Biblical Covenantalism and First Peter
Turning now to 2 Peter, I will assume that the author is the apostle who wrote 1 Peter. As with the first chapter of 1 Peter, 2 Peter 1 is a wonderful summary of Christian discipleship goals. This letter is shorter than 1 Peter and the themes are different; they deal with false teachers and the dissolution of the present order in terms of judgment. This makes it much closer in content to Jude, which either influenced it or was influenced by it.[1] At least that is the way it is often viewed.
Testimony to the Transfiguration
As chapter 1 closes Peter inserts a memory he had of the Transfiguration of Jesus on the mount, to which he was an eyewitness (Mk. 9:2f.).
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. – 2 Peter 1:16-18.
Peter directly relates the event to “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:16). By this I think Gundry is right when he says Peter is “using the transfiguration as a preview that guarantees the second coming.”[2] That is a good way to put it.[3] Just as the miracles of Jesus previewed His transformative presence when He comes as the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6), even so His great transfiguration, in which “as He prayed, the appearance of His face was altered, and His robe became white and glistening” (Lk. 9:29) preannounces His coming in glory (Matt. 25:31). He will come to bring in the long-awaited Kingdom (Matt. 6:10; Rev. 12:10). And this interpretation is supported in the immediate context:
for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. – 2 Peter 1:11.
The words of the Father which Peter heard on the mount recall Psalm 2:7, which in context depicts the King in His Kingdom (Psa. 2:6-9), which buttresses the eschatological interpretation of the Transfiguration and of 2 Peter 1:16-18.
Scoffers in the Last Days
2 Peter 3 turns the attention to “the last days” (2 Pet. 3:3), and “the promise of his coming” (2 Pet. 3:4). He bases what he will go on to say on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles (2 Pet. 3:2). Citing the scoffers who point out that essentially nothing has changed and there is no reason to believe Christ will return to cause change (2 Pet. 3:4), Peter then indulges in a little cosmology. I do not wish to get into that cosmology here, although I do believe that when everything is seen for what it is the views of Peter in 2 Peter 3:5 (not to mention Moses in Genesis 1) will be shown to be accurate. God will have the last laugh.
The destruction of the original earth in the worldwide Flood is used as a contrast to the coming judgement of the earth in fire. This produces the triad of 1. This world before the Flood (Eden to the Ark), 2. This world from the Flood to the second coming, and 3. This world from the second coming to the dissolution.[4]
But is it a dissolution? Not everyone agrees. McClain notices that the word “new” (kainos) can mean new in character as well as new in substance.[5] But the problem does not lie with the word kainos, but in the description of the destruction of the heaven and earth which Peter supplies:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? – 2 Peter 3:10-12.
Notice that the obliteration of the present creation is termed by Peter “the Day of the Lord” (2 Pet. 3:10). He employs several verbs to describe the sort of destruction involved. It is true that none of these verbs (“pass away,” “melt,” “burned up[6],” “dissolved”) requires an utter dissolution or annihilation of the present creation. But when we look at what is being dissolved, we find it is the “elements,” the “stoicheion” that are being referred to. The “stoicheion” are the basic constituents of reality, not just the structures and topography of the land. Hiebert writes, “The physical structure of the present world will disintegrate, not necessarily be annihilated.”[7] I can go with that.
Here we must bring in three passages from elsewhere in the NT, Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 20:11 and 21:1:
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
In the Gospel passage Jesus has just been describing the End Times, and He finishes off by comparing the destruction of the present order of things, both heaven and earth, with the endurance of His words. One may claim that this is mere hyperbole, but I am not so sure. There is little reason to state the destruction of the present creation in this way unless He is revealing a fact. And notice the whole creation is in view, not just the earth.
It is the same with the two Revelation passages. Both heaven and earth are affected, and the verb pheugo (“fled away”) in Revelation 20:11 calls to mind the image of something vanishing out of sight.
Whether the present heavens and earth are to be renovated or replaced is neither here nor there in the scheme of things, but when a theological perspective is added in the shape of Revelation 22:3: “there shall be no more curse,” I am inclined to state the total annihilation view. It seems to me that the curse on the ground that God pronounced in Genesis 3:17 goes deeper than what a renovation will produce.[8]
[1] Peter H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude, 203-208.
[2] Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament, 958. See also D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary, Greenville, SC, Unusual Publications, 1989, 71-72.
[3] Not everyone is so adamant about the second coming connection. Matthew S. Harmon, The God Who Judges and Saves: A Theology of 2 Peter and Jude, Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2023, doesn’t even mention it.
[4] Ibid, 965. Peter H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude, 240.
[5] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 510.
[6] Vlach and others note that this word means “to lay bare” or “expose” and he is right (Michael J. Vlach. He Will Reign Forever, 512-513). But I do not think all this tips the balance in favor of a renovated earth rather than a completely replaced one when the other verbs and passages are brought alongside. Whichever way it turns out, I shall be more than satisfied with the results!
[7] Also D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary, 160.
[8] Job 15:15 also states that, “the heavens are not pure in His sight.”
