PSA: What is Implied in Christ's Substitution; What Death Did He Die?

[ReverendRV]

No, I don't see the connection, maybe you could spell it out in a little more detail.

If Jews couldn't buy Gentile Slaves, Saint Peter would be Lying when he said Jesus bought the False Prophets...

Barnes in his Commentary says, bought them—Even the ungodly were bought by His "precious blood." It shall be their bitterest self-reproach in hell, that, as far as Christ's redemption was concerned, they might have been saved. The denial of His propitiatory sacrifice is included in the meaning

2 Peter 2:1 Commentaries: 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

biblehub.com

Joseph Smith was bought by God, right?

 

[John Bauer]

What does the NT mean when it says that Jesus redeem all humans, including unbelievers?

As a former Arminian dispensationalist, I recognize the polemic value of this passage when disputing Calvinists and their covenant theology. It was one of several arrows I kept in my quiver, all of which proved to be made of foam by Nerf when I was forced to be exegetically and theologically consistent. The following is what that consistency eventually taught me about this passage and I want to share it with you and everyone else here. (As my 2023 introductory thread reveals, I went from Baptist, to Reformed Baptist, to Reformed.)

Okay, so the first thing to observe is that 2 Peter 2:1 does not say that Christ redeemed all humans, including unbelievers. If Peter had meant to communicate salvific redemption, we would more naturally expect to see the word ἐξαγοράζω (exagorazo) being used here, a verb consistently used in the New Testament for Christ's efficacious, covenantal redemption of the elect (e.g., Gal. 3:13).

Instead, the word used is ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta)—an aorist active participle of the root ἀγοράζω (agorazō)—a more general term meaning to buy or purchase, which communicates the idea of ownership, not redemption. And this idea is reinforced by the fact that they are said to be denying the Master (δεσπότης, despotes), not redeeming Lord (κύριος, kyrios), and certainly not Savior (σωτήρ, soter). The term despotes emphasizes absolute authority and ownership, evoking the image of a sovereign ruler or household master, not necessarily a covenant redeemer.

They were bought, along with all mankind, not redemptively but judicially and covenantally through the intratrinitarian pactum salutis—the eternal covenant between the persons of the Godhead—whereby Christ secured cosmic dominion as mediator and judge. This dominion entails both gracious redemption for the elect and judicial authority over all mankind (Ps 2:6-9; cf. Acts 10:42; Matt. 28:18); for the regenerate elect to whom he gives eternal life, Christ is both Master and Lord (Jude 1:4).

We see in places like John 17:2 that Jesus received this authority from the Father (Christie 1996), for Jesus prayed, "You have given him authority over all mankind, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him." One should also notice here the distinction between authority over all mankind and bestowing eternal life on the elect.

In this light, "bought them" would refer to Christ's mediatorial authority, his right of ownership, over all things by virtue of his obedient life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection as part of his fulfillment of the intratrinitarian covenant. These false teachers are (a) subject to his rule, (b) accountable to his word, and (c) ultimately liable to his judgment. Thus, their denial of him is rebellious treason against their rightful King, not apostasy from true salvation, as Christ is the rightful ruler of all, especially over his visible church which they have infiltrated with their destructive heresies.

This reading also echoes the Old Testament precedent where God is said to have "bought" Israel (Deut. 32:6; Ex. 15:16), even though not all were saved (i.e., most perished in the wilderness of unbelief). Likewise today, not all who are under Christ's rule are beneficiaries of his redemptive grace (cf. Rom. 9:6).

 

[Hazelelponi]

As a former Arminian dispensationalist, I recognize the polemic value of this passage when disputing Calvinists and their covenant theology. It was one of several arrows I kept in my quiver, all of which proved to be made of foam by Nerf when I was forced to be exegetically and theologically consistent. The following is what that consistency eventually taught me about this passage and I want to share it with you and everyone else here. (As my 2023 introductory thread reveals, I went from Baptist, to Reformed Baptist, to Reformed.)

Okay, so the first thing to observe is that 2 Peter 2:1 does not say that Christ redeemed all humans, including unbelievers. If Peter had meant to communicate salvific redemption, we would more naturally expect to see the word ἐξαγοράζω (exagorazo) being used here, a verb consistently used in the New Testament for Christ's efficacious, covenantal redemption of the elect (e.g., Gal. 3:13).

Instead, the word used is ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta)—an aorist active participle of the root ἀγοράζω (agorazō)—a more general term meaning to buy or purchase, which communicates the idea of ownership, not redemption. And this idea is reinforced by the fact that they are said to be denying the Master (δεσπότης, despotes), not redeeming Lord (κύριος, kyrios), and certainly not Savior (σωτήρ, soter). The term despotes emphasizes absolute authority and ownership, evoking the image of a sovereign ruler or household master, not necessarily a covenant redeemer.

They were bought, along with all mankind, not redemptively but judicially and covenantally through the intratrinitarian pactum salutis—the eternal covenant between the persons of the Godhead—whereby Christ secured cosmic dominion as mediator and judge. This dominion entails both gracious redemption for the elect and judicial authority over all mankind (Ps 2:6-9; cf. Acts 10:42; Matt. 28:18); for the regenerate elect to whom he gives eternal life, Christ is both Master and Lord (Jude 1:4).

We see in places like John 17:2 that Jesus received this authority from the Father (Christie 1996), for Jesus prayed, "You have given him authority over all mankind, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him." One should also notice here the distinction between authority over all mankind and bestowing eternal life on the elect.

In this light, "bought them" would refer to Christ's mediatorial authority, his right of ownership, over all things by virtue of his obedient life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection as part of his fulfillment of the intratrinitarian covenant. These false teachers are (a) subject to his rule, (b) accountable to his word, and (c) ultimately liable to his judgment. Thus, their denial of him is rebellious treason against their rightful King, not apostasy from true salvation, as Christ is the rightful ruler of all, especially over his visible church which they have infiltrated with their destructive heresies.

This reading also echoes the Old Testament precedent where God is said to have "bought" Israel (Deut. 32:6; Ex. 15:16), even though not all were saved (i.e., most perished in the wilderness of unbelief). Likewise today, not all who are under Christ's rule are beneficiaries of his redemptive grace (cf. Rom. 9:6).

Okay I see the mistakes I was making. This makes sense... Thanks for sharing this.

 

[Eleanor]

I do know that the believers sins were not imputed to themselves. This is what i have been saying, 2 Cor 5.19 tells us that the sins of mankind are not imputed to the person committing them, but they were all paid for by Christ.

God made Jesus to be sin for us... 2 Cor 5.21

Our own sins are incurred by us, not imputed to us.

The sins incurred by the believer are imputed to Christ.

 

[Eleanor]

As a former Arminian dispensationalist, I recognize the polemic value of this passage when disputing Calvinists and their covenant theology. It was one of several arrows I kept in my quiver, all of which proved to be made of foam by Nerf when I was forced to be exegetically and theologically consistent. The following is what that consistency eventually taught me about this passage and I want to share it with you and everyone else here. (As my 2023 introductory thread reveals, I went from Baptist, to Reformed Baptist, to Reformed.)
Okay, so the first thing to observe is that 2 Peter 2:1 does not say that Christ redeemed all humans, including unbelievers. If Peter had meant to communicate salvific redemption, we would more naturally expect to see the word ἐξαγοράζω (exagorazo) being used here, a verb consistently used in the New Testament for Christ's efficacious, covenantal redemption of the elect (e.g., Gal. 3:13).

Instead, the word used is ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta)—an aorist active participle of the root ἀγοράζω (agorazō)—a more general term meaning to buy or purchase, which communicates the idea of ownership, not redemption.

But is redemption not buying back from, purchasing from, ransoming from captivity (of slavery; man-stealers; sin)?

To what kind of "ownership" would Paul be referring in regard to those who had "escaped the pollution of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome" (2 Pe 2:20-21)?
Would it not be "purchasing, buying back" from captivity to sin?

And this idea is reinforced by the fact that they are said to be denying the Master (δεσπότης, despotes), not redeeming Lord (κύριος, kyrios), and certainly not Savior (σωτήρ, soter). The term despotes emphasizes absolute authority and ownership, evoking the image of a sovereign ruler or household master, not necessarily a covenant redeemer.

They were bought, along with all mankind, not redemptively but judicially and covenantally through the intratrinitarian pactum salutis—the eternal covenant between the persons of the Godhead—whereby Christ secured cosmic dominion as mediator and judge. This dominion entails both gracious redemption for the elect and judicial authority over all mankind (Ps 2:6-9; cf. Acts 10:42; Matt. 28:18); for the regenerate elect to whom he gives eternal life, Christ is both Master and Lord (Jude 1:4).

We see in places like John 17:2 that Jesus received this authority from the Father (Christie 1996), for Jesus prayed, "You have given him authority over all mankind, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him." One should also notice here the distinction between authority over all mankind and bestowing eternal life on the elect.

In this light, "bought them" would refer to Christ's mediatorial authority, his right of ownership, over all things by virtue of his obedient life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection as part of his fulfillment of the intratrinitarian covenant. These false teachers are (a) subject to his rule, (b) accountable to his word, and (c) ultimately liable to his judgment. Thus, their denial of him is rebellious treason against their rightful King, not apostasy from true salvation, as Christ is the rightful ruler of all, especially over his visible church which they have infiltrated with their destructive heresies.

This reading also echoes the Old Testament precedent where God is said to have "bought" Israel (Deut. 32:6; Ex. 15:16), even though not all were saved (i.e., most perished in the wilderness of unbelief). Likewise today, not all who are under Christ's rule are beneficiaries of his redemptive grace (cf. Rom. 9:6).

 

[John Bauer]

But is redemption not buying back from, purchasing from, ransoming from captivity (of slavery; man-stealers; sin)?

Indeed, which is why I said that if Peter "had meant to communicate salvific redemption, we would more naturally expect to see the word ἐξαγοράζω (exagorazo) being used here." It is this word that carries the meaning which you have highlighted here ("to redeem out of"):

• ek (out of) + agorazo (to buy or purchase in a marketplace).

Literally, to buy out of the marketplace, often implying removal from sale or slavery. Figuratively, to redeem or rescue someone from bondage (especially from the law, sin, or the curse, as in Galatians 3:13).

To bring the point back to Eddie's question, exagorazo is not the word used in 2 Peter 2:1. It is agorazo, and the relationship and distinction between these two words is theologically significant. It reveals a vital distinction between Christ's sovereign ownership of all creation and his covenantal redemption of the elect. Both words involve the imagery of purchase but they operate within different theological frameworks, one particular and salvific (exagorazo) and the other universal and judicial (agorazo).

• agorazo (ἀγοράζω), "purchase as a possession" (2 Pet. 2:1).
  
  ​
• exagorazo (ἐξαγοράζω), "to redeem out of" (Gal. 3:13).

To what kind of "ownership" would Paul be referring in regard to those who had "escaped the pollution of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome" (vv. 20-21)?

As I said, it is a judicial and covenantal ownership pertaining to the pactum salutis, not a relational, salvific union realized in the covenant of grace—not kyrios but despotes. They had "escaped the filthy things of the world through the rich knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," but once again became "entangled in them and succumb[ed] to them" (v. 20).

Given that despotes conveys sovereign ownership and is joined with the aorist participle agorasanta (from agorazo), I would say that Peter (not Paul) is describing individuals who are under Christ's general dominion, possibly even covenantally bound within the church (cf. Heb. 10:29) as those who have "contempt for the Son of God." It would imply covenantal exposure without saving faith; the unregenerate can know the way of righteousness but only the regenerate elect are transformed by it unto salvation.

The word translated as "knowing" (NIV), or "the knowledge of" (ESV) our Lord and Savior is epignosis (ἐπιγνῶσις), a term that doesn't always mean or imply saving, regenerate knowledge. The study note in the New English Translation explains, "The implication is not that these people necessarily knew the Lord (in the sense of being saved), but that they were in the circle of those who had embraced Christ as Lord and Savior." They were likened to Balaam, who knew God's words but loved to gain from wickedness (v. 15).

Notice, too, that they're described as dogs returning to their vomit and washed pigs returning to the mud (v. 22), creatures with unchanged natures who looked good for a time. Perhaps they "escaped the filthy things of the world" through the influence of the church, the fear of judgment, or the outward disciplines of the community of faith. But there is no evidence that they were truly born again (cf. Jude 1:4). The fact that they return to defilement proves that their "escape" was superficial. It was reformation without regeneration.

"But it would have been better for them never to have known?" That appears to me as a statement of heightened culpability, not lost salvation. Peter echoes Christ’s teaching that greater light brings greater judgment (cf. Luke 12:47-48; Matt. 11:21-24). These false teachers knew "the way of righteousness," but their apostasy is proof that they never loved it, nor were they changed by it. To know the truth but then reject it and return to filth places them under greater culpability and condemnation, not lost salvation.

In Reformed theology, this is a textbook case of someone in the visible church who never belonged to the invisible church. "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19). They were "bought" (agorazo) in the sense of being under the dominion of Christ and within his covenant community, but they were not "redeemed" (exagorazo) in the sense of being effectually called, justified, or adopted. Their greater judgment arises from having been in the house, under the Master, hearing the truth—and rejecting it.

This reading preserves both the internal coherence of Peter’s argument and the broader teaching of Scripture regarding the perseverance of the saints and the unbreakable nature of saving grace.

 

[Rescued One]

Notice, too, that they're described as dogs returning to their vomit and washed pigs returning to the mud (v. 22), creatures with unchanged natures who looked good for a time. Perhaps they "escaped the filthy things of the world" through the influence of the church, the fear of judgment, or the outward disciplines of the community of faith. But there is no evidence that they were truly born again (cf. Jude 1:4). The fact that they return to defilement proves that their "escape" was superficial. It was reformation without regeneration.

I appreciate this!

 

[EddieM]

They were bought, along with all mankind, not redemptively but judicially and covenantally through the intratrinitarian pactum salutis—the eternal covenant between the persons of the Godhead—whereby Christ secured cosmic dominion as mediator and judge. This dominion entails both gracious redemption for the elect and judicial authority over all mankind (Ps 2:6-9; cf. Acts 10:42; Matt. 28:18); for the regenerate elect to whom he gives eternal life, Christ is both Master and Lord (Jude 1:4).

Why not take the literal meaning of this passage, and not try to impose your theological presuppositions? I simply can't see why people in this forum can't understand what Peter is saying. I presume that if you believe that unbelievers were redeem that would somehow force to change some part of your theology. Changing the erroneous theology would be a better mark of scholarship than changing the meaning of a text.

 

[ReverendRV]

Why not take the literal meaning of this passage, and not try to impose your theological presuppositions? I simply can't see why people in this forum can't understand what Peter is saying. I presume that if you believe that unbelievers were redeem that would somehow force to change some part of your theology. Changing the erroneous theology would be a better mark of scholarship than changing the meaning of a text.

You are right about our Theological presumptions. I'm the first to say that Christianity NEEDS a Systematic Theology. Fundamental Doctrines depend on Theology; for instance, the Hypostatic Union. Sure, they are Exegeted from the Bible; but the entire Bible is Good for this Doctrine, not Bad for it. If Unbelievers were Redeemed, it would change the Bible's Good Doctrine; into Dogma...

I'm not changing the Thread; just letting you know that claiming we prefer thheology over Scripture, won't work...

 

[EddieM]

You are right about our Theological presumptions. I'm the first to say that Christianity NEEDS a Systematic Theology. Fundamental Doctrines depend on Theology; for instance, the Hypostatic Union. Sure, they are Exegeted from the Bible; but the Bible is Good for this Doctrine. If Unbelievers were Redeemed, it would change the Bible's Good Doctrine; to Dogma the Bible's Doctrine is Bad for...

I'm not changing the Thread; just letting you know that claiming we prefer thheology over Scripture, won't work...

I have already responded to this; I see no reason to beat a dead horse.

 

[EddieM]

2 Peter 2:1 Commentaries: 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
Joseph Smith was bought by God, right?

Yes, but I doubt he was a Christian.

 

[ReverendRV]

I have already responded to this; I see no reason to beat a dead horse.

Fair enough...

I tend to respond for any Lurker's sake...

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, but I doubt he was a Christian.

How was he Redeemed then?

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, but I doubt he was a Christian.

Humpty Dumpty ~ by ReverendRV * May 16

Amos 9:11 KJV; "On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old;

We face many problems in life and they can hurt us; even devastate us. When I said this, we all remembered something from our past that has crushed us. Remember how things used to be before that happened? In those days things were a little better, a little easier; things were good. But when the damage was done, those days were forever behind us. ~ We all know the ‘Humpty Dumpty’ nursery rhyme. The character is found in the novel ‘Alice through the looking glass', but some believe that in history Humpty Dumpty was a large cannon mounted on a wall in St Mary’s Church. It was strong and was powerful, but when an attack caused the wall to fall, ‘all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again’. The nursery rhyme pictures a person who is as fragile as an egg that was cracked after a fall. ~ Despite all of our Scientific advances, we still don’t know of a way to restore a cracked egg to its former state…

The Prophet Amos tells of a time that the Tabernacle of King David will be restored. In the Old Testament, the people of Israel were Nomads and they moved their ‘tent like’ Tabernacle with them as they migrated. Even when Israel came into their own land, the Priests preformed their Religious duties in a Tabernacle instead of a Temple. David couldn’t build a Temple because he was a man of War, so That responsibility fell on his son, King Solomon. ~ In his Commentary on Amos 9:11, John Gill speaks of Christ’s Bride as being raised from her ruin and from out of the dust; symbolizing being raised from the dead. He described Christ’s Bride as living Tabernacles. If there is someone who can repair our damages, it takes a person who has the power to Create; and recreate. The kind of power it would take to make us whole after we have been damaged. ~ God sees the damage in your life and he wants to raise up its ruins. God says that ‘Damaged Goods’ are good for something. A dealer came across three nice chrome Rims but knew they were worthless without the fourth wheel. He had them turned into three Chandeliers and sold them for Man caves. Something that used to be tread upon, then became a beacon of light…

When I was young, I walked the road on the way to the store, picking up empty Coke bottles and redeemed them at the store, leaving with a bag of sweet candy! The bottles were emptied of their sweetness but were still worth their weight in sweets to me. That’s the way God views his children; though they’re empty inside, he’ll find them and pay the price to have them. He will cleanse you and you will be suitable to be filled and used. ~ The first man Adam was like Humpty Dumpty; he had a great Fall. He Sinned against God by breaking the only Law there was. Because of this, Sin entered into the world, and the world has suffered from the damage that was done. But God sent his Sinless Son into the world to pay the price it took to Redeem all who believe on his name. This man is Jesus Christ and if you put your trust in him you will not be put to shame. Jesus shed his blood on a Cross to pay the penalty for Sins we committed. He died, was buried for three days but rose from the dead to judge the world. We’re Saved by Grace through Faith in the risen Savior Jesus Christ, not by Working to raise our own tabernacle. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God; and read the Bible.. ~ There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and this means no more condemning yourself anymore either…

John 5:24 KJV; Jesus said ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life

 

[Arial]

Why not take the literal meaning of this passage, and not try to impose your theological presuppositions?

Do you presuppose that you are not imposing presuppositional theologies onto the passage? And how exactly are those who oppose your view not taking it literally? It is taken literally according to what the rest of the Bible says on the same subject. Rather than literally standing all by itself to declare something that contradicts both the Bible and reality. You have to insert a presuppostion that is nowhere found in the Bible or is consistent with a proper Doctrine of God (which should always be a starting point at arriving at any doctrine).

What you presuppose is that God would never just save us but only offer salvation and the results (and the effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice) depend on our decision. It also presupposed that "paid for" does not have to actually mean paid for it it would interfere with your doctrinal presuppositions.

I simply can't see why people in this forum can't understand what Peter is saying.

People on this forum (and that statement and what follows it implies our idiocy for not agreeing with you) do understand what Peter is saying, and not only that we understand what he means. And we do not gain this understanding from theological presuppositions as you presuppose, but from searching within the Scriptures to see what they say about Jesus paying for the sin of unbelief. Since that is what you claim it says. It does not take long to discover that the very reason people are sent to hell is because of unbelief---a rejection of the person and work of Jesus. So we learn quickly what he does not mean. So then we must find within the scriptures, not our theological presuppositions (though of course they are there in most on this forum, as aligning with Protestant Reformed position), but we also check that position against Scripture. Truth matters to us. And having done that, the systematic scriptural reasoning has been presented to you. None of which, so far, you have even attempted to refute with any sort of careful logical work being presented. Your sole defense, in essence, is that we disagree with you so we are wrong.

I presume that if you believe that unbelievers were redeem that would somehow force to change some part of your theology. Changing the erroneous theology would be a better mark of scholarship than changing the meaning of a text

Maybe you should stop with all the presumptions and just listen. Listen to just this one thing and you might present more viable posts:

Theology is the study of God. Who he is, followed closely by who mankind is in relation to God. The only place to learn who God is and who we are in relation to him is in his word, because it is something that can only be known by God revealing himself to us, in a salvific way. From this comes doctrine. So it is the doctrines that you have a beef with, not the theology. That theology is the fountain of all that follows is why Reformed theology is called Reformed theology. I doubt you even know what our theology is. You are only slightly aware of some of the doctrines.

So before you continue posting against us using the only basis for doing so is that if we do not interpret something in the way that you do, then we are scholastic idiots, answer this question: When you arrived at your interpretation of the 2 Peter 2:1, and then came up with the doctrine that Jesus paid for the sin of unbelief, did who God is even once cross your mind as important in arriving at Peter's meaning? Did anything else the Bible has to say, cross your mind as important to consider?

 

[EddieM]

Do you presuppose that you are not imposing presuppositional theologies onto the passage? And how exactly are those who oppose your view not taking it literally? It is taken literally according to what the rest of the Bible says on the same subject. Rather than literally standing all by itself to declare something that contradicts both the Bible and reality. You have to insert a presuppostion that is nowhere found in the Bible or is consistent with a proper Doctrine of God (which should always be a starting point at arriving at any doctrine).

What you presuppose is that God would never just save us but only offer salvation and the results (and the effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice) depend on our decision. It also presupposed that "paid for" does not have to actually mean paid for it it would interfere with your doctrinal presuppositions.

I am only going to comment briefly on this first paragraph. {Edit by admin for violation of rule #2.1 and 2.3}

Literal interpretation does limit your translational options. Just read all the posts on the word redeemed if you dont believe me (where I am misquoted on many occasions, and Arial and others have told the members here that I hold to positions that I do not hold to.)

Yes all serious bible students hold to some presuppositions, once again I never said I was immune to them. But I will admit that Literal interpretation limits tranlsational options, whereas symbolism method and metaphorical method, and allegorical method have a wide range of translational options..

 

[EddieM]

How was he Redeemed then?

To be redeemed does not equal being saved. It simply means that the ransom has been paid, salvation is the result of putting one's faith in God's offer of salvation.

 

[ReverendRV]

To be redeemed does not equal being saved. It simply means that the ransom has been paid, salvation is the result of putting one's faith in God's offer of salvation.

What is Salvation, without Redemption?

 

[EddieM]

What is Salvation, without Redemption?

God required that all sins be paid for before one can accept God's offer of salvation. Once the sins are paid for, mankind is qualified to be the recipient of God's grace. If Christ did not pay for the sins of mankind, mankind is still not eternally condemned, eternal condemnation is the result of not putting one's faith in God's offer of salvation.

God has placed mankind in a state of disobedience so he could have mercy on them ALL.

 

[EddieM]

How was he Redeemed then?

I am tired of answering the same questions over and over.