Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: 2 Peter 2:1

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    225
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    2 Peter 2:1

    2 Pet 2:1, (KJV), But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

    Could someone explain this in light of the fact that Christ only "bought" salvation for those who would never deny him.
    veritas aequitas et pax

  2. #2
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,683
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    79
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    133
    Thanked in
    75 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    We have discussed this passage before on this board, so it is somewhere in the archives. As I remember it, the Greek word for 'bought' does not refer to special redemption, i.e. grace, but to creative ownership. The context is that these false teachers deny the very Lord who created and owns them.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    I don't quite understand the idea of this relating to God's relationship as Creator. The word has the sense of buying in the sense of purchasing them from something and I don't understand how by creating them God would be purchasing them from anyone.

    I think a better explanation may be that this passage is speaking of these people in the sense of the external church. The Bible often does this. We know that not all Israel is truly Israel. We also find examples in the New Testament where people are spoken of as those who have apostacized and spoken of as Christians but other passages say that such people were not of the group of Christians to begin with. The Bible speaks of both the church as it exists visibly and as we observe it and the catholic church.

    1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    115
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    I'm wondering if that phrase "denying the Lord that bought them" could have been translated better. The way it reads, it would appear that true Christians could irreversibly fall away into apostasy, and the Scriptures do not teach this.

    I'd say wildboar is on the mark here. Wonder if the same situation is implied in Revelation 11:1-2?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    here's my take.

    i think WB is correct in his caution here. this word is used of Christ's sacrifice (1 co 6:20, 7:23; Rev 5:9). the word was also used to refer to buying at the town market (i may be wrong on this, but i thought this word was also used to refer to being bought from the slave market) as well as just to generically refer to simply purchasing something.

    first we must note a few things. nothing about Christ's atonement (death) is mentioned. Jesus Christ, the Son, the Only-Begotten, the Firstborn, etc. is not mentioned specifically so it may not even be specifically talking about the LOGOS in His incarnation and crucifixion. the word used here translated Master or Lord is DEPSOTES (used to refer to the master in a slave/owner relationship; we get our word despot from this).

    with all that said, i think this is an application of the slave/master metaphor to these prophets and teachers who appear to be masquerading (pretending) to be real when they are in fact false (PSEUDO; PSEUDOPROFETAI and PSEUDODIDASKALOI). so peter's metaphor seems to be sort of tongue-in-cheek or irony. these folks should be obedient servants, but instead are rebelling against the one they claim as their master and trying to lead an insurrection through deceptive teaching. nothing here suggests that the vicarious atonement or substitutionary death of Christ is in view here if that's how people are tempted to read it.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    These are unsteady souls, who are sold on there master,but even do worse than they know from him, this master is not The Lord Jesus Christ,they try there merchandise of damnable heresies,but reading on through chapter we see who they are ,and their terrible end,...Ivor Thomas......

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    I think disciple is correct. I think there is certainly some irony or perhaps even some sarcasm found here. Paul may certainly be condemning them for claiming to be bought by Christ but denying His teachings. It reminds me of Jesus telling the Pharisees that He did not come to save the righteous.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    I think disciple is correct. I think there is certainly some irony or perhaps even some sarcasm found here. Paul may certainly be condemning them for claiming to be bought by Christ but denying His teachings. It reminds me of Jesus telling the Pharisees that He did not come to save the righteous.
    it also reminds me of this:

    2 Co 11:1 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully...12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

    these folks are just tares in the field (Mt 13:24-30, 36-43) that come in and claim to be someone they are not. they are crafty deceivers just like their true master, the devil. i think paul's warning to the ephesian elders is perpetually applicable to the church:

    Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

    the very nature of false teachers is that they pretend to be something they are not in order to gain a foothold (trust) and introduce their heresies undetected. but they are false. we should not conclude from peter's words in 2 Pe 2:1, that instead, these false teachers are actually genuine blood-bought Christians who just lost their status because of their inability to keep it. i think this is definitely altogether a foreign idea to peter's words and something that must be read into them because of the reader's particular theology that they bring to the text (e.g., semi-pelagianism). it cannot be substantiated from the text itself.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Hamburg NY
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    This is a great discussion. I do a lot of online discussion with Wesleyans and I thought they had pulled every Scripture that they feels disproves the preservation of the Saints . This one has never been used. So now I have a heads up

    When in doubt I always look to Gill

    the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Acts 20:28 whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ's purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for nought; but the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord; both by words, delivering out such tenets as are derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections, and which deny one or other of them, and of his purposes, providence, promises, and truths; and by works, turning the doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness, being disobedient and reprobate to every good work;

    that they should act this part against the Lord who had made them, and upheld them in their beings and took care of them in his providence, and had followed them with goodness and mercy all the days of their lives; just as Moses aggravates the ingratitude of the Jews in Deuteronomy 32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2 Peter 2:12 compared with Deuteronomy 32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exodus 15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them:

    and bring upon themselves swift destruction; either in this life, being suddenly cut off in the midst of their days, and by the immediate hand of God, as Arius and other heretics have been; or eternal damnation in the other, which their tenets lead unto, and which will swiftly come upon them when they are promising themselves peace and safety.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Quote Originally Posted by swarm_mom
    see 2 Peter 2:12 compared with Deuteronomy 32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exodus 15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them:
    when saying "that the persons he writes to were Jews" is he referring to peter (i.e., that peter was writing to jews only)? if so, i wonder why gill would would limit it to jewish false prophets and teachers and i wonder what this would have to do with the interpretation and application of the text.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    While I hold Gill in high esteem it must be said he was not always right on in his comments. I will not now say anything on his comment on this verse.

    I think 2Peter 2:1 can be considered in the light of Jude 4 ff. , where also is to be found the word "despotês". In v. 5 Judas says the Lord saved a people out of Egypt's land. To me this throws some light on the "bought them" of the Peter verse in question. Also at the end of this chapter Peter talks about escaping the corruptions of the world through the EPIGNÔSIS (v. 20) of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I believe this may have reference to the "bought them". Those in v. 1 seems to be people who do know the true Biblical Gospel, Peter uses the noun EPIGNÔSIS in v. 20, and the cognate verb twice in v. 21. This speaks of full or accurate knowledge and to know fully respectively. What Peter has in mind is an accurate knowledge of the Scriptural Gospel, yet in the letter ("word", cp. 1Thess. 1:5) of it only. The root of the matter is not in them, therefore there is this possibility of "denying" the sovereign Master having bought (not redeemed in a spiritual and saving measure) them.

    I come to think of an example of such a false teacher in later days while writing this. His name was William Wileman, and he was among the British Gospel Standard Baptists, which I believe were a true and orthodox body of professing Christians back then in the late 1800's and early 1900's when Wileman was among them. At one point in his profession he apostatized in such measure so as to deny the truth of the particularity of Christ's redemption, having once firmly believed particular redemption. From what I have read he remained apostate to the end.

    Another example would be from among the American Old School Predestinarian Baptists of the 1800's, of which there is certain grounds to believe they also were a true and orthodox Christian body, generally speaking. The name of the man I have in mind was Wilson Thompson. He was born in the late 1700s and lived until just past the 1850's. At some point in his profession he turned heterodox in his christology, and began maintaining things which were quite similar to classical Sabellianism. I believe this took place in the 1820s or just after. Some of that body repudiated him as a heretic, but others tolerated him as if he was not in error at all.

    These are very solemn things, and should never be treated lightly.


    Harald

  12. #12
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,683
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    79
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    133
    Thanked in
    75 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Harald states:
    Another example would be from among the American Old School Predestinarian Baptists of the 1800's, of which there is certain grounds to believe they also were a true and orthodox Christian body, generally speaking.

    What is the evidence for this? I'm not denying every aspect of what you are affirming. However, most 'old school' Baptistism (as well as every other form of Baptistism) has been demonstrated in the final outworking of history to consist of popery and schism. Why are these Baptists different?

    Although I have encountered various schools of thought among Primitive Baptists, I have yet to encounter any who believe the true gospel as I perceive it. Most are hung up on a view of God's sovereignty that would deny assurance of salvation through the witness of the Spirit in us, i.e., personal faith. Many of this 'old school' persuasion would have us believe that when Paul speaks of justification by faith, it is Christ's personal faith that he refers to, not something in us. So if only a portion of biological humanity is to be saved (which scripture clearly teaches), we cannot have personal assurance at all. According to this teaching, no one can know for sure if he/she has faith.

    On 2 Peter 2:1
    Many would deny that Peter refers to creative ownership, since the Greek word refers to one human owning another. But God owns all persons, both saved and lost. The lost he owns not by redemption but by creation. However one wants to justify it, if God is sovereign, he owns the souls of all persons. Creation is one evidence of this but even better is the evidence of God's predestination (before creation) of all eternal souls to eternal life or eternal punishment. He owns all whom he determined to create for eternal glory or eternal shame, exponentially more than a master owns his slave.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    On 2 Peter 2:1
    Many would deny that Peter refers to creative ownership, since the Greek word refers to one human owning another. But God owns all persons, both saved and lost. The lost he owns not by redemption but by creation. However one wants to justify it, if God is sovereign, he owns the souls of all persons. Creation is one evidence of this but even better is the evidence of God's predestination (before creation) of all eternal souls to eternal life or eternal punishment. He owns all whom he determined to create for eternal glory or eternal shame, exponentially more than a master owns his slave.
    so in what sense did he buy them? how does this part of the figure apply? i don't think anyone here would argue that God doesn't own all persons, but in what sense did He purchase/buy all persons? how does buying a slave apply to owning someone by virtue of creating (being the creator)?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,683
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    79
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    133
    Thanked in
    75 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Disciple:
    so in what sense did he buy them? how does this part of the figure apply? i don't think anyone here would argue that God doesn't own all persons, but in what sense did He purchase/buy all persons? how does buying a slave apply to owning someone by virtue of creating (being the creator)?

    well, I don't think that the argument of swarm_mom has been adequately answered so far.

    When the NT uses agorazo in reference to Christ's saving the elect, a purchase price is involved. The atonement is one of the issues I want to get back to in these board discussions. The purchase price of the atonement, the blood of Christ, is something that God determined in his sovereignty to owe to himself. But 2 Pet. 2:1 is not talking about the atonement. So agorazo is used in reference to a different type of ownership. It is important, of course, to note that God owns all souls by right of creation and does not need to buy non-elect persons from another owner.

    It is my belief that 2 Pet. 2:1 is indeed quoting Deut. 32:6. The etymological case is very strong for this. Not that Peter is addressing only Jews--but he is using the example of God's creative ownership of Israel who rejected him as the basis for his argument.

    Much has been written on this; Gordon Clark's New Heavens, New Earth and Gary D. Long's Definite Atonement discuss the issue extensively. I have to go now but will post a few quotations soon.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Hamburg NY
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    Disciple:
    so in what sense did he buy them? how does this part of the figure apply? i don't think anyone here would argue that God doesn't own all persons, but in what sense did He purchase/buy all persons? how does buying a slave apply to owning someone by virtue of creating (being the creator)?

    well, I don't think that the argument of swarm_mom has been adequately answered so far.

    When the NT uses agorazo in reference to Christ's saving the elect, a purchase price is involved. The atonement is one of the issues I want to get back to in these board discussions. The purchase price of the atonement, the blood of Christ, is something that God determined in his sovereignty to owe to himself. But 2 Pet. 2:1 is not talking about the atonement. So agorazo is used in reference to a different type of ownership. It is important, of course, to note that God owns all souls by right of creation and does not need to buy non-elect persons from another owner.

    It is my belief that 2 Pet. 2:1 is indeed quoting Deut. 32:6. The etymological case is very strong for this. Not that Peter is addressing only Jews--but he is using the example of God's creative ownership of Israel who rejected him as the basis for his argument.

    Much has been written on this; Gordon Clark's New Heavens, New Earth and Gary D. Long's Definite Atonement discuss the issue extensively. I have to go now but will post a few quotations soon.
    Thank you ,
    As we read the NT Epistles we so often see a direct or indirect reference by the apostles to an OT theme that Jew would know well and often verified their position as an elect nation.

    As I read Gill this seemed to be one of them.

    As I read the text in context the subject is false shepherds to Israel

    2Pe 1:21
    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

    2Pe 2:1
    But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


    Here Peter seems to blend the false Shepherds and the false teachers of Israel and then blend that into the current condition. So it would seem that the topic was the Israel of the OT so to use a use of a familiar quote from Deut. would not be out of place at all.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Bill Twisse. When I said "certain grounds" I meant "some" grounds. This is how I perceive it as respects the 1800s Old School Predestinarian Baptists, I do not mean to dogmatically say that it is the very truth of God. It may be or it may not be. I base my perception of them on what I have read of their "chief men". And I am not now talking about "Conditional Time Salvation" Primitive Baptists, but Old School Absolute Predestinarians, of whom said W Thompson was. In his days there were no CTS faction among them. It came later on.
    When you say Baptistism has consisted of popery, what mean you? Can you give some example? As for schism I know there has been schism among Baptist groups. Whether or not one likes to think of the apostolic era Christians as "Baptists" there were also schism among them to some degree, here and there. So the schism thing is nothing which negates a movement as not being raised up of God. But the popery thing makes me curious.

    As to Primitive Baptists and faith and assurance I think you are not being truthful. You paint with a big brush. There are many different views among them, some would be as you say. Some not. Most Primitive Baptists, including Absolute Predestinarians, I have encountered tend to distinguish between justification before God and justification before conscience, the latter sometimes referred to as experimental justification. Justification before God they say is by Christ's faith or faithfulness, His righteousness, and it imputed. As to experimental justification they say it is "through faith in Christ", at least many express themselves thusly. As to me I agree with them in making such distinction, but disagree with some of them as to the particulars and explanations of these two justifications.

    But I shall state that this day I am most uneasy, generally speaking, when it comes to both Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptists as well as non-absoluter Primitives. I will not say anything, except that one reason is what some of their chief men (Trott, Beebe etc.) have maintained about Christ's Sonship.

    Harald

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    well, I don't think that the argument of swarm_mom has been adequately answered so far.
    which argument are you specifically referring to? i don't recall her actually making an argument but simply posting Gill.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    When the NT uses agorazo in reference to Christ's saving the elect, a purchase price is involved. The atonement is one of the issues I want to get back to in these board discussions. The purchase price of the atonement, the blood of Christ, is something that God determined in his sovereignty to owe to himself. But 2 Pet. 2:1 is not talking about the atonement. So agorazo is used in reference to a different type of ownership. It is important, of course, to note that God owns all souls by right of creation and does not need to buy non-elect persons from another owner.
    i agree that this passage is not talking about the atonement (at least not specifically or in reality to their case). i do not believe the context supports that contention. but i'm struggling through how the figure of a slave/owner relationship of the owner buying/purchasing the slave and applying that to creation. it just doesn't seem to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    It is my belief that 2 Pet. 2:1 is indeed quoting Deut. 32:6. The etymological case is very strong for this. Not that Peter is addressing only Jews--but he is using the example of God's creative ownership of Israel who rejected him as the basis for his argument.
    deut 32:6 may indeed be a helpful text in this. but the question is, is this parallelism or is the buying referring to one thing (e.g., redemption of the nation out of egypt) while the making and establishing referring to another (e.g., creation, founding of the nation)? in the LXX the word used here is KTAOMAI which means to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess. i don't know what this different word would indicate or what nuance this might have that the one peter used doesn't. the word peter uses seems to indicate an actually buying while the one used in deut 32:6 seems to indicate just the simple aspect of getting or acquiring (without a reference to how it was acquired, e.g., buying as opposed to receiving as a gift or stealing).

    out of curiosity, what do you see wrong with the view that this is irony or sarcasm? what specific problems do you see with this view?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    Quote Originally Posted by swarm_mom
    2Pe 2:1
    But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

    Here Peter seems to blend the false Shepherds and the false teachers of Israel and then blend that into the current condition. So it would seem that the topic was the Israel of the OT so to use a use of a familiar quote from Deut. would not be out of place at all.
    i agree that this is an allusion to OT false prophets to the nation of israel. this may also support the contention that the buying is referring to the redemption out of egypt (but this was a type of the redemption of the NC). the question that needs to be answered is whether or not peter is writing specifically or primarily to jews. he was indeed an apostle to the jews as paul was an apostle to the gentiles (gal 2:8). but the question is in what sense would either redemption (that out of egypt or out of sin) truly apply to the current false teachers among the readers:

    2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets arose [aorist tense] among the people [allusion to OT israel], just as there will be [future tense] false teachers among you [application to the readers' situation, i.e., the NC people]. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves.

    i think it is a definite allusion to the OT (perhaps Deut 32:6 and others) as well as to the redemption out of egypt, but i believe he is using irony because in neither sense were they truly bought (from egypt or sin; in type or antitype). what do yall think?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Wink Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets arose [aorist tense] among the people [allusion to OT israel], just as there will be [future tense] false teachers among you [application to the readers' situation, i.e., the NC people]. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves.

    i think it is a definite allusion to the OT (perhaps Deut 32:6 and others) as well as to the redemption out of egypt, but i believe he is using irony because in neither sense were they truly bought (from egypt or sin; in type or antitype). what do yall think?
    I never looked at this issue very closely, but it seems to me that in the O.T. some "prophets" rose among the people since the people waited for Moses to come down from the mountain. These "false" prophets, who led the people to "false worship" were to be a "never-ending" presence among Israel and later among the Ek-klesia.

    The term "denying the Master who bought them", it is either Peter's irony or the fact that "bought them" is not a "salvific term" or both. The Lord had "brought and bought Korah" and others out of Egypt, but they suffered swift desctruction, not by being shipped back to Egypt but by being physically destroyed and cut off from the people; having the earth literally opening up and swallwoing them.

    I believe that Peter is referring to this type of "buying" and this type of [/b]"destruction"[/b]. Again, I am open for correction. This text proves a couple of things and none is what Arminians what to make of it:

    1. God will not "ship back" into perdition those who he "saved" or "bought" from perdition (assuming that "bought" is salvific). Or assuming that "bought" it is not salvific, God will not bring back to a tragic captivity those who deny Him, once He delivered from that capitivity. God, rather, will destroy physically, such as in a untimelly death those who rebel, teach and preach falsehoods. (there are other texts that speak of untimely physical death as a reward for sinning after salvation)
    2. God will not "be unfaithful", but remain faithful on His "buying" of the false prophets assuming that the word is salvific, but He will harshly discipline, even with eternal and tragic physical destruction, those who rebel, teach and prech falsehoods. That does not mean, however, to unsave them.
    Am I making any sense? What y'all think? I don't even know if I am on topic!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 2 Peter 2:1

    The following article by Gary Long proposes and examines four different interpretations. He concludes by saying that he favors what he calls the “Sovereign Creation View” which I think is what BT has in mind although he states that he is unable to be “dogmatic in his preference”. I don’t think it fully, unequivocally answers all Disciple’s questions but does appear to provide the most credible answer in my opinion. The one thing I think it does do conclusively is to answer thepaulinator’s original post and show that this verse is NOT saying that these false teachers were actually bought in the sense of being redeemed by the atoning blood of Christ.

    REDEMPTION IN II PETER 2:1

    Comments anyone?

    Martin

    (PS. It shows how long I’ve been dialoguing with Americans when I spell words the American way just so that it doesn’t detract from my point.

    Those of us who come from the country where the ENGLISH language ORIGINATES know full well that “favour” has a “u” in it. )

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •