NEW CREATION IN 2 PETER 3 (1)

PMW 2025-022 by David Russell

Gentry note: The following paragraphs are cited from David M. Russell, The “New Heavens and New Earth,” Philadelphia: Visionary, 1996, pp. 186–97. Though not agreeing with all of his arguments, I highly recommend this book. This will be presented in two posts.

2 Peter 3 is important for discussion not only because of the reaffirmation of Isaiah’s promise of the new heavens and new earth but as the most explicit statement in the Bible of the total destruction of the earth by fire. Conclusions regarding the teaching of the passage are far from evident and are immediately complicated due to text-critical matters and the general worldview of the author. These will be addressed in the course of the discussion of the text. Significantly, 2 Peter provides an appropriate vantage point for this study for it addresses three important aspects central to the concept of creation and cosmic hope: the creation and constancy of the created order (vv. 4-5), the world’s plight and judgment (vv. 6-7, 10-12), and the new creation (v. 13).

“3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will 4 and saying, “Where is the come with their mocking, promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by 10 But the day of the Lord 11 His word are being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men… will come like a thief in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3.5-13)

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
by Milton S. Terry
This book is Terry’s preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation. It was originally the last half of his much larger work, Biblical Apocalyptics. It is deeply-exegetical, tightly-argued, and clearly-presented.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

In response to the taunts of those who see the delay of the Parousia as proof positive that judgment will never come, the author adduces the steadfastness of God’s word by which the World was created and by which he has determined its ultimate judgment. Peter asserts that all has not continued as normal since the beginning of the world. The world has once before experienced the mighty intervention of God and would do so again. The creation and flood, then, serve as types of judgment and renewal and ensure the reality of the future intervention of God. In the typological understanding of the biblical judgment in the end is thus predicated upon his activity as both creator and judge in the beginning. The verbal parallelism between verses 5 and 7 reveals that this typological emphasis is deliberate. Just as the old world was created by the word of God (to logo) and perished (apoleto) in the flood, so also will the present universe experience destruction (apoleias) by the same word (to logo). Likewise, the previous generation of Noah (cf. 2.5) corresponds to the present generation of scoffers who likewise deserve judgment (vv. 3-4) while Noah represents a typological model for the righteous. The entire section therefore reveals a typological hermeneutic.

Peter’s primary emphasis is upon the certainty of the parousia and the judgment of the wicked. Cosmological speculations reflected in these verses, while secondary, are not totally unrelated. For example, the writer’s terminology of the cosmos that existed “then” (ho tote kosmos, v. 6) and the present world (hoi nun ouranoi kai he ge, v. 7) as well as the new creation (v. 13) is not intended to suggest three entirely distinct worlds but reflects the apocalyptic idea of world history divided by two great cosmic upheavals. Notably, the reference to the destruction of the world in the deluge does not connote complete annihilation. In accordance with the OT tradition, it portrays the return of creation to its primeval chaotic state. Further, do verses 5-6 teach that the earth was formed “out of water” (ex hudatos, v. 5, NASB, NIV), that is, as the basic element of creation? It is possible that Peter intends a parallel with the Stoic motif of ekpurosis in which the cosmos dissolved periodically into fire (v. 10), the basic element of the universe. The phrase more likely recalls Gen. 1.6, 9 in which God confined the waters that the land might appear. (cf. Ps. 33.7; 104.5-6). The second phrase, di hudatos, “by means of water” (RSV, NEB) suggests, according to Green, the means by which the earth was sustained, that is, by rain. This, however, is not mentioned in Genesis 1 or 2. Bauckham contends plausibly that the writer has in mind the act of separating the waters.” As such the phrase is an alternative to the first and suggests that Peter is drawing upon the chaoskampf motif in which creation was wrought by means of the defeat of the watery primeval chaos. The problematic plural relative pronoun in verse 7, di on, refers to both the word and the waters as the basis and agent of creation and destruction. Significantly, 2 Pet. 3.5-7 maintains that unlike Hellenistic cosmology the world was created and continues to exist by God’s effective word (vv. 5, 7). The creation and its destiny therefore are not natural occurrences. Nature in biblical thought is not an autonomous, self-determinative system. Schelkle states appropriately that “the world is not nature, and its history is not natural, but it is creature, and its history is judgment and salvation.”

The certainty of universal judgment is assured by Peter’s statement that the present heavens and earth “stand reserved” for fire (v. 7). Yet this reality carries an unexpected and sudden quality for the “day of the Lord will come as a thief” (v. 10). God’s advent in judgment is accompanied by catastrophic events. The heavens will pass away “with a roar” (v. 10). The word roizedon, an onomatopoeic word, is used in Hellenistic to express the whizzing sound produced by rushing motion through air such as the flight of an arrow or a bird’s wings, and later by extension the rushing motion itself. Kelly thinks that the word connotes in this context the hissing, crackling, or roaring sound of uncontrollable and consuming blazes of fire. This noise also may represent the divine voice which like fire is often a standard element of theophanies (cf. Ps. 18.13-15; Joel 3.16; 1 Thess. 4.16). The event therefore is not merely one of destruction but pictures the arrival of the Lord himself in judgment. Peter also prophesies that the heavens will pass away and the “elements” (stoicheia) will melt with the intense heat (vv. 10, 12). Stoicheia may refer to the four elements of water, fire, air, and earth which in Stoic thought comprised the physical world. The term can also refer to the heavenly bodies. Schelkle suggests that since the stoicheia were sometimes conceived as celestial “powers” (Gal. 4.3), which in apocalyptic are represented by the stars, the writer might have combined the two meanings. However, the parallel of the heavens with the earth favors the reference to the heavenly bodies (cf. Isa. 34.4).

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This long-awaited commentary has now been published. It is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book.

Click: https://www.kennethgentry.com/the-divorce-of-israel-2-vols-by-gentry-pre-publication-offer/

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The precise effect of the judgment theophany upon the earth is complicated because of the reading of the last word in the verse. Several English versions accept the reading eurethesetai but translate the verb “will be burned up” (NASB, RSV, NJB) even though it should be rendered “will be found.” This is no doubt an accommodation which attempts to understand the meaning of this difficult reading in the context of cosmic conflagration. Metzger declares that “the word seems to be devoid of meaning in this context.’ While this assessment is true, eurethesetai seems to be more original as the oldest reading and the one which best explains all the variants. The manuscript evidence reveals that this reading was often modified by additions, omitted altogether, or replaced by another verb in an attempt to harmonize the reading with the context. Additional conjectures have been proposed by modern commentators. Metzger, following Hort, suggests the reading of ruesetai or heurethesetai (“will waste away”) as a scribal corruption of euresthesetai. The verbs arthesetai (“will be taken away”) and krithesetai (“will be judged”) also have been recommended.

Other solutions have been offered which attempt to make the passage intelligible while also accepting eurethesetai as the original reading. Kelly ingeniously recommends punctuating the end of verse 10 as a question: “and the earth and the works it contains — will they be found?” This, however, has not recommended itself to scholars. Danker has argued that the reading is not unnecessarily difficult in the context if the meaning is understood properly. He objects that eurethesetai has often been regarded as unacceptable because commentators have tended to focus upon the mode of judgment, that is, the utter destruction of the earth. By contrast, the verb describes the judicial process involving the earth’s inhabitants and hence the meaning “will be judged.” The absolute use of the verb, however, requires Danker to emend the text. In comparison with similar wording in Ps. Sol. 17.10, he conjectures that the text to read: “the earth will be found judged according to the deeds done in it.” Bauckham and Schelkle accept the basic premise of this argument, but without The conjecture emendation. The entire context centers upon the judgment of the wicked rather than cosmic annihilation which is of interest to the writer only as a means of God’s judgment against humanity. The verse therefore ends on a note describing the exposure of human works. The wicked and their works “will be found,” that is, will be open to God’s scrutiny and condemnation. A view closely related but which does not confine the judgment process to human inhabitants is Wolters’ argument that Peter envisioned the day of the Lord as a smelting process from which the world “will be found” or “will emerge purified.” The description of the judgment by verbs meaning “to melt” (puroomai, v. 12) and to burn (kausoomai, v. 10, 12) portray the picture of intense heat without burning up completely. In keeping with the OT view of God as a refiner through fire the verb thus connotes “to have survived,” “to have stood the test,” “to have been found or proved genuine.” Wolters finds support for such an interpretation in 1 Pet. 1.17 where the passive of heurisko is used absolutely to denote surviving a purifying fire. The weakness of this view, as he admits, is that this meaning of heurisko is without lexical support outside the Petrine writings. This interpretation does, however, attempt to recognize the cosmic dimension of judgment while protecting against a Gnostic worldview which regards the world as expendable.’

To be continued!

GOODBIRTH AND THE TWO AGES
I am currently researching a technical study on the concept of the Two Ages in Scripture. This study is not only important for understanding the proper biblical concept of the structure of redemptive history. But it is also absolutely essential for fully grasping the significance of the Disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3, which spark the Olivet Discourse. This book will be the forerunner to a fuller commentary on the Olivet Discourse in Matthew’s comprehensive presentation. This issue must be dealt with before one can seriously delve into the Discourse itself.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated! https://www.paypal.com/donate/?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4XXFLGKEQU48C&ssrt=1740411591428