[Will there be survivors in the conflagration in 2 Pet. 3:7? Proposition 149 of the “Theocratic Kingdom” published in 1952 by the Lutheran minister George N. H. Peters (1825 – 1909) gives a pretty extensive reply.]
It is important to notice this in detail (and the reader will please observe that the following Propositions are part of the discussion) since two classes make the conflagration of Peter an insuperable objection to the reception of the doctrine of the Kingdom. Those opposed to Millenarianism, as Brown, Steele, Barnes, Waldegrave, and many others, inform us that owing to the universality of the fire it is impossible to conceive how nations in the flesh, Jewish and Gentile, can survive it to form the subjects of the Kingdom. Every work written against us produces the stereotyped difficulty, as if irremovable. Recently some Millenarians, as Shimeall and others (through an amiable weakness which impelled them to remove what they call “the great stumbling-block in the way of an acceptance of the truth”), have repeated this objection, locating the fire of Peter after the Millennial age. It hence deserves special consideration.
Obs. 1. As stated in preceding Proposition, the language of Peter was in accordance with the views of the Jews. They evidently did not consider the fire so disastrous in its effects that no nations would survive and that the Kingdom could not be set up over the nations as Daniel predicted. The proof is, that all the Jewish converts and churches, as far as we know, never supposed that this passage controverted such an opinion. Instead of being a stumbling-block in the way, this passage was thought to be confirmatory of their belief of the dreadful fire which should devour the adversaries (Dan. 7:10, 11, “fiery stream,” “the burning flame”), when the Messiah would come. Jewish believers held that Peter only transferred that which they had believed would occur at the First Advent, to the Second Advent. Hence the apostle’s statement strengthened them (by his appeal to Isa. and using the phrase “day of the Lord,” etc.) in the faith, expressed by the Babylonian Targum (on Gen. 49:10), “Christ shall come, whose is the Kingdom, and Him shall the nations serve,” or as the Jerusalem Targum has it: “The King Christ shall come, whose is the Kingdom, and all nations shall be subject unto Him.” Peter’s description, therefore, raised no controversy between the Jewish believers and others.
Obs. 2. The early Church, receiving its teaching direct from inspired teachers (and appealing to them, as Papias, Justin, Irenaeus), found no such limitation as was afterward engrafted upon Peter’s language. That Church which claimed (as Semisch, Herzog’s Cyclop. speaking of Justin’s, Dial, with Trypho, doctrinal position) its “belief as the Keystone of orthodoxy,” which in the person of Papias (as stated by Jerome), directly named Peter’s instruction, received the epistle without regarding it as presenting the slightest objection to their doctrine of the Second Coming of Jesus, the fearful overthrow (fire as an agency) of His enemies, the exaltation of the resurrected saints, the re-establishment of the Davidic throne and Kingdom over the restored Jewish nation and the spared Gentile nations. One and all held to .the fulfilment of the covenant and the prophecies based upon it as succeeding this conflagration: This is clearly announced in their writings. It may be justly claimed, that men who were so near to apostolic teaching, and acquainted with the language then spoken, were qualified to judge how far Peter’s statement of the fare was to be pressed.
Obs. 3. It is noticeable that no Millenarian author has taken advantage of the doubts cast upon the canonical authority,of the Second Epistle. This has been done by our opponents and not by us. That epistle was never urged in the first centuries as antagonistic to Chiliasm, for the leading objection to it was that derived from its being too favorable to our doctrine, owing to its “Jewish conceptions.” If we were to accept of its rejection—as suggested by opposers—that would at once end the discussion, seeing that the only passage relied upon to prove that the perpetuity of the Jewish nation and the race is irreconcilable with the universality of the fire at the end of the age, is to be found in this Epistle. But we are not forced to dispute its genuineness or authority, being willing to receive it, on the testimony alleged in its favor, as canonical. The opposition to the Epistle, if so fatal to our doctrine as assumed by many, ought to have come from Millenarians and not from its opponents.
Obs. 4. If there is a passage which should be examined and explained according to “the analogy of faith,” it certainly ought to be this one of Peter’s. The reason is apparent; it is the only passage of Scripture which our opponents allege as conveying an irreconcilable difficulty in the way of accepting what (as we have shown) is taught in the naked grammatical sense in Covenant and Prophecy, and what was unmistakably believed in by the primitive Church. To make a single passage overthrow the Jewish faith, the early Church faith, and, above all, that constant harmony of Scriptural statement down to that point, and to make it the necessity for introducing a spiritualistic interpretation of preceding Scripture, is imposing too much upon one text and is violating the proportion due to the doctrines of the Bible. The rules given by Horne (Introd., vol. 1, p. 342, etc.), are worthy of attention, and if applied will inevitably relieve our doctrine of the Kingdom from any alleged incubus said to be imposed by Peter. Surely when our doctrine of the Kingdom is founded in the oath-bound covenant given to David, is reiterated by prophets, is preached, etc., as Proposition after Proposition has proven, then it ought not to be set aside, or weakened, or condemned by one passage; then the passage assumed to be contradictory ought to be explained in the light of that vast amount of testimony preceding it; then the lesser ought to be interpreted by the greater, the more brief by the more extended, the doubtful by the plainly revealed.
Obs. 5. Peter’s representation of the Kingdom, as given in his own writings, would be vitiated, if we accept of the extravagant estimates made concerning the extent of this fire. Omitting the allusion to Isa. 65:17 and 66:22 and to “the day of the Lord” as used by the prophets and Jews, sufficient remains to snow that he looked for a Kingdom to appear on earth after this fire, and in the form advocated by us. In this same Epistle, Ch. 1, he knows no other Kingdom than the future everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for which he urges the brethren to strive, faith in which was confirmed by the Transfiguration (see Prop. 153), and which he represents (as 1 Pet. 4:7) as not very distant, thus connecting it with this same Advent and conflagration. Now in the First Epistle, in harmony with the Second, he makes the inheritance and salvation, “ready to be revealed in the last time,” dependent (1 Pet. 1:7, 13; comp, with 2 Pet. 3:13, 14) upon “the appearing of Jesus Christ” and “the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” corresponds with “the new heavens and new earth.” In both Epistles believers are “pilgrims and strangers,” suffering, etc., and urged to hope for deliverance, etc., at the Second Advent. The entire spirit expressed is, a deferring of the Kingdom—promised by the prophets 1 Pet. 1:11, 13—until this period. This ignoring of a present Kingdom, and looking for one future, at the Advent, to fulfil the prophets—who locate Messiah’s Kingdom on earth as we advocate—is evidence, if we will but accept of it, that he himself had no idea of the prediction, such as multitudes fasten upon it, seeing that the “everlasting Kingdom” once established, is ever more perpetuated, and hence is not to be destroyed by fire at the end of the thousand years.
Obs. 6. It mast be observed, that while the Second Advent of Jesus is spoken of as a coming in “flaming fire,” etc., to destroy His enemies, etc., it is at the same time represented as a coming to bless the earthy so that the earth is called upon to rejoice in His Advent, as e.g. Ps. 96:11-13; Ps. 98:4-9, etc. Creation, as we have seen Props. 145 and 146, is to exult in this Coming for deliverance, so that it is declared to follow as a result from the antecedent humiliation, death, and exaltation of Christ, the resurrection of His saints, etc., as e.g. Ps. 69:34 (noticing how the Previous portion of the Ps. is applied to Jesus in his death, etc. See Prop. 126). Now such deliverance of creation, such a rejoicing of the earth in the removal of the curse, is not witnessed down to the Advent, and if fulfilled, as written and promised, necessitates, in the very nature of the case, a very material limitation to the destructiveness of this fire. Any endorsement of the sweeping assertions made respecting its universality and totality introduces at once an antagonism (unnecessary) between one passage and a host of others relating to the same time. This is the reason why so many (Prop. 146) employ language respecting the deliverance of creation, insist upon complete restoration, etc., and yet are afraid to mention the animal kingdom or animate nature, fearful that Peter’s conflagration would prove an objection to its utterance. Surely there must be something wrong in an interpretation, which builds up from this passage irreconcilable features to other portions of the Word.
Obs. 7. As just intimated, any view of Peter’s statement which makes an imperfect Redemption, in not restoring the earth, the animate creation, and the race of man to their forfeited position, ought at once to be rejected as inconsistent with the Divine Purpose respecting Redemption as given in covenant and promise, and with the perfection, honor, and glory of the Redeemer (Prop. 140, Obs. 7). To make this earth, animated creation, and the race of man, as such, all to be destroyed, rooted out of existence, or (as a climax) to have it all one mass of fire, perpetuated in this state to constitute (so Pres. Edwards’ His. Redemp., p. 421) an eternal hell (!) for sinners and devils—this is to make Redemption incomplete, to keep this earth forever under the curse, to restore only a few of the forfeited blessings, and to diminish, with fearful rigor, some of the most comprehensively precious promises that the Bible contains. Strange indeed that men should allow one passage to crush the hope engendered in a groaning creation, in a sin-cursed earth, in the longings of nations, and to limit the rich and full restitution of all things and the expressed ability and willingness of the Mighty King to perform it. The early Church could not be so illogical.
Obs. 8. Having clearly shown from the covenant made with David, etc., that the land and the earth is Christ’s, that the Jewish nation as such (associated with the Theocracy), and other nations through it, belong to Christ, that both form “the inheritance” of David’s Son, it is presuming to fasten such an interpretation upon 2 Peter 3 as will at once and forevermore destroy the very inheritance which is promised to Him. “Feeble and weak” as the apostolic and primitive Fathers were, in some resects, when compared with the profound learning of modern theologians, yet none of them has been guilty of so great a violation of propriety as to introduce a doctrine which sweeps away the inheritance of Jesus and that of His saints; which makes it utterly impossible for either to inherit promises most solemnly attested to by the oath of the Eternal One. It was reserved for men of real intellectual strength and mental ability to do this: for those ancient worthies, relying upon the simplicity of the scriptures and that every word of God is equally true, could find no such doctrine in Peter. Explaining (as justice and reason both suggest) Peter by the two Promises of Isaiah, they found, as we also find to day, ample evidence that Christ’s promised inheritance is not affected by the extent of the conflagration. Turn again to those two passages and see how associated with the new heavens and new earth is the restoration and perpetuity of the Jewish race, of Gentile nations, and even the continued existence and change of animals, and it will be seen how impossible it was for a faith which dung both to the covenant given to David and to Peter’s undoubted linking of Isaiah’s predictions with his own portrayal of what should take place in connection with this fire, to adopt an interpretation which virtually denies to David’s Son His own covenanted throne, Kingdom, people, land, etc. It is true, that those who do this strive to give to Him something which they esteem far better, and thus suppose that they honor Him the more; but this also is done at the expense of ignoring the covenant and going beyond the record.
Obs. 9. The time of this fire is the time when “the harvest of the earth” is gathered and the tares (Matt. 13:30, 39, 40) shall be “burned in the fire” (as “the ungodly men” mentioned by Peter), but this harvest (Rev. 14:14-20) occurs under the seventh trumpet preceding the Millennial age. When this conflagration takes place it is associated with the resurrection of the saints, for Peter encourages believers to expect a glorious deliverance at that period; this accurately corresponds with the resurrection (Rev. 11:15-18) and rewarding of the saints under the last trumpet when “the sovereignty of this world” shall be wielded by Christ. The mention of “the Day of Judgment” (comp. Props. 133 and 134) with a knowledge of the Jewish and Scriptural method of speaking of that day, viz., to be followed by Messiah’s Kingdom here on earth as the Millennial prophecies declare; these are additional reasons why we should not force upon Peter an interpretation which must result in introducing an element of discord, thus preventing a harmonious adjustment between the Old and New Testaments.
Obs. 10. This passage has received various interpretations. (1.) One class, to which we have alluded (Prop. 133, Obs. 1.; Prop. 141, Obs. 1, etc.), bring the most extravagant interpretation to bear upon Peter, by which they evolve not only the utter destruction of the earth but that of the planetary system. As the very prodigality of expression and profuseness of imaginary extent is—aside from the arguments herein presented—the best refutation of its unscriptural attitude, it may be passed by without additional remark. There is another class, allied with these in a rigorous interpretation, but far more moderate in their estimation of the ultimate result of this fire. While advocating its universality and the burning up of all things, etc., they at the same time deny that annihilation is denoted or such complete destruction is intended as to forbid the renewal and perpetuity of the same earth. In addition to the writers mentioned (Prop. 140, etc.) who hold to this, many others could be added, as e.g. Augustine, Griffin, Jay, Gregory the Great, Fuller, Pope, Benson, Urwick, Hodge, James, Brown, Pye Smith, etc. The distinguishing peculiarity of these two classes is, that they make the conflagration post-Millennial. Another class, who make the fire about as disastrous as the second class noticed, and yet hold that it is Pre-Millennial, that it will be followed by the setting up of Christ’s Kingdom as predicted in the Millennial prophecies—are represented by Cumming (The Or. Trib., Led., 12), Irving (Orations), Gill (Divinity), and others. These three classes, by the extent of the fire advocated, make no provision for the Kingdom to exist in its expressed covenanted terms, and none for the deliverance of inanimate and animate creation, having the same destroyed and an entire new creation erected from the ashes, etc. Instead of the curse being removed from the existing world, the world falls beneath the curse and is sacrificed, so that an entire new one which has never borne a curse may be created. The position, however, of the one party, that the fire is Pre-Millennial, is undoubtedly correct. (2.) Then we find a large class who make the entire fire a figurative description; and these again are divided into different parties. Thus e.g. that one which makes the destruction of the heavens and earth the overthrow of the Jewish polity, etc., and the new heavens and new earth the introduction of the Christian polity, etc.; so Dr. Hammond, and various of the destructive critics. Others, as Prof. Bush (Mill., p. 202, etc.), taking the figurative view, apply it to the overthrow of systems of error, etc., by the purifying influence of the truth (i.e. fire), which is yet to bring about “that renovated order of things, moral, mental, and political,” etc. Dr. Thomas (Elpis Israel), and Christadelphians generally, refer the destruction to the Jewish polity, but explain the new heavens and earth to be still future, the introduction of the new polity under the Messiah at His Sec. Coming (thus separating by a long interval what Peter unites in succession). In regard to such applications of the figurative sense, it may be observed, that the destruction here presented, whatever it may denote, is inseparably joined with the Sec. Advent, the Day of Judgment, and the Day of the Lord, and hence is still future; while the contrasting with the literal perishing at the deluge indicates that more must be attached to it than the simply figurative. Mede (Works, Exp. Peter), and others, in adopting the figurative conflagration, are more logical and consistent with the tenor of Peter’s statements when they make it adumbrating or symbolizing the overthrow of governments, systems, etc., at the close of this dispensation, preparatory to the establishment (comp. Lord, Apoc., 21:5) of the Kingdom or government under the Messiah. It must be admitted, when the figurative language of Scripture is consulted and compared (see Sir I. Newton’s Obs. on Proph., p. 1, Ch. 2; Faber’s Dis. on Proph., Daubuz, Perp. Com. on Rev., writings of Brookes, Bickersteth, etc.) with each other and with Peter’s language, there is sufficient force in the comparison instituted to lead to a belief that it is, at least, included. The Scriptures sometimes include the physical with the moral, etc., as in the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, etc. To make it entirely figurative destroys at once the express contrast instituted by Peter respecting the perishing of the old world by water; and to make it entirely literal is to ignore the Scripture usage of such language. Taking into consideration the views then prevalent derived from the prophets, the style in which the prophecies are given, and the fact that both things (viz., the overthrow of all human governments and the renovation of the earthy are really embraced at this period, it seems the most consonant to believe that Peter comprehends both, that as water was used to destroy the old world, materially and in its governmental arrangements, so fire (not excluding other agencies) shall be employed in modifying and changing the present heavens and earth, materially and in the overthrow of earthly governments, and that the result will be the introduction of a new heavens, and new earth, materially renewed, and in the establishment of the Theocratic Kingdom. The old “heavens” really did not perish excepting as they adumbrate governments, etc. The contrasting of the three worlds—the three heavens and earth—seems to demand something like this interpretation, indicating that the truth lies somewhere between the figurative and literal application, embracing both in the manner pointed out. For, let us impress the reader with a fact, already noticed in Paul, that the apostles, in view of the enmity and persecuting spirit already prevalent, and which they knew was yet to come, could not be too cautious to express their views respecting the certain overthrow of earthly governments; and that all such teaching, to avoid bitter animosity and persecution, had, in the nature of the case, to be couched in prophetic language. The wisdom and admirable tact of Peter (as in Acts 3, using restitution) is noticeable, in his taking language not only correspondent with the usage of the prophets, but even in accordance with that employed by the nations around him, and which virtually comprehends both. (3.) Then again there is an able and growing party who advocate that the fire of Peter will be literally experienced, but that it is confined to localities (some few writers have confined it to Judea or Palestine, others to the Roman earth, and still others have made it local, and by slow degrees, gradually extending over the earth), and will not be so disastrous or extensive as many suppose. This view was early presented, has more or less continued, and recently has had a number of writers to express it in a most forcible manner. D. N. Lord in several of his writings, Dr. Seiss in his Last Times (see it eloquently presented in Third Dis., also “Day of the Lord”), and others, have argued against the universality of the fire (1) from the declared perpetuity of the earth; (2) the Noachic covenant, which promises no such destruction in the future as that of the deluge (3) the saint’s inheritance; (4) the meaning of Peter’s phraseology; (5) the design of the fire, “the perdition of ungodly men” (6) the agreements of Peter’s language with the descriptions of volcanic eruptions, etc.; (7) the language of the prophets describing the same events, etc. They exhibit those fires as dreadful and connected with “terrific phenomena.” In conclusion: looking at those various interpretations, the dispassionate student will certainly feel inclined—considering the Oneness of the Spirit through whom holy men spake—to give the preference to those who, instead of taking Peter’s prophecy isolated and then proceed to build upon it a series of tremendous doctrines, endeavor to ascertain its meaning by a comparison with the analogy of faith, with other predictions given by the same Spirit. Caution must be engendered by the simple fact that equally as strong language as Peter uses is employed by Nah. 1:5 in reference to Nineveh, and in Deut. 32:22; Micah 1:4; Isa. 13:9-14; Amos 9:5, etc., in such a way as to indicate a continuation of the earth, nations, etc., after terrible convulsions and punishments. The same is true of Isa. 24:19-23; Isa. 2:10-22; Jer. 4:23-28, and numerous other passages. The limitation even with which sometimes the word “earth” is used, the verbal criticisms (Crit. Eng. Test.) which unite men of opposite views, the fact that change and not such destruction is evidenced by Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12 (the parallelism limiting and defining the first clause)—all this should nave its influence in forming our decision. Even the “earnestly expecting and ardently wishing, and anticipating” (Bloomfield), “earnestly desiring” (Newcome), “awaiting with eager desire” (Barnes), this “coming of the Day of God,” corresponding again with that of the prophets, with the pious Jewish language, etc., should be regarded. While a comparison of the intent of this fire with the overthrow of the wicked—in which fire is also alluded to—Rev. 19:19-21; Matt. 25:31-46; Ps. 11-6; Dan. 7:9-11; 2 Thess. 2:8; Joel 3:9-16; Zech. 14:1-15; Ezek. 38:22, etc., leads to the conclusion that it must be—Peter also linking it with Isa. 65:17, and 66:22—Pre-Millennial. Linked with a coming of the Messiah, with which the restored Theocratic Kingdom is associated; with an earth, however it may experience the ordeal of fire, the same earth renewed; with a continued materiality (see Chalmers’s Sermon on 2 Pet 3:13), which, as in glorified humanity, etc., God employs, as the prophets teach, to display His attributes and glory and to make His creatures happy; with a new heavens and new earth, which was inseparably connected in the Jewish mind with the Kingdom of the Messiah and a return to a Paradisiacal state; with the extirpation of sin from the world and not with a destruction of that which is not in itself sinful; with the inheritance of Abraham, the saints, and Christ Himself, which cannot be effaced without violation of God’s faithful Word; with “the restitution of all things,” “the regeneration,” the deliverance of groaning creation, the shaking of heaven and earth, and numerous other promises which are then to be realized—surely with all this before us, the conflagration of Peter can only be explained consistently with the uniform and concurrent teaching of Holy Writ. It cannot, it does not form an exception. Taking, on the one hand, the most positive declarations that sin, suffering, opposing and hostile powers shall continuously exist down to the Sec. Advent, and then, on the other hand, the emphatic predictions that these shall be rooted out of the very same earth—that all sorrow, misery, and wickedness shall cease to exist in it—and that it shall become fruitful, beautiful, etc.,—it follows that the only position—consistently sustained by the reasons adduced—for a believer in all that God says, is that already indicated. Peter’s statement shows us, how both these Scriptural representations are sustained and verified; how the sin-stained vesture and fashion shall be changed for the garments alone suited for the manifested royalty; how this earth now can expectantly look for redemption and then can rejoice and exult in the possession of the same; how God can (for He is not wasteful of material) take the old and out of it bring forth the gloriously renewed without impairing His own workmanship; and how this earth, once pronounced good but now marred by sin, shall again be restored to all its forfeited blessings and to the singing of “the morning stars” and the shouting of “the Sons of God” over its recovery.
Obs. 11. But in this discussion we are not concerned in advocating any specific interpretation of Peter’s language. Let it be admitted, that all the explanations given are “pitiful subterfuges,” and that the fire is universal, yet a believer in God’s Word should find no difficulty even in this extreme statement of the case. Let the conflagration be thus universal or local, universal by slow advances or confined to the Roman earth, universal by uniting Pre- and Post-Millennial agencies, or entirely Pre-Millennial, one thing ought to be self-evident to the believer, viz., that this fire, whatever it maybe, and however extended in its effects, will not and cannot destroy the mortal men in the flesh, the Jewish nation and spared Gentiles, whom God has determined to save. The difficulty is, as alleged, that we cannot tell how, if the conflagration is general, at the same time, these can be preserved. Taking it for granted that it is thus universal, we are told that we cannot give a reason for “the hope that is in us,” and that our theory is “a stupendous theological misnomer” etc. Having already shown, in various places, the just connection existing between reason and faith, it is not necessary to restate our position. While advocating the use of reason, yet, after reason has once admitted the Omnipotence, etc., of the Eternal One, it must be regarded as very unreasonable to limit the Divine attributes. It is a characteristic of believers, in opposition to unbelievers, to receive all that God says He will perform, even if not able fully or satisfactorily to explain or reconcile all His words and predictions; —and this is properly based upon the reason (derived from reason apprehending God as described), that the wisdom and power of God will be found equal to any emergency that may arise in the fulfilment (in the order given) of His predictions, no matter how inexplicable they may appear unto us. Indeed, one of the writers (Shimeall) who expresses himself so strongly against us on the ground of impossibility, etc., gives us in the very same book a sufficient reply to his own objection in the following just lesson of faith urged against another party who lacked faith: We might ask, Is anything too hard for the Lord? Is our unbelief to be the measure of his truth? If a few had objected, before the events, the improbability, approaching not only to moral but to physical impossibility, that Messiah could ever be born of a virgin: suppose, further, he had objected to the improbability of such a religion as that of Christ, with such apparently inadequate support, and so contrary to men’s prejudices and passions, ever so prevailing in the world, as that one day all nations should bow to Him— how would such an objection meet this antagonist but by arguments that would equally refute his own, viz., faith in the truth and power of God. If this is so, why then urge “physical impossibility” against us, when we even by no means make the emergency for such to arise in our interpretation of Peter? A moral inconsistency or impossibility would be fatal to our argument, but that of mere “physical impossibility” (because the objector cannot see how it is to be done) has no pertinency or force relating to the accomplishment of any prediction that God has given, after the mighty exhibitions of His ability to perform anything and everything that He has determined. Witness the saving of a remnant in the flesh when the deluge encompassed the earth, the birth of Isaac, the salvation of Israel at the Bed Sea, the protection of the flesh and even the clothing of the Hebrews in the intense heat of the king’s furnace, the conception of Jesus, etc., and surely with such manifestations of God’s most wonderful ability to accomplish all things, we must utterly repudiate the principle that we are at liberty to reject any prediction, or to reverse its order of fulfilment, because we, forsooth, cannot comprehend or explain how it is to be done, or how it is to be reconciled with natural causes. Apply this unbelieving principle to the conflagration itself, to the resurrection of the dead, to the changing of the living saints, to the miracles of Christ, creation, the mode of our existence, etc., and see how little these, as well as a multitude of other things, are dependent upon our amount of knowledge concerning them. Prophecies, which before their fulfilment seemed of impracticable (from a human standpoint) accomplishment were exactly realized; and thus others are given (is it to test the faith of Abraham’s seed?) in relation to the future, which will be verified in like manner, no matter whether believed or not, simply because God will indeed perform “a strange work,” “a new thing,” and while engaged in it He is abundantly able to cover in the shadow of His hand, so that (Isa. 43:2) “when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee” (or as Delitzsch: “When thou goest into fire, thou shalt not be burned, and the flames shall not set thee on fire”).
