Then follow (J. vv. 5-7) three examples of judgment taken from the O.T.: Israel in the Wilderness, the offending angels, the sin of Sodom, which are repeated in P. ii. 4-9, except that the Deluge takes the place of the punishment of Israel. Why was this change made? Probably because the destruction of the world by water and the destruction of Sodom by fire were recognised types of Divine vengeance (Lk. xvii. 26-29), and also because P. is about to speak of the Deluge below (iii. 5-7) to show that there is nothing incredible in the destruction of the existing universe by fire. More- over he had already referred to the case of Israel (ἐν τῷ λαῷ) in comparing the false prophets of the O.T. with the false teachers of the N.T. Perhaps, too, he wished to keep the chronological order in his three examples. It has been suggested in the note on τὸ δεύτερον that, in speaking of the destruction of Israel after their falling back into unbelief, J. may have had in his mind the question of the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin. There is perhaps a similar reference in P. i. 9, λήθην λαβὼν τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ ἅμαρ- τιῶν as well as in Ρ. ii. 20. With regard to P.’s triplet, it is to be noticed that it is given in a far more animated form than that of J., being used as a protasis to an apodosis applying the same principles to the persons addressed, εἰ yap 6 Θεὸς οὐκ ἐφείσατο κ.τ.λ. Of the angels P. says merely that they sinned, J. dwells on their pristine dignity, and follows the book of Enoch in making their sin to consist partly in the fall from their high estate, and partly in their going after σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, as the men of Sodom did afterwards τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις, J. ver. 7. If P. had J. before him, these omissions are natural; if J. wrote after P., he would scarcely have gone out of his way to insert particulars so derogatory to the angelic nature. As to their punishment, they are reserved, in both epistles, for judgment under darkness in chains.
It is interesting to compare what is said in the two Epistles about the two missionaries of the antediluvian world. In J. ver. 14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, appears simply as the denouncer of ven- ¢eance to come: in P. Noah is a preacher of righteousness and he is the eighth saved. In my edition of 2 Peter I have suggested that the writer may have intended a mystical opposition between the two numbers; and, I think, this is confirmed by the way in which the number 8 is introduced in 1 P. iii. 20 (κιβωτοῦ) eis ἣν ὀλίγοι, Todt’ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, διεσώθησαν δι ὕδατος. The ark is here regarded as a symbol of the Church. What was the writer’s motive in adding that it contained only a few, and further that these few, on being reckoned up, were found to amount to 8? Must he not have in-