2 Peter 3:1-13

[Reasonable]

Hello all,
My question is in relation to 2 Peter 3:1-13. Are these verses allready fulfilled and if so, how? If not, when? I am trying to better understand Petrism (or whatever it's called). Is there a good book I can read on this? I think Dee Dee mentioned one once but I forgot the name.

Thanks

[RevSteve45]

Reasonable,

No, I do NOT believe that 1 Peter 3:1-13 are in fact fulfilled as of yet. The reason why is these verses:

2 Pet 3:10-13, But 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.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking 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?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (KJV)

These verses are talking about the New Heavens & New Earth, when the New Jerusalem will have come down to Earth, according to Revelation 21-22, and the dwelling of God shall be with men. Also, it is said there shall be no more sea. Unless the news has recorded the seas drying up, that event is still future.

Also, these condituions wuill prevail in the New Heavens & New Earth:

Rev 21:1-5, And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (KJV)

Once again, the last I heard, there was still plenty of death, sorrow, crying & pain to go around. These things simply will not happen, until God re-creates the Heavens & Earth, & sin is destroyed once & for all.

The point of Peter in this chapter is that the coming of the New Heavens & New Earth is certain, juist as certain as the Flood of Noah. It WILL come, whether we are ready, or whether we are not.

In His Service,
Steve

[Reasonable]

Thanks Steve. I tend to agree with you but I was wondering if Dee Dee or others think it has been fulfilled. I do believe the "sea" mentioned in Revelation is not the literal sea. I believe it is symbolic for restless or wicked mankind. IE., wicked society is no more.

"But the wicked are like the sea that is being tossed, when it is unable to calm down, the waters of which keep tossing up seaweed and mire." -Isaiah 57:20

And when Revelation 13:1 says "And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and upon its horns ten diadems, but upon its heads blasphemous names", I don't see this to mean the wild beast literally comes out of the sea, I think it means it comes out of the sea of wicked mankind.

I think Rev 17:1,15 show this too.
"And one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying: “Come, I will show you the judgment upon the great harlot who sits on many waters,...And he says to me: “The waters that you saw, where the harlot is sitting, mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues."

Similar with Daniel 7:2,3
"“I happened to be beholding in my visions during the night, and, see there! the four winds of the heavens were stirring up the vast sea. 3_And four huge beasts were coming up out of the sea, each one being different from the others."

And also Jude uses similar wording at Jude 11-13
"Too bad for them, because they have gone in the path of Cain, and have rushed into the erroneous course of Ba´laam for reward, and have perished in the rebellious talk of Ko´rah! 12_These are the rocks hidden below water in YOUR love feasts while they feast with YOU, shepherds that feed themselves without fear; waterless clouds carried this way and that by winds; trees in late autumn, [but] fruitless, having died twice, having been uprooted; 13_wild waves of the sea that foam up their own causes for shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackness of darkness stands reserved forever."

But that's just my take on it.

Can't wait for that new Earth. What about you?

[Hitch]

Well its very unlikely ol Pete is suddenly turning his thoughts to physics.

The language he uses is hardly uncommon in scripture. An important event is often described in terms of earthquakes, or the sun not giving its light. Certainly the earth was not really{Literally} as described in Jery 4

Isa 13:10
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
(KJV)

Or at the fall of Babylon.

Adding the NT use of the term that seems to give so much trouble in this case 'elements'.

There is no use of this term in Scripture relating to physics or the atomic chart. It is always used in negatively speaking of the old system and only found in Galations . and we know Pete was a reader of Paul's letters.

Rather than some proposed end ot the planet scene Pete is much more likely speaking of the Prophecy utterred by our Lord and yet, at the time of writting, to be fulfilled.

In our day we forget how important this was to the first century believer. The Jews and Rome had begun the persecution the Saints. The Apostles were dieing out and life was hard. Economic boycotts had starved those who refused to call Caesar 'Lord'. And all the while the faithful remembered the 'promise of his coming'.

No not the Second Advent. His 'coming' was to render the setence of death by burning deserved of a Priest's daughter fallen into prostitution and predicted by our Lord;


Chapter 21 should be read to set context...

Matt 22:1-7
1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
(KJV)

This is the unfulfilled 'promise' the jews foolishly used to mock 'his servants' with.

But as promised,within that same generation, in fact quite close to forty years after Jesus spoke so harshly to the Pharisees , some of them lived to see.

Matt 26:64
... the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


It wanst too long a time after Jesus was seen in this very place the Destruction came.

KJV) And come he did bringing with him;


1Thes 2:16
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
(KJV)



Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Please wait no longer for the New Heavens and Earth. have you so easily forgotten what He paid so dearly for?


Heb 9:25-26
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(KJV)

What 'world ' ended?

The old world of bloody animal sacrfices that began before the Flood. The world is made new, renewed, not by physical re-creation, by through the reconcilliation by which we are new creatures in Christ.

The sin is actually covered now. It never was before.

Take care

Hitch

[Jaltus]

Hitch,

Please watch the back-to-back posts.

[studyhound]

Ooooo, gotta go with Hitch on that one.

The audience of Peter’s epistle was the ones who he warned. Not some group of believers 2000 + years later. Verses 14-16 makes it clear who he is writing to and what he intends for them to do in this last time. He also makes it clear the people who destruction is coming upon in verse 16.

[Reasonable]

Yesterday @ 05:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160110#post160110)
studyhound:

Ooooo, gotta go with Hitch on that one.

The audience of Peter’s epistle was the ones who he warned. Not some group of believers 2000 + years later. Verses 14-16 makes it clear who he is writing to and what he intends for them to do in this last time. He also makes it clear the people who destruction is coming upon in verse 16.

So is it your and Hitch's take that 2 Pet 3 was fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem by the Romans?

[studyhound]

Today @ 11:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161164#post161164)
Reasonable:



So is it your and Hitch's take that 2 Pet 3 was fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem by the Romans?

Yep pretty much.

[TedO]

Yesterday @ 01:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=159696#post159696)
Hitch:Adding the NT use of the term that seems to give so much trouble in this case 'elements'.

There is no use of this term in Scripture relating to physics or the atomic chart. It is always used in negatively speaking of the old system and only found in Galations .

Well, stoicheion is only used 7 times. 4 times it has the connotation of worldly philosophy (Galatians and Colossians), once it refers to the teaching of basic doctrine (Heb 5:12), so I don't think this word stands clearly on its own.

The fact that in Peter (the other 2 uses) stocheion is combined with ge, the land or earth, it seems to define the context to be referring to the physical elements. Peter also refers to the new heavens and new earth, which correlates with Rev 21 which is post judgement. And the whole reason Peter brings this up is to remind us that our actions will be judged and so to keep growing and not fall.

So while the correlation with Mat 22:7 and the prophecies against Jerusalem may be in view - I don't see it as a necessary interpretation for the Preterist view.

Do you view Revelation 21 (new Heavens, new Earth) to have already happened?

[Reasonable]

Today @ 07:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161174#post161174)
studyhound:



Yep pretty much.

That seems to be pretty strained to me. Much of the NT was written to non-Jews who were constantly reminded of the superiority of the Church over the Jewish system of things. I have a hard time seeing the fall of a Jewsish system of which they were never a part of as being so "bad" to them. I certainly don't see it as being a terrifying tribulation to the Gentiles. Even to the Christian Jews, it would have been more emotional than anything else.

In 2 Peter 3, Peter answers the mockery of some about the coming of Christ taking so long with the deluge of Noah's day. If Peter was only talking about the fall of Jerusalem (like most Gentiles would even care) then why compare it to the destruction of the whole earth? Why not liken it to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and that system of things? There's little doubt that the destruction Peter uses to defend the coming tribualtion was a global destruction, not limited to only one nation. It seems Peter is using a global destruction to prove his point of another global destruction from the following.

"For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water._But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men."

It's obvious the "world", not just some religious system of it, was destroyed and it seems reasonable he is referring to such again. Now I'm not saying the literal earth will be burned as it says its purpose is the destruction of wicked men, but I do think it is depicting a global event.

And the following verses also seem to suggest more than the idea that only Jerusalem or the Jewish system is being referenced.

"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance._Yet the Lord's day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a hissing noise, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be discovered."

"Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion,_awaiting and keeping close in mind the coming of the day of the Lord, through which [the] heavens being on fire will be dissolved and [the] elements being intensely hot will melt! But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell."

How does the fall of the Jewish system fit in with this? How does Peter's audiences' good conduct (or lack thereof) factor into Jerusalem being destroyed by the Roman army? If Peter was only referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, then it seems his warning would have been "Get OUT!" rather than 'be good.' And if I live in some other area, am not of the Jewish faith, etc., why should I keep close in mind the day of the Lord? Why did Peter say God was being patient with "you" (the people he is writing) so that they will not be destroyed? Destroyed when? How does the Roman army going and busting up Jerusalem destroy Christian Jews (and especially Gentile Chrisitians) elsewhere? It seems to me Peter's warning message is not in regards to the destruction of a city and a temple as this really has no impact on Jewish or Gentile Christians (accept those living in Jerusalem). Whatever this destruction is, it is being delayed so Peter's audience can be spared; assuming thay have 'holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion.'


Again, if you all have a book you can recommend, then I can read your arguments better and maybe grasp them more clearly. But for now, the destruction of Jerusalem being compared to a GLOBAL destruction, and Peter's warning of their having good conduct because of God's patience in delaying this destruction does not seem to fit with the account. And even more so if written to Gentiles. It seems like anyone could avoid the tribulation as you see it, no matter what his conduct, by simply moving.

[studyhound]

That seems to be pretty strained to me. Much of the NT was written to non-Jews who were constantly reminded of the superiority of the Church over the Jewish system of things. I have a hard time seeing the fall of a Jewish system of which they were never a part of as being so "bad" to them. I certainly don't see it as being a terrifying tribulation to the Gentiles. Even to the Christian Jews, it would have been more emotional than anything else.

Well there has to be a changing of the guards out with the old in with the new. Heb 8:13. If the Jewish system still stood Christianity would be seen as no more than a cult, an off shoot of Judaism. It was never meant to be a tribulation for Christians just public display of God rejecting those who rejected him and continue to blaspheme him by continuing in the practice of animal sacrifice.



In 2 Peter 3, Peter answers the mockery of some about the coming of Christ taking so long with the deluge of Noah's day. If Peter was only talking about the fall of Jerusalem (like most Gentiles would even care) then why compare it to the destruction of the whole earth? Why not liken it to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and that system of things? There's little doubt that the destruction Peter uses to defend the coming tribualtion was a global destruction, not limited to only one nation. It seems Peter is using a global destruction to prove his point of another global destruction from the following.

Well I can’t talk for Peter, but I would assume that the same condition was around then as it is now. Being a lack of biblical knowledge, then for a lack of scriptures, for us a lack of trying. People could remember a story like the flood, but the Babylonian destruction was more than just a tidy little story one could repeat. Remember its cover in many OT books. Also I see a little water theme in this section. Verse 6 seems to be alluding to the exodus, Israel came through the water to be “formed” i.e. passing thought the dead sea..


It's obvious the "world", not just some religious system of it, was destroyed and it seems reasonable he is referring to such again. Now I'm not saying the literal earth will be burned as it says its purpose is the destruction of wicked men, but I do think it is depicting a global event.

Its does not say the world, but it says Heavens and Earth. That may seem like a minor point because we seem the as the same. But to the Jews it may have meant something totally different in different context. See duet. 32:1 and Jer. 4:19-27


And the following verses also seem to suggest more than the idea that only Jerusalem or the Jewish system is being referenced.

"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. Yet the Lord's day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a hissing noise, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be discovered."

"Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion,_awaiting and keeping close in mind the coming of the day of the Lord, through which [the] heavens being on fire will be dissolved and [the] elements being intensely hot will melt! But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell."

How does the fall of the Jewish system fit in with this? How does Peter's audiences' good conduct (or lack thereof) factor into Jerusalem being destroyed by the Roman army? If Peter was only referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, then it seems his warning would have been "Get OUT!" rather than 'be good.' And if I live in some other area, am not of the Jewish faith, etc., why should I keep close in mind the day of the Lord? Why did Peter say God was being patient with "you" (the people he is writing) so that they will not be destroyed? Destroyed when? How does the Roman army going and busting up Jerusalem destroy Christian Jews (and especially Gentile Chrisitians) elsewhere? It seems to me Peter's warning message is not in regards to the destruction of a city and a temple as this really has no impact on Jewish or Gentile Christians (accept those living in Jerusalem). Whatever this destruction is, it is being delayed so Peter's audience can be spared; assuming thay have 'holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion.'

I think the point was do good to draw those who might be destroyed to salvation, if they see your good works they may be saved (both Physically and spiritually). Peter could not just say get out he was not privy to the divine time line so peter was telling the to be ready, just like Jesus said in Matt. 24:42/Luke 21:36.


Again, if you all have a book you can recommend, then I can read your arguments better and maybe grasp them more clearly. But for now, the destruction of Jerusalem being compared to a GLOBAL destruction, and Peter's warning of their having good conduct because of God's patience in delaying this destruction does not seem to fit with the account. And even more so if written to Gentiles. It seems like anyone could avoid the tribulation as you see it, no matter what his conduct, by simply moving. [/QUOTE]

You know I don’t know of any books, I could recommend a website but they are Hyper-preterist so I wont vouch for all that is on there being sound doctrine.

[Reasonable]

Thanks for your comments StudyHound. We just won't agree on this subject, I guess. Though I disagree with a number of your points, I'll only address one. You stated

"Its does not say the world, but it says Heavens and Earth. That may seem like a minor point because we seem the as the same. But to the Jews it may have meant something totally different in different context. See duet. 32:1 and Jer. 4:19-27."

I see the point you are trying to make but the verses, in every Bible translation I own, does in fact say "world."

"and by those [means] the WORLD of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men."

So Peter did say the "world" of old (not the earth but the wicked people on it) was destroyed by water and he uses that point to state that a similar destruction is coming upon another wicked group of people. There's no doubt the first one was global.

But anyway, thanks for your input. Still searching for some more info. I hate reading websites because I can't relax on the recliner and study a web page. I'll wait until Dee Dee gets back. I think she recommended a book for me once.

[studyhound]

Sorry about the mix up on the comments,

You were commenting on this part:


"For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water.




And I was commenting on this:


But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men."

It's obvious the "world", not just some religious system of it, was destroyed and it seems reasonable he is referring to such again. Now I'm not saying the literal earth will be burned as it says its purpose is the destruction of wicked men, but I do think it is depicting a global event.

I thought you were still on 70 a.d.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Here is something I wrote before, I hope it is helpful


Okay… unto 2 Peter 3:1-13

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

The question posed was for me to defend my position that this passage is not referring to the Consummating Coming of Christ but rather to the AD70 event. First of all… some disclaimers. Orthodox preterists have come down on both sides of this issue, thus, this is certainly not a hill that I would die on. I also have held both positions at one time or another. If I listen to Gentry long enough, I become convinced that it is referring to the end of mortal history… if I listen to others, I become convinced of my current view. However, I have not waffled on this for a while, and thus, so like the wheat and tares passage, I think I am comfortably at home assigning it to AD70.

My second disclaimer would be that I have made it clear that I view the AD70 event in many ways as typological of the Consummation in its judgment aspects. So while the primary referent in my opinion is AD70, that does not mean that I do not see strong final judgment themes as well.

My third disclaimer.. as I mentioned before, this will be really the first time I have put anything to paper on this so I am sure that there will be rough edges to be smoothed over or discarded.

Okay.. now on to why I take this asinine position ;) I think it would be helpful to go verse by verse and expound from there.

Verse 1 – Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)

Peter is telling us that the following subject matter will relate to a subject that he already discussed with them in his 1st Epistle. This is a major clue. I believe this is specifically referring to…

1 Peter 4:7 – But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.

And this is again, one of those passages that can be very easily misunderstood when taken out of the entire Biblical (especially NT) context. First, let me comment on “the end of all things is at hand.” This is definitely speaking of the end of the Old Covenant age. We cannot universalize this to mean the literal end of ALL things, for even in a futurist “end of the world” scenario, they don’t believe that ALL things will come to an end. So everyone limits this passage, for the preterist it is limited by the obvious context of the rest of the NT promising a soon judgment on the apostate Jews and the visible inauguration of the Kingdom. I believe this verse then does give us the background for the passage we are currently discussing. This passage then leads into….

1 Peter 4:17 – “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God…”

Peter here says that judgment “begins” with the Christians (and I believe he is also in context including the apostate Jews since I don’t see the NT teaching that Christianity is a separate religion, but rather is Judaism, within which there are the faithful and the apostates). This judgment that Peter is speaking of is not a cataclysmic one-time event grand finale event but it is kicked off by the dramatic vindication of Christ upon the apostates.

So in short, I don’t see an “end of history” referent in 1 Peter that Peter could be alluding to in our passage currently under discussion.

Verse 2 – that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior

This by itself could go either way. However, in conjunction with the prior verse, I say it is pretty clear that we are speaking of AD70, which is spoken about much more by the apostles than the Consummating Coming (though the process of the progression of the Kingdom towards consummation is mentioned quite frequently)

Verse 3 – knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts

Okay now we get more explicit and strong. There is an implied timing reference in the prior two verses if I am correct about the verses in his prior Epistles that Peter is referring to.. and that would put this event “at hand” (1 Peter 4:7). This verse gives us the “timing” statement of “in the last days.” I think both you and I agree that this specific phrase everywhere else it appears is referring to the last days of the Old Covenant (and of course I see something different in the “the last day” – singular – references of Jesus). To briefly prove my stand (since again I don’t think that we disagree)

Acts 2:17 – ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. (Peter identified the days in which he was living and preaching as the last days… as does the author of Hebrews….)

Hebrews 1:1-2 – God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.

And James

James 5:3 – Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days.

John in his epistles, which are dated very close to the AD70 event, is even more emphatic:

1 John 2:18 – Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

This reference is really interesting because it is a direct fulfillment of Jesus’ words in the Discourse:

Matthew 24:11 – Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.

Which of course is obvious when 1 John 4:1-3 is brought into it:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

This connection to the Discourse is important because it then ties in the phrase “last days” with the “end of the age,” which I already know you agree is in fact the AD70 event.

Verse 4 – and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

These scoffers are espousing uniformity.. things go on as they always have. The context is also Jewish as denoted by the phrase “the fathers,” which generally speaks of the Jewish patriarchs. If we are taking this to mean the final judgment… do really believe that these Jewish scoffers doubted the final judgment? It is much more apparent that they were doubting the threats and warnings of the Christians that they would soon pay for crucifying the Lord of Glory.

Verses 5-6 – For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Okay now things get sticky… but we must be governed by the timing verses already discussed if we are to be consistent here.. I will save my comments until after we get some more context here….

Verse 7 – But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Okay…. Here is where many trip up. The argument is made that since the whole earth was involved in Noah’s flood, and that flood is used as a model for this event, then this must be a worldwide cataclysm as well. On first blush, that seems reasonable, but of course, we still do have the introductory timing phrases already discussed.

However, on careful examination, and in comparison with the Discourse and OT imagery, this initial impression loses its force. The “earth” back then did not perish.. but the “world” did, meaning the sphere of humanity and human governance… i.e. the “world” of people were judged and destroyed. God’s primary goal in the flood was not to wipe out the physical planet, but to wipe out all but a few souls from the face of the earth. It was a major judgment of God, and the fact that God judges severely is what was forgotten by the uniformatarian scoffers. This was already spoken of Peter earlier in this same Epistle:

2 peter 2:5 – For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly.

Notice it was the ungodly who perished, not the physical world.
Future to Peter was the destruction of the current (for him) “the heavens and the earth” which are preserved by the same word for fire. Note this carefully, it is a different “heavens and earth” that exist for Peter than existed for Noah…. Do we really believe that the physical planet and heavens are totally new? Did God literally recreate the earth? This phrase is familiar to us as is cosmic imagery which is very commonly used in the Bible of governments and human affairs. Since I already know you accept this in the Discourse, I am not going to spend time proving that point. The fact that the “heavens” is included also tips us off that this is not speaking of some globe-ending event, for if we were to be that literal, we must then assume that the heavens also will be destroyed by fire which is impossible.

Interestingly, in the OT, the planting of Zion is described in terms of the creation of the heavens and earth:

Isaiah 51:15-16 – But I am the LORD your God, who divided the sea whose waves roared— The LORD of hosts is His name. And I have put My words in your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, that I may plant the heavens, lay the foundations of the earth, and say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’ ”

This is the reason also why “decreation” imagery is also used of Israel when she is being judged.

Jeremiah 4:23 et al – I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void; and the heavens, they had no light.

There is really no reason why we should be departing from this Biblical imagery into hyper-literalization. In a preterist view, the Bible nowhere intimates that the earth will be destroyed, in fact many places indicates that it will not, but will rather be progressively moved towards redemption, not cataclysmically moved in that direction.

In fact, God has promised not to once again smite the earth as He did with the flood in Genesis 8:21 (and it is a sad case of hair-splitting to say that He only promised never to destroy the world again with a flood, but fire is fair game).

And to just add one OT verse to show that this language is not unusual for local judgment events.. here is the description of a past and very local judgment event on ancient Edom…

Isaiah 34:4 – All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; all their host shall fall down as the leaf falls from the vine, and as fruit falling from a fig tree.


Verses 8-9 – 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Again this one can be sticky for if we ignore the rest of the issues I brought forward, it certainly seems to imply the passage of a great deal of time, even millennia.. but that would be contrary to the timing and context issues already explained. And notice that this verse isn’t really about giving us an indication of lengths of time at all, but rather to point out that such issues are not a concern with God. If we grow impatient, we must remember God’s patience and love. John Owen does a good job of pointing out that if any length of time is taught overall in this passage, it is in fact the nearness of the event, and its great concern applicability to the first century believers, that was to stir them up to godly living.

Verse 10 – But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”

We have already discussed the heavens and the earth… and I think we both agree as preterists that the Day of the Lord is heavily used of the AD70 event, so what then are these elements? Is it the very elements that make up matter (maybe a nuclear event) as some futurists claim (one so devastating that it will destroy the “stars” as well – LOL)? Well what does the Bible elsewhere have to say about this? This term is never used in any other context of the material elements of literal creation but is always used in connection with the Old Covenant rituals and symbols… for example:

Galatians 4:3, 9 – Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world…. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?

Colossians 2:8, 20 – Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles [elements] of the world, and not according to Christ…. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles [elements] of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—

Hebrews 5:12 – For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles [elements] of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

And this then would tie in with the soon demise of said system:

Hebrews 8:13 – In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Verse 13 – Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Again, Peter is referring to something that had already been taught to his original audience. So where has the “new heaves and new earth” been previously promised? Primarily in Isaiah 66:21-22 which cannot be speaking of a time after the consummation as there is still sin, the curse, and death. And of course in the Discourse Jesus uses “heaven and earth” and other cosmic imagery to describe the downfall of the Jewish polity. A related verse is found here:

Hebrews 12:26-29 – See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” 27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Once again, the AD70 event is a shaking of the heaven and earth to firmly plant that which cannot be shaken (the New Covenant Kingdom).

[Reasonable]

Thanks Dee Dee. You had a lot of disclaimers in there! LOL

Actually, while I don't see it your way regarding 70AD, I, like you, do beleive the new heavens and new earth are not literal but symbolic for the society of people and the governments. I just think that the society and govt. Peter is referencing encompass the whole world rather than just the Jewish system. But oh well, as your disclaimers state, it's not as clear-cut as either side may think.

BTW, I think you recommended a book to me once on this subject, or was I mistaken?

[RevSteve45]

Dee Dee,

PTL, I am not a Preterist! I very FIRMLY believe that the New Heavens & New Earth, described in DETAIL in Revelation 21-22, are quite literal. I believe that the descent of the New Jerusalem to earth at that time, and the rule of God from that placem are ALSO very literal, and very real!

To tell you the truth, I could not IMAGINE living this Christian life, without believing that the PROMISE of a literal Millenium & a literal New Heaven & New Earth, are in fact MORE real than this present mortal life that we live now.

In His Service,
Steve

[Reasonable]

Today @ 09:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162172#post162172)
RevSteve45:

Dee Dee,

PTL, I am not a Preterist! I very FIRMLY believe that the New Heavens & New Earth, described in DETAIL in Revelation 21-22, are quite literal. I believe that the descent of the New Jerusalem to earth at that time, and the rule of God from that placem are ALSO very literal, and very real!

To tell you the truth, I could not IMAGINE living this Christian life, without believing that the PROMISE of a literal Millenium & a literal New Heaven & New Earth, are in fact MORE real than this present mortal life that we live now.

In His Service,
Steve


Steve,
Like you I do not think 2Peter has been fulfilled yet, nor has Rev 21. I think they are speaking of the same thing. But my question to you is this: Do you think in 2 Pet 3 where Peter says the heavens and earth of old were destroyed that it means the literal heavens and earth were destroyed or do you think it means the wicked people on the earth were destroyed. In other words, is the earth you and I are standing on a different earth from Noah's day?
Also, Isaiah speaks of Jerusalem's return from Babylon as God creating a new heavens and a new earth. Are these literal too? Just trying to understand what you mean when you say Rev 21 is "literal." And also how you determine what is literal and what is not as it is obvious many things in Revelation are symbolic.

Thanks

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 10:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161957#post161957)
Reasonable:

Thanks Dee Dee. You had a lot of disclaimers in there! LOL

Actually, while I don't see it your way regarding 70AD, I, like you, do beleive the new heavens and new earth are not literal but symbolic for the society of people and the governments. I just think that the society and govt. Peter is referencing encompass the whole world rather than just the Jewish system. But oh well, as your disclaimers state, it's not as clear-cut as either side may think.

BTW, I think you recommended a book to me once on this subject, or was I mistaken?

Reasonable, this may sound strange but I wrote that a bit ago and did not read it when I posted it. I did not see any disclaimers in my scanning of it, can you clarify?

And with the agreement that it is referring to society etc there is really no reason with the rest of the NT eschatological witness to project it into the future.

Oh and I do not recall recommending a book on this, sorry.... maybe Last Days Madness?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 04:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162172#post162172)
RevSteve45:

Dee Dee,

PTL, I am not a Preterist! I very FIRMLY believe that the New Heavens & New Earth, described in DETAIL in Revelation 21-22, are quite literal. I believe that the descent of the New Jerusalem to earth at that time, and the rule of God from that placem are ALSO very literal, and very real!

I do hope you believe that the Beast is a literal monster with multiple heads slathering its way up out of the ocean, and that satan literally has a big chain around him and the abyss has a Masters Deadbolt on it with a key in the possession of a certain angel. Mormons will tell you their pride in literalism for come on, the Bible clearly teaches that God has a body like a mans. It does if one holds literalism as the sacred cow. The question is not if an interpretation is literal (the literalists are the ones who got in trouble with Jesus) but whether or not it is Biblical. So PTL I am not a literalist.



To tell you the truth, I could not IMAGINE living this Christian life, without believing that the PROMISE of a literal Millenium & a literal New Heaven & New Earth, are in fact MORE real than this present mortal life that we live now.


I could not IMAGINE living this Christian life having to continually explain away clear timing texts that say otherwise, but to each their own. It is not a salvational issue.

[TedO]

Today @ 09:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162172#post162172)
RevSteve45:

Dee Dee,

PTL, I am not a Preterist! I very FIRMLY believe that the New Heavens & New Earth, described in DETAIL in Revelation 21-22, are quite literal. I believe that the descent of the New Jerusalem to earth at that time, and the rule of God from that placem are ALSO very literal, and very real!

To tell you the truth, I could not IMAGINE living this Christian life, without believing that the PROMISE of a literal Millenium & a literal New Heaven & New Earth, are in fact MORE real than this present mortal life that we live now.

In His Service,
Steve

Interesting response...a bit of a dodge and weave don't you think? Kind of like when you went off on me for suggesting God will destroy the wicked at His second coming...

[RevSteve45]

I do hope you believe that the Beast is a literal monster with multiple heads slathering its way up out of the ocean, and that satan literally has a big chain around him and the abyss has a Masters Deadbolt on it with a key in the possession of a certain angel. Mormons will tell you their pride in literalism for come on, the Bible clearly teaches that God has a body like a mans. It does if one holds literalism as the sacred cow. The question is not if an interpretation is literal (the literalists are the ones who got in trouble with Jesus) but whether or not it is Biblical. So PTL I am not a literalist.

Dee Dee,

I think you misunderstand me. I am not a literalist, either, not where the symbolism is clear. In the passages you cited, the symbolism is quite clear. In fact, we are TOLD that the Dragon is Satan, that the Beast is a ruler, that the Great Whore is a system, etc.

However, in passages like Rev. 20-22, I do not see any real sybolism at all. Satan is clearly a physical being. Why you should think that he could not be bound with a literal chain, in a literal Abyss, is a great puzzlement to me. Surely nothing is too hard for the Lord.

I prefer reading Bible passages with a view towards the clear, literal meaning, if at all possible. Only if the literal meaning does not make sense, or if we are told that it is sybolizing smething else, should we look for the symbolic.

I simply do not see the earth being dissolved by fire in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I think that if Peter had meant that only a very tiny PART of the earth would be burnt up, i.e. Jerusalem, he would have said so.

Reasonable said:


Do you think in 2 Pet 3 where Peter says the heavens and earth of old were destroyed that it means the literal heavens and earth were destroyed or do you think it means the wicked people on the earth were destroyed. In other words, is the earth you and I are standing on a different earth from Noah's day?

Rasonable,

No, I do not believe the Heavens & Earth were destroyed in the Flood. However, all life on Earth at that time was destroyed, except for Noah, his family & the animals on the Ark.

I believe the point Peter was making, was that the desstruction of the present-day Heavens & Earth is sure, as sure as it was in the days of Noah, despite the scoffers, both the ones in Noah's day, and the ones today.


In His Service,
Steve

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 06:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162245#post162245)
RevSteve45:

I think you misunderstand me. I am not a literalist, either, not where the symbolism is clear. In the passages you cited, the symbolism is quite clear. In fact, we are TOLD that the Dragon is Satan, that the Beast is a ruler, that the Great Whore is a system, etc.

And we are told in other Scriptures in Hebrews and Galatians that the New Jerusalem is symbolic,and such is a truth that can be derived from many Biblical principles and themes.


However, in passages like Rev. 20-22, I do not see any real sybolism at all.

The Jews didn't see any symbolism in bread and wine either. If we let the Bible interpret the Bible the symbolism is very clear.



Satan is clearly a physical being. Why you should think that he could not be bound with a literal chain, in a literal Abyss, is a great puzzlement to me. Surely nothing is too hard for the Lord.

Strawman alert!!! Not an issue of difficulty. It is not too hard for the Lord to convert you to preterism, yet you are not converted, so? It is what does the text say? Jesus said He bound satan in His ministry, yet there were no chains involved. I could go on and on....




I prefer reading Bible passages with a view towards the clear, literal meaning, if at all possible.

That then is an arbitrary method you have devised and would have gotten you in a heap of trouble iwth Jesus.



Only if the literal meaning does not make sense, or if we are told that it is sybolizing smething else, should we look for the symbolic.

Make sense to who? The Mormons think it makes perfect sense to say God has a physcial body and lives on Kolob. A modular city suspended over the earth makes no sense but nonsense.


I simply do not see the earth being dissolved by fire in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I think that if Peter had meant that only a very tiny PART of the earth would be burnt up, i.e. Jerusalem, he would have said so.

And in the idiom and context of the Scriptures he did. Luke says that the whole earth came to be censused at the time of Jesus birth. Did the American Indians come too? Well if Luke didn't mean tht whole earth he would have said so right?

In His Service,
Steve [/QUOTE]

[RevSteve45]

And we are told in other Scriptures in Hebrews and Galatians that the New Jerusalem is symbolic,and such is a truth that can be derived from many Biblical principles and themes.

I do not believe the New Jerusalem is symbolic at all, nor do I believe that Hebrews OR Galatians makes it out to be.


The Jews didn't see any symbolism in bread and wine either. If we let the Bible interpret the Bible the symbolism is very clear.

Yes, and if we interpret everything in the Bible symbollically, soon we cease to take ANYTHING literally. Better, I believe to look for symbols when we are TOLD something is symbolic.


Strawman alert!!! Not an issue of difficulty. It is not too hard for the Lord to convert you to preterism, yet you are not converted, so? It is what does the text say? Jesus said He bound satan in His ministry, yet there were no chains involved. I could go on and on....

On the contrary, it would be well-nigh IMPOSSIBLE for the Lord to convert me to Preterism.


That then is an arbitrary method you have devised and would have gotten you in a heap of trouble wth Jesus.

On the contrary, Jesus did most of His teaching in parables, which by DEFINITION symbolize Heavenly truths via earthly illustrations. So there, we KNOW to look for the symbols, or Jesus gives the interpretation Himself.


Make sense to who? The Mormons think it makes perfect sense to say God has a physcial body and lives on Kolob. A modular city suspended over the earth makes no sense but nonsense.

To the natural mind, yes, spiritual things are nonsense.


And in the idiom and context of the Scriptures he did. Luke says that the whole earth came to be censused at the time of Jesus birth. Did the American Indians come too? Well if Luke didn't mean tht whole earth he would have said so right?

Not at all. Luke specifically said the decree went out from Caesar Augustus. Obviously, Ceasar had no authority outside the Roman Empire.

In His Service,
Steve

[studyhound]

Strawman alert!!! Not an issue of difficulty. It is not too hard for the Lord to convert you to preterism, yet you are not converted, so? It is what does the text say? Jesus said He bound satan in His ministry, yet there were no chains involved. I could go on and on.... ”



On the contrary, it would be well-nigh IMPOSSIBLE for the Lord to convert me to Preterism.

Bold mine

That is a scary statement. If you would not even believe in the LORD, then why do you believe in anything he spoke here on earth?

[RevSteve45]

Studyhound,

Oh, I believe in the Lord just fine. I just do not believe He would lead me into Preterism, after 20 years of teaching me that Revelation 20-22 are literally true.

In His Service,
Steve

[Hitch]

Today @ 02:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162381#post162381)
RevSteve45:

Studyhound,

Oh, I believe in the Lord just fine. I just do not believe He would lead me into Preterism, after 20 years of teaching me that Revelation 20-22 are literally true.

In His Service,
Steve Really? And did he teach you Rev 1;1-3 is literal as well? How about Jn 6;39?


Steve you're no more a literalist than I am, you're a lot more selective but thats it.

H






H

[RevSteve45]

Hitch,

I view all of the verses you cited as literally true. That does not mean I regard ALL Scripture as literaly true. As I said, the Parables are symbolic, as are many things in Revelation & Daniel & some other prophetical books. But that does not mean ALL of the things in those books is symbolic. I believe that by the last 3 chapters of Revelation, most of the symbolism in the Book has been explained, and the rest is literally true.

In His Service,
Steve

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162452#post162452)
RevSteve45:

Hitch,

I view all of the verses you cited as literally true. That does not mean I regard ALL Scripture as literaly true. As I said, the Parables are symbolic, as are many things in Revelation & Daniel & some other prophetical books. But that does not mean ALL of the things in those books is symbolic. I believe that by the last 3 chapters of Revelation, most of the symbolism in the Book has been explained, and the rest is literally true.

In His Service,
Steve I view all of the verses you cited as literally true

No you dont Steve. You dont believe the events described in the Apocalypse came to pass in any reasonable understanding of the terms used in V1-3 as they related to the first century audience.

Just as you do not believe the Resurrection takes place at the 'last day'.

But I invite you to give your explanation of how one could 'literally' understand.


Rev 1:1-3
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
(KJV)


To mean anything BUT 'shortly' or 'at hand', as I understand your posts you claim the events are yet to come to pass in our day.

And the same is true of John six. ( one could add EVERY time reference given by our Lord as self -proclaimed 'literalist' refuse to take them literally.)

Sorry Steve by you cant have it both ways.

take care

Hitch

[studyhound]

Today @ 06:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162381#post162381)
RevSteve45:

Studyhound,

Oh, I believe in the Lord just fine. I just do not believe He would lead me into Preterism, after 20 years of teaching me that Revelation 20-22 are literally true.

In His Service,
Steve

I am sorry but do you know how ridiculous, that statement sounds? I don’t believe Jesus could teach me X because I believe he taught me Y. :lmbo: Well with an attitude like that you wont learn much

Do you realize that revelation 20-22 have very little to do with preterism? I mean I know pre, post and a-mill, preterist!

[Reasonable]

Yesterday @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162194#post162194)
Dee Dee Warren:



Reasonable, this may sound strange but I wrote that a bit ago and did not read it when I posted it. I did not see any disclaimers in my scanning of it, can you clarify?

And with the agreement that it is referring to society etc there is really no reason with the rest of the NT eschatological witness to project it into the future.

Oh and I do not recall recommending a book on this, sorry.... maybe Last Days Madness?

Here is part of what you said in the write up-

'First of all… some disclaimers. Orthodox preterists have come down on both sides of this issue, thus, this is certainly not a hill that I would die on. I also have held both positions at one time or another. If I listen to Gentry long enough, I become convinced that it is referring to the end of mortal history… if I listen to others, I become convinced of my current view. However, I have not waffled on this for a while, and thus, so like the wheat and tares passage, I think I am comfortably at home assigning it to AD70.

My second disclaimer would be that I have made it clear that I view the AD70 event in many ways as typological of the Consummation in its judgment aspects. So while the primary referent in my opinion is AD70, that does not mean that I do not see strong final judgment themes as well.

My third disclaimer.. as I mentioned before, this will be really the first time I have put anything to paper on this so I am sure that there will be rough edges to be smoothed over or discarded."

I think it simply highlights how a lot of this is difficult to be dogmatic on. As far as the book, I don't remember if you suggested one or not. I thought you did. I can't believe someone somewhere hasn't written a book on Preterist. If not, there's a study project for you!

Also, you said "And with the agreement that it is referring to society etc there is really no reason with the rest of the NT eschatological witness to project it into the future."

I would reply the verses themselves (2 Pet 3:1-13) project it into the future as I simply don't see Peter warning the Jewish and especially Gentile Christians about the fall of Jerusalem. And I don't see his warning about their conduct being good before it happens to fit within that scenario. To me it is obvious he is telling these persons that it is coming upon the whole world. But I have read your point of view on it too. That's why a book tying all the different verses in question for both sides would be awesome!

[RevSteve45]

Studyhound,

You said:


Do you realize that revelation 20-22 have very little to do with preterism? I mean I know pre, post and a-mill, preterist!

Studyhound, the whole discussion is as to whether or not the New Heavens & New Earth refered to in 2 Peter 3 are literal or not. Frankly, I do not see ANY possibility that they could NOT be literal.

In His Service,
Steve

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 08:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162624#post162624)
Reasonable:



Here is part of what you said in the write up-

Hey thanks for that. I skimmed very quickly and wrote this a while ago.


'First of all… some disclaimers. Orthodox preterists have come down on both sides of this issue, thus, this is certainly not a hill that I would die on. I also have held both positions at one time or another. If I listen to Gentry long enough, I become convinced that it is referring to the end of mortal history… if I listen to others, I become convinced of my current view. However, I have not waffled on this for a while, and thus, so like the wheat and tares passage, I think I am comfortably at home assigning it to AD70.

Okay, that was tailored to my specific preterist audience that held it to be future. I didn't want to be divisive over it, but as I said, I am settled in my point of view. But yes a minority of preterists such as Gentry hold it to be future. But as I read, I find Gentry's preterism to be problematic in several areas, and find his reasoning to be flawed.


My second disclaimer would be that I have made it clear that I view the AD70 event in many ways as typological of the Consummation in its judgment aspects. So while the primary referent in my opinion is AD70, that does not mean that I do not see strong final judgment themes as well.

Okay, that has always been my view just so that people do not think that I believe that past passages have no application to today and tomorrow, but I mean that solely in typological sense, not a necessary or predictive sense, if that made any sense.


My third disclaimer.. as I mentioned before, this will be really the first time I have put anything to paper on this so I am sure that there will be rough edges to be smoothed over or discarded."

That was a while ago. I no longer have that discomfort. I wrote another piece on this but cannot find it.


I think it simply highlights how a lot of this is difficult to be dogmatic on.

No, I think it highlights my sensitivity to my audience at that time, and my personal inexperience at that time with the subject in debate.


As far as the book, I don't remember if you suggested one or not. I thought you did. I can't believe someone somewhere hasn't written a book on Preterist. If not, there's a study project for you!

Oh I misunderdtood you, i did recommend Last Days Madness to you. I thought you were referring to a book just on that passage.


Also, you said "And with the agreement that it is referring to society etc there is really no reason with the rest of the NT eschatological witness to project it into the future."

I would reply the verses themselves (2 Pet 3:1-13) project it into the future as I simply don't see Peter warning the Jewish and especially Gentile Christians about the fall of Jerusalem. And I don't see his warning about their conduct being good before it happens to fit within that scenario. To me it is obvious he is telling these persons that it is coming upon the whole world.

I hope to answer this fuller later. But unless you are buying into the fabricated doctrine of imminence that would not make sense. In other words, a preterist cannot make that argument.



But I have read your point of view on it too. That's why a book tying all the different verses in question for both sides would be awesome!

I am not sure if such a book like that exists, but you will want to follow the five views eschatology debate that TWeb is hosting, for that fits the bill.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yesterday @ 10:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162436#post162436)
Hitch:

Really? And did he teach you Rev 1;1-3 is literal as well? How about Jn 6;39?


Steve you're no more a literalist than I am, you're a lot more selective but thats it.

H






H


Hitch you hit the nail on the head.

Literalism. The futurist often prides himself on being “literal” as if that were a badge of honor. Well, then give the woman at the well a prize who thought Jesus was speaking of literal water, or the Pharisees who thought that Jesus was going to raise up the literal Temple in three days, or the disenchanted wanna be disciples who thought they had to eat Jesus’ literal body and drink his literal blood and don’t forget Nicodemus who thought he supposed to crawl back into his mother’s womb. The Bible itself give rules for how to interpret it. Here is an interesting passage:

David is here describing how God delivered him from Saul, and he says,

Then the earth shook and trembled;
The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken,
Because He was angry.
9 Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With darkness under His feet.
11 He rode upon a cherub, and flew;
And He was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness canopies around Him,
Dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.
13 From the brightness before Him
Coals of fire were kindled.

This passage, and others like it, bear remarkable similarities to the Olivet Discourse. Now, no one believes that YHWH actually saddled up a cherub and rode on it to Dodge to rescue David. No one believes that the heavens bowed down and the whole wide world shook. No one. The Bible interprets the Bible. Throughout the whole OT, “collapsing universe” language is used to describe God’s temporal judgments.

So asking if a text is taken literally is not the issue at all. In fact there is a cardinal principle of Biblical interpretation called the “literal principle,” which states that text are not be taken in a wooden literal fashion but in the sense in which it was intended considering the context, both textual and cultural. No first century Jew would have taken those passages in the wooden way we take them today.

The question is not taking passages literally but rather Biblically.

It is the preterist position which is in fact the Biblical model. We take time texts literally which are never taken in any other way throughout the OT, which continues into the NT. We take apocalyptic imagery as what it is, symbolic imager. The futurist turns this ridiculously on its head by defining away time texts and literalizing imagery. This is not the way the Bible itself teaches us to interpret it. By explaining away time texts, it defeats the whole test God gave us to determine a false prophet from a true one.

Why aren’t the self-proclaimed literalists so literal when it comes to the time texts?

[studyhound]

Today @ 05:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162638#post162638)
RevSteve45:

Studyhound,

You said:



Studyhound, the whole discussion is as to whether or not the New Heavens & New Earth refered to in 2 Peter 3 are literal or not. Frankly, I do not see ANY possibility that they could NOT be literal.

In His Service,
Steve


DOH. Sorry I was posting late lastnite and my brain only was thinking about the mill.

[RevSteve45]

Dee Dee,

You are taking language from Psalms, where the language is KNOWN to be poetical, and applying it to the rest of the Bible.

Sorry, but it does not work that way. I know enough to separate, for instance, language used in God's speech to Job, where He describes His works in poetical terms from, say epistles of Paul, where his instructions are quite literal and clear.

I also know enough to separate descriptions of beasts & dragons in Revelation, from clear descriptions of plagues, most of which make a lot of sense when read literally. Not only that, but I can distinguish the destruction of Jerusalem from passages where a "fourth part" of certain things upon the cearth are being destroyed..

Very little allegorical, symbolic, or poetic language is found in Revelation 20-22. Just a clear, concise description of the Millenial Rule of Jesus, followed by an EQUALLY cear description of the New Heavens & New Earth, as well as the New Jerusalem.

In His Service,
Steve

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 12:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162793#post162793)
RevSteve45:

Dee Dee,

You are taking language from Psalms, where the language is KNOWN to be poetical, and applying it to the rest of the Bible.

First, would you like to try again as to where I got that passage from? It was not Psalms. And I think you may want to revise that argument before you eat it. You are taking language from APOCOLYTPIC works which are KNOWN to be symbolic and literalizing them. Do you also take a kennel instead of an umbrella if someone says it will rain cats and dogs?


Sorry, but it does not work that way. I know enough to separate, for instance, language used in God's speech to Job, where He describes His works in poetical terms from, say epistles of Paul, where his instructions are quite literal and clear.

How about those literal and clear timing passages? I notice you failed to address that. Why not so literal there?


I also know enough to separate descriptions of beasts & dragons in Revelation, from clear descriptions of plagues, most of which make a lot of sense when read literally.

Again makes sense to who? You or the original audience? I betcha I can find someone who thinks the beasts are literal and thinks it makes quite a lot of sense to do so. And we were not talking about plagues but about cities consisting of perfect cubes floating in the sky. If that sounds likely literal to you, I really do not think you have much grounds for dismissing the woman from literally wearing the sun and moon. I mean nothing is too hard for God.



Not only that, but I can distinguish the destruction of Jerusalem from passages where a "fourth part" of certain things upon the cearth are being destroyed..

You do realize the Bible wasn't written in English right? The word "earth" is "land" - it could easily (and is in context) referring to the land of Israel.


Very little allegorical, symbolic, or poetic language is found in Revelation 20-22. Just a clear, concise description of the Millenial Rule of Jesus, followed by an EQUALLY cear description of the New Heavens & New Earth, as well as the New Jerusalem.

Nice statement of your unproven assumption.

[RevSteve45]

Dee Dee.

You said,


You are taking language from APOCOLYTPIC works which are KNOWN to be symbolic and literalizing them.

No, I am not. I am recognizing that, while MUCH of the language in Apocalyptic books IS symbolic, not ALL of it is.


How about those literal and clear timing passages? I notice you failed to address that. Why not so literal there?

Quit generalizing. Give me some timing passages, and we will discuss them. You seem to be ASSUMING you know which "timing passages" I read literally, and which I do not.


I betcha I can find someone who thinks the beasts are literal and thinks it makes quite a lot of sense to do so. And we were not talking about plagues but about cities consisting of perfect cubes floating in the sky. If that sounds likely literal to you, I really do not think you have much grounds for dismissing the woman from literally wearing the sun and moon. I mean nothing is too hard for God.

All you are showing, is the FUTILITY of people trying to interpret Scripture using their OWN symbols. It basically means any one interpretation is as good as any other. Unless a Scripture does not make sense literally, or unless it is SAID it is symbolic, I do not look for symbols. I do not see anything outlandish AT ALL, about a city in the shape of a cube.

I said,


Very little allegorical, symbolic, or poetic language is found in Revelation 20-22. Just a clear, concise description of the Millenial Rule of Jesus, followed by an EQUALLY cear description of the New Heavens & New Earth, as well as the New Jerusalem.

You replied,


Nice statement of your unproven assumption.

Not really. Not a SINGLE statement in Rev. 20-22 says that ANYTHING written therein is symbolic. Therefore, I take it literally.

Not only that, but poetic language is not used, nor are parables, nor are apocalyptic symbols.

In His Service,
Steve

[Dee Dee Warren]

Steve, I am going to cut back a bit here why I do my eschatology debate posts. You should participate in that commentary thread.

[Hitch]

What verse in John 11 says anything about symbolism? I cant find one so we take John 11 literally right? (Except of course that pesky v24,,,) But that leaves v26...



John 11:26
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
(KJV)

Literalism anyone???


AND NO 'SPIRITUALIZING' ,,,gasp...


Take care

Hitch

[RevSteve45]

Hitch,

Yes, it is entirely and LITERALLY true that:

John 11:26, And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. (KJV)

They shall not die spiritually. In the exact SAME way that Adam & Eve DID die, spiritually, when they sinned.

In His Service,
Steve

[Hitch]

Today @ 02:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163190#post163190)
RevSteve45:

Hitch,

Yes, it is entirely and LITERALLY true that:

John 11:26, And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. (KJV)

They shall not die spiritually. In the exact SAME way that Adam & Eve DID die, spiritually, when they sinned. Now Steve Im trying real hard to use the standard you put forth in your answer to DD. "Not really. Not a SINGLE statement in Rev. 20-22 says that ANYTHING written therein is symbolic. Therefore, I take it literally.

"So show where in John 11 anyone brings up Adam and Eve, or mentions anything about spiritualizing?

In His Service,
Steve [/QUOTE]
Hmmmmm so since there is no mention of symbolism in John 11 you can spiritualize passages that could be interpreted literally?

I mean is keeping people alive forever, as in never dieing. any harder than keeipng them alive in a 'literal' city 1200 miles high?

Take care

Hitch

[studyhound]

I said,
“ Very little allegorical, symbolic, or poetic language is found in Revelation 20-22. Just a clear, concise description of the Millenial Rule of Jesus, followed by an EQUALLY cear description of the New Heavens & New Earth, as well as the New Jerusalem. ”



You replied,
“ Nice statement of your unproven assumption. ”



Not really. Not a SINGLE statement in Rev. 20-22 says that ANYTHING written therein is symbolic. Therefore, I take it literally.

Not only that, but poetic language is not used, nor are parables, nor are apocalyptic symbols.

In His Service,
Steve

So now there has to be road signs to reading scripture.

**Danger** now entering symbolic scripture ahead **danger**

Most times before any given symbol there is no warning you just have to take the context of the passage. Even with that the book of Revelation is a vision John had.
Especially the New Jerusalem passage, is given over to a more symbolic meaning,


Revelation 21:2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I mean really how many cities have you seen adorn for a groom? Besides the husband is clearly Christ and since we (the church) are his bride that would make us this New Jerusalem right.


3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Doesn’t this sound like the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31? Here.


I will be their God, and they shall be My people.[/b]

9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”
10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
See the city is the Lamb’s (Jesus) bride (the church). I really don’t think Jesus is going to marry a city.
Also who or what is the foundation of this wondrous city?

14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Wow that sound familiar. Hmmmm.
[qutoe] 19 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow–citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, 20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; 21 in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit. [/quote]

[RevSteve45]

Studyhound,

You said,


Revelation 21:2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I mean really how many cities have you seen adorn for a groom? Besides the husband is clearly Christ and since we (the church) are his bride that would make us this New Jerusalem right.

Studyhound, that is called an ASSUMPTION on your part, that the Church is the Bride of Christ. I defy you to show me ANY verses in Scripture that say, "The Church is the Bride of Christ." It is LIKENED to a bride in places, yes. However, in the VERY PASSAGE you quoted it is stated that the NEW JERUSALEM is the Lamb's wife. What part of that statement do you not understand??

The Church dwells IN the "Lamb's wife," but it is NOT the Lamb's wife. It is the CITY that is adorned as a bride for her husband, read it for yourself about the gold, jewels, etc. The "adornment" of the Church is robes of white, not gold & jewels.

In His Service,
Steve

[studyhound]

Today @ 07:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163246#post163246)
RevSteve45:

Studyhound,

You said,



Studyhound, that is called an ASSUMPTION on your part, that the Church is the Bride of Christ. I defy you to show me ANY verses in Scripture that say, "The Church is the Bride of Christ." It is LIKENED to a bride in places, yes. However, in the VERY PASSAGE you quoted it is stated that the NEW JERUSALEM is the Lamb's wife. What part of that statement do you not understand??

The Church dwells IN the "Lamb's wife," but it is NOT the Lamb's wife. It is the CITY that is adorned as a bride for her husband, read it for yourself about the gold, jewels, etc. The "adornment" of the Church is robes of white, not gold & jewels.

In His Service,
Steve


So let me guess because the bible doesn’t say trinity you don’t believe in the trinity?

Do you wittness to people, I hope not because Evangelism is not in the bible!

The words are not there but the truth is, in passages like,

I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 2 Corinthians 11:2 (NIV)


The Church dwells IN the "Lamb's wife," but it is NOT the Lamb's wife.

Hey now thats not what the passage literaly says, your using symbolism. I mean you said, and I quote:


Not a SINGLE statement in Rev. 20-22 says that ANYTHING written therein is symbolic. Therefore, I take it literally.


so your answer to my other question Is jesus going to marry a large cube like city, not its inhabidances, must by yes.
:lmbo:

[Hitch]

The Church dwells IN the "Lamb's wife," but it is NOT the Lamb's wife. It is the CITY that is adorned as a bride for her husband, read it for yourself about the gold, jewels, etc. The "adornment" of the Church is robes of white, not gold & jewels.

In His Service,
Steve


Heb 12:22-23
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
(KJV)

How obvious does it need to be Steve?

[Reasonable]

Steve,
I hope it doesn't look like everyone's jumping all over you. Sometimes when multiple people discuss things it can seem that way.

I do agree with you that Rev 21 and 2 pet 3 are yet to be fulfilled. But it's the meaning of the fulfillment that we are not agreeing on. I was wondering if you think the places in Isaiah where God says he is creating a new heavens and a new earth have been fulfilled or are they the same prophecy as Rev 21. Also, when Peter speaks of the heavens and earth of old that were done away with in Noah's day, do you understand that to mean we are on a different planet than Noah was?

Thanks

[Jacob]

Dee Dee,

Thanks for taking this passage to the scrutiny of exegesis (and thereby elevating the discussion). I've got a few comments on your exegesis which I think bear on your conclusions... I see that you'll be cutting back here, but I'll post for whenever you can get back to this thread...


Yesterday @ 08:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161919#post161919)
Dee Dee Warren:
Verse 1 – Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)

Peter is telling us that the following subject matter will relate to a subject that he already discussed with them in his 1st Epistle. This is a major clue. I believe this is specifically referring to…

1 Peter 4:7 – But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.

And this is again, one of those passages that can be very easily misunderstood when taken out of the entire Biblical (especially NT) context. First, let me comment on “the end of all things is at hand.” This is definitely speaking of the end of the Old Covenant age. We cannot universalize this to mean the literal end of ALL things, for even in a futurist “end of the world” scenario, they don’t believe that ALL things will come to an end. So everyone limits this passage, for the preterist it is limited by the obvious context of the rest of the NT promising a soon judgment on the apostate Jews and the visible inauguration of the Kingdom. I believe this verse then does give us the background for the passage we are currently discussing. This passage then leads into….

[snip]

So in short, I don’t see an “end of history” referent in 1 Peter that Peter could be alluding to in our passage currently under discussion.


How about these for "end of history referents" in 1 Peter:

1Pe 1:13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I would also include 1 Peter 4:7. How do you come to the conlusion that this is only referring to the end of the Old Covenant age and does not include the whole concept of the "end times"?

Finally, I include 1Pe 5:4, "And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

It really sounds like you base your entire exegesis on the fact that verse 1 refers to 1 Peter, and the claim that 1 Peter has no "end of history referent". Please explain how you came to see 1Pe 4:7 as you do, and also explain how you dismiss 1Pe 1:13 & 5:4 as a basis for seeing Peter speaking about the end of history / the return of Christ.

If I assume what you propose (that 1Peter has no "end of history" referent and that verse 1 makes this chapter dependent on 1 Peter), then I can entertain your exegesis below. If I take the remainder of this passage to help in the initial understanding of verse 1, then it becomes much more difficult to accept your conclusions about verse 1.




Verse 3 – knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts

There is an implied timing reference in the prior two verses if I am correct about the verses in his prior Epistles that Peter is referring to.. and that would put this event “at hand” (1 Peter 4:7). This verse gives us the “timing” statement of “in the last days.”



So according to your view, the "last days" here again points to AD 70, correct?
Agreed with the implied timing. Does an AD70 fullfillment make these verses in-applicable to us?



I think both you and I agree that this specific phrase everywhere else it appears is referring to the last days of the Old Covenant (and of course I see something different in the “the last day” – singular – references of Jesus). To briefly prove my stand (since again I don’t think that we disagree)


I can see this meaning (ending the Old Covenant) as being part of the meaning of "last days", but you forgot a verse... Isaiah refers to the last days, when God judges between nations, rendering judgement; this is the time when war becomes unknown, it is the day of reckoning.:

Isa 2:2 Now it will come about that In the last days[.b] The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it.
Isa 2:3 And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Isa 2:4 And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.
....
Isa 2:12 For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning Against everyone who is proud and lofty And against everyone who is lifted up, That he may be abased.

I don't think this day has come.




[b]Verse 4 – and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

These scoffers are espousing uniformity.. things go on as they always have. The context is also Jewish as denoted by the phrase “the fathers,” which generally speaks of the Jewish patriarchs. If we are taking this to mean the final judgment… do really believe that these Jewish scoffers doubted the final judgment? It is much more apparent that they were doubting the threats and warnings of the Christians that they would soon pay for crucifying the Lord of Glory.



Please note that the question in verse 4 refers to the coming of Christ. Yeah it may be (probably is) Jews who are scoffing, but they're scoffing at the notion of the return of Christ as the basis for judgement. Has he returned? Were the believers wrong to warn them of the coming judgement at Christ's return?




Verses 5-6 – For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Okay now things get sticky… but we must be governed by the timing verses already discussed if we are to be consistent here.. I will save my comments until after we get some more context here….


The timing of the previous verses is what is primarily in question. But verse 5 becomes important, as is seen below...



Verse 7 – But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Okay…. Here is where many trip up. The argument is made that since the whole earth was involved in Noah’s flood, and that flood is used as a model for this event, then this must be a worldwide cataclysm as well. On first blush, that seems reasonable, but of course, we still do have the introductory timing phrases already discussed.

However, on careful examination, and in comparison with the Discourse and OT imagery, this initial impression loses its force. The “earth” back then did not perish.. but the “world” did, meaning the sphere of humanity and human governance… i.e. the “world” of people were judged and destroyed. God’s primary goal in the flood was not to wipe out the physical planet, but to wipe out all but a few souls from the face of the earth. It was a major judgment of God, and the fact that God judges severely is what was forgotten by the uniformatarian scoffers. This was already spoken of Peter earlier in this same Epistle:



The issue in the passage is not that the "destruction" will be just like that in the days of Noah, but that "by His Word", the same word that long ago formed the heavens & earth, that same heaven & earth are reserved for judgement. The reference in verse 7 to "the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire" looks back to verse 5 where it is declared that "by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water"

The connection between verses 5 & 7 are clear: The Word which created the literal heavens & earth are now reserving the "present heavens and earth" for "fire"....




2 peter 2:5 – For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly.

Notice it was the ungodly who perished, not the physical world.


It is the ungodly who perished in this verse, and not the physical world. But the ungodly literally/physically perished, and this verse does not speak about "heaven and earth".



Future to Peter was the destruction of the current (for him) “the heavens and the earth” which are preserved by the same word for fire. Note this carefully, it is a different “heavens and earth” that exist for Peter than existed for Noah…. Do we really believe that the physical planet and heavens are totally new? Did God literally recreate the earth?


Dee Dee, when Peter is speaking of the destruction at Noah's time, he speaks only of the destruction of the "world of the ungodly". You appear to be equating this "world of the ungodly" with Peter's use of the phrase "heavens and earth". If that's what you've done to come to this conclusion, I think you've put words in Peter's mouth.




This phrase is familiar to us as is cosmic imagery which is very commonly used in the Bible of governments and human affairs. Since I already know you accept this in the Discourse, I am not going to spend time proving that point. The fact that the “heavens” is included also tips us off that this is not speaking of some globe-ending event, for if we were to be that literal, we must then assume that the heavens also will be destroyed by fire which is impossible.


But would the readers have thought it impossible for the heavens to be destroyed "by fire"? If the fire is literal, then there will be a lot of ashes in this "new heavens and earth". I think "fire" is more likely the non-literal (or least literal) element in this passage, not "heavens and earth".



Interestingly, in the OT, the planting of Zion is described in terms of the creation of the heavens and earth:

Isaiah 51:15-16 – But I am the LORD your God, who divided the sea whose waves roared— The LORD of hosts is His name. And I have put My words in your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, that I may plant the heavens, lay the foundations of the earth, and say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’ ”

This is the reason also why “decreation” imagery is also used of Israel when she is being judged.

Jeremiah 4:23 et al – I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void; and the heavens, they had no light.

There is really no reason why we should be departing from this Biblical imagery into hyper-literalization. In a preterist view, the Bible nowhere intimates that the earth will be destroyed, in fact many places indicates that it will not, but will rather be progressively moved towards redemption, not cataclysmically moved in that direction.


These passages are helpful in understanding how you come to your position.
But isn't some future event, wherein the earth changes drastically, precisely what is taught in Romans 8?

Rom 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

It will be like childbirth. The creation is now groaning in preparation for that great (perhaps cataclysmic) event.




In fact, God has promised not to once again smite the earth as He did with the flood in Genesis 8:21 (and it is a sad case of hair-splitting to say that He only promised never to destroy the world again with a flood, but fire is fair game).


Gen 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Gen 8:22 "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."

He promises not again to destroy "every living thing", but that the life cycle of plants and seasons would not be interrupted.

What do you make of the phrase "while the earth remains"? Does it not suggest that the earth may not always remain?




Verses 8-9 – 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Again this one can be sticky for if we ignore the rest of the issues I brought forward, it certainly seems to imply the passage of a great deal of time, even millennia.. but that would be contrary to the timing and context issues already explained.


This verse does indeed imply a great deal of time.
Agreed, the issue is back to verse 1.



Verse 10 – But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”

We have already discussed the heavens and the earth… and I think we both agree as preterists that the Day of the Lord is heavily used of the AD70 event, so what then are these elements? Is it the very elements that make up matter (maybe a nuclear event) as some futurists claim (one so devastating that it will destroy the “stars” as well – LOL)? Well what does the Bible elsewhere have to say about this? This term is never used in any other context of the material elements of literal creation but is always used in connection with the Old Covenant rituals and symbols… for example:

Galatians 4:3, 9 – Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world…. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?

Colossians 2:8, 20 – Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles [elements] of the world, and not according to Christ…. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles [elements] of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—

Hebrews 5:12 – For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles [elements] of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.



How can you say that "principles"/"elements" in Heb 5:12 refers to Old Covenant principles? The writer is saying that they need to be instructed in these elements, which would counter your concept of them being that which must pass away.

Also, there is no mention of intense heat doing away with the "elements" in the passages in which "elements" refers to the Old Covenant. This seems like a substantial jump.




Verse 13 – Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Again, Peter is referring to something that had already been taught to his original audience. So where has the “new heaves and new earth” been previously promised? Primarily in Isaiah 66:21-22 which cannot be speaking of a time after the consummation as there is still sin, the curse, and death.



Or, perhaps Peter is referring to 1 Peter (and this is the claim upon which you base your entire argument), as in the "end of earth referents" I gave.




Once again, the AD70 event is a shaking of the heaven and earth to firmly plant that which cannot be shaken (the New Covenant Kingdom).



Whoa.... help me out here....

So was the New Covenant Kingdom "planted" (i.e. established, founded, begun) in AD 70, or during the period described in the Gospels and books of Acts? If it was established by Pentecost (some will take varying positions on just when it was "planted"), then what is the need for this AD 70 "planting"? In other threads the pre-millenialists get bashed for not saying that the kingdom is fully established, but here you're saying that it was not established until AD70, some 37 years after the ascension & Pentecost.

Dee Dee, I truly appreciate the way you detailed your argument. It helps me understand why you hold to your beliefs. I can see how someone would, with sincerity, come to your conclusions. Obviously I disagree, but I'm grateful for this presentation of your views being based on exegesis, not polemics or rhetoric.

God Bless,

Jacob

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Jacob I appreciate your concluding remarks. That is always my ultimate goal, that even if there is disagreement, there is an understanding of how I came to such an assinine view :teeth:

Remember though that starting with this passage as an evaluation of the view is not the best place, for my exegesis here is informed by my exegesis of passages that IMHO allow no alternate interpretion, such as Matthew 24. You will never find me issuing disclaimer there, at least up to verse 34.

I have learned not to promise to come back to threads, for I sometimes fail miserably. But I will try.

[Jacob]

Today @ 09:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163602#post163602)
Dee Dee Warren:

I have learned not to promise to come back to threads, for I sometimes fail miserably. But I will try.

Agreed....

But will you help me with this... where did you and several other posters get the face that you've plastered into your avatars. They're cracking me up....


Jacob

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Jacob, the face is that of yxboom, one of the site co-owners and one of my best friends. You can probably find out where the master copy is over in the Dorm. Post a request on one of the many Boom threads, and I am sure one of the more talented here than I can help you out. Another Boom avatar is always welcome.