What do Preterists believe about 2 Peter 3

I agree with your assessment here completely....only, I don't think that Peter's epistles were Jew-centered, but rather general in scope. Nice assessment though :thumbs:

 

Just in case you missed it:

 

Then perhaps you can explain this verse:

13 But based on His promise, we wait for the new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness will dwell.*

If Is. 65 & 66 are not the basis for the New H&E, then where is the promise Peter is referring to found?

 

I suppose I could be called a partial preterist in that I believe the destruction of jerusalem and the temple in 70AD was the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Jesus Christ recorded in Matthew 24. That being said I believe there will be a visible return of Jesus Christ on the last day, a general resurrection and judgment, and the creation of a new heavens and new earth or the redemption, recreation, of the existing heavens and earth. I reject futurism as it is currently conceived by dispensational doctrine.

 

:thumbs::applause::thumbs: That is where i am now...still looking at it:thumbs:

 

how can there be but ONE general resurrection at end times, as the Bible states that JUST the saints arise up at His second coming? As that event would seem to indicate that the prophesies should be pointing towards future dating, not fulfilled AD 70!

 

The promise Peter refers to is of a New H&E:

13 But based on His promise, we wait for the new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness will dwell.

So I ask again, if Peter is not using Isaiah as his reference of a New H&E what is he using?

 

Peter's drawing upon the Isaiah passage was one of the strong evidences that made me really rethink this whole business about the New Heavens and New Earth being still future. I would say now that we are currently living in this New Heavens and New Earth.

 

What do you have on the consumation of the Kingdom?
rev21
1cor 15

Where and how do you view this?

How does hebrews 2:8 figure in to your view of it?

 

Amen to that!

Agreed, completely. The new heavens and the new earth are the new covenant--Christianity.

Also, when Revelation speaks of a new Jerusalem it is simply another reference to the New Heaven and New Earth or Christianity. This is what the bible has been building towards for the first 65 books and it didn't change without warning or signaling a change in the last book it simply saved its most glorified and apocalyptic language to describe the goal it had been building towards all along.

Revelation language is very similar to 2 Peter 3 language as if the same author or groups of authors regardless of whose name is on it were very much on the same page in their apocalyptic descriptions.

 

How does the literalist explain this seeming discrepancy?:

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

....ye also were made dead to the law........we have been discharged from the law..... Ro 7:4,6

....the old covenant......is done away..... 2 Cor 3:14

....having abolished ......the law of commandments contained in ordinances....... Eph 2:15

 

Yes, exactly.

I would add that the Old heaven and Earth have passed away - per your first verse - or else we are still under the old Law. Because the exact time of the Law's passing away is also the exact time of the passing away of heaven and Earth.

That is when the old Heaven and Earth was replaced by the new Heavens and Earth. A universal change in divine governance wrought by the work of Christ, brought into place at the Parousia.

 

Well, there was a 'removing', but there was also a 'remaining'. The Mosaic covenant was 'added', and then it was taken away. But there were things that remained unchanged, that had always been, and still are. God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. The Spirit has always blown where He wills, God has never been a respecter of persons, and in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, has been acceptable to him. I believe there's actually nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old:

In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old.......Heb 13:13

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail. Heb 1

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not when they refused him that warned them on earth, much more shall not we escape who turn away from him that warneth from heaven:
26 whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven.
27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12

These 'new' things of the New Covenant are 'new' only because they were mysteries that had not hitherto before been revealed. The 'new' is actually not 'new', it is revealed mystery.

 

Pastor and theological writer Peter J. Leithart has written a short (111 pages) non-technical commentary on the New Testament Epistle of 2nd Peter.

He shows with deft ease and logic how the book of 2nd Peter requires a 1st century fulfillment of its subject matter. One way he does this is by comparing and contrasting 2nd Peter with 1st Peter, and showing how 1st Peter requires a 1st century fulfillment.
Therefore, if 1st and 2nd Peter are from the same author, written to the same people, then 2nd Peter ought to be understood to be contextually continuing many of the same themes.

IOW, if commentators argue that 1st Peter is written for the immediate benefit of the first century Church, but 2nd Peter was written not as immediately relevant to the first century Church, then they would be contextually separated from one another. The 2nd having little to do with the 1st.

Thus, Leithart provides a great service by culling the better relevant commentaries and noting where they recognize much of the contextual continuity. He then notes where those commentaries demur from the continuity, and make parts of 2nd Peter "futuristic".

He then shows how that futuristic discontinuity is disruptive to the first century consciousness of the 1st Peter narrative, and a preteristic understanding of 2nd Peter makes 2nd Peter more harmonious with 1st Peter.

This has tremendous implications for how chapter 3 of 2nd Peter (particularly, and especially) ought to be interpreted. Leithart's treatment of 2nd Peter brings the understanding more in line with a preteristic perspective on the New Testament generally.

<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1591280265/sr=1-22/qid=14443983522">The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter</a>

 

The First Century Christian was awaiting the Return of Christ.

That is yet future, and with an entire Book describing the events of His Return, as well as numerous prophecies in both Old and New Testament, it is impossible to embrace a Preterist view. It is probably the worst Eschatological position one can embrace.

One cannot claim a "spiritual return" of Christ as fulfilling the prophecies, and this...


John 14:15-18
King James Version (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


...was fulfilled at Pentecost, when men began to be eternally indwelt by God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:


John 14:22-23
King James Version (KJV)

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


So the one question I would pose to you, and anyone spiritualizing Prophecy, is...

...how do you explain Christ not returning?

That is a primary teaching of Christ, and it is not yet fulfilled.


God bless.

 

Interesting bit of trivia, the Bible never mentions Christ "returning".

 

Peter was the apostle to the____.

a. circumcision
b. uncircumcision.

 

That's not interesting at all, it's just error.

He returned to indwell men:


John 14:15-18
King James Version (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


John 14:22-23
King James Version (KJV)

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


And have to get going but will give one New Testament and One Old Testament reference to begin a discussion on this point:


Luke 17:30-37
King James Version (KJV)

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot's wife.

33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.


In view is the judgment on unbelievers taught in numerous passages. They are taken in judgment, and are put to death, hence the "eagles being gathered" to feast on their flesh. The ones "left" remain physically alive and enter into the Kingdom. You can read about the Supper of the Great God in Ezekiel 39 and Revelation 20. If you would like to see the consistency of Prophecy on this point let me know, there are numerous passages to consider.

For the Old Testament reference, consider:


Zechariah 14
King James Version (KJV)

14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.


His return to this mount is also prophesied by Angels here...


Acts 1:10-12
King James Version (KJV)

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.


And I am going to have to forego the urge to keep going, lol. Like I said, we will see the consistency of Prophecy throughout Scripture if we simply leave it intact. That is how Prophecy has always been fulfilled...literally. Why would we shift from this pattern to a spiritualization of Prophecy?

Hope you and everyone here has a blessed day in the Lord.


God bless.

 

If you are going to deny a futurist approach, could you just explain how Prophecy has been fulfilled yet Christ has not returned?


God bless.