Bought With A Price

In 2 Peter 2:1, the Greek word translated ‘bought’ is agorazo. Paul uses this word twice in 1 Corinthians in reference to the ransom Christ has paid on behalf of believers:

“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (6:20)

“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (7:23)

Clearly, Paul’s assumption is that the believer belongs to Christ by virtue of the price that has been paid to redeem him. In these passages, Paul is, in effect, encouraging believers to become in practice what they are in position: righteous.

The Greek word exagorazo, which is derived from agorazo, is translated ‘redeem’ twice in the New Testament:

“To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (Galatians 4:5)

“[Jesus Christ], Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14)

In Galatians 4:5, Paul is referring to believers with the pronoun ‘we,’ an association established in verse 3. Believers were under the law, which brings condemnation, but by virtue of their redemption they are freed from that condemnation and made heirs to salvation. Again in Titus 2:14, Paul uses exagorazo in reference to the redemption of believers.  Christ gave Himself for us to redeem us from our sins and purify us as a people reserved to Himself, obedient by His grace in the performance of good works.

The connection between agorazo and exagorazo should be clear from these passages. In each case, it is a reference to the redemption of believers, and, in three of the four instances shown, it is assumed or implied that good works on the part of the believer will follow this redemption. Paul’s use of ‘ye,’ ‘we,’ and ‘us’ makes it clear that he applies the term inclusively—i.e., the ‘redeemed’ are those who have already believed. The ‘redeemed’ are not a class consisting of all men without exception, nor are the ‘redeemed’ those who will believe but have not yet believed. Their redemption or purchase is an accomplished act of Christ, and as a consequence they are expected to emulate the example of Christ.

Denying Their Redeemer?

In his second epistle, Peter uses the word agorazo in a passage dealing with false teachers:

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

For opponents of the doctrine of perseverance, this verse serves as a proof text. If the destruction false teachers bring upon themselves is equivalent to damnation, and these false teachers are bought (i.e., redeemed) by the Lord, then Peter is allowing the possibility that even the redeemed could fall from grace and be damned. It is argued that 2 Peter 1:10 and 3:14 support this view.

But is it possible that anyone who has been “redeemed by the blood of the Lamb” will be punished for his sins regardless? The leeway in 2 Peter, which might suggest this, is eliminated elsewhere in Scripture. In John 6:39, for example, Jesus reveals the will of the Father, who sent Him: “…that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

If we read 2 Peter 2:1 in light of this and other passages, then it is clear that we cannot maintain the most obvious sense of the words—i.e., that the false teachers are redeemed, but will nevertheless be damned by their false teaching. Two alternatives present themselves: either, a) the destruction in view is temporal rather than eternal, or b) the false teachers are not in fact redeemed.

That the destruction is temporal rather than eternal is unlikely given the fact that the word translated ‘destruction’ is a form of the same root as the word translated ‘damned’—apolia—and is the same destruction for which the vessels of wrath in Romans 9 are fitted. Thus the second alternative, that the false teachers are not in fact redeemed, is the most viable alternative.

 But is it really a possible reading? After all, the passage says in no uncertain terms that these false teachers deny the Lord who bought them, not the Lord who didn’t buy them! If we conclude that Peter meant the opposite of what he actually said, how can we avoid the accusation that we are twisting Scripture?

Well, there is a word for saying the opposite of what you mean, and it is irony. What is ironic about these false teachings is that they run contrary to the doctrine taught by the Redeemer, and yet they come from people who profess belief and are teaching other believers. Just as the false prophet of the Old Testament claims to speak for God when he actually speaks for himself, the false teacher in the church claims to be redeemed while he teaches a doctrine that repudiates the Redeemer. Thus, Peter is not teaching us that it is possible for the redeemed to fall from grace and be damned, but that the false teacher’s doctrine gives the lie to his professed faith. Is this the most obvious reading? Perhaps not, but it is the most likely reading given the plain teaching of Scripture elsewhere.

Hypothetical Universal Redemption

Another possibility has been suggested to explain 2 Peter 2:1. Perhaps Peter is referring not to the actual redemption of the false teachers per se, but to the ‘hypothetical’ redemption of all men. If we affirm that Christ died to save all men, but that only those who actually accept or appropriate that salvation are in fact saved, then 2 Peter 2:1 can be read as an allusion to this stratified concept of redemption. Accordingly, Peter can refer to the false teachers as ‘bought’ by the Lord and still allow for their ‘destruction,’ because the Lord buys all men, but only some are actually saved from destruction.

 If we adopt this reading, then we affirm not only that Christ died for all men, but that He redeemed all men. The false teachers did not ‘lose’ their salvation, because they never had it in the first place. The Lord redeemed them, but they never accepted or appropriated that redemption by faith, and therefore they were not actually saved. To support this reading, we must maintain that redemption is not synonymous with salvation, and it is possible to be “redeemed by the blood of the Lamb” and nevertheless perish.

   The question is whether this reading is consistent with the way the doctrine of purchase/redemption is handled elsewhere in Scripture. We have already considered Paul’s use of the term and seen that it is applied to true believers. In 1 Corinthians 6:14, Paul establishes the parameter of reference for his subsequent discussion: “And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.” Believers are the recipients of the resurrection, and that resurrection is a consequence of the purchase invoked in verse 20: “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” In chapter 7, Paul similarly limits the frame of reference to believers. In verse 22 he writes, “For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.” Our redemption frees us from the bondage of sin and enrolls us in the service of Christ, as the following verse suggests: “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” It is clear that Paul is referring to Christians, and that he is using the idea of purchase/redemption synonymously with salvation.

    In common language, we adopt the same usage. When we refer to a person as ‘redeemed,’ we do not mean that it is possible that he will, at some future point, believe in Christ. Rather, we mean that he has already believed. Purchase is synonymous with redemption and redemption is synonymous with salvation. While the universalist (“all men will be saved”) may speak of all men as redeemed, the hypothetical universalist (“all men have a chance to be saved”) does not. Like the particularist, the hypothetical universalist is constrained by the language of Scripture to use the term redeemed in reference not to all men but to all men who already believe. 

Thus, the hypothetical universalist cannot read 2 Peter 2:1 as a proof text in support of his doctrinal supposition. The passage asserts more than he would want: Peter does not say that the false teachers deny the Lord who ‘died for them,’ but the Lord who bought them. In using that word, he invokes the Bible’s teaching on redemption in full, and if we are to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, both the hypothetical universalist and the particularist must read Peter’s reference as ironic rather than descriptive, assuming both are committed to the doctrine of perseverance.