Peter's use of a 1000 Years

[TheEditor]

Hi Robby,

Maybe I am thick, but I just can't wrap my head around what you are trying to say. This is how I read the statement by Peter; I see him as merely telling his readers that God is not "slow" as we as humans consider "slowness", but that he is patient, and that from his perspective, a thousand years is as one day. The context of the Psalm Peter references seems to indicate this:

"You make mortal man go back to crushed matter, And you say: “GO back, YOU sons of men.” For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night. You have swept them away; they become a mere sleep; In the morning [they are] just like green grass that changes. In the morning it puts forth blossoms and must change; At evening it withers and certainly dries up." (Psalm 90:3-6)

There seems to be a contrasting of the transitory nature of man and man's reckoning of time, and God's eternity, and how time looks to Him. I don't know how this goes to prove or disprove any particular eschatological paradigm.

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

Hi Brenden,

No worries .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robby Young
U.S. Army Retired

[Homer]

Hi Robby,

Sorry you are irritable but being challenged goes with putting your ideas here. I have much difficulty following your reasoning. Considering the subject text:

2 Peter 3:5-10 (NASB)

5. For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6. through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

Here in vs. 5-6 Peter unquestionably refers to the literal heaven and earth. Surely in the next sentence the literal heavens and earth are in his mind:

7. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

And as Brenden has pointed out, Peter appears to inform his readers (and us ) That time to God is not as it is with us and the reason for the delay is one of love for sinners:

8. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

The idea of "the day of the Lord" coming like a thief, which seems obviously to indicate suddenly and unexpectedly, doesn't seem to fit at all with the events of 70AD which unfolded over a period of years. The coming like a thief, as I'm sure you know, is a frequent description of Jesus second coming:

10. But the day of the Lord 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.

"Elements" here is generally understood to be the physical constituents of the creation, consistent with vs. 5-6.

I am curious. What is there about the preterist idea that so motivates you? How does it impact your being a follower of Jesus? Does it help your faith if you can say all that stuff already happened and ease any questions about whether Jesus will return or not?

Have a blessed day, Homer

[robbyyoung]

Hi Homer,

You and Brenden are not even close to what this post is all about. The post is about how Psalm 90:4 is being applied by Peter to denote to his audience the time has arrived for the scoffers to be judged. He references Ezekiel's prophecy which conflates with the entire context 2 Peter 3:2-9.

When you are ready to discuss what the post is about I'm all ears. Preterism has the same effect futurism would have on a believer, it's not a salvation issue but rather expectation.

God Bless.

[TheEditor]

Hi Robby,

You and Brenden are not even close to what this post is all about.

Apparently, from what I can tell, nobody is....

The post is about how Psalm 90:4 is being applied by Peter to denote to his audience the time has arrived for the scoffers to be judged. He references Ezekiel's prophecy which conflates with the entire context 2 Peter 3:2-9.

Maybe this is what you should have said to begin with. It would have helped. Although, my response would have been the same, namely, your position begs the question that these things are indeed conflated. All I see in Peter's words (to my reading anyway) is what I noted; that he is telling his readers that God is patient and not slow. In order to participate in this conversation(?) must we lay supine and agree with your presentation? Just want to know the ground rules....

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

Maybe this is what you should have said to begin with. It would have helped. Although, my response would have been the same, namely, your position begs the question that these things are indeed conflated.

Ok Brenden, then what O.T. Prophets is Peter referring to, prompting his audience by way of remembrance, regarding the scoffers in last days (2 Peter 3:1-3)?

Are you going to even try to scripturally answer the question or just give your opinion? I contend Peter quoted David or Moses, Psalm 90:4, in 2 Peter 3:8, also Ezekiel's context 12:22-28, in 2 Peter 3:4, 9, and Malachi 4:1-6 in 2 Peter 3:10-13.

If you disagree, great, then you tell me who he is referencing?

All I see in Peter's words (to my reading anyway) is what I noted; that he is telling his readers that God is patient and not slow.

If this is all you see regarding the context, I guess there is no need for you to contribute anything else. You've given your exhaustive study on the matter.

In order to participate in this conversation(?) must we lay supine and agree with your presentation? Just want to know the ground rules....

Your participation is noted for what it is. However, I'm sure you can do better.

God Bless.

[TheEditor]

I don't understand Robby. Are you not a careful reader? I agreed that Peter was quoting the Psalms, and I told you why I believed he was. I also can see from Peter's use of the words "remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets", that he is referencing a prophet(s) use of these terms; "those who are saying: “Let his work hasten; do let it come quickly, in order that we may see [it]; and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, that we may know [it]!” (Isaiah 5:19); Look! There are those saying to me: “Where is the word of Jehovah? Let it come in, please.”(Jeremiah 17:15); “Son of man, what is this proverbial saying that YOU people have on the soil of Israel, saying, ‘The days are prolonged, and every vision has perished’?" (Ezekiel 12:22) This isn't the point I'm trying to make. All of these prophets spoke at the time they lived and already had their fulfillment in pre-Christian times. Peter, as well as other of the Apostles, seem to use the prophets words in a bit more flexible way than we might think; as an example, since we are talking about "prophets", was Enoch fortelling 70 AD as well? (Jude 14) It seems to me that the NT writers frequently quote the prophets, using them as a "corrective" as much as anything else.

Peter references these prophets and reminds his readers that there were those that scoffed and are still those that scoff, but God's word is sure.

He also tells them God is not slow, and uses the Psalm as a reminder of God's view of time, as well as God's desire for people to be saved. My issue isn't with Peter's use of these words; it's with your continued attempts to force a Full Preterist grid on everything, and seemingly mocking any others who either, a) do not see it through a Full Preterist lens, or b) see it as meaning something more than just another arrow in the Full Preterist quiver.

Is it possible, Robby, that others may be correct and that this verse, as well as many others, carry more meaning than you are allowing?

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

I don't understand Robby. Are you not a careful reader? I agreed that Peter was quoting the Psalms, and I told you why I believed he was. I also can see from Peter's use of the words "remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets", that he is referencing a prophet(s) use of these terms; "those who are saying: “Let his work hasten; do let it come quickly, in order that we may see [it]; and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, that we may know [it]!” (Isaiah 5:19); Look! There are those saying to me: “Where is the word of Jehovah? Let it come in, please.”(Jeremiah 17:15); “Son of man, what is this proverbial saying that YOU people have on the soil of Israel, saying, ‘The days are prolonged, and every vision has perished’?" (Ezekiel 12:22) This isn't the point I'm trying to make. All of these prophets spoke at the time they lived and already had their fulfillment in pre-Christian times. Peter, as well as other of the Apostles, seem to use the prophets words in a bit more flexible way than we might think; as an example, since we are talking about "prophets", was Enoch fortelling 70 AD as well? (Jude 14) It seems to me that the NT writers frequently quote the prophets, using them as a "corrective" as much as anything else.

Peter references these prophets and reminds his readers that there were those that scoffed and are still those that scoff, but God's word is sure.

He also tells them God is not slow, and uses the Psalm as a reminder of God's view of time, as well as God's desire for people to be saved. My issue isn't with Peter's use of these words; it's with your continued attempts to force a Full Preterist grid on everything, and seemingly mocking any others who either, a) do not see it through a Full Preterist lens, or b) see it as meaning something more than just another arrow in the Full Preterist quiver.

Is it possible, Robby, that others may be correct and that this verse, as well as many others, carry more meaning than you are allowing?

Regards, Brenden.

Brenden,

Here's my main concern regarding how people read and treat the words of Yeshua and N.T. Writers. They either dismiss their prophetic status, altogether, or create for themselves a situation to cast doubt on their inspired office. Your error is not being able to see why their appointment and office as "The Twelve" was so very important concerning eschatology. They were not just quoting O.T. passages??? They were applying either a Type or Shadow to the NOW, then, Anti-Type of their day! NO ONE had this authority to do so and get it right beyond their ministry. Do you understand THEY had the last word on what these O.T. prophecies meant? Therefore, if the expectation and application was applied to their day, that's where it stays. For if their renderings were Types or Shadows, where does the bible state more prophets are on the way, along with more inspired text, to apply The N.T. Writers types or shadows to the Anti-Type of the future????

Oh I've read your reply but you seem to miss the connection of the N.T. Writers awesome position, never to be repeated, concerning applying types and shadows as the Anti-Type with no greater fulfillment past their "last days" ministry.

God Bless.