Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

*George said: Where is the judgment he promised?" but "Where is the promise
of his coming?" (Pou estin he epangelia tes parousias autou) They go on to
say that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
Nothing is said here about judgment by either the scoffers or the biblical
writer.*

Thank you for correcting me on the precise language of verse 4. However,
the "coming" of Christ is directly linked to the "day of the Lord" in verse
10. The "day of the Lord" is an unambiguous reference to judgment.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the context is speaking of judgment.

*George said: If you'd talked to him just after he wrote this & convinced
him that there were inhabited lands beyond the pillars of Hercules & then
asked him if they too would be destroyed, I see no reason to think that he
wouldn't have said "Yes."*

First, that probably would have taken alot of convincing -- more likely it
is such an anachronism that it would've been impossible. Second, you might
be right, but that is not what this passage is teaching as an authoritative
matter given the context.

*George said: Or a non-YEC who is presenting a reductio ad absurdum
argument to try to convince a literalist that there are other ways for a
text to be true*

I don't think the hermeneutic I'm employing here is "literalist." In
particular, I think the reference to "fire" and the earth being "laid bare"
in verse 10 is best understood as figurative and not literal.

These sorts of references to the cosmic effects of the Day of the Lord are
linked to similar references in other Biblical apocalyptic literature
describing the Day of the Lord (e.g. Isaiah 34:4: "all the stars of heaven
will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll"; Rev. 6:14: "The
sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was
removed from its place."; Rev. 8:12: "The fourth angel sounded his trumpet,
and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the
stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without
light, and also a third of the night."; Rev. 20:11: "Then I saw a great
white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled
from his presence, and there was no place for them"; and so on).

Often, the OT literature applies such imagery to more limited judgments as a
foreshadowing of the Day of the Lord. For example, Nahum 1 directly
concerns the judgment of Ninevah, but the language is cosmic: "He rebukes
the sea and dries it up; he makes all the rivers run dry.....The mountains
quake before him and the hills melt away. The earth trembles at his
presence, the world and all who live in it." A thread of this language is
picked up in Amos 10 in reference to the Day of the Lord and then picked up
again in Rev. 6 also in reference to the end times judgment. (See G.K.
Beale, NIGTC Commentary on the Book of Revelation, p. 400-401: "These OT
allusions are figurative expressions in their respective contexts for divine
judgment of Israel or Ninevah, which were historically fulfilled. Here (in
Rev. 6) they are taken as foreshadowings of the last judgment.")

This imagery was also employed in Jewish midrashic commentary on OT passages
concerning the Day of the Lord, and was prominent in extra-Biblical
apocalyptic literature contemporary to the time of Revelation. (See, Beale,
NIGTC Commentary, p. 483-85 (discussing the midrashic backround of the use
of cosmic effects as figurative symbols of God's judgment).

Thus, a consistent hermeneutic suggests that none of these references ought
to be taken as actual statements about literal cosmic events. The Bible
simply isn't teaching us exactly what will happen at the final judgment,
whether geographically or otherwise. It is teaching us only that the final
judgment will come unexpectedly and that it will be awful for those who have
rebelled against God. I don't think this is a non-YEC inerrantist's
fanciful attempt at harmonization; I think it's rather an application of a
proper historical and literary hermeneutic.

On 3/29/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: David Opderbeck
> To: George Murphy
> Cc: ASA list
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?
>
>
> George -- I think you are making the context of Chapter 3 too specific and
literal. The context is simply that judgment will come suddenly. The
example of the flood is a response to the scoffers in verse 3 who say "Where
is this judgment he promised?" These are like the people of Noah's day, who
rebelled against God, not believing God would judge them. The point is
summed up on verse 10: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief."
The passage has nothing to do with proving that God is powerful enough to
judge the earth -- that is assumed.
>
> Several no's to this. 1st, the scoffers are not represented as saying (in
v.4) "Where is the judgment he promised?" but "Where is the promise of his
coming?" (Pou estin he epangelia tes parousias autou) They go on to say
that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
Nothing is said here about judgment by either the scoffers or the biblical
writer.
>
> & the issue isn't just whether or not "God is powerful enough to judge the
earth" (though to say that the scoffers assume that he is is far from
obvious). It is rather whether or not the earth can be destroyed, & the
story of the flood is appealed to show that it can.
>
> I would grant that Peter's language might reflect his Second Temple
presuppositions about what the Genesis texts mean, but I don't think Peter
is teaching anything about those presuppositions in this passage. Moreover,
if you really want to apply the hermeneutic you're endorsing, what would it
mean for Peter to say that the earth will be destroyed at the final judgment
when Peter would have had no idea at all that the Earth is a globe and that
there were people living in what we now call Australia, North America,
etc.? If Peter's Second Temple period presuppositions are being
authoritatively taught in this text, does that mean the Day of the Lord will
affect only the "earth" as it was known to Peter at that time?
>
> The author believed that the whole world had been destroyed in the flood
and would again be destroyed by fire. What he thought the extent of the
whole world was isn't the point. If you'd talked to him just after he wrote
this & convinced him that there were inhabited lands beyond the pillars of
Hercules & then asked him if they too would be destroyed, I see no reason to
think that he wouldn't have said "Yes."
>
> I agree that this passage can be interpreted in various ways by folks with
an axe to grind, but I think more often than not the axe is either a YEC
looking for a proof text to support a global flood, or a non-YEC looking to
read the passage just as literally in order to discredit the truthfulness of
the text.
>
> Or a non-YEC who is presenting a reductio ad absurdum argument to try to
convince a literalist that there are other ways for a text to be true.
> But in this case I'm not doing either. I'm not arguing that there
actually was a worldwide flood but am arguing that the author of II Peter
thought there was.
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 29 14:15:44 2007