Much confusion exists regarding the Day of the Lord and the New Heavens and Earth of 2 Peter 3. The Apostle Peter did not write confusing statements, but we have obscured his meaning.
If Peter heard your views about this passage, would he agree with them? Or would he scoff?
Today’s near-unanimous (and loudest) opinion is that Peter taught that Jesus’ coming would destroy the physical heavens and earth. After this destruction, God will remake the heavens and the earth, and the saints will enjoy a new existence apart from sin and death in the eternal state. And, from our perspective, that seems to be the natural reading of the text.
However, there are significant problems with this view. That view, to be blunt, does not match all that Peter says.
Consider this analogy: Peter laid down railroad tracks for a train. They were to guide the train where he wanted it to go. But, years later, people came along and moved them. The train had dislocated tracks to guide it, so it crashed. We are now trying to make sense of the wreckage. And it’s our fault. If we had left the tracks alone, we wouldn’t be dealing with the destruction. But we can still see the faint marks where the tracks should be, and it’s our job to fix them.
Based on what Peter himself wrote, the following things must be true of the Day of the Lord and the New Heavens and Earth that he wrote about:
- These things would fulfill old prophecies given by the “holy prophets” in the Mosaic age (2 Pet 3:1–2).
- Jesus and the other apostles also mentioned them (2 Pet 3:1–2).
- These things would occur in the “last days,” and scoffers would mock Jesus’ coming in this period (2 Pet 3:3).
- These things would change the world in which the patriarchs (i.e., “the fathers”) had lived (2 Pet 3:4).
- The effects of this change would resemble those of the Great Flood (2 Pet 3:4–7).
- God had promised this change long ago (2 Pet 3:9).
- The day of the Lord would come as a thief in the night (2 Pet 3:10).
- It would bring fiery judgment directed at ungodly people (2 Pet 3:7).
- Dissolution of the heavens and earth would occur (2 Pet 3:10–12).
- According to a previous promise, a new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells would replace them (2 Pet 3:13).
When we analyze the most common view described above, does it fit what Peter says?
A fair judgment shows it fails at points 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, and arguably fails at point 5. Briefly, my reasons are as follows. No Old Testament prophecy or promise describes the dissolution of the physical heavens and earth and their replacements. No Jewish nation reveres “the fathers” as in Peter’s day because God annulled his covenant with Israel after the flesh in AD 70 by destroying the temple in Jerusalem. The common view alleges a judgment of fire on the entire physical earth and heavens, whereas Peter points to a judgment of “the ungodly” (2 Pet 3:7). The same earth the Flood destroyed remained, and the ungodly perished. The earth does not remain in the standard view; God replaces it with the new earth.
So, what would Peter say about this explanation? Would he give it a passing grade, giving partial credit for the effort? The observations above suggest that he would give it a failing grade and not be satisfied with half-truths.
This failure creates a problem because, for most Christians, the common view seems to be the only possibility. Some may ask, Was Peter wrong about his prediction? That cannot be, for that would call into question the truthfulness of his letter and the Bible itself. We cannot allow that possibility, especially since Jesus revealed to Peter (not us) the correct interpretation of the things written about him in the Old Testament (cp. Luke 24:27). The only rational option is to look for an alternative to the common view.
One alternative is that the new heavens and earth Peter mentioned are not the physical ones we usually think of.
Today, most of us can hardly consider the possibility that Peter was teaching anything other than the destruction and remaking of the physical heavens and earth. We have heard nothing else, and therefore we can think of nothing else whenever we read this passage.
But what did Peter have in his mind when he wrote? Could it be that we have misunderstood what was clear to Peter? Are we looking at a train wreck and trying to figure out how Peter meant for everything to fit together?
This post will show that Peter did not mean the physical heavens and earth. It will claim that, based on the context and Peter’s demonstrated understanding and prior teaching, he cannot have meant the physical heavens and earth.
(Lest you think such a view is new, the respected Puritan John Owen expressed it in a sermon on this passage. See Dr. John Owen On the “New Heavens and Earth” (2 Peter 3:13.)
Someone will ask, Why would Peter use these words unless he intended to mean the literal physical heavens and earth?
The possibility that Peter refers to something else should not surprise us. After all, we know that God’s people are not literal sheep, made to lie down in literal green pastures, and the Lord does not lead them to the literal banks of a quiet stream to drink literal water. Nor do we think that the believer’s heart was once a literal stone and that regeneration transformed it into literal flesh. Nor that Jesus is literal bread that we must eat, or that we must drink his literal blood. We do not suppose Jesus’ parables mean the citizens of His kingdom are literal wheat and good fish or that non-citizens are literal weeds and bad fish. Are we morphing into a large and strange mustard tree as members of his kingdom? Did God graft us physically into an olive tree?
We recognize that we should not interpret certain passages and ideas exactly as they are written in our Bibles. (Or, to be more accurate, exactly as they seem to us.) Though intended for people like us, the Bible was not first written to people like us. It was written in other languages with other concepts; we read translations. What we have is the word of God, and of that we have no doubt. However, we must be careful not to use our western understandings to force passages to mean things the original writers never intended. Instead, we must seek to understand the sense in which they were written.
In future posts, I will map out the railroad plan Peter had in mind and show how it affects our understanding of 2 Peter 3.
5 comments
Looking forward to part two, my brother and I were just discussing this and how it can’t be speaking of the literal end. I have found several explanations and am eager to see your interpretation. Thanks!
You did a good job in making your case for the need for a better understanding of 2 Peter 3. Surely many are anticipating your follow-up articles. In pursuit of accurate understanding, some will like explanations of the following.
It is true that the Bible contains many figurative illustrations that are not to be taken literally. Doing so has indeed caused many errors in interpretation. However, it seems Peter may not be using this type of figurative illustration, but a like-kind comparison of two physical events.
Peter compares the destruction of the heavens and earth by fire with the former destruction by water. It is true the word destruction does not mean to go out of existence. But the comparison of the two events raises some questions.
1. The flood water was literal and global. The language seems to indicate the fire is literal and global. It seems unlikely Peter would use a physical global calamity of such magnitude to symbolize a non-physical event of less magnitude. The Genesis account of the flood is almost redundant in its effort to underscore the utter destruction of everything on the earth. Peter uses similar redundancy to describe the utter destruction of everything on the earth and even the heavens. Peter’s event seems of far greater magnitude, not less.
2. Since Peter’s goal is to combat the scoffers’ claims and strengthen the faith of the believers, it seems unlikely he would use highly figurative language to clear up any confusion on the facts.
3. The destruction by fire includes the heavens. Please explain to what this refers.
Thank you for your contribution and for considering my comments.
Thank you for your comments, Jacky.
With regard to your request for explanation of the destruction of “the heavens,” that is addressed in the future posts. They will explain why Peter meant something spiritual when he used the phrase “heavens and earth.”
Your analysis of the Flood and the complete physical destruction of the heavens and the earth is valid, at least in a sense. However, in my opinion, it seems valid to us only because of our Western misunderstanding of Jewish terminology used in the OT. Once we begin to understand the language of covenants and apocalypses, our perspective is expanded to better comprehend what PETER meant, as opposed to the way we tend to read it today.
The first allusion to the Flood was primarily with respect to the timing of the judgment. The question was, “Where is the promise of his coming?” The suddenness was the first comparison rather than the complete physical destruction of the cosmos. In Noah’s day, they were eating and drinking, and suddenly, the destruction came. The same is true in the destruction Peter mentions, and Jesus also said this in the Olivet Discourse. See Matt 24, especially vv. 34, 35 which clearly mention the passing away of heaven and earth within the generation then alive.
(Yes, there is allusion to be made in the type of destruction, but looking at the many OT prophecies, and looking at what Jesus and the apostles taught, this is best understood as the complete destruction of the Jewish nation-state. Or in other words, the final dissolution of God’s covenant with the Jews. Again, more of that in future posts.)
Also, Peter indicates these things would happen within the lives of his audience:
“What sort of people ought YOU to be….”
“Since YOU are waiting for these….”
“You therefore, beloved, take care that YOU are not carried away with the error….”
When joined with the future posts, and viewed with the timing mentioned in Matt 24, these warnings and exhortations are best understood as being primarily intended for the people of that generation then alive on the earth.
But, since there is no “Mosaic age,” then the end of the age did not happen in 70 AD and Scripture still remains to be fulfilled. Audience relevancy only is applicable to the original audience, but that does not mean that it has no application to anyone else. That would destroy the Gospel.
To properly respond to your comment, I need further clarification. For instance, are you asserting the Mosaic age is still in effect? That seems to be what you’re saying.
I am viewing this in the light of John the Baptist saying that the ax was already at the root of the tree, the veil of the temple is torn in two, the Jewish leaders’ assertion based on the testimony of Stephen that the Mosaic customs were in danger of being changed, and the unmistakably clear testimony from the writer of Hebrews that there were things that were at that time ready to vanish away. It would seem that no other thing could be meant than that there was a change in the dispensation of Moses.
— John Formsma
=============
John and I are using the term Mosaic age to mean the time from the Exodus to the temple’s fall. So, by definition, it ended in AD 70. The International Standard Bible Encylopedia refers to “the Mosaic age” at least 28 times. John Brown says Hebrews was written to “those on whom the ends of the Mosaic age had come.” — John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, ed. David Smith, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London: William Oliphant and Co.; Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1862), 197.
So, we’re having a hard time understanding your point.
— Mike Rogers