Lectionary Calendar
Monday, July 21st, 2025
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
Take your personal ministry to the Next Level by helping StudyLight build churches and supporting pastors in Uganda.
Click here to join the effort!
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Commentaries
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Meyer's Commentary
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on 2 Peter 3". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/2-peter-3.html. 1832.
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on 2 Peter 3". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://studylight.org/
Whole Bible (49)New Testament (17)Individual Books (11)
Verse 1
2 Peter 3:1 . Not the commencement of a new epistle (Grotius), but of a new section, directed against the deniers of the advent of Christ.
ÏαÏÏην ἤδη ⦠á¼ÏιÏÏολήν ] “This epistle I write to you, as already the second.” Pott: αá½Ïη ἤδη Î´ÎµÏ ÏÎÏα á¼ÏÏὶν á¼ÏιÏÏολὴ , ἣν γÏάÏÏ á½Î¼á¿Î½ . Fronmüller incorrectly explains ἤδη by: “now being near my death.” The epistle first written is the so-called First Epistle of Peter.
á¼Î½ Î±á¼·Ï ] applies both to this and the First Epistle of Peter (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 177]). The prepos. á¼Î½ does not stand here in place of διά (Gerhard), but refers to the contents.
διεγείÏÏ â¦ Î´Î¹Î¬Î½Î¿Î¹Î±Î½ ] for the phrase: διεγείÏειν á¼Î½ á½ÏομνήÏει , cf. chap. 2 Peter 1:13 .
á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ belongs to διάνοιαν .
εἰλικÏινῠ, cf. Philippians 1:10 .
Verse 2
2 Peter 3:2 . Cf. Jude 1:17 ; in Jude mention is not made of the apostles, but only of the prophets.
μνηÏθá¿Î½Î±Î¹ ] Infin. of purpose: “ in order that ye may remember ,” equivalent to Îµá¼°Ï Ïὸ μνηÏθá¿Î½Î±Î¹ (Vorstius).
Ïῶν ÏÏοειÏημÎνÏν ῥημάÏÏν á½Ïὸ Ïῶν á¼Î³Î¯Ïν ÏÏοÏηÏῶν ] This applies evidently to the Old Testament prophets; and with especial reference to the prophecies which relate to the ÏαÏÎ¿Ï Ïία of Christ (cf. 2 Peter 3:4 and chap. 2 Peter 1:19 ). [84] The Vulg. wrongly translates: ut memores sitis eorum quae praedixi verborum a sanctis prophetis (or sanctorum prophetarum).
καὶ Ïá¿Ï Ïῶν á¼ÏοÏÏÏλÏν á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼Î½Ïολá¿Ï Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏÏÏá¿ÏÎ¿Ï ] On the commonly accepted reading ἡμῶν , a double interpretation has been given; some, making ἡμῶν depend on á¼Î½Ïολá¿Ï , for the most part regard Ïῶν á¼ÏοÏÏÏλÏν as in apposition to ἡμῶν , thus: “of our, the apostles’, command” (Luther: “the commandment of us, who are the apostles of the Lord;” thus, too, Calvin, Hornejus, Wolf, Pott, Dietlein, etc.); whilst Bengel more correctly takes ἡμῶν as in apposition to á¼ÏοÏÏÏλÏν , as in Acts 10:41 : μάÏÏÏ Ïι ⦠ἡμá¿Î½ ; for otherwise ἡμῶν must have stood before á¼ÏοÏÏÏλÏν ; cf. also 1 Corinthians 1:18 . Others, again, hold that ἡμῶν is dependent on á¼ÏοÏÏÏλÏν ; thus de Wette: “the commandment of our apostles of the Lord, i.e. of the apostles who have preached to us, and are sent from the Lord.” But against this interpretation is the circumstance, that whilst he elsewhere in the epistle designates himself as an apostle, the author of the epistle would thus make a distinction between himself and the apostles. [85] On the true reading: á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ , the gen. Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï does not, as was for the most part formerly assumed, depend on á¼ÏοÏÏÏλÏν , but on á¼Î½Ïολá¿Ï (Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass); either in the sense: “the commandment ⦠of the Lord of the apostles, i.e. the commandment of the Lord, which the apostles have proclaimed;” or: “ Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï is added by way of supplement to á¼Î½Ïολ .,” and the expression is to be left as it stands originally: “ your command of the apostles, of the Lord , i.e. which the Lord has given ” (Brückner; thus also Wiesinger, Schott); the latter is to be preferred. No doubt the parallel passage in Jude runs: á½Ïὸ Ïῶν á¼ÏοÏÏÏλÏν Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ ; but the whole epistle, and especially this passage of it, shows that the author of our epistle, even if he had Jude’s composition before him, in no way bound himself slavishly to individual expressions in it. According to Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass, by the á¼Ï . á½Î¼ . Paul and his fellow-labourers are meant; this, too, is more probable than that the apostle included himself among them.
By á¼Î½Ïολή is here, as little as in chap. 2 Peter 2:21 , to be understood the gospel or the Christian religion (or, as Dietlein thinks: “the announcement, i.e. the historical proclamation, of those predictions of the prophets, partly fulfilled, partly yet unfulfilled, which was entrusted to the apostles”); but á¼Î½Ïολή means here, as it always does, the commandment; according to de Wette: “the commandment to guard against the false teachers,” after 1 Timothy 4:1 ff. But it is more appropriate, and more in harmony with the connection of thought, to understand by it the command to lead a Christian life, in expectation of the second coming of Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, Brückner); cf. chap. 2 Peter 2:22 , 2Pe 1:5 ff., 2 Peter 3:12 .
[84] Of course Ïá½° ÏÏοειÏημÎνα ῥήμαÏα does not mean “what has been said before,” but “the words aforetime spoken,” and Hofmann did not require to insist upon it; the more so that the contrary is not asserted in the commentaries against which his argument is directed.
[85] De Wette thinks, indeed, that here the non-apostolic writer has involuntarily betrayed himself; but, as Stier justly observes, it can indeed hardly be supposed that the writer should have “so grossly failed to keep up the part” which he had distinctly assumed.
Verse 3
2 Peter 3:3 . ÏοῦÏο ÏÏá¿¶Ïον γινÏÏκονÏÎµÏ ] cf. chap. 2 Peter 1:20 .
γινÏÏκονÏÎµÏ ] refers in loose construction (instead of an accus.) to the subject contained in μνηÏθá¿Î½Î±Î¹ .
á½ Ïι á¼Î»ÎµÏÏονÏαι κ . Ï . λ .] Cf. Jude 1:18 . [86]
á¼Î á¼ÎÎ ÎÎÎÎÎÎá¿ ] gives sharp prominence to the conduct of the á¼ÎÎ Îá¿ÎΤÎÎ . The word is a á¼Î . ÎÎÎ . ; Hebrews 11:36 : á¼ÎÎ ÎÎÎÎÎÏ ; with the constr. á¼Î¡Î§ÎΣÎÎÎ á¼Î , cf. 1 Corinthians 4:21 .
ÎÎΤᾺ Î¤á¾ºÏ â¦ Î ÎΡÎÎ¥ÎÎÎÎÎÎ ] Jude 1:18 ; Jude 1:16 ; ἸÎÎÎÏ is added so as to strengthen the pronoun Îá½Î¤á¿¶Î .
[86] Hofmann unwarrantably assumes that by that, of which the writer would have his readers to be specially mindful, he does not mean only the contents of the sentence depending directly on γινÏÏκονÏÎµÏ , but still more than that.
Verse 4
2 Peter 3:4 . The scoffing words of the á¼Î¼Ïαá¿ÎºÏαι .
καὶ λÎγονÏÎµÏ Ïοῦ á¼ÏÏιν ἡ á¼Ïαγγελία Ïá¿Ï ÏαÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ¯Î±Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ ] The question Ïοῦ á¼ÏÏιν expresses the negation; “quasi dicunt: nusquam est, evanuit; denique vana est et mendax;” cf. 1 Peter 4:18 . The same form of speech with Ïοῦ á¼ÏÏιν : Psalms 42:4 ; Psalms 79:10 ; Malachi 2:17 ; Luke 8:25 .
αá½Ïοῦ , i.e. Christi, cujus nomen ex re ipsa satis poterat intelligi (Grotius). Gerhard assumes that the scoffers did not mention the name of Christ per á¼Î¾Î¿Ï θενιÏμÏν ; thus also Wiesinger, Hofmann. According to the connection (2 Peter 3:2 ), the á¼Ïαγγελία meant is that of the O. T. (cf. chap. 2 Peter 1:19 ff. [87] ). In what follows we have the thesis of the scoffers in opposition to the á¼Ïαγγελία , and the basis of it. The thesis is: ÏάνÏα οá½ÏÏÏ Î´Î¹Î±Î¼Îνει á¼Ïʼ á¼ÏÏá¿Ï κÏίÏεÏÏ ; its basis is indicated by the words: á¼Ïʼ á¼§Ï ( sc . ἡμÎÏÎ±Ï ) οἱ ÏαÏÎÏÎµÏ á¼ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î¼Î®Î¸Î·Ïαν . On the assumption that the á¼Ïʼ á¼§Ï Î¿á¼± ÏÎ±Ï . á¼ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î¼ ., as used by the scoffers, means the period marking off the commencement of the διαμÎνει , and that á¼Ïʼ á¼ÏÏ . ÎºÏ . serves only as a more precise definition of it (Brückner, Schott), then by οἱ ÏαÏÎÏÎµÏ must be understood “the ancestors, the first generations of the human race.” But on this view á¼Ïʼ á¼§Ï Îº . Ï . λ . is an entirely superfluous determination (Wiesinger), nor would there thus be any indication of the ground on which the scoffers based their thesis; if, however, this be contained in á½Ïʼ á¼§Ï Îº . Ï . λ ., the reference in οἱ ÏαÏÎÏÎµÏ can be only either to the fathers of the Jewish people, to whom the á¼Ïαγγελία was given, cf. Hebrews 1:1 (Wiesinger), or those of the generation to which the scoffers belong (de Wette, Thiersch, Fronmüller, Hofmann). Now, since the falling asleep of the fathers of Israel, before its fulfilment, could not well be brought as a proof that the promise was of none effect, inasmuch as it referred to a time beyond that in which they lived (cf. 1 Peter 1:10 ff.), preference must be given to the second view. Wiesinger, indeed, says that the time of the composition of the epistle does not agree with this; but as the tarrying of the ÏαÏÎ¿Ï Ïία had already been the occasion of wonder in the church, and Christianity, when this letter was composed, had now been in existence for at least thirty-five years, it is quite possible that even at that time those who held Libertine views could have supported their denial of the Parousia by the fact that the expectation cherished by the early Christians had remained unrealized, thus calling forth the prophecy here made. At any rate, it is a point not to be overlooked, that the words here used are represented as to be spoken at a time then still in the future. 2 Peter 3:8 , which otherwise would stand totally unconnected with 2 Peter 3:4 , also favours this view. [88] The connection of the two members of the verse is certainly a loose one, since on none of the different interpretations does á¼Ïʼ á¼§Ï Îº . Ï . λ . stand in close connection with διαμÎνει . The thought which has been somewhat inadequately expressed is: Since the fathers fell asleep, nothing has changed, the promise has not been fulfilled, a proof that everything remains as it has been since the creation. With á¼ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î¼Î®Î¸Î·Ïαν , cf. 1 Corinthians 7:39 ; 1 Corinthians 15:6 , and other passages.
οá½ÏÏÏ does not require any supplement properly so called: “the scoffers point as it were with the finger to the (sacred) status quo of the world” (Steinfass).
διαμÎνει does not mean “has remained,” nor is it “will remain,” but the present expresses the continuous, uniform duration; δια strengthens the idea μÎνειν .
á¼Ïʼ á¼ÏÏá¿Ï κÏίÏεÏÏ : “since creation took its beginning.”
[87] This Hofmann disputes, saying: “by the promise is not to be understood the Old Testament promise, nor by the future the future of Christ, since those who speak thus are members of the Christian church; but with respect to the Old Testament prophecy, they speak of Jehovah’s coming, and, with respect to Christ’s prophecy, of His own coming, ἡ á¼Ïαγγελία Ïá¿Ï ÏαÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ¯Î±Ï Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï might comprehend the one as well as the other;” the context, however, is in favour of the interpretation which Hofmann disputes.
[88] Dietlein’s interpretation is altogether wrong. According to it, οἱ ÏαÏÎÏÎµÏ means: “One generation after another always standing in the relation of fathers to the race succeeding it.” Peculiar, but certainly quite unjustifiable, is the opinion of Steinfass, that the scoffers, with reference to the promise contained in the Book of Enoch, understood οἱ ÏαÏÎÏÎµÏ to mean “the prophetical, or more definitely, the eschatological patriarchs, beginning with Enoch and extending down to Daniel.”
Verse 5
2 Peter 3:5 . Refutation of the assertion: ÏάνÏα οá½ÏÏ Î´Î¹Î±Î¼Îνει , by the adducing the fact of the flood. [89] λανθάνει Î³á½°Ï â¦ Î¸ÎλονÏÎ±Ï ] Î³Î¬Ï is not equivalent to δΠ, but designates the thought which follows as the reason for their scoffing: “Thus they speak because;” cf. Winer, p. 423 [E. T. 568].
ÏοῦÏο belongs either to λανθάνει or to θÎλονÏÎ±Ï ; in the first case it refers to what follows: á½ Ïι κ . Ï . λ .; in which case θÎλονÏÎ±Ï will mean: “willingly, on purpose” (Brückner, Wiesinger, Fronmüller, Hofmann; cf. Winer, p. 436 [E. T. 586]; Buttmann, p. 322. Luther: “but they wilfully will not know”); in the second case ÏοῦÏο refers to the contents of the preceding statement, and θÎλειν means “to assert;” “ for, whilst they assert this, it is hidden from them that ” (Dietlein, Schott). The position both of ÏοῦÏο separated from á½ Ïι by θÎλονÏÎ±Ï , and of θÎλονÏÎ±Ï separated by ÏοῦÏο from λανθάνει , favours the second construction; that θÎλειν can be used in the sense of “to assert,” is clear from Herodian, v. 3. 11: εἰκÏνα Ïε á¼¡Î»Î¯Î¿Ï á¼Î½ÎÏγαÏÏον εἶναι θÎÎ»Î¿Ï Ïι ; the word marks the assertion as one based on self-willed arbitrariness, and as without any certain foundation.
á½ Ïι οá½Ïανοὶ ἦÏαν á¼ÎºÏαλαι ] οἱ οá½Ïανοί , the plural according to the common usage.
á¼ÎºÏαλαι ; cf. chap. 2 Peter 2:3 , not: “of old, formerly,” but: “from of old,” i.e. jam inde a primo rerum omnium initio (Gerhard).
ἦÏαν belongs in the first instance to οá½Ïανοί ; yet the subsequent γῠis to be taken as applying to it also.
καὶ γῠá¼Î¾ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ διʼ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏÏá¿¶Ïα ] ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏÏá¿¶Ïα expresses the idea of originating out of a combination; ÏÏ Î½Î¯ÏÏημι is often employed thus by the Greeks in the intransitive tenses, though the reference contained in ÏÏ Î½ sometimes disappears almost entirely. The prepositions á¼Î¾ and διά must not be regarded as synonymous; á¼Î¾ refers to the substance, διά to the means. A twofold significance is thus attributed to the water in the formation of the earth, which is also in harmony with the Mosaic account of the creation, where the original substance is distinctly spoken of as á½Î´ÏÏ , and in the formation of the earth water is mentioned as the instrumental element (Brückner). There is, accordingly, no foundation for the assertion of de Wette, that the author conceived the origin of the world, according to Indo-Egyptian cosmogony, as a species of chemical product of water. Many interpreters, as Bengel, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann, as also Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 441], explain á¼Î¾ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï by saying that the earth arose out of the water “in which it lay buried.” But this interpretation is refuted by the meaning of the verbal idea ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏÏá¿¶Ïα , which belongs to á¼Î¾ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï ; thus, too, an element would be introduced which would be of only secondary importance. [90] Although ΣΥÎÎΣΤῶΣΠbelongs grammatically only to Îá¿ , yet in thought it has been applied to Îá½Î¡ÎÎÎÎ also; thus Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, and in this commentary. This reference may be justified thus far, that Îá½Î¡ÎÎÎÎ is understood of the second day’s work of creation, the visible heavens; but it is necessary only if ÎÎΣÎÎÏ , 2 Peter 3:6 , is to be taken as meaning the heavens and the earth. De Wette arbitrarily refers the preposition á¼Î only to the earth, and ÎÎÎ to the heavens; the latter in the sense of: “through the water, between the water.” Τῷ ΤÎῦ ÎÎÎῦ ÎÎÎῼ ] draws emphatic attention to the fact that the active cause of the creation of the world was the Word of God; to this Τῷ ΤÎῦ ÎÎÎῦ ÎÎÎῼ , the Τῷ Îá½Î¤Îῦ ÎÎÎῼ , 2 Peter 3:7 , corresponds.
[89] Schott disputes this, and maintains that the scoffers appealed to the fact of the flood in support of their opinion, “in as far as it did not form a definite close of the earthly development of the world, by an annihilation of the world,” and that now what the writer wished to bring forward against it was why that judgment of destruction was executed simply by means of a flood, and consequently was not an absolute annihilation, but only a change of form; but how much here must be read between the lines, and to which no allusion is made.
[90] The interpretation of Hornejus shows to what eccentricities commentators sometimes have recourse: dicitur autem terra consistere á¼Î¾ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï , i.e. á¼ÎºÏá½¸Ï á½Î´Î±Ïο ; seu ÏÏá½¸Ï á½Î´Î±Ïι , extra aquam s. ad aquas; διʼ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï , i.e. μεÏá½° S. á¼Î½ μÎÏῳ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï cum aqua s. in media aqua. The opinion of Steinfass, too, that “ ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏÏá¿¶Ïα is to be limited to the creation and existence of human beings, animals, and vegetables,” finds no justification in the words of the epistle.
Verse 6
2 Peter 3:6 . διʼ ὧν κ . Ï . λ .] The question is, to what has ὧν retrospect? The answer depends on the meaning attached to: á½ ÏÏÏε κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï . To appearance this phrase must be regarded as identical with οá½Ïανοὶ καὶ γῠ, 2 Peter 3:5 ; 2 Peter 3:7 (2 Peter 3:10 ; 2 Peter 3:13 ), and in support of this view appeal may be made also to the ÏÏÏε as distinguished from νῦν , 2 Peter 3:7 . On this interpretation, accepted by most expositors (as also in this commentary), διʼ ὧν can refer only either to á¼Î¾ á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï and Ïá¿· Ïοῦ Îεοῦ λÏγῳ (Gerhard, Brückner, Besser, Wiesinger, in this commentary also), or to á½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï alone (Calvin, Pott, etc.) [91] the plural being explained from the circumstance that the water was formerly spoken of both as substance and as medium. The objection to this explanation, however, is that in the account of the flood there is nothing to show that it caused the destruction both of the heaven and of the earth, and that the earth only but not the heaven was submerged; Hofmann accordingly understands by á½ ÏÏÏε κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï , “the world of living creatures,” as Oecumenius already had done: ΤῸ á¼Î ÎÎÎΤΠÎá¿ Î Î¡á¿¸Ï Î ÎÎΤΠΤῸΠÎÎΣÎÎÎ á¼ÎÎΥΣΤÎÎÎ , á¼ÎÎᾺ Î Î¡á¿¸Ï ÎÎÎΠΤᾺ Îá¿¶Î . On this view (where ÎῦΠonly, 2 Peter 3:6 , seems to cause difficulty) ὯΠrefers to Îá½Î¡ÎÎÎá¿ ÎÎá¿ Îá¿ (Oecumenius, Beza, Wolf, Hornejus, Fronmüller, Steinfass, Hofmann). [92]
[91] With this reference Burnet ( Archaeol. Philos . p. 467) agrees, yet he incorrectly explains διʼ ὧν by: earn ob causam, or: propter illam (aquam); for he strangely assumes that whilst the former world was ex aqua et per aquam constituta, this constitutio perished by the flood, so that therefore the κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï that now is, is no longer, ex aqua et per aquam, but aliter constitutus.
[92] Beda likewise applies ὧν to heaven and earth, but interprets (evidently erroneously) διά thus, that these are not the causa, but the objectum perditionis; i.e. διʼ ὧν as equivalent to in quibus partibus aere et terra.
Verse 7
2 Peter 3:7 . οἱ δὲ οá½Ïανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῠ] The νῦν , which applies also to ἡ γῠ, cannot, if by á½ ÏÏÏε κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï is to be understood the world of living beings, be taken as an antithesis to ÏÏÏε , but it refers simply to the present continuance of heaven and earth.
Ïá¿· αá½Ïá¿· [ αá½Ïοῦ ] λÏγῳ ] points back Ïá¿· Ïοῦ Îεοῦ λÏγῳ , 2 Peter 3:5 ; if the reading αá½Ïοῦ be adopted, this adjunct gives expression to the thought that, like as the originating of the heavens and the earth was dependent on the Word of God, so also is their preservation to annihilation by fire. If, however, αá½Ïá¿· be the true reading, the idea seems to be implied that the reservation of the heavens and the earth unto judgment is based already on the words of creation. [93] Though this idea be surprising, it can certainly not, with Hofmann, be said to be paradoxical. It is, however, also possible that Îá½Î¤á¿· is only meant to show that the word by which this keeping of the heavens and the earth takes place, is the Word of God equally with that by which they were created.
ΤÎÎÎΣÎΥΡÎΣÎÎÎÎÎ ÎἸΣΠ] “ are stored up ,” like a treasure, which is kept against a particular time, cf. Romans 2:5 . Dietlein is of opinion that in the word the idea of use must be kept hold of; he defines it thus: “that heaven and earth are to serve as the material for punishment, in such a manner, however, that they at the same time perish themselves;” but this is justified neither by the reference (Romans 2:5 ), nor by the context.
ÏÏ Ïá½¶ ΤÎΡÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ Î . Τ . Î . ] “ In that they are reserved for the fire against the day ,” etc.; ÏÏ Ïί is more appropriately joined with ΤÎΡÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ (Brückner, Fronmüller) than with ΤÎÎÎΣÎΥΡÎΣÎÎÎÎÎ ÎἸΣΠ(Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann); this last term does not require the adjunct, since in itself it corresponds to the ἮΣÎΠ⦠ΣΥÎÎΣΤῶΣΠ, and it is only in the second member of the sentence that mention can be made of the future destruction by fire; otherwise, too, ΤÎΡÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ would be somewhat superfluous. The thought alluded to in ΠΥΡῠΤÎΡÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ is further developed in 2 Peter 3:10 . Nowhere in the O. T. or N. T. is this idea so definitely expressed as here; yet from this it does not follow that it is to be traced to Greek, more particularly to the Stoic philosophy, or to Oriental mythology. The O. T. makes frequent reference to a future change in the present condition of the world (“Heaven and earth shall pass away,” Psalms 102:26-27 ), in connection with the appearance of God to judgment; cf. Isaiah 34:4 ; Isaiah 51:6 ; especially Isaiah 66:0 , where in Isaiah 66:22 a new heaven and a new earth is expressly spoken of; thus, too, Job 14:12 . Equally is it more than once set forth that God will come to judgment in the destroying fire, Isaiah 66:15 , Daniel 7:9-10 , etc.; how easily, then, from passages such as these could the conception which finds expression here arise, [94] the more especially that it was promised that the world would never again be destroyed by a flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire appeared to be a type of the future judgment of the world.
Conceptions as to the world’s destruction similar to those in the O. T. are to be found in the N. T. Matthew 5:18 (Matthew 5:24 ; Matthew 5:29 ), Hebrews 12:27 ; of fire accompanying the judgment, 1 Corinthians 3:13 , 2 Thessalonians 1:8 ; of the new heaven and the new earth, Revelation 21:1 .
Îµá¼°Ï á¼¡Î¼ÎÏαν ⦠á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÏν ] The final end against which heaven and earth remain reserved for fire; á¼Î ÎÎÎÎÎ : the opposite of ΣΩΤÎΡÎÎ , cf. Philippians 1:28 (chap. 2 Peter 2:3 ).
Dietlein erroneously understands ΤῶΠá¼Î£ÎÎá¿¶Î á¼ÎÎΡÎΠΩΠas a designation of the whole of mankind, in that, with the exception of the converted, they are ungodly. To any such exception there is here no reference; the phrase has reference rather to the ungodly in contrast to the godly.
[93] Dietlein: “The sense is this, that the same λÏÎ³Î¿Ï which created the world, assigned also to the post-Noachic world its time and its judgment.”
[94] When Schott denies this, and asserts in opposition that the passages Isaiah 66:15 ff., together with Malachi 3:1-3 ; Malachi 4:1 , are “the complete statements of that event,” surely no judicious expositor will agree with him.
Verse 8
2 Peter 3:8 refers to the reason given in á¼Ïʼ á¼§Ï , 2 Peter 3:4 , on which the scoffers based their assertion; it points out that the delay, also, of the Parousia is no proof that it will not take place.
á¼Î½ δὲ ÏοῦÏο ] “ this one thing ,” as a specially important point.
μὴ λανθανÎÏÏ á½Î¼á¾¶Ï ] “ let it not be hid from you ;” said with reference to 2 Peter 3:5 .
á½ Ïι μία ἡμÎÏα κ . Ï . λ .] a thought that echoes Psalms 90:4 . The words lay stress on the difference between the divine and the human reckoning of time. It does not designate God as being absolutely without limitations of time (cui nihil est praeteritum, nihil futurum, sed omnia praesentia; Aretius), for it is not the nature of God that is here in question, but God’s reckoning of time which He created along with the world, and the words only bring out that it is different from that of man. [95] For this purpose the words of the Psalms were not sufficient: ΧÎÎÎÎ á¼Î¤Î á¼Î á½Î¦ÎÎÎÎÎá¿Ï ΣÎÎ¥ á½©Ï á¼© ἩÎÎΡΠἩ á¼Î§ÎÎÏ ; and therefore on the basis of them the author constructs a verse consisting of two members.
Î ÎΡᾺ ÎΥΡÎÎÎ¥ ] “ with God,” i.e. in God’s way of looking at things. Since, then, time has a different value in God’s eyes from that which it has in the eyes of men, the tarrying hitherto of the judgment, although it had been predicted as at hand , is no proof that the judgment will not actually come. [96]
[95] Hofmann is consequently equally incorrect when he says that the passage in the Psalm asserts that “for God time is no time,” but here that “for Him it is neither short nor long.”
[96] The following thoughts are not expressed here, although they may he inferred from what is said: “In one single day of judgment God can punish the sin of centuries, and can adjust that great inequality which, by so long a duration, has been introduced into eternity” (Dietlein); and “in one day a mighty step onwards may be taken, such as in a thousand years could hardly have been expected; and then again, if retarded by the will of God, the march of development will, for a thousand years hardly move faster than otherwise it would have done in a single day” (Thiersch, p. 107).
Verse 9
2 Peter 3:9 . Explanation of the seeming delay in the fulfilment of the promise.
οὠβÏαδÏνει κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï Ïá¿Ï á¼ÏÎ±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î±Ï ] The genitive does not depend on κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï (Steinfass), but on the verb, which here is not intransitive, as if ÏεÏί (Hornejus), or á¼Î½ÎµÎºÎ± (Pott), or some such word were to be supplied, but transitive; although elsewhere it governs the accusative (Isaiah 46:13 , LXX.: Ïὴν ÏÏÏηÏίαν Ïὴν ÏαÏʼ á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ οὠβÏÎ±Î´Ï Î½á¿¶ ), it can, in the idea of it, be likewise construed with the genitive. [97]
βÏαδÏνει means not simply: “differre, to put off,” for the author admits a delay, but it contains in it the idea of tardiness (Genesis 43:10 ), which even holds out the prospect of a non-fulfilment; Gerhard: discrimen est inter tardare et differre; is demum tardat, qui ultra debitum tempus, quod agendum est, differt. Cf. with this passage, Habakkuk 2:3 (Hebrews 10:37 ) and Sir 32:22 (in Luther’s translation, 35:22), LXX.: καὶ ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï Î¿á½ Î¼á½´ βÏαδÏνῠ, οá½Î´á½² μὴ μακÏÎ¿Î¸Ï Î¼Î®Ïει .
κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï here, as in 2 Peter 3:8 , is God, not Christ, as Schott vainly tries to prove.
á½¡Ï ÏινÎÏ Î²ÏαδÏÏηÏα ἡγοῦνÏαι ] “ as some consider it tardiness ;” that is, that, contrary to expectation, the promise has not yet been fulfilled; Grotius: et propterea ipsam quoque rem promissam in dubium trahunt. ÏÎ¯Î½ÎµÏ denotes not the scoffers, but members of the church weak in the faith.
á¼Î»Î»á½° Î¼Ï ÎºÏÎ¿Î¸Ï Î¼Îµá¿ Îµá¼°Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï ] μακÏÎ¿Î¸Ï Î¼Îµá¿Î½ c. á¼Ïί : Matthew 18:26 ; Matthew 18:29 ; Luke 18:7 , etc.; c. ÏÏÏÏ : 1 Thessalonians 5:14 ; c. Îµá¼°Ï only here: “ with reference to you .”
Îµá¼°Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï ] not: “towards mankind called of free grace” (Dietlein), nor towards the heathen (Schott), but in á½Î¼á¾¶Ï the readers are addressed to whom the epistle is written, the more general reference to the others being understood as a matter of course. The reason of the non-fulfilment hitherto lies in the long-suffering love of God; the nearer definition lies in the words which follow.
μὴ Î²Î¿Ï Î»ÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ] The participle in an explanatory sense: “ in that he is not willing .” [98]
ÏÎ¹Î½á½°Ï á¼ÏολÎÏθαι ] ÏÎ¹Î½Î¬Ï , namely, such as still lead a sensual life.
á¼Î»Î»á½° ÏάνÏÎ±Ï Îµá¼°Ï Î¼ÎµÏάνοιαν ÏÏÏá¿Ïαι ] ÏÏÏεá¿Î½ here similarly as in Matthew 15:17 ( Aeschyl. Pers. v. 385: Îµá¼°Ï Î½Î±á¿¦Î½ ; cf. Wahl, s.v. ), “ but come to repentance ,” or perhaps more correctly: “enter into repentance;” not as Dietlein thinks: “take the decisive step to repentance;” Calvin would, quite incorrectly, take ÏÏÏεá¿Î½ either as equivalent to recipere, so that κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï would be the subject, or as an intrans. verb equal to colligi, aggregari.
With the thought, cf. 1 Timothy 2:4 ; Ezekiel 18:23 ; Ezekiel 33:11 . [99]
[97] To combine Ïá¿Ï á¼ÏÎ±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î±Ï with the subsequent á½¥Ï ÏÎ¹Î½ÎµÏ Î²ÏαδÏÏηÏα ἡγοῦνÏαι , so as to make the genitive dependent on βÏαδÏÏηÏα (Hofmann), produces a very clumsy and artificial construction.
[98] According to Dietlein, βοÏλεÏθαι expresses a “determination of the will;” θÎλειν , “willing as a self-determination;” this is incorrect, βοÏλεÏθαι rather means willing, arising with and from conscious reflection; θÎλειν , on the other hand, is willing in general, arising also from direct inclination.
[99] In order to deprive this passage of all force against the doctrine of predestination, Calvin remarks: sed hic quaeri potest: si neminem Deus perire vult, cur tam multi pereunt? Respondeo, non de arcano Dei consilio hic fieri mentionem, quo destinati sunt reprobi in suum exitum: sed tantum de voluntate, quae nobis in evangelio patent. Omnibus enim promiscue manunmillic porrigit Deus, sed eos tantum apprehendit, ut ad se ducat, quos ante conditum mundum elegit; Beza, Piscator, etc., also apply this passage to the electi only.
Verse 10
2 Peter 3:10 . ἥξει δὲ [ ἡ ] ἡμÎÏα ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï á½¡Ï ÎºÎ»ÎÏÏÎ·Ï ] ἥξει δΠstands first by way of emphasis, in contrast to what precedes: “ but come will the day of the Lord.” These words express the certainty of the coming of the day of judgment, and á½¡Ï ÎºÎ»ÎÏÏÎ·Ï its unexpected suddenness; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2 (Matthew 24:43 ): Ïá¿Ï Ïοῦ Îεοῦ ἡμÎÏÎ±Ï , 2 Peter 3:12 , shows that ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï is here also equivalent to Îεοῦ (not to ΧÏιÏÏοῦ ; Schott).
á¼Î½ á¾ [ οἱ ] οá½Ïανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν ÏαÏελεÏÏονÏαι ] This relative clause states “the event of that day, which makes it essentially what it is” (Schott). ῥοιζηδὸν , á¼ Ï . λεγ ., equivalent to μεÏá½° á¿¥Î¿Î¯Î¶Î¿Ï , is best taken in the sense peculiar to the word: “ with rushing swiftness ” (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Pape, s.v. ); Oecumenius understands it of the crackling of the destroying fire; de Wette, on the other hand, of the crash of the falling together. With ÏαÏελεÏÏονÏαι , cf. Matthew 24:35 ; Matthew 5:18 ; Luke 16:17 ; Revelation 21:1 . As to how the heavens shall pass away, see 2 Peter 3:12 .
ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± δὲ ÎºÎ±Ï ÏοÏμενα Î»Ï Î¸Î®ÏονÏαι ] ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± cannot refer to the so-called four elements, “inasmuch as the dissolving of fire by means of fire is unthinkable” (Brückner), and it is arbitrary to limit the idea to three (Hornejus), or to two (Estius) elements; as now the position of the words shows that the expression has reference neither to the earth afterwards named, nor to the world as made up of heaven and earth (Pott: elementa totius mundi tam coeli quam terrae; thus, too, Brückner: “the primary substances of which the world, as an organism, is composed;” similarly Wiesinger, Schott), it must be understood of the constituent elements of the heavens, corresponding to the expression: αἱ Î´Ï Î½Î¬Î¼ÎµÎ¹Ï Ïῶν οá½Ïανῶν , Isaiah 34:4 ; Matthew 24:29 (cf. Meyer in loc. ). This view is justified by the circumstance that in the preceding οἱ οá½Ïανοὶ ⦠ÏαÏελεÏÏονÏαι no mention has as yet been made of the destruction of heaven and earth by fire. At variance with this view, Hofmann understands the expression ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± here as a designation of the stars, arbitrarily asserting that ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± “cannot be only original component parts, but must also be prominent points which dominate that by which they are surrounded,” appealing to Justin ( Apolog. ii. c. 5, and Dial. c. Tr. c. 23), who speaks of the stars as ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± οá½Ïάνια . To this view it may be objected, that the author could not picture to himself a burning of the stars, which appeared to him as fiery bodies; neither do any of the corresponding passages of Scripture allude to this.
The verb ÎºÎ±Ï ÏοῦÏθαι only here and in 2 Peter 3:12 : “ to burn ;” in the classics: “to suffer from heat;” the participle expresses the reason of the Î»Ï Î¸Î®ÏονÏαι : “will be dissolved by the burning.” λÏειν , in the sense of: to destroy, to bring to nothing, Ephesians 2:14 ; 1 John 3:8 , very appropriate here if ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± be the original elements.
καὶ γῠκαὶ Ïá½° á¼Î½ αá½Ïá¿ á¼Ïγα καÏακαήÏεÏαι ] Ïá½° á¼Ïγα are neither the wicked works of man (after 1 Corinthians 3:15 ), nor his works in general (Rosenmüller, Steinfass, Hofmann); the reference may be either to the opera naturae et artis (Bengel, Dietlein: “the manifold forms which appear on the earth’s surface, in contrast to the earth as a whole;” thus also Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmüller); or the expression may be synonymous with that which frequently occurs in the O. T.: ἡ γῠκαὶ Ïὸ ÏλήÏÏμα αá½Ïá¿Ï , that is to say, the creations of God which belong to the earth, as they are related in the history of creation, cf. Revelation 10:6 . Hofmann wrongly urges against this view, that on it Ïá½° á¼Î½ αá½Ïá¿ would be sufficient; for even though this be true, it does not follow that the addition of the word á¼Ïγα would prove that it is “the works of men” that are here meant. With reference to the reading εá½ÏεθήÏεÏαι , instead of the Rec. καÏακαήÏεÏαι (see critical remarks), Hofmann regards it as original, and considers the words καὶ Ïá½° ⦠εá½ÏεθήÏεÏαι as an interrogative clause subjoined to the preceding affirmative clause. Of course an interrogative clause may be subjoined to an affirmative; but when Hofmann, in support of his interpretation, appeals to 1 Corinthians 5:2 , he fails to observe that the relation between the statement and the question there is entirely different from that which is supposed to exist here.
Verses 11-12
2 Peter 3:11-12 . ÏοÏÏÏν οá½Î½ ÏάνÏÏν Î»Ï Î¿Î¼ÎνÏν ] ÏοÏÏÏν ÏάνÏÏν refers to all the things before mentioned, and not only, as Hofmann thinks, to the immediately preceding á¼Ïγα . As regards the reading οá½ÏÏÏ , instead of the Rec. οá½Î½ , it is indeed not supported by the preponderance of authorities; it deserves, however, the preference because it (equivalent to: “as has before been stated”) is more significant than the reading οá½Î½ . The present Î»Ï Î¿Î¼ÎνÏν is explained by Winer, p. 321 [E. T. 430]: “since all this is in its nature destined to dissolution; the lot of dissolution is, as it were, already inherent in those things” (thus also Dietlein, de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger); but it is more correct to find expressed in the present the certainty of the event, which is, no doubt, as yet future (similarly Schott), especially as the passing away of all things, as it is formerly described, is in consequence not of their nature, but of the will of God as Judge. Hofmann denies, indeed, any reference to the future, remarking: the present participial clause brings out that this is the fate of the subject; but this fate is one which is realized only in the future.
ÏοÏαÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î´Îµá¿ Îº . Ï . λ .] As regards its arrangement, this period, as far as the end of 2 Peter 3:12 , is divided by many into two portions, of which the first closes either with á½Î¼á¾¶Ï (Pott, Meyer in his translation) or with εá½ÏÎµÎ²ÎµÎ¯Î±Î¹Ï (Griesbach, Fronmüller), and forms a question to which the second half supplies the answer. But opposed to this construction is the word: ÏοÏαÏοÏÏ , which in the N. T. is never used as indirect interrogation, but always in exclamation. Consequently the whole forms one clause, which has a hortative sense (so, too, Hofmann), [100] and before which may be supplied for the sake of clearness: “consider therefore.” The sense is: “since all that passes away, consider what manner of persons you ought to be;” Gerhard: quam pie, quam prudenter vos oportet conservari; yet Î ÎΤÎÎ ÎÏ (in classical writers generally Î ÎÎÎÎ ÎÏ ) is not equivalent to quantus (Bretschneider, de Wette-Brückner), but to qualis.
á¼Î á¼ÎÎÎÎÏ á¼ÎÎΣΤΡÎΦÎá¿Ï ÎÎá¿ Îá½Î£ÎÎÎÎÎÎÏ ] The plural marks the holy behaviour and the piety in their different tendencies and forms of manifestation. These words may be taken either with what precedes (so most commentators) or with what follows (thus Steinfass); the latter is to be preferred, since the force of Î ÎΤÎÎ ÎÎÏ would only be weakened by this adjunct.
ΠΡÎΣÎÎÎá¿¶ÎΤÎÏ ÎÎῠΣΠÎÎ¥ÎÎÎΤÎÏ Î¤á¿Î Î ÎΡÎΥΣÎÎΠΤá¿Ï ΤÎῦ ÎÎÎῦ ἩÎÎΡÎÏ ] not: “so that,” but: “ since ye ⦠in holy walk ⦠look for .”
Most of the earlier interpreters arbitrarily supply Îµá¼°Ï to ΣΠÎÎÎÎÎΤÎÏ ; Vulg.: exspectantes et properantes in adventum; Luther: “hasten to the day.” Others attribute to the word the meaning: “to expect with longing,” but this force it never has; in the passages quoted in support of it the word rather means: “to prosecute anything with zeal,” e.g. Pind. Isthm. v. 22: ÏÏεÏδειν á¼ÏεÏάν ; Isaiah 16:5 , LXX.: ΣΠ. ÎÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎÎ ; but then the object is always something which is effected by the action of the ΣΠÎÎÎÎÎΤÎÏ ; the original signification of hastening, hurrying, is to be kept hold of here. That by which this hastening is to be accomplished is to be gathered from 2 Peter 3:11 , namely, by an holy walk and piety. The context nowhere hints that it is to be accomplished only by prayer [101] (Hofmann, following Bengel).
The expression: Ïὴν ÏαÏÎ¿Ï Ïίαν Ïá¿Ï Ïοῦ Îεοῦ ἡμÎÏÎ±Ï , occurs nowhere else; with ἡ Ï . Îεοῦ ἡμ ., cf. 2 Peter 3:10 and Titus 2:13 ; to ÏαÏÎ¿Ï Ïίαν Steinfass arbitrarily supplies “ Ïοῦ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ .”
διʼ ἣν οá½Ïανοὶ κ . Ï . λ .] A resumption of what is said in 2 Peter 3:10 .
διʼ ἥν may be referred either to Ïὴν ÏαÏÎ¿Ï Ïίαν (Steinfass, Hofmann) or to Ïá¿Ï Ï . Î . ἡμÎÏÎ±Ï ; in both cases the sense remains substantially the same. It is to be taken neither as equivalent to per (like διά , c. gen.), nor in a temporal sense (Luther: “in which”); but it denotes here, as it always does, the occasioning cause, equal to “on account of” (Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott; cf. Winer, p. 373 [E. T. 498]). Dietlein translates correctly, but arbitrarily explains the phrase by: “in whose honour as it were.”
ÏÏ ÏοÏμενοι ] cf. Ephesians 6:16 ; Dietlein falsely: “in that they will burn;” the part. is present, not future.
ÏήκεÏαι ] de Wette: “ ÏήκεÏαι must not be taken strictly as meaning to be melted , as if ÏÏÎ¿Î¹Ï . were to be conceived of as a solid mass, it can be regarded as synonymous with λÏεÏθαι ;” the reference to Isaiah 34:4 , LXX.: καὶ ÏακήÏονÏαι Ïá¾¶Ïαι αἱ Î´Ï Î½Î¬Î¼ÎµÎ¹Ï Ïῶν οá½Ïανῶν (cf. Micah 1:4 ), cannot fail to be recognised. [102] Gerhard: cum tota mundi machina, coelum, terra et omnia quae sunt in ea sint aliquando peritura, ideo ab inordinata mundi dilectione cor nostrum abstrahentes coelestium bonorum desiderio et amore flagremus.
[100] Hofmann, however, does not urge the N. T. usage of ÏοÏαÏοÏÏ in favour of this construction, but “the want of purpose and coldness of dividing the thought into question and answer.”
[101] De Wette gives substantially the correct interpretation: “They hasten the coming of the day, in that by repentance and holiness they accomplish the work of salvation, and render the μακÏÎ¿Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯Î± , ver. 9, unnecessary;” and Wiesinger further adds: “and positively bring it on by their prayers” (Revelation 22:17 ).
[102] Although this passage does not finally settle the dispute, whether an entire destruction, an annihilation, or only a transformation of the state of the world is to be looked for, whether the world is to be destroyed by fire, quoad substantiam suam, or quoad qualitates suas, still it gives more support to the second than the first idea, since, in spite of the strong expressions which the writer makes use of, it is not decidedly stated that the world will be dissolved into nothing.
Verse 13
2 Peter 3:13 . ÎºÎ±Î¹Î½Î¿á½ºÏ Î´á½² οá½ÏÎ±Î½Î¿á½ºÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ γá¿Î½ καινήν ] This verse, which does not depend on διʼ ἥν (Dietlein), but is joined in an independent manner to what goes before, forms the antithesis to the thought last expressed, and serves to strengthen the exhortation contained in 2 Peter 3:11-12 .
By ÎºÎ±Î¹Î½Î¿á½ºÏ â¦ ÎºÎ±Î¹Î½Î®Î½ the heaven and the earth of the future are distinguished as to their character from those of the present, and prominence is given to their glorified condition; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17 .
The same idea of a new heaven and a new earth is expressed in Revelation 21:1 .
καÏá½° Ïὸ á¼Ïάγγελμα αá½Ïοῦ ] cf. Isaiah 65:17 ; Isaiah 66:22 .
αá½Ïοῦ ] i.e. Îεοῦ ; the O. T. promise, principally at least, is meant. ÏÏοÏδοκῶμεν , which looks back to ÏÏοÏδοκῶνÏÎ±Ï , 2 Peter 3:12 , significantly designates the new heaven and the new earth as the aim of the certain hope of believers.
á¼Î½ Î¿á¼·Ï Î´Î¹ÎºÎ±Î¹Î¿ÏÏνη καÏοικεῠ] A similar thought is contained in Isaiah 65:25 ; cf. also Revelation 21:3-27 . Erasmus incorrectly refers á¼Î½ Î¿á¼·Ï to the subject contained in ÏÏοÏδοκῶμεν ; it plainly goes back to ÎºÎ±Î¹Î½Î¿á½ºÏ Î¿á½Ï . κ . γá¿Î½ καιν . δικαιοÏÏνη , not equivalent to gloria et felicitas coelestis, utpote verae justitiae praemium (Vorstius), but the vera justitia itself, i.e. the holy conduct, completely in harmony with the divine will, of those who belong to the new heaven and the new earth. [103] Hofmann widens the idea too much, when he says that “ δικαιοÏÏνη is to be understood not as applying only to the right conduct of men, but in the sense of integrity of nature generally.”
[103] In the Book of Enoch also, similar conceptions are to be found; chap. Psalms 90:17 : “and the former heavens, they shall pass away and be dissolved, and new heavens will appear;” chap. Psalms 54:4-5 : “In that day will I cause mine elect to dwell in their midst, and I will change the heavens,” etc.; “I will also change the earth,” etc.; 1. 5: “the earth shall rejoice, the righteous shall dwell therein, and the elect shall go and walk therein;” x. 17: “The earth shall be purified from all corruption, from all crime, from all punishment, and from all suffering.”
Verse 14
2 Peter 3:14 . διὸ , á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏοὶ , ÏαῦÏα ÏÏοÏδοκῶνÏÎµÏ ] The participle does not give the explanation of the Î´Î¹Ï : “wherefore, because we expect this” (Wiesinger, Schott), but the waiting for it belongs to the exhortation (Dietlein, Brückner, Steinfass).
ÏÏÎ¿Ï Î´Î¬ÏαÏε á¼ÏÏιλοι ⦠á¼Î½ εἰÏήνῠ] á¼ÏÏιλοι , cf. 1 Peter 1:19 : á¼Î¼ÏμηÏοι , besides here only in Philippians 2:15 , “ unblamable ” (Deuteronomy 32:5 : ÏÎκνα μÏμηÏα ); reverse of the false teachers: ÏÏá¿Î»Î¿Î¹ καὶ μῶμοι , chap. 2 Peter 2:13 .
αá½Ïá¿· ] not equal to á½Ïʼ αá½Ïοῦ , nor is it the dat. comm. (Schott); and as little: “with reference to him” (Hofmann); but: “ according to His ( i.e. God’s) judgment .”
εá½Ïεθá¿Î½Î±Î¹ ] refers not to the future time of the judgment, but to the present time of the expectation.
á¼Î½ εἰÏήνῠ] This adjunct does not belong to ÏÏοÏδοκῶνÏÎµÏ , as Beza considers probable, but to εá½Ïεθá¿Î½Î±Î¹ á¼ÏÏιλοι κ . Ï . λ .; it gives the life-element, in which the Christian must move (so, too, Brückner); cf. Ephesians 1:4 : á¼Î½ á¼Î³Î¬Ïá¿ ; 1 Thessalonians 3:13 : á¼Î½ á¼Î³Î¹ÏÏÏνῠ, if he would be found an á¼ÏÏÎ¹Î»Î¿Ï : εἰÏήνῠis here not “concord” (Pott, Augusti), nor is it “the good conscience,” but peace, in the full meaning of the word; the addition is explained from 2 Peter 3:15 . Dietlein incorrectly takes á¼Î½ εἰÏήνῠas the object to be supplied to á¼ÏÏιλοι καὶ á¼Î¼ÏμηÏοι , which are here used not as relative, but as absolute adjectives; at the same time, too, he limits εἰÏήνη , in the conception of it, to “peace of the church, especially to peace in relation to the church authorities.” Not less erroneous is it to regard, with Steinfass, á¼Î½ εἰÏήνῠas the opposite “of all division between the Jewish and the Gentile elements.” The interpretation of de Wette: “to your peace,” equivalent to Îµá¼°Ï Îµá¼°Ïήνην (Beza: vestro bono, clementem illum videlicet ac pacificum experturi), cannot be justified on linguistic grounds.
Verses 15-16
2 Peter 3:15-16 . καὶ Ïὴν Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ μακÏÎ¿Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯Î±Î½ ] See 2 Peter 3:9 : “the long-suffering of our Lord, which consists in this, that He still keeps back the last judgment.” It is open to question whether ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ means God (de Wette, Dietlein, Fronmüller) or Christ (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass); what goes before favours the former (2 Peter 3:14 ; 2 Peter 3:12 ; 2Pe 3:10 ; 2 Peter 3:9 ; 2 Peter 3:8 ), the N. T. usage the latter; in both cases the sense is substantially the same.
ÏÏÏηÏίαν ἡγεá¿Ïθε ] antithesis to: βÏÎ±Î´Ï Ïá¿Ïα ἡγοῦνÏαι , 2 Peter 3:9 : “the μακÏÎ¿Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯Î± of the Lord account for salvation,” i.e. as something which has your salvation as its aim, that is, by your making such use of the time of grace, that the fruit of it is the ÏÏÏηÏία .
ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¼Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½ á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏá½¸Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼Î´ÎµÎ»Ïá½¸Ï Î Î±á¿¦Î»Î¿Ï Îº . Ï . λ .] The reference here to Paul is evidently meant to emphasize the exhortation given; it is, however, more particularly occasioned by the circumstance, that many persons had been guilty of wresting the apostle’s words, and against this the apostle wishes to warn his readers.
á½ á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏá½¸Ï Îº . Ï . λ .] designates Paul not only as a friend, or a fellow-Christian, but as one with whom Peter feels himself most intimately connected in official relationship. Hofmann, on the other hand, presses the plural ἡμῶν , and thinks that by it the apostle, with a view to his Gentile readers, would unite the Jewish-Christians with himself, so as to show that the apostle of the Gentiles was a beloved brother to them as well as to him. The adjunct: καÏá½° Ïὴν δοθεá¿Ïαν αá½Ïá¿· ÏοÏίαν , acknowledges the wisdom which has been granted to him, of which also the utterances which the apostle especially has in his eye are the outcome.
á¼Î³ÏαÏεν á½Î¼á¿Î½ ] Which epistle or epistles are meant? According to Oecumenius, Lorinus, Grotius, etc., as also Dietlein and Besser: it is the Epistle to the Romans , on account of Romans 9:22 ( ἤνεγκεν á¼Î½ ÏολλῠμακÏÎ¿Î¸Ï Î¼Î¯á¾³ ) and Romans 2:4 ; according to Jachmann: the Epistle to the Corinthians (chiefly on account of 1 Corinthians 1:7-9 ), in consideration of the words: καÏá½° ⦠ÏοÏίαν ; according to Estius, Bengel, Hornejus, Gerhard, etc.: the Epistle to the Hebrews , on account of Hebrews 9:26 ff., Hebrews 10:25 ; Hebrews 10:37 . These different opinions assume that καθÏÏ applies only to the last thought expressed in this verse. But there is no reason for any such limitation, since this exhortation is joined in the closest manner possible to that which precedes it in 2 Peter 3:14 . Wiesinger rightly rejects the supposition that ÎºÎ±Î¸á½¼Ï á¼Î³ÏαÏε refers still farther back, namely, to the whole section relating to the Parousia (de Wette, with whom Brückner agrees, and Schott).
Since the document to which the author alludes is, by á¼Î³ÏαÏεν á½Î¼á¿Î½ , indicated as one addressed to the same circle of readers as Second Peter, the reference here cannot be to the above-named epistles, nor yet to the Epistle to the Thessalonians (de Wette), but only to the Epistle to the Ephesians (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann: to this Steinfass adds the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to the Colossians; Fronmüller, the last-named epistle and that to the Romans). In support of this may be urged the character of this epistle as a circular letter, and the echoes of it to be found in First Peter. It must also be observed, that although the precise thought expressed in the beginning of this verse is not to be found in that epistle, yet the epistle itself is certainly rich in ethical exhortations with reference to the Christian’s hope of salvation. [104] It is plainly entirely arbitrary to assume, with Pott and Morus, that the apostle here refers to an epistle which we do not now possess.
[104] Schott must be considered mistaken in appealing to this, that “it is precisely the Epistle to the Ephesians, Ephesians 2:11 to Ephesians 3:12 , which contains the most exact development of the idea expressed here in Ephesians 2:9 and Ephesians 2:15 , that the divine direction of history, with a view to the completion of salvation, has given the peculiar significance to the present time, to lead into the church the heathen world , which will be the subject of the future completion of salvation;” of all this absolutely nothing is here said.
Verse 16
2 Peter 3:16 . á½¡Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î½ ÏάÏÎ±Î¹Ï [ Ïαá¿Ï ] á¼ÏιÏÏολαá¿Ï ] sc . á¼Î³ÏαÏεν . By this adjunct the epistle of Paul, referred to in á¼Î³ÏαÏεν á½Î¼á¿Î½ , is definitely distinguished from his other epistles; but what is true of the former is asserted also of the latter, i.e. that they contain the same exhortations, a statement, however, which is more precisely limited by λαλῶν á¼Î½ αá½Ïαá¿Ï ÏεÏá½¶ ÏοÏÏÏν . The difference in the reading, that is, whether the article is to be put with ÏάÏÎ±Î¹Ï or not, is of trifling importance for the meaning, since it is unwarranted to suppose that ÏάÏÎ±Î¹Ï Ïαá¿Ï marks the epistles of Paul as forming a formally completed collection (Wiesinger), the article only showing that the epistles of Paul were already known as such.
λαλῶν á¼Î½ αá½Ïαá¿Ï ÏεÏá½¶ ÏοÏÏÏν ] λαλῶν is not for: á¼Î½ Î±á¼·Ï Î»Î±Î»Îµá¿ (Pott), but it means: “ when in them ( i.e. in his epistles) he speaks of these things .” ÏεÏá½¶ ÏοÏÏÏν can only have the same reference as καθÏÏ , 2 Peter 3:15 ; that is, then, not strictly to the teaching as to the Parousia as such, but chiefly “to the exhortation given in 2 Peter 3:14 f.” (Wiesinger), and what is connected with it.
The remark in what follows alludes to that which occasioned the mention of Paul’s epistles.
á¼Î½ Î¿á¼·Ï or Î±á¼·Ï á¼ÏÏι Î´Ï ÏνÏηÏά Ïινα ] It can hardly be decided which is the true reading: Î¿á¼·Ï or Î±á¼·Ï . Schott thinks that for the sense it is immaterial, since, if Î±á¼·Ï be read, the Ïινά must be limited to the passages where Paul happens to speak ÏεÏá½¶ ÏοÏÏÏν ; and if á¼Î½ Î¿á¼·Ï , the reference can be to those things or questions not generally, but only in the way in which they are discussed by Paul. Reiche holds a different view; in his opinion, á¼Î½ Î¿á¼·Ï refers to those things in themselves, á¼Î½ Î±á¼·Ï to the epistles generally; this can, however, hardly be correct, for it is scarcely conceivable that the author should let fall a remark closely conjoined with what had gone before, which departs so entirely from the connection of thought. Besides, á¼Î½ Î±á¼·Ï deserves the preference not only on account of the external authorities, but because of the following: á½¡Ï Ïá½°Ï Î»Î¿Î¹Ïá½°Ï Î³ÏαÏÎ¬Ï (Wiesinger, Brückner, Reiche, Hofmann; Schott otherwise.) Ïινά is generally regarded as the subject, and Î´Ï ÏνÏηÏα as the predicate belonging to it; the position of the words, however, decides that Î´Ï Ïν . Ïινά must be taken together as subject (Schott, Hofmann). By Î´Ï ÏνÏηÏα must not be understood, with Schott, “the things which in themselves are opposed to the human mind,” but the expressions in which Paul speaks of them; Steinfass correctly: “ Ïινά are words, not objects;” for to the things the verb ÏÏÏεβλοῦÏιν is not suited. What the apostle meant can only be gathered from the connection; consequently the reference here cannot be to utterances of the Apostle Paul with respect to the Parousia itself (Schott), and therefore not to any statements of his, such as are to be found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13 ff.; 1 Corinthians 15:12-58 . Still less does the connection appear to justify the assumption that “the Pauline doctrine of freedom” (Wiesinger) is meant. Since, however, Paul’s statements with regard to Christian freedom stand in close relation to the final completion of salvation, and the idea of it forms such a characteristic feature of Paul’s teaching, which could only too easily be distorted by misunderstanding, it is certainly possible, indeed it is probable, that the author had it chiefly in mind in using this somewhat indefinite expression [105] .
ἠοἱ á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Îµá¿Ï καὶ á¼ÏÏήÏικÏοι ÏÏÏεβλοῦÏιν ] á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Î®Ï , á¼ Ï . λεγ ., according to de Wette, equivalent to “unteachable, with the implied idea of stubbornness and of unbelief.” This is incorrect, á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Î®Ï means only “ ignorant ;” no doubt the secondary idea given by de Wette may be connected with this (as in the passages quoted, Joseph. Antiq . i. 4. 1, and iii. 14. 4), but here it is not to be presupposed, since the idea á¼ÏÏήÏικÏÎ¿Ï connected with á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Î®Ï , although denying strength of faith, does not deny faith itself; with á¼ÏÏήÏικÏοι , cf. chap. 2 Peter 2:14 . Most interpreters assume that the reference here is to the seducers, the Libertines and deniers of the Parousia formerly mentioned; but as a designation of them the expressions are too weak; chap. 2 Peter 2:14 , too, is opposed to this (Schott).
ÏÏÏεβλοῦν , á¼ Ï . λεγ ., strictly: “to turn with the ÏÏÏÎβλη .” Here it means: “ to distort the words ,” i.e. to give them a sense other than they actually have; equivalent to διαÏÏÏÎÏειν (cf. Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians 10:8 : οá½Ïοι ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïá½°Ï Î¿á¼°ÎºÎµÎ¯Î±Ï Î´Î¹ÎÏÏÏεÏαν Ïá½° ῥήμαÏα á¼Î½Î½Î¿Î¯Î±Ï ); the word is to be found in another figurative sense in 2 Samuel 22:27 , LXX.
á½¡Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá½°Ï Î»Î¿Î¹Ïá½°Ï Î³ÏαÏÎ¬Ï ] This addition is somewhat surprising, not only because all more precise statement of the γÏαÏαί referred to is wanting, but because by it ÏÏÏεβλοῦν , which formerly had reference only to the Î´Ï ÏνÏηÏά Ïινα in the epistles of Paul, is here extended to entire writings; for to interpret γÏαÏαί by “passages of Scripture” (de Wette), is arbitrary.
It is very improbable that the reference is to the O. T. Scriptures (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass), since the author would certainly have defined them more nearly as such [106] (Brückner); probably, then, other writings are meant, which, at the time of the composition of this epistle, served, like the epistles of Paul, for the instruction and edification of the Christian churches; it is possible, therefore, that these included other writings of the N. T.; but that they were only such, cannot be proved. That the words presuppose a collection of N. T. writings properly so called, is without any reason asserted by de Wette (Brückner).
Î Î¡á¿¸Ï Î¤á¿Î ἸÎÎÎÎ Îá½Î¤á¿¶Î á¼Î ÎÎÎÎÎÎ ] ἸÎÎÎÎ serves to intensify Îá½Î¤á¿¶Î : “ to their own destruction ” (cf. chap. 2 Peter 2:1 ); the wresting of Scripture has this consequence, inasmuch as they make use of the distorted expressions, in order to harden themselves in their fleshly lust.
[105] According to Hofmann, it is passages such as Ephesians 2:5 f., Colossians 2:1 , that are meant, “for with these and similar statements the teaching of a Hymenaeus and a Philetus could be combined, that the resurrection was already past, and that no other resurrection than that which takes place in regeneration is to be looked for. This doctrine, combined with the other, that the world of sense has nothing related to God, would produce that justification of immorality predicted in chap. 2.”
[106] Although in other parts of the N. T. αἱ γÏαÏαί always means the O. T. Scriptures, still the addition of λοιÏαί proves that other Scriptures are here referred to; it would be different were λοιÏÎ¬Ï not added.
Verses 17-18
2 Peter 3:17-18 . Concluding exhortation and doxology.
á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï οá½Î½ ] Conclusion from what goes before.
ÏÏογινÏÏκονÏÎµÏ ] “ since ye know it beforehand ;” i.e. that such false teachers as have been described will come; not: “that the advent of Christ will take place,” nor: “that the consequences of the ÏÏÏεβλοῦν will be the á¼ÏÏλεια ” (Schott).
ÏÏ Î»Î¬ÏÏεÏθε , ἵνα μή ] Since ÏÏ Î»Î¬ÏÏεÏθε is nowhere else construed with ἵνα μή , ἵνα κ . Ï . λ . is not to be taken as an objective clause, but as one expressive of purpose; “consequently special emphasis lies on ÏÏ Î»Î¬ÏÏεÏθε ” (Schott).
Ïá¿ Ïῶν á¼Î¸ÎÏμÏν ÏλάνῠÏÏ Î½Î±ÏαÏθÎνÏÎµÏ ] The á¼Î¸ÎµÏμοι (cf. chap. 2 Peter 2:7 ) are the aforementioned á¼Î¼Ïαá¿ÎºÏαι and Libertines.
Ïλάνη is not: “seduction” (Dietlein: leading astray of others), for the word never has this meaning (not even in Ephesians 4:14 ); nor would the ÏÏ Î½ in the verb agree with this, but, as in chap. 2 Peter 2:18 : “moral-religious error;” with ÏÏ Î½Î±ÏαÏθÎνÏÎµÏ , “carried away along with,” cf. Galatians 2:13 , and Meyer on Romans 12:16 .
á¼ÎºÏÎÏηÏε Ïοῦ á¼°Î´Î¯Î¿Ï ÏÏηÏιγμοῦ ] With á¼ÎºÏίÏÏειν , cf. Galatians 5:4 , and Meyer in loc .
ÏÏηÏιγμÏÏ , á¼ Ï . λεγ ., is the firm position which any one possesses (not: the fortress; Luther); here, therefore, the firm position which the readers as believing Christians take up; cf. 2 Peter 1:12 ; antithesis to the á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Îµá¿Ï καὶ á¼ÏÏήÏικÏοι , 2 Peter 3:16 . Dietlein explains the word quite arbitrarily of the “remaining at peace in the church.” 2 Peter 3:18 . αá½Î¾Î¬Î½ÎµÏε δΠ] Antithesis to the á¼ÎºÏÎÏηÏε ; the remaining in the firm position can take place only where the αá½Î¾Î¬Î½ÎµÎ¹Î½ is not lacking. Calvin: ad profectum etiam hortatur, quia haec unica est perseverandi ratio, si assidue progredimur. Hofmann incorrectly connects this imperative with ÏÏ Î»Î¬ÏÏεÏθε , to which it is supposed to be related as a further addition; this view is opposed by δΠ.
á¼Î½ ÏάÏιÏι καὶ γνÏÏει Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï Îº . Ï . λ .] does not state “the means and the origin of the growing” (Schott), but that in which they should grow or increase; αá½Î¾Î¬Î½ÎµÎ¹Î½ , without any nearer definition, would be too bald in presence of the ἵνα μὴ ⦠á¼ÎºÏÎÏηÏε κ . Ï . λ . With regard to the two ideas: ÏάÏÎ¹Ï and γνῶÏÎ¹Ï , Aretius says: illud ad conversationem inter homines refero, quae gratiosa esse debet; hoc vero ad Dei cultum, qui consistit in cognitione Christi; this explanation is wrong; ÏάÏÎ¹Ï can be only either the grace of God, so that the sense of the exhortation would be, that they should seek to acquire the grace of God in ever richer measure (Hornejus, etc.); or and this is preferable the state of grace of the Christians (according to Calvin, etc.: the sum of the divine gifts of grace).
The γνῶÏÎ¹Ï is here specially mentioned, because the author regarded it as the living origin of all Christian activity.
The genitive: Ïοῦ ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï Îº . Ï . λ ., is taken by de Wette, Brückner agreeing with him, with reference to ÏάÏÎ¹Ï , as the subjective, with reference to γνῶÏÎ¹Ï , as the objective genitive; in like manner Hofmann. This twofold reference of the same genitive is inconceivable; [1] if it belong to both ideas, it can only be the gen. auctoris (Dietlein, Steinfass); but since it is more natural to explain it in connection with γνῶÏÎ¹Ï as gen. objec., ΧÎΡÎÏ must be taken as an independent conception.
Finally, the doxology, applied to Christ; Hemming: testimonium de divinitate Christi, nam cum tribuit Christo aeternam gloriam, ipsum verum Deum absque omni dubio agnoscit.
The expression: Îá¼¸Ï á¼©ÎÎΡÎÎ ÎἸῶÎÎÏ , is to be found only here; Bengel takes ἩÎÎΡΠin contrast to the night: aeternitas est dies , sine nocte, merus et perpetuus; this is hardly correct; most interpreters explain the expression as equivalent to tempus aeternum, synonymous with Îµá¼°Ï Ïὸν αἰῶνα , 1 Peter 1:25 , or with Îá¼¸Ï Î¤Îá¿ªÏ ÎἸῶÎÎÏ , Romans 16:27 ; this is too inexact; ἩÎÎΡΠÎἸῶÎÎÏ is the day on which eternity, as contrasted with time, begins, which, however, at the same time is eternity itself.
á¼ÎÎÎ ] cf. Jude 1:25 .
[1] Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Romans 15:4 ; Tit 2:13 ; 1 Peter 1:2 ; but these passages do not prove what they are meant to prove.