καὶ
λέγοντες
ποῦ
ἐστιν
ἡ
ἐπαγγελία
τῆς
παρουσίας
αὐτοῦ
] The question
ποῦ
ἐστιν
expresses the negation; “quasi dicunt: nusquam est, evanuit; denique vana est et mendax;” cf. 1Pe_4:18. The same form of speech with
ποῦ
ἐστιν
: Psa_42:4; Psa_79:10; Mal_2:17; Luk_8:25.
αὐτοῦ
, i.e. Christi, cujus nomen ex re ipsa satis poterat intelligi (Grotius). Gerhard assumes that the scoffers did not mention the name of Christ per
ἐξουθενισμόν
; thus also Wiesinger, Hofmann. According to the connection (2Pe_3:2), the
ἐπαγγελία
meant is that of the O. T. (cf. chap. 2Pe_1:19 ff.[87]). In what follows we have the thesis of the scoffers in opposition to the
ἐπαγγελία
, and the basis of it. The thesis is:
πάντα
οὕτως
διαμένει
ἀπʼ
ἀρχῆς
κτίσεως
; its basis is indicated by the words:
ἀφʼ
ἧς
(sc.
ἡμέρας
)
οἱ
πατέρες
ἐκοιμήθησαν
. On the assumption that the
ἀφʼ
ἧς
οἱ
πατ
.
ἐκοιμ
., as used by the scoffers, means the period marking off the commencement of the
διαμένει
, and that
ἀπʼ
ἀρχ
.
κτ
. serves only as a more precise definition of it (Brückner, Schott), then by
οἱ
πατέρες
must be understood “the ancestors, the first generations of the human race.” But on this view
ἀφʼ
ἧς
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. is an entirely superfluous determination (Wiesinger), nor would there thus be any indication of the ground on which the scoffers based their thesis; if, however, this be contained in
ὀφʼ
ἧς
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., the reference in
οἱ
πατέρες
can be only either to the fathers of the Jewish people, to whom the
ἐπαγγελία
was given, cf. Heb_1:1 (Wiesinger), or those of the generation to which the scoffers belong (de Wette, Thiersch, Fronmüller, Hofmann). Now, since the falling asleep of the fathers of Israel, before its fulfilment, could not well be brought as a proof that the promise was of none effect, inasmuch as it referred to a time beyond that in which they lived (cf. 1Pe_1:10 ff.), preference must be given to the second view. Wiesinger, indeed, says that the time of the composition of the epistle does not agree with this; but as the tarrying of the
παρουσία
had already been the occasion of wonder in the church, and Christianity, when this letter was composed, had now been in existence for at least thirty-five years, it is quite possible that even at that time those who held Libertine views could have supported their denial of the Parousia by the fact that the expectation cherished by the early Christians had remained unrealized, thus calling forth the prophecy here made. At any rate, it is a point not to be overlooked, that the words here used are represented as to be spoken at a time then still in the future. 2Pe_3:8, which otherwise would stand totally unconnected with 2Pe_3:4, also favours this view.[88] The connection of the two members of the verse is certainly a loose one, since on none of the different interpretations does
ἀφʼ
ἧς
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. stand in close connection with
διαμένει
. The thought which has been somewhat inadequately expressed is: Since the fathers fell asleep, nothing has changed,—the promise has not been fulfilled,—a proof that everything remains as it has been since the creation. With
ἐκοιμήθησαν
, cf. 1Co_7:39; 1Co_15:6, and other passages.
οὕτως
does not require any supplement properly so called: “the scoffers point as it were with the finger to the (sacred) status quo of the world” (Steinfass).
διαμένει
does not mean “has remained,” nor is it “will remain,” but the present expresses the continuous, uniform duration;
δια
strengthens the idea
μένειν
.
ἀπʼ
ἀρχῆς
κτίσεως
: “since creation took its beginning.”
[87] This Hofmann disputes, saying: “by the promise is not to be understood the Old Testament promise, nor by the future the future of Christ, since those who speak thus are members of the Christian church; but with respect to the Old Testament prophecy, they speak of Jehovah’s coming, and, with respect to Christ’s prophecy, of His own coming,
ἡ
ἐπαγγελία
τῆς
παρουσίας
τοῦ
κυρίου
might comprehend the one as well as the other;” the context, however, is in favour of the interpretation which Hofmann disputes.
[88] Dietlein’s interpretation is altogether wrong. According to it,
οἱ
πατέρες
means: “One generation after another always standing in the relation of fathers to the race succeeding it.” Peculiar, but certainly quite unjustifiable, is the opinion of Steinfass, that the scoffers, with reference to the promise contained in the Book of Enoch, understood
οἱ
πατέρες
to mean “the prophetical, or more definitely, the eschatological patriarchs, beginning with Enoch and extending down to Daniel.”