2 Pet 3's cynics are in his generation

[Interplanner]

Those who mock that the return never happened are in the apostle's generation. They are harrassing the apostles because the original expectation of Mt 24 was that the final global day of judgement would happen right after the DofJ, and did not. They refuse to allow for a delay. So Peter answers that the answer is the delay, which is for redemptive purposes.

We need to allow for what Mt 24B allowed for; otherwise we have a false, and divisive, situation, arguing over Mt 24 is all or nothing fulfilled.

 

[Friar Tuck]

Those who mock that the return never happened are in the apostle's generation. They are harrassing the apostles because the original expectation of Mt 24 was that the final global day of judgement would happen right after the DofJ, and did not. They refuse to allow for a delay. So Peter answers that the answer is the delay, which is for redemptive purposes.

2 peter 3 - knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.


They were scoffing because "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation", which were not the sort of conditions that they were expecting. They knew the OT and the things that Jesus had said like the earth reeling to and fro and men's hearts failing them from the fear of what is coming upon the earth, and that just wasn't happening so they scoffed at Peter who was teaching that his generation was living in the last days.

Many futurists use 2 Peter 3 for today when they shouldn't , it can only apply to peters generation.

 

[Interplanner]

right, but how do we help them see that?

 

[Friar Tuck]

right, but how do we help them see that?

Well there's not many people living today who would say, "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation". Al Gore would certainly disagree with this , myself and many others. So how a futurist thinks he can get away with that is beyond me.

But more to the point , how do we convince a preterist that the scoffers were correct and that Peter was wrong and that the last days are still in font of us.

 

[Notrash]

right, but how do we help them see that?

I
Find out Peters source of authority for the statement. Is 19-29 is rich in prophecies pertaining to thus period. Paul quotes from Is 25 in 1Cor 14 for example and thus the resurrection from spiritual impotence with relation and access to life of he father (of 1 cor 15) is also sourced from Is 26.

About scoffers and the judgement on the land (earth) see chapter 24 and Is 28:22. Lots of stuff in here (and much of Isaiah) pertaining to the intercovanental period of 27-67 AD and especually the latter parts.

Another thing is to connect Deut 32:22 with 2 Pet 3:10,12. And then from 2Pet 2 it lalks of the apostacy of Balak and the cananites just before crossing Jordan. Thus coorelates to the test of apostacy to Rome or back to the sacrifice of Judaism (Heb 10) just before the release from the oppression of the law (Is 59) during the latter parts of the 40 yr gestation of the nation of the kingdom of Jesus/Creator from 27-67 AD. (The "man-child" and nation of Is 66:7,8 ). See Hosea 2 where it says that the shame of Balak would not be remembered at this time. Hosea 1:10,11 is the calling together under one head outside of the kand at this time.

 

[Notrash]

Edit; That's Is 28:11,12 quoted in I cor 14.

 

[Notrash]

Edit: Thats Is 28:11,12 which Paul refers to in 1Cor 14.

 

[Interplanner]

What is the "unter.." period?

 

[Notrash]

Phone has too small a keyboard or fingers are too big. Sorry for the typo's.

Intercovanental periiod of @ 27-67 or 30-70 AD. "This age" as mentioned by Jesus I believe and/or Paul. I believe the N.C. (contrast with the mosauc covt) began with Jesus's teachings of authority (and faith in HIM). But the national covt of the book of Deut had not experienced its latter end judgement yet (deut 32 and deut 18; acts 3:22-24) thereby openly revealing God and Christ as the authoritative way of blessings in life. (not the mosaic covt or its principles)

P.S. I don't have all my thoughts worked out on Baalam and Balak yet , but I believe the idolatry, sacrifice and apostacy of the Israelites through the lure of Cananite women at the end if the 40 yr formation of the Israelite mosaic covt nation foretyped the last days apostacy and test to apostacy to Rome or back to the sacrifice (heb 10) at the end of yhe 40 yr gestation of the new covt nation

 

[Biblewriter]

Those who mock that the return never happened are in the apostle's generation.

Many futurists use 2 Peter 3 for today when they shouldn't , it can only apply to peters generation.

Both of you simply blew by the very words you were quoting or referring to:

2 peter 3 - knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.

This scripture does not make a reference to any who were speaking in the Apostle's days. It very explicitly says that will come, not have come. And it very explicitly says they will come "in the last days."

Now you claim that "the last days" mean the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. But then you claim that this refers to after that time. So the time you claim it refers to is after "the last days," not in them.

 

[ebedmelech]

Both of you simply blew by the very words you were quoting or referring to:

2 peter 3 - knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.

This scripture does not make a reference to any who were speaking in the Apostle's days. It very explicitly says that will come, not have come. And it very explicitly says they will come "in the last days."

Now you claim that "the last days" mean the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. But then you claim that this refers to after that time. So the time you claim it refers to is after "the last days," not in them.

I have to agree with Biblewriter here. This cannot refer to Jerusalem this is certainly about the last days.

The point Peter is making is we should be steadfast because we don't know God's timing, which is confirmed in the fact that with the Lord a 1000 year is LIKE a day and a day LIKE a 1000 years. Many want to take off saying a 1000 years IS a day...which leads to a wrong view.

Peter the goes on to speak of a new heaven and a new earth...so contextually this is about the end. The thing that has to be understood is just as we have seen many saying when "the end" will be today...so it was in this time...which is why Peter is making mention to the church to remain steadfast in the Lord.

 

[Notrash]

I have to agree with Biblewriter here. This cannot refer to Jerusalem this is certainly about the last days.

The point Peter is making is we should be steadfast because we don't know God's timing, which is confirmed in the fact that with the Lord a 1000 year is LIKE a day and a day LIKE a 1000 years. Many want to take off saying a 1000 years IS a day...which leads to a wrong view.

Peter the goes on to speak of a new heaven and a new earth...so contextually this is about the end. The thing that has to be understood is just as we have seen many saying when "the end" will be today...so it was in this time...which is why Peter is making mention to the church to remain steadfast in the Lord.

Perhaps there are also things which you still presume and things which you don't comprehend yet.

For example bible writer pre-sumes that the last ir latter days refers to the last days of the earth or the church age or something simikar. But in Deut 4:24,25; 31:29; 32:20 29; Gen 49:1,10 and thus he other latter days prophecies refer to the latter and last days of the temporary national covt ss spoken through Moses.

This would be consistent with the intent of Peters statements about new heavens and new earth being references to the new ordinances and new domain of the kingdom of Christ which are CONTRAST AGAINST the Mosaic covt ordinances (heavens) and domain. (earth)

The 1000 yrs quote is taken from Ps 90 which is a reference to the passing of the mosaic covt.

 

[ebedmelech]

Perhaps there are also things which you still presume and things which you don't comprehend yet.

I don't doubt that...but not in reference to 2 Peter 3.

For example bible writer pre-sumes that the last ir latter days refers to the last days of the earth or the church age or something simikar. But in Deut 4:24,25; 31:29; 32:20 29; Gen 49:1,10 and thus he other latter days prophecies refer to the latter and last days of the temporary national covt ss spoken through Moses.

This is improper correlation of the scriptures. Nothing is presumed by BW. He simply makes the point that Peter isn't speaking of AD 70...and he isn't.

This would be consistent with the intent of Peters statements about new heavens and new earth being references to the new ordinances and new domain of the kingdom of Christ which are CONTRAST AGAINST the Mosaic covt ordinances (heavens) and domain. (earth)

No sir...the Mosaic covenant isn't even in view in this passage.

The 1000 yrs quote is taken from Ps 90 which is a reference to the passing of the mosaic covt.

No. This has NOTHING to do with the Mosaic Covenant...nothing.

 

[Anto9us]

2Pe 3:2
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pe 3:3
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Notice that Peter first mentions "words which were spoken by the holy prophets (i.e - OT prophets) as well as apostles -- so it is indicated that these "words that were spoken before" may be the source of the "there shall come..." idea.

This DOES NOT blow the idea of the OP - that scoffers/cynics were ALREADY PRESENT when Peter wrote -- in fact the preponderance of statements in this chapter and other NT writings does indicate that the cynics were already there -- and it is said of them "they ARE willingly ignorant..." (of biblical creation, etc) - PRESENT TENSE

ARE willingly ignorant - means they ARE THEN in Peter's time - doesnt say "there WILL ARISE scoffers who WILL BE willingly ignorant 2000 years from now..." etc -

it speaks of the cynics' EXISTENCE and IGNORANCE as a PRESENT REALITY

Earlier in ch 2, we see exactly the SAME PATTERN of "future tense about wrong ideas that will come, more info on it which indicates present tense existence already of the things that WILL COME" -

I cannot agree with BW that one or a few future tense refernces IN THE MIDST OF other present tense references that the false teacher and the scoffers ARE ALREADY HERE should blow the idea of the OP

in ch 2, a first reference to the false prophets/teachers in the future tense, but further information that shows that these false prophets/teachers ARE - they SPEAK (presenty tense) - they exist already as Peter writes --
2Pe 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:12
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, SPEAK (present tense) evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
2Pe 2:13
And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they FEAST (present tense) with you;

See? Do you get it? They are FEASTING with the real brethren PRESENTLY - "they - the false prophets/teachers" who were the "shall be" spoken of first, are spoken of later as ALREADY PRESENT -

"spots" on the Agape feasts that were going on already.

Back to ch 3 and the scoffers/cynics idea - and the theme of the already-present PAROUSIA DELAY that Peter speaks of -
2Pe 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.

Here Peter is addressing comforting words to "the good guys" in the crowd, offering comforting words that the PAROUSIA DELAY which is a reality

(or rather it was then in early 60's AD) is not to be considered slackness but a blessing; and as we now can see, within a decade the longed-for, long-overdue PAROUSIA did indeed come.

PAROUSIA DELAY was a definite "sticky wicket" in Peter's time; its even stickier if it continued 2000 years - but it's not a sticky wicket if the PAROUSIA actually occurred a few years after Peter's death

The PAROUSIA as a "coming in judgement" still within the "generation that will not pass away" - wherein some things were fulfilled LITERALLY (like the stones not being left one on another) and some things FIGURATIVELY (like stars falling from heaven as a metaphor, like the "elements" of the Mosaic era passing way, etc.

I see no reason to dismiss the OP and the position that the scoffers/cynics already were there when Peter wrote.

I would not be too hasty to dismiss that Peter was talking about present realities to him; I also would not dismiss the Mosaic covenant idea mentioned also.

I have pointed out that this pattern of referring to something that was predicted as "WILL OCCUR" is in fuller light shown to already be there when the writer wrote -- the false prophets/teachers in ch 2 and the scoffers/cynics in ch 3

Hope you can see this

 

[ebedmelech]

Anto9us, I don't think your exegesis is proper here. 2 Peter 2 is dealing with false prophets in the church and their motivation. Peter concludes that with the last verse...2 Peter 2:22:
22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

Peter is done here...so why do you carry that into something totally different Peter is addressing? 2 Peter 3:1 tell you he's changing the point:
This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,

Peter is addressing something different now...and it's not false prophets, as he addressed in chapter 2. He will now be addressing the last days as 2 Peter 3:3, 4
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?

So...Peter is no longer dealing with "false prophets" of chapter 2! He's now dealing with those who mock the return of Jesus...and I think you're mixing to different points by Peter.

 

[Anto9us]

I disagree with you Ebed

The two chapters use the SAME PATTERN OF LANGUAGE

even though they address two different "bad guys"

ch 2 false prophets/teachers

ch 3 scoffers/cynics

the main objection to this OP was the harping on the use of the FUTURE TENSE to poo-poo the idea that the cynics were existing in Peter's generation

I have not done anything exegetically improper - quite the opposite - I have shown how the TENSE USAGE in BOTH the chapter in question as well as the previous chapter do indeed show when you look at the chapters as wholes that what was first spoken of as "will come" is expounded on quite clearly to be "already here"

I am NOT mixing two different points of Peter - my posts make it quite clear the different two subjects of the two chapters

what is BLOWING RIGHT BY PEOPLE

is HOW TENSES ARE HANDLED in both chapters - how LANGUAGE is USED

I know good and well the SUBJECT MATTER of the two chapters is different - that is not the point

MY POINT is made EVEN MORE VALID that the

SAME PATTERN of "will come" morphs into "are here already"

in 2 back-to-back chapters that deal with different "bad guys"

 

[ebedmelech]

I disagree with you Ebed

The two chapters use the SAME PATTERN OF LANGUAGE

even though they address two different "bad guys"

ch 2 false prophets/teachers

ch 3 scoffers/cynics

the main objection to this OP was the harping on the use of the FUTURE TENSE to poo-poo the idea that the cynics were existing in Peter's generation

I have not done anything exegetically improper - quite the opposite - I have shown how the TENSE USAGE in BOTH the chapter in question as well as the previous chapter do indeed show when you look at the chapters as wholes that what was first spoken of as "will come" is expounded on quite clearly to be "already here"

I am NOT mixing two different points of Peter - my posts make it quite clear the different two subjects of the two chapters

what is BLOWING RIGHT BY PEOPLE

is HOW TENSES ARE HANDLED in both chapters - how LANGUAGE is USED

I know good and well the SUBJECT MATTER of the two chapters is different - that is not the point

MY POINT is made EVEN MORE VALID that the

SAME PATTERN of "will come" morphs into "are here already"

in 2 back-to-back chapters that deal with different "bad guys"

Ok. I think Peter completes one thought and moves to another.

 

[Anto9us]

There were all sorts of "bad guys with wrong doctrines" in existence already in between Christ's resurection and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And yes, we can look at phrases like "upon whom the end of the age has come" and the I John reference to "even now are there many antichrists, by which we know it is the last time" to see that disciples DID think they were in or just on the edge of "the last days".

but anyway, different "bad guys" --

scoffers/cynics - saying no Parousia was EVER going to come - they ARE in Peter's time, and they ARE willingly ignorant of things

they are NOT to be confused with Hymenaeus and his buddy that Paul writes about - who taught JUST THE OPPOSITE - that the day of Christ had already come when it hadnt - Paul writing as early as the 50's about THAT "wrong idea"

Incidentally, I used to erroneously belive the "Hymenaean heresy" was preterism - til I learned more about preterism and realized

YOU CANNOT HAVE PRETERISM PRIOR TO 70 a.d.

becuase the events of 70 AD are woven into preterism

Hymenaeus was saying Christ had "already come" even BEFORE 70 AD - the EXACT OPPOSITE of the SCOFFERS of 2 Peter 3 who said Christ would NOT come in a parousia

OK _ also FALSE MESSIAHS _ FALSE CHRISTS false prophets false teachers

"those coming saying 'I am He' or claiming messiahood"

this type of bad guy - this type of wrong idea was obviously present between cross and 70 AD - in fact - that was the very FIRST thing warned against by Christ Himself

"many will come" (being spoken in 33 AD, and history shows there were indeed false messiah type figures between then and 70 AD - I havent studied too much about historical "false leaders" that Jesus warned NOT TO FOLLOW AFTER but there were some Jewish zealots like Menachem that could be seen in that class

"doctrine of Balaam and Nicolatians" were already in place - book of Revelation speaks of them

There were also in existence the Judaizers and their exact opposites - the "boasters against the natural branches" - if they didnt exist why did Paul warn not to be like them? Why warn not to boast against the natural branches if it was not a viable reality that Gentiles might not turn and do that right now?

so WHO IS IT that is one of these "bad doctrine/bad guys" that did NOT already exist in Jesus' and the apostles' generation?

antichrist - John says many already in existence, so - NOPE we dont hafta wait 2000 years for antichrist

scoffers/cynics and their opposites who said day of Christ had already come - already both sides of that coin in existence

false messiahs like ones Jesus warned NOT to go after

Nicolaitians and Jezebels and Balaam-way-go-ers

not a single "bad doctrine" did anyone have to WAIT 2000 years to see

ALL OF IT

already going on IN THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES!

but I can see what is going to go on with this thread -- like other ones it will be tossed over into the Leper Colony of UT

because if you are going to have a realistic discussion/debate about 2 Peter 3 you by nature are going to get into a view of new heavens and new earth and elements melting with fervent heat and that it is indeed a passing of the Mosaic covenant and here we go again --

THE FULL PRET CARD will be played because a discussion of 2 Peter 3 is going to bring up stuff that will get into these ideas

and trying to assert that the SCOFFERS are YET FUTURE -- in order to dispute that idea -- you cant tie one hand behind the back of the preterist

so c'mon, MODS, ya may as well move this thread now

to where it can be honestly discussed without fearing of speaking something UNLAWFUL TO BE UTTERED

in GT/End Times

 

[Interplanner]

What do you mean by a "passing of the Mosaic covenant"? Passed in a legislature?

 

[Anto9us]

lol

no.

passed = past

passed outta sight

passed away

"he doeth away with the first to establish the second"

"and is nigh passing away" both those clips said when Hebrews was written

past in time

kaput!

over with

defunct

fulfilled

ENDED

kaput - kapeesh?