The Pleroma (13) - Charles H. Welch

No.13. The Testimony of Peter 

to the days of Noah. 

After the great gap formed by the loss of Paradise, the record divides into two according as the false and the true seed are spoken of, until we come to the next great crisis, the Deluge. Here history seems to repeat itself. The deep (Heb. tehom) of Gen. i. 2, is not referred to again until we reach the record of the Flood (Gen. vii. 11; viii. 2). The ‘dry land’ (Heb. yabbashah Gen. i. 9, 10) which appeared on the third day from beneath the waters, finds an echo in the ‘drying up’ of the earth after the Flood (Heb. yabesh Gen. viii. 7, 14). There are a number of interesting parallel features between Adam and Noah, which establish that the relationship is intended. For example both Adam and Noah are commanded to replenish the earth, both have three sons, one of whom becomes involved in a curse and is either ‘of that wicked one’ or the father of Canaan, who in his turn is seen to be of the evil seed. These parallels are so close that we have accepted without question that Peter, in his second epistle, chapter iii. refers to Gen. i. 1 and 2, whereas a careful study of his epistles will show that he had, primarily, the days of Noah before his mind. This testimony is important, and the examination of it will necessitate a fairly intensive study, but the subject matter is of the deepest solemnity and fully justifies all the time and space which we have devoted to its elucidation. Just as the primal creation is balanced after the gap of the ages by the “End” that succeeds the New Heaven and the New Earth, and just as Paradise lost is balanced by Paradise restored, so the structure persists and another pair of corresponding members can be added to the outline already presented in articles that have previously appeared. 

Let us now attend to the teaching of Scripture with regard to this great epoch. 

Much light can be obtained on matters that are beyond our ken or experience but the use of analogy, and much of Israel’s history and hope foreshadows the wider purpose of the ages.

Most teachers have found Peter’s words in II Pet. iii. of great service in visualizing the great unfolding of this purpose, and to this we first of all address ourselves. In the volume entitled Dispensational Truth the reader will find set out in structural form, the Purpose of the Ages, beginning with Gen. i., ending with I Cor. xv. 28 and revealing the dispensation of the Mystery as central. We will not reproduce the whole outline, the following abridged extract is all that will be needed. 

It is clear from this extract that we believe that the ages began with the present creation. The question of what we believe however is of minor importance, the supreme question is What saith the Scriptures? As pioneers in the sphere of Dispensational Truth, the Mystery and related subjects, we must be the first to admit to repeated necessity of revision, and the present seems an opportune moment to give this and related matters a somewhat fuller examination than has hitherto been possible. 

The moment we attempt to place the age-times, the question of the three creations of Scripture presses for fuller consideration, for unless we entertain Scriptural views concerning these three great acts of creation, all contention as to ‘before’ and ‘since’ any one of them will necessarily be futile. 

A very superficial reading of Scripture will convince the student that there are revealed three great creative movements—one past, one present and one future. 

(1) “In the beginning” (Gen. i. 1) Primal Creation. 
(2) “In six days” (Gen. i. 3 - ii. 3) Present Creation. 
(3) “In the day of God” (II Pet. iii. 12, 13). New Heavens and new earth. 

The primal creation of Gen. i. 1 is separated by the chaos of Gen. i. 2 from the present creation; this statement has yet to be proved, while the present creation is again separated from the New Heavens and Earth by the dissolution of II Pet. iii. 10, and the following diagram visualizes this feature in the great purpose of the ages. 

Peter, as a minister of the Circumcision, is particularly concerned with that portion of the purpose of the ages that impinges upon the hope of Israel. There is however in the history of Israel much that is typical of vaster things, and we are not surprised therefore to discover features that foreshadow the larger issues dealt with by Paul alone. This vast sweep of the ages which we have suggested in the diagram given above, finds an echo in the words of Peter when he speaks of past, present and future heavens and earth, as they appear in the prophetic view of Israel and its hope. 

We may use Peter’s language as a guide to the wider purposes of the age thus: 

providing we remember all the time that vaster issues than those visualized in II Peter are in view. Peter wrote his epistles to: 

“The strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” (I Pet. i. 1). 

As II Pet. iii. opens with the words “This second epistle, I now write unto you” it is evident that the chapter before us was addressed to the ‘circumcision’. The term diaspora ‘scattered’ became a name to designate ‘the twelve tribes scattered abroad’ (James i. 1), or the ‘dispersed among the Gentiles’ (John vii. 35 R.V. margin). This term had become fixed during the two hundred years before Christ that the Septuagint had been in use, for in such passages as Deut. xxx. 4, Neh. i. 9, Psa. cxlvii. 2 diaspora is used of the ‘outcasts of Israel’. 

As we shall have occasion to compare some of the language of Peter with the Gospel according to Mark, it will be well to make sure that the reader is aware of the close association of these two servants of the Lord. 

From Acts xii. 12 we learn that Peter was friendly with Mark’s mother and in I Pet. v. 13 he speaks of “Marcus my son”. Jerome speaks of both Paul and Peter with their assistants thus:

“Therefore he (Paul) had Titus for a Secretary, as the blessed Peter, had Mark, whose Gospel was composed by him after the dictation of Peter.” 

To this may be added the testimony of Eusebius: 

“After the departure of Peter and Paul, Mark the disciple and secretary (hermeneutes or ‘interpreter’) of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what Peter had preached.” 

The four Gospels therefore stand related to one another as follows:

A | Matthew.      Independent. 
   B | Mark.        Interpreter of Peter. 
   B | Luke.        Fellow-worker with Paul. 
A | John.           Independent. 

We are now free to examine II Pet. iii., and we shall remember as we do it, that Peter, the minister of the circumcision, admits in the same chapter that the Apostle Paul has many things to say which were hard to be understood both by himself (Peter) and his hearers, and we shall not expect to find the sweep backward beyond Gen. i. 2 in Peter’s most far flung statement, that we find in Paul’s great epistles of the Mystery. We must make a preliminary enquiry into the testimony of II Pet. iii. 1-14 and discover the scope of Peter’s Ministry and Epistle. We note that chapters i. and ii. must be considered as introductory, for it is chapter iii. that opens with the words “This second Epistle, beloved, I now write unto you”, and the burden of the chapter is the denial by scoffers of the possibility of the Lord’s return by an appeal to the supposed “Uniformity of Natural Law”, and the exposure of the weakness of this objection by the Apostle. An examination of the first chapter will show that this was prominently in his mind all the time. II Pet. i. 16-21 is an anticipation of II Pet. iii. 2, 3 and II Pet. ii. 1-22 is an anticipation of II Pet. iii. 3-13 and corresponds in the structure which will be given later. These selfsame scoffers, or their predecessors, have evidently charged the believer who expected the personal return of the Lord with following ‘cunningly devised fables’ (II Pet. i. 16), and from this he proceeds to the nature and trustworthiness of prophecy, recalling in passing the conviction he himself had received of its truth when upon the Mount of Transfiguration. 

The structure of the passage is as follows:

In this opening argument we have similar features that are re-stated or amplified in chapter iii. 

The Second Coming of Christ. 
The charge made ‘cunningly devised fables’. 
The testimony of apostle and prophet. 
The introductory phrase ‘knowing this first’. 

In II Pet. iii. we have: 

The Second Coming of Christ. 
The scoffers’ charge ‘where is the promise of His coming?’. 
The testimony of prophets and apostles. 
The introductory phrase ‘knowing this first’. 

To piece together the complete structure in all its details would take us too long and is not necessary for our present purpose. The following abridged outline will be all that is required to demonstrate the scope of the epistle and particularly the correspondence that exists between II Pet. i. 16-21 & iii. 2, 3 and II Pet. ii. 1-22 with iii. 3-13. If this is realized, we shall have reached the first step in our enquiry. We draw special attention to the two words ‘overthrow’ katastrophe and ‘overflow’ katakluzo, and the correspondence established between the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, with the dissolution of the elements. 

In the second chapter which corresponds with the section dealing with the scoffers and their condemnation, Peter speaks of the following recorded interventions of the Lord, showing how untrue the intervention of the Lord’s return by saying “since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were”. Four instances are given by the Apostle of judgments that could not be the mere working of natural law. 

The casting down of the angels that sinned (II Pet. ii. 4). 

The bringing in a flood in the days of Noah (II Pet. ii. 5). 

The turning of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemning them by an ‘overthrow’ katastrophe (II Pet. ii. 6). 

The rebuking of Balaam by the speaking of a dumb ass (II Pet. ii. 15, 16). 

From these examples the Apostle draws the conclusion:

“The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (II Pet. ii. 9). 

We have now advanced a step in our pursuit of the truth. In the first part of the study the fact was established that there were three creative movements recorded in Scripture, and that Peter, whose reference to creation is occupying our attention, was a minister of the circumcision. To this we have now added some idea of the general scope of this epistle, and of II Pet. iii. 3-14 in particular. We are, therefore, now ready, to give II Pet. iii. 3-14 a fuller and more detailed examination. 

--------------

(From The Berean Expositor vol. 42, page 242).

----------------

Greater Riches than the Treasures in Egypt (7)

by Charles H. Welch

No.7. The basic meaning of righteousness.

We have seen that although salvation is by grace through faith and is not of works, that nevertheless the most exacting claim of even-handed justice has been met. We now continue our study in this fundamental of our faith to discover how this righteousness in which we stand, this righteousness which Christ has been made unto us, becomes our own. 

The word which will form the focus of our investigation must be the word ‘justify’. Our first concern must be to discover the primitive meaning of the term as expressed in the Hebrew and Greek equivalents. While we can say ‘glory’ and ‘glorify’ we cannot say ‘righteous’ and ‘righteously’. Nor can we accept the word ‘rectify’ for that today has shades of meaning that do not fit the case. The English borrows from the Anglo-Saxon riht for one word, and from the Latin jus for the other, and their common origin is demonstrated by an appeal to the Greek original. 

Joseph is said to be a ‘just’ man, and the adjective employed is dikaios (Matt. i. 19). The same Greek word appears in Matt. ix. 13 where it is translated ‘righteous’. So in John v. 30 we read “My judgment is just” and in John vii. 24 “Judge righteous judgment”. So the adverb dikaios is translated ‘justly’ in I Thess. ii. 10 and ‘righteously’ in Titus ii. 12. Dikaioo is generally translated “be righteous” as in Rev. xxii. 11. Dikaioma is rendered ‘justification’ in Rom. v. 16 and ‘righteousness’ in Rom. v. 18. The same interchangeability is true of the renderings of the Hebrew equivalent tsedaqah, tsedeq, tsadaq and tsaddiq. 

The Hebrew word tsadaq ‘righteous’ is derived from a root that means ‘straight’, ‘balanced’, ‘equivalent’, which meaning is expanded but not exceeded in the law ‘an eye for an eye’, and is set forth in the figure of the weights and balances, or the plumb-line, both of which figures are employed by the inspired writers of holy Scripture. The usage of the word tsadaq can be illustrated by the following passage: 

“If there be a controversy between men, and they came unto judgment, that the judges may judge them: then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked” (Deut. xxv. 1). 

But “they shall condemn the wicked” is literally “they shall make him wicked”, which, by a recognized figure, means, ‘to declare’ him to be so. The truth of this statement can be tested by turning to Gen. xli. 12, 13. The Egyptian butler who had been cast into prison together with the baker, had had his dream interpreted by Joseph. The baker’s dream also foretold his execution, but the butler’s dream foretold his restoration. Upon learning that Pharaoh had been troubled by a dream, the meaning of which none could declare, the butler remembered his faults, and told Pharaoh of Joseph, saying “So it was; me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged” (Gen. xli. 13). If we take this literally then Joseph the prisoner, was also Joseph the hangman, which we know is not only absurd but untrue. 

Under the heading Metonymy, Dr. E. W. Bullinger, in his book Figures of Speech used in the Bible, devotes 69 pages to examples and this figure is used in Gen. xli. 13. 

“The Subject (i.e. the thing or action) for that which is connected with it (i.e. the Adjunct), we have the ‘Verb’.”

“Where the ‘action’ is put for the ‘declaration’ concerning it; or where what is said to be done is put for what is declared, or permitted, or foretold as to be done.” 

“Me he restored (i.e. declared that I should be restored) unto mine office, and him he hanged (i.e. declared that he should be hanged).” 

Justification does not impart righteousness, any more than condemnation imparts wickedness, justification is a declaration, it simply declares a person righteous, without in any case telling us how or where the righteousness in which he stands is obtained. Justification looks on the balances. It sees 1 pound on one scale and 16 ounces on the other. It is not concerned who provided the 16 ounces. That is the concern of Grace, Mercy and Love. 

There can be no possibility of introducing the idea of transfusing righteousness in the following non-doctrinal occurrences of ‘justify’. 

“For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt. xii. 37). 

“But he willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?” (Luke x. 29). 

“Ye are they which justify yourselves before men” (Luke xvi. 15). 

Righteousness and justification have been called ‘forensic’ terms, a word derived from the Roman Forum, where the law-courts were held. This law-court atmosphere pervades the teaching on the subject of both of O.T and N.T. 

(1) God is looked upon as a Judge (Rom. viii. 33). 

(2) The person to be justified is ‘guilty’, exposed to ‘judgment’ and without ‘plea’ (Rom. i. 32; iii. 19). 

(3) There are three accusers (a) The Law (John v. 45); (b) Conscience (Rom. ii. 15); (c) Satan (Zech. iii. 2; Rev. xii. 10). 

(4) The charge has been drawn up in legal handwriting (Col. ii. 14). 

It is, however, important to remember that while this atmosphere of the law-court is a fact, the procedure and circumstances of our justification are alike unknown to the law of Moses or to any human court. 

“When a man is tried before an earthly tribunal he must either be condemned or acquitted; if he be condemned, he may be pardoned, but he cannot be justified, if he be acquitted, he may be justified, but he cannot stand in the need of pardon” (Scott, Essays). 

In the gospel, our justification is always connected with forgiveness, and implies that we are guilty. God is said to ‘justify the ungodly’, which, in any other court, is both impossible and illegal. 

Continuing therefore our list of ‘forensic’ terms, we note that: 

(5) The gospel provides the guilty man with an all-sufficient plea (Rom. iii. 23-25). 
(6) The Lord Himself is the Advocate (I John ii. 1, 2), and occupies the place of the accuser at ‘the right hand’ (Rom. viii. 34; Zech. iii. 1). 
(7) The sentence passed upon all believers is one of complete remission, justification and acceptance, together with a title to life and inheritance (Rom. viii. 1, 33, 34; II Cor. v. 21). 

Justification includes the following: 

(1) The remission of sins, viewed as a debt. 
(2) The pardon by a sovereign of a condemned criminal, whose offence is blotted out from his book. 
(3) The “covering by cancellation” which is the essence of the meaning of O.T. word Atonement (see articles in various issues of The Berean Expositor and in the doctrinal Alphabetical Analysis). 
(4) The imputation of a righteousness of God through the faith of, and through faith in Jesus Christ. 

Dewar, in his Elements, says: 

“Our justification is not by a righteousness performed, but a righteousness received.” 

“Justification changes our state; sanctification changes our nature.” 

The grounds of our justification in the gospel are: 

(1) We are justified by His (Christ’s) blood, through redemption (Rom. v. 9; iii. 24). 
(2) We are justified freely, by grace (Rom. iii. 24; Titus iii. 7). 
(3) We are justified by faith (Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 28). 
(4) Negatively: no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law or by works of any kind (Rom. iii. 20; iii. 28; iv. 2; Gal. ii. 16; iii. 11; v. 4). 

If we inquire what is the source of this act of justification, the answer is grace, free unmerited grace. 

If we inquire as to what is the meritorious cause of such an act; the answer is the Redemptive and Atoning sacrifice of Christ. 

If we inquire as to how this righteousness become ours, the answer is twofold (1) by faith and (2) by imputation. 

This subdivision of the subject is for the inquirer’s benefit, but we must beware of intruding these subdivisions too far into the realm of doctrine. As Scott, in his Essays says: 

“Justification may therefore be ascribed, either to the source, to the meritorious cause, or to the recipient thereof, even as (to use a familiar illustration) a drowning person may be said to be saved either by a man on the bank of the river, or by the rope thrown out to him, or by the hand laying hold on the rope.” 

In our next article we must consider more closely the receiving end of justification, ‘faith’ and ‘imputation’, but let us not befog our clear conception of salvation by arguing concerning the distinctive merits of ‘the man’, ‘the rope’, or ‘the hand’, for we shall assuredly drown if either of the three is missing. 

The following attempt to visualize the meaning of the word “justified” is primarily for young people, but the writer believes that many who are advanced in the faith will appreciate the suggestion here offered. It is not original, and has been in use for some time. 

Take a strip of paper, say two or three inches in width and about eighteen inches long. On this paper write the words:

JUST AS IF I HAD NEVER DONE IT 

Now fold the paper back at the word “just” and before the word “if”, so as to bring together the syllables “JUSTIF”. Repeat the process until only the word “JUSTIFIED” is visible. After explaining the meaning of the word, and how the sinner is justified by grace, extend the slip of paper, until the whole sentence is revealed. God treats the sinner, for Christ’s sake, as though he were righteous, but he made Him, the Righteous One, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 

-------------------

(From The Berean Expositor vol. 42, page 106).

---------------------