On Behalf of Creation: Reading the Destructive Cosmic Eschatology of 2 Peter 3 in the Light of the Transfiguration

Abstract

God’s creation of the cosmos is an elemental premise of the New Testament letter known as 2 Peter. Perhaps more overtly than in any other New Testament document, however, 2 Peter anticipates cosmic destruction on the day of divine judgment, when the created order will apparently be subjected to fiery dissolution. As well as looking back to creation and forward to the unpredictable ‘day of the Lord’, 2 Peter also references the historic parousia of Jesus by recalling his transfiguration. Since 2 Peter envisages judgment and salvation as two dimensions of one divine initiative already inaugurated by the historic mission of Jesus, this study looks to the past parousia of Jesus for orientation to his future parousia, both of which are referenced in the letter. This article has a twofold focus: first, destructive cosmic eschatology in 2 Pet. 3 and its potential ecological implications; and second, the hermeneutical value of 2 Peter’s appeal to the transfiguration of Jesus for reflecting on and evaluating 2 Peter’s eschatology—on behalf of creation.

God’s creation of the cosmos is a key theological presupposition for the writings that compose the New Testament (NT). Although this collection of writings focuses on anthropological rather than cosmological concerns, several NT texts nevertheless offer visions of the eschatological future of the created order. Among the varied visions of creation’s finale within the NT, none matches the bleak prospect for the fate of the earth presaged in 2 Pet. 3. In this passage, not only is cosmic eschatology characterized primarily in destructive terms but the largely retributive character of impending divine judgment at the parousia also reinforces the letter writer’s moral exhortations. This study probes the nexus between eschatology and ethics evident in 2 Peter by evaluating the destructive cosmic eschatology that its author associates with the future parousia by means of the theological-moral vision associated with the past parousia of Jesus. The basis for this hermeneutical proposal is the letter writer’s appeal to the transfiguration of Jesus in 2 Pet. 1 to authorize various exhortations. In short, this study proposes that one respectful and responsible mode of critical engagement with the destructive eschatology of 2 Pet. 3 is to assess its theological coherence by means of intratextual critique with reference to the letter’s foregrounding of the transfiguration of Jesus in 2 Pet. 1.

Context and Orientation

The context for this study of 2 Pet. 3 is a pair of related discussions. The first of these concerns cosmic eschatology in the NT. The focus of this conversation is the end of the natural world or created order, as depicted in various NT texts, some of which seem to envisage cosmic renewal or restoration whereas others apparently anticipate cosmic destruction or disintegration. In theological perspective, will the created order ultimately be renewed or destroyed? Posed this starkly, perhaps either renewal or destruction is a false antithesis, but so stated the question brings into focus a central concern of this study—the anticipated destiny of God’s world and ours.

Recent interest in cosmic eschatology seems to have coincided with heightened ecological concerns over recent decades, leading to the emergence of ecological theology and ecological interpretation of the Bible. This development brings into view the second contextual discourse for this study. New Testament expressions of cosmic eschatology are inherently interesting, but they naturally bear on current attitudes toward human engagement with, and responsibility for, the natural world. Although not a necessary implication, historically an eschatology featuring cosmic destruction seems to have gone hand in hand with deliberate disregard for our habitat home—Planet Earth, its interrelated ecosystems, and other life forms conceived in Jewish and Christian tradition as belonging to God’s intrinsically good creation. Such a viewpoint is reflected and rebutted in an essay by Barbara Rossing, ‘Hastening the Day When the Earth Will Burn? Global Warming, Revelation, and 2 Peter 3’, which has been published under slightly different titles as a journal article and in two essay collections (2008a, 2008b, 2011). In this study Rossing compares Revelation favourably to 2 Peter because Revelation can be interpreted as anticipating the end of the Roman imperial world whereas 2 Peter envisages, in her view, a fiery end to the natural order in toto. In short, seen in the light of present-day environmental concerns, 2 Peter’s cosmic eschatology is ecologically irredeemable—literally!

Introducing his 2020 monograph on The New Testament and the Future of the Cosmos, Ryan Juza’s survey of prior study of cosmic eschatology in the NT features four monographs by Anton Vögtle (1970), David Russell (1996), Edward Adams (2007), and Richard Middleton (2014). Juza’s own book, based on his 2017 doctoral dissertation, composes a comprehensive contribution to scholarship on this topic by evaluating the gamut of viewpoints on cosmic eschatology within the NT.

According to Juza’s survey of previous research on cosmic eschatology in the NT (2020: 2–7), Vögtle’s 1970 monograph was (before Juza’s own study) the most comprehensive to date, but he came to the conclusion that cosmological language within the NT is so subservient to the respective writers’ concern to address God’s anticipated judging and saving action with respect to humanity that it provides little insight into convictions about the future of the cosmos itself. Juza, by contrast, accepts Vögtle’s point about the primary anthropocentric concern of the NT writers but contests his view that little may be gleaned about their views on the final future of the cosmos. Regarding Russell and Adams, Juza acknowledges that both make significant contributions to research on cosmic eschatology in the NT, but he thinks that both are too restricted in scope. In his view, the predominant focus of Russell’s study is the series of NT texts that anticipate cosmic renewal, whereas the focus of Adams’s study is the group of NT texts that feature cosmic catastrophe. As for Middleton’s monograph, Juza (2020: 7) considers it ‘an admirable study in biblical theology’, especially by explaining how Old Testament texts prepare for the holistic eschatological vision of cosmic renewal in the NT, despite NT texts that apparently anticipate the destruction of the cosmos. In view of Middleton’s broad scope, however, Juza judges that some NT texts deserve more detailed treatment.

After detailed discussion of the eschatological future of the cosmos as depicted in the respective Synoptic Gospels, letters of Paul, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 1 Jn 2.17, and Revelation, Juza (2020: 295–96) sums up his findings in accordance with five questions guiding his larger study: (1) Who is the actor in the cosmic event? (2) When will the cosmic event happen? (3) Why will the cosmic event take place? (4) How will the cosmic event unfold? (5) What will be the result of the cosmic event? Of these five questions, the first, second, third, and fifth receive succinct answers reflecting a significant degree of concurrence across the range of NT texts considered. Regarding the question of how the cosmic event is likely to unfold, however, the texts examined by Juza vary considerably, although he maintains that ‘the writers of the NT adopt positions that emphasize nearly equal levels of continuity and discontinuity [between the present and future cosmos], either renovation or reconstruction. While Paul, the writer of Hebrews, and John the Seer probably look forward to the renovation of the cosmos, [2] Peter probably expects the reconstruction of the cosmos’ (Juza 2020: 300, emphasis original). ¹ Noteworthy is a brief paragraph in which Juza identifies how distinctive 2 Pet. 3 is with respect to its vision of the future fate of the cosmos:

Peter uses the image of fire to describe the cosmic transition (2 Pet 3:7–13). The purpose of this fire will be to test all things and then to destroy that which does not pass the test. Several other NT writers also appear to envision fire as a part of God’s eschatological judgment, but do not connect it explicitly to the cosmic transition (see Mark 9:49; Luke 12:49; 1 Cor 3:13–15; 2 Thess 1:6–8; Heb 10:27; 12:29; Rev 20:9). (Juza 2020: 299, emphasis original) ²

The fiery and destructive end of our cosmos envisioned in 2 Pet. 3 may certainly be read as Juza does, but there are variables that impact on how one appraises this end-time scenario. One such variable is the cosmology or conceptual framework presupposed by the writer of 2 Peter, which, according to Juza (2014: 227–28), is often appealed to as a key for unlocking interpretative difficulties in the letter. For some, the author of 2 Peter is principally indebted to Jewish apocalyptic ideas, and Juza’s own proposal (2014, 2020: 210–14) that 2 Peter universalizes the biblical tradition of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction is a refinement of that interpretative perspective. For others, such as Adams (2007: 216–17), J. Albert Harrill (2010), Daniel Frayer-Griggs (2016: 228–42), and Jörg Frey (2019a: 36–38), the cosmological outlook of 2 Peter is best compared with Stoic cosmology, especially the notion of ἐκπύρωσις, according to which the cosmos is destined for a series of fiery disintegrations. On this understanding, scholars incline to the view that 2 Pet. 3 envisages the fiery destruction of the cosmos in toto. As Adams (2007: 234) writes:

The author [of 2 Peter] advances his teaching on the catastrophic end of the cosmos in opposition to ‘scoffers’ who rejected the possibility of cosmic destruction on philosophical grounds. They took the Platonic/Aristotelian line that the cosmos is everlasting. In combating their position, he draws on Stoic cosmology and the theory of ekpurōsis in particular, which itself had been formulated in opposition to the Platonic and Aristotelian theorem of cosmic indestructibility.

Similarly, according to Frayer-Griggs (2016: 242), ‘Drawing upon the Stoic doctrine of ekpyrosis, 2 Peter therefore appears to suggest that on the last day the heavens and earth will return to a state of pure fire—a state similar to that from which it originated.’

Although Juza (2014, 2020: 210–14) favours the view that the author of 2 Peter was primarily influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought patterns, especially the biblical tradition of Sodom and Gomorrah’s fiery destruction as something of an eschatological archetype, he acknowledges that readers of 2 Peter might well have detected parallels with Stoic cosmology. For the author of 2 Peter, one should probably allow for both Jewish apocalyptic and Stoic streams of influence, but perhaps even more important than the cosmological outlook of this letter writer is that of his addressees, with whom he sought to connect and whom he aimed to persuade. Although difficult to adjudicate, resonances with Stoic cosmology in 2 Peter may be less an indication of its author’s own mindset than that of his intended audience, in which case the total destructiveness of 2 Peter’s eschatology may have caused an abiding impression.

Alongside research on cosmic eschatology in the NT, there is an extensive literature on ecological theology (or ecotheology) and ecological interpretation of the Bible. ³ Surveying the origins of—as well as various approaches to and future prospects for—ecological hermeneutics, David Horrell (2022: 20) acknowledges ‘difficult questions concerning biblical eschatology and its interpretation in a variety of Christian traditions, especially insofar as it seems to envisage an imminent and destructive end for the earth’. Elaborating further on this point, Horrell (2022: 21) observes:

The obvious problem is that some texts appear to speak of a future destruction of the earth (e.g., Joel 2.28–3.21; Mark 13; 2 Pet 3.10–13) and in some cases regard this as both imminent and significant as a sign of the final arrival of salvation. Most problematic is probably 2 Pet 3.10–13, which not only speaks of a coming day when the elements of the universe will be dissolved by fire but also encourages believers to hasten this day, in order that a ‘new heavens and a new earth’ may arrive … ⁴

From several angles of vision, then, hermeneutical engagement with eschatological texts in the NT both arises from and bears upon moral concerns. With respect to 2 Pet. 3, this is but an expansion of an inherent thematic concern, namely, the close connection between eschatology and ethics. Whatever one decides about the addressees of 2 Peter and how best to characterize the ‘false teachers’ about whom the author warns, what comes through clearly in this letter is that the author’s moral vision and ethical exhortation is buttressed by an emphatic focus on the parousia and impending divine judgment, characterized in largely retributive and destructive terms. Many would concur with this claim by Richard Bauckham (1990: 51): ‘The central theological issue in 2 Peter is the relation between ethics and eschatology.’ This is especially evident in the sequence of thought found toward the end of the letter, 2 Pet. 3.10–13, in which the expectation of wholesale destruction explicitly provokes consideration of how the letter’s addressees should conduct themselves. In effect, the anticipated dissolution of the cosmos is perceived as capable of motivating holy and godly living, especially since the ‘new heavens and new earth’ are envisaged as a dwelling place for justice or righteousness. Second Peter 3 thus illustrates eschatological expectation conditioning ethical exhortation. Summing up this nexus between eschatology and ethics, especially in view of the letter writer’s characterization of his opponents’ faulty, perhaps non-existent, eschatology, Ben Witherington (2007: 278) writes:

The opponents of our author [of 2 Peter] are (1) moral relativists; (2) those who reject early Christian eschatology, and especially the notion of the second coming; (3) those who seem to assume a steady-state universe, one that will certainly not end in final judgment or conflagration. Bad eschatology leads to bad ethics, and so our author must critique both …

If, indeed, ‘bad eschatology leads to bad ethics’, might that connection cast a critical light on the eschatology found in 2 Peter? The reason for posing this question is that, in traditional understanding at least, 2 Pet. 3 contains the clearest expression within the NT of what might be described as an eschatology characterized by total destruction, followed by new—rather than renewed—creation. Not everyone reads 2 Pet. 3 in this way, and it may not be the best reading of 2 Pet. 3, but it is probably the majority viewpoint down through the centuries. For example, according to Terrance Callan (2012: 211–12):

The eschatological expectations of 2 Peter become most specific in 3:1–13. Here we learn that the present heavens and earth have been reserved for judgment by fire. At a time unknown to humans, like a thief, the day of the Lord will come. By fire the present heavens and earth will be dissolved and replaced by new heavens and a new earth, in which justice dwells … [T]his passage is the place in Scripture where the expectation is expressed most clearly. Thus it is the principal foundation for this element of Christian belief.

In view of the close nexus between eschatology and ethics in 2 Peter, as well as of apparent negative ecological ramifications of the destructive cosmic eschatology found within this letter, I propose that something may be gained by critically applying aspects of the theological-moral vision associated with the first advent of Jesus to expectations associated with the as-yet-unrealized second advent of the same Jesus, a parousia perplex of significant concern in 2 Pet. 3. Prompting this proposal are the following considerations. First, expressions of eschatological expectation are inevitably figurative, not literal. In the same way that no person witnessed the origin of creation, no one has yet witnessed its end, so any characterization of the telos toward which history is moving can only be visionary and expressed in symbolic terms. Descriptions of the end, however construed, are not empirical-in-advance, so to speak. Second, within the Bible there is a variety of eschatological expectations, not one single perspective, and those various expectations do not neatly coalesce into a harmonious picture of how things will ultimately be resolved. To illustrate this point with reference to 2 Peter, the eschatological destruction by fire of the cosmos—or a significant part thereof—is not an idea shared by most other NT writers, but in the church’s history this notion has featured disproportionately to its biblical basis. Third, despite the variety of eschatological perspectives found within the NT, they nevertheless concur on one determinative point, namely, that eschatology is soteriology in future tense—the completion or realization of the life-saving mission of Jesus Messiah. Hence this question: especially in view of eschatological expectations within the NT that are discrepant with what one finds expressed in 2 Pet. 3, does the expectation that our earth—nay, God’s earth—is destined for destruction cohere with the life-healing, life-restoring, life-saving mission of Jesus, as attested in the biblical Gospels? Some, with eyes drawn to some of Jesus’ warnings about the disaster in store for Jerusalem or to his parables with disconcerting endings, may well answer in the affirmative, but there is christological reason to hope for eschatological resolution reflective of the broad contours of Jesus’ historic mission. In 2 Peter such hope finds expression in relation to the transfiguration of Jesus. ⁵

Broadly speaking, exegesis and interpretation are rational endeavours. By arguing for this or that contextual comprehension of a sequence of words in an ancient text, one aims to persuade that a particular interpretation of a given text makes best semantic sense. In this enterprise, however, it is easy to overlook another interpretative variable, namely, the affective effect of an ancient text, especially in a historical setting in which any such text was not pored over and parsed ad infinitum—as is possible when one owns a copy of a text, knows how to read, and has the leisure for study—but was rather heard in a group setting that disallowed much by way of critical engagement with the text. Thus, even when denotative dimensions of 2 Pet. 3 can be explained as anticipating a future for the earth that is less catastrophic than commonly supposed, what the text connotes at the affective level is far less reassuring.

Fundamental to a reading of 2 Pet. 3 that holds out hope for the world that we currently inhabit is a text-critical crux, namely, the wording at the end of 2 Pet. 3.10, at which point the manuscript tradition presents a plethora of alternative readings. In the second edition of his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger (1994: 636) advises: ‘The oldest reading, and the one which best explains the origin of the others that have been preserved, is εὑρεθήσεται …’ ⁶ This is the reading in the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament and also in NA²⁷, continuing a tradition, as Juza (2020: 207) observes, reaching back to the text-critical reconstructions of Tischendorf (1872) and also of Westcott and Hort (1881). Moreover, according to Juza (2020: 210), ‘Ever since the appearance of Richard Bauckham’s monumental commentary on 2 Peter (1983), a scholarly consensus has emerged that εὑρεθήσεται can sufficiently be interpreted as portraying God’s eschatological judgment of humanity’. ⁷ Curiously, NA²⁸ adopts the reading οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται, a text-critical judgment characterized by Frey (2018: 410) as an ‘act of desperation’. ‘If οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται is adopted’, as Juza (2020: 208) points out, ‘it virtually requires the interpreter to espouse an annihilationist position [regarding the future fate of the earth]’. The interpretative stakes are high, but although bamboozling in text-critical terms, the judgment of the committee responsible for the most recent textual reconstruction of 2 Pet. 3.10 reinforces the point that the context of this particular verse—both its immediate literary context and the broader context of the letter as a whole, which reflects a retributive mindset—evokes doom for our habitat home.

Arising from ecological concerns evoked by the eschatology of 2 Peter 3, this study expands upon the explicitly articulated relationship between eschatology and ethics in 2 Peter by attending to possible moral ramifications of the letter’s destructive eschatology. To echo the letter itself, in view of the future presaged for the world that sustains us, however that is construed, what kind of people should we be, not only in relation to God and other persons but also in relation to the remainder of nature? Is there not a place for holiness and godliness in our engagement with a world we affirm as the good—indeed, delightful—expression of God’s creativity? While awaiting new heavens and a new earth—perhaps renewed heavens and a renewed earth—in which righteousness or justice resides, ought we not dwell rightly, justly, not only in our present world but also for the world that sustains our life, in extension of the Creator who has gifted us with life? This world is our home, but it is not our world. In Jewish and Christian perspective, this world—no less than any new or renewed world—is God’s world, so should not an appropriately moral response to living in another’s domain be characterized by gratitude, deference, humility, care, and responsibility? If so, that is not the moral vision commonly evoked by the end-time expectations articulated in 2 Pet. 3. For this reason, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the eschatology of 2 Peter is nurtured by hope in the parousia of Jesus, envisaged as completing what was initiated in the historic parousia of the self-same Jesus, to which 2 Peter attests in a surprising way.

In what follows, after briefly outlining my stance on several historical-contextual considerations relating to 2 Peter, the next two sections scrutinize the eschatology of this letter, first in big-picture terms and then by attending to a dominant feature—destruction. Since 2 Pet. 3 associates the future parousia with such a bleak prospect for the created order, the penultimate section of this study proposes that the reference to the transfiguration in 2 Pet. 1 provides an intratextual interpretative resource for contesting this letter’s destructive eschatology. This hermeneutical proposal is then reiterated and reinforced by concluding reflections.

Second Peter: Historical-Contextual Considerations

Second Peter displays difficulties associated with several issues related to contextualizing a letter from antiquity—authorship, audience, provenance, genre, and date of delivery. Of these, perhaps the most unsettling for many is that of authorship. Even some more conservative scholars concede that 2 Peter, purportedly penned by or on behalf of the apostle Peter, is probably pseudonymous—written in Peter’s name after his death. For those who uphold Petrine authorship in some qualified sense, a significant difficulty is the marked difference between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, making it unlikely that both letters are authentic in authorial terms. According to James Dunn (2015: 101), for example, ‘the differences in terminology and ideas are too striking for 1 Peter and 2 Peter to be attributed to the same author’. ⁸ For those who accept that 2 Peter is pseudonymous, however, the appeal to eyewitness testimony of the transfiguration of Jesus in 2 Pet. 1.16–18 provides cause for pause, as does the claim in 3.1 that this is the second of Simeon Peter’s letters to this group of addressees. ⁹

The following historical-contextual considerations lead me to view 2 Peter as a relatively late pseudonymous letter. First, 2 Pet. 3.15–16 shows evidence of the author’s familiarity with a corpus of Pauline letters, although how many and which specific letters are not specified. A collection of Paul’s letters is unlikely (though not impossible) before Paul’s death, ¹⁰ which on the available evidence occurred around the same time as Peter’s demise (circa 64–65 CE). ¹¹ Second, it is difficult to dispute some kind of literary relation between 2 Peter and the NT letter of Judas, and most now concur that 2 Peter is dependent on, and hence later than, Judas. ¹² Thus, whatever one decides about the authorship and date of Judas, 2 Peter must come later. Third, 2 Pet. 3.1 apparently reflects awareness of 1 Peter, which is natural if both 1 and 2 Peter were authored or authorized by the apostle Peter. As has already been observed, however, there are problems associated with affirming the authorial authenticity of both Petrine epistles, especially in view of the genre of 2 Peter, which relates to a fourth consideration. Bauckham (1983: 131–35, 158–62) argues that 2 Peter is best characterized as an epistolary testament and that this generic classification increases the likelihood that 2 Peter is pseudonymous. ¹³ Also relevant is that as late as Eusebius’ History of the Church (3.3, 25; 6.14, 25), published shortly before the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, 2 Peter is listed among a group of disputed writings, that is, writings known but not yet universally affirmed by early churches. Historical-critical concerns about 2 Peter are longstanding, not simply the result of post-Enlightenment rationalism. Finally, although the precise nature of the relationship between 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter remains unclear to me, one cannot ignore the arguments of Wolfgang Grünstäudl (2013: 97–144) and Frey (2018: 201–6; 2019a: 8–24) for 2 Peter’s dependence on the Apocalypse of Peter, which, if correct, probably dates 2 Peter to no earlier than the second quarter of the second century CE. ¹⁴ Intertextual relations between 2 Peter and other early Christian texts are inherently interesting and potentially illuminating, but this study is concerned with the interpretative significance of what I perceive to be an intratextual tension within 2 Peter.

Eschatological Expectation in 2 Pet. 3

Regarding the broad literary structure of 2 Peter, there is general agreement, even if not complete concurrence, along the following lines:

Opening letter greeting (1.1–2)

Thematic preamble (1.3–11)

Letter body (1.12–3.13)

Peter’s testament (1.12–15)

Reassurance from apostolic eyewitness testimony and prophecy (1.16–21)

Opponents (‘false teachers’) foreseen (2.1–3)

Biblical reminders of divine judgment and rescue (2.4–10a)

Denunciation of the opponents (‘false teachers’) (2.10b–22)

Personal reminder; scoffers foreseen (3.1–2, 3–4) ¹⁵

Reasons for scepticism refuted accompanied by moral exhortation (3.5–13)

Letter closing: final exhortation, admonition, and doxology (3.14–18)

Second Peter 3.1–13 is the third main section of the body of the letter (1.12–3.13) prior to the letter closing. This third principal part of the letter breaks down into two subsections: 3.1–4, a reiteration of the letter’s rationale; and 3.5–13, further arguments against ‘false teachers’ focused on eschatology.

Second Peter 3.1–4a is a single sentence in Greek, with 3.4b an independent clause that continues the gist of the scoffers’ ridicule regarding belief in the parousia. Ironically, according to 2 Peter, the ridicule of scoffers confirms what was spoken in the past by prophets and again by apostles of Jesus, ‘Lord and Life-saver’ (3.2). ¹⁶ Fundamentally, the ridicule of the scoffers is premised on how things have always been, thereby illustrating the logical problem of induction—reasoning based on past precedent that what has not occurred before will never occur. In short, belief in an end to history is countered by a claim that history is unending because it has yet to end. To an extent, the author of 2 Peter has already anticipated this line of reasoning. Biblical illustrations of divine judgment in 2 Pet. 2.4–10a—namely, the incarceration of rebellious angels, the flooding of the world during the time of Noah, and the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah during the days of Abraham and Lot (on which see Juza 2014)—answer in advance the inductive reasoning of end-time naysayers. After all, neither sinful angels nor ungodly people are likely to have conducted themselves in such ways as to provoke wholesale divine condemnation had they seen God’s judgment coming. Some such presumption seems to stand behind the opening subsection of 2 Peter 3.

Second Peter 3.5–6 may be read as an enthymeme (see Callan 2012: 205, following Watson 1988: 129), that is, a syllogism or deduction with an unarticulated premise. The stated premise is that the world has been destroyed (as well as created) by water; the unstated premise is that only if the world has not been destroyed before is anyone able to assert that things will remain as they have always been. The author of 2 Peter concludes, therefore, that things are not as the scoffers claim, implying that the world may well be destroyed again. The following verse (3.7) draws yet another inference from the enthymeme in the previous lines, namely, that the present heavens and earth are reserved for fiery judgment, including destruction of the godless. Inasmuch as by God’s word the earth was both created and destroyed by water, so also the biblical precedent of Sodom and Gomorrah signals that, by the same word and will of God, the apparently stable heavens and earth are destined for destruction on the day of future judgment, along with people whose ways are not aligned with God’s.

Second Peter presses on to presage ‘new heavens and a new earth’ (3.13), so even if its author was influenced by Stoic cosmological speculation—or thought that many among his audience were so influenced—perhaps the idea of a fiery finish to the cosmos comes from the same biblical context as the phrase, ‘new heavens and a new earth’, which initially appears in Isa. 65.17, the opening lines of a vision of the renewal of creation when God creates Jerusalem as a source of joy (65.17–25). In Isa. 66, however, where Israel-centred notes are re-sounded in a universalistic key, the echo of 65.17 in 66.22 follows a prophecy of destruction by fire in 66.15–16:

See, the Lord is coming with fire—

His chariots are like a whirlwind—

To vent his anger in fury, his rebuke in flaming fire.

For with fire will the Lord contend,

With his sword, against all flesh;

And many shall be the slain of the Lord (JPS). ¹⁷

Second Peter 3.8–9 addresses the apparent postponement of the parousia, or ‘promise of his presence’ (3.4), ¹⁸ in two ways. First, alluding to Ps. 90.4 (89.4, LXX), 2 Pet. 3.8 affirms that time is different for God than it is for people, so any apparent postponement is a matter of perspective. ¹⁹ And second, God’s apparent ‘tardiness’ is interpreted in terms of divine patience, indeed, even as a certain reticence to judge: ‘not willing for anyone to be destroyed but rather that all should reach repentance’. Although 2 Peter’s destructive eschatology is a prominent feature of the letter, as elaborated in the next section of this study, its positing of a divinely patient parousia is an important facet of its eschatological outlook.

Second Peter 3.9 is comprehensible as yet another enthymeme (see Callan 2012: 208, again following Watson 1988: 130–31). The stated premise is the interpretative affirmation that God’s apparent ‘tardiness’ to bring on the destruction associated with the day of judgment (3.7) is (evidence of) divine patience. The unstated premise may be expressed as follows: God is tardy or slow only if there is no good reason for delay in keeping divine promises. Seen in proper perspective, therefore, God is not actually slow to keep divine promises because there is a good and proper reason for God’s holding back of eschatological judgment and destruction, namely, God’s own inherent patience. Divine forbearance holds back eschatological judgment and its inevitable concomitant, destruction, presumably because of God’s unwillingness that any person should ultimately experience destruction. ²⁰ Although divine judgment may be inferred to have been deferred to this point, however, addressees of 2 Peter should not adopt a view analogous to that held by end-time scoffers: since eschatological judgment and destruction have thus far been postponed because of God’s patience, such forbearance will continue to hold back judgment and destruction indefinitely. Such a view would subvert the hortatory plea of 2 Pet. 3, one key aspect of which is summed up in 3.15a: ‘consider our Lord’s patience [time for] salvation’. ²¹

Regarding 2 Pet. 3.10–13, Callan (2012: 208) offers this summary: ‘This passage argues that the time of the end is unknown and that the addressees should be holy because the world is about to be destroyed’. Broadly speaking, this is correct, although text-critical debate relating to 2 Pet. 3.10 raises questions about the scope of anticipated dissolution—whether it extends to the earth or is restricted to the heavens. This is a critical interpretative issue, to which this study shortly turns. Callan’s summary of 2 Pet. 3.10–13 overlooks a curious contextual conundrum, however. Whereas 2 Pet. 3.8–9 foregrounds divine patience as the reason for the apparent postponement of the parousia, the eschatologically conditioned moral exhortation in 3.11–12a seems to enjoin holy and godly living while anticipating and thereby bringing about the parousia (presence or arrival) of the day of God! In other words, living in accord with the expectation of eschatological judgment is apparently envisaged as capable of bringing about what has thus far been postponed by divine patience. Although it is foolhardy to try to calculate how human agency might somehow provoke divine agency, especially God’s eschatological judgment, ‘hastening’ the day of divine judgment has been part of Christian imagination for no little part of the church’s history, even though 2 Pet. 3.10 explicitly asserts that the day of the Lord will come in the manner of a thief, which is to say, unannounced and unexpectedly. ²² Similar imagery is used by Paul in 1 Thess. 5.2, by two of the Gospel writers when recording eschatological sayings of Jesus (Mt. 24.43; Lk. 12.39), and by John the prophet-seer (Rev. 3.3; 16.15). As in all such other cases within the NT, 2 Pet. 3.10 employs the image of a thief to reinforce the idea that the timing of the day of the Lord is (literally) unpredictable. Postponed (in human perspective) it may be, due to divine patience, but a day of judgment is inevitable and beyond the human capacity to calculate.

Destructive Cosmic Eschatology in 2 Pet. 3

In 2 Pet. 3 God’s created order faces a bleak future. Responding to the scepticism of end-time scoffers, the author first reminds his audience that the earth, brought into being by God’s creative word from and through water, was subsequently liquidated by the same divine word through water. ²³ The author then makes the inference in 3.7a that, by means of the same divine word, the existing heavens and earth have been reserved for fire. Although 3.7b progresses to focus on the destruction of godless people at the day of judgment, the keeping of the cosmos for a fiery dissolution on that day is a reasonable inference from the parallel created in 3.5–7: in the past, destruction of the world by means of water; at the future day of judgment, destruction of the world by means of fire. Perhaps, since there was what might be described as a ‘cleansed’ world after the flood, one may infer that there will likewise be a ‘refined’ world after its fiery date with destiny. Perhaps …

But then, after reminding readers of divine patience and indeed of divine unwillingness that anyone should be destroyed, the author returns to the theme of the destruction of the cosmos. True, only the heavens and στοιχεῖα are said to face fiery annihilation in 3.10 and 3.12, with an apparent ‘loophole’ provisioned by the final phrase of 3.10: ‘and earth and earthly works [literally, “and the in it (the earth) works”] will be discovered [or divinely exposed]’. Textual variants abound for the final verb in 2 Pet. 3.10, however, and whatever hope one might hold out for the earth and earthly works because of the end of 3.10 is apparently snatched away by the beginning of 3.11, ‘Since all these things are thus being destroyed …’ At the anticipated day of God in 2 Pet. 3.12, only the heavens and στοιχεῖα are envisaged to face fiery dissolution, once again suggesting breathing space for the earth. Yet again, however, what follows in 3.13 provides reason for reflection: ‘But in accordance with [God’s] promise [found in LXX Isa 65.17 and 66.22] we await new heavens and a new earth …’ Strictly speaking, if new heavens replace old heavens that have been destroyed, must not one infer that a new earth is needed because the old earth has been destroyed?

In 2 Pet. 3 a fair amount of interpretative significance rides on the precise meaning of στοιχεῖα (3.10, 12). According to Peter Davids (2011: 103, emphases original),

Forms of στοιχεῖον occur seven times in the NT, twice in Gal 4[:3, 9], twice in Col 2[:8, 20], once in Heb 5:12, and twice here. There are four possible meanings: (1) ‘substances underlying the natural world, the basic elements’ (usually earth, air, fire, and water); (2) ‘basic components of celestial constellations, heavenly bodies’; (3) ‘things that constitute the foundation of learning, fundamental principles’; and (4) ‘transcendent powers that are in control over events in this world, elements, elemental spirits’ (BDAG, 946 … ).

Although the third definition above makes best sense of Heb. 5.12, most interpreters rule it out in relation to 2 Pet. 3. ²⁴ Of the three remaining senses, support exists for all three at 2 Pet. 3.10 and 12, although the second definition, ‘heavenly bodies’, is advocated by the majority. ²⁵ For example, convinced that 2 Pet. 3 is reliant upon LXX Isa. 34.4, Davids (2011: 103–4) contends that the references to στοιχεῖα in 3.10 and 12 are ‘most likely’ to heavenly bodies. ²⁶ This majority viewpoint is reinforced by Frey (2018: 412), who writes:

After the heavens, the στοιχεῖα (‘elements’) are also said to dissolve in fire (καυσούμενα λυθήσεται). In Stoic texts, στοιχεῖα normally denotes the four elements, which will then disintegrate into fire, the primal element. But this sense is unlikely here; instead, the reference here between the heavens and the earth is probably to the celestial bodies, which according to a widespread conception were located between the heavenly firmaments and the earth.

Even so, it is not as though every scholar is convinced that the author of 2 Pet. 3 had only the heavenly or celestial bodies in mind when referring to cosmic dissolution. Initially Witherington (2007: 379) writes, ‘These stoicheia are either the elements of the universe (earth, air, fire, water) or perhaps the heavenly bodies’. But then, in response to the following comment by Bo Reicke (1964: 180) on 2 Pet. 3.10, ‘All elements which make up the physical world, both on the earth and in the stellar regions (cf. vs. 12; Gal iv 3, 9f.), will be dissolved by heat and utterly melt away’, Witherington (2007: 380) recalibrates: ‘This goes too far. Probably the author is talking about the dissolution of the heavenly bodies, involving stars falling to earth, and the fire strips bare and exposes the earth but does not cause it to dissolve or disappear. It thus envisions some continuity with the new heaven and the new earth’. Callan, by contrast, considers the same two interpretative choices as Witherington but sides with Reicke. The writer of 2 Pet. 3.10 and 12 had the four traditional elements of earth, air, fire, and water in mind, leading Callan (2012: 210) to comment: ‘The author’s reference to the burning elements states the means by which the earth, in contrast to the heavens, will be undone’. As for Ruth Anne Reese (2007: 171), after considering three possible interpretations of στοιχεῖα in 2 Pet. 3.10 and 12, she suggests that ‘in 2 Peter the text is pointing towards the destruction of the heavens and the fundamental elements of the earth. The heavens and the earth will be destroyed by fire’.

On reflection, exegesis of 2 Pet. 3 is inconclusive regarding the precise fate of Planet Earth on that ominous day of God. Especially significant, however, is the letter writer’s ‘destructive mindset’, indicated by the prominence of the theme of destruction in 2 Pet. 2–3. ²⁷ To put things starkly, were Planet Earth conscious, capable of comprehending 2 Pet. 3, and blessed with voice, as envisaged by those associated with the Earth Bible Project, it is doubtful whether Mother Nature would express optimism about her prospects at the parousia.

Transfiguration in 2 Pet. 1.16–18: Exegetical Considerations and Interpretative Implications

Although awkward in historical-critical perspective, the appeal to eyewitness testimony to the transfiguration of Jesus in 2 Pet. 1.16–18 may offer interpretative blessings. According to Dorothy Lee (2004: 88), ‘The theological accent of the symbolism [of the abridged form of the transfiguration in 2 Pet. 1] is firmly, indeed almost exclusively, on the anticipation of God’s future in Christ’. While Lee (2004: 89) is probably correct that ‘[t]he central theme of 2 Peter, the parousia, provides the theological context for the narration of the transfiguration account’, 2 Pet. 1.16 is backward-looking, in my view, recalling the historical parousia of Jesus rather than anticipating his eschatological parousia. ²⁸ Indeed, although 2 Pet. 1.16 is often taken to refer to the transfiguration, it is probably better understood as referring to the historical mission of Jesus in its entirety, already alluded to in 1.3–4, ²⁹ even if recalled in such a way as to presage the immediately succeeding eyewitness recollection of the transfiguration in 1.17–18. Taken alone, 2 Pet. 1.16 reads: ‘For not by cleverly contrived fables did we reliably inform you of the power and presence [or powerful presence, τὴν … δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν] of our Lord, Jesus Messiah, but rather by becoming eyewitnesses of his divine majesty’. ³⁰ While the final phrase, ‘eyewitnesses of his divine majesty’, segues neatly into the recollection of the transfiguration that follows in 2 Pet. 1.17–18, nothing in 1.16 requires that it be understood to refer to anything more specific than the historic mission of Jesus, that is, his past presence/parousia. The term ἡ παρουσία occurs three times in 2 Peter, initially at 1.16 and then twice more at 2 Pet. 3.4 and 12, where it is inescapably future-oriented. This key term thereby identifies the past presence and the hoped-for future presence of Jesus Messiah, Lord and Life-saver, as the hermeneutical horizons for making sense of the present, which for the author of 2 Peter has certain moral implications. Hence the ethical focus of the thematic preamble to the letter, as well as the strong moral concerns expressed throughout the letter, especially in view of the author’s eschatological convictions.

Some scholars express surprise that 2 Peter appeals to the transfiguration of Jesus rather than to his resurrection, both to reassure hearers of the content of their faith and to exhort them to stand firm in that faith and to live out that faith faithfully—that is, by means of conduct that the author characterizes as godliness or godly virtue (see 2 Pet. 1.3–11, especially 1.5–10). The resurrection of Jesus is never referenced in this letter, ³¹ even though affirmation of that divine initiative surely undergirds 2 Peter’s exalted christology and future hope. Perhaps the reason for this letter’s focus on the transfiguration rather than the resurrection of Jesus is that both the memory and various records of the transfiguration make more explicit than the affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection divine approval and authorization of Jesus and the specific conduct of his mission. ³² By this I mean that each of the four NT accounts of Jesus’ transfiguration refers to the heavenly voice claiming Jesus as God’s son: ‘This is my beloved son’ (‘chosen son’ in Lk. 9.35). ³³ As in Mt. 17.5, moreover, 2 Pet. 1.17 refers to God’s approval of Jesus, which is probably also intimated in Luke’s variant expression, ‘chosen/elect son’. And insofar as 2 Pet. 1.17–18 evokes either the shared synoptic witness to the transfiguration or perhaps a pre-synoptic tradition, the Petrine account echoes for a later generation the accompanying divine imperative: ‘Hear him’. This is important because of what Jesus teaches in the lead-up to the transfiguration in the synoptic tradition. Although differently contextualized in the three Synoptic Gospels, their common witness is that the transfiguration follows hard upon the following sequence of events: Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah; Jesus’ immediate foretelling of his inevitable suffering, death, and resurrection; and his subsequent counterintuitive instruction about what following this Messiah implies (Mt. 16.13–28; Mk 8.27–9.1; Lk. 9.18–27). In the synoptic story-world, the transfiguration of Jesus not only confirms Simon Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah but also places God’s ‘stamp of approval’ on all that Jesus has said leading up to that point, including what he says about his impending destiny and what it means to follow him. This, in effect, is what the heavenly voice commands the disciples after Jesus is transfigured: ‘Listen to him; follow Jesus and his way’. In short, whereas affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection implies God’s vindication of Jesus and his way, the transfiguration story explicitly attests to God’s approval and authorization of Jesus and his way well in advance of his crucifixion. ³⁴

In the time between the past parousia of Jesus and his future parousia, then, eyewitness testimony to the transfiguration of Jesus—as a determinative moment in his divinely approved and authorized mission—serves to recall the divinely approved moral shape of Jesus’ life and mission as both orientation for the present and the basis of end-time hope. Divine approval and authorization of Jesus’ historic mission, witnessed on the mountain of transfiguration, implies that what was initiated in Jesus’ mission will be completed by and by. What was inaugurated by Jesus awaits eschatological realization. As the event selected by the writer of 2 Peter to evoke the past parousia of Jesus, ³⁵ the transfiguration nevertheless relates theologically to the future parousia of Jesus. Regarding this connection, Lee (2004: 92) writes:

There is … a direct connection between the transfiguration and the parousia in 2 Peter, since both display the one power of God. This power is the power of salvation manifest in Christ but with a strongly future orientation. And just as there is one divine power, so there is one divine advent, distended across time, stretching back from the future into the present. ³⁶

Second Peter 3.8 may well imply that time is relative, at least for God (and presently for Jesus), so perhaps Lee is correct to infer that, in divine perspective, there is but one salvific advent. Seen in historical and human perspective, however, both the transfiguration of Jesus, representing his divinely approved and authorized mission as a whole, and his future parousia may be understood as one salvific initiative. To reiterate, what was inaugurated soteriologically by Jesus’ historic mission awaits eschatological realization.

In view of the way in which 2 Pet. 1.16–18 evokes the transfiguration of Jesus as a determinative event in the historic mission of Jesus—at which the voice of God commands disciples of Jesus to pay attention to him and to follow his way—I discern in this treasure text toward the end of 2 Pet. 1 an interpretative resource for reflecting on the destructive cosmic eschatology in 2 Pet. 3, which I take to be ‘creation-cancelling’ in a way that the historic mission of Jesus was not. And if, by virtue of reflecting on the mode and manner of the historic parousia of Jesus, outcomes associated by the writer of 2 Peter with the future parousia seem out of kilter with the first, perhaps that provides interpretative leverage for protesting such a ‘creation-cancelling’ eschatological scenario.

Observing that much of the Bible takes narrative form, that ‘we find in biblical texts the deliberate work of forming God’s people by shaping their story’, and that all parts of the Bible, whether in narrative form or not, are contextualized within an evident metanarrative, Joel Green (2006: 266) encourages a narrative-theological approach to both Petrine epistles. In response to the question, ‘How does 2 Peter represent the grand story of God, from creation to new creation?’ Green (2006: 267) sketches a fourfold linear narrative presupposed in 2 Peter:

• (1) Israel’s past → (2) Christ Event → (3) Present → (4) Eschatological Judgment

Focusing on 2 Pet. 3.1–2, Green observes that the author characterizes his letter as a sequel to 1 Peter with a shared purpose or concern. According to Green (2006: 268),

The agenda ‘Peter’ lays out for these two letters has to do with putting into play the words of the prophets and the commandment of the Lord, mediated through the prophets. Israel’s past (1) and the advent of Christ (2) are set side by side, with a view to how eschatological judgment (4) ought to impinge on present faith and life (3). With these words, ‘Peter’ prompts a theological hermeneutic—that is, a mode of understanding that takes seriously how theological commitments order our reading of Scripture. ³⁷

On Green’s reading of the Petrine letters, they complement one another with respect to key features of their shared metanarrative. Whereas Israel’s past and the Christ event are ‘especially underdeveloped’ in 2 Peter, these same ‘two nodes of the narrative receive copious attention’ in 1 Peter, leading Green (2006: 269) to conclude that ‘2 Peter is able to do little more than drop hints about the relationship of the church to Israel’s past and point in the general direction of the significance of Christ’s advent because it presumes a reading of 1 Peter, where these hermeneutical compass points are prominent’.

For reading 1 and 2 Peter in tandem, Green’s narrative approach is noteworthy and illuminating. Read alone and on its own terms, however, 2 Peter should perhaps be given more credit for its attention to Israel’s past and the historic Christ event. After all, its image of God as creator and judge is biblical, and its precedents for presaging end-time judgment are biblical tropes. Furthermore, although it does not expand on the Christ event in detail, 2 Peter does explicitly reference the historic Christ event as the ultimate raison d’être of the letter. Even Green (2006: 269) concedes that 2 Peter ‘emphasizes Israel’s past and God’s promised future in order to shape perspective on the present, and it formulates the Christ event as the ground for Christian life and godliness’. As a result, since ‘Christian existence today’ occurs between the horizons of the historic parousia of Jesus and his eschatological parousia, one may exercise discernment, as integral to one’s Christian life and godliness, on the conformity of eschatological expectations associated with the future parousia to—and their coherence with—the historic parousia of Jesus, as narrated in the Synoptic Gospels.

Critical in this connection is the 2010 essay by Bauckham, ‘Reading the Synoptic Gospels Ecologically’. While the entire essay is illuminating, especially significant is its second section, under the heading of ‘The Kingdom of God as the Renewal of Creation’, in which Bauckham (2010: 75–79) argues in compelling fashion that the central theme of Jesus’ mission—the Kingdom of God, at least within the synoptic tradition—not only presupposed the creation theology of Jewish Scripture but also envisioned and anticipated the ultimate renewal, rather than abolition, of God’s created order. ³⁸ The synoptic presentation of Jesus’ vision of God’s fair reign, to which 2 Peter alludes by referencing the historic parousia of Jesus—especially his transfiguration, at which his mission in its entirety receives divine approval in the presence of no fewer than three witnesses—thereby serves as the christological criterion for judging expectations associated with the anticipated end-time parousia of Jesus. Thus, insofar as 2 Peter’s vision of ‘new heavens and a new earth’ (3.13) envisages God’s created order as ultimately renewed, transformed, perhaps even transfigured, ³⁹ it can be affirmed, but insofar as expectations associated with the eschatological parousia of 2 Pet. 3 militate against what we learn about the historic parousia of Jesus from the Synoptic Gospels, that is good reason to lift one’s voice in protest—on behalf of creation.

Concluding Reflections

This interpretative arm-wrestle with 2 Pet. 3 is not an exercise in ‘colonial hermeneutics’, seeking to make any part of 2 Peter say what I would prefer it to say or think it might have said better. That said, even if largely a matter of reception history, as opposed to problematic features inherent to its text, 2 Peter does provoke certain questions, especially in connection with what I have described as its predominantly destructive cosmic eschatology. In response to such questions, I have reached no firm conclusions, only further questions. Insofar as questions linger in the mind, however, provoking further rumination, perhaps they are a better way of ending a study concerned with eschatology, which is inherently indeterminate, and its ecological implications, which cannot be completely calculated because the practical outworking of end-time expectations varies from person to person. Hence this initial question: does a predominantly destructive cosmic eschatology encourage attitudes and actions that are uncaring about the consequences of our conduct for the natural world and perhaps even encourage exploitation without concern for the well-being of natural ecosystems? In historical terms, moreover, to what degree has a cosmic eschatology influenced by 2 Pet. 3 contributed to the plethora of ecological challenges we now face? If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably’, and the answer to the second is ‘Probably’ or ‘To a significant extent’, how should we respond to 2 Pet. 3, which at least since the second half of the fourth century CE has been an accepted part of the church’s canon of sacred writings and hence intentionally placed in a privileged position to shape Christian thought, faith, and practice?

Specifically in response to 2 Peter 3, how is one to acknowledge its privileged status, both historically and theologically, while also raising respectful concerns about its potential impact? No doubt there are various legitimate responses to such a question, but the burden of this study is to suggest that one respectful response is to pose the question of whether what is expected at the future parousia of Jesus, as articulated in 2 Peter 3, is in theological and moral concert with the historic parousia of Jesus, as referenced in 2 Pet. 1 by its appeal to the transfiguration. Or, to be more precise, is the character of divine judgment presaged in 2 Pet. 3 of the same theological-moral calibre as depicted in the inauguration of God’s heavenly reign by means of the historic mission of Jesus, whose transfiguration confirmed that the way of Jesus conforms to the will of God—the ultimate criterion for divine judgment?

Concluding a study of Ps. 90, humility, and the certainty of eschatological judgment in 2 Pet. 3.8, Scott Hafemann (2018: 542) issues this reminder:

The second letter of Peter reminds us that God’s eschatological judgement, which will usher in ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells’ (3.10–13), is a positive expectation for God’s people. Only this divine judgement, in some fully incomprehensible way, will ‘solve’ the ‘problem of evil’.

Despite my misgivings about certain features of the depiction of divine judgment in 2 Pet. 3, from a Christian theological perspective, Hafemann is correct. Divine agency, including judgment, is the basis for Christian hope that all things might one day be right and good. I incline to the view that in and through the historic mission of Jesus we have been given a foretaste of the character of final judgment, but even if that perception should prove false, without divine initiative there is no hope for final transformation. Perhaps divine agency energizes human agency for good, but human agency alone habitually falls short of what is needed to construct a world in which justice resides—and presides.

Hafemann (2018: 543) also makes the following point about the moral bearing of eschatology: ‘Eschatology, in which God’s promise for righteousness in the world to come is the object of faith, creates a hope and standard of judgement beyond one’s self, and in so doing enables and calls forth an ethic of love for others’. Seen as the realization of the life-restoring mission of Jesus, what Hafemann affirms about eschatology is undoubtedly correct. But eschatological expectations do not always inculcate an ethic of love for others, even when they succeed in curbing the reflex to retaliate. And even when eschatological hope does elicit an ethic of love for other people, it does not always contribute to an ethic of love for all others, by which I mean all life forms and the complex ecosystem that sustains all life. Hence my concern about the destructive eschatology of 2 Pet. 3, whose history of reception seemingly reveals mixed ecological blessings.

In contrast to the (alleged) arrogance of those against whom 2 Peter was written (see 2:10b), the letter writer recommends an altogether different attitude, which might be characterized as trusting humility, even though such language does not appear in the letter. As Hafemann (2018: 543) observes, ‘“To think humbly” according to 2 Peter 3.8 is … to evaluate one’s life and circumstances from the perspective of God’s certain, impending and final judgement of all things, including the systemic injustices of this world’. Since, in Christian perspective, the eschaton is in God’s hands, an attitude of humility behoves us; we should not claim to know more than we are able to know. Similarly, since eschatological judgment is God’s prerogative, a humble attitude toward the ultimate destiny of others and the natural world seems right and fitting, especially since there is reason to believe that the judge of all the earth never ceases to be the source of all creativity. And in view of the countless ways in which human transgression of appropriate boundaries has despoiled our planet and atmosphere, surely a humbler attitude about our role in God’s world is needed, especially regarding the human capacity to right the wrongs of our species. After all, according to Messiah Jesus, only the meek will inherit the earth (Mt. 5.5, echoing Ps. 37).