Peter speaks of the heavens and the earth being burned with an intense fire after which follows a new heavens and a new earth. Shouldn't so great a fire be mentioned in Revelation before the new heavens and earth? A great fire is mentioned in Revelation immediately before the new heavens and earth just as it is in 2 Peter: the lake of fire. It would make much sense to assume these are the same fire. If so, you universalists must be right. I've always wondered where we would be while the universe is utterly destroyed by fire, but Peter speaks of the earth being "destroyed" by the flood just before he says it will be destroyed by fire. It is natural to assume the "destruction" by fire to be the same kind as the "destruction" by water. Since Paul speaks of the creation somehow being redeemed through us, how could it be completely obliterated? Is the creation groaning within itself for our adoptions as sons so that it can no longer exist at all? It only makes sense for this fire in Peter to be a purifying fire whose work is eventually fully accomplished. If it is the same fire as in Revelation, then there may be a long interval between the end of chapter 20 and the beginning of 21. The last part of Hebrews 12 seems to indicate that the fire here may be God Himself. "Our God is a consuming fire" follows quickly on talk of the earth and heavens being purified by shaking.
Why are they thrown into the Lake of Fire? Well, if God's presence is to them a lake of fire, as universalists often contend, they would have to be thrown in; we would not, since we like God. If all this is correct, the burning in Revelation has an end as does the burning in 2 Peter. However, our God is a consuming fire and that fire is eternal, though He only burns us at first.
As for where we will be, now there is no problem. We are in the fire, though the fire does not burn us. Revelation never actually says that we won't be in the second death (the lake of fire) but that the "second death holds no horrors" for us and that we "won't be hurt by the second death."
In recent months, I've tackled the problem of why God seems so stand-offish, even to us christians. I've concluded that the full presence of God could not be borne in our fallen bodies. I have felt that presence burn even when the burning was pleasant to me. There have been times when His closeness left me with no strength in my body so that I could not stand. The O.T. talked about how no one could see God and live; I believe it. His full glory would be too much for us and burn our flesh away from our spirits. Our new bodies will be better. Perhaps if we are redeemed while in this body, our new bodies have no problem with God's presence, but if not, the resurrected body still has a lot of trouble and discomfort dealing with the full burning glory.
Return Home