The 1 Day and the 1000 Years

[John of Japan]

They are real here and time is in use here but not with God, In Heaven, time is not a reference

so you answer your question, in Peters letter they are literal but not in Heaven where the verse uses as a setting

it is like yen vs the dollar but no exchanged rate

Okay, just to be sure, in your view human time is literal and God was referring to a literal day and a literal 1000 years in 2 Peter, correct?

 

[John of Japan]

Its a number.

Okay, both passages are referring to numbers of one kind or another. But the exegesis of the two passages would be completely different, right?

Are you making the point that 666 is symbolic, so the day and 1000 years in 2 Peter are symbolic? However, in Rev. the meaning of the metaphor is clearly given ("the number of a man") but there is no such explanation in 2 Peter.

 

[Lodic]

Sorry, this is not making sense to me. How in the world is "unspecified" not vague? If you say, "How much is that chocolate bar?" and I say, "The price is unspecified," aren't I being vague?

And you say "We know how much time." So, how much is it?

Why do you keep referring to the 1000 years but ignoring the day? And you cannot be convincing until you tell what figure of speech the 1000 years is (if it is not literal).

You see, it is much easier to say the day and years are literal. You've been dancing around the whole "figure of speech" idea, because if you say it is literal in Peter you have to say it is literal in Rev. 20. You're stuck in a conundrum, my friend.

To quote the famous line from "Cool Hand Luke", "what we have here is a failure to communicate". Our chocolate bar is a definite known quantity. I thought one of the main points of this OP is whether or know we can know the amount of time in question. I meant to say that we do not know how much time.

I didn't realize I was ignoring the day. After all, it takes days to make up years, and a literal 1,000 years is 365,000 days (give or take a few days for leap years). To use a different illustration, all the water in the Pacific Ocean is a drop in God's bucket. It's just a comparative illustration for perspective.

Why is it so important to identify what type of speech the "1,000" is? It's either literal or symbolic, right? Whether the 1,000 years is literal or symbolic makes no difference, since it's all in God's timetable.

 

[loDebar]

Okay, just to be sure, in your view human time is literal and God was referring to a literal day and a literal 1000 years in 2 Peter, correct?

Peter was referring to these literal periods to show time is no consequence to God keeping His promises

 

[John of Japan]

We need to consider the CONTEXT.

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’​

Peter was writing around AD 60, as the LAST DAYS of the Old Covenant were coming to an end. Jesus had said in his Olivet prophecy concerning the destruction -

30 ‘Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. .......34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
​

But now 30 years had passed & many of the Jewish leaders who had rejected Jesus had died & the next generation was in charge of Jerusalem. They were boasting that Jesus' prophecy of his coming for the destruction had not happened. They were saying that Jesus' prophecy is proved false. They were living proof of that.

Peter goes on to explain that the time lapse is because God is gracious -

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
​

Peter is saying that Jesus will come as he prophesied in the lifetime of THIS GENERATION. There is still time to repent, but soon the time for repentance will end. The heaven on earth which Jerusalem typified will be destroyed as prophesied, with all the elements of the Old Covenant. See e.g. Exo. 25:8, Psalm 84, Gal. 4:3,9

Peter continues by looking on to Jesus' final coming for resurrection & judgment & the NH&NE, with the same instruction Jesus gives at the end of his Olivet prophecy.

13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Mat. 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
36 ‘But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ...... 42 ‘Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: if the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
​

​

Sorry, none of this answers the OP. Are the day and the 1000 years in 2 Peter literal, or are they figures of speech? If they are figures of speech, what figure are they?

That gives the indefinite time - a day as 1,000 years. Our generation still has time for repentance, but the present "millennium" will end, with no further opportunity for repentance.

A "day" and "1000 years" are not indefinite. They are normally very literal. If I say, "I'll give you a day to pay that debt," am I being indefinite? No.

 

[John of Japan]

To quote the famous line from "Cool Hand Luke", "what we have here is a failure to communicate". Our chocolate bar is a definite known quantity. I thought one of the main points of this OP is whether or know we can know the amount of time in question. I meant to say that we do not know how much time.

But the word "indefinite" is used exactly the same in my chocolate illustration as you are using it in regards to the "1000 years," which you said was indefinite.

I didn't realize I was ignoring the day. After all, it takes days to make up years, and a literal 1,000 years is 365,000 days (give or take a few days for leap years). To use a different illustration, all the water in the Pacific Ocean is a drop in God's bucket. It's just a comparative illustration for perspective.

Well, yes, but how can you compare two things figuratively? You have made the 1000 years out to be figurative, "an indefinite period of time." So what is the "day"? Is it also indefinite? How so?

Why is it so important to identify what type of speech the "1,000" is? It's either literal or symbolic, right? Whether the 1,000 years is literal or symbolic makes no difference, since it's all in God's timetable.

Well of course it makes a difference! Whether something is literal or symbolic always makes a difference. If I point my finger at you and say, "Bang," it is symbolic, and you are still standing. However, if I point a loaded Glock 9mm pistol at your head, take the safety off, and pull the trigger, you are dead!!

I'd say that the difference there between symbolic and literal is absolutely huge. Yet will you tell me that the difference in literal and symbolic in God's holy and precious Bible is not important?

 

[John of Japan]

Peter was referring to these literal periods to show time is no consequence to God keeping His promises

Correct.

 

[asterisktom]

I said the open theism view regards God as a "risk taker." My point was that if you believe that God is bound by days and years, you are approaching open theism. However, if you do not believe that God is bound by time, then you must interpret the day and years of the Peter passage literally.

This is why it gets tiresome debating you, John. Do you see what you are doing here? You are offering only two doors: "My view" or open theism. As if the topic you brought does not admit of other possibilities.

Aside from being simplistic your last sentence is preemptively demeaning to any ad all opposition. Does not make for good cordial discussion.

 

[John of Japan]

This is why it gets tiresome debating you, John. Do you see what you are doing here? You are offering only two doors: "My view" or open theism. As if the topic you brought does not admit of other possibilities.

Yeah, and this is why it gets tiresome debating you. You consistently misrepresent me.

Aside from being simplistic your last sentence is preemptively demeaning to any ad all opposition. Does not make for good cordial discussion.

Feeling superior much? (I'm simplistic and demeaning? Really?)

 

[asterisktom]

Quite often, those who believe in spiritualising prophetic Scripture ...

... like Paul:

"Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants." Gal. 4:24

... like Jesus:

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Luke 12:1

 

[asterisktom]

Yeah, and this is why it gets tiresome debating you. You consistently misrepresent me.

Feeling superior much? (I'm simplistic and demeaning? Really?)

No, I am not at all feeling superior. In this hotel room I have a mirror. And a wife. And you have the nerve to talk bout misrepresenting? Implying that those who have my view have a foot or two in open theism.

You are posting in a discussion forum, but you are acting like you are lecturing underlings in your class.

 

[John of Japan]

... like Paul:

"Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants." Gal. 4:24

... like Jesus:

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Luke 12:1

You totally miss the point of the OP. In both of these illustrations you give, the metaphor is explained right in the text. However, in 2 Peter 3:8, no such meaning is given. If you say that the day and the 1000 years are metaphors, what is the metaphor pointing to?

 

[HankD]

Okay, both passages are referring to numbers of one kind or another. But the exegesis of the two passages would be completely different, right?

Yes unless one does violence to the scripture.

Are you making the point that 666 is symbolic, so the day and 1000 years in 2 Peter are symbolic? However, in Rev. the meaning of the metaphor is clearly given ("the number of a man") but there is no such explanation in 2 Peter.

The 2 Peter passage is self explanatory.

The point of the 2 Peter passage is that the length of time of the delay (slack-braduno) of His return loses importance because
8 ,,, one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So Instead of Einsteinian Relativity we have Godly relativity of which "some men" see His "slackness" as an unacceptable delay.

But on the contrary as well as being relative the delay has the following reason:

9 ... is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[John of Japan]

No, I am not at all feeling superior.

"Simplistic" and "demeaning" certainly sound like you feel yourself to be superior.

In this hotel room I have a mirror. And a wife.

Irrelevant. I have a mirror and a wife, too. So?

And you have the nerve to talk bout misrepresenting? Implying that those who have my view have a foot or two in open theism.

That is not what I did and not what I meant. Stop misrepresenting me.

You are posting in a discussion forum, but you are acting like you are lecturing underlings in your class.

You, too, are posting in an open forum, and appear to want to attack me personally rather than answering the OP.

So, if you actually are here to answer the OP, are "a day" and "a thousand years" literal in meaning or not?

 

[John of Japan]

Yes unless one does violence to the scripture.

The 2 Peter passage is self explanatory.

The point of the 2 Peter passage is that the length of time of the delay (slack-braduno) of His return loses importance because
8 ,,, one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So Instead of Einsteinian Relativity we have Godly relativity of which "some men" see His "slackness" as an unacceptable delay.

But on the contrary as well as being relative the delay has the following reason:

9 ... is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So are the day and the 1000 years literal in meaning or are they figures of speech? I can't tell from this post.

If they are not literal in meaning, I fail to see how your point about the thrust of the passage (which is correct) can be made.

 

[John of Japan]

Wow, this is great. Not a single one of my opponents on this thread has answered the OP. None of them have been able to tell if the day and the 1000 years are figurative what they are referring to. In particular, the one day remains without an explanation. If the 1000 years is a figure of speech, not a literal 1000 years, then what in the world is the day?

Now here is why asterisktom has attacked me personally in such a nasty way. If he (or any other full preterist, or any amil or postmil dudes) admits that the 1000 years in Peter is literal, then they immediately have a problem with saying that the 1000 years in Rev. 20 is not literal.

 

[Covenanter]

Sorry, none of this answers the OP. Are the day and the 1000 years in 2 Peter literal, or are they figures of speech? If they are figures of speech, what figure are they?

A "day" and "1000 years" are not indefinite. They are normally very literal. If I say, "I'll give you a day to pay that debt," am I being indefinite? No.

I'll repost my answer as a quote - it is not possible, nor useful, to answer those questions without considering the CONTEXT. Peter is dealing with the real situation that existed before the destruction. Paul dealt with a related situation in 1 Thes. 4 concerning believers who had died.

Peter is NOT using figures of speech regarding time; he is emphasising both God's gracious patience & the certainty of Christ's coming in judgment, both for the destruction & for final resurrection & judgment & to establish the NH&NE.

We need to consider the CONTEXT.

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’​

Peter was writing around AD 60, as the LAST DAYS of the Old Covenant were coming to an end. Jesus had said in his Olivet prophecy concerning the destruction -

30 ‘Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. .......34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
​

But now 30 years had passed & many of the Jewish leaders who had rejected Jesus had died & the next generation was in charge of Jerusalem. They were boasting that Jesus' prophecy of his coming for the destruction had not happened. They were saying that Jesus' prophecy is proved false. They were living proof of that.

Peter goes on to explain that the time lapse is because God is gracious -

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
​

Peter is saying that Jesus will come as he prophesied in the lifetime of THIS GENERATION. There is still time to repent, but soon the time for repentance will end. The heaven on earth which Jerusalem typified will be destroyed as prophesied, with all the elements of the Old Covenant. See e.g. Exo. 25:8, Psalm 84, Gal. 4:3,9

Peter continues by looking on to Jesus' final coming for resurrection & judgment & the NH&NE, with the same instruction Jesus gives at the end of his Olivet prophecy.

13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Mat. 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
36 ‘But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ...... 42 ‘Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: if the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
​

That gives the indefinite time - a day as 1,000 years. Our generation still has time for repentance, but the present "millennium" will end, with no further opportunity for repentance.

 

[asterisktom]

You totally miss the point of the OP. In both of these illustrations you give, the metaphor is explained right in the text. However, in 2 Peter 3:8, no such meaning is given. If you say that the day and the 1000 years are metaphors, what is the metaphor pointing to?

This is an artificial man-made rule of convenience for literalists to say that metaphors have to be explained or otherwise they must be literally understood. Some are explained and some aren't. Shall we discuss some metaphors, especially in the OT, that are not "explained right in the text"?

Your passage says nothing about God being outside of time. Whither He is or isn't is not the issue. The idea is that God is faithful in whatever He promises or threatens - whether the the thing promised happens in a day or a thousand years. That is, after all, what the naysayers were basically saying, "Look. All these years and nothing has happened that was prophesied." But Peter in effect tells them that time is not at all a factor in His fulfilling His promises. It will happen in His good time.

And, John, if you sincerely want discussion don't start with being demeaning to your opposition.

 

[Lodic]

But the word "indefinite" is used exactly the same in my chocolate illustration as you are using it in regards to the "1000 years," which you said was indefinite.


Well, yes, but how can you compare two things figuratively? You have made the 1000 years out to be figurative, "an indefinite period of time." So what is the "day"? Is it also indefinite? How so?



Well of course it makes a difference! Whether something is literal or symbolic always makes a difference. If I point my finger at you and say, "Bang," it is symbolic, and you are still standing. However, if I point a loaded Glock 9mm pistol at your head, take the safety off, and pull the trigger, you are dead!!

I'd say that the difference there between symbolic and literal is absolutely huge. Yet will you tell me that the difference in literal and symbolic in God's holy and precious Bible is not important?

Before I forget, I think "1,000 is a simile. There was a party scene in "A Christmas Carol" where everyone was playing a game called "Similies". In the game, they would compare things - e.g. "as tall as...", and the answer would be "a mountain". Since we have the phrase "a day is like", and a day is different from a century or a millennium, this makes sense to me.

I am not saying that it's not important to know the difference between literal vs symbolic passages in Scripture. At the Last Supper, Jesus said the bread and the wine were His body and blood. Catholics take that literally, where most Protestants take it symbolically. What I am saying is that it doesn't make any real difference whether we understand the millennium to be literal or figurative. Either way, it's a very long time. If you point your finger at me and say "bang", I laugh; but I'll take a different action if you point that Glock at me. However, there is nothing I do differently whether the millennium is literal or symbolic. For that matter, there is nothing I do differently now as a Preterist vs when I held to a Futurist view.

 

[John of Japan]

I'll repost my answer as a quote - it is not possible, nor useful, to answer those questions without considering the CONTEXT. Peter is dealing with the real situation that existed before the destruction. Paul dealt with a related situation in 1 Thes. 4 concerning believers who had died.

Peter is NOT using figures of speech regarding time; he is emphasising both God's gracious patience & the certainty of Christ's coming in judgment, both for the destruction & for final resurrection & judgment & to establish the NH&NE.

Okay. But you still have not answered the OP.