What did Peter mean by Paul being hard to understand?

2 Peter 3:15-16

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

This is used by enemies of Eternal Security and of Faith Alone, and by people saying we are still under the Law to say basically that you shouldn't take those most commonly cited Paul passages at face value.

Peter said "some things", he did not say the main point that most of Paul's Epistles are all about.

 Some people will translate 2 Peter 3:17 in a way to make it seem like it uses the word Amonia or Lawless.  But this is a completely different word that I feel the KJV was correct in rendering Wickedness. So no, it doesn't help us determine what he meant by Paul being misunderstood in the prior verses.

My first instinct as a historian was to think of how the earliest Christian Gnostic, Marcion, used Paul as the basis for most of his heresy.  But Marcion lived well after Peter's time.  And think Marcion has been misrepresented by the Church Fathers.

I also think about how Paul is the most misunderstood NT writer when it comes to sexuality.  With people for hyper prudish attitudes quoting Paul the most, and those who don't believe The Bible agrees with itself often saying Paul and Paul alone of NT writers supports Plato's sexual morality.  All of the NT clobber passages are form Paul.  Yet I feel I have shown elsewhere that Paul isn't the prude people think he is.

But..... Let's use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and keep our personal biases out of this.

Acts deals with Paul being accused of saying things he didn't say, but those are accusations of unbeleivers, Peter is alluding to misunderstandings within The Church.

This is from 2nd Peter not 1st Peter.  This is Peter's eschatological epistle, especially chapter 3 which this ends.  He's warning of deceptions in the end days that we need to be prepared for.

I agree with those scholars who say contrary to the titles we've given them that 2nd Peter was actually written well before first Peter.  That best explains why First Peter is more polished in it's use of Greek (something skeptics use to assert they can't have same author).

1 Thessalonians is generally believed to be among Paul's earliest Epistles, so could it be 2nd Peter was written between the Thessalonians Epistles?

Because in II Thessalonians 2 is where Paul himself refers to people misusing what he had to say.  Now I often see it claimed verse 2 refers to a letter forged in Paul's name.  But I disagree, the context here is clearly about a misunderstanding on what he said in I Thessalonians 4.

You see I find Pre-Trib commentaries on II Thessalonians 2 hilarious because that chapter is all about refuting Pre-Trib's imminence doctrine.  I had covered this in the very first post of this blog.  (Disclaimer however, since that first post I've changed my position on Dispensationalism.)  But this is also why I don't agree with attacking Pre-Trib by saying it didn't exist before Darby, because this misunderstanding was one Paula addressed while he lived.

And today many Pre-Tribbers will argue only Paul talks abut the Rapture, they'll misuse his Mystery statement to assert that you won't find it taught in the Olvite Discourses or Revelation or any of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible.  And 1 Corinthians 15 is the sole basis for the Secret Rapture doctrine.

So that is most likely the issue Peter had in mind.

Did only Paul talk about The Rapture?

Pre-Tribbers make an important argument for their model that only Paul talks about the Rapture, and so nothing in what Jesus or John recorded can be the same thing.  I've dealt with the main argument for that elsewhere.

Here I want to point out that if only one Bible author recorded something, they don't have a second confirming witness and therefore can't build doctrine on it, at all.  That Paul mentioned it more then once doesn't change that he's still only one witness.

I believe The Rapture was refereed to by Jesus on (at least) three occasions recorded by all three Synoptic Gospels.  In Matthew 24:27-31, Mark 13:26-27, and Luke 21:27&36.

And by John in Revelation in chapters 11-14 when you study them carefully.

I also see glimpses of it in the Old Testament, in Isaiah 26 and Joel 2.

So Paul's references to it in I Thessalonians 4 and II Thessalonians 2, and to an extent I Corinthians 15 are only a piece of the picture.

What did Paul mean by revealing a Mystery?

Pre-Tribbers will use that Paul said he was revealing a Mystery when he spoke of The Rapture to try and refute the notion that Jesus could possibly have been talking about it in Matthew 24.  Of course they think Jesus was referring to The Rapture when it suits them, for verses that sound like imminence to them.

First of all Mystery or Mysterion in Greek means what was before hidden, not necessarily something that was never there at all.

The passage in question is not I Thessalonians 4, but 1 Corinthians 15.  1 Corinthians 15 does not actually describe the Rapture (us being Caught Up) at all.  It's about The Resurrection.  Also 1 Thessalonians was written before either Corinthian Epistle.

The Resurrection was not a mystery, that was well known in both Jewish and Christian teachings.

1 Corinthians 15:50-53

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.  Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

There are technically two, but they're both linked, ideas here that are at least not directly stated in any prior Old or New Testament passages on The Resurrection, including I Thessalonians.

1. That when The Resurrection of Church Age Believers happens, those Believers alive at that time will be Resurrected without needing to die first.

2. That the Resurrection we are promised is more then just being raised again to how we are now, we'll be changed incorruptible, restored to Adam and Eve's Pre-Fall state.

Both are conclusions one could deduce would be the case from earlier information, but this is the clearest teaching on those matters.

We know the Resurrection being discussed there is the one that happens at Jesus Coming because Paul mentions that elsewhere in the chapter.  And because the timing of The Trump is also used in I Thessalonians 4.

Matthew 24 does not mention The Resurrection.  Pre-Tribbers will also use that fact against it possibly being about The Rapture.  Meanwhile 1 Corinthians 15 is indisputably a Rapture relevant passage when it doesn't actually mention The Rapture.

No Rapture passage covers everything that happens at that event.  Including I Thessalonians 4 which for starters doesn't cover what I just discussed about 1 Corinthians 15.

Matthew 24 does indisputably cover what the word Rapture refers to.  No one is gathered to Him when he comes for Israel, He goes where they already are.

I feel it can be firmly demonstrated that 1 Thessalonians 4 and 2 Thessalonians 2 were essentially a commentary on Matthew 24.  Overall Matthew 24 has more in common with 1 Thessalonians 4 then 1 Corinthians 15 does.

Meanwhile The Rapture is in The Old Testament, in passages like Isaiah 26 and Joel 2:15-16.

In Romans 16:25-26 he seems to refer to the Gospel he preaches as something that was a concealed secret until his own time.  Yet earlier in that book he used The Torah to prove his Gospel (justification by Faith Alone), he uses Genesis 15 to prove it in both Romans and Galatians.

The theory that the NWO will Stage a Fake Rapture?

There is some talk in Conspiracy theorist circles that the Elite could use top secret Technology, like Neutron Bomb technology, to make a fake Rapture happen, basically kill a bunch a Christian in a way that makes it look like they all disappeared.    The technology certainly does exist, there are weapons being developed that could vaporize flesh but leaves the cloths behind.

I'm not predicting this will happen.  I see no Bible Prophecy that says to expect it to happen.  And even though the NWO could do it I don't see why it would suite them to do so, seemingly proving a popular conservative Christian doctrine right in no way fits their agenda.  So I currently consider it unlikely.

But what I will say is IF something happens that looks like the Pre-Trib Secret Rapture idea, (just a bunch of people disappearing,) that will be a fake Rapture.  The Biblical evidence against that being what The Rapture will look like would not be refuted by something happening that does look like that.

I'll certainly know it wasn't the real Rapture if it happens and I'm not apart of it.

Also if the Temple in Jerusalem isn't standing yet, or it has been for less then three and a half years.

Mostly if the Abomination of Desolation hasn't happened yet, or at least The Antichrist's public false resurrection.  II Thessalonians 2 makes clear that can't be The Rapture.

But again I'm not saying to expect this to happen.

In The Twinkling of An Eye

The Secret Rapture is a key concept related to the Pre-Trib view.  Not necessarily required I guess but every Pre-Tirbber I know believes it.

The concept is that when The Rapture happens, all the World will see (if they notice anything at all) is a bunch of people disappearing.  The Pre-Tirb Rapture based fiction usually never has them even being able to put the pieces together that they all followed the same Faith.

The basis comes from only one of the classic Rapture passages. 1 Corinthians 15:52.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The idiom is of speed not visibility.   But the point is that the phrase essentially means "blink and you'll miss it".

This passage lacks most aspects of what happens at The Rapture.  Including what the word "Rapture" itself refers to, us being Caught Up/Gathered.  Nor does it have the Parusia, Jesus coming on The Clouds.

It's only about three things.  1. The Last Trump, 2. The Resurrection of believers, 3, The still living Saved being change/perfected into our Resurrected states without dieing first.

That is all that is happening at that speed.  Once that happens, then Jesus comes to Gather us, and elsewhere The Bible is always clear The World sees that.  In Matthew 24, I Thessalonians 4, and Revelation 14.

Chuck Missler and Mark Easton have done a lot of material about Dimensions and the Science of The Resurrection.  About how Jesus in the Resurrection was in more then just our four dimensions. And I recommenced their work on that even though I'm more strictly Young Earth Creationist then they are.

But Missler makes a statement that I'm sure he has this Secret Rapture idea in mind with.  Where he says Jesus was only "Seen by loving eyes and touched by loving hands".  By which I'm sure he means only Saved individuals.

My problem with that is this flies in the face of the efforts of all these other Christians seeking to show how Historically proven the Resurrection is.  If 100% of the eye witnesses were people who already supported Jesus.  Paul spoke in his Epistles of there being many, many witnesses to the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.  After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Besides simply the large number, I notice the inclusion of The Lord's half-brother James.   His siblings were not believers yet at any time they appear during his ministry.  The typical conclusion from this verse is that James became a believer after seeing the Risen Jesus.  And we certainly know Paul wasn't saved yet when he saw him.