Walt Sr., Dave C., Pat V., 2 Peter 2:4, & the Calvinistic Ivy Tower's, "So What!"
Douglas R. Larson berean@brookings.net
Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:04:13 -0600 (00887515453, 003001bd3994$9232fcc0$c58ff5c0@geek)
Hi all,
A while back, Walt Sr. asked me what I knew of the "real authorship" of 2
Peter. I told him that I only believed what was taught within confessional,
conservative Lutheranism and really nothing more. Within the Lutheran
faith, I did have a love and passion for Calvinism, and I did hold a view
that was much more dogmatic than "mere election" as taught from the Formula
of Concord. The reason I'm whacking this out on my keyboard is simply due
to the fact that I never really explored the authorship of 2 Peter
before--as it was never really addressed in my seminary education.
R.C. Sproul "was" one of my modern day heroes, and spending a considerable
amount of time in my "New Geneva Study Bible," I did see some things that
should be shared from that bible regarding it's authorship (re: 2 Peter) and
a particular passage that has puzzled me for years. First of all, let's
examine what R.C. Sproul and company had to say on the authorship of 2
Peter. I will be using "ALL CAPS" to draw attention to certain words in
context that should make many Christians think about certain "biblical
authors" as being valid, and what many Christians think about the entire
canon being divinely inspired.
The Second Epistle of Peter
Author: "This epistle claims to have been written by Simon Peter, and
several things in the epistle support the claim." "...Although there are
possible allusions to 2 Peter in Christian literature of the late first and
early second centuries, it is not as well attested as 1 Peter or other New
Testament books. Origen (c. 185-254) was the first to attribute the epistle
explicitly to Peter, but he recorded that others doubted Peter's authorship.
Eusebius (c. 265-339) listed it among the disputed books, and Jerome (c.
342-420), while noting some disagreement regarding its authenticity,
suggested that stylistic differences with 1 Peter were due to Peter's use of
different secretaries. The epistle was accepted as authentic and canonical
by influential fourth century church fathers [1st Jesus Seminar] such as
Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and Augustine, as well as by the
later fourth-century church councils of Hippo and Carthage, and its
subsequent place in the New Testament canon was assured."
Reasons for objecting Peter's authorship:
1. Lack of early attestation
2. Slow recognition by the church
3. Stylistic differences with 1 Peter
4. Use of Hellenistic religious and philosophical language
"The usual alternative to Peter's authorship is pseudonymity, i.e., that 2
Peter was written by a later unknown author who attributed the work to a
well-known writer as a literary device to commend his message. While
several of the objections must be taken seriously (especially attestation
and style), their force SHOULD NOT BE EXAGGERATED, AND NONE IS CONCLUSIVE
AGAINST PETER'S AUTHORSHIP."
This amounts to acknowledging the many problems with the authorship's
validity, based on the "Reformed Perspectives" own admission, however the
"Reformed Perspective" completely shrugs it's shoulders and gives way by
saying, "SO WHAT!" The Catholic & Protestant scholarly investigations and
acknowledgments of contextual problems existing within many NT books, is
just as sincere as trying to hang an elephant on a spider's web and
expecting (believing) that the web will hold the weight of the elephant. I
can't believe that I was so blinded by the truth that "all scripture is God
breathed," when the evidence are so clearly laid out for anyone to grasp.
Doug's Case in Point: 2 Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare the angels who
sinned, but cast them down to TARTAROS and delivered them into chains of
darkness, to be reserved for judgment;..."
5020 tartaroo (tar-tar-o'-o); from Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hades);
to incarcerate in eternal torment:
KJV-- cast down to hell.
New Geneva's Commentary footnote:
"angels who sinned. The meaning of this picture is DISPUTED. Many view
this as an allusion to the sin of the "sons of God" in Gen. 6:1-4 (cf. Jude
14 note). While "sons of God" can refer to angels (e.g. Job 1:6; 2:1), this
interpretation is not without difficulties (Gen. 6:2 note). Others
speculate that the "angels who sinned" are the evil angels who sinned before
the FALL of humanity in Gen. 3. Either way, the point is that if God judged
evil angels, He will certainly judge ungodly people as well.."
It's simply amusing to find these "ivy tower theologians" using words like,
"disputed, can, not without difficulties, speculate." Yet, Christians on
this list (and around the world) place their trust in such scholars, who
among even themselves cannot render an answer from *cough* God's preserved
and breathed word to all mankind. For this, Christians can put trust and
faith in the scriptures? Oh my! How absolutely sad! R. C. Sproul and
company didn't bother to comment on two words that could have been used in 2
Peter 2:4, like "certain (tis)," an enclitic indefinite pronoun, or "some
(men)," a primary particle, which would have rendered the passage to say,
"some angels or certain angels," respectively. But the historic church
certainly took the liberty in rendering it's exegesis this way--dishonestly.
But why? Read on...
Let's take another look, only this time let's see what the NIV's footnotes
are regarding the same verse:
"angels when they sinned. Some believed this sin was the one referred to in
Ge 6:2, where the sons of God are said to have intermarried with the
daughters of men, meaning (according to this view) that angels married human
women. The offspring of those marriages are said to have been the Nephilim
(Ge 6:2, 4). But since it appears impossible for angels, who are spirits,
to have sexual relations with women, the sin referred to in this verse
probably occurred before the fall of Adam and Eve. The angels who fell
became the devil and the evil angels (probably the demons and evil spirits
referred to in the NT). [for Dave Court] sent them to hell. See NIV text
note. TARTARUS was the term used by the Greeks to designate the place where
the most wicked spirits were sent to be punished. Why some evil angels are
imprisoned and others are free to serve Satan as demons is not explained in
Scripture. judgment. The final judgment, probably associated with the
great white throne judgment of Rev. 20: 11-15."
What a tremendous stretch for meaning. Nothing more than a wild, unfounded,
and insane assertion!Again, words such as, " some believed, appears
impossible, probably," are riddled in a commentary that stands looking upon
itself as confused and dumfounded at best. No exegesis exists in these
commentaries, only a continual and absurd habit of "reading into and
speculating" the passages meaning for all to see and believe. Christians
pride themselves as they parrot what the church as has them by clearly
stating, "the bible speaks clearly, plainly, for all mankind in all ages of
time." Christians also flaunt the silly notions that the passages can speak
for themselves, not always having to interpret the passages as hyperbolic,
or figurative speech--but can we see their statements as true in this
particular case? Not even their own trusted scholars can show rules of
hermeneutical application and exegetical consistency, in letting passages
speak for themselves, or letting scripture interpret itself. 2 Peter 2:4
clearly speaks for itself! It's neither lost in wild imagery as found in
prophetic literature like Daniel, Ezekiel, or Revelation. Again, no
hyperbole, figurative speech, or wild symbolism's exist!!!
2 Peter 2:4 again, clearly and unequivocally states, "For if God did not
spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them
into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;..." The text in this
canonized book doesn't allow for speculation, as it's language is used in a
past tense form (history) just as in the cases of Noah and Sodom and
Gomorrah, those accounts are history, and so too the passage makes the case
for naughty (sinning) angels being history--nothing left to do but judge
them and destroy. The passage found in 2 Peter 2:4 are direct and
explicitly made.
So what are the nagging questions.
1. Has the church been dishonest in making 2 Peter and other books part of
the canon?
2. What gives the church free eisegetic license in misrepresenting a clear
passage?
3. Why should those who profess to be Christian, follow the mere
suggestions of those who claim to be biblical scholars, when the above is
just another "glowing example" of exegetical drivel--pure speculation?"
4. Do professing Christians have a duty to explain this verse when
questioned by an unbeliever?
5. Do professing Christians acknowledge the unbelievers "right" to deny the
canonicity of the whole of scripture as a myth based on passages such as
this one?
6. How should this passage affect demonology?
7. How should this passage affect angelogy?
8. If this passage is "God Breathed," what was the Holy Spirit thinking
about as it whisper this truth of God into St. Peter's ear in sharing God's
truths to the world?
9. How should this passage affect Jesus's alleged story, casting demons
into swine?--what, if anything, possessed the swine if "evil, sinning angels
are held in the deepest abyss of hell?
10. Will Christians take up the "divine mystery defense" in giving it's
usual "non-answers" when they should "study and show themselves approved" as
soldiers having the ability to rightfully divide God's word of truth?
11. When the church stands in its own excremental confusion, how does the
nonbeliever pick the correct hermeneutic?--by praying to the same God,
relying on the same Holy Spirit to reveal all truth as Jesus had
promised?--and was the "reveler of all truth" at work in any particular
hermeneutical system in the church's 2000 year history? Who on earth has
the truth on 2 Peter 2:4 and hundreds of other passages like it?
12. What laws exist that angels can transgress?
13. Have I, Doug Larson, made a perfect example of just one more reason why
it is impossible for thinking folks to become Christians?
Sincerely,
Doug Larson
"I tried them all - religion, family, community service.
Nothing made me happy. Then one day I tried beer."
Homer J Simpson