Although he (lamely) tries to defend Reformed theology, Thomas Schreiner does a good job at discussing 2 Pet 2:1 (if one can sift the Calvinistic nonsense causing him to speak from both sides of his mouth]):
The root problem with these false teachers is conveyed in
the phrase “even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” The NIV captures
precisely the meaning of kai by
translating it “even.” The Greek word despotēs
is not the usual one for “Lord,” and again the NIV’s rendering is felicitous
(“sovereign Lord”). The word designates earthly masters of slaves in several
texts (1 Tim 6:1–2; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), or it emphasizes God’s lordship
(Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim 2:21; Jude 4; Rev 6:10; cf. Gen 15:2, 8; Isa 1:24;
3:1; 10:33). This verse may be the only text in the New Testament where the
term refers to Jesus Christ, though Jude 4 may be another instance. A reference
to Jesus Christ is likely in the phrase he “bought them” (cf. Rev 5:9). The
verb for “bought” (agorazō) is part
of the redemption word group in the New Testament. Jesus as Lord bought them as
his slaves, and he purchased them through his atoning death on the cross. Peter
would not speak of the false teachers as bought by the death of the Lord if
they were pagan outsiders. The expression indicates that the false teachers
were part of the church Peter addressed, that they professed faith in Jesus
Christ. At one time they were loyal servants of Jesus Christ, but now they
denied the Lord who spilled his blood for them.
The language of denial alludes to Jesus’ words, “Whoever
denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (Matt
10:33, NRSV). Those who deny Jesus will experience eschatological judgment when
he denies them forever before his Father. From the remainder of 2 Peter it is
evident that the denial of Jesus’ lordship was practical, in that they rejected
his moral authority over their lives. It is harder to discern whether specific
Christological errors were part of the denial. Probably the denial of the
second coming of Christ should be included here, for in doing so they in effect
rejected his lordship (cf. 2 Pet 3:4–7). Those who introduce false teaching and
deny the Lord Jesus Christ will bring “swift destruction on themselves.” Peter
used the same word for “destruction” (apōleia)
that was appended to the word “heresies” in this verse. The word is a common
one in the New Testament for the eschatological punishment to come. We already
noted that those who deny Jesus will be denied before the Father. Peter
clarified here that the false teachers were not guilty of minor defections but
that judgment awaited them if they did not repent. The word “swift” (tachinēn) could also be translated
“sudden.” We do not need to choose between these ideas. The judgment will be
sudden, and it will be soon. Bauckham rightly remarks that Peter did not
repudiate an imminent eschatology, even though he refused to calculate when the
end would arrive.16
In the history of theology two issues have arisen in the
interpretation of this verse, and they are related. Was Peter teaching that
believers can commit apostasy and lose their salvation? Furthermore, did he
teach what is called “unlimited atonement,” that is, the idea that Christ died
for all people, but only those who believe in Christ receive the benefit of the
atonement that was offered to all? We should reject the interpretation defended
by J. Owen, for he argued that the “buying” done by Christ was nonsoteriological
in this text, so that Peter did not even have spiritual salvation in mind. The
problem with this view is that the New Testament nowhere else uses the word for
redemption in association with Christ in a nonsoteriological sense (cf. 1 Cor 6:20;
7:23; 1 Pet 1:18–19; Rev 5:9; 14:3–4). The interpretation suffers from special
pleading since redemption is invariably soteriological.
We should note that many scholars who defend “unlimited
atonement” also think that believers cannot lose their salvation. But a problem
also arises for their interpretation. The verse seems to say that
eschatological judgment will be the destiny of those who were bought by the
Lord, who were members of the church, who, apparently, acknowledged Jesus
Christ at some point as their Lord and Savior. The verse does not refer to
people in general who are the potential
beneficiaries of Christ’s death. It speaks of false teachers who were part of
Peter’s church and had now rejected the gospel they first embraced. The entire
discussion on limited atonement in this verse cannot be segregated from the
issue of whether believers can truly apostatize. That is an issue we will face
again in this chapter since Peter spoke of those who “have left the straight
way” (2:15), of those who have escaped the clutches of the world through
knowing Christ but have subsequently been entangled and conquered by the world
again (2:20), of those who have known the way of righteousness but have now
turned from it (2:21). The issue raised by these verses will be discussed in
2:17–22. We must see, however, that 2:1 raises fundamentally the same question.
The easiest solution, in some ways, would be to take the
verse straightforwardly. Some who submit to Christ’s lordship subsequently deny
him and are therefore damned forever. This is now the view of most
commentators, and it has the virtue of providing a lucid and uncomplicated
understanding of the text. At one level the proposed interpretation is correct.
Some members of the Christian community had departed from the Christian faith.
The issue is whether those who are genuinely Christians can commit apostasy.
Peter taught elsewhere that those who are called by God’s grace are effectually
called by his own glory and excellence (2 Pet 1:3), and 1 Pet 1:5 clearly says
that those who belong to God will be preserved by his power through faith so
that they will possess eschatological salvation. When we add to this many other
texts that teach that those whom God has called will never perish (e.g., Rom
8:28–39; 1 Cor 1:8–9; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23–24), it suggests that we should
consider another interpretation. I would suggest that Peter used
phenomenological language. In other words, he described the false teachers as
believers because they made a profession of faith and gave every appearance
initially of being genuine believers. Peter did not refer to those who had been
outside the community of faith but to those who were part of the church and
perhaps even leaders among God’s people. Their denial of Jesus Christ reveals
that they did not truly belong to God, even though they professed faith. Peter
said that they were bought by Jesus Christ, in the sense that they gave every
indication initially of genuine faith. In every church there are members who
appear to be believers and who should be accepted as believers according to the
judgment of charity. As time elapses and difficulties arise, it becomes
apparent that they are wolves in the flock (Acts 20:29–30), that though they
called on Jesus as Lord their disobedience shows that he never knew them (Matt 7:21–23), that they are like the seed sown on
rocky or thorny ground that initially bears fruit but dries up and dies when
hard times come (Matt 13:20–22). (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude
[The New American Commentary 37; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers,
2003], 328-32)
To Support this Blog: