" then shall the end come"

"what else happened in the 1st century that my preacher doesn't know about".

I'm not sure what your point is but I know the Lord has not come yet because of what has NOT happened...

2 Peter 3
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 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 the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
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.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Also notice verse 9, the delay has happened so that "all should come to repentance"

Romans 10
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

HankD

[ September 27, 2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Hope you don't mind, but I agree and disagree with you both.

HankD,

I agree, we are still awaiting Christ's final coming. But I don't think Peter's statement proves that. Yes, there was a delay. Peter was still awaiting the destruction of Jerusalem, and he uses the typical figurative language of the prophets to describe the cataclysmic change at that time, specifically note the meltdown of the "elements" (compare this word as it is used twice in Galatians 4)--which seems to point to the rudiments of the O.T. Law. Also note the Jewish context of the unbelieving scoffers in 2 Pet. 3:4, "since the fathers fell asleep" -- seemingly a reference to O.T. patriarchs, not a typical modern, gentile reply.


Grasshopper,

I agree with you 95% of the time, but I'm still a partial-preterist. Surely the "end" in view above is the end of the Jewish Old Covenant world. The scriptures you've cited make that clear. But I still believe the destruction of the Jewish world was a type of the greater destruction yet to come. The nation of Israel was a type from beginning to end--they got everything first (Rom. 2:9,10), but there's more to come.

In Christ,

Tim

 

I understand and respect your "figurative" view of the 2 Peter passage.

My "literal" view of this "end-time" conflagration comes out of the fact that Peter compares this conflagration with another global and literal incident which came upon "the earth".

and therefore he is looking for a "new" heaven and a "new" earth.

HankD

 

Yes and no.

The "world-cosmos" perished but the earth remained.

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The heavens and the earth "which are now" "reserved unto fire" seems to imply something more cataclysmic than the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Grasshopper, I am not against you, just a small disagreement.

For my own curiosity since you believe in "Christs final coming", why can not this passage apply to that "final coming" in your view?

BTW, this passage also causes some dispensationlists heartburn because it seems to negate the idea of an earthly millenium after Christs' return.

In fact I read one writer who thought that this passage should be applied to the end of the millenium.

HankD

[ September 27, 2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Oops and yes, thank you grasshopper for your explanation.

Tim, do you believe that Jesus Christ will return physically to the earth?

If so, does the 2 Peter passage offer any difficulties for your view?

Thanks.

HankD

 

I am a Partial Preterist at least, but I had to say something about this or it was going to kill me. Jesus also likened the coming of the Son of man to Lot leaving a city. So the literal view that you deduce from the flood simply does not hold much water.

"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all." -Luke 17:28, 29

 

I believe it holds lots of water...

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all."
-Luke 17:26,27.

 

HankD,

Yes, I do believe Christ is yet to return physically. But I believe most scriptural references to Christ's returning in judgment refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, including the Peter passage. That judgment was imminent, while the last judgment was not imminent when those scriptures were written. Thus words like "soon", "shortly", "this generation" can and should be taken literally as time indicators of that first judgment.

Tim