Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

jn THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
The alternative in whicli we are thus placed is as harsh as it
could possibly be. Either the Epistle is genuine and apostolical, or
it is not only spurious and forged, but was forged by a bold, shame-
less impostor, and such a person must have had an evil design in
executing a forgery of the kind supposed. Now in the whole Epis-
tle we do not find the slightest thing which can be regarded as erroneous
or as morally bad. Its contents are entirely biblical, and
truly evangelical. An elevated religious spirit animates the Epistle
throughout. Is it conceivable, that a man actuated by this spirit
can be chargeable with such a deception ? Or is it supposed that
this spirit is itself feigned .? But this idea plainly contradicts itself,
for he who is bad enough to forge writings cannot entertain the design
of extending a good influence by his forgery. No forgery would
be necessary for such a i)urpose. The design must have been to de-
fend what was unholy in principle or practice under cover of a sacred
name. The only probable purpose of the forgery of the Epistle is
this ; that the unknown author of the production wished to combat
the heretics described in the second chapter, and in order that he
might do this with some effect, he wrote in the name of the Apostle
Peter, and made use of the Epistle of Jude in doing so. But if a
man who was honest (in other respects) could have been induced to
enter upon such a crooked path, would he not have contented himself
with placing the apostle's name in front of his Epistle ? Would
his conscience have permitted him to aj)propriate falsely from the
life of the apostle such particulars as are narrated in the Epistle .?
This is really hard to believe, and the efforts made to preserve the
genuineness of the first chapter at least, which contains these very
particulars, sufficiently prove how universal is the feeling that the
statements it contains cannot have been forged.
It is true the case would stand otherwise, if it were a wellfounded
position, that the Epistle really contains erroneous tenets.
But how truly impossible it is to establish this, is very evident from
the nature of the points adduced as errors. In the first place, one
is supposed to be contained in the passage, 2 Peter iii. 5, in which
it is said, that the earth was formed out of water and in water by
the word of God.' It is true, there are parallels to this view of the
creation of the earth in several mythical cosmogonies ; but is this
circumstan^'O a proof that the doctrine of the creation of the world
out of water is false .^ Does the Mosaic account of the creation, or
any other passage in the Bible, contain any thing which in the
slightest degree impugns it.^ Or does the condition of the physical
or geological sciences in our day prove that the earth certainly came
into existence in a different manner.?' It will suffice, in regard to
' Our English version gives a somewhat different sense to this passage ; but probably
the translation above conveys nearly, if not exactly, its true signification.
—
Tr,