Kata Markon

[JFAlward AT aol.com]

In a message dated 3/20/01 8:53:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
larry.swain AT wmich.edu writes:

<< 
 > =========
 > Swain:
 >
 > I'm not sure that that was the author's point in 2 Peter.  Is he defending 
the
 > gospels, or is he maligning the works of other "Christian," Jewish, and 
pagan
 > religions?  The context seems to me to suggest the latter.
 > ========
 > I disagree.  Peter seems to be defending himself and the gospel writers.
 > Peter and Matthew made it clear that Jesus was going to return soon, within
 > the lifetimes of some of his disciples.
 >
 > "But the end of all things is at hand; be ye therefore sober, and watch 
unto
 > prayer.  (1 Peter 4:7
 >
 > "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste 
of
 > death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."  (Matthew 
16:28)
 >
 > "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
 > (Matthew 24:29-34)
 >
 >  "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand....Ye 
shall
 > not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of Man be come."
 > (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 10:23)
 >
 > Thus, the end of the world would come so soon that Jesus' disciples would 
not
 > even have time to spread the word to all of the Jews in the cities of 
Israel.
 >  When Jesus' promise wasn't kept, Peter felt he had some explaining to do,
 > and he did it in his second letter in which he assured believers that Jesus
 > would keep his promise and that the stories told about Jesus were not 
fables:
 >
 > "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing... The Lord is not slack
 > concerning his promise, as some men count slackness"  (2 Peter 3:8-10)
 >
 > "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto
 > you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitness of 
his
 > majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)
 >
 > Both of these comments remind me of Nixon's "I'm not a crook" speech.
 >
 
 Joe,
 This does seem to be exegesis from conclusion though.  The context of the 
verse
 you cite is a contrast between the author who is "still in the body" 
reminding the
 readers of "these things" and the false prophets arising among the body 
described
 at the beginning of chapter 2.  Thus, it seems to me that the statement in 
1:16 is
 best understood not as a defense of the Christian message but rather as a 
contrast
 to those who are not "orthodox" if you'll pardon the anachronism.  Fuller 
exegesis
 could follow if necessary.
 
 Larry Swain
  >>

Speaking only for myself, I'd say it's necessary.


Regards,

Joe