Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Peter 1:4 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Pe_1:4 must not, as a simple intervening clause, be enclosed in parentheses; for although 2Pe_1:5 is the principal clause standing related to the participial clause in 2Pe_1:3, still the latter is determined, in the thought of it, by 2Pe_1:4.
διʼ ὧν ] ὧν does not refer to the immediately preceding ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ κ . ἀρετῇ (Dietlein, Wiesinger, Brückner, this comment.), for it cannot be said that Christ has given us the ἐπαγγέλματα through the δόξα κ . ἀρετή of His Father, but to πάντα τὰ πρὸς κ . τ . λ . (Hofmann). Beza inaccurately interprets διʼ ὧν by ex eo quod.
τὰ τίμια ἡμῖν καὶ μέγιστα ἐπαγγέλματα ] ἐπάγγελμα , besides here, occurs only in chap. 2Pe_3:13, where it is used in connection with the new heaven and new earth in the future. By it is to be understood, not the promises of the prophets of the O. C. fulfilled in Christ for us, nor those things promised us, of which we are made partakers in Christ (Hornejus: bona et beneficia omnia, quae Deus per Christum offert et exhibet omnibus, qui in ipsum credunt; Wiesinger, Schott); but, according to 2Pe_1:12 ff., chap. 2Pe_3:4, 2Pe_3:12, the prophecies of the παρουσία of Christ and the future consummation of His kingdom, as contained in the gospel (Brückner). Dietlein is wrong in saying that ἐπαγγέλματα [25] are not only promises of what is future, but announcements of what is present and eternal. He goes still farther astray when he substitutes for this idea the different one: “the granting of favours which proclaim themselves.” The word ἘΠΑΓΓΈΛΛΕΙΝ (except in 1Ti_2:10; 1Ti_6:21) has constantly in the N. T. the meaning: “to promise,” never simply: “to proclaim.” These promises are called “precious,” not because they are “no mere empty words” (Schott), but because they promise that which is of the greatest value (Hofmann). The dative ἡμῖν from its position should be connected more probably with ΤΊΜΙΑ than with ΔΕΔΏΡΗΤΑΙ .
ΔΕΔΏΡΗΤΑΙ ] is here also not passive (Dietlein), but middle (all modern interpreters). Gualther erroneously explains it: donatae i. e. impletae sunt. What is here referred to is the communication, not the fulfilment of the promises, which are a free gift of divine grace.
The subject to ΔΕΔΏΡ . is not Ὁ ΚΑΛΈΣΑς (as formerly in this commentary), but the same as that to the foregoing ΔΕΔΩΡΗΜΈΝΗς .
ἽΝΑ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟΎΤΩΝ ] Calvin, de Wette-Brückner, Hofmann, understand ΤΟΎΤΩΝ to refer to ΤᾺ ΠΡῸς ΖΩῊΝ Κ . Τ . Λ . as the leading thought; this construction Wiesinger justly calls “a distortion of the structure, justifiable only if all other references were impossible.” Incorrect also is the application to ΔΌΞῌ ΚΑῚ ἈΡΕΤῇ (Bengel). From its position it can apply only to ἘΠΑΓΓΈΛΜΑΤΑ (Dietlein, Wiesinger, Schott), and not in like manner to ΔΌΞῌ ΚΑῚ ἈΡΕΤῇ (Fronmüller). ΔΙΆ has here its proper signification, not equal to “because of them” (Jachmann), nor to “incited by them;” as elsewhere the gospel is spoken of as the objective means through which the divine life is communicated, so here the ἘΠΑΓΓΈΛΜΑΤΑ , which, according to the conception of Second Peter, form the essential element of the gospel.
ΓΈΝΗΣΘΕ ΘΕΊΑς ΚΟΙΝΩΝΟῚ ΦΎΣΕΩς ] not: that ye may become partakers, but: that ye might be, etc. (Wiesinger). The aorist shows that the author does not look upon the κοινωνία , which for the Christian is aimed at in the bestowal of the promises, as something entirely future (Vorstius: quorum vi tandem divinae naturae in ilia beata immortalitate vos quoque participes efficiemini), but as something of which he should even now be partaker.[26] The thought that man is intended to be partaker of the divine nature, or to be transfigured into the divine being,—which is accomplished in him through faith in the promises,—is, though in other terms, often enough expressed in the N. T. (Heb_12:10; 1Pe_1:23; Joh_1:12-13, and many other passages). Hemming justly remarks: vocat hic divinam naturam id quod divina praesentia efficit in nobis i. e. conformitatem nostri cum Deo, seu imaginem Dei, quae in nobis reformatur per divinam praesentiam in nobis. When Hofmann urges the expression ΦΎΣΙς against this view, because a distinction must be drawn between the ΦΎΣΙς of man and the personal life of man, the former remaining even in him who is regenerate always the same, until this σῶμα is changed from a ΣῶΜΑ ΨΥΧΙΚΌΝ to a ΣῶΜΑ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΌΝ , he fails to observe that it is not the human, but the divine φύσις that is here spoken of, and in God there can be no difference made between natural and personal life. The expression ΦΊΣΙς is here quite inappropriately pressed by Hofmann. As opposed to the mystic “deification,” it must be remarked, with the older interpreters, that the expression ΦΎΣΙς conveys the thought, not so much of the substantia, as rather of the qualitas. Grotius’ interpretation dilutes the idea: ut fieretis imitatores divinae bonitatis. The second person ( ΓΈΝΗΣΘΕ ) serves to appropriate to the readers in particular that which belongs to all Christians ( ἩΜῖΝ ).[27]
ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν [ τῷ ] κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς ] These words do not express the condition on which the Christian becomes partaker of the divine nature, but the negative element which is most intimately connected with the positive aim. Accordingly, the translation is incorrect: “if you escape” (Luther, Brückner); ἀποφυγόντες is to be translated: “escaping, eluding;” the aor. part. is put because the verb is closely conjoined with the preceding aorist γένησθε . It is to be resolved into: in order that ye might be partakers of the divine nature, in that ye escape the φθορά .[28] With φθορά , cf. chap. 2Pe_2:12, and especially Rom_8:21; Gal_6:8 (see Meyer on the last passage). By it is to be understood not simply perishableness, but more generally corruption. The term φθορά is here more nearly defined as ἡ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ φθορά , i.e. the corruption which dwells in the (unredeemed) world, and to which all thereto belonging is a prey. The further more precise definition: ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ , states that this φθορά has its origin in the evil lust, opposed to what is divine, which has its sway in the world (1Jn_2:16-17).
ἀποφί , here c. gen.; chap. 2Pe_2:18; 2Pe_2:20, cum accus. constr.
The sequence of thought in 2Pe_1:3-4 is: Christ hath granted us everything that is serviceable to salvation and holiness, and that by the knowledge of God who hath called us by His glory; through it he has given us the most glorious promises, the design of which is the communication of the divine life.
[25] Schott’s assertion, that ἐπαγγέλματα , according to the form of the word, must mean: “promised things,” is opposed by chap. 2Pe_3:13; but why the promises as such should not, as Wiesinger supposes, be the means of effecting the κοινωνία θείκς φύσεως , it is difficult to understand.
[26] Hornejus: incipit ea in hac vita per gratiam, sed perficietur in altera per gloriam; si enim jam hic in ista imbecillitate divinae naturae consortes sumus per fidem, quanto magis illic erimus per adspectum et si hic per gratiam id adipiscimur, quanto magis illic per gloriam, ubi Deus ipse erit omnia in omnibus.
[27] Hofmann arbitrarily objects to this interpretation, that a change of persons could not take place in a clause expressive of a design; rather does it simply depend on the will of the writer, where he wishes it to take place. When the writer of a letter wishes to state the purpose of anything which has been imparted to all, should he not in particular apply it to those to whom he addresses his letter?—Augusti strangely presses the change of persons, by applying ἡμῖν to the Jews, γένησθε to the heathen-converts, and understanding θεία φύσις of the divine descent of the Jews.
[28] Bengel: haec fuga non tam ut officium nostrum, quam ut beneficium divinum, communionem cum Deo comitans, h. l. ponitur. Dietlein: “ ἀποφ . contains no demand and condition, but only the other side of the fact: Ye have entered the kingdom of the divine nature, therefore ye have left the kingdom of the worldly nature.”—By transferring γένησθε to the future, Schott gives an erroneous (linguistically) interpretation of ἀποφυγόντες as future also: “Ye shall become partakers of the divine nature, as such who have (shall have) precisely thus escaped τῆς … φθορᾶς .”