2 Peter - Verse-by-Verse Biblical Exegesis

possibilities of our becoming "losers" in the Christian life. He didn't take inventory of our
good deeds versus our evil deeds. Even more important, He didn't "elect" and die for only
those who had an impeccable systematic theology. If He did, none of us would have
made it! Nearly every pastor I have met has held to some form of "heresy," yet nobody
doubted their profession or possession of Christ. So out of this blob of humanity the
Father elected some, and then He guaranteed the effectiveness of the Son's atoning
sacrifice for them by His sovereignty (despotes). He applied the atonement (agorazo)
effectively to exactly those individuals for which it was intended - the elect.
This is the only way in which the Lord "could see the travail of his soul and be satisfied"
(Isaiah 53). The elect were not chosen because of anything within themselves. Every
category of depraved person can be included here, including false teachers. After all, He
came to save sinners. The fact that they held to false doctrines and lived licentiously is
not even admissable evidence in court when it comes to their justification. Owen agrees
that "the apostle speaks of the purchase of the wolves and hypocrites, in respect of the
reality of the purchase, and not rather in respect of that estimation which others had of
them." Not only is the issue of freedom for the purchased spoken of in this verse, but
more importantly, their new status as slaves of God, bought with a price to do His will.
Agorazo speaks of both "the chosen of God being purchased by the death of Christ" (J.
Boice) and "the Masters' right to demand submission of every man" whom He had just
purchased. The false teachers refused to submit to His authority in their daily lives and
therefore disowned their despotes – the sovereign Lord and Master, Who bought them.
The gnomic present means they are bringing upon themselves by their negative volition
to the truth temporal destruction of their spiritual life. This always happens as a result of
prolonged negative volition. "Sudden ruin" is not what it appears to be in the King James
translation. There is nothing eternal about this ruin. It "speaks of the loss of everything
that makes human existence worthwhile" (K. Wuest), but not the loss of justification. The
adjective tachus means that this ruin is near at hand and if they don't change their
direction soon, "sudden, imminent" ruin is coming their way - either by discipline in
time, or by the "sin unto death" (punching them out and bringing them home). This
urgency and suddenness was probably in Peter's mind as an answer to "the false teacher's
jibe that the Lord is slow in coming to exercise judgement in II Peter 3:9." (Bauckham)
The use of apoleias adds to this irony, because "the false teachers actually taught
freedom from destruction (2:19); they believed there would be no eschatological
judgement, but in reality their teaching incurs precisely that judgment which they
denied." (Neyrey)
II Peter does not deny that the false teachers are Christians. They are rather "reverse
process reversionists," those who were once learning truth in a local assembly, but then
went 180 degrees in the opposite direction, believing some heretical Gnostic doctrine and
taking as many casualties with them on their road to ruin. Therefore, in this context, Peter
is addressing false teachers who "abuse Christian liberty" - not that Christ designed by
His purchase (death) to save all men who are on the road to destruction. Nearly every
interpretation of this verse centers around how one views the extent of the atonement.
Even the terms Limited and Unlimited don't explain the two opposing camps on the topic.