2Pe_1:3. The first paragraph, extending as far as 2Pe_1:11, contains exhortations. The first of these is expressed in 2Pe_1:5-7, and to it 2Pe_1:3-4 serve as an introduction.
ὡς
] Lachmann connects
ὡς
directly with what precedes, and puts a full stop after
φθορᾶς
at the end of 2Pe_1:4; thus also Vulg., Beza, Erasmus, Hornejus, Grotius. This combination, however, is against the analogy of the N. T. epistles, in which the superscription closes with the benediction (in the Epistle to the Galatians alone a relative clause is subjoined, ending, however, with a doxology that marks the conclusion), and is also opposed to the contents of 2Pe_1:3-4, which serve as the basis for 2Pe_1:5 (Wiesinger). Gerhard and others consider
ὡς
as equivalent to
καθώς
(which Gerhard explains by
ἐπεί
, i.e. “postquam” vel “siquidem”), and supply
οὕτως
to 2Pe_1:5; arbitrarily:
ὡς
belongs much more to the genitive absolute (not pleonastically, Pott). The objective reason expressed in this phrase for the exhortation contained in 2Pe_1:5 is by
ὡς
characterized as a subjective motive; Winer: “convinced (considering) that the divine power,” etc.; Dietlein: “in the consciousness that;” so, too, de Wette, and the more recent commentators generally; the construction in 1Co_4:18, 2Co_5:20, is similar; cf. Matthiä, ausf. Gr. 1825, § 568, p. 1120.
πάντα
…
δεδωρημένης
] The Vulg. incorrectly: quomodo omnia vobis divinae virtutis sunt, quae ad vitam et pietatem, donata est (another reading is: sunt); and Luther: “since everything of His divine power, that pertains unto life and godliness, is given us;”
δεδωρημένης
is here not passive, but middle (cf. Gen_30:20, LXX.; Mar_15:45), and
τῆς
θ
.
δυνάμεως
: does not depend on
πάντα
, but is the subject (thus all modern commentators).
According to the position of the words,
αὐτοῦ
refers back to
Ἰησ
.
τ
.
κυρίου
ἡμῶν
(Calvin, Schott, Steinfass), and not to
Θεοῦ
;[22] if it be applied to
Θεοῦ
(de Wette-Brückner, Wiesinger), then
θείας
(which occurs here only and in 2Pe_1:4; Act_17:29 :
τὸ
θεῖον
, as subst.) is pleonastic. Dietlein and Fronmüller refer
αὐτοῦ
to God and Jesus, which linguistically cannot be justified.[23]
τὰ
πρὸς
ζωὴν
καὶ
εὐσέβειαν
] the
ζωὴ
καὶ
εὐσέβεια
are not spoken of as the object, but:
τὰ
πρὸς
ζωὴν
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. For the attainment of the former is conditioned by the Christian’s conduct; but in order that it may be put within his reach, everything is granted him which is serviceable to
ζωή
and
εὐσέβεια
(cf. Luk_19:42 :
τὰ
πρὸς
εἰρήνην
σου
). The difference between the two ideas is in itself clear;
ζωή
: “blessedness,” indicates the condition;
εὐσέβεια
: “godliness” (except in Act_3:12, occurring only in the Pastoral Epistles and Second Peter), the conduct. Grotius incorrectly interprets
ζωή
as equivalent to vita alterius seculi, and
εὐσέβεια
as pietas in hoc seculo. Both together they form the antithesis to
ἡ
ἐν
κόσμῳ
ἐν
ἐπιθυμίᾳ
φθορά
.
πάντα
is by way of emphasis placed first, in order to show distinctly that everything, which is in any way serviceable to
ζωή
and
εὐσέβ
., has been given us by the divine power of the Lord. Hofmann is wrong in defining this
πάντα
as faith, hope, and charity, for this triad does not pertain
πρὸς
εὐσέβειαν
, but is the
εὐσέβεια
itself.
διὰ
τῆς
ἐπιγνώσεως
τοῦ
καλέσαντος
ἡμᾶς
] states the medium through which the gift is communicated to us; with
ἐπίγνωσις
, cf. 2Pe_1:2. God is here designated as
ὁ
καλέσας
ἡμᾶς
, since it is only by the knowledge of the God who calls us that the
πάντα
τὰ
πρ
.
ζ
.
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. are appropriated by us,—the calling being the actual proof of His love to us. The subject to
καλεῖν
is not Christ (Vorstius, Jachmann, Schott, etc.), but God (Aretius, Hemming, de Wette, Hofmann, etc.), as almost always in the N. T.[24] Of course
καλεῖν
does not mean the mere outward, but the inward, effectual calling,
ἸΔΊᾼ
ΔΌΞῌ
ΚΑῚ
ἈΡΕΤῇ
]
ΔΌΞΑ
denotes the being,
ἈΡΕΤΉ
the activity; Bengel: ad gloriam referuntur attributa Dei naturalia, ad virtutem ea, quae dicuntur moralia; intime unum sunt utraque. It is arbitrary to understand
δόξα
as meaning: “that side the nature of the Almighty One that liveth, which is directed outwards,” and by
ἈΡΕΤΉ
: “the holy loving-kindness of God” (as opposed to Hofmann).
The nature of God represented as the instrumentality, as in Gal_1:15 :
ΚΑΛΈΣΑς
ΔΙᾺ
Τῆς
ΧΆΡΙΤΟς
ΑὙΤΟῦ
; too, Rom_6:4. A wrong application is given to the words, if they be taken as referring to the miracles of Christ. It must be observed that this
ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς
itself, too, is to be looked upon as wrought by Christ in us.
[22] Hofmann, indeed, applies it also to Christ, but by passing over ver. 2 to ver. 1, where, as already observed, he considers that it is not God and Christ, but Christ alone who is referred to.
[23] The application to Jesus is also supported by the fact, that otherwise this whole argument would contain no reference to Him; the application to both contains the correct idea, that the gift imparted by Jesus is the gift of God the Father.
[24] De Wette (with whom Brückner agrees) is accordingly wrong in supposing that
τοῦ
καλέσαντος
ἡμ
. stands in place of the simple pron.
αὐτοῦ
, and is inserted because by this circumlocution of the active subject the address gains in matter and range.—Schott’s remarks, in which he attempts to justify his assertion that
τοῦ
καλέσαντος
applies to Christ, are only in so far correct, that
καλεῖν
might indeed be understood of an activity of Christ; cf. Mat_9:13; Mar_2:17; on the other hand, it is certain that
ὁ
καλέσας
is never applied to Christ, but always to God.