Hastening the day of God 2 Pet Ch. 3

[Guest]

I don't know if this has been talked about in this forum or not but I wanted to get a few comments from various viewpoints on this passage if I could.

2 Peter 3:10-13
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 with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, 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 dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
NKJV

In what way is the church supposed to be "hastening" the 2nd coming?

How does this square with the imminency doctrine we hear so often from the dispensationalist camp?

And what relationship do you think this might have to Rev 19:7?

Rev 19:7
7 Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready."
NKJV

How is the wife (the church) supposed to be making herself ready?

Thanks in advance.

[Guest]

Hi Christopher,

The verse in Second Peter seems to indicate that the timing of the Lord's coming is not so much contingent upon developments in Israel, or the European Union, or any other geopolitical factors that lie beyond the control of the church, but is a matter that rests in the lap of the Christians themselves. If the coming of antichrist, or the invasion of Israel by Russia, or any other such thing was necessary to precipitate the second coming, then there is no obvious way that the church could hasten the conclusion.

We need to remember that the church, the gathering of all things together into Christ (Eph.1:10), is the reason God created the world and humanity in the first place. This is God's "eternal purpose" (Eph.3:11) and His main project in history. It is through His work in the church that He will display His infinite wisdom and grace, even to the watching principalities and powers (Eph.3:10).

The church has special value to each Member of the Trinity: It is the family (children) of God the Father (Eph.3:14-15); the body and the bride of Christ (Eph.1:22-23/5:31-32); and the temple of the Holy Spirit (Eph.2:21-22). Because the church is Christ's body, it is the agency through whom He acts and the means through which He accomplishes whatever He intends to accomplish in the earth.

Given the church's glorious significance and destiny, it is tragic that she has allowed herself to become so thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted through sinking into carnal institutionalization. However, the true church is still comprised of that remnant who are true disciples of the Lord, and it is they, taken corporately, to whom these magnificent statements apply.

God has identified two goals relative to the church in scripture. Having waited thousands of years already for the realization of these objectives, it seems unlikely that God will abort history before they are completed. He has as much as stated that He will not do so prior to their accomplishment. The first has to do with the growth of the church in size and the second has to do with its growth in maturity.

As for the numeric growth of the church, we are told that there will be an innumerable multitude from "all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues" who will be redeemed and worshipping God in heaven (Rev.7:9ff). This simply reflects the fulfillment of God's original promises made to Abraham: "In you all the families shall be blessed" (Gen.12:3/Gal.3:8). Toward the realization of this goal, Jesus commissioned the disciples to evangelize the whole earth (Matt.28:19-21/Mark 16:15/ Acts 1:8) and said that they would finish doing so before "the end will come" (Matt.24:14).

It would therefore be reasonable to assume that a part of the obligation to "hasten the coming of the day of God" will be identified with the task of reaching the world with the gospel.

Many are only aware of this first aspect of the church's duty, but another is equally clear in scripture. God sees the church as a corporate individual—a "body" or a "bride." Paul speaks of the church as "a new man" (Eph.2:15). However, he predicts that this "new man" must (and will) become "a mature man":

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph.4:11-13).

[In the Bible, "perfect" and "mature" are alternative translations of the same Greek word.]

A body of believers can be "mature" or "babes"—and this is measured on the scale of their relationships among themselves. Division among believers is a symptom of an immature church (1 Cor.3:1-3), whereas unity among the saints is the mark of maturity (Eph.4:13). This is because love is the fruit that God most seeks in His people (John 13:34-35/ Gal.5:22/ Col.3:14/ 2 Pet.1:7).

All that is needed for unity to exist among the brotherhood is for everyone who names the name of Christ to grow-up and love each other. "That we be no lomger children...but speaking the truth in love, we may grow-up into Him in all things" (Eph.4:15).

Divisions among true Christians are due to the imbalanced emphasis upon matters of secondary importance, over which brotherly love ought to prevail—or else sins that are either unrepented of by by the offender or unforgiven by the offended. In every case, love is what is lacking when Christians refuse to work out their differences or to "forbear one another" (Eph.4:2/Col.3:13).

Pettiness among Christians in demanding that others conform to them in theology and practice is one stark evidence that the church is not very near this goal.

On the other hand, the churches' failure to properly discipline real, unrepented-of sin in their membership is another indicator of distance from the goal. When the Lamb's wife has "made herself ready," what shall she look like? She will be "without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing" (Eph.5:27). According to Jude, those who have infiltrated the church, but don't belong there, are "spots" in the fellowship (Jude 12). These are to be removed so that the church can be pure (Matt.18:15-17/ Rom.16:17-18/ 1 Cor.5:5-7, 13/ 2 Thess.3:14/ Tit.3:10-11).

The necessity of the true church reaching maturity before the second coming seems pretty clearly laid out in the following parable of Jesus:

"And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come." (Mark 4:26-29)

In this parable Jesus places emphasis on the maturing of the grain ("full corn" = "ripe grain") in the ear (i.e., the head of grain) as a prerequisite for the harvest. If this is not talking about the maturing of the saints prior to the second coming, then I am not sure what it could be saying.

Thus another way to "hasten the coming" is simply for the church to grow-up and stop being so petty and so compromising. Hope this helps.

[Guest]

Thus another way to "hasten the coming" is simply for the church to grow-up and stop being so petty and so compromising.

What I can't quite figure out is how does a local church do this? I mean, if someone comes in from another church believing the word of faith doctrine someone might stand up and say "Let's not be compromising, lets teach about this doctrine and explain the dangers". But then someone else says "Stop being so petty, We all love Jesus here. We don't need divisions"

This issue perplexes me more than any other. How does one stand up for what is right, if by doing so you cause division. But if you don't stand up, there are blots and blemishes in the church.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve,

That is a very thorough and sound assessment of this and I agree wholeheartedly with you. But there are a couple of questions I have about your response:

You wrote:

Toward the realization of this goal, Jesus commissioned the disciples to evangelize the whole earth (Matt.28:19-21/Mark 16:15/ Acts 1:8) and said that they would finish doing so before "the end will come" (Matt.24:14).

I understood "the end" in the Matthew 24:14 verses to be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. If so, how can we apply them again to the 2nd coming? I think this was asked in another post somewhere, but I'm not sure it was answered.

You wrote:

Given the church's glorious significance and destiny, it is tragic that she has allowed herself to become so thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted through sinking into carnal institutionalization. However, the true church is still comprised of that remnant who are true disciples of the Lord, and it is they, taken corporately, to whom these magnificent statements apply.

Don't the letters to the Corinthians and the Galatians suggest that this has always been a problem? I agree it's a problem, it just seems like it started very early in the church.

Divisions among true Christians are due to the imbalanced emphasis upon matters of secondary importance, over which brotherly love ought to prevail—or else sins that are either unrepented of by by the offender or unforgiven by the offended. In every case, love is what is lacking when Christians refuse to work out their differences or to "forbear one another" (Eph.4:2/Col.3:13).

Pettiness among Christians in demanding that others conform to them in theology and practice is one stark evidence that the church is not very near this goal.

I may be looking for an excuse to be optimistic, but wouldn't you say that we're at least a little closer due to the fact that we're no longer killing perceived "heretics" for things like infant baptism? I agree that some of these overblown squabbles about secondary issues need to be done away with. I think that is going to be a matter of addressing human pride, I don't know how God is going to work that one out. I think the church may need an "eye opening" event to reset her priorities.

Anyway, thanks again for your thorough answer to my question.

I think your answer would satisfy the Amil and Post-mil postions.

I’m also hoping someone from a pre-mil point of view might take a crack at it.

God bless

[Guest]

Response to Sean:

Unity does not mean that we lose our passion for truth. In my opinion, it means that we lose our passion for our own respective opinions about truth and commit to seeking truth together. This means studying the Bible, not with a mind of shoring-up the case for our present opinion, but with a mind of correcting and improving our opinion where we may conceivably be in error.

Any doctrine that is truly essential can be shown to be so to every open-minded person who continues to search the scriptures. As you sit down with a person of a different doctrinal persuasion (say, "Word of Faith," for instance) and study the scriptures together over time, in my opinion, one of the following must follow:

a) agreement will be reached by all parties to the inquiry,

b) one or the other party is not allowing the scriptures to override his own agenda (meaning there is not honesty, hence, not yet a real search for the truth), or else

c) the issue is not essential, since God has not chosen to make the matter plain enough for all good-hearted saints to comprehend—and it is therefore a difference among brethren to be tolerated in love.

It would be nice if all such inquiries ended in option "a." Unfortunately, few groups of Christians spend much energy searching the scriptures with those of alternative viewpoints with a mind to self-correction or simply better understanding the truth.

I myself prefer to read and discuss theology with those who hold different views from my own. It stretches my own imagination. If their arguments from scripture are not as good as mine, I have no reason to be threatened by the engagement of their viewpoints with mine. The truth always has the best argument, and I am interested only in the truth.

If another man's scriptural case for his position proves to be better than mine, I am benefitted by the opportunity to be corrected. This calls for humility and a teachable spirit on the part of all parties. "Only by pride cometh contention" (Prov.13:10). Humility is another measure of Christian maturity.

Where option "b" applies, we merely need to wait and see if God will convict the dishonest party of his need to love truth more than his own opinion. In the meantime, when it has become clear that the person is not merely dull, but is actually resistant to truth, we need to hold the genuineness of his salvation in question, since true Christians love the truth. That love for truth is, in most cases, what leads them to become convinced of Christianity itself.

If one is not a true disciple, we may never be able to win him over to a scriptural position about anything, but his disagreement does not have to concern us, since it has no impact upon the issue of unity among true disciples.

Many disputes in the modern church, which prevent institutional unity, probably fall into this second category, because there are many in the institutional churches who are not true Christians. Where this is found to be predominently the case, especially among the leaders of a given church, it may be time to leave that church and find fellowship with some genuine Christians.

I suspect that we will have to live with option "c" more often than many would wish to. But then, our learning to love one another and to honor one another's freedom of conscience is itself a measure of our own Christian maturity. Discerning the difference between essential and non-essential issues is also a measure of maturity.

The reason so many denominations exist is not that there are so many differences of opinion among Christian, but because Christians are too immature in their attitudes about the importance their respective opinions and of people who disagree with them. In a mature congregation, Jesus is the issue.

Those who love and follow Him are a true brotherhood. They are aware of differences among themselves in terms of secondary issues and opinions, but these play no role in their sense of love for one another. The existence of theological differences among those who love the truth is simply a proof of how much there is for us all to learn. I find this exhilarating, not threatening.

This will never be possible so long as we have a greater commitment to our group, denomination or doctrine than we have to Christ Himself. Making Christ the only issue is another measure of maturity.

Paul says we are to "keep the unity of the Spirit" (Eph.4:3)..."until we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (Eph.4:13). The first (unity of the Spirit) is already a reality to be maintained among all true Christians. The second (unity of faith and knowledge) is something to be worked toward in an atmosphere of love and humility.

The presence of many differing viewpoints about various doctrines is not the measure of whether Christians are unified or not. True unity is not primarily about agreement—nor even about meeting with others formally for church services. Real unity is spiritual, having its principal fruit in love for the brethren. When it becomes less our concern that every believer share our personal theological viewpoints, and more our desire that we can serve and honor the freedom of conscience of all of those whom God Himself accepts as His children, we are growing up.

We must take responsibility for our own growth in this area, and once we have arrived there, we will be patient in waiting for the others to arrive there as well.

[Guest]

Response to Christopher:

You asked:

"I understood 'the end' in the Matthew 24:14 verses to be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. If so, how can we apply them again to the 2nd coming? I think this was asked in another post somewhere, but I'm not sure it was answered."

I think it likely that "the end" in Matthew 24:14 may refer to AD70 ("the end" of the Jewish kingdom), though I have never been quite sure of this. If it is indeed referring to that event, then you are right that that verse does not help us in the present quest. However, the wording of the Great Commission gives the impression that world evangelism is a principal concern for the church, and a project that God is likely to see to its completion.

You wrote:

"Don't the letters to the Corinthians and the Galatians suggest that this has always been a problem? I agree it's a problem, it just seems like it started very early in the church."

Yes, the trouble began very early, in the infant church. I think, though, that the church in its maturity will have outgrown these juvenile traits. I can give no assurances about the institutional churches, however. If they don't move forward, they may be removed, as was the church of Ephesus (Rev.2:4-5), or continue with only an appearance of Christianity, as did the church in Sardis (Rev.3:1).

I agree that even the institutional church (and secular Western Civilization as well) has experienced some improvement over time, in that we are not currently seeing heretics burned. This is probably the realization of the prediction inherent in the parable of the leaven (Matt.13:33).

[Guest]

I agree that even the institutional church (and secular Western Civilization as well) has experienced some improvement over time, in that we are not currently seeing heretics burned. This is probably the realization of the prediction inherent in the parable of the leaven (Matt.13:33).

I am still having problems accepting a positive interpretation of the mustard seed and leaven parables. Maybe someday I'll come around. But it the same chapter (matthew 13) I think we have an indication from another parable (wheat and tares) that the institutional church will still be around at the end of the age, alongside the true church.

I do think the amill and postmill views are much more biblical (and encouraging) in regards to this question. These views motivate us toward evangelism and discipleship and allows for God to truly make a difference whereas most dispensationalists I know just want Jesus to take them out of this world before it gets any worse.

[Guest]

I am still having problems accepting a positive interpretation of the mustard seed and leaven parables. Maybe someday I'll come around.

How come? It's the Kindom that is said to grow. Is the Kingdom of God/Heaven a bad thing?

[Guest]

Each of the 1st 3 parables start off with God's good work...

The kingdom is like a farmer who goes 'out to sow his seed' (3)
The kingdom is like a man who 'sowed good seed' (24)
The kingdom is like a mustard seed which a man took and planted (31)

Thus, each parables starts off almost identically with the good work of God, but each then describes some bad things that happen afterword. Only 1 of the 4 results of parable #1 is positive. Half of parables #2 is negative.

A mustard seeds is not supposed to do what it did in this parable from what I understand. A mustard seed is small, but pungent/strong. Perhaps the unusual growth symbolizes institutionalization or worldly growth of the church apart from growth via the Spirit. And the birds (32) that find a home in it were just used to symbolize satan (4 + 19), much like Judaism became a dwelling place for evil.

Leaven is negative just about every other place in Scripture. In fact, in a quick glance I think it is negative 50 out of 52 times. The leaven parable may fit very well with the negative interpretation of the mustard parable. Arno Gabeline says its 'An abnormal and harmful beaurocratic expansion of the church and the devil’s work of undermining it by the infusion of sin represented by the yeast'. The NT then goes on to tell us the negative results of this yeast (Luke 12:1, Matthew 16:6-12, Mark 8:15, 1 Cor. 5:1-8, Galatians 5:1-9).

The mustard seed and leaven parables are sandwiched between the telling and the interpretation of the wheat and weeds parable which is, at least partially, about the false church.

I may change my view on these parables pending further study/argument, but for now the negative interpretation seems slightly more natural to me. And I am certainly not a dispensationalist who wants to find a negative where there is none.

[Guest]

mattrose wrote:

Leaven is negative just about every other place in Scripture. In fact, in a quick glance I think it is negative 50 out of 52 times. The leaven parable may fit very well with the negative interpretation of the mustard parable. Arno Gabeline says its 'An abnormal and harmful beaurocratic expansion of the church and the devil’s work of undermining it by the infusion of sin represented by the yeast'. The NT then goes on to tell us the negative results of this yeast (Luke 12:1, Matthew 16:6-12, Mark 8:15, 1 Cor. 5:1-8, Galatians 5:1-9).

The parable says:

Matt 13:33
"The kingdom of heaven is like leaven,
NKJV

How is the leaven a negative thing if it's representing the kingdom?

Mattrose wrote:

And the birds (32) that find a home in it were just used to symbolize satan (4 + 19), much like Judaism became a dwelling place for evil.

Where do you get the idea in this parable that the birds that nest in its branches symbolize Satan or are even a negative thing at all?

Just curious.