But while Peter thus shows himself a genuine Israel- ite, his teaching, like that of Paul, is directly opposed to Judaizing tendencies. He belongs to the school, or, to speak more correctly, is the leader of the school, which at once vindicates the unity of the Law and the Gos- pel, and puts the superiority of the latter on its true basis, that of spiritual development. All his practical injunctions are drawn from Christian, not Jewish prin- ciples, from the precepts, example, life, death, resurrec- tion, and future coming of Christ. The apostle of the circumcision says not a word in this epistle of the per- petual obligation, the dignity, or even the bearings of the Mosaic law. He is full of the Old Testament; his style and thoughts are charged with its imagery, but he contemplates and applies its teaching in the light of the Gospel ; he regards the privileges and glory of the ancient people of God entirely in their spiritual de- velopment in the Church of Christ. Only one who had been brought up as a Jew could have had his spirit so impregnated with these thoughts; only one who had been thoroughly emancipated by the Spirit of Christ could have risen so completely above the preju- dices of his age and country. This is a point of great importance, showing how utterly opposed the teaching of the original apostles, whom Peter certainly repre- sents, was to that Judaistic narrowness which specula- tive rationalism has imputed to all the early followers of Christ, with the exception of Paul. There are in VIII.— B
fact more traces of what are called Judaizing views, more of sympathy with national hopes, not to say prej- udices, in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, than in this work. In this we see the Jew who has been born again, and exchanged what Peter himself calls the unbearable yoke of the law for the liberty which is in Christ. At the same time it must be ad- mitted that our apostle is far from tracing his principles to their origin, and from drawing out their consequences with the vigor, spiritual discernment, internal sequence of reasoning, and systematic completeness which are characteristic of Paul. A few great facts, broad solid principles on which faith and hope may rest securely, with a spirit, of patience, confidence, and love, suffice for his unspeculative mind. To him objective truth was the main thing; subjective struggles between the in- tellect and spiritual consciousness, such as we find in Paul, and the intuitions of a spirit absorbed in contem- plation like that of John, though not by any means alien to Peter, were in him wholly subordinated to the practical tendencies of a simple and energetic charac- ter. It has been observed with truth that both in tone and in form the teaching of Peter bears a peculiarly strong resemblance to that of our Lord, in discourses bearing directly upon practical duties. The great value of the epistle to believers consists in this resemblance; they feel themselves in the hands of a safe guide, of one who will help them to trace the hand of their Mas- ter in both dispensations, and to confirm and expand their faith.
But apart from the style and language of the epistle, objections have been brought against it by Schwegler, who alleges the want of special occasion for writing it, and the consequent generality of the contents (Das Nach-aposlol. Zeitalt. ii, 7). The reply is that the epistle bears upon its front such a purpose as well suits the vo- cation of an apostle. Nor is there in it, as we have seen, that want of individuality which Schwegler next alleges. It bears upon it the stamp of its author's fer- vent spirit; nor does its use of Old-Test, imagery and allusions belie his functions as the apostle of the cir- cumcision (Wiesinger, EM. p. 21). If there be the want of close connection of thought, as Schwegler also asserts, is not this want of logical sequence and sym- metry quite in keeping with the antecedents of him who had been trained in no school of human learning? Nor is it any real difficulty to say that Peter in the East could not have become acquainted with the later epistles of Paul. For in various ways Peter might have known Paul's epistles; and granting that there is a resemblance to some of the earlier of them, there is little or none to the latest of them. Schwegler holds that the epistle alludes to the persecution under Nero, during which Peter suffered, and that therefore his writing it at Babylon is inconsistent with his martyr- dom at the same period at Rome. The objection, how- ever, takes for granted what is denied. It is a sufficient reply to say that the persecution referred to was not, or may not have been, the Neronian persecution, and that the apostle was not put to death at the supposed period of Nero's reign. There is not in the epistle any direct allusion to actual persecution; the airoXoyia (iii, 15) is not a formal answer to a public accusation, for it is to lie given to every one asking it (Huther. Kiitisch-ex- egetisches Handbuch liber den 1. Brief des Petrus, Einl it. p. 27). The epistle in all its leading features is in uni- son with what it professes to be— an earnest and prac- tical letter from one whose heart was set on the well- being of the churches, one who may have read many of Paul's letters and thanked God for them, ami who, in addressing the churches himself, clothes his thoughts in language the readiest and most natural to him. with- out any timid selection or refusal of words and phrases which others may have used before him.