[Will the conflagration in 2 Pet. 3:7 happen before or after the covenanted Kingdom? Proposition 149 of the “Theocratic Kingdom” published in 1952 by the Lutheran minister George N.H Peters (1825 – 1909) have this reply.]
This is self-evident, since this Kingdom is identified with the establishment of “the new heavens and new earth” of Isa. 65:17, and 66:22. Peter expressly alludes to these two passages in Isaiah and appropriates them as descriptive of “the new heavens and new earth” presented by himself, in the specific phraseology, “according to promise.” The Millennial new heavens and new earth thus claimed by the Apostle, and which are associated with the Kingdom itself, are necessarily preceded by the fire described. As this forms the leading objection to our doctrine, and as some have wrongfully (against the most explicit language of Peter) endeavored to locate this fire after the thousand years, it is proper to thus definitely state the facts and assume their weight.
Obs. 1. It has been noticed by various Commentators, etc., that the Jews, before and at the time Peter wrote, expected that the Millennial era, i.e. the times of Messiah’s reign, would be introduced by great convulsions and a terrible fire. Knapp, in using the word “perishing” as many do, goes too far when he says (Christ. Theol., s. 155, II. 2): “This doctrine of the perishing of the world by fire was unquestionably prevalent among the Jews at the time of Christ and the apostles, although Philo does not accede to it.” That the Jews believed in a mighty change, in a renovation, purification, regeneration (see Knapp, same place, quoting Philo), etc., of the earth, and that in some way fire (as the prophets predicted) should be employed as an agency, seems certain from various testimony, but that they believed in so widespread and extensive a conflagration as moderns have fastened upon Peter, is not only unproven but hostile to the expectations they had concerning the Messiah’s Kingdom. A little reflection should suggest, that a people who looked for the restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom over the nation in the flesh, which Kingdom was ultimately to embrace the Gentile nations, could not, and did not, believe in that which would utterly demolish all hope. But, as stated, they did believe that this Kingdom would be preceded by the awful judgments of God, and that fire would be used in connection with them. Now the language of Peter accords with the belief that before the Millennial period could Be introduced, such a Pre-Millennial judgment by fire must be inflicted; and his undoubted reference to the only promises relating to the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah would immediately and inevitably— with the prevailing belief—direct the Jewish mind to the Millennial prophecies. If the latter are to be understood, as so many now teach, to be fulfilled prior to this conflagration, then Peter took the very means and language to confirm his readers in the opposite view. We hold that there is no antagonism between Peter and the Jewish belief on the subject.
Obs. 2. If we refer to the promises acknowledged by Peter and given by Isaiah, we find this view strengthened by the context. Thus e.g. Isa. 66:22 is preceded by “the Lord will come with fire and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury and His rebuke with flames and fire. For “by fire and by His sword will the Lord plead with all flesh,” etc. While Isa. 65:17 only mentions the sword as preceding, yet, if we take the prediction and turn to its strictly parallel mates, we find that fire also is connected with its ushering in, as evidenced by the same things being delineated as then taking place. Thus e.g. take Isa. 51, and at the very time that God will “plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth,” that the redeemed return with singing and everlasting joy, the judgments of the Lord shall be poured upon the wicked and “the heavens shall vanish like smoke,” etc. At least one thing is apparent, that in the context of Millennial predictions (as Ps. 97:3; Joel 2:30; Mai. 4:1, etc.) there are sufficient intimations to warrant the Jewish belief that there would be, before Messiah’s Kingdom is established, an extraordinary manifestation of fire in some form, and that Peter in his prediction adopts this very belief by linking his prophecy with Isaiah’s.
Obs. 3. The reader will observe that Peter, instead of giving the least intimation that the Millennial period antecedes, in his account knows nothing of the Millennial era preceding, and gives statements utterly opposed to the notion that it will be witnessed previous to the conflagration. Without pressing into service his well-known views respecting the nearness of, and looking for, the Advent of Jesus Christ (which is antagonistic to such an idea), it is sufficient to notice that he speaks of the wicked existing continuously and boldly down to this very period, and of believers being subjected to their scoffing, etc., down to the same time. Deliverance is anticipated only when this era preceded by the conflagration arrives; and hence that Millennial glory, etc., which some describe as anteceding this conflagration is something that Peter fails to portray or intimate. More than this: the apostle links this era with the Millennial predictions by designating it “the day of the Lord” and “the day of God,” which all at that time understood as referring to the day (e.g. Prop. 138, etc.) when these Mill. prophecies would be fulfilled. It was the distinguished time when God should remarkably manifest His power in behalf of His people. The apostle only recognizes the one day future associated with this conflagration. This is in agreement with the general analogy. To illustrate: Mai. 4 describes the day of the Lord “that shall burn as an oven” utterly consuming the outrageous wicked and only leaving the righteous, and previous to this announced day there is no Millennial rest and blessedness for God’s children. So Joel 2 and 3, the day of the Lord comes when He shall “show wonders in the heavens, and in the earth blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke” and then follow the Millennial blessings, Peter, imbibing the same spirit of prophecy, introduces no discordant element.
Obs. 4. It is admitted, generally, that the scenes described by Peter follow the Second Advent. When Christ comes, He comes “in flaming fire taking vengeance,” etc. (2 Thess. 1:8), with “fiery indignation” (Heb. 10:27) that shall consume His enemies. It is at this Advent that believers are also delivered and exalted. The language of Peter, the entire tenor and scope of his description, evinces that he places the Advent—the object of terror to the wicked and of joy to the righteous—at this very period of time. This, therefore, is utterly irreconcilable with the theory (Shimeall and others), that this conflagration follows a thousand years after a personal Pre-Mill. Advent of Christ. The “appearing and the Kingdom” are united, and consequently the appearing, the glorification of believers, the fiery vengeance upon living unbelievers, and the Kingdom are also linked together.
Obs. 5. The reader will notice that the Kingdom (as our entire line of argument shows) is introduced at the Pre-Mill. Advent of Jesus, and that Christ then receives His inheritance as David’s Son. These two facts alone set aside the views of those (as e.g. Shimeall in I Will Come Again, and Lincoln in Lects. on Rev., and Burgh, Tyso, and Ogilvy), who make the conflagration Post-Millennial, introductory to an eternal state of things. Now on the other hand the Scriptures make the glorious Theocracy established at Jesus’ return one that is perpetual, ever-enduring (Comp. Prop. 159, where this is considered in detail), and consequently it does not run the risk of ever being removed or destroyed by the universality of the conflagration. The promises of God forbid it, and therefore, as e.g. in Dan. 7 (where the fire of vengeance, v. 10, 11, precedes or is connected with the establishment of the Kingdom) the Kingdom set up at the Coming of Jesus is declared to be one which shall not pass away or be destroyed. Again—to advocate such an opinion is virtually to say that Christ’s inheritance, promised under oath in perpetuity to Him, shall be swept away by a conflagration—an inheritance too for which He suffered and died, which is to be to Him a desire and joy and glory, and which He has already (Isa. 65 and 66) retouched with His creative energy. Surely the brethren who hold to the above opinion do not see that, in the attempt to avoid difficulties connected with Peter’s account of the conflagration, they plunge themselves into far greater by the adoption of such a Post-Millennial view. The fire of Peter must, of necessity, be so interpreted as to preserve the unity of divine teaching, and how this is to be done will be the subject of the next Proposition.