Jesus and Peter taught that the earth will be destroyed unexpectedly on the day Jesus returns just as the earth was destroyed in Noah's day

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is important to consider why Peter references both heaven and earth in such close proximity within his writing, specifically in verses 7 and 10. We cannot simply assume that he is reiterating the same idea twice.

He's not reiterating the same idea twice. In verse 10 he begins to expand on the idea he first presented in verse 7 with more detail about the event he referenced there. He paused in between to point out that the Lord is not being slow to bring about the renewal of the heavens and earth by fire about, as some think.

To draw a meaningful conclusion, we need to investigate whether he is indeed supporting the same point in both instances.

He clearly is. It's amazing to me that you are struggling to understand something that I believe is very straightforward. You are making this a lot more complicated than it is, in my opinion.

In the first mention, found in verse 7, Peter emphasizes that both heaven and earth are earmarked for a future day of destruction and judgment. This serves as a stark reminder of the inevitable consequences that await. In contrast, when we reach verse 10, Peter introduces a different element by referencing the Day of the Lord.

Huh? Does 2 Peter 3:10 not also describe "that both heaven and earth are earmarked for a future day of destruction and judgment" as verse 7 does? It clearly does. So, I don't understand you're saying there's a contrast here. Why do you say that there's a contrast just because the day when what is described in both verse 7 and 10 is called "the day of the Lord". Why does it have to be called that in verse 7 in order for verse 7 to be talking about the same thing as verse 10? That's an argument from silence which is really no argument at all.

It is worth noting that if Peter's intention were merely to express the same concept with varied phrasing, we could reasonably conclude that the day of destruction and punishment is synonymous with the Day of the Lord.

He wasn't just merely expressing the same concept, he was adding more detail to the concept he introduced in verse 7.

If Peter's intent is to convey a message that distinguishes between verses seven and ten, then it would be unjustifiable to equate the day of judgment and destruction with the day of the Lord. This suggests that he may be drawing a nuanced contrast between two key events, highlighting that they should not be viewed as synonymous.

Huh? Why do you speak like this? Do you imagine that anyone can understand what you're saying? No one talks like this. Except you, I guess. But, do you understand that when you talk to someone you should talk in a way that they can understand and not just in a way that you can understand? Can you please try to speak more straightforwardly so that I can understand your point?

I understand that you find my writing hard to follow, so I pray that you have followed what I have said so far.

No, you lost me at this point. If you are not able to explain what you're intending to say more clearly, then I think the discussion will have to end here.

In verse 10, Peter presents the intriguing concept of "The Day of the Lord," a phrase that echoes the profound imagery found in Isaiah chapter 13 and the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 24. Both Isaiah and Jesus convey a striking vision of celestial phenomena, describing a time when the stars in the heavens and the constellations will cease to shine their brilliant light. Additionally, they paint a vivid picture of the sun emerging in darkness and the moon withholding its glow, creating an eerie atmosphere on the earth below.

This imagery does not imply the literal destruction of the heavens and the earth; rather, it suggests a dramatic and unsettling change in the way we perceive the cosmos from our vantage point on the ground. Although the sun and moon continue to exist, there is an inexplicable loss of their radiance, leaving the skies shrouded in an unnatural gloom. The celestial bodies, once vibrant sources of light and life, seem to fall into a deeper silence, provoking a sense of awe and mystery about what this transformation signifies for humanity.

After careful consideration, it seems plausible to interpret that Peter is alluding to the catastrophic annihilation of the heavens and the earth in verse 7. However, when we arrive at verse 10, he appears to be referencing a different phenomenon—the dimming of their brilliance for reasons that remain unclear. Some scholars have posited an intriguing theory: if the Day of the Lord brings with it an intense fire and incineration, then perhaps the subsequent smoke created by such destruction could explain the profound loss of light that follows.

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. I see no indication that Peter is not speaking literally in verses 10 to 12 and I see no basis for thinking he's speaking literally in verse 7, but not in verses 10 to 12.

That's a great idea.

Peter’s argument centers on the skeptics who dismiss the notion of Christ's return. These mockers base their skepticism on the belief that the world has remained remarkably unchanged over time and is unlikely to transform in the future. In response, Peter presents a compelling rebuttal in two distinct parts.

I disagree. There is no distinction between what is written in verse 7 and what is written in verses 10 and 12 except for the fact that verses 10 and 12 contain added detail about the day of Christ's return that verse 7 doesn't contain. Why would Peter use a local event to refute the scoffers contention that nothing has changed in the world? The scope of what is written in 2nd Peter 3 is global throughout. The scoffers who scoff are found throughout the world and they scoff at the idea of Jesus coming again to destroy the world because they are ignorant of how the world was already destroyed once before. That establishes the context of the entirety of 2 Peter 3:3-13.

First, he draws attention to the fact that significant changes do indeed occur throughout history, often in ways that are unexpected and profound. He emphasizes that while the present might feel static, dramatic shifts are entirely possible. To underscore his point, he references the account of God’s judgment, recalling how the entire world was once engulfed in a cataclysmic flood, a powerful reminder of divine intervention in the past. Looking ahead, Peter warns that a similar fate awaits the world, not by water this time, but by fire, signifying a future transformation that cannot be ignored.

As Peter continues his discourse from verse 10 onward, he shifts focus to a pressing question concerning God's longstanding promise of redemption for Israel.

Where is there any indication whatsoever in verse 10 that Peter has shifted the focus from talking about what will happen globally in contrast to what the scoffers think? I don't understand this argument at all.

It has become increasingly evident that this promise remains unfulfilled, raising doubts about its realization.

Say what now? What more does God need to do for Israel then to send His Son to die for their sins which made salvation and eternal life available for all of them?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Peter poignantly reminds his Jewish audience that God's impending judgment is inevitable—a threshold that the Prophets have foretold, marked by the ominous phrase "The Day of the Lord." This significant time is portrayed as a divine reckoning, during which God will purge the unworthiness from His people, Jacob.

Paul also wrote about the day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night. So, I assume you think that the following passage refers to the same event as 2 Peter 3:10-12 that you think is local to Israel?

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

Why would Paul say "that that day should overtake you as a thief" to Gentiles because of them not being in spirtual darkness if he was talking about an event local to Israel? Wouldn't he have instead said "that that day should overtake you as a thief because it will only happen in Israel and not where you are located" in that case? I think he clearly was talking about something that would affect places that included where his readers were located, but would only affect those in spiritual darkness and not those who were "not in darkness" and were "the children of light" instead. Only those there (and everywhere) who were in spiritual darkness would experience "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape". Paul implied that it would be something that would affect more than just Israel by warning the Thessalonians to "watch and be sober" in relation to this event, so it's clear to me that the event is global in scope just as portrayed in 2 Peter 3:10-12 which indicates that it will affect the entire heavens and earth.

Within this framework of prophetic warning, Peter elaborates on the impending destruction of what he refers to as "the elements." This term encompasses not just the foundational aspects of the Jewish faith, but also the extensive web of rules and regulations that the rabbis have layered onto it over the years. These additions, which have evolved into a complex structure of religious practices, are seen as obsolete in light of the imminent divine judgment. Thus, Peter emphasizes a crucial shift away from these man-made traditions, highlighting the urgent need for spiritual renewal and authentic faith.

That does not fit the context of what is written in 2 Peter 3:10-12, overall. Nor does it fit the context of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3. Do you also try to claim that 1 Thess 5:2-3 is not talking about physical destruction from which those in spiritual darkness physically "shall not escape"?

You bring up an excellent point. It’s important to acknowledge that these two events are deeply interconnected, allowing Peter to discuss them as if they were one continuous occurrence.

Ugh. No, that's not what he was doing. It's not two separate events. Again, in verses 10 to 12 Peter expands on the one event he first introduced in verse 7 in relation to Christ's second coming.

The book of Revelation further elaborates on this theme by describing not just two, but three distinct events of destruction.

I'm just shaking my head here. I could not possibly disagree more with this.

The first, represented by the seals, corresponds to the catastrophic events that unfolded in 70 AD. The second, symbolized by the trumpets, refers to localized destruction events that occurred specifically within Israel. Lastly, the bowls depict a more sweeping and global calamity, highlighting the pervasive nature of destruction on a larger scale. Together, these elements weave a complex narrative of judgment and transformation in biblical history.

The book of Revelation is not about 70 AD at all and is not about Israel at all. It is about Jesus and His church and the enemies of Jesus and His church.

 

[CadyandZoe]

He clearly is. It's amazing to me that you are struggling to understand something that I believe is very straightforward. You are making this a lot more complicated than it is, in my opinion.

I find it challenging to explain that the situation is far more complicated than it may appear at first glance. This often happens in conversations, particularly when someone like Peter tries to encapsulate a nuanced and intricate idea in just a handful of words. The essence of his message can easily become lost in the brevity, obscuring the depth of what he is trying to express.

Huh? Does 2 Peter 3:10 not also describe "that both heaven and earth are earmarked for a future day of destruction and judgment" as verse 7 does?

No. Whereas verse 7 summarizes the global destruction of the earth, verse 10 highlights the opening circumstances of the Day of the Lord.

It clearly does. So, I don't understand you're saying there's a contrast here. Why do you say that there's a contrast just because the day when what is described in both verse 7 and 10 is called "the day of the Lord".

A Bible study concerning the Day of the Lord will reveal that the Day will not see a global destruction of the earth. In fact, the name "Day of the Lord", or "Day of God" indicates a new era of time when God himself will rule over the earth. During that time God will be given his full recognition, using that opportunity to prove himself among the nation of Israel in full view of the Gentile nations.

Huh? Why do you speak like this? Do you imagine that anyone can understand what you're saying?

Since we are navigating disagreements and unfamiliar ideas, try to practice "empathetic listening" when you read my posts, temporarily suspending your own beliefs to understand mine properly.

Suspending one’s own beliefs doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning or rejecting them—it can be more about temporarily setting them aside to truly understand another person’s perspective.
You believe that 2 Peter 3 discusses global destruction throughout the chapter; however, I believe that it does not refer to global destruction after verse 7. To fully understand my arguments, it's essential to avoid viewing them through your own perspective. I encourage you to temporarily set aside the notion that Peter is discussing global destruction throughout chapter 3 and consider interpreting it from a different viewpoint. Once you understand my perspective, then feel free to reject it.

No, you lost me at this point.

Where did I lose you? Ask me some clarifying questions, and I will answer them.

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. I see no indication that Peter is not speaking literally in verses 10 to 12 and I see no basis for thinking he's speaking literally in verse 7, but not in verses 10 to 12.

Peter is speaking literally, no doubt about it. He speaks literally in verse 7 and verse 10, but each verse references different events.

I disagree. There is no distinction between what is written in verse 7 and what is written in verses 10 and 12 except for the fact that verses 10 and 12 contain added detail about the day of Christ's return that verse 7 doesn't contain.

The difference between the two verses is so significant that we need to explain why Peter makes that distinction. We start with the idea of the "Day of the Lord," a global event that does not entail global destruction.

Why would Peter use a local event to refute the scoffers contention that nothing has changed in the world?

Peter mentions the Day of the Lord to transition into his next point about how he and his readers ought to live. The Day of the Lord is an era of time in which righteousness lives. Therefore, looking for the hastening of that day (when righteousness lives) let us therefore seek to be righteous now.

Say what now? What more does God need to do for Israel then to send His Son to die for their sins which made salvation and eternal life available for all of them?

God intends to vindicate the holiness of his name. That process involves bringing his people back to the land, bringing her enemies against her, and saving her from her enemies. Israel's future deliverance and restoration are essential aspects of the process God will bring Israel through in order to restore his holy name. This process is the opening act in a much larger play in which the world will see universal righteousness and respect for the God of Israel.

 

[soberxp]

I think you are forgetting one very important thing, that the day of Jesus Christ's return will be like the day of Noah, and at that time, no one knows but the Father.

In Noah's day only Noah knew what had happened, so things were not as most people preached, Everyone saw and knew the second coming of Jesus.

And I am telling you that Jesus has come as a Thief.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul also wrote about the day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night. So, I assume you think that the following passage refers to the same event as 2 Peter 3:10-12 that you think is local to Israel?

I agree that Peter and Paul are discussing the same event. However, Paul's references to "Peace and Safety" and a woman's travail may have gone unnoticed. Who are the "them" mentioned in verse 3? Since Paul explained the rapture event in earlier paragraphs, those who meet the Lord in the air are the ones who will escape the coming day of wrath. Sudden destruction will come upon those who are left behind.

Why would Paul say "that that day should overtake you as a thief" to Gentiles because of them not being in spirtual darkness if he was talking about an event local to Israel?

In Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians, some people were concerned about facing destruction during the Day of the Lord. Some even believed that the Day of the Lord had already occurred. In his first letter, Paul reassures them that both believers and their deceased loved ones will rise to meet the Lord in the air. In his second letter, he clarifies that the Day of the Lord cannot come until the occurrence of a significant apostasy.

That does not fit the context of what is written in 2 Peter 3:10-12, overall.

Remember, Peter is talking about the Day of the Lord, an era during which righteousness is ubiquitous. Peter knows nothing of atoms and molecules, so when he speaks about the destruction of "the elements," he is talking about other kinds of elemental things, namely, the "elements" of the Talmud. I spend a lot of time in Paul, and I am quite familiar with Paul's usage of the phrase stoicheia tou kosmou, which is a reference to the Talmud. The "cosmos" in view is the ordered system of the "Oral Law", which Jesus called the traditions of men. Peter is telling his readers that when God brings fires on Israel, this will result in the destruction of both the men and their writings.