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

Joseph Smith was bought by God, right?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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!