1 2 Peter and Jude Through The Centuries Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries 1St Edition Rebecca Skaggs Full Chapter PDF Scribd

1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the
Centuries (Wiley Blackwell Bible

Commentaries) 1st Edition Rebecca
Skaggs
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/1-2-peter-and-jude-through-the-centuries-wiley-black
well-bible-commentaries-1st-edition-rebecca-skaggs/
1, 2 Peter and Jude
Through the Centuries
Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries
Series Editors: John Sawyer, Christopher Rowland, Judith Kovacs, David M. Gunn
Editorial Board: Ian Boxall, Andrew Mein, Lena‐Sofia Tiemeyer
John Through the Centuries Six Minor Prophets Through the

Mark Edwards Centuries
Revelation Through the Centuries Richard Coggins and Jin H. Han
Judith Kovacs and Christopher Lamentations Through the
Rowland Centuries
Judges Through the Centuries Paul M. Joyce and Diana Lipton
David M. Gunn James Through the Centuries
Exodus Through the Centuries David Gowler
Scott M. Langston The Acts of the Apostles
Ecclesiastes Through the Through the Centuries
Centuries Heidi J. Hornik and
Eric S. Christianson Mikeal C. Parsons
Esther Through the Centuries Chronicles Through the
Jo Carruthers Centuries
Psalms Through the Centuries: Blaire French
Volume I Isaiah Through the Centuries
Susan Gillingham John F.A. Sawyer
Galatians Through the Psalms Through the Centuries:
Centuries Volume II
John Riches Susan Gillingham
Pastoral Epistles Through the Matthew Through the Centuries
Centuries Ian Boxall
Jay Twomey 1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the
1 & 2 Thessalonians Through the Centuries
Centuries Rebecca Skaggs
Anthony C. Thiselton
1, 2 Peter and Jude
Through the Centuries
Rebecca Skaggs
This edition first published 2020
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or t ransmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as
permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at
http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Rebecca Skaggs to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit
us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that
appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations
or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim
all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or p romotional
statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a
citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse
the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make.
This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services.
The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a
specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed
or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall
be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental,
consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Skaggs, Rebecca, author.
Title: 1, 2 Peter and Jude through the centuries / Rebecca Skaggs.
Other titles: First and Second Peter and Jude through the centuries
Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2020. | Series: Wiley Blackwell Bible
commentaries | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020000754 (print) | LCCN 2020000755 (ebook) | ISBN
9781118973301 (hardback) | ISBN 9781118973271 (adobe pdf) | ISBN
9781118973288 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Peter, 1st–Commentaries. | Bible. Peter,
2nd–Commentaries. | Bible. Jude–Commentaries.
Classification: LCC BS2795.53 .S57 2020 (print) | LCC BS2795.53 (ebook) |
DDC 227/.907–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020000754
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020000755
Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: © Wikimedia Commons
Set in 10/12.5pt Minion by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Abbreviations xii
Introduction 1
Historical Overview and Genre 2
Reception Historical Sources for 1, 2 Peter, and Jude 6
Significant Ancient Interpreters 7
Nineteenth‐ and Twentieth‐Century Perspectives 10
Aims and Methods of this Commentary 14
Literary Relationships: Which Came First – Jude or 2 Peter? 18
vi Contents
Chapter 1 The Transformed Life in the Context

of Suffering, Grace, Hope, and Love (1:1–2:10) 22
Author, Audience, and Abundant Grace (1:1–2) 22
The Meaning and Purpose of Suffering (1:3–10) 26
Consequences of the Transformed Life: Suffering Related to the
Suffering of Christ (1:11–12) 36
Consequences of the Transformed Life: Hope, Holiness,
and Love (1:13–23) 40
The Transformed Life: Three Metaphors (1:24 – 2:10) 47
The Grass Metaphor (1:24, 25) 47
The Milk Metaphor (2:1–3) 49
The Living Stones Metaphor (2:4–10) 51
Doctrinal Interpretations: The Priesthood of all Believers 54
Doctrinal Interpretations: Eternal Security 55
Chapter 2 Three Practical Situations

(1 Peter 2:11–3:17) 57
Transition (2:11–12) 57
The Governing Authorities (2:13–17) 59
Slavery (2:18–25) 66
Submission and Suffering for Doing Good 68
Christ as Guardian of Our Souls, v.25 74
Marriage (3:1–7) 76
Ornamentation (3:3–6) 83
To “Husbands” (3:7) 86
The “Weaker Vessel” (3:7) 88
Transition: Summary and Concepts to Come (3:8–17) 88
Summary: Live in Harmony and Mutual Love (3:8–12) 89
Suffering for Doing Good (3:13–17) 89
Chapter 3 Christ’s Visit to the Spirits in Prison, 3:18–22 91

Christ’s Resurrection, the Ground of the Transformed Life 91
The Preaching or Announcement in Hades 96
The Audience for Christ’s Preaching 97
Religious Traditions 105
Opposition 108
Summary of the Effects of 1 Peter 3:18–22 So Far 109
Other Interpretations 110
Effects in Literature 110
Effects in Music 112
Effects in Drama 112
Contents vii
Effects in Art 114

Relation to the Harrowing of Hell Tradition 128
Summary/Observations 130
Chapter 4 The Transformed Life: The Believer as

Sufferer (1 Peter 4:1–19) 132
Suffering is in God’s Control (4:7–11) 138
Love Covers a Multitude of Sins (v.8) 139
Love Shown in Joyful Service and Hospitality (4:9–11) 141
Suffering for Being a Christian (4:12–19) 142
The Spirit of Glory … Rests upon You (v.14) 144
Judgment Begins with the House of God (4:17) 145
Scarcely Saved (vv.18–19) 146
Chapter 5 Final Exhortations and Greetings

(1 Peter 5:1–14) 149
Message to Three Groups (5:1–10): “Elders” (vv.1–4); the
“Younger” (vv.5–6); and “All” (vv.6–10) 149
The Message to “All” (vv.2, 6–10) 155
God Gives Grace to the Humble (vv.6–11) 157
The Final Promise to All (vv.10–11) 160
Final Greetings: Who, Where, and How (vv.12–14) 161
Who is Silvanus and What is His Role in the Writing of the Epistle? 161
Who is “Mark?” 162
Where/What is Babylon? 162
Chapter 6 Jude: A Dynamic Response to Heresy 166

Greeting and Purpose 166
Purpose (v.3) 170
The Body of the Epistle: Charges/Punishment Predicted (vv.4–16) 173
The Fallen Angels: Second Example of Punishment (v.6) 175
Sodom and Gomorrah: Third Example (v.7) 178
Second Set of Triple Charges (vv.8–11): Pollution, Rejection of
Authority, Slander of Heavenly Beings 180
The Illustration: The Dispute Between Michael and Satan (v.9) 182
Three Examples of Punishment: Cain, Balaam, and Korah (v.11) 184
Metaphors of Charges Against the Teachers (vv.12–16) 186
Prediction of Punishment: Enoch’s Prophecy (vv.14–16) 188
Exhortations to the Faithful (17–23) 191
Closing Doxology (vv.24–25) 194
Effects in Literature, Culture, and Art: Michael and Satan’s Dispute (v.9) 196
viii Contents
Chapter 7 Excursus: Jude’s Role in the Reception

History of Enoch 200
Enoch in the Early Church 201
Summary 205
Effects in Literature, Culture, and Art: The Fallen Angels, Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4 206
Chapter 8 Greetings and the Bases for

Certainty (2 Peter 1) 213
Greetings: Authorship, Authenticity, and Authority (1:1–2) 213
The Basis for Certainty and Peter’s Response: Participation
in the Divine Nature (1:4–11) 216
Can Salvation Be Lost? (vv.10–11) 222
More Grounds for Certainty: Eyewitness Testimony (1:12–15) 223
Even More Grounds for Certainty: The Nature of Prophecy
and the Inspiration of Scripture (1:16–21) 225
Chapter 9 The False Teachers and Peter’s

Response (2 Peter 2:1–22) 232
Chapter 10 Where is the Promise of His

Coming? (2 Peter 3:1–18) 244
Reaffirmation and Reminders (3:1–3) 244
Where is the Promise and Peter’s Response: Judgment and
Rescue (3:4–10) 248
Final Exhortations (3:11–18) 252
Chapter 11 Excursus: Delay of the Parousia (2 Peter 3) 255

Modern and Current Scholarship (eighteenth to twenty-first centuries) 261
Concluding Remarks 265
Appendix 1: Who Wrote These Epistles? The Reception of 1, 2

Peter and Jude 268
Appendix 2: Ancient Writers, their Writings, and their Sources 273
Appendix 3: Reception Historical Timeline 279
Appendix 4: Overview of the Reception History of Enoch 284
Glossary288
Bibliography 296
Index of Biblical References 312
Index316
Acknowledgments
As with any major project this book could not have been written without the sup-
port and encouragement of many colleagues, friends, and family. First, I would
like to thank Chris Rowland and Judith Kovaks for the opportunity to participate
in the Wiley Blackwell project by contributing the volume on 1, 2 Peter and Jude.
Chris, I thank you especially for your kind and patient guidance through the
entire writing process – noting where something could go further or sometimes
even in a more productive direction. Your insights have been invaluable as I
sometime struggled through difficult topics. Thank you to the editing staff, par-
ticularly Mohan Jayachandran for your guidance through the rigors of the editing
process with its technological challenges and confusions. Your patience is indeed
a gift – thanks for sharing it with me. Juliet Booker, your kind words of
encouragement came always at exactly the right time … thank you! Shyamala
Venkateswaran you worked so kindly with me through the final processes of
x Acknowledgments
proofreading, queries, final formats, etc. Your patience has been invaluable; bless
you for keeping me informed as to possible delays, deadlines, etc.
Thank you to Patten University (where I taught for almost 40 years), for
their financial support at the beginning of this project; in spite of experiencing
their own crisis, they kept me on the payroll for several years, which allowed
me to focus on this research. My church community also provided encourage-
ment and moral support with their prayers and encouraging words.
Thank you also to the Library staff at the Graduate Theological Union
Library in Berkeley, Ca., particularly Naw San Dee: you always responded to
my queries about remote sources with patience and efficiency … I wouldn’t
have made it without your support.
There is no way to convey the deep gratitude to all of my dear friends and
colleagues who encouraged me with everything from dynamic discussions and
debates to personally supportive meals and outings. I want to particularly thank
my colleague and friend, Dr. Hannah Harrington, for her support and encour-
agement through this project.
All of this began with my mother, who instilled in me the delight in studying
scripture, and my twin sister who shared my life and academic journey. She was
a living example of Peter’s words about grace in suffering as she battled cancer
during the time when I first began working on 1 Peter. Both have gone on but
they left a lasting effect on my life and work.
I want to express special gratitude to my friend and colleague Father Thomas
Doyle (Metanoia Ministries, El Cerrito, Ca.) who regularly took time from his
own ministry to “chew on” theories, the early church fathers, and various theo-
logical positions. He did some valuable editing on 1 Peter until his health pre-
cluded further work. I will always cherish not only what I learned from him
about editing, but what I learned about friendship and the joys of collaboration.
I also want to thank my husband’s nephew Tyson Frederick, a technological
“whiz” who patiently introduced me to the technology I needed to prepare my
manuscript and to obtain things such as high resolution images for the art I
wanted to include. Tyson, you saved me countless hours, thank you! Thank you
also, Charmaine (my lovely niece) who took time from her busy life to answer
my desperate calls for help with some computer glitch. Thomas Moncher, I do
not know what I would have done without your help on various computer
issues – you make all of it seem so simple. I also want to express thanks to
Victor Rojas, a former student and now owner of his own computer business …
you rescued me from two major computer catastrophes … words cannot
express my gratitude.
I also want to express thanks to my husband, John Skaggs, a wonderful a rtist
and my best friend who gladly explored with me the art in my project, provid-
ing insightful information particularly on art history and art as exegesis.
Acknowledgments xi
Chapters 3, 6, and 7 are the results of your expertise and our collaboration (see
his website at Johnskaggs.com). Thanks too for sharing those long hours on our
vacation which finalized my manuscript and created your chart that adds so
much to my project.
Finally, to all of my students through the last almost 40 years, thank you for
all the joy you brought as I watched you grow in your study of the New
Testament, its language, history, and some use of critical methodology. Many of
you have gone on in Academia and/or ministry – God bless you. I truly cherish
the memories we share. To you I dedicate this volume.
Abbreviations
ABC Anchor Bible Commentary

ACC Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: James, 1‐2 Peter, 1‐3
John, Jude
ACW Ancient Christian Writers
AMP The Amplified Bible
ANF Ante‐Nicene Fathers. 10 vols.
APT Tertullian, Apologetic and Practical Treatises.
ARL St. Athanasius. The Resurrection Letters.
ASV American Standard Version
CCEL Christian Classics Ethereal Library: Church fathers, commentaries,
sermons, and hymns
CEC Catena in Epistolas Catholicas
CEV Common English Version
Abbreviations xiii
CIM Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv

CS Cisterian Studies
CWS Classics of Western Spirituality: A Library of the Great
Spiritual Masters
ERV English Revised Version
EXB Expanded Bible
FC Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, 1947
FGNK Forschungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen
Kanons und der altkirklichen Literature
HE Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius
HOG Homilies on the Gospels, Bede the Venerable
ICA Internet Classics Archive: classics.mit.edu/
ICB New Century Version of the Bible
LCC The Library of Christian Classics. 26 vols
LCL Loeb Classical Library.
LVL Logos Virtual Library
NASB New American Standard Bible
NLT New Living Testament
OFP On First Principles Origen
PC Patristic Citations
PG Patrologiae Graeca. 166 vols. J.P. Migne, ed. Paris: Migne,
1857–1886
PL Patrologiae Latina 221 vols. J.P Migne, ed. Paris, Migne,
1844–64
PL Supp. Patrologiae Latinae Supplementum. A. Hamman, ed. Paris:
Migne, 1958–
RSV Revised Standard Version
SPCK Society for the Promotion of Knowledge
ST Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas
ST FP Q [1] A [1] Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 1, Answer 1
ST FS Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part
ST SS Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part
ST TP Summa Theologica, Third Part
XP [sup. TP] Supplement to Summa Theologica, Third Part
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. G.
Kittle, et al., eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964
TTH Bede the Venerable. On the Tabernacle. Trans. A.G.
Holden. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994
WSA J.E. Rotelle, ed. Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for
the Twenty‐First Century. Hyde Park, NY: New York City
Press, 1995
WUNT Wissenshaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
Introduction
This is an exploration of the history of the effects of three small texts about
which little information is agreed upon in terms of authorship, dating, audi-
ence, and even purpose and genre. Nevertheless two of them claim to have been
written by one of the most famous of the apostles of Jesus himself – Peter – and
all three of them have had a significant effect on theology, culture, art, and lit-
erature through the centuries. Indeed “kernels” of most of the major doctrines
can be found within 1 Peter, along with probably the most extensive discussion
on suffering and joy in the whole New Testament, as well as controversial issues
1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the Centuries, First Edition. Rebecca Skaggs.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
2 1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the Centuries
such as slavery (2:18–25), the role of women in marriage (3:1–7), and perhaps
the most curious passage in the Bible about Christ’s visit to the spirits in prison
(3:18–22). In addition, it includes some of the most well‐known and cherished
verses in scripture: “Cast all your anxieties on him for he cares for you” (5:7)
and “love covers a multitude of sins” (4:8; cf. also James 5:20). 2 Peter also has
contributed significantly, for example 1:20–1 on the inspiration of scripture has
profoundly influenced theology. Also, 2:4 along with the parallel in Jude 6 on
the fallen angels has effects in art and literature, and 2 Peter 3 has the most
information of any New Testament book except for Revelation on the confla-
gration of the world by fire at the end of time. Jude 9 is the only existing account
of the battle between the Archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses.
Hence, it is a joyful undertaking to trace the reception history of 1 Peter
(words addressed to sufferers of all time; words of encouragement, hope, and
joy); Jude (one of the most intriguing examples of the use of visual imagery in
argument); and 2 Peter (the most extensive discussion of the end of the world
by fire). In spite of the ambiguities surrounding their origins, readers have
received and been profoundly affected by each of them, albeit in different ways
through the centuries.
Historical Overview and Genre
A key component in the reception history of a text is the understanding of how

it has been perceived over time in terms of its genre and themes. Jauss (1982: 174)
calls this the “horizons of expectation,” which are formed by a community’s pre‐
understanding of a genre. For example, were these texts (1, 2 Peter and Jude)
considered to be apostolic, part of the canon of scripture? Were they viewed as
letters? Sermons? Reception history sheds some light on these issues.
These three little epistles belong to a group of early church writings known
from ancient times as the General or Catholic epistles: as early as the third cen-
tury, Origen and other church fathers refer to them as “general” or “universal”
(Catholic), since they are not addressed to a specific church or person as are the
Pauline epistles; for example, James is addressed to the “12 tribes of the disper-
sion” and 1 Peter is sent to “God’s elect scattered throughout various areas of
Asia Minor.” 2 Peter and Jude are even more vague: “to those who have been
called, the beloved of God” (Jude 1) and to those who have “received a faith as
precious as ours” (2 Pet. 1:1). The Johannine epistles are cyclical letters sent to
a series of churches in Ephesus. Although their authorship has been severely
challenged through the years, they were still accepted and used in most of the
churches (this will be treated in more detail later). In spite of these questions,
their witness to the early church communities is significant because they
Introduction 3
rovide a non‐Pauline perspective of the early beliefs and practices (Bray,

p
2000: xxi). Apparently, there was an early distinction made between these seven
epistles – James; 1, 2 Peter; 1, 2, 3 John; and Jude – in regard to authenticity.
Three of them were almost immediately accepted as authentically apostolic by
the whole church: James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. Later, the other four were also
recognized in the West and most of the East, although the Antiochene tradition
temporarily resisted this trend. 2 Peter experienced the most severe challenges
even continuing into current times.
The earliest and strongest source of this information is Eusebius of Caesarea
(c.260–340). In his account of the life of James, he concludes with the
statement, “Such is the story of James, to whom is attributed the first of the
‘general epistles’” (HE 2.23.25). Later in the same document he categorizes early
writings, stating, “Disputed books which are nevertheless familiar to most
include the epistles known as James, Jude and 2 Peter, and those called 2 John
and 3 John, the work of either of the Evangelist or someone else with the same
name” (HE 3.25, FC 19: 178: ccel.org). From this it can be implied with some
amount of certainty that the two unmentioned epistles (1 Peter and 1 John)
were generally accepted as authentically apostolic as named. Indeed, he says,
“Of Peter one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early fathers
quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings” (HE 3.3, FC 19:
139: ccel.org). Eusebius bases this idea on Polycarp of Smyrna’s (69–155)
extensive use of 1 Peter in his epistle to the Philippians (HE 3.14, FC 19: 233:
ccel.org). This is especially important since Polycarp lived soon after the epistle
was written. Hence, this general acceptance by the church allowed the early
writers to use all of these texts freely as canonical scripture.
Although 2 Peter and Jude were more strongly contested, it is fairly clear that
through the fourth century 1 Peter, along with James and 1 John, was accepted
as authentic and was eventually included in the Antiochene canon. In fact, Jude
was generally accepted through the second century as well (see Appendix 1 for
details). Even 2 Peter, although it was seriously challenged almost immediately
on account of its obvious literary differences from 1 Peter, was often alluded to
until it achieved a stronger standing after the second century (see Appendix
1).The questions that arose about Jude were primarily in regard to his use of the
apocrypha. In light of this, then, there is little doubt that the early writers con-
sidered 1 Peter as part of the canon and used it as such; they viewed it as a letter
written to defend the true faith against attacks by various heretics. In fact, all of
these epistles were viewed as addressing issues and problems of the earliest
Christian communities and were used in addressing the major theological
controversies through the centuries.
In the medieval era, almost everyone generally acknowledges all seven
Catholic epistles as authentic (e.g. Bede, Commentary on the Seven Catholic
Epistles, 1985). However, during the time of the Renaissance and Reformation,
doubts about all of the antilegomena resurfaced (see Erasmus, Karlstadt, and
Cajetan, all who especially express doubts about 2 Peter and Jude, in Hayes,
2004: 143); Cajetan labels Jude as having secondary authority (Kelly, 1981:
223). Luther, however, strongly compliments 2 Peter, clearly recognizing Peter’s
authorship of two epistles: “[2 Peter was] written [because] he saw how the
true, pure doctrine of faith was being corrupted, obscured and suppressed”
(Commentary on Peter and Jude, 1990: 229). He saw Jude as apostolic, but infe-
rior, however, since he considers that Jude merely copied 2 Peter; he also rele-
gates it to the appendix of his September Testament (1522) (Luther, Comm.,
1990: 290; Kelly, 1981: 223). Calvin accepts 2 Peter’s authentic authorship,
acknowledging Eusebius’s stated doubts but “[this] should not keep us from
reading it.” He does agree that there are significant differences from 1 Peter’s
style but states that ultimately, “It contains nothing unworthy of Peter” and “it
shows throughout the power and grace of the apostolic spirit” (Calvin, 1963:
325). Calvin also includes Jude in his canon, listing it along with the other 66
books (French Confession, art. 3, 1559).
On the other hand, Grotius (Annotationes, 1650) attributes the differences
between 1 and 2 Peter to different authors; that the author of 2 Peter may have
been Simeon, the successor of James, the head of the Jerusalem Church. Bengel
does not see a problem with the differences. Although he does acknowledge
them, he states that, “The character of this epistle [2 Peter] remarkably agrees
with the former [1 Peter], and with Peter’s speeches in Acts” (Bengel, 1981:
760). He locates Jude as following 2 Peter and remarks that the same way Peter
quotes and confirms Paul, Jude quotes and confirms Peter (ibid.: 823); Wesley
agrees with Bengel on Jude and also accepts its authenticity: “The parts of this
epistle [were] written not long before St. Peter’s death and the destruction of
Jerusalem, with the same design as the former” (WesleyCenter: ccel.org).
From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, the origin and authenticity
of 2 Peter continued to be ambiguous: challenged by some, defended by others.
Even though most acknowledged the differences in style from 1 Peter, and the
complications arising from the similarities and relation to Jude, most writers
suggested alternatives that still maintained its authenticity. For example, Deist
T. Sherlock (1678–1761) was an English bishop who was known for his apolo-
getics. He argued that both Jude and 2 Peter used a no longer existent Jewish
source (not Enoch) and an earlier writing that circulated in the church with the
main theme of false teachers (see Hayes, 2004: 143–144 for details). In the case
of Jude, many ancient writers as well as modern scholars accept its apostolic
authorship but continue to express some doubts.
In terms of genre, there is little disagreement among early as well as modern
scholarship that all three epistles exhibit the typical conventions of the Greek
letter tradition and its adaptation by Christian authors (for details see Watson,
Introduction 5
2010: 51ff; also Bauckham 1983: 131–133). Although Pseudo‐Euthalius is not

the earliest to comment specifically on the genre of 1 Peter as a letter, he is
noteworthy on the subject: “Peter himself writes this instructional letter to the
Diaspora Jews who had become Christians” (Migne, PG, 85: 680). Eusebius
(fourth century) agrees that it is a Diaspora letter addressed to Diaspora Jews
but defines these as Christian communities rather than ethnic Jews in Asia
Minor and Rome (Michaels, 1988: xxxiv; against this is Elliott, 1990: 81–82).
In addition, current scholars are showing that each text also illustrates
special aspects of Greek and Roman rhetorical tradition (see New Eyes series,
particularly Webb and Davids [2008] on Jude and Webb and Watson [2010]
on 2 Peter). It is also fairly clear that early Christian writers treated these texts
as well‐respected epistles even though, especially in the case of 2 Peter, there
continued to be serious doubts as to authenticity. This view of them generally
remains the position of scholars today although there are differences of
opinion on almost every issue (Bray, 2000: xx). However the details of these
epistles are treated, it must be noted that they were widely used in early times
(ibid.: xxi).
Much has been done in modern critical commentaries on the relation of
these little epistles to the larger Pauline corpus so this will not be treated here.
It is fairly clear that each of them in their own way provides evidence about the
acceptable beliefs that existed in the early time of the church. All of them stress
that the Christian faith is not simply theology; that one should live in relation
to the very words of Jesus himself. This “practice” can be summarized in three
main concepts: self‐sacrifice, generosity, and humility. Although these are pri-
mary themes in all of these epistles, they are especially central to the thought of
1 Peter. In fact, for 1 Peter, the humble and patient endurance of suffering
(whether the threat of death by the government or verbal abuse by the hostile
pagan environment or perhaps both) is the means of following Jesus’ example;
humility before God and love of one another should characterize the life of the
believer in order to avoid an arrogant and judgmental attitude.
Another key component for all of these texts is the concept that believers
exist in a world engaged in spiritual warfare, the cosmic struggle between good
and evil. This is not the dualism of Platonism or gnosticism, but is rather an
understanding that both evil and good are creations of God and are therefore
within his control. Each of the writers treat this topic in some way; 1 Peter
includes Christ’s visit to the spirits in prison (3:18–22) where he subordinates
all powers; for Jude it is the war between Satan and the Archangel Michael
(Jude 9) while 2 Peter along with Jude, discusses the state of the fallen angels
(2 Pet. 2:4 & Jude 6). For all of them, however, there is one struggle which
will continue until Christ will come again to judge all creatures and creation.
This belief in God’s eventual redemption is lived out in the hope and love prac-
ticed in the life of individuals as well as the community.
In summary, although risking oversimplification, modern scholarship

g enerally follows the ancient writers in categorizing the Catholic epistles as: (i)
probably authentic: 1 Peter and 1 John; (ii) possibly authentic: James, 2, 3 John,
and Jude; and (iii) doubtfully authentic: 2 Peter (more details can be found in
Appendix 1). For convenience, the authors of both Petrine epistles and Jude
will be referred to as “Peter” and “Jude” respectively.
Reception Historical Sources for 1, 2 Peter, and Jude
We are seeking to include a variety of kinds of interpretations through the cen-

turies to highlight the dialogs which led to significant developments. Because
of the diversity of topics included in these little texts it seems best not to specify
every interpreter here (for descriptions of these, see the Glossary). Rather it is
important to show the variety of interpreters when appropriate, while including
more detail here on the dominant ones. Since some of the passages have had
effects on art, literature, or music, while the influence of others has been more
political or social, each chapter will have some unique sources.
The following is a brief overview of the most important sources on all three
of these epistles. As mentioned earlier, there are numerous early attestations to
each of them, but many of them are in the form of allusions so will only be
mentioned whenever relevant; these can be found for 1 and sometimes 2, Peter
in the epistle of Barnabas (c.70–79); Clement of Rome (c.95); Hermas (c.140);
and Papias (c.130–140). Polycarp (d. 155) actually quotes 1 Peter but does not
name him; apparently, he knew and used the epistle but not necessarily as
Peter’s. Irenaeus (b. 130) is the first to particularly quote 1 Peter by name.
Evidently the heretic Marcion did not accept 1 Peter. (For more details on all of
these, see Bigg, 1975.) For Jude, there are five primary early sources which have
full commentaries or a major complete work on the epistle (Jones, 2001):
Clement of Alexandria (second century), Didymus (mid‐fourth century), sev-
eral catenae (one probably compiled by Andreas, seventh century, and one by
Severus, late fourth to early fifth century), Oecumenius (sixth century), and
Bede (eighth century). Once in a while, Hilary of Arles, Augustine, Cyril of
Alexandria, or others will comment.
No one in the medieval era wrote a complete commentary on any of these
three epistles unless you locate Theophylact of Ohrid (1050–1108) in this
period. (He wrote commentaries on the whole New Testament and some of the
Old but is often considered within the earlier period.) Our three epistles are
referred to numerous times, however, in debates and controversies on major
theological issues throughout this time. In fact, scholars such as Erasmus,
Grotius, Ockham, Dun Scotus, Karlstadt, and St. Francis de Sales occasionally
Introduction 7
include 1 and 2 Peter in their arguments. St. Thomas Aquinas also cites 1 Peter
and sometimes 2 Peter in his explanations on the nature and foreknowledge of
God and other pertinent topics. He does not cite Jude. Aquinas is an indication
that both Peters are intrinsically involved in the theological discussions and
controversies as theology developed. Although Jude is clearly not as involved in
the discussions and councils, the epistle is taken seriously by many of the
denominations as they constructed their confessions, creeds, and church con-
stitutions – these are noted throughout the commentary.
Luther and Calvin represent the time of the Reformation, along with
Arminius, Melanchthon, and others who are included as appropriate. Bengel,
Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, and John Wesley reflect the following era.
Brief explanations of the main writers follow to provide a sense of dating as well
as significance. Descriptions of others who are used less regularly are included
in the Glossary.
Significant Ancient Interpreters
Clement of Alexandria (c.150–215) is the earliest commentator to write a full

although fragmentary commentary on 1 Peter. Probably born in Athens, he was
an early Greek theologian and leader of the catechetical school of Alexandria,
one of the earliest centers for Christianity. Although the entire original text no
longer exists, ample comments do exist throughout the entire epistle. His work
is the oldest existing commentary on Jude but it consists of sketched outlines
and thoughts possibly intended to be elaborated upon by later writers. These
are gathered into the appropriately named “Hypotyposes” (Jones, 2001: 2).
He also comments on the other Catholic epistles but he did not accept 2
Peter as authentic. According to Bray (2000: xxvi) this stance was customary
at this time.
Didymus the Blind (c.313–398), an Alexandrian exegete who was influ-
enced by Origen and was admired by Jerome, is probably the next of the earliest
to have written a full commentary on all of the seven epistles, but they only
exist in a Latin translation. However, surviving Greek fragments suggest that
they represent a “reasonably faithful rendition of the original” (Bray, 2000).
These writings are apparently a primary source of most if not all of the later
Greek commentaries on the Catholic epistles, reflecting the strong exegesis of
his Alexandrian predecessors (Bray, 2000; Jones, 2001: 4–5). Jones makes much
of this material more readily available in translation.
After this, a number of writers took selections from the commentary of
Didymus along with excerpts from other writers, and linked them together to
form a “catena” (Bray, 2000). The earliest catena is attributed to Andreas, a
s eventh‐century monk. Some of his sources can be identified from existing

documents, for example Ammonius of Alexandria (fifth century), Eusebius of
Emesa (c.300–359), Hesychus of Jerusalem (fifth century), Severus of Antioch
(c.465–538), and Maximus the Confessor (580–662). However, speculation con-
tinues as to exactly how much of the remaining commentary is actually his or
what might be from another lost work. In any case, whatever sources he used
certainly predate himself, so that his commentary represents ideas existent at this
early time. Later, John Anthony Cramer, in 1838–1844, during his years at Oxford,
undertook the task of compiling the Patristic texts on the seven epistles. The vol-
ume on Jude is the final of his eight‐volume works and is the primary concern of
Jones (2001, see pp. 5–6 for a complete description of his project). He has
gathered and translated this material, some of which was not available before.
The material, along with that of Clement of Alexandria’s work on Jude, reflects
writings which date as early as the ninth to tenth centuries (Jones, 2001: 6).
After this, the first full Latin commentary on 1 Peter was by Hilary of Arles
(403–448). This document became an important source for later writers such
as Gregory the Great (d. 604). Although Gregory himself did not write a com-
mentary on Peter, his notes were collected by his secretary Palerius and circu-
lated as a sort of catena (Bray, 2000: xxvi). In the twelfth century, Alulfus, a
French monk, imitated and elaborated on this document.
Oecumenius, sixth‐century philosopher and orator (not to be mistaken for
Oecumenius, bishop of Tricca), possibly also wrote catenae, but like Andreas it
is debated whether or how much is actually his contribution.
Theophylact of Ohrid, Byzantine archbishop of Bulgaria (c.1050–1108),
was one of the leading commentators of his day and is also thought to have
compiled catenae. All of these show dependence on earlier sources as well as
the influence of Didymus the Blind.
In the Latin world the catenae date to a later time. Both Augustine (354–450)
and Jerome (347–420) often refer to 1 Peter as well as to most of the other
Catholic epistles in letters or sermons but neither wrote a full commentary on
them. Nevertheless, these readings are noteworthy since these writers have
played such significant roles in shaping later theology.
The greatest of the early Latin commentators on the Catholic epistles was
Bede the Venerable (672–735). His extensive knowledge of history, geography,
and etymology was nearly encyclopedic; going beyond mere exegesis to also
include pastoral instruction, he combines exegesis, theology, and practical
application so that, according to Bray, he may have even influenced the later
Anglo‐Saxton tradition of spiritual reading (2000: xxviii; see also Jones, 2001:
8–9). The ninth‐century Nestorian Isho’dad (c.850) also has written on our
epistles but states that he regards only the three core books (James, 1 Peter, and
1 John) as canonical but not authentic (Bray, 2000). This clearly implies that he
Introduction 9
rejects both Jude and 2 Peter, possibly on account of Jude’s use of the apocrypha
which was beginning to be more seriously challenged at this time.
Other than this, there are no full‐length commentaries on our three epistles
in this era except for Theophylact (1050–1108). However, all of them are
mentioned by various people who are engaged in the controversies at this time,
for example, Grotius, Melanchthon, and Erasmus. St. Francis of Sales refers to
them occasionally and Thomas Aquinas often cites both of the Peters in his
treatments of various theological issues. He does not refer to or cite Jude.
Significantly, all three of them are used in many church creeds, confessions, and
constitutions of this era, indicating their perceived place in the church. Many
new denominations were being formed on account of the impact of the various
reformations, so that it is noteworthy that these little texts did have a role to
play in the development of the various church documents. In short, we can
conclude that, at this time, they were generally accepted for use in the churches
and also were used in the discussions and controversies, particularly in the case
of 1, 2 Peter regarding Christology, inspiration and authority of scripture, the
foreknowledge of God, and the final judgment.
Of course, the time of the Reformation is well represented by Martin
Luther and John Calvin, both with full‐length commentaries on all three of
these epistles, contained in one volume. Whenever possible, other figures of
the time such as Arminius, and pastors Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, and
Thomas Vincent, will be included when relevant material is available. These
pastors infer that especially the Peters were used in sermons to address such
issues as suffering, persecution, and whether or not salvation can be lost.
Again major controversies were being debated and discussed both in councils
and sessions at the universities. These included scholars, theologians, and
pastors who engaged with Luther, Zwingli, and others in the development of
theology and doctrine. Later, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, theo-
logian John Bengel and others such as pastor and scholar John Wesley inform
our understanding. From this time until the modern era with its restored
interest in 1 Peter, the doubts and challenges regarding the authenticity and
canonicity of all the Catholic epistles continue to linger. It should be noted,
however, as already stated, all three texts are used by church creeds, constitu-
tions, and confessions of this time (see Commentary section for details), so
that, taken together, we can derive from these sources a good idea of the recep-
tion of our texts.
Although this series is not primarily interested in the discussions of current
scholarship, I am including a selection of current theories when they show a
continuity or relation to a topic discussed by the ancient writers or when they
present a unique or interesting perspective (see Appendix 2 for list of ancient
writers). The main scholars on 1 Peter will be Bigg (1961), Selwyn (1958),
Michaels (1988), Goppelt (1993), Elliott (1981), Martin (1992), and Green
(2007) bring the distinctive perspective of the social sciences; for current
research, see Reading First Peter with New Eyes (Webb and Bauman‐Martin,
2007). Of course, additional relevant materials on issues such as slavery, women,
and the harrowing of hell will be taken into account. On Jude and 2 Peter, sig-
nificant modern works are Bauckham (1983), Neyrey (1993), and Reading Jude
with New Eyes (Webb and Davids, 2008) and Reading Second Peter with New
Eyes (Webb and Watson, 2010).
It is appropriate to include a brief overview of some significant modern dia-
logs since they provide distinctive perspectives on how the epistles are cur-
rently being read. This information is distinctive for each of the epistles so each
will have its own section except for the overlap between Jude and 2 Peter. Three
specific discussions have shaped modern understanding of 1 Peter.
Nineteenth‐ and Twentieth‐Century Perspectives
On 1 Peter
The pivotal dialog between Selwyn and Beare in the late nineteenth to early
twentieth century led to the comment by New Testament scholar Stephen
Neill that 1 Peter was “the Storm‐center of New Testament studies” (Elliott,
1976: 343).
Beare advocates that 1 Peter is “a Pseudonymous product of the Pauline
Circle,” which is “inferior to the brilliance and … spirit of the genuine Pauline
epistles” (Beare, 1970 [1947], cited in Elliott, 1990: xvii). In contrast, Selwyn
argues vehemently that it is an encyclical letter to Christians in the five prov-
inces of Asia Minor: “a microcosm of Christian faith, duty and the model of a
pastoral charge” (Selwyn, 1958: 1).
This “storm” died out fairly quickly. However, it led to Elliott’s now famous
statement that 1 Peter is “an exegetical Step‐child” which needs “rehabilitation”
(Elliott, 1976: 243). His article of this title elaborates on this, commenting fur-
ther on the state of 1 Peter as caught in “a disconcerting pattern of benign
neglect” (ibid.: 343–354).
Elliott engaged in another dialog on 1 Peter in the 1980s – with Balch on
the role and function of the household codes and the implications for under-
standing the letter’s general strategy. Balch stresses the use of the codes by 1
Peter (Balch, 1981a: 81–116), while Elliott argues that 1 Peter was written by
a Petrine group in Rome in Peter’s name after his death by Nero. Elliott
at this time understands the purpose of the epistle to be the solidarity of
Introduction 11
believers in Rome with the suffering believers in Asia Minor and through
the world. He holds that the central message is that God alone is father
and judge and is the only one to whom allegiance and reverence is due
(1 Pet. 2:17) (Elliott, 1981: 208–220).
Meanwhile, separately in three different geographical locations, Elliott,
Brox, and Goppelt were working on a new perspective – a methodology from
the social sciences. Up to this point, much social‐scientific work had been
done on the Pauline epistles but little if anything on the Catholic epistles,
1 Peter among them, leading to Elliott’s reference to the “benign neglect” of the
small text (Elliott, 1990: xviii). Elliott states their position on 1 Peter as “an
original and powerful statement on the social role of the Christian minority
movement in a hostile non‐Christian society” (Elliott, 1990: xviii). All three of
these scholars agreed that rather than a “distant echo of Pauline theologomena
and an inferior product of a Pauline school”, in fact, 1 Peter is “an independent
and creative piece of encouragement to a sectarian Christian movement
threatened by local social pressure to go along in order to get along” (ibid.).
Further, they show that 1 Peter is the most systematic and comprehensive
treatment of the issue of Christian alien residence and responsibility within
the structures of non‐Christianity (Goppelt, 1993 [1978]: 41; Elliott, 1990:
xviii; see also Brox, 1993).
After this time, scholars have continued to explore still other dimensions of
social‐scientific methodology such as rhetoric (Martin, 2007); postcolonialism
(Horrell, 2007); and narrative (Boring, 2007). All of these plus a few others can
be found in Reading First Peter with New Eyes (Webb and Bauman‐Martin,
2007). Although 1 Peter is no longer neglected, there is still little agreement on
the origin, context, and purpose. This, however, adds to its richness for under-
standing, leaving us with an amazing task to undertake. So, in light of all of
these new developments, this present study will explore the reception history
especially in ancient times to the present, leaving you, our reader, to explore
current trends and readings on your own. Perhaps even new additional
perspectives are waiting to be discovered.
On Jude and 2 Peter

Scholarship on Jude and 2 Peter mirrors that of general biblical studies: from
the mid‐nineteenth century through the twentieth century, the dominant
method was the historical‐critical approach. The last quarter of the twentieth
century, however, sparked new perspectives in which scholars began to develop
methodologies which build upon and go beyond this to cross disciplines. An
impressive example of this is rhetorical criticism presented by Watson (1988).
Jerome Neyrey is one of the first to apply social‐scientific method in his

commentary on Jude and 2 Peter (1993). These new approaches continued to
combine in unusual ways, perhaps culminating in the socio‐rhetorical
interpretation developed by Robbins (1996). Further, linguistic and literary
methods have also added their insights, illuminating the nature of the reading
and writing process itself. In the twenty‐first century, these advances led fur-
ther to a refocus on these little neglected texts by the development of a special
consultation by a group of scholars at the SBL Annual Meeting in 2007. The
results of these meetings have been published in several volumes, the Reading
with New Eyes series. The volume on Jude (2008) is edited by Webb and Davids
and includes notable essays on new methodologies such as sociological models
(e.g. Lockett, “Purity and Polemic”); Jeremy Hultin applies a sociological model
which considers language utterance as act; see also Betsy Baumann‐Martin,
“Postcolonial Pollution.” One of the most intriguing models is the socio‐rhe-
torical category (rhetography) developed by Webb, building upon Robbins’
socio‐rhetorical criticism. All of these show the richness in these small texts
which continues to enhance new approaches. This present volume (2008)
includes references to such studies when appropriate, but to go into more depth
is beyond the purpose and scope of the series.
The volume on 2 Peter (2010) includes equally enlightening essays on new
approaches to 2 Peter. These highlight perspectives such as socio‐rhetorical
interpretation (D. Watson); rhetography and rhetology (T. Callan, D. Sylva);
and the sociological category of “Collective Identity” (J. Miller).
Although reception history indicates that all three of our epistles have had
significant effects through the centuries (see Appendix 3 for timeline), it is
important to consider their use in liturgy and worship. Their use in church
creeds, constitutions, and confessions is included in the commentary itself but
it is appropriate to address here their use in the Lectionary of church worship.
The Revised Common Lectionary shows a clear picture.
The Revised Common Lectionary, developed in 1992, having been derived
from the 1983 version, is based on the Ordo Lectionem Missae (1969). This is
a post‐Vatican II revision of the Roman Lectionary (Vanderbilt Divinity
School Library website). It is used by many churches all over the world (see
website for list). In terms of our three epistles, the picture is disappointing: 1
Peter is used eight times: once on Holy Saturday, once in Lent of Year B, and
six times during the Easter season of year A; 2 Peter appears only twice and
Jude is absent altogether. The Roman Catholic Lectionary is very similar,
except for a few cases in regard to feast days specific to the Roman Catholic
Church. Nonetheless, the use of our three epistles is similar: seven readings
from 1 Peter; 1 from 2 Peter, and none from Jude (Vanderbilt Div. School
Library online).
Introduction 13
Overview and Themes of Each Epistle

1 Peter
Although all three of these epistles are some of the smallest in the whole Bible,
they are filled with richness and vitality. In fact, 1 Peter addresses at least briefly
all of the major doctrines of Christianity. Of course, these “kernels” would be
elaborated, debated, and developed as the Church moved through the centu-
ries, but this text indicates that these ideas existed at a very early time. However,
the main theme of 1 Peter is the transformed life which for Peter almost always
(necessarily?) includes the element of suffering. Peter also weaves throughout
admonitions on the behavior of the transformed life and how to embrace this
joyfully by God’s grace and hope.
In our Chapter 1 (1 Peter 1–2:12), he provides three special metaphors of the
holy life for the individual as well as the community – grass, milk, and living
stones.
In Chapter 2, Peter applies these concepts to three particular cultural situa-
tions of his time – the government, slavery, and marriage. His words on these
issues have influenced and shaped theology, society, culture, the arts, and even
relationships through the centuries.
Chapter 3 includes a special passage (3:18–22: “Christ’s visit to the spirits in
prison”), which has not only been extremely controversial theologically, but has
notable effects in culture, literature, and art. It is particularly important since it
has led to several interpretations of the doctrine of the descent of Christ into
Hades. Also, although it began as an emphasis on the work of Christ by the
Resurrection, it expanded into the tradition of the harrowing of hell, which has
affected literature, music, drama, culture, and especially art. A consideration of
its reception in art especially sheds light on the development of this concept
and leads to a greater appreciation for the effect and message of 1 Peter.
Chapter 4 is perhaps one of the most extensive passages on suffering in the
New Testament – how one should respond to it personally, and how it com-
prises a component of the transformed life. The aspect of suffering as a Christian
versus suffering in general is also considered.
In Chapter 5, Peter revisits the main themes of the epistle and applies them
to the leaders in the church. He concludes with information about his location
and authorship along with his signature doxology.
Jude
Probably written before 2 Peter (see Appendix 1 for details), this epistle is a
literary masterpiece of vibrant imagery, organized in several sets of three (see
Neyrey, 1993, “Introduction” for details). In Chapter 6, these are comprised of
several series of examples arguing that God will indeed punish the wicked and
rescue the righteous. Jude is also unique in that he uses several examples from
the apocrypha (the fallen angels and a prophecy from Enoch, and the dispute
between Michael and Satan over Moses’ body from the lost Assumption of
Moses). Jude concludes his epistle with exhortations to the faithful about how
to respond in a wicked environment. A major issue of Jude is its relation to the
Book of Enoch, particularly on the topic of the fallen angels, so this is addressed
more fully in Chapter 7, “Excursus: Enoch’s Role in the Reception of Jude.”
2 Peter
Jude and 2 Peter are usually treated together since they share a chunk of
material: nearly the entire epistle of Jude is included in 2 Peter 2. This raises the
questions of why and how this is and what does it mean for the purpose
and nature of both epistles. It will be noted as we proceed that each epistle is
distinctive in terms of issues as well as reception history. (See also Appendix 4
for reception history of Enoch.)
Chapter 8 (2 Peter 1) includes significant issues such as the basis for cer-
tainty about the Parousia, participation in the Divine nature, the inspiration of
scripture, and the nature of prophecy.
Chapter 9 (2 Peter 2) is the material which overlaps with Jude. Noteworthy
differences from Jude include: 2 Peter omits Jude’s direct references to the apoc-
rypha, for example the dispute between Michael and Satan over Moses (v.9)
and the citation of Enoch (v.14), although he does include the prophecy itself.
It should be noted that Peter explains that the false teachers were prophesied
beforehand by the prophets.
Chapter 10 (2 Peter 3) treats important issues, some of which are unique to
the New Testament. For example, the final conflagration at the end of time and
the reasons for Christ’s delay in returning.
Chapter 11 treats the delay of the Parousia. The similarity between Jude and
2 Peter has been debated by both ancient and modern scholars with various
conclusions but almost everyone agrees that 2 Peter’s discussion of the delay of
the Parousia and the coming final judgment by fire is unique to him. An explo-
ration into this shows that the issue was raised at an early time in the church
and has continued to shape theological discussions through the ensuing
centuries.
Aims and Methods of this Commentary
The approach of this commentary series is rooted in the work of Hans‐Georg

Gadamer and others such as Hans Robert Jauss (1982), and suggests that some
kind of “dialogue between past and present,” some “fusing of horizons,” might
Introduction 15
be possible by considering the “horizons of expectations”; that is, by exploring

how the readings vary from one historical period to another, from one interpretive
community to another. Jauss puts it like this: “A literary work is not an object
which stands by itself and which offers the same face to each reader in each
period” (cited by Callaway, 2004: 4). In fact, the meaning is not in the text itself
but is “produced by readers who engage texts.” Gadamer emphasizes the point
that the reader is not a passive recipient of the text, but rather creatively inter-
acts with it, in a dialogical relationship. In this way, the reader is inherently
involved in constructing the meaning. Integral to this approach is not only that
the text is located within a particular historical context but, beyond that, each
reader is culturally and politically situated so that even we who are exploring
reception history are being influenced by our personal backgrounds as we
select and handle the materials. The important point is that the reception
historian must be constantly aware of this.
According to Luz, there is a critical distinction between the history of inter-
pretation and the history of influence; they are intrinsically related to each
other (cf. Thiselton, 2011: 6). Of course, the starting point is to take into
account the various readings of a text, but it is equally or more important to
consider the “effect” of a text, that is, how the text has shaped its particular
world. This involves the exploration of the dialogs and interactions between
readings in a specific era but also how succeeding dialogs participate in the
development of very different communities from those of its own time. In
relation to our little text of 1 Peter, several kernels or seeds embedded within
1 Peter would lead to major controversies from which significant doctrines
emerged. For example, 1:2–3 refers to God’s foreknowledge, which almost
immediately initiated discussion and debate among early writers about free
will and election. This discussion would grow in intensity (along with the dis-
cussions on the Pauline epistles) until currently these theories differentiate
various current denominations. In other cases such as the sections on slavery
(2:18–25) or roles in marriage (3:1–7), entire movements and counter-
movements have developed, shaping culture, theology, and society. 2 Peter
1:20–21 (along with Pauline parallels) has shaped one of the central doctrines
on the inspiration of scripture. The point is that reception historians are inter-
ested not only in how various readers have read and interpreted the text, they
are also interested in the effects the text has on its readers and their communi-
ties. The concept is that what a text does is as important and meaningful as
what it means. Riches (2013: 6) explains that this means taking “account of the
power of a work to shape its readers, to create a new readership, new in the
sense that its sensibilities, its understanding of the world and society and of
individual lives as located in society … have been informed and re‐formed by
their r eading of the work.”
In other words, a written work does not merely reflect or imitate the world
from which it came but also is itself engaged in the shaping of that world. Luz
(1989: 95) calls this the “history of influence” of a text and explains that it goes
beyond the task of the history of interpretation by the consideration of its use
in practice, singing, praying, and even hoping and suffering. Studies such as
those by Exum (2007) and Sherwood (2000) have shown the significant contri-
bution which results from considering the effects and “afterlives” of a text.
The exploration of the reception of the Bible in art is especially enlighten-
ing. Indeed, the Bible has been an important subject for artists through the
centuries and in turn, artists have provided information from biblical texts to
people who are not able to access the biblical text for themselves (such as
before translations of the Bible made scripture accessible to the general popu-
lace); through the ages art has conveyed theological positions or doctrines of
the church to people as well. Recently, scholars have been exploring in a deeper
way the processes involved between a work of art and its viewer, the theoreti-
cal framework of which is also rooted in the philosophy of Gadamer. In this
context, the artist is considered to be an “active reader.” O’Kane explains
that biblical artwork engages the viewer, thus broadening their horizon
(O’Kane, 2008: 1). For more on Gadamer’s theory, see Davey (in O’Kane, 2008:
191–210). In other words, a painting gives a perspective which is itself a unique
reading; it is more than simply the illustration of a story or the “transposition
of a text onto a canvas,” it [the painting] “is itself an interpretation of a text”
(Exum, 2007: 7), which encourages and challenges us to consider more creative
possibilities and alternative perspectives for the interpretation of the text
(Exum, 1996: 7–8).
In essence, the painting is itself an exegesis (for an extensive discussion of
this, see Berdini, 1997). Hornik calls it “visual Narrative” and Baker goes so far
as to refer to the work of African‐American painter Henry Ossawa Tanner
(1859–1937) as preaching the gospel with a brush (Cf. Exum, 2007: 188–210).
In short, the work of art becomes a text to be interpreted by the viewer.
One of the major challenges of reception history, however, is that although
many theorists and practitioners of biblical interpretation have made sugges-
tions, there is little agreement on the nature of the process for the selection of
materials (Evans, 2014: 114). In fact, there is a wide variety of judgments about
which realizations of a biblical text should be selected as shaping the successive
generations of interpretations. There are, however, “patterns of practice,” that
is, principles of selection which emerge. One particularly attractive approach is
to identify emerging patterns, such as discourse and practice that “valorize
various trajectories of interpretative tradition … [that identifies] what may be
seen as significant, exemplary, or normative within ecclesiastical tradition or
theological tradition” (Evans, 2014: 115–116).
Introduction 17
The guiding principle for this commentary series is to provide a representa-

tive sample of kinds of material from different historical eras, emphasizing
interpretations which have been influential or significant. This principle is
valuable in that it is overarching enough to give each commentator flexibility to
choose the process which works best for each of the diverse texts. Our aim for
this study of 1, 2 Peter and Jude will be to provide representative kinds of inter-
pretations through the ages; samples of various kinds of interpretations which
have particularly affected theology, literature, music, art, culture, and society.
In order to do this, sources have been selected, mirroring the preference by
Evans (2014: 144) and Thiselton (2006) for earlier writers, since they “shape the
pre‐understanding” of subsequent interpreters. In some cases the issues raised
by these early thinkers continue to challenge writers through current times.
This preference for early thinkers, however, will certainly not preclude later
innovative insights: these challenges along with new insights or innovative
issues of later eras will be considered in light of their effects on the reception
history of our epistles as appropriate. In some cases “kernels” of ideas create
dialog which would lead eventually to major theological doctrines, sometimes
even opposing theories. For example, Peter’s reference to God’s foreknowledge
in 1:1–3 actively engaged in the discussion and development of the later doc-
trines of election / free will. In a similar but different way, 1 Peter’s passage on
the good pastor (5:1–6) strongly influenced writers such as Chaucer, George
Herbert, and William Langland when they created literary pastoral characters.
This commentary, then, will explore the reception history of 1, 2 Peter and Jude
in terms of dialogs on important issues from the earliest comments by Papias
and Irenaeus, the development of the tradition represented by Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Didymus the Blind, Hilary of Arles, Augustine, and
Thomas Aquinas, through the Middle Ages with Wycliffe, William of Ockham,
and Erasmus, through the centuries to the time of the Reformation and
Renaissance with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Arminius, and others and to
later thinkers such as John Bengel, John Henry Newman, Charles and John
Wesley, and finally to relevant current scholars. As stated before, reception
history is not only the study of the voices from biblical and theological scholars,
but also considers the effects of the tradition on poetry, literature, philosophy,
art, sermons, music, and even suffering, so writers such as Matthew Poole,
Thomas Watson, Søren Kierkegaard, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Bob Dylan, and
others will be taken into account when relevant. In some cases such as 1 Peter
3:18–22, Jude 6 with // 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 9, the effect of the text on art will
be considered as well.
This commentary on these three texts is formatted to highlight how the vari-
ous readings dialog and interact with one another and others as the discussion
moves through the centuries to eventually develop into major theological
octrines or to affect culture, society, and sometimes even politics and relation-
d
ships. Of course, not every section or passage has equally significant effects but
each of them has some extremely noteworthy passages which have indeed
impacted culture, society, art, and even politics. For example, the passage on
slavery (1 Pet. 2:18–25) was used to support both sides of the intense conflict
over slavery in early American history. In other cases, the section on marriage
roles and even ornamentation has influenced religious and social customs and
relationships (of course, along with Pauline parallels) through the ages. There
are still other cases, like the good pastor (1 Pet. 5:1–6) which informed literary
characters. Christ’s visit to the spirits in prison, 1 Peter 3:18–22, has remarkably
shaped art, drama, literature, and theology. In light of this, this passage has its
own chapter (Chapter 3). Generally, the format will include a brief “Overview”
of the main issues, topics and sometimes historical context of the section, fol-
lowed by “Ancient Receptions,” which will provide various kinds of readings and
interpretations from the ancients through the Middle Ages; the Reformation has
its own little section. This will be followed by “Other Interpretations” which will
briefly survey issues treated by modern scholarship, particularly some of the
innovative perspectives such as social‐scientific methodology, along with effects
in Church organization, liturgy, and creeds, literature, music, and art as
appropriate.
The general layout of the commentary will be by chapter; within each
chapter, main topics and issues will be highlighted. Usually, the topics/issues
fall neatly into the specific chapter of the text; in some cases, they do not, as
clarified in the table of contents; also, the reception of the texts will be organ-
ized chronologically, except in some cases when topics call for a more thematic
approach.
It is important to address a significant issue as we proceed: the relation
between Jude and 2 Peter. There are many exceptional commentaries which
treat this and other related issues at length, so this will be merely an overview.
However, a few words are necessary to explain the reason this commentary is
structured the way it is: 1 Peter, Jude, 2 Peter.
Literary Relationships: Which Came First – Jude or 2 Peter?
It has been noted through the centuries that there is an extremely close relation-
ship between 2 Peter and the epistle of Jude. In fact, 2 Peter 2 includes almost the
entire epistle of Jude. Hence, it is not surprising that the question must be con-
sidered as to which epistle was written first. The major similarities are between
Jude 4–13, 16–18 and 2 Peter 2: 1–18, 3: 1–3. Although some of the material is
Introduction 19
extremely similar, the treatment of it by each author is significantly different, for

example, whereas Jude describes the heresy and false teachers in his community
using a series of three Old Testament examples to make his points, the author of
2 Peter structures his letter around the main issue of the certainty of the coming
final judgment which is being distorted by the false teachers. However, much of
Jude’s material is interwoven through Peter’s chapter.
Four explanations are logically possible; all of them are held by outstanding
scholars. The problem is that although each of them has some strong support-
ing evidence, none is so strong that it conclusively discounts the others.
Similarly, each can be adequately opposed but not so conclusively that it can be
withdrawn as a possibility. Hence, the challenge remains for every serious
scholar to come to their own conclusion on the relation of these two texts.
Whatever position one accepts, it remains a significant issue, and has some
consequences for dating, although other factors must be considered as well.
The four explanations are:
1. Jude is dependent on 2 Peter. Many of the ancient writers as well as Luther

hold this position. Noteworthy modern scholars include Spitta (1885: 381–
470), who has the most details, Zahn (1901: 250–251, 265–267, 285), and
Bigg (1961: 216–224).
2. 2 Peter is dependent on Jude. Most modern scholars hold this position.
See Mayor (1907: i–xxv) for the most detailed argument; Chaine (1939:
18–24); Grundmann (1974: 75–83), and Bauckham (1983).
3. Both are dependent on a common source. Some adherents to this posi-
tion are Reicke (1964: 148, 189–190). There are serious problems with this
option since no such possible source has ever been located (for details see
Bauckham, 1983: 141).
4. They share common authorship. See Robinson (1976: 192–195). This
option, however, is highly unlikely on account of the epistles’ vast differ-
ences in style and very few if any current scholars adhere to this view.
The consideration of the literary relations between the two texts provides the
strongest reason for the dependence of 2 Peter on Jude rather than the reverse:
the most compelling one is that Jude 4–18 is meticulously crafted in structure as
well as wording (see Bauckham, 1983: 142 for details, and Neyrey’s 1993
“Introduction” for his analysis of Jude’s unusual pattern of threes). An additional
factor to be considered is the redaction of the parallel passages which has
been done by Fornberg, 1977: ch. 3, and Neyrey, 1980: ch 3; see Bauckham, 1983:
142–143 for a thorough analysis of this evidence with its strengths and
weaknesses. A further exploration into this issue goes beyond the purview of this
current study, but it hardly needs to be undertaken given the treatment of

Bauckham along with the redaction critical studies of Fornberg and Neyrey
already mentioned. Several important points concluded by Bauckham are note-
worthy here:
1. The case for the dependence of 2 Peter on Jude is a strong one, although in
some instances it can be countered by evidence from an analysis of the
reverse.
2. The late dating of 2 Peter is not a consequence of this relationship. There
are other relevant factors which call for a date later than the death of Peter
(e.g. the situation in the letter) which have nothing to do with the relation
to Jude. Jude could be dated earlier or later than 2 Peter and the evidence
would still indicate a late first‐century or early second‐century date for 2
Peter. Again, there are many commentators who address this issue more
than adequately, so the details do not need to be recorded here. A brief
overview of the main factors are located in Appendix 1.
a. The literary relationship between these two texts does not necessitate
the conclusion that these epistles are similar works, addressing the
same problems, issues, and readers or with the same historical con-
texts. In fact, the opposite has stronger supporting evidence, that they
are indeed two very different texts, with different historical back-
grounds, readers, problems, and heresies. The fact that one of them has
reworked some of the other’s material is a separate matter altogether.
(Again, for details on all of these discussions, see Neyrey, 1980,
Fornberg, 1977, and Bauckham, 1983.)
“Correspondence of 1 Peter” (woodcut by Weigel, 1695).
Courtesy of the Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory
University.
Hope, and Love (1:1–2:10)
Context of Suffering, Grace,
The Transformed Life in the
Chapter 1
Author, Audience, and Abundant Grace (1:1–2)
Overview
The beginning of the epistle sets both the author and the readers within the
framework of one of the issues which would stimulate future theological
controversy and excitement, viz., the foreknowledge of God. These verses are a
striking example of the advanced level of the Greek grammar and style
of the epistle. They are comprised of one sentence (two, if you count the
1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the Centuries, First Edition. Rebecca Skaggs.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Chapter 1 Suffering, Grace, Hope, and Love (1:1 – 2:10) 23
grace‐and‐peace blessing as one), followed by three dependent clauses describ-

ing the nature of Peter’s apostleship and the character of the recipients’ relation
to the triune God:
according to the foreknowledge of God.

through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling of his blood.
Ancient Receptions
Some of the fathers, among them Cyril of Alexandria (375–444), Oecumenius
(d. 990), and Theophylact (c. 1050–1108, Comm. on 1 Peter), read these three
prepositional phrases in v.2 as modifying “apostle,” thus substantiating the
authority of Peter’s apostleship. On the other hand, Bede associates God’s fore-
knowledge with the recipients: “they were chosen … [so] they might be sancti-
fied” (Comm., 1985: 70). In any case, the intriguing issue is God’s foreknowledge.
Of course, the famous controversies about predestination and free will would be
further developed in the later Reformation with Calvin, Arminius (1560–1609),
and many others.
At an earlier time (c. 200–300), interest centered on the nature of God’s
knowledge and what that meant. For example, Origen discusses this in the context
of the role of the Spirit in the Trinity, especially in revelation:
We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through
revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the Son’s
revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is
alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him
ignorance. (Origen, 1973, 1:3–4: ccel.org)
For Didymus the Blind (313–398) foreknowledge is a matter of perspective; he

comments that “foreknowledge … becomes knowledge as the things which are
foreseen take place.” So, although Peter’s readers had already been chosen
according to God’s foreknowledge, “by the time he was writing to them their
election had already taken place” (Comm. on 1 Peter, 19–20, PG 39: 1755–1756:
my tr.).
Perhaps Didymus anticipates the larger issue to come regarding predestina-
tion, since he addresses some of the problems raised later. He says that God’s
sovereignty is “beautiful and comforting … being chosen relies not on our wor-
thiness and merit … but on the hand of God and … his mercy” (Didymus:
ibid.). Therefore, it is certain and cannot fail. It would seem that Bede also
anticipates the later contentious issues of predetermination, when he indicates
that it is a cooperative effort between us and God which brings about the reality
of heaven: “No one by his own effort alone can become worthy of achieving
eternal salvation by his own strength” (Comm., 72: ACC).
Reformation
Later, Calvin would use this passage as one of the preeminent supports for his
doctrine of election:
Hence when Peter calls them elect according to the foreknowledge of God, he is
showing that the cause of it depends simply on God alone, because he of his own
free will has chosen us. Thus the foreknowledge of God excludes every worthi-
ness on the part of man (Calvin, Comm., 1963: 230).
In contrast, Arminius reads vv.1–2 as a refutation of Calvin’s thesis of

foreknowledge as election. He defines “foreknowledge” as the knowledge of
something before it happens. Although God knows who will believe, he does
not cause it; those whom he foreknows, he also elects to be saved (for the first
translation from the Dutch and explanation of Arminius’ Declaration of
Sentiments, see Stephens, 2012).
John Bengel (1687–1752), a learned German exegete, wrote a commen-
tary on the whole Bible which has influenced and continues to influence
biblical scholars. He points out that Peter’s words on foreknowledge here
(along with v.20) are broad concepts, incorporating also good‐will and love;
in fact, he understands this reference to include the mystery of the Trinity as
a summary of the entire epistle (1981: 727). We see little if anything of the
controversial issues to come. Peter will address this issue in more detail later
in the epistle.
John Wesley goes further and sidesteps the entire issue of sovereignty and
free will: “there is no foreknowledge or after‐knowledge. All is present to God”
(WesleyCenterOnline: ccel.org).
Other Interpretations
Several later faith groups have made strong statements about the implications
of this position. For example, the Mennonite Articles of Faith (1766/1895/1902)
go so far as to contend that:
It is therefore contrary to the renewed nature of the believers and in antagonism

with it, to sin. Moreover, they are carefully watched over and kept (1 Pet. 2:25).
(Pelikan, vol. III, part V: 172)
The Declaration of Faith of the New Hampshire Baptist Convention (1833–1853)

more generally maintains that, “We believe that election is the eternal purpose of
God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners”

(Pelikan III, V: 245). The Confessional Statement of the United Presbyterian Church
emphasizes the process of sanctification more than the nature of election.
Thomas Vincent (1634–1678), an English Puritan minister and author,
ascribed to the reformed theory of election, but was evidently most interested
in sanctification. He describes the process in some detail, maintaining that it is
present in all Christians, but is further developed in them over time. For exam-
ple, “True Christians are sanctified wholly, in their whole man, though they be
not sanctified thoroughly … Their whole spirit is sanctified, that is, the higher
faculties of the soul, namely, the understanding and the will” (1812: 19–20:
digitalpuritan.net).
Some modern scholars take this reference to God’s foreknowledge in the
context of the epistle as a whole, with its emphasis on the readers being
estranged because they are “chosen” by God. In this light, “God’s foreknowl-
edge” is emphasizing that they are not enduring random suffering, but are
indeed part of God’s preordained plan and purpose (there is a similar concept
in 1 Pet. 1:20, Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:28–30, 11:2). Throughout 1 Peter this is under-
scored by the concept of believers being identified as “called” (kletois) (see
1 Pet. 1:25; 2:9, 21; 3:9; 5:10), that salvation through Jesus Christ is part of God’s
preordained plan (Elliott, 2000: 318–319). Hence, the alienation resulting from
becoming God’s “chosen” is also preordained.
Verse 2 alludes to an early Trinitarian pattern of the threefold manifesta-
tion of the Godhead which was to dominate all the later creeds, such as the
Apostles’ Creed (late second century) and the Athanasian Creed (sixth cen-
tury) (see Kelly, 1950: 22–23). Although there are also Pauline examples of
this pattern, 1 Peter 1:1–2 stands out as a clear “stereotypical tag or cliché
before the third generation of the first century” (Kelly, 1950: 21). With some
modifications, this emphasis on the work of the members of the Trinity con-
tinues into later times.
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) cites 1 Peter 1:1–2 in answer to Question
70, about the meaning of being washed in the blood and Spirit of Christ. The
Catechism states: “it means to have the forgiveness of sins from God, through
God, for the sake of Christ’s blood which he shed for us in his sacrifice on the
cross.” Note that the Catechism omits “through the sanctifying work of
the Spirit” from v.2, substituting the more general “through God” (Pelikan II,
IV: 442).
A number of hymns have been influenced by this passage, for example, Blest
be the Everlasting God (1707) and Bells of Hope (1905). In particular, Blest be the
Father and his Love (1709), written by the prolific hymn writer Isaac Watts
(1674–1748), reflects the work of each member of the Trinity. Paraphrases (not
direct quotes) are highlighted in bold:
Blest be the Father and His love,

To whose celestial source we owe
Rivers of endless joy above,
And rills of comfort here below.
Glory to Thee, great Son of God,

From whose dear wounded body rolls
A precious stream of vital blood,
Pardon and life for dying souls.
We give the sacred Spirit praise,

Who in our hearts of sin and woe
Makes living springs of grace arise,
And into boundless glory flow.
Thus God the Father, God the Son,

And God the Spirit, we adore;
That sea of life and love unknown,
Without a bottom or a shore.
(cyberhymnal.org).
The grace‐and‐peace blessing is a Christian adaptation of the secular peace

blessing and is found in virtually all of the New Testament epistles, as well as
in many other letters of the early church. In 1 Peter, the unique feature is the
word “abundance” (plethyetheie) used here in the optative, which Paul never
includes in his peace blessings. The sense, then, is “May your peace be great!”
(Michaels, 1988: 13). This use certainly influenced 2 Peter and Jude, as well
as 1 Clement and Polycarp (Philippians and Martyrdom). Throughout 1
Peter, the theme of grace is what conveys on the readers their privileged sta-
tus with God (1:2, 10, 13; 3:7; 4:10; 5:5, 10, 12. cf., 2:19, 20). At the end of the
epistle (5:10, 11), the grace‐and‐peace blessing is reiterated, forming an
inclusio.
The Meaning and Purpose of Suffering (1:3–10)
Overview
Mercy, hope, and joy are three of the overarching themes of 1 Peter interwoven
in his discussion of suffering. This passage is composed of three sentences, pre-
sented in such a way as to lead some scholars to identify it as a hymn. It is
divided rhythmically into five stropes of five to seven lines each (for details, see
Windisch and Priesker, 1951: 52; cf., Goppelt, 1993: 79). “Hope” is first
introduced here:
vv.3–5 praise for God who has brought us to a living hope.

vv.6–7 hope in spite of suffering.
vv.8–9 hope although salvation cannot be presently seen.
Additional important concepts of 1 Peter are seen here: suffering, God’s mercy,
and future eternal rejoicing promised to the chosen of God, with hope underly-
ing the entire passage.
Peter’s notion of what God has done through Christ is based on the inalter-
able precept: God, out of mercy, has become Father to all, whether Jew or
Greek, who acknowledge Christ as Lord. The use of “mercy” strongly echoes its
Old Testament predication as an attribute of God (e.g., Num. 14:18; Pss. 86:5,
15; 104:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13). For example, Psalm 65[66].20 [LXX] says, “Blessed
be God who has not turned away my prayer, nor his loving kindness from me.”
By means of “mercy” God unites both Jew and Gentile in the rebirth made pos-
sible through Christ’s death and resurrection. In this way, Peter links mercy to
“grace” which is given by God, but it is mercy which motivates the giving, the
quality inherent in God as God.
Ancient Receptions
Hilary of Arles (c. 403–448) emphasizes that God’s actions to redeem us require
no help from us (Intro. Comm. on 1 Peter, PLSupp 3: 101: ACC); see also
Andreas (Catena, CEC: 42) and Bede (Comm., 1985: 71).
Throughout the epistle, hope continues to be a central idea. “Living hope”
follows from being reborn and chosen; they are not only living an existence
that is dynamic and authentic, they also are looking forward in anticipation to
an inheritance (v.4) and salvation (v.5). The LXX uses the term “inheritance”
over two hundred times, often in reference to the land of Canaan. Here, our
author reflects the New Testament usage, referring to a spiritual, eternal, king-
dom (e.g., Matt. 25:34; Mark 10:17; Luke 25). An early issue here is whether
the inheritance is earthly and physical or eschatological and spiritual. Many
early church leaders understood it in the eschatological sense. Oecumenius
explains God’s blessings:
This hope is not the kind of hope which God gave to Moses, that the people
would inherit a promised land in Canaan, for that hope was temporal and cor-
ruptible … Rather, God gives us a living hope, which has come from the resurrec-
tion of Christ. (Comm. on 1 Peter, PG 119: 516: my tr.)
Clement of Alexandria is more interested in the nature of the incorruptible

body as a part of the inheritance and the soul’s relation to the corruptible body:
The soul never returns a second time to the body in this life … in the resurrection
the soul returns to the body, and both are joined to one another according to their
peculiar nature. (Adumbrations: FC: ccel.org)
In v.4, Peter describes the inheritance in terms of three negatives, it “can never
perish, spoil or fade”; several early writers address this, further supporting
the understanding that it is spiritual rather than physical. Didymus the Blind
(313–398) is one of the earliest to comment:
Peter calls it incorruptible and unfading, demonstrating by this that it is a pure

and divine inheritance which will remain uncontaminated. (Comm. on 1 Peter,
PG 1756: my tr.; Hilary of Arles agrees, Intro. Comm. on 1 Peter)
In contrast, Bede reads “hope” in relation to our anticipation of the resurrection

in the time to come, rather than as an earthly physical inheritance (Comm.,
1985: 71–72). He adds a practical application to the description:
[Our inheritance is] imperishable because the heavenly life is untouched by age
or disease or any sorrow … unfading, because the heavenly way of life cannot at
last become worthless. (Comm., 1985: 72)
Andreas also emphasizes that the inheritance is heavenly, not earthly (Catena).
Clearly, for these early writers, inheritance involves a future state of existence; it
is not merely a present mental state.
By the Middle Ages, the issue shifts from the nature to the location of the
inheritance, to where the soul goes after death. St. Thomas Aquinas particularly
addresses the issue at some length; in fact there are kernels of thought here
which would eventually develop into the theory of purgatory, the place where
souls abide until they are appropriately cleansed:
after the body’s dissolution, the soul has an abode, which had been reserved for it
in heaven … as soon as the soul is set free from the body it is either plunged into
hell or soars to heaven, unless it be held back by some debt, for which its flight
must needs be delayed until the soul is first of all cleansed. (ST XP [Sup. TP] Q
[62] A [2]: “Whether souls are conveyed to heaven or hell immediately after
death?” For additional discussion on this, see Gregory, Dial. IV, 25, and in De
Eccl. Dogm. xlvi)
St. Thomas addresses hope in 1 Peter 1:3 in a different way. He uses the analogy
of a lover (analogy is one of the medieval exegetical methods of interpretation).
He explains that every lover has the desire of union with his beloved. When a
person loves God, grace causes the desire for union with God. Then, faith
makes this union possible. As in natural love, desire without the hope of attain-
ment is troublesome: “It was proper therefore that in men, in whom the love
of God and faith in Him was caused by grace, there should be caused also
the hope of attaining to future blessedness” (Summa Q. 17, art. 6: ccel.org).
St. Francis de Sales has a similar concept: when we first perceive the Divine
Goodness, our love draws us closer to God, making us rejoice in God’s
goodness (PC).
Other Interpretations
Several churches use these verses in their confessional or catechetical state-
ments. For example, the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) is not concerned with the
location of the future inheritance, but focuses on the means by which it is
attained (Pelikan II, VI: 437). The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) is simi-
lar; while omitting some details of v.4, it declares that we are “heirs of everlasting
salvation” (ibid.: 622). The Second Vatican Council likewise expresses hope for
a future place in heaven: “the church … serves all humanity … as it makes its
pilgrim way toward the homeland which is its goal” (Pelikan III, V: 637).
The Confessional Statement of the United Presbyterian Church (1925) is more
expansive:
We believe in … the consummation and bliss of the life everlasting, wherein the
people of God, freed from sin and sorrow, shall receive their inheritance of glory
in the kingdom of their Father, and with capacities and powers exalted and
enlarged, shall be made fully blessed in the fellowship of Christ, in the perfected
communion of saints, and in the service of God, whom they shall enjoy forever
and ever. (Pelikan III, V: 69)
Modern scholars have been intrigued by various concepts such as “hope” and
“being kept.” For example, Green (2007: 43) posits that Peter’s hope “pre-
sumes transformed ways of thinking and is clearly set within an eschatologi-
cal horizon.” Another current scholar Michaels highlights the term “kept”
and shows its significance for understanding the inheritance. The word
“kept” is a passive participle indicating God’s action in preserving the inherit-
ance for the chosen. The perfect tense of this participle suggests that God’s
action had its beginning in the past (God’s foreknowledge, v.2a). The idea of
something being “kept” or hidden in God can be found in Jewish apocalyptic
literature (for references from such, see Michaels, 1988: 21). The idea is that
something precious is being protected by God himself for the end-time. Paul
uses a similar concept (e.g. Rom. 8:17; Gal. 4:7), except that for him the hid-
den things have been revealed in the present in Christ, whereas for Peter they
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
During walks and rides Margery often talked of Clare, and at first regretted her absence.
As the days went on, she looked-for Clare's return with something like dread.
Hitherto the elder girl had seen people leave her own side to cluster round the chair of her
beautiful sister, and had taken it as a thing of course. "Every one must admire Clare, and
be attracted by her charming ways. It was the natural thing." And no person was so proud
of the fact as Margery, for Clare's sake.
But she felt differently about Captain Anstruther, and asked herself—
"When Clare comes, will he desert me, as others have done before? Does he follow me,
and listen to my words, and watch to anticipate my wants, because he has not seen Clare?
or does he really care for me?"
Not that Captain Anstruther had declared his affection for Margery. It was too soon for
such a decided step; but if ever looks and actions were eloquent, his told that sweet
Margery Austin had made a deep impression on his heart.
The girl had often spoken to Frank Anstruther about her lovely sister, and in her unselfish
way told him of the admiration she always excited, and that he would be sure to love
Clare.
"I shall," he replied, "if only because she is so dear to you."
The meaning tone and the look of frank admiration which accompanied these words, made
Margaret's cheeks flush and her eyes droop shyly. But she felt very happy, with a joy
hitherto unknown to her innocent heart, and she cherished her glad thoughts with reverent
thankfulness. It was so sweet to feel that she was beloved, and by one like this brave
young soldier! She thought he must be much like what her father was when he went with
his tale of love to her mother.
Margery had always been accustomed to open her heart to her mother; but of this new
happiness she could not speak even to her. Yet she thought that Mrs. Austin knew of it,
and sympathized with and blessed her child in the unselfish way that true mothers show
when they live their girlish days over again in those of their daughters.
When Margery went to rest that night she thought that her mother's arms had never
before held her with such yearning love, or her kiss been so tender. The girl, with quick
intuition, divined the reason. What if her mother were looking into the future, and
dreading the thought of a possible parting? Wealth could do much, but when a girl took
upon her such solemn new duties in another home the place in the old one must be
vacated.
Mrs. Austin was so looking at possibilities, but while thinking of the trial it would be for her
to part with Margery, she placed her child's happiness first of all, and would have rejoiced
in her joy. On the following day Clare returned to Monks Lea. She was looking paler than
usual, and there was an anxious, preoccupied expression on her face that no one had
noticed there before. It passed away during the evening; but the girl was very quiet, and
retired early, as many guests were expected on Christmas Eve, and she wished to be ready
to help in entertaining them.
"I must have a good night's rest beforehand," she said, "or I shall be fit for nothing to-
morrow. Christmas Eve is the most important anniversary in my life, for on it, eleven years
ago, I came to this dear mother, sister and home."
Clare laid her head on Mrs. Austin's shoulder to be caressed; she kissed Margery and
clasped her closely, as if she had forgotten the presence of Mrs. Anstruther and her son,
though it was to the lady she had spoken of her first coming. Then she turned suddenly to
Mrs. Anstruther, and lifted up her face to be kissed, saying—
"I know you are dear mamma's friend, so I hope you will adopt me as one of her children."
Lastly she extended her white hand to the captain, flashed a glance from her wonderful
eyes, and was gone.
And Frank Anstruther, who had been urging Margery to sing for him before this little scene
took place, remained in a dreamy state for some moments, replied to a remark of his
mother's in an irrelevant fashion, and would have forgotten all about the song he had
asked for, if Miss Austin had not recalled him to himself by beginning it.
He listened—no one could help it when Margery sang—thanked her, and mentally
reproaching himself for his momentary abstraction, asked for more music.
Margery sang a second time, and then she spoke with pleasure of Clare's home-coming.
"Without my sister, Christmas would not be at all the same happy time," she said. "Was I
not right when I said that Clare is lovely?"
"She is quite the most beautiful girl I ever saw," he replied enthusiastically. "Yet beautiful
is not the word. Miss Clare is that and more. I never saw any one at all like her." Then he
added, "In the face, I mean, of course. As yet all else is strange to me, except as revealed
by the charming picture I witnessed a short time ago."
Margery could hardly tell in what it consisted, but there was a difference between the
happy, frank intercourse of a few hours before and that of this evening. It seemed as
though an invisible barrier had come between Captain Anstruther and herself. He was
more silent than usual, and Margery went to her room with a sense of weight and pain that
she vainly strove to ignore.
"What will Christmas bring?" she asked herself. "It is a fateful season to me. Eleven years
ago it brought Clare and the beginning of a new life. Will this Christmas see a repetition of
what has happened before? Will Frank Anstruther leave my side for Clare's? I have never
envied her those who have gone before, and never cared except when they suffered. But if
he too should learn to love her, and be treated as others have been—how shall I bear to
see it?"
On her knees the girl pleaded—
"God give me grace to do right, patience to endure willingly, and to submit unselfishly and
silently, if need be!"
At first Captain Anstruther struggled against Clare's fascinations, and remained by

Margery's side, helping her with Christmas decorations, and apparently devoting himself to
her service. But before night came he was one of a little group round Clare, laughing at
her lively sallies and her almost childlike daring, and wondering at her marvellous beauty.
He took himself to task when he noticed Margery looking pale and distrait, though trying
hard to appear as if she were listening to an uninteresting story, which was being poured
into her ear by the one bore of the party. He resumed his attentions, remained by her side
after having succeeded in ridding her of her companion, and, but that Margery noticed his
eyes wandering towards the group he had left, the girl might have thought that no change
had taken place, and that she still held the foremost rank in his regard.
Clare rallied Margery about her captain.
"I see how it is," she said, "you have conquered the gallant soldier whilst I have been
away. I can understand his laying down his arms; but he is not half good enough for you,
Margery, darling."
HE RESUMED HIS ATTENTIONS, AND REMAINED BY HER SIDE.
"I do not know who is, for this sweet sister of mine is worthy the love of the best man in
the world."
"Captain Anstruther is good," said Margery, blushing. "A good son, a brave soldier, and a
true man; but you are mistaken, Clare, if you think he has ever spoken one word of love to
me."
"He looked a thousand to-night, if he did not utter them. You shall keep your soldier for
me, Margery, darling. He would not be my choice were he twenty times as good as you
say." And she ran laughing away.
If she could have seen Margery's face after this! It flushed with the daintiest colour, and
such a glad light came into the sweet eyes, that it was a pity Frank Anstruther was not
there to mark it.
"I was not wrong then." Margery rather breathed the words than spoke them. "Clare sees
that he cares for me best of all. She will not rob me of the one heart's love that I would
fain call mine. Thank God!"
The girl fell asleep with a thanksgiving on her lips, to be aroused from her rest only when
morning came, by Clare's light touch.
As each Christmas Day came round, it was the custom for the younger girl to awaken
Margery with a kiss, whilst she whispered, "Here am I, darling. Dorothy's Christmas gift,—
come with loving wishes for my sister."
Then they went together to Mrs. Austin's room to offer the season's greetings.
It was a happy Christmas after all. Clare had plenty of homage, but for that one day she
held herself aloof from Frank Anstruther, without appearing to do it purposely, whilst the
young soldier kept his old place near Margery.
So the weight was lifted from the loving heart, the cloud disappeared, and all at Monks Lea
told of joy, peace, and good-will.
CHAPTER VI.
FRANK ANSTRUTHER left Monks Lea immediately after Christmas, but was to return on the
last day of the year.
Mrs. Anstruther remained, as she had promised to spend the winter with her old friend,
and had no settled home. She was a great traveller, and had only come to England
because her son's regiment was ordered home, and she wished to be near him.
This arrangement involved the captain's frequent presence also, and it was understood
that he would come to Monks Lea as opportunity offered.
Margery would not have looked forward so happily to his coming again, if she could have
read his thoughts when he said farewell to her and the rest.
In fact, Frank Anstruther was far from feeling at ease. He knew that during the last weeks
he had done everything but speak of love to Margery Austin, and until Clare came, with
her bewitching face and manner, he had thought her the best, purest, most loveable of
girls, and had striven to win her heart as a treasure beyond all price.
Now, whilst hating himself for the dishonourable sentiment, he was rejoicing that he had
not committed himself in words, and would have given anything in the world to blot these
last weeks from Margery's memory and his own. He blushed at the thought. He knew it
was shameful to entertain it. He asked himself, "What will Mrs. Austin and my mother think
of me?" And yet he could see nothing, care for nothing but Clare, and felt that Margery,
mother, Mrs. Austin, and the world might judge him as they chose, if only he could win the
prize for which so many were contending.
Frank did not yield at once to this mad impulse.
He fought the sternest battle of his life during the interval between leaving and returning
to Monks Lea for the New Year; and he did not prove the victor, as on former occasions.
It was easier to slacken his attentions to Margery when they met again, for the Christmas
guests who were still there were now shaken together, and more than one amongst these
were ready to contend for the place he had occupied.
How gradually the change came about need not be fully described; yet Margery was the
first to see that the old experience was being repeated, but with this difference, that the
young beauty who had captivated so many hearts, only to reject them, had exchanged her
own with that of Frank Anstruther.
To Margery this knowledge was terrible. So true herself, the selfishness and treachery of
the girl to whom she had given an almost worshipping affection, and of the one man whom
she had elevated into a hero and on whose truth she would have staked her life, wounded
Margery to the core. She stole away to the old nursery, where she found her mother and
her faithful Barbara together, and dropping on her knees beside Mrs. Austin's chair, she
laid her head on her lap and wept bitterly.
It was so unusual for Margery to give way to strong emotion, that her mother was almost
frightened by it. But Barbara said, "Let her have the cry out, mistress dear. It will be a
relief. If tears and sobs were not given by God to ease overburdened hearts, they would
just break."
The nurse was right, and following the delicate instinct which told her that mother and
child would be better alone, she stole quietly from the room and left them together.
Not many words were spoken. Mrs. Austin's tears fell fast in sympathy with Margery's, and
now and then she stroked the girl's shining hair, and whispered—
"My darling! My precious child! What would I not do for you?"
"I know, I know you are true, mother, and sometimes I think there is no one else to be
trusted but you. Oh, mother, it seems that those who try to do right always come off the
worst!" she wailed in answer.
"Not so, my darling. It may seem so in the hour of trial, but not afterwards. Sorrow and
suffering dim our mental vision, as tears blind our outward sight. But God makes things
plain to us in His good time, and in the meanwhile we have to wait and trust."
There needed no words to explain the cause of Margery's trouble. The girl knew that her
mother had read her heart's story, and could divine the severity of the wound given not
only to her tenderest affections, but to her sense of self-respect.
She looked pitifully in Mrs. Austin's face, and in a tone that went to her mother's heart said
—
"Have I been to blame? You know all that passed before Clare came home. I am afraid
when I think of that time."
"You need not fear, my darling. Captain Anstruther may have changed, but when he looks
back and recalls that time, he can only feel that my Margery's words and acts were true,
pure, and maidenly. Believe me, I would not say this to soothe your wounded feelings, or
even to save your self-respect, were it not the truth. As to Anstruther and Clare—"
But here Margery's kiss closed her mother's lips.
"We will say nothing about them, dear. Such things are not premeditated, and our
affections are not under our own control. It would have been far worse if poor Frank had
learned to love Clare, and she had given him nothing but pretty speeches in return. You
will smooth their path for them, mother darling, will you not?"
"How can I ever forgive, when I think of you, my very own child, suffering so cruelly?"
"Go farther back, mother, and think how Dorothy's Christmas gift came to bring me new
life, and of all the blessed years we spent together before there was any question of rivalry
in love. There is none now."
"Oh, Margery! There is no girl like you for unselfishness. Mrs. Anstruther is dreadfully
pained; the knows your value, my darling, if Frank does not."
"I think he does, in a way, too. And in future I mean him to know it better still, by being
the best of sisters to him as well as Clare. He has none of his own. But do not let Mrs.
Anstruther know. I could not bear for any one but you, mother—"
Such a wistful, pleading look was Margery's, as the big tears gathered again, and the
trembling lips refused to form another word.
"No fear, my darling. Mrs. Anstruther, dear old friend as she is, must feel that hers is all
the loss. But how are we to hide our trouble?"
Margery smiled through her tears at the word "our."
It was true that she could have no pain her mother would not share.
"By trying to lighten some other trouble," she answered. "I will go to my room, bathe my
eyes and rest awhile. Then I will walk to the village and visit some of my poor friends
there. An hour by one bedside you know of, mother, will make my trial seem light."
Margery carried out her intention, and came back to Monks Lea in time for dinner, but she
did not join the rest at table. She pleaded weariness, and said she would go to Barbara in
the nursery, and have tea brought there instead. Later she might feel fit for society. At one
time Clare would have insisted on bearing her company, but conscience was not at rest,
and she could not muster courage to be alone with Margery, whose pallor was a mute
reproach, though she spoke in her usual tone and smiled in her sister's face.
But the girl had to run the gauntlet of her old nurse's sympathy. Barbara loved Clare, but
she regarded Margery as an impersonation of all excellences, and "her own real young
lady," who ought to be first in everything.
She placed Margery in the cosiest corner, waited on her and coaxed her with little tea-table
dainties, and then, seeing that she had only made a pretence at a meal, she broke down
and cried.
"I knew how it would be, my darling," she said. "Miss Clare has turned out a cuckoo in the
nest, as I told the mistress would happen if she took in the child of that fair-spoken, false-
hearted Edward Austin. The cuckoo turns out the young sparrows or tit-larks, and takes
their places, and Miss Clare has robbed you of yours."
"Not of my home, Barbara. I am more likely to stay in the old nest than ever. She cannot
help being so fair and stealing all hearts. Besides, I love her."
"She might help being false, though, and having her secrets and her meetings with people,
and getting letters unknown to you or my mistress. She has always been close and had
her secrets."
Margery thought Barbara alluded to meetings with Captain Anstruther, but the nurse
undeceived her.
"They have been going on ever since Miss Clare came back from her visit. She has gone to
the post office for letters, instead of having them brought in the bag to the house, and
only last night I saw her steal into the shrubbery all muffled up. I followed as quickly as I
could, but I had to go roundabout, so as not to be seen, and by the time I got near enough
she was just parting with two persons, a man and a woman. I did not go to listen, for I
was only afraid of Miss Clare coming to harm, but I did hear her say, 'Be at this same tree
to-morrow, at nine. I will come as soon as possible, and bring you all the money I have.'"
Margery's face turned pale as she heard nurse's story. In what trouble could Clare have
involved herself, that she should need to bribe these unknown persons?
"We must protect my sister from herself," she said. "I will send a message, and ask to be
excused from going to the drawing-room. My mother will be satisfied. Clare is certain not
to come here, and then you and I, Barbara, will muffle ourselves in wraps and be at the
meeting-place before the others."
Barbara agreed, and the plan was carried out, the thick shrubs and a moonless night
favouring concealment.
Margery and the nurse saw the strangers step into a little alcove, and shortly after Clare
came from the house and joined them. The watchers could only discern the figures, not
the faces, but they heard the chink of gold as Clare handed something to the man.
"Here are twenty-five pounds," she said, "all I have at present, but I will do my best for
you if you will wait a little. I may be wrong in giving you this, but, if you are really my
father—"
"Do you doubt it, pretty one, after all I have told you?"
"I don't know what to believe," said Clare, in a tone of distress. "You say you deceived
dear mamma with a tale of your death, because you wanted me to be brought up in her
beautiful home and have a child's place here, and you knew she would not adopt me if she
thought you were living."
"That is true, dear child," replied the man, softly. "I had not been the best of men or of
husbands to your poor mother, but I wanted my Clare to have what I could not give her. I
loved you dearly, and I always meant to reclaim you some day. It would be hard for me to
be deprived of you now, when I can have but few years to live, and I have a home, though
a very humble one compared to Monks Lea. Besides, now you are a grown-up young lady,
some suitor may be seeking your hand, and that shall not be given without your father's
sanction."
The girl gave a cry of distress when she heard this, but the man answered it by a mocking
laugh.
"What! Is there already a favoured one? Then no time must be lost. As to this trifling sum
you have given me, child, it is not worth naming. If Mrs. Austin wishes for your society
now, she will have to pay for it, and only retain it on my terms."
"You could not be so wicked as to take me from her," said Clare, in an agonized tone; "and
to want money, when I owe so many happy years to her and Margery. I will leave Monks
Lea and all—yes, all it holds—rather than be used as a means of threatening her or
extorting money from her."
Here spoke Clare's nobler nature, and Margery rejoiced that she was at hand to hear it.
But she and Clare were alike unprepared for what followed.
"You are right, my child, and I will take you at your word," said the man; and, seizing
Clare, he threw a thick shawl over her head, and with the help of his companion was going
to drag her away.
But in a moment Barbara's tall figure was behind him, and she pinioned the man with her
strong arms, whilst she called aloud for help.
This came sooner than she expected, in the shape of two of the gamekeepers, who were
on their rounds. Amongst them they secured the man, but the female had managed to
make her escape. Clare was supported to the house in an almost fainting state and taken
to her room.
As soon as Barbara saw the face of the prisoner in a full light, she exclaimed, "This is not
Miss Clare's father; I have seen Mr. Edward Austin too often to be mistaken."
She confronted the man, and though he at first tried to assert that he was Clare's father,
he soon found that this would be useless.
This evening's adventure cleared up once and for all the mystery of Clare's introduction to
Monks Lea.
After the death of his wife, Edward Austin lived for some months in a quiet country place a
few miles from London, where he had a cottage, and a respectable, middle-aged woman to
keep house and take care of the child—she was the Mary of whom Clare talked when she
came to Monks Lea.
The quiet, however, did not long suit a man like Edward Austin, and a considerable legacy
enabled him to resume his old life. He left Clare at the cottage, and went to Wiesbaden,
where he met a brother and sister, named Henry and Laura Marsh. They became intimate,
and eventually the lady became Edward Austin's second wife.
The money which had come to him was sufficient to make the marriage a desirable one to
Miss Marsh, who was dependent on her brother, especially as Edward Austin's tenure of life
seemed likely to be short. He was in delicate health, and during his one year of married
life, he never returned to England, but died suddenly whilst wintering in the Riviera.
His widow's first object was, with her brother's help, to get rid of Clare and turn everything
that was left into money.
The two knew of the distant relationship to Colonel Austin, and the death of all the children
at Monks Lea except Margery. Hence the letter, signed as if sent by Mrs. Allington, and
Clare's unexpected arrival at Newthorpe. No wonder Mr. Marsh and his sister made no
inquiry about the child, because, unknown to her, they saw her deposited on the platform,
having travelled from town in another compartment of the same train.
A singular chance, which need not be here related, had thrown Clare into company with
her father's widow, during her absence from home.
Mr. Marsh, being in pecuniary difficulties, conceived the idea of passing himself off as her
father, with a view of extorting money from the girl first, and, if possible, from Mrs. Austin
also. He induced his sister to show Clare certain papers and articles, which left no doubt on
the girl's mind that her father had married Miss Marsh. She knew nothing of the
circumstances attending his death, and could only remember that she had been told of it
after he had been long absent from her and Mary.
Henry Marsh's trumped-up story and pretended claim upon her were an afterthought, born
of his impecunious condition. Mrs. Edward Austin first induced Clare to arrange for a
clandestine correspondence by mysterious allusions to a coming revelation; and then
brought her brother, whom the girl had not previously seen, to meet her in the shrubbery
at Monk's Lea, where he pretended that she was his daughter, and told his tale.
Thanks to Barbara's watchfulness and courage, the girl was rescued and the impostor
exposed.
As no good end would have been attained by punishing Henry Marsh, and there was no
possibility of his repeating the experiment, he was allowed to depart. Newthorpe saw him
no more, and all that had been mysterious in connection with Clare's coming was cleared
up to Mrs. Austin's satisfaction.
Clare was lying ill in her own room two days later, for the shock of that encounter in the
shrubbery had been such as to keep her in bed ever since.
Mrs. Austin and Margery were by her side, when all at once Clare looked at them with an
expression of pain and penitence on her face, and said, in a trembling voice—
"Can you ever forgive me? Mamma, I ought not to be here. I should not have experienced
the anxiety, or known the terror those dreadful people caused me, if I had been like
Margery, and always opened my heart to you. But I have done with secrets and
concealments. I have had a lesson which will last my life. Say you forgive me, dear, dear
mother!"
There could be no doubt the girl was in earnest, and Mrs. Austin pressed a forgiving kiss
on her lips.
"And now may I speak to Margery all by myself?"
Mrs. Austin assented, and left the girls together.
"Margery, darling, you know—you know!" cried Clare, and then, covering her face with her
hands, as if unable to look at her sister, she sobbed bitterly.
"Yes, I know," said Margery, softly.
"I could not help it, Margery, and he could not. It came upon both of us against our wills; I
do not know how he could care for me when you were near; for you are a thousand times
more deserving of love than I am. But if—if you thought him good, it is no wonder I
should, though it was hateful and wicked, after what I said to you, Margery darling. Now I
have quite made up my mind to ask mamma to send me away somewhere with Barbara,
so that I may not see Captain Anstruther any more. I give him up to you, Margery, and I
do hope you will be happy yet, and poor Frank, too."
"IT CAME UPON BOTH OF US AGAINST OUR WILLS."
"Hush, Clare; hush, darling. You must give up sobbing, and let me dry those tears," replied
Margery, calmly. "Think, dear. You may determine to run away from Frank; you might even
refuse the love he offers; but it would be his to dispose of still, not yours. I am sure he
cannot take it back, and if he could, do you suppose I should desire it? My sister, look at
me. If ever a thought crossed my mind that Frank Anstruther could be more to me than
another, it is gone; and if he—"
"I told him I thought he fell in love with you first, Margery, and he declared he had never
said a word about love to you. He never really knew what it meant till he saw me," said
Clare.
The words gave Margery a pang, but she did not show it.
"It matters little, dear," she said, "since now you love each other. You offered to give Frank
to me. You gave your dear child-self. You came to me long years ago, like an angel gift, as
if from Dorothy, and with you returned health and life. We have been very happy, Clare,
and now, I trust, you will be happier than ever. You are mine to dispose of, and I give you
to Frank, and myself to be his sister, as I have been yours in the past. Have no fears for
me, darling. If there were no Clare in the case, Frank Anstruther could never be more than
friend or brother to me."
"Miss Clare has got her own way, as usual," said Barbara Molesworth. "She always would
have it, by hook or by crook. The tale does not end as one would like; but I suppose it
cannot be helped, especially as my own dear lady says she would not have it different for
the world. There is one good thing—the cuckoo goes, and the proper nestling stays in the
nest. But Miss Margery would not be content till her mother gave a fine portion with Miss
Clare. And the captain says, and well he may, that he does not know whether he is most
fortunate in his wife or his sister."
Clare and her husband are considered a model couple as regards devotion to each other;
but the gallant captain tolerates no hangers-on, and his wife's love of admiration has to be
satisfied with what he gives in no stinted measure.
They have a baby-girl—Margery's namesake and god-daughter, and her great pet.
There is one worthier, nobler in himself, as well as in position, than was Frank Anstruther,
who is biding his time—one who knows Margery's value; and it is more than likely that
before Christmas comes round again, the real young lady of Monks Lea will have followed
the example of Clare, and changed her name.
HER MAJESTY'S MAIL-BAGS.
CHAPTER I.
Two children, a boy of eleven, a girl just twelve months younger, motherless and
neglected. Such were my brother and I, Norman and Bertha Savell.
Our home, King's Court, ought to have been equally beautiful, well-ordered, and
abounding with everything that could promote the happiness of those who dwelt under its
roof. For many a generation past, it had been one of the show places of the county, and
brought many a tourist out of his way to inspect the art treasures and heirlooms that had
been gathering for centuries within its walls.
As children, Norman and I knew little of the glories of King's Court. They had been waning
ever since our mother's death, which even my brother could not remember. We knew in
after days that she had been alike good and beautiful—a woman of culture, refinement,
and strong religious principle, whose faith was manifested by her daily life. Our father had
been used to lean on her, rather than she on him, for, though noble looking and most
devoted to his wife, he was weak-willed, and easily led either for good or evil. After having
lost the love of his life, he cared little what became of home, self, or even the children she
had bequeathed to him.
A season of violent, unreasoning grief was followed by years of reckless living. The stately
man became a wreck of his old self, and all his surroundings changed for the worse.
King's Court was robbed of all the treasures its owner had the power to dispose of, and old
friends held aloof from its master, whilst they shook their heads and looked pityingly after
the children who ran almost wild, and scarcely heeded by the one parent left to them.
It was said that Mr. Savell would have married again for money rather than love some six
years after his wife's death, but that Norman and I were the obstacles.
The lady would have accepted the owner of King's Court, and dedicated her wealth to the
paying off of mortgages and re-purchase of its scattered treasures, if there had been no
son to whom the broad acres must eventually pass. But she did not care to redeem the
estates for another woman's child to inherit, so this plan fell through.
Norman and I could remember how, once, in a fit of passion, our father used hard words
to us, called us "clogs" and "incumbrances," and uttered some wish, the purport of which,
happily, did not reach our ears.
Such hard words were exceptional. As a rule, we were only neglected. But for our vicar, Mr.
Pemberton, we might have grown-up with less education than many of the village children
received, but he pleaded for permission to teach Norman with his own boys, and induced
my father to place me under the governess who instructed his own little Lucy.
When I was ten and Norman eleven years old, a new era began in our young lives. Our
father had gone out with the hounds in the early morning, and, after a hard run, had
indulged too freely at table. Refusing the offered hospitality of the neighbour at whose
house he dined, he insisted that he must sleep at King's Court, and started homeward in
the darkness and alone.
At midnight, the waiting servants heard the clattering of a horse's feet as it galloped down
the avenue. It was their master's hunter, but riderless, and a brief search resulted in the
discovery of our father's dead body on the road. He had been thrown from his horse, and
his temple having struck on a sharp stone, he had died instantly.
In this emergency our uncle, Bernard Savell, was summoned. Many a long year had
passed since he last crossed the threshold of King's Court, for he had grievously affronted
his father and brother by investing his own slender patrimony in trade, at the instance of
his godfather. Eventually, he became first the partner, then the heir, of this gentleman, and
was at forty, wealthy and a bachelor. My father was very little Uncle Bernard's senior—only
a couple of years—and the two had been much attached to each other as boys; but family
pride severed and kept them apart. Now the younger came to grieve over the long-
estranged brother, and to take charge of his orphan children. He brought his fine business
talents to bear on the tangled web presented by the state of affairs at King's Court, and
soon reduced it to something like order.
"The squire has imperilled the broad acres," said Uncle Bernard; "the tradesman shall
redeem them. Your father has scattered many of the treasures which were the glory of
King's Court; but I have had my eyes and ears open, and I know where they are to be
found."
We knew afterwards that Uncle Bernard had long been aware of what was going on in his
old home, and had employed agents to purchase what his brother was only too willing to
sell; so that before many months were over the house was renovated, its treasures
restored, lands were redeemed, debts paid, and King's Court was once again the pride of
the county.
Norman and I, the neglected boy and girl, were placed under careful supervision, yet
treated with such infinite tenderness by our good uncle that we were happier than we had
ever been before. As to the kind and generous relative who had brought about these rapid
changes, he found his own happiness in the knowledge of ours, and the almost
worshipping affection we gave him in return.
I think there never was such a large-hearted and loving guardian as Uncle Bernard, and
yet he was equally generous and prudent. He made no secret of his intentions towards
Norman, who was already heir of King's Court—but not of unencumbered acres; for
everything had been done according to law, and our uncle was sole mortgagee, in place of
several different ones to whom our father was indebted when he died.
"It will all be yours, my boy, if you deserve it. But you must prove yourself fit to own and
rule the old estate before I quite loose my hold on it," said my uncle to Norman; and as
the years passed on he became satisfied of my brother's fitness to manage the estates and
do honour to the old name.
He was very good and generous to me also—almost too lavish; for he petted his "Berty,"
as he preferred to call me, and was ever ready to bestow new dresses, new jewels, new
everything that could please a girl's taste. But after each instance of prodigality, he would
say, "Remember, Berty, I expect Aunt Bella to give you your dowry. She has plenty of
money, which came by our grandmother; and as I have made things smooth for Norman, I
consider it only reasonable that she should provide for you."
"Depend upon it, Aunt Bella will do nothing of the kind. She was angry at my father
because he wanted to borrow from her, though she declined to lend. She never could
endure me, because I was not called after her, though I could not be responsible for the
action of my sponsors at such an early age as four weeks. She will leave her money to
somebody who has already more than enough, after the fashion of spinster aunts."
"And what of bachelor uncles, Berty? Are they not often cross-grained and contrary?"
"I only know one, and he is the best and kindest darling in the world," I replied, kissing the
dear face, which seemed to me goodness personified.
"Though he vows he will leave you no money," continued Uncle Bernard, after returning
the kiss, as he held me encircled with his arm.
"Yes, though he will leave me no legacy. I do not want him to leave money to anybody, but
just to live on and take care of me."
"Ah, lassie, I know a certain young maiden's mind better than that. She will soon prefer
the care of a younger bachelor than Uncle Bernard. Do you think I was blind when Stephen
Hastings spent last Long Vacation at King's Court? I could see that somebody's bright eyes
grew brighter, and the colour on her cheek deepened, when that young man's firm step
came within hearing."
Again I stopped Uncle Bernard's mouth with a kiss, and then placed my hand on his lips to
prevent further tale-telling.
"I will allow no such insinuations," I said. "To come back to the previous question, let me
ask if you have not acted unpardonably by encouraging extravagant tastes, giving me
dresses fit for a princess, and then threatening me with Aunt Bella's tender mercies? I
have a great mind to sell off all my finery, invest the proceeds against a rainy day, and
dress for the future in blue and white prints of the milkmaid pattern. Far better do this
than foster habits of luxury which cannot be continued in the future."
"Do all these things, darling," replied my uncle, composedly, "and prove the truth of what I
have often told you."
"What do you allude to?"
"That you owe nothing to dress, Berty, but are equally attractive in shimmering satin or
humble print. Still, I hope Aunt Bella will ensure you the choice of materials."
"I do not care a straw for Aunt Bella's money; Norman will always take care of me," I
replied.
"That is what I call comfortable confidence, Berty; but you have good reason for it.
Norman would not be dear as a son to me if he were not a good, unselfish brother. I do
believe that whilst he owns a shilling you will be certain of sixpence."
I had like faith in my brother, and there was also a hidden consciousness that if I stood
otherwise alone in the world, I could claim the devotion of a true heart and the protection
of a strong arm to bless and shield me in my journey through life, if I so willed it.
True, Stephen Hastings had not spoken to me of love, except by those eloquent eyes of
his, and all the thoughtful, tender attentions which it was possible for him to pay me
during his visit to King's Court. I think I knew why he hesitated to speak. Stephen was a
younger brother, with small means, and his way to make; but he had first-rate abilities,
and great energy and perseverance, with friends also who desired to help him into a
position where he could find scope for all these.
It was only to wait and trust, and I felt that Stephen deserved all confidence and was
worth waiting for.
CHAPTER II.
WE lost our kind uncle six months after Norman came of age. He had come to stay with us
suddenly one day, and had been delighted by the manner in which my brother realized the
responsibilities of his position, and predicted a bright future for us both.
"You will not disgrace the old name, my boy," he said, "and I trust you will soon bring a
fair young wife to occupy your mother's chair. I picture you both—Berty and you, I mean—
fittingly mated, and the sooner my dream becomes a reality the better."
Afterwards, he whispered something about Stephen Hastings, and said, "Even if he should
take my pet without a penny, he would never regret it."
"He has not asked for me yet, Uncle Bernard," I replied.
"But I can see as far into the future without spectacles as my neighbours can, and I have
bought you a wedding present on the strength of my prophetic vision. I mean to give it
you now, but you must not wear it till your wedding-day."
"I believe you rack your brains for excuses to buy me things; but you must keep back your
wedding gift till the proper time comes, Uncle Bernard," I replied.
"No, dear. You must indulge me by taking it from my own hand. If I should live to give you
away to—spare your blushes, Berty, I will mention no name—a husband, well. If not, you
will remember that I actually gave you these little souvenirs. Come with me."
Uncle Bernard led us to a quaint-looking piece of furniture, ornamental outside, but really
a strong iron safe, and took from it a case containing a beautiful suite of diamonds, then
some other jewels, and a purse with gold and notes. Besides these, he showed us a sealed
packet, addressed, as I thought, to myself.
"Now, Berty, you see these ornaments; put them on that I may know how you will look on
your bridal morning. Why, child, you seem quite awe-stricken. I thought you had
experienced your old uncle's whims long enough to be able to laugh when he breaks out in
a new direction."
Somehow, I could not laugh, and my eyes filled with tears as my uncle persisted in
hanging the shining necklace round my neck, and clasped the bracelets round my arms.
"Put on the rest yourself, dear. I am a clumsy substitute for a tire-maiden," he added.
I obeyed, and Uncle Bernard looked admiringly as he said, "My darling is like a little queen,
and now she must give me a kiss in payment."
I clasped my arms round his neck, and kissed the kind face of my more than father again
and again; then whispered, "I wish I could tell you how much I value your love and
tenderness, which are better than all the jewels in the world."
He passed his hand caressingly down my hair, as he said that Norman and I had been son
and daughter to him, and filled a void in a solitary life.
"Uncle Bernard," said I, "you were never meant for a bachelor."
"I had other dreams once, darling, but the bright visions faded without becoming realities.
It was, however, neither cruel parents nor faithlessness that came between me and
marriage. Death parted my love from me, and soon he will cancel his work by reuniting
us."
Then, quickly changing his tone, Uncle Bernard said, "We will lock up these pretty things
with the purse. It contains some pocket-money for you to start housekeeping with; but so
long as you are Bertha Savell you must not have a single gold piece out of it."
"But what other mystery is hidden in that sealed packet, uncle?" I asked, affecting great
curiosity.
"That, my dear, contains certain instructions for the benefit of your future husband,
whoever he may be. I have had some experience in managing you, and I wish him to
profit by it. The packet, observe, is addressed to 'Bertha's husband,' and is to be opened
only when some one has a right to the title. Were he to learn what sort of a person you are
beforehand, he might decline to accompany you to church."
We all laughed at this speech; and then the articles were replaced in the safe, and we
returned to talk together round the fire till bedtime.
Then Uncle Bernard was ill for some time, and kept his room; and it used to be my
pleasure to go and chat with him as he sat in his invalid chair. But one morning the poor
darling was found dead.
We knew afterwards that he had long expected such an end, for he suffered from an
ailment against which medical skill could avail nothing. Tender in everything, he concealed
the worst from our knowledge, only hinting at the possibility of an early call from our
midst, in order to make it seem less sudden when it should come.
CHAPTER III.
A YEAR had gone since Uncle Bernard's death, and Norman and I were looking forward to
the coming Christmas season with happy anticipations.
My brother had wooed sweet Lucy Pemberton, my dear friend and old schoolfellow, and
expected to bring his bride to King's Court early in the new year.
My engagement to Stephen Hastings had fulfilled Uncle Bernard's prophetic hopes, and I
was waiting eagerly for news from my betrothed, who was a candidate for an Indian legal
appointment. There were many competitors, but if Stephen were successful, our wedding
was to take place on the same day as Norman's.
My brother and I had spent some time in watching and waiting for the all-important letter
which was to decide whether this matrimonial programme could be carried out or no. In
these days, when people "wire" to each other about comparatively trivial things, our
patience would not have been called into exercise. But I am telling of what happened
about twenty years ago, when King's Court was eight miles from the nearest telegraph
office, and a special messenger had to be sent on horseback when a telegram came to
Overford, our village, or the Court itself.
Our letters came to the railway station, which was also the post office, and were fetched
thence by one of the servants. We were looking for his return, and Norman was pacing up
and down and gazing from the window in turns, chafing at the delay.
"That mail train is always late!" he exclaimed.
"Like every other that calls at Overford," said I. "Did you ever know one arrive
punctually?"
"Yes," replied Norman. "It was when I was going to town last spring, and, relying on its
being at least regular in its irregularities, I reached the station two minutes after the time,
and was left behind."
"When you ought to have met Aunt Bella at London Bridge Station, and she waited,
bewildered and indignant, but firm in her determination to guard her luggage at the risk of
her life."
Norman burst into a hearty laugh. "Shall I ever forget that scene?" he said. "Aunt Bella
amid mountains of luggage, of which her parrot's cage formed the apex. She had guarded
her belongings for two hours against all corners. She has never forgiven me, and never
will. Here comes the train, thirty-five minutes late. I will rush across the park, get your
letter myself, and save you at least ten minutes of suspense, Berty."
The train was only just in sight, a little puff of white vapour indicating its whereabouts, and
my fleet-footed brother would reach Overford Station as soon as it would; but I implored
him not to go.
"Parks will bring the letters," I said. "He took a trap down to convey the new housemaid
and her luggage to the house. He will lose no time."
"But that stupid Frith will keep him waiting, if only to annoy me," said Norman, hastily; for
a quick temper was my darling brother's besetting sin. He had fought and struggled
against it, and often mourned with bitter penitence over its results; but the enemy was
strong still, and the day of complete conquest seemed as yet in the distant future.
I cried to my brother as he was leaving the room, "Norman, do not touch the mail-bag, or
you will get into trouble; and think how dreadful it would be for me to feel that I was the
cause of it to you. Frith is not like old Joynson."
"He is a conceited fellow, who needs to be taught his place," returned Norman, his face
flushing as he spoke. "But no fear of my being tempted to give him a lesson to-day. I shall
be too late."
Norman darted across the hall, and, scorning the regular paths, quickly reached a short
cut used only by our own family to facilitate our passage to the station when we walked
thither. I knew that his impatience was all on my account; but I was not a little troubled
about possible results. I hoped he might be late; for I dreaded a collision between him and
our new station-master, Edward Frith.
Everybody knows what kind of position is occupied by the great man in an agricultural
village—the squire who owns every foot of land for miles, and is literally monarch of all he
surveys. He is generally beneficent and patriarchal, and there is a kindly familiarity
between him and his people; but his sway was a pretty absolute one in my young days.
Such a position had Norman been early called on to fill, and through Uncle Bernard's
generosity he had more talents to account for than those who preceded him, and less of
the experience which comes with well-spent years than might have been desired.
Old Joynson, the first station-master at Overford, was a man who believed in the
infallibility of the squires of King's Court. Had not his ancestors been tenants on the estate
for ages? Did he not owe his post to their influence? And was not the word of him who
ruled at the Court as law to the old retainer, in whom something of the ancient feudal spirit
survived, despite the reforms and changes of the nineteenth century?
During the last years of Joynson's life, he allowed Norman to take liberties which no one in
his position could permit without a gross breach of trust. If my brother were expecting
letters of importance, he would seize the mail-bag, break the seal, open it, and select from
its contents his own particular share.
It not infrequently happened that all the letters were for residents at King's Court, and
though Norman insisted that old Joynson should look at the addresses, the man deemed it
almost superfluous, remarking, often enough, "Of course, squire, you'd only take what is
your own, or for the Court."
Joynson's successor was a man of another stamp; a smart, active, city-bred clerk, married
to one of our Overford girls, but with none of his predecessor's feudal prejudices, and
rather proud than otherwise of not exactly hitting it with young Mr. Savell. He would have
scorned to call Norman "the squire."
Very unwisely, my brother attempted to continue his old practice; but the first time he
lifted the mail-bag, Frith courteously but firmly requested him to put it down.
Norman did not heed this intimation, and would have proceeded to break the seals, but
Frith seized the bag, wrenched it from him, and angrily desired him not to repeat what he
must know was a breach of the law.
"Nonsense, Frith," said Norman, "I have opened the bag scores of times, and you may be
sure I should only take what belongs to me."
"Probably not, but your act is unlawful, and whatever others may have done, I shall do my
duty."
For the moment, Norman forgot himself. He was so little used to contradiction that his next
words were wanting both in good sense and good temper. "Do you not know that I own all
Overford, and am master here?" he asked.
"You are not my master, I am glad to say," was Frith's cool reply. "Neither do you own this
railway station. I am answerable to my employers of the Post Office and the railway; and if
you hinder me in the performance of my duty, you have to answer to them—not to me."
Frith waited for no reply, but passed into the little office, and subsequently handed Norman
his letters through the usual aperture, with an unmoved face.
My brother came home angry both at Frith and himself. He related what had passed, and
continued, "How I do hate myself for uttering that foolish boast about owning the whole
place! It was a piece of idle self-assertion, and Frith put me down in the coolest way, by
proving that I had no authority over him. I hardly know whether I am most vexed at
myself or him."
"At yourself, I hope," said I. "You forget your place, dear, and Frith had right on his side.
Were I you, I would never repeat the offence, and I would make Frith respect me, by
frankly owning that I was in the wrong."
"What! Apologize, and promise not to do so any more?"
"Not exactly. But, Norman, dear, there is true dignity in owning a fault, especially one
committed against an inferior in position. It shows that we do not wish to take advantage
of our own, but would act simply as man to man."
Norman could not at once agree to this, or shake off the long-received notion that the
owner of Overford ought to receive unquestioning homage from all around him. He was
not free from class prejudices, and he showed his displeasure by entirely ignoring the
young station-master.
Frith was not above feeling some exultation at having "taken down" Mr. Savell. He
remarked to his wife that he had taught that youngster a lesson.
"If he thinks he can ride rough-shod over me, or play the tyrant because he owns King's
Court, and all the Overford clodhoppers are cap in hand to him, he is mistaken. Let him
beware of touching Her Majesty's mail-bags again, or he will pay for his obstinacy."
"He may be a little hasty, but he is kind and generous. Everyone gives him a good name,
Edward," replied Mrs. Frith, anxious to act as peacemaker, while conscious that her
husband's temperament was only too much like Norman's.
Weeks passed on, and my brother waited for the delivery of the letters at the Court. But
when the day came on which we expected the all-important news from Stephen, his
patience was sorely tried by the tardiness of the train.
At the station a further delay had to be faced. The train must be shunted for the express to
pass it.
Frith and the one porter were engaged in effecting this, and the letter-bag lay on the
platform. Norman felt waiting very hard work, and a half-threatening glance from Frith
made it harder still.
The shunting had only just been completed when the express dashed through, and then
the tardy train had to be brought back to the platform and started on its way.
Everything was against Norman. Frith's look worst of all. He determined to brave the
consequences, and, snatching up the letter-bag, he broke the seal just as the starting of
the train set Frith at liberty to attend to post office duties.
"Put that bag down!" he shouted.
Norman did not obey, but seizing the looked-for letter, he turned away with a light laugh,
then said, "I have only helped myself to one. You may look at it, and my servant will bring
any others."
Frith's reply was addressed to the bystanders. Pointing to the broken seals, he said, "I call
you all to witness that Mr. Savell has unlawfully opened and abstracted a letter from the
mail-bag. He will hear further about this act, and you will be called to prove my charge."
The persons spoken to included Frith's wife, who stood in the doorway, the porter, Parks,
our servant, and the new housemaid he had come to meet, with two or three of the village
people.
Then Frith sorted the remaining letters, counted their number, which would have been
correct with the addition of the one taken out by Norman, and, having copied out all the
addresses, sent them to their several destinations, and completed his task by writing an
account of the affair to the Postmaster-General. Later in the day he said to his wife, "Mr.
Norman will get a lesson he little expects."
"About taking that letter? Well, it was his own. He would never touch what belonged to any
one else."
"That makes no difference, as he will find out to his cost."
"Don't send a report to head-quarters. Mr. Norman will be sorry, I know, and will tell you
so. Just think of Miss Bertha, and pretty Miss Pemberton. She is to marry Mr. Savell after
New Year. Why, if this foolish affair caused trouble, it would break the dear young ladies'
hearts, and I do think it would break mine."
"The letter is gone, Mary. I could only do my duty, and I am afraid there will be no choice
between a very heavy penalty and acquitting Mr. Savell. They could not acquit him in the
face of such evidence, so he will have to pay."
"It was very hard of you to write, Ned," sobbed Mrs. Frith, who was very pretty, and a
bride of only three months' standing. These were the first tears her husband had made her
shed, and in spite of an approving conscience, Frith felt anything but comfortable. He
paced the platform to get out of sight of Mary's sorrowful face, and could not help thinking
that he might have done his duty without painting Mr. Savell's conduct in quite such dark
colours. There are different ways of putting things, and if only he had not written when he
was angry, Frith realised that the truth might have been told in a milder way.
As to Mrs. Frith, she consoled herself with the thought that the young squire had plenty of
money, and would not feel the fine as a poorer man might. She never dreamed that a far
heavier penalty had been incurred which money could not pay.
CHAPTER IV.
STEPHEN HASTINGS had passed triumphantly, and would follow his letter immediately.
There was just a chance that he would reach Overford by the last train. This was the news
contained in the letter.
There was great sympathy between Norman and me, and we rejoiced in each other's joy,
but the thought of approaching separation was the one drawback. When I became
Stephen's wife, I must bid farewell to my only brother, perhaps for many years to come.
He, dear fellow, forgot this, I think, as he said, "We shall have the double wedding, and
you will look like a princess in Uncle Bernard's bequest. You will outshine Lucy, who will
wear no jewels on her marriage day."
I turned from the subject of wedding bravery to speak of Stephen. I was naturally very
proud of the position he had won, and I said so, while from my heart went up thanksgiving
to God for the success vouchsafed him.
Again came words of joyous congratulation from Norman, and a proposition that we should
go together to the station, on the chance of meeting Stephen.
"We will start early, for I want to make things right with Frith," added Norman. "He is a
good fellow, though a little overbearing, and I am too happy to remain at enmity with any
one."
I took alarm at these words, and exclaimed, "Surely you did not touch the mail-bag again,
after being warned!"
"Yes, dear, I did. The shunting of the train took so much time that I lost patience and
helped myself to your letter. Frith was in a rage, but I shall make things straight with him
by a handshake and a promise not to offend again."

1 2 Peter and Jude Through The Centuries Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries 1St Edition Rebecca Skaggs Full Chapter PDF Scribd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 2 Peter and Jude Through The Centuries Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries 1St Edition Rebecca Skaggs Full Chapter PDF Scribd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1, 2 Peter and Jude Through the

Centuries (Wiley Blackwell Bible

John Through the Centuries Six Minor Prophets Through the

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Cover Design: Wiley

Set in 10/12.5pt Minion by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

Chapter 1 The Transformed Life in the Context

Chapter 2 Three Practical Situations

Chapter 3 Christ’s Visit to the Spirits in Prison, 3:18–22 91

Effects in Art 114

Chapter 4 The Transformed Life: The Believer as

Chapter 5 Final Exhortations and Greetings

Chapter 6 Jude: A Dynamic Response to Heresy 166

Chapter 7 Excursus: Jude’s Role in the Reception

Chapter 8 Greetings and the Bases for

Chapter 9 The False Teachers and Peter’s

Chapter 10 Where is the Promise of His

Chapter 11 Excursus: Delay of the Parousia (2 Peter 3) 255

Concluding Remarks 265

Appendix 1: Who Wrote These Epistles? The Reception of 1, 2

ABC Anchor Bible Commentary

CIM Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv

Historical Overview and Genre

A key component in the reception history of a text is the understanding of how

­ rovide a non‐Pauline perspective of the early beliefs and practices (Bray,

2010: 51ff; also Bauckham 1983: 131–133). Although Pseudo‐Euthalius is not

In summary, although risking oversimplification, modern scholarship

Reception Historical Sources for 1, 2 Peter, and Jude

We are seeking to include a variety of kinds of interpretations through the cen-

Significant Ancient Interpreters

Clement of Alexandria (c.150–215) is the earliest commentator to write a full

s­ eventh‐century monk. Some of his sources can be identified from existing

Nineteenth‐ and Twentieth‐Century Perspectives

On Jude and 2 Peter

Jerome Neyrey is one of the first to apply social‐scientific method in his

Overview and Themes of Each Epistle

Aims and Methods of this Commentary

The approach of this commentary series is rooted in the work of Hans‐Georg

be possible by considering the “horizons of expectations”; that is, by exploring

The guiding principle for this commentary series is to provide a representa-

Literary Relationships: Which Came First – Jude or 2 Peter?

extremely similar, the treatment of it by each author is significantly different, for

1. Jude is dependent on 2 Peter. Many of the ancient writers as well as Luther

current study, but it hardly needs to be undertaken given the treatment of

Author, Audience, and Abundant Grace (1:1–2)

grace‐­and‐peace blessing as one), followed by three dependent clauses describ-

according to the foreknowledge of God.

For Didymus the Blind (313–398) foreknowledge is a matter of perspective; he

In contrast, Arminius reads vv.1–2 as a refutation of Calvin’s thesis of

It is therefore contrary to the renewed nature of the believers and in antagonism

The Declaration of Faith of the New Hampshire Baptist Convention (1833–1853)

God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners”

Blest be the Father and His love,

Glory to Thee, great Son of God,

We give the sacred Spirit praise,

Thus God the Father, God the Son,

The grace‐and‐peace blessing is a Christian adaptation of the secular peace

The Meaning and Purpose of Suffering (1:3–10)

vv.3–5 praise for God who has brought us to a living hope.

Clement of Alexandria is more interested in the nature of the incorruptible

Peter calls it incorruptible and unfading, demonstrating by this that it is a pure

In contrast, Bede reads “hope” in relation to our anticipation of the resurrection

rovide a non‐Pauline perspective of the early beliefs and practices (Bray,

s eventh‐century monk. Some of his sources can be identified from existing

grace‐and‐peace blessing as one), followed by three dependent clauses describ-