Комментарии к Библии

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.

ταύτην ἤδη … ἐπιστολήν] “This epistle I write to you, as already the second.” Pott: αὕτη ἤδη δευτέρα ἐστὶν ἐπιστολὴ, ἣν γράφω ὑμῖν. Fronmüller incorrectly explains ἤδη by: “now being near my death.” The epistle first written is the so-called First Epistle of Peter.

ἐν αἷς] applies both to this and the First Epistle of Peter (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 177]). The prepos. ἐν does not stand here in place of διά (Gerhard), but refers to the contents.

διεγείρω … διάνοιαν] for the phrase: διεγείρειν ἐν ὑπομνήσει, cf. chap. 2 Peter 1:13.

ὑμῶν belongs to διάνοιαν.

εἰλικρινῆ, cf. Php 1:10.

2 Peter 3:2. Cf. Judges 1:17; in Jude mention is not made of the apostles, but only of the prophets.

μνησθῆναι] Infin. of purpose: “in order that ye may remember,” equivalent to εἰς τὸ μνησθῆναι (Vorstius).

τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν] This applies evidently to the Old Testament prophets; and with especial reference to the prophecies which relate to the παρουσία 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 τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος] On the commonly accepted reading ἡμῶν, a double interpretation has been given; some, making ἡμῶν depend on ἐντολῆς, for the most part regard τῶν ἀποστόλων 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 ἀποστόλων, as in Acts 10:41 : μάρτυσι … ἡμῖν; for otherwise ἡμῶν must have stood before ἀποστόλων; cf. also 1 Corinthians 1:18. Others, again, hold that ἡμῶν is dependent on ἀποστόλων; 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: ὑμῶν, the gen. τοῦ κυρίου does not, as was for the most part formerly assumed, depend on ἀποστόλων, but on ἐντολῆς (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: “τοῦ κυρίου is added by way of supplement to ἐντολ.,” 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: ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν; 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 ἀπ. ὑμ. Paul and his fellow-labourers are meant; this, too, is more probable than that the apostle included himself among them.

By ἐντολή 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 ἐντολή 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, 2 Peter 1:5 ff., 2 Peter 3:12.

[84] Of course τὰ προειρημένα ῥήματα 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.

2 Peter 3:3. τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες] cf. chap. 2 Peter 1:20.

γινώσκοντες] refers in loose construction (instead of an accus.) to the subject contained in μνησθῆναι.

ὅτι ἐλεύσονται κ.τ.λ.] Cf. Judges 1:18.[86]

ἘΝ ἘΜΠΑΙΓΜΟΝῇ] gives sharp prominence to the conduct of the ἘΜΠΑῖΚΤΑΙ. The word is a ἍΠ. ΛΕΓ.; Hebrews 11:36 : ἘΜΠΑΙΓΜΌς; with the constr. ἜΡΧΕΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ, cf. 1 Corinthians 4:21.

ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺς … ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟΙ] Judges 1:18; Judges 1:16; ἸΔΊΑς is added so as to strengthen the pronoun ΑὙΤῶΝ.

[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 γινώσκοντες, but still more than that.

2 Peter 3:4. The scoffing words of the ἐμπαῖκται.

καὶ λέγοντες ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ] The question ποῦ ἐστιν expresses the negation; “quasi dicunt: nusquam est, evanuit; denique vana est et mendax;” cf. 1 Peter 4:18. The same form of speech with ποῦ ἐστιν: Psalm 42:4; Psalm 79:10; Malachi 2:17; Luke 8:25.

αὐτοῦ, 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 ἐξουθενισμόν; thus also Wiesinger, Hofmann. According to the connection (2 Peter 3:2), the ἐπαγγελία 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 ἐπαγγελία, and the basis of it. The thesis is: πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως; its basis is indicated by the words: ἀφʼ ἧς (sc. ἡμέρας) οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν. On the assumption that the ἀφʼ ἧς οἱ πατ. ἐκοιμ., as used by the scoffers, means the period marking off the commencement of the διαμένει, and that ἀπʼ ἀρχ. κτ. serves only as a more precise definition of it (Brückner, Schott), then by οἱ πατέρες must be understood “the ancestors, the first generations of the human race.” But on this view ἀφʼ ἧς κ.τ.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 ὀφʼ ἧς κ.τ.λ., the reference in οἱ πατέρες can be only either to the fathers of the Jewish people, to whom the ἐπαγγελία 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 παρουσία 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 ἀφʼ ἧς κ.τ.λ. stand in close connection with διαμένει. 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 ἐκοιμήθησαν, cf. 1 Corinthians 7:39; 1 Corinthians 15:6, and other passages.

οὕτως 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).

διαμένει does not mean “has remained,” nor is it “will remain,” but the present expresses the continuous, uniform duration; δια strengthens the idea μένειν.

ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως: “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 ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου 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 πατέρες 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 πατέρες to mean “the prophetical, or more definitely, the eschatological patriarchs, beginning with Enoch and extending down to Daniel.”

2 Peter 3:5. Refutation of the assertion: πάντα οὕτω διαμένει, by the adducing the fact of the flood.[89] λανθάνει γὰρ … θέλοντας] γάρ is not equivalent to δέ, but designates the thought which follows as the reason for their scoffing: “Thus they speak because;” cf. Winer, p. 423 [E. T. 568].

τοῦτο belongs either to λανθάνει or to θέλοντας; in the first case it refers to what follows: ὅτι κ.τ.λ.; in which case θέλοντας 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 τοῦτο refers to the contents of the preceding statement, and θέλειν means “to assert;” “for, whilst they assert this, it is hidden from them that” (Dietlein, Schott). The position both of τοῦτο separated from ὅτι by θέλοντας, and of θέλοντας separated by τοῦτο from λανθάνει, favours the second construction; that θέλειν can be used in the sense of “to assert,” is clear from Herodian, v. 3. 11: εἰκόνα τε ἡλίου ἀνέργαστον εἶναι θέλουσι; the word marks the assertion as one based on self-willed arbitrariness, and as without any certain foundation.

ὅτι οὐρανοὶ ἦσαν ἔκπαλαι] οἱ οὐρανοί, the plural according to the common usage.

ἔκπαλαι; cf. chap. 2 Peter 2:3, not: “of old, formerly,” but: “from of old,” i.e. jam inde a primo rerum omnium initio (Gerhard).

ἦσαν belongs in the first instance to οὐρανοί; yet the subsequent γῆ is to be taken as applying to it also.

καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ διʼ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα] συνεστῶσα expresses the idea of originating out of a combination; συνίστημι is often employed thus by the Greeks in the intransitive tenses, though the reference contained in συν sometimes disappears almost entirely. The prepositions ἐξ and διά must not be regarded as synonymous; ἐξ 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 ὕδωρ, 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 ἐξ ὕδατος 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 συνεστῶσα, which belongs to ἐξ ὕδατος; thus, too, an element would be introduced which would be of only secondary importance.[90] Although ΣΥΝΕΣΤῶΣΑ belongs grammatically only to Γῆ, yet in thought it has been applied to ΟὐΡΑΝΟΊ also; thus Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, and in this commentary. This reference may be justified thus far, that ΟὐΡΑΝΟΊ is understood of the second day’s work of creation, the visible heavens; but it is necessary only if ΚΌΣΜΟς, 2 Peter 3:6, is to be taken as meaning the heavens and the earth. De Wette arbitrarily refers the preposition ἘΞ only to the earth, and ΔΙΆ to the heavens; the latter in the sense of: “through the water, between the water.” Τῷ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΛΌΓῼ] draws emphatic attention to the fact that the active cause of the creation of the world was the Word of God; to this Τῷ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΛΌΓῼ, the Τῷ ΑὐΤΟῦ ΛΌΓῼ, 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 ἐξ ὕδατος, i.e. ἐκτὸς ὕδατο; seu πρὸς ὕδατι, extra aquam s. ad aquas; διʼ ὕδατος, i.e. μετὰ S. ἐν μέσῳ ὕδατος cum aqua s. in media aqua.—The opinion of Steinfass, too, that “συνεστῶσα is to be limited to the creation and existence of human beings, animals, and vegetables,” finds no justification in the words of the epistle.

2 Peter 3:6. διʼ ὧν κ.τ.λ.] The question is, to what has ὧν retrospect? The answer depends on the meaning attached to: ὁ τότε κόσμος. To appearance this phrase must be regarded as identical with οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ, 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 τότε 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 ἐξ ὕδατος and τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ (Gerhard, Brückner, Besser, Wiesinger, in this commentary also), or to ὕδατος 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 ὁ τότε κόσμος, “the world of living creatures,” as Oecumenius already had done: ΤῸ ἈΠΏΛΕΤΟ ΜῊ ΠΡῸς ΠΆΝΤΑ ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ ἈΚΟΥΣΤΈΟΝ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΠΡῸς ΜΌΝΑ ΤᾺ ΖῶΑ. On this view (where ΝῦΝ only, 2 Peter 3:6, seems to cause difficulty) ὯΝ refers to ΟὐΡΑΝΟῚ ΚΑῚ Γῆ (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 κόσμος 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.

2 Peter 3:7. οἱ δὲ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ] The νῦν, which applies also to ἡ γῆ, cannot, if by ὁ τότε κόσμος is to be understood the world of living beings, be taken as an antithesis to τότε, but it refers simply to the present continuance of heaven and earth.

τῷ αὐτῷ [αὐτοῦ] λόγῳ] points back τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, 2 Peter 3:5; if the reading αὐτοῦ 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, αὐτῷ 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 ΑὐΤῷ 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.

ΤΕΘΗΣΑΥΡΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ ΕἸΣΊ] “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.

πυρὶ ΤΗΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ Κ.Τ.Λ.] “In that they are reserved for the fire against the day,” etc.; πυρί is more appropriately joined with ΤΗΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ (Brückner, Fronmüller) than with ΤΕΘΗΣΑΥΡΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ ΕἸΣΊ (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann); this last term does not require the adjunct, since in itself it corresponds to the ἮΣΑΝ … ΣΥΝΕΣΤῶΣΑ, and it is only in the second member of the sentence that mention can be made of the future destruction by fire; otherwise, too, ΤΗΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ would be somewhat superfluous. The thought alluded to in ΠΥΡῚ ΤΗΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ 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,” Psalm 102:26-27), in connection with the appearance of God to judgment; cf. Isaiah 34:4; Isaiah 51:6; especially Isaiah 66, 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; Mat 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.

εἰς ἡμέραν … ἀνθρώπων] The final end against which heaven and earth remain reserved for fire; ἈΠΏΛΕΙΑ: the opposite of ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ, cf. Php 1:28 (chap. 2 Peter 2:3).

Dietlein erroneously understands ΤῶΝ ἈΣΕΒῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ as 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 λόγος 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.

2 Peter 3:8 refers to the reason given in ἀφʼ ἧς, 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.

ἓν δὲ τοῦτο] “this one thing,” as a specially important point.

μὴ λανθανέτω ὑμᾶς] “let it not be hid from you;” said with reference to 2 Peter 3:5.

ὅτι μία ἡμέρα κ.τ.λ.] a thought that echoes Psalm 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: ΧΊΛΙΑ ἜΤΗ ἘΝ ὈΦΘΑΛΜΟῖς ΣΟΥ Ὡς Ἡ ἩΜΈΡΑ Ἡ ἘΧΘΈς; and therefore on the basis of them the author constructs a verse consisting of two members.

ΠΑΡᾺ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ] “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).