tho verb Aayxa11Ei11 in eh. i. 1 reminds ns of St. Peter's use of the word in the same sense in Acts i. 17 (the only two New Testament passages in which the word occnrs in this meaning). The somewhat uncommon word EllfJ'l/3£ia in eh. i. 3, 6, 7, and iii. 11, recalls the same word in St. Peter's speech in Acts iii. 12. The " cleansing from his old sins " of eh. i. 9 seems to point back to the baptism "for the remission of sins" preached by St. Peter, Acts ii. 38. The word q>Ep6p,£11os of eh. i. 21, which we find also in 1 Pet. i. 13, occurs in Acts ii. 2, in the description of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost, when St. Peter preached his great sermon. In eh. ii. 1 St. Peter says that the false teachers denied the Lord that bought them; he had used the same word J.p11£'ifJ'0ai, to deny (that word to him so foll of solemn memories), twice in the speech in Arts iii. (ver. 13, 14). The words of eh. ii. 13, "to riot in the daytime," recall Acts ii. 15. The p,tfJ'0os -rijs ci.SiKuis of eh. ii. 15 is found in St. Peter's speech in Acts i. 18. The Lord J esns is called the " Saviour" five times in this Epistle; St. Peter had described him as "a Prince and a Saviour" in his speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts v. 31). On the whole, while we recognize the existence of that dissonance of style which was noticed long ago by St. Jerome, there are also many points of resemblance, and the difference is not greater than can be accounted for. The two Epistles were separated by an interval of, perhaps, two or three years; the occasion and subject-matter are different; the apostle seems to have incorporated into the second chapter the substance of another writing which may have tinged the style of the whole Epistle; and it is at least possible, as St. Jerome suggests, that St. Peter may have nsed the services of different interpreters. ( 4) The leading thoughts of the Second Epistle are not those of the first. The key-note of the First Epistle is hope; that of the second is knowledge (br{yvwfJ'is). The ]'irst Epistle direots our thoughts to the great events in the life of Christ--his sufferings, death, his descent into Hades, his resurrec- tion and ascension. It dwells on the doctrines of grace, the new birth, the atonement; it enforces the necessity of patient endurance in view of the coming persecutions, the duty of loyal obedience to rulers, the blessedness of humility ; it asserts the priesthood of all trne Christians ; it represents the Church as a spiritual temple, in which individual believers are living stones. It is full of the Old Testament; there is an abundance of quotations from Isaiah, the Proverbs, the Psalms; there are constant reminiscences of the Epistle of St. James, and some of St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans and Ephesians. The Second Epistle is very different; it does not dwell on the great events and doctrines insisted upon in the First Epistle. There are no certain quotations from the Old Testament or from St. Paul. But the difference of purpose is quite sufficient to account for these differ- ences of treatment. The false teachers and the scoffers are the most prominent figures in the Second Epistle; the writer's mind is foll of the dangers to be apprehended from them. The full knowledge (E1ri'.yv111fJ'ts) of :x INTRODUCTION TO
our Lord Jesus Christ is the best safeguard against these dangers ; th€-refore knowle.dge is the apostle's leading topic now, as hope was when his object was to comfort and support his suffering brethren. There are, however, points of contact between the Epistles. In both great stress is laid on ancient prophecy, as also in St. Peter's speeches recorded in the .Acts of the Apostles. In both the end of all things is a prominent thought. St. Peter, in eh. iii. 12, speaks of Christians as not only "looking for," but also "basting " the coming of the day of God ; he had long before expressed the same remarkable conception in his speech (Acts iii. 19, 20). An imitator would not have been likely to vary the apostle's expression ; he would not have adopted the form parousia, or "day of the Lord," in describing what is called the "Revelation of Jesus Christ," or" the end of all things," in the First Epistle; he would probably have met the taunts of the scoffers· rather by maintaining that the day of the Lord was close at hand (after the manner of 1 Pet. iv. 7), than by giving reasons for its apparent delay . .Again, we have the doctrine of election in both Epistles, and in both the necessity of holiness in heart and life is earnestly pressed upon the readers; both Epistles draw attention to the warnings of the Delage and the fewness of the saved; both dwell on the long-suffering of God; both regard the history and privileges of God's ancient people as typical of the temptations and blessings of Christians (comp. eh. ii. 1, 5, 6, 7, 15 and I Pet. ii. 9). The "sinful angels" of the Second Epistle, in pits or chains of darkness, remind ns of the "spirits in prison" of I Peter. The Lord preached (lK~pv[E) to those spirits (1 Pet. iii. 19) : Noah was a preacher (K~pv[) of righteousness to the men of Sodom (eh. ii. 5). And if the writer of the Second Epistle does not dwell upon those great facts of our Lord's life which are mentioned in the first, as an imitator would have done, he does dwell upon another, the Transfiguration. If he does not quote verbally from the Old Testament, he directs his readers' attention to the word of prophecy, and his thoughts are £nil of Old Testament examples, " the false prophets among the people '' (eh. ii. 1), Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot, Balaam; while he has two a-pparent references to the Old Testament in eh. ii. 22 and iii. 8. If he does not quote St. Panl directly, he refers to his Epistles generally in eh. iii. 15, 16; and there are words and expressions here and there which seem to imply familiarity with the Epistles to the Romans and EphesianR; thus lrrlyvwrns, the key-note of the Epistle, is found in Rom. i. 28; iii. 20; x. 2 ( comp. also eh. i. 17 with Rom. ii. 7; eh. ii. 13 with Rom. xiii. 13; eh. ii. 18 with Rom. vi 16; eh. iii. 7 with Rom. ii. 5; eh. iii. 15 with Rom. ii. 4; and eh. iii. 2 with Eph. ii. 20 and iii. 5). There are other points of contact with other Epistles of St. Paul, most of which are noticed in the Exposition; and there are two apparent reminiscences of the Epistle of St. James; eh. i. 9 recalls to our thoughts J as. i. 23, 24; and the remarkable word SU1.Ecft111, used in eh. ii. 14, 18, occurs also in Jas. i. 14. It is some- -rimes nrged as an additional point of difference between the Epistles that while our Lord is usually called" Christ" or "Jesus Christ" in the first, in the '.l'HE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PE'l'ER. ::d