Matthew 24:48 and 2 Peter 2:1

[KGP]

Matthew 24:48
But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ 49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.


I'm familiar with the use of 2 Peter 2:1 in certain discussions, but never noticed that Matthew 24:48-51 seems to be painting a similar picture of a slave who is under a Master. In this case, the slave even personally identifies him as "My master" (v48). Matthew/The Holy Spirit almost seems to be going out of his way to reiterate that this slave certainly belongs to the master in v51.

When compared with 2 Peter 2:1, they both seem to teach that there is a sense in which Christ owns these individuals that is different than the way in which he owns all individuals on one hand or his sheep on the other.

Either these slaves are regenerate but later fall away into sin, that is how the Federal Visionists would state it, correct?; OR they were purchased but not savingly; owned but not regenerated, which seems to be the case, as the heart is the area of defect in both slaves' errors.

In what way does Christ purchase these individuals?
Are these individuals set apart to the service his service temporarily through the work of the Spirit?
Maybe they are children born into Christian families and thus born slaves to him by virtue of descent, but are not in heart?
Or could this be somebody who simply makes a profession and follows for a while?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

2Pet.2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

δεσπότης despotēs Not the ordinary term for "Lord," κύριος kurios, but one from which we get our English "despot." To be taken in the narrow sense of one who has raw, total power to dispose of, apart from concomitant ideas of relation or covenant or fealty such as may be connected to kurios; hence the sometime gloss "sovereign-lord" in some translations; emphasis entirely on sovereignty.

Some commentators note a OT allusion to Dt.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?" If this be true and accurate, then along with his other OT illustrations, here is the OT redemption motif; and though many were extracted from the power of Egypt in a formal way, for too many of them their hearts never really left that place. They denied the sovereign-Lord who bought them (in a sense) from slavery in Egypt. And he left their carcasses in the wilderness. They did not come to the Promised Land.

Likewise, these false prophets are escapees come along with the redeemed, but not come out into the wilderness to sacrifice and to be formed into a people for God's pleasure. They know enough of God to recognize power and dominion, that he is a greater power than Pharaoh. But their hearts are not with him, which is proved by them craving their own following.



The parable in which Mt.24:48 is found (term for lord/master there is κύριος kurios) must not have its details fully pressed to all possible theological conclusions. It is first and foremost a story, and the wicked trusty with a "servant-lord" relation to his master cannot be overlaid with a complete Christian theology. The main thrust of the story contains the theological message, and the other details help support the main story line. Here, kurios is the better word for lord, because relationships between the master and all his servants, and the wicked servant and the others is important. There is an implied distinction between the true lord's ways and the wicked servant's ways with the same subordinates, and not just as a result of a false sense of majesty on the trusty's part.

Jesus is warning especially the disciples and the leaders of the future about living off of privilege and sinful indulgence, when the Lord's return is delayed. Anyone who loses his attitude of readiness has become a practical atheist, and may indeed be a false professor.

 

[Matthew1344]

love it bruce!

 

[KGP]

Thanks for the Greek there, Rev. Buchanan. The distinction is a bit more obvious when you put it that way.

As I went through it today I saw the comparison between The Lord and wicked servant, which you mentioned, more clearly.

Would it be fair to say that the Matt 24 parable is directed towards spiritual leaders specifically then, given that the task was "to give them their food at the proper time"?

As he was talking to the disciples, who would lead and feed the church after Pentecost; it seems that would be the case, words that likely they would have recalled during their ministry. The use of the giving food metaphor seems to point that way; I recalled Jesus words to Peter after the resurrection when I read this today.

Thanks again for your feedback!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk