1
Double underlined=Important to remember / Red Script = Major point / Blue Script= Directive thought / A Possible Answer:
...... / Boxed= Biblical Text & SDA Commentary Reference
Outstanding
Lesson 12 June 10-16/17 The Day of the Lord
Memory Text: “Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11, NRSV).
In ages past people who didn’t believe in God were seen as untrustworthy, even potentially dangerous. Why? The idea was simple: if they didn’t believe in God, then they didn’t believe in any future judgment in which they would have to answer before Him for their deeds. Without this incentive, people would have a greater tendency to do wrong.
Though such thinking is rather antiquated (and “politically incorrect”) today, one cannot deny the logic and reason behind it. Of course, many people don’t need the fear of a future judgment in order to do right. But at the same time, the prospect of answering to God could certainly help motivate correct behavior.
As we have seen, Peter was not afraid to warn about the judgment that evildoers would face before God, because the Bible is clear that such a judgment will come. In this context, Peter speaks unambiguously about the end of days, judgment, the second coming of Jesus, and the time that the “elements shall melt with fervent heat” (2 Pet. 3:10). Peter knew that we are all sinners, and thus, with such prospects before us, he asks: “What manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness?” (2 Pet. 3:11, NKJV).
Sunday June 11 The Line of Authority
Peter warned his readers about the kind of dangerous teachings the church would face. He cautioned against those who, while promising liberty, would lead people back into the bondage of sin, the opposite of the freedom that we have been promised in Christ.
Unfortunately, this wasn’t the only false teaching that would confront the church. Another dangerous one would come. However, before Peter gets to this specific warning, he says something else first.
“This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour” (2 Pet. 3:1, 2).
2 Peter 3: 2. That ye may be mindful. Literally, “to remind,” expressing Peter’s purpose in writing his epistle. He intended to emphasize past instruction rather than to impart new teaching. Compare the parallel passage in Jude 17. Holy prophets. Peter refers in this verse to what is in the OT and to what had thus far been written of the NT. Us the apostles. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “your apostles,” and the final clause of the sentence may be then rendered “and of the commandment of the Lord and Saviour from [or, “given by”] your apostles.” The commandment, or instruction, came from the Lord but was delivered by the apostles.[1]
John 21:15-17 (Jesus Restores Peter) 15So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,“Simon,sonof Jonah,do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him,“Feed My lambs.” 16He said to him again a second time,“Simon,sonof Jonah,do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him,“Tend My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time,“Simon,sonof Jonah,do you love Me?”Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time,“Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him,“Feed My sheep.
What point is Peter making here about why his readers should listen to what he is writing? See also John 21:15-17. A Possible Answer: Peter says that his readers should listen to what he is writing because the process was commanded by the Lord and the resultant instruction though delivered by the Apostles also came from the Lord.
In 2 Peter 3:1, 2, Peter reminds them of the inspired words that had come before in the “holy prophets.” Thus, he was again pointing them back to the Bible, to the Old Testament. He was reminding them that they had the “sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet. 1:19). He wanted to be clear that their beliefs were grounded in the Word of God. Nothing in the New Testament justifies the idea that the Old Testament was no longer valid or of little importance. On the contrary, it is the testimony of the Old Testament that helps establish the validity of the New and the claims that Peter was making about Jesus.
But there’s more. Peter then asserts a clear line from the “holy prophets” of the Old Testament to his own authority as one of the “apostles of the Lord and Saviour.” He was clear about the calling that he received from the Lord to do what he was doing. No wonder he spoke with such conviction and certainty. He knew the source of his message.
Why must the Word of God, and not culture or our own judgment or reason, be the ultimate authority in our lives? (After all, why else would we keep the Seventh-day Sabbath other than because of the Word of God?) A Possible Answer: The Word of God must be the ultimate authority because... 1) It will be the standard used in the judgment. 2) It represents the mind and will of God and as such it carries His supreme authority. 3) It represents a steadfastness and non-ambiguous nature that is not normally a part of the human experience. 4) It is the most sure and reliable guide for all humanity through all ages.
Monday June 12 The Scoffers
After seeking to make his readers “mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour” (2 Pet. 3:2), Peter gets into his specific warning. Perhaps, knowing how dangerous this teaching would be, he sought to impress upon it the authority with which he was writing.
Read 2 Peter 3:3, 4 3knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,4and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue asthey werefrom the beginning of creation.”
3. In the last days. Literally, “upon [the] last days.” The word “last” may be taken in the singular sense as referring to one last day, or, as textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10), in the plural, “the last days.” It is his purpose to enlighten his readers so that they will not be led astray by those who scoff at the thought of a soon return of the Saviour. He is not here making specific statements regarding the time of Christ’s coming, but is bent on preparing his flock for “the last days” whenever those days may appear. See Additional Note on Rom. 13; see on 1 Peter 4:7; Rev. 1:1. Scoffers. Or, “mockers.” Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the inclusion of the words “in mockery” before “scoffers.” This would strengthen Peter’s description of the skeptics as “mockers” and show that they were exercising their evil gift in ridiculing the idea of the second coming. After their own lusts. Literally, “according to their own lusts,” that is, as their lusts prompted them. These scoffers are akin to the false teachers in that they are governed by their own passions (cf. on ch. 2:2, 10). Their passions decided their theology—sensual-minded men cannot ardently desire the return of the Sinless One.
4. And saying. It is clear that the church had been well instructed concerning Christ’s return and that the scoffers were openly ridiculing the teaching of the apostles concerning that event. Where is the promise? This is not a reference to one particular promise but to the combined declarations of the prophets and the apostles as to the certainty of the second coming. The scoffers’ question indicates their skepticism—they did not expect the promises to be fulfilled. Coming. Gr. parousia, a common NT word for Christ’s return (see on Matt. 24:3). The fathers. This may be interpreted in two ways: as a reference (1) to the patriarchs (cf. on Rom. 9:5; 1 Cor. 10:1; Heb.1:1) or (2) to the immediately previous generation of Christians who personally heard Jesus and the apostles proclaiming the promises of the Lord’s return. All things. The clause reads literally, “all things so remain through from the beginning of creation.” The argument has a strangely modern ring. Its secular, skeptical tone seems to echo the thinking of our own day. By appealing to such a wide span of history, from creation to their own day, the mockers seem to have a most plausible argument. They say, in effect: The laws of nature continue to function season after season with amazing uniformity and regularity, and have done so throughout history; why should they not continue to do so? In v. 5 Peter replies to this line of reasoning.
What arguments will skeptics of Christ’s return advance? A Possible Answer: Relative to the lesson, they will advance the arguments relating to the non-realization of Jesus’s return in the light of things remaining the same from creation to the present. Outside the lesson, that it is scientifically ludicrous. What is happening is not the fulfillment of prophecy but that of natural phenomena. There is no extra-biblical evidence to support such a claim for a rational thinker.
There’s an important similarity between those who promoted false liberty and those who were expressing skepticism about the Second Coming. The first group walked “according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness” (2 Pet. 2:10, NKJV); meanwhile, those who were denying the return of Christ were those who were “walking according to their own lusts” (2 Pet. 3:3, NKJV). (It’s not just a coincidence that sinful passions can lead to false teachings, is it?)
The scoffers, he warned, will ask the pointed question, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Pet. 3:4). In doing so, they will challenge the long-standing belief of Christians that Jesus will return to this earth, and soon. After all, especially because he is talking about the last days, these scoffers will bring up the undeniable reality that many Christians have died, and things do indeed continue to go on as they always have.
On the surface, it’s not an unreasonable question. Even holy Enoch, Ellen G. White wrote, saw that the righteous and the wicked “would go to the dust together, and that this would be their end” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 85), and he was troubled by it. If even Enoch, who lived before the Flood, struggled with this question, how much more so those living during the thousands of years afterward, and even down to the “last days”?
And what about us today, as Seventh-day Adventists? Our very name promotes the idea of Christ’s second advent. And yet, He still has not come. And yes, we do face the scoffers, just as Peter had predicted we would.
In your own faith experience, how do you deal with the fact that Christ has not returned yet? A Possible Answer: A) I study and pray over the delay of Jesus’s return. 2) I maintain and hold on to my faith in the trustworthiness of God’s promises. 3) I remember that God does not deal with or see time as we do. 4) I see in His delay, opportunities to experience a greater degree of preparation/readiness and cooperate with Him in the finishing of His work. Bring your answer to class on Sabbath.
Tuesday June 13 A Thousand Years as a Day
In 2 Peter 3:8-10, how does Peter respond to the argument that the scoffers will bring?
2 Peter 3:8-10 8But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one dayisas a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.9The Lord is not slack concerningHispromise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (The Day of the Lord) 10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
A Possible Answer: Peter’s thought is derived from the truth expressed in Ps. 90:4. God is eternal. With Him there is no past, no future; all things are eternally present. He has no need for our limited concept of time, and we cannot confine Him or His ideas to our scale of days and years. In stressing this truth Peter is rebuking the skeptical impatience of the scoffers, who, judging God by their own puny standards, doubt whether He will fulfill His promises connected with the end of the world. The context makes clear that Peter is not here setting up a prophetic yardstick for computing time periods. Verse 7 deals with the fact that God is patiently awaiting the day of judgment, and v. 9 that He is “long-suffering to us-ward.” Hence, he reminds his readers that God’s activity or inactivity is not to be determined or confined by time. He will unexpectedly act by fire when He sees its time... a time called ‘the day of the Lord’.
What does he say that even now can help us to understand why Christ has not yet returned? A Possible Answer: He says that it is exactly because of the longsuffering of God that He has not returned as yet. There are people in ignorance... There are people inside and outside the church that have to be warned and given the opportunity to reflect His character/repent... There are people who need to be given the opportunity to hear of the glorious salvation that God offers... It is because of this that Jesus has not come yet.