Peter ended chapter 1 of his second epistle talking about prophecy and how true prophetic words never originated with the prophets themselves, but with God. He picks up that theme here in chapter 2 by talking about false prophets and connecting their presence in the Old Testament with their presence in modern times. This chapter ends up looking a lot like the Book of Jude, which has only 1 chapter. The common theme between this chapter and Jude is the judgment of false teachers preying on the church. Let’s take a look.
1) V1-9 – 1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell [Tartarus], putting them in chains of darkness [in gloomy darkness] to be held for judgment; 5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) – 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
Peter knew that his audience would wonder about his closing remarks of chapter 1, regarding the authenticity and veracity of prophecy, especially in light of contradicting prophecy. Even in Old Testament times, when prophecy abounded, there were false prophets. So now, when prophecy was not as prolific, though there were still plenty of false prophets, how would his audience know what to believe (v1a)? Peter ventures into a lengthy discussion of false prophets, which becomes the theme of this letter. Just as 1 Peter addressed suffering due to causes outside the church, 2 Peter addresses suffering caused by false prophets inside the church – an even present-day reality confirming the truth of Peter’s prophecy.
Jude’s audience was being assaulted from within their own assembly, and Peter writes practically the same thing that Jude wrote in encouraging his audience to stand firm and fight back. While Jude’s false teachers influenced their congregation slyly toward antinomianism – that teaching which declares that living in sin is fine since grace is greater than sin – Peter’s false teachers appear to be slightly less sly and more incorrect in their doctrine. Whereas Jude’s false teachers were cheapening grace and denying Jesus, Peter’s haven’t come yet, but they “will introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves” (v1). Much has been made about this description, that false teachers deny the sovereign Lord who bought them, so we need to discuss it further, with help from http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?77787-Can-an-elect-deny-Christ-who-bought-them/page5.
The term translated “Lord” in v1 is elsewhere translated “Master.” Literally, the Greek (despotes) refers to an owner in a master-slave relationship. The meaning here is not of Christ as Savior or Mediator (despotes is never used as a redemptive title), but to Christ (or the Father) as Sovereign. It has also been demonstrated that the term “bought” (agorazo) in the New Testament is most frequently used in non-redemptive contexts. When used redemptively there are specific pointers that are conspicuously absent in 2 Peter 2:1 (such as the purchase price, believers as the lone object, or the presence of other mediatorial or redemptive features). Since this is so, it of necessity eliminates the assumed non-Reformed interpretation, at the very least, as the only viable interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1. In point of fact, not only is the non-redemptive sense equally viable, but there is far more to commend this sense than the redemptive sense, for which the general redemptionist argues. This does not mean, of course, that the Reformed view becomes the view by default; rather, that the Reformed view cannot be simply dismissed as a viable and exegetically sound interpretation.
Now, at this point someone may say, “You have told us what it is not saying, but you have yet to offer an understanding of what it is saying.” Let us then provide a possible understanding having dismissed the possibility of a redemptive context. It is my contention that Peter is not addressing the extent of the atonement but is providing an OT example (similar to Deuteronomy 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and hence commanded their allegiance. They have acted corruptly toward Him, They are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation. Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought (emphasis mine) you? He has made you and established you.
The Greek term used to translate the Hebrew word “qanah” is “ktaomai” and is interchangeable with our term agorazo. It means to “obtain” or “acquire.” The basis then for which this ownership is set forth is the fact that God “bought” them from Egypt, “made” them, and “established” them. They had been afforded external blessings as a nation through their deliverance from Egypt, and the provision and protection of God to them as His national people. This mercy of special blessing ought to have compelled them to faithfulness and obedience (Romans 2:4-5), but instead they became “perverse” and “crooked” (v5), they “corrupted themselves” (Deuteronomy 32:5), became “foolish and unwise” (v6), forgot that God was their Sovereign Owner and Master (v6), turned to idolatry (v16-21) and brought judgment upon themselves (v22-43). Referring to Deuteronomy 32:6 Wayne Grudem writes:
‘Is not he your Father who has bought you?’...Peter is drawing an analogy between the past false prophets who arose among the Jews and those who will be false teachers within the churches to which he writes...From the time of the exodus onward, any Jewish person would have considered himself or herself one who was ‘bought’ by God in the exodus and therefore a person of God’s own possession....So the text means not that Christ had redeemed these false prophets, but simply that they were rebellious Jewish people (or church attenders in the same position as rebellious Jews) who were rightly owned by God because they had been bought out of the land of Egypt (or their forefathers had), but they were ungrateful to him.
…Similar to Paul’s final exhortation to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17-38, Peter exhorts and warns the people of God of the presence of false teaching. The parallels are striking… Hence we have an established context. Peter, like Paul, is exhorting and warning the people of God what the church has come to know so well since that day: that in the sanctification of His people God has ordained the presence of false teaching and false teachers as an ever present enemy with which the church must struggle. Christians are to be alert and diligent in the defense of the truth. This is the context in which Peter is writing.
…In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus said to beware of false teachers who come in sheep’s clothing. The only way to distinguish them is by “their fruits.” Peter is quick to delineate some of that fruit in this context. The first manifestation is false teaching. Peter tells us that they “will secretly introduce” destructive heresies (literally “teachings of destruction”). They even deny the Master. Perhaps the thrust of this is Christological heresy (if we assume Christ is the referent). The presence of Gnosticism and other movements were certainly a present threat to the apostolic teaching concerning the Person of Jesus Christ.
In either case (whether the Father or the Son is the referent) they were denying the Lordship of their Sovereign Master. The same Master who owns them on the basis of His being their Sovereign creator. The same Master who has provided them external blessing by their attachment to the national people of God through their purchase in the exodus and then by exposing them to the privileges of the gospel and the fellowship of the true Israel in the church. Contextually then, these “professing believers,” surrounded by gospel light and truth, the fellowship of the people of God, rose up from among the people (distinguishing themselves from the people of God), and used their leadership and teaching within the Church to spread damnable heresies. In doing this they denied and rejected their Sovereign Master (not Savior) and brought swift destruction upon themselves.
In conclusion, we are left then with two possible understandings to the text:
1. The term is being used redemptively. Hence these were men who were bought by Christ (purchased, redeemed) but lost their salvation when they became apostate.
2. The term is being used non-redemptively; hence Peter is not addressing the extent of the atonement, but is providing an OT example (similar to Deuteronomy 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and on that basis commanded their allegiance.
Since Scripture is consistent with itself it would seem that the only viable option is that the text is to be understood non-redemptively. The preservation of the saints is a clearly revealed truth, and is maintained on the basis of Scripture’s teaching on the nature of the atonement (Hebrews 7-10), and the resultant preservation of the saints (John 6:37-44). It is our contention, therefore, that a non-redemptive sense is not only consistent with sola scriptura (scripture alone) and tota scriptura (all of scripture), but it is the only sense that is established by the context itself. For when one considers, 1) the problem of ownership, 2) despotes and agorazo contextually defined, and 3) the absence of redemptive and mediatorial features in the very passage under dispute, then one will likewise see that the textual and exegetical data communicates a non-redemptive sense, perfectly consistent with the specificity of the atonement that the Bible so clearly presents.
To be sure, there are many passages in Scripture that require effort on our part to fully study and examine. Some are indeed difficult to interpret; such difficulty, however, is not an excuse for failing to do our homework. We are to “search the Scriptures” diligently, that we may grow in grace and knowledge of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Hence, after all the exegetical considerations have been observed, it would appear that the only people that can appeal to this text exegetically and contextually are those who understand it non-redemptively, or those historic Arminians who believe you can lose your salvation. Those who believe in eternal security (whether Reformed or non-Reformed) may not nor cannot appeal to this text with a redemptive sense. To do so imposes a view on the text that is more eisegetical than exegetical. It is inconsistent to say that the Master bought them, but does not own them in order to maintain the general atonement position. In fact, I would argue that this text is not a battleground between Reformed and non-Reformed over the extent of the atonement at all; rather, it is a battleground between those who believe in eternal security, and those who do not. If one desires to object to particular redemption, then one will have to appeal to another text, for one cannot consistently do so on the basis of 2 Peter 2:1.
Though there is much more to say on this topic, out of respect to the space allotted in this commentary, I’ll just point to a couple essays that can be read another time: http://www.the-highway.com/agorazo_Ellis.html and http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html. Think of it this way: “Jesus bought the field (the world – He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world) in order that He might have the treasure in the field (the Church, i.e., the elect).” Calvin comments, “Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that He might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that He may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to Him and to die to Him.”
V2 says of these false teachers from within that they will lead many people astray by their depraved conduct. They will also cause the way of truth (Christianity) to be disrespected and disregarded. V3 says they will lie and thereby exploit believers out of greed; but their condemnation is already upon them. It’s as if God is purposing their sinfulness, patiently allowing it to add up to some predetermined level, at which time He will give them justice, wrath. And that’s exactly what Peter talks about in the rest of the passage (v4-9), giving a number of illustrations of how God preserves His own for rescue and waits for the reprobate to reach a level of sinfulness that demands instant judgment. Peter talks specifically about fallen angels sent to hell awaiting judgment, the judgment of the flood in which God preserved Noah “and seven others” (a reference to the literal destructive event, as in 1 Peter 3:20), the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah serving as an example of what would come on the ungodly, and the rescue of Lot, who, though righteous, was tormented by the words and deeds he saw and heard while living there. Jude mentions a very similar list of examples, including fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Israelites wandering the desert wilderness in disobedience (Jude 5-7).
2) V10-19 – 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from [or, beings in the presence of] the Lord. 12But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish. 13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you [in their love feasts]. 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed – an accursed brood! 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey – an animal without speech – who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness. 17These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity – for ‘people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.’
Peter said that God holds the unrighteous for punishment on Judgment Day, and that is especially the case for “those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh” (v10). The false teachers he’s talking about will despise authority in boldness and arrogance (v10-11); they’ll even mock angels, though even angels wouldn’t dare to be abusive in the presence of the Lord. Similarly, Jude 8 ties his examples from the Old Testament to the current situation of his audience by calling the false teachers “dreamers” who pollute their own bodies, like the folks of Sodom and Gomorrah, reject authority like the Israelites, and slander celestial beings, like the fallen angels. “By their fruits, you will know them.” These false teachers’ lives showed unbelief (rejecting authority), pride (slandering celestial beings), and immorality (polluting their own bodies), rather than pure faith, humility, and holiness, as true teachers’ lives should exude.
Peter goes on a rampage of appropriately harsh criticism of these false teachers in v12-19, and it’s very similar to Jude 11-13. He says that the false prophets “are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be…destroyed” (v12). Could Paul’s words from Romans 9:22-24 be true? “What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath – prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” That’s what Peter is saying, and it may not be a pleasant thought. The unregenerate will be punished for their sinfulness, which goes much deeper than outward behavior; it includes their motivation from the heart. Peter wants to also point out in this section is that we can recognize false teachers by their lifestyle. A person’s life shows a person’s heart. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
3) V20-22 – 20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit’ [Proverbs 26:11], and, ‘A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.’
In the final section of this chapter, we must not forget the context. He’s talking about false prophets, and how to recognize them, and the judgment that will deservedly befall them. In v20, we read, “If” – and it’s a big “if” – “they have escaped the corruption of the world” (which they haven’t)… “by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (which they don’t)… “and are again entangled in [the corruption of the world] and overcome” (but they were never untangled to begin with; they were always overcome by corruption)… then “they are worse off [than they would have been had they never known Christ] (but they aren’t technically worse off, because they never knew Christ). Peter is issuing a tremendous warning, as an encouragement, to believers to stand firm and be fruitful in their faith. He’s talking to believers, encouraging them not to fall away (because they can’t and won’t), not to appear like these false teachers, who, from one perspective, have in fact fallen away into judgment, though from another perspective, never were partakers in saving grace and couldn’t therefore have fallen away from it.
Calvin concludes, “Though there is no excuse for ignorance, yet the servant who knowingly and wilfully despises the commands of his lord, deserves a twofold punishment. There was besides ingratitude, because they wilfully extinguished the light of God, rejected the favor conferred on them, and having shaken off the yoke, became perversely wanton against God; yea, as far as they could, they profaned and abrogated the inviolable covenant of God, which had been ratified by the blood of Christ. The more earnest then ought we to be, to advance humbly and carefully in the course of our calling [for] …the doctrine of a holy and virtuous life, though common to all and indiscriminately belonging to all, is yet peculiarly taught to those whom God favors with the light of His gospel.”
Therefore, those who seem to fall away from the knowledge of the gospel and return to their lives of unbelief and habitual and constant sin, must be seen to have never truly been saved, but only learned the content of the gospel without having it enliven their hearts. But for those who are believers, we must remain steadfast and fight continually to restrain our sinful tendencies in the power of the Spirit, always maintaining a humble and repentant attitude towards the Lord and His grace – lest we prove that we never had anything more than intellectual assent to the truth of the gospel.
Footnotes
- 2:4 Greek Tartarus
- 2:4 Some manuscripts into chains of darkness
- 2:9 Or unrighteous for punishment until the day of judgment
- 2:10 Or the flesh
- 2:13 Some manuscripts in their love feasts
- 2:22 Prov. 26:11
Bible text from Gospelcom.net. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.