 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Zathrus
King Kong
Joined: 28 Aug 2002
Posts: 2032
Location: WI USA
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject: 2 Peter 3 and futurist end time teachings |
 |
|
I'd like to devote a thread to discussing something that I have brought up in other threads, but thought finally needed a thread of its own.
Adherants to futurist end time teachings, especially premillenialists, often quote 2 Peter 3 to disprove any eschatological teaching that does not include a future literal destruction of our planet. The premise they base this on is that 2 PEter 3 is intended to be understood literally and describes in detail the melting and burning of the terrestrial globe and its atmosphere.
But I've found that this approach to 2 Peter 3 causes problems for their futurist timelines.
Here is the passage from 2 Peter 3 that deals with the judgement and destruction of the then-present heaven and earth and their replacement with a new heaven and new earth: | Quote: | 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. |
Verse 7 says the day in which the Lord will destroy the heavens and earth which exist(ed) at the time Peter wrote this will also be the day in which ungodly men are judged and meet their destruction (perdition). So far, this poses no problems for premillenialists, as they see this agreeing completely with Rev 20:11-15 and 21:1, where the John describes the dead being raised, being judged by God, the wicked being sent to everlasting punishment and then the creation of a new heaven and earth. All this occurs after the 1000 year reign of Christ, which begins after Jesus returns to earth according to premillenialist end time teaching.
However, in the 3rd chapter of his 2nd epistle Peter is addressing the fact that certain people would in the last days scoff at the idea of the coming of Jesus Christ. How could that be if this happens during the 1000 year reign of Christ when Jesus is visibly, bodily present on earth, reigning?
| Quote: | 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: |
Notice a couple of things:
1.) Verse 5 seems to indicate that these scoffers were not a long way off, but were already around in Peter's day. Peter said they are ignorant, not they will be ignorant.
2.) It is the promise of Jesus' coming that they were scoffing at. Why then does Peter use the destruction of the heaven and earth to refute them, when according to premillenialists, that occurs over 1000 years after Jesus' coming?
Peter continues in verses 8 and 9 by saying the Lord does not postpone or abandon His promises, but patiently waits, if perhaps more will repent and believe, but is sure to do as He has promised.
Now in verse 10, there is something very important I would like all who are reading to take note of: Although there were those scoffing at the idea of Jesus' return, Peter's subject has not been the return of Christ, but the day in which the Lord would destroy the heaven and earth. But now he mentions the Day of the Lord which comes as a thief in the night.
That's very significant, because elsewhere in scripture when this day that comes as a thief is mentioned, it is in reference to the day in which Jesus returns, which premillenialists believe is 1000 years before this earth and heaven are destroyed.
Here is an example from the gospels: Matt 24
| Quote: | 42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. |
Jesus is plainly talking about His return. He is speaking to His disciples, telling them to watch. So even if they personally are not here on that day, which would have to be the case if that day is still in our future, the church will still be here. He is speaking of the day in which He returns for His church.
It is also worth noting what the "therefore" in verse 42 is there for. Jesus had just got done saying
| Quote: | 37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. |
This sounds a great deal like the scoffing and denial that Peter said was going on at the time of his writing. Jesus' words here sound as though, far from the wicked being judged 1000 years after His coming, that His coming would be the judgement of the wicked, and the deliverance of the righteous if they remained ready.
Revelation 16:15
| Quote: | | Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. |
Another admonition directed at the believing who would still be present on the day Jesus comes as a thief. This cannot be after a 1000 year earthly reign, or there would be no need to watch for His coming.
This day that comes as a thief is also written about in 1 Thess 5. But I will quote a few verses from the previous chapter to put the reference in the right perspective:
| Quote: |
13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. |
Notice that this reference to the day of the Lord that comes as a thief in the night is also a reference to the day in which premillenialists believe Jesus will come and snatch them away off the earth and take them to heaven. According to their timelines, this is to occur 1000 years before the destruction of the heaven and earth! In this passage from 1 Thess, I do see the judgement and destruction of the wicked spoken of, just as Peter also wrote. I do see them scoffing, saying they will have peace and safety and no divine punishment would befall them, just as Peter wrote. But I see no time period of 1000 years between the coming of Jesus for His church and the judgement of the wicked! In fact, it certainly looks as though the biblical principle that God judges the unrighteous in the same act in which He vindicates and delivers the righteous applies here!
So if the premillenialist view of 2 Peter 3 is correct, why does Peter put the day of the Lord that comes as a thief in the night as coinciding with the destruction of the wicked and the destruction of our planet? Why do Jesus and Paul have Christ's coming as coinciding with the destruction of the unrighteous?
I would suggest that Peter, Jesus, and Paul are all in agreement . All three agree
1.) that the day of the Lord which comes as thief is the day of Christ's return
2.) that this day is also the day of the destruction of the wicked, and
3.) the wicked will be unaware of this day's coming, and will indeed think it impossible that divine wrath would ever befall them.
Peter adds that this day is also the day in which the then present heaven and earth are to be destroyed and a new heaven and earth established, a reference to a prophecy in Isaiah 65 and 66.
Now one brother suggested to me that the day of the Lord's return is indeed the day of the destruction of this earth and its atmosphere, and they then simply remain in a destroyed state for the duration of the 1000 year reign, at the end of which the new heaven and earth are created. I must give him credit, for this timeline would fit with Peter's words in 2 Peter 3, but it presents its own problems:
1.) If the earth is in a destroyed state those 1000 years, who or what are the saints reigning over with Christ?
2.) What about the multitudes of wicked who march against the camp of the saints in the battle of Gog and Magog following the 1000 years? Will the earth be temporarily returned to habitable conditions and the wicked resurrected to resume their wicked lives just so both can be destroyed a second time? Where is the mention of this present earth being destroyed twice elsewhere in scripture? Where is the mention of the wicked being allowed to live again?
I suggest that Jesus and His holy aposltes are in aggreement. It is pre-millenial end time teaching that is not. And this is partly because of efforts to derive a timeline based on a literlization of Rev 20, and attempting to force that literalized timeline upon these texts we have looked at. They do not fit.
I believe the weight of scriptural proof shows that the day of the Lord is the day of Christ's return in glory, and His return is both the salvation of the righteous and the judgment of the wicked, and that day is also the one on which the new heaven and earth are established. I believe scripture does not support the time gaps and time sequences that premillenialists and other futurists teach. There were to be signs of the Lord's coming before His coming, but then the single major prophetic, eschatological event that the early church waited for was the coming of the Lord. There is no mention in scripture of them awaiting multiple returns of Jesus Christ, with time gaps between them. The coming of the Lord was to be the event that would culminate God's plan of salvation, bringing everlasting righteousness to those who believed, and judging the wicked in the same act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
pato
Kitten
Joined: 11 May 2007
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: 2 Peter 3 |
|
|
Hi Zathrus, good study. I however noticed something and thought I would mention it and get you POV on it.
| Quote: | 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
|
Vs 8 admonishes brethren to not be ignorant of the fact that a day is as a thousand years an vice versa. Now could it be that the "Day of the Lord" is a thousand years long? Would this fit the timeline? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zathrus
King Kong
Joined: 28 Aug 2002
Posts: 2032
Location: WI USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: Re: 2 Peter 3 |
|
|
| pato wrote: | | Hi Zathrus, good study. I however noticed something and thought I would mention it and get you POV on it. |
Thanks for reading. I'm glad you found it interesting.
| pato wrote: | | Vs 8 admonishes brethren to not be ignorant of the fact that a day is as a thousand years an vice versa. Now could it be that the "Day of the Lord" is a thousand years long? Would this fit the timeline? |
I thought about this for a while after reading your post. The day of the Lord being a literal 1000 year span, and the return of Christ, the judgement of the unrighteous, and the destruction of our planet could each occur at different points within that span of time. It poses some problems with other passages that I didn't cover in my post above, but I'll try to avoid getting into all that.
A few things that do come to mind:
1.) Including the return of Christ, the judgement of the wicked, and the destruction of the earth in the same 1000 year span would still pose problems for premillenialists. There are many variants of premillenialism, but let us take pre-trib rapture dispensationalism as the worst case.
The return of Christ for the church occurs 7 years before the millenial reign of Christ, according to pre-trib. Already, this causes problems with 1 Thess 5 and Matt 24 because Paul and Jesus seemed to indicate that the judgement of the wicked would coincide with the return of Christ. According to pre-trib dispensationalism, after Christ returns for the church, there are 7 years of tribulation, then Christ re-returns a 2nd time to destroy the armies of the antichrist and begin His 1000 year reign. After the 1000 year reign, Rev 20 clearly says there is a "little season" in which Satan is loosed to decieve the nations and vast armies gather to fight against the camp of the saints. The final judgement is not until after this. So we have:
Christ returns + 7 yrs + 1000 yrs + a little space + the judgement of the wicked + the creation of the new heavens and earth.
This obviously covers more than 1000 years.
If you're post-trib, lop off 7 years. It still won't fit. You still have that little space, during which a great battle takes place, and then the judgement, before you have the creation of the new heavens and earth.
I'd have to give some more thought to how that idea would impact postmillenialist teachings. I think they'd have less of a problem because they expect Christ's return to happen only after the church has reigned over the earth for 1000 years, and I think they expect the destruction of our planet to happen at His return, so Peter's 2nd epistle would not pose as great a problem for them.
I don't think I understand amillenialism well enough to comment much. They view the church age (now present) as being the millenial reign, and so I think they also wouldn't have as great a problem with the idea of our planet's destruction happening at the same time as Christ's return.
I'm not sure how post- or amillenialism would deal with the scoffing and denial of impending judgement that Peter, Paul and Jesus all three talked about. I know postmillenialism expects the church to succeed in converting almost all of the world by the gospel, so how many of these scoffers would there actually be, and who would they convince? How many would there be marrying, eating, drinking, totally oblivious of Divine judgement about to fall on them if almost all the world were Christian?
2.) The idea of the day of the Lord spanning 1000 solar years is not consistent with precedents in the old testament. The major prophets spoke of the invasion of Israel by Babylon as the "day of the Lord". It was the Lord visiting His people in judgement for their sin. It did not last 1000 years. It was an event that happened in a specific point in history. So other than Peter's statement, which is an allusion to Psalm 90:4 and subject to varying interpretations, I don't see grounds for interpreting the prophecies about the coming day of the Lord in the new testament differently and stretching it to 1000 earthly years.
The writers of the new testament were clear that when they wrote of prophetic things, they were foretelling nothing other than what the prophets and the law already foretold. The new testament writers believed they were seeing the fulfillment of all things which the prophets in the old testament foretold. In 2 Peter 3, Peter makes references to and draws what he's saying from Psalm 90, Isaiah 65, and perhaps other passages. What do they say? What can we discover from looking at them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimD
German Shepherd
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 348
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: Re: 2 Peter 3 |
|
|
Obviously, "day" is not literal, so why would you think 1,000 years would be literal? The greatest obstacle to understanding Revelation is that most of it is written about the end of the Jewish age (AD 70), not the end of time. A better case can be made for the writing of Revelation before AD 70, than for Ad 95, check it out. 
Ps: trying to interpret the Bible in a wooden literal fashion is probably the greatest cause of misinterpretation. See 1 Cor.2:12-14 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zathrus
King Kong
Joined: 28 Aug 2002
Posts: 2032
Location: WI USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jim,
I don't disagree. Good points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2312
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zathrus wrote | Quote: | | So if the premillenialist view of 2 Peter 3 is correct, why does Peter put the day of the Lord that comes as a thief in the night as coinciding with the destruction of the wicked and the destruction of our planet? Why do Jesus and Paul have Christ's coming as coinciding with the destruction of the unrighteous? |
easily understood for those who want to understand. When looking into the distant future Peter and many other prophetic writings will compress it. By putting it into a heading of "last days" that can include any and all events that were to take place beginning with the rapture and ending with the new Jerusalem.
While keeping the sequence, it allows for long periods of time which are not specifically mentioned. Peter in his prophecy didn't mention any of the events that happen during the 1000 year reign of Christ and that's a long time for nothing to happen. But those who choose to take the literalist position and put it into an extreme position would claim that nothing happens at all since nothing is mentioned and that is clearly outside of reasonable interpretation.
If you look at any mountain range from 100 miles away all you see is the whole range, but as you approach it you see the foothills and some people will take those hills as being the mountains even though they are only small. They will forget the valleys between those foothills and the real mountains. Prophecy can be confusing to those who refuse to see the whole picture and try to take part of it as the whole.
None of this whole thread is in anyway establishing the preterist position as being the more likely than the futurist position. It demonstrates how easily people can be confused when trying to understand prophecy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zathrus
King Kong
Joined: 28 Aug 2002
Posts: 2032
Location: WI USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | easily understood for those who want to understand. When looking into the distant future Peter and many other prophetic writings will compress it. |
With respect, 45, this is pure speculation. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us that prophecy must be understood as being "compressed". Furthermore, how were prophecies by the old testament prophets about such events as the invasion and captivity in Babylon fulfilled? Compressed or not? With or without unmentioned gaps?
| 45degreeN wrote: | | By putting it into a heading of "last days" that can include any and all events that were to take place beginning with the rapture and ending with the new Jerusalem. |
From the rapture to the New Jerusalem? But John wrote that it already was the last time at the time he wrote his epistles. The writer of Hebrews was convinced Christ had come in the "last days". Surely he was not saying the rapture had already taken place. How do you account for the apostles believing they were in the last days?
| 45degreeN wrote: | | While keeping the sequence, it allows for long periods of time which are not specifically mentioned. |
If they aren't mentioned, why do we think they're there? And as far as keeping the sequence, I pointed out that Jesus and Paul called the "day of the Lord which comes as a thief" the day on which Jesus comes again and the wicked are destroyed. Peter says the day of the Lord which comes as a thief is the one "in the which" the heaven and earth are detroyed. That totally does not keep the sequence of premill end time timelines. Peter does not say "the day of the Lord comes as a thief, and (insert some undetermined time here) the heaven and earth will be destroyed." Peter's using the words "in the which", not "after which" or no words at all leaves no room for a gap. Such a gap can not even be forced on the text. It can only come from a not very careful reading of it.
Furthermore, Paul's discussion of the day of the Lord beginning in 1 Thess 4 and going on in 1 Thess 5 gives problems to dispensationalists wanting to insert a 7 year gap between the events described at the end of chapt 4 and those described in chapt 5. The chapter division was not there when Paul wrote, and he was continuing a discussion on the same topic. If he was changing the subject, he would have told his readers so.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Peter in his prophecy didn't mention any of the events that happen during the 1000 year reign of Christ and that's a long time for nothing to happen. But those who choose to take the literalist position and put it into an extreme position would claim that nothing happens at all since nothing is mentioned and that is clearly outside of reasonable interpretation. |
Why would Peter mention the 1000 year reign in chapter 3? Wasn't his subject the day of the Lord that comes as a thief? That's the return of Jesus Christ. Doesn't that happen before the 1000 year reign?
Yet he writes about the heaven and earth being burnt up and a new heaven and earth created - events that premills believe are after - long after - the day of the Lord which comes as a thief. And Peter writes that this will happen on that day the comes as a thiref. Do you see the problem? Some have suggested that his description of the heaven and earth burning up are indeed before the 2nd coming of Christ. They are describing Armageddon, the climax of the tribulation, a great nuclear war.
But then with no gap or hesitation he says that a new heaven and earth will be created when the old are destroyed. A gap would certainly be handy there. Our Adventist friends have inserted one. They believe the earth is destroyed at the end of the tribulation and remains destroyed for the duration of the 1000 year reign, and the new heaven and earth are created after it.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | If you look at any mountain range from 100 miles away all you see is the whole range, but as you approach it you see the foothills and some people will take those hills as being the mountains even though they are only small. They will forget the valleys between those foothills and the real mountains. Prophecy can be confusing to those who refuse to see the whole picture and try to take part of it as the whole. |
I've heard this analogy before, numerous times. Analogies are not biblical proofs. They are speculation. IMO, every time a prophetic passage like 2 Peter 3 is really looked at in depth (as scripture should be studied, don't you agree?) premillenialists start to sound like they're reaching, grasping at straws. Theories and analogies will not suffice.
And it is premills who take part of it as a whole. Based on MAtthew 24, 1 Thess 4, and Rev 20, they've devised their timelines. But they skim over 2 Peter 3, only touching on the highlights of it, because if it were looked at closely it would be clear that it contradicts the "whole" that they've constructed from a few other parts.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | None of this whole thread is in anyway establishing the preterist position as being the more likely than the futurist position. |
That is not the purpose of my post. The purpose of this thread was only to show futurist positions as being inadequate to explain the prophetic passages of the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2312
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are obvious places where interpretation is required and these unmentioned gaps are a logical method to understand what is written.
Taking scripture in such a completely literalist fashion leads us to such logically impossible examples such as Paul being the very last person ever to see Jesus since he wrote that he was and put it into scripture, or the last trump meaning there will never be another trumpet blast ever again instead of understanding that it was meant as the last in a series. Some maturity of understanding is required to get to some semblance of logical understanding.
What are the logical consequences of all prophecy having been fulfilled already? Nothing else to look forward to! The whole basis of faith is looking toward those promises and grace being fulfilled for us. If everything is already fulfilled then why is the world the way it is? It leaves us to earn our way to heaven since we aren't there yet and no more blessings of God are there to help out. Clearly a brave new world of our own creation left to deal with sin by ourselves.
If all prophecy hasn't been fulfilled then it explains why the world is as bad as it is, and give us reason to yet look forward to something new and better. You might call it pie in the sky but for those who live in faith, a way that is 'possible' for us given our past and present condition. I know I'll never earn heaven and doubt anyone else can either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zathrus
King Kong
Joined: 28 Aug 2002
Posts: 2032
Location: WI USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Some maturity of understanding is required to get to some semblance of logical understanding. |
I completely agree. I just have trouble equating the futurist (especially premillenialist) habit of adding stuff into their prophetic timelines that aren't even hinted at in scripture (gaps), or of ignoring plainly stated connections between prophetic events, with maturity of understanding. Surely if scripture states not only that there will be two events, which in itself does not tell us when they happen in relation to each other, but then tells us plainly that the two events will coincide with one another, maturity of understanding would require that we heed the connection being made between them. Also, I would think that maturity of understanding would lead us not to assume a writer or speaker has changed his topic when he has given no indication that he has done so.
| 45degreeN wrote: | | What are the logical consequences of all prophecy having been fulfilled already? Nothing else to look forward to! The whole basis of faith is looking toward those promises and grace being fulfilled for us. |
Great questions!! I will try to keep this thread centered on the failings of futurist prophetic interpretation, and start another one to address these matters. It should be extremely interesting. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2312
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I look to the feast days as a schedule of events although not a time line as such.
First came the passover with three significant events:Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.
Then a gap of "weeks" before Pentecost (the Holy spirit given to the church)
Next comes the "end times" which includes trumpets, atonement, and booths
Trumpets a harvest festival signifies the rapture of the church, Atonement signifies the wrath of God sent onto the Earth, and Booths the millennial reign of Christ. There are necessary gaps within this sequence. Notice that Trumpets is a special feast that has no known set
beginning since it is based upon the phase of the moon and a sighting made by the priesthood.
Given the framework provided by the feast days, the meanings fall into place and offer a context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
