2 Petrus 1:4

1:4 Through these things ¹  he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised ²  you may become partakers of the divine nature, ³  after escaping ⁴  the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire. ⁵ 

2 Petrus 1:8

1:8 For if ⁶  these things are really yours ⁷  and are continually increasing, ⁸  they will keep you from becoming ⁹  ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of ¹⁰  knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately. ¹¹ 

2 Petrus 1:17

1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that ¹²  voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: “This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted.” ¹³ 

[1:4]  ¹ tn Verse 4 is in Greek a continuation of v. 3, “through which things.”

[1:4]  sn The phrase these things refers to God’s glory and excellence.

[1:4]  ² tn Grk “through them.” The implication is that through inheriting and acting on these promises the believers will increasingly become partakers of the divine nature.

[1:4]  ³ sn Although the author has borrowed the expression partakers of the divine nature from paganism, his meaning is clearly Christian. He does not mean apotheosis (man becoming a god) in the pagan sense, but rather that believers have an organic connection with God. Because of such a connection, God can truly be called our Father. Conceptually, this bears the same meaning as Paul’s “in Christ” formula. The author’s statement, though startling at first, is hardly different from Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians that they “may be filled up to all the fullness of God” (3:19).

[1:4]  ⁴ tn The aorist participle ἀποφυγόντες (apofugonte") is often taken as attendant circumstance to the preceding verb γένησθε (genhsqe). As such, the sense is “that you might become partakers…and might escape…” However, it does not follow the contours of the vast majority of attendant circumstance participles (in which the participle precedes the main verb, among other things). Further, attendant circumstance participles are frequently confused with result participles (which do follow the verb). Many who take this as attendant circumstance are probably viewing it semantically as result (“that you might become partakers…and [thereby] escape…”). But this is next to impossible since the participle is aorist: Result participles are categorically present tense.

[1:4]  ⁵ tn Grk “the corruption in the world (in/because of) lust.”

[1:8]  ⁶ tn The participles are evidently conditional, as most translations render them.

[1:8]  ⁷ tn The participle ὑπάρχοντα (Juparconta) is stronger than the verb εἰμί (eimi), usually implying a permanent state. Hence, the addition of “really” is implied.

[1:8]  ⁸ sn Continually increasing. There are evidently degrees of ownership of these qualities, implying degrees of productivity in one’s intimacy with Christ. An idiomatic rendering of the first part of v. 8 would be “For if you can claim ownership of these virtues in progressively increasing amounts…”

[1:8]  ⁹ tn Grk “cause [you] not to become.”

[1:8]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “unto,” “toward”; although it is possible to translate the preposition εἰς (eis) as simply “in.”

[1:8]  ¹¹ tn Grk “the [rich] knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Verse 8 in Greek does not make a full stop (period), for v. 9 begins with a subordinate relative pronoun. Contemporary English convention requires a full stop in translation, however.

[1:17]  ¹² tn Grk “such a.” The pronoun τοιᾶσδε (toiasde) most likely refers to what follows, connoting something of the uniqueness of the proclamation.

[1:17]  ¹³ tn The verb εὐδόκησα (eudokhsa) in collocation with εἰς ὅν (ei" Jon) could either mean “in whom I am well-pleased, delighted” (in which case the preposition functions like ἐν [en]), or “on whom I have set my favor.”

[1:17]  sn This is my beloved Son, in whom I am delighted alludes to the Transfiguration. However, the author’s version is markedly different from the synoptic accounts (in particular his introductory phrase, “when that voice was conveyed to him,” an unusual expression [perhaps used to avoid naming God directly as the one who spoke from heaven]). The most natural explanation for such differences is that he was unaware of the exact wording of the Gospels. This is, of course, easier to explain if 2 Peter is authentic than if it is a late document, written in the 2nd century.