II Peter 3:4 · Bible study
2 Peter 3:4 Commentary: The Scoffers' Challenge to the Promise
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why do mockers ask 'Where is the promise of His coming?' Explore Peter's response to the argument from nature's stability.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The mockers deny the promise of Christ's return because they see no change in creation since its beginning.
- Key words: παρουσία (coming), ἐκοιμήθησαν (fell asleep, death), διαμένει (continue, remain), ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κτίσεως (from the beginning of creation).
- Main debate: Who are “the fathers”? Some say the patriarchs; others say the first generation of Christians.
- Theological theme: The apparent delay of the parousia and the certainty of God's intervention in history through judgment and salvation.
- Best use: Address skepticism about unfulfilled prophecy; encourage patient hope and holy living.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
“Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.”
WEB World English Bible 2000
and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”
KJV King James Version 1769
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and saying, `Where is the promise of his presence? for since the fathers did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation;'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for from the time the fathers fell asleep all things remain thus from [the] beginning of [the] creation.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y diciendo: ¿ Dónde está la promesa de su advenimiento? porque desde el día en que los padres durmieron, todas las cosas permanecen así como desde el principio de la creación.
E dizendo: Onde está a promessa da vinda dele? Pois desde que os pais dormiram, todas as coisas continuam como desde o princípio da criação.
et disant: Où est la promesse de son avènement? Car, depuis que les pères sont morts, tout demeure comme dès le commencement de la création.
und sagen: Wo ist die Verheißung seiner Zukunft? denn nachdem die Väter entschlafen sind, bleibt es alles, wie es von Anfang der Kreatur gewesen ist.
En zeggen: Waar is de belofte Zijner toekomst? Want van dien dag, dat de vaders ontslapen zijn, blijven alle dingen alzo gelijk van het begin der schepping.
e diranno: Dov’è la promessa della sua venuta? perché dal giorno in cui i padri si sono addormentati, tutte le cose continuano nel medesimo stato come dal principio della creazione.
I mówiący: Gdzież jest obietnica przyjścia jego? Bo jako ojcowie zasnęli, wszystko tak trwa od początku stworzenia.
и говорящие: где обетование пришествия Его? Ибо с тех пор, как стали умирать отцы, от начала творения, все остается так же.
「主 要降臨 的應許 在哪裡呢？因為 從 列祖 睡了以來，萬物 與 起初 創造 的時候仍是 一樣。」
Saying, Where is the hope of his coming? From the death of the fathers till now everything has gone on as it was from the making of the world.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · II Peter 3:4
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The mockers in 2 Peter 3:4 base their denial of Christ's return on the observable continuity of creation. Commentators agree that their argument assumes the regular order of nature disproves any future divine interruption. Barnes notes that the scoffers take the stability of the laws of nature as evidence that the promise of Christ's coming has failed. Calvin calls this a “dangerous scoff” that attacks the heart of Christian hope, because if the resurrection and coming are removed, the gospel is undone. The verb διαμένει (diamenei) is present tense, things keep on as they are. The aorist ἐκοιμήθησαν (ekoimēthēsan) places the fathers' death in the past as a single event. Vincent observes that the phrase ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κτίσεως (“from the beginning of creation”) is rare, appearing also in Mark 10:6 and 13:19. The consensus is that the mockers willfully ignore past judgment (the flood) and misunderstand God's timing, as Peter will show in the following verses.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The mockers' argument is that because creation has remained unchanged since its beginning, the promise of Christ's return has failed.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Identity of 'the fathers' | They refer to those who have died in faith, whether patriarchs or early Christians. | Gill and Wesley argue they are the first ancestors (Adam, Seth); Barnes and the Cambridge Bible argue they are the first generation of Christian disciples who died expecting the parousia. |
| Nature of the mockers | They are skeptics who reject the promise of Christ's return based on the continuity of nature. | Some commentators (Clarke) think they believed in the eternity of the world; others (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) see them as recognizing a God but not the God of revelation. |
| Significance of the flood in Peter's response | The flood is a past event that proves God does intervene in history to judge, contradicting the mockers' claim. | Interpretations of the flood's extent (global vs. local) vary across traditions, but all agree Peter presents it as a real judgment. |
| The meaning of 'from the beginning of the creation' | It anchors the mockers' argument in the original created order, implying no catastrophic change since then. | Some see it as a reference to the creation week (literal six days); others view 'creation' more broadly as the universe's origin, leaving room for various interpretations of the age of the earth. Both readings affirm the point that the mockers appeal to the stable order. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Second Peter was likely written in the mid-60s AD, near the end of Peter’s life, to believers in Asia Minor facing false teachers and growing skepticism. The scoffers Peter warns of walk after their own lusts (v.3) and question the central promise of the gospel: Christ’s return. Their question “Where is the promise of his coming?” echoes ancient complaints against God’s word (Isaiah 5:19; Jeremiah 17:15). The term “fathers” (πατέρες) is ambiguous. Some commentators, like Gill and Wesley, take it as the patriarchs, Adam, Seth, and early generations, since the mockers appeal to the entire span of creation. Others, including Barnes and the Cambridge Bible, see it as the first generation of Christian disciples who died without seeing the parousia, making the scoffing more pointed: those who preached the coming have themselves died, and nothing has changed.
The verb “fell asleep” (ἐκοιμήθησαν) is the Christian euphemism for death, implying resurrection. Vincent notes that the mockers likely use it ironically, turning hope into a taunt. Their worldview matches Ecclesiastes 1:9, “there is no new thing under the sun.” They assume the world is self-sustaining and unchanging. But Peter will argue that they “willingly forget” (v.5) the catastrophic flood, which shows God has interrupted history before. The cultural background includes Stoic and Epicurean ideas of an eternal or cyclical universe, against which the biblical view of creation, judgment, and redemption stands in sharp contrast. The phrase “from the beginning of the creation” anchors their argument in the original order, but also opens the door for Peter to remind them that the creation had a beginning, and can have an end.
Textual Notes
The consulted commentaries note no significant textual variants for 2 Peter 3:4. The Greek text is well established across the manuscript tradition.
Reception History
Throughout church history, this verse has been a touchstone for addressing doubts about Christ's return. Early apologists countered the mockers' argument by pointing to the flood and the coming judgment, as Peter does. During the Reformation, commentators such as Calvin and the Geneva Bible used it to warn against skeptics who deny future judgment. In modern times, the verse continues to speak to those who question whether God will ever intervene in history, offering both a warning against willful ignorance and a call to patient faithfulness.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The mockers' argument: because creation has continued unchanged, the promise must be false.
- Their willful ignorance: they overlook the flood, a past divine interruption.
- God's answer: the delay is not failure but patience, leading to both judgment and hope.
Five-point outline
- The promise of Christ's coming is central to Christian faith.
- The delay leads to scoffing from those who rely on natural observation.
- The appeal to nature's stability ignores the flood, a historical judgment.
- The coming day of the Lord will bring destruction and renewal.
- Believers are called to lives of holiness and eager expectation.
Illustration hooks
- A child waiting for a parent to keep a promise about a holiday; the longer the wait, the more the child doubts it will happen.
- A community awaiting justice after a crime; delay makes people wonder if anyone cares.
- A farmer knows seasons are regular, but one year a flood or fire disrupts everything, nature is not as stable as it seems.
Questions your congregation is asking
- If Jesus promised to return, why has it taken so long?
- How can I be sure God will keep His promises when I see no change?
- Does the fact that the world keeps going mean God has abandoned it?
Leading a Discussion
This passage confronts the oldest challenge to Christian hope: the apparent delay of Christ's return. The mockers' question is not new, and Peter's answer still speaks to our doubts.
Discussion questions
- What specific claim do the scoffers make in verse 4? (Observation)
- How does Peter characterize their attitude? What does “willingly ignorant” imply? (Interpretation)
- Why do the mockers point to the fathers falling asleep? What does that say about their view of death and promise? (Interpretation)
- How does Peter use the flood in verses 5-6 to answer their argument? (Interpretation)
- In what ways are we tempted to think that because nothing has changed, God will not act? (Application)
- How does Peter's teaching about God's timing in verse 8 help you wait with hope? (Application)
- What is one area of your life where you need to trust God's promises despite delay? (Application)
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Genesis 19:14 | Lot went out, and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters, and said, “Get up! Get out of this place, for Yahweh will destroy the city!” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be joking. |
| Ecclesiastes 1:9 | That which has been is that which shall be, and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun. |
| Ecclesiastes 8:11 | Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. |
| Isaiah 5:18 | Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, and wickedness as with cart rope, |
| Isaiah 5:19 | who say, “Let him make haste, let him hasten his work, that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, that we may know it!” |
| Jeremiah 5:12 | They have denied Yahweh, and said, “It is not he. Evil won’t come on us. We won’t see sword or famine. |
| Jeremiah 5:13 | The prophets will become wind, and the word is not in them. Thus it will be done to them.” |
| Jeremiah 17:15 | Behold, they ask me, “Where is Yahweh’s word? Let it be fulfilled now.” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
11 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke identifies the false teachers as believers in the world's eternity, who argue that since creation shows no signs of decay, the promised coming will never happen. They miss that God can annihilate the world instantly, just as He created it.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes observes that the scoffers' question builds on an argument from the uniformity of nature: since the "fathers" died without seeing the promise fulfilled and the world continues unchanged, they conclude the promise has failed. He notes this objection appears even stronger in his own day, with 1,800 more years of unbroken natural laws.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin warns that the scoffers' challenge strikes at the heart of the gospel by denying the resurrection. They willfully ignore the flood, where God overturned the normal course of nature, to argue that the world will always continue. But that very past judgment proves God's promise of future destruction by fire is sure.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The scoffers point to the death of the first generation of Christians, who "fell asleep" without seeing Christ's return, as proof the promised Advent was a delusion. They also appeal to the unbroken continuity of seedtime and harvest, arguing the world goes on as always with no great catastrophe.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The scoffers mock the promise of Christ's return by claiming that since creation and the deaths of the patriarchs, all things continue unchanged. They see no evidence of divine intervention and treat the promise as empty.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill points out that the scoffers base their mockery on the observable continuity of nature: since creation nothing has fundamentally changed, so they conclude the promise of Christ's coming is empty. They deliberately avoid naming the Lord out of contempt and treat the patriarchs' death as permanent sleep. The apostle will expose this faulty reasoning in what follows.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB identifies the scoffers' sin as setting nature and its laws above the God of revelation. They are not necessarily atheists but acknowledge a God of nature while denying His revealed promise of Christ's return, reasoning from the past continuity of creation that no future interruption will occur.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange sees the scoffers as willfully blind, not merely mistaken. They deliberately ignore that God created the world by His word and once destroyed it by water. The delay in Christ's coming is not slowness but patient mercy, because God's view of time is altogether different from ours.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry emphasizes that scoffers will grow more numerous and bold in the last days because the spiritual, simple worship of the New Testament directly opposes humanity's carnal nature. They willfully ignore that God's word created the world and once destroyed it by water, now reserving it for fire at judgment.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent notes that the mockers' phrase "from the beginning of creation" is rare in the New Testament. He also observes that their use of "fell asleep" for death, though a common Greek term, carried a distinct Christian hope of resurrection that the scoffers likely wielded ironically.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that the scoffers will not even name Christ, showing contempt by saying "the promise of his coming" without naming Him. Their argument is that since the beginning of creation, all things in heaven, water, and earth have continued unchanged, so they see no reason to expect any end.