圣经注释书

在本章中我们看到：一、一段引言或序言，为使徒主要的目的铺路并引向它（彼后1:1-4）。二、一项劝勉，要在一切基督徒的恩典上长进和进步（彼后1:5-7）。三、为加强这劝勉、使他们认真恳切地遵行，他加上：1. 一幅他们因此将要得着之极大益处的图画（彼后1:8-11）。2. 一个使徒所能给予之最佳帮助的应许，以促成并推进这善工（彼后1:12-15）。3. 一项宣告，说明基督福音的确实真理与神圣来源——他们正是在其恩典中受劝要长进并恒忍。

引言

真实性与原作性。若不是粗劣的伪作，其本身的内在见证就是毫无保留地支持它的真实性。卷首出现的是彼得的姓氏与原初名字西门，即西面，借此他在临终之际提醒读者，他在蒙召之前原本是怎样的人。又，在彼后 1:16-18 中，他提到自己曾在变像山上在场，以及基督对自己之死的预言；在彼后 3:15 中，他自称与保罗是弟兄。再在彼后 3:1 中，作者自称是前一封书信的作者；并且本信的收信范围虽包含（但不限于）第一封书信所收的对象，却预设他们已熟悉保罗的书信，而那些书信在当时已被视为“圣经”（彼后 3:15 “神的宽容”，参 罗 2:4）。

这必然意味着较晚的成书日期，即保罗的书信（包括罗马书）已经普遍流传并被教会接受为圣经的时期。第四世纪的教会，除了我们所得知的早期基督徒的疑虑之见证外，还有我们如今所没有的其它外在证据；这些证据在神的护理之下，无疑促使他们接纳了本书。彼得若不是作者，则此书便是显然虚假之作，竟能被老底嘉会议（主后360年，若第59条属实）、希坡与迦太基会议（第四世纪393年与397年）最终确立的正典所接受，实在难以理解。本信整体的语调与精神都反驳它是伪作。他写作如同一个不是随己意说话，而是被圣灵感动的人（彼后 1:21）。在最初的世代，这样的欺诈只会给行骗者从基督徒与外邦人双方带来羞辱与苦难，当时不像后世那样有“敬虔的欺诈”的诱惑。本书必成于最早的年代，这一点从它和其它新约圣经之间，与即使最早、最优的使徒后期著作之间，也存在一道文风上的鸿沟，便可清楚看出。戴雅（Daillé）说得好：“神容许人性的软弱在神圣正典周围挖出一道壕沟，以保护它免受一切侵扰。”

最早的教父中已有熟悉本书的痕迹。黑马《比喻》6.4（参 彼后 2:13），其希腊文为“白昼……奢华，在他们自己的诡计中放纵”；又《牧人·异象》3.7：“他们偏离了真道”（参 彼后 2:15）；《牧人·异象》4.3：“你已经逃脱了这个世界”（参 彼后 2:20）。罗马的革利免《致哥林多人书》7.9、10论到挪亚的传道与罗得的蒙拯救，“主使他认识：祂不丢弃那些倚靠祂的人，却把那些偏行己路的人定为受审判”（参 彼后 2:5、6、7、9）。爱任纽（主后178年，“主的日子如同一千年”）和殉道者游斯丁似乎都暗指彼后 3:8。希坡律陀《论敌基督》似乎引用彼后 1:21：“先知说话不是凭自己个人（即个别）的能力与意志，而是单单凭神所启示给他们的。”困难在于：特土良、居普良、亚历山太的革利免、最古的叙利亚文《别西大》译本（较晚的叙利亚文译本则有），以及被称为《穆拉多利 fragment》的断片，都没有提到本书。第一位明确提到本书的是第三世纪的俄利根（《约书亚记讲道集》；又有《利未记讲道集》第4篇、《民数记讲道集》第13篇），他称本书为“圣经”，引用彼后 1:4；2:16；然而（据优西比乌《教会史》6.25），他提到有人怀疑后书。加帕多家的庇米利安主教在《致居普良书》中论到彼得的书信警告我们防备异端（这警告只见于后书而非前书）。而加帕多家正是（彼前 1:1 与彼后 3:1 相比对）受书国家之一；值得注意的是，最早的决定性见证竟出自加帕多家。正如特里格尔斯（Tregelles）所说：“本书在内证上自称是彼得所写，而这声称恰由本书理当被发现被托管的那个地区的基督徒所证实。”

与普世公认的“Homologoumena”相对的“Antilegomena”（即有争议的书卷），计有彼得后书、雅各书、约翰二书与三书、犹大书、启示录、希伯来书（参优西比乌《教会史》3.3、25）。“Antilegomena”与“Spuria”（伪经）截然不同；对于伪经，人们没有争论，而是普世拒绝，例如《黑马牧人书》《彼得启示录》《巴拿巴书信》。耶路撒冷的区利罗（主后348年）列举了七封大公书信，包括彼得后书；同样，拿先斯斯的贵格利（主后389年）和伊皮法纽（主后367年）也是如此。现存最古老的希腊文抄本（第四世纪）也都包含“Antilegomena”。哲罗姆在《论显赫人物》中，根据两封书信之间文风的差异猜测，彼得因不会写希腊文，在后书所用的希伯来语口授的希腊文译者，与译成前书者并非同一人；据说马可曾担任马可福音情形下的译者，但这些纯属无据的臆测。两封书信中其实贯穿了许多相同的观点。两书同样期盼主忽然再来与世界终局（彼后 3:8-10 与彼前 4:5 相比对）；论到先知的灵感（彼前 1:10-12 与彼后 1:19-21；3:2 相比对）；以神圣的道所带来的重生作为禁戒肉体情欲的动机（彼前 1:22；2:2 与彼后 1:4 相比对）；又可将彼前 2:9 与彼后 1:3 相比对，两处希腊文都含罕见词“美德”（彼前 4:17 与彼后 2:3 亦可比对）。

各书卷呈现独特的文风特色并不奇怪，因为两书的目的并不相同。在前书中，基督的受苦更为突出，因为其目的是借此鼓励受苦的基督徒；在后书中，升高之主的荣耀更为突出，因为其目的是更全面地传达对基督的“知识”，作为抵御彼得所警告的错谬教导的解药。因此，前书采用“基督”这一救赎称号，而后书采用“主”这一称号。“盼望”是前书的特征，“充足的知识”是后书的特征。在前书中，他不如后书那样突出其使徒权柄，因为后书的目的是警告防备假教师。保罗的书信中也有同样的差异；可将帖前 1:1；帖后 1:1；腓 1:1 与加 1:1；林前 1:1 相对照。

论到保罗的著作已经大量存在、并已被承认为“圣经”（彼后 3:15、16），意味着本书写于较晚的日期，即彼得离世前不久。

两书之间也有显著的用词一致：彼前 1:19 末与彼后 3:14 末相比对；“他自己的”，希腊文，彼后 1:3；2:16；3:17 与彼前 3:1、5 相比对；希腊文冠词的省略，彼前 2:13 与彼后 1:21；2:4、5、7 相比对。此外，彼后 1:13 “帐棚”，即身体，和彼后 1:15 “离开”，立刻令人想起福音书中的变像叙事。两书都提到洪水，并称挪亚为“第八个”得救的人。前书充满旧约引文，后书虽无直接引文，却常有对旧约的影射（彼后 1:21；2:5-8、15；3:5、6、10、13）。希腊文“除去”，彼前 3:21 与彼后 1:14 相比对；希腊文“度日”，彼前 1:17 与彼后 2:18 相比对；“行”，彼前 4:3 与彼后 2:10；3:3 相比对；“选召你们”，彼前 1:15；2:9；5:10 与彼后 1:3 相比对。

此外，本书与使徒行传中彼得的讲论用词一致之处，比前书更多。希腊文“得了”，彼后 1:1 与徒 1:17 相比对；希腊文“虔诚”，彼后 1:6 与徒 3:12 相比对（除教牧书信外仅见于此）；又彼后 2:9 与徒 10:2、7 相比对；“受刑罚”，彼后 2:9 与徒 4:21 相比对（仅见于此）；双重所有格，彼后 3:2 与徒 5:32 相比对；“主的日子”，彼后 3:10 与徒 2:20 相比对（除帖前 5:2 外仅见于此）。

犹大的见证（犹 17、18）有力地支持了本书的真实性与灵感性，因为他采用了其中的措辞，并暗示他写信的教会已接受本书：“你们要记念我们主耶稣基督之使徒从前所说的话。他们曾对你们说过，末世必有好讥诮的人随从自己不敬虔的私欲而行。”因此，犹大必定是在彼得后书之后写的，他所明明指的就是彼得后书，而非如阿尔福德（Alford）所想是在其之前。犹大书至少有十一处依据彼得后书类似的论述：犹 2，参彼后 1:2；犹 4，参彼后 2:1；犹 6，参彼后 2:4；犹 7，参彼后 2:6；犹 8，参彼后 2:10；犹 9，参彼后 2:11；犹 11，参彼后 2:15；犹 12，参彼后 2:17；犹 16，参彼后 2:18；犹 18，参彼后 2:1；3:3。正如弥 4:1-4 依托稍早的以赛亚预言，借此印证其灵感。阿尔福德论证：在许多与彼得后书相近的段落中，犹大书比彼得后书更详尽，故犹大书在先。但这一点绝非必然。较简短者较早，可能性至少同样大，甚至更大。文风的庄重与力度，与我们对这位敏捷而热切的使徒领头人的期待十分相符。彼得前后书之间的文风差异，正与各自主题和目的的差异相吻合。

根据上述，日期约为主后68或69年，比前书约晚一年，并在耶路撒冷毁灭之前不久——那毁灭是彼后 3:10-13 如此郑重提醒注意的世界末日的预表性前奏；也在保罗事工结束之后（彼后 3:15 希腊文过去不定时态“写了”，属过去时间），即在彼得自己离世之前不久。本信的收信对象包含同样的人，可能也写于与前书相同或相近的地方。因没有个人问安，也没有像前书那样托付给某一个或某些特定教会，而是普遍地写给“与我们同得一样宝贵信心的人”（彼后 1:1），所以它被承认为正典花了更长时间。若罗马是其写作地或发行地，它几乎不可能不被早日接受——这是反对彼得在罗马殉道之传统的附带论证。其写作地是巴比伦，或罗马帝国边界以外的某一邻近地区，其流传地是加帕多家、本都等地，这一点更能解释为何它被接纳得迟缓，但最终却被大公教会普世接受。前书因收信地址更为明确，故被普遍接纳得更早。

目的。彼后 3:17、18 陈明了本信的双重目的：一是守护读者免陷于假教师的“错谬”，二是劝勉他们在“认识我们主救主”的 experiential 知识上长进（彼后 3:18）。这知识的根基陈述于彼后 1:12-21，即众使徒与众先知的灵感见证。如今危险一如既往地将来自即将在他们中间出现的假教师，正如保罗（彼后 3:15、16 所指的他）在同一地区所作的见证。伟大的解药是“充分认识我们的主救主”，借此我们认识父神，得与祂的性情有分，脱离世上的污秽，并得以进入基督的国。此处所呈现的基督，与其说是过去那位受苦的救主，不如说是将来那位掌权的救主，拥有现在的权能与将来的新国度。这一面最适合用来反驳那些将否认祂的主权与祂的再来之假教师的理论；而这正是作为使徒与目击者的彼得所要证实的那两点（祂的“权能”与祂的“再来”）。这一面也用来反驳他们在行为上的恶榜样：毁谤真道，藐视主权，作贪婪与肉体污秽情欲的奴仆，却妄称基督徒的自由，最严重的是背弃真理。“认识基督”既是认识“义的道路”，认识“正路”，便是他们恶行的解药。故此，“传义道的”挪亚与“义人罗得”被引为脱离了那临到“不义之人”之毁灭的实例；而巴兰则作为说明“不义”之可怕结局的实例，恰如假教师们的不义。如此，本信构成一个紧密相连的整体，各部分彼此紧密相扣，首尾相应：彼后 3:14、18 与彼后 1:2 相比对，两处都将“恩典”与“平安”连于“认识我们的救主”；又彼后 3:17 与彼后 1:4、10、12 相比对；彼后 3:18 “在恩典和知识上长进”与较详尽的彼后 1:5-8 以及彼后 2:21 相比对；彼后 3:13 “义”与彼后 1:1 相比对；彼后 3:1 与彼后 1:13 相比对；彼后 3:2 与彼后 1:19 相比对。

执政派（Carpocratians）与诺斯底异端的种子虽已存在，但这些异端的实际显现却被称为将来的事（彼后 2:1、2 等）：这是本信如其所言写于使徒时代、即第一世纪末与第二世纪初诺斯底异端发展之前的又一项证据。其描述过于笼统，不能与后世的任何一种异端形式一一对应，而是普遍适用于这一切。

虽然本信的目的与前书截然不同，但二者之间仍可追溯出关联。对行事谨慎之警告的忽视，导致了后书所预告的恶果。可将论到滥用基督徒“自由”的警告，彼前 2:16 与彼后 2:19——“他们说虚妄矜夸的大话”——相比对；又将论到骄傲的告诫，彼前 5:5、6 与彼后 2:18——“他们说虚妄矜夸的大话”——相比对。

Introduction to 2Peter

Section 1. Genuineness and Authenticity of the Epistle

It is well known that at an early period of the Christian history there were doubts respecting the canonical authority of the Second Epistle of Peter. The sole ground of the doubt was, whether Peter was the author of it. Eusebius, in the chapter of his ecclesiastical history where he speaks of the New Testament in general, reckons it among the αντιλεγομενα antilegomena, i. e. those books which were not universally admitted to be genuine; literally, "those which were spoken against," b. iii. chapter 25. This does not imply that even he, however, disbelieved its genuineness, but merely that it was numbered among those about which there had not always been complete certainty. Jerome says, "Peter wrote two epistles, called 'catholic'; the second of which is denied by many to be his, because of the difference of style from the former." Origen, before him, had also said, "Peter, on whom the church is built, has left one Epistle (universally) acknowledged. Let it be granted that he also wrote a second. For it is doubted of." See Lardner, vol. vi., p. 255, Ed. Lond. 1829. Both the Epistles of Peter, however, were received as genuine in the fourth and following centuries by all Christians, except the Syrians. The First Epistle was never doubted to have been the production of Peter. In regard to the second, as remarked above, it was doubted by some. The principal ground of the doubt, if not the entire ground, was the difference of style between the two, especially in the second chapter, and the fact that the old Syriac translator, though he admitted the Epistle of James, which was also reckoned among the "doubtful" epistles, did not-translate the Second Epistle of Peter. That version was made, probably, at the close of the first century, or in the second; and it is said that it is to be presumed that if this Epistle had been then in existence, and had been regarded as genuine, it would also have been translated by him.

It is of importance, therefore, to state briefly the evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of this Epistle. In doing this, it is proper to regard the "First" Epistle as undoubtedly genuine and canonical, for that was never called in question. That being admitted, the genuineness of this Epistle may be argued on the following grounds:

(1) It does not appear to have been "rejected" by any one. It was merely "doubted" whether it was genuine. How far even this "doubt" extended is not mentioned. It is referred to only by Jerome, Origen, and Eusebius, though there is not the least evidence that even they had any doubts of its genuineness. They merely state that there were some persons who had doubts on the subject, from the difference of style between this and the former Epistle. This fact, indeed, as Wall has remarked, (Critical Notes on the New Testament, pp. 358, 359,) will serve at least to show the care which was evinced in admitting books to be canonical, proving that they were not received without the utmost caution, and that if the slightest doubt existed in the case of any one, it was honestly expressed.

(2) even all doubt on the subject disappeared as early as the third and fourth centuries, and the Epistle was received as being unquestionably the production of Peter. The effect of the examination in the case was to remove all suspicion, and it has never since been doubted that the Epistle was written by Peter; at least, no doubt has arisen, except from the fact stated by Jerome and Origen, that it was not universally admitted to be genuine.

(3) this Epistle purports to have been written by the author of the former, and has all the internal marks of genuineness which could exist.

(a) It bears the inscription of the name of the same apostle: "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ," 2 Peter 1:1.

(b) There is an allusion in 2 Peter 1:14, which Peter only could appropriately make, and which an impostor, or forger of an epistle, would hardly have thought of introducing: "Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me." Here, there is an evident reference to the Saviour's prediction of the death of Peter, recorded in John 21:18-19. It is conceivable, indeed, that an adroit forger of an epistle might have introduced such a circumstance; but the supposition that it is genuine is much more natural. It is such an allusion as Peter would naturally make; it would have required much skill and tact in another to have introduced it so as not to be easily detected, even if it had occurred to him to personate Peter at all. Would not a forger of an epistle have been likely to mention particularly what kind of death was predicted by the Saviour, and not to have made a mere allusion?

(c) In 2 Peter 1:16-18, there is another allusion of a similar kind. The writer claims to have been one of the "eye-witnesses of the majesty" of the Lord Jesus when he was transfigured in the holy mount. It was natural for Peter to refer to this, for he was with him; and he has mentioned it just as one would be likely to do who had actually been with him, and who was writing from personal recollection. A forger of the epistle would have been likely to be more particular, and would have described the scene more minutely, and the place where it occurred, and would have dwelt more on the nature of the evidence furnished there of the Divine mission of the Saviour.

(d) In 2 Peter 3:1, it is stated that this is a Second Epistle written to the same persons, as a former one had been; and that the writer aimed at substantially the same object in both. Here the plain reference is to the First Epistle of Peter, which has always been acknowledged to be genuine. It may be said that one who forged the Epistle might have made this allusion. This is true, but it may be doubtful whether he would do it. It would have increased the liability to detection, for it would not be easy to imitate the manner, and to carry out the views of the apostle.

(4) to these considerations it may be added, that there is clear internal evidence of another kind to show that it was written by Peter. This evidence, too long to be introduced here, may be seen in Michaelis' Introduction, iv. 349-356. The sum of this internal evidence is, that it would not have been practicable for a writer of the first or second century to have imitated Peter so as to have escaped detection; and that, in general, it is not difficult to detect the books that were forged in imitation of, and in the name of, the apostles.

As to the alleged objection in regard to the difference of the style in the second chapter, see Michaelis, iv. 352-356. Why it was not inserted in the Old Syriac Version is not known. It is probable that the author of that version was exceedingly cautious, and did not admit any books about which he had any doubt. The fact that this was doubted by some, and that these doubts were not removed from his mind, as in the case of the Epistle of James, was a good reason for his not inserting it, though it by no means proves that it is not genuine. It came, however, to be acknowledged afterward by the Syrians as genuine and canonical Ephrem the Syrian, a writer of the 4th century, not only quotes several passages of it, but expressly ascribes it to Peter. Thus, in the second volume of his Greek works, p. 387, he says, "The blessed Peter, also, the Coryphaeus of the apostles, cries, concerning that day, saying, The day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night, in which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." This is literally quoted (in the Greek) from 2 Peter 3:12. See Michaelis, as above, p. 348. And Asseman, in his catalog of the Vatican Manuscripts, gives an account of a Syriac book of Lessons, to be read, in which is one taken from this Epistle. See Michaelis.

These considerations remove all reasonable doubt as to the propriety of admitting this Epistle into the canon, as the production of Peter.

Section 2. The Time when the Epistle was Written

In regard to the time when this Epistle was written, nothing can be determined with absolute certainty. All that appears on that subject from the Epistle itself, is, that at the time of writing it the author was expecting soon to die. 2 Peter 1:14, "knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me." What evidence he had that he was soon to die he has not informed us; nor is it known even what he meant precisely by the word "shortly." The Greek word (ταχινή tachinē) is indeed one that would imply that the event was expected not to be far off; but a man would not unnaturally use it who felt that he was growing old, even though he should in fact live several years afterwards. The Saviour John 21:18 did not state to Peter when his death would occur, except that it would be when he should be old; and the probability is, that the fact that he was growing old was the only intimation that he had that he was soon to die. Ecclesiastical history informs us that he died at Rome, 66 a.d., in the 12th year of the reign of Nero. See Calmet, the article "Peter." Compare Notes, John 21:18-19. Lardner supposes, from 2 Peter 1:13-15, that this was written not long after the First, as he then says that he "would not be "negligent" to put them in remembrance of these things." The two Epistles he supposes were written in the year 63 or 64 a.d., or at the latest 65 a.d. Michaelis supposes it was in the year 64 a.d.; Calmet that it was in the year of Christ 68, or according to the Common Era, 65 a.d. Probably the year 64 or 65 a.d. would not be far from the real date of this Epistle. If so, it was, according to Calmet, one year only before the martyrdom of Peter (66 a.d.), and six years before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, 71 ad.

Section 3. The Persons to whom this Epistle was Written, and the Location

On this subject there is no room for doubt. In 2 Peter 3:1, the writer says, "this Second Epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance" This Epistle was written, therefore, to the same persons as the former. On the question to whom that was addressed, see the introduction to that Epistle, Section 1. The Epistles were addressed to persons who resided in Asia Minor, and in both they are regarded as in the midst of trials. No certain intimation of the place where this Epistle was written is given in the Epistle itself. It is probable that it was at the same place as the former, as, if it had not been, we may presume that there would have been some reference to the fact that he had changed his residence, or some local allusion which would have enabled us to determine the fact. If he wrote this Epistle from Babylon, as he did the former one, (see Introduction to that Epistle, Section 2,) it is not known why he was so soon removed to Rome, and became a martyr there. Indeed, everything respecting the last days of this apostle is involved in great uncertainty. See the article "Peter" in Calmet's Dictionary. See these questions examined also in Bacon's Lives of the Apostles, pp. 258-279.

Section 4. The Occasion on Which the Epistle Was Written

The First Epistle was written in view of the trials which those to whom it was addressed were then enduring, and the persecutions which they had reason to anticipate, 1 Peter 1:6-7; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 Peter 5:8-11. The main object of that Epistle was to comfort them in their trials, and to encourage them to bear them with a Christian spirit, imitating the example of the Lord Jesus. This Epistle appears to have been written, not so much in view of persecutions and bodily sufferings, real or prospective, as in view of the fact that there were teachers of error among them, the tendency of whose doctrine was to turn them away from the gospel. To those teachers of error, and to the dangers to which they were exposed on that account, there is no allusion in the First Epistle, and it would seem not to be improbable that Peter had been informed that there were such teachers among them after he had written and despatched that. Or, if he was not thus informed of it, it seems to have occurred to him that this was a point of great importance which had not been noticed in the former Epistle, and that an effort should be made by apostolic influence and authority to arrest the progress of error, to counteract the influence of the false teachers, and to confirm the Christians of Asia Minor in the belief of the truth. A large part of the Epistle, therefore, is occupied in characterizing the teachers of error, in showing that they would certainly be destroyed, and in stating the true doctrine in opposition to what they held. It is evident that Peter supposed that the danger to which Christians in Asia Minor were exposed from these errors, was not less than that to which they were exposed from persecution, and that it was of as much importance to guard them from those errors as it was to sustain them in their trials.

The characteristics of the teachers referred to in this Epistle, and the doctrines which they taught, were the following:

(1) One of the prominent errors was a denial of the Lord that bought them, 2 Peter 2:1. On the nature of this error, see Notes on that verse.

(2) they gave indulgence to carnal appetites, and were sensual, corrupt, beastly, lewd, 2 Peter 2:10, 2 Peter 2:12-14, 2 Peter 2:19. Compare Jde 1:4, Jde 1:8,Jde 1:16. It is remarkable that so many professed "reformers" have been men who have been sensual and lewd - men who have taken advantage of their character as professed religious teachers, and as "reformers," to corrupt and betray others. Such reformers often begin with pure intentions, but a constant familiarity with a certain class of vices tends to corrupt the mind, and to awaken in the soul passions which would otherwise have slept; and they fall into the same vices which they attempt to reform. It should be said, however, that many professed reformers are corrupt at heart, and only make use of their pretended zeal in the cause of reformation to give them the opportunity to indulge their base propensities.

(3) they were disorderly in their views, and radical in their movements. The tendency of their doctrines was to unsettle the foundations of order and government; to take away all restraint from the indulgence of carnal propensities, and to break up the very foundations of good order in society, 2 Peter 2:10-12. They "walked after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness;" they "despised government" or authority; they were "presumptuous and self-willed;" they "were not afraid to speak evil of dignities;" they were like "natural brute beasts;" they "spoke evil of the subjects which they did not understand." It is by no means an uncommon thing for professed reformers to become anti-government men, or to suppose that all the restraints of law stand in their way, and that they must be removed in order to success. They fix the mind on one thing to be accomplished. That thing magnifies itself until it fills all the field of vision. Everything which seems to oppose their efforts, or to uphold the evil which they seek to remove, they regard as an evil itself; and as the laws and the government of a country often seem to sustain the evil, they become opposed to the government itself, and denounce it as an evil. Instead of endeavoring to enlighten the public mind, and to modify the laws by a course of patient effort, they array themselves against them, and seek to overturn them. For the same reason, also, they suppose that "the church" upholds the evil, and become the deadly foe of all church organizations.

(4) they were seductive and artful, and adopted a course of teaching that was fitted to beguile the weak, and especially to produce licentiousness of living, 2 Peter 2:14. They were characterized by adulterous desires; and they practiced their arts particularly on the "unstable," those who were easily led away by any new and plausible doctrine that went to unsettle the foundations of rigid morality.

(5) they adopted a pompous mode of teaching, distinguished for sound rather than for sense, and proclaimed themselves to be the special friends of liberal views, and of a liberal Christianity, 2 Peter 2:17-19. They were like "wells without water;" "clouds that were carried about with a tempest;" they spake "great swelling words of vanity," and they promised "liberty" to those who would embrace their views, or freedom from the restraints of bigotry and of a narrow and gloomy religion. This appeal is usually made by the advocates of error.

(6) they had been professed Christians, and had formerly embraced the more strict views on morals and religion which were held by Christians in general, 2 Peter 2:20-22. From this, however, they had departed, and had fallen into practices quite as abominable as those of which they had been guilty before their pretended conversion.

(7) they denied the doctrines which the apostles had stated respecting the end of the world. The "argument" on which they based this denial was the fact that all things continued unchanged as they had been from the beginning, and that it might be inferred from that that the world would be stable, 2 Peter 3:3-4. They saw no change in the laws of nature; they saw no indications that the world was drawing to a close, and they "inferred" that laws so stable and settled as those were which existed in nature would continue to operate, and that the changes predicted by the apostles were impossible.

A large part of the Epistle is occupied in meeting these errors, and in so portraying the characters of their advocates as to show what degree of reliance was to be placed on their preaching. For a particular view of the manner in which these errors are met, see the analyses to 2 Peter 2; 3.

This Epistle is characterized by the same earnest and tender manner as the First, and by a peculiarly "solemn grandeur of imagery and diction." The apostle in the last two chapters had to meet great and dangerous errors, and the style of rebuke was appropriate to the occasion. He felt that he himself was soon to die, and, in the prospect of death, his own mind was uniquely impressed with the solemnity and importance of coming events. He believed that the errors which were broached tended to sap the very foundations of the Christian faith and of good morals, and his whole soul is roused to meet and counteract them. The occasion required that he should state in a solemn manner what was the truth in regard to the second advent of the Lord Jesus; what great changes were to occur; what the Christian might look for hereafter; and his soul kindles with the sublime theme, and he describes in glowing imagery, and in impassioned language, the end of all things, and exhorts them to live as became those who were looking forward to so important events. The practical effect of the whole Epistle is to make the mind intensely solemn, and to put it into a position of waiting for the coming of the Lord. On the similarity between this Epistlem, 2 Peter 2, and the Epistle of Jude, see the introduction to Jude.

This chapter comprises the following subjects:

I. The usual salutations, 2 Peter 1:1-2.

II. A statement that all the mercies which they enjoyed pertaining to life and godliness, had been conferred by the power of God, and that he had given them exceeding great and precious promises, 2 Peter 1:3-4. It was mainly with reference to these "promises" that the epistle was written, for they had been assailed by the advocates of error, 2 Peter 2; 3 and it was important that Christians should see that they had the promise of a future life. Compare 2 Peter 3:5-14.

III. An exhortation to abound in Christian virtues; to go on making constant attainments in knowledge, and temperance, and patience, and godliness, I and brotherly kindness, and charity, 2 Peter 1:5-9.

IV. An exhortation to endeavor to make their calling and election sure, that so an entrance might be ministered unto them abundantly into the kingdom of the Redeemer, 2 Peter 1:10-11.

V. The apostle says that he will endeavor to keep these things before their minds, 2 Peter 1:12-15. He knew well that they were then established in the truth, 2 Peter 1:12 but he evidently felt that they were in danger of being shaken in the faith by the seductive influence of error, and he says therefore, 2 Peter 1:13 that it was proper, as long as he remained on earth, to endeavor to excite in their minds a lively remembrance of the truths which they had believed; that the opportunity for his doing this must soon cease, as the period was approaching when he must be removed to eternity, in accordance with the prediction of the Saviour 2 Peter 1:14, but that he would endeavor to make so permanent a record of his views on these important subjects that they might always have them in remembrance, 2 Peter 1:15.

VI. A solemn statement that the doctrines which had been taught them, and which they had embraced, were not cunningly-devised fables, but were true, 2 Peter 1:16-21. In support of this the apostle appeals to the following things:

(a) The testimony to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God, which Peter had himself heard given on the mount of transfiguration, 2 Peter 1:17-18.

(b) Prophecy. These truths, on which he expected them to rely, had been the subject of distinct prediction, and they should be held, whatever were the plausible arguments of the false teachers, 2 Peter 1:19-20.

The general object, therefore, of this chapter is to affirm the truth of the great facts of religion, on which their hopes were based, and thus to prepare the way to combat the errors by which these truths were assailed. He first assures them that the doctrines which they held were true, and then, in 2 Peter 2-3, meets the errors by which they were assailed.

Introduction to the Second Epistle of Peter

As the preface to the preceding epistle embraces the question of the authenticity of both epistles, and also considers several matters common to both, I need not take up the subject here afresh; but simply consider those matters which are peculiar to the epistle before me, and which have not been examined in the foregoing preface.

"This epistle, as appears from 2 Peter 3:1, (says Michaelis), was written to the same communities as the first epistle; and the author gives us thus to understand, that he was the person who wrote the first epistle; that is, the Apostle Peter. He calls himself likewise, 2 Peter 1:1, Συμεων Πετρος, δουλος και αποστολος Ινσου Χριστου, Symeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ; and 2 Peter 1:16-18 says that he was present at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount. The notion therefore entertained by Grotius, that this epistle was written by a bishop of Jerusalem of the name of Simeon, is absolutely inadmissible; and we have no other alternative than this: either it was written by the apostle St. Peter, or it is a forgery in his name.

"The ancients entertained very great doubts whether St. Peter was really the author. Eusebius, in his chapter where he speaks of the books of the New Testament in general, reckons it among the αντιλεγομενα, those not canonical. He says that tradition does not reckon, as a part of the New Testament, the second epistle ascribed to Peter; but that, as in the opinion of most men, it is useful, it is therefore much read. Origen had said, long before, that Peter had left behind him one epistle universally received, and perhaps a second, though doubts are entertained about it.

"The old Syriac version, though it contains the Epistle of St. James, which Eusebius likewise reckons among the αντιλεγομενα, does not contain the Second Epistle of St. Peter. Now it cannot be said that the other books of the New Testament were translated into Syriac before St. Peter's second epistle was written; for St. Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy was written certainly as late, and yet is contained in this very version. And if an epistle, addressed only to an individual, was known to the Syriac translator, it may be thought that a circular epistle addressed to communities dispersed in several countries in Asia, would hardly have escaped his notice. The circumstance, therefore, that the old Syriac translator did not translate the Second Epistle of St. Peter as well as the first, may be used as an argument against its antiquity, and of course against its authenticity.

"It appears then that, if the authenticity of this epistle were determined by external evidence, it would have less in its favor than it would have against it. But, on the other hand, the internal evidence is greatly in its favor; and indeed so much so, that the epistle gains in this respect more than it loses in the former. Wetstein, indeed, says that since the ancients themselves were in doubt, the moderns cannot expect to arrive at certainty, because we cannot obtain more information on the subject in the eighteenth, than ecclesiastical writers were able to obtain in the third and fourth, centuries. Now this is perfectly true as far as relates to historical knowledge, or to the testimony of others in regard to the matter of fact, whether St. Peter was the author or not. But when this question is to be decided by an examination of the epistle itself, it is surely possible that the critical skill and penetration of the moderns may discover in it proofs of its having been written by St. Peter, though these proofs escaped the notice of the ancients. After a diligent comparison of the First Epistle of St. Peter with that which is ascribed to him as his second, the agreement between them appears to me to be such, that, if the second was not written by St. Peter as well as the first, the person who forged it not only possessed the power of imitation in a very unusual degree, but understood likewise the design of the first epistle, with which the ancients do not appear to have been acquainted. Now, if this be true, the supposition that the second epistle was not written by St. Peter himself, involves a contradiction. Nor is incredible that a pious impostor of the first or second century should have imitated St. Peter so successfully as to betray no marks of a forgery; for the spurious productions of those ages, which were sent into the world in the name of the apostles, are for the most part very unhappy imitations, and discover very evident marks that they were not written by the persons to whom they were ascribed. Other productions of this kind betray their origin by the poverty of their materials, or by the circumstance that, instead of containing original thoughts, they are nothing more than a rhapsody of sentiments collected from various parts of the Bible, and put together without plan or order.

"This charge cannot possibly be laid to the Second Epistle of Peter, which is so far from containing materials derived from other parts of the Bible, that the third chapter exhibits the discussion of a totally new subject. Its resemblance to the Epistle of Jude will hardly be urged as an argument against it; for no doubt can be made that the Second Epistle of St. Peter was, in respect to the Epistle of St. Jude, the original, and not the copy. Lastly, it is extremely difficult, even for a man of the greatest talents, to forge a writing in the name of another, without sometimes inserting what the pretended author either would not or could not have said; and support the imposture in so complete a manner as to militate, in not a single instance, either against his character or against the age in which he lived. Now, in the Second Epistle of St. Peter, though it has been a subject of examination full seventeen hundred years, nothing has hitherto been discovered which is unsuitable either to the apostle or the apostolic age. Objections, indeed, have been made on account of its style; but the style of the second epistle, when compared with that of the first, warrants rather the conclusion that both were written by the same person. We have no reason, therefore, to believe that the Second Epistle of St. Peter is spurious, especially as it is difficult to comprehend what motive could have induced a Christian, whether orthodox or heretic, to attempt the fabrication of such an epistle, and then falsely ascribe it to St. Peter.

"Having shown that the supposition that this epistle is spurious is without foundation, I have, in the next place, to show that there are positive grounds for believing it to be genuine. The arguments in favor of its genuineness are of two kinds, being founded on the similarity of the two epistles, either in respect to their materials, or in respect to their style. The arguments of the former kind are as follow: -

"The design of the first epistle was to assure the uncircumcised Christians that they stood in the grace of God. Now it was not generally known that this was the design of it; and therefore we cannot suppose that any person whose object was to forge an epistle in St. Peter's name should have observed it. But the design of the second epistle was certainly the same as that of the first, as appears from the address, 2 Peter 1:1 : Τοις ισοτιμον ἡμιν λαχουσι πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνῃ του Θεου· To them who have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God. If we explain ἡμιν, as denoting 'us apostles,' the address will imply what was wholly unnecessary, since no one could doubt that the faith of other Christians might be as good as the faith of the apostles; and it will sound likewise rather haughty and assuming; but if we explain ἡμιν as denoting 'us who were born Jews,' and consider that the second epistle, as well as the first, was directed to persons who were born heathens, the address becomes clear and consistent: δικαιοσυνῃ του Θεου, will then signify the impartiality of God in estimating the faith of native heathens as highly as the faith of native Jews, which St. Peter has extolled in other places. We shall likewise be able to explain 2 Peter 1:8-10, which appears to contain the tautology that those who are diligent in good works are not idle; whereas, if this epistle be explained from the design of the first, we shall perceive the meaning of the passage to be this, that they who are diligent in good works need not fear the reproach that they observe not the Levitical law, since their good works, which are the fruit of their religious knowledge, will be the means of making their calling and election sure. (See the note on 2 Peter 1:8-10 (note).)

"The deluge, which is not a common subject in the apostolic epistles, is mentioned both in 1 Peter 3:20, and in 2 Peter 2:5; and in both places the circumstance is noted, that eight persons only were saved; though in neither place does the subject require that the number should be particularly specified. Now it is true that St. Peter was not the only apostle who knew how many persons were saved in the ark; but he only, who by habit had acquired a familiarity with the subject, would ascertain the precise number, where his argument did not depend upon it. The author of the first epistle had read St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans; and the author of the second epistle speaks in express terms, 2 Peter 3:15, 2 Peter 3:16, of the epistles of St. Paul. Now, no other writer of the New Testament has quoted from the New Testament; consequently, we have in these epistles a criterion from which we may judge that they were written by the same author.

"Before I consider the arguments which are derived from the style of these epistles, I must observe that several commentators have on the contrary contended that the style is very different; and hence have inferred that they were written by different authors; but it is extremely difficult to form from a single epistle so complete a judgment of the author's style and manner as to enable us to pronounce with certainty that he was not the author of another epistle ascribed to him. The style of the same writer is not always the same at every period of his life, especially when he composes not in his native, but in a foreign, language.

"From what has been said in the course of this section, it appears that even the second chapter of the second epistle has some resemblance both in style and contents to the first epistle. This is to be particularly noted, because even the advocates for the second epistle have in general granted that the style of this chapter is not the usual style of St. Peter. Bishop Sherlock, for instance, acknowledges it; nor, though I contend that there is some similarity, as in 2 Peter 2:5-7, will I assert that there is no difference. But it will not therefore follow that the whole epistle was not written by St. Peter: and if it is allowable to draw a conclusion from one or two passages, it will be no other than this, that the second chapter is spurious, because the style of it is said to be as different from the first and third chapters as it is from the first epistle. This conclusion, however, no one will draw who has examined the connection of the whole epistle; in fact the difference in question is rather of a negative kind; for though I am unable to discover any remarkable agreement in style between the first epistle and the second chapter of the second epistle, I do not perceive any remarkable difference. This second chapter has indeed several words which are unusual in other parts of the New Testament, but the same may be said of the first epistle: and some of the expressions which to us appear extraordinary were borrowed perhaps from the Gnostics, whose doctrines are here confuted; for it is not unusual in combatting the opinions of a particular sect to adopt their peculiar terms. Thus in 2 Peter 2:17, the Gnostics are called 'clouds, agitated by a tempest;' and we know that the Manicheans, who had many doctrines in common with the Gnostics, taught that there were five good and five bad elements, and that one of the latter was called 'tempest.' In like manner they frequently speak of darkness under the name of ζοφος, which occurs more than once in this chapter. The Epistle of St. Jude has a still greater number of unusual figurative expressions; and it is not impossible that these also were borrowed from the Gnostics. The Second Epistle of St. Peter must have been written only a short time before his death; for he says, 2 Peter 1:14, 'shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.' St. Peter here alludes to his conversation with Christ after the resurrection, recorded in John 21:18-22, where Christ had foretold his death in the following manner: 'When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.' Hence St. Peter might very easily conclude that he would not survive the coming of Christ to judge Jerusalem. But Christ has declared that Jerusalem would be destroyed before one generation passed away. St. Peter, therefore, after a lapse of thirty years, that is, in the year 64, necessarily considered his death as an event not far distant. As to the design of this epistle, it appears that St. Peter wrote against certain persons who, though members of the Church, denied the doctrine of a general judgment and a dissolution of the world. They inferred that this event, because it had been long delayed, would never take place; to which objection St. Peter replies by saying, That one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day: that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering, not willing that any man should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Farther, St. Peter argues, that as the earth has already undergone a great revolution at the deluge, another revolution equally great is not incredible; and that since the former event was at the time when it happened as unexpected as the latter will be, we ought to believe in God's declaration, that the world will one day be totally destroyed. This destruction, St. Peter says, will be effected, not by water, as at the deluge, but by fire. 'The elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up.' Now, a general conflagration will be more easily admitted by those who are unacquainted with the state of the earth, than a universal deluge; for though it may be difficult to comprehend whence a sufficient quantity of water could be brought to cover the whole earth, yet no one can deny that the bowels of the earth abound with inflammable matter, and that fiery eruptions may spread themselves throughout the surface of the globe. (See the notes on 2 Peter 3:9-11 (note).)

"It must be observed that St. Peter's appeal to the deluge in the time of Noah implies that the adversaries whom he combats admitted that the Mosaic account of it was true, since it would have been useless to have argued from a fact which they denied. This must be kept in view, because it will assist us in determining who these adversaries were.

"St. Peter describes these false teachers, 2 Peter 2:10-12, as calumniators of the angels; which the apostle highly censures, even though the calumny should be directed against the fallen angels, since some respect is due to their former greatness and power. St. Peter says, 'angels themselves, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord; but these as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things which they understand not.' Here we have a description of these false teachers, which points them out more distinctly than any of the preceding accounts, and shows they were Gnostics. For the ecclesiastical history furnishes many examples of improper adoration paid to the angels. I know of no sect which calumniated them, except that of the Gnostics. Now the Gnostics calumniated the angels by their doctrine in respect to the creation of the world. They raised certain angels to the rank of creators; but described the creation as very imperfect, and the authors of it as wicked and rebellious against the supreme Being.

"Having thus shown that St. Peter in his second epistle combats the opinion of a Gnostic sect, I will now venture to go a step farther, and attempt to determine the name which the orthodox gave to this particular sect in the first century. St. Peter describes them, 2 Peter 2:15, as following the way of Balaam, that is, as following the religious doctrine of Balaam. The doctrine of Balaam, as St. John says, Revelation 2:14, was to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. And since Nicolaus, in Greek, has the same meaning as Balaam in Hebrew, the followers of Balaam are called by St. John, Revelation 2:15, Nicolaitans.

Now it is well known that the Nicolaitans were a sect of the Gnostics; and therefore it was probable that this was the sect against which St. Peter wrote. To this opinion it has been objected, that if St. Peter had meant the Nicolaitans, he would have called them, not followers of Balaam, but by their proper name, Nicolaitans; first, because in general proper names are retained and not translated; and, secondly, because in the present instance, no one before Cocceius observed the analogy between the Hebrew word Balaam and the Greek word Nicolaus. But neither of these reasons are true. For to say nothing of the general custom which once prevailed among the literati of Germany, of translating their names into Greek or Latin; I could produce examples of such translations amongst the Jews, of which it will be sufficient to mention that which occurs in Acts 9:36. And the derivation of the Nicolaitans from Balaam must have been long known, at least in Asia; for in the Arabic version published by Erpenius, we find an instance of it in Revelation 2:6, where τα εργα των Νικολαιτων is rendered (Arabic) that is 'works of the Shuaibites.' Now the Arabic word (Shuaib) is equivalent to the Hebrew Balaam. Shuaib is mentioned in the Koran (Surat vii. 86; xxvi. 176, and in other places) as the prophet of the Midianites. Some suppose that by Shuaib is meant Jethro; but in my opinion no other person is meant but Balaam, who was sent for by the Midianites as well as by the Moabites. At least I cannot comprehend how the Nicolaitans, or any other heretics, could be considered as followers of Jethro. The Arabic verb shaaba, signifies he destroyed, and the noun shaabon, the people. It is not improbable, therefore, that the Arabs adopted the word shuaib, as corresponding to the Hebrew word בלעם Balaam, which is compounded of בלע bala, he swallowed up or destroyed, and עם am, the people. So Νικολαος, Nicolas, is from νικαω, to overcome, and λαος, the people." - See Michaelis's Introduction.

I shall not attempt to dispute the propriety of these derivations and etymologies; but I must make one remark on the Shuaibites. In general, the Arabic writers say that Shuaib was Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, and that God had sent him, according to the Koran, to preach pure morality to the Midianites; but I do not remember to have met with a sect of idolaters or heretics called Shuaibites. In both the places of the Koran mentioned above, Shuaib is spoken of with respect. But the conjecture that Shuaib and Balaam are the same is exceedingly probable; and this makes the etymology the more likely.

We may safely conclude from all the evidence before us,

1. That St. Peter, the apostle, was the author of this, as well as of the other, epistle.

2. That it was written to the same persons.

3. That they were in a state of persecution, and had also to contend with Gnostics or other heretics in the Church.

4. That it was written a short time after the first epistle, and not long before St. Peter's martyrdom; but the precise year cannot be ascertained.

The apostolical address, and the persons to whom the epistle was sent described by the state into which God had called, and in which he had placed, them, 2 Peter 1:1-4. What graces they should possess in order to be fruitful in the knowledge of God, 2 Peter 1:5-8. The miserable state of those who either have not these graces, or have fallen from them, 2 Peter 1:9. Believers should give diligence to make their calling and election sure, 2 Peter 1:10, 2 Peter 1:11. The apostle's intimations of his speedy dissolution, and his wish to confirm and establish those Churches in the true faith, 2 Peter 1:12-15. The certainty of the Gospel, and the convincing evidence which the apostle had of its truth from being present at the transfiguration, by which the word of prophecy was made more sure, 2 Peter 1:16-19. How the prophecies came, and their nature, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 1:21.

INTRODUCTION TO 2 PETER

Though there was, among the ancients, a doubt concerning the authority of this epistle, which is first mentioned by Origen (a), and afterwards by Eusebius (b) and Jerom (c), yet it prevailed not among the churches, nor hindered the diligent reading and use of it, together with other Scriptures; it appearing to be useful and profitable, as Eusebius declares; and in process of time this doubt was entirely removed, and it was universally received by fathers and councils into the canon of the Scriptures, where it is justly retained, it having plain signatures of its divine original. Nor is there anything in it unworthy of so great an apostle, whose name it bears; but the whole of it is agreeable to the analogy of faith, to the rest of the sacred writings, particularly to the epistle of Jude, between which, and the second chapter of this, there is a great likeness. The only reason of the doubt of the genuineness of this epistle, and whether it was written by the Apostle Peter, is the difference of its style from the former; but the Holy Ghost, the dictator of the sacred writings, is not limited to a man's natural style, but could vary it as he pleased: besides, a man's style is not the same at different times, and when writing on different subjects; add to which, that this objection can only regard the second chapter, for the first and third agree with the former epistle. And some have thought that the second chapter is an extract out of some ancient Hebrew book, describing the characters of the old false prophets; which book Peter and Jude having before them, took the characters of the old prophets, and, under divine direction, applied them to the false teachers of the present age; and if so it is not to be wondered at that the style of the epistle should differ from the former, and even from itself in this part. But that it was written by the Apostle Peter, not only the inscription shows, which, if false, would indeed discredit the genuineness of the book, but the account that is given of the writer of it, as one that was with Christ at his transfiguration, 2 Peter 1:16. Now there were only the three following disciples there, Peter, John, and, James. The last of these had been dead some time when this epistle was written, and it was never ascribed by any to the Apostle John, and therefore it remains that Peter must be the writer of it. As for Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, that succeeded James, whom Grotius would suggest as the author of it, the character does not agree with him; he was not with Christ on the holy mount, nor heard the voice from heaven, asserting the sonship of Christ, and the divine complacency in him: moreover, this epistle is called a "second epistle", 2 Peter 3:1 and supposes a first, and manifestly refers to the former epistle of Peter's, about which there never was any doubt, as the authors before mentioned observe. It was written by the apostle in his old age, when upon the decline of life, just as he was about to put off his tabernacle, 2 Peter 1:13 a little before his martyrdom, in the year 68, though Dr. Lightfoot places it in 66; and it is sent to the same persons as his first, namely, to the believing Jews scattered throughout several parts of Asia, he being the minister of the circumcision; see 1 Peter 1:1 compared with 2 Peter 3:1. The scope and design of it are, to put them upon a concern for a larger increase of grace and spiritual knowledge; to confirm and establish them in the present truth of the Gospel; to warn them against false teachers, which he largely describes; and he puts them in mind of the dissolution of all things, and of what will precede and follow it; from whence he draws several useful hints and inferences.

(a) Apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 25. (b) Ib. l. 3. c. 3. 25. (c) Catalog Script. Eccles. sect. 2.

INTRODUCTION TO 2 Peter 1

In this chapter, after the inscription and salutation, the apostle takes notice of gifts of grace bestowed; and exhorts to the exercise of holiness and good works; and gives the reasons why he was so pressing to them; and endeavours to establish the saints in the Gospel that had been preached among them. In the inscription, the writer of the epistle describes himself by his names, the one given him by his parents, the other by his Lord and master, and by his character and office; and the persons to whom he writes are described as having faith, and that of the same kind with the apostles, and which they obtained through the righteousness of Christ, 2 Peter 1:1. The salutation is the same with that in the former epistle, only here is added a wish for an increase of divine knowledge, 2 Peter 1:2 and which might be expected, since, by the power of living grace, everything necessary to a spiritual and godly life bad been given them in the effectual calling, through the knowledge of Christ; even exceeding great and precious promises, whereby they partook of the divine nature, and escaped the vices which prevailed in the world, 2 Peter 1:3 upon which he exhorts not to rest where they were, but to go on in the exercise of grace, and performance of duties, many of which he enumerates, 2 Peter 1:5 to enforce which he adds several arguments, as that through an abounding in these things they would appear not to have a superficial and speculative knowledge of Christ, 2 Peter 1:8 or otherwise it would be evident that they were blind and ignorant, and in an unrenewed state, 2 Peter 1:9 whereas by these things they would make their calling and election sure and manifest to men, and would never fall totally and finally, and in the issue have an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of Christ, 2 Peter 1:10 and then he gives the reasons of his conduct, why he so much urged a regard to these things, and put them in mind of them; namely, the usefulness of them for their establishment, the duty of his office, which required it, the short time he had to live, and the profitableness of such exhortations to them, after his decease, 2 Peter 1:12 and in order to establish them in the truths of the Gospel, and particularly in that which concerns the coming of Christ in power and glory, on which he enlarges in the latter part of this epistle; he observes, that this was not a cunningly devised fable, but was what he and others were eyewitnesses of, even of that which was an emblem and pledge of it; namely, the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, when they saw the glory he received from God his Father, and heard the voice from heaven which declared him to be his well beloved Son, 2 Peter 1:16, and besides, they had a surer proof of the certainty of his coming; namely, the prophecies concerning it, which should be regarded and given heed to, being as a lamp to direct in the present state of darkness and imperfection, until the illustrious day of Christ's coming appears, 2 Peter 1:19 and the rather this should be attended to, since no scriptural prophecy is an invention and device of men; nor was it formerly given out at the pleasure of men, but by saints, who were influenced and moved unto it by the Holy Ghost, 2 Peter 1:20.

The Second Epistle of St. Peter.

BY

THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.

Late Master of University College, Durham.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER.

I. The Authorship.—The question of the authenticity of our Epistle is one of well-known difficulty. The objections to its genuineness are more serious than those against any other book in the New Testament, and yet are not so conclusive as by any means to have silenced those who defend the authenticity. Before proceeding to a consideration of the arguments on each side, two remarks seem to be necessary.

(1.) The Epistle must stand or fall as a whole. It is impossible to reject passages which appear to be open to objection and retain the rest. The thought is eminently consecutive throughout, the style is uniform, and the writer frequently glances back at what he has said before or anticipates what is coming. The network of connected ideas which thus pervades the whole cannot be severed otherwise than violently. Moreover, the singular want of agreement among those who advocate an expurgated edition as to what portions should be struck out and what not, is another reason for refusing to disintegrate the Epistle. Thus, Grotius thinks that the words “Peter” and “Apostle,” in 2Peter 1:1, and 2Peter 1:18 and 2Peter 3:15-16, are interpolations. Bertholt would retain 2 Peter 1, 3, rejecting 2 Peter 2. Lange (in Herzog) would reject all that lies between 2Peter 1:19; 2Peter 3:3, i.e., from the words “knowing this first” in 2Peter 1:20 to the same words in 2Peter 3:3. Ullmann surrenders all but 2 Peter 1. Bunsen retains nothing but the first eleven verses and the doxology.

(2.) It is inexpedient to encumber the discussion with an attempted reductio ad horribile of one of the alternatives. A court must not concern itself with the consequences of finding the prisoner guilty. Let us, therefore, at once set aside all such notions as this; that if the Epistle is not by St. Peter, “the Church, which for more than fourteen centuries has received it, has been imposed upon by what must, in that case, be regarded as a Satanic device.” Satan forging the Second Epistle of St. Peter would indeed be Satan casting out Satan. Or, again, “If any book which she reads as the Word of God is not the Word of God, but the work of an impostor, then—with reverence be it said—Christ’s promise to His Church has failed, and the Holy Spirit has not been given to guide her into all truth . . . The testimony of the universal Church of Christ, declaring that the Epistles which we receive as such are Epistles of St. Peter and are the Word of God, is not her testimony only—it is the testimony of Christ.” Every true Christian will sympathise with the zeal for God’s Word which is conspicuous in these passages; but it will be well to keep apart two questions which they combine and almost confuse—(a) Is this Second Epistle the work of St. Peter? (b) Is it part of the Word of God? The second question is here taken for granted. The Church answered it in the affirmative fifteen hundred years ago, and it is no part of the present work to question the decision. Only the first question will be discussed; and to attempt to settle it by considerations such as the passages just quoted suggest, is neither just, nor wise, nor in the deepest sense reverent. It is not just; for how can we give a fair hearing to adverse evidence if we approach it in a spirit which compels us to regard it as false or misleading? It is not wise; for what will be our position if, after all, the adverse evidence is too strong for even our pre-judgment? It is not reverent; for it virtually assumes that the Almighty cannot exalt an Epistle put forth under a pretended name to the dignity of being His Word; and that He who spoke to His chosen people by the lips of impure Balaam cannot speak to us by the writings of one who may have ill-advisedly assumed the pen of an Apostle. Hosea 1:2-3; Hosea 3:1-2 may warn us to be on our guard against pronouncing hastily beforehand as to what means and instruments it is or is not possible for God to employ for the instruction of His people.

These remarks are not made with a view to surrendering the authenticity of the Epistle as a thing of no moment, but only that we may be able to weigh the evidence with calmness. The question of the genuineness of the Epistle is one of immense interest and no small importance; but there is no terrible alternative before us. If, after all, we have to admit that the Epistle is possibly, or probably or certainly not the work of St. Peter, the spiritual value of the contents, both in themselves and in having received the stamp of the Church as canonical, will remain absolutely unchanged; although, possibly, our own views of God’s providence in relation to the canon of Scripture may require re-consideration and re-adjustment. This, however, is but the common experience both of the individual and of the race. Men’s views of God’s dealings with them are ever needing re-adjustment, as He hides and manifests Himself in history; for His ways are not as our ways, nor His thoughts as our thoughts.

The objections to the genuineness of the Epistle are of four kinds: being drawn (a) from the history of the Epistle; (b) from its contents in relation to the First Epistle; (c) from the contents considered in themselves; (d) from the same in relation to the Epistle of St. Jude.

In each case it will be most convenient to state the adverse facts first, and then what may be said on the other side.

(a) External Evidence: The History of the Epistle.—Among the earliest writers there is a remarkable silence with regard to this Epistle. There is no mention of it, and no certain quotation from it or allusion to it, in either the first or second century. Neither the Apostolic Fathers nor Justin Martyr nor Irenæus yield anything that can be relied upon as a reference. It is probable that Irenæus did not know of its existence; it is almost certain that neither Tertullian nor Cyprian did. About Clement of Alexandria there is some doubt, owing to inconsistent statements of Eusebius and Cassiodorus. But seeing that in the large amount of Clement’s writings now extant there is only one possible, and not one probable, reference to it, and that, in quoting 1 Peter, he writes, “Peter in his Epistle says,” the probability is that he did not know it. The Muratorian Fragment (circ. A.D. 170) omits it. It is wanting in the Peschito or old Syriac version (and St. Peter was personally known in Syria, especially at Antioch), and also in the old Latin version which preceded the Vulgate. Thus we are brought quite into the third century without any sure trace of the Epistle.

Origen certainly knew it. In those of his works which exist only in the Latin translation of Rufinus he quotes it as the work of St. Peter. But Rufinus is not a trustworthy translator; and Origen, in works of which the original Greek is still extant, either expresses a doubt about it or rejects it by implication, as Clement of Alexandria does. Eusebius certainly rejected it; Chrysostom, Theodore, and Theodoret probably did so; and we learn from Didymus, Jerome’s preceptor, that doubts about it still survived late in the fourth century, though he seems to have overcome them in himself. At the Reformation these doubts revived again, and have never subsided since. At the present time, a large number of the best critics consider the Epistle suspicious or spurious.

On the other hand, there are possible allusions to it in Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Melito, Theophilus, and Hippolytus: and some even among adverse critics consider those in the Shepherd of Hermas (circ. A.D. 140) to be certain. Specimens of these possible allusions will be found in the Notes on passages which they resemble:—Clement, ii. 5; iii. 4; Polycarp, 3:4; Hermas, ii. 13, 15, 20; iii. 5; Justin Martyr, ii. 1, iii. 8; Melito, iii. 5-7; Theophilus, i. 19, 21; Hippolytus, i. 21. The first certain reference to the Epistle as by St. Peter is in a Latin translation of a letter by Origen’s pupil, Firmilian of Cæsarea, to Cyprian (A.D. 256). Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustine accepted it, although they knew that it had been much suspected; and they, of course, had evidence which has not come down to us. The Councils of Laodicea (circ. A.D. 360) and of Hippo (A.D. 393) formally included it in the Canon, decisions which have never been reversed. Its omission from the Muratorian Fragment is somewhat weakened by the fact that 1 Peter (about which there is no doubt) is omitted also; and, as a set-off to its omission from the Peschito, we have the fact that Ephrem Syrus seems to have accepted it.

Thus the adverse external evidence, serious though it is, is anything but conclusive. It can easily be explained. Communication between the churches was fitful and irregular, sometimes slow, sometimes very rapid. Accidents might favour the circulation of the First Epistle and delay that of the Second. The very fact of its being the first Letter from the pen of the chief Apostle would promote the spread of the First Epistle; and as it was known to have been written only a few years before the death of St. Peter, this would make a second Letter within so short an interval a little improbable. The marked difference of style and language between the two Letters, which Jerome tells us had attracted notice, would increase the distrust. The amount of apocryphal literature which began to appear at a very early date, and flooded the Church in the second and third centuries, made all churches very suspicious about unknown writings; and several of these apocryphal books bore the name of St. Peter. Every year that the arrival of the Epistle at any particular church was delayed would make its acceptance by that church less probable. The fate of the Fourth Gospel, on account of its appearing after the others had obtained full possession of the field, is an illustration of similar causes and effects. When we remember that many narratives of Christ’s life (Luke 1:1, Note) and some letters of St. Paul have entirely perished, we need not be surprised that a short Epistle like this, containing little that ordinary Christians did not know, should have remained for more than a century quite unknown to many churches and suspected by others. If the external evidence were all, we might admit that the general and authoritative reception of the Epistle in the fourth century, after such full doubt and debate, is more than sufficient for us.

(b) Internal Evidence: The Contents of the Second Epistle in relation to the First.—Very formidable lists of points of difference between the two Epistles have been drawn up, but recent adverse critics have ceased to urge many of these supposed differences; we may, therefore, content ourselves with some of the most telling of such arguments as specimens. (α) 1 Peter uses Old Testament phraseology, and quotes Old Testament writers; 2 Peter, with two doubtful exceptions (2Peter 2:22; 2Peter 3:8), does neither. (β) 1 Peter is mainly about suffering persecution; 2 Peter is mainly about heresy, (γ) 1 Peter speaks of the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ; 2 Peter mentions none of them. (δ) 1 Peter represents the return of Christ as near (1Peter 4:7), and calls it a “revelation” (1Peter 1:7; 1Peter 1:13; 1Peter 4:13); 2 Peter represents it as possibly distant (2Peter 3:15), and calls it “coming” (2Peter 1:16; 2Peter 3:4; 2Peter 3:12). (ε) 1 Peter calls our Lord simply “Christ” or “Jesus Christ;” 2 Peter always adds “Saviour” (five times; and the word does not occur once in 1 Peter), or “Lord,” or both. (ζ)1 Peter insists on faith; 2 Peter on knowledge, (η) The Greek of 1 Peter is smooth, with easily-moving sentences, simply connected; that of 2 Peter is rough, with heavily-moving sentences, of which the construction is often harsh and, when prolonged, broken.

To these and similar arguments it may be replied that considerable differences between the two Epistles are admitted, but they may easily be exaggerated. Of the above, some are not strictly true; in particular, (α) and (ε), others tell rather in favour of the genuineness of 2 Peter. Why should a second letter, written soon after the first, on a very different subject, repeat the topics of the first, or even use much of its phraseology? Encouragement under persecution and denunciation of corrupt doctrine and conduct require very different language. Great similarity of ‘expression under such very different circumstances would have looked like the careful imitation of a forger. Jerome’s suggestion, that St. Peter used different “interpreters” in the two Epistles to put his thoughts into Greek, is a possible solution of many differences; but it is not likely that St. Peter, though originally an illiterate fisherman, was still, at the end of a long and active life, unable to write the Greek of either Epistle; and both of them show traces of a writer not perfectly at home in the language. King’s theory, that 2 Peter is a translation from an Aramaic original, is another possible solution. But neither theory is needed. Both Epistles are too short to supply satisfactory materials for an argument of this kind; and neither of them exhibit any such marked characteristics as those found in the writings of St. Luke or St. Paul or St. John. An anonymous pamphlet on any subject by Carlyle or Victor Hugo would probably be assigned to the right author at once; but most writers, even if known by many books, have no such marked style as would betray them in a few pages on a special subject: and here we are arguing as to the authorship of a tract of four pages from a tract of six pages on a different subject. In such a case, similarities, which cannot easily be the result of imitation, are stronger evidence of identity of authorship than dissimilarities are of non-identity. Difference of mood, of subject, of surroundings, would probably account for all the dissimilarities, did we but know all the facts. The First Epistle would seem to have been written with much thought and care, as by one who felt a delicacy about intruding himself upon communities which St. Paul had almost made his own. Hence the earnest, gentle dignity of the Epistle, which makes one think how age must have tamed the spirit of the impetuous Apostle. But in the Second Letter, written probably under pressure, we see that the old vehemence is still there. There is a slight indication of it in the way in which he goes at once to the point (2Peter 1:3-5); as he nears the evil which has so excited his fear and indignation, the construction becomes broken (2Peter 1:17); and when he is in the full torrent of his invective, feeling seems almost to choke his utterance. Hence the rugged Greek, from which at times we can scarcely extricate the construction; hence, too, the repetitions, which some have thought a sign of inferiority. They are the natural results of emotion struggling to express itself in a language with which it is not perfectly familiar. Similar harsh constructions and tautological repetitions may be found in some of St. Peter’s speeches as recorded in the Acts (Acts 1:21-22; Acts 3:13-16; Acts 3:26; Acts 4:9; Acts 10:36-40).

Against the admitted differences may be set some very real coincidences, both in thought and language, between the two Epistles. These also may be exaggerated and their force over-estimated; but when soberly treated they are a valuable contribution to the evidence. Obvious similarities of language are of no great moment (see Notes on 2Peter 1:14; 2Peter 1:16; 2Peter 2:7); for it is admitted by all that the writer of the Second Letter knew the First. But subtle coincidences of thought, lying almost beyond the reach of the conscious imitator, are worth considering. (See on 2Peter 1:3; 2Peter 1:5; 2Peter 1:7; 2Peter 2:18-19.) The traces of St. Paul’s phraseology, which have been urged against the originality of 2 Peter, may, from this point of view, be counted in its favour, for such traces are very strong in the First Epistle.

The arguments, therefore, to be drawn from a comparison of the two Letters do not give much support to those who impugn the genuineness of the Second Epistle. A patient consideration of the facts may lead some to the conclusion that, considering the brevity of both Letters and the different purpose of each, the amount of agreement, both on and below the surface, throws the balance in favour of both being the product of one mind. The assertion that had the Second Epistle not claimed to be by St. Peter no one would ever have dreamed of assigning it to him, is easily made and not easily refuted; but study of the phenomena will lead to its being doubted.

(c) Internal Evidence: The Contents of the Epistle considered in themselves.—It is in this section of the argument that far the most serious objections to the authenticity occur. The following have been urged:—(α) It is unlike the simple, practical spirit of St. Peter to enlarge upon the manner of the creation and of the destruction of the world (2Peter 3:5-7; 2Peter 3:10-12). (β) It is unlike an Apostle to appeal to “the commandment of your Apostles” (2Peter 3:2). (γ) The interchange of future and present tenses (2Peter 2:1-3; 2Peter 2:10; 2Peter 2:12-13; 2Peter 3:3; 2Peter 3:5) looks like a later writer trying to write like a prophet in an earlier age, and at times forgetting his assumed position, (δ) Ideas belonging to an age later than that of the Apostles are introduced. Of this there are four marked instances—(1) The expression “the holy mount” (2Peter 1:18) betrays an age which professes to know where the Transfiguration took place (of which the Gospels tell us nothing), and which has a taste for miracles. (2) No such argument as that urged by the scoffers (2Peter 3:4) would be possible in St. Peter’s lifetime; it implies that at least the first generation of Christians has died out. (3) 2 Peter is addressed (2Peter 1:1) to all Gentile Christians, and at the same time (2Peter 3:1) to the same readers as those of 1 Peter, which is addressed (2Peter 1:1) to particular churches, i.e., the post-Apostolic idea that the letters of Apostles are the common property of all Christians is implied. (4) St. Paul’s writings are spoken of as equivalent to Scripture (2Peter 3:16).

Let us take these objections in order. (α) That St. Peter should enlarge upon the details of the creation and of the destruction of the world is not more strange than that he should enlarge upon “the spirits in prison” (1Peter 3:19-20; 1Peter 4:6). It would almost seem as if such mysterious subjects had an attraction for him (1Peter 1:12). At least it is more reasonable to suppose this, seeing that there are some facts to support us, than to settle precariously what “the simple, practical spirit of St. Peter “would or would not be likely to enlarge upon, (β) Let us grant that an Apostle is often content with insisting on his own authority: this is no proof that he would never appeal to the authority of another Apostle. In 2 Peter the writer has more than once stated his personal claim to be heard (2Peter 1:1; 2Peter 1:18), and is then willing to sink his own authority in that of the Apostolic body, nay, is anxious to do so; for, as in the First Epistle, he still feels a delicacy about addressing congregations which, in the first instance, belonged to the Apostle of the Gentiles, and so he not only appeals to that Apostle’s commandment, but points out that his commandment is at the same time that of Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 3:5 St. Paul makes a similar appeal to the authority of others; and it may warn us to be cautious in arguing as to what an Apostle would be sure to do in certain cases when we find this passage used to cast doubt on the Apostolic origin of such an Epistle as that to the Ephesians. (γ) This plausible argument will not bear close inspection. The evils which the writer foretells are already present in the germ. Moreover, the prophetic present as equivalent to a future is very common in prophecies; the future is so confidently realised that it is spoken of as present. In similar prophecies in the New Testament there is a similar mixture of future and present (2Thessalonians 2:3; 2Thessalonians 2:7; 2Timothy 3:1-2; 2Timothy 3:8). (δ) We come now to the most weighty group of objections. (1) The expression “the holy mount” does not imply that the mount is known; and the theory that it does is reduced to an absurdity when it is further urged that “the holy mount,” as applied to a known spot, must mean Mount Zion. Would any sane Christian, whether of the first or of the second century, represent the Transfiguration as taking place on Mount Zion? “The mount” simply means the one spoken of in the Gospels in connexion with this event. Nor does the epithet “holy” indicate a miracle-loving age. Any Jew would naturally use it of a spot where the glory of the Lord had been revealed (Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15). (2) The force of this argument is not so great as at first sight appears. In the Epistle of Clement of Rome (A.D. 95-100) the same scoffing argument is quoted as condemned by “Scripture (chap. 23). The “Scripture” is probably not 2 Peter. But we here have proof that this scoffing objection was old enough to have been written against before A.D. 95. The kindred error of Hymenæus and Philetus was in existence in St. Paul’s lifetime. Besides which, it is not certain that “since the fathers fell asleep” refers to Christians at all. (See Notes on 2Peter 3:4.) The argument may be a piece of Sadducism, which had found its way into the Christian Church; the tone of it is not unlike that in Mark 12:23. (3) The premises here are too vague for so definite a conclusion. To state the premises fairly we must say 2 Peter is addressed in the main to all Gentile Christians, and also in the main to the same readers as 1 Peter, which is addressed mainly to five or six different churches. From such indefinite data no very clean-cut and decided result can be obtained. Moreover, it is open to question whether the idea that the letters of Apostles are the common property of Christians was not in existence in the Apostolic age. The phenomena of the text of the last two chapters of Romans (see Notes there) tend to show that this idea was beginning to arise some years before the traditional date of St. Peter’s death. The Epistle to the Ephesians would lead us in the same direction. So that it, is doubtful (a) whether the idea is implied in 2 Peter; (b) whether it was not in existence in St. Peter’s lifetime. (4) No objection, probably, has had more effect than this. “The other Scriptures,” it is urged, may mean either Old Testament or New Testament writings; in either case, we are face to face with a writer later than the Apostolic age. If Old Testament Scriptures are meant, it is incredible that St. Peter would place Epistles of St. Paul side by side with them as “Scripture.” If New Testament Scriptures are meant, this indicates a date at which certain Christian writings had begun to be considered equal in authority to the Old Testament, and this date is later than the death of St. Peter. In the Notes (2Peter 3:16) it is shown that probably not Old Testament, but Christian, writings are meant; not any definite collection of writings, but certain well-known documents other than the Epistles of St. Paul just mentioned. We must remember that the Greek words for “other” are sometimes used loosely, and rather illogically, without the two individuals, or two classes, being exactly alike (comp. Luke 10:1; Luke 23:32; John 14:16); so that we cannot be sure that the writer means to place these Epistles of St. Paul on precisely the same level with “the other Scriptures.” And that “Scripture” was used in the first century as rather a comprehensive term is shown by the passage from Clement of Rome alluded to above, where he quotes (chap. 23) as “Scripture” a passage not found either in the Old or New Testaments. Again, the high authority claimed by Apostles for their own words makes this passage, although unique in the New Testament, quite intelligible. (Comp. Acts 15:28; 1Corinthians 5:3-4; 1Thessalonians 2:13.) Perhaps the nearest parallel is 1Peter 1:12, where evangelists are placed on the same level with the Old Testament prophets, a very remarkable coincidence between the two Epistles. One more consideration must be urged. The date of St. Peter’s death is not certain, and the traditional date may be too early. Several of the objections just considered would be still further weakened if St. Peter’s death took place not in the third, but in the fourth quarter of the century.

But besides answering objections, we may observe—(1) that the writer professes to be Simon Peter (2Peter 1:1), one whose death Christ foretold (2Peter 1:14), a witness of the Transfiguration (2Peter 1:16-18), and the writer of the First Epistle (2Peter 3:1); (2) that he speaks with authority (2Peter 1:12-13; 2Peter 1:15-16), yet is not afraid to admit the high authority of prophecy (2Peter 1:19); (3) that there is some trace of the conciliatory position between Jewish and Gentile converts which St. Peter occupied between the rigour of St. James and the liberty of St. Paul (2Peter 1:1-2; 2Peter 3:15); (4) that the expression “our beloved brother Paul,” so unlike the way in which Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria speak of St. Paul (see Note on 2Peter 3:15), is a strong mark of an Apostolic author—a writer of the second century would scarcely find his way back to this; (5) that some striking coincidences between thoughts and expressions in this Epistle and passages in St. Peter’s speeches as reported in the Acts exist, and will be pointed out in the Notes. (See Notes on 2Peter 1:1; 2Peter 3:12.)

On the other hand, no weight can be allowed to the argument that “all motive for forgery is absent.” It is quite true that “this Epistle does not support any hierarchical pretensions nor bear upon any of the controversies of a later age.” But a motive quite sufficient can be found, viz., to put down with the authority of an Apostle an alarming corruption, both in doctrine and conduct. This motive might have induced excellent men in the primitive Church to write in the name of St. Peter, and the moral sense of the community would not have condemned them. Such personations, purely in the interests of religion and virtue, are neither impossible nor unknown; and the very words “forgery” and “impostor,” in reference to such acts and agents in primitive times, are fallacious. We must beware of transferring our own ideas of literary morality to an age in which they were absolutely non-existent.

(d) Internal Evidence: The Contents of the Epistle in relation to the Epistle of St. Jude.—This subject is discussed in the Introduction to Jude. The conclusion there arrived at is that the priority of neither Epistle can be proved, but that the balance inclines decidedly towards the priority of 2 Peter. If the priority of Jude should ever be demonstrated, then we have still more reason for placing the date of St. Peter’s death later than A.D. 67 or 68, unless the authenticity of 2 Peter is admitted to be more than doubtful.

The conclusion, then, to which this long discussion leads us is this—the objections to the Epistle are such that, had the duty of fixing the Canon of the New Testament fallen on us, we should scarcely have ventured, on the existing evidence, to include the Epistle; they are not such as to warrant us in reversing the decision of the fourth century, which had evidence that we have not. If modern criticism be the court of appeal to which the judgment of the fourth century is referred, as it has not sufficient reasons for reversing that judgment it can only confirm it. Additional evidence may yet be forthcoming. A Hebrew or Greek text of the Book of Enoch might settle the relation between 2 Peter and Jude beyond dispute; and this would clear the way not a little. Meanwhile, we accept the authenticity of the Epistle as, to say the very least, quite the best working hypothesis.

II. The Place and Time.—The suggestions as to the place where the Epistle was written are mere conjectures; we have no evidence of any value. As to the date, any time after the writing of the First Epistle may be right; probably not long before the Apostle’s martyrdom. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned is reason for believing that it had not taken place when the letter was written. If it be said that a writer personating St. Peter would have avoided so obvious a blunder, we may reply (1) that these are just the pitfalls into which literary personators in an early age fall; (2) that it is not certain that it would have been a blunder—St. Peter may have been living A.D. 70; (3) that the destruction of Jerusalem would have served the purpose of the letter so well, as an argument (more strong than the Transfiguration) for Christ’s return to judgment, as a fulfilment of prophecy on this subject, and as a signal instance of divine vengeance, that no explanation of its omission is so satisfactory as that it had not yet taken place.

III. Object and Contents.—The object of the Epistle is twofold: (1) warning against the seductions of false doctrine and the licentiousness akin to it; (2) exhortation to increase in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The basis for both is the same—the certainty of Christ’s return to judgment. With true tact, the writer begins and ends with exhortation and encouragement; the warning and denunciation lie in between, and strongly as the latter are worded, terrible as are the metaphors and illustrations employed, even here the gentleness and tenderness of one who knew from experience what tenderness could do for those who had gone the length of “denying even the Master that bought them” (2Peter 2:1; Luke 22:61) continually come to the surface, and break the flood of vehement denunciation (2Peter 2:5; 2Peter 2:7-9; 2Peter 3:1-2).

The plan of the contents is easily recognised, and the transitions from one division to another are so natural, that (as remarked at the outset) it is impossible to strike out any portion as spurious and retain the rest.

I.—Introductory.

Address and greeting (2Peter 1:1-2).

II.—Hortatory and Argumentative.

(1)Exhortation to increase in spiritual graces, in order to gain eternal life at Christ’s coming (2Peter 1:3-11).

(2)Transition to the argumentative part; the purpose of this Epistle stated (2Peter 1:12-15).

(3)Basis of the exhortation—the certainty of Christ’s coming, which is proved:

(a)By the Transfiguration, which was an anticipation of it (2Peter 1:16-18).

(b)By the utterances of prophets, who have predicted it (2Peter 1:19-21).

III.—Warning.

(1)First Prediction: false teachers shall have great success and certain ruin (2Peter 2:1-10); their impious practices described (2Peter 2:10-22).

(2)Transition to the second prediction; the purpose of both Epistles stated (2Peter 3:1-2).

(3)Second Prediction: scoffers shall throw doubt on Christ’s return (2Peter 3:3-4); their argument refuted (2Peter 3:5-9).

(4)Basis of the warning—the certainty of Christ’s coming (2Peter 3:10).

IV.—Hortatory.

(1)Concluding exhortations (2Peter 3:11-18);

(2)Doxology (2Peter 3:18).

IV. The False Teachers and the Scoffers.—We are probably to regard these as in the main identical; but in spite of the vigorous language in which they are described, it is difficult to say what particular heresy is indicated. As in many of the Old Testament prophecies, the picture is painted in strong, lurid colours; but the outlines are not sufficiently defined to enable us to specify any distinctive characteristics. The spirit of heresy, capable of developing into endless varieties, rather than any one of the varieties themselves, is placed before us. Cavilling, pride, irreverence, impatience of restraints, impatience of mysteries—these form the corrupt atmosphere in which heresies are generated, and these are just the qualities that are depicted here. The indefiniteness of the description has been pointed out by critics on both sides of the question of authenticity. It is a strong argument in favour of an early date for this Epistle. A writer of the second century, with the fullblown Gnosticism of Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, and Marcion around him, could scarcely have divested himself of his experience, and given us, not the details of what he saw and heard, but the germs that had developed into these after a growth of half a century. Historic divination, by means of which the essentials of an earlier age are discovered and separated from what is merely accidental—historic imagination, by means of which these essentials are put together in a life-like picture—are powers of modem growth. The divination of the second century was exercised on the future, not on the past; its imagination on the possibilities of the unseen world, not on the realities of the world of sense. The disagreement of critics as to the time in the second century at which the letter was probably written makes us all the more disposed to doubt whether the second century is right at all. Bleek suggests A.D. 100-150; Mayerhoff, circ. A.D. 150; Davidson, circ. 170; Schwegler and Semler, A.D. 190-200.

The view here taken of the false teachers and scoffers, that they are the forerunners of the Antinomian heretics of the second century, is confirmed when we turn to St. Paul’s Epistles. There we find indications of these evils at a slightly earlier stage. We see him contending against corrupt practices, which were on their road to being established, inasmuch as some tried to justify them on principles which were a caricature of his own teaching. His Christian liberty is stretched to cover the detestable maxim, “Let us do evil that good may come,” participation in idolatrous feasts, incestuous marriages, intemperance at love-feasts, &c. (Romans 3:8; 1 Cor., passim). A self-satisfied knowledge is intruding itself (1Corinthians 8:1-4). The resurrection of the dead is being denied (1Corinthians 15:12; 2Timothy 2:18). In 2 Peter the corrupt practices and the corrupt principles are more definitely combined. St. Peter predicts that still greater abominations than those against which St. Paul wrote will not only be justified, but taught upon principle. Going beyond those who denied the resurrection, men will mock at the coming of Christ and the day of judgment. Thus the false teachers of 2 Peter are just a step nearer to the systematised Antinomianism of the second century than the evil-doers denounced by St. Paul. St. Jude shows us in active operation the mischief of which St. Paul and St. Peter had seen the beginning and foretold the development. Tertullian. Irenæus, and Hippolytus tell us to what hideous proportions and fantastic variety the development eventually progressed.

It is well known that the framers of our Authorised version, while on the whole making an enormous advance on previous English versions, sometimes went back. In some instances the changes they made in the translations on which they worked were the reverse of improvements. Perhaps no portion of the New Testament is more full of cases of this kind than the Second Epistle of St. Peter. In a large number of such cases it will be found that the earlier versions which are superior to the Authorised version are Wiclif’s and the Rheinish; and not unfrequently that the version which has led our translators astray is the Genevan. None of these three versions were among those which the translators were instructed to use; and of Wiclif’s they probably made very little use; of the other two they made a great deal of use. Wiclif’s version and the Rhemish were made from the Latin Vulgate, not from the Greek: so that we have what at first sight seems to be a startling fact, that versions made from a Latin translation are often superior to the best version made from the Greek. The explanation is simple. The Vulgate is a good Latin translation of excellent Greek texts; our version is a good English translation of very defective Greek texts. “The errors in the text of our English Testament inherited from them are considerably more important than the existing errors of translation” (Westcott). The late Dr. Routh, when asked what commentary he considered to be on the whole the best, is said to have answered “The Vulgate.” The facts just noticed are a striking illustration of his meaning. In the Notes the renderings of previous versions will often be given, where our translators seem to have adopted an inferior rendering.

[In writing the Introduction and Notes for this Epistle, use has been made of the Commentaries of Alford, Bengel, Bruckner’s edition of De Wette, Hofmann, Huther, Reuss, Schott, and Wordsworth, together with the Introductions of Bleek and Davidson, and the articles in Smith and Herzog. A much better use might have been made of them had time permitted. But it is only just to the editor and the reader to say, that the commentator on 2 Peter and Jude was asked to undertake the work at very short notice, and to complete it within a very short time. If he is found to have undertaken a task beyond his strength, he must plead in excuse the attraction which the work had for him, and the wish to render help to a far abler but over-worked contributor to this Commentary].