The Narrow Path Ministries

1 Peter 2:12 (NASB)

12. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Do the preterists see this a fulfilled at 70AD or as future?

Homer wrote:

1 Peter 2:12 (NASB)

12. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Do the preterists see this a fulfilled at 70AD or as future?

Hi Homer,

Here's my FP answer to the question. Fulfilled in the 1st Century, in the lifetime of the audience, leading up to the events consummated at 70 A.D.

Whatever “the day” or “in a day” of inspection/visitation is, the Preterist’s consistent and faithful acknowledgement of historical context, in respect to the original audience, denotes the time-stamp of any “said thing(s)” which was to occur. Therefore, it is clear that Peter is writing to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. I will refer to this audience as “The Dispersion”.

Therefore vs.12 reads (YLT):

Having YOUR (the dispersion) behavior among the nations right, that in that which they speak against YOU (the dispersion) as eveil-doers, of the good works having beheld, they may glorify God in a day of inspection.

Therefore, it’s because of The Dispersion’s conduct, back in the 1st Century, those nations might in the day of their visitation/inspection glorify God. The Preterist does not allow himself to lose focus while reading an inspired, yet historical account, implied – accomplished - to an audience delineated in the context (The Dispersion).

In summary, The Preterist is now in agreement with the inspired writer towards any foretelling of “THEN” events that involved The Dispersion. The Preterist can now enjoy “The How” of the matter and thus being right or wrong in this endeavor, doesn’t undermine inspiration to any declarations made to the original audience as accomplished - THEIR past, THEIR present or THEIR FUTURE.

Therefore with this liberty I speculate and tend to agree with James Gray Commentary which states:

The writer had dropped his pen, but takes it up again at 1 Peter 2:11. To “abstain from fleshy lusts that war against the soul,” is limited and defined in the next verse. The pagans round about were speaking against the Christians as evildoers. Their increasing numbers were emptying the Pagan temples, and threatening in so doing, not only the Pagan religion but the state itself, for the Romans worshipped the state in the person of the emperor, and at this time Rome controlled the world. The duty of the Christians, therefore, was to have their conduct so seemly and consistent in the eyes of their watchful and jealous neighbors that by their “good works,” those neighbors might in the day of their visitation by divine grace glorify God for them.

God Bless.

Homer wrote:

1 Peter 2:12 (NASB)

12. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Do the preterists see this a fulfilled at 70AD or as future?

I would say it was fulfilled in 70AD for the original audience. I'm not sure how that is supposed to be a challenge to preterism, but I think you might be implying that the judgment in question would be over after 70AD. There are preterist Universalists, but I'm not one of them. I'd simply say that the Great White Throne Judgement is an ongoing institution that people experience after death.

Doug

TheEditor wrote:In looking at the map of the Mediterranean and the ancient Near East, I find it hard to understand why Peter writing from Babylon to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, would be concerened that the Pagans around them had a good witness for the destruction of Jerusalem. A perspective would be me writing a letter to Christians in Ohio, Utah, Iowa and Arizona, to make sure their jurisdictional rulers are impressed with their Godly conduct, when the "visitation" of an earthquake in Minnesota happens. How are these ancient rulers effected one whit over what happens to Jews living in Jerusalem? This requires a very large shoehorn to my mind. Almost as large as a Dispensationalists...

Regards, Brenden.

First, in my opinion Peter is writing from Jerusalem. I think it's likely that he had read Revelation and is making an allusion to Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon (there are references to Revelation in both of Peter's epistles). Second, the time of the judgment against Jerusalem was the time of the sheep and goats judgement in heaven (GWTJ), where everything would be revealed. In my opinion, this judgement is an ongoing institution in human history, so everyone at some point will go through it. I see his reference to the day of visitation as a generic reference to the beginning of this institution. You might also see it as a reference to each person's day of personal final judgement.

I don't see this verse as something that challenges preterism.

Doug

dwilkins wrote:

TheEditor wrote:In looking at the map of the Mediterranean and the ancient Near East, I find it hard to understand why Peter writing from Babylon to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, would be concerened that the Pagans around them had a good witness for the destruction of Jerusalem. A perspective would be me writing a letter to Christians in Ohio, Utah, Iowa and Arizona, to make sure their jurisdictional rulers are impressed with their Godly conduct, when the "visitation" of an earthquake in Minnesota happens. How are these ancient rulers effected one whit over what happens to Jews living in Jerusalem? This requires a very large shoehorn to my mind. Almost as large as a Dispensationalists...

Regards, Brenden.

First, in my opinion Peter is writing from Jerusalem. I think it's likely that he had read Revelation and is making an allusion to Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon (there are references to Revelation in both of Peter's epistles). Second, the time of the judgment against Jerusalem was the time of the sheep and goats judgement in heaven (GWTJ), where everything would be revealed. In my opinion, this judgement is an ongoing institution in human history, so everyone at some point will go through it. I see his reference to the day of visitation as a generic reference to the beginning of this institution. You might also see it as a reference to each person's day of personal final judgement.

I don't see this verse as something that challenges preterism.

Doug

Hi Doug and Brenden,

And this is my boast, the freedom to discuss and speculate on "The How" without denying fulfillment as enunciated by the inspired author. Brenden, are you denying fulfillment as outlined by the author? If so, enlighten us in the context where this is found. If you are not denying fulfillment but rather investigating "The How", then forgive me of such a claim.

God Bless.

Brenden, are you denying fulfillment as outlined by the author? If so, enlighten us in the context where this is found.

Seems to me the burden is on the preterist to show scriptural or historical evidence that the Romans or other gentiles glorified God because of the behavior of Christian at the time Jerusalem was destroyed.

I have the same feeling that I had when reading Russell's "Parousia" many years ago. I was going along with what he wrote for awhile but then I thought he became implausible and I stopped reading the book. It has been in the bookcase since. The preterist needs a very big and stout shoehorn; tough to get a size 12 foot into a size 8 shoe.

From what I can tell, you lost interest in studying preterism because it didn't fit with how you already interpreted a number of passages. I'm sure that's pretty common, but I challenge you to focus on the basics before passing judgment on the more complex issues (all of the interpretations of which are based on a lifetime of you looking at these passages through a completely different set of lenses). The basics are the time statements. I put together a short ebook called "Preterist Time Statements" cataloging more than 250 direct or indirect statements that propose the 2nd Coming had to be in the first century. For $0.99 I'm obviously not trying to enrich myself here. All you have to do is prove that all of them are wrong. If a single time statement is right then strong preterism, of some flavor or another, is the inevitable result.

As far as this passage goes, I already told you (and you seemingly ignored) that I thought it had to do with eternal judgment that began at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Doug

Hi Doug,

Didn't have you in mind in particular. You wrote:

As far as this passage goes, I already told you (and you seemingly ignored) that I thought it had to do with eternal judgment that began at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

I'd simply say that the Great White Throne Judgement is an ongoing institution that people experience after death.

Your response is unclear to me. If the passage in Peter is about ongoing judgment that began 70AD that would seem to mean it applies to each Christian down through the centuries and would indicate that Peter expected gentiles to glorify God with the passing of each Christian (as we each experience our "day of visitation")? Perhaps you can clarify if this is not what you meant.