2 Peter 2:1 Master who bought them

[ElectedbyHim]

2 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.

I have been studying this verse for quite a while.

Commentaries vary on the interpretation.

My assumption is that the Master who bought them is the Lord and the people in the verse are false prophets/teachers. (apostates/false christians?)

Anyhow I am trying to wrap my head around this and struggling with it.

I understand it but I do not.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[makesends]

2 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.

I have been studying this verse for quite a while.

Commentaries vary on the interpretation.

My assumption is that the Master who bought them is the Lord and the people in the verse are false prophets/teachers. (apostates/false christians?)

Anyhow I am trying to wrap my head around this and struggling with it.

I understand it but I do not.

Grace and peace to you.

My best guess is that it is just common use of language. We all do use language this way, leaving out significant words, since the listener understands; in this case he might have meant, "...denying the Master, who [supposedly] bought them...", or, "...denying [whom they profess to be] the Master who bought them...". I have seen this sort of thing in just about any language in my experience, —(not that I am any authority on languages..."

Also, it could be, "...[thus] denying [that he is] the Master who bought them...", or "...even denying [that he is] the Master who bought them..."

 

[Mr GLee]

2 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.

I have been studying this verse for quite a while.

Commentaries vary on the interpretation.

My assumption is that the Master who bought them is the Lord and the people in the verse are false prophets/teachers. (apostates/false christians?)

Anyhow I am trying to wrap my head around this and struggling with it.

I understand it but I do not.

Grace and peace to you.

Hi, I would offer Christ who makes men different said. It a must that mankind has differences in opinion or private interpretations (personal commentary) of what each individual thinks Christ is teaching . . . called heresies. This is seeing the kingdom of God does not come by looking at the dying temporal things seen but does come by Christ in us working with us revealing the things not seen (faith Power)) .

We are the Temple not made with human hand (oral traditions)

There were false apostles as teachers sent with false prophecies oral traditions of I heard it through the father grape vine Like the Pharisees

Some were holding on to the oral tradition of certain fathers. . queen mother of heaven his and hers gods (Jeremiah 44:17)

Teaching the non-venerable she alone received the full of grace the entire cost of salvation while the rest of the world an unknown remnant of grace and must continue to suffer and wonder after they take their last breath of oxygen

Believers receive the end of their new born again salvation from the beginning. No need for suffering and wondering .

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying (salvation) the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Follow true prophecy sola scriptura, Put on and keep on as long as possible the armor of God it protects you from those who do despite the grace of Christ through the father of lying signs to wonder, wonder, wonder after as if true prophecy (sola scriptura) Use the shield of faithfulness that reveals. . it's not flesh and blood that we wrestle with but is the accuser of the brethren falsely accusing believers' day and night. . . .24/7

 

[ElectedbyHim]

My best guess is that it is just common use of language. We all do use language this way, leaving out significant words, since the listener understands; in this case he might have meant, "...denying the Master, who [supposedly] bought them...", or, "...denying [whom they profess to be] the Master who bought them...". I have seen this sort of thing in just about any language in my experience, —(not that I am any authority on languages..."

Also, it could be, "...[thus] denying [that he is] the Master who bought them...", or "...even denying [that he is] the Master who bought them..."

Just wonder why Peter would use the word bought.

But like you said it was a common use of language at that time.




Denying (ἀρνουμενοι [arnoumenoi]). Present middle participle of ἀρνεομαι [arneomai]. This the Gnostics did, the very thing that Peter did, alas (Matt. 26:70) even after Christ’s words (Matt. 10:33). Even the Master (και τον δεσποτην [kai ton despotēn]). Old word for absolute master, here of Christ as in Jude 4, and also of God (Acts 4:24). Without the evil sense in our “despot.” That bought them (τον ἀγορασαντα αὐτους [ton agorasanta autous]). First aorist active articular participle of ἀγοραζω [agorazō], same idea with λυτροω [lutroō] in 1 Pet. 1:18f. These were professing Christians, at any rate, these heretics. Swift destruction (ταχινην ἀπωλειαν [tachinēn apōleian]). See 1:14 for ταχινην [tachinēn] and note repetition of ἀπωλειαν [apōleian]. This is always the tragedy of such false prophets, the fate that they bring on (ἐπαγοντες [epagontes]) themselves.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 2 Pe 2:1.

 

[Arial]

2 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.

I have been studying this verse for quite a while.

Commentaries vary on the interpretation.

My assumption is that the Master who bought them is the Lord and the people in the verse are false prophets/teachers. (apostates/false christians?)

Anyhow I am trying to wrap my head around this and struggling with it.

I understand it but I do not.

Grace and peace to you.

Peter is describing the false teachers in terms of their own profession of faith? (vv 20 and 21) Their teaching and practicing immortality dispises the lordship of Christ. It proves their profession to be false.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Peter is describing the false teachers in terms of their own profession of faith? (vv 20 and 21) Their teaching and practicing immortality dispises the lordship of Christ. It proves their profession to be false.

I agree 100%.

The word "bought" is messing with me in the verse.

I uderstand limited atonement, but I just cannot get over that word.

The non-Calvinist will use the verse to try and debunk OSAS and limited atonement.

Most likely with everything else I am overthinking this.

 

[Arial]

I agree 100%.

The word "bought" is messing with me in the verse.

I uderstand limited atonement, but I just cannot get over that word.

The non-Calvinist will use the verse to try and debunk OSAS and limited atonement.

Most likely with everything else I am overthinking this.

This is true,they will use it to debunk OSAS. Just as they typically use one isolate scripture to debunk many things, without ever taking context or other scriptures into consideration. Not even after the contradiction they are making is pointed out.

The passage in 2 Peter cannot mean we lose our salvation because of this:

John 10:28,29; Romans 8:28-30. Among many others.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

This is true,they will use it to debunk OSAS. Just as they typically use one isolate scripture to debunk many things, without ever taking context or other scriptures into consideration. Not even after the contradiction they are making is pointed out.

The passage in 2 Peter cannot mean we lose our salvation because of this:

John 10:28,29; Romans 8:28-30. Among many others.

Agreed.

The one passage thing to justify a doctrine never made sense to me.

Most of the people I have interacted with on these things, tell me they only use the Bible and any resources outside the Bible is man made and should not be used.

There is volumes to say, just about that statement alone.

Thank you.

 

[Dave]

Macarthur says that one must assume unsaved people in that church. He points to Matthew 13 parable of the Sower. It reminds me of "Why do you say Lord, Lord and do not do what I ask? Luke 6:46-49

He also said to look at Jude, which parallels much of what Peter is saying. Maybe that can shed some light.

Macarthur...

"Some people have wondered why he added "who bought them." It's because a master, a despotēs, of a house bought the slaves and the slaves owed him allegiance as their sovereign. They bore his name, they were associated with his estate, but they refused to submit to his authority. That's the analogy. This describes those who claim to believe in Christ. They affirm the atonement; they affirm that He bought them with His death. They affirm that they belong to Him. The word "bought" is agorazō, simply means to buy, to purchase.

There are two ways to understand this, apart from the analogy. The analogy simply says "unthinkably, unimaginably, having been bought by a master they refuse to submit to his authority." In the spiritual dimension you would ask the question: In what sense did Christ buy these false teachers? Two ways to view it. First of all, you can view it as universal provision for the redemption of sinners, even though they refuse it and are damned.

But I think there is a second sense in which we have to understand this, that they have made an earthly identification with Christ's redemption so that they claim Him as the one who bought them and they claim Him as their Redeemer, testifying that He indeed has bought them and their word then is taken at face value. No matter what they say, though they say they are Christ's, they refuse to say yes to His sovereign lordship and thus they are false teachers."

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/61-17/a-portrait-of-false-teachers-part-2

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Macarthur says that one must assume unsaved people in that church. He points to Matthew 13 parable of the Sower. It reminds me of "Why do you say Lord, Lord and do not do what I ask? Luke 6:46-49

He also said to look at Jude, which parallels much of what Peter is saying. Maybe that can shed some light.

Macarthur...

"Some people have wondered why he added "who bought them." It's because a master, a despotēs, of a house bought the slaves and the slaves owed him allegiance as their sovereign. They bore his name, they were associated with his estate, but they refused to submit to his authority. That's the analogy. This describes those who claim to believe in Christ. They affirm the atonement; they affirm that He bought them with His death. They affirm that they belong to Him. The word "bought" is agorazō, simply means to buy, to purchase.

There are two ways to understand this, apart from the analogy. The analogy simply says "unthinkably, unimaginably, having been bought by a master they refuse to submit to his authority." In the spiritual dimension you would ask the question: In what sense did Christ buy these false teachers? Two ways to view it. First of all, you can view it as universal provision for the redemption of sinners, even though they refuse it and are damned.

But I think there is a second sense in which we have to understand this, that they have made an earthly identification with Christ's redemption so that they claim Him as the one who bought them and they claim Him as their Redeemer, testifying that He indeed has bought them and their word then is taken at face value. No matter what they say, though they say they are Christ's, they refuse to say yes to His sovereign lordship and thus they are false teachers."

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/61-17/a-portrait-of-false-teachers-part-2

Yes, I have his commentary on this. he explains it better than most commentators.

 

[makesends]

Just wonder why Peter would use the word bought.

But like you said it was a common use of language at that time.

I suppose also that others here might say that in fact, within the notion that Christ's sacrifice (payment) was "sufficient", it is implied that they, like all humanity, were in some sense, "bought". I disagree, not that his sacrifice was not sufficient, but that it actually paid for any sin(s) but those of the elect.

However, there is within the power of His sacrifice, the restoration of all things, so, I've still got a lot to learn there.

Denying (ἀρνουμενοι [arnoumenoi]). Present middle participle of ἀρνεομαι [arneomai]. This the Gnostics did, the very thing that Peter did, alas (Matt. 26:70) even after Christ’s words (Matt. 10:33). Even the Master (και τον δεσποτην [kai ton despotēn]). Old word for absolute master, here of Christ as in Jude 4, and also of God (Acts 4:24). Without the evil sense in our “despot.” That bought them (τον ἀγορασαντα αὐτους [ton agorasanta autous]). First aorist active articular participle of ἀγοραζω [agorazō], same idea with λυτροω [lutroō] in 1 Pet. 1:18f. These were professing Christians, at any rate, these heretics. Swift destruction (ταχινην ἀπωλειαν [tachinēn apōleian]). See 1:14 for ταχινην [tachinēn] and note repetition of ἀπωλειαν [apōleian]. This is always the tragedy of such false prophets, the fate that they bring on (ἐπαγοντες [epagontes]) themselves.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 2 Pe 2:1.

Good study

 

[makesends]

I agree 100%.

The word "bought" is messing with me in the verse.

I uderstand limited atonement, but I just cannot get over that word.

The non-Calvinist will use the verse to try and debunk OSAS and limited atonement.

Most likely with everything else I am overthinking this.

I don't call it overthinking (lest I criticize myself, ), but it is easy to go down rabbit holes. Words mess with our thinking.

Here it may even indicate that larger "purchase" of the creation, back to God, in which 'purchase' the false teachers do not identify themselves, but, instead, are their own authorities. (NO NO! Please! Don't let my words mess with your head! They are already worn out from messing with mine!)

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I don't call it overthinking (lest I criticize myself, ), but it is easy to go down rabbit holes. Words mess with our thinking.

Here it may even indicate that larger "purchase" of the creation, back to God, in which 'purchase' the false teachers do not identify themselves, but, instead, are their own authorities. (NO NO! Please! Don't let my words mess with your head! They are already worn out from messing with mine!)

Haha

 

[Rye]

The text is somewhat ambiguous. Usually when referring to the atonement, the price of what is bought is also mentioned.

1 Corinthians 6:20 - For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

We also don't know if "The Master" is referring to the Son or the Father. It's possible that Peter is making reference to the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 32:6 - Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

Further, it is not possible that they were bought in a salvific way since they are headed towards destruction and later we are told that they are like dogs returning to their vomit.

2 Peter 2:22 - But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

 

[Mr GLee]

Just wonder why Peter would use the word bought.

But like you said it was a common use of language at that time.

I would offer bought or purchased is in opposition, denying the need of salvation.

Peter the serial denier (4 times) in his own words used as an antichrist false apostle, sent by Satan the spirit of lies as a false teacher teaching commandments as oral traditions of men.

Peter rebuked the Holy Father not seen and forbid the Son of man Jesus from doing the powerful will of the Holy Father.

Mathew 16:22-23Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Peter used as a serail denier in order to teach us not to think of men above all things written in the Law and prophets, sola scriptura.

On one occasion just being forgiven and reunited in fellowship, In evil eye of jealousy of John. Peter led by the spirit of lies (the antichrist) Peter went to town to start another oral tradition of mankind. Peter hoping to continue the false doctrine that mankind lives forever and does not die. The religion of reincarnation. As if John would come back in the same earthen body.

Jesus again rebuked Peter and declared or prophesied that if evetime he had to dispel the lies of oral traditions. (spirit of antichrists ) we would need a bigger planet to hold the volumes that could have been written .

One warning should have been enough not to blaspheme the name of the Son of man, Jesus Peter was forgiven. Blasphemy against the Holy Father no forgiveness

Joun 21:23Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?;This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

No power is attributed to the apostles

 

[Lees]

Just wonder why Peter would use the word bought.

But like you said it was a common use of language at that time.

I believe Peter used the word 'bought' because that is exactly what God has done. The price has been paid. We are bought and paid for. (1 Cor. 6:20) The move of God to 'redeem' speaks to buying back.

Now, the point of false teachers denying the Lord that bought them, shows that the price was paid for all born of Adam. But though the price was paid, that did not save anyone. One must be placed out of Adam and into Christ. And one comes into Christ by faith in Christ. (1 Cor. 15:22) (Rom. 4:3-5)

The word 'bought' bothers some because it shows the price was paid for all, even those false teachers. And to all who are sent to hell, the price was paid. But they reject God and Christ.

The word 'bought' bothers some because it implies human slavery. Especially bothersome to Americans. But the fact is, it is the truth. We were slaves of Satan and the world he rules. But we were bought from Another and made His slaves. We were not bought from Another to be independent. God is our Master and Lord. We are His slaves to serve Him. We are much more than that...but we are that.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I believe Peter used the word 'bought' because that is exactly what God has done. The price has been paid. We are bought and paid for. (1 Cor. 6:20) The move of God to 'redeem' speaks to buying back.

Now, the point of false teachers denying the Lord that bought them, shows that the price was paid for all born of Adam. But though the price was paid, that did not save anyone. One must be placed out of Adam and into Christ. And one comes into Christ by faith in Christ. (1 Cor. 15:22) (Rom. 4:3-5)

The word 'bought' bothers some because it shows the price was paid for all, even those false teachers. And to all who are sent to hell, the price was paid. But they reject God and Christ.

The word 'bought' bothers some because it implies human slavery. Especially bothersome to Americans. But the fact is, it is the truth. We were slaves of Satan and the world he rules. But we were bought from Another and made His slaves. We were not bought from Another to be independent. God is our Master and Lord. We are His slaves to serve Him. We are much more than that...but we are that.

My opinion.

Lees

I believe Peter used the word 'bought' because that is exactly what God has done. The price has been paid. We are bought and paid for. (1 Cor. 6:20) The move of God to 'redeem' speaks to buying back.

Only his elect are bought and paid for.

Paul was addressing Christians in that verse.

Now, the point of false teachers denying the Lord that bought them, shows that the price was paid for all born of Adam. But though the price was paid, that did not save anyone.

This implies that Christ died for the unregenerate, that His blood paid for their sins.

The word 'bought' bothers some because it shows the price was paid for all, even those false teachers. And to all who are sent to hell, the price was paid. But they reject God and Christ.

Christ did not atone for the sins of unsaved people who rejected Him and are in hell by their own choice.

If Christ died for all humans whoever lived there would be no one hell. His blood covered their sin of unbelief.

Seems like universalism to me.

The word 'bought' bothers some because it implies human slavery. Especially bothersome to Americans. But the fact is, it is the truth. We were slaves of Satan and the world he rules

This word is not bothersome to me for that reason.

I was once a slave of sin and now a slave (doulas) to Christ.

 

[Hazelelponi]

was once a slave of sin and now a slave (doulas) to Christ.

"False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you."

In the Exodus Israel was considered "bought" by God - even the unregenerate and false prophet who in death will face the judgement.

Through the deliverance of Israel in the Exodus, God "bought" the nation of Israel and thus Israel rightfully belonged to God as His peculiar people.

We see this in Deuteronomy 32:6: "Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you."

God "bought" Israel not by the death of Christ but, as the above Scripture says by forming the nation.

This in Exodus 15:16 also: "Terror and dread fall upon them; by the greatness of Thine arm they are motionless as stone; until thy people pass over, O Lord, until the people pass over whom thou hast purchased."

So the nation of Israel was considered "bought" by God because of the Exodus, therefore I posit that this is not a reference to the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but a reference to the work of God in creating the nation of Israel and bringing them out of slavery in Egypt and providing her protection from the world.

1.) In the Exodus we, the people of God, were purchased out of slavery (we went from slaves of one kingdom - Pharaoh's - to slaves of God):

2.) In Christ, we become freedmen, no longer slaves but sons..(for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life)

In 2 Peter he was speaking from the perspective of actual Jews who had physical descendants come up out of Egypt in the Exodus and were thus bought by their Master, the God of Israel.

In the Jewish people group, as well as now the Christian group, we have people who have an association to the faith that's not on the basis of true faith, and then they introduce heresies, even heresies as large as denying the God of the Exodus, according to Peter in these verses.

There's an outer unbelieving court, as opposed to an inner and believing court, who is within the same group identity as having been "bought", but who in fact have only been from a superficial or more material perspective, as opposed to the spiritual perspective.

 

[Lees]

Only his elect are bought and paid for.

Paul was addressing Christians in that verse.



This implies that Christ died for the unregenerate, that His blood paid for their sins.


Christ did not atone for the sins of unsaved people who rejected Him and are in hell by their own choice.

If Christ died for all humans whoever lived there would be no one hell. His blood covered their sin of unbelief.

Seems like universalism to me.


This word is not bothersome to me for that reason.

I was once a slave of sin and now a slave (doulas) to Christ.

Well, I disagree. As does the Scripture in question, (2 Peter 2:1), which is the subject of your 'confusion'. All of the Adamic race has been bought and paid for.

Yes, Paul in (1 Cor. 6:20) was addressing Christians who had exercised faith in Christ, taking them out of the first Adam and placing them into the Last Adam. Christ paying the price didn't make all saved. It provided the means for salvation for all. That which produced ones salvation was 'faith'. (Rom. 4:3-5)

Yes, Christ died for all sins. His blood is sufficient for all sin. It is all paid for.

No. That Christ paid for all sin doesn't mean that all go to heaven. It means the price is paid. Faith is that which moves one from an unsaved state to a saved state. In other words all those in hell are not there because their sins were not paid for. They are there because thy rejected God and Christ. That is not universalism.

Concerning you being a slave of God, glad to hear it. So am I...though a poor one at best. But don't fool yourself. You cannot preach that in America without much grief.

Lees

 

[makesends]

Well, I disagree. As does the Scripture in question, (2 Peter 2:1), which is the subject of your 'confusion'. All of the Adamic race has been bought and paid for.

Yes, Paul in (1 Cor. 6:20) was addressing Christians who had exercised faith in Christ, taking them out of the first Adam and placing them into the Last Adam. Christ paying the price didn't make all saved. It provided the means for salvation for all. That which produced ones salvation was 'faith'. (Rom. 4:3-5)

Yes, Christ died for all sins. His blood is sufficient for all sin. It is all paid for.

No. That Christ paid for all sin doesn't mean that all go to heaven. It means the price is paid. Faith is that which moves one from an unsaved state to a saved state. In other words all those in hell are not there because their sins were not paid for. They are there because thy rejected God and Christ. That is not universalism.

Concerning you being a slave of God, glad to hear it. So am I...though a poor one at best. But don't fool yourself. You cannot preach that in America without much grief.

Lees

Not to hijack the thread, because it IS about "the master who BOUGHT THEM" —I would like to ask the Reformed and Calvinists among us, where does the subject of Limited Atonement stand with you? I hear the explanation, "sufficient" for all, but "efficient" for only the elect, yet occasionally I hear that indeed, because his payment was "sufficient", then he DID (variously) DIE FOR ALL, or PAY FOR ALL, yet also, not, somehow. I say his POWER and purity and holiness and so on were sufficient, but the question of efficiency, which is just about the only argument that gives the educated Arminian pause concerning Limited Atonement, seems out the window if we say that Christ did DIE FOR ALL, or PAY FOR ALL.

Explain, if you Reformed/Calvinists differ. I say, if the Atonement was limited, then he did NOT pay for all sin.