2 Peter 3...Elements or elements!

[_Jim from covina]

Hello All.......

a note on 2Pet 3:10: My ESV has it like this.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

Gives the verse a different dynamic, no??

Bye,

jim d

[Guest]

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements (stoicheia) will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things are being dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements (stoicheia) are being melted with fervent heat? (2 Pet. 3:10-12)

Guys I'm sorry I didn't see this before. I guess the argument is over. How could it be something that is still future to us if Peter said that the elements were being dissolved in his day.

Are being dissolved...Not will be.

Hebrews 8:13 " In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

I don't know how I didn't see that before. Amazing. Elements...Are being dissolved...Didn't see that one coming.

8) Mike

[Guest]

are the translators just incompetent, or what? how can "burnt up" also mean "exposed?" isnt there simply a correct translation of whatever greek word is used?

TK

[_Jim from covina]

TK......people operate from paradigms. I think this is the most likely cause of the choice made in particular interpretations.......We all view things from inside our paradigms, the question is...............is the paradigm correct?

If anything, this type of study and examination helps one to disregard their presuppositions as set in stone. Helps me, at least, to be fair to the scripture without coming to them with my own set ideas.

peace, jim

[Guest]

Just so you don't think I am trying to pull a fast one here is where you can find the parsing information. It shows that the verb in question is a present tense verb. Gotta love the greek. No guess work there.

Interestingly the translators of the Amplified Version of the Bible caught this.

1 Peter 3:11 Since all these things are thus in the process of being dissolved, what kind of person ought [each of] you to be [in the meanwhile] in consecrated and holy behavior and devout and godly qualities,

http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CE%BB ... ber=713252

Enjoy guys...8) Mike

[_Ely]

Guys I'm sorry I didn't see this before. I guess the argument is over. How could it be something that is still future to us if Peter said that the elements were being dissolved in his day.

Are being dissolved...Not will be.

Mike, I'm no Greek expert, but I know of a few people who are, thank God! The fact these present participles are translated in many versions in the future tense is not part of some sinister futurist plot to suppress preterist truth. Rather it's the sober judgment of scholars who are well-versed in Greek grammar.

In the passage you have raised, the verb translated as "will be dissolved" is a present participle. Over the past couple years, I've learned that the tense of Greek verbs does not necessarily tell us anything about the time of the action, the focus is firstly on the type of the action which. The fact that a verb is in the present tense doesn't necessarily indicate that the verb is taking place at the time of speaking/writing.

Let me give you an example of a present tense participle (highlighted in red) and lets see if the action had to have been taking pace at the time of speaking. It's something that Jesus said at His last Passover, the present participle is in red:

12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons.

Were the disciples at that precise moment being delivered up to the synagogues and prisons? No. So why did Jesus use a present participle here? Tim Warner explains: "The present participle points to the certainty of the fact, and not a current happening. The context of the discussion indicates it is future." (For Mr Warner's excellent discussion of how this issue sheds light on Hebrews 12:28 click on the link: http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/pret_pt05.html).

So, let's look at the context of the verse in 2 Peter 3 and see what information we can gain concerning the time of this dissolving/loosing. Note the future tense verbs (in green and underlined) and present participles (in red):

"10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt being with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be loosed. 11 Therefore, all these things being loosed, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be loosed, being on fire, and the elements melting being with fervent heat (present tense indicative)? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (present tense indicative). Be Steadfast 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless"

Notice:
- The plethora of future tense verbs indicating the future-ness of the described events.
- Peter tells the readers to be "looking for" and "hastening" the day of God, indicating that this day had not yet happened. If the day of God was alrady happening, why yet look forward to it? It's like syaing "We should be looking forward to the 21st Century." Nonsensical.
- Peter says that he is "looking forward to" New Heavens and a New Earth, which evidently was not yet in existence at that time. If righteousness was already dwelling in the New Heavens and New Earth, what's the point of looking forward to it?

Thus, the context makes plain that Peter was speaking about a future event. So why the present tenses? Well, Peter is not using the present tense concerning to describe the "loosing", "being with fervent heat" and "melting" in order to indicate that these things were already happening. Rather, he is indicating the certainty of these things (a valid usage of the present tense).

Personally, I would prefer it if translators would be as literal as possible in rendering Greek tenses and leave me to do the interpreting. But translators need to take into account readability as well as strict equivalence.

Ely

Here's some further reading on all this grammatical stuff:

Preterism Proof Texts: Hebrews 12:28 by Tim Warner
http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/pret_pt05.html

Learning New Testament Greek
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/grkindex.htm

Interlinear Scripture Analyser
http://www.scripture4all.org/
I got the information on 2 Peter 3 from this superb resource. It has a downloadable programme which shows you detailed information on each word in the NT. You can not only see if a verb is singular or plural, whether it's first person, second or third person, what voice it is (middle, active, passive etc.) and also what gender. It's also got Strong's numbers and.... it's completely to download!! God is good!

[Guest]

Ely said

In the passage you have raised, the verb translated as "will be dissolved" is a present participle. Over the past couple years, I've learned that the tense of Greek verbs does not necessarily tell us anything about the time of the action, the focus is firstly on the type of the action which. The fact that a verb is in the present tense doesn't necessarily indicate that the verb is taking place at the time of speaking/writing.

This doesn't rule out though that he could have been using it that way.

Ely said

So, let's look at the context of the verse in 2 Peter 3 and see what information we can gain concerning the time of this dissolving/loosing. Note the future tense verbs (in green and underlined) and present participles (in red):

"10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt being with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be loosed. 11 Therefore, all these things being loosed, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be loosed, being on fire, and the elements melting being with fervent heat (present tense indicative)? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (present tense indicative). Be Steadfast 14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless"

You(Ely) also said

The context makes plain that Peter was speaking about a future event. So why the present tenses?

Because the Old Covenant way of doing things was fading away and was about to be completely wiped off the face of the land to make way for the fulness off the new which was inaugurated in the upper room. Hebrews makes this quite clear.

Hebrews 8:13When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use). And what is obsolete (out of use and annulled because of age) is ripe for disappearance and to be dispensed with altogether. Amplified

It's what the first 7 chapters of Hebrews is talking about. The old way of doing things that they were looking back at longingly was an old garment...it was worn out...it's time had come. And the last vestige of that Old Covenant system had to be wiped away to clear the path completely for the New...which was still a future event from the perspective of the author of Hebrews and Peter. Hense the use of future tenses.

Mike

[Guest]

I guess what it all breaks down to is that preterists understand these things to refer to a more spiritual/heavenly fulfillment as to where a futurist looks for a more physical/earthly fulfillment and understanding of these things. Oh well.

Thank you everyone for your responses and thoughts...Even you Ron.8)

I've got a big family oriented weekend to look forward to(this one) not one a long way off.

Anyone got any good ideas for another topic???

Mike

[Guest]

HELLO Sean...........im confused, you said......

I still don't get it. Peter likens the "fire" judgement with the "water" judgement that killed them all who were not on the ark

IN what way does Peter liken the "fire judgment with the "water" judgment? I dont see in those verses anywhere where peter is saying that the flood judgment will be what we are to expect in the future, or that it is to wipe out all the people, etc. Is there a clear connection of those two, or are you assuming this, based on your belief that "elements" mean something else than they are usually used in the n.t.???


jim d

“Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Seems like Peter is reminding the scoffers that don't see a judgement as being near, based on the belief that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

Is that true? No, Peter says they forget that there was a literal flood that flooded the earth. "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water"

The point? If God did it once, He can (and apparently will) do it again. This time with fire: "But the heavens and the earth...are reserved for fire".

So are you saying that of all the judgements God executed on earth prophecied in the OT that the only one Peter happened to pick was one that literally flooded the earth, then mentions that the heavens and earth are reserved for fire. What kind of fire? Verses 10-13 give us the details.

Again I wonder, why did Peter start this off by mentioning the flood? Mention fire, then mention what the fire will do to the earth.

Could it be spiritual? Sure. Could it be physical? Sure. The mentioning of Noah's flood is why I take it literal.

Call me crazy.

[Guest]

Sean said:

Seems like Peter is reminding the scoffers that don't see a judgement as being near, based on the belief that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

I can't believe you just said this. You say that the judgement that Peter is speaking of here in 2 Peter 3 is still future to us...RIGHT?

And yet you say that Peter is reminding the scoffers that judgment is near even though they don't see it...

Dude...do you see what you are saying.

You say that the judgment that Peter is talking about is STILL FUTURE TO US. And then you say that Peter is reminding the scoffers that the judgment is near.

Which one of us is going crazy here?

Mike