A Study of 2 Peter 3:10-13

By R. Larry Overstreet

[R. Larry Overstreet, Professor of Homiletics, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana]

Second Peter 3:10–13 presents two major problems to the interpreter. The first of these is determining the text in the conclusion of verse 10, that is, whether the text reads that the earth and its works “shall be burned up” or “shall be found.” The second problem is the actual interpretation of the passage. This study will examine each problem in order to seek to gain a solution that will be in harmony with the Word of God as a whole and in harmony with the immediate context of 2 Peter.

The Textual Difficulty

The Greek Text

Interestingly, Robertson makes no definite decision on the textual problem here, but merely says that “the text is corrupt.”[1] At the conclusion of 2 Peter 3:10 the United Bible Societies’ Greek text gives the word εὑρεθήσεται, a future passive indicative of the verb εὑρίσκω, meaning, in general terms, “to find.” The verb has various shades of meaning, such as, “to find after seeking,” “to find without seeking,” or “to obtain.”[2] However, for the present discussion the meaning “to find” is sufficient. The word in the text would thus be translated “shall be found.”

Although some dissenting opinion can be found, most modern textual critics would regard this reading as having the strongest manuscript support. Metzger comments that this reading is the “oldest reading, and the one which best explains the origin of the others that have been preserved….”[3]

Several variant readings must be noticed and examined before a conclusion can be drawn regarding the text. One of these is a major variation involving the substitution of another word with a complete change of thought while the others are minor variations in comparison with the first.

The Variant Readings

The major variation is the substitution of κατακαήσεται for εὑρεθήσεται. The translation would then read, “the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up,” as κατακαίω means “to burn up.”[4]

This reading, however, does not have the manuscript support for it that many would desire. The uncial manuscript A supports this reading as do various lesser manuscripts and the Byzantine text type. While some textual critics regard the Byzantine text as the most accurate,[5] most leading textual critics regard it otherwise.

When attention is turned to the context of the passage, however, this verb, meaning “burned up,” seems to fit harmoniously. For example, Wuest says that this verb “from contextual considerations seems to be most likely.”[6] Lenski agrees by saying εὑρεθήσεται is “out of line of thought.”[7] Because of this, it is easy to see how this verb could have crept into the text by an early scribe who also thought εὑρεθήσεται did not fit in with the context of the passage. However, if κατακαήσεται were the original reading, it is harder to explain how εὑρεθήσεται could have crept into the text.

In addition to the major variant in the text, several lesser variants also exist and are well summarized by Metzger.[8]

Cunnington believes that the insertion of the negative (Metzger’s “a” view in endnote 8) is the most likely solution.

An Egyptian translation (known as the Sahidic) gives “will not be found”; a phrase common in apocalyptic writings (e.g., Daniel 11:19; Revelation 16:20, 18:21). The negative particle may have been accidentally omitted by an early copyist; and the Sahidic version may well represent what the author actually wrote; with it we get the best sense.[9]

However, it would have been just as easy for the copyist of the Sahidic version to have inserted “not” as it would have been for a prior scribe to have accidentally omitted it. Indeed, Revelation 20:11 has οὐκ εὑρέθη, and this may explain the insertion of οὐ in 2 Peter 3:10. Both the “burnt up” and the “vanish away” appear to be corrections made by copyists.

Since εὑρεθήσεται is a difficult reading, various conjectures concerning the text have been made.[10] However no conjecture has as yet proved to be widely accepted. The external evidence is strong enough to conclude that εὑρεθήσεται is the correct reading for this verse. But the problem of how this reading fits into the context of this passage still needs to be faced.

When the context of the passage is examined, it is difficult to see how the declarative statement, “the earth and the works that are therein shall be found,” could have any understandable meaning. Lumby attempts to understand it with a connection to Ecclesiastes 12:14. “From this reading the mind goes to the words of the Preacher, ‘God shall bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil’ (Eccl 12:14). The sense is thus bound close [sic] with the coming of the day of the Lord.”[11] Thus the conclusion is drawn that no matter how much something tried to stay hidden, it still “shall be found.” Another suggestion looks at the Greek word from the same viewpoint but appeals instead to Revelation 20:11–15. This solution would make the “shall be found” of 2 Peter refer only to the works, and these would be discovered at the great white throne judgment.[12] Both solutions do have one thing in their favor: They accept the preferred reading in the Greek text.

In relation to the first solution, two major problems exist. First, it is difficult to see how the day of the Lord could ever be connected with Ecclesiastes 12:14. Surely the reference to “judgment” is not clear enough to distinguish an exact time element that is involved. Second, the judgment in Ecclesiastes 12:14 applies only to every work “of man” (see v. 13), while the reference in 2 Peter 3:10 refers to the earth in addition to all the works therein. This viewpoint does not solve the difficulty.

The second possible solution refers the Petrine passage to the great white throne judgment. This is the proper referral, as will be seen later, but an improper comparison is made. The first error here is made in limiting “shall be found” in 2 Peter 3:10 to the works in the earth. The sense of the sentence indicates that the earth should not be separated from the works therein. The second mistake is in referring the works here in Peter to Revelation 20:12–13 and the works of man, for in Revelation 20:11 the earth and the heaven “fled away” from the great white throne. If the earth has already fled away and no place is found for it (v. 11), how could it and the works therein be referred to in verses 12–13 ? This viewpoint does not supply the answer either.

A third solution to the problem of understanding εὑρεθήσεται is advanced by Danker. He compares 2 Peter 3:10 with the pseudepigraphical Psalm of Solomon 17:10, and suggests that “the word εὑρεθῆναι is here understood in the sense of judicial inquiry culminating in a penal pronouncement.”[13] Danker also suggests “further conjectural emendation” to show how εὑρεθήσεται does indeed point to “moral responsibility involving actions, not merely material effects….”[14]

Danker’s solution has as its strength the fact that he maintains the best attested reading. However, the fact that he too must emend the text to bring this reading into a supposed harmony with the context leaves his proposal questionable.

The Greek Text Repunctuated

Since early manuscripts of the New Testament were written without any punctuation marks, editors and translators have had to wrestle with many problems in seeking to punctuate the text correctly. In some cases in the New Testament an interrogative word will, without doubt, make the sentence a question. On the other hand, in many cases there is no interrogative word to indicate a question. How then do the editors determine when a sentence is a question and when it is a declarative statement? In discussing this problem Robertson says:

Here the inquiry is colorless except as the tone of voice or context may indicate one’s attitude. In fact most interrogative sentences have no interrogative word at all. Cf. Lu. 13:2; Jo. 7:23; 13:6; Ac. 21:37, etc. Hence it is sometimes a matter of doubt whether a sentence is interrogative or declarative. Cf. Jo. 16:31; Ro. 8:33; 14:22; 1 Cor 1:13; 2 Cor 3:1; Heb 10:21; Jas 2:4, etc. It may be doubtful also at what point the question ends. Cf. Jo. 7:19; Ro. 4:1. Winer rightly says that on this point grammar cannot speak.[15]

Appeal can be made to the manuscripts for determination of the text, but not always for the punctuation of the text. Regarding the punctuation, one must appeal to the context and the tone of the passage involved. Peter’s tone is one of solemnity as he mentions that the day of the Lord is going to come as a thief, that the heavens are going to pass away, that the elements shall melt. No doubt in his next phrase he is also speaking solemnly. The context of the passage is speaking of destruction, dissolution, and judgment. This writer believes that Peter is not making a declarative statement regarding the earth and the works therein, but is asking a solemn and thought-provoking question; therefore, the verse should be punctuated accordingly. The verse would thus read, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat; and shall the earth and the works that are therein be found?” This was a question to which Peter did not expect a simple yes or no answer, but a question designed to cause his readers to stop and ponder on this cataclysmic event which was to come. It was a question which would prepare them for the following statement concerning their own life of godliness. And this question demands from all believers great consideration just as it did in Peter’s day.[16]

Plummer adopts this same approach in seeking to solve this problem. However, he separates the earth from the works therein. He would translate the last half of the verse, “The elements shall be dissolved, the earth also: and shall the works that are therein be found?”[17] This writer, however, does not agree with this separation because the earth and the works therein are linked together and are inseparable.

The Interpretation

Attention will now be turned to the actual interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10–13. This will be treated in three sections: (a) the time of the conflagration, (b) the extent of the conflagration, and (c) the effect of the conflagration on Christian living.

The Time of the Conflagration

Second Peter 3:10 is clear that this event will transpire in “the day of the Lord.” But this phrase is not as definite as it appears. Before investigating this phrase, two other “days” in Scripture must be distinguished. First, the phrase “day of Christ” is used in the New Testament. This “day” refers to the rapture of the church as can be determined by an inductive study of the term used throughout the New Testament.[18] Second, the phrase “day of God” occurs only once in the Word of God, and that is in verse 12 of this passage. Disagreement exists over the significance of this phrase. However, it seems that “the day of God (2 Pet 3:12) is an identification of the eternity yet future when the new heavens and the new earth will have been created.”[19]

In the term “the day of the Lord” the word “day” is an extended period of time. Eschatologically, this period begins after the coming of Christ at the rapture, and extends to the passing away of the heavens and the earth which are now in existence. Included in this day are “the judgments of God upon the nations and upon Israel” occurring at the second advent, and “the kingdom of a thousand years which follows.”[20] The “day of the Lord,” then, is the time period from the rapture through the great tribulation and the millennium which concludes at the passing away of the present heavens and earth at the great white throne judgment after the millennial kingdom.[21]

Regarding the time of the conflagration, one viewpoint is that this will take place prior to the inception of the millennial kingdom, while the other holds it to be at the conclusion of the millennium.

The clause, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief,” undoubtedly refers to the suddenness of the coming and its unexpectedness. The Lord Jesus spoke in the same way of the works of a thief (Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39). In this extended time period more than one aspect of the coming as a thief is possible. The judgments of God which fall in the tribulation period will come unexpectedly. Christ will come back suddenly at the second advent in judgment. Likewise, at the conclusion of the millennium, judgment falls unexpectedly on the earth-dwellers who are unsaved.

Perhaps one of the earliest writers to defend in detail the view that the conflagration will occur prior to the millennium was Peters in his Theocratic Kingdom. He presents five arguments for this viewpoint: (1) The Jews, before and during Peter’s time, expected a fire before the kingdom. (2) The new heavens and new earth of Isaiah 66:22 (which refers to the kingdom) are preceded by fire in that context. (3) Peter does not mention the millennium, and besides he has the wicked existing continuously to the end. (4) Peter presents the advent of Christ at this very period of time in association with the conflagration. (5) Christ’s glorious theocracy is perpetual, and will not be removed or destroyed by the universality of this burning.[22]

These five arguments may be answered as follows: (1) What the Jews thought on the subject really makes little difference. Scripture is the final authority. (2) Isaiah 66:22 does not refer to the kingdom, but to eternity (this passage will be dealt with further in a later section). (3) While the Apostle Peter does not mention the millennium, neither does he deny it, and according to Revelation 20:7–9, there will be a last final revolt of wicked men at the conclusion of the thousand-year reign; this is evidence enough that the wicked do exist to the end. (4) To say that the Apostle Peter here speaks of the advent of Christ is inaccurate since Peter mentions only “the day of the Lord” which is an extended period of time. (5) No one denies that the kingdom is to be perpetual, and no premillennialist states (to this writer’s knowledge) that it will be destroyed by conflagration. The conflagration does not cause Christ’s rule to end. Instead, it clears the way for the new heavens and the new earth, where, for eternity, God will be all in all.

Culver, a premillennialist, also holds to a conflagration before the millennial kingdom. He states his indebtedness to Peters’s Theocratic Kingdom, but he gives a few additional arguments: (1) The New Testament places a judgment of fire at the inception of the kingdom (2 Thess 1:7–8; Rev 16:8–9). (2) The Old Testament says the kingdom will occupy a regenerated earth from its beginning; therefore, the purging must be before it (Isa 65:17–25; 66:22–24). (3) Peter had in mind a near event which the people addressed might live to see. (4) Christians are to live in expectancy of that day, therefore, it cannot be a millennium away.[23]

The following answers may be given to these four observations.

1. As Walvoord has well said, “A problem exists in some of the descriptive passages of the second advent relative to the use of fire as a divine judgment in connection with the establishment of the millennial reign of Christ.”[24] Walvoord continues his discussion briefly considering 2 Peter 3:7, 10, and then partly answers the problem in this way:

The best solution to the problem is that the expression “the day of the Lord” is an extensive time period which includes not only the tribulation and the judgments taking place at the second advent, but which includes the entire millennial reign of Christ as a time period in which the Lord deals directly with sin. The destruction of the earth described, therefore, in 2 Peter 3:10 is at the close of the day of the Lord, rather than at the second coming, and is properly located at the end of the millennium when all wickedness in the earth will be judged in a final way.[25]

At the beginning of the millennium changes will take place. For example, in Matthew 19:28 a “regeneration” takes place. The word is παλινγενεσία, which means “new birth, renewal, restoration, regeneration.”[26] This restoration will not be of the extent, however, of that given by Peter, but will be a judgment on the unsaved.

In addition, fire may be used to represent divine visitation without meaning that every use must be so interpreted. That the fire of 2 Thessalonians is for vengeance on those who “know not God” is indicated by 2 Thessalonians 1:8. Second Peter 3:10–13 is clear that its conflagration is of the heavens and the earth. Thus 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and 2 Peter 3:10–13 speak of two separate and distinct events that should not be equated. Revelation 16:8–9 is a third event and refers to the tribulation period, not the second advent of 2 Thessalonians or the conflagration of 2 Peter. Culver has equated three distinct events as one.

2. In reply to Culver’s second observation, the Old Testament prophets often wrote in one passage of two separate events in time. A classic example of this, and one interpreted by Christ Himself, is found in Isaiah 61:1–2 (cf. Luke 4:18–19). Here the first and second advents are seen together, and were it not for New Testament revelation, one would think they happened simultaneously.

Thus regarding Isaiah 65:17–25 Scofield rightly said, “Verse 17 looks beyond the kingdom-age to the new heavens and the new earth…but verses 18–25 describe the kingdom-age itself.”[27] In Isaiah 66:22–24 the same holds true. For, while verses 23–24 refer to the millennium, verse 22 looks forward to eternity and gives the assurance that even there Israel as a nation will remain. Both of these passages, when compared with the New Testament revelation on the subject of the new heavens and the new earth, are shown to relate to eternity as well as to the millennial kingdom.

3. To say, as Culver says, that Peter had in mind a near event is saying more than the passage says. To say that the people addressed would live to see this event happen implies that they would live on the earth. To say this and to be consistent one must either abandon the teaching of the rapture completely or place the rapture after the conflagration, both of which are inconsistent with the premillennial system Culver holds.

4. Peter does not say that the Christians being addressed are to livein expectancy of “the day of the Lord,” as Culver implies. Rather,they are to live in expectancy of “the day of God,” an identification of eternity which is still future. Christians are to look forward to the time when they will dwell with God in eternity.

The conclusion is therefore drawn that the arguments in favor of the conflagration of the earth occurring before the millennium are inadequate to explain this text.

The Extent of the Conflagration

Two viewpoints exist as to the extent of the conflagration: that this conflagration will be merely a limited renovation of the earth, or that this conflagration will result in the annihilation of the universe.

Culver presents several arguments in favor of the renovation view: (1) It could not be annihilation for the earth endures “forever” (Pss. 104:5; 148:3–6). (2) This dissolution only affects certain aspects of the cosmos (Isa 13:9–14; 24:19–20; Nah 1:5). (3) This renovation of the cosmos is necessary in order to produce the conditions the prophets declared shall exist in the millennium. (4) This whole affair is described best by the word regeneration which is the description given by Christ.[28]

These four observations will now be examined.

1. The word forever does not have to mean eternity. This word may be defined as “long duration, antiquity, futurity,”[29] or “remote time (eternity), used of time future…and of past….”[30] In Ezra 4:15 the word cannot mean what Culver wants it to mean, because Jerusalem would then have been in existence for eternity with men working sedition in it. Therefore the earth need only be of “long duration” in order to fulfill the references which Culver cites.

2. Here again Culver uses verses which do not apply to the time involved. The Isaiah passages refer to the tribulation period, and the Nahum passage is in a prophecy against Nineveh. In addition, 2 Peter 3:10–12 includes the word γή, not the word κόσμος.

3. It is true that great changes will occur in the millennium. such as the lifting of the curse on the earth, topographical alterations, general prosperity, health, healing, justice, peace, etc.; but these will be caused by the actual return and reign of Christ on earth, not by a “renovation of the cosmos.”

4. The word regeneration was discussed above.

A further argument in favor of a limited renovation was given by Gill: “The destruction here spoken of is of equal extent with the destruction of the world by the flood; as the world, the whole world that then was, was overflowed by the flood and perished; so the heavens and the earth which are now will be dissolved by fire….”[31] Since Peter mentions the Flood in 3:5–6, and since the Flood was only a renovation, then the conflagration, it is argued, must also only be a renovation, and not annihilation.

The answer to this argument is relatively simple. Peter says in 3:6 that the κόσμος, or world system, perished in the Flood. But in 3:5 and 3:7 Peter uses the word γή which refers not to the world system but to the earth itself. Thus the earth (v. 5) was covered with water, but the world system (v. 6) perished, and the earth (v. 7) is “reserved unto fire.” In 3:10, 13 Peter uses the word γή to refer to the earth itself and not to the world system. What then is the similarity between the two events which Peter has linked together? Simply this: Both are judgments.

The arguments for a renovation of the earth are thus seen to be inadequate. Indeed, a limited renovation of the earth will not satisfy the words Scripture uses in describing this cataclysmic event.

The first word of importance is παρέχομαι which means “to pass away, come to an end, disappear.”[32] A parallel usage of this word in Revelation 20:11 seems to pinpoint the time of this event. There John wrote, “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them” (ASV). Thus the disappearing mentioned in 2 Peter is confirmed by John as being at the great white throne judgment just prior to the judgment of the wicked there. Wolston accurately said, “You have the effect of the mighty conflagration given you in Revelation, whereas you have what produces that effect given you by the apostle Peter here.”[33]

The question now arises as to what is going to pass away. Peter mentions “the heavens.” Some would limit this term to the atmosphere which surrounds the earth. But is it necessary to so limit this term? The word “heavens” is the plural of οὐρανός. Thayer says that this refers to “the vaulted expanse of the sky with all the things visible in it.”[34] But Arndt and Gingrich state that οὐρανός can mean “the firmament or sky over the earth,” “the starry heaven,” “the place of the atmosphere,” or “the abode of the divine.”[35] The term can embrace the stars (Matt 24:29; Heb 11:12; Rev 6:13) as well as the clouds (Matt 24:30). Three “heavens” are thus referred to in Scripture: the atmosphere, the starry heaven, and the dwelling place of God (cf. 2 Cor 12:2). The dwelling place of God does not seem to be involved in 2 Peter 3:10, and yet Peter refers to more than one location by his use of the plural term. Since he uses the plural, more must be included than just the atmosphere. Peter here refers to both the atmosphere and the starry heaven. Why is it then that John in Revelation 20:11 uses the singular? The answer is that Peter is giving one viewpoint while John is giving another. Peter describes in detail what takes place; John simply states that an event takes place. John is concerned only with a single heaven, but Peter gives the full import of the event. A similar occurrence is found in Mark 5:2 and Matthew 8:28—Mark records only one demoniac while Matthew records two.

Another word in 2 Peter 3:10 that needs to be investigated is ῥοιζηδόν (“great noise”), which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. For this particular word “the English seems to have no word which is like it in both sense and sound.”[36] As Green observes, this word “is a colorful, onomatopoeic word which can be used of the swish of an arrow through the air, or the rumbling of thunder, as well as the crackle of flames, the scream of the lash as it descends, the rushing of mighty waters, or the hissing of a serpent.”[37] Some think that here it refers to the flames which will do the consuming, others understand it of the noise of the failing heavens, while others make it suggestive of a great explosion. Peter may have had all of these in mind and thus chose this word so as to unite them all in one catastrophic event. The sound of the great explosion seems to dominate the context, however.

In addition to the heavens passing away, the “elements” (στοιχεία) will also dissolve. Some have taken this to mean the heavenly bodies (see ASV, margin); others relate it to the so-called “four elements” of fire, air, earth, and water;[38] and still others say the precise meaning of the term cannot be determined. Vincent said this word is

Derived from στοῖχος, a row, and meaning originally one of a row or series; hence a component or element. Here the word of course is used in the physical sense, meaning the parts of which this system of things is composed. Some take it as meaning the heavenly bodies, but the term is too late and technical in that sense.[39]

The definition of στοιχεία which best fits the context is presented by Smith.

We have thus far been considering only the meaning of the word stoicheia, and we find it to mean the elemental particles by which the universe is constructed, and this, it would seem to me in modern language, is expressed by the word atom. It does not make any difference what word we use to express it, so long as we hold to the idea; and the idea that the Greeks gave to stoicheia is certainly the idea of atom in physics. Of this I think there can be no question.[40]

The phrase “with fervent heat” is from the single word καυσούμενα, which comes from a verb meaning to “be consumed by heat, burn up.”[41] This word is “a medical term used of the heat of fever,” and “denotes a violent consuming heat.”[42] The word is directly connected with the phrase “shall melt,” a translation of the single word λυθήσεται. The verb means “to loose, untie,” “set free,” “destroy, bring to an end, abolish, do away with,”[43] and also “to dissolve.”[44] Does not this word, in connection with the “fervent heat,” and the “great noise” communicate the same thought as that of nuclear fission?

What I am getting at is that when Peter said that at the end of this entire age there would be a great conflagration of the heavens and the earth, he expressed it in language that implied that the elementary particles of matter, which we call atoms, would be dissolved or released, as it were, their energies hitherto imprisoned, set free; and that this would cause the fire. I do not mean by this that Peter here predicts the atomic bomb, but I do mean that the principle involved in nuclear fission, which is at the base of the atomic bomb, is the principle which Peter here sets forth.[45]

If man, in his finite ability, can do such powerful things with nuclear fission, then surely when God Himself causes this the heavens and the earth will flee away, and no place will be found for them (Rev 20:11). In fact, Jesus did say, “Heaven and earth shall pass away” (Matt 24:35). They shall be annihilated. In nuclear fission some waste products are always left over. But when God causes this catastrophic event, the destruction will be complete and total, far greater than any nuclear reaction that man has ever known.[46]

Is it any wonder that Peter asks these Christians, in light of this cataclysmic event, the question, “Shall the earth and the works that are therein be found?” (3:10). Too often the lives of Christians are wrapped up in the things of this world “seeing only what is near” (2 Peter 1:9, ASV). This question prepares the readers for the next topic.

The Effect of the Conflagration on Christian Living

Peter begins verse 11 by saying that all these things will be dissolved, referring back to the heavens, the elements, the earth, and all the works of the earth. The phrase “shall be dissolved” is the present participle λυομένων, from λύω, which was discussed above. Peter uses the present tense to emphasize the certainty of the event and to make it more forceful. A similar usage of the present tense is found in Revelation 22:20, where the Lord Jesus says, “I am coming quickly.”

“What manner of persons” (2 Pet 3:11) does not necessarily introduce a question, but rather introduces an exclamation, and the statement ends with verse 12 instead of verse 11. The word translated “what manner” is ποταπούς, which is used in the New Testament in an exclamatory way. Therefore the sense of the statement is this: “Since all these things will dissolve and pass away, consider the type of persons you ought to be! Thus in the very nature of the case, it is without doubt a necessity that Christians maintain an attitude of both godliness (v. 11) and expectancy (v. 12 ).”

In relation to the life of godliness the phrase “holy conversation and godliness” needs to be examined. The word “holy” (ἁγίαις) means “separated to God’s service.”[47] “Conversation” (ἀναστροφαῖς) means “manner of life, behavior, conduct,”[48] and “godliness” (εὐσεβείαις) means “piety towards God.”[49] Therefore a separated life and conduct is to be led by the Christian with piety toward God.

Peter continues in verse 12 by dealing with the believer’s attitude of expectancy. Peter says that the recipients of his letter should not only be leading lives of separated conduct and piety, but are also to be “looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God” (ASV). The “looking for” is a translation of the present participle προσδοκῶντας, meaning “to await, expect.”[50] Thus believers are to live expecting the coming of the “day of God.” The “earnestly desiring” is a translation of the present participle σπεύδοντας. This verb can be translated accurately as either “earnestly desiring” or “hastening.”[51] Since two possible meanings exist, two prominent views are held.

The first view, which holds the verb to mean “hastening,” is represented by Plummer who writes that Christians are “hastening Christ’s coming by holy lives, by helping to make the Gospel known to all nations (Matt. 24:14), so as to ‘accomplish the number of the elect,’ and by praying ‘Thy kingdom come.’“[52] Plummer refers this passage to “Christ’s coming.” The first criticism of this view is the fact that Peter referred this to “the day of God” which, as noticed earlier, may be a reference to the eternal state when God is “all in all.” A second criticism is the fact that Christians cannot make this day come more rapidly, for “known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world [literally, ‘ages’]” (Acts 15:18). God has fixed the times.

The second view translates the word “earnestly desiring” as in the ASV. This avoids the problems of the previous viewpoint, and at the same time presents no problems of its own. Thus Christians are told to be in an attitude of “earnestly desiring” the day of God. This serves to intensify the “looking for.” Christians are to look for and desire the “day of God,” the eternal “day” when God will be all in all. This is an incentive for the life of godliness in this present time.

Peter again mentions the heavens and the elements in verse 12. He states explicitly that the heavens shall be dissolved, that is, annihilated. The elements will also melt and likewise be annihilated, as was discussed earlier.

However, the believers’ outlook includes more than just the “day of God.” They have also the anticipation of a new creation. The “promise” mentioned here refers back to Isaiah 65:17, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”

Those who hold to a limited renovation advance an additional argument at this point when discussing the word “new.” Without doubt the new heavens and the new earth spoken of here in Peter are parallel with those spoken of by John in Revelation 21:1. In both cases the word for “new” translates the Greek word καινός. Lenski says that “καινός is new over against old. Heavens and earth are to be new in this sense and not in the sense of νέος, just called into existence.”[53] Lenski obviously holds to the view of a limited renovation.

Thayer defines καινός “as respects form; recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn” and also says, “as respects substance; of a new kind; unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.”[54] Therefore one should not be too quick to say καινός cannot mean new in substance.[55] The absence of νέος does not mean it is abrogated. The emphasis on quality (καινός) does not eliminate newness of time (νέος). Therefore when Peter and John write that there will be new heavens and a new earth they mean just that. They do not mean a renovation of the present heavens and earth. Thus the believer looks forward to God and the new creation.

Dwelling in righteousness is also anticipated. In the new heavens and the new earth righteousness will dwell. The word “dwell” is from κατοικέω, meaning “to be permanently at home.”[56] Wolston has made an interesting observation regarding this dwelling of righteousness: “Now righteousness suffers; in the Millennium righteousness reigns; in the eternal state righteousness dwells. It has found repose, it dwells where God is for everyone.”[57]

Each believer will live forever in the eternal state where righteousness will dwell and will be completely at home. The new earth will then be as suitable a place for God to dwell as is the third heaven now. Seeing that believers have such an outlook, is it any wonder Peter challenges them to a life of godliness and expectancy?

Conclusion

The textual difficulty and interpretive problems make 2 Peter 3:10–13 a difficult passage. Perhaps the reader will not agree with each conclusion drawn, but he is asked to weigh the evidence. This writer’s personal viewpoint is that the conclusions drawn are in keeping with the Word of God, and that an annihilation after the Millennium and a re-creation of the universe is what Peter is here teaching. This should have a definite resulting effect on the lives of Christians both in their attitudes and their expectation of the Savior’s consummating work.

Notes

1. Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1933), 6:177. Green says, “The text is in disarray” (Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976], p. 138).
2. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), pp. 325-26.
3. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 706.
4. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937), p. 234.
5. The subject as to which text-type is superior is much in discussion today. Articles and books both for the Majority (Byzantine) text and for the Critical (Alexandrian) text are regularly authored. This discussion cannot be entered into in this article. However, this writer holds to the Alexandrian text.
6. Kenneth S. Wuest, In These Last Days (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), p. 73.
7. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945), p. 34.
8. Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 706. He writes, “Thus, several witnesses retain εὑρεθήσεται but qualify it with other words: (a) the Sahidic version and one manuscript of the Harclean Syriac Version insert the negative, and (b) the Bodmer Papyrus (p72) adds, λυόμενα (‘the earth and the things in it will be found dissolved’)—an expedient, however, which overloads the context with three instances of the same verb. Other witnesses either (c) omit εὑρεθήσεται and the accompanying clause (so Ψ vg Pelagius al), or substitute another verb that gives more or less good sense. Thus (d) C reads ὐφανισθήσοντα (‘will disappear’), and (e) A 048 049 056 0142 33 614 ByzLect syrh copbo eth al read κατακαήσεται (‘will be burned up’).
9. E. E. Cunnington, The New Testament: Cunnington’s Translation (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1935), p. 298.
10. Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 706. He adequately summarizes the suggested emendations. “Because εὑρεθήσεται, though the oldest of the extant readings, seems to be devoid of meaning in the context (even the expedient of punctuating as a question, ‘Will the earth and the things in it be found?’ fails to commend itself), various conjectural emendations have been proposed: (a) after ἔργα the word ἄργα has fallen out (Bradshaw), ‘the earth and the things in it will be found useless’; εὑρεθήσεται is a scribal corruption of (b) ῥυήσεται or ῥεύσεται (Hort), ‘the earth and the things in it will flow’; (c) συρρυήσεται (Naber), ‘…will flow together’; (d) ἐκπυρωθήσεται (Olivier), ‘…will be burnt to ashes’; (e) ἀρθήσεται (J. B. Mayor), ‘…will be taken away’; (f) κριθήσεται (Eb. Nestle), ‘…will be judged’; (g) ἰαθήσεται (or ἐξιαθήσεται) (Chase), ‘…will be healed (thoroughly)’; (h) πυρωθήσεται (Vansittart), ‘…will be burned.’“
11. J. Rawson Lumby, An Exposition of the Bible, 6 vols. (Hartford, CT: S. S. Scranton Co., 1910), 6:750.
12. Joseph V. Leach, “The Biblical Theology of Peter” (Research paper, San Francisco Baptist Theological Seminary, 1964), p. 25.
13. Frederick W. Danker, “2 Peter 3:10 and Psalm of Solomon 17:10, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 53 (1962): 85.
14. Ibid., p. 86.
15. Archibald Thomas Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 1175.
16. Metzger is incorrect, therefore, when he says that this repunctuation of the verse “fails to commend itself” (Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 706).
17. Alfred Plummer, “The Second Epistle General of Peter” in The Layman’s Handy Commentary on the Bible: The Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, ed. Charles John Ellicott (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957), pp. 172-73.
18. “The expression ‘the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ [1 Cor 1:8], identified with ‘the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ’…, is the period of blessing for the Church beginning with the rapture. This coming day is referred to as ‘the day of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14), ‘the day of Jesus Christ’ (Phil 1:6), and ‘the day of Christ’ (Phil 1:10; 2:16). (‘The day of Christ’ in 2 Th. 2:2 should be rendered ‘the day of the Lord.’) ‘The day of Christ’ in all six references in the N.T. is described as relating to the reward and blessing of the Church at the rapture and in contrast with the expression ‘the day of the Lord’…” (E. Schuyler English, ed., The New Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1967], p. 1233).
19. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 7:112. Delling takes the phrase ἡμέρα θεοῦ as “an alternative for ἡμέρα κυρίου in v. 10 …” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “ἡμέρα,” by Gerhard Delling, 2:952). However, the context and the very uniqueness of the expression indicate Peter had a unique significance in view.
20. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 7:110. McClain has an extended discussion of the events particularly associated with the tribulation, second advent, and the establishment of the millennial kingdom as they are related to the “day of the Lord” (Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959], pp. 178-205).
21. While the “day of the Lord” normally refers to eschatological events, exceptions to this apparently occur. Delling observes that “from time to time the possibility has to be considered that expectation of a day of Yahweh applies to an event in Israel’s history which, though it is of supreme importance, does not imply the inauguration of the last time” (Delling, “ἡμέρα,” p. 944).
22. George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 3 vols. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 2:504–9.
23. Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1954), pp. 179-83.
24. John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963), p. 273.
25. Ibid.
26. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon, p. 335.
27. C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 769.
28. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, p. 188. Scott agrees with this basic position: “This dissolution, not annihilation, is effected by fire (2 Peter 3:10). Scripture is silent as to any future act of creating material in a literal sense, and is equally silent on what some foolishly contend for, namely, annihilation or total extinction of being. Scripture knows nothing of such a baseless theory. Not an atom of matter, not a blade of grass, and surely not a sentient being in the universe is doomed to extinction. Our planet will be put in the crucible, altered, changed, and made new, to abide forever” (Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ [London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.], p. 418).
29. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 762.
30. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), p. 634.
31. John Gill, Body of Divinity (Atlanta: Turner Lassetter, 1957), p. 626.
32. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 631.
33. W. T. P. Wolston, Simon Peter: His Life and Letters (Orange, CA: Ralph E. Welch Foundation, n.d.), p. 364.
34. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), p. 464.
35. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 598-99.
36. Nathaniel Marshman Williams, An American Commentary on the New Testament: Timothy to Peter (Philadelphia: America Baptist Publication Society, 1888), p. 109.
37. Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, p. 138.
38. Delling writes: “In 2 Pt. 3:10, 12 the only possible meaning is obviously ‘elements’…or ‘stars’…. The former is suggested…by the use of terms found in the widespread doctrine of the elements…. It is supported by the adoption of the Stoic idea of a cosmic conflagration in which the other elements will dissolve into the primal element of fire. The use of ‘dissolution of the elements’ for the destruction of the world, which is adequate in itself, is elucidated in 3:10 by a description of the overthrow of the main parts of the visible world consisting of the highest and lowest elements; for this reason the earth does not need to be mentioned again in 3:12 ” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “στοιχεῖον,” by Gerhard Delling, 7:686).
39. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), 1:706. The word could also be said to denote “the rudiments of anything; the minute parts of which anything is composed” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical: James-Jude [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957], p. 261).
40. Wilbur M. Smith, This Atomic Age and the Word of God (Boston: W. A. Wilde Co., 1948), p. 131.
41. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 426.
42. R. H. Strachan, “The Second Epistle General of Peter” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), 5:145.
43. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 484-85.
44. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 384.
45. Smith, This Atomic Age, p. 132. Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:17 may also be involved here since in these passages Christ is said to be “upholding all things by the word of his power” and also that “by him all things consist.”
46. Newell says, “To hold on to this old earth when God says it will ‘flee away’ and ‘no place be found for it’ is to become first cousin of the pagan who holds the eternity of matter in the past, and also one piece with the legality that professes to be justified by faith but must hold on to Moses as a ‘rule of life.’ The Reformation theology will not consent that our history was ended at Calvary, thus freeing us from the ‘bond that was against us’ forever. In like manner this same theology is afraid to face eternity with no earth to stand upon and no heavens to look to, but only the throne of God left” (William R. Newell, The Book of Revelation [Chicago: Moody Press. 1935], p. 329).
47. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon, p. 5.
48. Ibid., p. 34.
49. Ibid., p. 189.
50. Ibid., p. 384.
51. Strachan, “The Second Epistle General of Peter,” p. 146.
52. Plummer, “The Second Epistle General of Peter,” p. 173. Vincent basically agrees with Plummer and refers it to “the day of the Lord” (Word Studies, 1:707).
53. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude, p. 350.
54. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 317. To this Arndt and Gingrich add, “in the sense of something not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable” (A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 395). In addition, Cremer writes, “νέος is equivalent to young, not yet old; whereas καινός means in place of what has been hitherto, in lieu of the old” (Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1954], p. 740).
55. Seiss says that the “new” regarding the heavens and the new earth signifies only a renovation. but he dramatically changes his mind when discussing the “new Jerusalem.” On one page he says the “new” must only be a renovation. and then on the next page he says the opposite. In relation to the New Jerusalem he writes: “It is a new city, one of which never appeared before, one of which all other cities are but the poor pre-imitations, and one as compared with which all present cities will sink out of mind and memory. It is new in its materials, in its size, in its location, in its style, in its permanence, in its moral purity, and in everything characteristic of it” (J. Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.], p. 489).
56. Wuest, In These Last Days, p. 74.
57. Wolston, Simon Peter: His Life and Letters, p. 366.