2 Peter 3

[Johann]

A small group of hyper preterists are , or have, made some waves in the church to which I belong. Most of the time I pay no heed to them.. however

2 Peter 3 passage:
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


What say ye? When did "elements" come to mean what we think of it now?
What is the proper refutation of the claim that elements meant 'teachings'?

Johann

[Jude3b]

How about letting the Bible speak for itself. It says the elements will be burned up. Let God's Word be true and every man a liar.

[Johann]

How about letting the Bible speak for itself. It says the elements will be burned up. Let God's Word be true and every man a liar.
Ok, I like your answer and all, but what I was asking is how do we refute the claim that elements meant "doctrines of the old covenant", or something along those lines?
Some have told me that in context it has to mean the literal elements of the earth as we know now. I don't have a hard time buying this but would like to have it clinched.

J

[Ted]

To automatically let “elements’ mean the building blocks of matter is potentially to take a modern concept and impose it on scripture. We should consider how scripture uses stoicheia.

The word appears 7 times in scripture, and 3 in the apocrypha. Twice in Galatians 4 it appears in relation to pagan worship of planetary deities. This brings us to the fact that stoicheia was a technical term in pagan Greece for the planetary gods. Col 2:8 echoes this meaning, pointing out that the stoicheia are deceptive philosophies of men. This is repeated in Col 2:20. Heb 5:12 uses the word in a different sense, speaking of the building blocks of “the oracles of God.” The other two uses are in the passage in question.

If we look at the physical use of stoicheia in the ancient Greek world, it would mean “earth, air, fire, and water.” To say that fire would be burned up with fervent heat (2 Pet 3:10) is an oxymoron. Thus, it is may be difficult to support the idea that a physical intent exists for this term.

On the other hand, the passage is intensely physical. Peter brings out the physical creation of the earth by God (3:5), its physical destruction by the physical flood (3:6). He then says that, “the present heavens and earth ... are reserved for fire” (3:7). Since the preceding steps are unequivocally physical, and no textual shift to non-physical is apparent, the fire is also unequivocally physical. It will happen “on the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”

After a parenthetical comment about the Lord not being slow (3:8-9), Peter then calls the day of fire the “day of the Lord” (3:10). This is the day on which the Lord delivers his people and destroys all who will stand against him. In the Old Testament, this is repeatedly the day on which God acts against “the nations.” This term speaks of everyone other than the Hebrews in the physical sense. When the details of the prophecies are examined, it is the day when God wipes out all of his enemies, including the unfaithful within Israel.

Finally, verse 13 speaks of “a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.”

What can we make of all this? First, as noted before, the entire passage is physical. There is nothing in it to suggest an allegorical tone. Second, the usage of stoicheia in scripture does not help us, since it is used in more than one way. The classical Greek use is only marginally helpful. The best understanding comes from Peter, since he speaks of physical creation, physical destruction in the flood, and physical destruction of the “heavens and earth.” Thus, stoicheia is best understood in its root meaning, the building blocks of the heavens and earth, without the incorrect Greek idea of earth, air, fire, and water.

The radical Preterist view that allegorizes 2 Peter 3 suffers from a total lack of textual support. It is necessary to explain away Peter’s use of physical examples leading up to the destruction of the earth and heavens by fire. The idea that elements means “doctrines of the old covenant” has no scriptural support whatever. Ask your full Preterist friend to show any scripture where this idea is found. He can’t.

Peter’s discussion is physical. So are the elements.

[Johann]

Thank you so kindly Ted. No one could have stated the case better. I'll save your reply to file.

Johann

[dizzle]

A small group of hyper preterists are , or have, made some waves in the church to which I belong. Most of the time I pay no heed to them.. however

and your pastor has not exercised church discipline and thrown them out if they refused to repent of utter heresy? and is allowing such to make waves in the church? this is how such groups feel comfortable spouting such nonsense (their heresy not necessary this particular issue which I happen to agree with) to begin with.

Paul cast out Hymenaeus and Philetus and no church of Christ should allow this to be spread in its midst.

[Johann]

and your pastor has not exercised church discipline and thrown them out if they refused to repent of utter heresy? and is allowing such to make waves in the church? this is how such groups feel comfortable spouting such nonsense (their heresy not necessary this particular issue which I happen to agree with) to begin with.

Paul cast out Hymenaeus and Philetus and no church of Christ should allow this to be spread in its midst.
I completely agree Dee Dee.
The heretical movement is not confined to just one congregation though and the leadership seems to be weak at best so ridding them can be tough. Some of the actual clergy have been taken in by the false doctrine usually referred to as the 'parousia' so this is a problem as well.

Johann

[dizzle]

I feel for you. This is something I have a passion to warn about. This is not simply another eschatological view, it is rank heresy. I would ask you to consider giving your leadership a copy of my article at www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

I personally would not stay at a congregation for long that tolerated the propogation of heresy.

[Jude3b]

Dear Dee Dee: Where has this Preterist doctrine come from and how long has it been around? I've never heard of it outside of the theology web. What kind of denomination might a Preterist belong to?
Thanks, Jude 3b

[Robyn Banks]

and your pastor has not exercised church discipline and thrown them out if they refused to repent of utter heresy?

Dee Dee advises on the creation of Christian Sect #24,947.

[mickiel]

A small group of hyper preterists are , or have, made some waves in the church to which I belong. Most of the time I pay no heed to them.. however

2 Peter 3 passage:
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


What say ye? When did "elements" come to mean what we think of it now?
What is the proper refutation of the claim that elements meant 'teachings'?

Johann



The earth shall be burned up, thats physical, including all physical elements. The "works" the verse mentions is clearly false spiritual knowledge, it can mean nothingelse. The physical earth will be dissolved, or replaced with a new earth. The "works of the earth", or the false spiritual knowledge production, will also be dissolved and replaced with absolute truth.

[Spiritus Naturae]

To automatically let “elements’ mean the building blocks of matter is potentially to take a modern concept and impose it on scripture. We should consider how scripture uses stoicheia.

The word appears 7 times in scripture, and 3 in the apocrypha. Twice in Galatians 4 it appears in relation to pagan worship of planetary deities. This brings us to the fact that stoicheia was a technical term in pagan Greece for the planetary gods. Col 2:8 echoes this meaning, pointing out that the stoicheia are deceptive philosophies of men. This is repeated in Col 2:20. Heb 5:12 uses the word in a different sense, speaking of the building blocks of “the oracles of God.” The other two uses are in the passage in question.

If we look at the physical use of stoicheia in the ancient Greek world, it would mean “earth, air, fire, and water.” To say that fire would be burned up with fervent heat (2 Pet 3:10) is an oxymoron. Thus, it is may be difficult to support the idea that a physical intent exists for this term.

On the other hand, the passage is intensely physical. Peter brings out the physical creation of the earth by God (3:5), its physical destruction by the physical flood (3:6). He then says that, “the present heavens and earth ... are reserved for fire” (3:7). Since the preceding steps are unequivocally physical, and no textual shift to non-physical is apparent, the fire is also unequivocally physical. It will happen “on the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”

After a parenthetical comment about the Lord not being slow (3:8-9), Peter then calls the day of fire the “day of the Lord” (3:10). This is the day on which the Lord delivers his people and destroys all who will stand against him. In the Old Testament, this is repeatedly the day on which God acts against “the nations.” This term speaks of everyone other than the Hebrews in the physical sense. When the details of the prophecies are examined, it is the day when God wipes out all of his enemies, including the unfaithful within Israel.

Finally, verse 13 speaks of “a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.”

What can we make of all this? First, as noted before, the entire passage is physical. There is nothing in it to suggest an allegorical tone. Second, the usage of stoicheia in scripture does not help us, since it is used in more than one way. The classical Greek use is only marginally helpful. The best understanding comes from Peter, since he speaks of physical creation, physical destruction in the flood, and physical destruction of the “heavens and earth.” Thus, stoicheia is best understood in its root meaning, the building blocks of the heavens and earth, without the incorrect Greek idea of earth, air, fire, and water.

The radical Preterist view that allegorizes 2 Peter 3 suffers from a total lack of textual support. It is necessary to explain away Peter’s use of physical examples leading up to the destruction of the earth and heavens by fire. The idea that elements means “doctrines of the old covenant” has no scriptural support whatever. Ask your full Preterist friend to show any scripture where this idea is found. He can’t.

Peter’s discussion is physical. So are the elements.

[Spiritus Naturae]

To automatically let “elements’ mean the building blocks of matter is potentially to take a modern concept and impose it on scripture. We should consider how scripture uses stoicheia.

The word appears 7 times in scripture, and 3 in the apocrypha. Twice in Galatians 4 it appears in relation to pagan worship of planetary deities. This brings us to the fact that stoicheia was a technical term in pagan Greece for the planetary gods. Col 2:8 echoes this meaning, pointing out that the stoicheia are deceptive philosophies of men. This is repeated in Col 2:20. Heb 5:12 uses the word in a different sense, speaking of the building blocks of “the oracles of God.” The other two uses are in the passage in question.

If we look at the physical use of stoicheia in the ancient Greek world, it would mean “earth, air, fire, and water.” To say that fire would be burned up with fervent heat (2 Pet 3:10) is an oxymoron. Thus, it is may be difficult to support the idea that a physical intent exists for this term.

On the other hand, the passage is intensely physical. Peter brings out the physical creation of the earth by God (3:5), its physical destruction by the physical flood (3:6). He then says that, “the present heavens and earth ... are reserved for fire” (3:7). Since the preceding steps are unequivocally physical, and no textual shift to non-physical is apparent, the fire is also unequivocally physical. It will happen “on the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”

After a parenthetical comment about the Lord not being slow (3:8-9), Peter then calls the day of fire the “day of the Lord” (3:10). This is the day on which the Lord delivers his people and destroys all who will stand against him. In the Old Testament, this is repeatedly the day on which God acts against “the nations.” This term speaks of everyone other than the Hebrews in the physical sense. When the details of the prophecies are examined, it is the day when God wipes out all of his enemies, including the unfaithful within Israel.

Finally, verse 13 speaks of “a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.”

What can we make of all this? First, as noted before, the entire passage is physical. There is nothing in it to suggest an allegorical tone. Second, the usage of stoicheia in scripture does not help us, since it is used in more than one way. The classical Greek use is only marginally helpful. The best understanding comes from Peter, since he speaks of physical creation, physical destruction in the flood, and physical destruction of the “heavens and earth.” Thus, stoicheia is best understood in its root meaning, the building blocks of the heavens and earth, without the incorrect Greek idea of earth, air, fire, and water.

The radical Preterist view that allegorizes 2 Peter 3 suffers from a total lack of textual support. It is necessary to explain away Peter’s use of physical examples leading up to the destruction of the earth and heavens by fire. The idea that elements means “doctrines of the old covenant” has no scriptural support whatever. Ask your full Preterist friend to show any scripture where this idea is found. He can’t.

Peter’s discussion is physical. So are the elements.

An excellent post, Ted! :thumb:

[Ted]

Many thanks for all the compliments. Hopefully others will see the method used. That is, a careful consideration of the word's use in scripture and history, followed by a careful consideration of the apostolic argument itself. This method will generally resolve interpretive dilemmas.

Let me rephrase this. There are three dimensions of context.
1. Depth. We must walk into the picture, and understand words as the author did. That is where the word study fit. And, unfortunately, it did not resolve the issue by itself. However, it does rule out the Hymenaean view, since there is no scriptural or classical use of the word the way they want to use it.
2. Height (or vertical). We must consider the train of thought of the author. This is the truly probative context here, since it shows the unequivocal physical nature of the argument.
3. Horizontal. We must consider other passages dealing with the same subject. In this case, the issue is the Day of the Lord.

In exploring any biblical subject, all three axes of context must be in agreement for our understanding to be correct. Any disagreement in any axis tells us that we must reconsider our position. We may misunderstand the issues in that axis, or we may simply have an incorrect conclusion that requires revision.

If, on the other hand, all three axes are in agreement, we may be reasonably confident of the correctness of our position.

May the Lord bless as you study.

[dizzle]

Hey Ted, a quick correction. I am by no stretch of any nighmarish imagination a Hymenaean, yet I hold that the word in question does in fact have that meaning in that passage. Just a note.

[Ted]

DeeD,

If you hold that "elements" means something other than "the building blocks of the world" (or similar), Then perhaps you could enlighten us as to the exegetical process by which you arrive at that conclusion.

Ted

[dizzle]

Hey Ted, I am sure you have heard the arguments before, I do not bring much original to the table. My comments were merely correctives to yours for precisions' sake. My plate is way too full to debate this passage. I just wanted respective positions to be clear so that there was no confusion.