Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Peter 3:16 - 3:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Pe_3:16. ὡς καὶ ἐν πάσαις [ ταῖς ] ἐπιστολαῖς ] sc. ἔγραψεν . By this adjunct the epistle of Paul, referred to in ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν , is definitely distinguished from his other epistles; but what is true of the former is asserted also of the latter, i.e. that they contain the same exhortations, a statement, however, which is more precisely limited by λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων . The difference in the reading, that is, whether the article is to be put with πάσαις or not, is of trifling importance for the meaning, since it is unwarranted to suppose that πάσαις ταῖς marks the epistles of Paul as forming a formally completed collection (Wiesinger),—the article only showing that the epistles of Paul were already known as such.
λαλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων ] λαλῶν is not for: ἐν αἷς λαλεῖ (Pott), but it means: “when in them (i.e. in his epistles) he speaks of these things.” περὶ τούτων can only have the same reference as καθώς , 2Pe_3:15; that is, then, not strictly to the teaching as to the Parousia as such, but chiefly “to the exhortation given in 2Pe_3:14 f.” (Wiesinger), and what is connected with it.
The remark in what follows alludes to that which occasioned the mention of Paul’s epistles.
ἐν οἷς or αἷς ἐστι δυσνόητά τινα ] It can hardly be decided which is the true reading: οἷς or αἷς . Schott thinks that for the sense it is immaterial, since, if αἷς be read, the τινά must be limited to the passages where Paul happens to speak περὶ τούτων ; and if ἐν οἷς , the reference can be to those things or questions not generally, but only in the way in which they are discussed by Paul. Reiche holds a different view; in his opinion, ἐν οἷς refers to those things in themselves, ἐν αἷς to the epistles generally; this can, however, hardly be correct, for it is scarcely conceivable that the author should let fall a remark closely conjoined with what had gone before, which departs so entirely from the connection of thought. Besides, ἐν αἷς deserves the preference not only on account of the external authorities, but because of the following: ὡς τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς (Wiesinger, Brückner, Reiche, Hofmann; Schott otherwise.) τινά is generally regarded as the subject, and δυσνόητα as the predicate belonging to it; the position of the words, however, decides that δυσν . τινά must be taken together as subject (Schott, Hofmann). By δυσνόητα must not be understood, with Schott, “the things which in themselves are opposed to the human mind,” but the expressions in which Paul speaks of them; Steinfass correctly: “ τινά are words, not objects;” for to the things the verb στρεβλοῦσιν is not suited. What the apostle meant can only be gathered from the connection; consequently the reference here cannot be to utterances of the Apostle Paul with respect to the Parousia itself (Schott), and therefore not to any statements of his, such as are to be found in 1Th_4:13 ff.; 1Co_15:12-58. Still less does the connection appear to justify the assumption that “the Pauline doctrine of freedom” (Wiesinger) is meant. Since, however, Paul’s statements with regard to Christian freedom stand in close relation to the final completion of salvation, and the idea of it forms such a characteristic feature of Paul’s teaching, which could only too easily be distorted by misunderstanding, it is certainly possible, indeed it is probable, that the author had it chiefly in mind in using this somewhat indefinite expression[105].
ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν ] ἀμαθής , ἅπ . λεγ ., according to de Wette, equivalent to “unteachable, with the implied idea of stubbornness and of unbelief.” This is incorrect, ἀμαθής means only “ignorant;” no doubt the secondary idea given by de Wette may be connected with this (as in the passages quoted, Joseph. Antiq. i. 4. 1, and iii. 14. 4), but here it is not to be presupposed, since the idea ἀστήρικτος connected with ἀμαθής , although denying strength of faith, does not deny faith itself; with ἀστήρικτοι , cf. chap. 2Pe_2:14. Most interpreters assume that the reference here is to the seducers, the Libertines and deniers of the Parousia formerly mentioned; but as a designation of them the expressions are too weak; chap. 2Pe_2:14, too, is opposed to this (Schott).
στρεβλοῦν , ἅπ . λεγ ., strictly: “to turn with the στρέβλη .” Here it means: “to distort the words,” i.e. to give them a sense other than they actually have; equivalent to διαστρέφειν (cf. Chrysostom on 2Co_10:8 : οὗτοι πρὸς τὰς οἰκείας διέστρεψαν τὰ ῥήματα ἐννοίας ); the word is to be found in another figurative sense in 2Sa_22:27, LXX.
ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς ] This addition is somewhat surprising, not only because all more precise statement of the γραφαί referred to is wanting, but because by it στρεβλοῦν , which formerly had reference only to the δυσνόητά τινα in the epistles of Paul, is here extended to entire writings; for to interpret γραφαί by “passages of Scripture” (de Wette), is arbitrary.
It is very improbable that the reference is to the O. T. Scriptures (Wiesinger, Schott, Steinfass), since the author would certainly have defined them more nearly as such[106] (Brückner); probably, then, other writings are meant, which, at the time of the composition of this epistle, served, like the epistles of Paul, for the instruction and edification of the Christian churches; it is possible, therefore, that these included other writings of the N. T.; but that they were only such, cannot be proved. That the words presuppose a collection of N. T. writings properly so called, is without any reason asserted by de Wette (Brückner).
ΠΡῸς ΤῊΝ ἸΔΊΑΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ἈΠΏΛΕΙΑΝ ] ἸΔΊΑΝ serves to intensify ΑὐΤῶΝ : “to their own destruction” (cf. chap. 2Pe_2:1); the wresting of Scripture has this consequence, inasmuch as they make use of the distorted expressions, in order to harden themselves in their fleshly lust.
[105] According to Hofmann, it is passages such as Eph_2:5 f., Col_2:1, that are meant, “for with these and similar statements the teaching of a Hymenaeus and a Philetus could be combined,—that the resurrection was already past, and that no other resurrection than that which takes place in regeneration is to be looked for.—This doctrine, combined with the other, that the world of sense has nothing related to God, would produce that justification of immorality predicted in chap. 2.”
[106] Although in other parts of the N. T. αἱ γραφαί always means the O. T. Scriptures, still the addition of λοιπαί proves that other Scriptures are here referred to; it would be different were λοιπάς not added.