The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 2 Peter 2:1; Is Peter Being Sarcastic?

In a recent post, Tom wanted to know how the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:1 could be spoken of as bought without being redeemed. I tangled with Pilgrim for a while over that and while there are some good insights, nothing satisfied me. Even the sovereign creation theory I find unsatisfactory. In Expositors Commentary, the expositor writes that he thinks they are indeed bought, just not redeemed. He seems to give more credence to my thesis in Toms thread, that they are indeed bought, but that redemption is incomplet, that the full benefit of Christ's work must be applied subsequent to the regeneration of the Spirit. That is precisely how my thesis went. But that has huge problems, as Pilgrim and I examine in the thread; bought means the price has been paid and if the price is paid, then God has no condemnation left to render. Calvins own commentary takes Peter's use of bought straight on, and even goes one further, to say that the false teachers "are not unjustly said to deny Christ, by whom they are redeemed." Yuck, Calvin. Unless we take a magic carpet ride to a world where words mean something else, this doesn't fit.z

There is one option that Expositors lists, among the 4 possibilities usually given, that the false teachers were lying about ever really believing they were bought. That was their profession, but not their true faith.

In this theory, Peter is being sarcastic. Knowing Peter, and knowing Paul has used sarcasm in his writing, and knowing that even Jesus used it, makes sarcasm so far, to me, the most plausible answer to Toms question. "How could they be bought and not redeemed?" They were neither bought nor redeemed....Peter was being sarcastic about their being bought.

You see in the same verse Peter speaking of their teaching as being "sensual". They're seductive. They speak of how Jesus paid the price for their sin, just like us. And then, says Peter, they simply turn around in their doctrines and deny his Lord-ness over them.

And consider this. The Greek word Peter is using here in the "Lord" or "Master" is not the typical one used, but despotes. This term is the root of our word "despot". It is used in reference to God when we speak of how absolute his authority is over us, that we are completely submissive to him. Peter jabs at the heretics by quoting their probable reference to the absolute Master as if all they are doing is exactly what God wants them to do. "Look", says the heretic "I'm just a vessel of obedience saying exactly what the Master is telling me to say," and then they spout lies.

Peter mocks their use of the name of God, and mocks their claim to be bought. Peter should not, therefore, be taken straight on since he himself is speaking tongue in cheek about the heretics claim to be Christian.

Sarcasm is biblical. Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 4:10, for example, to great effect.

Re-read the verse again with this thought in mind. Seems to make as much or more sense out of it than anything else I've read...or written ;-)

Thoughts? Tom? Pilgrim?

Im all for sarcasm Charlie Brown.

Tulipman
Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 4:10 and see if Paul is being sarcastic.
“We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, but we are dishonored!” NKJV
It is fairly clear from the context that Paul is contrasting the apostle’s situation with the situation of his readers. It is also clear that this contrasting was not meant as something his readers should be proud about. He does this not to shame his readers, but to warn them that they need to take up the cross, rather than live safely. (see verse 14)
Is contrasting in order to make his readers see a point sarcasm? To be honest, I would not have seen it that way if I had not read what you said concerning 1 Cor. 4:10. But, in a broad sense of the word “sarcasm”, I can see using this verse as sarcasm.
Now let’s look at 2 Peter 2:1.
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” NKJV
Looking at the context, though admittedly I could be missing something, I do not see any sarcasm. I have looked into the Greek words for “Lord” and “bought” and think there is something to that. However, as yet even after studying this for hours (over the last few days), I have not got a firm grasp on the matter yet. It must be because of age, but that is ok with me until God gives me more light. Years ago, I would literally lose sleep over something like this.
I have concluded that false prophets and false teachers are false Christians and in this case they are within the Church, seeking to lead people away from the truth. As I use the analogy of Scripture, the word “bought” in the redemption sense, does not fit with other Scripture passages that deal with this issue. If it really does mean redeemed, then these false prophets and teachers were Christians who lost their salvation.
This of course would mean that the doctrine of perseverance of the saints is not biblical and as a result the rest of TULIP would fall like a house of cards.
Therefore, mainly because I have such a conviction that all 5 of the doctrine of grace are biblical, is something I reject completely.

Sorry, I wasn't more helpful.

Tom

At the moment I am not really in a position to write a lengthy post, but are we not
dealing in Hebrews 6:4-6 with the same "problem"?


Johan

Perhaps another thought on this matter.

Note that Peter starts by saying that there were false prophets among the people (Israel). It seems to me that this is his "reference point" in the whole argument about the false teachers. Also note that for the rest of the chapter he uses examples from the history of Israel. Is what Peter is saying not referring to false prophets among the people of Israel after they have been redeemed (bought) from slavery in Egypt. The false teachers among the people were also redeemed from slavery and they have seen and experienced God's great deeds, but nevertheless, they denied him. Is this not what is happening in eg., Exodus 32 with regard to the golden calf? And there are other examples as well as you know.

Now, if we go to 2 Peter 2:20-22 we read the following about the false teachers: The false teachers, therefore, know the way of salvation but they deny it. It is not that they deny it out of ignorance, but they have full knowledge of the way of righteousness, just as the false prophets among Israel at the exodus knew how they were redeemed from slavery in Egypt. My suggestion therefore is that in 2 Peter 2:1 the apostle might be referring to the false teachers/prophets among the people of Israel at the exodus and use these as an example.

Johan

Johan

What you have said here makes a lot of sense. But, what comes to mind as I contemplate what you said is; is there anything in the context of the chapter that would confirm that bought has to do with the Hebrews being bought out of slavery from Egypt?
I have read a few commentaries on this passage and I haven't seen that particular understanding. This isn't discounting your understanding, but it does make me wonder.

I am a little too busy to do too much study on that aspect, but it is certainly worth looking into.

Tom

Tom,

The only thing that made me think that it might refer to false prophets way back in the history of Israel, is the reference to false prophets among the people of Israel in earlier times. I agree that there is not a clear direct context. But it seems to me that otherwise we're left with the question you, Tulipman and Pilgrim discussed and which seems to be difficult to reconcile with the perseverance of the saints. Was just a suggestion in any case.

Johan

And a worthy suggestion too, I might add!

I agree with you 100%, but are there any commentators that would back that interpretation up?
I hope you understand why I asked that; if this is indeed the correct understanding of this verse. Would it not seem odd to you that it isn’t supported by knowledgeable Bible expositors?

Understand, I am not saying that it isn’t supported.

Tom

Tom,

A good many commentaries are now posted online...you can google Matthew Henry, or Adam Clarke, for example. I'll use those two in my blurb below so you can verify.

If it's commentators that might sway your vote, then I'll refer back to my earlier post here, that Paul in I Corinthians 4:10 is being sarcastic, in support of the view that sarcasm is legitimate turf for Peter as well, and say that Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, and the Expositor's Bible Commentary all agree that Paul is speaking sarcastically to the Corinthians. In the case of Corinthians, Paul is aiming his spear at the Corinthians themselves but it was to edify them. Peter is not speaking sarcastically here to edify the false teachers whom he is speaking ironically about....he is showing the true brethren how ashamed those dogs ought to be so that believers will be on guard against them when they bark their heresy.

To further my point that Paul was indeed being sarcastic, I'll point out that his sarcasm goes even before these verses, up to verse 8, "Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign so that we might share the rule with you!"

As you can imagine, receiving such heat from an apostle might have been devastating.....would have been to me! To soften his blow, he says in verse 14 "I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish (King James says "warn") you as my beloved children....I urge you, then, to be imitators of me."

I trust that settles the matter of whether Paul was being sarcastic or not.

Indeed Paul is exonerating the position of someone who is of humble estate, that such an estate can still contain mighty Christians, but his tools here are irony and sarcasm against those Christians who were full of the pride of life, the vain puffing up of this world.

Likewise, Peter was being sarcastic against the false teachers in using the term "bought" as a sting of setting up their own preaching as bought brethren vs. their testimony as false brethren who preach apostasy. That notion has been duly noted by commentators also as I've already noted in a previous post.

Regarding 2 Peter then, Matthew Henry opts for the "sufficiency" idea, as I advocated in one example in my analogy for you. But we examined how, while not necessarily being outright conflicting, weaknesses may be found. People get easily bothered by speaking of "sufficiency" while holding fast to our calvinist doctrine. I for one still see no conflict necessarily so this is still a valid view for 2 Peter 2:1, though some won't be able to get past how "sufficiency" is a term that must suggest to some degree "applicability". There is an uneasiness in Calvinist ranks to speak this way.

Adam Clarke briefly examined the thesis repeated by Johan and rejects it, saying that Peter is speaking in a New Testament context and not an Old (saying: "It seems, however, more natural to understand the Lord that bought them as applying to Christ") , and I agree. In part, this is because the very context of the heretical false teachers was of New Testament events, ie speaking of the atonement of Christ as a purchase, rather than of solely Old Testament notions of God the Father making purchase of the Israelites unless that, of course, was there heresy...that there was no atonement in Christ and only the old covenant promises to Israelites still counted as a purchase for God's children. But it seems very far fetched to suggest that these people would have made it all the way to "teacher" status with the doctrine that Christ's sacrifice was just vanity and the Old Testament was all anybody needed. It just doesn't fit. This is also all the more reason to reject a thesis suggesting Peter was using such language...why in a church of people bought by Christ's blood would he invoke the salvific nature of the Old Testament as being inapplicable to only false teachers? Peter was expending effort, indeed his life, to show that the only path to salvation was through Christ. It is incredulous to suggest that Peter now means that these guys are "false" teachers only by old covenant standards. Unless, again, Peter was being sarcastic even about that.

But Adam Clarke, after briefly examining old or new and in opting for New Testament context of speech, says that if it be Christ of the New Testament Peter refers to and not God the Father of the Old, then doesn't this show that Christ died for them, too, and that their own wickedness was the cause of their separation from Christ? Clarke's own words are: "That through their own wickedness some may perish for whom Christ died."

I trust you see how a full-blood Calvinist would have a problem with that! Even in my analogies I didn't refer to the non-elect as having Christs price applied to their account (in spite of Pilgrims suggestions that I did), but Adam Clarke certainly seems to.

Nevertheless, while we may not have accurate enough words to fully capture what is happening vis a vis the atoning blood and the non-elect, it is all fair game to speak of how the lost are accountable by their own rejection of Christ, the worst of the evil works they do, and the price of his Son was sufficient for God to elect the whole world, while yet he did not. It is in the realm of that fairness I wrote the analogies that I did to account for how Peter could use "bought" and not mean saved/redeemed. As I trust you can see, both aspects of my story are legitimate within the context of the history of Christian analysis on 1 Peter 2:1, and should not be quickly or summarily rejected.

But standing on the shoulders of these giants, as we have the gift of God to do in these latter days, we may see farther than they even while we're of such humble estate with Paul our brother, mindful of our place in the order of things. And when we might look just a little distance more than they on this matter of 'bought' in 2 Peter 2:1, I am persuaded that the full weight of our New Testament, reformational doctrine will not grant as completely adequate any one of the particular perspectives, though they contribute greatly to our understanding. It seems to me that, unlike the inspired apostles, any of these commentators, Calvin included, would have expected their words, not to define Christian faith, but only as another step to refining it. Baby steps to sanctification, they might have said in What About Bob. and the Highway Forum is another place to take such steps.

I think it's sufficient to say that while indeed the atonement was sufficient for these false teachers then as today, just as the Old Covenant was sufficient for old Israel and indeed the whole world which was to receive what had come through the ancient Hebrews, God only elected a few which, by the fair play of biting sarcasm in 2 Peter 2:1, he reveals the gulf of difference between the dogs bound about their necks for hell, and we who are content to eat scraps from the Master's table.

If I'm being scrappy, then I have the humility to admit that I mean it not in the angry dog sense, but in the hungry dog sense ;-)

I really must emphasize the following because what you are inferring isn't true whatsoever for many of us "Calvinists". It isn't that "sufficiency for ALL" rubs our Calvinist doctrine the wrong way which causes many, such as myself to reject that terminology. The phrase flies in the face of the biblical doctrine of atonement, i.e., specifically its forensic element and substitutionary nature, which I have before labored to bring forth. Any 'payment' made by Christ was IN BEHALF OF the elect and TO the Father, which was both sufficient and infallibly and efficiently applied in time. It makes no difference to me whether this is held by Calvinists or not... it is incontrovertibly biblical truth. If the 'ransom' was paid then the debt was met and the debtor(s) are set free from its legal demands. (Isa 43:25; 44:22; Mk 10:45; Gal 3:13; Eph 2:14-16; Col 2:13,14)

I am not convinced that Peter was being sarcastic in 2Pet 2:1. True it is that Paul is given to sarcasm from time to time in his letters. But Paul is Paul; the human element guided by the inspiration of the Spirit. And Peter is Peter, likewise he writing not apart from but with his own humanity [personality] guided by the inspiration of the Spirit. It doesn't appear to me that Peter is given to sarcasm as was Paul.

In regard to Johan's suggestion, I didn't take what he wrote in the way you evidently have taken it. What I understood Johan to mean was that there is at least one OT example where the word 'bought' is used in a non-redemptive sense and Peter could have used this same idea in his letter concerning those whom he said Christ bought. There are myriad examples in the NT where the author quotes or eludes to an OT passage but applies it in a very different way from its original context. There is precedence for that!

Lastly, I do think that Gary Long's article is more than fair in that he gives several options on how this passage could be understood. And, he concedes that he personally can't be dogmatic on which interpretation is correct. However, what he and I both can be dogmatic about is that the Lord Jesus Christ did not 'buy', i.e., atone for, pay the price for, any but the elect, for whosoever Christ died, they will be infallibly saved. So say ALL of the Reformed confessions to which I submit have grasped the truth of Scripture concerning Christ's payment for sin in His vicarious substitutionary atonement.

That's my

Re Peter being sarcastic, John MacArther agrees that Peter is being sarcastic in the MacArthur Study Bible at 2 Peter 2:1:

." Doctrinally, this analogy can be viewed as responsibility for submission to God which the false teachers had refused. Beyond this, they are probably claiming that they were Christians," and "that the Lord had bought them actually and personally. With some sarcasm, Peter mocks such a claim by writing of their coming damnation. Thus, the passage is describing the sinister character of the false teachers who claim Christ, but deny His lordship over their lives."
(John MacArthur, MacArthur Study Bible, Nashville:Word, 1997)


While MacArthur and I seem to be in agreement that Peter is applying sarcasm here, we're not entirely agreed on how he does it. MacArthur suggests it's "by writing of their coming damnation." Applying damnation as the future state of the reprobate is not sarcasm per se, it's a straight-up warning or point of fact. When those reprobate are claiming at the same time to be Christians, then speaking of their coming damnation would actually be termed irony...it is ironic that they preach of being saved yet are going to hell. That's not sarcasm. Sarcasm involves irony, but it is irony pointed as an insult. Calling a false teacher "bought' when he isn't, like Paul calling the Corinthians "wise" when they were being foolish, is sarcasm.

I think if MacArthur had slid his commentary about sarcasm here right onto the sarcastic point, he would have made a solid observation....he seems to sense it anyway, and he notes the irony in Peter's language.

Interestingly, though, MacArthur sides with Johan's view. I think it's because MacArthur misses the irony point, which leaves him having to explain the use of 'bought'. If you don't think it's sarcasm, then you need to come up with something that accounts for it.

His comment is:

2 Peter 2:1" 'who bought them.' The terms which Peter used here are more analogical than theological, speaking of a human master over a household. The master bought slaves, and the slaves owed the master allegiance as their sovereign. (For an OT parallel, see Deut. 32:5,6, where God is said to have bought Israel, though they rejected Him.) Doctrinally, this analogy can be viewed as responsibility for submission to God which the false teachers had refused. Beyond this, they are probably claiming that they were Christians," and "that the Lord had bought them actually and personally. With some sarcasm, Peter mocks such a claim by writing of their coming damnation. Thus, the passage is describing the sinister character of the false teachers who claim Christ, but deny His lordship over their lives."

If I managed to pursuade MacArthur that Peter's sarcasm was over his use of "bought" and not over his threat of damnation, then there would be no further need to show how "bought" refers to a non-redemptive 'bought', since Peter applied the redemptive use of the word and means it only sarcastically. Remove the redemptive use of the word and make it that commercial, non-redemptive use, there is no sarcasm at all.

But on that view, that agorazo means a non-redemptive use as applicable here just as in Deuteronomy, I just find it very awkward that in New Testament times (remember, the old covenant had now passed) that while these false brethren are walking around saying they are Christians, bought by the blood of Christ who paid the price for their sin, Peter would write New Testament Scripture using a different word than the Septuagint uses in Deuteronomy, (though I appreciate they are sometimes used interchangeably) to invoke an old covenant understanding of 'bought', a reference back to how Israelites under the Old Covenant could be 'bought' and then fall away. In that interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1, Peter is invoking an old covenant use of the word to Jewish false teachers who are no longer even covered under the old covenant, which has passed away by time of Peter's writing. In the economy of the new covenant in Christ's blood, it is no longer sufficient to speak of being bought and purchased but then able to fall away, as we've discussed ( including Jeremiah 31:31-34).

So I suppose even if he is using it in that sense, he is still being sarcastic, isn't he ;-)

Tulipman

I think you should look at Pilgrim's point about "Peter's personality". Do we see other indications of Peter using sarcasm in any of his other writings?
If not, and if indeed this passage is using sarcasm, then Peter has deviated from his regular personality.

Tom

There has not been any response to my earlier question about Hebrews 6:4-6. So, I am putting this question again on the table. Is what the writer of Hebrews is saying in these verses not in principle the same as what the apostle is saying in 2Peter 2:1 and later in 2Peter 2:20-22?


As for Peter being sarcastic, I agree with Tom and Pilgrim that I don't really see it and also that it is not something I see in Peter's other writings. Also, Peter is no addressing the false prophets/teachers but is seriously warning the readers.

I agree with Pilgrim that if Christ has died and paid for the sins of a person, then it means complete salvation for that person.

But then, our problem is not solved yet. The fact that so many commentators also don't agree on the interpretation of 2Peter 2:1 shows that it might not be that simple.

Johan

IF I am understanding what the "principle" is you are referring to, i.e., the appearance of a genuine believer falling away, then I would agree that the Hebrews passage and the one under discussion in 2Pet 2:1 are the same, or at least very similar. In both, due to the perspicuity of myriad other passages which teach eternal security (aka: Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints), it cannot be true that either/both of these passages are teaching or even implying otherwise. Although it can be edifying to wrestle with such passages in an attempt to grasp what the writer is conveying, to go beyond such passages with unwarranted speculation (no implying anyone here is doing so) is fruitless and actually, such speculation is a form or arrogance and/or pride. Not everyone is going to be given understanding for every single word of Scripture. The Bible is not inclusively perspicuous (Deut 29:29; 2Pet 3:16). And we also know that our doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration disallows any ideas involving contradictions, errors or fallacies in Scripture.

The bottom line, for me at least, is that aside from what the Holy Spirit actually had intended for us to understand in these two passages or those similar in kind, the Lord Christ did not shed His blood for those referenced.