I RECENTLY READ AN ARTICle WRITTEN BY A CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST EXPLAINING THE MEANING OF 1PETER.3:10-13. I ALWAYS ThOUGHT THAT THIS PASSAGE HAD REFERENCE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WHOLE WORLD AT ARMAGEDDON. HOWEVER, THE APOLOGIST WROTE THAT 1 PETER.3:10-13 HAD REFERENCE TO NOT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PLANET, BUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE OLD HEAVENS AND THE OLD EARTH (WHICH REPRESENTED THE OLD JEWISH SYSTEM). WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN 1 PETER.3:10-13?  Answer: First of all, I assume you are talking about 2 Peter 3:10-13, not 1 Peter.   Second of all, such questions are debatable.  Sometimes one cannot state with absolute certainty of what a particular prophecy is a prediction when that prophecy may not yet have been fulfilled in history.  Nevertheless, I will have to say that I do not agree with the opinion of this author.  First of all, I do not see the word "old" in the prophecy.  Where does the author get the implication that this is a prophecy of the destruction of the Jewish system?  What in the context causes him to think other than the obvious–that this is a prophecy of the return of Jesus at the end of time?  In any case, if you read the passage, it describes a thorough destruction of the entire earth.  "…the earth and everything in it will be laid bare."   It also says "Since EVERYTHING will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?" and "That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat." This complete destruction of everything does not fit the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, as this author seems to think.  Also, Peter uses the flood of Noah as a prefigure of this judgment by fire.  Given that the flood of Noah was world-wide in its impact, to use it as a foreshadow of an event which happened only in Jerusalem seems a stretch to me.  Now, quite a bit of leeway can be granted to the symbolism of apocalyptic language, and this passage has some signs of being apocalyptic, but it seems vastly more likely that this is a prediction of the second coming of Jesus by fire. You did not show me this person’s argument, which makes it somewhat hard to respond reasonably to what he said, but in the absence of this information, this is how I would respond. John Oakes