Again, in phrases and ideas which in the main are similar to those of Paul, there is in Peter usually some mark of difference. Where then- might have hen sameness, the result of imitation, there i- only simi- larity, the token of original thought, for example, Paul says (Rom. vi. lit. 1 1 i. *.7/r re; ";«;i ; P( ter says (ii, 24 . _//r ti) CiKcuoavvy. The former writes (Rom. vi, 2), anodvrjffKtlV ry iipapritf ; the latter iii. '_' ! I, 7<ur apapriatc aTToyirtnzai. Besides, as BrUcklU r remarks, the representation in these last clauses is different — death to .-in in the passage from Romans being the re- sult of union with the sufferings and death of Christ, while in Peter it is the result of Christ's doing away sin (De Wciie. Erklarung, ed. Brnchner, p. 9). So. too, the common contrast in Paul is aap'i and -inpo, but in Peter irvtvpa and 4-r\'l\ ^\oyi) is connected in Paul with \apir. or it stands absolutely; hut in Peter it is joined to Trpoyvwcic ; government is with the lirst rofi.jfof1 Siarayi) (Rom. xiii. •_') ; hut with tin i- avBpiDirlvrj Kriatr (ii. 13); the expression with the one is Kaivbt; avSputirog (Eph. iv, 24); hut with the other o Kpv--uc ar'zpwTroc (>») 4); what i- called CKpoppi) in Gal. v, 13 is named ImKakvfifia in 1 I'd. ii, It'., etc. Now. not to insist longer on this similarity with variance, it may hi' remarked that for many of the terms employed by them, doth apostles had a com- mon source in the Septuagint The words found there and already hallowed by religious use were free to both of them, and their acquaintance with the .'sept, must have tended to produce some resemblance in their own style. Among such terms are uyvwaia, aawria, tv- (TTrXayxvog, KciT((\a\t(i, birtpi\itv,^povptiv1 \pptiy£iv (comp. Mayerhoff, Bistor.-Krit. Eirdeitung in d. Petrm. Schriften, p. 107 sq.). That two apostles, in teaching the same system of divine truth, should agree in many of their representations, and even in their words, is not to be wondered at, since the terminology must soon have acquired a definite form, and certain expressions must have become current through constant usage, lint in cases where such similarity between Peter and Paul occurs, there is ever a difference of view or of connec- tion; and though both may refer to ideas BO common as are named by vrraKnt), d6£a, or icXtipovopia, then is always something to show Peter's independent use of the terms. One with his "beloved brothel Paul" in the general view of the truth, he has something pecul- iar to himself in the introduction and illustration of it. The Petrine type is as distinct as the Pauline— it bears its own unmistakable style and character. The Galilean fisherman has an individuality quite a- recog- nizable as the pupil of Gamaliel
(»ncc more, to show how baseless is the objection drawn from Peter's supposed dependence on Paul, it may be added that similarity in some cases may he i raced between Peter and John. In many respects Paul ami John .are utterly unlike, yet Peter occasion- ally resembles both, though it is not surmised that he was an imitator of the beloved disciple. Such acci- dental resemblance to two styles of thought so unlike in themselves is surely proof of his independence of both, for he stands midway, as it were, between the ob- jectivity of Paul and the subjectivity of John; inclin- ing sometimes to the one side and sone linns lo the
other, and occasionally combining both peculiarities of
thought ThUBOne may compare 1 Pet. i. 22 w ilh l John iii, 3 in the use of ayviZia ; 1 Peti, 23with 1 John iii, '.) in the similar use of airopac and tnrtppa, denoting
the \ital germ out of Which regeneration v
Pet V, - with .loli n x. 16 ill the use of -eniz/i- ; 1 Pet
iii. 18 and l John iii. 7 in the application of the epithet diicaioc t« Christ; 1 Pet. iii, L8, John i. '-".'. in calling
PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF) 17 PETER (FIRST EPISTLE OF)
him aiivoQ. Such similarities only prove independent authorship. In the resemblances to James, which are sometimes adduced, the chief similarity consists in the use of Old-Test, quotations. Thus compare 1 Pet. i, G, 7 with James i, 2, 3; i, 24 with James i, 10; ii, 1 with James i, "21 ; ii, 5 with James iv, 6, 10 ; iv, 8 with James v, 20 ; and v, 5 with James iv, 0. What, then, do these more frequent resemblances to Paul, and the fewer to John and James, prove ? not, with De Wette, the de- pendence of Peter on Paul ; nor, with Weiss, the depend- ence of Paul on Peter (De?- Petrin. Lehrbegriff, p. 374) ; but that Peter, in teaching similar truths, occasionally employs similar terms; while the surrounding illustra- tion is so various and significant that such similarity can be called neither tame reiteration nor unconscious rem- iniscence. With much that is common in creed, there is more that is distinctive in utterance, originating in difference of spiritual temperament, or moulded by the adaptation of truth to the inner or outer condition of the churches for whom this epistle was designed.
On the other hand, the harmony of such teaching with that of Paul is sufficiently obvious. Peter, indeed, dwells more frequently than Paul upon the future man- ifestation of Christ, upon which he bases nearly all his exhortations to patience, self-control, and the discharge of all Christian duties. Yet there is not a shadow of opposition here; the topic is not neglected by Paul, nor does Peter omit the Pauline argument from Christ's sufferings; still what the Germans call the eschato- logical element predominates over all others. The apostle's mind is full of one thought, the realization of Messianic hopes. While Paid dwells with most earnest- ness upon justification by our Lord's death and merits, and concentrates his energies upon the Christian's pres- ent struggles, Peter fixes his eye constantly upon the future coming of Christ, the fulfilment of prophecy, the manifestation of the promised kingdom. In this he is the true representative of Israel, moved by those feel- ings which were best calculated to enable him to do his work as the apostle of the circumcision. Of the three Christian graces, hope is his special theme. He dwells much on good works, but not so much because he sees in them necessary results of faith, or the com- plement of faith, or outward manifestations of the spirit of love, aspects most prominent in Paul, James, and John, as because he holds them to be tests of the sound- ness and stability of a faith which rests on the fact of the resurrection, and is directed to the future in the developed form of hope.