 |
| Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." |
I hope you enjoy reading the discussion. Perhaps you may learn something about rightly dividing the word of truth. It is "What is Peter saying?" It is not what you want Peter to say!!!
On Nov 13, 2014, at 9:34 PM, Booby wrote:
I
have heard it taught that the New Heavens and New Earth taught as being
Heaven, what say ye!
On Nov 14, 2014, at 6:22 PM, sing wrote:
Brother
Booby,
Here
is my cheapskate understanding:
Many assume and take for granted that the phrases 'coming of the day of God' and ‘new heavens and new earth’ must necessarily relate to the second coming of Christ, and not the gospel age perfected after the destruction and abolition of the very ancient and earthly theocratic Israel in 70AD.
The ‘new heavens and a new earth’
is a prophetic term
that speaks of the new gospel age
after it has been purged and
delivered
from the harassment of the old
covenant.
The
language of the heavens and earth being abolished and destroyed indicates the
cataclysmic and violent nature of the complete overthrow and obliteration of
the ANCIENT theocratic nation of Israel. "New heavens and
new earth" is a description of the gospel age after the old has been
completely abolished... thus leaving only the new and superior order of the new
covenant. The dissolution of the 'old heavens and earth' most certainly will
affect the Jewish people personally and practically - the dissolution will happen
in their time... the abolition of old earthly theocratic Israel. The removal of
the old resulted in the new heavens and a new earth, a description of the
new spiritual kingdom of Christ free from the pesky baggage of the olf
covenant.
1.
Consider these passages:
Isa
65:17 "For, behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come
into mind."
This is a prophecy concerning the removal of the old covenant, thus resulting in the dawning of the gospel age purged of all the relics of the old. The former, the earthly theocratic Israel with all its trappings and baggage shall be COMPLETELY abolished!
Isa 66: 22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.”
Both these passages are found in the context of the prophecy concerning the dawning of the gospel age, and the abolition of the old covenant order - temple, sacrifices, etc. The context in both is REMOTELY connected with the second coming of Christ.
It seems that the new heavens and new earth spoken of is the new covenant which remains and freed from the last remnant of the old, and the former heavens and earth that shall be done away. The dawning of the gospel age is marked by the coming of the kingdom of heaven, slowly but surely replacing the earthly kingdom of the theocratic Jewish nation, which was completely done away with in 70AD, resulting in an epoch marked by "the new heavens and a new earth."
Haggai 2:6-9 “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord.”
When the Lord shake out the old heavens and old earth, what is left is the new heavens and new earth... the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind, i.e. the former shall be abolished permanently. That's is the day of God spoken of - when the Lord shall shake the heavens and the earth... only the new will remain.
The language in Haggai is similar to that used by the Lord in Mt 24.29-30 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
It seems to me that the Lord's word here are intimately related to the words in Is 65:17 "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind" and Haggai 2 "I will shake the heavens, and the earth." The shaking of the heavens and the earth is accompanied with the making of the new heavens and the new earth.
The new heavens and a new earth in Isaiah, Haggai and 2Pet speak of the new world order of the gospel age completely freed of the old, in contrast to the old covenant age narrowly confined to the tiny Jewish nation. The end of the Jewish economy is such a radical and cataclysmic transformation that it is only adequately described as the doing away with the former heavens and earth, and the establishing of the new heavens and new earth.
Read
the rest here:
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2009/11/we-look-for-new-heavens-and-new-earth.html
I did say it is cheapskate... since it is not PBish.
On Nov 15, 2014, at 2:14 AM, sMarty wrote:
Brother
Sing,
I
tend to agree with you on this topic. As the others have said, I am not
dogmatic about it and will not cause problems over it. I can see both
sides, but I am more in the camp that the new heavens and new earth are about
the gospel age.
Glad
we can disagree on the non-essentials and still be friends.
On Nov 15, 2014, at 3:20 AM, Billy wrote:
Bro.
Sing,
I
believe you have captured the meaning of new heavens and new earth correctly. I
do not find fault with others who see it differently and hope they will afford
me the same courtesy.
On Nov 15, 2014, at 3:57 AM, Benjiman wrote:
Brethren,
Serious
question with no underlying sarcasm or hostility.
If the lesson in 2 Peter 3 is about the Church Age, why is Peter still waiting for it at the end of his life?
We often criticize "ites" who believe the church didn't come until Pentecost. Seems this places the church not fully existing until AD 70. Hebrews states that that New Covenant was already here in Paul's day, and the Old waited to vanish away. Jesus said the New Covenant was "in His blood." Point being, the Old vanished away because the New was already there and had been since Jesus' crucifixion.
The NT Church view was my opinion for quite a while (prevalent view in the Birmingham area), but questions such as the one I just asked steered me to the post-judgment view. That was reinforced considering:
1)
The context of 2 Peter 3 - burning of the entire planet by fire at Jesus'
coming. If 2 Peter 3 is AD 70 we shouldn't quote it (God's longsuffering rather
than slackness, scoffers, the Earth melting with heat, etc) in relation to
Jesus' future appearing.
2)
The context of Revelation 21 - after the thousand years, loosing of Satan,
resurrection, judgment, etc.
3)
As Bro Joe pointed out, the grandiose description of life without tears, pain,
or death - all of which I observe regularly as a pastor - says too much to be
the church (or at least any church I have seen). There will be offences in the
church (Mth 18) and persecutions against the church (John 16:33).
But again, no hostility or ridicule is intended towards brethren who hold to the other view.
[The lesson in 2Pet 3 is NOT about the church age. The lesson is the complete obliteration of the old earthly theocratic kingdom of Israel... that marking a new age for the Jewish believers!!!
On November 15, 2014 at 4:05 AM, sing wrote:
Brother
Benjiman,
A serious question always deserves an attempt to answer it.
I must also trumpet loudly that whatever my view is, there is no hostility towards anyone. Even though this is obvious, I join everyone in stating the obvious. The Lord disapproves of hostility towards those who hold different views. Sarcasm is a tool the Lord and the Apostle often use as an aid in instruction.
Apostle
Peter didn't wait to teach it at the end of his life. What he and other
apostles have been teaching on the same subject is NOW put in black and white
as the issue became more urgent as the day of the obliteration of the geriatric
old covenant was approaching fast, and many of God's children among the Jews
were still unbelieving. Putting the matter in black and white reflects
the URGENCY of the matter because many of God's children among the Jews were
still unbelieving, and SCOFFING about the judgment that was becoming imminent
every passing day.
3:1 ¶ This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2
That ye 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 Saviour:
"of
us the apostles" informs that Peter and other apostles have been teaching
on the subject.
There was a 40-year period of transition... the old and the new existed side by side. The existence of the church prior to AD 70 is not the issue. The removal of the ANCIENT 'everlasting' earthly kingdom of Israel is so momentous that it is depicted in such apocalyptic and cataclysmic terms as the passing away of the old heavens and old earth, and the ushering of the new heavens and new earth. We Gentiles need to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jews to appreciate the momentous magnitude of the issue... their "everlasting" kingdom is coming to an end!
Why such urgency? The Lord is not willing that any of His unbelieving children among the Jews are trapped and get roasted by the Romans!!! Repenting, and believing the warning will save them from the things mentioned in the next verse.
2Pet
3
9
¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward, 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 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.
I don't read the burning up of the entire PLANET. I do read the burning up of the "earth" - understood the land of Israel, not planet "Earth."
I don't see how your 2) and 3) are related to 2Pet 3 passage. So I cannot comment.
I've made an honest attempt to answer your serious question, with no hostility nor sarcasm at all! (I always feel like wasting words making the disclaimer! But PBs are a very careful and courteous lot , always fearing of offending another PB. Is it because PBs are easily offended, my honest curiosity?)
On Nov 15, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Benjiman wrote:
Bro
Sing,
My
point is that Peter was anticipating it still in 2 Peter 3. "Nevertheless
we...look." I don't look for something if I've already found it. Why is
Peter still looking for the New Covenant right before AD 70?
In reference to Earth, Peter is using the simple language from Genesis 1. The Heavens and the Earth, which God created in the beginning. He destroyed the world (all people) once by water. This time the heavens, elements, earth, and works done in the earth will be forever destroyed, but by fire. Nevertheless, we look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.
As I understand it, Peter's figure of speech concerning a day to the Lord being a thousand years implies that it will be a great number of years before this day passes.
I might add that I don't minimize AD 70. I just finished 3 sequential radio programs about the significance of AD 70 and Paul's desire to save as many elect Israelites from that judgment as he could (the point of Romans 10). I just believe this and other references say "too much" to be that concept.
In reference to being courteous...well it's good you perceive us as kind to one another. There have been times when we weren't.
On Nov 15, 2014, at 11:14 PM, sing wrote:
Brother Benjiman, would
you also say that the holy prophets like Isaiah and Haggai, in using the term
"new heavens and the new earth" were also using the simple language
from Genesis? For example, in these passages...
Isa 65:17 "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."
Isa 66: 22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.”
Haggai 2:6-9 “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord.”
Peter
said,
3:1
¶ This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up
your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2
That ye 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 Saviour:
He mentioned the holy prophets... what new heavens and new earth were the holy prophets speaking of???
Did
the holy prophets say tooooooo much? Just asking.
Wifey calling for our midnight walk exercise! 11.14pm.
On Nov 15, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Benjiman wrote:
Bro
Sing,
Isaiah
probably has reference to the same thing as Peter, albeit in poetic or
spiritual language.
Haggai
says "shakes" the existing earth, not burning it and replacing it.
This is a different event than the one in 2 Peter.
You
might be wise to take that midnight walk. :) Sounds more pleasant than folding
and stacking away clothes, which is what I was just doing. Hah!
On Nov 15, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Benjiman wrote:
Another
thought, if Peter was awaiting AD 70 that hope was never realized. Most agree
he either died in 64 or 67. Yet what he desired, he anticipated according to
the promise of God. While he didn't likely live to the siege of Titus, he
certainly will see the post-resurrection glory world.
On Nov 16, 2014, at 5:28 PM, sing wrote:
Brother
Benjiman,
Thanks
for your other thought.
By the same manner you reasoned, i.e. "if Peter was awaiting AD 70 that hope was never realized" - then the same must be said if Peter was awaiting for the new heavens and new earth (your understanding of it)! That hope was never realized! He was dead before both - the dissolution of the old covenant as well as the dissolution of the world. Am I reasonable?
Though
he was dead before AD 70, yet what he anticipated according to the
promise of God, and warned the Jewish believers, did come to pass!
An age - new heavens and new earth - without the old geriatric old covenant Israel did come to pass. God's word was immutable! And though he was dead before the new heavens and a new earth was ushered it, that event most certainly did happen according to the immutable word of God.
Ain't safe to wield double-edged sword. It cuts both ways
sing, getting ready for evening service (5.25pm)
On Nov 15, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Invincible wrote:
Dear
Brethren,
When
I read 2 Peter 3, it seems to me that Peter introduces the topic of scoffers
who will come scoffing at the idea of the Lord’s coming, scoffing at the idea
of God coming as a judge against sin. As these don’t believe in a God of
judgment, Peter informs us that they deny the existence of God’s judgment upon
the earth by a flood which is consistent with their belief of no
judgment. However, Peter goes on to say that the world that we have now
is going to go up in flames at a coming day of judgment seeing that the earth
that now is, is reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of
ungodly men. So for such scoffers who don’t believe in a judgment, this
judgment by fire will come as a thief in the night and take them by surprise when
He burns the world up. But although our earth/world will be burned up,
yet we have another place to go and dwell when this on is consumed by
fire. This should move us to look beyond this earth and this life to our
future life with the Lord. This is the jest of what I see in 2 Peter
3. I probably could have said all that a little better, but maybe you can
get the jest of my thoughts.
But I am trying to understand the other view of this chapter, that it is speaking of the destruction of the Jewish economy/old covenant and the bringing in of the church age/new covenant in 70 A. D. Perhaps brethren holding this view can help me. And like brother Ben, I am not being sarcastic, nor hostile.
Anyway,
I am having a hard time seeing anything in the context of 2 Peter 3 which would
point me to the idea that the new heaven and new earth is the “church age”,
just as I have a hard time seeing anything in 2 Peter 3 which would point to
the earth that now is, that is reserved unto fire, as being the old Jewish
economy. And if “the heavens and the earth, which now are” (v. 7) refer
to the old Jewish economy, what do the heavens and earth of verses 5-6
symbolize which were destroyed by water in the flood?
I am just seeking
information here. We have three “heaven and earths” in the content of
this chapter. How do they all fit in? Or is there a place where
Peter stops talking about the natural earth that was destroyed by water in the
flood and then starts talking about the old Jewish economy that is taken away
by fire? I don’t see anything that looks to me like a transition from the
natural to the spiritual. I am just not seeing it.
Also,
when Peter says there shall come scoffers walking after their own lusts,
saying, “where is the promise of His coming”, it is hard for me to see that
these scoffers are scoffing at the coming of the church age in 70 A.D. It
is just not making sense to me. Perhaps brethren can help me understand
this other view, and help me see how the context of the chapter fits that view.
[sing: the scoffers were not scoffing at the coming of the church age! That was far toooooo late for them to do! The scoffers were scoffing at the prophesied OBLITERATION of the old covenant after thousands of years. If you get this point right, much of your scruples will disappear! ]
On Nov 15, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Billy wrote:
Brethren,
I've
been tied up much of today. I'll try to post some specific comments as to
my views on this tomorrow if possible.
On Nov 16, 2014, at 12:10 AM, sing wrote:
Brother
Benjiman,
Some
fresh cool air in the nearby park reminds me that I have forgotten to answer
your question:
My
point is that Peter was anticipating it still in 2 Peter 3. "Nevertheless
we...look." I don't look for something if I've already found it. Why is
Peter still looking for the New Covenant right before AD 70?
That's
a mighty good question.
The
subject, as I understand it, is the doing away of the old heavens and old earth
represented by the ancient geriatric earthly theocratic kingdom of Israel. The
doing away of the old is here represented as the ushering of the new. To take
Peter's word as denying the transitional presence of the NT gospel age would be
to misconstrue his plain words.
Also,
there was a 40-year of transition when the old overlapped the new. As along as
the old exist, in that sense the old hasn't been done away, in that same sense
the new has not been ushered in.
I
hope I have made a reasonable attempt to answer your good question.
Now I will take a cold shower and go to bed. sing, 12.10am.
On Nov 16, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Holden wrote:
Brother
Sing,
This
is the way dialogue should unfold between believers. Thanks for your
gracious spirit. Noted and appreciated.
It
has been my view that Jesus' words, "Behold, your house is left unto you
desolate," (Matthew 23:38) formally ended the Lord's blessing on or use of
the Jewish temple and/or worship. At the latest, I'd locate that end with
the tearing of the temple veil. The priest could no longer take the blood
of sacrificial animals behind the veil, for it was broken. AD 70 seems
far too late for such a transition. The mere standing of the temple
structure means nothing regarding the Lord's forsaking of them and the end of
their time as His chosen nation. That judgment fell long before AD
70. To the point of the passage, even if the Jewish factor lingered as
long as you state, there was no diminishing of the Lord's blessings on His New
Testament church or on the Gentiles, so Peter had nothing to wait for or look
forward to. He had already seen that glory in its fullness.
On Nov 16, 2014, at 5:56 PM, sing wrote:
Dear
Brother Holden,
Thanks
for your thoughts.
The formal ending of the Lord's blessing upon a stiff-necked nation, and the day of the Lord's wrath upon that nation finally obliterated the very backbone that represented that old covenant nation are not the same. Judgment indeed has began... the axe has been laid... but that horrendous event prophesied as the day of God's wrath - "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" - was yet to happen.
A time will come when the Jewish world will be rid of that old heavens and old earth that the Jews have been familiar with for thousands of years. That was the new heavens and new earth Peter speaks of.
Also, just in case Rev 21:1 is quoted to shed light on the 2Pet 3 passage, bear these in mind.
Re
21:1 "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."
[note: "a
new heaven and a new earth" replacing "the first heaven and the first
earth."]
Ge
"1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
-
This is the first heaven and the first earth of the original creation that will
finally pass away.
-
This indeed speaks of the passing away of the first, and only created heaven and
earth, to be replaced with the new heaven and new earth. Kindly note: "the
heaven" and "the new heaven" are both in the singular.
Re 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
The
first heaven and first earth are said to "pass away," and "fled
from the face of Him who sat on the great white throne." The heavens and
earth Apostle Peter spoke of were said to "pass away with a great noise,
the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth and the works therein
shall be burned up, the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved..."
Sincere folks who are given to sound bites flippantly equate the two, and insist that the two passages speak of the one and same event! I seriously doubt it!
just
my cheapskate non-Pb thoughts.
On Nov 16, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Bernie wrote:
Brother
Invincible and others,
I view 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21 as referring to the end of time and the inhabiting of the glory world to come, along with Bros. Vince, Ben, Joe, and the others that have expressed their like views. I, too, am not contentious with those who take opposing views to this.
I believe that 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21 say too much to be referring to the church. If we take to be literal the verses in 2 Peter 3:5-6 concerning the "...world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished", we are then inconsistent to spiritualize the rest of the chapter from verse 7 to the end of that precise context as being the closing out of the law age and the beginning of the church age in which we now exist.
The section that follows entitled "The Doctrine of Last Things" is Part 5 of 5 which finishes Chapter 18 as copied the book “Basic Bible Doctrines -- Systematic Theology for the Person in the Pew,” authored by Elder Michael L. Gowens. The excerpts of this chapter have been submitted by Bernard Gowens by permission from the book’s author. (I say a hearty “Amen” to all that has been written by this able Brother. My views coincide with those expressed by this brother. – bg).
On Nov 16, 2014, at 10:02 PM, Holden wrote:
Brother
Sing,
I
suppose we can graciously agree to disagree. I find that arm twisting
seldom works well at all. "A man convinced against his will is of
the same opinion still."
A couple points and I'll retire for others to carry the discussion forward should they choose to do so. First, the primary discussion focuses on 2 Peter 3, not Revelation 20. Assumptions about what people believe regarding that chapter contribute little or nothing to a discussion of 2 Peter 3. Second, like Brother Ben, I still cannot grasp the idea that Peter was looking forward to something that he described as a new heaven and a new earth, something that you say he had not at all realized at the time of his writing, and yet the reality of what he anticipated was divine wrath, not the bright sun of the New Testament kingdom. I gather that in some way you must believe that the full power and light of the New Testament church and kingdom were someway dimmed and diminished until after 70 AD. I agree that divine judgment made its final blow against a stiff-necked people on that date, but I can't find anything in Scripture to in any way suggest that the church and the Lord's New Testament kingdom in any way were anemic till that event. As I read the Book of Acts and the great power that the Lord continually showered on His first generation of believers, I hardly see indications of diminished glory or power. I will leave this point for you to wrestle with in your thoughts.
On Nov 15, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Waine wrote:
Dear
Brethren,
I
appreciate the good thoughts being expressed on this subject. I'm still
open-minded, at least to some extent on the subject. Like Brother Ben, I have
come up under the ministry that for the most part took these scriptures to be
teaching the total, final destruction of the old law service finalized by the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
It appears that despite the great inroads Christianity had made, there was still much trouble by those who wanted to hold on to some of the old law (see Galatians, etc.). Apparently, II Peter was written some four years before the fall of Jerusalem.
On Nov 17, 2014, at 1:36 AM, sing wrote:
Brother
Holden,
I'm
not sure if you represented what I understand correctly.
It
matters not that we disagree. It matters that we represent each correctly.
The "new heavens and a new earth" that Peter and the believing Jews were looking for were the time when the world was purged of the relics of the ancient geriatric earthly theocratic Israel. It would be a time when the believing Jews would be completely set free from the baggage and influences of the old covenant. The "old heavens and an old earth" was the only world of the Jews known for millenniums. When that is done away with divinely, then the new heavens and new earth have dawned upon the believing Jews.
Your gathering that in some way I "MUST believe that the full power and light of the New Testament church and kingdom were someway dimmed and diminished until after 70 AD" is quite misconstrued, and mistaken. Like you, I can't find anything in the NT that in any way suggests that the church and the Lord's New Testament kingdom in any way were deficient till the doing away of the old heavens and old earth in 70AD. Instead, I find the NT church was firmly established through the labours of the Apostles many years before 70AD.
As far as the believing Jews were concerned, they were still looking for the new heavens and a new earth in which the old ancient world they were born will be no more!
"A
man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" is applicable
to most men!
I'm
not exempted!
Thanks.
I will keep quiet now. Thanks for stirring my mind.
Sorry,
you felt arm-twisted by a little Chinese lad! My apology.
On Nov 17, 2014, at 6:42 AM, Holden wrote:
Brother
Sing,
I
did not feel arm-twisted. I didn't want to leave you feeling that I had
arm-twisted you. No problem.
I still struggle with your description of your belief and Peter's words in 2 Peter 3. It seems that Peter was longing for and looking for something that didn't exist yet. The New Testament gospel church existed and was in its full glory, and it was indeed a sphere "...wherein dwelleth righteousness," or at least it should be so. If the church in its glory already existed, Peter was looking for something else, and my puzzle at your point remains, but we can live with it.
On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Sing wrote:
Brother
Holden,
Struggle
no more. I will tell a story...
On a big plot of land stands a very old dilapidated building... that has stood
for thousands of years. Many live in the ancient house. There has been news
that a grand new building will be put up on the same plot of land one day, to
replace the old building. And so it did happen. When the appointed time came,
and grand new building was put up alongside the old rotting building. Some of
the occupants from the old building gladly moved over into the new building;
the rest vehemently resisted moving into the new building. Not only that they
harass and persecute those living in the new house. They cause damage to the
new house. The unpleasant situation dragged on for many years.
The occupants in the new house YEARN for the APPOINTED day when the old
building and all its occupants will be completely ridden from that plot of land
- as promised by the Owner of the land. With the land ridden of the old
building with the rebels, a new epoch described as "new heavens and a new
earth" would indeed have arrived!!!
I
hope my un-PBish story needs no struggle to understand!
Ever thankful for your friendship in Christ Jesus.
On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 PM, Holden wrote:
Brother Sing,
Cute
story. Thank you. One problem. The two houses were actually
built on two different plots of land, one on Moses' ground and the other on
Jesus' ground, not on the same plot. So Peter and the occupants of the
new building found all their joy fulfilled in their new house, a house that
they were already fully occupying and enjoying, fully so, long before he
wrote 2 Peter. Yet, even as he fully occupied and fully enjoyed that new
glorious building, he longed and looked for a building yet to come, one that he
in no way occupied at the moment.
Dear brother, we live on opposite sides of this globe, but I offer that someday you and I shall meet in that new, still more glorious building, and we'll rejoice together in our Savior.
On Nov 18, 2014, at 12:01 AM, sing wrote:
Brother Holden,
Thanks
for your feedback.
Since
you have scruple with the new house built by the same Owner (God) on His
ground, I will adjust the story to say that the same Owner built the new house
on the next plot of land. Thanks for the note about Moses and Jesus as the
master-builder of the respective houses. The rest I will leave it as it is
unless someone has more scruples with the story.
[The idea of Moses' ground and Jesus' ground is contrary to the Scriptures. It is God's ground. God built the first house (old covenant) through Moses, and he built the second house (new covenant) through Jesus].
Remember the context of 2Pet 3... Peter was warning the believing Jews against the scoffers. What were they scoffing about? Some say the imminent removal of the old... thus ushering in an epoch WITHOUT that millennial old ... thus the dawn of "the new heavens and a new earth." Others say they were scoffing at the end of the present world, leading to that new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1)
Your focus, as a Gentile, is upon the new house and all its blessings - which is all true. However, Peter's focus, as a Jew, is on the removal of that ancient and "everlasting" old house, the standing of which continues to be the antithesis of the new house. As long as that old house stands, as long as the old has not been obliterated as the Lord has promised, the situation described as the "new heavens and a new earth" has not yet dawned.
Thanks.
There is nothing more I wish to say, else I would be repeating.
Thanks
for listening.
On Nov 18, 2014, at 9:31 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Brethren,
Give
me the liberty to say just this bit, and I will leave this thread.
The
term "new heavens" is used three times in the Scriptures...
Isa
65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the
former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Isa
66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will
make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name
remain.
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Resting on the principle that Scriptures are SELF-interpreting is very safe.
The
term "new heaven" (in the singular) is used one time.
Re 21:1 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.
The new heaven here is contrasted with the first heaven. (both singular.)
The
Scriptures informs me that the first heaven is here: the heaven in the
beginning.
1:1 ¶
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I have just repeated the Scriptures for your consideration.
Thanks for tolerating me.
On Nov 18, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Bernie wrote:
Brother
Sing,
Consider
that Genesis 2:1 says, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and
all the host of them." Heavens is plural here. Genesis
1:1 and 2:1 are saying the same thing.
On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Robert wrote:
Just
a thought. Bro. Sing, I do appreciate your input. I also appreciate the input
from Elder Bernard Gowens. Humbly, this comment is only intended out of love.
You addressed the term " heaven " and Elder Bernard responded to the
use of this term. I just wanted to point out that in Revelation 21:1, the term
" sea " is mentioned. The term " sea " is also mentioned in
Zechariah 14:8. On both occasions, they are singular. Lord bless. :-)
On
Nov 18, 2014, at 12:02 PM, sing wrote:
Brother
Bernie,
Thanks
for your feedback.
Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 are NOT saying the same thing.
Gen1:1 "In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Gen
2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of
them."
Read
the text between Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:1..... other different "heavens"
were mentioned, thus rightly resulting in the plural heavens in Gen 2:1.
Verbal
inspiration is a wonderful truth.
If
verbal inspiration is true, "heaven" is not the same as
"heavens".
On Nov 18, 2014, at 12:22 PM, sing wrote:
Brother
Robert,
Thanks
for your thoughts.
The
word "sea" is used throughout Scriptures.
It
would help if you tell us how the usage of "sea" in Zech 14:8 and Rev
21:1 are related.
Thanks.
On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:16 AM, Chaser wrote:
Hello
All,
Just
a few questions out of curiosity.....
For
those that hold the 70 AD view of 2nd Peter 3, I am curious about your
interpretation of a couple things:
1) "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" - 2nd Peter 3:5-6
Is this to be interpreted as figurative language also, describing the Old Testament covenant / law service? Or is this describing something else?
2) Isaiah 65:17 has been cited as support for the 70 AD view:
"For,
behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be
remembered, nor come into mind."
I am curious as to how this is interpreted also as being the Old Covenant or
Law Service? Whatever is under consideration here, it says that the former
shall not be remembered or even come into mind...... Does the Old Covenant/Old
Testament not come into mind often for New Testament believers? Is it not to be
strongly remembered and learned from by us? Is this not why we sometimes call
it a "Book of Remembrance"? I am trying to reconcile in my mind what
way the Old Covenant is not remembered and doesn't come into our mind, when we
read from and preach from it often. Obviously, we still study it and think
about it and learn from it. It hasn't totally gone away from our minds has it?
I realize we are not under the Old Covenant / Old Testament Law Service anymore
administratively, but doesn't it at least come into mind and is remembered?
Like I said, just curious as to how this is interpreted and explained under the 70 AD view. Not meant as any slight or insult, but just trying to understand.
On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:38 PM, sing wrote:
Hello Chaser,
Thanks
for your interest about the 70AD view.
I
have asked myself the same questions before in order to understand the
Scriptures.
And
I study to search for the answers to my own questions. Elder Gene Thomas taught
me this method of learning and studying the Scriptures.
Permit
me to entertain your curiosity with my cheapskate opinions.
----------------
1) "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" - 2nd Peter 3:5-6
Is
this to be interpreted as figurative language also, describing the Old
Testament covenant/law service? Or is this describing something else?
---------------
I
understand the pronoun "they" as referring to the scoffers already
mentioned.
The scoffers were scoffing at the Lord's promise concerning the complete end of the ancient "everlasting" theocratic nation of many thousands of years. It was their firm conviction to the contrary, that it is impossible for that ancient everlasting nation to be completely obliterated, thus ushering in an epoch when the old is divinely removed.
Apostle Peter countered that such an idea is possible only because the scoffers are willingly ignorant, bury their heads in the mud, of the facts recorded in the Scriptures... their own Scriptures for the scoffers were unbelieving Jews. He raised two separate but related matters: by the word of His power, the heavens and the earth were brought into being and preserved by God; and by the same word of His power, that world was destroyed by the universal flood as He had promised. The old world of Noah perished; Noah entered into a new world (STILL HERE ON EARTH!!!).
God did these things. What made the scoffers think that the ancient "everlasting" ancient Israel would stand one day longer than the omnipotent God has determined? There were scoffers in Noah's day too! No one had even heard of rain up till then. The idea of a flood is just tooooooooo impossible, insisted the scoffers. Israel is an "everlasting" kingdom - it has lasted for thousands of years, and God Himself has preserved it. So, His promised coming to judge and obliterate Israel is just hodgepodge nonsense, scoffed the scoffers.
That's my feeble understanding. What's yours? I sincerely wish to know. Thanks.
-----------------
2)
Isaiah 65:17 has been cited as support for the 70 AD view:
"For,
behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be
remembered, nor come into mind."
------------------
Isa 65:17 begins a paragraph that ends with these words... "25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."
Try reading the verses between 65:17 and 65:25, and see whether the wonderful things said are a description of the gospel age purged free from the old covenant, or that state of eternal blessedness after Christ's return.
When the Lord God said, "and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind", I understand that as saying the former shall completely be destroyed and obliterated; there will not be a trace of it. A time will come when the former is completely rejected.
That's my feeble answers to my own questions. Thanks for bearing with the feeble opinion non-PB!
I hope I have given an honest attempt to answer your sincere questions about my view of 2Pet 3.
On Nov 19, 2014, at 7:12 AM, joshine wrote:
Brother Chaser,
Good thoughts and questions. To add to some of your questions, the preterist
view would seem to make the law being given directly after the flood. That is
if they take the comparison to be literal and to describe ages upon the earth.
If not then it would seem to be mixing literal and figurative interpretations.
I would like to add a few questions to the ones you have listed. Not trying to
be contentious, but am also curious. I do not wish to misrepresent anyone or
their belief but these are questions I have had.
1) Peter uses the word promise three times in chapter three (2 Peter 3:4, 9,
13). The promise is called "his promise" twice and called "the
promise of his coming" once. What would be the referenced promise in this
text? Would other proof texts could be cited? Would this make Christ's coming
at the end of time his third coming?
2) What does the phrase "last days" mean in 2 Peter 3:3? Is that
speaking of 70AD or the end of time?
3) Did 70AD come as a thief in the night as described in 2 Peter 3:10? Didn't
they see the armies coming?
4) Should we describe 70AD as "the day of our Lord" as described in 2
Peter 3:10?
5) Would the "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day" analogy make sense if the fulfillment of this passage
was only a short time away?
On Nov 19, 2014, at 5:08 PM, sing wrote:
Brother
Joshine,
You
addressed your questions to Brother Chaser.
I
take the liberty to answer them... because I have asked them myself. I hope I
don't appear presumptuous. I'm prepared to answer any questions related to my
view. If the view cannot stand up to scrutiny and examination, I will soon
abandon it as erroneous. That's my practice.
Just my non-PB cheapskate understanding in the following comments marked ##
1) Peter uses the word promise three times in chapter three (2 Peter 3:4, 9,
13). The promise is called "his promise" twice and called "the
promise of his coming" once. What would be the referenced promise in this
text? What other proof texts could be cited? Would this make Christ's coming
at the end of time his third coming?
## The context indicates that the promise refers to the one and the same matter - His coming to end the old heavens and old earth, i.e. the old covenant represented by the earthly kingdom of Israel.
2) What does the phrase "last days" mean in 2 Peter 3:3? Is that
speaking of 70AD or the end of time?
##
The last days of the theocratic kingdom of Isreal and the old covenant embodied
with it.
3) Did 70AD come as a thief in the night as described in 2 Peter 3:10? Didn't
they see the armies coming?
##
It came as a thief in that it took those scoffers by complete surprise!
4) Should we describe 70AD as "the day of our Lord" as described in 2
Peter 3:10?
##
The term occurs often in the prophets, chiefly indicating the coming divine
judgment upon Israel.
Isa
13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is
at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
Isa
34:8 For it is the day of the LORD’S
vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
Joe
1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the
LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it
come.
Am
5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the
LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of
the LORD is darkness, and not light.
Zep 2:2 Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you, before the day of the LORD’S anger come upon you.
There are enough other occurrences, these will suffice to prove the point. Apostle Peter was writing to those who were acquainted with the OT Scriptures, and the very term itself is understood by them.
5)
Would the "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day" analogy make sense if the fulfillment of this passage
was only a short time away?
## Sorry, haven't thought of this question before.
If you would permit me, I would like to ask a reverse question: Apostle Peter was urgently warning the recipients of his epistle against scoffers... were they scoffers existing in Peter's time or was Peter warning them of scoffers still in the distant future? And were the scoffers scoffing at something that Peter believed was imminent which has the danger of affecting his recipients, or were they scoffing at something very distant into the future? What do you think?
Thank you for the learning exercise... I like HARD sounding boards!
sing in the far east south seas. (getting ready for our Wednesday evening Bible study)
On Nov 19, 2014, at 7:16 AM, joshine wrote:
Brother
Bernie,
Good point. 1 Corinthians 5:1 also seems to reaffirm your point.
2 Corinthians 5:1 "For we know that if our earthly house of this
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with
hands, eternal in the heavens."
On Nov 19, 2014, at 7:27 AM, joshine wrote:
Brother Booby,
Hope you are blessed. I view the New Heavens and Earth as described in Isaiah
65-66, 2 Peter 3, and Rev. 21 as being the final and eternal home of the
children of God. I held the preterist view for the majority of my life. As my
brother wrote, it was the predominant view in the area of which we grew up. My
view changed somewhere between the ages of 17 and 20.
I would add that I consider this a non-issue. Some of my best friends
disagree with me on this issue. I know and love good brethren who believe
both.
Look forward to getting to fellowship with you soon, my friend.
On Nov 19, 2014, at 10:14 PM, Waine wrote:
Dear
Brethren,
First,
I will admit that are some things hard to understand regarding 2 Peter 3:2-15.
This is true regardless of which position you take. Moreover, I continually
question some of my views and pray the Lord will lead me away from any error I
may have fallen into. The fact that many of you brethren who hold a different
view than mine are so skilled in rightly dividing the word of truth makes it
hard for me to be too dogmatic on this or any matter that is opposed to your
views. Probably most of the ministers in my area hold similar views as those
expressed by Brother Sing. A year or two ago, one of my good friends in the
ministry preached the above scripture as well as Rev. 21 to refer to the final
coming of the Lord and eternal glory at one of our special meetings at
Hopewell. He did it in such a way that it was the least offensive possible, and
I enjoyed the sermon as a whole. Knowing that I had taught the subject
differently and the fact that many fellow ministers present had a different
view, I mentioned at the close of the service the fact that I and some others
had a different view on some of these matters, but that we should not consider
it a matter where agreement is necessary, and that many of those I most respect
preach the matter the same way we had heard it that morning.
I'm not sure I can answer the questions that have been posed, but I would like to try to touch on a few of them.
Is "the second coming" mentioned in Scripture the Lord's final coming to raise the dead and pronounce final judgement on the unregenerate wicked? As far as His bodily coming the final coming may be the second coming. But it is evident that in some manner "the Son of man" came in judgment upon Jerusalem and the wicked Jews (Mat. 24:27) in 70 AD. Matthew 24:37 plainly states "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." So in some sense there has been a second coming already and we await the third or final coming. The promise of His coming in 2 Peter 3 is referring to His coming in judgement in 70 AD. Although this coming had not yet occurred at the time of Peter's writing, it most surely would come after a little more longsuffering of the Lord: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). For the life of me, I cannot see how we can have passive repentance. If this is referring to the final coming, those who do not repent will eternally perish although the Lord was not willing that they should. Jesus proved that He was not willing for His children to perish in Jerusalem. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Mat. 23:37). It seems to me that the inspired message of Peter is to God's children among the Jews who needed to repent regarding their rejection of Christ. Those repenting would believe the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 and stay away or flee from Jerusalem at the time of the upcoming destruction. I believe the principle contained in 2 Peter 3:9 is still in effect today. The Lord is not willing for us to perish in the wickedness of the world in which we live, but that we come to repentance and follow Him in obedience.
I'm not sure there is a necessity that the physical heavens, earth and world in 2 Peter 3:5,6 cannot be used in contrast or comparison to the allegorical heavens and earth (temple pertaining to the old law worship). As the world was destroyed by water in the days of Noah, old Jerusalem containing the instruments of the old law is destroyed in God's wrath by the Roman army. This may seem to be a stretch, but no more so than the explanations given regarding repentance in 2 Peter 3:9.
Just some thoughts for consideration.
On Nov 19, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Billy wrote
Dear
Bro. Waine,
Thank
you for your meek and humble spirit, especially in this area. I agree with you
and Bro. Sing (and many others I'm sure.)
In
my relatively short time among the Old Line Primitive Baptists I have found I
differ with some on certain aspects of scripture, but not on fundamental
doctrines. I'm thankful that we are not cookie-cutter clones of one another. I
do hope I base my interpretation solely on God's word and not what any man has
written.
In the final analysis, I find solace in this: "Let God be true, and every man a liar. "
On Nov 19, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Waine wrote:
Dear
Brother Billy,
Thanks
for your thoughts. I had hoped you might have time and be of a mind to express
some of your thoughts in depth. I had planned to sit on the sidelines in this
discussion, which may have been best.
I appreciate the spirit displayed by all on both sides of this discussion. It seems to have been a long while since we had a good discussion of FFF.
On Nov 19, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Billy wrote:
Bro.
Waine, I still intend to write but find myself at a deficit in time to do so
in-depth. Thank you
========
I will include the rest as the discussion develops... a whole lot more was exchanged. So I decided not to include them.
