Wednesday, September 20, 2006

II Peter 2 and Universal Atonement


II PETER 2



1 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 (NASB)


This passage was used by a friend as proof against the reformed understanding of soteriology, so I want to examine the reasons for further exegesis of this passage than that of what might be called “a plain reading interpretation”.

For example; the plain reading might be understood by saying the following: “The false teachers denied Jesus who had redeemed them with His blood”; equaling, Universal Atonement. Or, “They lost their salvation even though Jesus died for them on the cross”; equaling, Unsecured salvation.


These types of interpretations present us with the need to exegete the passage further. This need arises because of the obvious contradictions that the above understanding would indeed cause with other areas of Scripture. The result of a universal atonement meaning of this verse devastates’ other areas of basic Christian theology. I will try to explain.


Even the most hard core libertarian free will advocate believes that the benefits of Christ’s atonement do not take effect until the person “accepts Christ”. In other words, the tenants of the atonement, i.e. propitiation (to turn aside wrath), ransomed or redeemed (payment of penalty), Expiation ( covering of sin) and reconciliation (satisfaction for sin or satisfied after being wronged enabling parties to unite) are not applied to the sinners account until that sinner exercises faith, repentance, and belief in Jesus (the Calvinist simply believes this happened at the cross and the very blood of Jesus guarantees the sinners conversion in the fore mentioned manner), any way, as concerning this text as being used to advocate a general atonement you have the participants actions as clues to the meaning. That is, you have false teachers who were never in the family of God, never “accepting Jesus”, in fact, the text says they did just the opposite, they denied Him. If the word bought here means, “bought redemptively with His blood” these benefits of this ‘buying’ were not applied to their account because they DENIED Him instead of “accepting Him”. They secretly came into the church for the whole purpose of expounding false doctrine. It isn’t that they were saved, and then they were not saved. They never were, they were false and never were true believers, only in the church for the sole purpose of destroying it. Surely they were tares among the wheat. If they never were part of Christ’s true church, they never would receive the previously discussed benefits of the atonement. This is very important to understand. Also, they were destroyed by judgment as stated in the passage. If a general atonement is meant in this passage, than all the passages that teach eternal security would have to be reinterpreted (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:39; 10:28-29; Rom. 8: 38-39; Eph. 1:13-14). Then you have some being ’owned receptively’ yet are later destroyed. Even further in this passage the text proves this. In verse 9, Peter says God knows how to rescue His own from temptation. He knows how to rescue His own, yet the false teachers are destroyed because they were not then, nor never were “His own”. In the end, this passage MUST mean something totally different then “bought = all benefits of Atonement” in order to flow with the continuity of Scripture as a whole, even if the person exegeting does in fact believe in a general atonement, this verse does not support his theology, and in fact, contradicts. For these very reasons, further study of the verse is needed to discover the possible meanings other than that of a universal atonement. Please understand, I am not saying that the Bible does not teach a universal atonement (when you know I believe it indeed doesn’t) I am simply trying to show that this verse cannot be used in support of a general atonement and if it is, it causes far more troublesome reverberations to the holder of eternal security that it does to the particular redemptionist.


I believe further enquiry of two keys words within the text should bring about a couple of interpretative possibilities.

First, the Greek word for bought, agorazo, in its usage in the NT means to buy or purchase an object. It portrays actual possession and ownership of the object paid for. The owner of said object has complete authority over as he exerts his ownership. A few instances, agorazo is used to reference individuals rather than objects (I Cor7:23). At first glance, these two seem to be synonymous with the meaning of the verse we are exploring. But, as I hope we shall see, they are similar yet vastly different. The important thing to remember is that this word conveys complete ownership, which again would bring into question the redeeming of these individuals with blood, bringing about all the factors of the atonement to the individual, and than ultimately destroying them for their sin. This same word, used in a salvific sense is changed to its variant of exagorazo, which means the “ransoming out of something” (Gal. 3:13; 4:5). Yet, its New Testament usage for conveying acquirement of an object is agorazo, which is what is used in this passage under scrutiny. So how can these false teachers have been owned by the
Sovereign, yet destroyed for their heresies? I hope to show this below. 1

The second word that requires our attention, despotes is the word translated master in the NASB and lord in most others. It is used else where in the N.T. depicting a master over his servants or slaves. If, in this text it means “Jesus Christ” it would be unique in that regard as it is not used else where to signify Jesus. Although, master or lord in its ultimate sense is the one with supreme authority and this is in fact Jesus, so that is a violable possibility indeed and we will return to that possibility below.


But false prophets also arose among the people,

Peter here is describing the rise of false prophets in times past of the Jewish nation. Moses gave qualifications of a prophet and warned the people that some would speak in the name of the Lord without being from the Lord.

Deut 13:1-3 (NASB)
1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deut 18:20-22 (NASB)
20 'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 "You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22 "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies

To Peter and his readers, false preachers and teachers were nothing new. So it was in the days of old, so it is in Peter’s day. The world is constantly seeking to sneak in and destroy the family of God. (see also Jude 4, Act 20:29-30) The key part of this passage is in the ‘secret ness’ of the false teachers. There was no regenerate heart of a Christian, accidentally teaching incorrectly but rather they were engaged in deceit and wickedness, acting covertly and where never part of the family of God. They were deceptive and sought to supplant the truth with false doctrines.


even denying the Master who bought them


Possibility #1a

As we look at the controversial section of this passage lets not forget Peter’s use of Jewish history, particularly the Pentateuch of Moses and how he has in fact already referenced it in verse 1a. Also note worthy is that Peter is the Apostle to the Jews as stated by Paul in Gal 2:7-8.
With this in mind, as well as the opening verse of Peter’s first letter, we can determine that at least some if not all his readers were Jews.

The second letter is linked to the first by way of 2 Peter 3:1

2 Peter 3:1 (NASB)
1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you, in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,

To a Jewish mind, and Peter’s continual reference to the Torah, it is very possible that Peter’s intention once again is likening the false teachers of his day to those of Moses’. As the children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt they were said to be ‘bought’ by God the Father. Peter may simply be saying that these false teachers were teaching heresies denying God who bought them as a people. Meaning the Jewish nation as a whole as being purchased by God as His own.

Ex 15:16 (NASB)
16 "Terror and dread fall upon them; By the greatness of Your arm they are motionless as stone; Until Your people pass over, O LORD, Until the people pass over whom You have purchased.

But, we know that from this people who were purchased as God’s own in the Old Testament, only a small portion of them, called a remnant, were actually saved redemptively. So you have a people purchased out of Egypt who not all are saved. So you have these Jews, who Peter refers to them as being ‘bought’, yet they are not in the ransomed group of regenerate believers, rather they are ravenous wolfs seeking to destroy. We know this is possible because Paul tells us that not all Israel is of Israel and His purpose of election does not save everyone.

Romans 9:6 (NASB)
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

So basically I am saying that despotes hear means Yahweh of the Old Testament and being bought is another way of addressing a Jew and identifying him as someone who has not embraced the Messiah but rather have set out to destroy those who have. The possibilities of this could have support lent to it from the various other texts that speak of the Judizers who pervert the Gospel.


Possibility #1b

Gnostics as well might be the root cause of these heresies. They rejected the God of the Old Testament as creator of the universe had a tendency to antinomianism perverting the grace of God by seeking out desires of the flesh and relishing in them (the rest of the chapter lays out this proposal). This to me is a better possibility then that of the focus being Judaizers, yet these Gnostics could have been Jews or Gentiles. But the point being that they were visible members of the New Covenant community (church) yet they were never apart of God’s invisible church or the true covenant members who had received the New Birth and resurrection of life into the New and better Covenant. They were the tares among the wheat.


Possibility #2

This possibility has to do with Jesus as the focus of the word despotes (master/lord). As mentioned above, this would be the only place where despotes is used in the New Testament to signify Jesus Christ.
Let’s assume it is in fact Jesus Christ. As Christ set out to accomplish His work on the cross, the work that was delegated from before the very foundation of the world, the rule and governing of all things was in sight. A significant aspect of His resurrection and ascension is that He is seated at the right hand of the Father, ruling with all power and authority. Allot of commentators today give Christ authority over only His church, but I believe, and will try to show He in fact has authority of all of creation.

First, let’s look at the great Commission in Matthew 28

Matt 28:17-20 (NASB)
17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Jesus states “All authority over heaven and earth”. Some attribute Jesus as Heavenly King yet Satan is the god of this world. Christ stated this after His resurrection and just before His heavenly enthronement to the right hand of the Father. This great event, spoken of by the Profit Daniel as well gives us insight to the kingship of Christ over creation.

Dan 7:13-14 (NASB)
13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one

This is the very event spoke of Jesus on the Mount of Olives as recorded in Matthew 24,(Luke 21, Mark 13)

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (KJV)

The Son of Man is in Heaven enthroned with all power and authority. Anticipating the cross, and subsequent Ascension to the Father as heir of all things, Jesus says in John 17:1-2, a passage that indeed fits the motif of His authority as a result of His finished work of redemption.


1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.


Notice something very important here, Jesus has been given all authority by the Father, here and in the previously looked at passages, yet separated from all things (including all men every where) are those whom He has been giving to redeem. This is very important. God the Father, as a result of the finished work of God the Son incarnate, gave Jesus all power and authority over all things, yet He as well gave Him a remnant to redeem and bestow His Sovereign Grace upon from which He will loose none. This shows the act of Atonement brought about ownership of all things and all people, yet only atoning for the sins of those given Him to redeem by the Father. This aspect of the ministry of Christ is often doctrinally passed over. Among the great doctrines associated with the passion of Christ, this one should be the over arching theme by way of the enthronement and kingship earned by His obedience at God's probation tree.


Conclusion

Taking this passage to show universal atonement, yet holding on to a secure salvation is problematic indeed. The typical Baptist once saved always saved-universal atonement type theology is rendered faulty by anything greater than a cursory look at the above passage. Although some may take issue with my proposals, they are far more viable then a simplistic reading of the passage. To be fair, the 5 point Armenian will have the lest problem with this verse, yet as we understand, this verse must be looked at within the complete confines of the Scripture.


Foot Notes
1) The Greek word agorazo in this section is adapted from a word study done by Clinton Briar.

6 Comments:

Blogger Gordan said...

Hank, I have nothing to back this up, but I heard a Bible teacher once suggest that the Greek in the passage could be translated, "denying that the Lord bought them," which certainly puts a different spin on things. I think, though, this is an unlikely solution, just owing to the fact that I've never seen or heard it anywhere else.

9:35 PM  
Blogger Chuck said...

Hank,

I feel that you need to do a little more research and put a little more thought into this...Just kidding. This verse could be a problem. Good job in the explanation. By the way I am starting one of the books you gave me tonight. God bless and keep up the good work.

8:37 AM  
Blogger Hank said...

Gordan
I have read that the denying was not Jesus Himself, than they would not be professing Christians but I think this is wrong because of the secret nature in which they sought to spread their poison. But your right, it would jostle things up some if that wording is correct!

Most reformed folk hold to the LORD being the Father and they denied Him as author of salvation. I think this is very likely, yet I cant help return to Christ's exaltation as Lord and having dominion over all as a better explanation.
Thanks for the input!

Chuck
You dog! See ya Sunday bro and thanks for the encouragement ;)

5:45 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Hank,

I have been over this issue more times than I care to count. I think ou laid out the basic presuppositions well and then pointed back to the biblical hermeneutic to substantiate your conclusions. It would be so easy, to simply point to the fact that this verse does not even discuss the effects of the atonement, or for that fact, the atonement itself. The Greek seems to be very clear in affirming exactly what is said and that is that these false teachers HAVE NOT BEEN PURCHASED with the blood of Christ, but are in fact going to be judged. I wish all SBCer's would just read this post with a rational thinking mind, instead of becoming emotional at it.

9:29 AM  
Blogger Gordan said...

Hank, just re-read this post and another thought occurs to me, which you pointed to above. Tares in the wheat field. Even baptists who believe in a regnerate congregation believe that the purest churches under heaven are still mixtures, and that the unregenerate do still manage to sneak in undetected.

So I'm wondering if it isn't possible that Peter here is talking about these false teachers as they would talk about themselves. That is, they'd claim loudly, all day long, to have been purchased by the blood of Jesus, but at the end, their actions deny their words.

I agree that the most important thing to realize here is that the verse isn't teaching something that is flatly denied in the rest of Scripture.

11:37 AM  
Blogger Hank said...

Gordan

Your suggestion is interestingly simple and fits as well with the underhandedness of their deeds. The flow of your idea is very nice.

I like it!!

8:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home