‘And saying, “Where is the promise of his coming (parousia - presence)? For, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” '
Unlike Jude Peter spells out one aspect of their mockery. It lies in the fact that they jeer at what to them is the non-appearance of ‘the Christ' in open glory to transform the world. They say mockingly, ‘when is this supposed historical Messiah coming?' In other words, where is the fulfilment of all the promises about the Messiah? And they stress that everything just goes on like it has from the beginning of creation. How then can people claim that the Messiah has come or will come?
The promises about the Messiah as popularly held were of a great and powerful figure who would come and transform the world in one great act. It was the non-appearance of this figure that they were emphasising. As far as they were concerned all still went on as it had from the beginning of time. Their view was that God had not interfered in history at all. They were totally oblivious of Jesus Christ and His real intervention in history, which had resulted in His death and resurrection and would culminate in His second coming, the coming of which Peter was an actual eyewitness as he had pointed out in 2 Peter 1:16-18. They were blind as to the presence of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
It should be noted that that is precisely how Jesus said it would be. They would be ‘eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage' (Matthew 24:38), just as they had since the beginning of creation. They would be working in the fields and grinding at the mill (Matthew 24:40-41) as they always had. And then unexpectedly He would come. Thus the unexpectedness of His coming was actually to be expected.
‘From the day that the fathers fell asleep.' In view of the reference back to the beginning of creation this must mean ‘the fathers' from the beginning, that is, from Adam onwards. This is illuminating. It emphasises how these teachers saw Jesus. They did not see His birth, life and death, together with the resurrection, as an earth shattering event that had changed the course of history. To them ‘All things continue as they were from the beginning of creation'. And to them Jesus Christ was simply part of a myth which could produce mystical experiences. They were far from Palestine, and at that distance the historicity of His coming could grow dim. It could become just an idea. We can see now why Peter had emphasised that He had been an eyewitness of His heavenly glory revealed in history on earth (2 Peter 1:16-18; compare 1 Peter 5:1). They denied His ‘Parousia'. They did not believe that God had manifested Himself on earth, or indeed would do so. But Peter had seen His power and Parousia (2 Peter 1:16). And he knew that that Parousia had been revealed and would be finally manifested in glory.
Thus the beliefs of these false teachers are such that they have not seen how earth shattering the coming of Jesus has been. Peter is amazed by it. After all he had himself seen the ‘power and coming (parousia) of the One Who came as God's beloved Son (2 Peter 1:16-18), as a foretaste of what was to come. And he cannot conceive how, if they believed in Him at all, they can have failed to see that, His glory having been revealed in history, it has broken up history into before and after. Their words make clear that they have not seen the glory of His cross and resurrection (for they say ‘all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation'). That is why earlier he had said that they denied the Master Who bought them (2 Peter 2:1). They have not realised that One Who was both truly God and truly man has been among men, has truly died for them and has divided up history. They simply see Him as a semi-mythical figure in their proto-Gnostic ritual. They simply see history continuing as it always has, as if He had not appeared in the flesh. For them there was no BC and AD.
So to them the Christian message is only a cunningly devised myth (2 Peter 1:16) which is simply a part of the creation history, while all the talk about His personal coming, especially in judgment, is a load of nonsense. And they mock because it has not happened. As far as they are concerned there has been no break in history at all, and all this talk of Christ's literal power and presence (parousia) is redundant. For they are blind to the true break that has taken place in history in the coming of Jesus. And thus they are self-satisfied in their complacency. And their belief is that things will continue on as they always have.
We can note here that the Messiah's ‘Parousia' is seen by Peter as one event, firstly in His coming to this world as man, revealing His glory and dying and rising again, and then in His final coming when He comes to judge and restore. We can compare a similar uniting of the two events in Hebrews 9:26-28, ‘but now once at the end of the ages has He been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and inasmuch as it has been appointed unto men once to die, and after this judgment, so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, apart from sin, to those who wait for Him unto salvation'. So to both writers the ‘two' comings are seen as one Parousia, in a similar way to that in which the High Priest at the Day of Atonement first enters the Holy Place having offered the sacrifices, and then enters the Holy of Holies and returns with final atonement having been accomplished, all part of one ceremony.