But, why do you think that? What do you think was the point of what Peter said in
2 Peter 3:8-9 other than showing people that even if they thought He was taking a long time to come back, it wasn't a long time from God's perspective. So, even though it has been almost 2000 years now and He hasn't yet come back, that doesn't matter from His perspective since time doesn't affect Him.
God can tell us when things are going to happen literally soon or not literally soon.
Daniel 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true,
but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”
Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book,
for the time is near.
Matthew 4:33 So also,
when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
So I don't interpret Peter is saying it could be 1,000 years until the coming of Christ. I believe Peter is simply stating God is outside of time.
Considering the vineyard owner did return to destroy the wicked tenants in 67-70ad, I believe Christ's coming in judgment over Jerusalem did occur in the 1st century.
While I believe a future coming of Christ, I believe the scriptures were pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem.
You're just not understanding that "at hand" does not have to mean literally soon but rather can mean that it is certain to happen at some point. Christ's second coming has been "at hand" for a long time now. The scoffers Peter mentioned in
2 Peter 3:3-4 conclude that He will never come again since it's been so long, but it hasn't been long from God's perspective, which is what Peter pointed out in
2 Peter 3:8-9.
I can't seem to find where the definition of eggizo (at hand) can mean "certain to happen at some point" without expressing something as literally near.
Strong's #1448: eggizo (pronounced eng-id'-zo)
from 1451; to make near, i.e. (reflexively) approach:--approach, be at hand, come (draw) near, be (come, draw) nigh.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon: eggizō
1) to bring near, to join one thing to another
2) to draw or come near to, to approach
You keep saying I'm not understanding. Then please help me understand. What evidence do you have to support your position? If you can, avoid eschatological bias, and just provide evidence on the word itself.
. My understanding of the word from what I've seen indicates that it can mean something is approaching with certainty without giving an indication of the timing. Though it usually is used to refer to something that will happen soon, it does not have to mean that.
The perfect tense is absolutely related to time. It indicates a completed action. where are you getting your information from?
"If the aspect of a verb is COMPLETED (often with a sense of just now completed), then in Greek it is expressed by a verb of the PERFECT SYSTEM. To review, ASPECT is a grammatical term that expresses the relationship between the ACTION of a verb and the PASSAGE OF TIME." (
The Perfect System: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone.)
Simply based on the perfect tense of "at hand" in 1 Peter 4:7 we easily see that the end of all things "had drawn near". The tense doesn't indicate it was "drawing near" nor "will be drawing near". What evidence you provide to show that the perfect tense doesn't mean what it means?
I disagree. If I was convinced that you are a Greek expert, I might be influenced by what you're saying, but I don't believe that you are.
I'm not a greek expert, so I rely on experts for understanding. My understanding is based on the following, and not my own personal opinion:
1.) eggizo in 1 peter chapter 4 verse 7 is in the perfect indicative (1 Peter 4:7 Greek Text Analysis)
2.) Helps Word Studies states that the perfect tense in the indicative mood expresses extreme literal closeness.
1448 eggízō (from
1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly,
has drawn close (
come near).
1448 (
eggízō) occurs 14 times
in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme
closeness, immediate imminence – even a
presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).
3.) The perfect tense describes a completed action in the present. The perfect tense is absolutely related to the passage of time.
"If the aspect of a verb is COMPLETED (often with a sense of just now completed), then in Greek it is expressed by a verb of the PERFECT SYSTEM. To review, ASPECT is a grammatical term that expresses the relationship between the ACTION of a verb and the PASSAGE OF TIME." (
The Perfect System: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone.)
"The perfect tense is used to describe completed action in the present time (i.e. I have studied Greek). The pluperfect tense is used to describe completed action in the past time (i.e. I had studied Greek)." (
LESSON XII: Perfect and Pluperfect Indicative Active)
"COMPLETED. This is a completed action that has lasting results. This aspect often reflects a state resulting from past action. For example, if someone has
just died, then he
is dead. In fact, it is the resulting state that is often the emphasis of this aspect, not the action of the verb itself.
I have made you a drink, i.e.,
your drink is ready." (
The Perfect System: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone)
We couldn't be further apart in our understanding of that then. I'm not going to take a lot of time here to discuss it with you, though. It would be better to discuss it in a different thread. And it might have to be discussed in a different forum related to controversial topics, but I'm not sure on that
Absolutely agree this would require another thread. But understand, that this will shape our perception of passages like 2 Peter 3.