Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Peter 2:1 - 2:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Pe_2:1. From here onwards: a description of the false teachers, who were to arise in the church, and a warning against them.
ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ] δέ : antithesis to what goes before. καί : “also,” that is, besides the true prophets mentioned in chap. 2Pe_1:21. The expression: ψευδοπροφήτης , already in the O. T. LXX., e.g. Jer_6:13, frequently in the N. T., not after the analogy of ψευδολόγος : “one who prophesies falsely,” but: “one who falsely gives himself out for a prophet,” on the analogy of ψευδάδελφος , ψευδαπόστολος .
ἐν τῷ λαῷ ] i.e. among the people of Israel. These words are in form a principal clause, but in thought a secondary clause: as there were false prophets in Israel, so will there be also among you, etc.
ὡς καὶ … ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι ] ἔσονται ; designates the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι as such, who would arise only in the future. They are afterwards pictured as actually present; see on this, the Introd. § 2, p. 281. The expression ψευδοδιδ . is in the N. T. ἅπ . λεγ .; Wiesinger and Brückner interpret: “such as teach lies;” Dietlein and Fronmüller: “such as lyingly pretend to be teachers.” The analogy of ψευδοπροφ ., with which it is here contrasted, makes the last the preferable interpretation (thus, too, Hofmann). Both result in the same sense (Schott); what the ψευδοπροφῆται were in the O. T., the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are in the N. T.
οἵτινες ] equivalent to quippe qui, “such as.”
παρεισάξουσι ] cf. Jud_1:4 : “to introduce by the side of,” with the secondary idea of secrecy.[61]
αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας ] αἱρέσεις , according to N. T. usage, “party-divisions,” cf. 1Co_11:19 (synonymous with σχίσματα ); Gal_5:20 (synonymous with διχοστασίαι ); also Tit_3:10, which have their origin in false doctrine; thus Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.; Hofmann, too, says that the word is to be taken in no sense different from that which it has elsewhere in the N. T., but then interprets it as equivalent to “particular systems of opinion,” thus attributing to it a meaning which it has nowhere else. Others take αἵρεσις here to mean “false doctrine, heresy” (Bengel, de Wette, Fronmüller). This interpretation is better suited to the connection, and especially to the verb παρεισάγειν . In the N. T., doubtless, the word has not this meaning, yet Ignatius already uses it with this force. ἀπωλείας (which is not to be resolved into the adject. “destructive”) designates the heresies as those which lead to ἀπώλεια ; cf. 2Pe_2:2-3.
καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα … ἀπώλειαν ] Winer (5th ed. p. 399 f.) translates: “since they also, denying the Lord, draw upon themselves swift destruction;” but the connection of καί with ἐπάγοντες , so far removed from it by τὸν ἀγοράσαντα κ . τ . λ ., cannot be justified. Fronmüller connects the member of the clause beginning with καί not with the relative clause οἵτινες , but with ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι . This construction was formerly supported in this commentary, with the remark, however, that a particular species of false doctrine was not, as Fronmüller assumes, indicated here, but that the participial clause more nearly defined the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι , καί being here put in the sense of: “and withal;” this construction, however, is anything but natural. The καί must undoubtedly be connected with the clause immediately preceding, though not as a simple copula, but in the sense of “also;” thus de Wette and Wiesinger,[62] taking καί as an intensification, equivalent to “even:” “whilst they deny even the Lord who bought them.” On the other hand, Hofmann does not admit any such intensification, and takes καί as equivalent to “also,” in the sense of addition, and interprets: “with their particular systems they break up the unity of the church, which, however, they do not do without at the same time denying the Lord.” But, on this interpretation, it is not clear why the author did not put the finite verb instead of the partic. ἀρνούμενοι ; the thought, too, that they break up the unity of the church, is simply imported. The participle shows that this clause is meant to serve as an explanation or a more precise definition of what goes before. De Wette’s view, accordingly, is to be preferred to that of Hofmann; it is, however, also possible that Schott is right in assuming an irregularity of the construction, in that the author, led astray by the participle ἀρνούμενοι , wrote the participle ἐπάγοντες instead of the finite verb ἐπάξουσι ; in which case καί must be taken as a simple copula.
The participle ἐπάγοντες is connected in a loose fashion with what precedes, in the sense: “by which they,” etc. The ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are more precisely characterized as: τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι ; with ἀρνούμενοι , cf. Jud_1:4; Bengel correctly: doctrina et operibus. By δεσπότην Christ is here meant; the author speaks of Him thus, in order to lay stress on the fact that they deny that Christ is the Lord; ἀγοράσαντα αὐτούς is added by way of emphasis: they deny the Lord who “bought” them, i.e. procured them for Himself by paying the purchase price. This does not only serve to emphasize more strongly what is reprehensible in the ἀρνεῖσθαι , but points out also that they deny the act to which allusion is made, and by which He has become their Lord. With ἀγοράζειν , cf. 1Co_6:20; 1Co_7:23; Rev_5:9; the blood of Christ must be thought of as the purchase price.
ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν ] With ἐπάγ . ἑαυτοῖς , cf. 2Pe_2:5, as also Act_5:28. ἑαυτοῖς indicates that they prepare an ἀπώλεια not only for others ( αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας ), but for themselves.
With ταχινήν , see chap. 2Pe_1:14, not: a speedy ἀπώλεια ; Hornejus correctly: inopinatam et inexspectatam; the destruction will come over them suddenly, and before they are aware of it (Schott, Fronmüller, Hofmann).
[61] Hofmann is wrong in asserting that in classical Greek παρεισάγειν has not the secondary meaning of secrecy; the verb occurs both with this secondary meaning and without it, see Pape, s.v.
[62] Winer (6th ed. p. 314 [E. T. 441], 7th ed. p. 329) says: “Both participles, ἀρν . and ἐπάγ ., are connected with παρεισάξουσιν ; they are not, however, co-ordinate with each other, but ἐπάγοντες is annexed to the clause οἵτινες … ἀρνούμενοι ;” he does not state how καί is to he understood.