Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Peter 3:17 - 3:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Pe_3:17-18. Concluding exhortation and doxology.
ὑμεῖς οὖν ] Conclusion from what goes before.
προγινώσκοντες ] “since ye know it beforehand;” i.e. that such false teachers as have been described will come; not: “that the advent of Christ will take place,” nor: “that the consequences of the στρεβλοῦν will be the ἀπώλεια ” (Schott).
φυλάσσεσθε , ἵνα μή ] Since φυλάσσεσθε is nowhere else construed with ἵνα μή , ἵνα κ . τ . λ . is not to be taken as an objective clause, but as one expressive of purpose; “consequently special emphasis lies on φυλάσσεσθε ” (Schott).
τῇ τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες ] The ἄθεσμοι (cf. chap. 2Pe_2:7) are the aforementioned ἐμπαῖκται and Libertines.
πλάνη is not: “seduction” (Dietlein: leading astray of others), for the word never has this meaning (not even in Eph_4:14); nor would the συν in the verb agree with this, but, as in chap. 2Pe_2:18 : “moral-religious error;” with συναπαχθέντες , “carried away along with,” cf. Gal_2:13, and Meyer on Rom_12:16.
ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ ] With ἐκπίπτειν , cf. Gal_5:4, and Meyer in loc.
στηριγμός , ἅπ . λεγ ., is the firm position which any one possesses (not: the fortress; Luther); here, therefore, the firm position which the readers as believing Christians take up; cf. 2Pe_1:12; antithesis to the ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι , 2Pe_3:16. Dietlein explains the word quite arbitrarily of the “remaining at peace in the church.”—2Pe_3:18. αὐξάνετε δέ ] Antithesis to the ἐκπέσητε ; the remaining in the firm position can take place only where the αὐξάνειν is not lacking. Calvin: ad profectum etiam hortatur, quia haec unica est perseverandi ratio, si assidue progredimur. Hofmann incorrectly connects this imperative with φυλάσσεσθε , to which it is supposed to be related as a further addition; this view is opposed by δέ .
ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει τοῦ κυρίου κ . τ . λ .] does not state “the means and the origin of the growing” (Schott), but that in which they should grow or increase; αὐξάνειν , without any nearer definition, would be too bald in presence of the ἵνα μὴ … ἐκπέσητε κ . τ . λ . With regard to the two ideas: χάρις and γνῶσις , Aretius says: illud ad conversationem inter homines refero, quae gratiosa esse debet; hoc vero ad Dei cultum, qui consistit in cognitione Christi; this explanation is wrong; χάρις can be only either the grace of God, so that the sense of the exhortation would be, that they should seek to acquire the grace of God in ever richer measure (Hornejus, etc.); or—and this is preferable—the state of grace of the Christians (according to Calvin, etc.: the sum of the divine gifts of grace).
The γνῶσις is here specially mentioned, because the author regarded it as the living origin of all Christian activity.
The genitive: τοῦ κυρίου κ . τ . λ ., is taken by de Wette, Brückner agreeing with him, with reference to χάρις , as the subjective, with reference to γνῶσις , as the objective genitive; in like manner Hofmann. This twofold reference of the same genitive is inconceivable;[1] if it belong to both ideas, it can only be the gen. auctoris (Dietlein, Steinfass); but since it is more natural to explain it in connection with γνῶσις as gen. objec., ΧΆΡΙς must be taken as an independent conception.
Finally, the doxology, applied to Christ; Hemming: testimonium de divinitate Christi, nam cum tribuit Christo aeternam gloriam, ipsum verum Deum absque omni dubio agnoscit.
The expression: ΕἸς ἩΜΈΡΑΝ ΑἸῶΝΟς , is to be found only here; Bengel takes ἩΜΈΡΑ in contrast to the night: aeternitas est dies, sine nocte, merus et perpetuus; this is hardly correct; most interpreters explain the expression as equivalent to tempus aeternum, synonymous with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα , 1Pe_1:25, or with ΕἸς ΤΟῪς ΑἸῶΝΑς , Rom_16:27; this is too inexact; ἩΜΈΡΑ ΑἸῶΝΟς is the day on which eternity, as contrasted with time, begins, which, however, at the same time is eternity itself.
ἈΜΉΝ ] cf. Jud_1:25.
[1] Hofmann, indeed, appeals to Rom_15:4; Tit_2:13; 1Pe_1:2; but these passages do not prove what they are meant to prove.