The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism (in New Testament Textual Criticism)

Codex Sinaiticus, 4th Century Greek Manuscript

Few topics stir as much debate among Christians, historians, and biblical scholars as the question of how we determine the original text of the New Testament. I am certainly no expert on textual criticism, but I have been interested in the subject for many years and here are where my thoughts on this subject have taken me so far.

Let's start with a few facts that are not in dispute. The books of the New Testament were originally penned by the apostles and the originals they produced are called the autographs. In God's wisdom, we no longer possess the original autographs—all have been lost in time, and so none can be venerated by Christians. We do not possess the autographs, but we do possess over 5,800 Greek manuscripts and thousands more in ancient translations, especially Latin. 

The sheer abundance is a blessing and vastly exceeds the manuscript evidence for any other work of antiquity. Yet this abundance of manuscripts also presents a challenge. Prior to the advent of the printing press in the Renaissance period, every copy of the New Testament had to be laboriously copied by hand. As a result, all manuscripts differ in places with every other manuscript in thousands of ways. Most of these are tiny and largely inconsequential such that they would not even show up in an English translation (spellings, word order, etc.). However, there are hundreds of places where the manuscripts' differences do affect the text—none are so significant that they seriously affect any doctrine—but they do result in potentially different readings within the New Testament. These are known as "textual variants". In modern bibles, you will find them on most pages of the New Testament, where the main text reads one way, but footnotes present alternative possibilities. 

The question is: How do we decide which reading is most likely the original?

There are a number of different schools of thought among scholars as to how best to answer this question. 

The most widely used and academically respected approach today is known as reasoned eclecticism. This method stands behind the standard critical editions that lie behind almost all mainstream English translations. These are called the Nestlé-Aland 28th Edition and the United Bible Societies 5th Edition (known as NA28 and UBS5).

While no method is perfect, reasoned eclecticism offers the most balanced and historically sensitive way to reconstruct the earliest recoverable and most likely original text.

Though not an essential part of reasoned eclecticism per se I think it is also worth stating that my personal view is that the text of the autographs, the actual words of the apostles that are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), have not been lost, but are to be found in the manuscript evidence God has providentially preserved. The true reading is to be found either in the main printed text or the footnotes of our bibles.

The other thing I would want to add is that there are sometimes when I believe the academic consensus on what the most likely original reading is may be incorrect. Reasoned eclecticism leaves it open to each person to study the evidence, consider the arguments, and make up their own mind. Some may complain this leaves uncertainty as to the original text, but I would simply reply that it is the existence of textual variants in the text that creates this uncertainty. Reasoned eclecticism simply embraces the facts. Other approaches seem to want to trade truth for certainty and may end up with neither.

The following are the main reasons why I believe that reasoned eclecticism is the best approach to New Testament textual criticism.

1. Reasoned Eclecticism Uses ALL the Manuscript Evidence, Not Just Part of the Evidence

Some approaches prioritize the numerical majority of extant manuscripts (known as the Majority Text or Byzantine Priority Approach), and others almost exclusively privilege a single text type (as in some Alexandrian-priority arguments). Reasoned eclecticism avoids both extremes.

It considers:

• External evidence: the age, geographical distribution, and textual relationships of manuscripts.
• Internal evidence: what scribes tended to do, and what an author is likely to have written.

By drawing from the full spectrum of available data: papyri, uncials, minuscules, versions, and patristic citations. It avoids the tunnel vision that comes from using only one subset of the evidence.

Reasoned eclecticism makes the simple but essential claim: the original reading is more likely to survive in the oldest manuscripts, all other factors being equal. Thus the witness of a few oldest sources is at least if not more valuable that a large majority of later manuscripts. Fundamental to this approach is the recognition that manuscripts must be weighed and not just counted. Secondly, where the external evidence is not clear-cut, we must examine the internal evidence and a judgment is needed to assess which reading is (a) least likely a scribal error or addition and (b) is the variant that most likely explains the existence of the other variants.

2. Reasoned Eclecticism Recognises That Manuscript Numbers Alone Cannot Determine Originality 

Most New Testament manuscripts were copied in the Byzantine Empire after the 9th century. They are numerous not because they preserve the earliest form of the text, but because Byzantine copying was prolific and stable. A reading supported by a thousand manuscripts from AD 1000 may be historically inferior to a reading supported by two manuscripts from AD 200.

Reasoned eclecticism therefore avoids the fallacy that “more manuscripts = more original.” Instead, it asks: Which manuscripts stand closer to the earliest recoverable stages of transmission? Often, the early papyri from Egypt represent earlier streams of copying, even if they are fewer in number.

Quality, not quantity, is what matters then sifting the available evidence.

3. Reasoned Eclecticism Acknowledges Scribal Habits (Both Errors and Expansions)

Copyists made predictable mistakes. For example, they tended to:

• Expand names and titles for clarity (“Jesus Christ” → “the Lord Jesus Christ”).
• Simplify grammar or wording.
• Harmonize parallel passages (both in the Gospels and in Paul's Letters).
• Add explanations to difficult verses or soften verese thought to be too hard.
• Add marginal notes into the body of the text for fear of leaving out anything important.

Reasoned eclecticism takes these tendencies seriously. A reading that is more awkward, shorter, or harder is often more likely to be original because scribes typically smoothed and expanded rather than created difficulties. No other method consistently accounts for this behaviour by those who copied the New Testament by hand.

4. Reasoned Eclecticism Takes Account of Authorial Style and Context

Not every variant is best explained by scribal habits alone. Sometimes one reading simply fits better with the vocabulary, theological themes, or narrative flow of the author.

For example, Johannine vocabulary is distinctive. If a variant reading uses terms foreign to John’s style, reasoned eclecticism recognises that it may be secondary. Likewise, if a variant disrupts the flow of argument, that too must be weighed.

Reasoned eclecticism gives us the freedom to integrate literary and contextual insights alongside manuscript evidence.

5. Reasoned Eclecticism Avoids Rigid Formulas and Instead Balances Probabilities

Some text-critical methods operate with simplistic rules, such as “prefer the shorter reading,” or “prefer the reading with majority support.” Reasoned eclecticism explicitly rejects such wooden approaches. Instead, it weighs evidence case by case, instance by instance, recognising that real historical transmission is complex.

This does mean scholars sometimes disagree. But disagreement is not a weakness—it’s a sign that the method is flexible, honest, and evidence-driven rather than ideology-driven.

Far from being a weakness, the fact that some conclusions have to be tentative and open to correction is a strength of the approach.

6. Reasoned Eclecticism Helps Explain Why Some Famous Passages are Disputed

Reasoned eclecticism is the method behind scholarly discussions of passages such as:

• Mark 16:9–20 ("The Longer Ending of Mark")
• John 7:53–8:11 ("The Pericope Adulterae"
• The Ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6
• John 5:4 (The Pool of Bethsaida) 
• Luke 2:14 
• 1 Timothy 3:16
• Romans 8:1 
• 1 John 5:7-8 ("The Comma Johanneum") 

And many other passages. 

In each case, reasoned eclecticism weighs early manuscripts, later manuscripts, scribal habits, authorial style, and historical plausibility. Sometimes the result is that a well-known reading is judged secondary. That can be uncomfortable, but it is honest.

The methodology also allows scholars and readers to judge the evidence and make up their own mind. No one is forced to accept the majority opinion on any of these variants. 

A method that never challenges traditional readings is not a historical method; it is a theological one. Reasoned eclecticism prioritises evidence over tradition while still respecting the beliefs of the Christian community.

Again, we would point out that no doctrine relies solely on a particular variant in the manuscript tradition.

7. Reasoned Eclecticism Underlies All Modern Critical Editions of the Greek New Testament 

The NA28 and UBS5 — the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament used worldwide — are both products of reasoned eclecticism. These editions are the basis of almost every major modern translation (NIV, ESV, NRSV, CSB, NASB, and others). They represent over a century of collaborative international scholarship.

No other method has produced texts as widely accepted, rigorously tested, and transparently documented.

8. Reasoned Eclecticism Aligns with How Historians Approach Other Ancient Literature

Classical scholars who edit texts like Homer, Plato, or Tacitus also use eclectic principles: they weigh manuscript age, geographic spread, internal coherence, and scribal tendencies. Reasoned eclecticism places New Testament textual criticism within the mainstream of responsible historical method, not outside it.

This does not mean that Christians do not acknowledge a vast difference between Scripture and all other writings. Of course we acknowledge the New Testament is theopneustos ("God-breathed") and as such is inerrant and infallible.

Yet, the robust process of seeking out the original text from the manuscript evidence, and showing that it can be done to an extraordinary level of certainty, is immensely helpful apologetically when engaging with non-Christians. We do not rely on bare claims of faith when establishing the text of Scripture. It can be done using principles that are valid whether the textual critic is a believer or not. This means that the text of Scripture can be accepted as accurate by anyone coming to it honestly. The truth is that 94-95% of the text of the New Testament is beyond doubt original and certain. All major doctrines and practices are clearly taught whatever Greek Text we use. The question of which text is more likely original only has a bearing on 5-6% of the text, and of these perhaps only 1-2% have any real significance at all beyond spellings and word order or saying the same thing in slightly different words.

Conclusions 

Reasoned eclecticism is not perfect—no method is—and it does not claim to be. But it is the approach that most responsibly engages with the full range of available evidence. It avoids the pitfalls of majority-based methods, sidesteps the rigidity of one-text-type theories, and resists simplistic rules. By considering external evidence and internal probabilities together, it offers the most historically plausible reconstruction of the earliest recoverable New Testament text.

In short, reasoned eclecticism gives us the best chance of hearing the New Testament as the earliest Christian communities heard and read it.

Great Theologians 5: Charles Hodge

 

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)

Charles Hodge is one of the most significant Reformed theologians of the 19th century. From 1851-1878 he was the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary, which was in those days a bastion of Reformed orthodoxy.

Hodge was the epitome of the conservative Presbyterian. It was said that his boast about Princeton seminary during his tenure was that "nothing new is taught here".

Born in Phildadelpia in 1797, Hodge's father Hugh had been a military surgeon in the Revolutionary War. The family had originally come from Northern Ireland and Hodge's grandfather, Andrew Hodge, was a successful businessman when he emigrated to the still colonial North America.

Hodge himself graduated from the then fairly new Princeton Seminary in 1819 and spent a year or two asa kind of missionary preacher in various parts of Pennsylvania before being ordained in 1821. In the mid 1820s he toured Europe to improve his education. Unlike many who did similar European excursions, Hodge returned to the United States with his orthodox Reformed beliefs entirely intact. He then entered the main period of his career as a seminary lecturer then professor.

Hodge did not shy away from the controversial matters that affected the American church in the 19th century. Despite being a northerner, Hodge believed the Bible allowed for the institution of slavery. On the other hand, he supported the prosecution of the Civil War by the Union forces. On Darwinism and evolution, Hodge believed Darwinism was simply a form of atheism.

Hodge wrote a number of important works still in use today. His Commentary on Romans (1837) and his Commentary on Ephesians (1856) are still useful evangelical commentaries. His magnum opus is his three-volume Systematic Theology (1872-73) which covers the whole field of systematic theology in near exhaustive detail.

Although Hodge was faithful to the Westminster standards in his beliefs and in his Calvinism, he sometimes opposed traditional understandings of some doctrines where he felt the church was not following the Scriptures, but human philosophy. Two examples are Hodge's modified views of divine simplicity (in contrast with the church fathers such as Augustine, Aquinas and Scotus) and of a strict view of divine impassibility (that God does not have any emotions). Hodge, by contrast, believed that when the Scripure speaks of God's love, this is a genuine feeling in God, and not merely an anthropopathism. 

At the other end of his writing spectrum, his short book The Way of Life (1841) is a guide to Christian doctrines designed for use in Sunday schools.

The Difficult Doctrine of the Will of God

Some years ago, Don Carson wrote a short and important small book called The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. In that book he explains how what may appear to be the most straightforward of doctrines, that the God of the Bible is a God of love is, in fact, quite a difficult doctrine once we explore its various implications. 

If Dr Carson was so inclined, I'm sure he could write another book called The Difficult Doctrine of the Will of God.

God's will is an area of theology that might appear to be straightforward at first glance. Isn't the will of God simply what God wants? Well yes, but it is a lot more complicated than that. Whatever else it is, the doctrine concerning God's will is actually far from simple or straightforward once we begin to explore the subject in some depth. And even as simple a definition as 'what God wants' requires much exploration and careful balancing of various parts of the biblical evidence to create a rounded doctrine of the will of God.

The Will of God is One 

The first point that needs clarified is that God truly has but one will. God does not have two separate or conflicting wills. He is not divided in himself. Not only does this truth flow from the simplicity of God, but it also from the express truths of Scripture.

The Appearance of Two Wills in God

Although in himself God only has one will, yet in appearance to his us, his creatures, God's will is customarily discussed as having two senses.

The theologians discuss these two senses of God's will in a number of different ways, each of which is valid and useful. They all view the same distinction in the will of God in similar ways; yet, each has a distinct element also.

1. The Secret Will and the Revealed Will (Voluntas Arcana and Voluntas Revelata)

2. The Decretive Will (Will of Decree or The Sovereign Efficacious Will) and the Preceptive Will (Will of Precept or Command)

3. The Will of Good Will (Voluntas Beneplaciti) and the Will of Sign (Voluntas Signi)

4. The Will of God's Purpose and the Will of God's Delight (also called the Will of Good Pleasure (Eudokia) and the Will of Complacency (Euarestia).

There is a similarity between each of these types of distinction. They all involve the word "will" being used in different senses.

In some ways the secret/revealed will distinction is the least useful or accurate. The secret will is God's sovereign will which is always accomplished. The revealed will is what God wants us to do in order to please him. So, for example, God's revealed will is clear that he does not want us to murder; yet his secret will permits murders to happen every day. The main issue for me with this terminology is that God has revealed that he has a secret will (i.e. that he has a sovereign decree) and so although the details of it may be secret prior to events happening, the fact that he has such a will is no secret. 

For this reason, I prefer the distinction between a will of decree and a will of precept or command. This makes the same point as the secret/revealed will distinction, but in a clearer more accurate manner.

God's will in one sense is what his commands and prohibitions say. Do not steal is God's will. Preach the gospel to every creature is God's will—in the preceptive sense. But in the decretive sense, God's will is what ordains everything that comes to pass. Both types of will ultimately spring from the character and attributes of God, though the will of decree includes within it things that God chooses to permit that he does not approve of, for a greater purpose.

The distinction between the Voluntas Beneplaciti and the Voluntas Signi is very similar, with the former being the decree and the latter being the will of command.

Likewise, the will of God's purpose is the decree and the will of God's delight is his preceptive or revealed will.

All of these distinctions recognise that although God's will is one, there are two senses in which Scripture talks of the will of God. 

In all instances, in one sense, God's will is what he decrees to take place, what his purpose represents, and it is all encompassing, including things which God does not like or approve of. He permits sin to occur for his own purposes, including ultimately to manifest his own glory in the display of his justice and wrath. All things that happen are God's will in this sense. Yet we may not utilise the fact that something happened to conclude that it is God's will in the other sense of being something God approves of, delights in, or enjoys.

If we want to get an idea of what God likes, delights in, approves of, or wants us to do. If we would seek to please God by our actions, then we must look to the revealed will, the preceptive will, the will of the sign, the will of God's delight. We dare not try to extract this from analysing God's decree, since it includes both what God delights in, and what God detests. The revealed will of God is our guide for how God wants us to live.

If God's word commands us, guides us, invites us or asks us, we can be sure that such an action as complies with God's word pleases him. Likewise, if God's word commands us not to, warns us, forbids us, then we can be sure than doing what God commands us not to do will displease God and refraining from any prohibition pleases him.  

The Simple and the Complex Sense

Another useful distinction made by theologians regarding God's will is known as the simple and complex (or compound) senses. The Reformed theologian, Francis Turretin, deals with this in his Institutes.

As I understand the concept, the simple sense involves looking at an event in isolation, as an event in itself. The complex or compound sense involves looking at the thing in relation to everything else.

The value of this insight is obvious when we look at some examples. Take for example the murder of a person. In the simple sense, God clearly condemns and opposes the unlawful taking of a human life. However, in the complex sense, God does permit murders to take place for his own ultimate purposes. Similarly, in the simple sense God wills that everyone who hears the gospel would respond in faith and find salvation in Christ. Yet in the compound sense, God wills only to save his chosen ones, the elect, and not to save everyone who hears the gospel. This is not mere double-talk. We must remember that the simple sense looks at each event as a thing in itself where the complex sense looks at the overall picture, including all things.

This approach is essentially that adapted by John Piper, who talks about looking at God's will in a narrow lens and a wide-angled lens. God can, in this way, be said to desire the salvation of all, viewed in the simple or narrow lens, but only to desire the salvation of the elect in the wide-angled sense, because although in a sense God desires to save all, his desire to glorify himself in the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate is his highest motivation.  

Delight, Desire and Wishes

A final distinction worth mentioning is another important one. The distinction is between God's constitutional attitudes and God's volitions. The former are part of God's nature but need not be part of God's actual will. The latter also stem from God's nature but are also part of God's volition, his will.

The distinction recognises that God may have delight in certain things, and desires or wishes for certain ends that stem only from his constitution or nature but are not part of his sovereign or decretive will, though such desires may find expression the revealed or preceptive will. 

Conclusions

It will be clear from these descriptions that there is a close relationship between what has alternatively been called God's constitutional attitudes in his nature, the simple sense and "revealed" or "preceptive" "will" of God. Likewise there is a correlation between God's volitional choices, the complex or compound sense, and God's sovereign will or the will of decree.

Bearing these distinctions in mind helps us safely and accurately chart a course through the Bible and all that the Scriptures teach concerning the will of God. When we forget these distinctions or blur them or flatten them out we will run into serious theological errors if not heresy. This is one of the false trails that all those who deny God's decree take. They oversimplify and fail to take into account all the Scriptures teach. 

Reformed theology, on the other hand, gives full scope to the entirety of Scripture regarding this difficult doctrine of the will of God. 

A Calvinist Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1

This paper seeks to exegete a single verse in Peter’s Second Epistle, namely 2 Peter 2:1. This verse presents, on the face of it, a difficulty for the Calvinist doctrine of particular redemption.[1] The difficulty, in essence, is that the verse seems to indicate, according to one interpretation, that Christ’s atonement was on behalf of people who are not truly Christians, and therefore by implication, his atonement must be on behalf of every person—all without exception.

We Calvinists understand the Scriptures, as a whole, to teach that Christ’s death was intended only to save the elect and so Christ did not die to redeem (or buy) the non-elect, such as the false teachers whom Peter mentions.

Issues of Translation and Meaning

 Let us begin by looking at the verse in question. Although the verse presents difficulties of interpretation, it does not present any real significant translation issues. The main English translations, across the theological spectrum, all translate the verse in a similar way. Here is a list of ten translations and their publication years, ranging from 1611 to 2017.

 

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. (KJV – 1611)

 

But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (ASV - 1901)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (RSV – 1971)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. (NRSV – 1989)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (NASB – 1995)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (ESV - 2001)

 

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. (NIV – 2011)

 

But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. (NLT - 2015)

 

There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. (CSB - 2017)[2]

 

As can be seen, the translations are all very similar, particularly in the key words found in the middle of the verse, which are essentially this: ‘even denying the Master/Lord/Sovereign Lord that/who bought them.’ Within this phrase, the two important words are the noun that most translations render ‘Master’ and the verb that all the translations render ‘bought.’

We begin by looking at these two words important words.

‘Master’ or ‘Lord’ or ‘Sovereign’ is a translation of the Greek word δεσπότης (despotés). It is the root of the English words ‘despot’ and ‘despotism.’ It carries the connotation of an absolute ruler or sovereign, having power without limitations or restraints, Let us begin by looking at the verse in question.  though without necessarily having a negative connotation (unlike the English word).

The word is not very common in the New Testament, occurring just ten times, both as a singular and a plural. The meaning is not really in dispute in any of the occurrences. Slightly more open for discussion is who Peter is referring to as ‘Master’ or ‘Lord.’

The word was used to refer to a human master, i.e. an owner of slaves, though this meaning is rare in the New Testament. Or the word may refer to either God (the Father) or Christ the Son.

Of the other nine occurrences, the word refers to God or God the Father in four places (Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, 2 Timothy 2:21, Revelation 6:10), to human masters in four places (1 Timothy 6:1 and 6:2, Titus 2:9 and 1 Peter 2:18), and to Christ in one place (Jude 4).

Therefore, there is nothing inherent in the word that must mean Christ in 2 Peter 2:1. However, given that Jude 4 is probably the most important other reference, due to the close parallels between 2 Peter and Jude, this gives at least an indication that ‘Master’ in 2 Peter 2:1 may well refer to Christ himself.

The verse in Jude 4 reads: ‘For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ’ (ESV).

From the context, it is not certain whether Peter had in mind God the Father or Christ the Son as the ‘Master’ in this verse. We keep an open mind on that, but to make our task as difficult as possible from a Calvinist perspective, let us assume—in line with the Jude parallel—that Master means Christ here.

The second translational issue concerns the word ‘bought’ which is the Greek word ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta), meaning indeed ‘having bought.’ It is an active aorist participle grammatically. It comes from the common verb ἀγοράζω (agorazo), to buy or purchase.  There can be no objection to the common English translations. It stems from the word for marketplace and from a person who goes to the marketplace.

A final brief word about the word ‘deny’ which is what these false teachers are said to do with their Master. The word is ἀρνούμενο (arnoumenoi), which is found in this form only here and in Jude 4 in the New Testament, but other forms of the verb are found at Matthew 10:33, Matthew 26:70 and 72, Mark 14:70, Luke 8:45 and Acts 3:14 among others. There is no dispute the word means ‘to deny’ or ‘to disown’ something or someone.

In terms of translation and meaning, therefore, the key phrase is relatively straightforward. The false teachers whom Peter identifies are said to ‘deny the Master who bought them.’

There is no dispute about the key phrase says. The issues, as we shall see, concern how we interpret this phrase.

Interpreting the Key Phrase

 We begin to explore the interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 agreed on what the verse says and how it should be translated. The ESV rendering is a good representative and is our starting point:

 There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

 The meaning of the text seems clear enough. Peter says that the church will experience false teachers within its midst, similar to the way that false prophets plagued the people of Israel in the Old Testament. These false teachers will bring in ‘destructive heresies’ and they will even deny the Master who bought them. That much is clear.

Assuming the Master is Christ, then the false teachers will in one way or another deny Christ. Perhaps they will deny his deity, perhaps his full humanity, perhaps some aspect of his atoning death or his resurrection. Most Christians would have no issue with understanding that there may be false teachers in the church who will deny important truths about Christ.

The question really concerns the meaning of the words ‘who bought them.’ What does it mean that Christ somehow ‘bought’ these false teachers.

For Arminians and others who affirm a universal atonement, there is no difficulty. For them, Christ died with the intention of saving all, the false teachers as much as the true believers within the church. The little phrase ‘who bought them’ would simply mean that even though Christ died to save them, they denied him.

Calvinists, who maintain the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption, cannot interpret the verse this way. In our view, the intention of the atonement was to save God’s elect and according to our view the atonement is entirely effective in its intent. In other words, all those for whom Christ died to save are saved by him.

It is not our aim in this article to argue for the doctrine of limited atonement. The resources arguing for the truth of this doctrine are many and thorough.[3] Instead, for our purposes, we are going to assume its truth and then show why 2 Peter 2:1 presents a problem uniquely for Calvinism and offer a solution to that problem.

The apparent difficulty is obvious. If Christ’s death was a definite atonement (or particular redemption) made for the elect—those chosen for salvation and who are actually saved—then why would Peter talk about these false teachers denying the Master who bought them? The verse is clear that the end of these false teachers is not salvation, but rather ‘destruction,’ a form of the noun ἀπώλεια (apólia), which means in this context spiritual or eternal destruction, ruin or loss.

In essence, the interpretative difficulty boils down to this: if Christ died only with the intention of saving the elect, and the atonement is always successful in its divine intent, how can Peter say that Christ ‘bought’ these false teachers if their fate is ‘swift destruction’?

The advocates of unlimited or universal atonement do not only find this verse easily comprehensible according to their view, but use the verse to argue against definite or limited atonement.

How does the Calvinist respond?

As we have seen, the meaning and interpretation of most of the verse is simple. These false teachers are not ultimately saved, but rather will be destroyed. And they deny the Master, whom we accept likely refers to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. The only real room for interpretative variation concerns the meaning of ‘bought’ in this verse. Does it refer to the atoning death of Christ and if so in what sense can Christ be said to have ‘bought’ these false teachers who are not saved? Or does ‘bought’ have some other meaning here that is plausible?

Based on the understanding that Christ’s atonement was specifically and definitely made with the intention of saving only the elect, Peter saying the false teachers were ‘bought’ must either refer to the atonement in some other way than that Christ died with the intention of saving these false teachers or must refer to ‘bought’ in some sense other than the atonement altogether.

This, we find are the precise lines of argument that Calvinists have indeed taken on the interpretation of this verse.

In precise form we find the verb participle ‘having bought’ in this verse, there are no other occurrences in the New Testament. Apart from the verse in question, there are some 29 other occurrences of the verb in various forms in the New Testament. Of these, 23 are instances where buy or bought is used in connection with the ordinary purchase of goods, land or services.[4] More significantly for our purposes, a further six occurrences relate to redemption or the atonement. The following are all the relevant verses with the key words marked in bold:

 

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.’ (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, ESV)

 

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:23, ESV)

 

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. (Revelation 3:18, ESV)

 

And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ (Revelation 5:9-10, ESV)

 

And they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-4, ESV)

 

These verses are instructive in their way but do not settle the matter of interpreting 2 Peter 2:1. The two instances in 1 Corinthians clearly refer to the atonement, but as they seem to refer to those saved by it, they cast no light on the verse in question. The same can be said of three of the instances in Revelation 5 and 14. The verse in Revelation 3:18 falls neither under the verses referring to the atonement nor the larger group referring to normal purchases. In that verse, Christ himself speaks to the church at Laodicea to buy (metaphorically) from Christ what they need. Again, the verse does little to help our discussion.

In no other verse does ‘buy’ or ‘bought’ refer to individuals or groups that are not saved. Therefore, they cannot settle the matter of the use of ‘bought’ in 2 Peter 2:1.

Given the evidence in favour of limited or definite atonement, what could ‘bought’ mean in this verse then? If indeed the atonement is intended to be effectual only for the salvation of the elect, in what sense can Christ be said to have ‘bought’ the false teachers who are destined for swift destruction?

There are three main Reformed interpretations of this verse that seek to interpret it in a manner that harmonises with the truth of particular redemption.

The first interpretation, advocated by many Reformed theologians,[5] is that ‘bought’ may refer to the external and apparent ‘redemption’ of the visible church, of which the false   were a part, though not a part of the saved elect of God. In this view, by being outwardly part of the people of God, even these false teachers could be said to have been ‘bought’ by their association with the church, though not truly a part of it. They may even have received certain covenant blessings as being in outward covenant with God’s people, though not the blessing of salvation.

This view is supported by verses in the Old Testament, which speak of God having redeemed or bought Israel as a nation, even though the nation contained both believers and unbelieving Jews.[6]

The second interpretation regards ‘Master’ as referencing God the Father rather than Christ.[7] The basis for this view is that despotes more often refers to the Father than it does to Christ (see Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24). In this view, the ‘bought’ refers to God’s deliverance of his people, again of whom the false teachers professed to be a part. The nation of Israel was said to be delivered or redeemed from slavery in Egypt, even though the nation included non-believers. Despite the pedigree of the exegetes who have taken this view, I do not consider it a convincing argument, particularly since the close parallel in Jude 4 clearly refers to Christ and not the Father.

The third interpretation sees ‘bought’ as applying to the professed faith of the false teachers.[8] It is as if Peter in a sense grants the false teachers profession. If they had believed in Christ, he would indeed have bought them and saved them. It is as if he is being ironic here. The false teachers deny the very Master they claimed had bought them.

Both interpretations one and three are similar and there is considerable overlap between them, in that Peter’s description applies to the outward profession and the visible church membership of these false teachers, rather than their true state before God, which was outside of salvation and heading for destruction in hell. It is no different to any preacher addressing a church congregation as the redeemed and saved, even though there may be false professors within the congregation.

Whether we take a pure form of interpretation one or three, or a blend of both, the important point is that it is perfectly consistent with the text to argue that Peter here is merely referring to matters from the point of view of outward covenant membership and profession of faith and not regarding the effectual, substitutionary redemption that only the actual elect enjoy.

This is not a case of special pleading for 2 Peter 2:1. In fact, throughout the Scriptures, there are numerous examples of places where the whole nation of Israel is spoken of as though they were God’s covenant people who enjoy salvation, even though the nation contained many unbelievers and only a faithful remnant.

Relevant verses include Deuteronomy 7:6-8 and Exodus 19:5-6 which speak of the whole nation being a ‘chosen people’ and ‘holy nation’ and as those ‘redeemed’ from Egypt, even though many were not truly in a saving relationship with God. The principle is that it is possible to be spoken of as ‘redeemed’ and ‘holy’ through outward covenant membership while remaining spiritually unregenerate.

Likewise, the covenant sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14) marked out a Jewish male as being in covenant with God, yet the Bible is clear that not all who are outward Israelites truly belong to God’s true Israel (Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:6-8).

In the New Testament, the same broad principle of a distinction between outward appearance and inward reality persists. The case of Judas Iscariot is significant in that Jesus chose him to be as apostle and appointed him with the others in the Twelve to mission, yet Judas was never saved (see Matthew 10:1-8 and compare John 6:70-71).

Also, in Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, both believers and non-believers are shown to co-exist in the visible or outward manifestation of the kingdom (Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43).

The distinction between the outward or visible church consisting of all who profess the faith (and also their children) and the invisible church consisting of the elect only is taught in the Reformed confessions, including the Westminster Confession chapter 25.

To conclude, therefore, 2 Peter 2:1 does not require the abandonment of the doctrine of definite or limited atonement. It is fully consistent in the Reformed faith to speak of false professors of faith as being part of the visible church, the redeemed community, and so in that sense ‘bought’ by Christ, while acknowledging that they are part of the invisible church, the elect, or actually redeemed by Christ.

 

---

[1] Particular redemption is also frequently called ‘limited atonement’ or ‘definite atonement’ in Reformed theology, but the

[2] The translations are the following: KJV is the King James (or Authorised Version), ASV is the American Standard Version, RSV is the Revised Standard Version, NRSV is the New Revised Standard Version, NASB is the New American Standard Bible, ESV is the English Standard Version, NIV is the New International Version, NLT is the New Living Translation, and CSB is the Christian Standard Bible.

[3] Some works arguing for the truth of limited atonement include classic works such as The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen, For Whom Did Christ Die? by R. B. Kuiper, and The Potter’s Freedom by James White. The most comprehensive large-scale work on the subject is From Heaven He Came and Sought Her edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson. In addition to these, any work on the Five Points of Calvinism including those by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, Edwin H. Palmer, W. J. Seaton, Robert Lewis Dabney, or John Piper. The relevant chapters of any Reformed systematic theology text such as those by Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, John Frame, Robert Letham or Robert Reymond also cover the subject.

[4] These include: Matthew 13:44 and 46; Matthew 14:15; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 25:9 and 10; Matthew 27:7; Mark 6:36 and 37; Mark 11:15; Mark 15:46; Mark 16:1; Luke 9:13; Luke 14:18 and 19; Luke 17:28; Luke 22:36; John 4:8; John 6:5; John 13:29; 1 Corinthians 7:30; Revelation 13:17; Revelation 18:11.

[5] This is the view put forward by John Owen and John Gill among others.

[6] See Exodus 15:16, Deuteronomy 32:5. Also see Romans 9:6.

[7] This is the view of John Murray and Robert Reymond among others.

[8] This is the view of John Calvin and Francis Turretin among others.

It’s Time to Take a Stand Against Catholicism’s Push for Unity (YouTube)