Now, the first thing to note is that Peter uses the word destruction (And ‘perish’, Greek: απωλεια, απωλλυμι) not to describe the fate of the earth, but to describe the fate of the ungodly (c.f., 2 Peter 2:1,3). The NIV version includes ‘destruction’ in verse 12, but that is better translated ‘dissolved’ as per the ESV (see also the next post: Fire). Thus, in 2 Peter 3, destruction is mainly concerned with those who reject Christ.

V7 “But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”
v9: “but [God] is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
v16 “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction.”

Now, on the surface it would seem that Peter is saying that unbelievers are utterly annihilated on the Day of the Lord. That they don’t experience an eternity of conscious punishment, but are simply destroyed. That the orthodox doctrine of hell is wrong because people simply cease to exist. And this is a view of hell which is growing in popularity in certain evangelical circles. And you can sort of understand why – after all, with a contemporary understanding of love, it’s hard to square with a God who is love. Annihilation is much more palatable when trying to correlate theological concepts to contemporary thought.

Yet, I’m not so sure that Peter teaches that destruction means obliteration unto non-existence. You see, to prove this you’d need, among other things, to maintain that Peter always uses the word destruction to mean completely annihilate. And here’s the thing: Peter uses the same aforementioned greek words to describe the destruction of the world from the flood, that he uses to describe the describe the destruction of the ungodly. Compare these verses:

v6: “the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.”
v7: “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”
v9: “not wishing that any should perish”
v16: “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction.”

Thus, if you wanted to say that the destruction of the ungodly must mean annihilation, then you’d need to say that the world was annihilated in Noah’s day – which is absurd. Or in other words: because the destruction of the flood was not a totally annihilation of being, neither will the destruction of the ungodly be total annihilation. It will be an everlasting and terrible time of torment.

So, to summarise: ‘destruction’ upon Christ’s return in the thought of 2 Peter 3 applies not to the present creation, but rather to the fate of the ungodly. This is important, because often this sort of language is imposed upon the Apostle’s letter to refer to the destruction of the present creation.

Further, destruction in the thought of the Apostle does not mean annihilation, but rather judgment and its consequences. The destruction of the ungodly and the destruction of Noah’s world are intimately linked such that it is absurd to insist upon an annhilation theory of hell taken from 2 Peter 3.

Now, what does this all mean for the continuity and discontinuity between this present creation and the next? I believe it may shed some light on the previous post’s question about the comparison between the water-judgment of Noah and the return-judgment of Christ.

Here’s the logic: if Peter doesn’t have annhilation in mind with his comparison between the destruction of the ungodly and the destruction of Noah’s world, it would seem a reasonable assertion that he does not have annhilation in mind in his comparsion between water-judgment of Noah and the return-judgment of Christ. Else, a continuity of being would apply to the reprobate, but also a complete discontinuity of being would apply to the present creation – which seems impossible. My point is that Peter’s Noah-based comparisons do not carry completely discontinuous notions of annhilation or obliteration. Without question, there is some level of discontinuity, but Peter’s comparisons carry a surprisingly strong level of continuity.

Granted, this is currently an assertion, but in the final post concerning the metaphor of Fire we shall see that this is the case. But for now, what is clear is that the coming of Christ is a terrifying reality. Judgment will be made on the ungodly and their destiny will be everlastingly awful. And in this light, I am overwhelmed with joy for the fact that in Christ’s first advent, He stood in my place condemned and suffered this for me. What a beautiful Saviour indeed!