An Exegesis Of Second Peter 3:1-13: A Refutation of the Heresy of Realized Eschatology – Jerry C. Brewer

2 Peter 3:1-4

Peter wrote his first epistle, “To the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1) and wrote his second epistle to them. That is deduced from his words in verse 1: ”This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance…” That which he would have them to remember were, “the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour” ( v. 2). The words, “holy prophets” are key to the error of Realized Eschatology. A significant characteristic of Realized Eschatologists is their use of Old Testament prophets and prophecies to bolster their position. That is also a marked characteristic of Millennialists. Both attempt to prove their errors by the Old Testament. The only difference between the two are their conclusions, both of which are erroneous. The Realized Eschatologist says the end of the world and Christ’s kingdom came in A. D. 70, while the Millenialist says the kingdom will come in the millenium, after which the world will end. Ignoring the fact that all prophecy was fulfilled in the redemptive work of Christ, both believe and teach that the Old Testament prophets pointed to something beyond Calvary. While He was dying on the cross, Jesus said, “It is finished.” That meant the termination of His redemptive work, which included fulfilling all that was written in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). All Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled. The Old Testament prophets focused on Jesus Christ’s first coming and His revelation of truth (Heb. 1:1-2). In these last God, “hath spoken unto us by his Son” and does not speak through either the Law or the Prophets (Matt. 17:1-5. Realized Eschatologists are fatally wrong.

Don K. Preston is a disciple of Max King’s A.D. 70 doctrine. In his attempt to place the end of the world in A.D. 70, Preston is in a footrace with the Millennialists back to the Old Testament to “prove” his point and focuses on the phrase, “holy prophets” in verse 2.

Proof Peter has the Old Covenant prophets in view is found in his terminology, that is to say, how he refers to the prophets. He says he writes to remind his readers of ‘…the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets…’ we maintain that when the NT writers refer to the prophets which have spoken or written before it is always allusion to OT prophets (p. 4).

The close connection of “apostles” and “prophets” in this verse renders it unlikely that Peter refers to Old Testament prophets. The same association is found in Ephesians 2:20 where Paul wrote that the church is, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” Of the revelation of the “mystery of Christ”, hidden in ages past, Paul said it has now been, “revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:5).

It should be recalled that at the time when Peter wrote, the New Testament revelation had not been completed ; and unable to appeal to it as a final and complete body of truth in the matters under consideration, it was necessary for him to direct his readers to the announcements of the prophets and to the oral deliverances of the apostles (Woods, p. 180).

Peter did not recall things of the Law and prophets to their minds, but of extant utterances of inspired men in the first century. Preston fails to prove that Old Testament prophecy was not fulfilled until the fall of Jerusalem.

After telling his readers that they should remember the warnings of the Lord through His apostles and prophets about His coming, Peter wrote,

…knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 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 (vv. 3-4).

The phrase, “last days” is another which Realized Eschatologists have redefined to suit their theology. Their definition of “the last days” is the time between Christ’s first coming and Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70.

Thus, when Peter said scoffers would come in the last days, he was not looking into the far off future. He was, as is evident not only from other books but as we shall see even further from this chapter, speaking of his own time, the waning days of the Jewish Age (Preston, p. 25).

… Eph. 1:21: “Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” The statement “this world” was in reference to the Jewish age, which had not yet ended, and the statement “that (age) which is to come” was in reference to the Christian age, which would abide and follow the end of the Jewish age. The last days, therefore, never apply to the Christian age, but always to the closing period of the Jewish age, which ran from Pentecost to the fall of Jerusalem (King, p. 79).

In his quotation of Joel’s prophecy Peter said, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God…and it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:17, 21). Those are the first and last verses of the quotation. If calling on the name of the Lord is requisite to salvation (and it is) no one can be saved today, according to Preston and King, because the “last days” ended in A. D. 70. Their doctrine has Joel saying, “And it shall come to pass in the closing period of the Jewish age…” That means no one living past that “age” can “call on the name of the Lord.”

“The last days” is the gospel dispensation that will last until the second coming of Christ in final judgment of the world, not merely until A.D. 70, and Peter warned of false teachers who would come during that age. If the last days ended in A.D. 70, then we should not expect any false teachers today. That is the consequence of King’s inane doctrine. Foy E. Wallace wrote,

In the third chapter of his second epistle, Peter, like Paul, cautioned the dispersed Christians against deceivers. He said that all along during “the last days”—all through the gospel dispensation, on until the end of time, there would be such men to trouble the churches. …The promise of the Lord’s coming was never used by the apostles as a theme for curiosity and speculation. Yet some extremists in our own brotherhood have seized upon the doctrine of the second coming and have attempted to make a prophecy out of a promise. They are teaching theories no less fanatical than the theories of Adventists, Russellites, Mormons, Christadelphians, and a horde of others of various shades and colors (God’s Prophetic Word, p. 262).

Although brother Wallace was refuting millennialism, he also described their blood brothers, the Realized Eschatology crowd. Both teach that Christ will not receive His kingdom until his second coming. The only shade of difference between King’s crowd and the Adventist/Russelite crowd is that the former says Christ received it in A.D. 70, and the latter say it will be received when Christ comes at the end of the world.

The scoffers of whom Peter wrote did not cease their ranting against the Lord’s promise in A.D. 70. They remain with us today. They are the uniformitarians who are wilfully ignorant of the changes in nature. The earth on which we live today is not the same earth God created in the beginning (Gen. 1:1). It is vastly different from what God pronounced as “good” (Gen. 4:4). Evolutionists assume that the earth today is what it has always been, vainly delving into the fossil records believing they will reveal our origin apart from God.

2 Peter 3:5-7

“…by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water” (v. 5). The seas of the earth are all connected and the dry land appeared when God when the waters were “gathered together unto one place” by the power of His Word (Gen. 1:9; Psa. 33:6-9; Col. 1:16-17).

The word, whereby, in verse 6 refers to the water of verse 5 and Peter says it was by this that the world perished, referring to the flood in Noah’s day. The world that God created in the beginning perished. When Noah emerged from the ark, he was no longer in the world he left, but in a different one—a world now tilted 23 ½ degrees on its axis, a world in which animals feared man, a world with mountains created by upheavals in the flood, a world with storms brought about by the cataclysm, a world in which bacteria and viruses would emerge. It was far different from the perfect creation Noah left behind and it would never again be the same. No, all things do not continue as they were from the beginning of creation, and the “creation” was not a spiritual one. Peter refers to the material world, and it is this material world—“the heavens and the earth” which “are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and ungodly men” that will be destroyed at Christ’s second coming (v. 7).

2 Peter 3:8-9

Peter disputes the scoffers’ contention that Christ has reneged on His promise to return. Men have always been wont to view God as they view themselves (Psa. 50:21). A continuation of “all things as they were from the beginning” was (and is) considered from man’s viewpoint. A man who borrows a sum of money, promising to, “pay it back later”, without a stipulated time, is considered to renege on his promise if 10 or 15 years intervene without repayment. Men look at God in the same manner. But Peter says, “be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v. 8). Of that phrase, brother Woods writes,

‘With the Lord’ signifies the manner in which the Lord regards time. With Him, a thousand years is as a day; a day is as a thousand years. This does not mean that a day in ‘God’s calendar’ is a thousand years long, as materialists allege…The meaning is that the passage of time does not affect the promises and threatenings of God. Whether it be a day or a thousand years between the time of promise and the reward, the threatening and the retribution, God will perform it. In this He is wholly unlike man, who, the greater the interval between the promise and the fulfillment, the less likely that he will accomplish it. (p. 185).

God is not bound by time. The fact that the world is still standing is not prima facie evidence that Christ will not come. He has so promised, and He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Nor has He forgotten.

Verse 9 delineates the reason for the long period between the promise and its fulfillment. God is “long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” The long delay in Christ’s second coming springs not from any “slackness” on God’s part, but from His love for man and His determination to allow all to repent and come to Him in obedience. Though untold numbers will be lost eternally, that is not God’s wish. He desires the repentance of all. Now, if the return of Christ was delayed only between His ascension in Acts 1 and the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, is God no longer longsuffering? Does God no longer desire man’s repentance? Do Realized Eschatologists preach that men must repent today? If God’s longsuffering “in the last days” (per their definition of that term) was to give time for repentance, then repentance is no longer required since the last days ended in A. D. 70. If not, why not?

2 Peter 3:10-13

“The day of the Lord” is another of the A.D. 70 crowd’s redefined terms. They say it is simply God’s judgment on Israel in Jerusalem’s destruction. Like the millennialists, they pull their “proof” about “the day of the Lord” from the Old Testament. But “the day of the Lord” of which Peter writes does not refer to a local “judgment” on a particular people or nation. He writes of the final judgment of all mankind, and says it will “come as a thief in the night.” That term does not describe the stealth of a thief, but the unexpected nature of his coming. The destruction of Jerusalem could hardly be described as “unexpected” when the siege of that city lasted for months and had been promised by the Lord with signs preceding its destruction. On the other hand, Christ’s second coming will occur without signs or warning. The Lord said He would come at a time when men were going about their daily lives, “as in the days of Noah” (Matt. 24:37).

In that day, “the heavens will 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.” (v. 10). Max King’s devious doctrine perverts this verse by redefining the terms “heavens,” “earth,” and “elements”.

Why are the elements ascribed to the “heavens” rather than the “earth”? Peter said, “. . . wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” (2 Pet. 3:12). It would seem more natural to speak of the “elements” of the earth rather than the heavens, if the material world were the subject. However, the interpretation of the Jewish world gives a natural explanation for elements being placed in the heavens, as seen from the meaning of the word. The word element in the scriptures means “the rudimentary principles of religion … the elementary principles of the O.T., as a revelation from God, Heb. 5: 12, R.V.” This same word is found in Gal. 4:3, 9 where it is used in reference to the rudimentary principles of the Jewish system. Since law or government is involved in the meaning of heaven, it follows that the rudiments or elements of Judaism properly belong to the region of heaven. These were the elements that would melt with fervent heat, fire being a symbol of destruction (pp. 186, 187).

In answer to a question sent to him on the Greek term for elements, brother Daniel Denham wrote,

The word in 2 Peter 3:10 is from stoicheion. King is disingenuous when he argues that the term only means “the rudimentary principles of religion,” et al. Surely, he is aware that it also can be used of “elemental substances” in the sense of “the basic elements from which everything in the world is made” (BAG, p. 776). The sidereal heavens, which are what is specifically contemplated, are as material as the physical earth, and in fact Peter expands the thought in the very next clause to include in the scope of the verse the destruction of the world and its “works which shall be “burned up” (katakaio), which itself suggests consumption by fire (expressed already specifically in v. 7 and implied in the expression “fervent heat” in v. 10). The Greek word for elements in 2 Peter 3:10 is stoicheia, the plural of stoicheion. Perschbacher applies it to the “natural universe” in 2 Peter 3:10 (The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 379) (Email exchange, 12/16/2014).

The eminent 19th century commentator, Adam Clarke, offers this comment on the creation and the elements in Genesis 1:1:

“The particle eth,” says Aben Ezra, “signifies the substance of the thing.” The like definition is given by Kimchi in his Book of Roots. “This particle,” says Mr. Ainsworth, “having the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet in it, is supposed to comprise the sum and substance of all things.” “The particle eth (says Buxtorf, Talmudic Lexicon, sub voce) with the cabalists is often mystically put for the beginning and the end, as alpha and omega are in the Apocalypse.” On this ground these words should be translated, “God in the beginning created the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth,” i.e. the prima materia, or first elements, out of which the heavens and the earth were successively formed (p. 29).

King says the “elements” of the universe are figurative. He insists that all prophecy is figurative, unless it does not fit his hobby, and, of course, he is the “final authority” in determining what is figurative and what is literal,—the convenient tactic of a false teacher. Like a Moslem “martyr”, King and his disciples are in for an eternal surprise at death, or when Christ returns.

Having described the world’s final destruction in verse 10, Peter exhorts us to be ready for that day in our “conversation (manner of living, JCB) and godliness” (v. 11). Of those two words, brother Woods writes,

These words—living and godliness—are, in the Greek text, plurals, livings and godlinesses,. They thus sum up all the duties and characteristics of Christians. In view of the transitory nature of the world and all that belongs to it, children of God should cease their concern about it and fix their attention on those matters that are eternal (p. 188).

The exhortation in verse 11 is further explained in verse 12. “…looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God.” Don Preston says, “They were looking for and hasetning the coming of the day of God” (p. 31). But the word is not “hastening.” Brother Wallace explains the difference between those words.

The word “hasting” is archaic, obsolete in general use but adapted to special context or biblical language. Though the word is seldom used now it is significant and full of meaning in the context of 2 Peter 3. Hasting does not mean hurrying-it is not a form of the word hastening, but a different word altogether. The expression hasting unto denotes making circumstances favorable, a readying of conditions. Peter’s use of the word hasting then is an exhortation to get ourselves ready for the Lord’s coming and by so doing the conditions of society will grow favorable for its occurrence. It is an admonition to faith and hope, “looking for,” that is, living for it. We look for it by living for it (Wallace, God’s Prophetic Word, p. 266).

Emphasizing again the destruction of the present heavens and earth, Peter then assures us that, “…we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (v. 13). King and his cohorts set forth another fantasy concerning, “new heavens and a new earth.”

The non-millennialist, often referred to as the amillennialist, is also faced with problems as a result of applying 2 Pet. 3: 10 to this material world. First, since he has concluded that the world passing away is literal or material, he must now decide the nature of the new heavens and earth of 2 Pet. 3: 13. Is it a literal or spiritual world? Again, men are divided on this question. However, if something in the text demands a literal application to the world of verse 10, why doesn’t the world, the new one, of verse 13 also demand a literal interpretation? What is the basis for saying one is literal and the other is spiritual? If such a change in the nature of the world is without textual support, why could not a reverse interpretation be made of the nature of these two worlds? If it is a matter of choice, we could have either spiritual, both spiritual, or both literal.

Another difficulty that arises out of the traditional view is that when Christ comes at the end of the world (this present literal world) all the saved are going to heaven and all the lost to hell. This makes the new earth of Pet. 3: 13 a little superfluous, to say the least, unless God is going to put somebody there besides the saved or the lost! If that be true, Peter had no right to look for more than new heavens (2 Pet. 3:13, 14). But he said we look for both, new heavens and a new earth (p. 43).

To prop up his heresy, King says that the “new heavens and a new earth” are figurative (“spiritual”). He’s right in that those words are a figurative description of a literal place, but then he jumps in bed with the Jehovah’s Witnesses in his insistence that the physical heaven and earth are not intended to be dissolved at the last day. King’s imaginative meanderings about the new heavens and new earth are clearly refuted by the following from J. Noel Meredith:

…There are two Greek words translated ‘new’ in the New Testament; one is prospective and indicates that which is young as opposed to that which is old; the other is retrospective and points to that which is fresh in contrast to that which is worn and deteriorated. The second of these words, kainos, is used here. The heavens and the earth, which Peter describes, are fresh and new, not worn and old, as are the heavens and the earth which now exist. In the new heaven and earth dwelleth righteousness, and it is here that righteous people live.

…The present heaven and earth is the place where man now lives. Man is a creature of two worlds. He lives on the earth, from which he gets his food, and in the heavens, from which he obtains the air he breathes. Man cannot live long in either environment exclusive of the other. When man travels to outer space he must take an earth environment in order to live. Since man is a creature of heaven above and the earth below what would be more fitting than to describe his future abode by the same terms used in a figurative sense? So the present heaven and earth serve as a figure of the new heaven and earth to follow. In the antitype, the new heaven and new earth are regarded as a metaphorical designation of the future abode of the righteous. The place where the Father is—heaven—is the final abode of the people of God. Therefore, the new heavens and earth are simply heaven where our Lord is, and from which place He will return to claim His own and to take us back there with Him (pp. 465, 466, 467).

Guy N. Woods refers to the same Greek word, kainos, further explaining and refuting King’s theory.

In this new heaven and earth righteousness will dwell. Righteousness dwells wherever righteous people live. The heavens and the earth here contemplated will, therefore, be the abode of righteous and obedient people. …From a careful consideration of the matters set forth in the foregoing passage, these facts seem to appear: (a) The present heavens and earth serve as a figure of the heavens and earth to follow. (b) The words ‘heaven and earth’ are not intended to embrace all of God’s material universe, but only that portion where His people dwell. (c) In the antetype, this limitation must be understood, and the words ‘new heaven and earth’ must then be regarded as a designation of where His people dwell, and not a detailed description of the future abode. (d) Heaven is the final abode of the people of God. (e) Therefore, the phrase ‘new heaven and earth’ must be understood as a designation for heaven! (p. 188, 189).

Conclusion

Paul said the Galatians were, “removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6b-7). That describes Max King and the A. D. 70 crowd. They have perverted the Gospel of Christ with their doctrine, which is “not another”, for there is only one. The Gospel mixed with error is no longer the Gospel and is as dangerous to the soul as a drop of arsenic in a glass of orange juice is destructive to the body. King’s doctrine does to the soul what Jim Jones’ “Kool Aid” did to his disciples’ mortal bodies in Guyana. Satan added a single word to God’s prohibition in the garden and deceived Eve and his minister, Max King, has taken a lot of truth, perverted it with his devilish doctrine, and corrupted the souls of all who follow him.

It’s amazing that brethren suddenly “discover” a new truth we have not known since inspiration ceased and foist it on gullible hearers. Max King and Mac Deaver are two who come to mind. But despite King’s eisegesis of Second Peter 3, this material universe will come to a fiery end when Jesus comes in the air, all the dead of mankind will be resurrected, all shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, the wicked will be banished to everlasting punishment and the righteous will rise with the Lord to the new heaven and earth—the eternal abode of righteous souls, saved by the blood of Christ.

Works Cited

All Scripture quotations are from the King James Version of the Bible

Clarke, Adam, A Commentary With Critical Notes, The Old Testament, Vol. 1, New York, NY, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, nd

Denham, Daniel, Email message, received December 16, 2014.

Meredith, J. Noel, “Difficult Passages In Revelation”, Studies In The Revelation, Ed. Dub McClish, Third Annual Denton Lectures, Denton, TX: Valid Publications

Preston, Don K., The Late Great Kingdom, Ardmore, OK: Don K. Preston, 1990