The following is some background work on a larger study (to be completed tomorrow) on the “new heavens and new earth” motif in the New Testament. Before getting there, it turned out be necessary for me—psychologically at least, anyway—to lay the preterist foundations of the whole of 2 Peter 3. Tomorrow we will move on to the theological themes.
I fundamentally agree with the position Peter J. Leithart lays out in his little book The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter.[1] Leithart presents the case that all of 2 Peter 3 (and all of 2 Peter for that matter) was a single coherent message that must be interpreted in the pre-AD 70 context. If you want a little broader treatment than what I present here, I recommend Leithart’s work.
This now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:1–13).
Here are my own exegetical highlights from 2 Peter’s message as I see it:
First, Peter is writing to a group of first-century Jewish believers. This is the “second letter” to them (3:1), and is addressed “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours” (2 Pet. 1:1), which is not very revealing in itself. But the first of those two letters (obviously 1 Peter) addresses this group more specifically as “those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion [diasporas] in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1). “Diaspora” is a well-known technical phrase referring to a people scattered or migrated from one area to another, usually as a result of conquest or exile. First Peter goes on to address the persecution of those saints, giving them comfort and encouragement during their trials. These obviously include Jewish Christians who have fled (were exiled from) Jerusalem under persecution.
Second, the nature of Peter’s message of comfort is of interest: he encourages them by saying the persecution is only temporary—“a little while” [oligon arti]—until the “revelation of Jesus Christ”:
In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:6–7).
This means both that their persecution would last only “a little while,” and also that Christ would be revealed after only “a little while.”
Both aspects of this promise correlate with the prediction Christ gave of the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in Matthew 24. In that discourse He said, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). Jesus promised He would return in judgment within that generation. Peter took Jesus at His Word (unlike many modern Christians) and was simply applying this promise to his readers’ situation. For the present, they were being persecuted and run out of town by unbelieving Jews; but Jesus would soon be “revealed” in judgment to destroy that Old Covenant system and its adherents—the very people who were doing the persecuting of these saints. Thus, in “a little while”—within the lifetimes of those original readers—Jesus would be revealed and this particular “revelation” would cause the persecution of these saints to cease (because it would kill most of the persecutors and demoralize the rest).
Note, then, how Christ said “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Note also how something very similar applies to Peter’s comforting of the persecuted saints: their trial is only for a little while until Jesus is revealed. We should connect Jesus’ promise of a return-judgment on Jerusalem within His hearers’ generation directly with the situation of Peter’s audience which had already fled Jerusalem under duress. The “this generation” directly correlates with the “little while” of Peter’s audience.
In fact, there may well have been some of the same individuals who heard Jesus warn “this generation,” were later forced to flee Jerusalem and Judea, who were now sitting among the audience of Peter’s letters.
Third, the entire letter of 2 Peter is an exhortation to the same group addressed in the first letter during this same interim time period to continue trusting what they have been previously taught from the prophets, apostles, and especially the promises of Jesus. Peter “reminded” the group of the first message: “remembrance” is his goal in 2 Peter 1:12, 13, and 15, and 3:1. They were to hold to what had been promised and not to be deceived by false prophets and “scoffers” who had in the mean time (between letters) come among them. In both letters, therefore, patience is the key message—and patience toward the same goal and for the same reason.
Fourth, the message of the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 reveals that the issue was Jesus’ coming and coming soon. That is, it relates to both the fact of His appearing and the expectation of the saints that it would be soon. The first aspect is obvious as the scoffers’ message is, “Where is the promise of his coming?” The second aspect of the timing is implied. Why would they even be questioning why Jesus had not yet appeared if the operating assumption of the audience was not that He would appear soon, or within their lifetimes? Indeed, why would Peter consider such questioning as a product of “sinful desires” (v. 3) and a threat worth countering in writing unless it conflicted with a core expectation that was central to the very message Christ had left? If Peter and these first century Christians did not expect Jesus to return for thousands of years yet, the scoffing makes no sense and is certainly no threat at all to the faith and practice of these first century Christians.
These two aspects of Jesus’ coming and its first-century imminence are not only revealed here but are central to the whole reason Peter wrote to begin with. It was this very questioning of the soon appearing of Jesus that caused Peter to warn of the rise of false prophets immediately in the previous chapter, 2 Peter 2. Peter began that chapter warning that “there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1).
Fifth, the scoffers themselves were first-century individuals. While the phrase “denying the Master who bought them” has made many appearances in free will-vs.-predestination debate, its first-century context must take precedence: these were unbelieving Jews who had been given the oracles of God, were expecting their Master and Messiah, and yet when He came they rejected Him. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (John 1:11). Further, Jesus had warned his disciples, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18), and “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Mark 13:13). Now this was literally coming true as those who rejected and denied Christ now turned against His disciples. They were persecuting the believing Jews, enticing them with many deceptions and arguments for leaving the Messiah they had embraced, and thus “denying the Master.” They were denying Him in every sense—including contradicting His own Word that He would appear within the generation.
Therefore, the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 should be identified with the false prophets of 2 Peter 2. They did not believe Jesus was the Messiah when He came in the flesh, and they persisted in this unbelief throughout the generation. They tried to force it upon Jesus’ faithful followers by scoffing at His promise to return. Just as they had mocked Him to come down when He was on the cross, so they mocked Him to appear as His delay made His promise to return seem vain.
Sixth, the scoffers’ argument and Peter’s response relate directly to Jesus’ first-century warnings to His disciples. The scoffers’ argument is backed by a general appeal to something like uniformitarianism: “For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation” (v. 4). While there can be discussion about which “fathers” are actually in view here, the main aspect of the argument lies in the phrase “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” These guys saw nothing out of the ordinary, life goes on, nothing changes, so much for this great prediction made by Jesus, allegedly supposed to happen in their lifetimes
If “fathers” refers to the first-century New Covenant “fathers”—the apostles—as most modern commentators seem to think, then this makes even more sense. Jesus was allegedly supposed to come within the generation, but if the very people who believed and spread this message were passing away, that promise would be looking all the more vain.
The only thing that stops me from quickly adopting this view is the definitive nature of the phrase “the fathers fell asleep.” The word “fell” is in the aorist tense which usually denotes simple passive without continuing action into the present. This is strengthened by the “since,” which indicates the audience was looking backward on the fact. And the phrase “the fathers” is comprehensive: It seems to indicate all the fathers fell asleep, not just some. But we know this is not the case with at least one of those “fathers”— Peter—who is alive to write this letter after all. So there should be some hesitation in adopting this view too quickly. In the end, however, the argument of the scoffers is driven more by the alleged uniform continuance of history through the audience’s present than by the starting point of the “fathers.”
Peter’s response is highly notable: “For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished” (2 Pet. 3:5–6). Peter says essentially, “You want to talk about uniform history since the beginning of creation? Ok, let’s do. Ever heard of a thing called the flood?” Peter says these scoffers are willingly ignoring how God once destroyed the world by the flood, and thus how things haven’t always continued as they were since the beginning of creation.
Peter had brought this up already when he covered the false prophets in the previous chapter. The entire world at that time scoffed at the prophecy of Noah:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. . . .
And furthermore,
if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority (2 Pet. 2:4–10).
Peter’s response to the scoffers’ argument is thus essentially to say, “You sound like the people who mocked Noah before the promised flood came. But . . . it came.” And to the persecuted saints the message was that God knows perfectly well how to bring judgment on those people while at the same time preserving His saints.
The argument and Peter’s response are vitally connected to the first century context, as they were directly anticipated by Jesus in Luke 17:
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17:26–30).
We should, in fact, understand Peter’s response to the scoffers as merely an application of Jesus’ teaching here—a teaching Peter would have learned in person with Jesus. When the situation arose with his persecuted audience, it was not a hard call on how to respond. While the scoffers willingly ignored the nature of God’s cataclysmic judgments in history, Jesus and Paul emphasized them as blueprints of what was very soon to come.
Note not only the similarity in the reference to Noah and the flood, but also language of Jesus’ return to destroy the ungodly. Jesus describes it as a day in which he will be “revealed” (Luke 17:30); this is the same language with which Peter comforts his readers, assuring them that the “revelation of Jesus Christ” will occur in “a little while” (1 Pet. 1:7). The same Greek word, apokalypsis, is employed in both.
The context of Luke 17 makes the first-century context clear as well: it puts this cataclysmic judgment in the context of the coming of the kingdom (Luke 17:1) and right on the heels of Jesus being rejected and suffering from “this generation” (Luke 17:25). As I wrote in Jesus v. Jerusalem:
But the disciples receive special instruction as to the nature of the visible coming judgment. Many will be looking for Christ after Christ is gone (thus there would be many false Christs in that interim period, Matt. 24:5; Luke 21:8), and of all people who had a keen interest in His arrival, the disciples would be most anxious, for they would be among the few who knew for sure He was coming back in their lifetimes. So Jesus makes sure to insulate them against false Christs. He does this by teaching them about the true nature of the coming destruction He has been preaching about:
And he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it. I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.” And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather” (Luke 17:22–37).
We have already discussed part of this passage in relation to the exodus motif with Noah and Lot. These were forewarned men who were prepared for a coming judgment and got out when the time came. The others were all taken by surprise by a massive cataclysmic judgment. Here Jesus sees fit to give His disciples this warning, but not unto the multitudes or the Pharisees. This was a warning to the elect remnant only, for only they would get out.
The lesson is necessary because the pressure to follow after false Christs would be overwhelming. Jesus would later say that these false prophets would be so persuasive that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect (Matt. 24:24). The elect remnant, in other words, would need a special focus upon the true Christ, special warning, and here they received it. “Behold, I have told you in advance” (Matt. 24:25). After this, Jesus will immediately proceed to a parable concerning the focused prayers of the elect, as we shall see.
In addition to this lesson which we have already covered earlier, it is important to note Jesus’ prediction, “But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” (17:25). This verse will have great importance later when we hear Jesus referring again to “this generation.” To those who may be tempted to argue there that “this generation” refers to something other than the generation to whom Jesus was speaking—something more general or more future—the context here in Luke 17:25 makes it clear that Jesus’ “this generation” would be the same generation which rejected Him and caused Him to suffer.
Peter continues through with the logic of his argument: these scoffers are willingly ignorant of the judgment that overthrew the scoffers of the old world in the time of Noah, and yet the flood came. Just so, the present world (at the time) would indeed be judged by fire and the ungodly scoffers themselves would perish (v. 6–7). We’ll discuss these passages for their theology in a moment.
So up to this point we can understand:
1) Peter’s letters were written to a specific first century audience for a specific first century setting
2) That setting and the persecution in it was only temporary and brief, for Jesus would be revealed in “a little while.”
3) Second Peter follows directly and consistently from First Peter with the same theme, audience, context, promises, encouragement, message, etc.
4) The scoffers’ argument assumes that the saints expected Jesus to appear and to appear soon.
5) The scoffers themselves, therefore, must have come during that time in the first-century.
6) Peter’s response corresponds to Jesus’ teaching in Luke 17, which strongly suggests a first-century judgment-coming of Jesus.
In light of these facts, consider Peter’s extension of the logical argument:
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God (2 Pet. 3:8–12).
In light of what we have already learned, we can be sure Peter’s main point here has nothing to do with actual thousands of years, but simply with restoring the comfort of these persecuted saints and refuting the scoffers who argued essentially, “Look how much time has already passed and nothing has changed, the Lord has not appeared. Get a clue: He ain’t comin’ back.” Peter says wait a minute, God’s timing is not our timing: what seems like eons to us is merely a day to him; what we overlook as a passing day He may consider to have the import of a thousand years. God is patient, waiting to bring in the full number of elect saints to your fold before He completes his promise. The point is, trust God’s timing, not man’s perceptions of time. In God’s time, Peter says, that day of judgment would indeed come just as Jesus promised.
Two teachings of Jesus come into view here: one is a direct reference from Jesus, the other an application. The first is Peter’s reference to the “thief in the night.” Jesus used this exact metaphor in Matthew 24:43 and Luke 12:39, among others (Paul repeats it as well in 1 Thessalonians 5:1). To the extent we understand Jesus as speaking in a first-century context in those passages, so we should also see it here with Peter, only nearer to becoming a reality.
And in the mean time, those persecuted followers needed to hold more steadfastly than ever to the faith they professed. This second idea is an application of Jesus’ teaching about the power of the false prophets that would come. He had said, “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand” (Matt. 24:24–25; Cf. Mark 13:23). “See” here is from the Greek idou and means “listen up,” “take heed” “pay attention.” Jesus was emphatic here because it would be of such importance to His audience (the disciples). This was not mere rhetoric, it was a critical reality: some false prophets would be so deceptive as to deceive even the elect if that were possible. Jesus essentially said, “Wake up, people. This is real. It will happen. I am telling you now so you know when it happens. I have warned you.” Peter took that warning to heart and was just as emphatically relaying it to his own readers.
So far then we have established a first-century context for the meaning and fulfillment of this passage. There are aspects we have not yet covered, but they do not affect the timing of the passage. What we’ve seen so far will be further enhanced by the theological study of more of the passage that follows.
Endnotes:- Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004. [↩]
Joel McDurmon, M.Div., Reformed Episcopal Theological Seminary, is the Director of Research for American Vision. He has authored four books and also serves as a lecturer and regular contributor to the American Vision website. He joined American Vision's staff in the June of 2008. Joel and his wife and four sons live in Dallas, Georgia.
Not that any partial preterist will actually take the time to think honestly about this,
http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-james-b-jordan-s-postmillennialism-requires-a-local-flood?xg_source=activity
but it also works with Joel and DeMar’s fulfilling of 2 Peter 3.
Thomas Ice hit it right on. If Gary wants a localized “covenantal” great tribulation in AD 70, then he needs to be consistent and argue for a local flood.
It is amazing the YEC organizations haven’t figured out that AV’s eschatology is pulling the rug right out from under neath them. What is going to happen when they do?
I noticed that you put ‘second letter’. 2 Peter does state that this is the ‘second’ time that I have written to you…. There are ‘two’ letters that ‘found’ that are know to have been written by Peter. One thing that many do not seem to notice is the ’1st Peter’ would read better if it was labeled as ’3rd Peter’. ie. ’1st Peter’ has been ‘lost’…..and ’3r Peter is put in front of ‘the second time I have written to you’.
You have written a very nice artcle. This book by Don Preston would flesh this out even more.
“The Elements Shall Melt with Fervent Heat”
http://www.eschatology.org/store?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-ask.tpl&product_id=52&category_id=18
A hyperpreterist said above, “Someday Christendom is going to have to deal with these facts. Currently it can’t because of its gnostic obsession with the physical which causes it to look for the physical in both Genesis 1 and Rev. 21.”
Believing that creation has a role to play in Covenantal dealings is Gnosticism. lol.
Hyperprets are absolutely clueless.
Rich,
See my reply to your “eternal earth” scriptures.
Rich, I understand what you are saying. But the internal and external evidence seems to favor another author besides Peter, at least in my opinion.
So the book of Revelation (as well as nearly all NT letters) were meant for that generation, and not future peoples ??
We are supposed to think that the NT doesn’t apply today, as it did then? Is it possible that they were aware that there may yet be a “future” and they wrote (addressing their contemporaries) with that in mind? After all, the book of Revelation seems to take up where the book of Daniel leaves off, with much of the same symbolic style. And the book of Daniel wasn’t meant for just one generation’s study or a one-generation fulfillment. Yet Daniel and Revelation indicate that they are in the same “genre” or should receive similar treatment, because they use some of the same symbols.
Incidentally, Protestant Historicism does not rule out the events of 70AD, or that Jesus was addressing his generation in Matt 24. Protestant Historicism merely sees the events of 70AD as ONE fulfillment among many others (past and future).
Well, as to your last point about “one fulfillment among many,” Joel actually addressed that idea at this past year’s national prophecy conference in his lecture “Double-Fulfillment, Double-Crossed.” Double or multiple fulfillment is an oxymoron. To “fulfill” (Gr. plēroō) is to fill a thing up or make a thing full; if it’s fulfilled once, it can’t be fulfilled again. What you’re describing are situational or typological applications of past historical precedents.
As to the question of intended audience, yes, the entire New Testament was written TO a target audience in the first century. But it was also written FOR all those who came after it—from then to now and beyond.
“We are supposed to think that the NT doesn’t apply today, as it did then?”
Where did “doesn’t apply” come from? The Book of Exodus was written TO the Israelites who came out of Egypt and were to settle in the land, but (according the NT authors – 1 Cor. 10, Heb. 3-4, etc.) it was written FOR us as well—as a source of typological examples (Gr. typos). We extract all manner of lessons from Exodus (and elsewhere), but we bring them through all the various developments between then and now (such as, oh, let’s say … the Cross of Christ) . That’s why Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians has them refraining from idolatry and sexual immorality, lest God destroy them all, but not constructing a new tabernacle in the wilderness.
This is the “logic” I’m reading: If the NT is essentially completely fulfilled and the events of AD 70 represent a key turning point in our understanding of the NT, then the NT must not have any value or application for us now.
That is fallacious and silly. Gary DeMar has been confronted with that one for years (and debunks it each time); it makes no sense. We already do this with most of the Bible (the OT and parts of the Gospels). It’s easy to see that past events remains relevant for us now. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are definitive past events, yet they still have massive ramifications for us here and now. We need to learn to handle ALL of Scripture as though it’s written FOR us, because it was. None of it was written TO us. If we don’t distinguish between the direct and the indirect audiences, we’re setting ourselves up for misappropriations of the text and the consquences thereof.
Aaron,
you did a much better job of addressing the same point I tried to. Excellent!
Thanks for the ‘rebuttal’. I totally agree. “To “fulfill” (Gr. plēroō) is to fill a thing up or make a thing full; if it’s fulfilled once, it can’t be fulfilled again.”
I need to rephrase. When I said one fulfillment among many, I meant that 70AD (and before) isn’t the culmination of nearly all prophecy. I meant that 70AD, in an historical sense, is ONE fulfillment of prophecy, and that there are many other prophecies that were fulfilled at other times, both past and present. This is the position of Protestant Historicism, which has varied interpretations – but truly centers around the identity of “the temple of God” and the identity of the ‘man of sin’ that sits in it. It is pretty plain, that Revelation (a highly symbolic book) does not necessarily refer to the Jewish temple as THE temple of God – since there is only ONE temple of God in the NT, post-Pentecost. All I am saying to the preterists & partial-preterists is “keep an open mind.” It may be that a lot of Bible prophecy (especially Revelation) is like the book of Daniel: describing large-scene sequential events and movements.
“We need to learn to handle ALL of Scripture as though it’s written FOR us, because it was. None of it was written TO us. ”
True. And that is a frequent futurist mistake. However, to assume that just because something was written TO someone, does not necessarily mean that its entire fulfillment occurs while they are still alive. Daniel wrote a book & was told to seal it. The Lamb unsealed, near the beginning of Revelation. I guess you can make the argument (if you want to) that the unsealing meant that all of the events of Revelation were to unfold in one generation: but that is clearly not the case with it’s “prequel” Daniel.
It seems to me that other interpretive schemes get a lot more attention paid to them, and so they are a lot more studied. However, only one interpretive scheme that I know of has the PROPER “Hermeneutical” DEFINITION of “THE temple of God” post-Pentecost. And that is a rather important matter to mess up on, not a matter of dates & even specific events. That is a big-picture word: temple. So we better have it straight when a New Testament letter written AFTER PENTECOST refers to THE temple of God.
I think our Protestant forebears were on to something. Too bad we have forgotten what they would have had us continue in. However, this doctrine is (probably) being recovered somewhat in the “organic house church” movement that draws a lot from the writings of Watchman Nee.
We ditched what almost all of the early Protestants agreed on (that the Papacy had the spirit of anti-Christ, if not the EXACT fulfillment of it!). The Roman Catholics tried to get Futurism to be accepted by the Protestants after the theory was solidified in the COUNTER-Reformation. But protestant leaders wisely refused. Until the early 1800′s. When Protestants relaxed toward Roman Catholicism, they opened the door to other interpretive schemes: Futurism was first to win acceptance, AFTER the idea of pre-trib rapture was added (by a protestant girl who reportedly had visions). And then since Futurism is mostly speculative, in came it’s TWIN Preterism. I say TWIN, because it too was rubber-stamped by the Papacy (sitting in THE temple of God) in the COUNTER-Reformation as a possibly valid scheme of interpretation. Futurism pointed to a FUTURE bad guy. Preterism said that the bad guy was in the PAST. Both schemes were interesting in that they deflected attention from THE PRESENT. And Preterism still tends to serve this function, when compared to Historicism. Preterism only appears to be a strong interpretive framework, when it fights Futurism. But when it’s main idea of AD70 is accepted by the Historicists, who then MOVE ON into a deeper Revelation of the history of western civilization… Preterism goes blank, and starts talking about other relevant matters that deflect attention away from the crucial matter of eschatology: what is the identity of THE temple of God post-Pentecost?
Both Futurism and Preterism would apparently say … the Jewish temple? But Protestants have (or had) consistently said it was the Body of Christ. And because of this… when looking for the man of sin… we must first look among ourselves, and at our own attitudes. The only other man called “man of sin” or “man of perdition” was Judas.
Most of the facts that I have mentioned are found in the easy-to-read book “End Time Delusions”. And there is another good book called “The Final Trumpet.”
One question I do have that isn’t intended to be rhetorical: Mr. McDurmon doesn’t appear to be post-millenial? Sure, I know that Jesus, the Son of Man, comes in judgment. But doesn’t postmillenialism teach that He is coming back (as our eldest brother) in the flesh, someday? The dead shall rise? We shall meet him in the sky? I still believe that stuff. And I think that is entirely compatible with Protestant Historicism, in fact it’s more obvious than the futurist pre-millenium rapture that Historicists usually try to force into their narrative. Once it is seen that AntiChrist is past, we don’t need futurism any more… but we still gotta be on the lookout for human nature (as the Beast (Papacy/Rome) the False Prophet (Islam) and the Dragon (Devil/Marxism/China?) are still here.)
Sorry. I said that the phrase “the temple of God” appears in Revelation. It does. But I think it’s obvious that I have to be more careful.
I was referring to 2 Thes. 2:4. I believe that the KEY to knowing any valid eschatology: comes from understanding the true intent of that verse. It’s also the easiest way (by far) to get under a Futurists skin without raising any red flags. Every time I talk about the identity of the temple and “antichrist” from an historicist perspective, using 2 Thes 2:4 as my launching pad, it works. Then I explain that it happened already, and walk them through history: and explain that there is no way that the Papacy is going to rise again to the height that it once did. What’s more important: we need to watch out for human nature INSIDE the church more than outside. It’s like devotional life and politics seem to all hinge around that issue of the identity of God’s temple.
Well said, Aaron!
Alex A
UK
Thank you, E Harris (and Rich and Alex).
On the matter of the temple of God, yes, I generally agree (especially post-Pentecost) that “the temple of God” doesn’t necessarily refer to the temple in Jerusalem. In fact, in Paul’s letters, I tend to think that “temple” never refers to the stone edifice in Jerusalem; I’m even suspicious of the use in 2 Th. 2, which you cited. I have some sympathy with the historicist approach as you’re using it in these instances. I’m basically with you there, at least functionally so, since I would make an application out of the passage with a conclusion similar to what you’re discussing.
“. . . to assume that just because something was written TO someone, does not necessarily mean that its entire fulfillment occurs while they are still alive. Daniel wrote a book & was told to seal it. The Lamb unsealed, near the beginning of Revelation. I guess you can make the argument (if you want to) that the unsealing meant that all of the events of Revelation were to unfold in one generation: but that is clearly not the case with it’s ‘prequel’ Daniel.”
Yeah, I’d basically agree with that. Daniel’s original audience are told that these things are far off, while Revelation’s audience is told that these things are near.
As to the question of Joel’s post-millennialism (which he can answer on his own) or more generally the preterist postmillennialism around American Vision and various allies , yes, they do believe in the future second coming of Christ, the general resurrection of the dead, and the last judgment. Those are the only prophetic elements (of which I am aware) that this school of preterist postmillennialism hold to as future events—DeMar, McDurmon, Jordan, Leithart, Wilson, and so forth. All recognize a difference between the Presence/Coming of the Son of Man and the so-called Second Coming (a title of systematic theology more than that of biblical terminology). I’m not so sure about all the rest of these fellows, but after talking with Jim Jordan about Rom. 8, 1 Cor. 15, and 1 Th. 4-5, I get the impression that the Second Coming and the immanent first-century event of the Parousia are separate realities, and both are addressed side-by-side in these passages.
Blessings,
Aaron
“So the book of Revelation (as well as nearly all NT letters) were meant for that generation, and not future peoples ??”
You got it. However, with that said, can we still post flood (and all the other many many historical events in the OT) learn some kind of application for us today? It amazes me how people don’t have a problem with all the OT events (and their warnings) as only being meant for the generation that lived through them, yet do have a problem with 1st century events because they were only meant for that generation, and not future peoples?
I think it’s because people want to believe that God still speaks today, as He did to the prophets of old. Fundamentally (more than anything) people want to feel like they are not alone. They want to believe in a God who is ACTIVE and Personally involved with them. (That’s not the only reason for other interpretive schemes, but it’s one reason.)
I believe (personally, as an idealistic Postmillenial Historicist) that when the book of Revelation is properly explained… it will STUN western civilization. Because it will be PROOF (beyond all other historical proof) that the Author of the Bible is real, and capable of seeing the future, and CARES about mankind. Revelation, when properly understood, details the relationship of God’s People with Himself, amidst attacks from various enemies, and God’s judgements upon them. It helps to explain the last 2000 years, from God’s PURE perspective – which is above any man’s.
This is a very helpful article- thanks for posting it. One question; I’ve heard it said that the reason passages like this seem to be about the end of the world and Christ’s second coming and yet have an obvious first-century fulfillment is that the first-century fulfillment (destruction of Jerusalem) is typological for the whole course of history and judgment and destruction of the world at the second coming. How would you respond to that view? Can we consider II Peter 3 to be both about Jesus’ coming to destroy Jerusalem and His coming at the end of the world?
There is a reason the words “end of the world” are nowhere in the Scriptures. There is no “end of the world”. Maybe you can show me where that is taught in the Scriptures and how they would agree with:
Ps. 104:5 – ” He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.”
Ps. 78:69 – He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth, which he has founded forever.”
Ps. 89:36-37 – “His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established forever, a faithful witness in the skies.”
Ps. 148:3,6 – Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created. And he established them forever and ever; he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away.”
Rich, I’ve always enjoyed those scriptures!
There will be a new heavens and a new earth. A fire will sweep over the world as surely as the flood once did. HOWEVER, the OT is usually a physical foreshadowing of spiritual realities. And the NT often uses metaphore (such as fire) to indicate truth.
So…world without end, even as the systems crash and we have different ages?
E Harris,
Yes, me too, because it destroys this idea that at Christ’s second coming, per the futurists’ understanding (I understand it’s past), the physical universe is going to be destroyed. And a new physical existence where all evil is supposedly gone and the physical lamb lies beside the physical lion at peace etc. etc. etc..
I think from your words , “HOWEVER, the OT is usually a physical foreshadowing of spiritual realities“, which I’ve noticed you’ve stated a couple of times, that you understand the new Heaven and Earth of Rev. 21 has nothing to do with the physical world. If so, I agree 100%. HOWEVER, I understand that Genesis is not referring to the creation of the physical universe too, which is why the one that is destroyed in the NT (which is clearly in reference to the one created in Genesis 1) can be destroyed with the physical going on forever (just as it is) as God stated in the passages I listed above. I understand Genesis as Covenant Creation. Recommend Tim Martin’s and Jeff Vaughan’s book, “Beyond Creation Science” for an introduction to Covenant Creation and it counterpart Covenant Eschatology.
Thus, the references to a new Heaven and Earth in Rev. has to do with a new Covenant world (the old covenant world of Genesis 1 ended and the new ushered in), which we currently live in now (since AD 70). Nothing unclean can enter in because the only why in is via Christ, which is per Covenantal. This is why Rev. 22:15 states that outside are the dogs, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers and idolaters. Then there is the fact that per Isa. 65 there is still both death and procreation in the new H&E. Someday Christendom is going to have to deal with these facts. Currently it can’t because of its gnostic obsession with the physical which causes it to look for the physical in both Genesis 1 and Rev. 21.
Rich,
Olam just refers to the distant future or past. It can be used of things eternal, but not in these examples. We see stars die all of the time, but you are claiming that Ps. 148 says that they are eternal. In fact all stars will die (if God leaves the universe in place that long) and this includes our sun, which you interpret to be eternal (Ps. 89). Ps. 78:68-69 says that the earthly santuary, Zion (also see Ps. 20:2), is like the hieghts and the earth, eternal. Well as you know, that sactuary no longer exists.
Also, see my reply on this page.
http://americanvision.org/5526/a-new-creation-adorned/
Rich,
Below, you said that futurists believe that physical lambs and lions will lay down together. That is a young-earth creationist view. I’m a futurist and an old-earth creationist, and I do not belive that. The animals in Isaiah 11 and 65 represent the nations and people being spoken of. Animals representing nations and people can be seen in other places in Isaiah and the other prophets.
I’d have to lean more with Kenneth Gentry in “AN ENCORE TO MATTHEW 24″ (Institute for Christian Economics, Vol. VI, No. 5, 1993), where he indicates a break between Christ’s allusions to the Fall of Jerusalem and to His Second Coming occurring between Matthew 24:29-34 and Matthew 24:35-42.
In the former verses, Jesus is talking about signs that will signal a great calamity — 24:33: “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors” — but the latter verses warn with imagery that indicates no one will know something is happening until the moment it happens — 24:41: “Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left,” etc.
The passages Joel deals with from Peter and Luke 17:17-30, parallel these latter verses in Matthew that Gentry believes refers to the Second Coming. It is this final, sudden (without signs) end of history which, again, I think Paul refers to in 1 Thessalonians 5:2: “for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”
So, was Peter enlightening the Jewish followers about the closing of the Old Covenant or of the Day of Judgment? My sense is that his use of a thousand years in the hands of God was indeed a way of saying that Jesus’s Second Coming would be worked out in time well beyond his and his listeners’ time, and that they should be more concerned with living their faith today. His own use of the “thief in the night” in reference to “the Day of the Lord” (3:10), followed immediately by his prophesy of the earth being destroyed by fire, supports, at least for me, the belief that Peter is trying to inspire his listeners, not with stories of the fall of Jerusalem, but of the final Judgment, when the righteous shall be rewarded.
Great article. If only more people would grasp these truths and apply them to their lives.
Hmmmm Joel. A lot of scholars believe this letter was written after 70AD. But I guess I see why you need it to be written before 70AD.
Most scholars date Peter’s death before AD 70, so if he did write 2 Peter, how could it have been written after AD 70? Some do believe that 2 Peter wasn’t written by the Apostle Peter, but they seem to be in the minority.
Len, this is why the view that the historical wrote the canonical peter is highly problematic. As for the minority of scholars you talk about, they are the minority among evangelical/fundamentalist scholars employed at evangelical/fundamentalist instittuions. The majority of biblical scholars at secular institutions believe 2nd Peter was written by someone else.
A lot of scholars know it was written before AD 70 too.
They KNOW it was written before 70AD? I’m not sure that’s the best term to use. Again, I will repeat what I said. Among evangelical/fundamentalist Bible scholars, most likely employed by evangelical/fundamentalist institutions, only a minority of them would make the case that Peter didn’t write this. Because of evangelical scholars’ commitment to biblical inerrancy, they most likely are going to try to make the case that the historical Peter wrote 2nd Peter and that it was written before 70AD.
However, outside of evangelical institutions, it may be VERY hard to find a biblical scholar who thinks 2nd Peter was written by the historic Peter.
Mika’il Rahim,
I am using “know” in the sense of “knowing” a person is guilt based on the evidence presented, not “knowing” as if I were present at the scene of the crime and saw him comment the act.
Your argument seems to be more on the who than the when. I will give you the who, as it doesn’t really matter to me. The when does. I know it was pre AD 70 based on the all the internal and external evidence.
As far as numbers, that doesn’t concerning me either. There has always been in Church history the majority believing things completely wrong. That merely testifies to mans weakness to go along with the crowd to fit in and be accepted; especially when his income and/or position is on the line.
Thanks for the study Joel.
Audience relevance sure makes a difference in how to understand the scriptures.