While agreeing with Limited Atonement, the author takes exception with Long’s thesis in Definite Atonement that δεσπότης in 2 Pet 2:1 “does not refer to Christ with particular respect to his office and function as mediator”
but rather to his
sovereignty as the Lord of creation, providence, and judgment alongside the
Father. He argues that of the twenty occurrences of δεσπότης in the Septuagint
alongside the ten occurrences in the New Testament, the term never refers to
the Father or to the Son as mediator. Even in Jude 4, Long reasons, where
δεσπότης is used of Christ, it does not speak of Christ in his capacity
as redeemer but as sovereign Lord, owner of each member of the human race. When
Christ is referred to as mediator, he argues, Scripture employs either one of
his redemptive titles (e.g., the Lamb of God) or speaks of the price laid down
for the purchase of redemption (e.g., his blood). As a result, then, though
Christ is the δεσπότης who bought the false teachers, his buying them ought not
to be understood in a soteriological sense. Rather, it refers to acquiring
them, in a manner similar to the way the Father acquired the false prophets of
Israel when he delivered the entire nation from slavery in Egypt (cf. Deut
32:5–6; 2 Pet 2:1, 13). Like the false prophets who were delivered from their
outward slavery, so also these false teachers were delivered from their outward
corruption, having externally “escaped the defilements of the world” (2 Pet
2:20), that is, by no longer associating with pagan idolatry and worldly
immorality. Also like the false prophets, however, their association with the
people of God did not mean they were genuine believers, and after a time they
denied the Master who acquired them. Thus, Long claims, 2 Pet 2:1 poses no
threat to particular redemption, because Christ’s spiritual redemption from sin
is not in view here.
Long’s case is persuasive
but ultimately unconvincing, not only because it depends on a reading of ἀγοράζω
that is lexically indefensible, as will be demonstrated below, but also because
it is difficult to accept that 2 Pet 2:1 provides no reference to Christ as
mediator. Since, as argued above, 2 Pet 2:1 is parallel with Jude 4, and since
the context of Jude 4 is clearly soteriological given its reference to “common
salvation” (Jude 3) and “the grace of our God” (Jude 4), it is legitimate to
read the δεσπότης of 2 Pet 2:1 as the δεσπότης of Jude 4, namely, the Master as
Savior and not merely the Master as creator. Thus, if particular redemption
will survive the scrutiny of 2 Pet 2:1, it will do so by means other than
Long’s explanation. (Michael Riccardi, To Save Sinners: A Critical
Evaluation of the Multiple Intentions View of the Atonement [Eugene, Oreg.:
Wipf and Stock, 2023], 234-35)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
