Really good audio debate..

[Apollos]

Well, I've just finished the debates.

I don't really have much positive to offer. It just came across to me as the same old obfuscation, avoidance, obstruction, and belligerence, in my opinion; I can't see any justification for thinking he was particularly well-behaved, as one Arminian blogger claimed. He was asked where in Scripture this 'time-fabricating decree' is found (after stating it was everywhere), and would not answer; he was asked what 'not our sins only, but those of the whole world' means, and I am unable to understand how he understands the passage, as it seems he just got jumpy, defensive, and loud.

Brown mentioned that the Atonement in Israel was for all the nation but only applicable to the faithful within the nation - does anyone know what Scripture he had in mind?

Anyone any thoughts on the 2 Peter 2 passage, and White's explanation (supported by Wayne Grudem)? It's the nation of Israel which was bought in Deut. 32.6, and it seems odd to apply this terminology to individuals - false teachers - let alone ones who live in New Testament times and are troubling churches (even assuming they were Jewish). It certainly doesn't seem to be the most natural way of understanding the passage - but is it a possible one?

[chrisdate]

Anyone any thoughts on the 2 Peter 2 passage, and White's explanation (supported by Wayne Grudem)? It's the nation of Israel which was bought in Deut. 32.6, and it seems odd to apply this terminology to individuals - false teachers - let alone ones who live in New Testament times and are troubling churches (even assuming they were Jewish). It certainly doesn't seem to be the most natural way of understanding the passage - but is it a possible one?

I'm a Calvinist and was impressed by Brown. And I've said in other threads he's got me reconsidering my views. But I agree with White re: 2 Peter 2. I wrote about it recently at http://www.theopologetics.com, which you can quote here to discuss.

[chrisdate]

The important thing is, the critic of Calvinism has to justify that the "purchased" language in 2 Peter 2 must refer to the atonement of Jesus, which simply can't be demonstrated. I believe the case is strong that the purchase of Israel from Egypt, and not the purchase with Christ's blood, is what's in view here.

[Sean]

The only real issue I had with James White is that I wish he would have answered Brown's response to the issue of who's sins Jesus death atoned for. Michael Brown pointed out that even the elect were objects of wrath until being justified by faith and having our sins covered. Yet James ignored this and kept asking how Jesus could intercede for the whole world and yet the whole world is not saved if substitutionary atonement is true. Michael Brown answered this again and James response: "Ok, I'm out of time".

If James's view is correct, then Jesus only died for the elect and their sins are paid for before being justified by faith.

[Apollos]

The important thing is, the critic of Calvinism has to justify that the "purchased" language in 2 Peter 2 must refer to the atonement of Jesus, which simply can't be demonstrated. I believe the case is strong that the purchase of Israel from Egypt, and not the purchase with Christ's blood, is what's in view here.

I agree; if there is the slightest reason to think that the passage might not refer to the atonement, then it's no longer a proof text.

[chrisdate]

I agree; if there is the slightest reason to think that the passage might not refer to the atonement, then it's no longer a proof text.

Of course, I would go further and say there's not the slightest reason to think it IS referring to the atonement, but yes, as you've said, this passage is not a challenge to my Reformed soteriology.

[Apollos]

Anyone any thoughts on the 2 Peter 2 passage, and White's explanation (supported by Wayne Grudem)? It's the nation of Israel which was bought in Deut. 32.6, and it seems odd to apply this terminology to individuals - false teachers - let alone ones who live in New Testament times and are troubling churches (even assuming they were Jewish). It certainly doesn't seem to be the most natural way of understanding the passage - but is it a possible one?

I'm a Calvinist and was impressed by Brown. And I've said in other threads he's got me reconsidering my views. But I agree with White re: 2 Peter 2. I wrote about it recently at http://www.theopologetics.com, which you can quote here to discuss.

This was a thoughtful and enjoyable post to read, but I would like to address your points.

You start out by quoting Revelation 5:9-10:

(9) And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. (10) You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

You then note:

Notice that Jesus is here said to have "purchased" a people from among every tribe and tongue and people and nation. Although not 100% conclusive, it is interesting to note that the text doesn't seem to suggest that Jesus purchased every person from among mankind.

Yes, I agree. This is clearly redemptive language, and I think the correspondence to Israel's redemption from Egypt is the church's redemption from sin and the world, and the passage you quote not only says 'from among', but it also says that those bought are made 'a kingdom of priests to our God' - that can't refer to the whole world.

However, I would differ from the Calvinist in saying that the atonement in 1 Jn 2:2 is for the whole world - all whosoever is willing may come, because an atonement has been made for sin, if they will come to the 'blood of sprinkling which speaks better things than Abel's'.

I have always taken the 'bought' in 2 Peter 2 to refer to their having become Christian professors, not in a general sense as though all are bought. Perhaps I differ from Brown on that - there were a few things in his presentation I was unhappy about (his Gospel presentation - 'Jesus loves you, he died for you on the cross', and his interpretation of Eph. 1 as individual foreknowledge, are two that come to mind). These false teachers had been bought.

Accepting this, you continue:

Some passages do speak of the Church being acquired or purchased or redeemed and do not include the "blood" language. Still, had Jesus' blood been mentioned here by Peter, the challenge to Calvinism would be much more powerful.

Yes, that would certainly have put the matter above any reasonable doubt. But as you point out, the word is used elsewhere also, where the blood is not specifically mentioned (i.e. Rev. 14:4, though it could be argued that the background is 5:9 where blood is mentioned, but also 1 Cor. 6:20 - 'you were bought with a price', where the blood atonement is simply assumed).
Certainly, from a NT perspective, the presumption would be that this refers to the atonement, unless clearly shown otherwise.

And while I began this section attempting to demonstrate that the Greek word for "Master" is never used of Jesus Christ, I discovered I was wrong. It is used once to refer specifically to Jesus in Jude 1:4.

The word 'Master' is only used of Jesus in Jude 1:4 in the Critical Texts - it isn't used of him in the Majority Texts, so I guess the answer to that question will depend upon one's view of textual criticism. The word 'master' is appropriate either way though, as the language is one of buying a slave. Paul uses it this way also:

1Co 7:22 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. 1Co 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

These false teachers were bought as slaves for a Master, but had fallen from this. Peter goes on to say that God didn't spare the angels that sinned. The parallel here seems to be that though the false teachers were bought, that they instead went back to their own pernicious and evil ways and fell from their state.

The account in Jude includes, along with the story of the angels that sinned, the account of the Israelites that sinned after coming out of Egypt, and of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Peter may be drawing parallels with Deut. 32 - but I think it's a bit of a stretch to state that the false teachers are spoken of as having been purchased out of Egypt. You quote Exodus 15 first:

(16) Terror and dread fall upon them; By the greatness of Your arm they are motionless as stone; Until Your people pass over, O LORD, Until the people pass over whom You have purchased. (17) You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, The place, O LORD, which You have made for Your dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established.

Here it is the nation that is spoken of as bought, because it was redeemed out of Egypt and will be planted in a mountain (i.e. Jerusalem).

Likewise Deut. 32:

(6) Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you.

And this is in the context of God distributing the nations as an inheritance according to the number of the sons of God (LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls; or 'sons of Israel' MT), but the people of Israel being the LORD's inheritance.

So if Peter is alluding to these chapters, he can only be saying is this: just as there were false teachers in Israel of old, God's redeemed inheritance, so there will be false teachers among you, and they deny the Lord that bought them, sinning against their Master and walking in the flesh.

However I doubt he is alluding to them. They speak of the redemption of a nation from Egypt, to be the LORD's inheritance, and it can't be ignored that the LXX uses a different verb.

So agorazō and ktaomai are, indeed, largely synonymous.

They can be used this way, but one does mean to purchase in a market, and the other to acquire for oneself. With the slave/master analogy, you would really only have the option of agorazō.

[chrisdate]

This was a thoughtful and enjoyable post to read, but I would like to address your points.

Thanks!

Yes, I agree. This is clearly redemptive language, and I think the correspondence to Israel's redemption from Egypt is the church's redemption from sin and the world, and the passage you quote not only says 'from among', but it also says that those bought are made 'a kingdom of priests to our God'.

However, I would differ from the Calvinist in saying that the atonement in 1 Jn 2:2 is for the whole world - all whosoever is willing may come, because an atonement has been made for sin, if they will come to the 'blood of sprinkling which speaks better things than Abel's'.

If I have the discipline to able to restrain myself from spending too much time on it and away from higher priorities, let's talk about that passage in another thread, if you don't mind, as I don't think it means what you think it means. As for Revelation, we can talk about that in another thread, too, because I think you slightly misquoted it in such a way that escapes what we Calvinists have often said is a weighty evidence in favor of Limited Atonement. Do you mind if we separate those two passages into two separate, new threads?

Yes, that would certainly have put the matter above any reasonable doubt. But as you point out, the word is used elsewhere also, where the blood is not specifically mentioned (i.e. Rev. 14:4, though it could be argued that the background is 5:9 where blood is mentioned, but also 1 Cor. 6:20 - 'you were bought with a price', were the blood atonement is simply assumed).
Certainly, from a NT perspective, the presumption would be that this refers to the atonement, unless clearly shown otherwise.

I don't think that's a true statement. What you're basically saying is, it should be assumed that a "purchase" of a person in the New Testament should be assumed to refer to the atonement, until proven otherwise. I don't agree. The New Testament does not exist in isolation, it exists within the broader context of the Bible as a whole, which is steeped in the purchase of Israel from Egypt. I think a more proper approach would be to assume that a "purchase" of a person or a people in the New Testament should be assumed to refer to either the atonement or the purchase of Israel from Egypt, unless proven otherwise. But I'll understand if we disagree on that point; I doubt we can argue compellingly one way or the other.

And while I began this section attempting to demonstrate that the Greek word for "Master" is never used of Jesus Christ, I discovered I was wrong. It is used once to refer specifically to Jesus in Jude 1:4.

The word 'Master' is only used of Jesus in Jude 1:4 in the Critical Texts - it isn't used of him in the Majority Texts, so I guess the answer to that question will depend upon one's view of textual criticism. The word 'master' is appropriate either way though, as the language is one of buying a slave. Paul uses it this way also:

1Co 7:22 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. 1Co 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Yes, I agree that Jesus is obviously a "Master" in New Testament thought, but had Peter used "Lord" or "Jesus Christ," again, the case would be much stronger against Calvinism. But the fact that the only other place in which this Greek word MIGHT be used of Jesus is a virtually identical (thematically) epistle is, at the very least, noteworthy, and led nicely into what I think makes my case. You see, my point in making the above statement was more a recounting of my own personal journey through researching this objection to Calvinism. Originally I thought the Greek word was never used to refer to Christ, and had begun the post intending to make that argument, but when I discovered it was used in (possibly) one and only one other place to refer to Jesus, it served as the key which unlocked what I think is the answer to this objection. That's all.

In short, yes, I'm aware that the fact that this word may not have been used anywhere else to refer to Christ does not mean the atonement is not in view here. But it was a page in the story of how I came to the conclusion I did, so I included it for my readers.

These false teachers were bought as slaves for a Master, but had fallen from this.

Be careful, I think you're reading your presumptions into the text. Denying the Master who bought them does not mean they "had fallen from this." They were destroyed, sure, but that doesn't mean they "fell" from anything. Just wanted to clarify.

Peter goes on to say that God didn't spare the angels that sinned. The parallel here seems to be that though the false teachers were bought, that they instead went back to their own pernicious and evil ways and fell from their state.

Again, I think you're reading your presumptions into the text. Just because these false teachers were bought does not mean they ever turned from their pernicious and evil ways. You appear to presume that whatever purchase is in view here was made because the merchandise first turned from evil, but that's nowhere in the text. Again, just wanted to clarify.

The account in Jude includes, along with the story of the angels that sinned, the account of the Israelites that sinned after coming out of Egypt, and of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jude isn't the only one of the two that refer to the Israelites who sinned after coming out of Egypt. Peter did it, too: "But false prophets also arose among the people." Granted, he doesn't say this happened immediately after the rescue from Egypt, but nevertheless the Israelites are the ones who are in view, who were as a people rescued from Egypt. The rescue from Egypt was part of the Hebrew identity, which remains true to this day.

But my point is, first, the only two places (if that) where the Greek word rendered "Master" is used in reference to Jesus also have in common a warning against evil men who will arise from the audience to "deny" said Master (actually, we could leave Jesus out of it and the point would be the same). This is striking, but it's only the beginning. Second, both epistles then go on to offer the same basic warning: evil men will arise from amongst your ranks and will be punished, just like X, Y and Z, X referring to the people of Israel in both epistles, with Jude going a little further and explicitly referring to X having been saved from Egypt. The fact that Peter mentions X but doesn't mention the rescue from Egypt is of little importance, since X has as part of its identity that rescue. Oh, and it just so happens that Peter is writing specifically to X.

Peter may be drawing parallels with Deut. 32 - but I think it's a bit of a stretch to state that the false teachers are spoken of as having been purchased out of Egypt. You quote Exodus 15 first:

(16) Terror and dread fall upon them; By the greatness of Your arm they are motionless as stone; Until Your people pass over, O LORD, Until the people pass over whom You have purchased. (17) You will bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, The place, O LORD, which You have made for Your dwelling, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands have established.

Here it is the nation that is spoken of as bought, because it was redeemed out of Egypt and will be planted in a mountain (i.e. Jerusalem).

Likewise Deut. 32:

(6) Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you.

And this is in the context of God distributing the nations as an inheritance according to the number of the sons of God (LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls; or 'sons of Israel' MT), but the people of Israel being the LORD's inheritance.

So if Peter is alluding to these chapters, he can only be saying is this: just as there were false teachers in Israel of old, God's redeemed inheritance, so there will be false teachers among you, and they deny the Lord that bought them, sinning against their Master and walking in the flesh.

I think you're missing my point. My point is not that Peter is hearkening back to these specific passages. Rather, I believe it's clear he is hearkening back to the fact that the Israelites were "purchased" from Egypt.

Again, the very people to whom Peter is writing are the very people whose identity is wrapped up in their having been purchased from Egypt, and in both his epistle and its thematic twin (which, by the way, has been argued to have been written primarily to Jewish believers as well), the readers are pointed back to the evil men who arose from the nation to which the readers belong, that nation which was purchased from Egypt. I believe this case is far stronger than that which basically rests on the unsubstantiable argument that we should assume the purchase of a person in the New Testament is a reference to the atonement until proven otherwise.

However I doubt he is alluding to them. They speak of the redemption of a nation from Egypt, to be the LORD's inheritance, and it can't be ignored that the LXX uses a different verb.

So agorazō and ktaomai are, indeed, largely synonymous.

They can be used this way, but one does mean to purchase in a market, and the other to acquire for oneself. With the slave/master analogy, you would really only have the option of agorazō.

This is incorrect. And I was about to go to some length to demonstrate it, but I think I stumbled upon very simple proof that your statement, that agorazō is your only option when dealing with slaves and masters, is false.

Ecclesiastes 2:7 reads, "I bought male and female slaves and I had homeborn slaves. Also I possessed flocks and herds larger than all who preceded me in Jerusalem." In the LXX, the word is ktaomai. And there's more. Genesis 39:1 reads, "Potiphar, an Egyptian officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the bodyguard, bought [Joseph] from the Ishmaelites." Again, ktaomai. In Genesis 47:23, "Joseph said to the people, 'Behold, I have today bought you and your land for Pharaoh," and ktaomai is used, and in verse 25 they respond by saying, "we will be Pharaoh's slaves." Leviticus 25:50 reads, "They will negotiate the price of their freedom with the person who bought them," and ktaomai is used. And the word is frequently used to refer to other kinds of purchases, even when no price is mentioned.

So with all due respect, I believe you are wrong in asserting that ktaomai cannot be used in a master/slave context. And since both Greek verbs were used in the LXX to translate the same Hebrew verb, the objection to my interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 based on the Greek verb there just falls flat, in my opinion.

What's more, since I came across this after I had written that post, Peter's use of despotēs is a word his Jewish readers would have likely recognized as a reference to Yahweh who purchased them out of Egypt. Abraham calls Him "Lord Yahweh" using despotēs in Genesis 15:2 and 8. Jonah calls Him "Lord Yahweh" using despotēs in Jonah 4:3. Jeremiah calls Him "Lord Yahweh" using despotēs in Jeremiah 1:6 and 4:10. Daniel calls Him "Master" using despotēs several times in Daniel chapter 9. Isaiah calls Him despotēs in Isaiah 1:24, 3:1 and 10:33.

The fact that Peter chose to use a word which is arguably never used as a reference to Jesus (with the one possible exception being an epistle which is nearly identical thematically), instead of "Lord" or "Jesus," and which is frequently used by the Israelites to refer to Yahweh, a Name which, by the way, was revealed to Israel as part of the Exodus story, is telling. Combine that with the fact that his Jewish readers are being warned that false teachers would arise from among them just as false prophets had arisen from the nation purchased from Egypt, that nation being the one of which Peter's readers were a part, I think the case that this purchase from Egypt is what's in view is far stronger than the case for the atonement--or any other Christian sort of purchase, for that matter--which is based pretty much only on the argument that we ought to assume that any purchase of people in the New Testament is a reference to the atonment.

[Apollos]

If I have the discipline to able to restrain myself from spending too much time on it and away from higher priorities, let's talk about that passage in another thread, if you don't mind, as I don't think it means what you think it means.

Sure, ok.

As for Revelation, we can talk about that in another thread, too, because I think you slightly misquoted it in such a way that escapes what we Calvinists have often said is a weighty evidence in favor of Limited Atonement. Do you mind if we separate those two passages into two separate, new threads?

Do you mean I slightly misrepresented its meaning? I copied the quote from your blog. I was really just agreeing with you on that point, or thought I was, but sure we can discuss this separately.

I don't think that's a true statement. What you're basically saying is, it should be assumed that a "purchase" of a person in the New Testament should be assumed to refer to the atonement, until proven otherwise. I don't agree. The New Testament does not exist in isolation, it exists within the broader context of the Bible as a whole, which is steeped in the purchase of Israel from Egypt. I think a more proper approach would be to assume that a "purchase" of a person or a people in the New Testament should be assumed to refer to either the atonement or the purchase of Israel from Egypt, unless proven otherwise. But I'll understand if we disagree on that point; I doubt we can argue compellingly one way or the other.

I do think that an apostle, writing to a redeemed community, who are understood to have been bought at a price by the blood of Jesus, would have this meaning unless it was clearly meant otherwise. 1 Cor. 6:20 is a good example of this.

Also, the OT does speak of the nation as being acquired (a different Greek word), but not individuals within the nation, as far as I can tell. The acquisition language is national - it is the congregation that is redeemed out of Egypt. It is the people who deny the 'father that acquired' them. This doesn't use the word 'bought' (more on that later), but even if they are synonymous, it's the nation, not individuals, that would be 'bought'.

Peter would need to not only be introducing his own variation upon the OT theme, but doing so in a passage clearly talking about false teachers within the New Testament churches, which, I would have thought, would necessitate his making this very clear.
Those are my reasons for this, and I think that you're right that we'll both disagree on this and draw our own conclusions based on the evidence.

Originally I thought the Greek word was never used to refer to Christ, and had begun the post intending to make that argument, but when I discovered it was used in (possibly) one and only one other place to refer to Jesus, it served as the key which unlocked what I think is the answer to this objection. That's all.

Wouldn't it strengthen the Calvinist case if Jesus wasn't referred to as Master, since you want an OT context for this?

Again, I think you're reading your presumptions into the text. Just because these false teachers were bought does not mean they ever turned from their pernicious and evil ways. You appear to presume that whatever purchase is in view here was made because the merchandise first turned from evil, but that's nowhere in the text. Again, just wanted to clarify.

Yes, though v15 says that they 'have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray', and again:
'For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

These are people who made a profession of righteousness, but turned astray, and thus, 'denied the Master that bought them'.

Jude isn't the only one of the two that refer to the Israelites who sinned after coming out of Egypt. Peter did it, too: "But false prophets also arose among the people." Granted, he doesn't say this happened immediately after the rescue from Egypt, but nevertheless the Israelites are the ones who are in view, who were as a people rescued from Egypt. The rescue from Egypt was part of the Hebrew identity, which remains true to this day.

Yes, - it was Israel which was acquired. 'False prophets' probably refers to the false prophets of Baal in the time of the monarchies.

But my point is, first, the only two places (if that) where the Greek word rendered "Master" is used in reference to Jesus also have in common a warning against evil men who will arise from the audience to "deny" said Master (actually, we could leave Jesus out of it and the point would be the same). This is striking, but it's only the beginning. Second, both epistles then go on to offer the same basic warning: evil men will arise from amongst your ranks and will be punished, just like X, Y and Z, X referring to the people of Israel in both epistles, with Jude going a little further and explicitly referring to X having been saved from Egypt. The fact that Peter mentions X but doesn't mention the rescue from Egypt is of little importance, since X has as part of its identity that rescue. Oh, and it just so happens that Peter is writing specifically to X.

But as I claimed in my first response, this is in the context of the false teachers being in the saved community and then falling from it, and the examples of the Israelites and the angels bring this out. Peter, on the other hand, brings out that the wicked are destroyed, though he is also clear that they turned astray.

I think you're missing my point. My point is not that Peter is hearkening back to these specific passages. Rather, I believe it's clear he is hearkening back to the fact that the Israelites were "purchased" from Egypt.

It was the nation of Israel, and they were acquired. Peter speaks of individuals who denied the Master that purchased them. I see a difference here, whereas you don't. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now.

This is incorrect. And I was about to go to some length to demonstrate it, but I think I stumbled upon very simple proof that your statement, that agorazō is your only option when dealing with slaves and masters, is false.

The two words can be used synonymously, but the nuance is not the same, and 'purchase' is more specific, which causes a problem for the Calvinist wanting to generalize the meaning of it in 2 Peter.

The passages you refer to speak of acquiring possessions - it's acquisition of goods that is in mind. It's the same in the Pentateuch - often these words can be used synonymously, but the more general word is used - acquire - because the emphasis isn't on the transaction. Potiphar is a narrative in which we simply learn that Potiphar acquired Joseph as a slave - the word 'purchase' is only used of objects in the LXX, like grain and wine, not persons. Perhaps there was a distinction in conception, or perhaps the general word is used because it wasn't a marketplace transaction.

In Gen. 47:23, Joseph acquired the land for Pharaoh, but there was not a change of occupancy - you could perhaps say it was 'purchased and leased back out' or you could simply say that Pharaoh acquired it. Actually I doubt you could use the word 'purchased' at all - it seems to be confined to marketplace commodities. Or this may be a case where the words were synonymous .

In fact the verb for 'purchase' is built on the Greek noun meaning 'market-place'. In market-place contexts the LXX uses the word 'purchase' - i.e. Gen. 41:57 - 'buy corn'. I would be very unlikely that someone would use 'acquire' to say that you were going to Egypt to buy corn from Jopeph. Again, 43:22 'buy food' - where the idea is going to a market place to complete a transaction. Israel didn't have slave markets, and so the word wasn't appropriate for this. The language of Peter, however, is the language of the Greek slave market, which traded in souls (unlike Israelite slavery, which had limitations).

So with all due respect, I believe you are wrong in asserting that ktaomai cannot be used in a master/slave context.

Acquire can be used if one wants to say they got a slave. But if one wants to say they purchased one from the Greek slave-market, you would ordinarily use the Greek verb 'purchase', with all that that implies.

What's more, since I came across this after I had written that post, Peter's use of despotēs is a word his Jewish readers would have likely recognized as a reference to Yahweh who purchased them out of Egypt. Abraham calls Him "Lord Yahweh" using despotēs in Genesis 15:2 and 8. Jonah calls Him "Lord Yahweh" using despotēs in Jonah 4:3. Jeremiah calls Him "Lord Yahweh" using despotēs in Jeremiah 1:6 and 4:10. Daniel calls Him "Master" using despotēs several times in Daniel chapter 9. Isaiah calls Him despotēs in Isaiah 1:24, 3:1 and 10:33.

And none of these are in a market context - they are in a context where the Lord is the one to be obeyed. Peter is using 'master' (used in slave contexts in Hellenistic works, along with the fem. despoina - cf. 1 Tim. 6:1) and the verb for buying slaves in the market. It would not have evoked the exodus.

Anyway, I really should get things done too! We might not agree as this point in time, but I do believe you are just trying to understand these passages, just as I am and we all are, in our imperfect ways.

[chrisdate]

Boy, that's lame. I get nearly done with my response and then the power goes out in my office, causing me to lose my entire response I guess I should be composing this in a file and saving periodically. Anyway, I'll try to reproduce what I'd written:

Do you mean I slightly misrepresented its meaning? I copied the quote from your blog. I was really just agreeing with you on that point, or thought I was, but sure we can discuss this separately.

I believe you misquoted it. The version from which I quoted says "a kingdom AND priests," you said, "a kingdom OF priests," and I think that has a bearing on the Calvinist's argument. But yeah, we'll discuss that separately.

I do think that an apostle, writing to a redeemed community, who are understood to have been bought at a price by the blood of Jesus, would have this meaning unless it was clearly meant otherwise. 1 Cor. 6:20 is a good example of this.

It's not really a good example, because it doesn't exist outside of a context. Its context is one which includes a price for the purchase, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc. No such contextual evidence appears here. What's more, the Apostle wasn't only writing to a redeemed community, he was also writing to a Jewish one. That, in and of itself, introduces the possibility that a different purchase is in view--depending, of course, on our following disagreement. So I guess that I might be willing to concede that an epistle directed toward a Gentile community probably ought to be assumed to be referring to the atonement when it uses language of purchasing, but such is not true of an epistle to Jews.

Also, the OT does speak of the nation as being acquired (a different Greek word), but not individuals within the nation, as far as I can tell. The acquisition language is national - it is the congregation that is redeemed out of Egypt. It is the people who deny the 'father that acquired' them. This doesn't use the word 'bought' (more on that later), but even if they are synonymous, it's the nation, not individuals, that would be 'bought'.

Yup, and nations are comprised of individuals. Besides, you're assuming that the ones referred to as "bought" are "bought" in some individual, not corporate, fashion. Where does the text suggest that? If God "purchased" a body of people, and some rejected Him, they would justifiably be referred to as "those whom God purchased," because they're part of the larger group. While certain of your points are stronger, this one just isn't.

Peter would need to not only be introducing his own variation upon the OT theme, but doing so in a passage clearly talking about false teachers within the New Testament churches, which, I would have thought, would necessitate his making this very clear.

He's not introducing his own variation upon the OT theme, but regardless, you might have a case had Peter been writing to a non-Jewish audience. The fact is, however, he wasn't. His audience were members of churches AND Israel.

Those are my reasons for this, and I think that you're right that we'll both disagree on this and draw our own conclusions based on the evidence.

Fair enough

Wouldn't it strengthen the Calvinist case if Jesus wasn't referred to as Master, since you want an OT context for this?

Maybe, but as you pointed out, Jesus is a Master of redeemed individuals in the New Covenant, so even if He had never been called Master, that wouldn't indicate that the Calvinist view is correct. I suppose it might strengthen our case a bit, but not enough for me to make a big deal out of it.

Yes, though v15 says that they 'have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray', and again:
'For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

These are people who made a profession of righteousness, but turned astray, and thus, 'denied the Master that bought them'.

None of this suggests that they were ever truly penitent. More, however, none of this suggests that they were purchased on the basis of having first repenteded. I'm just trying to avoid loaded language being read into the text.

Yes, - it was Israel which was acquired. 'False prophets' probably refers to the false prophets of Baal in the time of the monarchies.

My knowledge of OT history is limited; I've got a lot of learning to do. Were those false prophets Israelites? If so, they were purchased along with the rest of Israel.

But as I claimed in my first response, this is in the context of the false teachers being in the saved community and then falling from it, and the examples of the Israelites and the angels bring this out. Peter, on the other hand, brings out that the wicked are destroyed, though he is also clear that they turned astray.

Yes, but the false teachers who will arise from among them, and who will go astray and be destroyed, are Israelites, part of the Jewish audience to which Peter is writing.

It was the nation of Israel, and they were acquired. Peter speaks of individuals who denied the Master that purchased them. I see a difference here, whereas you don't. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now.

Fair enough. You're correct, I don't see a difference, because any member of a purchased body of people could be said to have been purchased.

The two words can be used synonymously, but the nuance is not the same, and 'purchase' is more specific, which causes a problem for the Calvinist wanting to generalize the meaning of it in 2 Peter.

The passages you refer to speak of acquiring possessions - it's acquisition of goods that is in mind. It's the same in the Pentateuch - often these words can be used synonymously, but the more general word is used - acquire - because the emphasis isn't on the transaction. Potiphar is a narrative in which we simply learn that Potiphar acquired Joseph as a slave - the word 'purchase' is only used of objects in the LXX, like grain and wine, not persons. Perhaps there was a distinction in conception, or perhaps the general word is used because it wasn't a marketplace transaction.

In Gen. 47:23, Joseph acquired the land for Pharaoh, but there was not a change of occupancy - you could perhaps say it was 'purchased and leased back out' or you could simply say that Pharaoh acquired it. Actually I doubt you could use the word 'purchased' at all - it seems to be confined to marketplace commodities. Or this may be a case where the words were synonymous .

In fact the verb for 'purchase' is built on the Greek noun meaning 'market-place'. In market-place contexts the LXX uses the word 'purchase' - i.e. Gen. 41:57 - 'buy corn'. I would be very unlikely that someone would use 'acquire' to say that you were going to Egypt to buy corn from Jopeph. Again, 43:22 'buy food' - where the idea is going to a market place to complete a transaction. Israel didn't have slave markets, and so the word wasn't appropriate for this. The language of Peter, however, is the language of the Greek slave market, which traded in souls (unlike Israelite slavery, which had limitations).

What were the Israelies in Egypt? They were slaves. And not of the sort upon which there were limitations in the Law. You may very well be right, that in the LXX they wouldn't use "purchase" to refer to slaves, for the reasons you've described. But in Peter's time, the purchase of a slave from the Greek slave market would have provided for language very applicable to the purchase of the Israelites from Egypt, since they were slaves under Egypt, and now slaves to their Master, Yahweh. It's no wonder that the language of a Greek slave market was used.

Acquire can be used if one wants to say they got a slave. But if one wants to say they purchased one from the Greek slave-market, you would ordinarily use the Greek verb 'purchase', with all that that implies.

Of course, the Church was not purchased from the Greek slave market. Any argument that the language of the slave market is being used analogically to refer to the Church can be just as effectively used to argue that it's being used analogically to refer to the purchase of the Israelites from Egypt.

And none of these are in a market context - they are in a context where the Lord is the one to be obeyed. Peter is using 'master' (used in slave contexts in Hellenistic works, along with the fem. despoina - cf. 1 Tim. 6:1) and the verb for buying slaves in the market. It would not have evoked the exodus.

Quite the contrary, the fact that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt means they would have viewed the slave market as analogous to their having been acquired by God from Egypt. What you must be saying is that the language would have evoked in the readers' mind the Greek slave market, and that that's assumed by the reader to be analogically referring to the purchase of Christians from their former slave-masters, sin, or the Law, or whatever. But you have provided no evidence that the readers would have assumed the analogy to be referring to that purchase, rather than the acquisition of Israel from Egypt, where they had served as slaves.

Anyway, I really should get things done too! We might not agree as this point in time, but I do believe you are just trying to understand these passages, just as I am and we all are, in our imperfect ways.

Agreed.