2 Peter - Verse-by-Verse Biblical Exegesis

A clear meaning of agorazo stands out when given the immediate context of Peter’s
reference to false prophets among the Israelites in the past, Peter’s calling as the apostle
to the Jews (Gal. 2:8), and the similarity of the language here to that in Deuteronomy
32:6 (where Moses warned the people of turning from the God who had performed so
many mighty deeds to deliver them from slavery). The false teachers deny the same God
who delivered them, or bought them, when He brought their forefathers from Egypt.
They deny Him in the same way their forefathers denied Him (Acts 7:51, Matt. 23:29-36;
also compare Deut. 31:27-29 and 32:5 with 2 Peter 2:2, 13). Although God performed
such great and mighty deeds to buy them from Egypt, form them into a nation, and send
the messianic prophecies through them, they still reject Him and refuse to receive His
revelations with humble obedience. In this manner Peter seeks “to aggravate the
ingratitude and impiety of these false teachers among the Jews.” No failure in the
effectuality of Christ’s redemptive price is in view at all here. Rather, Peter refers to the
continual opposition of the Jews who killed the prophets and the Messiah while saying
they were the only true followers of God in John 9:28-34. (T. Nettles)
Writing to a church that is threatened not so much by external threats (as in 1 Peter) as by
internal ones (false teachers especially), he speaks to people who have named the name
of Christ as their Savior. Futhermore, the concern appears to be not with people who
have simply apostatized or denied their Christianity outright, but with those whose
licentiousness and immoral teaching act as a denial of their ownership. They know the
way of righteousness but turn from it and back to their old immoral ways like a dog
returning to its vomit (2 Peter 2:21-22). This passage shares the standpoint of Hebrews
6:4-6, 10:26-27 in spelling out the horror and inconceivable blasphemy of people (or
angels) actually turning their back on God after they have tasted His goodness. (D.
McCartney) The use of despotes indicates a measured precision in pointing to God as
rightful sovereign over all by virtue of sovereign creative power, his might in controlling
the affairs of history, and his sureness to take retribution on those who seek to suppress
his truth and oppose or ignore his purposes. (T. Nettles)
The reference to “the Master who purchased them” calls to mind the fact that, as
members of the community (i.e., the purchased people of God), they have been branded
as Christ’s, and denying Him is therefore analogous to a slave in the Roman Empire
denying his master. There is no question that many who have had Christ’s seal of
ownership placed upon them have nevertheless by word or life denied that ownership, to
their own destruction. Even hypocrites, by virtue of their sometime identification with the
people of God, are under Christ’s seal of ownership and hence are doubly condemned
when they deny their Master who warranted ownership of His people by His redemptive
death. This passage cannot therefore be used to disprove the notion that Christ’s
redemption was intended for the benefit of specific people. Quite the contrary, since
Peter gives no indication whatever that all people without distinction are the slaves of
Christ, the reference to Christ’s purchasing of “them” as His slaves supports rather than
denies the definiteness of the atonement. (D. McCartney)
Romans 14:15, 1 Corinthians 3:17, and 2 Peter 2:1 refer not to pagans but to believers, to
the saints who denying their Lord were in danger of being removed and taken home