"My question to you..... why would God say
"The Lord is not slack concerning His purpose, as some count slackness,
but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but
that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9"
The short answer is that the object of the Lord's patience is
"us." So it can be interpreted that "Us" refers to believers, ie the
vessels of mercy.
2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you;
Not to them who are appointed to wrath,
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
but to the beloved.
8 But, beloved...
9 The 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
Mercy, longsuffering, and patience are all kindred to repentance.
Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and
forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God
leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself
wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment
of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and
honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but
obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
1 Cor 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast
thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost
thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
A vessel of wrath does not repent, but rather his heart is hardened.
Often, we read this "us" as referring to every single human being
individually(and I did read it that way in the past). But I cannot see
that as the proper reading because of the context of the passage.
When I read the whole of 2 Peter 3 my interpretation seems sound, for
several reasons. For one, in that earlier verse when Peter makes
reference to the Lord not being "slack concerning his promise" he is
clearly trying to build believers up in contrast to the "scoffers"
he mentions. There is a distinction between we who believe
"beloved" as he refers to them, and the ones he calls "cursed children
(Ch 2)"
Ultimately I think a lot of the arguments against the idea that God
indeed is in control arise out of an effort to make God pleasing to man.
When the purpose of Christianity is to make man pleasing to God.
In that other mindset, God is our elect, whom we have chosen, we are the
smart ones who have chosen to take the path he has elected that would
lead to eternal life. It pleases man and exalts man's
decisions. but it is not beautiful, or consistent, and they do not like
to have it stated the way I just did. But I don't think it is a
mischaracterization though.
When I talk about this subject I wish often that I could communicate
every necessary idea. The parable of the tares of the field is an
important piece of this puzzle. In the parable the Lord forbid
uprooting tares before the harvest. "Lest ye root up also the
wheat." The children of God and of the devil are both known by
their works. But the last are more than the first. The
apostle Paul may have look like a tare, but we know that it was revealed
in the purposes of God that he was a chosen vessel. My point is
that these are truths that are hid in God. He wants us to
understand that he is indeed in control. But it is foolish for us to
ever prsume we can look at men with his eyes. We can judge works
but we do not know the end of men. I hope you get my meaning.
The tares are the vessels of wrath and the wheat are the vessels of
mercy, they are planted as such and they bear fruit as such. it is a
simple truth, but there are some verses which are often mistaken to
indicate that God does not absolutely know what man will do and as
creator has set it all in motion, and is responsible for it. I tke a
great deal of comfort in the idea that God knows exactly what is
happening and that he is indeed in control. It gives meaning to
suffering. If suffering has no purpose in God...
My ministry, apart from working against my former teacher is to try
to help people to realize and come to fulfill their high calling in
Christ, to become a son of God and to help any who will receive it take
part in the same. It is actually very simple.
2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make
your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall
never fall:
That almost sounds like we are working to earn our salvation, it
almost sounds like when God elected us it was not for certain yet, but
what it really means is that the works that are revealed in us in Christ
give US cause to believe that we are indeed the elect of God. I
believe in Christ and my calling and election seem more sure to me
the more I see in myself the works of Christ being manifested. As
the kernel of wheat preparing for harvest. So what this is
acknowledging, and indeed, I believe the context bears me out, is the
idea that we do not see our election through God's eyes. We see
our lives as we live them, moment to moment day to day, year to year,
but God has wrought all his works in us and established our destiny
before we were even born.
Here are some other verses you might want to ask about:
1Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth.
John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through him might believe.
In these, the term "all men" often gives rise to the idea, that the
phrase refers to every single human individual on the planet.
There are two good arguments against this. One is that in the
context of the time of the Apostles we have to remember that Jesus was
initially only sent to the Jews and that the opening of the Gospel to
"other nations" "strangers" "Gentiles" "the whole world," ie "all men"
was FOREMOST in the minds of the Aposltes. The term "all men" is
GENERIC, it means "all kinds of men." As opposed to being a
NUMERIC or existential term as in "the absolute number of men that
exist"
There are many verses of election and exclusion and to take the view
that "all men" refers to "wheat and tares" vessels of "wrath and
mercy" requires what I take to be very uncomfortable and radical
interpretations of the scriptures. Of course there is the option
of not dealing with them, but we ought to have a passion to understand
the word of God. Even if it takes some work.
Also The phrase "All men" is often used in the bible in a figrative
sense in which it is clearly not meant to indicate every human being
Mark 11:32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for
all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.
We would have to be really literal and wooden in the way we read the
scriptures not to be able to detect a figure of speech here.
Obviously "all men" means "it was the general opinion." We
still use the same kind of figure of speech today "don't be silly,
everyone knows that isn't true!"
Anyway, the verse you asked about was one I had to deal with and I
have had to deal with all the verses because i wanted to have a
reasonable and consistent view of the scriptures and of God. So I
probably have an answer for any questionable verse you might find
regarding this question, but with this groundwork laid I wouldn't be
surprised if you figured out the rest on your own. I do believe
that most of the answers are simple and right in front of us.
Anyway you might be interested in my line by line bible studies,
they are all free, you ought to listen to them, I have had very good
reports from people who have listened to them.
http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/studies.html
I started doing videos but have not had time to keep it up because
I'm trying to finish a musical project.
http://www.youtube.com/user/PaulStringini
I also sing the bible.
http://oraclesofgod.org/
If I can be of further service, or if you feel my answer was not
completely satisfactory, do not hesitate to ask, and please be specific.
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini