The Pleroma (14) - Charles H. Welch

No.14. A preliminary enquiry into the testimony of II Pet. iii. 1-14. 

Proofs that Peter makes no direct reference beyond Gen. i. 3. 

Before we can come to any definite conclusion about the intention of the Apostle in II Pet. iii. 3-14, we must arrive at some certain understanding of the terms he uses. There are few students of Scripture but who, when they read the words of II Pet. iii. 4 “the BEGINNING of creation” will go back in mind immediately to Gen. i. 1 and John i. 1, where the same word arche ‘beginning’ is found either in the Septuagint or in the original Greek N.T. Yet upon examination, such a reference back is proved to be untrue. We have already spoken of Mark the ‘interpreter’ of Peter, and the present is an opportunity to test his words. Mark uses the word arche ‘beginning’ four times thus: 

The two references to creation challenge our attention, and we are sure that the established meaning of these two passages in Mark’s Gospel must influence most profoundly our interpretation of the same words in II Pet. iii. Here therefore is the first passage in full. 

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark x. 6). 

It is not a matter of debate therefore that Mark uses the expression ‘the beginning of the creation’ to refer exclusively to the creation of Gen. i. 3, and so by logical necessity cannot include Gen. i. 1. 

Let us read the second reference: 

“For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be” (Mark xiii. 19). 

All we need to do to show that the same limitation must be observed is to place beside this reference, two parallel passages. 

“For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matt. xxiv. 21). 

“There shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time” (Dan. xii. 1). 

We cannot conceive that any reader with these passages before him, would wish to read into Mark xiii. 19 a reference back to Gen. i. 1, the words ‘Since there was a nation’ being the earliest statement, out of which the others have grown. 

We are therefore certain that the words quoted by Peter ‘from the beginning of the creation’ are limited to the Adamic Earth. The context moreover of any expression has a part to play in deciding its meaning, so we must now observe the way in which it is introduced and with what other terms it is associated. 

“Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” 

It is strange enough to think of linking up the death of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the fathers) with the six days creation; it is unthinkable when we attempt to link such events with the remote period of Gen. i. 1. 

The argument of these opposers appears to be that just as the ‘fathers’ died one after the other, and no interference with ‘nature’ has yet broken the hold of death, so, from the beginning of the world all things have continued without break, and ever will, so rendering either the hope of resurrection, the Second Coming or the Day of Judgment, unreasonable. 

Peter, however, has already met this argument. Did all things continue as they were in the days of Noah? Was there no Divine intervention in the days of Sodom? Is there no import in the use of the two distinctive words katastrophe and katakluzo? 

Further, we must not forget that the words in question were spoken by the ‘scoffers’. What did they know of the ‘overthrow of the world’? Not one of them so far as there is any record had ever seen the skeleton of a brontosaurus or a fossilized ichthyosaurus. The science of their day made creation originate from chaos (see Hislop’s Two Babylons), and these scoffers most certainly did not know more of ancient history than the inspired Apostle. 

In his opening rejoinder Peter says “For this they willingly are ignorant of” a sentence that does not do justice to either the English language or the inspired original. The R.V. read “For this they willfully forget” and Dr. Weymouth renders the passage “For they are willfully blind to the fact”. No person can be charged with ‘willful forgetfulness’ if the matter lies beyond his ken. The heathen world was without excuse in their idolatry because of the witness of creation around them, but not even the scoffers could ‘wilfully neglect’ the evidences of the primal creation because they were unrevealed and unattainable by human search at that time. These scoffers, however, could be charged with willful neglect of the Divine record of Genesis which shows how the selfsame water that played so prominent a part in the six days creation was actually used to bring about the Flood in the days of Noah. This they could have known, and with its neglect they could be charged. Lanthano, the word translated ‘ignorant’ in II Pet. iii. 5 A.V. occurs again in verse 8 “Be not ignorant of this one thing”. This fact must not be ignored by ourselves, as it is evident that such a recurrence indicates a structural feature, and is of consequence to true interpretation. The word lanthano seems to demand an English equivalent that lies somewhere between the ‘ignorance’ of the A.V. and the ‘forgetting’ of the R.V., and Moffatt seems to have chosen wisely here, for he renders the word in both passages ‘ignore’. Ignorance of any fact modifies the culpability of a person; forgetfulness, while serious, nevertheless modifies the guilt of an act, but to ‘wilfully ignore’ leaves no such margin of excuse, and that is the thought here. Without making too great a diversion by dealing with the structure of II Pet. iii. 1-13 as a whole, it will be sufficient for our present purpose to confine ourselves to verses 4-9. 

God does not hold men accountable where knowledge is unattainable. Knowledge concerning things that happened during the primal creation of Gen. i. 1 could not be ‘ignored’ by anyone, because no details are given in the revealed Word. These men, however, could, and evidently did, willfully ignore the testimony of Gen. i. 3-8, and so were without excuse. 

The reference to ‘the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished’ must either refer to the chaos of Gen. i. 2 and must exclude the Flood in the days of Noah, or it must refer to the Flood and exclude Gen. i. 2; it cannot refer to both. We have positive evidence that Peter makes reference to the Deluge of Noah’s day as part of his teaching and while this does nor prove anything so far as II Pet. iii. 6 is concerned, it is a weight in the scale. We must continue our study of the terms used by Peter. 

“The heavens were of old.” Do these words refer to the primal creation of Gen. i. 1? Or do they refer to the creation of the world Adam and his race? Ekpalai occurs in but one other passage in the N.T. namely in II Pet. ii. 3: 

“Whose judgment now a long time lingereth not.” 

There is no need for argument here. These false prophets must belong to the Adamic creation, and consequently there is added reason to believe that Peter’s second use of the term will be but an expansion of the first, and that II Pet. iii. 6 refers back as far as Gen. i. 3 but no farther. 

Palai simply means ‘old’, palaios, palaiotes and palaioo also occur and should be examined. We give just two examples: 

“But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins” (II Pet. i. 9). 

“God Who at sundry times and in diverse manners, spake in time past” (Heb.i. 1). 

The expression “the heavens were of old” therefore refers quite legitimately to Gen. i. 6. This ‘firmament’ was temporary and is to pass away, as many passages of Scripture testify. There is no passage, however, that teaches that heaven itself, the dwelling place of the Most High, will ever pass away, and this is an added reason for limiting Peter’s words to the present creation. 

The earth ‘standing’ out of the water, appears to refer to the way in which the present system was brought into being. Sunistemi is translated ‘consist’ in Col. i. 17, and while it would take a scientist to explain the meaning of II Pet. iii. 5, the reference is so evidently back to Gen. i. 3 onwards that scientific proof is not necessary to our argument. 

The association of the ‘water’ and creation, with the ‘water’ that caused the ‘overflow’ of II Pet. iii. 6, is emphasized when one observes that after the many references to water in Gen. i., no further mention is made until the ominous words of Gen. vi. 17 are reached “I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth”. These things the scoffers ‘wilfully ignored’. 

The future dissolution will involve the heavens as well as the earth (II Pet. iii. 10), whereas it was ‘the world’ not the heaven and the earth that ‘perished’ in the days of Noah. The heavens and the earth remained, and so could be called by Peter ‘The heavens and the earth which are now’. 

In the second chapter of the epistle Peter refers to the Flood and speaks of ‘the old world’ and ‘the world of the ungodly’ (II Pet. ii. 5), similarly in both II Pet. ii. 4 & iii. 7 he use 248).s the word ‘reserved’ in reference to judgment. 

Again in II Pet. iii. 6 the Greek word katakluzomai is used where the translation reads “being overflowed with water”. In II Pet. ii. 5 he uses the word kataklusmos (which becomes in English ‘cataclysm’) “bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly” which makes the parallel between these two chapters even more obvious. 

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

(From The Berean Expositor vol. 42, page 248).

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

Greater Riches than the Treasures in Egypt (8)

by Charles H. Welch

No.8. Righteousness, or Faith made Perfect. 

We have considered the meaning of righteousness, and have seen the way in which it is related to law, faith and grace in the Scriptures. We now turn our attention to the testimony of two apostles to the doctrine of Justification. First we will examine the teaching of James, who wrote: 

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James ii. 24). 

Is the testimony of James a contradiction of the teaching of Paul? Some say that it is and sweep it aside. “No”, says others, “James was not ministering the gospel of Grace: his readers were the Circumcision; they were justified by works”! This is equally disastrous, for the Scriptures have declared that ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight’. The key to the problem is found in two facts: 

(1) Justification by faith, as taught in Romans, finds its basic Scripture in Gen. xv. Justification by works, as taught in James, finds its basic Scripture in Gen. xxii. Between these two passages Abraham has been exhorted to ‘walk before God and be perfect’, and in Gen. xxii., in the offering of Isaac, his faith was tried and found true. 

(2) The second fact is found in James ii. 22: 

“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” (“Perfect” is a key word of James.) 

JUSTIFICATION AS TAUGHT BY PAUL: 

Genesis xv. 6 and Romans iv. 4 - 25. 

(1) The Negative—How Abraham WAS NOT justified. 

       (a) Not by works (Rom. iv. 4-8). 

       (b) Not by circumcision (Rom. iv. 9-12). 

       (c) Not by law (Rom. iv. 13-16). 

(2) The Positive—How Abraham WAS justified. 

       (a) Faith, related to resurrection power (Rom. iv. 17). 

       (b) Faith, facing human inability (Rom. iv. 19). 

       (c) Faith, related to promise and the Word (Rom. iv. 17, 18, 20). 

(3) The Personal—How may I be justified? 

       (a) Not “for his sake alone”. The analogy of Scripture (Rom. iv. 23). 

       (b) If we believe (Rom. iv. 24). 

       (c) Raised again because of our justification (Rom. iv. 25). 

JUSTIFICATION AS TAUGHT BY JAMES: 

(1) His basis is Gen. xxii. Abraham’s existing faith was tried and proved to be genuine by the “work of faith”. “Now I know” (Gen. xxii. 12). 

(2) “Perfect” is in the Greek teleioo. This word is cognate with telos, which means ‘end’, in the sense of ‘goal’ (Rom. vi. 21; I Cor. xv. 24; I Tim. i.5; James v. 11). 

To go on unto perfection was to reach one’s goal or aim, and is explained by the language of Phil. iii. 12: “That I may apprehend that for which I also am apprehended of Christ Jesus.” 

In Gal. iii. 3 ‘perfected’ is placed in antithesis with ‘begin’. Faith is ‘perfected’ by the works that accompany it; they bring faith to its legitimate ‘end’. So the love of God can be perfected’ (I John ii. 5; iv. 12, 17, 18). His strength can be “perfected” (II Cor. xii. 9), and even holiness can be ‘perfected’ or brought to its logical and practical conclusion (II Cor. vii. 1, see II Cor. vi. 14-18). So Paul desired that he might ‘finish’ (same word) his course (Acts xx. 24). In chapter i. James speaks more of this ‘perfecting’. 

“Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing” (James i. 4). 

In chapter ii. 14 of his epistle, James asks, “Can that faith save him?” and follows by the illustration of verses 15 and 16. Three times James says ‘faith without works is dead’, and with this Paul would agree. The initial act of justification is ‘by faith, without works’. God justifies the ‘ungodly’ (Rom. iv. 5) whose ‘works’ would but the more condemn him. But after the ungodly has been ‘declared righteous’, continuance in sin, unfruitful living, mere lip service, is no more tolerated by Paul than by James. If we distinguish between ‘the ground’ of our justification as taught by Paul, and the ‘perfecting’ of faith by our subsequent works as taught by James, we have a balanced presentation of a blessed truth. 

Three great epistles of Paul, namely, Romans, Galatians and Hebrews, make reference to Hab. ii. 4, “The just shall live by his faith”. A text that appealed so powerfully to the Apostle must be given careful attention by all who would attain to any understanding of that apostle’s teaching. 

First, we must observe the slight variation from the original that we find in the Septuagint Version and in the epistles. 

“Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him; but the just by his faith shall live” (Hebrew). 

“If any man draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him; but the just by My faith shall live” (LXX). 

“As it is written, The just by faith shall live” (Rom. i. 17). 

“For the just by faith shall live” (Gal. iii. 11).

 

“Now the just by faith shall live; but if any man draw back, My soul shall have no pleasure in him” (Heb. x. 38). 

(NOTE—The order of the original wording is followed in all these references.) 

It is evident that the translators of the Septuagint Version understood the words “His faith”, which in the Hebrew they found to refer to God, as meaning “His faithfulness”. This meaning of pistis has been dealt with in the previous article. 

It is of interest to observe that the three divisions into which the text of Hab. ii. 4 naturally falls, coincides with the main purpose of the quotation in the three epistles: 

“The Just.” This most certainly fits the teaching of Romans which stresses the righteousness of God which is by faith, the justification both of the sinner and of God Who justifies him. 

“By Faith.” A reading of Gal. iii. will show the prominent place that faith occupies in the exposition of the distinctive teaching of that epistle. 

“Shall live.” In Heb. x. and xi. we have the subsequent life of faith that should characterize those who are justified. The emphasis upon the word ‘perfect’ in Hebrews, together with the insistence upon the practical outworking of grace, places the teaching of this epistle on justification on the same platform as that of James. 

The verse in Romans that gives the quotation from Habakkuk contains a clause that has given rise to many different ideas. That clause is ‘from faith to faith’. One opinion is that voiced by Theophylact who said: 

“Our first faith is not sufficient, but we must ascend from inceptive faith to a more perfect degree of it.” 

Clemens Alex. says, 

“A common faith is, as it were, a foundation . . . . . a teleia faith is one that can remove mountains.” 

This, however, is confusing the teaching of Paul with that of James, and is certainly not the sense intended in Rom. i. 17. 

First of all, we can rid ourselves of any false ideas arising out of the expression ‘from faith’ (ek pisteos), for it is identical with the words ‘by faith’ that are found in the same verse. Let us consider some parallels in the same epistle: 

“A righteousness of God through faith (dia pisteos)” (Rom. iii. 22). 

“Justify . . . . . by faith (ek pisteos) . . . . . through faith (dia pisteos)” (Rom. iii. 30). 

“The righteousness of faith (dia pisteos)” (Rom. iv. 13). 

“Therefore being justified by faith (ek pisteos)” (Rom. v. 1).

In every case (there are many more in Galatians), it is ‘righteousness’ that is ‘by faith’. All that is necessary correctly to translate Rom. i. 17 is to supply the ellipsis of the words ‘righteousness’ and ‘revealed’. The expression ‘revealed from faith’ does not make sense. 

“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed (a righteousness) out of faith, revealed unto faith, as it is written, The just by faith shall live” (Rom. i. 17). 

“FAITH COUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 

Justification is ‘by faith’, ‘freely by grace’, ‘by His blood’, ‘in the name of Christ’, ‘by the faith (or faithfulness) of Christ’. Yet the question remains, “How does it become mine?” The answer is provided in Rom. iv. 3 which quotes the words of Gen. xv. 6, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness”. Let us discover more fully the meaning of this word ‘counted’. 

Logizomai occurs eleven times in Rom. iv.; it is translated in that chapter by three different English equivalents, ‘count’, ‘reckon’ and ‘impute’. Moreover, it is found in two forms in that chapter. Logizomai, “to count, reckon or impute”, and logizomai eis, “to count, reckon or impute for”. In the one case the thing itself is ‘counted’, i.e. sin (Rom. iv. 8) which actually existed, and in the other, one thing is counted, or ‘reckoned for’ another, as in Rom. iv. 5, where faith which did exist, was ‘counted for’ a righteousness that did not exist, except as in the gift-by-grace of God. 

Logizomai occurs some 40 times in the N.T. Of these all but six occur in Paul’s epistles, and of this remainder, nineteen occur in the one epistle to the Romans. Paul’s use of the term in Rom. ii. 26 makes his meaning clear. Confessedly the Gentiles had not the law in the sense that Israel had, nor were they given the covenant of circumcision; yet the Apostle says: 

“If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision” (Rom. ii. 26). 

Now, keeping ‘the work of the law written in their heart’ (Rom. ii. 15) could by no manner of means be looked upon, or called ‘circumcision’, yet if, in His mercy, God so chose, it could be ‘counted for’ it. In the same way, no man, whether he be Jew or Gentile, has produced or ever can produce righteousness in the sense demanded by God; yet, as an act of free favour, He has been pleased, through the redemption accomplished by His beloved Son, to ‘count’ faith ‘for’ righteousness. 

“To impute, in theology, means, To attribute or ascribe (righteousness, guilt, etc.) to a person by vicarious substitution” (Shorter Oxford Dictionary). 

Let us now set out in two groups the passages in Rom. iv. that us logizomai, and logizomai eis:

Logizomai. 

“Reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt” (4). 

“God imputeth righteousness without works” (6). 

“To whom the Lord will not impute sin” (8). 

“How was it then reckoned?” (10). 

“Righteousness might be imputed unto them” (11). 

“It was imputed to him” (23). 

“To whom it hall be imputed” (24). 

Logizomai eis. 

“It was counted unto him for righteousness” (3). 

“His faith is counted for righteousness” (5). 

“Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (9). 

“Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (22). 

Where anything is ‘reckoned’, be it a debt, righteousness or sin, it is conceived as actually existing. Where faith is ‘reckoned for’ righteousness, it is manifest that personal righteousness is absent, and that by a gracious dispensation, righteousness is ‘attributed by vicarious substitution’. 

The O.T. usage of the word is the same as that set out above. 

“Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely . . . . . I have sinned” (II Sam. xix. 19, 20). 

Here sin was an admitted fact. 

“Thou dost count me for an enemy” (Job xiii. 24). 

 “He counts me as an enemy” (Job xix. 11). 

Here Job does not admit that he is rightly charged as being an enemy of God, but expresses his perplexity at the treatment he has received. 

When the golden sovereign was supplanted by the paper £1 note, so far as purchasing power goes both were of equal value. But should either or both be thrown on the fire, the essential difference becomes apparent. The sovereign, though melted, retains its worth, but the £1 note vanishes in smoke and ashes and becomes intrinsically valueless. The paper £1 was ‘counted for’ twenty shillings; it purchased twenty shillings-worth, but most certainly it was not twenty shillings. So faith is ‘counted for’ righteousness: it is, and will be accepted at heaven’s bar as if it were ‘twenty shillings-worth’ though, in itself, it merits nothing. So it will be seen that while faith is ‘counted for’ righteousness, God does actually impute righteousness to the believer, “even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe” (Rom. iii. 22). 

The Scriptures speak of justification by faith (Rom. v. 1) and justification by grace (Rom. iii. 24; Titus iii. 7). It is important to keep these two statements in mind, as otherwise it is easy for the mind to conceive of ‘faith’ as some sort of work that merits recognition or approval. Let us consider the meaning of the two terms ‘grace’ and ‘faith’ and observe the part they play in the blessed process of justification. 

Grace charis. The classic usage of the word is found in the N.T. words “favour” (Luke i. 30); “grace” (Luke ii. 40); “pleasure” (Acts xxiv. 27), but it is in the epistles of Paul that the word realizes its full import, namely ‘grace, or favour to the unworthy’. This highest of all meanings was impossible of attainment or expression until the love of God was made manifest in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The peculiar character of ‘grace’ can be seen in the following passages: 

“Reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt” (Rom. iv. 4). 

“If by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace” (Rom. xi. 6). 

Not only is grace placed over against ‘works’ and ‘merit’ or ‘debt’, but it is in juxtaposition with the law: 

“Ye are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. vi. 14). 

“Whosoever of you are justified by law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. v. 4). 

Grace characterizes the gospel which Paul preached (Acts xx. 24); it reigns, through righteousness, unto eternal life (Rom. v. 21); by grace we are justified freely (Rom. iii. 24), and are saved (Eph. ii. 5). The relation of grace to faith is indicated in such a passage as:

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed” (Rom. iv. 16).

Charizomai, which, outside the Scriptures means to do a favour, becomes, when sanctified by association with the Offering of Christ, the blessed word ‘forgiveness’ (Luke vii. 42; Eph. iv. 32; Col. ii. 13). Charisma is translated ‘gift’, whether supernatural gifts as in I Cor. ii. 9, or the ‘free gift’ of Rom. v. 15. 

Charitoo is translated in Eph. i. 6 ‘made accepted’, which in the A.V. margin, reads ‘graced us’. 

Faith pistis. Faith means credit given to a report or testimony. 

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater” (I John v. 9). 

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. x. 17). 

The Apostle says in the same chapter, “How shall they believe in Him of Whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. x. 14). We must be careful to distinguish between faith, the medium, and the Object of faith, the Lord Jesus, the only ground of salvation. 

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

(From The Berean Expositor vol. 42, page 110).

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