Other more specific objections against the epistle may be briefly alluded to. According to Mayerhoff (Einleit. p. 187), the writer in iii, 2 separates himself from the apostles; Bleek (Einleit. p. 570) and others supposing that he intended to characterize himself as an apostle, and having before him the somewhat parallel expression of Jude, he so far altered it, but in the alteration has failed to give lucid utterance to his purpose. The phrase, with the double genitive Kai r/}c ™» «7ro<r-o- Xoiv ifiwv si'ro\i/c rov Kvpioi', naturally means, "and the commandment of the Lord given by your apostles." The pronoun vfidv is the best-sustained reading, and the English version does violence to the position of the words. As Olshausen and Windischmann have shown, the use of ifiujv does not exclude Peter, even though it be rendered "the commandments of your apostles of the Lord Jesus." In fact, it neither denies nor affirms his apostleship; though if t)fiaiv had been employed, and the phrase rendered " our apostles," the conclusion against its genuineness would certainly have some weight. But this objection that the writer excludes himself from the apostles neutralizes another, to wit, that the writer betrays too great anxiety to show him- self as the apostle Peter. He could not certainly do both in the same document without stultifying himself. Does not the apostle Paul when it serves his object use pointedly the first person singular, refer to himself, and assert his apostolic office as Peter does in i, 12, 13, 14, 15? The use of the name ~2vf.itwv in i, 1 can neither tell for the genuinenesses Dietlein supposes, nor against it, as Mayerhoff argues. The reference in iii, 1 to a former epistle is not for the purpose of identifying him- self with the author of that epistle, but naturally comes in as a proof of his anxiety for his readers that they should bear in memory the lessons already imparted t<> them.
It is said that the first epistle was addressed to a par- ticular circle of churches (1 Pet. i, 1), while the second was to Christians in general (2 Pet, i, 1), yet it assumed (iii, 1) that the readers were in both cases the same, the confusion being increased by the fact that in ch. i, 1G the writer speaks as if he had been their personal in- structor, whereas in iii, 15 he treats them as the disci- ples of Paul. But we may well suppose that the first
epistle, directed to a large enough circle at first, must soon have taken its place as a general epistle. The in- spired penmen knew well that, though there was a par- ticular occasion for their writing and special counsels to be given, yet their teachings were to be for the guidance of the whole Church. Hence we sometimes find them directing that their letters should be read beyond the first community to which they came (Col. iv, 10; 1 Thess. v, 27). Peter might therefore properly write a . second time to Christians without express limitation of country, and still regard his readers as those whom he had admonished before. It is not necessary to sup- pose that by his expression in i, 10 he means personal instruction: the reference was to what he had said in his former letter. We must consider too the circum- stances under which he wrote at all. There was a spu- rious kind of wisdom corrupting the Church (Col. ii, 8, 10-23). Jewish traditions had their influence ; and sen- sual indulgence was sure to follow. Paul, who had care- fully watched the churches he had planted, had been long a prisoner, and was thus withdrawn from active superintendence of them. Very fitting therefore it was that Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, should write as he did at first, to confirm the doctrine learned of Paul, and to inculcate the holy principles and unblem- ished conduct which coidd alone fortify believers against impending persecution. Yet he anticipates in the first letter a further declension, and a greater necessity for faithful resistance of error (1 Pet, iv, 1-4). Now we know that the evil did increase; and Taul in the pas- toral epistles speaks of serious depravation of doctrine, and more open lawlessness of conduct (1 Tim. i, 19, 20 ; iv, 1 : 2 Tim. ii, 17, 18 ; iii, 1-7). The second epistle of Peter was called for, then, to check the progress of false teaching and of unbecoming conduct: it takes up the matter at a point historically later than the first; but it handles the same topics, and so is a proper supplement to it. Thus, as Schott says (p. 102), " That which pre- sented itself in the first epistle we see also in the second ; the same uncertainty respecting the gospel -standing of Gentile Christians, and the gospel-teaching of Paul (i, 1, 10, 12; iii, 2, 15, etc.) ; the same questionings about the revelation of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment (i, 4, etc., 11, 12, etc., 10. etc. ; ii, 9 ; iii, 2, 8, etc., 10, etc., 18) ; the same tendency to relax in the work of Christian sanctification (i, 5-12, etc.; iii, 11, etc., 14, 17)." Other noteworthy traces he be- lieves lie can detect of a relationship between the two. Some of these are a debased state of religious knowledge grounded on Jewish writings alien from the true teach- ing of Scripture, and an affected spirituality which fos- tered sensual indulgence. Evidence that such evils ex- isted at the time of writing may be found more clearly in the second, more faintly, but yet noticeably, in the first epistle.