Commentaires bibliques

2 Peter 2:1. From here onwards: a description of the false teachers, who were to arise in the church, and a warning against them.

ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται] δέ: antithesis to what goes before. καί: “also,” that is, besides the true prophets mentioned in chap. 2 Peter 1:21. The expression: ψευδοπροφήτης, already in the O. T. LXX., e.g. Jeremiah 6:13, frequently in the N. T., not after the analogy of ψευδολόγος: “one who prophesies falsely,” but: “one who falsely gives himself out for a prophet,” on the analogy of ψευδάδελφος, ψευδαπόστολος.

ἐν τῷ λαῷ] i.e. among the people of Israel. These words are in form a principal clause, but in thought a secondary clause: as there were false prophets in Israel, so will there be also among you, etc.

ὡς καὶ … ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι] ἔσονται; designates the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι as such, who would arise only in the future. They are afterwards pictured as actually present; see on this, the Introd. § 2, p. 281. The expression ψευδοδιδ. is in the N. T. ἅπ. λεγ.; Wiesinger and Brückner interpret: “such as teach lies;” Dietlein and Fronmüller: “such as lyingly pretend to be teachers.” The analogy of ψευδοπροφ., with which it is here contrasted, makes the last the preferable interpretation (thus, too, Hofmann). Both result in the same sense (Schott); what the ψευδοπροφῆται were in the O. T., the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are in the N. T.

οἵτινες] equivalent to quippe qui, “such as.”

παρεισάξουσι] cf. Judges 1:4 : “to introduce by the side of,” with the secondary idea of secrecy.[61]

αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας] αἱρέσεις, according to N. T. usage, “party-divisions,” cf. 1 Corinthians 11:19 (synonymous with σχίσματα); Galatians 5:20 (synonymous with διχοστασίαι); also Titus 3:10, which have their origin in false doctrine; thus Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.; Hofmann, too, says that the word is to be taken in no sense different from that which it has elsewhere in the N. T., but then interprets it as equivalent to “particular systems of opinion,” thus attributing to it a meaning which it has nowhere else. Others take αἵρεσις here to mean “false doctrine, heresy” (Bengel, de Wette, Fronmüller). This interpretation is better suited to the connection, and especially to the verb παρεισάγειν. In the N. T., doubtless, the word has not this meaning, yet Ignatius already uses it with this force. ἀπωλείας (which is not to be resolved into the adject. “destructive”) designates the heresies as those which lead to ἀπώλεια; cf. 2 Peter 2:2-3.

καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα … ἀπώλειαν] Winer (5th ed. p. 399 f.) translates: “since they also, denying the Lord, draw upon themselves swift destruction;” but the connection of καί with ἐπάγοντες, so far removed from it by τὸν ἀγοράσαντα κ.τ.λ., cannot be justified. Fronmüller connects the member of the clause beginning with καί not with the relative clause οἵτινες, but with ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι. This construction was formerly supported in this commentary, with the remark, however, that a particular species of false doctrine was not, as Fronmüller assumes, indicated here, but that the participial clause more nearly defined the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, καί being here put in the sense of: “and withal;” this construction, however, is anything but natural. The καί must undoubtedly be connected with the clause immediately preceding, though not as a simple copula, but in the sense of “also;” thus de Wette and Wiesinger,[62] taking καί as an intensification, equivalent to “even:” “whilst they deny even the Lord who bought them.” On the other hand, Hofmann does not admit any such intensification, and takes καί as equivalent to “also,” in the sense of addition, and interprets: “with their particular systems they break up the unity of the church, which, however, they do not do without at the same time denying the Lord.” But, on this interpretation, it is not clear why the author did not put the finite verb instead of the partic. ἀρνούμενοι; the thought, too, that they break up the unity of the church, is simply imported. The participle shows that this clause is meant to serve as an explanation or a more precise definition of what goes before. De Wette’s view, accordingly, is to be preferred to that of Hofmann; it is, however, also possible that Schott is right in assuming an irregularity of the construction, in that the author, led astray by the participle ἀρνούμενοι, wrote the participle ἐπάγοντες instead of the finite verb ἐπάξουσι; in which case καί must be taken as a simple copula.

The participle ἐπάγοντες is connected in a loose fashion with what precedes, in the sense: “by which they,” etc. The ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are more precisely characterized as: τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι; with ἀρνούμενοι, cf. Judges 1:4; Bengel correctly: doctrina et operibus. By δεσπότην Christ is here meant; the author speaks of Him thus, in order to lay stress on the fact that they deny that Christ is the Lord; ἀγοράσαντα αὐτούς is added by way of emphasis: they deny the Lord who “bought” them, i.e. procured them for Himself by paying the purchase price. This does not only serve to emphasize more strongly what is reprehensible in the ἀρνεῖσθαι, but points out also that they deny the act to which allusion is made, and by which He has become their Lord. With ἀγοράζειν, cf. 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23; Revelation 5:9; the blood of Christ must be thought of as the purchase price.

ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν] With ἐπάγ. ἑαυτοῖς, cf. 2 Peter 2:5, as also Acts 5:28. ἑαυτοῖς indicates that they prepare an ἀπώλεια not only for others (αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας), but for themselves.

With ταχινήν, see chap. 2 Peter 1:14, not: a speedy ἀπώλεια; Hornejus correctly: inopinatam et inexspectatam; the destruction will come over them suddenly, and before they are aware of it (Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann).

[61] Hofmann is wrong in asserting that in classical Greek παρεισάγειν has not the secondary meaning of secrecy; the verb occurs both with this secondary meaning and without it, see Pape, s.v.

[62] Winer (6th ed. p. 314 [E. T. 441], 7th ed. p. 329) says: “Both participles, ἀρν. and ἐπάγ., are connected with παρεισάξουσιν; they are not, however, co-ordinate with each other, but ἐπάγοντες is annexed to the clause οἵτινες … ἀρνούμενοι;” he does not state how καί is to he understood.

2 Peter 2:2. καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν] The activity of these ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι would not be without result; cf. 2 Timothy 2:17. With ἐξακολ. cf. chap. 2 Peter 1:16.

αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις] i.e. their ἀσέλγειαι will serve as a rule to many, so that they give themselves up to them; cf. Judges 1:4. The connection of erroneous doctrine with sensual excesses is shown in 2 Peter 2:18-19.

διʼ οὓς … βλασφημηθήσεται] διʼ οὕς, not: “by whom;” Vulg.: per quas; but: “on account of whom;” they (either the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, or those led astray by them, or both) by their ἀσέλγειαι give those who are not Christians occasion for βλασφημία against the ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας; cf. 1 Timothy 6:1; Romans 2:24. ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας (Barnab. c. v.: via veritatis), a designation of Christianity or of the Christian religion (cf. on the expression ὁδός, Acts 9:2; Acts 19:9; Acts 19:23; Acts 22:4; Acts 24:14; Acts 16:17; Acts 18:25), in so far as it is the form of life in harmony with divine truth (not leading to the truth).

2 Peter 2:3. καὶ ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ] i.e. as it were encompassed by covetousness, living in it, governed by it; it is incorrect to translate ἐν by διά. πλαστοῖς λόγοις] ἅπ. λεγ., i.e. “with deceitfully invented words,”[63] which are not in accordance with truth; incorrectly Hofmann: “artfully contrived doctrines.”

ὑμᾶς ἐμπορεύσονται] “they will seek gain of you;” Gerhard: quaestum ex vobis facient, ad quaestum suum vobis abutentur; thus, too, Wiesinger, Schott, de Wette-Brückner; cf. also Winer, p. 209 [E. T. 279]; this meaning of the verb c. acc. in classical Greek is sufficiently assured.[64] The ΠΛΑΣΤΟῚ ΛΌΓΟΙ are not, as Hofmann supposes, “to be thought of as the merchandise which they bring to the market, in order to be repaid for such instruction,” but as the means by which they carry on the ἘΜΠΟΡΕΎΕΣΘΑΙ. Steinfass translates ἘΜΠΟΡΕΎΕΣΘΑΙ as equivalent to: to buy, and ὙΜᾶς as the direct object of purchase; thus Pott too: vos sectae suae conciliare conantur. It is undeniable that the object traded in may stand in the accusative (cf. Proverbs 3:14, LXX.), but the context here is opposed to this, partly on account of the ἘΝ ΠΛΕΟΝΕΞΊᾼ, partly because this thought is already contained in the preceding verse. Fronmüller incorrectly renders the word by “to deceive.”

By deceitful words as to Christian freedom, etc., they sought to delude others, and, in accordance with their covetous desires, to make gain of them; cf. 2 Peter 2:13-14, and Judges 1:16.

οἷς τὸ κρῖμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ] ΟἿς: dat. incommodi; refers to the subj. in ἘΜΠΟΡΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ. ΤῸ ΚΡῖΜΑ is the judgment of God ordering the ἈΠΏΛΕΙΑ. ἜΚΠΑΛΑΙ is not to be combined with ΤῸ ΚΡῖΜΑ into one idea, equal to: ΚΡῖΜΑ ἜΚΠΑΛΑΙ ΑὐΤΟῖς ΠΡΟΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΈΝΟΝ; cf. Judges 1:4 (Pott, de Wette); such a mode of combination is to be found nowhere in the N. T. It belongs rather to ΟὐΚ ἈΡΓΕῖ. There is not, as de Wette insists, any contradiction involved in this connection, especially as ΟὐΚ ἈΡΓΕῖ is a positive idea; strictly: “is not inactive, does not tarry;” the idea of haste is not implied in it (de Wette). ἔκπαλαι sets forth prominently that for a long time the judgment has, as it were, been approaching, that is, ever since it was given and pronounced; it is living, and will come in due time. It is possible that ἜΚΠΑΛΑΙ refers to the judgments mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4, formerly put into execution (Dietlein, Scott, Wiesinger), which, however, Hofmann disputes.

ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἈΠΏΛΕΙΑ ΑὐΤῶΝ (2 Peter 2:1) Οὐ ΝΥΣΤΆΖΕΙ] ΝΥΣΤΆΖΕΙΝ, strictly: “to nod,” then: to slumber (only elsewhere in Matthew 25:5; there, however, in its literal meaning), is used in the classics in a figurative sense; Plato, de repub. iii. 405 C: μηδὲν δεῖσθαι νυστάζοντος δικαστοῦ. Steinfass inexactly: “to become sleepy.”

[63] Plato, Apol. Socrat.: πλάττειν λόγους; Artemidor. i. 23: πλάσσειν δόκει … ἀγαθὸν ῥήτορσι … διὰ τὸ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα δεικνύειν τὰς τέχνας ταύτας.

[64] Cf. Athenag. xiii. 569: Ἀσπασία ἐνεπορεύετο πλήθη γυναικῶν. Philo in Flacc. p. 984: ἐνεπορεύετο τὴν λήθην τῶν δικαστῶν. J. Chrysostom: τὴν πενίαν τοῦ πλησίου ἐμπορεύεσθαι. The translation of the Vulg. is inexact: de vobis negotiabuntur, as also that of Luther: “they will trade with you.”

2 Peter 2:4. From here to 2 Peter 2:6 three examples of divine judgment; cf. Judges 1:5 ff.

First example: the fallen angels, Judges 1:6.

εἰ γάρ] The apodosis is wanting; Gerhard supplies: οὐδʼ ἐκείνοις φείσεται. In thought, if not in form, the latter half of 2 Peter 2:9 constitutes the apodosis (Winer, 529 f. [E. T. 712 f.], de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, and the more modern writers generally). The irregularity of the construction is explained by the fact that the third example is dwelt on at much length.

ὁ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο] The nature of the sin is not stated; otherwise in Jude.[65] What sin the apostle refers to is only faintly hinted at by the circumstance that the example of the flood immediately follows. It is less likely (against Wiesinger) that 2 Peter 2:20 contains any reference to it, for in that verse other sins are conjoined with the ὈΠΊΣΩ ΣΑΡΚῸς … ΠΟΡΕΎΕΣΘΑΙ.

ἈΛΛᾺ ΣΕΙΡΑῖς ΖΌΦΟΥ … ΤΗΡΟΥΜΈΝΟΥς] “but (when he) having cast (them) down into Tartarus, hath delivered them over to the chains of darkness, as being reserved unto the judgment.” σειραῖς ζόφου is mostly taken in connection with ΤΑΡΤΑΡΏΡΑς (sc. δεδεμένους) (de Wette: “but cast them down into hell with chains of darkness”); but, since the added ΖΌΦΟΥ shows that the ΣΕΙΡΑΊ are designated as fetters, which belong to the darkness of Tartarus (not: “fetters which consist in darkness” (Schott), nor: “fetters by which they were banished into darkness,” as Hofmann explains), the enchaining could only have take place there, and therefore (with Calov, Pott, Steinfass, Hofmann, Wahl, s.v. παραδίδωμι) it is preferable to connect the words with ΠΑΡΈΔΩΚΕΝ (as opposed to de Wette, Brückner, Dietlein, Wiesinger, etc.).[66]

Instead of σειραῖς ζόφου, Jude has: ΔΕΣΜΟῖς ἈΪΔΊΟΙς; ΖΌΦΟς is not Tartarus itself, but the darkness of Tartarus; the word is to be found only here and in Jude.

ΤΑΡΤΑΡΟῦΝ does not mean: tartaro adjudicare (Crusius, Hypomn. I. p. 154), but: “to remove into Tartarus” (cf. Homer, Il. viii. 13: ἤ μιν ἑλὼν ῥίψω εἰς τάρταρον ἠερόεντα). The expression ΤΆΡΤΑΡΟς occurs nowhere else either in the N. T. or LXX. It is not equal to ᾍΔΗς, which is the general term for the dwelling-place of the dead. Nor does the author use it as synonymous with ΓΕΈΝΝΑ, for that is “the place of final punishment, the hell fire” (Fronmüller), but it is used to designate “the place of preliminary custody.”

ΠΑΡΈΔΩΚΕΝ here, as often, used with the implied idea of punishment.

ΕἸς ΚΡΊΣΙΝ ΤΗΡΟΥΜΈΝΟΥς] ΚΡΊΣΙς is the final judgment (ΚΡΊΣΙς ΜΕΓΆΛΗς ἩΜΈΡΑς); “as those who are reserved for the judgment;” Luther inexactly: “in order to reserve them.”

On the reading: παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν κολαζομένους τηρεῖν, the infin. ΤΗΡΕῖΝ is dependent on ΠΑΡΕΔ., and ΚΟΛΑΖ. states, not: the purpose for which, but the condition in which, they are reserved for judgment; the Vulg. therefore translates inexactly: tradidit cruciandos, in judicium reservari. Dietlein, in opposition to all reliable authorities, insists on reading: ΤΕΤΗΡΗΜΈΝΟΥς, which, moreover, he incorrectly paraphrases: “as those who once should have been kept;” it must rather be: “as those who (until now) have been kept.”

[65] Fronmüller is wrong in asserting that the apostasy of Satan is meant here; it cannot be doubted that the sin meant here is the same as that of which Jude speaks, and it is not that apostasy; see my Comment. on Jude.

[66] When Brückner says: “the expression becomes more drastic if the act of casting into Tartarus be completed only by the binding with chains,” this supports the construction to which he objects. Schott translates altogether unwarrantably: “but has fastened them down into the depths with chains of darkness.”

2 Peter 2:5. Second example: the flood; this is peculiar to the author of this epistle; cf. the corresponding section in Jude. καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο] The clausal formation is the same as that in 2 Peter 2:4. Subaudienda est particula: εἰ (Gerhard). The words which follow on this tell in what the οὐκ ἐφείσατο consisted: κατακλυσμὸν κ.τ.λ.; there is no mention here of a “destruction” (Schott) of the world.

ἀρχ. κόσμος, i.e. mundus antediluvianus.

ἀλλʼ … ἐφύλαξε] The thought of the deliverance of the righteous is connected with that of the destruction of the ungodly; cf. 2 Peter 2:7.

ὄγδοον belongs not to κήρυκα (Heinsius, Lightfoot, and Schwegler in his nachapost. Zeitalter, I. p. 515; cf., as opposed to him, Hilgenfeld, Clement. p. 185), but directly to Νῶε; Luther correctly: Noah with seven others; cf. Winer, p. 234 [E. T. 312]; Buttmann, p. 26. There is nothing to show that the number eight has a mystical meaning here (Dietlein).[67] The mention of it naturally arose from the recollection of the event; at the same time, however, it marks the small number of the saved contrasted with that of those who perished (Bengel, Schott, etc.). Besides, Noah and those with him, as also Lot afterwards, are taken by the author as types of the ΕὐΣΕΒΕῖς (2 Peter 2:9), on whom the judgment of God will not come.

ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς ΚΉΡΥΚΑ is added as the reason of God’s preservation (ἘΦΎΛΑΞΕ) (thus, too, Wiesinger). By ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ is to be understood here, not the condition of being justified (Wiesinger), but a believing and godly bearing towards God; otherwise in Hebrews 11:7.

ΚΑΤΑΚΛΥΣΜΌΝ] Matthew 24:38-39; Genesis 5:17, LXX. Heb. מַבּוּל: the verb ΚΑΤΑΚΛΎΖΕΙΝ, chap. 2 Peter 3:6.

ΚΌΣΜῼ ἈΣΕΒῶΝ] antithesis to ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς ΚΉΡΥΚΑ; the world is thus named, inasmuch as it had become the dwelling-place of ungodly humanity.

ἘΠΆΞΑς] on this form of the aorist, see Buttmann, Ausf. Gr. § 114, s.v. ἄγω.

[67] “Peter looked upon Noah as the bearer of the eight, and saw in the church saved from the flood a holy eight, making a final close to the old world.”

REMARK.

With regard to its position, Dietlein insists that this verse is intimately connected with 2 Peter 2:4, so that “the judgment of imprisonment on the angels must be considered as one and the same event with the Noachic flood;” that the judgment on the ἀρχαῖος κόσμος, 2 Peter 2:4-5, must be distinguished from the judgment of God within the second world (2 Peter 2:6); and that the latter only, not the former, must be regarded as the example, strictly so called; thus, too, Schott. But the whole structure and mode of expression of this section is opposed to any such division; for (1) The clauses are simply co-ordinate (as 2 Peter 2:5 is joined to 2 Peter 2:4, so is 2 Peter 2:6 to 2 Peter 2:5, merely by καί); (2) The ἀρχαῖος κόσμος is mentioned only here, not in 2 Peter 2:4; (3) What is stated in 2 Peter 2:6 is not brought prominently forward as an event taking place in the new world; (4) In the idea of the κόσμος ἀσεβῶν the angels cannot be included, since the flood came on the ungodly men only; and it is arbitrary and strange to assume that the flood buried mankind “in the depths, and those spirits which in sin had taken up their abode with them” (Schott). It is arbitrary to regard the judgment on Sodom as the only proper example, since no other position is given to the judgments mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4-5 than to that in 2 Peter 2:6. The chief reason for the division lies in 2 Peter 2:9, which consists of two members, due, however, to the two foregoing examples. From the fact that only one of the members applies to 2 Peter 2:4, it does not follow that there no special example can be intended, the less so that the leading idea is not “the deliverance of the righteous,” but “the confinement of the ungodly.” Equally little is proved by the repetition of the verb: οὐκ ἐφείσατο, which serves rather to mark off the ἀρχαῖος κόσμος from the ἀγγελ. ἁμαρτ., not to unite them into one idea. Even Brückner has rejected the view of Dietlein and Schott. Hofmann, too, while questioning it, approaches it very closely when he says: “The judgment of the flood was also a judgment upon those spirits which had become involved in the sin and in the fate of the race of men then living.”

2 Peter 2:6. Third example: The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah; cf. Judges 1:7.

This verse also is still dependent on εἰ. Schott, without any adequate reason, asserts that the author “has even here forgotten the construction of his expression in the protasis with εἰ.”

πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόῤῥας] The gen. as apposition.

τεφρώσας] Suidas: equivalent to ἐμπρήσας, σποδώσας: “by burning them to ashes, by reducing them to ashes.”

καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν] not equal to eversione s. subversione damnavit i. e. unditus evertendo punivit (Gerhard, Dietlein, Schott), but καταστροφῇ is the dative of reference; see Buttmann, p. 144; cf. κατακρ. θανάτῳ, Matthew 20:18; Pott correctly: in cineres redigens damnavit ad eversionem; thus also Wahl, de Wette, Wiesinger, Steinfass, Fronmüller, Hofmann; only it must be here remarked that κατακρίνειν includes within it the punishment, the putting into execution of the judgment of condemnation—which Hofmann, without reason, denies, cf. Romans 8:3.

It is incorrect to connect καταστροφῇ with τεφρώσας (Bengel).

καταστροφή, in the N. T. besides here, only in 2 Timothy 2:14; there, however, in a figurative sense; the same word occurs in the narrative of the destruction of the cities of the plain, Genesis 19:29, LXX.

ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικώς] Judges 1:7; with ὑπόδειγμα, not equal to “example,” but to “type,” cf. Jam 5:10; Hebrews 4:11, etc. The perf. τεθεικώς corresponds with the πρόκεινται, Judges 1:7; Hofmann correctly: “God has made them, as the perf. shows, a lasting type of those who ever afterwards should live a godless life.”[68]

[68] Hofmann attaches particular importance to the circumstance, that the judgment which was effected by water was followed by another, which was effected by fire.

2 Peter 2:7. Contrast to the divine justice in punishing, which is not to be found in Jude. Wiesinger: “The expansion of the thought, introduced by the mention antithetically of Noah, 2 Peter 2:5, gains, by the co-ordination (καί) of the deliverance of Lot, independent value, and prepares the way for the double inference, 2 Peter 2:9.”

καί] has not here an adversative force (Jachmann), but is simply the copulative particle.

δίκαιον Λώτ] δίκαιος here like δικαιοσύνη, 2 Peter 2:5.

καταπονούμενον] besides here, in Acts 7:24 (2Ma 8:2, where, however, it is doubtful whether the reading should be καταπονούμενον or καταπατούμενον); Pott, Schol. Soph. in Trachin. v. 328, verba: ἀλλʼ εἴεν ὠδινοῦσα exponit per καταπονουμένη.

ὑπὸ τῆς … ἐῤῥύσατο] ὑπό belongs not to ἐῤῥύσατο, but to καταπον.; cf. Winer, p. 330 [E. T. 461];—with ἡ ἐν ἀσελγ. ἀναστροφή, cf. 1 Peter 1:17.

ἀθέσμων, besides here only in chap. 2 Peter 3:17 : homines nefarii, qui nec jus nec fas curant (Gerhard).

2 Peter 2:8. Explanation of the καταπονούμενον.

βλέμματι γὰρ καὶ ἀκοῇ] is to be joined neither with δίκαιος (Vulg.: adspectu et auditu Justus erat), nor with ἐγκατοικῶν (Gerhard), but with the finite verb; it was by seeing and hearing that Lot’s soul suffered, and is added in order more strongly to emphasize Lot’s painful position among the ungodly.

ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν] “he vexed his righteous soul by the ungodly works,” i.e. his soul, because it was righteous, felt vexation at the evil which he was obliged to see and hear. “ἐβασάνιξειν serves to show that the pain at the sight of the sinful lives arose out of personal activity, out of inclination of the soul to the good, out of positive opposition to the evil” (Dietlein). The earlier interpreters have for the most part missed the correct idea; Calvin, Hornejus, Pott, de Wette, and the modern commentators generally, have interpreted correctly.[69]

[69] Cf. Xenophon, hist. Graec. I. 4, p. 407: ὥστʼ ἐνίους καὶ τῶν τυπτομένων, νομίμων δὲ ὄντων ἀνθρώπων, ἀδημονῆσαι τὰς ψυχὰς, ἰδόντας τὴν ἀσέβειαν; Only it must be observed that Lot was vexed at the godlessness in itself, not because he personally had to suffer by it.