Reformed Apologetics

2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption

By Simon Escobedo III

What about 2 Peter 2:1? This is one of many questions that surface during conversations between Reformed and non-Reformed1 believers when discussing the emotionally charged issue of “Particular Redemption” (or as it is historically called, “Limited Atonement”). Often many non-Reformed believers cite the “terrible ‘L’” as the big stumbling block that precludes them from embracing the doctrines of grace at all or at the very least embracing the doctrines of grace en toto.

Generally, in the heat of conversation “general redemptionists” present a flurry of passages that from the non-Reformed perspective conveys a broader scope of atonement than that being presented by the Reformed position.  John 3:16, 1:29, 1 John 2:2, and 2 Peter 2:1 are normally the big ones that are presented so as to dismiss the definite concept of atonement presented by Calvinistic soteriology.

But do these passages actually teach a broader extent of the atonement then that being presented by Reformed theology? Do these passages actually provide a universal extent that in the end is inconsistent with Scripture’s clear teaching on the nature of the atonement? Do they present a universal extent and application that is incompatible with an atonement that is perfectly sufficient and wholly efficacious in-and-of-itself? In the case of 2 Peter 2:1, is this passage the “dagger” that cuts the “terrible ‘L’” in half? Is the text even addressing the extent of the atonement as is so frequently assumed?

It is not my intention to deal with every text assumed by the non-Reformed to be supportive of a universal or general atonement but rather to limit my response to the specific use of 2 Peter 2:1. All of those passages assumed by the non-Reformed to be universal in extent have been excellently addressed in various  Reformed works2 on the subject.

Moreover, it is not my objective to interact with every possible objection that exists regarding this text. My objective in this work is simple: the demonstration that there are exegetical grounds to conclude that 2 Peter 2:1 does not require a redemptive sense, as is so often asserted by general redemptionists. So, while it is the general redemptionist objection that is the target of specific focus, it is, nonetheless, my contention that such exegetical evidence precludes any other interpretation, no matter the particular theological view, which seeks to assert the same or even similar redemptive sense to this same text.
 

Helping me in the composition of this response were two works that specifically addressed this passage. The first was Definite Atonement by Gary Long.3  Long’s study was most helpful in corroborating many of my own insights,  so I will include some of his thoughts so as to  underscore some of my own. To be sure it was a difficult task composing a response that was “fresh” and insightful given the comprehensive study by Long.  I hope this response is helpful even if only in stimulating further study. The reader is encouraged to read Gary Long’s work en toto so as to be given the full treatment that this discussion deserves.

The second work is a response to Long’s work, Second Peter 2:1 and the Extent of the Atonement by Andrew D. Chang. Chang, who is seeking to respond to Long’s position in defense of his own universal or general atonement, provided some interesting objections that deserve response. His article, however, is weakened by an obvious theological a priori.  For example in his opening comments Chang writes:

A doctrinal issue that divides Christians is the question of the extent of the atonement. Did Christ die with the intention to save only the elect or was His death in some way relevant to all human beings? If one reads passages like John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10 without any preconceived theological framework, the conclusion seems to be that the Bible unequivocally teaches unlimited atonement. However, if one imposes a straightjacket of his own theological bias on those and other universal passages, he may say that it is equally possible to interpret those passages from the perspective of “limited redemption.”4

Please notice that Chang here “assumes” something he has yet to prove; namely, that the passages like those mentioned, and by implication 2 Peter 2:1, “unequivocally teaches unlimited atonement.” Obviously, a Reformed person looking at these very passages in their own context, and more importantly examining them in the writer’s own context, rejects the anachronistic and presuppositional notion that they teach “unequivocally” unlimited atonement. Notice Chang further implies that the Reformed “straightjacket” precludes the Reformed perspective from accepting these and “other universal passages” in context. Again Chang is assuming something he has yet to prove: that these “other passages” are in fact teaching a universal extent and intention in the atonement.

In fairness Chang did not write his article so as to give a full presentation of the nature and extent of the atonement from the universal position. His article is simply a response to Gary Long and the interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1. Hence, it is not my intention to make this article a full response to Andrew Chang. But I do wish to interact with some of his comments in order to consider the objections that are available in reference to this discussion.

A Right Perspective

Let us now focus specifically on 2 Peter 2:1 and the frequently asked questions concerning it. To do so I will use as a springboard a question that was posed by a correspondent I had some time ago. Paraphrasing the writer’s (I will refer to him as “Bill”) question he asked:

I was wondering how Mr. White would interpret 2 Peter 2:1 which seems to me to very clearly teach that these ‘false teachers,’ who are destined for condemnation (hell), because of the destructive heresies they are propounding, can be designated as ones whom the Lord bought? How does the Reformed position of limited atonement harmonize with a text such as this one? How are they going to end up in hell if Jesus died to purchase (bought) them?

In response I have to inquire whether the correspondent is suggesting that it is Peter's purpose or intention to discuss the nature and the extent of the atonement in this passage.  It goes without saying that before addressing any passage that might be understood as providing scope or extent (although as I hope to later demonstrate, Peter is not even addressing the atonement in this passage), we must have a clear understanding of the nature of Christ’s perfect work.  Before one can ask, “for whom did Christ die?” one must ask the question, “what did Christ accomplish in His death?”5 To address the extent of the atonement before you have addressed the nature of the atonement is to put the cart before the horse.

Did Christ intend to die for everyone in general but no one in particular? What do the biblical terms concerning the nature of the atonement mean? What do terms like: propitiation, reconciliation, ransom, satisfaction, imputation, substitution,6 etc. tell us about the work of Christ? What do you do with extensive treatments on the nature of the atonement such as is found in Hebrews 6-10?7

My point is to establish a proper biblical context  for a discussion like this.  Both Calvinists (specifically, particularists) and the general redemptionists can appeal to passages that discuss “extent” (whether restrictive or universal) and proof text each other to death without accomplishing anything.  However, how they interact with Scripture’s teaching on the nature of the atonement is a completely different issue. From the Reformed perspective it is our contention that an appeal to a general atonement is biblically inconsistent with the perfect sufficiency of the work of Christ in the behalf of sinners. This, we believe, is the consistent teaching of Scripture.8

Now the response to such an assertion (that the nature of Christ’s work must be dealt with before dealing with passages that supposedly deal with extent) may be:

Now, Mr. Calvinist, I was looking for a simple answer to what I thought was a simple question. The text in 2 Peter indicates that although Jesus died to purchase these men, who became false teachers, they will not be redeemed after all. If Jesus died to purchase (bought them) them then why are they not finally saved? Isn’t the passage much easier to understand if we simply take it as it is written - that although Jesus died for their salvation (potentially) they have rejected that free offer thereby bringing upon themselves the wrath of God?9

A Simple Look

At this point someone may object and argue that such an “in-depth” look betrays the simple reading of the text. I mean do we really have to examine Greek words such as  agorazo and despotes? Do we really have to distinguish between the use of these terms in redemptive and non-redemptive contexts? Must we know Greek infinitives, subjunctives, and participles to understand a single verse? Is this not Calvinistic intellectualism or elitism10 that disallows the average lay-person from simply reading his Bible the way it was written?

There is no question that the Bible is clear in its message. God’s Word was not written to the “spiritual elite” or restricted  to the intellectual theologian.  It was written for all the people of God. It was written to the housewife, the parts department salesman, and to the child. This is not to say that all of the Bible is equally understandable as Peter himself states (2 Peter 3:16). Some passages take a little more work and hence God has blessed his Church with learned and stable men who are able to distill from God’s truth elements that are more difficult than others.

Having said that, though, is the in-depth analysis of 2 Peter 2:1 all that is available to us in the understanding of this passage?   While such a rich study, probing into the depths of the text, is indeed useful, it is my contention that there is, in fact, a "plain" and "simple" reading of the passage, in its original context, that is quite clear and quite compelling. Furthermore, that even this reading is very much supportive of the Reformed position.  For it is in the very use of this text that the non-Reformed advocate most demonstrates the inconsistency of his own position. How is this so?  Most non-Reformed folk who embrace eternal security and yet seek to use this text as the “trump card” against the Reformed perspective have not really thought through the obvious meaning of the text itself.

Once again let us look at the passage emphasizing the key “controversy” from the text, that being the meaning of the term “bought” and the unstated assumption that this is to be understood in solely redemptive terms:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them (emphasis mine), bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2 Peter 2:1)

Notice what the text says.  These men were ‘bought” by the Master. These men were not “potentially” bought but were in fact “bought,” period!  The non-Reformed exegete is inconsistent in using this passage in the form in which Peter wrote it.  I can best demonstrate this by the following example. In responding to an automotive illustration (used later in this response) where the buyer takes possession of the automotive part purchased, someone asked:

Your automotive illustration fails at just this point. Isn’t it possible for me to purchase an ice cream cone each for 10 children and have 5 of them refuse to take one? Does their refusal to accept my “purchase” mean that I never really purchased any ice cream for them at all?11

One can see that the argument was not thought through. The illustration is seriously flawed and only proves my point. What is bought in the above illustration? Ice cream. That is, ice cream is the direct object of the objector’s own verb “buy.” The obvious question then is this, “is the ice cream his to give or not”? Those to whom he chooses to give the ice cream is irrelevant to the fact that he purchased the ice cream and it is his! The response to my illustration only proved the point!

2 Peter 2:1, again states, “denying the Lord who bought them.”  In other words, in laymen’s terms, what is the object of the participle bought? Quite simply, it is “them” i.e. the false teachers. To suggest that He “bought them” but does not “own them” is to betray the simple reading of the text. It is often argued by non-Reformed folk that Reformed adherents “reject” the “plain” meaning of Scripture. Yet, I would argue that it is just here that the non-Reformed advocate does the very thing he alleges of the Reformed.

In the above illustration what the objector is apparently seeking to communicate is that he (by parallel the Master) has purchased (bought or redeemed) ice cream (redemption) for 10 children (all men). The inconsistency underscores the error in the non-Reformed interpretation. On the one hand “bought” means “redeem” and on the other hand it does not. Which is it? On the one hand it is said that the false teachers “denied the Lord who bought (yet the term normally implied is redeemed) them” and on the other hand it is implied (and hence the direct object is changed) that they denied the Lord who bought (redeemed) redemption? This is equivocation and a clear case of not taking the text as it is.  It is to impose external considerations into the text that are simply not supported by the passage or its author.
 

Please notice the comparison:

Notice the illustration does not say that he bought ten children. Such would then parallel Peter’s words. Rather, the illustration states that he bought something for 10 children. Peter, however, does not say that they denied the Lord who bought something for them (the implication is redemption) but that they themselves were the objects of the Master’s purchase. Could Peter have stated that any more clearly?

So who is reading words into the text and hence failing to take the text as it is? Where do we find in 2 Peter 2:1 the implied concepts, “they will not be redeemed after all,” “Jesus died to purchase (bought) them,” “that, although Jesus died for their salvation (implied potentiality), they will not be saved after all?” Is it not actually the Reformed believer who in this case is reading the text simply as it is? Do we need to add the words “potential,” “died,” “to purchase” to the text?  When we see, “denying the Lord who bought them,” do we not simply take it as it is? Whatever else Peter may be saying, what he is not saying is that these were men who were potentially bought and hence did not belong to the Master at all.

A non-Reformed writer commenting on this passage wrote:

The focus of their heresies was the sovereign Lord, Christ, whom they denied (cf. Jude 4). ...How can these false teachers, who were said to be among the people, and whom the Lord had bought (agorasanta, “redeem”), end up in everlasting destruction? Several suggestions have been offered: (1) They were saved but lost their salvation. But this contradicts many other Scriptures (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24; 10:28-29). (2) “Bought” means the Lord created them, not that He saved them. But this stretches the meaning of agorazo (“redeem”). (3) The false prophets merely said they were “bought” by Christ. This, however, seems to read into the verse. (4) They were “redeemed” in the sense that Christ paid the redemptive price for their salvation, but they did not apply it to themselves and so were not saved (emphasis mine). Christ’s death is “sufficient”12 for all (1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2), but is “efficient” only for those who believe. This is a strong argument for unlimited atonement (the view that Christ died for everyone) and against limited atonement (the view that Christ died only for those whom He would later save).13

The problem is that this writer’s conclusion is found nowhere in the text. The  direct object of “bought” is not redemption but “them.” In fact, as the writer himself argues, the term agorasanta (bought) to the writer means redeem. Yet, you can read it over and over again and the “them” is still the object (Greek, English, Spanish). To this glaringly non-Reformed conundrum the writer has no logical response. How then could the writer advance such a statement? It is my contention that he, like so many other non-Reformed believers, is simply reading his presupposition into the text.

A Closer Look

Let us now look more in-depth at the text itself:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2 Peter 2:1)

A couple of terms that need special attention in the understanding of the text are: Master (despo,thj despotes) and bought ( avgora,zw agorazo). The traditional non-Reformed interpretation is that the Master refers to “Jesus” and bought means “purchased” or “redeemed.” Hence, according to their view, what we have is a redemptive context wherein Christ died for these men but they rejected Him as evidenced by their false teaching and hence brought condemnation to themselves.

On the surface the assumed interpretation sounds plausible but in actuality is it? Is it not more important to understand what Peter meant as opposed to what the non-Reformed person believes to be the “simple” reading of the text?

As an illustration, could not a Jehovah’s Witness say with reference to John 14:28, “is not the passage much easier to understand if we simply take it as it is written (which means as “I understand it”) as therefore affirming that the Son is inferior to the Father?” Proof-texting, particularly in apologetic conversations, is not good argumentation. This is especially so when such proof-texting is detached from contextual exegesis, such as the Witnesses do by divorcing John 14:28 from 14:1-27.

Of course, Peter did not write his epistle in English, but in Greek.  It is necessary, then, to listen to him as he originally spoke by studying his own words in his own context. This is not to say that an understanding of Greek is essential to the understanding of the text (as the earlier discussion underscored). It is to say, however, that all assumed understandings of the English text must be consistent with  the terms the writers themselves used originally.  Hence a knowledge of the Greek14 language may not be absolutely essential but it is surely very helpful.

Finally, I reiterate that if we assume the allegedly “simple” meaning of the text as it is often portrayed, we must deny eternal security and embrace the interpretation put forward by historic Arminianism. Allow me to explain. The text, as it is written, states that these false teachers were not potentially bought (as the questioner initially assumed) but bought. They were “denying the Lord who bought them.” The normal objection seems to present the idea that bought or purchase and redeem are distinct concepts. The implication is that bought or purchase has to do with intent (died to purchase) and can be extended to all men indiscriminately while redeem is restrictive to those who appropriate the work of Christ. It should be noted, though, that the biblical terms redeem (15lutro,w lutroo) and bought (avgora,zw, agorazo), when used redemptively, have believers as their objects and hence function synonymously.16 Therefore, if the non-Reformed believer is to be consistent with his position of a redemptive context, then redeem and purchase17 are synonyms and not distinct concepts. Is it not the position of even non-Reformed folk that all who are redeemed are also obviously saved? Can one provide a New Testament text that supports the position that Christ has redeemed someone who is not saved (unless 2 Peter 2:1 be the lone exception)? This text does not say He “died for” them, but that he “bought” them.

The position of general (non-specific) atonement maintains that there are multitudes for which Christ died whom He does not actually redeem. However, the position does not assert that there are multitudes Christ redeemed that He actually does not save.

The Problem of Ownership

I sell parts for Chevrolet in my secular employment. It would be far fetched to suggest that someone could come into my store and “purchase” or “buy” a part and then leave my store without acquiring ownership of it. To buy necessitates subsequent and inevitable ownership of that which is purchased. Moreover, it is equally important to underscore that ownership is not contingent upon physical possession. Again, someone can purchase a part from my store, leave without possession of it, but this does not relinquish his ownership of the product, nor does it give the store the right to sell what rightfully belongs to him. Changing the perspective makes the same point. I may be making the payments to my vehicle, have actual physical possession of it, but until I make that last payment, the vehicle legally belongs to the bank; and, are we not constantly reminded of that each time we receive that wonderful statement in the mail?
 

“But the objects of Christ’s sacrifice are human beings, not impersonal items,” said one objector. Of course, no one has suggested that human beings are equivalent to "auto parts" or vehicles, for that matter. I am addressing the principle of ownership; for, one cannot purchase something or someone (if one wants to use a NT example, slaves come to mind) without acquiring subsequent ownership. Consider someone like Onesimus; was he not as much Philemon's slave when he was on the run as he was when he labored in Philemon's household?

Indeed, those who sing the "new song" of the redeemed are owned by their Savior; we are not our own, we have been bought with a price. Certainly, we recognize that the principle of ownership is present here with regards to redeemed human beings, is it not?

Is this relevant to our discussion? Yes, for can it be said that the Master bought them (i.e., the false teachers) but does not own them? The concepts of buying and ownership18 are inseparable. This can be demonstrated biblically by appealing to passages that use the term agorazo (buy) whether the term is being used redemptively or not.

Consider the following:

The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it. (Matthew 13:44-46)

The parable is familiar. Our Lord is describing the value of true salvation. Once a person is awakened spiritually they will give up everything they have to posses it. Relevant to our point is the way in which “bought” (our term agorazo) is used in the parable. Note that the object of the purchase is impersonal, thus establishing a non-redemptive context. It is the field that is purchased. The buyer purchases the field in order to obtain the hidden treasure therein. He did this after selling all that he had. Secondly, note the obvious question, did he take ownership of the field or not? Could it be possible that he sold all that he had, went and “bought” the field, and then failed to take ownership of it? Such is obviously absurd. In the parable he bought it, and subsequently owned it. Hence, this text underscores two elements: 1) that agorazo can be used in a non-redemptive context, and 2) the result of the purchase is ownership.

In other New Testament passages (the Gospels in particular), the writers frequently present the contrast between  “selling” and “buying” within the same text. The reason is obvious as “selling” is relinquishing ownership and “buying” is assuming ownership possession. Conceptually where you have one you have the other. I believe one can easily see the significance in the contrast. Can one sell something and still retain ownership? More important to our discussion, can one buy something and not take ownership? In other words, can the Master be said to have “bought them” and yet not “own them?”

To further emphasize this please notice these words by Paul:

and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; (1 Corinthians 7:30)

The Apostle Paul provides a series of important perspectives to be maintained in our Christian walk. “Those who weep” as though they did not, “those who rejoice” as though they did not, and “those who buy” (agorazo) as though they did not...possess. Purchase involves ownership. Paul’s point is that buying implies ownership, and we are to conduct ourselves as though we owned nothing. Our knuckles are not white as we seek to lay hold of earthly gain at the expense of losing our focus on things heavenly.

Even in a redemptive context like 1 Cor. 7:23, the aspect of absolute ownership is unmistakable. Note the following insight:

The almost verbal repetition of 1 C. 6:20: hvgora,sqhte ga.r timh/j, in 7:23: timh/j hvgora,sqhte, and the rather abrupt way in which the phrase is introduced in both cases, shows that it is a kind of slogan of Paul’s. In both verses the main point is that Christians are not free (6:19) but are the possession of Christ (7:23).19

Hence, once again, with reference to 2 Peter 2:1, is it possible that the Master could purchase men and yet not own them? Or, as it is often suggested, did He purchase them with the intent20 of owning them if they follow whatever means of appropriation put forward? If we are seeking to support a redemptive context, then such is an issue for us to carefully consider. Therefore, the concept of ownership cannot be overlooked in the understanding of the passage. The Master owns them, not potentially, but actually. This brings us to our next question: how exactly does He own them?

The Term despotes

The Greek word despotes ( “master, lord,” used ten times in the NT) is central in establishing whether we have here a redemptive or non-redemptive context. The common assumption is that “Master” is a reference to Jesus (though it could very well be referring to the Father21).  For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that “Master” is a reference to Jesus. This is the position that Gary Long himself presents in his work, Definite Atonement. Long writes:

But to say that II Peter 2:1 is speaking of Christ lends absolutely no weight to the modified Calvinist position, for it must be established whether despotes can rightly refer in this verse, or any verse for that matter, to Christ as mediator.22

He goes on to say:

...despotes is used about thirty times in the whole of Scripture-twenty times in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and ten times in the New Testament. But never does it refer to the Father or the Son as mediator unless II Peter 2:1 be the exception. And if this be the case, the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to make it the exception, does it not?23

He concludes this point by saying:

Rather the dominant use of despotes in both the Old and New Testaments is of God as “absolute sovereign,” that is, as “sovereign Lord” and owner (emphasis mine) of each member of the human race.24

To this Andrew Chang, responds by referring to Jude 4:

Considering Jude 3 and 4 together, one can reasonably conclude that Christ is the Master by virtue of His being the Savior. In other words the word despo,thj is used in a soteriological context. Another ascription of despo,thj to Christ is found in 2 Peter 2:1. Whether despo,thj here refers to God the Father or God the Son is debated, but most scholars agree that it refers to Christ primarily because of its close parallel to Jude 4. A plain reading of the passage seems to indicate that Jesus Christ paid the price to redeem even the false teachers who will surely perish. Thus the idea of slave owner is also present in this passage.25

Notice an error in Chang’s reasoning. While he rightly draws a parallel (as Long also noted) to Jude 4 and agrees with Long as to the basic definition for despotes, he nonetheless implies that the text of 2 Peter 2:1 is referring to the price that was paid to redeem these false teachers. In other words, the implied object purchase is redemption.  In seeking to establish a redemptive context for Jude 3-4 Chang writes:

It has already been mentioned that Jude 4 is in parallel with 2 Peter 2:1. To understand Jude 4, one must go back to verse 3 because of the presence of the  causal ga,r (“for”) in verse 264. In verse 3 Jude mentioned the common salvation which now all Christians participate in, and the faith in Jesus Christ which was delivered to the saints by the apostles.27

But is this what the passage is saying?

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.  For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master (emphasis mine) and Lord, Jesus Christ.

It is true that the postpositive gar in verse 4 refers back to verse 3, but it is incorrect for Chang to suggest that it is referring back to “our common salvation” when in fact it refers back to contending for the faith. As the reader can clearly see, Jude’s desire was to write to the believers “concerning our common salvation,”; however, the rising threat of apostasy mandated that he write to them concerning something else. Namely, they were being exhorted earnestly to contend for the faith in the presence of false teaching. Furthermore, note that Chang refers to the “faith in (emphasis mine) Jesus Christ” as that which was delivered. However, the text is not referring to subjective faith or belief, but the need to defend the faith i.e. the objective truth of God (literally “the once for all delivered to the saints faith”). Hence, this is not a redemptive context at all, but, to use the common phrase, it is an apologetic context for defending the faith.

Chang states further:

As already noted, the general meaning of the word despo,thj is owner or lord, especially in a master-slave relationship. When the word is used of men, it denotes quite obviously the slave owner. When it refers to God the Father, it seems to emphasize God’s absolute sovereignty and ownership probably by virtue of His work in creation. When it is used of Christ, the context seems to show that Christ is the slave owner by virtue of His redemption (emphasis mine).28

Once again Chang is here assuming something he has yet to prove. For no exegetical effort is made to prove that Jude 4, and its reference to Christ as despotes (Master), is in point of fact a redemptive context in the first place! Secondly, Chang fails to demonstrate the assumed ownership of Christ over false teachers by means of His redemptive work. It is clear that Chang recognizes the need to establish Christ as “owner” in some way over these false teachers. They are owned, he claims, on the basis of His redemptive work in their behalf. However, if all men indiscriminately are owned in this way, then in what way are the redeemed owned differently? There seems to be some implicit equivocation here. On the one hand Christ is the Master of all men on the basis of His atoning work, but on the other hand there is a difference between how He owns one group over against the other group. It may be said that one group appropriates the work of Christ while others do not. But this does not answer the question, it only creates a new one: does He own one group savingly and one group non-savingly? If He owns one group non-savingly,29 then I say that is no different than His owning them on the basis of Him being their sovereign Creator and Master which can be applied to all men indiscriminately.

Finally, Chang does make an interesting concession. Gary Long stresses the distinction between Christ as Mediator, thus establishing a redemptive context, and Christ as Sovereign, establishing a non-redemptive context. This is an important distinction when considering 2 Peter 2:1. Note Chang’s response:

Long also did an extensive word study on despo,thj. His whole point was to determine whether the word can refer to Christ as the mediator. No scholar argues that the word despo,thj is used of Christ as the mediator, and Long is right in this regard (emphasis mine). However, the fact that despo,thj does not denote the mediatorship does not lend any support to the limited atonement position.30

But isn’t that the point with reference to 2 Peter 2:1? It cannot be stressed enough that we are not seeking to support “limited atonement” by way of 2 Peter 2:1.  In fact, it can be easily argued that Chang is seeking to support unlimited atonement by way of this passage. The aim of both positions should be to establish whether the context is redemptive or not. Hence, the distinction between Christ as Mediator and Christ as Sovereign is most necessary in establishing Peter’s meaning with reference to this passage.  He concludes by saying:

The emphasis in 2 Peter 2:1 is not on the mediatorship of Christ, but ‘on the redemption as a change of ownership.’ By paying the ransom, Christ purchased all men including the false teachers. The same idea seems to be present in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20. Just as God the Father claims the ownership of the whole universe by virtue of His work in creation, so does Christ claim the ownership of the whole human race by virtue of His work of redemption.31

I hate to sound redundant but Chang is here assuming again his conclusion. If the term despotes refers to sovereign ownership, as Chang himself admits, then how is it that he can unreservedly assert that He is owner by means of redemption when a redemptive context has yet to be established? In fact, it could be rightly argued that to this point all the information suggests a non- redemptive context. Now let me quickly qualify that I am not suggesting that the elect are not “owned” by Christ by way of His redemptive work in their behalf. But it begs the question to assert that the non-elect is “owned” in the same way when that is the very thing being argued.
 

The Term agorazo

As noted earlier agorazo is the other term that is central to the discussion of 2 Peter 2:1. In fact, in the Greek text this is the first of the two terms mentioned. Nearly every lexical source defines the term as “to acquire,” “to buy,” “to purchase,” and even “to redeem.” While these definitions bear the basic meaning of the term it must be said that all words are defined by their context. Hence, both particularists and general redemptionists have the same textual burden: to demonstrate how this term is being defined in this specific context. For it will not do to simply assume a meaning that is consistent with one’s theological perspective; rather, a meaning must be determined on the sole basis of New Testament exegesis, which seeks to ascertain the intended meaning of the original author.
 

With that in mind, then, agorazo is used some thirty times in the New Testament, with twenty-four of the uses restricted to either a literal or metaphorical non-redemptive context. It is used five times in what are clear redemptive contexts. This leaves only 2 Peter 2:1 as the debatable text. The majority of references in the New Testament are non-redemptive; in other words, the objects purchased are impersonal or material (land,  (land, oxen, food,32 etc.) obviously such things require no divine redemption). Therefore, we will focus instead on those few passages that clearly bear a redemptive sense. For it is enough to simply establish the fact that a non-redemptive context is a valid category to which the term agorazo can be found (cf.  Mt. 21:12; Mk. 15:46; Mt. 25:9; Luke 22:36; John 6:5 and Rev. 13:17).
 

Redemptive Contexts

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

In the midst of rebuking the Corinthian believers concerning sexual impurity, Paul, as he frequently does, exhorts these believers to moral purity by reminding them of the cross. He reminds them that they are no longer their own but they belong to another. They belong to Christ. Why? Because He has bought them, purchased them, and they now belong to Him. The term Paul uses here is the same term (agorazo) used by Peter (here as an aorist passive verb, there as an aorist active participle). The basis upon which believers are to be holy is the fact that they are no longer “their own.” They have been bought with a price. Ownership, therefore, belongs to the One Who has “bought” them. Hence, here we have believers as the objects of the term agorazo, underscoring a redemptive context, and we further have the inevitable ownership; they belong to the One Who purchased them. (cf. 1 Cor. 7:23).
 

The last text I will cite is Rev. 5:9 (cf. Rev. 14:3-4; 18:11). In this passage the same verb agorazo is translated “purchased,” but the meaning is clearly the same:
 

 And they sang a new song, saying, ‘ Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You  were  slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.’ (Revelation 5:9)
 

Here we have, together with chapter four, our first glimpse of heaven and what will be going on in the eternal state. Notice that the very first thing that John sees in his heavenly vision is the corporate worship and praise by the angelic host. Before we get to the “streets of gold,” we fall before the throne of God. Listen to the angels as they cry:
 

“Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!”
 

Thankfully, the angelic hosts are not alone in their worship, for as we enter the fifth chapter we see the redeemed giving equal praise, blessing, honor, and power “to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever, and ever” (Rev. 5:13).  Relevant to our study, though, please note the unique expression addressed to the Lamb:
 

‘Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased (emphasis mine) for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”
 

Clearly we have a redemptive context for our term agorazo. Notice some added features to this redemptive use. First what is the implied object33 of the verb agorazo? People. Are these a mixture of saved and unsaved? The answer is rather obvious. These are all the elect, the purchased bride of Christ. They belong to Him and to no other. Why? Because He “bought” or “purchased” them redemptively and such of necessity means they belong to Him in the same way.

Furthermore, it bears reminding that the non-Reformed  position implicitly seeks to argue that “bought” refers to the work of Christ in much the same way as other NT expressions: “gave Himself up” “delivered Himself,” “through His blood,” “crucified,” etc. The problem one must deal with, however, is that the term agorazo, when used redemptively always refers to the result (which involves ownership) and not the intent which they seemingly are suggesting. Moreover, in redemptive contexts the means (purchase price) is always noted. No such means (the purchase price) is found in 2 Peter 2:1. There is no, “denying the Master who bought them with...” This is very important and must be dealt with by any person suggesting 2 Peter 2:1 is intended to be a redemptive passage.

Notice two of the examples previously cited:

For you have been bought with a price (emphasis mine): therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:20) 

The Corinthians were bought with a price (means). What was that price? The price was His death. He was the ransom for our redemption. No ransom...no redemption.  No price---no purchase---no ownership.

And they sang a new song, saying, Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood (emphasis mine) men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. (Revelation 5:9)

The Lamb purchased for God a people.34 How? With His blood, i.e., through His death (means). No death, no being slain, no shedding His blood...no purchased people. Gary Long states:

...of its thirty occurrences in the New Testament, agorazo is never used in a salvation context (unless II Peter 2:1 is the exception) without the technical term “price” (times- a technical term for the blood of Christ) or its equivalent being stated or made explicit in the context (cf. I Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:3,435).36

Most non-Reformed interpretations suggest that the term itself implies the purchase price. As Charles Ryrie notes in his Study Bible: “The price for the sins of all men (including these false teachers) was paid by the death of Christ.”37 So in their estimation when the term is being used it suggests the price which was paid.  However as Long again notes:

...a word study of agorazo in both the Greek Old  and New Testaments, reveal that the word itself does not include a payment price. When it is translated with a meaning “to buy,” whether in a salvation or non-salvation context, a payment price is always stated or made explicit by the context. ...in contexts where no payment price is stated or implied, agorazo may often be better translated as ‘acquire’ or ‘obtain.’38

Further, the text provides no purpose clause or infinitive denoting “condition” or “intent.” The term agorazo is an aorist participle. Literally, the text reads: “denying the One who bought them Master.” The insertion of implicit meanings like “to purchase,” “in order to redeem,” “Jesus died to purchase (bought them) them,” or “Jesus died for their salvation (potentially),” is textually untenable. The result is eisegetical (reading into the text) and not exegetical (drawing out from the text). 

Is There a Redemptive Sense in 2 Peter?
 

Having considered, then, some of the basic features that underscore a redemptive sense for our term, agorazo, one more consideration needs to be observed as we seek to ascertain the sense that Peter is using.
 

In discussing a redemptive or non-redemptive sense, in needs to be noted that I am being very nuanced in my distinctions. In other words, while some have pointed to references where Peter does use soteriologial language (1:3, 10, 11; 3:15), I do not believe these are relevant to the text at hand. First, because the noted references are directed in the second person to those Peter is writing. This is unlike the use of the third person, which Peter uses in his warning concerning the false teachers. Paul does a similar thing in making a distinction between the Galatians and those “false brothers” who were promoting the Judazing heresy. Hence, there is no exegetical connection to the soteriological references cited, and the specific context found in 2 Peter 2:1.
 

Moreover, as I indicated, I am being more nuanced in the establishment of a redemptive sense than the point being argued for with those references. That is, while there may be many similarities between terms that bear a soteriological sense, and those that bear a redemptive sense, many of the key terms are simply not synonyms. I believe redemptive and mediatorial designations are much more restrictive, more in line with the opposite argument, and hence I place more emphasis on their implications relevant to 2 Peter 2:1.
 

One need only consider what is being assumed from the other perspective: Christ died for these men. At issue is not election, regeneration, calling, perseverance, etc. Terms that all bear a certain soteriological sense, but in themselves do not bear, necessarily, the mediatorial, redemptive sense associated with the work of Christ; the very sense being argued for by the general redemptionist. Hence, my definition (and that of Reformed writers who argue this same point) is co-extensive with the sense for which the opposing view is arguing. And when we consider those more restrictive categories, prompted by the very argument established by general redemptionists, we see that no such sense can be found, not only in 2 Peter 2:1, but in the entirety of Peter’s letter. For there is nothing in the whole letter that addresses the atonement at all (unless 2 Peter 2:1 is the lone exception). For all the key terms normally associated with the work of Christ (apolutrosis-redemption, stauros-cross, aima-blood, lutroomai-redeem, hilasmos-propitiation) are never mentioned even once in the entirety of Peter's letter. This is certainly no small detail to ignore.

The issue, then, as it relates to 2 Peter is clear: since the bulk of textual evidence strongly suggests that a non-redemptive sense is the sense being utilized by Peter, then why should we understand it any differently? Unless, of course, there are external considerations not specifically derived from the text itself.
 

Therefore, having established two legitimate categories for the term agorazo (redemptive and non-redemptive), which is the sense that Peter used? If one wishes to dismiss the exegetical evidence that seemingly militates against a redemptive sense (though such evidence would need to be dismissed on exegetical grounds and not simply a theological commitment), then it would seem that such a one is also bound to defend the following conclusions:
 

        1.  These men were men bought/redeemed but have fallen away i.e. they have lost their salvation.
2.    These were men who professed faith in Christ but gave evidence that they were not redeemed after all.39 In other words they claimed to have been redeemed (bought) but were lying so as to gain a greater hearing among the people.
3.   Remembering the Jewish context,40 the Old Testament allusion to false prophets (eudoprofh/tai), the “them” (auvtou.j) in the text is not a reference to the false teachers (yeudodida,skaloi) but to the people (tw/| law/|). Hence the false teachers denied their sovereign God who delivered or redeemed the people (lao,j). 

Which is it? Whatever else Peter may be saying, what he is not saying is that these were men who were potentially bought and hence did not belong to the Master at all.  Does the passage, then, suggest that though Jesus died to purchase these men (who became false teachers) they will not be redeemed after all? Does it actually support the position that there are those for whom Christ died who will ultimately perish? A carefully study of the issues, as just observed, strongly suggests otherwise!

 
To summarize this argument, then: in the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used, only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and b) in every case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4). None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1.
 

What is it Saying?

It has been demonstrated that the term “Master” (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 Deut. 32:5-641) 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 hnq’ (qanah) is kta,omai (ktaomai) and is interchangeable42 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”43 them, and “established”44 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” (v.5), they “corrupted themselves” (Deut. 32:5), became “foolish and unwise” (v.6), forgot that God was their Sovereign Owner and Master (v.6), turned to idolatry (v.16-21) and brought judgment upon themselves (22-43). 

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.45...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.46

Looking again at our text we read:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

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. Paul was uncertain of what lay ahead for him in Jerusalem:

And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. (Acts 20:22-23)

Peter sensing that his death was immanent writes:

Knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind. (2 Peter 1:14-15)

Paul therefore provides this sobering warning:

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30)

Peter offers the same warning: 

Just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies. (2 Peter 2:1)

Please notice that both Paul and Peter in the midst of such warning provide the believer with a refuge, the only refuge and source of truth against all enemies of the faith.  Paul writes:

For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:27, 32)

Peter reminds his audience of the same:

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

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 context47 in which Peter is writing.

Peter quickly alludes to Old Testament48 imagery all too familiar particularly in a Jewish context. Just as there were “false prophets”49 among the people of Israel so there will be false teachers evn umi/n (among you).50

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 fruit51 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 denying52 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 destruction53 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 Deut. 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 (Heb. 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.