2 Peter 3:10 The Big Whoosh

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why resist the obvious? In your view, Peter's teaching stands alone, needing no other background information. In your own words, "There is no reason whatsoever to not take Peter's words in 2 Peter 3 at face value." So which is it? Remember what the prophets wrote or take my words at face value?

He explained what the prophets wrote in a straightforward way. That's what you're not getting. You should listen to him. You need to learn to allow the NT to interpret the OT for you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't turn around. I was purposely being misconstrued. With those who have eyes to see, the charge of heresy is a block one raises so as to avoid the truth.

You deny the truth that Jesus is God and created all things. You have no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is your argument that my words don't mean what I intended them to mean? hmm. That might explain a few things.

Did you read my post or not? I think I was clear. You misused the word consummation. Do you understand that now or not?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It isn't a question of whether Peter is speaking literally or figuratively. The question is whether Peter's message is predicated on a set of facts, which he and his readers share in common. In your view, the facts Peter presented to his readers stand on their own. In my view, the facts Peter presents are a small subset of a much larger body of knowledge found within the teaching of the apostles and prophets. There is nothing in the text itself that necessarily promotes my view over yours, or your view over mine. All we can honestly say is that the issue can't be decided from this passage alone. Peter wants his readers to remember the teachings of the apostles and prophets as they read his final remarks in this epistle.

In my view you are just completely disregarding what Peter taught in favor of your understanding of OT text. He said the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. That is a clear statement, isn't it? No need to look at the OT text to understand what he was saying there. So, how can a 1,000 year time period come like a thief in the night? That's nonsense.

Does Peter actually teach that the New Heavens and New Earth appear "at his coming" (or very near his coming.

Yes, he does, as I've explained.

I understand that the big whoosh takes at least a few milliseconds. :) ) I don't think we can necessarily conclude, from Peter's letter that the NHNE is coincident with the return of the Lord.

He said that we look forward to the new heavens and new earth in keeping with the promise of His second coming. How can that make any sense if the NHNE aren't even ushered in until 1,000+ years after He comes?

I take note of Peter's sentence structure here.

​

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.​

​

Here the relative pronoun seems to indicate an activity that will happen at some time during that day.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. But, when you consider that He said the day of the Lord will come like a thief, that implies that it will occur at the beginning of the day of the Lord (regardless of how long that day is). That's what you're missing.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that if Peter wanted to make the day of the Lord equal to the big whoosh, he would have employed vocabulary to indicate this, such as "the day of the Lord, which is the big whoosh."

In what sense will the day of the Lord come like a thief in your view? It coming like a thief implies that it will come suddenly and unexpectedly, just as Paul indicated in 1 Thess 5:2-3 as well. Paul indicated that the "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape" will occur when the day of the Lord arrives. Why would the destruction that Peter described not be the same as what Paul indicated would occur as soon as the day of the Lord arrives?

 

[CadyandZoe]

If we isolate the prayer from the rest of Scripture we might think His Kingdom will be on THIS earth.

Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

But when we understand the prayer in light of other verses we understand His Kingdom will not be on this earth, but will come to the new earth after this first earth has passed away.

In Revelation 21, why is the New Jerusalem pictured as coming down from heaven?

 

[CadyandZoe]

He explained what the prophets wrote in a straightforward way. That's what you're not getting. You should listen to him. You need to learn to allow the NT to interpret the OT for you.

Did Peter say that he was writing by way of remembrance? What are they supposed to remember?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Did Peter say that he was writing by way of remembrance? What are they supposed to remember?

What Peter taught and wrote in passages like 2 Peter 3 reflected what the prophets taught. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You deny the truth that Jesus is God and created all things. You have no credibility whatsoever.

I did not deny that Jesus is God. Rather, I reject the doctrine that Jesus has two natures. Jesus is a man by nature. He didn't exist before he was born. He was born to the virgin Mary; he got tired, he rested, he ate he prayed, he grew in wisdom, he was tempted, he has his own will. James says that God can't be tempted; Jesus was tempted. His temptation was real. Do you deny that Jesus was a man?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Did you read my post or not? I think I was clear. You misused the word consummation. Do you understand that now or not?

Do you understand that words have no meaning outside what the speaker intended to say?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did not deny that Jesus is God.

Yes, you have. We presented several different scriptures that show He is God and you denied that any of them show that He is God. Tell me, do you believe that Jesus created all things as scripture teaches?

Rather, I reject the doctrine that Jesus has two natures. Jesus is a man by nature. He didn't exist before he was born.

And here you've done it again. He can't be God if He didn't exist before He was born. He existed as God before He was born as a human being. That's why it says He would be called Emmanuel because that means "God with us". By being born as a human being, God came down to us from heaven. Jesus is fully God and fully man. You deny this and that makes you a false teacher. You are denying a fundamental belief of Christianity.

He was born to the virgin Mary; he got tired, he rested, he ate he prayed, he grew in wisdom, he was tempted, he has his own will. James says that God can't be tempted; Jesus was tempted. His temptation was real. Do you deny that Jesus was a man?

Of course I don't, but I don't foolishly deny that He is God like you do. I believe He is both God and man, as scripture teaches.

Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.

You say that Jesus didn't exist in any way, shape or form before He was born of the virgin Mary. Scripture says "in him all things were created" and "He is before all things".

 

[CadyandZoe]

What Peter taught and wrote in passages like 2 Peter 3 reflected what the prophets taught. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I fear that it is you that doesn't understand. If what you say is true, then verse 2 is a non-sequitur. If Peter's message in chapter 3 was complete in itself, then he would have NO reason to mention the prophets or the other apostles. He would have no reason to explicitly mention the writings of Paul. Your interpretation renders verse 2 unnecessary.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you understand that words have no meaning outside what the speaker intended to say?

What are you talking about? There is no definition of the word consummation that fits how you used the word. Is there something difficult to understand about that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I fear that it is you that doesn't understand. If what you say is true, then verse 2 is a non-sequitur. If Peter's message in chapter 3 was complete in itself, then he would have NO reason to mention the prophets or the other apostles. He would have no reason to explicitly mention the writings of Paul. Your interpretation renders verse 2 unnecessary.

Wrong. He wanted them to keep what the prophets had written in mind while giving them a clearer picture of what was going to happen. There is no indication anywhere in 2 Peter 3 that Peter was not speaking straightforwardly. He was not comparing a figurative future global fiery event to the literal global flood event in 2 Peter 3:6-7. That would not make any sense. He was comparing like events (both global and both literal and physical).

 

[CadyandZoe]

In my view you are just completely disregarding what Peter taught in favor of your understanding of OT text. He said the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. That is a clear statement, isn't it? No need to look at the OT text to understand what he was saying there.

Agreed, his readers were Jewish. They were already familiar with what the OT said about the Day of the Lord. Since his readers are already familiar with what the prophets said about the subject, and they said A LOT about it, Peter has no reason to repeat it all again. All they need to do is follow Peter's advice and remember what they said.

So, how can a 1,000 year time period come like a thief in the night? That's nonsense.

The day of the Lord begins with the Second Advent, which comes like a thief in the night.

He said that we look forward to the new heavens and new earth in keeping with the promise of His second coming. How can that make any sense if the NHNE aren't even ushered in until 1,000+ years after He comes?

I don't see the problem. What is a thousand years to an eternal being? When God raises you from the dead and gives you eternal life, what do you care that he expects you to wait a thousand years to experience the NHNE. God creates the Millennial period for his sake, not for our sake. He intends to vindicate his holy name during that period.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. But, when you consider that He said the day of the Lord will come like a thief, that implies that it will occur at the beginning of the day of the Lord (regardless of how long that day is). That's what you're missing.

How am I missing that?

In what sense will the day of the Lord come like a thief in your view? It coming like a thief implies that it will come suddenly and unexpectedly, just as Paul indicated in 1 Thess 5:2-3 as well. Paul indicated that the "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape" will occur when the day of the Lord arrives. Why would the destruction that Peter described not be the same as what Paul indicated would occur as soon as the day of the Lord arrives?

Peter and Paul are both talking about the Day of the Lord, which comes like a thief in the night. In my view, the Day of the Lord is preceded by an occasion of destruction. The Day of the Lord also ends with an occasion of destruction. Paul is focused on the first one; Peter is focused on the second one. For reference, the first one is predicted by the prophet Joel.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What are you talking about? There is no definition of the word consummation that fits how you used the word. Is there something difficult to understand about that?

Sure there is, you just don't acknowledge it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Wrong. He wanted them to keep what the prophets had written in mind while giving them a clearer picture of what was going to happen.

Right. So what's your problem?

There is no indication anywhere in 2 Peter 3 that Peter was not speaking straightforwardly.

He is speaking by way of remembrance. His message relies on familiarity with the material, otherwise remembrance wouldn't be necessary.

He was not comparing a figurative future global fiery event to the literal global flood event in 2 Peter 3:6-7. That would not make any sense. He was comparing like events (both global and both literal and physical).

I didn't say anything about figurative language.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Agreed, his readers were Jewish. They were already familiar with what the OT said about the Day of the Lord. Since his readers are already familiar with what the prophets said about the subject, and they said A LOT about it, Peter has no reason to repeat it all again. All they need to do is follow Peter's advice and remember what they said.

LOL. So, Peter commented on it for no reason? You think he was telling him to look at what the prophets had written and proceeded to talk about it himself while fully expecting them to ignore what he said and only look at what the OT prophets said?

The day of the Lord begins with the Second Advent, which comes like a thief in the night.

I don't see the problem.

The problem with your view is that you don't understand why it is said to come as a thief in the night. What that means is that it will come suddenly and unexpectedly.

1 Thessalonians 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

What passages like this one and 2 Peter 3:10-12 indicate is that it is the destruction accompanying the arrival of the day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night. Paul indicated that the "destruction will come on them suddenly". And, significantly, he pointed out that "they will not escape". If you see 2 Peter 3:10-12 as describing the literal burning up of the earth then it becomes clear why Paul said that "they will not escape".

What is a thousand years to an eternal being? When God raises you from the dead and gives you eternal life, what do you care that he expects you to wait a thousand years to experience the NHNE. God creates the Millennial period for his sake, not for our sake. He intends to vindicate his holy name during that period.

Why didn't Peter said we are looking forward to an earthly kingdom instead of the NHNE then? He indicated that the NHNE is in keeping with the fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. That would not be the case if it was not ushered in until 1,000+ years later. I don't find the argument you're trying to use here to get around that to be convincing at all.

How am I missing that?

Peter and Paul are both talking about the Day of the Lord, which comes like a thief in the night. In my view, the Day of the Lord is preceded by an occasion of destruction. The Day of the Lord also ends with an occasion of destruction. Paul is focused on the first one; Peter is focused on the second one. For reference, the first one is predicted by the prophet Joel.

What nonsense. There is no basis whatsoever for thinking that Paul taught about some other day of the Lord than Peter taught about. That is just plain ludicrous.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure there is, you just don't acknowledge it.

LOL. Show me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right. So what's your problem?

He is speaking by way of remembrance. His message relies on familiarity with the material, otherwise remembrance wouldn't be necessary.

I didn't say anything about figurative language.

If you acknowledge that 2 Peter 3:10-12 is literal, then there is no basis whatsoever to place the destruction Peter wrote about 1,000+ years after the second coming of Christ. None.

Look at verse 11 here:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Verse 11 is a message Peter is giving to his readers, which now includes you and me, right? Why would we need to concern ourselves with "what kind of people" we are while trying "to live holy and godly lives" as we "look forward to the day of God" if that day can't possibly affect us directly (as you believe)?

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. Show me.

Again, the meaning of any word that I use has precisely the meaning that I intend. In order to understand what I meant, you need to consider the context.