II PETER 3:7

Q: If the Flood was only a localized event, doesn't that mean that the full preterists are probably correct in saying that the predicted destruction of the earth was also a local event, i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD?

The two events are apparently equated in 2 Peter 3. As you are probably aware, full preterists argue that the flood did not “destroy” the earth since it was still intact when the waters subsided. Therefore the future destruction of the earth mentioned in v. 7 must also be of a limited scope, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. If one additionally believes in a local flood only, then that might give even more credence to their argument.

However, whether the flood was local or universal, in neither case does the full preterist argument stand up. In the first place, the language used by Peter in verse 10 goes way beyond the type of destruction that occurred in the flood and extends seemingly to the atomic elements themselves. Also it is a great mistake to say that Peter is primarily comparing the scope of the two destructions. Instead, he is mainly arguing in terms of two other comparisons:

(1) Peter first speaks to God's ability to create the earth in the first place (v. 5) and therefore His ability to destroy it at any time if He wishes (v. 7a). The fact that these two ideas are related and that both refer to the physical earth is seen by use of the word erets in both verses. This word similarly appears in verses 10 and 13, with the basic meaning again of the material earth.

(2) Next Peter speaks to God's reason for destruction. He compares the perishing of the evil people and culture at the time of the flood (expressed through the word kosmos, or world system) in verse 6 with the final “judgment and destruction of the godless in 7b.” Thus there is this sort of simple parallelism:

God's ability to destroy (v. 5)

        Impact on the sinful (v. 6)

God's ability to destroy (v. 7a)

       Impact on the sinful (v. 7b)