II PETER 3: DIALOGUE WITH A PRETERIST

Full Preterism is the view that Christ's Second Coming happened in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed by the Romans. Thus, Christ will not come again, there will be no Last Judgment on the inhabitants of the earth, there will be no bodily resurrection of believers, and the earth will not be physically transformed in the last days. By most Christian standards of belief this would be labeled a heretical view.

Full Preterism is, however, not the same as Partial Preterism, which merely believes that some, but by no means all, of the OT and NT prophecies were fulfilled in the first century AD by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

One of the hardest passages in the NT for full preterists to explain is 2 Peter 3 with its discussion of the destruction of the present Heaven and Earth and their replacement with a New Heaven and Earth. Below are excerpts from a continuing dialogue I have had with a full preterist, who took most of his ideas from several full preterist publications.

This letter was written probably from 65 to 68, right before Peter’s death. As we know, the Romans would invade Jerusalem, destroy it, and destroy the temple. So far, I agree with you entirely.

I think Peter foresaw this and foresaw the end of the Old Covenant. It is indeed possible that Peter foresaw it, but (1) he nowhere mentions that he had some sort of word from the LORD to that effect and (2) it certainly would contradict Jesus' sayings regarding no one knowing the time of his coming (assuming the full preterist view that the destruction of Jerusalem was the same as Christ's Second Coming).

Regarding the Old Covenant, it had already passed away even before the destruction of the Temple. This is witnessed by (a) the tearing of the veil in the Temple at Jesus' death, symbolizing the removal of the barrier between God and the people through Jesus' sacrifice and allowing them direct access to Him. (b) It was also recognized early on by Peter who was told by God through a vision that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean. (c) In addition, the rulings of the Jerusalem Council recognized that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be called God's people, and this had been the main sign of Israel's covenant with God. (d) The Book of Hebrews was certainly written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. We know this because of Hebrews 9, which describes the temple rites going on at the time of writing. But in that book the author states that the sacrifices required by law have already been replaced by Christ's sacrifice (Hebrews 10). Hebrews 8:13 even states that the first covenant is obsolete.

A few additional comments on that subject. First, if we limit the time of the Old Covenant to only the time that the Temple was available to hold sacrifices in, then what do we do with the extended time of the Babylonian and Persian Exile? By your reasoning, the Old Covenant would not be in effect during that time period because the temple was not available. The truth, of course, was that Judaism continued to operate even in its absence and merely redefined what it meant to be God's people under those conditions. The institution of synagogue worship was begun during that time, the kosher laws and Sabbath observances continued, Passover continued to be celebrated at home every year, and children continued to be circumcised as a visible sign of the covenant between God and his people. The Jews continue all of these practices today in the absence of a temple.

You imply elsewhere that Paul engaged in temple practices after the third missionary trip because he felt that the Old Covenant was still in effect. Acts 21:17-24 makes it clear that Paul only did this at the strong urging of James and the elders of the Jerusalem church in order to not to give any further ammunition to the Jewish opposition. Similarly, Paul has Timothy (a half-Jew) circumcised expressly so that he will not prove to be a barrier in Paul's missionary efforts toward the Jews (Acts 16:1-4). Paul clearly spells out his overall rationale in these actions in I Corinthians 9:20 when he says, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law though I myself am not under the law.”

Similarly, he acted as a Greek when among the Greeks and even quoted pagan poets and philosophers as if they were authoritative. Paul no more believed in the continued efficacy of the temple sacrifices than he did in the gods of the Greeks and Romans he quoted.

Luke 16:16-17 may also be pertinent to this discussion. Jesus states that “The law and the prophets were in effect until John (the Baptist) came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter of the law to be dropped.” What does this say concerning the Covenant of Law? Should we perhaps date its disappearance in God's view to the beginning of Jesus' and John's ministries on earth? Or maybe verse 17 could be interpreted to mean that somehow the two covenants continue to exist side-by-side even today, as some Christian theologians believe.This passage also poses a problem for the view that “heaven and earth” means the temple. The implication in that case would be that the disappearance of the temple has no effect on the continued existence of the covenant of law.

Even the predominantly Jewish church in Jerusalem only put a few dietary restrictions on Gentile Christians. And that was specifically in order not to offend the Jews they lived among, not because they felt that these ordinances should be observed since the Old Covenant was still in effect (Acts 15:20-21).

The Temple was the center of Israel’s world and they even referred to it as “heaven and earth.” This supposed fact has been often quoted by preterists to prove that Peter's mention of the destruction of heaven and earth in 2 Peter 3 only refers to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But it is wholly without proof. At the most, some post-biblical writings such as those of Josephus suggest that the temple was a symbolic representation of creation. I have discussed this issue in much more length elsewhere (see post on Matthew 5:17-20).

It seems to me that this letter and the previous one are dealing with events that were to happen soon after their writing. (1 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:3). While there are lessons to be learned for us, the letter was written to first century people who would understand its purposes. First, you are taking a much more limited view of the word “soon” than is intended. As one proof of this, read Revelation 20-21 (mostly written in the future tense) with its view of the New Jerusalem. It would be quite a stretch to say that any of this has already taken place. And yet at the end Jesus says twice that he is coming soon. Since virtually no one believes that Revelation was written before 70 AD, that means that the language in those chapters (which borrows heavily from Day of the Lord passages in the OT) cannot refer to the Romans destroying Jerusalem, but has to refer to events still future to us. But still, Jesus said 2,000 years ago that he is coming “soon.” We can either believe that Jesus is a liar, totally clueless, or that we should look more closely into the concept behind the Greek word “soon.” I would prefer to take the last option.

I know that you have not been swayed by the opinions of Greek scholars when they explain that this word can mean (1) the initiation of an action, but not necessarily its completion, (2) unexpectedly, (3) without a doubt, inevitably, or (4) in a speedy manner once it begins. But it is interesting to look at the English definition of the word since all translators use “soon” or “quickly” in key passages such as Revelation 1:1 and 22:20 to render the Greek tachys. Looking at seven different dictionaries, I see that there are two basic meanings of the English words “soon” and “quickly.”

The first is explained in terms such as “without undue time lapse,” “before long,” “within a short time period,” “shortly,” or “occurring within a relatively brief time period.” Even using that definition, Peter seems to be dealing with his critics' comments by explaining that (1) God's view of time is not the same as ours (2 Peter 3:8) and (2) even if there is a delay, it is not an “undue” one. (2 Peter 3:9). At this point, I think that you have an alternative explanation for the quote in verse 8 and have a problem with the reasoning in verse 9. How do you explain verse 8, and how do you make sense out of verse 9 (which obviously does need a little explanation to avoid the charge that it is a ridiculous statement to make)?

The second definition of the English word “soon” (and the preferred definition for “quickly”) is described using the following terms: in a prompt manner, speedily, without hesitation, easily, rapidly, lasting only a short time, at a fast speed, and occurring within a relatively brief time period. So you see that this meaning of the word says nothing regarding when the action will commence; it only refers to the fact that once initiated, the action will be accomplished within a short time span. And it is highly unlikely that the writers of these particular definitions were swayed by any prior theological commitments as you feel the Christian scholars of the Greek language are.

A similar argument could be made concerning Jesus' statement regarding his coming “like a thief in the night.” In I Thessalonians 5:2, Paul refers to the Day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night” but then goes on in verse 10 to explain that it may occur after his audience is dead.

As you have pointed out, it is a valid principle of prophetic interpretation that the nearest reasonable fulfillment is to be preferred over more remote events. The key word here is “reasonable.” The overwhelmingly apocalyptic language referring to world-wide events here, however, is hard to construe as referring to the destruction of one city. This is especially true since “the Day of the Lord” (and its equivalent phrases) elsewhere in the OT and NT always pertains to earthshaking events and final judgment on the whole earth (see below).

The “Day of the Lord” has always meant destruction.

This is simply not true, especially concerning the fate of the Jews. Yes, the disobedient individuals and nations will be appropriately judged. But the Day of the Lord also has a positive side to it:

Malachi 4 says there will be judgment on the wicked but also rejoicing for the righteous.

Malachi 3:17 says that those who revere the LORD will be his “special possession on the day when I act.”

Isaiah 2 says that “on that day...the LORD of hosts has a day” when Israel will be punished, but also all the foreign nations as well.

Isaiah 34 says that when “the LORD has a day of vengeance” God will be enraged against all the nations.

Joel 3 (especially v. 14) says that the “Day of the LORD” means peace and prosperity for Israel and its people while the foreign nations become desolate.

Obadiah 1:15 says “The Day of the LORD is near against all the nations.” During that time, Jerusalem will be a place of refuge.

Zephaniah 3 describes the events “on that day.” God will arise as a witness on all the nations (v.8). By contrast, Jerusalem does not need to worry because God will remove all disaster from it (v. 16).

Zechariah 12 repeatedly uses the phrase “on that day” when a siege of Jerusalem will be turned around and God will defeat her enemies. Victory will belong to Judah.

Zechariah 13 says that on “a day coming for the LORD,” God will be king of the whole earth and living waters will flow from Jerusalem.

Romans 2:5-11 says that “the day of wrath” will also mean glory and honor and immortality to some.

I Peter 2:12 says that on “the day of visitation” the Gentiles will glorify God.

I John 4:17 says that on “the day of judgment” the believers will have boldness and no fear.

I Corinthians 1:7-8 says that believers will be blameless “on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

I Corinthians 5:5 says that good work will be brought to completion by the day of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:10 expresses the prayer that his audience might be pure and blameless in the day of Christ.

Philippians 2:16 – Paul says that he can boast on the day of Christ.

II Thessalonians 2:2 warns that we should not be shaken by news that the Day of the Lord is already here. Paul says that first the man of lawlessness must appear with accompanying supernatural signs.

Revelation 11:18 says that “the time of God's wrath” is also a time for rewarding God's servants.

The key source prophecies in 2 Peter 3 are Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 28, Isaiah 63-66, and Daniel 9. These are rather unusual texts to reference since not one of them uses the phrase “Day of the Lord.” The closest is Isaiah 63:4 which uses the phrase “Day of my vengeance,” in the context of the defeat of Edom. Deuteronomy 32 describes how God first thought to punish Israel (v. 1-25) but changed his mind and decided to punish their enemies instead (vv. 26-27). Isaiah 28 has as its background the conflict of Israel with Assyria in the 700's BC. The following chapter contains a prediction of Sennacherib's unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem in 701. Daniel 9 most likely refers to Antiochus defiling the temple during the Greek occupation since the specific details outlined in the subsequent chapters can be lined up almost exactly with historical events during Antiochus' reign.

Not one of those texts can be construed to predict a future destruction of material creation.

That is because you are only quoting passages which have little direct bearing on the Day of the Lord. Consider instead the following more pertinent texts:

Isaiah 13 refers specifically to the Day of the Lord. In that chapter it is said that God and his weapons will come “to destroy the whole earth,” the stars will not shine and the sun and moon will be dark, the earth will be shaken out of its place, and the whole earth will be made desolate.

Isaiah 34:4 says that on the Lord's “day of vengeance,” the host of heaven shall rot away and the skies will roll up like a scroll.

Joel 2:10 says that on the Day of the Lord, the sun and moon will be darkened and there will be no stars.

Zephaniah 3 says that “on that day...all the earth will be consumed.”

Zechariah 13 says “a day is coming for the Lord” in which the whole geography of Jerusalem will be changed, and there will be continual daytime with no night.

That is just in the OT. In the NT we have the following:

Hebrews 12:26-29 says that God has promised to remove all created things with fire to replace them with an eternal kingdom.

Revelation 6:12-17 says that on “the great day of their wrath” the sky will vanish and all the mountains and islands will be moved. Isaiah 34 is quoted here.

Revelation 16:14-21 says that on “the great day of God the Almighty” demonic spirits will appear to the kings of the whole world, violent earthquakes will destroy the cities of the earth, and mountains and islands will disappear.

And of course John uses Isaiah's phrase “New Heaven and Earth” in Revelation 21:1 to usher in the vision of the new creation.

Peter’s promise of a new heaven and earth is a direct reference to Isaiah 65 which would come at the Day of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 64.

Let me see if I am following your argument correctly. First you say that the Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as a judgment on the Jews. Now you are saying that it is also at that time that the new heaven and earth will be set up, as mentioned in Isaiah 65:17. However, the Isaiah 65 passage goes on to describe the New Heaven and Earth as containing a Jerusalem filled with joy with no weeping and where the longevity of man will be drastically increased. In addition, savage animals will no longer kill other animals to survive (basically a return to Eden). This isn't exactly the situation that I picture when I read of the destruction of Jerusalem. If you reword your statement to say that the new heaven and new earth will eventually come about due to the prior destruction of Jerusalem, then you will still have to deal with the timing issue. Isaiah 65:17 says that “I am about to create new heavens and a new earth.” We come back to the question of immanency and what it means in a biblical sense.

It seems to me that Peter’s description of the passing of the heavens and earth should be viewed as an apocalyptic prediction of the fall of the world of Judaism which would clear the way for the everlasting Kingdom of God - a kingdom of righteousness.

This is a rather startling statement, but I know of no biblical texts to back up this idea.  As explained above, there was no necessity for the temple to fall in order “clear the way” for anything since the way was already clear. It is beyond me to understand how the coming of a righteous kingdom needed that event to occur first. After all, it did not at all stop Judaism from continuing to exist or oppose Christianity up to the present day. And the fall of Jerusalem had little effect pro or con on the continuing spread of the Word throughout the Gentile world, which was already well underway by then.

Possible Synthesis of the Two Views

I stepped back for a minute from our back-and-forth bantering to realize that perhaps we are closer together in beliefs than we realize, especially in our interpretation of biblical prophecies.

You quoted some passages in Isaiah regarding judgment and applied them to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. My response was that one should look for the nearest fulfillments in time instead, which were referring to OT events that took place within a short time after the writings. Then I quoted a number of other OT prophecies that specifically mention the Day and describe it in rather earth-shaking terms. I said that these passages referred to Christ's Second Coming and the Day of Judgment. Your response was that there were much closer fulfillments to the time of writing of those prophecies. Lo and behold, we both are employing the exact same logic to opposite purposes.

What about the realization (well recognized among a number of prophetic “experts” from a wide variety of millennial positions) that although many OT and NT prophecies have an “immediate” partial fulfillment expressed in terms of poetic hyperbole, they may also point forward in time to an ultimate fulfillment at a later date where the language may be applied a little more literally? That would certainly explain why all the OT prophecies we both quoted can be interpreted equally to point to near events and distant events at the same time.

The fulfillment of the near event can even act as as sort of guarantee by God that the later event will take place also. We see these principles illustrated at least twice in the Book of Isaiah. In chapters 6-8, Isaiah gives the sign to the king that his enemies will be destroyed before the child of some unspecified young woman (or woman as yet unmarried) begins to grow up. The results are as Isaiah predicted. However, Isaiah 6:14 is quoted by NT authors as being fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus as a sign to Israel. Then there is Isaiah 38 in which Hezekiah is given the sign of the shadow on the sundial to indicate that he will recover from his illness and that then the city will be delivered from the Assyrians. Each event takes place in turn, with each fulfillment guaranteeing the truth of the next prophecy.

Of course, there is also the clearest example of foreshortened prophecy in Joel 2:28-32. Peter only quotes the first verses (28-29) on the Day of Pentacost as having been fulfilled. But he does not quote the following verses of the prophecy (30-32) because they haven't taken place by then, whether you apply those latter verses to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or to the Last Judgment. Just reading Joel alone would certainly give the idea that all of these events were going to take place one after the other in rapid succession.

So, getting back to 2 Peter 3, you see it as primarily referring to the 70 AD judgment on Israel. Perhaps you could you at least agree that just as the flood demonstrated God's judgment on humanity for its sins and set the precedent for judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD, that particular destruction by the Romans within a year or two of the writing was be a powerful lesson to Peter's audience that God will ultimately judge the sins of all mankind. In turn, although I feel that this chapter mainly refers to what is usually called the Last Judgment, I will admit that it is possible that Peter may also be alluding to even closer events that will be witnessed by his immediate audience which will presage a later and more worldwide judgment. In other words, we don't have to ultimately choose between one of the two options since we know that from past experience with OT prophecies, the meaning intended by God may not be exhausted by its application to the original audience, but may encompass further truths only fully appreciated by later readers.