Musings...

Scoffing or making a simple an obvious observation?

Calling those who simply noticed that the "soon", "shortly" and "quickly" of prophecy have proven to be not so soon, shortly or quick, scoffers,  rather than those who sincerely notice and observe reality, is a common approach to a church or Apostle being mistaken and unable to admit it. 

While science done well MUST correct its mistakes. Ideas about how it all is in religion is more likely to cover them up and blame those who bring it to their attention. 

 The real problem is that the Church is not given to admitting it is mistaken on much of anything so new explanations must be given for why, in this case, "soon", "shortly" and "quickly" don't really mean soon, shortly and quickly as men count soon, shortly and quickly.  

"God is giving us more time" is an oft spoken apologetic for being mistaken and unable to admit it. 

First of all know that the first century NT writers meant soon, shortly and quickly as men count it.  "Just around our corner" was the intent. It was only after soon, shortly and quickly went "later", "longer" and "slowly" that new explanations for the concepts had to be invented.  This is what the writer of 2 Peter, not actually Peter,  but a much later writer  annoyed by the deaths of most original church members and those who were wondering where Jesus was after all the promises of his immediate return, was addressing. 

This audience reading this,  would know well the Apostle Paul's belief in the immediacy of the Second Coming in I Cor 15 and does not be repeated.  He eventually learned, as do all to this day, he also was not going to be of the "we who are alive and remain" crowd. 

Let's have a look at how "shortly"  going long was handled. 

2 Peter 3: 

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,"

First realise the author was referring to the last days as in their time. No one would be interested to know or teach that this is for thousands of years into the future. And no, it is not dual. He labels those who notice the problem and make the observation openly as scoffers.  They are noticers in fact. Honest, open and sincere noticers and willing to say so.  The rise of scoffers also prove it is indeed more the last days than ever!   Nice touch...

4"And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

This was and still is a reasonable observation. Calling someone a scoffer is what you do when you simply can't admit or acknowledge that the observation is accurate

5"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

Now the sincere and honest noticer is labeled "willingly ignorant". I have never in my life met someone, religious or non-religious, that was willingly ignorant.  They may be delusional or sincerely mistaken but not by deliberate choice.  This is somewhat like the the charge that "those who believe in evolution simply don't want to obey God. They want to sin," which is to put it mildly, BS.  Who would do that if they really knew there was a god watching? No one I know. Noticing the evidence is not willingly ignorant or scoffing either. 

6"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 

This is the beginning of the switch to the concept that the present time is merely a continuation of past events still unfolding. 

Now the real apologetic. First of all, when the original statements of "soon", "shortly", "quickly" and the concepts of "the hour now is" etc were voiced, there was NO indication or teaching that we should remember that God does not see time as we do.  And that His soon, shortly and quickly are not like ours so get that straight from the beginning.  

No...that comes only as apologetic for it not actually being soon, shortly or quickly as advertised. That is the purpose of this passage. Not to admit the obvious,  but to justify and turn sincere observing church members I assume, for who else would care?, into scoffers. Which by the way also proves time is short. 

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Once again the call not to be ignorant and they don't get it. 

"Now you tell us" might be the lesson of the day here. Why the church was not told that God's days are not their days is because there was no need to make that up back then. Now, after short has gone way too long, there is a great need to issue an apologetic blaming the observer for being ignorant and scoffing rather than being wise and observant of reality.

Also, noticing church members might consider this as slack on God's part, but like days and time, God's kind of slack is not the same as theirs. 

This is the original apologetic of "God is giving us more time" and it is the fault of the scoffing and faithless church member, who in reality is simply noticing and observing the facts. 

Lesson: Those who notice and make proper observations are not scoffers in the real world. How much easier and more credible to say "I/we were sincerely mistaken" than to accuse them of being ignorant and unaware of just how "my ways are not your ways" they were, which is also another apologetic for against one making accurate observations about how things actually are. 

Far more often than the church wants to admit, "there is a way that seems right to a man.." that is right and the wisdom of the noticer, wise. 

IMHO

"B9