The Apologetic Value of 2 Peter 3:1-13
I was a part of a contemporary discussion (2019) on the renewed Earth theory at Harding University with a dear brother in Christ. Most of the material that follows is a result of research that I did for the occasion and over several years of my life. In this article, I will briefly assess the value of 2 Peter 3:1-13 in the current eschatological conversation, search for authorial intent in writing 2 Peter 3:1-7, look carefully at 2 Peter 3:8-13, and identify some apologetic values of this study.
The Value of 2 Peter 3:1-13 in the Eschatological Conversation
There is no term sufficient to denote the theory of a New Heavens and a New Earth as being a renovated Earth. If one uses the term “renewalism,” it can be misrepresentative because it signifies a movement among Pentecostals and charismatics of miraculous Spirit-filled life and worship. If one uses the term “renovationism,” it can signify a new movement in spiritual growth to renovate the home and the heart. So, I guess the best we can do is use the abbreviation NH/NE as I will do in this article.
NH/NE is a vital part of the theology of end times today. It has perennially been a lesser part of the academic conversation although it has intensified in recent times due to N. T. Wright, G. K. Beale, Randy Alcorn, and other current thinkers. It is a movement, in my own estimation, that intends not only to re-interpret 2 Peter 3 but also to rewrite the scheme of redemption. As Beale has outrageously claimed, “If we do not understand this [NH/NE] to be the storyline of the Bible, how can it be that we have understood Biblical theology at all?”
It lies beyond the purview of this article, or any article for that matter, to examine all the major tenets of NH/NE, but rather to limit our discussion to a brief exposition, analysis, and interpretation of 2 Peter 3:1-13. In order to do this, my methodology is: first, to examine an exposition and analysis of 2 Peter 3:1-7, second, to examine the same in 2 Peter 3:8-13, and third, to offer conclusions relevant to my understanding of 2 Peter 3 and its relevance to biblical understanding and the kingdom.
What is the intent in 2 Peter 3:1-7? The passage reads:
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up our sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (ESV)
It is obvious that Peter is using the second coming as a means of motivation for his “beloved” spiritual family to be faithful until the end—either the end of their time on Earth or the end when Jesus returns. NH/NE theorists see a parallel with the flood in Noah’s day and the second coming in that both events will not be a final and complete destruction of the Earth. Both events, they say, are “total destruction,” and yet the Earth survived in Noah’s day as it will after the second coming. This scenario fits their theology because the Earth must survive or else God fails. God never fails. So, the Earth must survive.
There is no question that the parallel between the events of Noah’s day and the final coming is there. However, what exactly is “Peter’s Parallel”? This matter of exegesis will occupy the remainder of this section of this article. The take of NH/NE advocates is that judgment is the common theme between the two, and in both cases the Earth abides forever as they view it to be prophesied (Psalm 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4; et al.). Peter also warns that believers must not be lulled into lethargy because the final coming has not yet arrived. The final judgment is inevitable. So, what is Peter’s Parallel and will the Earth abide forever?
Is Noah’s flood parallel to the second coming? Obviously yes, it is—in some way. However, parallels do not have to be identical in every way; only quantitatively and qualitatively parallel to the extent intended by the author. For instance, Peter reported to the Jerusalem elders concerning the Holy Spirit gift conferred on the household of Cornelius that it was the “same gift” (Ison dorean, Acts 11:17) that the apostles had received in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. Was it the same in every regard? Were they identical? There is no evidence that the household of Cornelius ever wrote books of the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Were they identical? Peter’s intent seems to be to convey that the manner by which the Holy Spirit came to the Gentiles was the same as the manner by which the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles—nothing more and nothing beyond the context of the biblical writer. Thus, parallels do not have to be identical in every regard. Peter’s Parallel in 2 Peter 3 is not meant to be identical in the degree, manner, or effects of punishment but that both events were, and will be, because of disobedience. We know the two events are not identical because it was not fire that destroyed the Earth in Noah’s Day. Peter argues that the Earth was formed in ancient days by water and through water, only by the word of God, and that it was water that had deluged the Earth (vv 5-6), and that the “same word” (i.e. the word of God) will precipitate the final judgment (v. 7). The word of God and the promises of God are true, and nothing can prevent God’s promises from occurring. This is what I mean by “Peter’s Parallel.”
Much of the attention given to a newer interpretation of 2 Peter 3 seems driven by the theological view that the Earth will abide forever since it is prophesied and since God cannot fail. Will the Earth abide forever (Psalm 78:69, 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4)? The English word forever usually means “without end; ever- continuing.” However, the Hebrew word forever in the contexts noted is ‘olam which has various shades of meaning. Sometimes it carries the same sense as the English word (Psalm 29:10; 45:6). Yet in most of the occurrences of the word it merely denotes “simple duration.” Of ‘olam, HALOT says, “1. long time, duration (usually eternal, eternity, but not in a philosophical sense) (. In this sense, it may have a quality of eternity without being actually infinite. Psalm 61:8 affirms “So I will sing praise to Your name forever (‘olam) that I may daily perform my vows. The Psalmist envisions no end to his praise to God but there will be an end to his daily earthly vows. In Deuteronomy 23:3, the generations of Israeli descendants are said to enter the assembly of God, i.e. the temple, forever. After AD 70 this no longer happened. Note other references of everlasting (‘olam) things that came to an end (the Levitical priesthood in Deuteronomy 18:5; the land promises to the Israelites in Genesis 17:13 and Exodus 32:13; the Passover in Exodus 12:14-17; the tabernacle’s lampstand in Exodus 27:21; the priests’ trousers in Exodus 28:43, the heave offerings in Exodus 29:28, ritual washings in Exodus 30:21; the Sabbath in Exodus 31:17; the temple in 1 Kings 9:3, and Jerusalem in Psalm 48:8; et al.). Whenever the Bible speaks of the Earth abiding forever (Psalm 102:25-26; Matthew 24:35), it means that it will last as long as it is intended by God to last—in my view, until Christ comes again. I will return to the concept of God not being able to fail in the next section.
A Closer Look at 2 Peter 3:8-13
The text reads as follows:
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Verse 8 reminds us that God transcends time and is impervious to it. God is not confined or defined by chronology until through His infinite wisdom He chooses to act within the context of time. Once God commits Himself to acting in our world to enact the story of redemption, then and only then is He at all “confined” by time. In verse 9, Peter reiterates his “promises of God” motif by using the analogy, as we would speak, that God’s train is never off schedule. When I am in Europe, as a general rule French or Italian trains may or may not be on schedule, but German trains are almost always on schedule. Well, God’s train is never late. If He promises that it will happen, it will happen. Yet as certain as God’s promises are, He does not wish (or will, thelo) that any of us should ever die lost and thereby go to Hell.
Verse 10 begins the most controversial part of the passage. The “day of the Lord” in verse 10 is a much-repeated Old Testament theme (Joel 2:31/Acts 2:20; Isaiah 2:12; 7:18-25; 13:6; Ezekiel 13:5; 30:3; Joes 1:15; 2:1, 11; Amos 5:18, 20; Zephaniah 1:7, 14; 14:1; Malachi 4:5; et al.). The phrase usually indicated the end of a specified period of history. The final “day of the Lord” will come like a thief, because it would be disadvantageous for thieves to announce their coming to rob you beforehand. What will happen when Jesus returns? Will the Earth be “burned up” or will it be exposed and renewed, or renovated?
The Greek apparatus of the Greek text is prefaced by a relatively rare symbol known as a “black diamond” (♦) which indicates that the text itself is highly speculative thus receiving a “D” rating. No one knows for sure what the exact rendering should be of the key word used concerning the Earth’s future. The speculation is whether the original word for what will happen to the Earth is katakaino (“to burn, to burn up”) or heurisko (“to find”). The “triple crown” of the best and oldest New Testament manuscripts are these three: Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. Alexandrinus supports the reading of “burned up” whereas Sinaiticus and Vaticanus support the reading of “found.” There is a collage of lesser manuscripts supporting each reading but not relevant presently.
To add to the mystery surrounding the text, there is the mysterious ouk (meaning “not”) that is inserted in the text of 2 Peter 3:10 in the newest and most reliable Greek texts, UBS 5 (United Bible Society 5) and NA 28 (Nestle-Aland 28). The insertion of this word for “not” would mean that the passage should read that the Earth “will not be found”, which would destroy the case for those believing that the Earth will survive this whole process. The ouk has been inserted by both UBS 5 and NA 28 because of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). My Greek is not advanced to the extent that I can fully explain this method, but I do know that it is a computerized tool used to try to reproduce the original text in tough cases like 2 Peter 3:10 based on an analysis of the Greek stems involved in the relevant word(s), and what the original reading most likely would have been. As it stands, it is a real deal-breaker of NH/NE theorists. The dilemma is as follows. If the original reading was “will not be found,” then my position that the Earth will be fully consumed is preferred. If the original reading was “will be burned up,” then my position is necessitated. If the original reading is “found” or “exposed,” then the passage makes little sense. What if it means, “the Earth will be found”? It does not change the fact that the heavens will pass away with a roar (the original Greek word actually is a type of onomatopoeia). The heavenly bodies will still be burned up and dissolved. The Earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed or found. All these things will thus be dissolved. If the elements of the Earth (the stoichēa) are consumed, what will constitute the surviving Earth? The heavens will be set on fire and dissolved. The heavenly bodies will melt as they burn. Does the “expose” rendering change the rest of the passage? Absolutely not. It would be difficult for Peter to say more clearly that the Earth would not survive, considering the context, than the way he in fact said it. Therefore, my position seems to be preferred.
Maybe, as Wayne Jackson pointed out, what Peter did not say is almost as telling as what he did say. He did not say that the Earth would be renewed to be the earthly paradise it was in the days of the Garden of Eden. He did not say that the Lord would reign on the Earth after His return. He did not say that anyone would inhabit Earth after the second coming.
As promised, I wish to return to the argument that the Earth must survive or God has failed. Does God fail when we sin? Does He fail when someone goes to Hell (wherever that may be based on NH/NE presuppositions)? Did God fail when the Law of Moses was supplanted by the Law of Christ (Hebrews 9:17-19)? Did God fail during the Flood (Genesis 6)? God did not fail when all these events were anticipated in the story of redemption (1 Peter 1:20; Ephesians 3:10). He never will fail. Why is it more important that the Earth will survive than it is for sinners to survive (Matthew 10:28)? Besides, why does God not fail to the degree to which NH/NE theorists admit the partial destruction of the Earth?
Then what is the “new heavens and new earth” in verse 13 for which we all await? Are the “new heavens and a new earth” of Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22 the same as the “new heavens and a new earth” mentioned in the New Testament (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1)? I believe that when the words “heaven(s) and earth” are used together, this phrase generally refers to the physical place of our inhabitance; the only portions of God’s creation where people dwell (Isaiah 51:6; Jeremiah 51:48; Joel 3:16; Matthew 24:31, 35; Hebrews 1:10-11).
What about Isaiah prophecies? While much of Isaiah’s message warned of impending doom, particularly against Judah and Jerusalem, it was also a message of hope including a number of messianic prophecies (2:2-4; 7:14; 9:6-7; 11:1-16; 42:1ff.; 53:1ff.; et al.). The “new heavens and new earth” (Isaiah 65:16-19; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 20:11, 21:1) in Hebrew and Greek always refers to a new or fresh order of things: a time of regeneration, e.g., the Messianic Age. Isaiah himself using language indicative of this meaning of “new heavens and new earth” when he tells Israel to “Lift up your eyes to the heavens and look on the earth beneath. For the heavens will vanish away like smoke, the earth will grow old like a garment, and those who dwell in it will die in like manner” (Isaiah 51:6). Since God’s faithful children are to live with Him eternally (Matthew 5:12; Philippians 3:20; Colossians 1:5; 1 Peter 1:4; et al.), the “new heavens and new earth” figuratively represents the spiritual (not physical) dwelling place of the righteous (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:48-54).
Are the “new heavens and new earth” of Isaiah 65 and 66 identical to the “new heavens and new earth” in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1? I do not believe so. A major problem among many interpreters of OT prophecies, and Bible prophesies in general, is the failure to consider the immediate historical context, the common use of symbolism, the subsequent dispensation in God’s overall story of redemption, and New Testament information showing the fulfillment of these prophecies. The NH/NE expression began with the Messianic age and continues in Heaven. Paul writes concerning this new world order: “[M]aking known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesians 1:9-10).
What about the NH/NE in Revelation 21:7-12? If it is to be taken literally, then how will one work the dragons, the keys, the wheels, the eyes, the incense, the 1000-year reign, the 144,000, the mark of the beast, and the 3 ½ years that the child is in the wilderness into one’s hermeneutic? What did the NH/NE mean to the initial audience? I must address this next point very gingerly because the NH/NE renewalists are adamant about making a distinct separation between their view and the 1000-year reign. So, what I am about to say I intend as being merely a precaution. If I were a premillennialist, here is the way I would interpret Revelation 19-21. In historical order, Revelation 19:11-21 is the Second Coming of Jesus. Revelation 20:1-10 is the 1000- year reign of Jesus, Revelation 20:11-15 is the final resurrection and judgment. And finally, Revelation 21:1-5 is the renovation or renewal of the Earth. If one uses Revelation 21 as the literal renovation of the Eschatological Earth, then one must carefully distinguish this view from a historical analysis of Revelation 19- 21 and thus putting oneself in a precarious history of improper exegesis. I am convinced that often a major apocalyptic error is using apocalyptic passages to interpret narrative or historical texts, rather than the opposite approach.
The Apologetic Value of 2 Peter 3
In this final section, I intend to offer conclusions relevant to the apologetic value of 2 Peter 3. It is difficult to assess the immensity of pressure in the academic community in the matter of NH/NE, especially when respected New Testament scholars are making the shift from the orthodox view of Heaven. The weird thing about academic pressure is that when it is at its strongest, it feels as though we are not influenced by it at all. If one were to ask anyone under the influence of academic pressure if this pressure is real, the usual response would probably be a denial of the whole thing. Nor do I think I am exempt from the whole concern myself. Objectivity is often illusive to any of us although it is possible to achieve many times.
A concomitant result of academic pressure, in my judgment, is often a sort of gnostic attitude because certain scholars have achieved knowledge to which mere “peons” cannot attain. Gnosticism described a complex of movements in the ancient church. Adherents believed they possessed secret knowledge earning them the title of “the knowing ones.” When describing themselves, they used phrases like “offspring of Seth,” “the elect,” “the enlightened ones,” and “the perfect” (Scholer). I do not believe that any NH/NE adherent in the kingdom has this attitude, at least intentionally. Yet it feels as though that if one holds the formerly orthodox view that Heaven is not going to be on this Earth that I must apologize for it or admit that somehow one’s approach to this matter is any less scholarly than if one held the NH/NE view. One should be aware of the “gnostic attitude” on whichever side of the issue one lands. This matter belongs in the area of the “with meekness and fear” section of 1 Peter 3:15—Christian apologists should always approach their research in this way.
It would be advantageous at this point to remind us of some specific apologetic conclusions we have considered. First, I have argued that “Peter’s Parallel” in 2 Peter 3:1-7 does not support the NH/NE view that the Earth must survive. Second, the Hebrew word ‘olam in the context of the Earth abiding forever means that the Earth will survive only the duration of time referred to in the contextual setting. Third, the expression “The Day of the Lord” signifies the judgment of God in period of time the author envisions, but the context of the expression in 2 Peter 3 is a signpost for the final and ultimate Day of the Lord on Earth after which the Earth will be destroyed. Fourth, the black diamond status of 2 Peter 3 informs us of the difficulty of knowing the exact word in 2 Peter 3 that seals the Earth’s future, i.e. will it be “burned up” or will it be “renewed”? Therefore, the rest of the context of 2 Peter 3 should determine the meaning of the specific text. Fifth, the insertion of ouk in UBS 5 and NA 28 presents a momentous problem for the NH/NE view because the newest Greek text reads “the earth will not be found” if one insists the heurisko (“to find”) was the original word in the text. Whichever is the case, my view that the Earth will be consumed in the final day is preferred, because it can be affirmed in any case. Sixth, the “New Heavens/New Earth” expression means “a new world order” and does not confirm the view that the Earth will survive. If it did mean that, then what would the “new heavens” be?
The final apologetic conclusion is the most important one. Should one’s conclusions on this issue be a matter of fellowship? I am convinced that is definitely not a matter of fellowship. I don’t care if I get to go to Heaven on a bus (if it is on Earth) or a space shuttle (if it is not on Earth)—one way or another, I want to go. If anyone carefully traces this matter in restoration history, then men like David Lipscomb and James A. Harding, among many others, held variations of the NH/NE view. Fellowship was not withdrawn from them because of their views. Why do I not view this to be a fellowship issue? Explicitly defined fellowship issues in the New Testament would be incipient Gnosticism (1 John 1:1-3; 2 John 9-11), becoming a burden of the church because of one’s misinformed views about the second coming (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12), and impenitent immorality (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Disfellowship is implied in passages like Romans 16:17- 18 and Ephesians 5:11-13. Some have suggested that the seven Ones of Ephesians 4:4-6 consist an exhaustive list of reasons for disfellowship. However, I believe that the list is representative and not exhaustive. I believe that all fellowship issues are founded in the person of Jesus and what was most important to Him. Obviously, who Jesus is would be most important. If one denies that Jesus came in flesh, if one denies that Jesus was God, if one believes that Jesus was inferior to God, etc., then the withholding or the extending of fellowship is implied. If one suggests changing the essence or identity of His bride, the church, then fellowship may be involved. If one changes how one enters His bride, the church (i.e. how one is saved), then fellowship may be involved. However, one’s views about NH/NE constitute none of these. The same Jesus is taught, the same church is defended, and the same story of redemption is loved and preached. Therefore, it is not a matter of fellowship.
Hopefully, this article has brought to light some seminal matters in the study of eschatology from 2 Peter 3 and established some of the Christian apologist’s responsibilities implied by the text. Maybe one of my best conclusions for the future of the church and the fellowship of brothers and sisters is that NH/NE, although an extremely important study, should not break our sweet bonds of fellowship. I recently passed through a small community in middle Tennessee named “Unity.” There is a church of Christ there, and I loved the sign: “The Church of Christ in Unity.” This poignant message should characterize us all.
~
Ralph Gilmore, retired Professor of Bible and Philosophy at Freed- Hardeman University, received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Tennessee. He was an honor student in Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion at Harding Graduate School of Theology studying under Thomas B. Warren. He is editor of Kingdom, an online academic religious journal published by Freed-Hardeman University College of Biblical Studies. Professor Gilmore has appeared in numerous discussion and debate forums, contributing to The Case for the Christ of the New Testament: An Adversarial Dialogue Concerning the Existence of Jesus Christ (Produced by the Warren Center in 2013), and most recently in public debate with Dr. Alex Rosenberg (R. Taylor Cole Professor Philosophy, Duke University) on the campus of Ohio State University, 27 September 2016. The debate is available in print format and as a streaming video through WarrenApologetics.org. Professor Gilmore may be contacted at rgilmore@fhu.edu.
Works Cited:
Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
Jackson, Wayne. Christian Courier. “Will Heaven Be On Earth?” christiancourier.com.
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT). Netherlands: Brill, 2000.
Scholer, David. “In the Know.” christianhistoryinstitute.org. 1-12-21