(iv.) 3% ἐλεύσονται... ἐμπαῖκται. . . λέγοντες Ποῦ ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ ; ἀφ᾽ ἧς γὰρ οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. It is sometimes urged that the queetee of the scoffers points to a time later than the days of the apostles; and even more stress is laid on the reply—not an assurance of the nearness of the advent, but an explanation of delay (ν." μία ἡμέρα mapa Κυρίῳ x.7.d.). It is, however, difficult to feel the force of these arguments considered in them- selves. The fact that ‘the immediate imminence of the coming of the Lord . . . faded out of view’ in St. Paul’s mind, as the Epistle to the Ephesians seems to indicate, ‘when-year after year passed away, and still there was no sign of the Lord’s coming’ (Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 141 f.), is a sufficient proof that towards the end of St. Peter's life men would not be unlikely to ask the question put into the mockers’ mouths, nor a Christian teacher unlikely to give some such answer as we find in 2 P 3%. The passage will come before us again when we come to compare 2P with 1 Ρ. But the phrase ἀφ᾽ ἧς ol πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν gives rise to much more serious misgivings. Who are ‘the fathers’? They are, says Spitta (p. 234 57}, the actual fathers of those who are introduced as speaking.* This interpretation is open to sey eral grave objections. (a) Since to St. Peter the phrase ol πατέρες would have a quasi-technical sense (of, eg. Jn 6%, Ac 7%, Ro 9), He 1), the meaning
* Spitta gets over the difficulty that ἀφ δὲ implies a con- aiderable interval by supposing that the relative ὃν refers back to vat wapeurias αὐτοῦ. He takes ἀσό in a pregnant sense with ἱπωμάθυαν--- Die Vater sind entechiafen von der Parusie weg,
thr Tod hat sie der Parusie entzogen.’ For this use of aes he compares Ro 9, Col τ 200 ne. It le strange that he does not see that the pas (ἀφ δε yas) makes such an interpretavics
absolutely impossible
812
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
suggested would require the addition of ἡμῶν." (8) The words ‘since our fathers died,’ put into tlle mouth of a number of persons, fix no definite limit of time. (y) The context seems to imply that ‘the fathers’ had embraced the Christian hope, and so early in the history of the Church as St. Peter’s lifetime it would be quite unnatural to introduce a group of persons speaking of their fathers as Christians (see Zahn, Hind. ii. p. 72). Zahn (ib. pp. 67, 73) urges that the term ol πατέρες could be used of the first generation of Christians —the ἀρχαῖοι μαθηταί (Ac 21"*)—before it had died off to the last man, and that, in fact, a whole generation separated the years 60-63, in which he places the Epistle, from the day when the yromise to return was given. But, on the other fend, it must be remembered that the use of the term ol πατέρες in itself implies a considerable lapse of time. The founders of a movement are not called ‘the fathers’ till a later age looks back upon their work. Further, the clause as a whole implies a distant retrospect ; the words ἀφ᾽ js... ἐκοιμήθησαν πάντα οὕτως διαμένει could not have been used unless a considerable interval had elapsed since the passing away of ‘the fathers.’ he words might conceivably be justified on the hypo- thesis that St. Peter is here foretelling the future, and that he dramatically puts into the mouth of the mockers, who should ‘come in the last days,’ words appropriate only from their supposed point of view. But such an interpretation is too arti- ficial. And it must be confessed that here again we seem to be carried far beyond the limits of the apostolic age.
(d) Doctrine.—The doctrine of the Epistle is chiefly remarkable, so far at least as our present purpose is concerned, on the negative side. We should not, indeed, have expected St. Peter to dwell with such detail (3°) on the physical accompani- ments of ‘the day of the Lord,’ and on its relation to the several parts of the material universe, as contrasted with its human and spiritual issues. We might feel it strange that what we should elsewhere describe as physical speculations on the process of creation, SHedty find a place in a letter written by St. Peter (3°). But these are matters of taste and feeling, or at least of opinion ; and on such considerations no decisive judgment can be based. But it is otherwise with the silence of the Epistle as to doctrines of primary importance. St. Peter was an eye-witness of the human life of the Incarnate Word, of His sufferings, of the manifestations of the Risen Lord, and of His Ascension. He heard Christ’s words about the Paraclete, and partook of the outpouring of the Bade at Pentecost. But the Epistle says nothin of the example of Christ, or of His sufferings an death, or, except the allusion in 2! (τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην), of Redemption. It is silent as to the Resurrection and the Ascension. It makes no reference to the Holy Spirit except as the source of inspiration to the ancient prophets (131). It does not allude to prayer. We have no right, it may be urged most truly, to expect an apostolic Epistle to treat of every Christian doctrine, even the most vital. But is it conceivable that St. Peter, with his history and his experience, would pass over all these matters, essential to the Christian faith, as though they were not? The silence as to the Resurrection is the crucial point. The apostles were essentially witnesses to the Resur- rection. The Resurrection was the final proof of the Divine mission of the Lord, the foundation of the Christian faith. As such it holds a unique place in the writings of the apostles, and in their