2Pe_3:10.
ἥξει
δὲ
[
ἡ
]
ἡμέρα
κυρίου
ὡς
κλέπτης
]
ἥξει
δέ
stands first by way of emphasis, in contrast to what precedes: “but come will the day of the Lord.” These words express the certainty of the coming of the day of judgment, and
ὡς
κλέπτης
its unexpected suddenness; cf. 1Th_5:2 (Mat_24:43):
τῆς
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
ἡμέρας
, 2Pe_3:12, shows that
κυρίου
is here also equivalent to
Θεοῦ
(not to
Χριστοῦ
; Schott).
ἐν
ᾗ
[
οἱ
]
οὐρανοὶ
ῥοιζηδὸν
παρελεύσονται
] This relative clause states “the event of that day, which makes it essentially what it is” (Schott).
ῥοιζηδὸν
,
ἅπ
.
λεγ
., equivalent to
μετὰ
ῥοίζου
, is best taken in the sense peculiar to the word: “with rushing swiftness” (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann; Pape, s.v.); Oecumenius understands it of the crackling of the destroying fire; de Wette, on the other hand, of the crash of the falling together. With
παρελεύσονται
, cf. Mat_24:35; Mat_5:18; Luk_16:17; Rev_21:1. As to how the heavens shall pass away, see 2Pe_3:12.
στοιχεῖα
δὲ
καυσούμενα
λυθήσονται
]
στοιχεῖα
cannot refer to the so-called four elements, “inasmuch as the dissolving of fire by means of fire is unthinkable” (Brückner), and it is arbitrary to limit the idea to three (Hornejus), or to two (Estius) elements; as now the position of the words shows that the expression has reference neither to the earth afterwards named, nor to the world as made up of heaven and earth (Pott: elementa totius mundi tam coeli quam terrae; thus, too, Brückner: “the primary substances of which the world, as an organism, is composed;” similarly Wiesinger, Schott), it must be understood of the constituent elements of the heavens, corresponding to the expression:
αἱ
δυνάμεις
τῶν
οὐρανῶν
, Isa_34:4; Mat_24:29 (cf. Meyer in loc.). This view is justified by the circumstance that in the preceding
οἱ
οὐρανοὶ
…
παρελεύσονται
no mention has as yet been made of the destruction of heaven and earth by fire. At variance with this view, Hofmann understands the expression
στοιχεῖα
here as a designation of the stars, arbitrarily asserting that
στοιχεῖα
“cannot be only original component parts, but must also be prominent points which dominate that by which they are surrounded,”—appealing to Justin (Apolog. ii. c. 5, and Dial. c. Tr. c. 23), who speaks of the stars as
στοιχεῖα
οὐράνια
. To this view it may be objected, that the author could not picture to himself a burning of the stars, which appeared to him as fiery bodies; neither do any of the corresponding passages of Scripture allude to this.
The verb
καυσοῦσθαι
only here and in 2Pe_3:12 : “to burn;” in the classics: “to suffer from heat;” the participle expresses the reason of the
λυθήσονται
: “will be dissolved by the burning.”
λύειν
, in the sense of: to destroy, to bring to nothing, Eph_2:14; 1Jn_3:8,—very appropriate here if
στοιχεῖα
be the original elements.
καὶ
γῆ
καὶ
τὰ
ἐν
αὐτῇ
ἔργα
κατακαήσεται
]
τὰ
ἔργα
are neither the wicked works of man (after 1Co_3:15), nor his works in general (Rosenmüller, Steinfass, Hofmann); the reference may be either to the opera naturae et artis (Bengel, Dietlein: “the manifold forms which appear on the earth’s surface, in contrast to the earth as a whole;” thus also Brückner, Wiesinger, Schott, Fronmüller); or the expression may be synonymous with that which frequently occurs in the O. T.:
ἡ
γῆ
καὶ
τὸ
πλήρωμα
αὐτῆς
, that is to say, the creations of God which belong to the earth, as they are related in the history of creation, cf. Rev_10:6. Hofmann wrongly urges against this view, that on it
τὰ
ἐν
αὐτῇ
would be sufficient; for even though this be true, it does not follow that the addition of the word
ἔργα
would prove that it is “the works of men” that are here meant. With reference to the reading
εὑρεθήσεται
, instead of the Rec.
κατακαήσεται
(see critical remarks), Hofmann regards it as original, and considers the words
καὶ
τὰ
…
εὑρεθήσεται
as an interrogative clause subjoined to the preceding affirmative clause. Of course an interrogative clause may be subjoined to an affirmative; but when Hofmann, in support of his interpretation, appeals to 1Co_5:2, he fails to observe that the relation between the statement and the question there is entirely different from that which is supposed to exist here.