46 Terrance Callan describing the false teachers as ones “who will secretly bring in destructive opinions”. The verb of this clause has the same prefixes (i.e., pareis) as the verb in the main clause of Jude 4. Jude criticized the presence of certain people and their way of life; 2 Peter changed this into a critique of those who will be present and teach falsely in the future. This false teaching is denial of the second coming of Christ (9). 2 Peter says that their opinions are destructive, that they bring destruction on themselves (v. 1), and that their destruction is not asleep (v. 3). This emphasis on destruction may owe something to Jude’s reference to God’s destruction of unbelievers in v. 5. This repetition of the word “destruction” in close proximity in three different cases constitutes a figure of speech called polyptoton. After adapting the main clause of Jude 4, 2 Peter passed over a participial phrase, an adjective, and another participial phrase, and went directly to the final participial phrase with which Jude described its opponents, i.e., they “deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”. For the author of 2 Peter this is the most important criticism of his opponents. From Jude, 2 Peter took only the words “denying the Master”. But 2 Peter replaced the adjective “only” and the phrase “and our Lord Jesus Christ”, with two participial phrases. The first describes the Master as the one “who bought them”; the second observes that by this denial they bring “swift destruction on themselves”. Describing Jesus as the Master “who bought them” emphasized the heinousness of denying him. 2 Peter’s second elaboration made the consequences of denying the Master explicit. By moving the phrase “denying the Master” forward, the author of 2 Peter made it a description of the content of the false teaching he opposes. In Jude 4 the phrase probably spells out what Jude sees as the implications of the opponents’ manner of life. For 2 Peter it summarizes the teaching of the opponents, i.e., their denial of the second coming of Jesus, as well as the behavior that follows from this teaching (cf. 2,2) (10). Also in line with 2 Peter’s use of the material of Jude to criticize teachers, 2 Pet 2,2 adds that many will follow them. Watson suggests that this also forms an inclusio with the author’s (9) T. FORNBERG, An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter (ConBNT 9; Lund 1977) 36. (10) Watson (Invention, 174) and Neyrey (2 Peter, Jude, 188-89) think the opponents deny Jesus by denying his second coming. Bauckham argues that the opponents deny Jesus by teaching and practicing immorality (Jude, 2 Peter, 241). Kelly thinks their denial took both forms (Epistles, 320).