"Discovered" or "Burned Up"?

When reading through 2 Peter, one eventually arrives at 3:10, which reads:

But 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 in it will be burned up.

The verse, translated this way, fits perfectly naturally with the context and the theme of the end of the world. So, what's the problem? Many translations provide an alternate reading for "burned up." Some actually put that reading in the text itself. The NIV has "laid bare." The English Standard Version has "exposed." The Christian Standard Bible uses "disclosed." Other ideas include "discovered" and "found." However, the KJV, the NKJ, the ASV, the NASB, and even the RSV all put "burned up" into the main text (although the optional rendering is often noted).

"Burned up" and "laid bare" are not different translations for the same Greek word. Greek manuscripts have two different words for verse 10. The renderings are correct; the question is, "Which Greek word is the accurate one?" Just considering the text is sufficient to resolve the question.

Peter is comparing the end of the world to a previous destruction of earth—the Flood. Everything upon the earth died except what God saved inside the ark. At the end of time, however, the earth will no longer be needed because all shall be judged; so not only will all who are on the earth be destroyed; so will the earth itself. Peter has already claimed that "the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" (v. 7). Water was unleashed upon the world in Noah's day, but in the last day it will be fire.

In addition to that statement, Peter (earlier in verse 10) said that the elements would melt with fervent heat. He continues by saying in verse 11 that "all these things will be dissolved"—something that heat accomplishes. Then in verse 12 he adds that "the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat"; it seems that Peter will just not let this subject go. If he wanted to convey the point that the earth will be burned up, what more could he do or say than he did?

Therefore, it does not, in one sense, matter one way or the other which verb belongs at the end of verse 10; the overall point has been made several times over. But, in fact, what would "laid bare," "discovered," "exposed," "disclosed," or "found" even mean? What is to be laid bare—the earth itself, its works, or something else?

The Pulpit Commentary offers an explanation:

If we understand "the works that are therein" of man's works and actions, this reading will give good sense (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 13, "Every man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is") (22:2:68).

It was kind of them to offer an explanation that might make sense with an alternate verb; however, their final comment is: "But the reading, 'shall be burned up' is well supported, and suits the context best." If the King James rendering is so well-attested, then why do so many versions either substitute the other word or call attention to it in a footnote?

The answer relates to the texts with the variation. There may be only three, but they are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (along with one other uncial). In case the reader has not been introduced to these two manuscripts, he should know that among scholars, these two manuscripts are so revered that even non-Catholics practically genuflect when in their presence. They are old (4th century), and Sinaiticus contains a complete New Testament, but that is all that it has going for it.

These two texts are also the ones that omit Mark 16:9-20 even though Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in A.D. 167—more than 200 years prior to either one of them. On this basis, one might logically question the integrity of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but, no, they are almost always considered right and the other 99.94% of manuscripts wrong, which has always been a mystery without a rational explanation. If only three manuscripts disagree with the other 4,997 why are they assumed correct and all others defective.

Perhaps, it is about time that the unthinkable occurred—that we might consider that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not the two best manuscripts. True, this is (to some) sacrilege of the highest order. Just because one of the two is called Sinaiticus does not mean Moses wrote it or that God ordained it. It would be nice to have such an ancient Greek manuscript, but we are at this point without one.

Some believe that the heavens and the earth will be renovated, like houses on Home and Garden Television. God cleansed the earth with water; they think he will purge the earth with fire but that it will remain essentially intact. This image flies in the face of all that Peter wrote. Consider also the contrast made in Hebrews 1:11: "They [the heavens and the earth as mentioned in verse 10, GWS] will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment." God's works of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) will perish, while He remains.

HEAVEN OR A NEW EARTH?

On a related but not identical topic, a debate occurred last month (October 2, 2019) at Harding's lectures on whether the "new heavens and the new earth" of 2 Peter 3:13 is literal or figurative. Most brethren probably understand it as figurative, but some in the past, as well as some in the present, believe it to be literal. They do not, however, regard the new earth as a physical, material place.

Holding to this latter view in the discussion was Danny Chambers, who is solid in most of his views. No one who knows him would describe him as a heretic—even if they do not share this view. Holding to the idea that the new heavens and the new earth is just a figurative expression for heaven was Ralph Gilmore, with whom we have had several disagreements over the years in connection with views expressed in the Open Forum (such as "Praying to Jesus" and "Re-evaluation of Elders") at Freed-Hardeman University. He obviously agreed with the school's position on nudity in the Art program of the school, also. But on this matter he affirmed that heaven is a spiritual realm without the earth being involved either physically or spiritually. One may view the discussion at https://www.facebook.com/PreachingIdeas/videos/1417307481753273/?hc_location=ufi (There is no space between vide and os.)

Both participants agreed that the subject was not one that should disrupt fellowship between brethren since there is nothing premillennial involved. Chambers said that he took 2 Peter 3:13 literally—that Christians will live as a sin-free people in perfect fellowship in a perfect Paradise forever. All will have fellowship with God while they rule over a sin-free earth to God's glory. He emphasized that this home will be of a non-physical, non-material nature.

He cited passages such as Romans 8:21-23, saying that the Creation would be delivered from bondage and corruption. Chambers added that his interpretation made more sense out of Matthew 5:3—the meek inheriting the earth. It also fits being made heirs of the world (Rom. 4:13-16). He also tied in Acts 3:21 concerning "the times of restoration of all things." He used the illustration that Jesus restored a hand. If the world is annihilated (forever), how can there be a restoration? Colossians 1:20 may also be related: "and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself…."

Regarding our own resurrection, Chambers pointed out that it is the physical body that will be resurrected. Why fix up a decayed body if we are not going to live in it? If I'm already a spirit, "why do I need my body back?" He claimed to need it for the re-created world, which he had already said was non-physical. He argues that the body will be redeemed, not discarded.

Finally, Chambers asked how things would be if man had not sinned. He alleged that all would be perfect. All would be alive to His glory. Although some of the claims may have some merit, all of them do not. This last one was dealt with by Gilmore by asking what would have happened if Adam had stubbed his toe. Would there have indeed been zero pain and zero death if man had not allowed sin to enter the world? Would an apple not have fallen on Isaac Newton's head, thus causing him to say, "Ouch!" if Eve had not succumbed to the temptation? What if Adam's family later on was playing catch with a kumquat, and someone tripped over a tree's roots? Would his knees not be skinned up because no one had sinned? Could he not have suffered a sprained ankle? Hey! Just asking.

Gilmore may have had 50 or more charts, which is ambitious for a twenty-minute speech. Furthermore, because of sound problems and a distorted camera angle, it was not easy to read some of them. The fact that some were only visible for 10 milliseconds did not help, either. Among other things, Gilmore affirmed

All creation suffered when people sinned; however, all creation is redeemed when people are redeemed.

Human sin brought the curse on the land; human redemption removes that curse.

The Father and Jesus are concerned about giving people redemption—not the land.

When mankind sinned, pain was increased—not instituted. Heaven has no pain.

According to "cursed ground" theology, will animals and plants be in heaven?

Jesus made no connection between Heaven and a redeemed earth.

In John 14:1-3, Jesus is coming again to receive us to Him—not to be with us on earth.

Chambers had pointed out that Lard, McGarvey, and others held to the view he is now espousing. Asked why it dropped out of favor, he suggested that it was collateral damage in the fight against pre-millennialism. Gilmore did not disagree. However, when Gilmore suggested that this doctrine might lead to pre-millennialism, Chambers disagreed, saying that premillennialism concerns what will happen up until the judgment, while the current discussion centered on what would happen after the judgment (which is true). But then why was premillennialism the death knell to this teaching?

Although more study is warranted on both sides, it does not appear, at first glance, that either position leads to major errors.