Angus Harley

The theme of a new heavens and the new earth (Isa.65:17; 66:22; Rev.21:1) is found in 2 Peter 3:13, “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” The standard reading is that the new heavens and earth are material in nature: new material heavens, and a new material earth, in contrast to the old material heavens and the old material earth. Some think that this reading is not accurate, and advance their own interpretation. I argue for the standard reading, and will evaluate the other views.

The standard reading

In this section, I am not filling out all the details that I normally would, as in my responses to alternative readings I will add more information.

The physical nature of the new heavens and new earth. In 2 Peter 3, Peter takes us back to the earth we live in. Thus, the mockers refer to a status quo of silence since the “beginning of creation” (v4). Even though the mockers are ‘so observant’, they have overlooked that the “heavens” and “earth” that were created by the word of God long ago were destroyed by water (during Noah’s day) (vv5-6). By contrast, there will be a new material heavens and earth, in which righteousness, not unrighteousness, dwells (v13).

Judgment of fire. The former judgment of the earth was by water (v6); the next one, and of the heavens, will be by fire (v7). Peter multiplies term after term to convey the burning and fiery nature of God’s judgment. We are informed in v10a that the judgment of God will come suddenly, like a thief, and the heavens will “pass away” with a “roar”. Divine judgment will not be expected, and it will be very, very loud! The verb parerchomai (“pass away”) is used in Matthew 5:18 to refer to the passing away of heaven and earth (Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; 21:33). The term “roar” is hapax legomenon (used once in the NT). The imagery is that of the ending of this world and the heavens, conveying finality. So, in Mark 13:30-31, the current generation would not “pass away” (parerchomai) until all things took place; and that, “heaven and earth will pass away” (parerchomai). In contrast to this, Jesus’ words will never “pass away” (parerchomai). Just as that generation will eventually pass away and be no more, so will the heavens and earth. Finality.

Although it is specifically “the heavens” that “pass away” in 2 Peter 3:10a, due to the wider context and other biblical verses, Peter is assuming the passing away of the earth, too. Thus, “the earth and its works (erga) will be burned up” (v10c) (NASB). The NASB’s translation of v10c is understandable, given the context, but inaccurate. Peter uses the rather straightforward term heuriskō (‘to find’) to convey that the works (see ahead) of the earth will not be found. That is because all these works will be destroyed by fire. It is similar to saying that the heavens will “pass away”, for they, also, will no longer be there.  V11 confirms that it is the heavens and earth Peter has in mind, toutōn houtōs pantōn louomenōn (“all these things are to be destroyed”).

Specifically, the heavens themselves will be destroyed by “burning” (v12), where puroō indicates burning or fire (1 Cor.7:9; 2 Cor.11:29; Eph.6:16; Rev.1:15). For Peter, the destruction (luthēsetai) of the elements is an important theme, so he repeats it in v12. The idea of destruction is reminiscent of dismantling and breaking something apart (see the use of luō in John 2:19; Acts 13:43; 27:41; Eph.2:14; 1 John 3:8). The basic verb luō is repeated again in v11 (“are to be destroyed”) and v12 (“will be destroyed”). Peter says that the destruction of the elements is by “intense heat”. The exact same verb kausoumena is used in v12, repeating the formula that the elements will be destroyed by “intense heat”. In v12, Peter also uses the Greek term tēkō for “melting”, recalling Micah 1:4 (LXX), “And the mountains shall be shaken under him, and the valleys shall melt (tēkō) like wax before the fire, and as water rushing down a declivity” (see Isa.34:4). Note here in Micah 1:4 (LXX) that it is the earth that melts, yet Peter refers explicitly only to the elements of the heavens melting.

The elements and the works. The identity ofthe “elements” and “works” deserves separate treatment.            What are these elements and works? The idea that the elements are the classical features of fire, earth, air, and water, is not feasible given that the heavens and earth will be consumed with fire. The elements are basic components of the heavens, and the heavens, here, are the sky and the wider universe. Peter’s own reference to the time of Noah and the destruction of the earth by water implies the existence, too, of the heavens (shamayim) above the earth in which the birds flew, and from which came the rain (Gen.6:7, 17; 7:3, 11, 19; 8:2). What is not often remembered is that it was not merely the land creatures who died, for it was the birds of the heavens, too, that died, “thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky (shamayim), and they were blotted out from the earth” (Gen.7:23). Also, 3:5 plainly alludes to Genesis 1, “the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water”. The elements of the heavens are, therefore, most likely the sun, moon, and stars (see Mark 13:24-25, 31), perhaps other ‘fundamentals’ of the universe, and maybe the creatures of the skies, too. The corresponding theme on earth and its works at the very least surely implies that all things on the earth that were created will be destroyed by fire.

            In sum, everything in the heavens and on the earth will be utterly destroyed. For the universe will be dismantled, broken down, burned up, and melted, by fire.

Day of the Lord. All of this will take place in the “day of the Lord” (v10), or “day of God” (v12). This phraseology stands for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.1:8; Phil.1:6; 1 Thess.5:2; 2 Th.2:6; see Matt.24:43; Luke 12:39; Rev.3:3; 16:15). Plainly, it was a day still to come in Peter’s time.

            The above is the standard reading of 2 Peter 3. I will now respond to different interpretations of “new heavens and new earth”.

The spiritual interpretation

Basic position. A minority reading believes that the new heavens and earth are spiritual in nature and not material. Those commonly recognized texts of Isaiah 65:17; 66:2; Revelation 21:1, along with 2 Peter 3, are all conveying that with the entrance of the New Covenant, a new, spiritual, world has been established, the kingdom of God, which is heavenly in origin and spiritual in nature (Isa.51:16). The new heavens and earth, along with the new Jerusalem, are symbolic of a new spiritual order, a new spiritual creation (Rev.3:12; 21:1-2). Our spiritual ‘land’ and ‘heavenly city’ is above in heaven itself, not on earth below, so that they are not something material, therefore (Heb.11:8-10, 16, 39-40; 12:22; 13:14). The OT recognizes the spiritual nature of fiery judgment on the day of the Lord (Joel 2:30; Zeph.1:8; 3:8; Mal.4:1). The new, spiritual creation is evident in Peter’s writings, for the assembly is a royal and holy priesthood, a chosen “nation” (1 Pet.2:5, 9). 2 Peter affirms the heavenly nature of the new kingdom, too (2 Pet.1:11). Through faith in Christ, we “become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust” (2 Pet.1:4). Thus, when in 2 Peter 3:10 it refers to the burning up of the “elements”, these are stoichea, the old religious lifestyle and its practices that were worthless and weak, but are purged away by spiritual fires (see Gal.4:3, 9; Col.2:8, 20). A final feature of this reading is that it argues that the transition from an old creation to a new, spiritual one took place in 70AD when the New Covenant finally dislodged all elements of the Old Covenant system by the removal of the temple in Jerusalem during Jerusalem’s destruction. This was the ‘day of the Lord.’

Strength. This view correctly identifies all things to do with God and his salvation and judgment as being spiritual. The entire bible witnesses to the invisible world and its spiritual nature. Inasmuch as the new heavens and earth are the places where righteousness dwells, it is plain, too, that these things are spiritual and salvific in nature.

False dichotomy. However, it is a false dichotomy to divide between a new physical heavens and earth and their spiritual makeup. Both the OT and NT texts about the new heavens and new earth operate on the basis that a physical, or material, heavens and earth will be destroyed, and a new heavens and earth, material in nature also, will be established. The old spiritual condition of the current world is destroyed, and the new world with a true spirituality of righteousness will be created. Peter has already drawn our attention to this teaching, in that he alludes to a creation that was polluted by sin, and consequently judged by God with water. Or as Moses puts it:

“5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” (Gen.6:5-7)

In the new material world, nothing but righteousness will dwell. This accounts for the many times in the OT and NT where it is nigh impossible to distinguish if the writer is making an observation merely about the spirituality of salvation, or about its effects on physical man and physical creation. Sometimes there are clear-cut divisions being made, and other times there are not. All in all, we do know that the spiritual and physical/material go hand-in-glove in both the OT and NT.

Resurrection world. This has to be so for the resurrection to make sense. We all affirm that the kingdom of God is not about walking in the life of this physical and evil world. Even so, Jesus was raised from the dead, and given a new, heavenly, body that was material. Jesus’ new body is not from this physical world of perishability, but from heaven itself. He is the heavenly Man, therefore, who is not of the earth (1 Cor.15:35-49). The ‘material’ nature of Jesus’ new body is brought out by eye-witness testimonies to his resurrection, and to the fact that one could ‘physically’ touch his body (John 20:27). What is the point of such a physical body, albeit one which is imperishable and heavenly, if it has no physical and material environment to correspond to? If the ‘next world’ is merely a spiritual dimension, why did Jesus clothe himself in an actual physical and material body, and in that body serve God as our Great High Priest? And why, then, does the NT make such a fuss about Jesus’ resurrection as the heart of the Gospel (along with the cross)? Why, also, does the early assembly look forward to the physical and material resurrection of our bodies from the dead (e.g., 1 Cor.15)? If the final state of salvation is completely and entirely non-material and non-physical, then the resurrection is a giant hoax and the Gospel is ruined!

Eternal world in sin. And when all is said and done, in the spiritual-world rendition, this creation remains in sin for eternity, for the physical world we live in is not removed, nor sin purged from it. So much for the victory of God over a fallen world, sin, and its allies!

The issue of interpretation. The spiritual reading of 2 Peter 3 moves from a literal understanding of the old heavens and earth that God created and was later judged in Noah’s day, to a spiritual, and therefore, metaphorical, interpretation of heavens and earth that will be destroyed and replaced by new, spiritual, heavens and a new, spiritual, earth. The same jump applies to the means of judgment: from real water (old earth), to metaphorical fire (metaphorical heavens and earth). This is an extraordinary interpretive method to use, given that we are not dealing with the highly-saturated symbolic language of a book like Revelation, or some genre that requires a heavy metaphorical/figurative reading, for example, parables or poetry.

Limits of the analogy of faith model. The spiritual interpretation places too much store in the analogy of faith that teaches that, because the Scriptures are harmonious the Christian can go from book to book in the bible to explain what a particular verse means. No Christian denies the analogy of faith as a sound tool for interpreting Scripture, but to put all one’s interpretive eggs in its basket is a fundamental no-no of interpretation and hermeneutics. Most importantly because, each text must be rigorously understood in its own context. When a theological model seeks a text, it typically bypasses the context and pressgangs any given verse into its service. The analogy of faith model is not the starting point, therefore, for interpretation, but it is a crucial tool when the necessary work of contextual exegesis has been done.

For example, the stoichea are used by Paul to describe the basics of worldly religion in its fleshly nature, but in Hebrews 5:12 the stoichea are the fundamental teachings at the heart of the Gospel, the ABCs. What we must not do is force Paul to conform to Hebrews, or Hebrews to conform to Paul. Both must stand as independent testimonies. It goes without saying, each writer uses the term in completely different ways. Only now should we look for supporting texts that teach a similar doctrine to what either Paul or Hebrews writes.

The start of the New Covenant. The New Covenant was not finalized with the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus finished the work the Father gave him to do, so that the New Covenant was completed in his blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor.11:25; 2 Cor.3:1, 6; Heb.8:7, 8, 13; 9:15), and its blessing, the gift of the Spirit, was given at Pentecost. All that remains is completion of the new creation process by the introduction of the new heavens and new earth.

Too much is made of the fall of Jerusalem by some. Hebrews 8:13, for example, does not suggest that the writer of Hebrews was waiting for the fall of Jerusalem. It is saying that the New Covenant means that all the features of the Old Covenant, some of which were still around in those days, will eventually disappear, for God is no longer behind this system. Nor do we need to go for an early date of the book of Revelation to satisfy the pre-fall of Jerusalem interpretation. The fact that Paul can refer to his New Covenant ministry and to Christians being the new creation (2 Cor.3; 5:17) tells us that before the fall of Jerusalem the new creation was already in motion, and the New Covenant already finalized and working. Similarly, 1 Peter 3:20-21 is not suggesting that the present physical world is contrasted merely to a spiritual world of the new creation, for we are told that the Christian’s hope is anchored in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. His resurrection assures us that the Christian will not be judged along with this world, but he will be delivered from it, entering into the salvation of the new, resurrection, material world.

The invisible and visible reading

Basic position. Douglas J. Moo maintains that in the phrase “heavens and earth” the “heavens” are the spiritual realm, taking us back to Genesis 1 and the creation of the heavens (the spiritual, invisible realm) and the earth the visible world that we live in:

“Both the world we can experience through our senses (“the earth”) and the unseen spiritual realm (“heavens,” or better, “heaven”) were brought into being “by God’s word.” As Genesis 1 repeatedly makes clear, all of creation is the effect of God’s powerful word. He spoke, and it came to pass. “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made” (Ps. 33:6); “the universe was formed at God’s command” (Heb. 11:3).”[1]

The invisible realm and the physical earth will be destroyed by real fire, not metaphorical fire. Moo notes how Peter refers to angelic beings in 2:10b-12.[2] However, Moo does not subscribe to the opinion that the elements (stoicheia) denote angels, arguing that this opinion relies on controversial Pauline texts, and it does not appreciate the material nature of the heavens and earth.[3] The elements, according to Moo, are not the stars, or anything to do with the heavens, but with the earth. He reaches this conclusion on the basis of v12, not v10, “However, in verse 12, Peter mentions only the “heavens” and the “elements.” And this suggests that “elements” and the earth are closely related”, states Moo.[4]

Strength. As with the spiritual model, the obvious strength of Moo’s reading is that it understands that connected, and parallel, to this physical world of ours, this material cosmos, is the spiritual realm. Even Peter observes this mystical union, as Moo said. The realm of angels and spiritual beings underlies our own, working in it, influencing it.

The heavens of Genesis 1. Although Moo’s position is commendable for seeking to include the entirety of the creation under God’s judgment, he overplays the spiritual realm. Genesis 1’s understanding of the heavens is that they are material. Thus, the lights were created “in the expanse of the heavens”, and the birds of the air flew in the “expanse of the heavens” (Gen.1:14, 15, 17, 20). We saw the same in relation to Genesis 6-8. Even if one can go to later Scriptures that identify angelic beings with the stars of heaven, one must not force this reading back into Genesis, nor should one inject it into 2 Peter 3. As said before, we must limit how we use the analogy of faith model.

False dichotomy. As in the spiritual reading, Moo’s position incurs a false dichotomy. For he maintains that the heavens and earth are different in composition. One is the invisible realm, the other the visible, material one. As said before, both realms combine and co-exist, but the Scripture is perfectly capable of speaking only of this world to convey spiritual doctrine. For example, Peter’s letters were to assemblies here on earth, and so were Paul’s epistles. Neither man is addressing the angels per se, or focusing on the invisible realm as such. Although the book of Revelation arguably does combine the judgment of angels with the assembly (see Rev.2-3). We can just as comfortably say that the judgment of the material heavens and earth implies the judgment, too, of the invisible realm. Be that as it may, Peter’s desire is to teach that this material creation and its human inhabitants alone will be judged by God. The angelic realm is not his focus at this juncture. Even in 2 Peter 2:10c-12, Peter is citing the example of the angels in contrast to the perversion of wicked men.

Moo’s dilemma? Scholarship is veering more and more toward an extra-biblical, Jewish interpretation of the angelic world. Part of its argument is that Genesis 1 incorporates angels. In Moo’s particular system, Genesis 1’s “heavens” are the spiritual realm of the angels. Does this force Moo to hesitate just a tad over Paul’s use of stoicheia in Galatians and Colossians? For he says that these verses are controversial. He does not add anything in explanation. The verses are not so controversial, however, for there is nothing mentioned about angels in regard to the stoicheia of Paul. They are always tied to the religion of this world: times, seasons, days, sabbaths, etc.. Moreover, it is perplexing that Moo, such a careful exegete, would venture the opinion that the stoicheia in 2 Peter 3 refer to the earth. Certainly, v10 does not bear this out, and there is no reason to negate the connection between the heavens and the stoicheia in v12. Is Moo’s reading struggling at points due to his own belief that the “heavens” are the spiritual realm? Does he feel compelled to make a clean-cut separation between the invisible, angelic realm and that of earth?

The emphasis upon the judgment of the heavens and the elements. The reason, I think, that Peter puts such a strong emphasis upon the judgment of the heavens and its elements is because he is contrasting the finality of judgment to come, in the day of the Lord, with the judgment of the world of ancient days, in Noah’s time. In the previous judgment, the earth and creatures of the heavens were judged, but not the heavens themselves. Peter is saying that the whole cosmos is going to be utterly destroyed in all of its parts. Is not the whole of creation groaning and suffering the pains of childbirth, to be set free from corruption, as Paul says (Rom.8:21-22)?

New or renewed?

Renewed. We all know that Matthew 19:28 refers to the “renewal”, or “rebirth”, of the heavens and earth. Some have taken this to mean that the current world will be re-done, as it were, and restored to its original condition before the Fall, with no unrighteousness and sin present. It is pointed out that the world was judged during Noah’s day, but was renewed; and so, it will be judged a second time, by fire, and then renewed. Thus, Peter refers to the “present” world (v7), its current iteration. Some add to this evidence, as they see it, the proof of the Lord’s resurrection body and of the creation of a new heart. Concerning Jesus, it was the same body both before and after the resurrection that was raised. Moreover, when we are made new creatures/creations, it is not that I disappear and am obliterated. It is that I am given a new heart. I am still ‘me’, the same person, but a renewed one, spiritually resurrected in Christ Jesus. So it follows that, it is the same world that will be renewed in the future eschaton.

New. There are elements to the renewal position that are warranted, but it is fundamentally incorrect. I will start with the resurrection body.

Jesus’ body that died on the cross was resurrected. I am not suggesting otherwise. It even contained the marks of his death.  Therein lies distinct continuity. It is the same body! Also, our resurrection bodies will be the reconstituting of our old bodies. This we can all agree upon.

However, these things do not constitute a renewal of the old bodies. A renewal entails going back to the same model as before. 1 Corinthians 15 is very strong on the fact that the resurrection body goes into the ground as a mere seed, but ‘grows’ to be something entirely different. There is planted one body, and raised another. This, of course, refers to type or nature, not to an actually different body. In other words, throughout Paul’s section on 1 Corinthians 15:35-49, although there is the assumed theme of the continuity of the same ‘body’, Paul actually refers to two different types of body throughout. The new body type does not continue, or renew, the old body type. Jesus’ resurrection body is not a restoration to a status identical to fallen Adam’s sinful body, nor to the condition that Jesus’ body had on earth, which was prone to sickness, pain, stress, anxiety, and death. Jesus’ resurrection body is literally from a different world and is heavenly in origin. Nor, thirdly, is Jesus’ resurrection body a redoing of the standard of the prelapsarian Adam’s body. Adam’s body both pre- and post- Fall was merely an earthly body, made up of dust, and prone to sin, suffering, and so on. Why would we enforce this model on Jesus’ resurrection body, minus the sin part? The Second and Last Man’s body is heavenly in origin, not created from the soil, but from heaven, and therefore imperishable, immortal, honorable, spiritual, and powerful (1 Cor.15:35-49). His resurrection body is not capable of, or prone to, any kind of physical and emotional pain. In other words, the resurrection body is mystically and paradoxically exactly the same body as before as to form, but at the same time, it is not at all the same body as to type. This mystical continuity of the same body is never marked out by Paul as a ‘renewal’, for one body is of the earth, the other of heaven. Two entirely distinct bodies as to their composition or nature. Just as the Second Man and the Last Adam is not a redoing, or renewal, of the first Adam, so the new, resurrection, body-type is not the same as the old body of the earth.

Likewise, the new creation in the believer is not a continuation, a restoration, or renewal, of some former condition. The ‘form’ continues, namely the soul or heart. ‘I’ am raised from the dead, no doubt. It is ‘me’ who was saved. Even so, this is not exclusively how the NT describes our salvation. For our souls that were formerly corrupt, evil, and bound in death, are raised from spiritual death into spiritual imperishability, eternal life, honor, glory, and so forth. There was the old, perishable, evil man, and now there is the new, heavenly, immortal, imperishable man (Rom.6:6; Eph.2:15; 4:22-24; Col.3:9-11).

Once more, the New Covenant has, patently, the ‘form’ of Old, in that both are covenants, have law, commandments, blood, death, and so forth. But the two are completely different covenants in kind, so that the New is not a renewal of the Old. The whole of the Old Covenant and its religion was merely a temporary type and shadow of that which was to be (Col.2:17; Heb.8:2, 5; 9:11; 10:1). The New Covenant is entirely heavenly in nature and origin.

With these things in mind, the new heavens and new earth will be a ‘resurrection’ of sorts of this current creation, but only as to form. Yes, it is the ‘same’ heavens and earth, but not renewed. How could it be? Why would we wish to return to a world that was prone to sin, even in Adam’s day? Rather, this world will be dissolved, killed off, and then resurrected unto ‘newness of life’, one might say.

Kainos. It is quite remarkable how one text, Matthew 19:28 and its reference to a “renewal”, is used to reinterpret the plain meaning of kainos in 2 Peter 3 to mean ‘renew’. Scholars get themselves tied up in knots over this issue. Yet, “new wine” and “new bottles” of Matthew 9:17 are actually new wine and new bottles, not the renewal of the old wine and old bottles! Jeremiah 31:32 says, “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt”. How much more plain can Scripture be? It is because certain theological assumptions are made by some scholars that they tend to paint themselves into a corner regarding the meaning of kainos in the NT. In doing this, these scholars are misusing the analogy of faith model.

Matthew 19:28. As to Matthew 19:28, it is said to refer to a regeneration/renewal/rebirth- depending on one’s interpretation. Whatever else this means, it does not teach that the current world will be literally renewed. It will, rather, be kind of resurrected (as described before). Its new ‘birth’ will be a ‘birthing again’ of a totally new kind. As with Titus 3:5, the use of palingenesias is not indicating a renewal of the old. How could it? This would take us back to exactly the same point as before in Adam before the Fall. It is that a new form of the generation of the world, a new, ‘resurrection’ kind, a new birth, will come to pass. So, if someone insists on the term ‘renewal’, that one must clearly define what he means and avoid certain theological errors.

John 3 has an identical theology as to the soul, but different terminology. It is Nicodemus who misinterprets Jesus’ theology, thinking that the same person must be born all over again by going into his mother’s womb (renewed). Jesus, however, is talking about a heavenly birth, “born from above” (gennēthē anōthen) (3:3, 7, 31; 19:11, 23), a completely different and new birth from heaven, albeit of the same person, that has nothing to do with the earthly birth. The same person (form) is ‘born’, but of an entirely different nature or type.

2 Peter 3:7. The use of nun (“present”) in this verse is not suggesting that the current heavens and earth we live in are a new iteration of the old heavens and earth of Noah’s day and before. In fact, he is saying that the current world, although in the past it was subjected to judgment, it will be in the future subjected to a judgment far more destructive, one which is final, holistic, and complete, so that the old will pass away and its works be found no more. The old are removed to make way for the new (v13).

[1] Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 169.

[2] Ibid., 130.

[3] Ibid., 188.

[4] Ibid., 188-189, 199.