II PETER: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

II Peter 3:1-7 Why would Peter write to his readers about some catastrophic event that would occur millennia in the future? It makes no sense to me!

I think that perhaps you have taken a valid hermeneutical principle a bit too far. One, but not the only, basic principle of interpretation is to try to figure out what the text would have meant to the original audience. But that does not imply that the meaning is to be restricted to their possible understanding at that time. This applies to the OT writings as well as NT ones, both narratives and prophecies. In God's wisdom, he filled the OT writings with words of hope, instruction and judgment, many not understood or fulfilled within the lifetimes of the original audience. Just a few examples:

    a. On the surface, the puzzling story of Melchizedek in Genesis14 appears to have had little instructive value to offer the original Jewish audience. Rabbis pondered over it for millennia without coming up with much meaning. The first real revelation didn't come until the author of Hebrews (7:10).

    b. The stories of the Israelites in the wilderness certainly had much to offer their Jewish audiences in terms of acceptable and unacceptable behavior before God, but Paul states to his mainly Gentile audience over 1,000 years later, “These things happened to them to serve as a example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come.” (I Cor. 10:11).

Getting a little closer to the subject of prophecy at hand:

    a. Adam was told that he would die on the day he ate of the fruit, but he lived for another 900 years. It was a valuable warning to him even if he ignored it and even if it took almost a millennium to fully come to fruition, physically in addition to the spiritual sense.

    b. Each of the patriarchs was told that his progeny would be as numerous as the sands in the ocean or the stars in the sky, but none came even close to seeing it come to pass. Nevertheless, it gave them a chance to trust God to keep his word eventually.

    c. Jacob's family was told that they would return to the Promised Land, but several generations died off before that actually happened (Hebrews 11). And the author of Hebrews says that none of them ever really received the rest they were promised (ch. 4).

    d. The Jews were promised a Messiah who would rescue them from captivity. A number of generations had to pass before that happened, and when it did happen it came in a different form from what they had expected. Their understanding of the prophecies was far inferior to ours today, but it still gave them hope.

    e. Jeremiah's writings to the Jews in exile gave them hope that they would eventually return to the Promised Land, but that audience died off before it actually happened. Even Daniel agonized over the matter and asked God to give him more details concerning Jeremiah's writings since he didn't understand them (Daniel 9).

    f. Isaiah's prophecies of a suffering servant who would die on their behalf were not understood by his original audience, and are still not accepted by Jews today.

    g. Peter summarizes the situation by explaining that even the prophets who received the word from God regarding the future did not understand what it really meant (I Peter 1:10-12), much less their immediate audience.

II Peter 3:1-7 Isn't it true that Jews at the time understood the phrase “heaven and earth” to mean the temple, according to Josephus?

If you read those passages in Josephus, you will see that nowhere does he refer to the temple as "Heaven(s) and Earth." That is a comment added by some preterist sources. Instead, a number of portions of the temple are described as "signifying, imitating, representing, 'as it were,' declaring, denoting, showing and resembling" the creation. I don't believe you can point to any single ancient source in or out of the Bible in which it says that the Jews called the temple "heaven and earth."

Another damning argument disproving the equation of Heaven and Earth equaling the temple is a matter of simple Greek grammar. Literally, verse 5 reads "present heavens and the earth" while verse 13 reads "new heavens and a new earth." The use of an adjective for heavens and the definite article for earth in verse 5 denotes two separate entities, not one. The same is true in verse 13 where the adjective "new" is repeated. If it were the temple being referred to, the usage in Greek would be "present heavens and earth" and "new heavens and earth," respectively.

Actually, it would almost be heresy for them to speak in such a manner. God mocks those who feel that He can somehow be encompassed in the bounds of the temple: "Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is my resting place?" (Isaiah 66:1)

And in the NT, "The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands." In both cases, man-made temples are compared very unfavorably to the heaven and earth of creation.

So let me follow the preterist reasoning regarding II Peter 3. Scoffers doubt that Christ will come again because they point out that the physical creation has been around forever. (That much is pretty obvious from verses 3-4) So Peter's rebuttal to them is that God created the physical universe and demonstrated in the flood that he could totally disrupt it any time he wants (verse 5). Therefore the present temple ("heaven and earth") can be and will be destroyed along with godless people (who live in Jerusalem?) any time God wants to (verse 6). But in accordance with his promise, we wait for a new temple ("heaven and earth") where righteousness is at home (verse 13). When will that new temple be built? Doesn't that idea prove that the dispensationalists are correct in stating that the Jews in present Israel will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem before the end times?

I can't for the life of me follow the overall logic in such an interpretation. The only thing that would drive such a purposeful twisting of language (as well as the preterist insistence that I-II Peter must be written to Jews) is an overwhelming desire to push a specific doctrinal agenda.

II Peter 3:7 If the Flood was only a localized event, doesn't that mean that the full preterists are probably correct in saying that the predicted destruction of the earth was also a local event, i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD?

The two events are apparently equated in II Peter 3. As you are probably aware, full preterists argue that the flood did not “destroy” the earth since it was still intact when the waters subsided. Therefore the future destruction of the earth mentioned in v. 7 must also be of a limited scope, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. If one additionally believes in a local flood only, then that might give even more credence to their argument.

However, whether the flood was local or universal, in neither case does the full preterist argument stand up. In the first place, the language used by Peter in verse 10 goes way beyond the type of destruction that occurred in the flood and extends seemingly to the atomic elements themselves. Also it is a great mistake to say that Peter is primarily comparing the scope of the two destructions. Instead, he is mainly arguing in terms of two other comparisons:

    (1) Peter first speaks to God's ability to create the earth in the first place (v. 5) and therefore His ability to destroy it at any time if He wishes (v. 7a). The fact that these two ideas are related and that both refer to the physical earth is seen by use of the word erets in both verses. This word similarly appears in verses 10 and 13, with the basic meaning again of the material earth.

    (2) Next, Peter speaks to God's reason for destruction. He compares the perishing of the evil people and culture at the time of the flood (expressed through the word kosmos, or world system) in verse 6 with the final “judgment and destruction of the godless in 7b.” Thus, there is this sort of simple parallelism:

        God's ability to destroy (v. 5)

            Impact on the sinful (v. 6)

        God's ability to destroy (v. 7a)

            Impact on the sinful (v. 7b)

II Peter 3:16 Does this mean that some of the NT letters were already being considered as part of the Bible?

New Bible Commentary

The wording can be argued to include or exclude Paul's writings from the OT writings. But I Peter 1:10-12 and II Peter 1:19-21,3:2 “show that Paul's letters possessed all the qualifications for acceptance as Scripture (the apostolic authority of the writer and the guidance of the Spirit as he wrote). Paul was of certainly conscious of this himself (e.g. I Corinthians 2:13,4:17; II Corinthians 13:3-10; I Thessalonians 2:13).”

Oxford Companion to the Bible

The canonization process for the NT was driven by two factors: the analogy of an OT canon and adverse pressures from heretical groups. Between A.D. 100-150, oral traditions concerning Jesus were replaced by written gospels, which were treated on a par with OT as Scripture. From A.D. 150-190, various Christian congregations drew up their own lists of authoritative books and began to standardize them among one another. By A.D. 400, the final NT canon was agreed upon by all.

Dictionary of New Testament Theology

Colossians 4:16 and I Thessalonians 5:27 demonstrate that Christian writings as well as the OT were read at services. II Peter 3:16 shows that Paul's writings were considered on a par with the OT. I Timothy 5:18 combines two sayings as “Scripture”: the first is from Deuteronomy 25:4 and the second one is a saying of Jesus found in Luke 10:7.

The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce

A collection of Pauline letters is implied in this verse. It can be interpreted in two ways: these were an appendix to the OT writings, or as “the emergence of a new and distinct collection of 'scriptures'.” By about A.D. 96, Clement of Rome in a letter to the Corinthian congregation places a quote from the Sermon on the Mount on a par with quotes from I Samuel and Jeremiah as being authoritative.

Tyndale Commentary on II Peter

James 4:5 uses “scripture” to refer to hallowed teachings not in the OT. Calling Paul's writings “scripture” at least means they were well on the way to being considered canonical. The superiority of apostles and evangelists to the OT prophets is implied in Ephesians 4:11 and I Peter 1:12.

Expositor's Bible Commentary

The most normal meaning of the Greek in II Peter 3:16 is that Paul's letters are considered to be fully Scripture. Contrary interpretations do not stand up.

Anchor Bible Commentary

“It is significant that Paul's epistles are treated as part of the normative literature.”