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.
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.
Last edited: