2 Peter (cf Chase, op. cit., ΠΠ. 811). In the former, not so much ieaching as practice, was in question, while, in 2 Peter, they are called ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, and seem to have been engaged in the active propa- gation of false doctrine. The use of γνώσις in i. 5 f. can scarcely be without reference to that intellectualism, with its hidden wisdom, and exclusive mysteries, so characteristic of Gnosticism (cf. Light- foot, Colossians, pp. 73-113). The word ἐπόπτης (i. 16) is a Gnostic term meaning one who has been initiated into the mystery. Jude, on the other hand, seems to feel that the movement. he combats is also doctrinal in its import; for he urges his readers ‘‘ to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” (ver. 3), and the heresy he opposes must have had a certain materialistic basis (κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν, δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῖσιν, ver. 8). There is also implied a certain doctrinal ͵ process in the words, Χάριτα µετατιθέντες eis ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν µόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμών ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι (ver. 4). Thus, in both cases, the readers are warned against what was really a matter both of life and of doctrine, and the situation in 2 Peter need not necessarily imply a stage at least much later in the development of the false teaching. In these Epistles it can scarcely be doubted that we are in the presence of an incipient Gnosticism, and the two directions in which the Gnostic tendency led, viz., Intellectualism and Antinomianism, are clearly marked. On this latter aspect, the emphasis is laid, not only in the Epistles, but in the N.T. generally. The new movement caused great anxiety to the leaders of the Church, owing chiefly to its immoral tendency. For long the heretics were in communion with the Christian Church, and it was not until the second century that the cleavage widened out to its true limits (cf. E. P. Scott, Apologetic of the N.T., pp. 146 ff.). These false teachers in Jude and 2 Peter were partakers in the rites of the Christian Church (Jude 12; 2 Peter ii. 19). Incidentally, it may be mentioned that their description in 2 Peter does not in itself warrant a date for its composition in the second century, and certainly not a date so much later than Jude, as is usually supposed.
2 Peter, then, gives us in general a picture of the prevalence of Antinomian heresy, which has as its results the corruption of morals, and a certain materialistic tendency which led to disbelief in the Person of Christ (ii. 1), and a denial of the ethical nature of God (iii. 8, 9; cf. also Philipp. iii. 18 f). 2 Peter is throughout eminently ethical in its tone. Religion and life are inseparably connected, és πάντα ἡμῖν τῆς θείας δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν καὶ εὐσέβειαν δεδωρηµένης διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς (i. 3). The true γνῶσις must contain ethical qualities (i.6). The Christian must take pains “to