the field

Yes. Jesus is not the Father, nor is He the Spirit.

 

From John Gill's commentary on 2 Peter 2:1 -

even as there shall be false teachers among you; which need not to be wondered at, or stumble any, it being no new or strange thing, but what was always more or less the case of the people of God. This is a prophecy of what should be, and agrees with the prediction of our Lord, Mt 24:11 and which regards not only the times immediately following, in which it had a remarkable fulfilment, for false teachers now began to arise, and appeared in great numbers in the age succeeding the apostles, but to all periods of time from hence, to the second coming of Christ; and these were to spring from, and be among such that bore the Christian name, and so regards not Mahometans and Deists; and it is to be observed, that the phrase is varied in this clause, and these are called not "prophets" but "teachers": because as prophecy was more peculiar to the former dispensation, so is teaching to the present:

who privily shall bring in damnable heresies: errors in the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel; such as relate to a trinity of persons in the Godhead; and to the person of Christ, to his proper deity, distinct personality, eternal sonship, and real humanity; and to his office as Mediator, rejecting him as the true Messiah, and as the only Saviour of sinners; denying his sacrifice and satisfaction, and the imputation of his righteousness; and to the Holy Spirit, his deity, personality, and divine influences and operations: these are "damnable", or "destructive", or "heresies of destruction"; which lead to eternal destruction both those that introduce and propagate them, and those that embrace and profess them; for they remove, or attempt to remove, the foundation of eternal life and happiness: the manner in which these are usually introduced is "privily"; at unawares, secretly, under a disguise, and gradually, by little and little, and not at once, and openly; and which is the constant character and practice of such men, who lie in wait to deceive, creep into churches at unawares, and into houses privately; and insinuate their principles under specious pretences and appearances of truth, using the hidden things of dishonesty, walking in craftiness, handling the word of God deceitfully, and colouring things with false glosses and feigned words: and even denying the Lord that bought them; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the Father; for the word kuriov is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the Lord, but despothv; and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants, and which God has over all mankind; and wherever this word is elsewhere used, it is spoken of God the Father, whenever applied to a divine person, as in Lu 2:29 and especially this appears to be the sense, from the parallel text in Jude 1:4 where the Lord God denied by those men is manifestly distinguished from our Lord Jesus Christ, and by whom these persons are said to be bought: the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see
Ac 20:28 whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ's purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for nought; but the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord; both by words, delivering out such tenets as are derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections, and which deny one or other of them, and of his purposes, providence, promises, and truths; and by works, turning the doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness, being disobedient and reprobate to every good work; that they should act this part against the Lord who had made them, and upheld them in their beings and took care of them in his providence, and had followed them with goodness and mercy all the days of their lives; just as Moses aggravates the ingratitude of the Jews in De 32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2Pe 2:12 compared with
De 32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Ex 15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them:

[ November 22, 2002, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

The "lost man" is not being spoken of in general here. Go to one of the previous posts which touches upon the issue of dealing with the false teachers, who like the false prophets, were among the people and claiming to be "of" the people and "of" God - but in reality were not / are not.

 

You may not have studied those languages, but you are certainly not ignorant (I don't know about poor, though, 'cause I know I am).

 

'agorazo' means to buy, to purchase, or to acquire ownership by payment of a price. Specific references for the meaning of this Greek word are presented below:

Moulton 4 - (a) to acquire by a ransom or price paid, (b) to redeem.

Vine5 - (a) to buy as in a market-place, (b) figuratively, of Christ having bought men, making them his property at the price of His blood. Note that Vine sees redeem as too strong for agorazo and reserves that thought for its compound form, exagorazo.

Thayer6 - (a) originally, it meant to frequent the market-place, (b) primarily it means to buy or obtain for a price, (c) figuratively, Christ is said to have purchased his disciples, i.e. made them his private property.

'agorazo' is used 30 times in the NT. The NASB translates it as "buy" (25x), "purchase" (4x), and "spend" (1x). 24 times it is employed in common language (like buying a field - Mt. 13:44; buying food, etc.). The other 6 times is is used in a theological manner (2 Pet. 2:1; Rev. 5:9; 14:3-4; 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). The compound form, 'exagorazo', is used 4x in the NT (2x in a theological manner). The prefix, 'ex-', is used for magnification. So, rather than saying "I'm going to the store to buy a loaf of bread" (agorazo), it would be "I'm going to buy every single loaf of bread that is in the store" (exagorazo). Are you with me?

In the verses where 'agorazo' is used in a theological manner, the use is restricted to believers - those who have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Don't forget that St. Peter intentionally alludes to Deuteronomy 32:5-6 when he refers to the false teachers:

"They have corrupted themselves; they are not His children, because of their blemish: a perverse and crooked generation. Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you? Has He not made you and established you?"

This is not referring to an "atonement" for sin, but to God rescuing the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt. If St. Peter were referring to an "atonement purchase" (for lack of a better way of putting it), he would not have employed 'despotes' (lit. "sovereign ruler"; "the one who creates and establishes all things"), but 'kurios'.

 

1. I would disagree with that statement but there is another forum that deals with Bible translation issues including the KJV only crowd.

2. We are attempting in this forum to stick to doctrines and not cast aspersions on people's motives.

Ken

[ November 24, 2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

JMF,

Let me encourage you to avoid casting aspersions such as "lying" etc. It is inappropriate in this forum. Additionally, please save your remarks concerning which translation you prefer to the appropriate forum.

As to your charges, the exact same word is not used. The word in 2 Peter 2:1 is agorasanta and the word in Rev 5:9 is egarasas. They are different words. They both come from the same root agaradzo, as Rev 5 noted above but as he said, context determines meaning.

 

Yes I could. All versions read the same. There is no textual variant. I have looked at NA27, UBS4, Robison Pierpont, Stephanus (1555), Scrivener (1894). The last two are TRs (that are different from each other and both different from the Robinson pierpont Majority Text (which is different from the Hodges Farstad Majority Text).

The words are different words from the same root. In 2 Peter 2:1, it is aorist active participle, masc acc sing. In Rev 5:9, it is an aorist active indicative, second person singular.

Having said all that, that is not your problem. The problem is the teaching of the passage. Words have meaning in context and the context determines the meaning. While other similar passages are helpful, they are not conclusive and you must demonstrate that Peter and John were using the word in the same way. That may well be the case but you have to make that case.