is meant for the church.  The next verse I think confirms this in that it contrasts those addressed not with the unsaved, but with the Gentiles.  It is surely unsaved Gentiles that are in view here, but Gentiles, nevertheless.  I do not see interpreting this to label all unsaved as Gentiles and all saved as elect exiles.  No.  I don't see that at all.

2024 - Or, in the simplest interpretation, Gentiles refers to Rome, which was the persecutor of Christians at this point, without regard to whether they were Jews or Gentiles.

vs 12 says this:
12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. [1Pe 2:12 ESV]  Surely this implies that it is Jews that are being addressed in vs. 10?  2022 - And that further implies that the Gentiles are NOT being addressed, either directly or peripherally.  Peter is apostle to the Jews, Paul the Gentiles.  We need to keep the beam of this letter focused tightly on the Jews. (but...see above.)
2023 - This verse is the proof text.  This letter is written to elect Jews - both saved and future saved - and to no one else except insofar as commands like "love your neighbor" and "behave yourself as a Christian should" are applicable to everyone. 

In vs 13 we seem to take a new course, away from the spiritual and into the day to day practicalities of Christian living:
13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. [1Pe 2:13-14 ESV]
No wiggle room.  Written just before or just after Nero burned Rome.  Despite the injustice and corruption of Nero's empire, Christians were NOT urged to revolt from it, to separate themselves from it, to "sovereign citizen" themselves, or even to do as Qumran did and segregate themselves into an ascetic/monastic/insulated encampment.  And for what reason?  So that by our example of submission we "should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people."  Then at the end of the section he reiterates:
17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. [1Pe 2:17 ESV]
2021 - It is hard to imagine the helplessness, the feeling of being trapped and not knowing which direction to run - hide, fight, or flight - that followed the persecution of Christians - whether Jew or Gentile - under Nero.  It must have sent some massive shock waves of fear through all the churches that were in Roman provinces.  No matter where they were, they were blamed, and they were fair game for just about any jealous, covetous, greedy person who wanted what they had materially.  They could just steal it.  These Christians were likely rounded up in some places, taken into arenas or other places and just summarily executed.  Can you imagine the church doors opening up and a contingent of police and military officers coming in, and putting the attendees up on the stage in front of a firing squad one at a time?  These were not terrorists that were killing Christians as if the season was open, these were government officials, local politicians, and so on.  These people were never going to be prosecuted for what they were doing.  This was a time for Christians much like what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany (2022 - or to Christians in Afghanistan when the Taliban took power in 21/22).  To say that only the Jews experienced such persecution in history is to ignore this time in Rome.
So what advice does Peter give them?  Run and hide?  Only worship in secret?  Don't associate with each other lest you give others away under torture?  No.  None of that.  Peter gives them vs 17.  When they come for you, honor them by going peacefully.  Honor the corrupt and vile Emperor that sent them.  And here we sit, in the US in 2021, and we're all twisted off about Joe Biden.  Really?  We should be ashamed of ourselves.  2022 - Yes we should.  When they came for Jesus, meaning to kill him in a horrible way, he not only went along, but he chastised this same Peter for cutting off the ear of the High Priest's servant.  Surely Peter is in a position to tell us how to act in such a situation because he learned it from an unimpeachable source....
2022 - These verses need to stay together:
15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. [1Pe 2:15-17 ESV]
When they arrested Jesus, do you imagine they expected a fight?  Did they expect the 11 to draw swords and start swinging?  Instead, Jesus says here I am.  I'll come along peaceably, and that would have prompted some to say, Hmm...maybe we have this guy all wrong.  He certainly doesn't act like a vicious violent subverter of the Temple and/or of Roman rule?  And vs 16...Jesus wasn't hiding when they came to get him.  He was in a place where anyone could go, praying as anyone could pray.  He was not trying to conceal his devotion to God.  My my...we certainly do that.  Keep the light under a basket I mean.  At a business lunch or in a political discussion.  We don't pray over our food in public, perhaps.  Things like that.  And the last verse - HONOR EVERYONE.  This is not in any way restricted to honoring all our Christian brothers.  To make sure we know it means literally everyone, Peter gives examples of who he means.  Christians, our God, and then EVERYONE ELSE.  And that includes Joe Biden, and it included Donald Trump before him.  Peter tells us, as one with firsthand experience of resistance to authority, that it is the wrong way to do things.  Just turn around, put your hands behind your back, and follow orders.  That's what Christians are to do.  

2023 - There is just no doubt that the emperor in power when Peter wrote vs 17 was Nero.  It is interesting, I think, that we don't have to love him, but he is due honor.  Everyone is due honor, but the brotherhood is to be loved.  

2023 - Next day...The word translated "submissive" is the Greek "hypotassomenai".  A little later in this same chapter, Peter uses a little bit different form of the same Greek word.  The way he uses it gives us a clearer idea of the "intensity" of the commanded submission:  22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. [1Pe 3:22 ESV].  So, going all the way back to 1 Pet 2:13, about being "hypotasso" to human government - emperors, governors.  Servant submit to masters - even and maybe especially to the bad masters - as Jesus submitted to earthly authority.  Then in Chapter 3, that same word, hypotassomenai, as what wives show to husbands.  Angels, authorities - think fallen angles, demons - and powers - again think supernatural beings far beyond us in power, who submit to Christ's BECAUSE of his God given authority.  You can bet that fallen angels do not submit because of how much they love and honor Christ, but BECAUSE of the authority God has given Christ in his position at the right hand.  That is the extent to which we submit to government, we submit to masters/bosses, and wives submit to husbands.  This is far more intense than I'd previously though, and Peter anticipates in Chapter 2 the argument that sometimes they are not worthy of submission.  He says we are to submit anyway.  We ought not denigrate our president.  We ought not denigrate the people he appoints - and there is where it gets REALLY tough.  No matter how distasteful, no matter how erroneous, no matter how ludicrous and stupid are the orders of civil government, the ONLY ones we can ignore are those specifically contradictory to God's commands, AS FOUND IN THE BIBLE!

2023 - This verse:
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. [1Pe 2:18 NASB95].  This rankles our sensibilities today.  But the higher concept is that anyone can be nice to those who are nice to them.  Anyone can serve cheerfully if it is also serving voluntarily.  What sets Christians apart is serving by force, serving bad masters as well as good, honoring good Kings as well as Bad - and governors and mayors and so on.  We ought to be more careful about balking at this defining characteristic of Christian behavior.
Good FB post with 17 included.   WAIT!  Vs 19 drives this home.  Include it also!!!  19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. [1Pe 2:19 ESV]   And it goes on.  This is, in fact, what I would call the primary statement/definition/description of this characteristic of Christian distinction.  And how many of those we admire who are not Christians are admired because by common grace they display this characteristic!?  The notes below continue to amplify this command from Peter.

2023 - Next day...The word translated "submissive" is the Greek "hypotassomenai".  A little later in this same chapter, Peter uses a little bit different form of the same Greek word.  The way he uses it gives us a clearer idea of the "intensity" of the commanded submission:  22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. [1Pe 3:22 ESV].  So, going all the way back to 1 Pet 2:13, about being "hypotasso" to human government - emperors, governors.  Servant submit to masters - even and maybe especially to the bad masters - as Jesus submitted to earthly authority.  Then in Chapter 3, that same word, hypotassomenai, as what wives show to husbands.  Angels, authorities - think fallen angles, demons - and powers - again think supernatural beings far beyond us in power, who submit to Christ's BECAUSE of his God given authority.  You can bet that fallen angels do not submit because of how much they love and honor Christ, but BECAUSE of the authority God has given Christ in his position at the right hand.  That is the extent to which we submit to government, we submit to masters/bosses, and wives submit to husbands.  This is far more intense than I'd previously though, and Peter anticipates in Chapter 2 the argument that sometimes they are not worthy of submission.  He says we are to submit anyway.  We ought not denigrate our president.  We ought not denigrate the people he appoints - and there is where it gets REALLY tough.  No matter how distasteful, no matter how erroneous, no matter how ludicrous and stupid are the orders of civil government, the ONLY ones we can ignore are those specifically contradictory to God's commands, AS FOUND IN THE BIBLE!

Instructions to servants/employees, about serving not only good, but bad masters.  Remember that these verses are about masters, not about governments, and I think some distinction is "allowable".  So where earthly masters are concerned this summary:
23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. [1Pe 2:23 ESV]
Hmm....just the same, Jesus is held up as the example, and this was his behavior toward religious and civil authorities - but certainly not his masters.  Jesus was never a bondservant to men, nor do we have examples of him "building furniture" for men.  As Jesus behaved toward civil authority, so should we.  Our judge is in heaven, and no matter how earthly judges treat us.  Sure throws a dim light on the American Revolution...

2022 - I want to put this on my website as a full thesis.  Doesn't have to be long, I just want to expand on the idea of Jesus teaching Peter how to behave, and Peter passing it on as one with firsthand knowledge.  There can be NO DOUBT that Peter means exactly what he is saying, though we in our day and in this country will likely spend hours looking for loopholes.  There are none.

2024 - Based on the above, I wrote this and sent it:
So this morning, in my daily reading, I got to 1Peter 2:13-25.  It doesn't say anything in there about "wives and husbands", but it says a lot about authority and submission.  The authority in these verses is the Roman government which was persecuting Christians horribly at that time, and masters over slaves - making you think that slavery was becoming an issue already, even back then, among believers.  Husbands DO NOT HAVE the kind of authority over their wives that governments have, nor the kind that masters had over slaves back then.  But there is a principle here also, not just a couple of rules.  And you know the principle - dealing submissively with abuse in order to "silence the ignorance of foolish people".  But here's the thing...if you read this whole chapter, the idea was to behave in a way that "they may see your good deeds and glorify God".  The question you ask yourself might ought to be about whether leaving your husband is more likely to make people say "I thought she was supposed to be a Christian", or more likely to say "It's about time.  Only a really good Christian would have put up with him for this long!"  It is not the actual thing you do but the way people perceive it that should guide your decision.  Now don't take my word for it, but read the whole chapter.  It is an awesome chapter.  And I think finally I am onto the right way to think about things like this.  But it's your call, because you have to live with the results, whichever way you decide to go.
And then the next day I read Chapter 3, which DOES talk about wives and husbands, so the question is, does Chapter 3 change what I said after reading 2?  Likewise, so "like being subject to human institutions", and "like slaves being subject to their masters", women are to be subject to their husbands.  With marriage, it is a way of "influencing", of "winning" the husband.  If we take this all the way to hyperbole, we can ask "Are we to be submissive to the point where we allow them to kill us?"  When the government came for Jesus, he submitted.  But he stayed in Galilee for much of his ministry to avoid them.  Until the time was right for what he was sent to do.  Is a wife sent to die by  her husband's hand?  Same with slaves.  It says they are to stay when they receive unjust punishment, but that doesn't mean death.  No wife ever "won" her husband to Christ by letting him beat her over and over - abuse her continuously - until he finally kills her.  All these are about submissive behavior in the face of injustice.  Is it right to extend this to unending endurance of abuse - whether verbal only or physical abuse - or is doing that going way beyond the context?  Wives are not slaves.  Slaves can be beaten, wives cannot - but they could back when this was written...Sarah is given as a specific example of how wives should behave.  Abraham did not verbally abuse Sarah, nor did he physically abuse her.  Her submission was not to his abuse but to his decisions in all matters.  When to move, where to go, how to raise the kids perhaps.  But enduring abuse is not in the context here.

Chapter 3
2022 - It was a long, very long and very illuminating morning.  My brain is far more tired than it seems to have been in 2021.  Further, there are some really good notes here anyway.   Not saying there is nothing to add, just saying that being tired doesn't come at the price of missing this chapter completely.  We will see where this goes.

2022 - First word in the verse is a big clue - "likewise".  So 3 starts off at least as a continuation of what went before.  Submission to authority, which began in 2:13, in general, and submission to civil government as citizens and to masters if we are slaves.  Now, the theme of submission to authority continues with...

Instructions to wives begin at 3:1.  They start with "...be subject to your husbands."  How wrong this advice seems in that it  leaves no room for exceptions.  But that is what it says.

2023 - This goes on for 6 full verses.  We have to remember that Peter was married - Paul wasn't - and yet both of them say wives be subject.  I also think it is interesting that this comes in as a sort "...and while we're talking about submitting to Nero and all his minions, let's also talk about how a household ought to run.".  
2023 - See long note on submission at 2023 next day after vs 18 in chapter 2 above.
2023 - Here also is a profound statement of why a saved wife is to stay with an unsaved husband.  The example of bearing up in the face of unfairness may change him.  AND, that says something also I think about how long we should keep witnessing to the very same unsaved person.  If wives have no leave to abandon their witness, then neither do the rest of us!
2023 - Women are not to focus on physical adornment, but adornment with submissiveness, as Sarah submitted to Abraham, as all women did in those days.  Oh my...is not this an internal biblical argument that the old ways are still valid, and not to be abandoned wholesale as a result of modern "enlightenment"?
2023 - This verse:
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. [1Pe 2:18 NASB95].  This rankles our sensibilities today.  But the higher concept is that anyone can be nice to those who are nice to them.  Anyone can serve cheerfully if it is also serving voluntarily.  What sets Christians apart is serving by force, serving bad masters as well as good, honoring good Kings as well as Bad - and governors and mayors and so on.  We ought to be more careful about balking at this defining characteristic of Christian behavior.
Good FB post with 17 included.  (make sure this means SLAVERY and not voluntary servanthood before posting!).  VERSE 19 must also be included!  19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. [1Pe 2:19 ESV]
Maybe two FB posts in here.

Instruction to husbands begins in vs 7.  Be understanding, weaker vessel.  Like that.  Don't hinder prayers.  All in a single long verse.
2023 - The key word here, instead of submission, is honor.  We are to be understanding, and we are to honor our wives.  I suspect that the instructions to wives, and the justification for it, covers six verses and instructions to husbands only cover 1, is because it is FAR more difficult to be submissive to us than it is for us to honor them, if we just step back and use some common sense about it.  Even in teaching women to submit, the Bible recognizes that women have the more difficult task.
The word translated understanding is "gnosis".  It is often translated just knowledge, but the word really is about a deeper, more perfect, more in-depth comprehension than our word "knowledge" would convey.  So in ESV they make it "understanding".  KJV calls it "according to knowledge", NIV says "be considerate" and "respect".  Far off the usual translations.  The majority of translations use "understanding".  This verse, using the same word, I think gives an idea of how we ought to read this word:  33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! [Rom 11:33 ESV].
As for the word translated "honor", that is the Greek word "timen".  It is about assigning value.  The intent here is obviously that we ought o "prize" our wives, to "value" them highly.  Here is a verse that gives a good sense of the verb "honor":  44 (For Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own hometown.) [Jhn 4:44 ESV].  In this case, a prophet's words are considered inconsequential by those who know him well.  In the verse in 1 Peter, he means that the value of a wife ought to be very very high.  I looked at a lot of verses that use this word.  What I found is that when the word is used this this way, it generally indicates something that is considered at least "quite valuable" if not of "great value".  When the value is not a positive, but a negative, the Greek prefix a- is put in front.  So instead of timen, atimen.  So you don't really get a different word that say something has "a lot of timen", because timen already implies that.  If it is not very valuable, you don't say it has low timen, you say it has the opposite of "great  value".  It is trash, in other words.  So no doubt Peter means we ought to value our wives very highly.  
I know that's a lot of notes just on two words, but my goodness, how important is it for husbands and wives to conform to God's plans for husbands and wives!?

2022 - But both of these instructions suggest an attitude not of authority or dominance, but of submissive respect for the other's views, honoring and respecting each other, and not of either person "owning" the relationship.  Surely it is easy to spot the "two-way street" idea in these verses.

Instruction to "everyone" begins in 8.  The verse starts with "finally", signalling a closing of this section.  By everyone, I think he means the community of believers.  Unity is urged first, and that would only apply to a group of believers.  This is about how to treat those "within".  

This verse:
10 For "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; [1Pe 3:10 ESV]  TCR links this also to the sequence on Evil Speaking, that I noted yesterday.  I put it on the list to do a topical study about how we should talk.  I can't help but link it also to Jordan Peterson's admonition to always tell the truth, always say what you mean, and be prepared to be called wrong - to actually be wrong - and learn from that.  But it cannot happen if you don't say what you mean.  This "evil speaking" topic is about what NOT to do when you decide to tell the truth.

2022 - Again in the Jordan Peterson vein, turn from evil and DO good.  Not only is this about not contributing to the distress or oppression of others, but about actually doing as much good in the world as is possible for us.  It is about being proactive, pushing, exhausting ourselves for the sakes of others.  And so that our sleep may be sweet.

An important verse, that I once had memorized...in the ESV, you really need to memorize three verses to get it into context:
14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. [1Pe 3:14-16 ESV]
We do need to be able to answer the "why" of our submissive behavior, of our hope for better in heaven, for any and all that we believe that contrasts with the values of our culture or the world.  We are to be a staunch, irreproachable example of what we preach, so that those who call us "bad" people will be recognized as liars and of evil intent by others.
2021 - So this verse is not really about apologetics, as I was always led to believe.  This is about answering those who believe not returning evil for evil is stupid  About being able to explain why you are not just a doormat to anyone who comes along with dirty shoes, but are instead a stone in the walls of the temple being built to honor God.  We need to be able to answer when lost, non-Christian friends ask us why we took that abuse - verbal or physical - without even trying to retaliate or defend ourselves.  That's what this verse is really about.  So...perhaps it is about apologetics in a limited way, but I don't believe Peter is talking about being able to defend creationism on FB.  I don't think it is even about defending the Trinity from Muslims.  This is about being able to explain Christian behavior in the face of abusive, unjustified, corrupt persecution leveled at us BECAUSE we are Christians.  And in vss 17 and 18, Peter goes ahead and gives us the defense we should use:
17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, [1Pe 3:17-18 ESV]
2022 - Look at the piercing logic of these two verses!  Why would you let those who would persecute you for Christ's sake get away with that, and not even try to get in a couple busted lips or black eyes as you go down?  Why wouldn't you?!?!?!  Well...Jesus didn't.  Think of what he was capable of doing, how he might have just routed the Jews AND the Romans and freed himself.  But he didn't.  He took all that they dished out, and not only didn't fight back, he didn't even mouth off.  Didn't say "Do your worst, I'll never yield", nothing like that.  And that is the defense we should make.  We don't retaliate because our Savior did not, and he rose from the dead, and our hope is based on his assurance that we will also, into his presence.
2023 FB post?

2021 - And again this year, I am tired from what has gone before, and am just now getting to the difficulty.  I do think I saw a lot of new things in the first part this year.  Even so, next year, I'll switch the emphasis.
We are now into the "difficult" section.  Here is 19 (but you have to have 18 for it to make sense, so...):
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, [1Pe 3:18-19 ESV]  Interesting that 18 is required to conclude the previous section, but also opens into the next section.  Wonder if the translators misplaced a period?  At any rate, this seems to me to refer to Jesus resurrected body, a new body, perfect, and free from the curse on all Adam's descendants.  

2022 - I have often heard 18 quoted, but rarely in context.  It is a clear statement of the propitiatory nature of the crucifixion, but not as a part of doctrinal treatise.  As what should be an obvious to all reminder that our suffering for good can never stand up to comparison with what Christ went through.

2023 - Here I am again, having spent a serious amount of time on the first 7 verses, and finding myself quite spent - and behind schedule already with half this chapter and three chapters of Ezekiel to go.  I am making a note that next year, I will START with vs 18, and then go back to the beginning, but today, I'm just reading my way on out.
2021 - "in the spirit".  He went and proclaimed "in the spirit".  What does that phrase mean?  It is used 18 times in 18 verses.  Sometimes, the "s" is capitalized, sometimes not, depending on whether or not the interpreters believed it referred to the Holy Spirit, or just spirit.  First use is here:
1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. [Eze 37:1 ESV]  Seems to indicate a separation from the physical body.  Since Ezekiel was not dead, this sort of thing could only be accomplished "in the Spirit".  This one is a little different:
17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared." [Luk 1:17 ESV]  No capitalization here.  Still not talking about the physical body, but to attributes of character and behavior that arise from what is inside, invisible.
Our bodies, after resurrection, will be like Christ's body after the resurrection.  We will be some kind of combination of uncorrupted flesh and spirit.  We can walk through walls (2023 - Or not.  Read a pretty good book that says the Bible really never says he walked through a wall.  Kind of implied, and we run with it, but it does not technically say that.) - Jesus certainly did - but will also still eat fish.  So I think the passage here in 1Pet is about Jesus resurrected body.  The body that Thomas saw and believed in.  In that body, Jesus went to "prison", and "proclaimed".  Here is the Strong's explanation of G2784:
κηρύσσωkērýssō, kay-roos'-so; of uncertain affinity; to herald (as a public crier), especially divine truth (the gospel):—preacher(-er), proclaim, publish.  So, the "easy" way to interpret this is that Jesus proclaimed his perfect life, his sacrifice on the cross to redeem the lost, and his victory over death.  If this was proclaimed to the demons in the pit, what purpose did it serve?  I recall this verse:  8 Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." [Eph 4:8 ESV]  Does it make sense here to say this is about divided Sheol, and that those OT saints who were waiting in the "good section" of Sheol -where they had been captive until the redemption price was paid - and who could now follow Christ into the presence of God?  Could it be that Jesus went and proclaimed to them the mystery not revealed in their own time, but now accomplished by him?  This seems to make sense here...but will it hold up in context as we move on.  The following is from MSB, that I included last year.  Also - I haven't really sped back up to get through this either.

MSB says the spirits in prison are the demons bound in the pit, now.  They are already there.  Revelation says that pit is going to be opened during Great Tribulation, and some are going to come out of there.  Ultimately, those there now, and those still free to roam about, will be confined there forever.  In his new body after resurrection, Jesus went to that pit and proclaimed his victory over death.  
2021 - It is likely based on the next verse:
20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. [1Pe 3:20 ESV].  So the argument would be that the disobedient do not get into heaven.  Pretty much the whole world - except for 8 - was wiped out by the flood.  

2022 - Vss 19, 20 just seem to me that they must reference human spirits, imprisoned and waiting for the Great White Throne Judgment, when they will be released from the place where the rich man also burns in fire, aware of the world he had left and of the hopelessness of his situation, and separated by that vast gulf - a prison of sorts from which he could never escape - for just a short time, during which they will have their every sin read out to them as though charges as they stand in the docket, and then they will go from that prison to the Lake of Fire, forever and ever.  That's what I think this verse is about.  
2023 - See the 2023 note on vs 4:6 below also, which seems to be about this same topic, and just as difficult.  But if I could study them together, maybe I could sort out both!

(2023 - Need to get the notes I have on "descended" in the confession from Grudem, plus Kelly's notes on Eph 4 the other day, AND look again at MSB. Remembering that MacArthur says this one is tough to really pin down.  Still, I would like to have my interpretation pinned down.  Couple more preparatory ideas.  When he "descended" it might just mean he was buried.  He was "put in the ground".  So the "leading" may be that he was the first to be resurrected from the dead in a glorified body, and many many more will follow at the rapture.  But he lead, he was firstfruits.  Also, at this point, I would still hold to the idea that no one could go into the presence of God until the price was paid in full.  Not even in spirit.  And remember, those in heaven now are there in spirit only.  Their physical bodies do not join them until the rapture.)

2022 - I think these verses reference the same event, though they don't seem to do much for clarification:
8 Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." 9 (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) [Eph 4:8-10 ESV]
He was leading those who formerly were captives, and he gave them spiritual gifts.  Captives under the Law, separated by the veil, now freed, though Christ, to be temples of the Holy Spirit and exercise spiritual gifts?  Hmm...kinda sounds good...is it right?  The only way this works is if he went down to Hades, where those from before Noah's day? were imprisoned...but only them????  No.  All those who died in sin are there.  Unless this thought, from 1Peter and Ephesians are doctrinal and informative that those who died before Noah are treated differently than those after.  This is getting a little to stretched for me today.  I think the fact that Noah is talked about in connection with these is a key to understanding it, and I've never really pulled that out of it before.  And I do think these 1Pet verses and the Eph verses are connected.  What about this in Proverbs:
4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know! [Pro 30:4 ESV]
I really don't think that's what this verse is about.  This is about whether anyone has been up to heaven and come back to tell the tale.  
So, conclusion for 2022 - Noah, Hades, Tartarus, Paradise, and spiritual gifts are all intricately connected in a logical manner.  It remains for me to unlock that connection.

MSB note to vs 20 says that the demons referred to in 19 were free to roam in the days of Noah.  Perhaps this is an explanation for how the entire world, except for 8 people, was reduced to rebellion and sinfulness with no prospect of repentance.  There were so many, and they were so vile, and so accomplished at evil and deceit and lies, that they deceived the whole world.  If this is what it means, where does it say that after the flood, God locked them up until the end?

2021 - I went to Dake's even, trying to get more insight to this, but was unsuccessful.  I am not positive, but it seems to me that Dake agrees with MacArthur, since Dake refers to the prison as Tartarus, which in Greek mythology is the pit of torment.  I do note, though, that the Greeks see it as a place for evil people, and a lot of other non-biblical things, rather than a pit for the demons themselves and them alone.  There are tons of images of Tartarus on the web.  Here is one:

It seems to me that the ones who formerly did not obey must refer to people, not to angels.  Those angels still don't obey.  They rebelled with Satan, and never repented, nor will they ever repent.  But also, for 120 years while the ark was being built, not one soul on earth repented either.  God's patience gave these awful, evil people that long to repent, but in the end, only 8 went into the ark and were saved.  If looked at this way, again, we would see Jesus proclaiming to all of Sheol, not to all the demons in the pit, that he had triumphed over death, and then he led the captives on the good side up into heaven, leaving all those pre-flood souls in the fires of hell, with the understanding that the work of Christ on earth had been accomplished, and that there is now no chance of escape for them.  Perhaps their previous hope had been that if Christ failed, then in order to save His son, God would also have to bring an end to the suffering of the ungodly.  I just have a huge problem with Jesus going to the pit full of demons and announcing what they would already have known.  See also my notes on Sheol and Abaddon at Prov 15:11

(2023 - A bit of an aside on election.  Noah preached for 120 years.  Did the original ark design include room for those who might convert of their own free will?  Was some kind of "scalability" factor included in the ark, so that it could just have extra sections added between the bow and stern for however many people repented because of Noah's preaching?  If it was "absolutely free will", as in Grudem 32, how would even God know how big to build the boat?  In some way, somehow, God knew who HE would save from the flood.  HE decided and HIS decision was binding on the whole world.  God knew the ark would only have 8 passengers.  BUT, never forget that despite God's knowledge of this, God still had Noah preach.)

2022 - See also the notes on 4:6 below.  There is a good theory there, though we must still deal with the phrase "because they formerly did not obey".  But good notes on 4:6 as to this difficult passage.  And still, is it something about pre-flood faith that made this necessary?  Had there been any prophecy at all about the coming of Christ before the flood in Genesis 8?

And that last part - safely through the water...MSB note says they were kept safe not BY the water, but DESPITE the water.  The water symbolizes judgement on the earth here, not salvation.  

21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [1Pe 3:21 ESV]
I turn again to MSB, because I am getting tired from a long morning of study, I am distracted by things going on, and because this is "hard".
MSB says that the "correspondence" is between the way the ark "kept safe" the 8 people inside during God's judgement of the whole world, and the way that we are "kept safe" by our position in Christ as the world is continually judged in our own day.  Christ is "the ark of our salvation".
Going to just quote the MSB on the rest of it.  I don't think I have enough left to absorb it:
"Peter is not at all referring to water baptism here, but rather a figurative immersion into union with Christ as an ark of safety from the judgment of God.  The resurrection of Christ demonstrates God's acceptance of Christ's substitutionary death for the sins of those who believe.  Judgement fell on Christ just as the judgement of the flood waters fell on the ark.  The believer who is in Christ is thus in the ark of safety that will sail over the waters of judgment into eternal glory."  As to the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh.", to be sure he is not misunderstood, Peter clearly says he is not speaking of water baptism.  In Noah's flood, they were kept out of the water while those who went into the water were destroyed.  Being in the ark and thus saved from God's judgment on the world prefigures being in Christ and thus saved from eternal damnation."
This seems a pretty good analogy - but not a simple, clear, concise, inarguable analogy.  This is the kind of thing that a person stubbornly committed to another view of it could easily disregard because of the complexity of the argument.  I agree it does seem to "reach" for an explanation.  But if we want to say it truly is about baptismal regeneration, then that view must be based solely on the basis of water being present both then and in baptism., and must disregard the symbolism of the water.  In the first instance, water killed all but those who stayed out of it.  In baptismal generation, water saves only those who are immersed completely into it - and then taken back out.  There is no correspondence here.

2021 - Dake's actually has a pretty good note on this verse.  It is a long note, and there's no way for me to copy it, so going to do this the hard way, then move right on through 4 and 5...they're pretty short anyway.  First, I need to show the verse as Dake translates it:
"20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."  And here is the very long note:
The like figure of baptism in water also saves us.  How does it save us?  Is it the water that saves or the thing that it is a figure of?  It was not the water that saved the 8 persons of v 20.  It was the ark that saved them from drowning in the flood.  So baptism in water does not save the soul, but faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that which baptism is a figure of, does save the soul (Rom. 6:3-5; 1Cor 15:1-4; Eph 1:14; Col 1:20-22).  A mere figure can have no power to save, but the reality of the figure can.  Peter, lest some should trust in water baptism to save the soul, makes it very clear that baptism does not save one from the filth or moral depravity of the flesh.  He shows it to be only the answer of a good conscience toward God, one that has been made clean by faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (v 21).  It is clear here that at baptism the conscience is already supposed to be good and clean and baptism merely answers to it.  As the waters of the flood could not have saved these 8 persons, had they not made use of the ark, so the water of baptism does not save the soul of anyone, but testifies figuratively to the salvation that comes by faith (Rom 1:16; 3:24-25; 10:9-10).  See note a, Mt. 3:11, note q, Acts 22:16.

Moving quickly on through the last two chapters.

Chapter 4
Chapter begins with "Since", which is just another word for "Therefore".  (2023 - No.  This is not a therefore.  This is maybe "because".)
First paragraph urges Peter's recipients to forego the earthly "Gentile" pleasures that they previously "enjoyed".  Since it is eternity and the rewards of heaven that are truly important, and those cannot be enjoyed until after the death of the body, then the pleasures of the body are futile and without permanent regard.  Death is when we actually begin what is permanent.  Expect old, sinful friends to be taken aback, to feel judged by us, and to even express anger and try diligently to draw us back into those old ways of doing things as we try to live a holy life.  Peter is adamant that we are not to go back to that.
2023 - They can also get absolutely screaming furious in the face of clear and undeniable evidence that the holy life is our choice.  They can sometimes see it as a contest that they are progressively losing.  

2022 - These verses:
4 With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; 5 but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. [1Pe 4:4-5 ESV]
First, I note today that coming judgment is announced throughout the Bible.  When you have it in mind, it shows up absolutely everywhere - for the living and the dead, for the saved and the unsaved.

2021 - This verse though:
6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does. [1Pe 4:6 ESV]  Here is Peter explaining to whom Jesus preached.  It is not the demons in the pit, it is people.  I would say this means that those in Sheol who had died under the law, or before the law, but had not heard the gospel of Christ, COULD NOT be saved until Jesus was proclaimed to them!  It is the same thing John says in his gospel.  There is only one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ and him only.  They died in the flesh, but their faith - a spiritual matter - allows them to live ONCE THEY HAVE HEARD ABOUT, AND APPLY THE FAITH THEY ALREADY HAVE EVEN THOUGH DEAD, TO HIS NAME.  That's not a very good sentence.  These souls would not be in the good part of Sheol if they didn't have saving faith when they died.  But only faith in JESUS will get you into heaven.  That is why Jesus went to preach to those in prison (read Sheol).
2023 - Or...is it a matter of jurisdiction?  Are those that never heard the gospel immune from judgment based on whether they accepted or rejected the gospel?  I have always gone to the "heavens declare the glory of God" verse wrt those who never heard the gospel, either OT or NT.  But what then is that whole 3:19 preaching to those in prison about?  That verse is specifically about the days of Noah.  Do the dispensationalist teach that there was something about that dispensation - the pre-Noahic - that entitled them to some sort of "after death gospel presentation"?  When you put these two verses together, a chapter apart, by the same APOSTLE writer, you surely must at least consider that it is something like that. But this does seem to limit it to the 120 years of Noah's ministry.  Is it God's justice that demands that all get a chance to accept the gospel before all on earth are destroyed?  Noah couldn't preach to everyone...but that doesn't make sense.  People who haven't heard the gospel die every day.  Do they also get another chance in heaven?  That is not a doctrine I have ever heard preached.  It would only apply to those who never heard, not to those who rejected.  I don't think that's what it means - because it is so "new" - but I don't have anything else that I believe either.  Peter mentions it twice.  Twice.  It has to be important.  Why can we not understand it?  The MSB note says that Peter was referencing people who were perhaps martyred, who we "judged" in the flesh and put to death but who, in spirit, will live forever in God's presence.  There is also an extensive set of notes on 3:19 that I did not have time to study yesterday.  Making a note up there to see this note also.
2024 - Jesus went and declared his victory to the faithful in Sheol who could not, without us, be made perfect.  They could not go into God's presence until the perfect sacrifice was complete.  So once Jesus died, he went to Sheol, the place where souls wait for the judgment, and gave them the good news - they had trusted God in life, and death was not their end because Jesus also died for them, and paid for their sins also, such that that they could move from Sheol to heaven at that time, as the souls of the saved today go directly from earthly bodies to the presence of God.  This makes sense to me.  I don't know what else could.
2025 - Perhaps - it seems too unorthodox to be true - we ought to focus on the idea that there is only one name under heaven by which we can be saved.  That name is Jesus.  The OT faithful like say Abraham's other sons and the slaves in his household, had faith because Abraham did they surely had no knowledge of the name of Jesus.  Those who see and seek God because of the glory declared by the heavens, because of the majesty and incomprehensible complexity of creation, who were out in the jungles in places undiscovered and unreached by men of faith, had never heard of the name of Jesus.  But they had faith in a greater than themselves, a LORD of all, a creator.  And after his death Jesus went into the part of Sheol where the faithful were waiting, and he told them of himself and he revealed to them that HE was the object of the faith they discovered on earth, and so all those who died having never heard the name of Jesus, but who died with saving faith in an unknown God, had the gospel preached to them by Jesus himself, heard his name, believed on Him, and were ushered from Sheol to heaven.  This is the justice of God toward those who have heard.  It may still apply today in the case of those who have never heard the name.  You MUST believe in Jesus to get to heaven.  There is no other way.  And here Peter tells us how that works.

We shouldn't even be surprised when "fiery trials" come.  This should be seen as the "new normal" of the Christian life.  

2022 - I cannot believe I have no notes on vss 7-11.  There are many statements in there that ought to be studied out.  Among them:
7 The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers. [1Pe 4:7 ESV].  How does sobriety and self-control enhance prayers, and their opposites harm them?  Prayers offered in drunkenness not heeded by God?  If you are out of his will, either angry or in a frivolous mood, He will not hear?  What does this mean?
8 Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. [1Pe 4:8 ESV]  What?  Is there a scoreboard?  Does love cover our own sins, or those of others?  The Greek word for "covers" is kalypto.  Same as the root of "apokalupsis" at the rapture?  Or maybe "apokalypto" for end times?  Those words are about uncovering, about illumination, about visible obvious revealing.  Maybe this is a practical idea that simply means that if we show love to others, they will perhaps not judge us for the sinners that we really are, underneath?  
I really don't know what these mean, but this whole list of admonitions toward Christian behavior is worth regular review.

There is an "amen" at the end of vs. 11.

2023 - ...and 4:12 seems to begin a whole new section of the letter:

2022 - Hmm...left out 12-16 also!  I must have been tired, reading so many chapters in a single morning.  This verse especially:
14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. [1Pe 4:14 ESV]
This verse, indeed this section, ties back to 1Pet 3:17.  That verse, and this one, are encouragement to and clarification of the "honor" that suffering for our beliefs brings.  Because to suffer for righteousness is to be like Christ.  Because getting singled out for insult means that the Spirit of God shines from you so that even sinners can tell that you belong to Him.  What a privilege!  What a commendation!  These are how we should feel.
Is there a whole series of FB posts here?  3:17 and this verse at least, and possibly some more about suffering for Christ? 

2023  - Suffering for Christ is a good thing, but do not suffer for murder or theft...that is, don't live the kind of life that brings civil government down on you for committing crimes that are crimes both to God and man.  Live an exemplary Christian life, so that if we suffer at the hands of government, it is like the suffering that Christ did, who had broken no civil law, and yet was crucified - and glorified - because he took it without a word.  Peter portrays this as a very great blessing.  

This is an interesting verse:
17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? [1Pe 4:17 ESV]
Judgment begins with us - with Christians.  And if the things that happen to us who are in Christ are awful to contemplate, imagine the judgment that awaits sinners.  This is one to be careful of.  Does it say that sickness, disease, being robbed, being beaten, being killed by evil men in pursuit of evil are all judgements on the saved?  Can't mean that!  These verses are about persecution for the cause of Christ, which strengthen our faith and earn rewards in heaven - it is these trials that have eternal results.  Cancer is not a judgment...hmmm...but it could be like the blind man who was blind to show God's glory.   Perhaps we should say that our suffering - of whatever kind, from whatever source - should be used to exemplify our focus on things to come, and rather than railing against persecution by man or against the ravages of disease, we should welcome them for the eternal rewards bound up in how we deal with them in a Godly way, and as accelerating us toward the glorification of our bodies.  Hmm....
2022 - Or...maybe it means that at the GWT, when the dead are judged, both saved and lost, and they read out what we could have done compared to the dismally little that we actually did, and they see our grief for our failures, and the pronouncement of God and they see that our poor works or our misdirected words burn up in the fire and mean nothing in heaven, so that our reward is much less than it might have been, imagine the dread that will come over the lost as they await their turn at in the dock.  Maybe that's what it means...

Chapter 5
2022 - First 3 vss are instructions to elders - from one elder to the rest.  Take care of the flock because it is right, it is what Jesus did, and he suffered for his trouble.  Be an elder not for personal gain, ambition, and regard, but because God would have it so.  And be an example.  You don't get "extra privileges" for being an elder, but a narrower road instead.  

2023 - The word used for elder here is presbyteros.  I don't see that as a general word for old people but as a church office.  It is used 66 times in the mGNT.  There are some uses in the NT where the "elders and chief priests" is the phrase, and even there, elders are a subset of all elders, I think.  They are a group somehow set apart and considered "worthy", deserving of honor and respect, consultants in all matters.  I did not look at all 66 uses though, so I may be missing something.  I note further that Peter gives himself this same title, co-elder with those he is addressing.  
2023 - The exhortation, while in some ways applicable to all, warns against wrong exercise of authority, of functioning for financial gain rather than as service to God.  These all reinforce the idea that this is a church office, and a decision-making office, that therefore carries some authority within the church.  Authority that ought to be humbly exercised.  
2024 - This morning's OT reading included Ezekiel 34, where God indicts the bad shepherd's of that day, and promises a good shepherd to look after the sheep as they come home in the Millennial.  Look at the instructions - exercise oversight, not for gain, not domineering but as examples.  These themes very precisely parallel Eze 34.  This is not coincidence.  Peter was thinking of Ezekiel at this point, and though he does not exactly quote Ezekiel, it is hard to deny that Peter wasn't referencing indirectly Eze 34:1-7.

Encouragement to church leaders.  
2022 - This verse:
4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. [1Pe 5:4 ESV]
I need to include these crowns in the whole bema seat judgment context of my study.  An unfading crown of glory...not a special jewel in your displayed crown of reward.  And you get this when he appears.  Does that Greek word "phanaroo" imply the rapture or the second coming?  If the rapture, this crown comes only to those resurrected or living at the rapture - only to those in Christ.  OT saints get not such crown.  But if we go with this, the rewards do appear to be dispensed in heaven, after the rapture.  Maybe that's where the "Judgment seat of Christ" is seen, and the "ho bema ho theos" is the GWT.  But what of the sheep and goats if you go with it that way?
MSB note says it this way: " When He appears at the second coming, He will evaluate the ministry of pastors at the judgment seat of Christ."  Pastors...not necessarily everyone?  He is calling the S&G throne a bema seat if he does this.  Least it appears that way.  And why restrict it to "pastors", when the word is "elders"?  And only the living will be judged at the S&G, not Peter, though Peter includes himself with other elders.  Word is "presbyteros".  That is always elders.

2023 - Word study on "phanaroo" and its uses in the NT.  It is used 49 times in 43 verses in the mGNT and 49 times in the KJV.  In the KJV it is translated "make manifest" 19 times and "appear" 12 times.  It seems always to be about a literal, physical appearance.  That means this is NOT about the rapture and so the bema seat in heaven, but about the Pre-Millennial judgment.  This is a judgment of the living.  A judgment of those who are on earth at the second coming.  The only saved people at this judgment are those saved during tgt.  The rest were all raptured 7 years before.  So these crowns are available to a very distilled group, which I think we'll be almost exclusively Jews.  They can wear these crowns during the Millennial reign.  So perhaps these crowns are literal, physical crowns.  Here are some relevant verses:
14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table...[Mar 16:14a ESV]
11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. [Jhn 2:11 ESV]
10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. [2Co 4:10 ESV]
Note that this is always a literal, visible, physical word.  A "real time for all to see" kind of word.  I don't think the rapture will be like that.  The second coming will be the kind of "no doubt at all" appearance of Jesus.  Based on my study of the three judgments, then, the crown of glory will be given at the Pre-Millennial judgment, the Sheep an Goat judgment.
2023 - The word here translated crown is the Greek "stephanos".  This word is used of a wreath or garland as those awarded in athletic contests in those days.  It not a "golden crown" or anything like that.  This makes sense in the context of the pre-millennial judgement of those who have survived tgt at the second coming.  The sheep will recognized for their faithfulness.  I think the word study on phaneroo and the use here of stephanos rather than diadema - which is the conqueror's crown, or xxxxx - which is the King's crown.
BUT, there is this use of stephanos:  14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. [Rev 14:14 ESV].  "a golden stephanos".  So...probably best not to be making any interpretations based on a stephanos vs a diadem.  "Diadems" is used of the crowns on the beast with seven heads and ten horns and diadems on each head.  This word diadems is ONLY in Revelation, and only three times there.  I did not find a Greek word that is exclusively a King's crown, but the definition of diadem excluded "King's crown" as if there is another specific word for that crown.  
2023 - So,  unexpectedly and with no intention to do so, I have learned that the word "stephanos" is the most commonly used Greed word in the NT translated "crown".  I have seen that the "experts" say it is a laurel.  But I have seen it come in gold too, not just in green.  So I will be very very careful from here on about what I read into "stephanos".  I will NOT have my interpretation dependent on that word being the one that is used.

The summary verses for living life as a Christian seem to be these:
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, 7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. [1Pe 5:6-7 ESV]

2022 - Vs 6 above goes right along with this.  How will he exalt us, and when is the proper time?  Is this the judgment for what we might have done but did not?  Why would that result in exaltation?  All of us, even the saved, fall far short of what we might have done?  Are we going to be exalted for the few things that we did get right?  For investing the talents instead of burying them...usually?  And  here is another thing...If we have a chance to witness and we do not, how is that not a sin of omission?  And if, at the bema seat, we are judged for not doing what we could have/should have, how is that not a judgment for sin?  And if we are judged for those sins, why not all sins?  It should be all or none shouldn't it?  Are we to think that at this judgment of the saved, all that will be mentioned are the successes, however few, however trivial, and that we are to receive some reward even for those?  Because that's what it would have to be according to this thinking.

2022 - This verse:
10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. [1Pe 5:10 ESV]
Is this to happen on earth, or this a heavenly reward?  Surely this must point to restoration of our bodies, confirmation of our name in the book, is strengthen the best word here, and then show you where you live in heaven for eternity?  
Pretty much ALL the translations use "strengthen" here.  NIV says "make you strong".  Interestingly though, this is the only place in the Bible where this word is used.  Just Peter, and just in 1Pet 5.  So there's no context to say another word might be better.  No context to say there isn't a better word for this usage.  But I think I am out there a little bit on this one.  Peter is talking about present suffering.  Just back in vs 9, he encourages us to remember that our brothers elsewhere are suffering similarly to what we are going through, and we should be encouraged by that.  So he is talking about earthly, current, ongoing persecution, which also ties us back to his original intention in the letter, back in 1:6.  "...you have been grieved..." for a little while so that, having survived this present testing, we will have praise, glory, and honor at his appearing.  And there's that word again...
The tie between chapter 1 and chapter 5 cannot be overlooked.  This is about earthly testing, resulting in heavenly reward, at his appearing.  What is meant by "appear", rapturo or phaneroo?  Back in vs 4, the MSB note clearly connects this with the second coming, not with the rapture.  So he is saying that "pastors", not elders and not the rank and file who are saved, get judged at the S&G.    I don't seem to be the only one tempted to divide divide divide to make it all fit.  I don't think that is how it is meant to be done.  But I don't know.  Perhaps I will get deeper into it as part of the judgment study.

2023 - This interesting phrase:
13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son. [1Pe 5:13 ESV].  "She" is a church, in Rome, we believe.  Babylon is a "misdirection" should the letter fall into the wrong hands, so that the persecutors are not "directed" to the church at Rome.

2024 - I am not sure that in vs 13 "She" is the church in Rome.  I think we might see this as a reference to Peter's own wife, who was crucified also in Rome.  She was with him there.  He refers perhaps to his wife and the "son" they were not able to have themselves?  This makes good sense, and  then we are left to discuss what it means that she is "likewise chosen"?  Surely it does not mean apostle.  Perhaps though it means partner in the ministry of the church?  Helpmate in that huge task?  Could mean elect.  Here is the BLB definition of the word ESV translates "likewise chose":  συνεκλεκτόςsyneklektós, soon-ek-lek-tos'; from a compound of G4862 and G1586; chosen in company with, i.e. co-elect (fellow Christian):—elected together with.  
This is the only time this word is used in the Bible.  
ESV is above, here are a few others:
13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son. [1Pe 5:13 KJV].  In this KJV, the words in parenthesis here mean that are "supplied by the translator".  The words are not there "one for one".  
13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son. [1Pe 5:13 KJV].  They'd already changed it by the NKJV.  
This one is interesting:  13 Your sister church here in Babylon sends you greetings, and so does my son Mark. [1Pe 5:13 NLT].  This really trots on out there into interpretation rather than translation.
Obviously, there is a lot of discussion as to what this word really means.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon makes it a pretty specific term:
συνεκλεκτός, συνεκλεκτή, συνεκλεκτον (see ἐκλεκτός), elected or chosen (by God to eternal life) together with: 1 Peter 5:13.  He makes it reference elect, which I would think definitely means it is about a person rather than a church.

2023 - This is about the second coming.  I am basing this on the use of phanaroo here and not any of the "rapture" words.  So if this is The Millennial, how are we to understand what Peter is saying?  Perhaps this is another example of just how quickly the 1st century Christians expected the second coming to happen.  Perhaps they ALL thought they'd see it.  But it didn't happen...and since inspired, these words must also have some meaning for us.  What is it we are to see in this?

MSB Book Intro to 2 Peter
Pretty much unequivocally written by Peter.  However, MSB says critics have generated more controversy over 2 Peter's authorship and rightful place in the canon of Scripture than over any other NT book.  Wow.  I had no idea.  The church fathers were slow about accepting it.  No church father even mentions 2 Peter until Origen, near the beginning of the third century.  (the "200's".  At least 100 years after the last apostle died.)  Eusebius, an ancient church historian (260-340 AD, more or less), included 2 Peter on his list of disputed books, along with James, Jude, 2 and 3 John.  
The books use different Greek styles - but that can be explained by Silvanus being  the "amanuensis" of the first letter, and either Peter himself or a different amanuensis helping with the second.  Vocabulary is different in the two books because the themes are different.  One is written to help suffering Christians , Two is written to expose false teachers.  But there are also some important words that are used in both books - that is, the vocabulary also has a number of similarities that point to a common author.
And why would a false teacher spuriously write a letter that condemns false teachers?  MSB says no unusual, new, or false doctrines appear in 2 Peter.  So if it is a forgery, it is a forgery written by a fool for no reason at all.  
Tradition says Peter died during Nero's persecution of Christians, and Nero died in 68 AD.  So the epistle may have been written just before Peter's death (see 1:14) in 67 or 68 AD.

This letter expresses Peter's growing concern about false teachers in the church.  We don't know where Peter was when he wrote this letter, unlike our information about the first letter, but it is generally believed that he was in prison in Rome, awaiting execution.  Also unlike the first letter, Peter doesn't tell us in the introduction to whom he is writing.  However, 3:1 indicates this letter was to the same people as the first letter.  Peter is writing mostly to Gentiles in churches in various Roman provinces in what is modern-day Turkey.
MSB has this to say - "This book is the most graphic and penetrating expose of false teachers in Scripture, comparable only to Jude."

MSB goes on to say that Peter is kind of generic about what the false teachers were saying.  What he does say is that they teach "destructive heresies", they deny Christ, and twist the scriptures.  They bring true faith into disrepute.  And they mock the second coming.  These are readily identifiable characteristics and should help us to recognize false teachers when we hear them.  BUT, Peter was also concerned about the immoral character of the teachers themselves, and so describes the teachers in more detail than he describes the teaching.  

Other themes include motivating his readers to continue to develop their Christian character.  "In so doing, he explains wonderfully how a believer can have assurance of his salvation."  He also shows that apostolic writings are divine in 1:12-21.  Peter also shows that knowledge of true doctrine is the best defense against false doctrine. (((Am I always looking for some "special revelation" of scripture I alone can see, when instead, I should be making sure that my own thinking is in conformance with orthodoxy?  2024 - I think we have to do both.  God is not afraid of our "exploring" so long as we are seeking only to better know his word.  BUT, anything that seems to be "new" should always be compared and contrasted with orthodox teachings, to make sure that what we have find is not a "destructive heresy" previously identified, does not deny Christ, twist the scriptures - all the things Peter has just said are characteristic of false teaching.  I think about Chitwood.  So much twisting...)))

MSB says the most important challenge in the epistle is to rightly interpret 1:19-21, because of its far-reaching implications with regard to the nature and authenticity of Scripture.  That passage, along with 2Ti 3:15-17 is vital to a sound view of the Bible's inspiration.  Peter says the Lord "bought" false teachers, which poses a challenge interpretively and theologically with regard to the nature of the atonement.  We also don't really know who it is that Peter describes as "angels who sinned (2:4).  Many who believe the saved can be lost again use 2:18-22 for their argument.  And lastly, whom does God not want to punish?  These are all going to be covered in the MSB verse notes.

2 Peter Chapter 1
2022 - Looks like I have extensive notes here from 2021.  

The greeting says it is from Simeon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.  There is only one of these.  So in the first line, this is either from Peter, or a blatant forgery.
Then we get to 1:5-11, wherein we can be assured of our salvation, according to MSB.  I like the phrasing in ESV here:
5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, [2Pe 1:5 ESV]
Works are to be seen as a supplement to faith.  Strong's says the Greek word here is to supply, furnish, present.  So to "present your faith" with virtue, to "supply your faith" with virtue.  It also has the sense of nourishment.  That is to "feed your faith" with virtuous behavior.  Then there is a long list of what I suppose we could call "Christian virtues".  How does this relate to assurance of salvation?  
2021 - I think it is important to include the progression that comes with attention to supplementing our faith.  Here is how it works:
5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. [2Pe 1:5-7 ESV]  This is the path laid out for us, this is the direction we go, this is the straight and narrow.  We try to grow, to progress, to "master" these things.  We focus on becoming more like God - to mold ourselves into the divine nature - than just continuing to do as the corrupt nature of our bodies prefers.  We are to overcome the broken flesh - to put what the flesh wants low on the list - and instead strive to be something better than an animal driven by only the most primitive, basest, selfish ambitions that we can have.

2024 - The way to look at these is as a sequence where each thing "fuels" the next.  And we start at the end of the list and we work backwards.  So the ultimate goal of all this is faith.  If we want our faith to grow, we must understand that it is fueled by virtue - in the NT Greek sense of virtue.  So starting from the end and working backwards, here is how we might lay out a plan to "restart" this process, or just to grow in each area, but focusing first on the items that fuel that area.  So:
It starts with love.  That ought not be any surprise.  We first "practice" love as a verb.  We love our family, even when they mess up.  We love our neighbors, even when they don't mow their yard.  We work on loving all whom we see or meet, where ever they are.  If we do this, work on this, INCREASE in loving others, this will feed brotherly affection within us.  That makes sense.  If we love others more, then surely our affection for our brothers - I think Christian brothers and sisters are in view - will increase all the more.  AND, when we love these more, that will fuel godliness.  Because God loves his own enough to look beyond all their faults, their shortcomings and their sins, and love each as much as the other, he blesses all, he plans only good for all.  And as godliness abounds, it fuels steadfastness.  We can see now how this works.  Steadfastness fuels self-control - of course it does!  And self-control feeds knowledge.  Focus on the task at hand - especially study but as we love those who don't always deserve it, we learn more about human beings operate and how God works in us all toward his own ends.  Knowledge fuels virtue...which is where we started.  The more we know about how God operates, which has been opened  up to us by foundational love built up into knowledge - which teaches us - which fuels us - to live virtuous lives, and understanding that all that has worked together to build up our faith - in God, and in the process of sanctification that he has laid out so rationally and logically.   Here they are, as let's say a pyramid, from top to foundation:

Faith
Virtue
Knowledge
Self-Control
Steadfastness
Godliness
Brotherly Affection
Love

Look at the list...where is my "weak link"?  Because where ever that is in the process, the weakness there weakness all that proceeds from it.  And note also that Love is the most basic fuel of all.

This verse:
8 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. [2Pe 1:8 ESV]

2023 - Note that this is a two part test.  You must have these qualities.  They qualities must be increasing.   If both these things are true, and I think this says that if they are increasing BECAUSE we know Christ - that is, we are saved - then we are effective and fruitful as we serve Christ.  So even though it is not phrased to emphasize that knowledge of Christ is primary, the phrasing does require that such knowledge precede and motivate these qualities.  Otherwise, these things can to some extent be attributed to common grace.  As worded, there is a presumption that "knowledge" is already present.  Further, as worded, this implies that we can have knowledge of Christ though it does not show at all.  This is absolutely confirmed in vs 9, below.

2025 - Look at that...finally!  IF you do those things, you are NOT unfruitful.  You ARE bearing fruit, even if you are not Billy Graham and leading thousands to Christ.  This is not a pass saying that you have no responsibility to witness to others, but it does strongly imply, I think convincingly imply, that fruit is not only measured in the souls that convert because of our direct witness to them.  If we do the things on Peter's list, we WILL BE effective, and we WILL BE fruitful.

MSB says "When these Christian qualities (5-7) are not present in a believer's life, he will be indistinguishable from an evildoer or a superficial believer.  But when these qualities are increasing in a Christian's life, there is the manifestation of the "divine nature" within the believer".  Allowance is made that some believers will not exhibit these qualities.  They are not "automatic".  If they are not there, the believer cannot be effective and fruitful.  But he can still be a believer.  This verse next:
9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. [2Pe 1:9 ESV].
(((2024 - Attempting a FB post using this verse:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that there have been times in my life when this verse was about me.  There were years on end when I thought and behaved according to the rules and ways of the world around me.  I wasn't a "bad" person, I just wasn't becoming a "better" person.  Peter's use of "cleansed from former sins" tells us he means that saved people can sort of "forget" their salvation.  We can be born again but in neutral rather than drive.  This was me, and it might be you.  That ought to give us hope...but here's the bad news.  It might be that we aren't growing because we are not saved.  Maybe we are lost, yet behave like good people.   That can happen too, maybe if we were raised in church, or by good parents or grandparents.  We didn't really choose to be good that's just how we were taught to behave.  Surely, now, we can see that it is VITAL to know which of these describes us.  We must know!  Peter says this in the next verse:  10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. [2Pe 1:10 ESV].  Wow!  It's almost like he anticipated our question!  If we "think" we're saved, but have no confidence about it, we can find assurance by purposeful, focused attention on growing in the qualities that characterize the saved.  If we are saved, this will be successful, and we will have, and recognize, spiritual growth in our lives.  We will know!  If we make that effort, and there is no progress, then we must decide - is being good "good enough", or do we want the eternal assurance that only true salvation brings?  Peter's list is in 2Pet 1:5-7.  Start at the end of this - the foundation of the whole thing - and work backwards.  Everyone of us ought to do this.  It isn't just for doubters.  Wouldn't you like to know for sure?)))

2023 - Peter makes it clear that he is speaking of saved people.  ONLY the saved can be called "cleansed from sin".  Hmm....Peter does not say OR imply that this is a test of whether someone is saved or not.  His presumption is that there ARE saved people who are not increasing in these qualities at all.  Saved non-performers do exist.  He is pretty much saying that faith CAN exist without works.  So many issues arise based on the Christians, the saved, the believers, that Peter here describes.  If they have actually forgotten their salvation, then how can we possibly tell whether they were ever saved or not?  What could we know about them?  This sort of assumes that these people at some point DID KNOW they were saved.  Over time they have drifted further and further away and they lack the confirming works that ought to be seen in the saved.  Note that Peter says they lack these virtues.  What he does NOT say is that they are nasty, evil, world-embracing, sinners.  Can we assume that there is a discernible difference between these that Peter is describing and those who were never saved at all?  Or is he saying that sometimes it is impossible to tell.  OR...and this seems like the right way to look at this...is this a SELF test, not an OTHER test?  Note that in every case Peter is describing how this will be FROM THE NON-PERFORMERS POV.  Peter doesn't say  "You can look for this situation in others", he says you look for this situation in your self!  Yes.  By this we can assure OURSELVES, not OTHERS, of our salvation!!!  If you have this firmly in mind, then the MSB note below makes perfect sense.

(((2023 Later - Copied this in from the notes on 1 Jn 3:
Hmm...going back to the context though, Peter is saying a saved person's life may not be characterized by that whole list of good qualities - faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control and so on, if that saved person has gone blind and forgotten....
By contrast, John is not talking about a lack of good things in a persons character, but the presence of continuous repeating sin.  
Maybe that it the thing.  Someone once saved who is not increasing in good works....not so great.  Someone once saved who's life is characterized by repeating sin...never saved in the first place.  
AND THAT DOES NOT FLY because by that measure...when was I even saved?  Losing my salvation and then getting it back three or four times would be the only way to explain my life!  )))

MSB elaborates this way - "A professing Christian who is missing the virtues mentioned above is, therefore, unable to discern his true spiritual condition, and thus can have no assurance of his salvation.
Forgotten, then, in this context means that "The failure to diligently pursue spiritual virtues produces spiritual amnesia.  Such a person, unable to discern his spiritual condition, will have no confidence about his profession of faith.  He may be saved and possess all the blessings of vv. 3,4, but without the excellencies of vv 5-7, he will live in doubt and fear.
So this is how 5-11 bring assurance to the believer.  

2023 - Don't we all know people that "might be" like this?  People who were "saved" as children and now act like the last things they ever think about are church and Bible study and being like Jesus.  These things often seem to revolt them.  Is Peter holding out hope to those who love such people, that perhaps, despite a complete lack of observable godliness, they are still saved?  Should we see them as "starving their renewed spirits" rather than as "losing their salvation"?    How do "good people" who don't attend church and don't profess to believe fit into this scenario?  Is Peter going to tell us later in the book, or do we just "guess" about how to pray for them?  Note that MSB qualifies these as "professing Christians" who are missing these Christian virtues.  But professing...Maybe that is the key, and if it is, then what of those who no longer even profess?

2023 - Perhaps, what we can do if we know people that we think MIGHT be in this situation - people we KNOW have had a salvation experience but now do not act like it at all - we should first pray that they will be saved if they were not previously, and if they are "Peter's back-sliders", that their renewed spirits, weakened by neglect and lack of nourishment, be strengthened by God.  And if they are receptive to us, we can suggest to them, encourage them, remind them of that salvation experience, tell them about this situation that can happen, tell them to do an "experiment" and try reading a chapter a day of John, or Luke, or 2 Peter even, and to say just a short prayer before they do so each day, and then see - with only themselves as judge - if that does or does not "fit" into their lives far better than they think right now that it will.  
This needs to be on FB.  How many people today are in this boat????  Hopefully millions!!!

A much closer look at each of these Christian virtues would make a good study.
2021 - This is about believers who have slipped so far back from the godly character that should shine in them that they are indistinguishable from the unsaved.  In these verses, then, lies hope for every parent and grandparent, every brother and sister who sees those they love best living in a way that gives no sign of an inner change.  This was me during college, and right up to the time when we all went back to church - though we did it in a divisive way.  This was me again after both kids professed salvation - Kris in her bedroom one night when she prayed the prayer, and Wilson when he went and talked to John St. Clair, and John said he believed Wil was ready to be baptized.  Once their salvation was checked off the list I not only quit worrying about them, but I went way backwards myself.  After Cherokee Hills - once I left there - I was out in the byways and pastures, away from the straight and narrow, for a very long time.  It could be that my kids, Paula's, Martha's, my cousins, my in-laws...It is possible that all of them fall into this situation that Peter is here describing.  They have just drifted so far from the truth, and they have made so little effort to "feed and nourish" their faith and so keep it vigorous, healthy, and an obvious part of their lives, that there is no longer a sign of salvation - of a new life within them - and not only can I not recognize that it is there, but neither can they!  They have just become so carnal as to be heedless, even deaf to the still small voice.  It could be this.  Or it could be that they were never saved.  All that can be done is to keep praying for them all - though we don't even know how to pray for them.  Pray for salvation or for "re-dedication".
2022 - I think it is appropriate here to remember that there is some controversy about whether this book should be canonical.  What if - and I don't believe it, but it ought to be considered - this book doesn't belong, and is here only to give us comfort about the observably lost that we would much rather were saved, but don't want to do the knee time and or the confrontational conversations that might lead to true salvation?  Since I don't think there is any "non-scripture" included in scripture, a better view is that while this is possible, it is inadvisable to count on it and so lay back and rest.  If salvation is there, it ought to be "hungry" for sanctification, and we ought to, we might be able to, nourish and encourage and revitalize this garden choked with weeds.  Perhaps "coercing" or "cajoling" such people to come deliver groceries, to come do yard work for the aged and so on, might incidentally replenish the long dormant seeds of sanctification, to the benefit of both encourager and encouraged.  

Moving on...but not exactly at light speed:
10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. [2Pe 1:10 ESV]
Working on these qualities, advancement in these qualities, confirms for us that we are saved, and should embolden us to even greater efforts, knowing that as we progress in these attributes, be are increasingly effective and fruitful - which results in a greater heavenly reward.  All this besides the fact that the believer sleeps better when in complete assurance of salvation.

2023 - And here is the endorsement of the approach I recommended above, to encourage practice, encourage "feeding the spirit", and look at this most profound confirmation:
13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, [2Pe 1:13 ESV].  We ought always to encourage those who once were part of us but who no longer are!  We know those who were never part of us because they now "preach" another religion.  Wokeness, secular humanism, and all those other names.  Yet...even those we can never completely give up on, though if they go far enough, instead of the encouragement above, we are told to treat them as ripe for evangelism, not as backsliders.

2023 - What about the word translated "fall" here in vs 10?  Is it a mortal fall?  I note first that it is about 50/50 as to whether this is translated fall or stumble.  KJV says fall, NKJV says stumble.  ESV, as shown above, says fall.  The Greek word is "ptaio".  The dictionary says this comes from the Greek word "pteron" which means wing.  Great.  I'm not even sure how to pronounce that.  How many words start with a "pt" sound????  Here are a few:  ptarmigan, pterodactyl (though this is shown to come from Latin?), ptomain (yes, the poison kind).  There are several others but I don't know that I've ever heard the others used in a sentence.  Pretty much all of them go back to "wing".  The word that Peter uses here is relatively rare in the KJV NT.  It only occurs five times and only in four verses.  Three of those are translated "offend", once it is stumble, and once it is fall.  Since there are so few, here they all are:
11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. [Rom 11:11 ESV].  Israel is in view.  They stumbled, but the Bible is full of God's promise to once more restore them.  That is, they stumbled, but they are not irrevocably lost.
10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. [Jas 2:10 ESV].  ESV translates this fail, KJV says fall.  In either case we are talking about how, under the Law, one transgression condemns.  Peter, in 1:10, is not speaking at all about what happens under the Law but what happens "in Christ".
2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. [Jas 3:2 ESV].  James includes himself with the stumblers.  Only the perfect do not stumble.  So...if we take James to mean that he has lost and regained his salvation, then EVERYONE who is not perfect has lost/will lose his salvation at some point and have to be saved again.  How many times?  How would you ever know?  I don't think it means this. (Perseverance).
10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. [2Pe 1:10 ESV].  In context, stumble is a better word here.  We know Peter is talking about Christians who have so abandoned the faith that they don't even remember they are saved.  But he says to remind them, continually, of their status.  He does not say that such are forever gone, but that they cannot themselves determine their state.

Oh my...Sleeps better...How many times do we lie in bed and wonder, just a little or a whole lot, if we are just kidding ourselves about our salvation?  It is no sin to wonder this.  Peter says here that we need to diligently continually daily confirm our election!  We should always be looking for assurance.  Have doubts?  Pursue the qualities in vvs 5-7, and if we grow stronger in those virtues, this is our visible evidence of salvation!  Never be afraid to say you have doubts.  You SHOULD have doubts occasionally, but the proper application of that doubt is to spur us on to greater effort in pursuit of Christian virtue!

We need to hear this repeated "early and often" because we are so very prone to forget it!

In 13-15, Peter says the Lord has made clear to him that his life is nearly done.  He will soon depart this worldly body.  His effort here in this letter is so his readers "may be able at any time to recall these things".  Is this not a reference to the purpose of  Scripture?  Is Peter telling them that what he is writing is to be considered on the same plain as the OT?  

2023 - He is telling them that he can remind and encourage them while he is here, but someday soon they will have to manage without him.  And then he says he is going to do all that he can to provide a way for them to remind themselves.  And then he launches into a defense of the truth of scripture, the truth and reliability and trustworthiness of scripture - AS WRITTEN, NOT AS MODIFIED FOR THE TIMES - in assuring us of our salvation.

In the next verse, 16, Peter makes it clear that his teaching was about what he had seen with his own eyes.  Seems to be contrasting this with some of the "fairy tales" and "verbal traditions" recounted by the false teachers.  He is saying that testimony from those who were there is far more credible than retelling by those who were not present.  By inference, he is elevating the authority of the apostolic writings over the "re-interpretation" of events the false teachers are peddling.  Isn't this an accepted, indeed much preferred way, of looking at our own history?  This is what's wrong with having a modern scholar tell us what 1776 was about.  They were not there.  Shouldn't we be putting far more credence in what the writers of that time say it was about, since they were eye-witnesses of those events as Peter was an eyewitness of Jesus' works and teachings?  What a fabulous argument this is on so many fronts!  Can I reword this for FB?  It is such an important point!

2022 - Vs 16 is also important in that the writer here claims to be an eyewitness - as an apostle certainly is - to Jesus' life on earth.  So if it is a forgery, this is a horrendous lie.  And why would this writer do that, if he isn't trying to gain something for himself?  It couldn't be fame, because if people knew who wrote it, they would be angry about his impersonation, not his deep understanding of salvation.  No.  Very difficult to see this as a forgery.  If nothing else, this verse tells us that if it was a forgery, it was deliberately done, at the risk of being ostracized if the truth was discovered.

Peter recounts some things he saw and heard first hand.  The voice of God calling Jesus his beloved Son:
17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," [2Pe 1:17 ESV]
This was the Mount of Transfiguration.  There were only three witnesses to this event.  Peter puts himself in a very exclusive group here, pointing to his authority as an apostle, and to what he says over what those not present may say.  I also copied this because Islam has a very big problem with Jesus being God's "son".  I read in one of the James R.  White books that the word "son" is not actually  present in some scripture where Jesus is called the only begotten son of God.  It only says he is the only begotten, as in he is unique in who he is.  But I looked at the interlinear for this verse, and the word Son is most definitely there.  I would consider it ill-advised to try and convert a Muslim with incomplete information.  Seems to me we are better to define Son in a way that "works" in all quotations, rather than to only point out the places that fit with the point we want to make.  With Islam, the point is that God did not have sex with Mary.  That's what they claim that Christians claim.  They say Jesus was born of Mary while she was a virgin.  They don't have a problem with that concept.  They do have a problem with him being God's son.  I guess by inference they are denying that Jesus could be the son of any male while his mother was still a virgin.  So they would have to make him fatherless.  Just as unique a thing as only begotten...One of the things I got from the interlinear - in Strong's I think - is that the word used for son is occasionally applied to animals, but most often by a wide margin applies to a human male offspring of a man and a woman.  So perhaps the real point being made in calling Jesus the Son of God is that Jesus was a man, a human, in form and function, while still being God in nature and spirit.  The point is that Jesus was God in the flesh, born a human child like any other human child.  I think this works better.

2023 - Peter's reminders:
First, in 16-18, he tells them they should believe what he says because he was there.  He saw Jesus transfigured.  He HEARD the voice of God.  Therefore, they should believe what he says/what he has written to them.
Second, in 19-21, he tells them that the prophecies in the OT are real, inspired by God, through chosen men, and that those HOLY SCRIPTURES are also reminders of who Jesus is, why he came, what he did.

(This is turning into a long morning session...but I'm not skipping this.  Too cold to go outside anyway!)

2022 - And it continues in vs 18:
18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. [2Pe 1:18 ESV]
The writer claims to be either Peter, James, or John, because they were the only three on that mountain with Jesus.  This writer claims to be from a very exclusive group indeed.  Not just an apostle.  One of the three closest.  James would have been long dead.  He doesn't write anything like John.  So this is either Peter, as claimed, or abject forgery.

19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [2Pe 1:19-21 ESV]
I have seen 20-21 quoted over and over.  Even had it memorized for a long long time.  But I never remember 19 being quoted also to give it context.  Peter is saying that as an eye witness and an apostle, what he writes carries a TON of weight.  But EVEN MORE, the OT scriptures also - no MORE SO - testify to the truth of Jesus Christ.  Look at his description of the OT - a lamp shining in a dark place!  If the false teachers deny what the OT says, they are false.  A profound test useful in evaluating any teaching.
2023 - These are the verses that MSB calls vitally important for interpretation.  These, along with 2 Tim 3:15-17, tell us what we ought to believe about scripture:
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. [2Ti 3:15-17 ESV]

2022 - And here is also one last confirmation of this letter as inspired, or of truly horrible deceit.  This last verse affirms the inspired nature of all scripture.  Is the point of a "forger" EVER to have his readers dig deep and test severely for legitimacy?  Or to have them gloss over and just accept?  This writer says test me, test all scripture and apply the tests to me also.  It says listen to me, because I was there, and I know, and what I am writing is profound not because it is from me alone, but because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  To go to such lengths to propagate a forgery implies something quite valuable is in the balance.  And what?  What is here for a forger to gain?  That is MSB's argument, and it surely seems to make sense.

Chapter 2
2023 - First word of the first verse is "but", drawing a contrast between what is about to be said and what was said before.  All the translations I looked at started with this same English word, which is translated from the Greek "de".  Very simple.  Delta epsilon.  Used 2,870 times in the KJV.  It is "but" 1237 times, "and" 934 times.  Next highest is only 166 times.  Thirteen different English words are used to translate "de", and there are 300 occurrences where it is not directly translated at all.  So.  This little conjunction is very versatile, depending on it's context.  So here is the verse:
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. [2Pe 2:1 ESV].  
Does "and" work in this verse.  Well is this an addition to what went before?  Not really, then, because what went before was a statement about the unimpeachability of scripture.  If the verse starts with "but", we would expect something that "offsets" the truth of scripture, and THAT is what we see.  Even though scripture is from God, and so inerrant, despite that fact, false teachers arose - in those olden days when the scripture was new, when it was being spoken and written by prophets.  Even so, false teachers arose then, and they will also be here in our time.

First verse has the phrase mentioned in the intro saying the false prophets were "bought" by the Master.  MSB uses a whole column on this verse alone.  
MSB says this chapter is written so that false teachers can be identified.  One of the characteristics of their teaching is misrepresentation.  As Satan to Eve in the garden, they twist and turn and restate in a way that changes the meaning.  "Nothing is more wicked than for someone to claim to speak for God to the salvation of souls when in reality he speaks for Satan to the damnation of souls."  False teachers represent themselves as pastors, teachers, evangelists, but always as fine Christian men and women speaking God's own truth.  But those who follow them follow them right into hell.  "This is why it is so tragic when a church makes a virtue out of the toleration of unscriptural teachings and ideas in the name of love and unity."  Such an important statement!

2023 - But it is the false teachers, the unsaved, who are denying the master who bought them.  Could this be the same kind of situation that we saw back in 1:9?  In that verse, saved people have drifted so far away that they have "forgotten" that they were cleansed from sin.  Why wouldn't we in fact EXPECT Peter now to talk about how this problem even extends to those in high positions in the church?  Saved men, who become so popular, who develop such a following, that they too drift away from the Master who bought them and begin to "tickle the ears" of their followers in order to keep them, to recruit new followers, and to take up ever larger collections?  The become so enamored with their fame and popularity that they begin to chase that as their goal rather than chasing the truth of God.  Boy.  That sure makes a good tie back to what Peter was saying in Chapter 1.  Read on, and see if it is somewhere contradicted.  Skip down to 2023-Vss 4-10a below for a continuation of this line of thinking...

Next, MSB notes that "All false religions have an erroneous Christology."  I need to be more grounded in Christology to avoid being deceived!

And finally, to the phrase that started this...bought.  MSB says this is an analogy, as a master buying a slave, and the requirement that the buyer be considered sovereign over that slave.  Christ bought saved sinners, and is Sovereign over them.  That is, the one bought has a responsibility to submit to the one who bought them.  But that is where false teachers are false.  They do not truly submit to the sovereignty of Jesus.  Peter is about to mock their claim of being bought by writing of their coming damnation.  Then this sentence:  "Thus, the passage is describing the sinister character of the false teachers who claim Christ, but deny His lordship over their lives.

2022 - So this whole verse is worth a look:
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. [2Pe 2:1 ESV]
First phrase is referring back to the end of chapter one, which ended by saying that all prophecy - true prophecy  - is inspired by the Holy Spirit speaking through men, and is NEVER produced by man alone.  Not if it is scripture.  Yet even in that day, when the Torah and the Talmud were being written, false prophets did arise.  My goodness just read Ezekiel if you don't think that's right.  Over and over the false prophets show up and tell lies of their own while claiming the words are from God.  God surely despises this.  Isaiah and Jeremiah also talk about them but they are more prominently discussed in Ezekiel.  So think about that - as we prepare to understand the rest of the verse...In the OT, there were false prophets.  These were not speaking for God, not working with God, not serving God, having NO PART of God.  Those false prophets are condemned in the harshest possible terms.  They will not be in heaven, reprimanded for selling out both God and the people they were to shepherd.  They were false - through and through.  So.  Next phrase.  Does not say there will be false prophets among you.  Says false teachers.  So there is a significant change here.  A contrast of providers of false information.  In old times, they were pseudoprophētēs, while now there are pseudodidaskalos.   You don't have to read Greek to see that these are separate entities in every sense.  Why would Peter use such different words?  Because, perhaps, with the deaths of the apostles, with the deaths of all who had first hand experience of Jesus, there would be no more prophecy - and no more scripture.  Now, there will only be teachers expositing what has already been written, and there will NO new material offered.  ANYTHING that contradicts what was written to that point is false teaching.  I think this also sets prophecy in a superior position to teaching...and I think a study of spiritual gifts bears that out.  I am not even sure we should say there are still prophets and then try to explain why they are different than the OT firebrands.  Why not say prophecy has left us, and today's firebrands preachers...and we know preachers come in all makes and models.
2022 - Still on v. 1....
Next phrase.  Secretly and destructive are the key words here, but how are we to take them?  Secretly is the Greek "pareisagō".  It is used only here in the mGNT, the TR.  So we cannot look elsewhere.  But the BLB interlinear looks in other literature of the time, and this word means privily, secretly, craftily.  I picture a Sunday School class - in our day - totally devoted to their teacher, and that teacher introducing doctrines, meanings, and interpretations that are destructive, perhaps in the sense of divisiveness.  Maybe this teacher gets found out, and disfellowshipped, asked to leave, removed from his teaching position, and he/she leaves and takes the class with him weakening the church in a destructive way.  Heresies?  What exactly is a heresy?  Greek "hairesis".  We might think of this as a toupee, which appears luxuriant and nourished, but is in fact only loosely and artificially resting on the scalp it claims to be an integral part of.  It is insidious in that it appears to spring from scripture, when in fact it is fabrication.
A deeper look at "heresy", because the Interlinear has far more information:
αἵρεσις, -εως, ἡ;

1. (from αἱρέω), act of taking, capture: τῆςπόλεως, the storming of a city; in secular authors.
2. (from αἱρέομαι), choosing, choice, very often in secular writings: Sept.Leviticus 22:18; 1 Macc. 8:30.
3.that which is chosen, a chosen course of thought and action; hence one's chosen opinion, tenet; according to the context, an opinion varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith (heresy): 2 Peter 2:1 (cf. DeWette at the passage), and in ecclesiastical writings [cf. Sophocles' Lexicon, under the word].

We only think of this word in the 3rd sense.  That last phrase is in fact representative of how we mostly think of this word; "An opinion varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith".  But that isn't how it was used up to that point.  Why choose this word for "breaking" with true exposition?  Storming a city...a false teaching is an attack on the whole.  Heresies are not just "disagreements" between scholars.  A heresy will undermine a whole book of the Bible, perhaps, or a whole fundamental doctrine of the church, upon which others perhaps depend.  To say that Christ was not really fully human for instance, but instead some kind of angel/human cross, is a heresy because if true, so much more is undermined, including the substitutionary death on the cross.  Only like for like sacrifice is sufficient.  This is heresy.  And then the second definition - I think it means that it is an individual embracing as truth something that is not mainstream.  It is choosing to believe what is destructive to the "main body", and to thus be a part of that destruction.  This is a pretty incredible word when we look deeply.

2022 - And still we are on v. 1 -
Next phrase - denying the Master who bought them.  If we theorize that in the same way the OT false prophets were not speaking God's words, and knowingly so, and we equate those prophets with today's teachers, as the first part of this verse says, then these teachers are unsaved.  If unsaved, in what sense are they "bought"?  If we say Christ died for all so it is in that sense that they are bought, then Limited Atonement must fall, and with it a good chunk of Calvinism.  For me, that's too high a price for this interpretation.  So what then?  One can be a slave and not acknowledge it as truth.  You do that by saying you have no master.  What a common idea. "They can lock me up but they can't take my freedom".  William Wallace maybe said something like that.  The American Revolution comes to mind.  In fact, if you are locked in a cell, if your purchase by another is papered up all legally and officially, then guess what?  You were bought, though your behavior and your self-image deny it.  What they do is impugn the position and the rights and the character of their legitimate Master, but this state of affairs exists only in their own minds and NOT in reality.  See how this ties in with the other meanings of heresy?  Think that's just chance?
And last phrase, the result of flirting with the unorthodox - Not reprimand.  Not chastisement.  Swift destruction.
What a supremely frightening verse for someone to teach about!  It says if you teach wrong, you're done, and yet we almost have to teach this to appreciate that those who stand up here week after week and teach us are walking near the edge of a cliff.  Imagine the care one must take to keep away from this particular edge!

Okay, 2022 moving on to the rest of the chapter after 55 minutes on vs 1!  What a verse!

2022 - Vss 2, 3.
Worldly sensuality and inner greed are common characteristics of those who teach heresy.  I get a mental picture of Joel Osteen.  Compare him with say, Billy Graham, or John MacArthur.  There is "not muzzling the ox", and there is Kobe beef.  False teachers are identifiable, but often I think only by those close to them, those in the inner circle.  Think of Jim Jones.  Those near him had to see him going off the deep end.  They had to see his rampant adultery.  It is our responsibility, if we recognize a false teacher, to make sure the light is turned full on them, according to church disciplinary procedures.  
Is a woman who teaches a Sunday School class a false teacher?  Absolutely she is.  She is mocking specific scriptural teaching, because in her view, it does not apply.  She is following her own opinion instead of clear scripture.  I knew they shouldn't be doing it, I had no idea how dangerous they were.  I had no idea "what" they were.  She brings followers.  She takes them with her when, if the church leadership functions correctly, she is removed from that position.  This is a secret, destructive heresy.  A simple one to deal with, and yet how widespread is it?  Look how the verse ends, too:  "...Their condemnation...is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep."

Peter gives several examples of how foolish it is to think a righteous God won't punish wrongdoers.  When angels sinned, he cast them into chains and gloomy darkness where they remain, he destroyed the whole world but saved Noah and his family, he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah yet saved "righteous Lot" (I need to give Lot more credit.  He is in Hebrews 11 too I think.  Why else would God have saved him?).  The point is, God knows how to dispense justice to sinners, and how to save the righteous out of the midst of that destruction.

2021 - A bit of an aside...The Greek word for "hell" in 2:4 is Tartarus.  I saw that word repeatedly in studying out the whole "Jesus went down and declared victory", and the passage about bringing captivity captive.  It would seem to me at this point that Tartarus is indeed the pit where the angels that followed Satan are now confined, and from which they will be released during Great Tribulation.  This verse may in fact be where that whole idea comes from.  Does this make angels and the demons that possessed so many in the NT different creatures?  Is it that all the fallen angels are confined and not available for use by Satan, and only these demons - these much less powerful but fully evil beings - are available to him?  What about the Prince of Persia, and the spirit of antichrist being held in check even today.  There is a lot here that could be pursued.  Back to the point....Tartarus for fallen angels, Hades for fallen sinners, Paradise for pre-resurrection saints.  Tartarus is a pit.  Hades is down - because the rich man looked up to see Lazarus.  Paradise is up, because Lazarus looked down at the rich man.

2023 - I think Tartarus is just the Greek word for the place to which Hades and the pit and Gehenna refer.  Just a different language, not a different place.

Vss 4-10a are a series of rhetorical situations aimed at establishing as fact that God judges evil - not only at the end, and not only in the past - but repeatedly and visibly over the whole course of human history.  Isn't it interesting that Peter says the angels who followed Satan have already been confined to the pit, to Tartarus.  In Revelation, when Satan is thrown out of heaven, who exactly is still up there with him, and why?

2023 - 4-10a,
Continuing from the note above speculating as to whether these false teachers are saved but have been overtaken by their own lusts that ought to have been put away...but were instead puffed up by their position of authority as teachers.  (Jim Jones?).
We see angels who got cast into the pit, then
we see the whole world but for Noah and his family destroyed, then
we see Sodom and Gomorrah.  
   We see these instances of God destroying the ungodly, unrepentant.
Then
We see Lot rescued from Sodom.  This seems to be for us a picture of how if we persevere in our beliefs even in the midst of the worst kind of ungodliness - taught by false teachers - God can and will still rescue us  as he rescued Noah and Lot.  He can rescue us right out of the middle of his destruction of those who sin against him.  Concurrently with the rescue of of the godly, He can and has "kept the unrighteous under punishment".  Surely this is contrasting Noah and Lot as believers with the rest of mankind as unbelievers?  Why have we focused in on individuals who resist the influence of unrighteousness?  Because the false teachers seek to "divert" everyone from the path?  No...that doesn't work.  So the real question - the real "burden" of maintaining that the false teachers Peter is talking about as being saved but far off course - is what he means by "kept the unrighteous under punishment"?  Is that about all those that drowned and all those that were burned to ash?  Or is it about Lot who was camped out with them...no no no.  That road leads nowhere.  
We might make this work if we see that the angels, though unrighteous, are to be judged later.  Those in Noah's day continued 120 more years, but did not escape God's judgment.  And the same with Sodom. For 50, for 10?  How long did Sodom and Gomorrah continue before final judgment.  So...When we are struggling under false teachers, we are to stay true to those scriptures that we know are light in the darkness, and though it may seem that the false teachers are getting away with it while God does nothing, remember always that He will ultimately bring them all down.  So if the false teachers are saved but off the path a great distance, what is the punishment they will endure UNTIL the day of judgment?  That almost sounds like purgatory!!!  Not looking for a new doctrine here...So that leaves only that the false teachers will be held for judgment at the rapture - since they are saved.  Just as the angels are being held now.  And the spirits of the false teachers?  Of these saved but so far gone that they teach false doctrine for worldly gain?  Will those who die in this state be in heaven in the spirit until the rapture.  
I have dug myself a hole.  But I think it is worth considering.  I am moving on, and will see what I think next year.  

The next paragraph, vvs 10b-16, describe the false teachers in a very vitriolic manner.  It describes their behavior - both how they appear outwardly, and what they are thinking inwardly.  Like Balaam, they put the money gained from their evil ahead of righteousness.  They are immoral - eyes full of adultery.  
2021 - These characteristics are what we need to look for in our teachers.  How do we do that?  We need to spend time with our teachers, we need to know them better.  Like preachers - who can also fall into this category! - we need to know them well and so see what their true character is.  We don't "examine" those to who's leadership we submit.  We are obligated to do so, yet we so seldom do so.  If someone at church stood up and said "Jesus is a myth" then we'd surely get suspicious.  But what if someone who seems for all the world to be a good teacher is having an affair with a secretary at his work?  Shouldn't we know about this?  It would likely be going on in secret, but if it came out?  Wouldn't that be important?  Grounds for removal, or even more than removal?  I know of such a situation, where it got out, and the church did nothing.  The man remained a deacon even.  There is no way this was right, leaving him authority after such a fall.  Look at this list, and note how many fallen televangelists succumb to "eyes full of adultery".  It is like the most common downfall.  Not just recently but going all the way back.  How can we say that a televangelist who turns out to be an adulterer was ever teaching the truth, and not a greedy sinner more interested in deceiving the lost with false promises in order to get their money?  We should never turn back to such a teacher!

2023 - So that previous paragraph is pretty harsh.  It denies that Satan attacks pure teachers more vigorously than he just lets the false teachers do their thing.  And sometimes, despite the best intentions of our teachers, they sin.  Why would they not, if we do.  So again, the key to all this is knowing them well enough to know if this was a "slip up" in that they sinned, or a slip up in that they are constantly sinning, but they slipped up and got caught this time.  These are two radically different situations and we would need great wisdom to distinguish between the two.  But in such cases, it is what we SHOULD do!

2023 - Look at vs 13 though!  Accursed children?  Children?  Can children be unsaved????  Balaam is invoked here....perhaps as the OT version of the NT false prophets.  Balaam believed in God.  But Balaam chose gain over truth.  Balaam was cursed by God.  But God used him to bless Israel three times.  I'm thinking about how the demons believe too, and tremble, but their belief is not saving.  Balaam's belief was surely not saving.  So maybe, after all this, the false teachers believe in God, but their belief is not saving.  They understand, but they do not submit.  They believe, but they do not serve.
Yeah.  That's probably what it all means.  The false teachers believe - and so would be adept at deceit, accomplished at nuance - pulling away those saved but not firmly grounded.  This is almost certainly what is meant.  Once Balaam is held up as an example, it all just kind of false into place.  I won't say it is comforting, but it does make the best sense of all the possibilities.
2023 - And then vs 17, which leaves absolute now doubt.  I should have read it all before starting off on that wild goose chase:
17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. [2Pe 2:17 ESV].  Utter darkness is exclusively for the unsaved.  And the false teachers are just like the world other than Noah, and the citizens of S and G other than Lot.  They are reserved for hell is what they are.

2022 - Rather than try and insert into the middle of the paragraph above, I will just put here as addendum this year's thoughts on this passage:
This passage:
10...Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. [2Pe 2:10b-11 ESV]
The glorious ones are the godly whom God has always rescued and preserved though earthly corruption reaches "Biblical proportions".  We can expect false teachers to be entirely disrespectful toward the saved, to blaspheme them, mock them, call them the liars, and so on.  Impugn their witness and their character in order to prevail rather than stick to Biblical exposition.  This is how we identify them, incautiously vocal where angels dare not speak.  
Vss 11-16 show us that these false teachers are not thinkers at all.  They have no reason, no logic, but run only on instinct, like animals, who think not of the righteous way to provide themselves food, but who will kill, maim, lie, steal and anything else that is necessary to overcome whatever stands between them and their appetites.  That is what Peter is saying.  And what brilliant pictures he paints to do so.

In 17, they are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm.  

2022 - It just goes on and on.  Characteristics of false teachers.  Shouldn't take more than one lunch with them to see through their lies, to discern the facade of spirituality that cannot disguise a core of corruption.
2023 - Yeah...might take more than one lunch.  Surely they are protected by Satan, too.  And he is an accomplished deceiver.

The targets of these people are those "barely escaping" or "trying to escape".  MSB says these are not saved people, but people with high levels of guilt and anxiety.  People with broken marriages, lonely people, people tired of living with the consequences of their sins and looking for a new start, and "escape" from the place that sin has left them.  With their false teaching, their promise of salvation without repentance of sin, their "non-condemnation" of the sin that keeps these people where they are, the false teachers appeal to this sort of people.  Rather than leading them into a life of hope and eternal glory, the false teachers bring them down to death and hell because they reject the Jesus that is the only way.  Making adultery legal - and in the case of our culture today, making homosexuality ok, making abortion ok, making dissipation through drugs and alcohol ok - and "acceptable to God" in their kind of church, they damn many souls to hell, and earn for themselves a very hot place there.

2023 - Previous paragraph needs revision.  If MSB is correct and these are the saved who have stumbled, then false teachers are not going to be sending them to hell.  Need to determine whether I agree that they are saved - in which case the hellfire part in the previous paragraph goes away, or whether they are indeed lost.  Really need to figure this out.

2025 - Look at this last phrase of vs 19:  19 ...For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. [2Pe 2:19 ESV].  How profound is this?  Whatever it is that we continually rationalize as ok but know deep down to be sin, is the "whatever" that overcomes us.  And that thing that we always fall for, that we WANT to fall for, keeps a wedge between us and God, hinders our prayers, stunts our spiritual growth.  The "whatever" that we desire this much is not our friend but our greatest enemy.

Vs 20 is not about saved people falling back to an unsaved state.  It is like several previous passages - particularly the one about the Jews who believe intellectually but have just not gotten over the hump of unreserved commitment to Christ - where some very knowledgeable and educated in good Christian doctrine, at last spurn it in favor of the corrupt gain they can get from compromising that doctrine themselves, and enticing others to the same.
2021 - That is one thing it could be saying, and after reading it, it is probably the right one.  The false teachers that are being summarized here are very knowledgeable and as such they realize the doctrinal "shading" that they do in order to deceive for gain, or power, or immoral purposes.  They know very much, but instead of accepting by faith, with all this knowledge they have, they instead choose to use what they know to deceive.  They don't quite get over the bar - but having gotten so close, having been high enough to see clearly the other side - to see the victory that is prepared - they choose not to go over the bar.  The whole thing about dogs returning to their vomit sounds just like the "no more chances" thing in Hebrews.  This is that same thing.  MSB notes on the end of chapter 2 agree.  He says this is the same as Heb 10:26, 27.  He lists examples of apostasy - and I don't have time to put them all in, but they are in the MSB note to 2:20.  The thing to be clear about is that these false teachers were never saved.  They got close!  They have even markedly changed their outward behavior in order to "take on sheep's clothing".  But they are not saved.  They are worldly.  The notes on 2:19 and 2:20 are worth rereading until I can say them in my own words.
One thing - the false teachers promise freedom to those struggling with life's "bondage", life's problems and cares.  But they cannot ultimately provide this freedom, since they are living in the same bondage themselves.  And here's the thing - if you follow a false teacher you submit yourself to the same bondage the false teacher is in.  Slaves cannot free slaves, so following a slave makes you a slave to the slave.  

2022 - Vss 20-22,
The 2021 notes are very on target I think.  I see though in the false teacher's offer of freedom the whole name it claim it movement embodied.  This is them, today, right out there in the daylight, preaching exactly what 2Pet says they will preach.  And look how often they fall!  This has to be the most pointed, most unforgiving, most direct revelation of the characteristics, techniques, and identifying marks of false teachers in the whole Bible.  THIS is where you come if you have suspicions!

2022 - I looked again at the MSB notes on vss 20-22.  This is worth quoting:
"Such false teachers as Peter was describing were not made outside Christianity.  They are always bred in the church, half in and half out; but eventually they reject the truth and try to seduce others in their attempt to fulfill their self-gratification."  
These are the dogs returning to their vomit.

2023 - Vs 20:
20 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. [2Pe 2:20 ESV].  Think of the seed that fell among the thorns.  It sprouted, it grew, perhaps significantly...but then the thorns choked it down, deprived it of nutrients, distracted it with competition.  The false teachers may well have walked down the aisle, but they were not saved.  They sought the experience, the emotion, not the underlying truth.  And then they continued to associate worldly sensuality - emotion and physical exhilaration - with the truth of God, and so lure others away.  But they never ever surrendered - that is the word - they never surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Chapter 3
2022 - Vs 1:
1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, [2Pe 3:1 ESV]
Yet another place where the writer (Peter?) is legitimizing this letter as authoritative.  He is saying it is 2 of 2, so we know that the writer is well aware of the first letter, and is claiming authorship of both.  As in, if you accept that letter, then you must also accept this second one.  Why would he put that in like that?  Or did someone later sort of slip that in?  Well...usual arguments...he'd have had to slip it into every single extant copy of this one.  That would be pretty difficult.

2021 - Just reading through the rest.  Next time, focus on 3 and Jude.
Warnings of the last days coming, and the signs that it is near.

2022 - This verse:
2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, [2Pe 3:2 ESV]
An injunction to study the OT, to correlate current events with the predictions of the OT, and so continuously verify the truth - the divine inspiration - of the old scriptures.  If we do that, then we not only accept what they say about prophecy as truth that could only have come from God  but everything else they say as truth that came from God.  We should believe what the OT prophets related about how we should behave, how we should live, about what is sin and what is not.  We should use the OT Law - God's own Law - as a model for our own modern laws.  This verse is about cementing into place the "breathed out" nature of the Bible.  It must never fall.  It must be ever defended.
Next, he makes the writings of the apostles equivalent with scripture. As the writings of Isaiah, so also the writings of Peter, John, James, and Paul.  That is what is being claimed here.  If I wanted to de-canonize this book, here is where I would say the forger had something to gain.  Perhaps in some other book attributed to an apostle he has made a false claim - perhaps mentioned his own name as being a faithful servant of Paul or something like that, and he wants to go around showing it in the various churches and getting himself invited to speak, accept room and board, and perhaps remuneration for his time.    This is quite an involved deception.  First, a fake letter as from Peter saying all the other apostolic writings are as good as scripture, and then having his own real name in some other letter that he claims is from a different apostle endorsing his credentials.  This is where I would attack this.  I don't believe it because I don't believe anyone could write such an obviously inspired book unless they were guided by the Holy Spirit.  Even if an imposter wrote this, the words, I believe, are from God, and so his deception was turned to God's own purpose.

Uniformitarianism is refuted here.  With fact.

2022 - This verse:
4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." [2Pe 3:4 ESV]
In 68 AD or so, you have the concept of geological Uniformitarianism clearly stated.  And clearly refuted.  It can take you backwards only so far, only to the recession of the flood waters from the earth.  Those changed everything in a heartbeat.  Instead of being debris from some comet, why isn't the iridium line - or whatever it is that is seen worldwide at the same level - why isn't that the "Noah's Flood Line"?  
This verse is a truly remarkable prediction, unlikely to have been made in an uninspired book.

2022 - And now this verse:
5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, [2Pe 3:5 ESV]
Does this say that the universe really is billions of years old, and that it sat there and ran on its own for a very long time, and then, at Genesis 1:1 God directly intervened in the conditions of planet Earth.  Genesis is the story of what God did from there, not a history of all that has ever existed.  Is the creation of light the "igniting" of Sol?  As that fire heats up the earth, does the sky clear and other more distant and long since ignited stars become visible?  
Hmm...is this just the gap theory?  Well not really, because I think the earth stayed without form and void for all those billions of years.  I don't think evolution happens in the gap.  In fact, I still put a period after happens.  But a lifeless, water-covered, dark planet could have sat there and rotated around the mass that was a pre-ignition star being formed for a very long time.  And it would have been forever, but for God.

2025 - AND, this is an explanation of why there is no life on other planets.  Because God DID NOT step in there to create life from the dust of that earth as he did from the dust of this one.  Life requires supernatural intervention, and here it is in 2Pe.
2025 - Still one big problem though...how did all those fossils get down into those layers that had no life when they were laid down.  All those limestones and shales.  How do you get a fossil from an animal created inside the last 50K years into a shale that has been there for 50 million?  But at the same time, ask this...If life has been here 50 million, why would it not be here a billion?  What precluded life before the Cambrian?
I have never thought about this verse this way before.  If this could hold up, and Uniformitarianism could hold up, you would have a pretty irrefutable case that 2 Peter BELONGS in the canon.
Possibly, these two verses could be made into a FB post.  If not, surely these ideas belong on my website.  The "Pre-Genesis Gap Theory", instead of the Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 gap.  My version requires no evolution to work out.

2025 - This oft-quoted verse:
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. [2Pe 3:8 ESV].  This verse is sometimes quoted to propose that creation spoken of as taking only six 24 hour days might in fact have been a much longer time, since time is meaningless to God.  Each day, it is said using this verse, could have even been millions of years long.  But look at the context of the verse!  Peter offers this way of looking at time not as an explanation of creation - which he was talking about in 4-6, but adds it after vs 7 when he was talking about the coming destruction of ungodly men.  For most of us, who have loved ones, friends, and relatives that are unsaved, this destruction represents the end of any chance that these people will be saved.  This imminent destruction is in that sense a thing to be feared.  So what does Peter say?  He says yes, it might come tomorrow, but for God tomorrow might mean a thousand years, a million, so this final destruction should motivate us, but not scare us into silence.  And he adds yet another thought...that God delays that destruction because, like us, HE ALSO wants those lost people to be saved!  So the one or a thousand idea is, to my mind, not the least bit about resolving the old earth of modern evolutionary scientist with the creation story in Genesis 1-3.  It is about keeping us from sitting around depressed about the end of the world coming soon and instead urging us to get out there and spread the gospel to any who will listen...and especially to those close to us.

I hang onto this verse in desperation for the lost ones that I love:
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. [2Pe 3:9 ESV]

Peter tells us that what Paul says can be hard to understand.  The difficulty and complexity of his teaching are exploited by false teachers - ignorant and unstable - to lead people astray, to the destruction of the false teachers, and those who follow them.  They do the same with "other Scriptures".  Peter equates Paul's writing here with OT Scripture.

2022 - The idea here is that you cannot explain the doctrine of sanctification in five minutes.  You cannot explain it with one verse.  You cannot really explain it with just the New Testament or Just the Old.  Paul puts it all together.  If you just pick out one verse or just a few, then you can twist and turn what is there and make it seem like something else, and you can get away with presenting such "incomplete" doctrines to those who won't take the time to study it all the way out.  That is what false teachers do.  They extract a concept from the whole into which it belongs, and clip on irrelevant and unsubstantiated concepts around it's edges, where its true connections have been severed.  False doctrine is a Frankenstein monster cobbled together by little men playing at godhood.  Is that what she was really about when she wrote that book?  I may actually need to read that book.  What a novel idea!  (2023 - I read that book last year.  It was interesting, but this is not at all what it was about.)