Reading II Peter 2 in context

More
3 years 1 month ago #5098 by Piqsid
I have seen 2 Peter 2:6 used to support Annihilation, but in my personal devotions when I came to this passage, I paid close attention to it and read it in context. We say that Traditionalists fail by too often reading a text at face value without really digging in to see what the text is saying and I see that same problem here.

Below are the first 9 verses of II Peter 2.

1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as 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 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 4 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; 5 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; 6 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; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (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); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,

In verses 1-2 Peter says that false teachers are coming and they will convince many people to follow them and their sensuality.
Then in verse 3 is says that they will exploit you but, “their condemnation . . . is not idle” and “their destruction is not asleep.” I feel this is Peter assuring his readers that, “Don’t worry, they will get what is coming to them.” Then he backs up that assurance by giving three examples of when God sent temporal punishment to the wicked.
In verse 4 rebellious angels are sent into gloomy darkness and kept until judgement. This is definitely not talking about final judgment because he is keeping them UNTIL the judgement.
In verse 5 It talks about the flood.
In verse 6 it talks about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is an example of what will happen to the wicked. When? To assume Peter is talking about final judgement here is a presumption.
Verses 7 and 8 talk about how God preserved Lot.
Then in verse 9 it wraps up by saying that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgement.”

Verse 4 is clearly an example of God keeping the unrighteous until judgement. But verses 5 and 6 should also be about that. Especially since the emphasis is added about how God preserved Noah and his family and Lot. In order for this to be an assurance to Peter’s readers, he must be saying that the false teachers who will be persecuting the church is nothing new. It happened in Noah’s time and in Lot’s time and in each situation God preserved his people and brought the wicked under punishment UNTIL the day of judgement.

You could argue that not all wicked people suffer like Sodom and Gomorrah or are destroyed like in Noah’s flood. True, but they will all be “kept under punishment” until the day of judgement. Some do destroy themselves. We see sinners perishing unhappily due to a sinful lifestyles all the time. But the assurance here is that regardless of what is going on around us or how hopeless it might seem, the believers will be preserved, and the wicked will be kept under punishment until the day of judgement. For this reason, the destruction described in verses 5 and 6 are not something that happens after judgement and I don’t think we should take it as that. There are plenty of good passages that support Conditionalism. I don’t think this is one of them.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Nomad
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
2 years 4 months ago #9403 by Nomad
Replied by Nomad on topic Reading II Peter 2 in context
It also speaks above that of angels reserved until judgment. So clearly you is speaking of final judgement.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Nomad
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
2 years 4 months ago #9404 by Nomad
Replied by Nomad on topic Reading II Peter 2 in context
It* sorry it is late and I am typing on my phone.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Robert G.
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
2 years 4 months ago #9428 by Robert G.
Replied by Robert G. on topic Reading II Peter 2 in context
Verse 4 is clearly an example of God keeping the unrighteous until judgement.

Apparently, you MISREAD the verse!
Verse 2 is talking about the fallen angels---not unrighteous sinners. Here is the correct verse: For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 7 months ago #9503 by DTM
Replied by DTM on topic Reading II Peter 2 in context
I'll take a crack at this. I agree that the primary message here is not the nature of final judgment, but rather the assurance that God can preserve the righteous even in the most difficult of times. The application to the ultimate fate of the lost is not in the message of this passage, but rather in that it gives us insight into the meaning of destruction. So what does "destruction" mean in the context of God's judgment?
  • ECT proponents say it means living on in a ruined state, state of torment, etc.
  • CI proponents means actual destruction, obliteration, etc.
Here we have two examples of destruction in the context of God's judgment. And clearly, neither the victims of the flood (and the world of the time), nor the people of Sodom (and the city itself) lived on in ruin and torment. They were literally destroyed. These events were not the final punishment of anyone, but they are examples of what destruction means. Despite the fact that ECT proponents want to have a special meaning for "destruction" when talking about God's judgment on sinners, it really just means actual destruction. There is no special meaning.

And, yes, there is a passage about angels kept in gloomy dungeons, undoubtedly suffering some kind of torment, but that is stated explicitly as coming before final judgment, so it cannot be the result of that judgment.
The following user(s) said Thank You: John Haak

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
4 months 1 week ago #9511 by John Haak
I think you make a good point that this dos illustrate what "destruction" by God's standard is. Flood victim and Sodom's citizens were destroyed by permanent removal from the living. That has value for the understanding of the word used elsewhere as you state.

That said, Piqsid rightly points out this dos not directly teach on the Final Fate. Piqsid is right about context as the flow is about God intervening against false teachers in this life.

Good work on both your parts is how I see it.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.079 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum