The Earth Destroyed by Fire?

Concerning the idea that the earth will be consumed in a great conflagration at the end, Michael Wittmer writes in Heaven is a Place on Earth:

This popular, though misguided notion likely arises from a misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:10-13.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.  Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the best available Greek manuscripts of 2 Peter 3:10 read that “the earth and all of its works will be burned up.” This is how every translation of that period, including the King James Version, rendered the verse. It is easy to see how whole generations of Christians learned from their Bibles to expect a future fire that would annihilate the entire world.

However, scholars have since discovered older, more reliable Greek manuscripts, and these texts say that rather than burning up, “the earth and all of its works will be found.” Instead of being destroyed, this term “found” implies that the quality of our works will be “laid bare,” discovered for all to see. Much like gold passing through a smelting furnace, the good that we do will be purified while our less noble efforts will slough off. Read this way, Peter’s vision of a coming conflagration seems to be purging rather than annihilating fire.

Perhaps this is why Peter compares the coming “destruction” by fire with the world’s previous “destruction” by water (2 Peter 3:6-7). Justas the Great Flood did not annihilate the world but primarily cleansed it of its numerous sinners, so the impending fire seems to perform an ethical cleansing rather than an ontological annihilation. In short, if the “destruction” of the flood did not annihilate the world, why should we think that the future “destruction” by fire will do so?

Peter’s point is that since the coming conflagration will purge the earth of its impurities, strive to live such good lives that when you and the works of your hands pass through the refining fire, both you and your cultural contributions will survive. Thus, rather than give cause for despair, Peter’s admonition inspires hope that our highest cultural achievements, such as the Mona Lisa, Westminster Abbey, and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, will make it through to the new heaven and new earth.


Comments

17 responses to “The Earth Destroyed by Fire?”

  1. CDR Don Bosch, USNR Avatar
    CDR Don Bosch, USNR

    Very interesting take on something I’ve chewed on a lot as an amateur, especially your note that while the flood did “destroy the earth” obviously we’re here living on it.
    Would have to balance this off of Rev 16 and Daniel 7 of course. And God’s reaction to mankind in Noah’s day (“I am grieved that I have made them” in Gen 6) and His making Noah a “redeemer” of sorts clearly previews the coming of Christ to save the world. In the end it’s a different context. Christ has already accomplished His work of redemption on earth. The Church, which has accepted Christ’s death as a substitutionary punishment for sin, has been caught up to meet Him. All that will be left is a sinful world which must get the destruction it deserves. How that squares with the redemption of nature as some Christians view things, I’m not smart enough to reconcile.
    Fortunately I trust that God has a handle on it.

  2. Thanks for the comment, Don. All of the post but the first sentence is from Wittmer but I affirm what he is saying. Here are few additional thoughts from my perspective.
    “…has been caught up to meet Him.”
    I presume we are talking about 1 Thess 4:15-17
    “15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.” (NRSV)
    Paul is drawing on (and mixing) at least three metaphors her. First there is the imagery of the multitudes rising up to the “Ancient One” at Judgment. Second is the imagery of Moses coming down from the mountain. Third is the imagery of dignitary arriving at a village. This last one is particularly important.
    Note the location of events. The Lord descends from heaven to the clouds above the earth. The dead are raised first to meet him in the air (i.e., the clouds). Note that description ends neither in heaven or on the earth but in the clouds. How do we resolve this?
    When dignitaries visited and a village in the ancient near east, the people went out of the village ushered the dignitary into the village in grand procession. The greater the dignitary the farther out they went to meet him. The imagery of Paul here is that Jesus, the greatest of all dignitaries, approaches the village. The dead rise to meet him outside the village (symbolically in the clouds). Their bodies are restored and made new. Then the living join the procession as the usher Christ into is his thrown on the earth.
    Furthermore, note something in the famous left behind passages in Matt 24 and Luke 17. Matt 24:38-40:
    “38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.” (NRSV)
    Note that is those who are evil who are “swept away” and Noah who is left behind. The aim of the Christian is to be among those “left behind” after the purging. The same with the example of Lot in Luke 17. The others are destroyed and Lot is left behind.
    All that said I suspect that Matthew 24 and Luke 17 are talking about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and note Christ’s return.
    It is my perspective that when we die we go to heaven or paradise. Thus the thief on the cross is with Jesus in paradise on the same day. It is temporary existence in anticipation of the great resurrection. Jesus says he has prepared dwelling places mone for us. The term denotes a temporary place of lodging for travelers. At Jesus return, the occupants of heaven receive back redeemed physical bodies and they rise to join the living to live eternally with God in a redeemed physical creation that has been purged of sin and decay, like gold through the refiners fire, living only that which glorifies God behind.
    If the earth is annihilated then God and Jesus failed. The stated mission was to redeem not start over.

  3. Bo Parker Avatar
    Bo Parker

    Edward Adams in The Stars Will Fall from Heaven has an entire chapter in which he argues that 2 Peter 3:5-13 does teach that the earth will be destroyed by fire. He deals pretty thorughly with the exegesis exempified by Wittmer. You may wnat to check that out.
    By the way, does anyone know where NT Wright has dealt with this passage? SO far I can only find two pages in The Resurrection of the Son of God.

  4. Thanks Bo. I’m unfamiliar with Edwards work. At the cost of $110 I don’t expect I’ll be buying the book soon but hopefully I can take a look at the seminary. 🙂
    I haven’t seen Wright discuss this elsewhere. I was suprised by his one sentence reference to the 2 Peter 3 in “Suprised by Hope.” In a footnote, he sends us back to RSG.
    I think the issue is continuity and discontinuity. As I read the build up to chapter in 2 Peter I see that in some sense a remant (Noah, Lot) are preserved through some type of purging. Modern Bible translators seem to opt for “laid bare” rather than “destroyed” in v.10.
    We are talking about events which I think are beyond human comprehension. If there is annihilation, then there is no redemption. There are simply two ex nihlos. I think the biblical message is one humaity and creations redemption. In some sense there is going to be radical discontintuity and that may include radical physical change which fire is symbollically describing.

  5. Bo Parker Avatar
    Bo Parker

    The Adams book is steep. I was able to look through it at a seminary library near my house. It makes me wonder at the relative access that the general public has to works by NT Wright as compared to Biblical scholars that critique some of his exegesis. Does NT Wright play a little fast and loose with some of his scholarship because it fits the theological point that he wants to champion? I gather that Adams would say yes to that question.
    It does seem that Wright is skating over the 2 Peter passage that appears to contradict his claim that NT writers did not anticipate the destruction of the earth.
    Personally, I do not think it matters whether the current earth is to be destroyed and then recreated or redeemed without being destroyed. I think the key for how we conduct ourselves in this earth is not the ultimate fate of the earth. It is the nature of the one who will be coming to judge and bring a new heaven and earth. Even if whatever we do in the present earth will be destroyed in the recreation, that does not mean it does not have value. God will judge what we do and whatever we do that is good is a witness to the coming kingdom and the character of the King.

  6. Bo, I think it makes a big difference in how you view the daily economic activity of most human beings. Is our work purely instramental (i.e, puts food on the table and builds character) or is our work of eternal value in its own right? Do technological, governmental, and material accomplishments carry over into the new? I believe they do. Failure to appreciate this is what leads to the devaluation of economic labor by the Church.
    Volf talks of our person somehow being held in God’s memory until the New Creation where we have new physcial bodies in a material world. God preserves that about us that is holy and the rest is purified away in the New Creation. I’ve pondered whether something similar might be in store for nature and human constructions as we are transformed into the the New Creation. I suspect something like this is what is in store.

  7. Bo Parker Avatar
    Bo Parker

    “Is our work of eternal value in its own right?” Your position implies that if our technological, governmental, and material accomplishments do not carry over into the new world, then they do not have eternal value. I do not think the one is dependent on the other. If God asks us to work in a way that reflects his character of love and justice, then those accompishments, as flawed and incomplete as they are (and lets admit that they are very flawed and incomplete), are pleasing to Him and therefore have eternal value. If He does not somehow use them in the new world, if they do not carry over, they do not lose that value. I am uncomfortable with an idea that seems to elevate the presence of my work in eternity over the expressed desire of God in terms of motivational importance. I mean, you are not saying that even though God has clearly asked us to work in a manner that reflects His character and glorifies Him, if that work is not going to carry over into the new, then you are not going to consider it worth your effort.
    For me it is not a question of whether our work will carry over into the new. It is a question of what God has called us to. Where the church as devalued economic labor the failure is to appreciate what God has called us to, not whether or not that work will carry over.

  8. Bo Parker Avatar
    Bo Parker

    One more thing. By engaging in this argument with that church that has devalued economic labor on the grounds of the fate of the world, you are fighting on their battle field. It is they who have wrongly assumed that if this world is to be destroyed, then economic labor should be devalued. You therefore think you need to convince them that it will carry over and therefore has value. I do not think this is good ground to fight from. The exegetical evidence that this carry over idea is actually taught in Scripture is just not strong enough. You are not going to convince anyone from that other side on the basis of that. They will simply continue to believe that Scriptures teaches that the earth will be destroyed and therefore think they are jutified in devalueing economic labor. I think exporing what it means to do your work for the glory of God is a much better position to fight from if you want the church to have more appreciation for the value of economic labor.

  9. Bo, I appreciate your conversation here. This is a topic I’m deeply interested in and have, to date, not sought to articulate precisely. I may do a series on this shortly.
    First, I’m drawing heavily (not exclusively) from Miroslav Volf’s “Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work” and Darrell Cosden’s “A Theology of Work and the New Creation.” Cosden writes about instrumental, relational, and ontological aspects of work.
    Instrumental – Work is a means to some other end. It keeps us alive. It provides a context for sanctification as we seek to live obediently for God.
    Relational – Work provides the opportunity to meet the needs of others and functions as a staging ground for evangelism.
    Ontological – Work, as an ongoing act of transforming matter, energy, and information from one state to another, has meaning and significance that is beyond its instrumental aspects and is somehow tied up with God’s end purposes.
    It is my assertion that reducing the end purposes of God to purely vertical relational maturation with God, or even expanding this to relational maturation with fellow human beings truncates biblical anthropology. Genesis tells we were created material beings for a material world. Our materiality is part of our ontology. Yes, we are created for relationship with God and with each other. Ontologically we must be material in a material existence and, according to Genesis, our ontology is directly related to being in dominion over nature. The material world is both our home and the subject of our work. There is no humanity without material existence and God’s ontology for creation is incomplete without human existance and dominion. Humanity and matter are inextricably bound together in God’s end purposes.
    Col 1:15-17, 20
    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers — all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. … 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
    This speaks to me of more than purely personal sanctification and relational issues. “All things” are being reconciled and redeemed.
    Rom 8:18-24
    “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.”
    Here is the idea of “set free” and new birth, not annihilation and ex nihlo new creation.
    Earlier in 2 Peter, the comparison is made to Noah’s ordeal. It is a family, an institution, that is preserved. Animals are also preserved. Were there seeds and farm implements preserved as well? The entire biblical narrative starts in a garden but ends in a city. The city was the primary symbol of human culture in the ancient world. The narrative suggests that something of human commerce, art, governance, recreation, and culture find their way into the new creation.
    I’m not disputing the instrumental claims you are putting forward. They are real and of eternal value. What I’m suggesting is that there is more. I’m suggesting the material world and human contribution to the material world has ontological significance beyond instrumental. The material world our economic engagement of it, is not just an instrument that God uses for his purposes and then disposes of when he is done with those purposes. Creation is redeemed, reborn, and recreated, according its ultimate ontology at Christ’s return, not discarded through annihilation.

  10. Bo Parker Avatar
    Bo Parker

    Michael,
    I understand the idea that we will be material beings in the new creation and that the new creation will be material.If I understand what is meant by the ontological aspect of work, I believe that our present work in this world has an ontological aspect in this world. I also believe that our work in the new world will have an ontological aspect in the new world. What I am not ready to say is that our work in this world will have ontological impact in the new world. Can you give me some examples of what you think that might look like? Also, what aspects of Paul’s work do you think he thought was going to have ontological impact in the new world? Is there any indication that this was a motivating factor for him?
    I think that “creation” encompasses much more than the current material world that we occupy. Therefore, I do not have a problem with the idea that this material world will be destroyed and a new world started and this whole process to be understood as an act of creation being set free or redeemed, reborn, and recreated.

  11. Bo, therein lies the rub. I can’t specifically say what the nature is of the things that carry over. The Bible is not specific.
    Two eventualities have often been suggested. One is that the present creation is meant for utter annihilation and our future existence continues in some ethereal spirit world existence or in an utterly new creation that is discontinuous with the present one. The other is that through some more or less evolutionary process we continue through history until one day we wake up and realize the Kingdom of God is here. I reject both of these. I come back to the claim of simultaneous continuity and discontinuity.
    In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul evokes the imagery of dignitary arriving at a village. In these traditional villages the townspeople would rush out of the village to great the dignitary at a distance and then usher him into the village amidst great fanfare. The passage says that Jesus will come from heaven to the clouds above the earth. The dead will rise to meet him in the clouds. Then the living (figuratively) go to meet him in the clouds. Then Paul simply affirms we will be with him forever. But where? We are neither in heaven or on the earth. Will we live in the clouds? No. Because Paul and his readers merely assume what must be made explicit to us. The great throng of the dead and the living usher him back into the village of the earth where he reigns and lives with us forever. The image in Revelation is o the New Jerusalem descends upon the earth. There is some continuity between our present world and the world to come.
    Yet Jesus is the first born of the new creation and after his resurrection we see that he was corporeal yet he could literally walk through doors. Jesus says there will be no more marriage in the age to come. Death will cease and indeed it appears that the very laws of physics as we know them may be transformed. Therefore, there is radical discontinuity with what came before.
    You wrote:
    “I think that “creation” encompasses much more than the current material world that we occupy. Therefore, I do not have a problem with the idea that this material world will be destroyed and a new world started and this whole process to be understood as an act of creation being set free or redeemed, reborn, and recreated.”
    But this strikes me as spirit/matter dualism plain and simple. The non-material aspect of reality is the higher existence to be preserved while material aspects of reality are inconsequential. We are not spirits inhabiting disposable bodies. We are human. Our ontology is material. We were created material beings for a material world in order to exercise dominion over the world as eikons of God. That was God’s vision from the start and the biblical narrative is about he ultimately prevails in making that happen. I have very serious problems with the idea that the material world will be destroyed.

  12. Bo Parker Avatar
    Bo Parker

    Michael,
    You say that “we are not spirits inhabiting disposable bodies.” But does that statement have any meaning? What “material aspect” of your current body will be preserved into eternity? Our physical bodies are destroyed over time. You either have bones or ashes. They are simply not preserved in any material aspect other than that. To say that we will receive new bodies and our current bodies are in fact disposable (if that means something other than permanent) does not say that material aspects of reality are inconsequential. It is merely stating the obvious.
    Perhaps you beleive that what we do to our physical bodies will be a part of our recreated bodies. Will we have tattoos, breast augmentation? What about sex change operations? Personally, I do not believe that such things will be a part of our new bodies. But even if they were, this would not be the preservation of material aspects of reality. It would be a recreation of a previous material aspect which has been destroyed over time.

  13. “Perhaps you beleive that what we do to our physical bodies will be a part of our recreated bodies. Will we have tattoos, breast augmentation?”
    That’s actually an interesting question. Jesus was pretty banged up AFTER his resurrection, so much so that people barely recognized him. He still had his wounds, scars and I imagine his face was pretty messed up still.
    To be consistent, it would mean that in a post-resurrection world (if the resurrection is really one of physical bodies) we will all still have all the characteristics of old: fake breasts, tattoos, you name it.
    Good observation. 🙂
    Resurrection is not physical guy; not to prooftext here, but John 5 is a pretty straight forward definition of resurrection: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

  14. Bo,
    I think it would be easy make these questions Phd dissertation. 🙂 There is careful parsing and delination of terms that probably need to be made.
    I’m suggesting that God did not create bodies in which to place spirits. The Jews had nothing resembling this. We are a mind, body, spirit unity. These are aspects of our reality, not discreet separable units. I suggesting that when we die, we die as mind, body and spirit. Yet, somehow we are also preserved and reconstituted based on the pattern of who were and what we became before death. Miroslav Volf has used language of God “holding us in his memory” until the point at which God reconstitutes. (If you want to get a little Treky, then maybe God captures us in a “transporter beam” at death and then rematerializes us at resurrection. 🙂 ) But the reconstitution filters out that which was sinful and corrupt and preserves that which is holy and pleasing to God.
    I suspect heaven is not another place but an alternate reality that is not accessible to us. I think it is possible that the new creation is more of an unveiling of the reality that has been behind all we’ve been experiencing. It is a bit like C. S. Lewis’ Flatlanders. We are two-dimensional creatures trying to give language to a three dimensional reality. 🙂
    What I’m concerned about is that we have been deeply influenced by Greek spirit/matter dualism and the Greek idea of being delivered from the physical into a higher state. By Jesus day, Jews predominately understood the coming Kingdom of God to be a time when the messiah would return, the dead would be raised, and God would reign over the earth forevermore through Israel. There is no concept of the messiah coming to sweep them off into some spirit existence. I believe that Jesus came and built on this understanding but expanded it to include a resurrection of Jews and gentiles alike where God is going to reign over all the earth, not sweep us off into a spirit existence.
    Jesus is the firstborn of a new creation. Jesus had a physical reality after the resurrection that was is in continuity with his previous self. People could physically recognize him as the same pre-resurrection Jesus. Yet Jesus apparently he had the ability to enter and leave rooms without using the doors or windows. 🙂 He “ascended” into heaven. Clearly there were aspects to his risen body that were not in continuity with his previous self. We are told we will be resurrected (which I take to mean mind, body, spirit unity) but we are also told there will be no more “giving and taking in marriage” and there will be no more death.
    What if we have deformities? What if we died in the womb? What if we were cremated? I could speculate all day long. I don’t know. We’re all Flatlanders. All I’m certain of is that we are given the assurance that there will be a resurrection. We in can consciously resist the Greek dualism we’re inclined to impose the Bible, I think there is clear evidence of significant continuity and discontinuity.

  15. Virgil,
    Rom 8:22-23
    22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
    NRSV
    Redemption is not abandonment. Nor is transformation into spirit existance. Furthermore, it is “redemption of” not “insertion into a different body.”
    If there is no physical existance what would this all mean?

  16. Michael, think covenantally here, that’s what Paul is contrasting. Romans 8 is specifically hard to understand if we do not thing in terms of covenants. Note even early in chapter 7 Paul is dealing with the old covenant body which is illustrated in his own flesh “body of death.” (7:24) Yet, life can only be found “in the spirit” (8:10).
    Throughout Romans 8 Paul is creating the tension between Old Covenant (Law, Old Creation) and the New Covenant (New Creation) in which “the redemption of OUR BODY (singular) will take place. He is even using the imagery of birth (the entire creation was in birth pains) UNTIL NOW.
    The New Creation which was ready to be born while Paul was writing Romans happened in the first century. Remember, the Jewish temple was the ultimate standing symbol of the Jewish law, the body of death, the place where animals were being sacrificed on our behalf. That body of death was destroyed and a new body of Christ (the Church) finally was inaugurated into God’s presence; only in this body can one find life. The Church is the New Creation, the New Jerusalem, the New Israel, the new “living body.”
    If I may recommend, there is a fantastic treatment of this issue in a book titled The Cross and the Parousia, written by Max King. You can get a copy of it at presence.tv if you are interested.
    One last issue, the “already/not yet” idea has major soteriological implications and it creates a real dilemma from that perspective. One of the Planet Preterist columnists did a quick overview of this a couple of years ago and you might consider checking it out: http://planetpreterist.com/news-179.html
    By the way, I hope you realize that I am not arguing with you; I like this interaction because it’s defrosting my brain 🙂

  17. I always benefit from our conversations, Virgil. Thanks for taking time to engage.
    If its okay with you I’m going to move our conversation over to Acting with Tentative Finality in an “Already/Not Yet” World. I’ll get a response and a link back to here later in the afternoon. This is important stuff.

Leave a Reply to Bo ParkerCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading