Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Peter 2:12 - 2:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Pe_2:12. Compare Jud_1:10. With all their similarity the two passages are nevertheless very different. The characteristics are still further described in Jud_1:10, but here the punishment is promised to these men.
οὗτοι δέ ] antithesis to ἄγγελοι ; the predicate belonging to it is φθαρήσονται .
ὡς ἄλογα ζῶα … φθοράν ] Parenthetical thought in close relation to φθαρήσονται ; Grotius: ita peribunt illi, sicut pereunt muta animantia.
γεγεννημένα φυσικά can hardly be translated: “born as sensuous beings to,” etc. (Wiesinger, and formerly in this commentary). φυσικά is meant rather to bring out that the irrational animals are, according to their natural constitution, born to ἅλωσις . Hofmann takes φυσικά as a second attribute added to γεγεννημένα by asyndeton, equal to: “by nature determined to ἅλωσις ,” etc. But the only objection to this is that γεγεννημένα alone cannot well be considered as a special attribute. As regards the sense, it makes no difference whether φυσικά be placed before (Rec.) or after γεγενν .
εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν ] According to Luther, a twofold rendering is possible: “First, those who take and strangle; second, who are to be taken, strangled, and slaughtered;” the latter is the only correct interpretation. The general interpretation is, “for taking and destroying;” Schott on the other hand translates, “for taking and consuming; “and Hofmann, in like manner, who holds that both are active ideas, “that they may be taken and consumed.” This interpretation of φθορά , however, is arbitrary, and all the more unwarranted, that in the subsequent ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν , φθορά cannot have this special meaning. According to N. T. usage, what is meant by φθορά here is the destruction to which the beasts are destined; cf. Col_2:22.
ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες … φθαρήσονται With regard to the construction, cf. “Winer, p. 583 [E. T. 784]. According to the usual interpretation, ἐν οἷς is dependent on βλασφημοῦντες , and is to be resolved into: ἐν τούτοις , ἃ ἀγνοοῦσιν , βλασφ . (Winer decides in favour of this; so, too, Wiesinger, and Buttmann, p. 128). But ἐν οἷς may also be dependent on ἀγνοοῦσιν , and be resolved: ταῦτα , ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν , βλασφημοῦντες . There is no other instance to be found of the construction βλασφημεῖν ἐν , although βλασφημεῖν εἰς occurs frequently. Buttmann accordingly says that by ἐν here (not the object strictly speaking, but) “rather the sphere is denoted, within which the evil-speaking takes place;” nor is the combination of ἀγνοεῖν with ἐν common, “yet it is not without example in later writings;” it is to be found in Test. XII. patr. in Fabricius cod. pseudepigr. V. T. p. 717. That ἀγνοεῖν , in the sense of it, may be joined with ἐν , is shown by the German expression, “to be ignorant in a matter.” Besides, in both constructions the sense is substantially the same. According to the connection with what precedes (2Pe_2:10) and Jud_1:8; Jud_1:10, the δόξαι are to be understood as that which was unknown to them, and to which their slanders had reference. On account of this irrational evil-speaking, that will happen to them which is expressed in the words: ἐν τῇ φθορὰ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται . φθορά has been understood here to mean moral corruption; thus de Wette-Brückner, Steinfass, Fronmüller; erroneously, however, for the word must have the same meaning in this passage as it had formerly; then, in this case, αὐτῶν does not refer to the Libertines, but to the ζῶα before mentioned, and καί is to be explained from the comparison with these. They (the Libertines) whose irrational slander of that of which they are ignorant, makes them like unto the irrational brutes, will also suffer φθορά , like the latter, who by nature are destined thereto. Entirely different from this, however, is the interpretation given by Hofmann. He resolves ἐν οἷς into ἐν τούτοις ἅ , and takes ἐν τούτοις with φθαρήσονται ; that which, without knowing it, they speak evil of, is, according to him, the things of sense; he understands ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν to be in more definite and explanatory apposition to ἐν τούτοις , and φθορά actively, equivalent to “abuse.” In his view, then, the idea here expressed is that the Libertines by abusing, after their lusts, the things of sense, believing them to have nothing in common with God, fall a prey to destruction. The objections to this interpretation are, first, that ἐν οἷς is not applied to any of the verba near it, but to the remote φθαρήσονται ; secondly, that a meaning is attributed to the second φθορά different from that of the first,—the one is taken as equivalent to “consumption,” the other to “abuse,”—and that neither of these significations belongs in any way to the word; thirdly, that the reference to the things of sense is in no way alluded to in the context; fourthly, that ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ cannot possibly be in apposition to ἐν τούτοις ; and lastly, that, on this interpretation, we should have had ἀγνοοῦντες βλασφήμουσι instead of ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες .[72]
[72] Schott agrees with Hofmann in regard to the application to things of sense, and to the interpretation of the meaning of the first φθορά , but differs from him in other points. He states the idea contained in the verse thus: “As irrational beasts, which … made to be taken and consumed … come to destruction, so these people shall perish; since they rail at those matters which they do not comprehend, they themselves shall perish in and with the destruction of those things against which they rail.” This interpretation is quite as unwarrantable as that of Hofmann.