Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Peter 3:7 - 3:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Pe_3:7. οἱ δὲ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ ] The νῦν , which applies also to ἡ γῆ , cannot, if by ὁ τότε κόσμος is to be understood the world of living beings, be taken as an antithesis to τότε , but it refers simply to the present continuance of heaven and earth.
τῷ αὐτῷ [ αὐτοῦ ] λόγῳ ] points back τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ , 2Pe_3:5; if the reading αὐτοῦ be adopted, this adjunct gives expression to the thought that, like as the originating of the heavens and the earth was dependent on the Word of God, so also is their preservation to annihilation by fire. If, however, αὐτῷ be the true reading, the idea seems to be implied that the reservation of the heavens and the earth unto judgment is based already on the words of creation.[93] Though this idea be surprising, it can certainly not, with Hofmann, be said to be paradoxical. It is, however, also possible that ΑὐΤῷ is only meant to show that the word by which this keeping of the heavens and the earth takes place, is the Word of God equally with that by which they were created.
ΤΕΘΗΣΑΥΡΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ ΕἸΣΊ ] “are stored up,” like a treasure, which is kept against a particular time, cf. Rom_2:5. Dietlein is of opinion that in the word the idea of use must be kept hold of; he defines it thus: “that heaven and earth are to serve as the material for punishment, in such a manner, however, that they at the same time perish themselves;” but this is justified neither by the reference (Rom_2:5), nor by the context.
πυρὶ ΤΗΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ Κ . Τ . Λ .] “In that they are reserved for the fire against the day,” etc.; πυρί is more appropriately joined with ΤΗΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ (Brückner, Fronmüller) than with ΤΕΘΗΣΑΥΡΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ ΕἸΣΊ (Wiesinger, Schott, Hofmann); this last term does not require the adjunct, since in itself it corresponds to the ἮΣΑΝ … ΣΥΝΕΣΤῶΣΑ , and it is only in the second member of the sentence that mention can be made of the future destruction by fire; otherwise, too, ΤΗΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ would be somewhat superfluous. The thought alluded to in ΠΥΡῚ ΤΗΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ is further developed in 2Pe_3:10. Nowhere in the O. T. or N. T. is this idea so definitely expressed as here; yet from this it does not follow that it is to be traced to Greek, more particularly to the Stoic philosophy, or to Oriental mythology. The O. T. makes frequent reference to a future change in the present condition of the world (“Heaven and earth shall pass away,” Psa_102:26-27), in connection with the appearance of God to judgment; cf. Isa_34:4; Isa_51:6; especially Isaiah 66, where in Isa_66:22 a new heaven and a new earth is expressly spoken of; thus, too, Job_14:12. Equally is it more than once set forth that God will come to judgment in the destroying fire, Isa_66:15, Dan_7:9-10, etc.; how easily, then, from passages such as these could the conception which finds expression here arise,[94] the more especially that it was promised that the world would never again be destroyed by a flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire appeared to be a type of the future judgment of the world.
Conceptions as to the world’s destruction similar to those in the O. T. are to be found in the N. T. Mat_5:18 (Mat_5:24; Mat_5:29), Heb_12:27; of fire accompanying the judgment, 1Co_3:13, 2Th_1:8; of the new heaven and the new earth, Rev_21:1.
εἰς ἡμέραν … ἀνθρώπων ] The final end against which heaven and earth remain reserved for fire; ἈΠΏΛΕΙΑ : the opposite of ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ , cf. Php_1:28 (chap. 2Pe_2:3).
Dietlein erroneously understands ΤῶΝ ἈΣΕΒῶΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ as a designation of the whole of mankind, in that, with the exception of the converted, they are ungodly. To any such exception there is here no reference; the phrase has reference rather to the ungodly in contrast to the godly.
[93] Dietlein: “The sense is this, that the same λόγος which created the world, assigned also to the post-Noachic world its time and its judgment.”
[94] When Schott denies this, and asserts in opposition that the passages Isa_66:15 ff., together with Mal_3:1-3; Mal_4:1, are “the complete statements of that event,” surely no judicious expositor will agree with him.