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?