2Pe_1:19.
καὶ
ἔχομεν
βεβαιότερον
τὸν
προφητικὸν
λόγον
] “and we have as one more stable (surer) the word of prophecy.” The second testimony for the glory of Christ in His second coming is “the word of prophecy.” This Luther understands to mean the “gospel;” Griesbach: “New Testament prophecies;” Erasmus: “the heavenly testimony mentioned in 2Pe_1:18.” But the connection with what follows shows that it is the Old Testament promises which are here meant. On the singular Bengel rightly says: Mosis, Esaiae et omnium prophetarum sermones unum sermonem sibi undequaque constantem faciunt; non jam singularia dicta Petrus profert, sed universum eorum testimonium complectitur; only that here reference is made specially to the promise with regard to the
δύναμις
καὶ
παρουσία
of Christ.
The expression
προφητικός
, besides here, only in Rom_16:26 :
γραφαὶ
προφητικαί
.
The article
τόν
marks this as a definite prophecy, well known to the readers. With regard to it the author says:
ἔχομεν
βεβαιότερον
; for the force of
βέβαιος
, cf. especially Rom_4:16; Heb_2:2; Heb_2:9; Heb_2:17; 2Co_1:6.
βεβαιότερον
is neither to be connected directly with the object, nor is the comparative to be taken as synonymous with the positive or with the superlative. Luther trebly inaccurate: “we have
α
stable prophetic word.”
How then is the comparative to be explained? Oecumenius says by the relation in which the fulfilment stands to the promise, in this sense, that the truth of the latter is confirmed by the former, and that accordingly the prophetic word has now become more sure and stable than it was formerly (thus, too, Fronmüller). But the promise here in question still awaits its fulfilment. De Wette’s view is more suitable. According to it, the comparative is put with reference to the event mentioned in 2Pe_1:17-18, so that the thought would be: “and the prophetic word is more stable to us (now) from the fact that we saw and heard that” (thus, too, Schmidt, II. p. 213, Brückner, Dietlein, Schott[51]). Wiesinger combines this view with that of Oecumenius. There are objections to this view; de Wette himself raises them: (1) That any more precise allusion to this sense by a
ΝῦΝ
or an
ἘΚ
ΤΟΎΤΟΥ
is wanting; (2) That in what follows the thought stated is neither held fast nor developed. These, however, are easily removed, when it is considered that there is no intention here of giving prominence to the point of time, and that in what follows the reference is precisely to the prophetic word confirmed by the above-mentioned fact; cf. Brückner. It is incorrect to take the comparative here as implying that the word of prophecy is placed higher than something else, for this could only be that event mentioned in 2Pe_1:16-17.[52] But the very stress laid on it and on the
ἐπόπται
γενηθέντες
τῆς
ἐκείνου
μεγαλειότητος
, is opposed to this view. How inappropriate would it be, if in comparison with it the word of prophecy should be brought prominently forward as more stable and sure! The nominative to
ἔχομεν
is not the apostles generally (against Hofmann), hardly either can it be Peter and his readers; but, as the close connection of this verse with what precedes shows, the subject to
ἔχομεν
is no other than that to
ἠκούσαμεν
. The author does not, indeed, here appeal to any of Christ’s own prophecies of His second coming. But this is to be explained, not by assuming that these were unknown to him, nor because “the rapid succession of the advent on the destruction of Jerusalem, foretold in them, had not taken place” (de Wette), but simply because the writer’s aim here was to point to the testimonies regarding Christ and what related to Him (and thus not to those of Christ Himself) (thus, too, Brückner).
ᾧ
καλῶς
ποιεῖτε
προσέχοντες
] “whereunto to take heed, ye do well,” as Heb_2:1 : “to give heed to something with a believing heart.” The searching into the word of prophecy is only the consequence of this. The same construction of
καλ
.
ποιεῖν
cum Part. Act_10:33; Php_4:14; 3Jn_1:6 (Joseph. Ant. xi. 6. 12:
οἷς
[
γράμμασι
Ἀμάνου
]
ποιήσατε
καλῶς
μὴ
προσέχοντες
).
ὡς
λύχνῳ
φαίνοντι
ἐν
αὐχμηρῳ
τόπῳ
] The comparative particle
ὡς
points to the nature and significance of the
λόγος
προφ
.; it is in the sphere of spiritual life, the same as a
λύχνος
in outward world of sense.
φαίνοντι
, not: qui lucebat (Bengel); it is rather the present, an attribute of
λύχνῳ
.
αὐχμηρός
(
ἅπ
.
λεγ
.), literally: parched, dry, then: dirty, dingy (opposed to
λαμπρός
, Arist. de colorib.[53]) It is used with the latter meaning here.
ΑὐΧΜΗΡῸς
ΤΌΠΟς
has indeed been explained as a desert, or a “place overrun with wild scraggy wood” (Hofmann); but this would make sense only if the idea of darkness or night were added in thought (as by Steinfass), for which, however, there is still no warrant.
ἝΩς
ΟὟ
ἩΜΈΡΑ
ΔΙΑΥΓΆΣῌ
]
ἝΩς
ΟὟ
(generally construed with
ἌΝ
), c. conj. aorist, expresses the duration of the act until the arrival of a future event which is looked upon as possible; that is: “until the day breaks,” etc., “not until the day shall have dawned” (de Wette), cf. Mat_10:11; Mat_10:23; Mat_10:39 ff. Some commentators (Bengel, etc., Schott too, and Hofmann) join
ἕως
οὗ
with
ΦΑΊΝΟΝΤΙ
; incorrectly; it belongs rather to
ΠΡΟΣΈΧΟΝΤΕς
, which in the context has the accent. Taken with
ΦΑΊΝΟΝΤΙ
it would be a somewhat superfluous adjunct, if it be not at the same time applied, according to the thought, to
ΠΡΟΣΈΧΟΝΤΕς
, as is done by Dietlein, though without any linguistic justification.
ΔΙΑΥΓΆΖΕΙΝ
,
ἍΠ
.
ΛΕΓ
., used frequently in the classics of the break of day, when the light shines through the darkness; Polyb. iii. 104:
ἅμα
τῷ
διαυγάζειν
.
καὶ
φωσφόρος
ἀνατείλῃ
]
ΦΩΣΦΌΡΟς
,
ἍΠ
.
ΛΕΓ
., is not meant to designate the sun (Hesychius, Knapp, etc.), but the morning star; many interpreters (Besser, etc.) incorrectly understand by it Christ. The adjunct
ΚΑῚ
ΦΩΣΦΌΡΟς
ἈΝΑΤΕΊΛῌ
serves only further to complete the picture—that of the morning which precedes the full day.
ἘΝ
ΤΑῖς
ΚΑΡΔΊΑΙς
ὙΜῶΝ
] belongs not to
ΠΡΟΣΈΧΟΝΤΕς
(Schott), far removed from it, to which it would form a somewhat dragging supplement; nor is it to be taken with the subsequent
ΤΟῦΤΟ
ΠΡῶΤΟΝ
ΓΙΝΏΣΚΟΝΤΕς
(Hofmann). For, on the one hand, the observation that the reference here is to a heart knowledge, would have a meaning only if
ΓΙΝΏΣΚΟΝΤΕς
contained an exhortation to such knowledge; and, on the other, the position of the words is opposed to this connection. Consequently
ἘΝ
ΤΑῖς
ΚΑΡΔΊΑΙς
can be joined only with the clause immediately preceding,
ἝΩς
ΟὟ
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
. (de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger, Fronmüller). As to the reference of the figure, commentators are much divided among themselves. De Wette understands
ΑὐΧΜΗΡῸς
ΤΌΠΟς
of “the time previous to Christianity, which still continues for those who were not in the faith, and to whom the readers belonged.” But opposed to this is the fact that in 2Pe_1:1; 2Pe_1:12, the author speaks of his readers as believing Christians. Gerhard (with whom Brückner formerly concurred) takes the reference to be to the former condition of the readers, when as yet they did not believe. Against this, however, is the present
ᾯ
ΚΑΛῶς
ΠΟΙΕῖΤΕ
ΠΡΟΣΈΧ
. The only adequate meaning to attach to
ΤΌΠΟς
ΑὐΧΜ
. is: the world in its present condition (Wiesinger, Brückner, in the 3d ed. of de Wette’s Commentary). The world is the dark place which is illumined only by the light of the divine (more precisely: the prophetic) word; therefore the Christians do well to give heed to this word, since otherwise they would be in darkness. In taking exception to this view, Hofmann says that it is “a mistake to identify the place where the light shines with that where those are, for whom it is lit up.” In his view the meaning should be, that to him who looks into the final future, to which the prophetic word points, this word will perform a service similar to that of a light in a … pathless region at night,—this service, namely, “that the believer does not stand helplessly before the future, which lies before us like a confusion which is enveloped in night.” But against this explanation it must be urged, that the figure employed by Peter would be appropriate only if the place in which the
λύχνος
shines were compared with that in which the believers are, and that the reference to the uncertain future is purely imported.
The words:
ἝΩς
ΟὟ
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
., show that for the believer another condition of matters will commence. The time when the day dawns in the hearts of the Christians, and the morning star arises, and when consequently they can do without the light, has been variously determined. According to Dorner, it is “a time within the development of the Christian life in the individual; that time, namely, when what is matter of history shall become living knowledge, influencing entirely the whole life” (Lehre v. d. Pers. Christi, 2 ed. part I. p. 104). But such a separation of the development of the Christian life of his readers into two periods can the less be assumed here, that the author would thus accuse them of still possessing a purely outward Christianity, and it can hardly be supposed that he should have considered the word of prophecy as unnecessary for the advanced Christian. Early commentators already correctly applied the words to the Parousia. It is erroneous, however, to understand them of that event itself, for with the advent the morning passes into the perfect day. The point of time which Peter has in view is that immediately preceding the second coming, the time when the
σημεῖον
of the Son of man appears (Mat_24:30), when believers are to lift up their heads because their
ἈΠΟΛΎΤΡΩΣΙς
draweth nigh (Luk_21:28), when accordingly the morning star which ushers in the day shall arise in their hearts; similarly Wiesinger and Brückner.[54]
[51] Hofmann, too, interprets thus, only that he looks upon the fact, by which the word of prophecy is made “more sure,” not as being Christ’s transfiguration, with the divine testimony, but His resurrection and ascension.
[52] Steinfass, indeed, thinks that the
μῦθοι
are referred to; Gerhard has already proved the incorrectness of this assumption.
[53] Hofmann’s entirely unwarranted assertion: “It is in vain to appeal to the fact, that in Aristotle
αὐχμηρός
occurs as antithesis to
λαμπρός
; the antithesis to
λαμπρόν
there is
ἀλαμπές
; on the other hand,
αὐχμηρός
, in its original meaning of ‘dry,’ is antithetical to
στίλβον
;” is contradicted by the passage itself to which he appeals, and which runs thus:
ποιεῖ
δὲ
διαφορὰν
καὶ
τὸ
λαμπρὸν
ἢ
στίλβον
εἶναι
τὸ
μιγνύμενον
ἢ
ποὐναντίον
αὐχμηρὸν
καὶ
ἀλαμπές
(Arist.:
περὶ
χρωμάτων
; Becker, II. 793); and how should
στίλβος
mean “wet”?
[54] The difficulty of this verse is not diminished by the connection of the words
ἐν
τ
.
καρδ
.
ὑμ
. with
προσέχ
., and of
ἕως
οὗ
ἡ
ἡμέρα
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. with
φαίνοντι
(Schott), since, if these words
ἕως
οὗ
are not to be almost meaningless, the question remains, what that morning is to which they refer. Schott, indeed, passes lightly over this difficulty by saying: “It is left to the reader to transfer this metaphor correctly to the dawn of the future day of perfect consummation.”