Bible Difficulties (95 page)

Much has been made of the contrasts between 1 Peter and 2 Peter in regard to mood and attitude, as if the difference in tone establishes a difference in authorship. But this is a very uncertain criterion to use for demonstrating diverse authorship, for the simple reason that the same author tends to use an entirely different vocabulary and tone when he discusses different subject matter. This is readily demonstrable for all the great authors of world literature who have written on different themes and in different genres. For example, Milton's prose essays bear little resemblance to his pastoral poems (
L'Allegro
and
Il Penseroso
); and those in turn present notable contrasts to his epic poetry, like
Paradise Lost
. Yet these contrasts, which could be supported by long lists of words found in the one composition but not in the other, would hardly suffice to prove a difference in authorship. Everyone knows that Milton wrote them all. So the methodology of these New Testament critics, if applied to Miltonic literature, would lead to completely false results.

So far as 1 Peter is concerned, its purpose was comfort and encouragement to believers suffering from persecution. This requires a quite different style and manner from the theme of 2 Peter, which consists of stern and urgent warnings against false teachers and their pernicious doctrines. Considering their diverse themes, it would have been altogether strange if both letters had exhibited striking similarities in vocabulary and tone. In fact, this would be good evidence of deliberate faking, or of a set purpose on the part of a counterfeiter to palm off a specious imitation on the public.

In the matter of idiom and style, however, there are some fairly obvious contrasts. The Greek of 1 Peter runs more idiomatically and smoothly than the rugged, intense diction of 2 Peter, even though J.B. Mayor (
The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St.

Peter
, 1907 reprint, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965], p. civ), as an advocate of the non-Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, observes: "There is not the chasm between them [i.e., 1

Peter and 2 Peter] which some would try to make out....The difference of style is less marked in the difference in vocabulary, and that again is less marked than the difference in matter."

Such differences as there are might possibly have derived from the agency of Silvanus, who is referred to in 1 Peter 5:12 as the scribe Peter used in composing his first epistle.

NIV renders this verse as follows: "With the help of Silas [`Silvanus,' mg.], whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God." In all probability this is the same Silas who labored 435

with Paul at Philippi, and he may have been responsible for the simplicity and ease of expression in which 1 Peter was composed. But in the case of 2 Peter, which was probably written by Peter in a Roman jail, without the help of an amanuensis like Silvanus, there is a more intense and rugged style, suitable for matters of such urgent concern as are featured in this epistle.

Nor should the similarities between 1 Peter and 2 Peter be totally ignored in our preoccupation with the contrasts. Both epistles stress (1) the centrality of Christ and the certainty of His second coming; (2) the importance of Noah's ark and the Flood (1 Peter 3:20, with emphasis on God's mercy; and 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6, with emphasis on God's judgment); (3) the pivotal significance of the prophetic word of the Old Testament in a manner reminiscent of Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:14-36); (4) their common concern with the importance of Christian growth (1 Peter 2:2-3 and 2 Peter 1:5-8; 3:18).

Despite the contrast in purpose existing between the two epistles, these common motifs emerge as such significant indicators of a common authorship as to give strong support to the genuineness of the Petrine origin of them both.

We conclude that there is no good ground for denying the authenticity of 2 Peter of for questioning its right to be included in the New Testament canon. The leading critics who have espoused a contrary view have pretty largely operated on the basis of a stereotyped concept of how the Christian religion must have developed as a purely human religious philosophy, along the lines of a Hegelian dialectic. Evangelicals should not be misled into acceptance of critical result s stemming from this kind of biased and subjective methodology. (For further study, see the excellent introduction to S.W. Paine's commentary on 2 Peter in Pfeiffer,
Wycliffe Commentary
, pp. 1453-56, to which I acknowledge my personal indebtedness.)

436

1 John

Does 1 John 3:9 teach sinless perfection?

In KJV 1 John 3:9 is rendered: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot commit sin, because he is born of God." In one respect this otherwise adequate translation fails to bring out one very important feature of the
hamartanein
("to sin") after
ou dynatai
("not able"): a present infinitive in Greek implies continual or repeated action. (Single action would have been conveyed by the aorist infinitive,
hamartein
.) For this reason some of the more recent translations bring out the true emphasis by rendering it "he cannot go on sinning" (NIV). NASB draws the inference from the present infinitive
hamartanein
that the earlier
poiei
(present indicative) in "doth not commit sin" (KJV) implies "no one who is born of God
practices
sin
," since this stands in contrast to the
hamaratanein
of the later clause. This is probably justified, even though it would be wrong to say that the Greek present indicative
necessarily
implies continual action (for it often does not do so).

However, it is necessary to study carefully the sense in which this verb is meant, for even the most mature Christian is susceptible to temptation and may fall into sins of various types (even if not the more heinous sins that are considered under human law as amounting to crime). John teaches very clearly in 1:8: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." But what he is emphasizing here is the miracle of the new birth (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17), by which the life of Christ takes possession of the believer's heart and draws him into a totally new relationship to God and to God's holy will. Instead of being committed to the old principle of "myself first!" he now comes under the lordship of his Savior and makes it his conscious purpose to please God because he loves Him and completely belongs to Him.

In his new capacity as "one who has been born of God" (
gegennemenos
--perfect passive participle--
ek tou theou
), the believer has God's holy seed (
sperma
) within him; and this
sperma
develops and enlarges within him like a seed within a flower pot, until it brings forth leaves, flowers, and fruit--all the while occupying more and more of the pot. The dirt in the soil may defile what touches it, but the function of the growing plant is not to soil but develop the new life and beauty that constantly proceeds from the seed. As the believer consciously abides in Christ (v.6,
ho en auto menon
) and has his gaze fixed on Jesus (Heb. 12:2), he does not fall into sin but runs his race well, to the glory of God.

As for the special force of
hamartia
here, we should pay special attention to v.4:

"Everyone who commits/practices [present participle] sin [
hamartian
] also practices lawlessness [
anomian
]." The Devil is then referred to as the archetype, model, and patron of lawlessness (v.8); and it is he (and of course those who are under his control) whose business it is to practice sin as lawlessness. In other words, Scripture is distinguishing between the two great families in the universe: the children of light (1:7) and the children of darkness and disobedience (1:6).

437

What characterizes a true child of God is wholehearted commitment to the holy will and standard of God; what characterizes the child of this world (whose spiritual father is really Satan, according to John 8:44) is the commitment to self-seeking, self-deification, and transgression of every kind. This principle had to be stressed by the apostle in this letter, because already the antinomian heretics (who taught that a sinful life was quite permissible to the believer, because "grace would cover it all") were confusing his church people; and they were losing their grasp of the holy life as the fruit of a true and living faith. John here reminds us all that the true believer is committed to a life patterned after Christ, and that as the bearer of the seed of Christ (that is, the Holy Spirit) he will constantly practice righteousness. Only the unconverted and the counterfeit will practice a self-seeking, self-asserting life of sin.

In his
Bible Questions Answered
(pp. 68-72), W.L. Pettingill devotes a very careful and perceptive study to this passage in 1 John 3 and offers this helpful paraphrase of vv. 4-10:

"Whosoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifest to take away our sins, and in Him is no lawlessness.

Whosoever abides in Him is never lawless: whosoever is lawless has not seen Him nor known Him....He who is lawless is of the devil, for the devil was lawless from the beginning.... Whosoever is begotten of God is never lawless, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot be lawless because he is begotten of God. In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil."

438

Jude

Did Jude err when he cited nonbiblical sources?

Jude 9 and Jude 14 are the passages that raise this question. Verse 9 refers to a controversy between the archangel Michael and the Devil in regard to the disposition of the body of Moses after he had died on Mount Pisgah: "But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, `The Lord rebuke you!'" This account is not found in the Old Testament but is thought to have been included in a Christian treatise (now lost) entitled "the Assumption of Moses" (cf. Buttrick,
Interpreter's Dictionary
, 3:450), at least according to Origen (
On the Principles
3.2.1).

It would be a logical fallacy to argue, however, that an inspired biblical author like Jude was strictly limited to the contents of the canonical Old Testament for all valid information as to the past. Both Stephen (in Acts 7) and the Lord Jesus (in Mt 23) refer to historical episodes not recorded in the Old Testament. Apparently there was a valid and accurate body of oral tradition available to believers in the New Testament period; and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they were perfectly able to report such occurrences in connection with their teaching ministry. We are to deduce from this passage, then, that there was such a contest waged by the representatives of heaven and hell over the body of Moses.

The same observation applies to Jude 14 and the quotation from the antediluvian patriarch Enoch. In this case the pseudepigraphical work has been preserved in which this same quotation is found (though the Book of Enoch is not extant in any translation as old as the time of Jude). Enoch is quoted as predicting: "Behold the Lord had come [probably the Greek aorist
elthen
represents a prophetic perfect in Hebrew or Aramaic, and therefore it can be construed as `shall come'] with His holy myriads, to execute judgment against all and to rebuke all the ungodly for all their deeds of ungodliness that they have perpetrated and for all the cruel things they have said against Him as the ungodly sinners that they are."

Here we have a remarkable example of a powerful prophetic utterance coming down to us from before the time of Noah. The mere fact the Genesis does not include this statement by Enoch furnishes no evidence against his having said it. This by no means demonstrates that everything in the Book of Enoch is historically accurate or theologically valid. Much of Enoch may be quite fictional. But there is no good ground for condemning everything that is written therein as false, simply because the book is noncanonical. Even a pagan work could contain items of truth, as is attested to by Paul when he quoted Aratus's
Phaenomena 5
to his Athenian audience (Acts 17:28).

439

Revelation

Who are the seven spirits before God's throne in Revelation 1:4?

Revelation 1:4 reads: "Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven spirits [Spirits?] who are before His throne" (NASB).

Who are these seven spirits? Do they represent the Third Person of the Trinity (God the Father and God the Son are referred to previously in v.2)? Surprisingly enough, the correct answer to this question seems to be yes. (Conceivably they could be seven angels of some sort, but they could hardly be the "angels" of the seven churches of Asia, since those are listed separately in addition to the seven spirits [v.4].) How could the Holy Spirit be represented as seven rather than one? Well, the first appearance of the sevenfold Holy Spirit occurs in Isaiah 11:2: "And the Spirit of the LORD [1] will rest on Him [the Messiah], the spirit of wisdom [2] and understanding [3], the spirit of counsel [4] and strength [5], the spirit of knowledge [6] and the fear of Yahweh [7]." In biblical symbolism seven is the number of the perfect work of God (cf.

Gen. 2:2-3), and so the "rod from the stem of Jesse" (Isa. 11:1) will be endowed with the perfect equipment of the Holy Spirit as He begins His messianic ministry.

The next time the concept of the seven-faceted Spirit occurs is in Zechariah 3:9: "For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua [the high priest]; on one stone are seven eyes" (NASB). Here we have the perfect oversight, the providential care of God the Holy Spirit represented by the seven eyes engraved on the "stone" (probably a large gemstone) set before the high priest. They appear again in Zechariah 4:10: "For who has despised the day of small things? But these
seven
will be glad when they see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel--these are the eyes of Yahweh which range to and fro throughout the whole earth." The Holy Spirit in His loving providence is promised for the dedication of the second temple, which was coming up in 516 B.C.