One simple question regarding audience relevance

[Mellontes]

I happen to believe "at hand" means at hand. You do not. It is as simple as that. Here let me quote

No your wrong, i believe at hand applies to 70AD, which is missing some of the characteristics
of the final judgment of the world.
I think you are misapplying what 70AD is. Israel has always been a type of the world and it's destruction in 70AD is not God's final judgment. The world will be judged, evil will be finished.

Steve7150,

I have no problem in discussing these things with you. None at all.

What I do have a problem with is that when you say something like "The world will be judged" it does not come with supporting Scripture. The world has many contexts, as I am sure you are aware of. Which particular Scripture(s) is(are) you referring to?

Another thing you said was "evil will be finished." My understanding of evil probably varies from yours. If your evil is in reference to sin and death, then I must say that it is abolished in Christ, because he is the fulfillment of those things.

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

It would appear to me that the death that is abolished in Christ is NOT pysical death, is it? <--- that is a question for you.

I also see that the "enemy" is abolished in Christ as well:

Ephesians 2:15 - Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Do you see the relationship to the old covenant as being the enmity? <--- another question for you.

In the following passage of Isaiah...

Isaiah 51:6 - Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

...do you see the relationship in Hebrews 9:28? <--- question again for you

Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

It seems clear to me that that which was getting ready to pass away hadn't yet completely passed away. The reference is to that which was made old. It is unquestionably covenant related. Isaiah speaks of the heaven and earth (old covenant stuff). The new covenant is that which takes over. This is the new heaven and earth in Christ. We are the new creation (ktisis - 2 Corinthians 5:17).

And just one final thing about that Hebrews passage. It was "ready" to pass away. This is the same heaven and earth mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter 3...

One of the greatest difficulties that futurists face is the understanding of what "heaven and earth" mean. It is not related to the universe and planet; it is covenant related.

This is why Christ said:

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If "heaven and earth" have not passed, then the implications as to the old covenant laws and practice still being in effect are obvious...

Matthew 24:34-35 - Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Also, reiterated in:

Mark 13:30-31 - Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 16:17 - And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Luke 21:31-33 - So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

The verse immediately following Luke 21:33 is an example of how today's futurists replace the pronouns with themselves. See if you don't agree.

Luke 21:34 - And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

Jesus had just told His 4 disciples that in their generation "heaven and earth" would pass (parousia), so it stands to good reason that He meant what He said to THEM, not us. All would be fulfilled at this time to them. That is the basis for fulfilled eschatology. I am not one of those pronouns.

Please respond to my questions...

[SteveF]

This is audience relevance in a nut shell. Futurism abandons the original interpretation in favor of a present 21st century one...but only in eschatology.
Mellontes

In 2nd Peter 3.8 the same author said "a day is with the Lord as a thousand years" therefore since this preceded what you quoted i think God is telling this "audience relevance"group that they should keep their mind open to all possibilities.
After all to be consistent with audience relevance was Isaiah 53 actually about Israel?

Oh, how many times I have heard that excuse. Everyone always partly quotes it , as you have done. So desirous is the will to delay the coming that only the first portion is ever quoted.

Let's get the right quote out there and see if it matches what you are endeavoring to say:

"one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

So, if you truly accept this as meaning what you think it said, then 1,000 years would be as one day. This meant that things were going to come to pass even quicker, well, at least 1,000 times quicker than first seemed! But I don't think you like that part of the verse.

First of all, Peter is quoting Psalm 90:4 in reference to God's total faithfulness. What he says He will do He WILL do! Look at the very next verse in context:

2 Peter 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.

I would have to place you in the category of "as some men count slackness." You wish to delay His coming to suit your paradigm.

Mellontes, I'm not sure I know exactly what you're saying here but i think you may have misunderstood 2 Pet 3:9. Can you explain to me why you think Peter made the statement, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise."? Do you see this statement in the context of the mockers mentioned in vs. 3 and 4 of 2 Pet 3? I do. In fact, I think Peter is making a completely different point than what you're making. I think he's replying to the mockers by saying, the Lord is not slow to come like you say, but rather he's putting it off for mercy's sake. In that context he points out that to God 1000 years is like a day.... so don't base his coming on your man centered time table ("as some men count slackness"). Thus, as Steve7150 pointed out, Peter opens the door for a coming that may be distant.

If Peter knew Jesus was coming in a few years at the most, then would it not seem more natural for him to respond to the mockers, "You say where is his coming? You need not wait any longer. He must come within 3 years or less."

If this is not how you understand the statement, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise", could you provide your understanding of the train of thought starting at 2 Pet 3:1 and on?

I would appreciate if we could stick to this passage.

Thanks,
Steve

[Allyn]

To properly understand 2 Peter 3, we have to first investigate the purpose of the epistle itself. Chapter 3 does not stand alone in it discussion of the Day of the Lord. it is within the context of the apostle's overall purpose. Peter does not leave us in the dark about this, his reason for writing is to respond to scoffers questioning the reality of the parousia, the coming of Christ.
2 Peter 1:16-21
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Peter tells us that he was writing his epistle because there were some who were claiming that the prediction of Christ's coming was a fable, a myth not to be believed. The Expository Greek Testament says, "The false teachers in 2 Peter have brought a new idea into the field...They cast doubt on the Christians eschatological wxpectation". Peter responds, first of all, by saying that Christ's coming was not a myth. because the apostles, specifically he, along with James and John, were eyewitnessess to a vision of the parousia when they witnessed the transfiguration.

If Peter saw the Transfiguration as a proof of the parousia, it seems odd that so little attention is given in eschatological studies.

Peter's claim is tremendously important if we are to understand about the Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3. This is true because whatever it was the scoffers were denying, Peter says he and the other apostles knew it was going to happen because of the Transfiguration. If the Transfiguration was not a vision of the parousia, then it would have no apologetic power against those denying the parousia. The Transfiguration therefore defines the parousia being anticipated by Peter and denied by scoffers.

[steve7150]

One of the greatest difficulties that futurists face is the understanding of what "heaven and earth" mean. It is not related to the universe and planet; it is covenant related.

This is why Christ said:

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.




That would make God a futurist since he created heavens and earth in the beginning before any covenants.
Re Matt 5.18 , not one tittle did pass away until all was fulfilled on the cross when Jesus said "it is finished".
He did'nt say "it is finished except for the destruction of the temple."

[Allyn]

One of the greatest difficulties that futurists face is the understanding of what "heaven and earth" mean. It is not related to the universe and planet; it is covenant related.

This is why Christ said:

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.




That would make God a futurist since he created heavens and earth in the beginning before any covenants.
Re Matt 5.18 , not one tittle did pass away until all was fulfilled on the cross when Jesus said "it is finished".
He did'nt say "it is finished except for the destruction of the temple."

He didn't have to say that, steve, because the Jews understood from their fathers who wrote the Old Testament just what exactly Jesus meant by heaven and earth.

[steve7150]

Another thing you said was "evil will be finished." My understanding of evil probably varies from yours. If your evil is in reference to sin and death, then I must say that it is abolished in Christ, because he is the fulfillment of those things.

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

It would appear to me that the death that is abolished in Christ is NOT pysical death, is it? <--- that is a question for you.






These things abolished are for believers , evil still abounds in the world.

[Allyn]

Another thing you said was "evil will be finished." My understanding of evil probably varies from yours. If your evil is in reference to sin and death, then I must say that it is abolished in Christ, because he is the fulfillment of those things.

2 Timothy 1:10 - But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

It would appear to me that the death that is abolished in Christ is NOT pysical death, is it? <--- that is a question for you.






These things abolished are for believers , evil still abounds in the world.

Outside the gates that is what happens - its biblical.

14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

You are witnessing the Kingdom of God in its fullness.

[SteveF]

Peter does not leave us in the dark about this, his reason for writing is to respond to scoffers questioning the reality of the parousia, the coming of Christ.
2 Peter 1:16-21

16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

Peter tells us that he was writing his epistle because there were some who were claiming that the prediction of Christ's coming was a fable, a myth not to be believed.

Hi Allyn, I disagree with your assessment of vs. 16. It seems to me that he was not confronting anyone who was saying the Lord’s coming was a fable. He actually said of them “Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.”
Rather, he knew he was going to die soon, and thus his personal witness to them would end as well. Hence, he wanted to drive home, while he still had the opportunity, the reality of his encounter with Christ and to encourage them to continue on in the faith (as described in vs.5 to 11) Since it was his last message to them he wanted to assure them they weren’t merely fables or things he made up but he really did see the power and coming of Christ. I don’t read any more into it than that.

If Peter saw the Transfiguration as a proof of the parousia, it seems odd that so little attention is given in eschatological studies

Could you clarify what you’re saying here, it went over my head. Thanks.

Peter's claim is tremendously important if we are to understand about the Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3.

I think Peter’s claim is important in regards to anything about Christianity but why do you specifically tie it to 2 Peter 3 and see it as tremendously important?

It seems that you also see the word “coming” as referring to separate events both involving manifestations of Christ’s Kingdom. The question is which event is being referred to in 2 Pet 3. I already know which one you think it is. I think it could be another. Let’s leave it at that for now. I don’t want to stray from my original question about “The Lord is not slack” and how Mellontes understands that in context.

Steve

[Allyn]

Hi Allyn, I disagree with your assessment of vs. 16. It seems to me that he was not confronting anyone who was saying the Lord’s coming was a fable. He actually said of them “Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.”
Rather, he knew he was going to die soon, and thus his personal witness to them would end as well. Hence, he wanted to drive home, while he still had the opportunity, the reality of his encounter with Christ and to encourage them to continue on in the faith (as described in vs.5 to 11) Since it was his last message to them he wanted to assure them they weren’t merely fables or things he made up but he really did see the power and coming of Christ. I don’t read any more into it than that.

Hi SteveF,
I'm not sure I follow you because the scoffers were the reason Peter made the statement.

If Peter saw the Transfiguration as a proof of the parousia, it seems odd that so little attention is given in eschatological studies

Could you clarify what you’re saying here, it went over my head. Thanks.

Sure. Its just a simple observation that there is no mention of this in the non-preterist camp, as important as it is given Peter wrote a letter bringing it to the forefront.

Peter's claim is tremendously important if we are to understand about the Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3.

I think Peter’s claim is important in regards to anything about Christianity but why do you specifically tie it to 2 Peter 3 and see it as tremendously important?

I plan on expanding on this later - but suffice it to say that the "Day of the Lord" is a very significant phrase which helps in determining the timing of that day.

It seems that you also see the word “coming” as referring to separate events both involving manifestations of Christ’s Kingdom. The question is which event is being referred to in 2 Pet 3. I already know which one you think it is. I think it could be another. Let’s leave it at that for now. I don’t want to stray from my original question about “The Lord is not slack” and how Mellontes understands that in context.

Steve

That sounds fair, for now, but I hope you will explain how you see it at your convienence.

[SteveF]

I'm not sure I follow you because the scoffers were the reason Peter made the statement.

Hi Allyn, where do you read that?

Sure. Its just a simple observation that there is no mention of this in the non-preterist camp, as important as it is given Peter wrote a letter bringing it to the forefront.

Perhaps, no mention that you're aware of. I've heard/read others stress the importance of this event that are non-preterists (I'm assuming you mean Full Prets). I've also seen the importance of it (as seen above) independent of any Full Preterist input.