Thanks for your reply – sorry I’ve been a little slow on the uptake. It’s that crazily busy time of the year. But I’m back on the blogwagon now!

There’s a bit more on this point I’ve been thinking about, but I think you’re right, that it’s not as cut and dry as I’ve previously suggested. The more I’ve thought about this, the more I’ve realised that I don’t think I can exhaustively determine the scope of what ‘world’ precisely is for Peter here (is it world = ‘cosmic order’, world = ‘all being’, world = non-annihilation of earth & annihilation of non-elect persons?). Sometimes when I use words that have more than one meaning, and sometimes I might not even realise one of those meanings until somebody else points it out! Words are funny things indeed.

In saying that however, I think it’s possible to infer from Peter’s other uses of ‘world’ what it could not be (exhaustively anyway). It would seem that Peter’s use of ‘world’ in 2 Peter as a whole book would make it less plausible that world = ‘non-elect’ human persons, at least as far as an exhaustive scope of the meaning attached to the word ‘world.’ Let’s try from the assertion that ‘world = ‘non-elect’ persons’ (I know it’s a bit clunky, and rests on the assumption that Peter uses the same word uniformly, but I think it helps):

Eg., 2 Peter 1:4 – “you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the non-elect persons because of sinful desires.”

And, 2 Peter 2:5 also – “…if he did not spare the ancient non-elect persons, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the non-elect persons of the ungodly…”

Also, 2 Peter 2:20 – “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the non-elect persons through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…”

I think that the only reasonable candidate for ‘non-elect’ persons would be 2 Peter 2:5a. But, read in light of 2:5b, I think we can fairly say that it is not what Peter has in mind.

So, where does this leave us (and my original post)? I think you’re right in that the meaning of ‘world’ includes more than simply land. But I think that in light of Peter’s use of the word ‘world’ in the whole letter, it’s very unlikely that the exhaustive scope of meaning for the word ‘world’ is ‘non-elect’ persons. Thus, it becomes more difficult to sustain an argument of annihilation from the inference between flood-destruction and christ-destruction.

Thanks for the sharpening brother – I’m moving on to more blogposts now, so I mightn’t put as much thought in my future replies on this one. But seriously, I really appreciate your thoughts – you’ve got a much sharper mind than me, so I’m certainly the greater beneficiary here

Blessings,
Mark

PS – I had some thoughts on your Genesis reference the other day, but they’ve flown away on holidays!

Not quite. I think you can make a case that any understanding of ‘world’ that includes more than simply ‘land’ could be thought of as annihilation, at least with reference to the ungodly. The context of v. 6, regarding scoffers who talk about the history of God’s (apparent) inaction, seems to include humanity within the definition of ‘world’, if not referring to it exclusively.

That is, in Noah’s time everything that was not amongst the ‘elect’ (Noah’s immediate family, plus representative animals) was destroyed. The ‘world’ was destroyed (in a sense, of course). Cf. the parallelism in Gen 9.11: “I confirm My covenant with you that never again will all flesh be wiped out by the waters of a deluge; there will never again be a deluge to destroy the earth.”

My contention is that in Peter’s language, in his application of the Noah narrative to the fate of the ungodly, it is a reasonable move to equate ‘world = humanity’. At least not absurd.
(Of course with the same moves it’s possible to equate ‘world = everything’, as you’ve done.)

That’s fascinating – I’ve only had a little exposure to preterist views with some work I did on Mark 13′s Olivet Discourse. On the Genesis pattern, I’ve not thought about that previously at all, though it’s quite interesting. I will have a bit more of a read on your website, and might be interested in having a read of your book after that…

Not sure whether his thoughts tie into this (though as a good postmil, I’d assume there’d be points of contact), but I was quite impressed with Doug Wilson’s input during a discussion with Piper, Storms, and a PreMil fella). Is this Genesis pattern something he integrates also?

I suppose my last little thought would be that Peter is replying to a question about the 2nd coming of Christ, thus my framing of the exegesis…

That said, I’d be keen to learn more about where you’re coming from, so I’ll be blog-reading!

Glad you were encouraged with reading my testimony – makes me thankful just thinking about it!

Cheers brother & thanks for the sharpening,
Mark

PS – Sadly, we lost by 6 runs! A great game against a great bunch of guys though…

Thanks for the reply to a comment from a stranger.

Yes, basically I agree with the full preterists that the imminent passages are in fact imminent. The partials are all over the place on these. But the full preterists try to squash the “1000 year” gospel age into the first century.

Genesis lays down the pattern of Garden (Adam), Land (Cain), World (sons of God). We see this pattern in the Tabernacle and Temple.

So, Christ defeated death in the Garden and was resurrected. The apostles defeated it in the (mediatorial “Holy Place” Land) and were resurrected. And now it’s up to us to reach the world. This will also end in resurrection. Death will be defeated in all three “domains.”

I won’t be posting again until next year, but there’s plenty on there to read in the mean time. Feel free to ask any questions. If you are interested I can also send you my book.

There’s also some basic articles here:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/lastdays.html

I’ll check out Venema.

Kind regards,
Mike

PS I hope you won today!

Thanks for dropping by! Your website is quite interesting, so much so, that I’ve added it to my RSS reader. Looking forward to more reads.

Now, concerning your point. Can you clarify your point a little bit for me (it’s been a long day on the cricket field!)? Do you mean that the Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3 speaks about the end of the Old Covenant as per your post on “How to Read the New Testament”?

“The “coming of Christ” refers to the end of the Old Covenant. Note that it does not refer to the final judgment and resurrection but it does prefigure it. The references to the “revelation of the sons of God”, and James’ call to the rich to “weep and howl” refer to first century events and people. We can draw applications from them, of course, but when do you ever hear Christians speak this way?”

Is this what your comment is pointing to? Or are you implying something else with reference to the Edenic structure of the NT?

Oh, the main resource I’ve been using for my thinking (beyond the Scriptures!) has been Cornelius Venema’s Promise of the Future. I’ve found it to be an excellent discussion of eschatological things!

Good points, but Peter’s context is the first century. He did not write his letter in a literary vacuum. We don’t understand his allusions because we don’t take the Old Testament and its Edenic architecture seriously.

I have plenty of resources on this online if you are interested, beginning here:

“How to Read the New Testament”
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/07/27/how-to-read-the-new-testament/

and
“The End is Not Yet”:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/12/17/the-end-is-not-yet/

and on Christ’s references to Noah, see “Envy and the Sons of God”:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/12/11/envy-and-the-sons-of-god/

Cheers,
Mike

Now though, unless I’ve misread you, I’m not so sure about your logic. On the one hand, you seem to be saying world = “living creatures + non-living objects”, and on the other, world = “living creatures only”.

This runs the risk of importing ‘annhilation of being’ from world = ‘living creatures only’ up into world = ‘living creatures + non-living objects.’ As you put it, “creation as a whole” would only logically be annihilated if world was restricted to ‘living creatures only.’

This raises lots of other issues (here come the worms!) though I think…

Unless you take your methodology — that Peter uses απωλεια, απωλλυμι consistently — to mean that ‘world’ in v. 6 relates to creation as a whole (people, animals, etc.) not just rocks. Which isn’t so unreasonable, given the mirroring of the creation account noted often in Genesis 6-9. Then Peter’s very consistently talking about people perishing — ‘annihilation of being’ — just as the ungodly in Noah’s time.

Not necessarily a position I subscribe to, but not without logical merit from the same passages.