Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Peter 1:1 - 1:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Pe_1:1-2. Συμεὼν Πέτρος ] The form most in harmony with the Semitic language: Συμεών , as a name of Peter, is to be found, besides here, only in Act_15:14; otherwise, cf. Luk_2:25; Luk_3:30; Rev_7:7; Act_13:1. From the addition of the name itself, as little as from its form, can anything be concluded as to the genuineness (in opposition to Dietlein, Schott, Steinfass) or the non-genuineness of the epistle. The two names Σίμων Πέτρος are directly conjoined also in Mat_16:16; Luk_5:8, etc.; elsewhere, too, the apostle is called: Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος . The addition of Συμεών serves to mark the author as a Jewish-Christian.[19]
δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰ . Χρ .] cf. Rom_1:1; Tit_1:1 (Php_1:1). δοῦλος expresses the more general, ἀπόστολος the more special official relation; cf. Meyer on Rom_1:1; Schott unjustly denies that δοῦλος has reference to the official relation. According to de Wette, the author has here combined 1Pe_1:1 and Jud_1:1.
τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσι πίστιν ] ἰσότιμος is inexactly translated in the Vulgate by coaequaliter; it is not equivalent to ἴσος (Act_11:17 : ἴση δωρεά ), but means: “having equal honour or worth.” De Wette’s interpretation is as incorrect: “to those who have obtained the same right to participate in faith with us.” The use of the words τιμή , τιμάω , in Peter’s epistle, does not prove that the expression has here reference specially to the divine privileges of the kingdom (Dietlein). By this word the author gives it to be understood, that the faith of those to whom he writes, has the same worth as that of those whom he designates by ἡμῖν ; both have received one and the same faith (as to its objective contents) (Brückner, Besser, Wiesinger); Hornejus: dicitur fides aeque pretiosa, non quod omnium credentium aeque magna sit, sed quod per fidem illam eadem mysteria et eadem beneficia divina nobis proponantur.
The connection shows that by ἡμῖν all Christians (de Wette) cannot be understood; the word must only refer, either to Peter (Pott), or to the apostles (Bengel, Wolf, Brückner, Steinfass, Fronmüller), or to the Jewish-Christians generally (Nic. de Lyra, Dietlein, Besser, Wiesinger, Schott, Hofm.); the last is the correct application (cf. Act_11:17; Act_15:9-11). Wiesinger: “That the faith of the apostles should have a different value from that of those who through their preaching had become believers, is an idea totally foreign to the apostolic age.”
λαχοῦσι points out that faith is a gift of grace; Huss: sicut sors non respicit personam, ita nec divina electio acceptatrix est personarum (cf. Act_1:17).
On the breviloquence of the expression, cf. “Winer, p. 579 [E. T. 778].
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ κ . τ . λ .] Luther translates: “in the righteousness, which our God gives;” thus δικαιοσύνη would here mean that gift of God’s grace which is the result of faith, whether it is to be understood of the state of justification (Schott), or the Christians’ manner of life conformed to the commandments of God (Brückner). If this view be adopted, however, δικαιοσύνη cannot be connected with πίστιν , for though ἐν may be regarded as equal simply to cum, or be taken in the sense of, being furnished with (thus Brückner formerly), it would always denote that πίστις is contained in δικαιοσύνη , which certainly does not correspond with the relation in which the two stand to each other; faith is not bestowed on the Christian in righteousness, but righteousness in faith. Hofmann joins ἐν δικ . directly with πίστιν , and understands by δικαιοσύνη here: “the righteousness which makes Christ our Saviour; that in which the world has the propitiation for its sins.” This interpretation assumes that Θεοῦ is predicate to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (see below); besides, it is opposed by the circumstance that the context makes no allusion to any such nearer definition of the idea, whilst it is arbitrary to render πίστιν ἐν δικ .: “that faith which trusts in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.” Schott, Steinfass, and now, too, Brückner, connect δικ . with ἰσότιμον ; the position of the words, however, is opposed to this, for were ἐν δικ . the closer definition of ἰσότιμον , it must have been placed directly beside it. Besides, a somewhat obscure thought results from this combination. The simple addition of ἐν δικ . does not assert that the faith of the one has equal value with the faith of the other in this, that in both cases it effects a δικαιοσύνη . δικαιοσύνη is here not a gift, but an attribute of God, or a characteristic of His dealings. Still the expression must not be taken as equivalent either to “kindness” (Eman. a Sa., Pott), or to: “faithfulness,” as regards the promises given by Him (Beza, Piscator, Grotius); for although δικαιοσύνη may sometimes come near to the above meanings, it is never identical[20] with them, cf. Meyer on Rom_3:25. Still less warrant is there for Dietlein’s view, that righteousness is here “as a kingdom, the totality of the divine action and revelation in contrast to this world full of sin and of uncompensated evil.” Wiesinger (and thus also Fronmüller) understand by δικαιοσύνη , “the righteousness of God and Christ, which has manifested itself in the propitiation for the sins of the world;” in opposition to which Brückner correctly remarks, that Christ’s work of atonement is not an act of His righteousness; further, “the righteousness of God which demands the death of the sinner” (Fronmüller), may be considered as causing the death of Christ, but not as producing faith. ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ , in harmony with ἸΣΌΤΙΜΟΝ , is rather that righteousness of God—opposed to every kind of ΠΡΟΣΟΠΩΛΗΨΊΑ —according to which He bestows the same faith on all, without respect of persons (cf. Act_10:34 f.). ἘΝ is in meaning akin to ΔΙΆ , but it brings out more distinctly than it, in what the obtaining of the πίστις ἰσοτ . is grounded. The author’s thought is accordingly this: “in His righteousness, which makes no distinction between the one and the other, God has bestowed on you the same like precious faith as on us.”[21]
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμ . καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰ . Χρ .] Many interpreters (Beza, Hemming, Gerhard, and more recently Schott and Hofmann) take τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμ . and σωτῆρος as a double attribute of Ἰησοῦ Χρ . Others (Wiesinger, Brückner, Fronmüller, Steinfass) separate the two expressions, and understand τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν of God the Father; and rightly so, although in the similar combination, 2Pe_1:11; 2Pe_3:18, there be but one subject. For Θεός differs from κύριος in this, that it is never conjoined with Χριστός as a direct attribute, whilst κύριος is very often thus employed, as in the very next verse; see my commentary to Tit_2:13. There need be no hesitation in taking the article which stands before Θεοῦ with σωτῆρος also, as a second subject,—a statement which Schott and Hofmann have wrongly called in question; cf. (Winer, p. 118 [E. T. 162]) Buttmann, p. 84 ff. Dietlein, in his interpretation, adopts a middle course: “of our God and Saviour; and when I speak of God the Saviour, I mean the Saviour Jesus Christ.” But only this much is correct here, that the close conjunction points to the oneness of God and Christ of which the author was assured.—2Pe_1:2. χάρις … πληθυνθείη ] as in 1Pe_1:2. In this passage ἐν ἐπιγνῶσει τοῦ Θεοῦ κ . Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν is added. Here, too, ἐν is not, cum, but states in what the increase of grace has its origin, and by what it is effected (de Wette). This is the knowledge of God and Jesus, our Lord; cf. on this Joh_17:3; 2Pe_2:20. Calvin: Dei et Christi agnitionem simul connectit, quia rite non potest, nisi in Christo, Deus agnosci. Although the ἐπίγνωσις here spoken of includes in it acknowledgment, yet it is erroneous to distinguish between ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις , by holding the former to be equivalent to acknowledgment; cf. the further discussions on the term ἐπίγνωσις in Wiesinger and Schott, which, however, especially in the case of the latter, are not without the mixing up of thoughts foreign to the idea. It is wrong to interpret ἐν by εἰς ; Aretius: ut colant Deum, quemadmodum sese patefecit in Scripturis et ut coli vult. According to Dietlein, the thought intended to be expressed is that “grace and peace grow and increase from within the soul, outwards, and in thus growing they became ever more and more knowledge of the revealed God”(!).
[19] Bengel, assuming the authenticity of the epistle, observes not inaptly that Peter adds Συμεών , extremo tempore admonens se ipsum conditionis pristinae, antequam cognomen nactus erat.
[20] De Wette thinks that the author, in approximation to the Pauline views, may perhaps have understood the righteousness of God as bringing in righteousness,—or salvation,—or as redemptive righteousness, otherwise termed grace; and the righteousness of Christ as that love by which He undertook the work of salvation. But δικ . means neither grace nor love; and besides, it is altogether arbitrary to give the expression a different meaning with respect to Christ from that which it has when applied to God.
[21] Hofmann most unwarrantably maintains that, in this interpretation, ἐν is taken “in a sense which cannot be justified.”