# 2 Peter 2:1 and perseverance of the saints



## NoxNoctum (May 29, 2012)

Alright this verse has been bugging me. I've read a few reformed commentaries on it but I'm still confused. I've read the arguments about the word for "Lord" being one that is not used for Christ anywhere else and so is most likely referring to God the Father, and also I see the clear connection with Deut 32 but it is still just is bugging me.

I know Peter is writing to Jews here, but he also he is clearly writing to believers ("to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing to ours"), not just any Jews. But if I take "denying the Lord that bought them" to mean denying God the Father who brought them out of Egypt, how would this denial be shown? (if it's a denial other than the denial of Jesus Christ's blood in particular, though to deny Christ is to deny God the Father as well and vice versa)

Or if it _is_ talking about Christ, is it just as simple as saying that they are not bought but claim falsely that they are bought?

Speaking of Deuteronomy, I noticed a pretty significant difference in verse 5 (which is paralleled in 2 Peter 2:13) between the different translations:

ESV "They have dealt corruptly with him; they are no longer his children because they are blemished; they are a crooked and twisted generation."
KJV "They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation."
NASB "They have acted corruptly toward Him, They are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation."
Young's "It hath done corruptly to Him; Their blemish is not His sons', A generation perverse and crooked!"

The ESV (along with others like NIV) seems to suggest some sort of "falling away" that would line up with an Arminian interpretation of 2 Peter ("no longer his children" vs "not his children"). But the other translations all actually fit more into the idea of the "visible church" vs. the actual elect. Or that a "Jew" is he who is so inwardly.

Any thoughts would be helpful.


----------



## J. Dean (May 29, 2012)

Sorry that I don't have an answer for this one offhand, but I have to admit that at times this can be a tough one to wrestle with. Even with the Reformed commentaries I've read, I have found some of the answers for this (and similar) verses to feel a little flat in their response.


----------



## Poimen (May 29, 2012)

I hope you find this post helpful. I originally wrote it to answer the question of how the Reformed understanding of the atonement and 2 Peter 2:1 can be reconciled but as I point out that discussion has implications for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints as well.


----------



## NoxNoctum (May 29, 2012)

Thanks for that post Poimen, but it seems that you're mostly just pointing out in that article what it can't mean, which I totally agree with because scripture can't contradict itself, but I'm still left wondering what it *does* mean.

I also don't really like the idea of some kind of "lesser" redemption. I mean I'm not sure I would ever say that Judas was redeemed in any sense, but you could say that he "tasted of the heavenly gift" in a similar way that Saul (as in King Saul not Paul) did when the latter prophesied, since presumably Judas did everything the other disciples did since when Christ said that one would betray him they didn't assume it was him or anything like that.

I guess at the moment I lean towards it just meaning visible church vs actual church but I still kind of have to worm around it a bit to get there.

I also think it's clear that Peter is saying that these false teachers were predestined to this ("their condemnation from long ago is not idle") in the same way that the son of perdition was. (in other words clearly the elect can't be what he's talking about here)


----------



## arapahoepark (May 29, 2012)

Here: A Puritan's Mind » Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1 – Dr. Matthew McMahon


----------



## NoxNoctum (May 29, 2012)

arap said:


> Here: A Puritan's Mind » Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1 – Dr. Matthew McMahon





Ya I wonder if that must be the explanation. They give the appearance of being bought or claim to be bought or associate themselves with the people who are bought. 

2 Peter 2:21 also is a bit troubling. How can an unbeliever "know the way of righteousness"? Unless it just means the same thing as having a "form of Godliness but denying its power"


----------



## Poimen (May 29, 2012)

NoxNoctum said:


> Thanks for that post Poimen, but it seems that you're mostly just pointing out in that article what it can't mean, which I totally agree with because scripture can't contradict itself, but I'm still left wondering what it *does* mean.



"Mostly" yes, but I also note in point 5:




> I believe that vs. 20 provides the explanation of this verse: these false prophets escaped the pollutions of the world for a time. They were professors of Jesus and members of the church. Thus they had knowledge of Christ (similar to Hebrews 6:4-6) but never had a saving relationship with Him. “They went out from us but they were not of us” 1 John 2:19. Indeed, Jesus Himself declares that He never knew them in a redeeming way (Matthew 7:23).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 29, 2012)

The issues aren't really any different from those found in Hebrews, and actually (given the term _despotes_, and other facts of 2Pet.), the language of Hebrews is arguably stronger.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put him to an open shame." Heb.6:4-6

This is a strong statement about the _reality_ of what we on this side of heaven call "Apostasy." These are people who have come into such contact with blessed Spiritual things, that it must be said of them that they have turned their backs on truths they cannot be said _not to_ have known.

But, as we are bound to strive for harmony in our understanding, it is important that we affirm the grounding essential of a sure and perfect election, and that none of those for whom Christ died, and gave his Holy Spirit, and every other heavenly benefit, are able to perish. And if that is so, and by the clarity of its teaching compels our *first* assent, then we are driven to apprehend the Apostasy texts according to 1Jn.2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

That is, we are driven to a "qualified" understanding of what these people may be said to have partaken of, or how such persons were "bought," because we cannot or may not "qualify" the absolute nature of God's elective (and monergistic) and invincible work of salvation, even to the breaking down of even the subject's own resistance to his grace, until it is overcome, and in love he embraces his Savior and God--never to be parted evermore.


----------



## davenporter (May 29, 2012)

arap said:


> Here: A Puritan's Mind » Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1 – Dr. Matthew McMahon



I think this was pretty helpful, and a better explanation than most of the others given, especially since it shows that the Arminian interpretation of the passage is flawed, as the word "bought" signifies a completed (not hypothetical) purchase.

If anyone has any further thoughts on this article (or criticisms of this exegesis), it would be very helpful to hear them.


----------

