Davenant:

I answer: They are called ungodly and workers of iniquity, who wilfully serve their ungodly lusts; but the regenerate are not called ungodly or workers of iniquity because thy have within them the latent remains of original sin. Nay, it is their perpetual effort to coerce and subdue this indwelling sin, lest it should again acquire dominion. They are therefore opposers, rather than workers, of iniquity. Nor does it follow that God hates the regenerate for their having in them some dregs of original sin. For the love of God towards the regenerate is not founded on their perfection or absolute purity, but on Christ the Mediator, who has transferred their sins to himself, and thus delivered them from the wrath and hatred of God. We readily admit then, that God hateth these remains of sin, and that he shows his hatred, by daily lessening, and at length eradicating them, by his grace and Spirit; but he does not hate the persons of those to whom they cleave, because Christ by his blood hath expiated their guilt. God therefore has willed to punish sin, which he hates, and hath punished it; but he punished it in Christ, who sustained its penalty instead of all the elect.

The sum of our answer comes to this: A two-fold hatred of sin may be considered in God; for he hates sin, either with a simple hatred, or a hatred which reverts upon the person. He hates the sins which cleave to the justified with this simple hatred, because their persons are reconciled to God; but he hates the sins of the ungodly, with that hatred which reverts upon, or is visited, on their persons, because they have not the ransom of Christ applied to them for the expiation of their sins.

John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1844), 1:30-31.

The following is an extract from a seminary term paper, A Brief History of Deviant Calvinism

2 Peter 2:1: Of this verse there are two main elements to the exegetical approach taken by John Owen¹ and others who take his line of thought. Firstly, Owen stresses the fact that the Greek here is despotes which signifies not Christ as the mediator, but Christ as Lord, as sovereign God.² The second key argument, Owen adduces, is the fact that where agoradzo is normally used in reference to Christ as mediator, the price of the purchase is always stated.³ For example, we are “bought” by the blood of the lamb. The third key argument is that Owen thinks it’s more likely that Peter means not that they were ransomed by the blood of Christ, but rather that they were temporarily delivered from the pollutions of the world.⁴ Owen makes this argument by comparing this temporal deliverance with the temporal deliverance of Israel in the Old Testament.

Against this Baxter notes that even though despotes is used, it is used of Christ as saviour-mediator. For in verse 20, they have known the Saviour Jesus Christ.⁵ It is not absolute Lord apart from his mediatorial office, but in and with that office. Baxter also adds that in the parallel account of this, Jude 4 identifies that they denied their master (despotes) and Lord Jesus Christ. In response to the lack of price mentioned in 2 Pet 2:1, that is, the claim that agoradzo here does not denote blood-bought redemption but something else, Baxter cites Rev 14:3, where the 144000 are said to have been bought from the earth, and yet here no price is mentioned. Thus, we are not to imagine that this redemption was not soteriological.⁶ Regarding the argument from analogy from the OT, Baxter asks: “what of that?”⁷ He asks again, were not those Old Testaments false prophets part of the “typically redeemed people, so they are truly redeemed”? He goes on: “That the typical redemption out of Egypt was not only a type, but also a fruit of Christ’s redemption, in its moral being considered.”⁸

It is also helpful to briefly touch on a modern exponent of these arguments. Gary Long in his little book Definite Atonement⁹ presents his case by asserting a series of rhetorical questions. He argues that no where is despotes used to denote Christ as mediator, “unless this be the exception.” The problem is that Peter says they denied the saviour Jesus Christ. It is hard to imagine that Peter could have made such a distinction between Christ as absolute sovereign and Christ as mediator. Rather it seems that he held both together. Long notes:

2 Peter 2:1 refers to God the Son as sovereign Lord and not as God the Son as mediator. This does not mean that Christ as mediator is not sovereign; rather it is to acknowledge the fact that when Christ is referred to as mediator, one of his redemptive titles, such as lamb of God, is always mentioned, or the redemptive price is made explicit …¹⁰

However, Long’s point is an argument from silence. Just because certain descriptive components are absent one cannot build a case that the subject being described is radically different. Regarding agoradzo, Long makes a similar argument. He notes that when it is used elsewhere to denote the redemptive work of Christ as mediator, a price is mentioned, “unless this be the exception.”¹¹ The problem is that the converse also holds. Whenever agoradzo is used in redemptive contexts,¹² that is, where Christ is referenced as saviour, soteriological redemption is clearly in mind, but if Long is correct, this would be the only case where it is used non-soteriologically. That would be a serious anomaly. It is more probable that, seeing Peter actually identifies Christ as saviour, he means it in a soteriological sense. To argue that because a price is not mentioned, this redemption cannot be soteriological, is again to argue from silence.

In contrast, Clifford is closer to the biblical truth when he notes:

There is, however, an important point to be made about the use of agoradzo which links it with despotes. In 1 Cor., 6:20 and 7:23 Paul is highlighting not so much the freedom of the redeemed as their obligations to the redeemer. Freedom from sin’s guilt and power is not freedom to do as they wish; they are now Christ’s property. Although agoradzo does not, strictly speaking, mean ‘acquired by ransom’, it clearly presupposes redemption… Therefore, agoradzo is used in 2 Pet., 2:1 to emphasize the obligations of the redeemed teachers faithfully to proclaim the truth. Peter is thus stressing Christ’s sovereign right of ownership and the consequent obligations of those who had professed him.¹³

This makes better sense and is more true to sound exegetical principles, rather than basing an argument resting on ‘things not stated.’

_____________________

¹And lots of unsound rhetorical arguments which I will not tackle here.

²John Owen, The Death of Death (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1983), 250.

³Ibid., 251.

⁴Ibid. Owen bases this last point on the Old Testament, wherein it was said that some were temporarily delivered from the world.

⁵Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind, Stated and Cleared by the Late Learned Mr Richard Baxter, (London: John Salsubury, 1694), 315.

⁶Ibid., 320.

⁷Ibid.

⁸Ibid. One can also apply this to Long’s attempt to connect 2 Pet 2:1 with Dt 32:6. But here Long has problems. For there in the LXX ktaomai is used. Long must weave into that a more inferential connection of agoradzo. If Peter had been consciously thinking of using this OT reference in a completely non-soteriological context why did he then not use ktaomai making his reference explicit? But that notwithstanding, why could it not be that the ‘deliverance’ is still secured by Christ as sovereign mediator? Why must his sovereignty exclude his mediatorial role? For surely, the sovereignty of Christ is grounded on his mediatorship?

⁹Gary Long, Definite Atonement, (no plce: Backus Books, 1988), 71.

¹⁰Ibid.

¹¹Ibid., 72.

¹²A non-redemptive context would be instances where agoradzo is used in reference to buying a garment or a field.

¹³Clifford, Atonement, p., 159. This is where the drift of modern scholarship is heading in terms of explicating the most likely intent of Peter here.

John Murray:

22–24 These verses are an unfinished sentence (6 Luke 19:42; John 6: 62; Acts 23: 9). Literally the Greek terms are “but if” and their force is properly rendered by ‘what if’, as in the version, or, as Sanday and Headlam observe, “like our English idiom ‘what and if.’” Understood thus the three verses are an expansion and application of what underlies the analogy appealed to in verses 20b, 21. If God in the exercise of his sovereign right makes some vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy what have lve to say? It is a rhetorical way of reiterating the question of verse 20.

The interpretation of these verses may more suitably be discussed in the order of the following details.

1. “Vessels of wrath” and “vessels of mercy” are best regarded in terms of verse 21. The potter makes vessels for certain purposes. So here the vessels are for wrath and mercy. It is true that they are vessels deserving wrath but this cannot apply in respect of mercy to the vessels of mercy. Hence both should be taken in a sense that can apply to both. This view is to the same effect as that of Calvin who says that vessels are to be taken in a general sense to mean instruments and therefore instruments for the exhibition of God’s mercy and the display of his judgment.

2. The participle “willing” has been interpreted in two ways: “because willing” or “although willing.” In the former case the thought would be that because God wishes to give more illustrious display of his wrath and power he exercises his longsuffering. In the latter case the meaning would be: although God wills to execute his wrath he nevertheless restrains and postpones this execution from the constraint of longsuffering. In the one case longsuffering serves the purpose of effective display of wrath and power, in the other case longsuffering inhibits the execution of the just desert. In favour of the latter it could be said that according to 2:4 God’s longsuffering is a manifestation of the goodness of God directed to repentance and could hardly be represented as the means of promoting the demonstration of God’s wrath. Before reaching a decision on this question other considerations bearing on the interpretation of verses 22,23 have to be taken into account.

Read the rest of this entry »

Murray:

2:4. In verse 4 we have another question introduced by “or”, and “despisest thou” is parallel to “reckonest thou” in verse 3. The purpose of this “or” is not that of proposing alternatives; it is rhetorical like the questions themselves. And the effect is to press home upon the Jew in crescendo fashion the impiety of which he is guilty. In other words, these are not alternative ways of interpreting his attitude but different ways of stating what his attitude is. And that the apostle entertains no doubt respecting the contempt offered by the Jew to the riches of God’s goodness is demonstrated by verse 5. Paul is dealing with a hardened Jew and with increasing intensity of derogation points him to the perversity of which he is guilty.

“The riches” of God’s goodness refer to the abundance and magnitude of the goodness bestowed upon the Jew. The strength of the expression indicates that the covenant lovingkindness of which the Jew was the partaker is contemplated (cf. 3:2; 9:4, 5). And the same holds true for “forbearance and longsuffering”. The word “riches” governs all three terms. The abundance of God’s “forbearance and longsuffering” to Israel was exemplified again and again in the history of the Old Testament but the apostle must be thinking particularly, if not exclusively, of the forbearance and longsuffering exercised to the Jew at the time of writing. For in the rejection of the grace and goodness manifested in Christ the Jew had given the utmost of ground for the execution of God’s wrath and punishment to the uttermost. Only “the riches” of forbearance and longsuffering could explain the preservation accorded to him. We must not press unduly and thus artificially the distinction between “forbearance” and “longsuffering”. Together they express the idea that God suspends the infliction of punishment and restrains the execution of his wrath. When he exercises forbearance and longsuffering he does not avenge sin in the instant execution of wrath. Forbearance and longsuffering, therefore, reflect upon the wrath and punishment which sin deserves and refer to the restraint exercised by God in the infliction of sin’s desert. It needs to be noted that the apostle does not think of this restraint as exercised in abstraction from the riches of God’s goodness, the riches of his benignity and lovingkindness. There is a complementation that bespeaks the magnitude of God’s kindness and of which the gifts of covenant privilege are the expression.⁶ It is a metallic conception of God’s forbearance and longsuffering that isolates them from the kindness of disposition and of benefaction which the goodness of God implies.

Read the rest of this entry »