2Pe_3:6.
διʼ
ὧν
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] The question is, to what has
ὧν
retrospect? The answer depends on the meaning attached to:
ὁ
τότε
κόσμος
. To appearance this phrase must be regarded as identical with
οὐρανοὶ
καὶ
γῆ
, 2Pe_3:5; 2Pe_3:7 (2Pe_3:10; 2Pe_3:13), and in support of this view appeal may be made also to the
τότε
as distinguished from
νῦν
, 2Pe_3:7. On this interpretation, accepted by most expositors (as also in this commentary),
διʼ
ὧν
can refer only either to
ἐξ
ὕδατος
and
τῷ
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
λόγῳ
(Gerhard, Brückner, Besser, Wiesinger, in this commentary also), or to
ὕδατος
alone (Calvin, Pott, etc.)[91]—the plural being explained from the circumstance that the water was formerly spoken of both as substance and as medium. The objection to this explanation, however, is that in the account of the flood there is nothing to show that it caused the destruction both of the heaven and of the earth, and that the earth only but not the heaven was submerged; Hofmann accordingly understands by
ὁ
τότε
κόσμος
, “the world of living creatures,” as Oecumenius already had done:
ΤῸ
ἈΠΏΛΕΤΟ
ΜῊ
ΠΡῸς
ΠΆΝΤΑ
ΤῸΝ
ΚΌΣΜΟΝ
ἈΚΟΥΣΤΈΟΝ
,
ἈΛΛᾺ
ΠΡῸς
ΜΌΝΑ
ΤᾺ
ΖῶΑ
. On this view (where
ΝῦΝ
only, 2Pe_3:6, seems to cause difficulty)
ὯΝ
refers to
ΟὐΡΑΝΟῚ
ΚΑῚ
Γῆ
(Oecumenius, Beza, Wolf, Hornejus, Fronmüller, Steinfass, Hofmann).[92]
[91] With this reference Burnet (Archaeol. Philos. p. 467) agrees, yet he incorrectly explains
διʼ
ὧν
by: earn ob causam, or: propter illam (aquam); for he strangely assumes that whilst the former world was ex aqua et per aquam constituta, this constitutio perished by the flood, so that therefore the
κόσμος
that now is, is no longer, ex aqua et per aquam, but aliter constitutus.
[92] Beda likewise applies
ὧν
to heaven and earth, but interprets (evidently erroneously)
διά
thus, that these are not the causa, but the objectum perditionis; i.e.
διʼ
ὧν
as equivalent to in quibus partibus aere et terra.