Next Peter outlined what will surely happen so his readers would understand what will take place.
3:7 God has given orders that the present heavens and earth (vv. 5-6) will experience another judgment yet future. Then God will with His word destroy them by fire rather than by water (cf. vv. 10, 12). This will evidently take place after the great white throne judgment and before the creation of the new heavens and new earth (cf. Rev. 20:11-15; 21:1).140The world is presently "reserved"for fire in the sense that this is its inevitable destiny (cf. Deut. 32:22; Isa. 34:4 LXX; 66:15-16; Zeph. 1:18; Mal. 3:19).
3:8 Again Peter reminded his readers to remember what they had learned previously (v. 1) and not to forget, as the scoffers did (v. 5). As far as God's faithfulness to His promises, it does not matter if He gave His promise yesterday or a thousand years ago. He will still remain faithful and will fulfill every promise (cf. Ps. 90:4). The passage of a thousand years should not lead us to conclude that God will not fulfill what He has promised. The passing of time does not cause God to forget His promises.141
This verse does not mean that God operates in a timeless state. Time is simply the way He and we measure the relationship of events to one another. The idea of a timeless existence is Platonic, not biblical. God's relationship to time is different from ours since He is eternal, but this does not mean that eternity will be timeless. Eternity is endless time.
"Peter did not say that to God one day isa thousand years, and a thousand years areone day.' The point is not that time has no meaning for God but rather that His use of time is such that we cannot confine Him to our time schedules. His use of time is extensive, so that He may use a thousand years to do what we might feel should be done in a day, as well as intensive, doing in a day what we might feel could only be done in a thousand years."142
This statement does not negate the hope of the imminent return of the Lord either. Peter, as the other New Testament writers, spoke as though his readers would be alive at His return (1:19; 3:14). This was an indisputable hope of the early Christians.143
3:9 The fact that the fulfillment of God's promise to judge (v. 7) lingers does not mean that God has forgotten His promise, was lying, or cannot fulfill it. It means that He is waiting to fulfill it so that people will have time to repent. Unbelievers left on the earth will be able to repent after the Rapture, but it is better for them if they do so before that event.
If God wants everyone to be saved, will not all be saved?144The answer is no because this desire of God's is not as strong as some other of His desires. For example, we know God desires that everyone have enough freedom to believe or disbelieve the gospel more strongly than He desires that everyone be saved. Otherwise everyone would end up believing. However that will not happen (Matt. 25:46). Somehow it will result in God's greater glory for some to perish than for all to experience salvation. Nevertheless, God sincerely "desires"(Gr. boulomenosin contrast to the stronger thelontes, "determines") that every person come to salvation.145
"No dispensationalist minimizes the importance of God's saving purpose in the world. But whether it is God's total purpose or even His principal purpose is open to question. The dispensationalist sees a broader purpose in God's program for the world than salvation, and that purpose is His own glory [Eph. 1:6, 12, 14]. For the dispensationalist the glory of God is the governing principle and overall purpose, and the soteriological program is one of the principal means employed in bringing to pass the greatest demonstration of His own glory. Salvation is part and parcel of God's program, but it cannot be equated with the entire purpose itself."146
"Soteriology . . . is obviously a major theme of biblical theology, though it clearly is not thecentral motif. This is evident in that salvation implies deliverance fromsomething tosomething and is thus a functional rather than a teleological concept. In other words, salvation leads to a purpose that has been frustrated or interrupted and is not a purpose in itself."147
"The final cause of all God's purposes is his own glory. . . . (Rev. iv. 11) . . . (Num. xiv. 21) . . . (Is.xlviii. 11) . . . (Ezek. xx. 9) . . . (1 Cor. i. 26-31; Eph. ii. 8-10)."148
"The final end of both election and reprobation is the Divine glory, in the manifestation of certain attributes. . . . Neither salvation nor damnation are ultimate ends, but means to an ultimate end: namely, the manifested glory of the triune God. . . . 2 Cor. 3:7, 9."149
3:10 The phrase "day of the Lord"refers to a specific time yet future, as elsewhere in Scripture. This "day"will begin when Antichrist makes a covenant with Israel, and it will conclude with the burning up of the present heavens and earth (Dan. 9:27; 1 Pet. 3:12; et al.).150"Its works"probably refers to all that has been done on earth that has only temporal value (e.g., buildings, etc.). This day will come as a thief in that its beginning will take those unbelievers living on the earth then (after the Rapture) by surprise (Matt. 24:37-39, 43-44; Luke 12:39-40; 1 Thess. 5:2; Rev. 3:3; 16:15). The term "heavens"probably refers to the earth's atmosphere and the "second heaven"in which the stars and the planets hang, not God's abode (the "third heaven"). The "elements"(Gr. stoicheia) apparently refer to the material building blocks of physical things (i.e., the atoms, molecules, and larger masses that are foundational to larger things).151
When in the "day of the Lord"will this conflagration take place? Some believe it will happen at the beginning of the millennial kingdom.152It seems more likely however that this holocaust will take place at the end of the Millennium and will result in the destruction of the universe as we know it (Rev. 21:1; cf. Matt. 5:18; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; 21:33).153
"Peter clearly opposes those Christians who insisted that Christ had to return within a certain short period of time after his resurrection. But he by no means opposes the idea of imminence itself."154
