Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:27:52.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Where is the Promise of his Coming?’ The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3.4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2005

EDWARD ADAMS
EDWARD ADAMS
Affiliation:
Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A close analysis of the report of 2 Pet 3.4, paying attention to its precise wording, and a careful reading of the author's response to it in the verses that follow show that the prevailing interpretation of the scoffers' eschatological mockery is unsound. The target of the scoffers' criticism was not so much the parousia of Jesus as the OT promise of a final, eschatological irruption underlying it. Their scepticism was founded neither on the failure of Jesus to come back within a generation, nor on a denial of divine intervention. Rather, it was based on the long period of time that had elapsed since the promise was originally made and the assumption that the eschatological promise involved the prospect of cosmic destruction, which the scoffers rejected on philosophical grounds.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 106 - 122
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article has gone through a number of forms and has been presented as a paper on several occasions. The piece has benefited a great deal from general feedback received at these times. Special thanks go to Professor Harold Attridge, Dr Douglas Campbell, Dr David Horrell, Dr George van Kooten, and the anonymous reader of this article appointed by the journal for their helpful comments. I am especially indebted to my colleague Professor Judith Lieu for making a suggestion that now forms one of the main planks of my argument.