Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Peter 1:16 - 1:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Pe_1:16. οὐ γὰρ σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες ] γάρ shows that this verse, in which allusion is made to the erroneous teachers, gives the reason for the σπουδάσω . The connection of thought is perfectly plain, so soon as it is observed that all that has gone before has been said in close relation to the “promises” (2Pe_1:4).
σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις , Luther inexactly: “clever fables;” σοφίζειν means in 2Ti_3:15 : “to make wise;” this meaning is inappropriate here; in the classics it occurs in the sense: “to contrive cleverly;” thus Aristophanes, Nub. 543: ἀεὶ καινὰς ἰδέας σοφίζομαι ; accordingly σεσοφ . μῦθοι are: “cleverly contrived fables;” Pott: fabulae ad decipiendos hominum animos artificiosae excogitate atque exornatae;[48] cf. chap. 2Pe_2:3, ΠΛΑΣΤΟῚ ΛΌΓΟΙ . The interpretation of Aretius is, on the other hand, incorrect: fabulae falsam habentes sapientiae et veritatis speciem. The expression ΜῦΘΟΙ is to be found in the N. T. only here and in the Pastoral Epistles. As the author makes no special allusion of the kind, it is at least doubtful if he refers to any definite myths; either those of the heathen with reference to the appearances of the gods upon earth (Oecumenius, Estius, Bengel, etc.), or to those of the Gnostics as to the emanation of the aeons (Dietlein), or to the Gnostic myth of the Sophia (Baur), or to the apocryphal legends of the birth and childhood of Christ, especially in the Ev. Infantiae Jesu (Jachmann), or to false myths as to Christ embellished in the spirit of the Jewish Messianic beliefs (Semler), or “apocryphal, didactic, and historical traditions, as these were appended by a later Judaism to the histories of the O. T., especially to the most ancient” (Schott, similarly Steinfass), or to the practice of heathen lawgivers, who, according to Josephus, appropriated to themselves the fables of popular belief, borrowing from them their accounts of the gods (Hofmann). The words express, indeed, an antithesis, but this is of an entirely general kind; either in order to bring out that the apostolic preachers are not like those others who seek the support of myths,—perhaps with special reference to the false teachers alluded to in chap. 2 and 3,—or, what is less probable, in order to meet the reproaches of these teachers (Wiesinger), and the contrast serves to give the more prominence to the positive statement.
ἐξακολουθήσαντες ] The verb, besides here, only in chap. 2Pe_2:2; 2Pe_2:15. The preposition ἘΞ does not precisely indicate the error (Bengel), but only the going forth from a particular point; in common usage, however, this secondary meaning often entirely recedes; cf. the passage below, quoted from Josephus, Ant. prooem. § 4. By this negative statement the author denies not only that his message was based on myths, but that in it he followed a communication received from others (Schott).
ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ κυρ . ἡμ . Ἰ . Χρ . δύναμιν κ . παρουσίαν ] Several interpreters understand this of the First Epistle of Peter; in which case the plural is surprising, for the author had already spoken of himself in the singular. Hofmann’s objection to this view is, that although in his former epistle Peter refers to the power and coming of Christ, he did not first make it known to the readers. But the passages 1Co_15:1 and Gal_1:11, show that ΓΝΩΡΊΖΕΙΝ may also be used of a proclamation, the substance of which had already been communicated to those to whom it was made. Many commentators take the words as referring to the whole preaching of the apostles, understanding ὙΜῖΝ , not of the readers specially, but of the Gentile-Christians generally; thus Wiesinger, and more decidedly Hofmann. It must be observed, however, in opposition to this, that ΓΕΝΗΘΈΝΤΕς and the subsequent ἩΜΕῖς ἨΚΟΎΣΑΜΕΝ must refer to the same subject as ἘΓΝΩΡΊΣΑΜΕΝ . The most probable explanation is, that the author, remembering that he was not the only witness of the transfiguration, passed from the singular to the plural, and in so doing made use of ὙΜῖΝ in its extended sense.
ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ is not here the nativitas Christi, His human birth (Vatablus, Erasmus, Hornejus, Pott, Jachmann, etc.), nor “His presence during the time He appeared on earth” (Schmid); but, in harmony both with the N. T. usage (chap. 2Pe_3:4; Mat_24:3; Mat_24:27; 1Co_15:23; 1Th_2:19, etc.) and the connection of thought (2Pe_1:4; 2Pe_1:17; 2Pe_3:4): the return of Christ to judgment (Estius, Semler, Knapp, Dietlein, de Wette-Brückner, Hofmann, and the more modern interpreters generally[49]). ΔΎΝΑΜΙς , however, denotes the fulness of might of the glorified Lord, as it will be more especially revealed in His ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ . It is not correct to combine both ideas into one, and with Hornejus to explain: potens adventus; or with Bengel: majestas praesentissima.
ἈΛΛʼ ἘΠΌΠΤΑΙ … ΜΕΓΑΛΕΙΌΤΗΤΟς ] An antithesis, affirmatively stated, to what goes before. ἘΠΌΠΤΗς , ἍΠ . ΛΕΓ . (1Pe_2:12; 1Pe_3:2 : ἘΠΟΠΤΕΎΩ ), is the term, techn. for him who had reached the highest degree of initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries. Keeping to this, Bengel here interprets: ad intima arcana admissi; de Wette, too, thinks that the expression has here the secondary meaning of being initiated, of intimacy. It is no doubt chosen purposely with reference to the fact that the ΜΕΓΑΛΕΙΌΤΗς of Christ, which Peter and the other two disciples beheld, was a mystery hidden from the others. Grotius, Pott, and others take it as synonymous with ΑὐΤΌΠΤΗς , Luk_1:2. The connection demands that ἘΠΌΠΤΑΙ ΓΕΝΗΘΈΝΤΕς should be referred to the fact of the transfiguration (2Pe_1:17). Hofmann is wrong in supposing that Peter here thought of the appearance of the Risen One and His ascension. The assertion is refuted not only by the close connection in which 2Pe_1:17 stands to this verse, but by the word ΜΕΓΑΛΕΙΌΤΗς , which in no sense is expressive only of “greatness.” As the form in which Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after His resurrection was the same as that in which they had seen Him before it, they were not then in any way ἐπόπται of his ΜΕΓΑΛΕΙΌΤΗς ; nor is there the slightest hint that there is here allusion to any fact other than that mentioned in the following verse.
Τῆς ἘΚΕΊΝΟΥ ΜΕΓΑΛΕΙΌΤΗΤΟς ] that is, the glory in which at His transfiguration Christ showed Himself to the three disciples. Incorrectly Calvin: exemplum unum prae aliis eligit memorabile, in quo Christus coelesti gloria ornatus conspicuam divinae magnificentiae speciem tribus discipulis praebuit. The apostle rather regards the transfiguration glory of Christ as the type—and therefore the proof—of the glory of Christ at His ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ .
[48] Dietlein thinks that the expression σεσοφισμένοις contains a double reproach, i.e. not only by the termination ιζειν , but also in as far as the word σοφία means what is bad; however, the termination ιζειν is by no means always used in a bad sense, nor does σοφία in itself mean what is bad, except only in connection with τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (1Co_1:20), ἀνθρωπίνη (1Co_2:13), etc. Besides, σοφίζειν is mostly employed so as to contain the secondary meaning of cleverness (see Pape, e.v.); consequently Hofmann is wrong in rendering σεσοφισμένος simply by “conceived,” asserting that the word means nothing else. Cf. with our passage Joseph. Ant. prooem. 4: οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι νομοθέται τοῖς μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῶς ἀνθρωπίνων ἁμαρτημάτων εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς τῷ λόγῳ τὴν αἰσχύνην μετέθησαν κ . τ . λ .—
[49] Fronmüller only interprets: “His appearing with miraculous powers in the flesh, along with His expected appearance in glory.”