Many pastors and Christians in general take 1 Corinthians 13:9–10 as a proof-text for the cessation of revelatory gifts in the church. The well-known passage reads, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” In this passage, some readers commonly understand—or are taught to understand—“the perfect” (or “that which is perfect” KJV) to refer to the completed canon of Scripture. The coming of the “perfect” or “complete” written revelation would signal the end for any need to revelatory gifts, prophecy, etc.

I consider this explanation of “the perfect” to be incorrect. In fact, I think the whole endeavor to see 1 Cor. 13:9ff as an indicator of any major eschatological, doctrinal, covenantal, or revelational shift is to miss the point of the passage entirely. But so many people commonly refer to it in this way, or similarly, that it is worth outlining some of my views. Perhaps at least one person out there can profit from them.

The Context: Gifts of the Spirit vs. Fruit of the Spirit

To better understand the significance of the passage, we have to look at the context. Pretty much every commentator makes this point when addressing 1 Corinthians 13, as we should. The context is the use—more importantly abuse—of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church. Thus this passage falls directly in the middle of three chapters (12–14), all of which deal with this problem at a very practical, individual level.

Beyond this even, the entire letter bears a tone of addressing a factious, divisive body of believers wracked with pride, competition, jealousy—constantly vying for preeminence among each other. We see this in the opening chapter as Paul confronts their divisions:

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:12–13).

It seems these believers were choosing favorite theologians, creating competing branches, perhaps even different schools of thought, and wearing these labels as badges of honor. Paul rebukes this throughout the rest of the chapter as misguided and boastful.

Jesus v. Jerusalem
Only $14.95

In chapters 1–3, Paul argues that the Corinthians were acting selfishly, foolishly, and carnally—all things which caused them to miss the heart of the message of Christ. Indeed, in 3:1 Paul says, “But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.” “Spiritual people” in the Greek is pneumatikois—literally “spirituals”—the same word used when introducing the context of “spiritual gifts” in chapter 12: “Now concerning spiritual gifts [pneumatikon], brothers. . . .” (Cf. also “The spiritual person” in 1 Cor. 2:15.) For the time being, Paul cannot preach to these people as if they were indeed “spiritual.” They are not mature enough: they are spiritual babies.

Also early in the letter Paul gives another label to those who are able to receive his Spirit-filled message. In 1 Corinthians 2:16, Paul says he does preach wisdom to those who are “mature.” The word here is the same as that in 13:10—teleios—only in a slightly different grammatical form. While we should not be too quick to make a direct connection here—as the word can have different shades of meaning in different contexts—it certainly does invite a close comparison.

So we have two textual connections of note here: First, the overall tone of the letter expressed early on is reflected in the immediate context of spiritual gifts (chapters 12–14). The important theme here is that of true spirituality (pneumatikoi) versus carnality.

Second, the Christian message Paul brings can only be understood via the Spirit—and the spiritual people who are given this gift Paul calls “the perfect” or “the mature” (tois teleiois). I believe this gives some background to the usage in 13:10.

Now the key issue here is Christian maturity. This is the mark of pneumatikoi in other places in Paul’s letters: “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual [oi pneumatikoi] should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). Obviously, these are the more upstanding, mature, loving, members in the local congregation.

I see no reason we should not treat 1 Corinthians 13 in the same way: Paul was encouraging the carnal members there to move onto teleios—“perfection,” “completion,” or “maturity”—and thus establishment themselves truly as pneumatikoi—spiritual. In fact, while most commentators dismiss it, we should not be so quick to deny the possibility that to teleion should be translated as “that which is mature” or “maturity.”

This background provides some necessary context for understanding 13:10. Paul is not making an eschatological or even doctrinal point, but, as we shall see, merely a pastoral one. The Corinthians were boasting and exercising all kinds of spiritual gifts, but they were demonstrating very little of the most important evidence of the Spirit—the fruit of the Spirit.

Authentic Christianity Series: An Exposition of the Theology and Ethics of the Westminster Larger Catechism
Only $149.95

Love is way better

Chapter 13 is prefixed by the final exhortation of chapter 12. After explaining all about being many members and one body, about different members having different gifts and different gifts/members having different perceived status and order within the body, he says “But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:31).

It is this promise that segues directly into his famous discourse on “love”—for love is in fact that “more excellent way.” It is more than that even. The word is hyperbolen—from which we get our word “hyperbole,” meaning “absurdly exaggerated to make a point,” or “over the top.” In Scripture it is often translated as “exceeding,” “beyond measure,” etc. Paul is not just saying that love is more excellent, he is saying there is no comparison. He is essentially saying, “Guys, spiritual gifts are all well and good, but what I am about to tell you is way, way better. Far better. Better beyond any comparison.”

Especially compared to the fighting and posturing—and even blasphemy (1 Cor. 12:1–3)—that was taking place in relation to alleged spiritual gifts among the Corinthians, love was by far the better road indeed. For it is the road to perfection.

With this promise of Paul’s in mind, let us now read 1 Corinthians 13:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Cor. 13:1–7).

Indeed, love is exactly the opposite of how the Corinthians were behaving. Despite all their claims to spirituality based on whatever manifestations they had, their poor personal spirituality was betrayed by the way they treated each other.

But to ignore love is to ignore everything! This standard of love, upon which Jesus had said hung everything taught in the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:37–40; Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18), is the basic foundation for all of the Christian religion—the love of God towards us, and us in return back to him, and to each other (1 John 2:7–14; 4:7–21). This is the necessary foundation, the beginning, middle, and end, and without it nothing else Christians do has any meaning.

Indeed, love is the golden thread upon which all the beads of Christian faith and practice must be strung, or else be lost. It alone is the great eternal principle that must run through all other virtues. Thus Paul continues,

Love never ends [fails, falls]. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love (1 Cor. 13:8–13).

The comparison here between revelatory gifts and love is threefold: 1) a comparison between temporary and eternal, 2) a comparison between partial and complete, and 3) a comparison between childishness and maturity. These are all three facets of the same general comparison: love is way better.

First, the temporal comparison: “Love never ends [fails, falls]. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.” “Pass away” may be a little strong. The verb has a range of meanings. But being contrasted with “love” which “never fails,” the point is to emphasize the temporality of the revelatory gifts. But note, this is all that is in view in this comparison. It is not to emphasize the manner or even time of the passing of these gifts, but merely to note that they are temporal.

Given the theme of individual maturity, spirituality, and personal application throughout the letter as a whole and the immediate context, it is most reasonable to view the passing here as the passing away in relationship to the individuals who were actually using the gifts—not as a type of gift taken as a biblical abstraction. We will note more on this momentarily.

Second, we have the verse which started this whole study: “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” This contrasts the piecemeal, supplementary, nature of these revelatory gifts in comparison to “that which is perfect.” There is obviously a timing issue in play here: “when . . . will. . . .” We will address this momentarily also. For now, suffice it to say that the identity of “the perfect” here is “love.” The third facet helps us with this:

Third, there is a comparison of maturity. In light of the theme of spiritual maturity running throughout the book as we’ve noted, this comparison is the most enlightening:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

The emphasis here is on the contrast between childishness and maturity. And what has Paul been saying this whole time after all? What has been his remedy to all of the ills the Corinthians have brought into their own midst? It is to live by that “better way”—love. Grow up, go on to maturity. Love is that maturity.

It is of some note that Paul uses the same Greek word here as he did above for the prophecies and knowledge that would “pass away”—“I gave up (set aside, passed away, put away) childish things.” So Just as prophecies, tongues, and knowledge would “pass away” in contrast to never failing love, so “childish things” also “pass away” in contrast to maturity—by which we are to understand “love.”

This helps us properly understand the second comparison as well: that which is “in part” versus that which is “perfect.” Were this an isolated sentence, we may be strongly inclined by the grammar alone to translate to teleion as “the perfection” or as “the complete”—since its comparison is to “in part” or “partial.” But there is so much more to the context. That translation is certainly allowable and maybe even best on the surface, but it must be understood in relation to the theme of reaching maturity that permeates the whole. Maturity is the theme throughout the letter, and love is the way better road to maturity. Thus, here we should understand “the perfect” or “maturity” to refer to love as well.

Note the parallelism in Paul’s reasoning:

1)      Love never ends; revelatory gifts end

2)      The perfect comes; the partial becomes obsolete

3)      I reach maturity; I put aside childish things

Notice the structural-grammatical connections here: Love = perfection = maturity. Taking maturity here as spiritual maturity—the theme throughout the book—the connection is clear: love = to teleion = to pneumatikos.

The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel
Only $39.95

Thus, “the perfect” does not refer to the finished canon of Scripture. Indeed, given a full understanding of the context, that understanding is almost as absurd as it is arbitrary. It is simply a logical leap to think the focus in this sentence is upon God’s grand design for methods of revelation in the history of redemption. Love is the focus as the far better road to travel:

Love is the eternal principle of Christianity: it remains when all else passes away.

Love is the completeness of Christian revelation: if you have mastered this ethic, you need no other revelation.

Love is the full maturity of Christian life: arrive here, and you need to strive for no greater perfection, for all your works will be perfect.

These three comparisons are one and the same argument. By these comparisons Paul is trying to shift the priorities of the Corinthian believers from puffing themselves up against each other via boastings of spiritual gifts, status, etc., to growing up as Christians should do: learning to love and sacrifice for one another. Anyone who learns that will realize what true Christian perfection really is.

Love and Perfect Knowledge

My analysis above leaves off the last couple of Paul’s parallel reasonings. That’s fine, as what follows detracts nothing from the argument above. The following verse raises once again a question we promised to return to above, but also gives a powerful idea that reinforces our main point that to teleion is love. 1 Cor. 13:12 says,

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

Without going to too much length here, the main issue in both of these sentences—which are connected—is completeness in the sense of full clarity. A first century mirror was not like modern mirrors: it would not give the crystal-clear reflections we have today, but rather a blurry (like an out-of-focus photograph) or in some cases colored (by the nature of whatever type of metal had been polished—brass, bronze, etc.). Such a reflection was “in part” not in the sense of being cut, edited, bordered, trimmed, truncated, or anything within physical limits like that; rather, its partialness was in its blurriness. The Greek is ainigmati—from which we get our word “enigma.” It means obscure, dark, or a riddle.

Think about this: before the advent of the modern mirror, no one could have much idea how they themselves truly looked (with the exception of, perhaps, the reflection in a still pond or the work of a highly skilled artist—very limited circumstances). Thus it would be a true revelation to see oneself fully even as others view you—to see your own face as another could see you face to face. So Paul draws this analogy with the fullness of Christian maturity in love: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” In other words: to the extent that you can’t see your true reflection in a mirror now (then), to that same extent you can’t fully know God without love.

This is the same sense in which Jesus would have us grow spiritually. Compare the unique story of the healing of a blind man of Bethsaida:

And [Jesus] took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly (Mark 8:23–26).

The event is unique in the gospels in that the healing came in stages. It took two attempts—degrees—before the blind man was fully restored. In the first degree, the man has only a dim view, a blurry, obscure vision of things. But after full healing, the man could see clearly. At first touch from the Lord, the man saw dimly—he was yet incomplete. But with the fullness of healing, he could see men as they were. The Venerable Bede says, “By this miracle, Christ teaches us how great is the spiritual blindness of man, which only by degrees, and by successive stages, can come to the light of divine knowledge.”[1] There is a lesson here, then, about full spiritual sight and full spiritual maturity.

To have love, however, is to have perfect knowledge—not book knowledge, but spiritual knowledge. And Jesus demonstrates this for us in every sense imaginable. Thus Jesus, who first loved us and gave himself for us, is God’s perfect revelation to humanity. Jesus Himself, in all that He was and did, is that fullness of knowledge/love of which Paul speaks. Thus, Scripture tells us that Jesus is the full clear revelation of God’s word (John 5:46–7; Acts 15:21; Heb. 1:1–2). John 1:18 even says that Jesus by His incarnation exegeted [exegesato] the father. Yet Jesus Himself also says essentially the same thing of love (Matt. 22:37–40).

In his first epistle, John draws all of these same connections: “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us” (1 John 4:12). There that word is again: “perfect.” (Here it is perfect-tense participle, and in the passive voice: teteleiomene, the base form of which is teleioo.) The idea is exactly the same point Paul was making: true Christian spirituality means loving one another, and this is evidence that God’s Spirit dwells in us—true spirituality, in other words—and evidence that love is perfected in us. That is, “the perfect”—love—has come.

And John is here echoing his Gospel, 1:18, in saying “no one has ever seen God.” But just as Jesus dwelt in the bosom of the Father and exegeted Him—gave full revelation of God—so does the Christian who has been perfected in love and thus loves one another. This person has full knowledge and full spiritual vision.

Much of the New Testament makes these same connections. John, as we just noted, is especially strong this regard:

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me (John 14:21–24; Cf. John 15:7–17).

Thus in love, Jesus is fully manifested to the Christian believer—there is not further need for spiritual revelatory gifts in that case.

Eyewitness to His Majesty: A First Century Account of The Christ & His Apostles
Only $12.50

Compare John’s first epistle:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother (1 John 4:7–21).

For Paul, (as with Jesus in Matt. 22:37–40), love is the fullness of the law:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom 13:8–10).

He repeats the same argument in Galatians 5:13–14. In Galatians 3:3 he connects spirituality with perfection: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3). The rhetorical question assumes the answer: “No. You can only be perfected by the Spirit.”

Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul gives a direct connection between informational “knowledge,” and spiritual knowledge based on love. The latter leads to maturity, spiritual edification, and being known by God:

Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God (1 Cor. 8:1–3).

Consider: this spiritual “he is known by God” is the same “face to face. . . . I have been fully known” that Paul elucidates in 13:12. The power behind both is love.

Paul connects love and knowledge again in Philippians 1:9. It’s almost over-the-top in Colossians 2:1–3:

For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

James ties perfection to patience—a fruit of the Spirit and thus mark of maturity—amidst trials. He writes, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:2–4).

James also speaks of Christian ethics as “the perfect law of lberty,” and uses a similar mirror analogy as Paul:

For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect [teleion] law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing (James 1:23–5).

Again, Christian maturity indicates perfection: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect [teleios] man, able also to bridle his whole body (James 3:1–2).

There are dozens more verses to cover, but finally for now consider Ephesians 4:7–16:

But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”        (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature [teleion] manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (Eph. 4:7–16).

Here Paul says that perfection (here “mature”) is to have knowledge, to be like Christ in His fullness, not childish but mature and steadfast, and reflecting that maturity through words and actions of love. This is essentially the same teaching given in 1 Corinthians 13.

The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation
Only $29.95

What of the revelatory gifts, then?

I realize the analysis given above leaves open the possibility that the revelatory gifts are still in operation. I have no problem with that, although in my personal experience–which includes at one time nearly five years as a Pentecostal—I can’t say I have every experienced a genuine, undeniable case of tongues, prophecy, or interpretation of tongues. Even if I did, however, any such experience could not stand as an authoritative argument for anyone but the direct witnesses, seeing as it would be anecdotal only. This holds true, by the way, for any of the miraculous gifts.

But textually, scripturally, it seems to me there is no clear or definitive cut off. Scripture itself simply does not describe the total end of all revelatory gifts. It does not describe the close of the canon of Scripture within itself. This is something we assume in God’s providence (and even most Charismatics make a distinction in the degree of authority between the canon of Scripture and the nature of the content of revelatory gifts.)

An important caveat in this regard must be made in 1 Corinthians 13. Paul is not speaking about these revelatory gifts in the abstract or collective sense. I think James W. Scott, in his fairly recent Westminster Theological Journal article on 1 Corinthians 13, makes an important observation regarding the individual emphasis on the gifts in view:

Once again, we should understand that Paul is talking about these revelatory gifts as possessed by individual believers, not as abstract phenomena. He is not saying that a time is coming in history when these spiritual gifts will disappear from the church. Rather, he wants the Corinthians to understand that if they have these spiritual gifts, the time will come when they will no longer have them. Prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will stop coming to them from God. Indeed, the prophecies, tongues, and knowledge that they already have will come to an end. This perspective is required by the comparison [de] with love in v. 8, which, as we have seen, refers to the love that is in individual hearts. Love will not come to an end in one’s personal experience, but these revelatory gifts will.

This interpretation is confirmed by Paul’s manner of referring to the three revelatory gifts. What the ESV translates as “As for . . . as for . . . as for . . .” in v. 8 is more precisely “If . . . and if . . . and if . . .” [eite . . . eite . . . eite . . .]: “But if there be prophecies . . . and if there be tongues . . . and if there be knowledge . . .” Now Paul and his readers knew perfectly well that these spiritual gifts were in existence. So he cannot be saying, “If the gift of prophecy is present somewhere in the church . . .” Yet commentators have universally (it seems) assumed that Paul is talking about these gifts in just such an abstract sense, which may explain why the ESV (like many other translations) alters the construction so as merely to raise an abstract subject. What we must understand is that Paul is talking about these gifts as present in individual Christians. The possibilities implied by “if” are that any particular reader may or may not have the gift in question. Paul is saying to his readers, “If you have one of these gifts, the time will come when you will no longer have it. Your prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will come to an end, but jour love will continue.”[2]

I agree in general. I would go a bit further, however, and say that Paul is not even saying prophecies and knowledge “will stop coming to them” at some single point in the future even as individuals. Even Paul’s strongest timing statements—“but when the perfect comes, the partial will [future] pass away” (13:10), and “now . . . then . . .” twice in verse 12—need not be taken literally, at least not in the sense of predictive time statements. They are, as is more fitting with the literary nature whole passage, speaking upon the backdrop theme of growth and Christian maturity. Arriving at the mature perfection of love is simply not something that changes abruptly, overnight, and is not triggered by any one-time, abrupt event. These contrasting time indicators merely serve as a contrast for two general states of being that would be separated in time during a period of growth.

Put in a way a little more harmonious with Scott’s point, Paul does not have in view here some single event or abrupt change (my point) that does away with all revelatory gifts as a collective gift taken as an abstract whole (Scott’s point). Rather, Paul is simply contrasting a time of childishness with a time of maturity. Putting himself in the shoes of the Corinthian “babies,” that childish time was “now,” and the time of perfection/maturity would be at some point in the future (assuming the Corinthians would embrace the “better way” which Paul had told them). Paul had no idea and gave no indicator of how long that growth period might be, and he also gives no indication of how it comes about.

Jesus v. Jerusalem
Only $14.95

Thus the Scriptural support for the view that the revelatory gifts may still be operational today is simply that they are listed as gifts multiple times, and there is no clear Scriptural indication that they as gifts in general will end.

But the most important lesson here is the very lesson we’ve just reviewed in 1 Corinthians 13, indeed the whole letter. That is, God desires us to have Christian maturity reflecting in Christian ethics and Christian works far more than to exercise these spiritual gifts. With the understanding we’ve gained here, we can see that perfection—love—essentially nullifies the need for further revelatory gifts for that individual. The closer one gets to genuine spiritual maturity, the less one should be involved in revelatory gifts. This is precisely the meaning of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 13.

(Readers must be careful not to affirm the consequent here automatically. Just because a perfected person has no need of extra-revelatory manifestations does not mean that all people who do not engage in revelatory gifts have therefore arrived at perfection. Classic fallacy.)

By no means am I saying I support the modern Charismatic movement in general, and certainly not in all of its permutations, many of which I consider bizarre, misguided, degrading, shameful, and even blasphemous. I only think we have not yet arrived at the clearest scriptural understanding of those gifts, and the frequent misuse of 1 Corinthians 13 in this regard is indicative of that.

1. See Spence and Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Bickersteth, St. Mark (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1913), I:333.
2. James W. Scott, “The Time When Revelatory Gifts Cease” (1 Cor. 13:8–12),” Westminster Theological Journal 72 (2012):275. I have transliterated the Greek font in Scott’s original.

Materialistic determinism sounds like a big word. But it is a simple concept, although it has a very strong influence on our modern philosophy and social sciences. All it means is that the moral, cultural, intellectual, vocational choices of man are determined by material factors. Men are not what they are because of their commitment to ideas and faith; they are what they are because something material outside or inside of them makes them be what they are. This is the essence of materialistic determinism. Matter determines.

The crudest and most primitive (“primitive” as in “savage, uncivilized”) form of materialism, of course, is racism. It has existed in different forms among the savage tribes, mainly those who have adopted thoroughly animistic view of the world and nature. The idea that their own tribe is exceptional because it came from a specific ancestor – ironically, very often an animal ancestor – was common among many Native American tribes. The Indian caste system was based on the materialistic assumptions that man was determined by his genes. Even in the modern world, and even among those today who claim to be “Christians,” this philosophical materialism of racism can sometimes find favorable soil. The belief that genes produce culture, or ethics, or art, or anything else, has had and still has a hold on the mind of the fallen man.

The Enlightenment was heavily motivated by philosophical materialism. While the main thinkers of the Enlightenment rejected the materialistic explanations of the universe – most of them were Deists – the majority of those who followed them were materialistic in practice if not in official ideology. Environmental materialism was the norm at the time; the majority of the scientists and scholars – including Voltaire – believed that the culture of men and nations was determined by their geographical and climate conditions.

And of course, the modern form of materialism – and materialistic determinism – which shaped the world in the last one century was Marxism. It has based its argument on a sophisticated form of materialism: the materialism of the economic and social existence. In his early papers, while preparing to write his most important work, Das Kapital, Marx declared that his foundation was materialism:

It is not the consciousness of men that determine their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determine their consciousness.

The very essence of Marx’s view of society followed that materialistic model: society had a base, which was materialistic, the mode of production. The mode of production in its turn was determined by the form of property which had a huge role to play in the Marxist view. And the form of property was determined by the tools of production. At the very base, it was the blind, mindless, impersonal tools of production that determined everything in society. As the tools developed, they needed a new organization of labor, which in turn required a new form of property, which changed the mode of production. On top of that base, there was the superstructure: culture, family, education law, political ideologies, art, literature, science, etc. These all were determined by the social existence of man. Different economic modes of production determined different ideas of politics, art, family, etc. And, remember, it all started from the tools of production. Sophisticated materialism, but materialism nevertheless. And it was so attractive to the masses; the same masses that centuries before it would believe that they were what they were because they had originated from an animal, now accepted Marxism’s explanation that they are what they are because of their bank account or their paycheck or because of the price of the house they lived in.

Materialism is a trap. And many fall in it.

Charles Murray is most certainly not a Marxist. In fact, he is a fairly conservative author, with some very good contributions to the conservative thinking in the US. I should probably say, neo-conservative, since he differs from the true paleo-conservative thinkers in a few significant areas. And the think-tank he is working for, The American Enterprise Institute, is rather neo-conservative too in its orientation. But one must admit, they have done quite a job in defending free markets, individual liberty, and limited government. The conclusions and the policy recommendations they have given have always been opposed to socialism and any other form of big government.

And yet, even Charles Murray is not immune to the temptation to resort to philosophical materialism when he tries to explain the world, society, culture, or the issues of the day.

In a recent article, “The New American Divide,” Murray worries about what he calls “the problem of cultural inequality.” People are divided in classes in America, he says, and these classes are divided economically and geographically. There are people who are rich and getting richer. And there are people who are poor. The rich separate themselves in their own neighborhoods; the poor remain in their lower-middle-class, blue-collar workers’ neighborhoods. This separation causes sharp cultural separation, he says, and he uses statistical data to prove it. He uses five statistical points to prove that there is such a divide: marriage (percentage of people who are legally married), single parenthood (percentage of children born out of wedlock), industriousness (percentage of males out of the labor force), crime rate, and religiosity (measured inversely by the percentage of people who profess to be secular). Murray discovers serious differences which makes him conclude that these are two sharply different cultures.

This divide is what worries him. He says that just a generation ago there wasn’t such a divide, that there was this unified culture called “the American way of life,” which is now being lost. There is no such thing as a unified “American way of life” now. The two cultures, which he symbolically calls Belmont (the rich) and Fishtown (the poor) are moving apart from each other in everything. Murray says:

Taken separately, the differences in lifestyle that now separate Belmont from Fishtown are not sinister, but those quirks of the upper-middle class that I mentioned—the yogurt and muesli and the rest—are part of a mosaic of distinctive practices that have developed in Belmont. These have to do with the food Belmonters eat, their drinking habits, the ages at which they marry and have children, the books they read (and their number), the television shows and movies they watch (and the hours spent on them), the humor they enjoy, the way they take care of their bodies, the way they decorate their homes, their leisure activities, their work environments and their child-raising practices. Together, they have engendered cultural separation.

And of course, here comes that most awful of all differences, the median income. In the 1960s, the average income in Belmont was $84,000 (today’s purchasing power). Today it is $163,000. The gap is widening, Murray says, and this creates a problem for America.

Even at just a first glance, though, Murray’s concerns seem to be a little out of place. Even the statistical averages – and he uses only statistical averages, not concrete data – don’t show such a sharp difference. Some people in Belmont do live like the people in Fishtown; and some people in Fishtown live like the people in Belmont. Provided, of course, that we take “the yogurt and the muesli and the rest” as our standard for “different cultures.” Statistical differences are not always clear, and they can be misinterpreted; or they can be based on a peculiar choice of “cultural distinctives” that the study has adopted as a base. There were differences between rich and poor in the past, although not the same as today. In the not so distant past, the differences were in the number of TVs a home had (Murray assumes that all had TVs in their homes) or in the toys the children played with, or in the brand of cigarettes that Dad smoked. Before that the differences were in the type of car a family had – or whether it had a car. Or whether the family lived in the slums or had its own house. Etc., etc. These differences have always been around, they only change with every generation. In fact, it is safe to say that the toys for the rich in one generation become commonplace for the poor in the next generation – provided, of course, that a society continues encouraging innovation and private enterprise. The rich only had cars; then everyone had a car (or several, today). The rich only had TVs; then everyone had a TV (and several flatscreens today). The rich only played golf; everyone plays golf today (unless they like other sports). “The yogurt and the muesli and the rest” will tomorrow enter Fishtown – if they haven’t entered it already. (Our local Walmart has been increasing its section of “organic foods” for the last several years; and there are no “superZIPs” around.)

Not to mention the fact that in between Belmont and Fishtown there are thousands of neighborhoods and ZIPs that are only a small notch apart from each other in the social ladder that Murray describes. I live in such a neighborhood, called Copperfield. It is not Belmont, certainly, but it isn’t Fishtown either. And the vast majority of Americans do live in such neighborhoods as mine. The gap between Belmont and Fishtown, after all, is filled with millions of Americans who live in Copperfields; so there is no gap at all.

And there are many other objections that can be brought up against Murray’s description of the “cultural divide.” It’s either not a divide at all, or it is just normal, as it has always been around.

But there is a greater problem with Murray’s thesis. And it is not in his conclusions but in his premises. Murray’s presuppositions are thoroughly materialistic. He sees the “cultural divide” between Fishtown and Belmont as engendered by the difference in the incomes. In this, he is not different from Marx, or any other modern materialistic determinist: Murray believes that the social status of a person determines their cultural choice. This is Marx’s thesis as well. Marx, having based his entire philosophy on the concept of “economic class,” has never been able to define what that “economic class” might be. The concept the way Marx wanted it, presupposed a lack of social mobility for the individuals. But the reality – especially in the days of free-market capitalism in Britain and the US, and even on the Continent, in the 19th century – was that people who were born as part of the “working class” always had the opportunity to apply their skills to the market in a way that would raise them to the position of being “capitalists.” Some capitalists went bankrupt and became wage-earners. In order to define “class” and defend his thesis of the “class war” and “exploitation,” Marx needed to explain that social mobility away. He never found a way.

Murray is smarter than Marx. He still bases his analysis on the materialistic presupposition that social status determines cultural choice but he also explain how a person gets to end up in Belmont or in Fishtown:

To be assigned to Belmont, the people in the statistical nationwide databases on which I am drawing must have at least a bachelor’s degree and work as a manager, physician, attorney, engineer, architect, scientist, college professor or content producer in the media. To be assigned to Fishtown, they must have no academic degree higher than a high-school diploma. If they work, it must be in a blue-collar job, a low-skill service job such as cashier, or a low-skill white-collar job such as mail clerk or receptionist.

People are “assigned,” and then choose their culture. Your cultural choice is determined by your degree. College education assigns you to Belmont; and thus, assigns you to have “upper class” cultural choices: traditional family, industriousness, less proneness to crime, and more religiosity. Culture is defined by education; or, put it another way, education is the solution to the cultural problems. The more education, the better people are, more faithful to their spouses, more honest, hard working, and religious. It’s that easy.

Except that the Soviet Union had an abundance of university graduates, and the culture was a complete failure.

Of course, Murray is not so foolish to believe that college education in itself determines the cultural choice. That would be too simplistic. His article is written only in the context of his whole work so far. In 1994 he co-authored a book with the Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein: The Bell Curve. The subtitle of the book declared the thesis of the book: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. At the end of the day, Herrnstein and Murray concluded, it is the IQ that separates people into different social and economic classes. And by separating them into these different classes, it separates them into different cultures. The authors claimed that IQ determines – at least there is a “statistical correlation” – such cultural choices and characteristics like the age at which people marry, or whether they divorce, or whether they are religious or not, or how many children they have, or whether they have illegitimate children, or commit crimes, etc. Culture and cultural choices are defined by intelligence, the authors claim; there is statistical evidence for it.

Throughout the whole book, though, Herrnstein and Murray did not explain how some people get to have higher intelligence and some people get to have lower intelligence. Obviously, people are “assigned” to their intelligence level: in the Introduction, the authors claim that intelligence remains fairly constant throughout the life of an individual. It is not a matter of choice; it is something you either have or not have. Since it is not a matter of will and commitment, then it must be the result of some material causes in man. But what are these causes? The authors don’t say. They only vaguely mumble in a few places that apparently intelligence has something to do with genes and inheritance; but they are not positive. (This statement was what made the book very controversial in the mid-1990s, not the overall philosophical commitment to materialistic determinism, which is the greater flaw of the book.) The authors don’t know what intelligence really is but they refuse to accept that it has to do with the self-conscious choice and commitment of a person. It must be materially determined. And whatever it is, they can detect it through IQ tests, SAT/ACT scores, etc. In fact, since so few people in the last century were tested directly for IQ, the authors rely heavily on SAT/ACT scores to determine IQ. And then, of course, IQ produces college degrees. And then, college degrees determine cultural choices.

There is one problem, though.

There is a group in the society, small enough to be very distinct from the other groups, but large enough to create statistical problems for Murray’s thesis, which completely destroys his case. Murray avoids even mentioning that group. That group wasn’t that large back in the 1990s, and yet it was fairly well represented in all the states, and statistics about it were already available. In 2012, when Murray writes his article, this group is everywhere, and the top colleges in this country – the same colleges that are an important part of Murray’s study – compete to get children from that group.

Homeschoolers.

No matter what genetic, educational, cultural, geographic background homeschoolers come from, they consistently score way above their peers from public and private schools when it comes to SAT, ACT, admission tests in colleges and universities, or any other “intelligence” tests out there. By Murray’s standards, this will mean a heavy concentration of intelligence in the significant minority of homeschoolers. Since people can not produce intelligence by choice and commitment – this is Murray’s materialistic thesis – then he must conclude that homeschooling is the cultural choice of parents who are already very intelligent and transfer their intelligence to their children.

But this is not the case. All statistics show that the test results of homeschooled children have zero correlation to (that is, they do not depend on) the intelligence, social status, educational background, genetic stock, or any other material or inherited factor of the parents. Homeschoolers are just more intelligent than the others but there is no identifiable reason why, if one is looking for some material factor. The son of a farmer and the son of a lawyer perform equally well – very well, way above their peers – and no one knows why. The children of “lower class” families compete against children of college professors and CEOs, and do very well, sometimes even better. As if the IQ of the nation has been concentrated in those only who have decided to homeschool their children.

Murray’s materialistic determinism fails here. That’s why he never mentions homeschoolers in his studies. They do not fit the mold of materialistic determinism.

What’s the truth? Murray has it upside down when it comes to understanding the factors that determine culture. It is not the college degrees, or not even the mysterious IQ that make people decide whether to be more faithful to their spouses, or be more religious, or commit less crimes, or eat muesli and yogurt. It’s the other way around: The religious, moral, and cultural commitment of a person determines whether they will apply their mind, skills, and efforts to useful work, and whether they will be faithful to their family, their employer, or whether they will save money and move to a better neighborhood, etc. The material, economic, and social status of a man as well as his intellectual skills, they all depend on his self-discipline and his self-conscious decision to have a long-term commitment. Self-restraint and industriousness are what make a man well off. The homeschoolers who always score high at SAT/ACT are not genetically superior; they are morally committed to excellence; and that’s why they demonstrate excellent results.

“Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life” (Pr. 4:23). The heart of a man is the source of all his cultural and moral and intellectual choices. Murray has based his studies on a philosophy hostile to the Bible. That’s why, at the end of the article, his solutions are simply bare  moralism, an appeal to the denizens of Belmont to adopt some undefined “civic virtues,” while he condescendingly claims that “doing that in Fishtown requires support from outside.” At the end, his solution denigrates the poor to a condition of dependents. It won’t work. It is the same conclusion as would have come from a leftist liberal, even if Murray tries to dress it in the garb of voluntarism. Materialistic determinism inevitably leads to the wrong conclusions.

What America needs is not another moralistic appeal to undefined “civic virtues.” What it needs is something which will appeal to the source of the springs of life. That something is the faith upon which America was founded in the first place: Christianity. Only a resurgence of Christianity – a culturally active, comprehensive Christianity, applied to every area of life and action – will help cure the problems Murray has noticed. Without such appeal to the heart, no change in the behavior in Belmont, and no amount of outside help to Fishtown would achieve anything. Materialistic determinism, whether conservative or liberal, is a fallacy, and it will always produce the wrong practical results.

The following article is a follow-up to “Are Lobbying, Rallying Voters, Organizing Protests, and Harnessing the Evangelical Movement UnChristian?,” a response to Phil Johnson’s “Salt of the Earth” article that was published in the January 2012 issue of Tabletalk magazine.

Our duty as citizens is to see that civil government stays within its jurisdictional boundaries. This is exactly what Paul did when he questioned the authority of a Roman civil official regarding his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:23–30).

“But when [the Roman soldiers] stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, ‘Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?’”

If it was right for Paul to “protest” this single violation of his rights as a Roman citizen, why is it wrong to protest constitutional violations given the fact that Constitution itself gives us the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”?

Phil Johnson is mismanaging the comprehensiveness of the Bible’s message to speak to all of life by limiting the meaning of holy living to personal holiness. Holy living is not a narrow enterprise. It encompasses all of life. The British poet and literary critic T. S. Eliot (1888–1965) makes the point better than I can:

[T]here is an aspect in which we can see a religion as the whole way of life of a people, from birth to the grave, from morning to night and even in sleep, and that way of life is also its culture. . . . The dominant force in creating a common culture between peoples each of which has its distinct culture, is religion. . . . I am not so much concerned with the communion of Christian believers today; I am talking about the common tradition of Christianity which has made Europe what it is, and about the common cultural elements which this common Christianity has brought with it. . . .

It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe have — until recently — been rooted. It is against a background of Christianity that all our thought has significance. An individual European may not believe that the Christian Faith is true, and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all spring out of his heritage of Christian culture and depend upon that culture for its meaning. . . . If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes.”[1]

Unconditional Surrender: God's Program for Victory (HB)
Only $14.50

There’s no single verse that addresses politics or anything else. The entire Bible speaks to the subject of politics just like it speaks to everything else. Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), Prime Minister of the Netherlands and Professor of Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, summarized this truth with these words: “[N]o single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine!’”[2]

If holiness means “Thou Shalt not steal” for you and me, then it also means the same thing for you and me if we decide to become a civil official – a “minister of God” – as Paul puts it. Politics, actually “civil government,” is not morally neutral territory just like self-government, family government, and church government are not morally neutral. If we follow Johnson’s reasoning, we can’t speak out against a civil minister when he violates his oath to uphold the Constitution.  Would we do the same with a husband who violates his marriage oath or a minister of the gospel who violates his ordination vows? Of course we wouldn’t. There are procedures to deal with these violations. The same is true in the civil realm. In includes organizing people to oppose civil oath violators to remove them from office.

Johnson continues:

Jesus blessed people who were willing to be oppressed and disenfranchised for righteousness’ sake — peacemakers, not protesters; poor in spirit, not proud; people who are persecuted, not the pompous and power-mongers.

So if thugs break into Johnson’s home and burn it down, what should he do? What if they beat and rape his wife and steal all his stuff? If the chief of police and the mayor don’t do anything about it, is Johnson telling Christians that they should not protest but just take the persecution “for righteousness’ sake”? Would he be considered “proud,” “pompous” and a “power monger” to rally his neighbors to vote the mayor out of office in the next election? The civil magistrate has the power of the sword. Without limits on the civil minister’s authority and power, that sword can do a lot of harm to a lot of people.

The civil magistrate is a “minister of God” — a civil deacon (diakonos) — for our good (Rom. 13:4). The Jews in Jesus’ day did not have access to the avenues of governmental change. They could not operate in terms of their law (e.g., John 18:31). They lost their governing authority a long time ago and were under God’s judgment. They lost that authority because they remained silent when their religious and civil rulers rejected the ordinances of God.

I suppose as Christians like Corrie ten Boom (1893–1983) and her family were being dragged off to the concentration camp for helping Jews escape from the Nazis, their fellow-Christians should have told them, “This is what you get for not being willing to be oppressed and disenfranchised for righteousness’ sake. You should have made peace with the Nazis not protest against them. Persecution is the Christian’s lot in life.”

God and Government: A Biblical, Historical and Constitutional Perspective
Only $39.95

If Christians had been involved in government decades before, Germany would never have had an Adolf Hitler. In 19^th-century Germany, a distinction was made between the realm of public policy managed by the State and the domain of private morality under the province of the gospel. Religion was the sphere of the inner personal life, while things public came under the jurisdiction of the “worldly powers.” Redemption was fully the province of the church while the civil sphere was solely the province of the State. “Religion was a private matter that concerned itself with the personal and moral development of the individual. The external order — nature, scientific knowledge, statecraft — operated on the basis of its own internal logic and discernable laws.”[3] Christians were told that the church’s sole concern was the spiritual life of the believer. “The Erlangen church historian Hermann Jorda declared in 1917 that the state, the natural order of God, followed its own autonomous laws while the kingdom of God was concerned with the soul and operated separately on the basis of the morality of the gospel.”[4] Sound familiar? Here’s a sample of some German theological thinking that shaped the mind‑set of the nation and brought Hitler to power:

• Christian Ernst Luthard wrote in 1867: “The Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with outward existence but only with eternal life, not with external orders and institutions which could come in conflict with the secular orders but only with the heart and its relationship with God. . . . It is not the vocation of Jesus Christ or of the Gospel to change the orders of secular life and establish them anew. . . . Christianity wants to change man’s heart, not his external situation.”[5]
• Rudolf Sohm (1841–1917), speaking to a convention on the main Christian social action group, the Inner Mission, asserted: “The Gospel frees us from this world, frees us from all questions of this world, frees us inwardly, also from the questions of public life, also from the social question. Christianity has no answer to these questions.” The issues of public life, he wrote, “should remain untouched by the proclamation of the Gospel, completely untouched.”[6])
• Wilhelm Hermann declared in the 1913 edition of his book on ethics that the state was a product of nature and that it could not be love but only self‑assertion, coercion, and law. . . . Once the Christian understood the moral significance of the state, then “he will consider obedience to the government to be the highest vocation within the state. For the authority of the state on the whole, resting as it does upon authority of the government, is more important than the elimination of any shortcomings which it might have.”

America had its own affair with a hands-off approach. Congressman Wilson Lumpkin (1783–1870) argued that Christians should stay out of the controversy regarding removing the Cherokee Indians from Georgia in what has become known as the “Trail of Tears”:

“[Lumpkin] decried those Christians who left their proper realm and sought to involve themselves in politics as ‘canting fanatics.’ He said he had no trouble with ‘pure religion’ (that is, religion that steered clear of politics), ‘but the undefiled religion of the Cross is a separate and distinct thing in its nature from the noisy cant of the pretenders who have cost this Government, since the commencement of the present session of Congress, considerably upwards of $100,000 by their various intermeddlings with the political concerns of the country.’”[7]

Liberals and conservatives alike would be horrified at Lumpkin’s claim of religious and moral neutrality if it had been used to overlook the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and ethnic cleansing. But the argument is still being used.

Myths, Lies, and Half Truths
Only $19.95

I’ve gone on long enough. There’s a book about this subject somewhere. Actually, I already wrote it: Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths: How Misreading the Bible Neutralizes Christians.

1. T.S. Eliot, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948).
2. Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty” (1880) in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 488.
3. Richard V. Pierard, “Why Did Protestants Welcome Hitler?,” Fides et Historia (North Newton, KS: The Conference on Faith and History), X:2 (Spring 1978), 13.
4. Pierard, “Why Did Protestants Welcome Hitler?,” 14.
5. Quoted in Carl E. Braaten, Principles of Lutheran Theology, 2^nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 152.
6. Quoted in Carl E. Braaten, Principles of Lutheran Theology, 152. Robert Benne makes the following good points on the effects of this type of thinking: “There are two serious theological problems here. For one, the affirmation of the Sovereign God as Creator, Sustainer, and Judge of all is forgotten. The God whose will is revealed in the commandments and in his involvement in history is somehow expunged from the political world. Along with this denial of God’s involvement in history is the elevation of the gospel to such a height that it has no relevance to ordinary life. The gospel addresses only the inner man about eternal life, not the whole man who is embedded in God’s history.” (Good and Bad Ways to Think about Religion and Politics [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010], 22.
7. Quoted in John Wilson, “Why Evangelicals Can’t Opt Out of Political Engagement,” Books & Culture (July 15, 2002), www.christianitytoday.com/books/features/bccorner/020715.html. See John G. West, Jr, The Politics of Revelation and Reason: Religion and Civic Life in the New (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1996).

There is a reason we call the revelation given to us from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 the “Bible.” The Greek word biblos (βίβλος) — from which we get the English word Bible — means “book.” The Bible is one book even though it has 66 (39 + 27) individual parts.

No single verse can be properly explained and understood without considering it in the light of the whole Bible. No verse can or should stand on its own. For example, the Hebrew word el and the Greek word theos are translated “god” in the Bible. Without a whole-Bible context, they can refer to pagan gods (Deut. 10:17) or Satan himself (2 Cor. 4:4). You only know the difference by studying the immediate context and the context of the whole Bible.

I bring this up because of the article “The Salt of the Earth” written by Phil Johnson for the January 2012 edition of Tabletalk magazine published by Ligonier Ministries. Johnson begins his article by citing the following verses:

“You are the salt of the earth… . You are the light of the world… . Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:13–16).

Then he offers these comments:

That text is often cited as if it were a mandate for the church to engage in political activism — lobbying, rallying voters, organizing protests, and harnessing the evangelical movement for political clout. I recently heard a well-known evangelical leader say, “We need to make our voices heard in the voting booth, or we’re not being salt and light the way Jesus commanded.”

That view is pervasive. Say the phrase “salt and light,” and the typical evangelical starts talking politics as if by Pavlovian reflex.

But look at Jesus’ statement carefully in its context. He was not drumming up boycotts, protests, or a political campaign. He was calling His disciples to holy living.

Let’s take Johnson’s comment that Jesus was “calling His disciples to holy living.” A good point that we can agree on. Where do we go to find out about holy living and how broad and comprehensive holy living is? Does it include politics, economics, raising children, church life, walking your dog, crossing the street, playing baseball, teaching a Sunday school class, pasturing a church, doing evangelism, creating music and art, developing a computer program?

Johnson can’t say from the verses he cited since Jesus doesn’t give any details. Nothing is included or left out. Johnson is reading into the verses things that aren’t there. Or I should say that he is leaving out items that are found elsewhere in Scripture.

The writer to the Hebrews does something similar. He tells his readers that by this point in their Christian walk they should be “teachers,” they “need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God,” needing “milk and not solid food” (Heb. 5:13). He goes on to write that it’s through practice that their senses are trained to “discern good and evil” (5:14). Like Jesus’ words in the portion of the Sermon on the Mount that Johnson references, there are no particulars. There is no need for them, since earlier he wrote the following:

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12).

There is nothing in this passage that indicates that the realm of politics – civil government – is excluded since the when the whole Bible is read, there is a great deal said about the subject. This is supported by the apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy:

All Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

Of course, as we read on in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus mentions a number of moral particulars, but these three chapters do not exhaust what it means to live a holy life, especially when we read the above passages in Hebrews and 2 Timothy.

Why can’t we shine the bright light of all of God’s Word (Ps. 119:105) on the world — including civil government (“a minister of God”: Rom. 13:1–7) — like we do for self-government (“self-control”: Prov. 25:28), church government (“an overseer must be above reproach”: 1 Tim. 3:2), business (“just weights and measures”: Lev. 19:36), journalism (“do not bear false witness”: Ex. 20:16), and everything else in life?

Consider these words from John MacArthur. I’m bringing MacArthur into the discussion because Johnson is the executive Director of Grace to You, a Christian tape and radio ministry that features the preaching ministry of John MacArthur. Phil Johnson has been closely associated with MacArthur since 1981 and edits most of MacArthur’s major books. The following is from “You Are the Light of the World,” a sermon that MacArthur preached on Matthew 5:14–16:

I think God wants us to confront the world. Just because the world persecutes us, reviles us, and says all manner of evil against us falsely, just because it seems impossible that, in a country where the Constitution says no law could ever be passed that takes away any of the freedom of religion at all from anybody, we’re facing the fact that you can’t have a Bible study in your house without a permit. I really don’t think that it will get any easier. I don’t think that just because the world makes it tough on us that we should crawl in a hole or keep our mouths shut or hide. We should be like verse 13 [of Matt. 5], salt and light in the world.

MacArthur references the Constitution and that its original purpose was that “no law could ever be passed that takes away” anyone’s freedom of religion. This seems to be a reference to the First Amendment. How did the First Amendment get into the Constitution? It was Christians who worked for it. They weren’t satisfied with the text of the Constitution as it was drafted in 1787, so they pushed for a Bill of Rights to limit the power and authority of the newly constituted national civil government even more than the Constitution itself did.

The First Amendment is a political statement designed to keep Congress from interfering with religion at the state level. Following Johnson’s logic, Christians who lobbied for a constitutional provision that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was, to us his words, “lording it over” people, exercising “political dominion,” and making “society righteous through legislation.”

I suspect that most people would praise our Christian founders for putting into law the protections listed in the First Amendment to insure that churches can speak, write, and assemble about religion (all found in the amendment). That same First Amendment also gives citizens the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Might not that include “boycotts, protests, or a political campaign”?

We’re not subjects to Rome. “Render to Caesar the things that belong to Caesar” (Matt. 22) only applies to us in principle since we don’t live under Caesar. If anything, the Constitution is our Caesar, and it gives us the right and responsibility to boycott, protest, and campaign to change our government by changing those elected to office who violate their oath of office and legislate contrary to the Constitution.

People like Phil Johnson are living off borrowed capital. They denounce Christian involvement in politics but reap the benefits of generations of Christians that made it possible for them to enjoy the freedoms they have in this nation to preach the gospel unhindered. If we lose that freedom, it will be because Christians like Johnson and those who share his philosophy advise the church that to push for certain legislative remedies is an attempt to make “society righteous through legislation.”

That’s like saying working to pass a law to make buying and selling slaves illegal is an attempt to make society righteous through legislation. The purpose of the law is to protect people from being bought and sold. Must we wait for the nation to become righteous before such a law is passed? Not according to the Bible:

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted (1 Tim. 1:8–11).

If everybody had to be righteous before a law was passed, we could never pass a law and slavery might still be legal. The passage and enforcement of laws keep most unrighteous people from acting out their unrighteousness because they know that painful sanctions are meted out for law breakers.

This is not to say that all immorality can be curtailed by passing laws or that there should be a law for every unrighteous deed. Even the Bible doesn’t go that far. Prohibition is an example of trying to remedy a lack of self-control through legislation. By biblical standards drunkenness is a sin, but there is no call in the Bible to legislate against drinking alcohol.

I’ll conclude my comments tomorrow.

[A rush manuscript, to fulfill a promise. Please report any typos to joel@americanvision.org.]

“Behold, I make all things new,” says the Enthroned One of Revelation 21. What did He mean by this announcement of a totally new creation?

One of the most misunderstood and misapplied themes in all of Scripture is that of “new heavens and new earth” mentioned in Revelation 21:1 and 2 Peter 3:13. Peter wrote “we are waiting” (v. 13) for this reality, and many Christians think this is the case still for today: Christians are waiting for the appearing of the Lord, a final cataclysmic judgment of the world, and then a new heavens and new earth.

In the studies which follow, I am going to tell you why this is almost entirely incorrect.

The Promise of His Appearing

(See here for the previous exegetical work on 2 Peter 3:1-13.)

Different Worlds, Same Word

Peter’s answer to the scoffers (of 2 Peter 3:3–4) is notable in many ways, particularly in what it implies about the nature of the judgment—both in general and for what Peter’s audience should have expected in their episode. The relevant passages say,

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 3:5–7).

First, there are translational issues here. I don’t like the ESV (above) here, nor am I happy with any one popular translation that’s out there. Considering that punctuation and verse divisions came much later than the earliest manuscripts, and looking at the overall message Peter is trying to give (that is, a parallel between the certainty of the prophesied judgment of Noah’s flood and that of Jesus’ prophesied return in judgment), I think verses 5–7 could better be translated like this:

For they willingly ignore this: that heavens existed long ago, and land out of water and with water gathered together, by the word of God the world at that time perished, being flooded with water; and the present heavens and the earth by the same word, are being reserved for fire, kept unto a day of judgment and destruction of godless men.

While this is not a noticeably large difference, the key thing of interest here is the parallel of the two certain judgments being effected by the same Word of God. During the flood, the “world at that time” suffered judgment “by the word of God”; this was for Peter enough to refute the scoffers’ view that all things continued the same since the beginning of creation. But since the same God and the same Word also now pronounced judgment coming upon “the present heavens and earth” (of Peter’s day, before the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem), then the scoffers were equally wrong for questioning this time as they were about ignoring the history of Noah. Translating the verse this way brings to the fore the eternal reliability of the Word of God despite and against the claims of godless men, the scoffers. Peter is not trying to spin some arcane theory of creation here, he is simply reemphasizing the trustworthiness of the “sure Word of prophecy” (1:19) in judgment, for this simple fact alone overturns the scoffers’ view of both history and the near future.

Jesus v. Jerusalem
Only $14.95

Second, there is both interplay and distinction between “heavens and earth” and “world” here which shows the two are not necessarily to be considered equivalent, although not mutually exclusive either. This means there is flexibility and overlap in how these phrases are understood and applied, and contexts will play a role in determining how they are used.

The heavens existed from long ago, and the earth standing out of and with the water. This “heavens and earth” is a clear reference to the themes developed in Genesis 1:1–10, which includes the separation of waters and earth beneath the heavens, and the gathering of the waters together.

(There may be some semantic relation between the Septuagint’s sustema (“gathering”) of the waters and Peter’s usage of sunestoma (“standing together”), which I translated interpretively as “gathered together,” in regard to the land and water. There should be further study of the etymology and usage of these two words. There should be some focus given to how closely Peter came to the Septuagint of Genesis 1 here.)

Interestingly, the heaven and earth, land and sea described here are not the subjects of judgment during the flood, per Peter, but rather the water of that creation was the agent which does the flooding; and it floods not the land or earth (ge in Greek) specifically, but the kosmos at the time. This indicates at least some linguistic distinction between the physical elements of creation per se, and perhaps even as a whole—“heavens and earth”—and some other way of understanding the totality of what God used those elements to judge, here called kosmos. In short, kosmos is not necessarily exactly the same as the “heavens and earth,” nor vice versa.

At this point we must be quick to note that Peter does seem to use the two categories interchangeably. In verse 6, speaking of the old world before the flood, judgment comes via the creation upon the kosmos that existed at the time. But in Peter’s reapplication of that certainty to his own time, judgment was about to fall upon “the present heavens and earth.” So there seems to be at least some interchangeability in the terms. To the extent that there is, both terms can have flexibility to be understood sometimes metaphorically, representatively, typologically, and at other times literally. However much their penumbrae of meaning may overlap, Peter’s presentation of the two judgments as parallel examples of God’s reliable advance of righteousness in the earth expects us to accept significant if not total overlap in this place. And while I do not think they are technically identical by any means, Peter’s parallelism is clear (I paraphrase):

The world [kosmos] of that time perished by the Word of God (v. 6)

The heavens and earth of this time will be destroyed by the same Word of God (v. 7)

Yet since the “world”—as in the physical heavens and earth—of Noah was not literally “destroyed” and was not literally replaced by a new physical world after the flood, we need not necessarily assume that Peter is looking for a total physical change in the planet in His time either. There would certainly be a physical aspect in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, just as there was in the physical flood of Noah; but the death of the old world and the birth of the new need not itself to be understood as a purely physical transformation. This is primarily a covenantal change which carries with it certain limited physical transformations.

The long story short, here, is that God’s covenantal judgments—however extensive and severe—at different times can delineate different “worlds” before and after, as well as different “heavens and earths” before and after, while not necessarily being understood as literally as possible. There was an “old world” along with a “heavens” that “existed long ago” which perished in the flood, and there was a “present heavens and earth” which were about to be destroyed in Peter’s time to make way for a new heavens and new earth which Peter and his audience “expected” as we shall see. Yet during none of these judgments was the physical creation completely obliterated and replaced. The change from “old” to “new” in each case had limited physical applications which pertained to God’s covenants with man, judgment on wicked men, and the preservation of God’s elect into the new world. Thus there are multiple applications of “world” and of “heavens and earth” which we ignore at our peril.

Jesus v. Jerusalem PDF e-Book Download
Only $6.95

While this begs for a much more diverse study than I can pretend to offer here, the immediate application to 2 Peter 3 should be obvious: the heavens and earth about to be destroyed by no means necessarily refer to a destruction of the physical heavens and physical earth. Peter and his audience have something much simpler, though just as profound, in mind for this event. There was a destruction of the “present heavens and earth” coming in their lifetimes, after which they expected a new heavens and new earth,” and both of these expectations were built directly upon the teachings of Jesus.

Heavens and earth will pass away

We have established a close connection between Peter’s letters and Jesus’ eschatological predictions. This is particularly true of Matthew 24:34—“this generation”—as we saw. In this context, too, we should emphasize Jesus’ very next words in Matthew 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” These are obviously connected to the same predictions of Jesus. They also correlate directly to Peter’s “new heavens and a new earth.”

But what did Jesus mean “heaven and earth will pass away”? On the surface, this appears to be merely some kind of figure of speech to emphasize the invincibility of God’s Word compared to even the entire universe; but we should rethink this. Is it not the case, rather, that it is directly connected to the idea of a new heaven and earth about to come in the same time frame as the destruction Jesus just predicted. Indeed, seen from this viewpoint, Jesus was promising the passing of the present heaven and earth and the creation of a new heaven and earth in the lifetime of those listening to Him. And this is exactly the issue which Peter takes up in 2 Peter 3.

This connection is not only thematic, but literary also. Jesus’ word for “pass away” [pareleusetai] is repeated by Peter: “the heavens will pass away [pareleusontai] with a roar.” Peter is again applying the teaching of Jesus for his audience.

The word in itself does not denote so much a physical disappearance or death (in the way we today euphemize death as “passing away”), but is widely used to refer to passing or passing by in time, event, or physical distance. This is further evidence that the event Peter is describing is not a destruction of the physical planet, but a transition from one type of world order to a new one.

What then is meant by the obviously literal language Peter employs? What about the “heavenly bodies” and “all these things” being “dissolved,” the heavens being “set on fire and dissolved,” etc.? There is no good reason to take these literally in this case. There are good reasons not to, in fact:

First, to think that the literal “heavenly bodies” will literally “be burned up and dissolved” is nonsensical. Since “heavenly bodies” is held distinct from “the heavens” here, the phrase cannot refer to the heavens of the earth’s atmosphere (which could, technically, burn away and dissolve). If “heavenly bodies” is to be taken literally, it must refer to stars, planets, etc. But this presents a literal, physical problem: the vast majority of these heavenly bodies are stars. And what are stars? They are, to be blunt, balls of fire. Is God here saying He intends to destroy balls of fire by burning them with fire? Perhaps the insistent literalist will say God will use the hottest fire imaginable. But then again, stars are not just fire, they are essentially natural nuclear fusion reactors—the hottest temperatures imaginable. Again, is God warning us here that He plans to burn up the hottest temperature imaginable by using the hottest temperatures imaginable? Granted, with God all things are possible, but there seems to be something contradictory and irrational if this language is to be taken literally.

This problem is cleared up quite nicely when we understand this language to be like so many other Scriptures which describe God’s great covenantal judgments in terms of undoing creation (Isa. 13:10–19; 34:1–5; Ezek. 32:2–11; Joel 2:30–31; Matt. 24:29–30, to name a few). Whereas covenant blessing is frequently spoken of in terms of pristine creation language—gardens, rivers of water, abundant fruit, fish, etc.—covenant curses present the opposite: not the abundance of creation, but the undoing of it. This is exactly what we see in Jesus Olivet Discourse, as well as Peter’s instruction in 2 Peter 3.

Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church
Only $19.95

Second, the text does not say that the earth will be burned up and dissolved, only the heavenly bodies and the heavens. While the less reliable manuscripts behind the KJV do say the earth and its works will be burned up, the better MS tradition now reads “discovered” instead. While this sounds a bit strange at first, it is actually more biblical. Again, God is not burning up the literal universe here; this is a covenantal judgment destroying the present order of things and ultimately a judgment upon godless men. The burning up and dissolving of the heavens is a metaphorical removal of the heavenly firmament and exposing the godless sinfulness of the polluted land and the works in it—particularly, the faithless Jerusalem which had rejected and murdered Jesus. The godless will be exposed.

This is consistent with images found elsewhere in Scripture, and again during other covenantal judgments. For example, Ezekiel 8 has God giving Ezekiel a tour of the Temple complex, exposing all of the abominations of the Israelite people at the time. God had Ezekiel look through a hole in the wall (Ezek. 8:8) and discover what the Israelites thought they kept well-hidden (see 8:12). God then ordered a slaughter of the Israelites throughout the land. He specifically exempted the faithful and marked them (the elect), and then called for the judgment specifically to “Begin at my house” (Ezek. 9:6).

Now the ultimate symbol of the Old Covenant administration—the “present heavens and earth” of 2 Peter 3—was the Jerusalem Temple. Jesus had clearly predicted it would be destroyed, not one block left upon another (Matt. 24:2). James Jordan and Peter Leithart argue that the Temple was a symbolic “creation” of God, an image of “the heavens and the earth,” and I tend to agree.[1]  This is why the tabernacle/temple was adorned with beasts, lights, trees, fruit, a sea, etc., and separated from the other heavens by a ceiling (firmament), while a veil (again, a firmament) separated God’s presence in the Holy of Holies from everything else. While I do not have the time to develop this completely, let it suffice to say that God was about to destroy this particular heavens and earth literally, and by extension, the entire covenant world-order associated with it.

After Christ came in the flesh (the living tabernacle/temple), the Jews rejected Him, and He finished His work, any continued worship at that Old defunct Temple was rank idolatry in God’s eyes. It was an abomination. Thus Peter’s situation replays almost exactly that of Ezekiel 8ff. A covenantal administration lawsuit was in view, and unbelieving Israel was about to be destroyed for their abominations (rejecting Christ not the least of them), and Peter had even expressly told his readers that judgment must “begin at the household of God” (1 Pet. 4:17; cf. Ezek. 9:5).

God had rent the firmament to expose the land and all the works in it to His holy consuming presence. The godless men—unbelieving Jews—were thus discovered, exposed, and were soon to be destroyed.

Third, the translation “heavenly bodies” is not very supportable here anyway. Both times this phrase appears the Greek word is stoicheia, “basics” or “principles.” The KJV actually went with “elements,” but even this is not quite right if understood as physical elements, earthly elements. In the New Testament, the word is used to refer to principles of the covenant order, often of the Old Testament, to which the people should not want to return (Gal. 4:3, 9; Col. 2:8, 20; cf. Heb. 5:12). In one place, a group of Jews uses the verb form specifically to direct Paul to follow Old Covenant rituals (Acts 21:24). In other places, the verb form refers to a basic discipline of living righteously, by the faith, or by the Spirit (Phil. 3:16; Gal. 5:25; 6:16; Rom. 4:12). This is about all the biblical direction we get, and none of it refers to the heavenly bodies or to the physical elements of the world, earth, heavens, or universe. It seems the consistent theme throughout the biblical usage is that of basic principles of religion. Thus it seems that the “heavenly bodies” mentioned in 2 Peter 3 should probably be translated something like the KJV, but understood as a reference to the elements of the Old Covenant order. God was not about to nuke the stars, but He was about to destroy the Old Covenant Temple with all of its special rules, rituals, rites, vessels, and paraphernalia. These basic elements—which Paul calls stoicheia tou kosmou (“elements of the kosmos”)—would be no more.

And as that old heavens and earth passed away, Peter and his audience looked for—“expected,” “eagerly anticipated”—a new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Jesus v. Jerusalem
Only $14.95

New heavens and new earth

Peter concludes this section:

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:13).

Most commentators make the connection between this passage and Isaiah 65:17: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind” (Isa. 65:17). Isaiah’s description which follows of this new heavens and new earth includes the well-kown references to extra-long age (someone dying at 100 years is just a child and considered accursed for living so briefly) and changes in the nature of deadly beasts: “’The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,’ says the LORD” (Isa. 65:25).

The exact phrase appears again in Isaiah 66:22, and later in the New Testament in Revelation 21:1. Again, I must shorten this study more than I would like:

While 2 Peter 3:13 is definitely related thematically to Isaiah 65, it is a mistake to think that there is an exclusive relationship between the Isaiah passage and any New Testament usage, as if Isaiah were giving a unique prophecy of a unique event in the future, and then Peter and John were announcing the fulfillment of that one predicted event on their horizon (or at any time in the future). It is not that Isaiah announced “X,” and that Peter and John were saying “the time has come for X,” after which time “X” is done and gone. Rather, both texts are partaking of a much larger theological genre which is replayed many times throughout Scripture, and which reappears particularly prominently in these passages. This is to say that while Isaiah 65 is certainly a backdrop to the New Testament references to a new heavens and new earth, it is not the ultimate basis of it.

That ultimate basis is found in Genesis 1. All talk of creations or new creations and the mechanisms God uses to bring them about are rooted in the first chapter of Scripture and cannot be understood properly unless we begin there. This is not just because the theme of “creation” in general begins there, as if we cannot discuss “new” creation without relaying the theological foundations of creation in general afresh every time. Rather, it is because creation and Spirit-nurtured re-creation are there exhibited as God’s primary modus operandi for every act of blessing He brings about (by contrast, acts of judgment are often presented as language of de-creation).

At many points in Scripture these relational/covenantal images are rehearsed, usually in conjunction with periods of transition and judgment. God creates primordial tohu and bohu (Gen. 1:2); the Spirit/Wind of God then hovers (flutters like a bird) over the waters, and out of this comes ordered creation (Gen. 1:2ff).

God created man out of the dry land, and His Breath/Spirit entered that lifeless form and became a living system and image of God. God’s is now carried in the Temple made without hands, man.

The same story plays out with Noah. God had Noah prepare an ark/Temple in which life was preserved, which floated upon the chaotic flood. After some time a dove is sent out—an image of that Spirit hovering over the face of the waters—until dry land appears. A new creation is born. Indeed, emerges from the shut-ark—an image of resurrection. He is then designated an ish hadamah (Gen. 9:20)—translated as “man of the soil” and understood as “farmer,” but h-adam-ah is also a clear poetic reference to the original man Adam who was taken from the adamah, soil. The image: Noah is a new “Adam” standing upon the dry land of the Spirit-discovered new creation.

It plays out again with the Israelites, living in the “without form and void” of the Sinai wilderness. The unfaithful die there (in judgment), but the faithful are led by the Spirit (pillar of fire and cloud), across the waters of the Jordan, into the promised land (a new garden).

Jesus replays this exact picture: He is baptized in the waters of the Jordan river; at that moment the Spirit descends upon him in the form of a buffalo—just seeing if you were paying attention—no, in the form of a dove, and this is indication to John the Baptist that Jesus is the Messiah. Indeed, Jesus is, once again, the new Adam, the new creation, the new Israel, the new Temple etc.

This Jesus then predicts the destruction of the Old Covenant Temple, while predicting the rebuilding of the Temple (His body) in three days—His resurrection. The Old Temple is thus being replaced by the New One. Thus, in covenantal language: the present heavens and earth were being replaced by the new heavens and earth.

Last Days Madness (e-Book PDF Download)
Only $5.95

This new heavens and earth was, first, the new Temple, the body of Jesus. The new “stone cut out without hands” which would grow and fill the earth (Dan. 2:35–45). But this body/Temple, we know, is not limited to Jesus’ physical/resurrected body alone. There is a whole doctrine of the “body of Christ” in Scripture (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph. 3:6; 5:23; Col. 1:18, 24; cf. John 15), and it is all implicated in the doctrine of the new Temple as well. Peter—it is fitting—mentions how believers are living stones that build up a spiritual house: “you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5).

Paul is even clearer on this point. Union with Christ in “one new man” he connects with the new temple image:

For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit (Eph. 2:18–22).

And just as Peter was looking for that new creation in which “righteousness dwells,” so Paul assures us that the “new man” is “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:24).

In other words, the church—the body of all believers—are part of the new Temple. They are thus the new creation as well: the body of the new Adam, the new dwelling place of God via the Spirit. For this reason, Paul can say, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17). The literal Greek here is so spare it is even more frank: Therefore, if anyone in Christ, new creation: the old things passed, behold, new have come.

This—the church—is the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells which Peter and his audience anticipated. It was already there definitively because of the finished work of Christ, but it was not fully ratified—confirmed in history, if you will—until the purge of that old system was completed, and until that old Temple—a stack of stones which were cut out with hands—was leveled to the last block.

New Creation, New Adam, New Eve, New Marriage

The doctrine of “new heavens and new earth” appears most prominently in the New Testament in Revelation 21, and it ties together all of these themes and then some. The text reads,

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true” (Rev. 21:1–5).

We have seen the doctrine of the new creation and the new Adam, and we have discussed “union” with Christ in which believers become part of that creation. These images are repeated here, largely, and a hint is given which both 1) involves the nature of that union, and 2) ties all of the imagery back to the original creation.

The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation
Only $29.95

First, we have already mentioned that there can be many heavens and earths in this regard, in this typological application, so we must not necessarily translate protos here as “first.” One could only be dogmatic about this from the basis of some preconceived eschatological system being imposed upon the text. Instead, verse 1 should better read, “I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away.” This is perfectly allowable within the range of normal meanings for protos and fits better with what else we’ve learned so far. This interpretation also fits better with the common translation of protos in the following verse 4: “former [prota] things have passed away.”

This understanding is also backed up by the fact that there was a “world” (kosmos) prior to the flood (2 Pet. 3:5), and yet another “world” after it (Gal. 4:3 et al), and yet the new heavens and new earth of 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 is yet another new creation. In other words, there is not simply a first and a second, but many recurring new creations covenantally speaking as God progresses his creation toward glory.

Second, we are introduced to another new creation theme, and that is the new Jerusalem. This is yet another reference to the church, for Paul tells us in Galatians 4:26, “But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” This is in contrast to the earthly Jerusalem, which was in bondage to the Old Covenant, and which was soon to be destroyed, or “cast out” in Paul’s allegory (Gal. 4:21–31).

Indeed it is just this “Jerusalem above” which we meet again in Revelation 21, for this “new Jerusalem” was above, but descended “down out of heaven from God.”

This image is nowhere made more forcefully brilliant than in the book of Hebrews, where the author culminates his pro-Christian argument against the Old Covenant systems by telling the saints,

you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Heb. 12:22–24).

So it’s clear that this new Jerusalem is indeed the New Covenant church. We also have reiterated the righteousness that dwells in this new creation which houses “the righteous made perfect.”

In one sense, new Jerusalem is indeed the church, wedded as a bride in union to Christ. In another image, new Jerusalem is a New Eve to conjoin the New Adam, and Paul says “she is our mother.” Since only those who are in Christ have life, we can say that this new Jerusalem is the mother of all living—and thus, truly a New Eve, New Adam’s Bride (Gen. 3:20).

Third, the connection between the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 and the New Testament body of Christ/new Temple is seen in the language of the relevant passages:

the household of God, built on the foundation [themelio] of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone (Eph. 2:19–20).

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations [themelious], and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev. 21:14).

Unless this foundation that is the apostles has more than one superstructure erected upon it, we must assume some vital organic connection between the New Testament “temple in the Lord . . . dwelling place of God” of Ephesians 2 and the “new Jerusalem . . . dwelling place of God” of Revelation 21.

Fourth, what really is of delightful interest here, in terms of biblical theology, are the images opened up by the phrase “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev. 21:2). This draws together creation, marriage, and covenant, and world-order all in one place.

Jesus v. Jerusalem
Only $14.95

A Bride Adorned, or Kosmetology School

We have encountered the idea of “world” (kosmos) and have seen than while it significantly overlaps with “heavens and earth,” it is by no means always identical. Without time to do an extensive study to hash out all of the instances, it will suffice to say that “heavens and earth” seem to be a much broader and more general category than kosmos is most often used to denote. Granted, “world” does have universal import in many cases (dare we deny it in John 3:16?), but too many uses of kosmos and its various forms denote something much narrower and more technical than the universe at large.

Significantly here, this new Jerusalem bride of Revelation 21:2 is said to be “adorned” as a bride for her husband. The word for “adorned” translates a form of kosmos—here a perfect passive participle, kekosmemenen (“having been adorned”). In its verb form—kosmeo, etc.—the word alerts us to the more technical meanings that we are not used to associating with “cosmos” in our vernacular. We are too used to thinking of the “cosmos” as the “universe”: Russian astronauts, space explorers after all, are called cosmonauts. Carl Sagan—an astronomer—wrote a book and TV series about the universe called Cosmos. We describe things of grand, interstellar scale as being “cosmic.” And yet we have a perfectly technical usage of the word in our vernacular which is even more common but does not seem to register as quickly in regard to kosmos, and that is cosmetic. Makeup, fashion, plastic surgery, hair styling—all aspects of kosmeo which register more with “a bride adorned” than with a “universe.” Much of the usage of the word in Scripture relates more to our modern cosmetology than to our astronomy. This is about arrangement, adornment, even decoration, more than the physical matter of outer space and solar system—except insofar as the solar system, etc. are understood as God’s intricate and aesthetic ordering of things.

Indeed, this is the sense we more often than not get from Scripture (with the exception, perhaps, of the writings of John, who uses the word inordinately and almost always has a universal meaning in mind). Just a few examples:

1. The multitude of stars are referred to as “the host of heaven.” “Host” is kosmos (Gen. 2:1; Deut. 4:19; 17:3; Isa. 13:10 all LXX). Here the idea is “array” and the Hebrew word behind it is often applied to an army set in array for battle.
2. In many cases ornaments of different types of apparel—in many cases, jewelry—are described by forms of kosmo (Ex. 33:5–6; 2 Sam. 1:24; Isa. 3:1–26; 49:18; 61:10; Jer. 2:32; 4:30; Ezek. 7:20; 16:11; 23:40–41; 1 Pet. 3:3; 1 Tim. 2:9; Rev. 21:2, 19). Here it clearly means adornment and even decorative adornment. It is often a cause of sinful pride and vanity.
3. It is used to describe other types of decorations, such as of tombs, houses, and buildings (Matt. 12:44; 23:29; Luke 11:25; 21:5).
4. It described the fashioning or crafting of things in a special way: for example, who can straighten [kosmesai] what God has made crooked? (Eccl. 7:13 LXX). Solomon “set in order” [kosmion] many proverbs (Eccl. 12:9).

Again abbreviating, what we see here is not just making in general, but purposeful, delightful, decorative, comely art. We see this as God’s creation, yes, but in kosmos He is making something that has beauty and attraction. He is an artist, painting His divine bride, a delightful companion, and falling in love with her. It is His bride specially adorned for Him.

Yet she is also a city. She is a system: both chaotically buzzing and orderly, predictable, grand, complex—just like the fixed constellations and host of heaven, and the armies of God in battle-array. Applied to the covenantal systems governing God’s people over centuries in different forms, God’s kosmos is more than a decorative adornment, it is a world order. And dare we say it? Every time God brings about a new heavens and new earth—a new kosmos—we may well be justified in saying God brings about a new world order.

So here we see the theology behind the new heavens and new earth—at least in an abbreviated version. It is rooted in Genesis 1 and 2. Noah preached it. So did the Patriarchs, Moses, and Joshua. Samuel knew it; David preached it and sang it several times. Isaiah pronounced it; so did Ezekiel, and all the prophets, really. Nehemiah lived it, in part. Jesus brought it about, and His apostles lived through its birthpangs. This theology has never changed, though it has been told many times. It lies at the heart of what 2 Peter 3 is saying, as well as Revelation 21. They are all connected. One logos, one word, manifested in several “worlds” so far.

1. See Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing, 100.

The following is some background work on a larger study (to be completed tomorrow) on the “new heavens and new earth” motif in the New Testament. Before getting there, it turned out be necessary for me—psychologically at least, anyway—to lay the preterist foundations of the whole of 2 Peter 3. Tomorrow we will move on to the theological themes.

I fundamentally agree with the position Peter J. Leithart lays out in his little book The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter.[1] Leithart presents the case that all of 2 Peter 3 (and all of 2 Peter for that matter) was a single coherent message that must be interpreted in the pre-AD 70 context. If you want a little broader treatment than what I present here, I recommend Leithart’s work.

This now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 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.

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:1–13).

Jesus v. Jerusalem
Only $14.95

Here are my own exegetical highlights from 2 Peter’s message as I see it:

First, Peter is writing to a group of first-century Jewish believers. This is the “second letter” to them (3:1), and is addressed “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours” (2 Pet. 1:1), which is not very revealing in itself. But the first of those two letters (obviously 1 Peter) addresses this group more specifically as “those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion [diasporas] in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1). “Diaspora” is a well-known technical phrase referring to a people scattered or migrated from one area to another, usually as a result of conquest or exile. First Peter goes on to address the persecution of those saints, giving them comfort and encouragement during their trials. These obviously include Jewish Christians who have fled (were exiled from) Jerusalem under persecution.

Second, the nature of Peter’s message of comfort is of interest: he encourages them by saying the persecution is only temporary—“a little while” [oligon arti]—until the “revelation of Jesus Christ”:

In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:6–7).

This means both that their persecution would last only “a little while,” and also that Christ would be revealed after only “a little while.”

Both aspects of this promise correlate with the prediction Christ gave of the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in Matthew 24. In that discourse He said, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). Jesus promised He would return in judgment within that generation. Peter took Jesus at His Word (unlike many modern Christians) and was simply applying this promise to his readers’ situation. For the present, they were being persecuted and run out of town by unbelieving Jews; but Jesus would soon be “revealed” in judgment to destroy that Old Covenant system and its adherents—the very people who were doing the persecuting of these saints. Thus, in “a little while”—within the lifetimes of those original readers—Jesus would be revealed and this particular “revelation” would cause the persecution of these saints to cease (because it would kill most of the persecutors and demoralize the rest).

Note, then, how Christ said “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Note also how something very similar applies to Peter’s comforting of the persecuted saints: their trial is only for a little while until Jesus is revealed. We should connect Jesus’ promise of a return-judgment on Jerusalem within His hearers’ generation directly with the situation of Peter’s audience which had already fled Jerusalem under duress. The “this generation” directly correlates with the “little while” of Peter’s audience.

In fact, there may well have been some of the same individuals who heard Jesus warn “this generation,” were later forced to flee Jerusalem and Judea, who were now sitting among the audience of Peter’s letters.

Third, the entire letter of 2 Peter is an exhortation to the same group addressed in the first letter during this same interim time period to continue trusting what they have been previously taught from the prophets, apostles, and especially the promises of Jesus. Peter “reminded” the group of the first message: “remembrance” is his goal in 2 Peter 1:12, 13, and 15, and 3:1. They were to hold to what had been promised and not to be deceived by false prophets and “scoffers” who had in the mean time (between letters) come among them. In both letters, therefore, patience is the key message—and patience toward the same goal and for the same reason.

Fourth, the message of the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 reveals that the issue was Jesus’ coming and coming soon. That is, it relates to both the fact of His appearing and the expectation of the saints that it would be soon. The first aspect is obvious as the scoffers’ message is, “Where is the promise of his coming?” The second aspect of the timing is implied. Why would they even be questioning why Jesus had not yet appeared if the operating assumption of the audience was not that He would appear soon, or within their lifetimes? Indeed, why would Peter consider such questioning as a product of “sinful desires” (v. 3) and a threat worth countering in writing unless it conflicted with a core expectation that was central to the very message Christ had left? If Peter and these first century Christians did not expect Jesus to return for thousands of years yet, the scoffing makes no sense and is certainly no threat at all to the faith and practice of these first century Christians.

These two aspects of Jesus’ coming and its first-century imminence are not only revealed here but are central to the whole reason Peter wrote to begin with. It was this very questioning of the soon appearing of Jesus that caused Peter to warn of the rise of false prophets immediately in the previous chapter, 2 Peter 2. Peter began that chapter warning that “there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1).

Fifth, the scoffers themselves were first-century individuals. While the phrase “denying the Master who bought them” has made many appearances in free will-vs.-predestination debate, its first-century context must take precedence: these were unbelieving Jews who had been given the oracles of God, were expecting their Master and Messiah, and yet when He came they rejected Him. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (John 1:11). Further, Jesus had warned his disciples, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18), and “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Mark 13:13). Now this was literally coming true as those who rejected and denied Christ now turned against His disciples. They were persecuting the believing Jews, enticing them with many deceptions and arguments for leaving the Messiah they had embraced, and thus “denying the Master.” They were denying Him in every sense—including contradicting His own Word that He would appear within the generation.

Jesus v. Jerusalem PDF e-Book Download
Only $6.95

Therefore, the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 should be identified with the false prophets of 2 Peter 2. They did not believe Jesus was the Messiah when He came in the flesh, and they persisted in this unbelief throughout the generation. They tried to force it upon Jesus’ faithful followers by scoffing at His promise to return. Just as they had mocked Him to come down when He was on the cross, so they mocked Him to appear as His delay made His promise to return seem vain.

Sixth, the scoffers’ argument and Peter’s response relate directly to Jesus’ first-century warnings to His disciples. The scoffers’ argument is backed by a general appeal to something like uniformitarianism: “For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation” (v. 4). While there can be discussion about which “fathers” are actually in view here, the main aspect of the argument lies in the phrase “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” These guys saw nothing out of the ordinary, life goes on, nothing changes, so much for this great prediction made by Jesus, allegedly supposed to happen in their lifetimes

If “fathers” refers to the first-century New Covenant “fathers”—the apostles—as most modern commentators seem to think, then this makes even more sense. Jesus was allegedly supposed to come within the generation, but if the very people who believed and spread this message were passing away, that promise would be looking all the more vain.

The only thing that stops me from quickly adopting this view is the definitive nature of the phrase “the fathers fell asleep.”  The word “fell” is in the aorist tense which usually denotes simple passive without continuing action into the present. This is strengthened by the “since,” which indicates the audience was looking backward on the fact. And the phrase “the fathers” is comprehensive: It seems to indicate all the fathers fell asleep, not just some. But we know this is not the case with at least one of those “fathers”— Peter—who is alive to write this letter after all. So there should be some hesitation in adopting this view too quickly. In the end, however, the argument of the scoffers is driven more by the alleged uniform continuance of history through the audience’s present than by the starting point of the “fathers.”

Peter’s response is highly notable: “For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished” (2 Pet. 3:5–6). Peter says essentially, “You want to talk about uniform history since the beginning of creation? Ok, let’s do. Ever heard of a thing called the flood?” Peter says these scoffers are willingly ignoring how God once destroyed the world by the flood, and thus how things haven’t always continued as they were since the beginning of creation.

Peter had brought this up already when he covered the false prophets in the previous chapter. The entire world at that time scoffed at the prophecy of Noah:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. . . .

Is Jesus Coming Soon?
Only $8.95

And furthermore,

if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority (2 Pet. 2:4–10).

Peter’s response to the scoffers’ argument is thus essentially to say, “You sound like the people who mocked Noah before the promised flood came. But . . . it came.” And to the persecuted saints the message was that God knows perfectly well how to bring judgment on those people while at the same time preserving His saints.

The argument and Peter’s response are vitally connected to the first century context, as they were directly anticipated by Jesus in Luke 17:

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17:26–30).

We should, in fact, understand Peter’s response to the scoffers as merely an application of Jesus’ teaching here—a teaching Peter would have learned in person with Jesus. When the situation arose with his persecuted audience, it was not a hard call on how to respond. While the scoffers willingly ignored the nature of God’s cataclysmic judgments in history, Jesus and Paul emphasized them as blueprints of what was very soon to come.

Note not only the similarity in the reference to Noah and the flood, but also language of Jesus’ return to destroy the ungodly. Jesus describes it as a day in which he will be “revealed” (Luke 17:30); this is the same language with which Peter comforts his readers, assuring them that the “revelation of Jesus Christ” will occur in “a little while” (1 Pet. 1:7). The same Greek word, apokalypsis, is employed in both.

Jesus v. Jerusalem
Only $14.95

The context of Luke 17 makes the first-century context clear as well: it puts this cataclysmic judgment in the context of the coming of the kingdom (Luke 17:1) and right on the heels of Jesus being rejected and suffering from “this generation” (Luke 17:25). As I wrote in Jesus v. Jerusalem:

But the disciples receive special instruction as to the nature of the visible coming judgment. Many will be looking for Christ after Christ is gone (thus there would be many false Christs in that interim period, Matt. 24:5; Luke 21:8), and of all people who had a keen interest in His arrival, the disciples would be most anxious, for they would be among the few who knew for sure He was coming back in their lifetimes. So Jesus makes sure to insulate them against false Christs. He does this by teaching them about the true nature of the coming destruction He has been preaching about:

And he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.  But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it. I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.” And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather” (Luke 17:22–37).

We have already discussed part of this passage in relation to the exodus motif with Noah and Lot. These were forewarned men who were prepared for a coming judgment and got out when the time came. The others were all taken by surprise by a massive cataclysmic judgment. Here Jesus sees fit to give His disciples this warning, but not unto the multitudes or the Pharisees. This was a warning to the elect remnant only, for only they would get out.

The lesson is necessary because the pressure to follow after false Christs would be overwhelming. Jesus would later say that these false prophets would be so persuasive that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect (Matt. 24:24). The elect remnant, in other words, would need a special focus upon the true Christ, special warning, and here they received it. “Behold, I have told you in advance” (Matt. 24:25). After this, Jesus will immediately proceed to a parable concerning the focused prayers of the elect, as we shall see.

In addition to this lesson which we have already covered earlier, it is important to note Jesus’ prediction, “But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” (17:25). This verse will have great importance later when we hear Jesus referring again to “this generation.” To those who may be tempted to argue there that “this generation” refers to something other than the generation to whom Jesus was speaking—something more general or more future—the context here in Luke 17:25 makes it clear that Jesus’ “this generation” would be the same generation which rejected Him and caused Him to suffer.

The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel
Only $39.95

Peter continues through with the logic of his argument: these scoffers are willingly ignorant of the judgment that overthrew the scoffers of the old world in the time of Noah, and yet the flood came. Just so, the present world (at the time) would indeed be judged by fire and the ungodly scoffers themselves would perish (v. 6–7). We’ll discuss these passages for their theology in a moment.

So up to this point we can understand:

1)      Peter’s letters were written to a specific first century audience for a specific first century setting

2)      That setting and the persecution in it was only temporary and brief, for Jesus would be revealed in “a little while.”

3)      Second Peter follows directly and consistently from First Peter with the same theme, audience, context, promises, encouragement, message, etc.

4)      The scoffers’ argument assumes that the saints expected Jesus to appear and to appear soon.

5)      The scoffers themselves, therefore, must have come during that time in the first-century.

6)      Peter’s response corresponds to Jesus’ teaching in Luke 17, which strongly suggests a first-century judgment-coming of Jesus.

In light of these facts, consider Peter’s extension of the logical argument:

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 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.

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God (2 Pet. 3:8–12).

In light of what we have already learned, we can be sure Peter’s main point here has nothing to do with actual thousands of years, but simply with restoring the comfort of these persecuted saints and refuting the scoffers who argued essentially, “Look how much time has already passed and nothing has changed, the Lord has not appeared. Get a clue: He ain’t comin’ back.” Peter says wait a minute, God’s timing is not our timing: what seems like eons to us is merely a day to him; what we overlook as a passing day He may consider to have the import of a thousand years. God is patient, waiting to bring in the full number of elect saints to your fold before He completes his promise. The point is, trust God’s timing, not man’s perceptions of time. In God’s time, Peter says, that day of judgment would indeed come just as Jesus promised.

Jesus v. Jerusalem
Only $14.95

Two teachings of Jesus come into view here: one is a direct reference from Jesus, the other an application. The first is Peter’s reference to the “thief in the night.” Jesus used this exact metaphor in Matthew 24:43 and Luke 12:39, among others (Paul repeats it as well in 1 Thessalonians 5:1). To the extent we understand Jesus as speaking in a first-century context in those passages, so we should also see it here with Peter, only nearer to becoming a reality.

And in the mean time, those persecuted followers needed to hold more steadfastly than ever to the faith they professed. This second idea is an application of Jesus’ teaching about the power of the false prophets that would come. He had said, “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand” (Matt. 24:24–25; Cf. Mark 13:23). “See” here is from the Greek idou and means “listen up,” “take heed” “pay attention.” Jesus was emphatic here because it would be of such importance to His audience (the disciples). This was not mere rhetoric, it was a critical reality: some false prophets would be so deceptive as to deceive even the elect if that were possible. Jesus essentially said, “Wake up, people. This is real. It will happen. I am telling you now so you know when it happens. I have warned you.” Peter took that warning to heart and was just as emphatically relaying it to his own readers.

So far then we have established a first-century context for the meaning and fulfillment of this passage. There are aspects we have not yet covered, but they do not affect the timing of the passage. What we’ve seen so far will be further enhanced by the theological study of more of the passage that follows.

1. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004.