"The argument of those who hold to a universal atonement goes something like this: "It cannot be avoided that Peter is here saying, in words unmistakably clear, Christ paid the ransom price even for those who deny Him." Therefore, they say, Christ died for the non-elect (those who never believe) just as He died for the elect (those who believe and are saved). They claim that this verse provides proof that Christ "died for" those who are never saved, therefore making the atonement universal. Consequently, this is used to argue against the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement, whereby Christ is said to have died a substitutionary, atoning death only for those who are actually and finally saved.

A sure understanding of exactly what is meant in 2 Pet. 2:1 may be beyond the scope of this article, but I think there is clear evidence that it cannot mean what the universal redemptionists claim regarding the extent of the atonement.

With that in mind, I would like to look specifically at the definition of the word agorazo...Agorazo means to buy, to purchase, or to acquire ownership by payment of a price. This is a common word in the Greek, yet it is also one of the great words in Scripture used to describe our redemption by Christ. Therefore, we would do well to make sure that we correctly understand its use in the New Testament. Specific references for the meaning of this Greek word are presented below:

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

Vine - (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.

Thayer - (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.

For completeness, let us also look at the meaning of the English word from Webster, where buy is said to mean (a) to get by paying money or some equivalent, or (b) to get as by an exchange. This is in complete agreement with the meaning of our Greek word. You will note that the buyer gets whatever is bought, thus the idea of acquiring or gaining possession is present in both the Greek and English words.

New Testament usage

This word is used 30 times in the New Testament. The New American Standard Bible translates it as buy 25 times, purchase 4 times, and spend 1 time. Of the thirty occurrences, twenty-four are in a common or secular sense such as buying a field (Matt. 13:44) or buying food (Luke 9:13). On six occasions, however, it is used of people in a spiritual or theological sense with God or Christ as the purchaser. These are:

1 Cor. 6:20 - you have been bought with a price
1 Cor. 7:23 - you were bought with a price
2 Pet. 2:1 - denying the Master who bought them
Rev. 5:9 - Thou . . . didst purchase. . . men from every tribe, tongue and people
Rev. 14:3 - who had been purchased from the earth
Rev. 14:4 - These have been purchased from among men

The compound form of this word, exagorazo, is used four times in the New Testament, twice with a theological reference to people. The prefix ex- is seen as an intensification or strengthened form of the basic word agorazo; literally it means to buy up or buy out of. Hence, the NASB and other modern versions translate it as redeem, as shown below:

Gal. 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law
Gal. 4:5 - in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law

Comments on the meaning of the word

It is clear that the word agorazo means to buy in the normal and full sense of the English word buy. The thing to notice is that this word, in Greek and English, means more than simply to put down or pay a price; it includes the idea of acquiring or obtaining ownership. In the normal sense, such as in buying a field (Matt. 13:44), the field, once bought, becomes the property of the buyer. There is no tentativeness or pending aspect to this. If the field has been bought, it belongs to the buyer. If it has not been acquired by the buyer, it has not been bought.

Neither can this word be depreciated to mean merely offer as in offering a price or making the price available. An offer may never be taken up. An offer may be rejected or refused. In such cases nothing is bought at all. The word buy includes the idea that the transaction is consummated. That is the very nature of the word.

This word was often used in the Greek of New Testament times to refer to the buying of a slave. It is noted also that purchasing the slave released him from his former bondage. Now a man may purchase a slave without necessarily releasing him from bondage. Indeed, he may purchase a slave for the purpose of keeping him in bondage to himself, the purchaser. However, what remained true was that the slave was always released from his previous master by such a transaction. Therefore, agorazo also carries with it the idea of release. There are times when the New Testament represents Christians as being in precisely that situation. We were bought out of slavery to sin and Satan, but we are now the slaves of Christ. We were redeemed by His blood, and therefore we belong to Him, we are His.

There are also instances of pagan usage where a slave raised the price for his own freedom. In such cases he could take the money to the temple priests and for a fee they would buy his freedom for him. They would buy him from his master to become a servant of the god of the temple, or in essence a free man. Still, there was no buying without a release or freedom from the previous bondage; and in this case there was also a theoretical change in ownership, from the former master to the temple.

My point should be clear even if my reason for making it is not yet apparent. The word agorazo does not mean simply to put down a price, but actually to gain possession of something. This is clearly the meaning carried in all the other uses of this word in the New Testament, whether it is the secular use of the word or the theological or redemptive use of the word.

Examples of misuse

In some discussions of agorazo, this simple fact soon gets overlooked. For example, Lewis Sperry Chafer, says of agorazo in regard to buying slaves, "Its technical meaning implies only the purchase of the slave, but does not necessarily convey the thought of his release from slavery." And again, "There is then a redemption which pays the price, but does not of necessity release the slave."

The first statement of Chafer's may be true, but not in the sense that he apparently means it. A man may certainly purchase a slave without releasing him from bondage. As discussed above, a slave may be purchased for the specific purpose of keeping him in bondage. This happened in slave markets all the time. The fact is, however, that the slave was released from his former bondage and became the property of the new owner. He was always released from his previous master by such a purchase.

The second quotation from Chafer clearly suggests something different, and that is the payment of the price without acquiring ownership. If this is what he means, and I'm sure it is, he has simply departed from the meaning of the word. Agorazo means to buy or to purchase, not simply put down a price.

Robert Lightner reflects the same shift in meaning in his discussion of redemption words, including agorazo. For example, he states, "Christ by His death redeemed or paid the price for sin." Here Lightner too equates redemption with the bare payment of a price, which violates the meaning of redeem. But you see he must do so, for he, like Chafer, is bound by his theological view of the atonement to say that what Christ has done in His death, He has done for all men; and since all men are not actually acquired by Christ in a redemptive sense, he must reduce agorazo to mean merely the payment of the price.

This depreciated meaning is especially evident in Lightner's discussion of 2 Pet. 2:1. Regarding these false teachers, Lightner says, "The purchase price of redemption was paid by the Lord for even the false prophets and teachers, even though they quite obviously never accept it." And again, "these individuals, whoever they are, . . . endure eternal separation from God; yet they are the very ones for whom Christ paid the purchase price."

Whatever 2 Pet. 2:1 means, it is evident that Lightner has changed the meaning of agorazo. He has given up the idea of buying with its attendant notion of acquiring ownership and has reduced the meaning to the putting down of a price.

This is somewhat surprising since elsewhere Lightner quotes with approval John Walvoord's statement that, "Christ's death constituted an act of purchase in which the sinner is removed from his former bondage to sin by payment of the ransom price." If this is true, and it is, then "Christ's death is something far more glorious than the payment of a price that may leave millions still in bondage to sin. Christ's death is emancipation. That shows beyond doubt that His atonement was only for those who actually come to experience liberty."

Regarding 2 Peter 2:1

In light of our discussion and the full meaning of agorazo, it may be worth pausing to see if we might gain some insight into the interpretation of this verse. As we have seen, those who maintain a universal atonement want to make buy mean put down a price, but that's not what it means. Therefore this verse cannot mean that Christ died for those whom He will never make His own. Once we understand this, we ought to be able to consider, a little more sympathetically, some other possible interpretations of this verse.

According to the meaning of agorazo, we must take this verse to say that God or Christ acquired some men who proved false. How, or in what sense, has Christ acquired these men? Has He acquired them by actually redeeming them by His blood, that is, by delivering them from bondage to sin? That is obviously not the case here. These men will go into eternity unredeemed and separated from God.

In the verses where agorazo is obviously used in a redemptive context, it is clear that the redemption is restricted to believers and that an actual redemption is in view, not merely the putting down of a price. Here in 2 Pet. 2:1 it is admitted by most scholars that these false teachers are unsaved men destined for destruction. They cannot have been bought in the sense of being redeemed by the blood of Christ.

The question then remains, In what sense has Christ bought, or rather acquired, these false teachers? Wells suggests that possible options include Christ acquiring them by virtue of their association with the church and their profession of faith. It is clear that they claim to be Christians teaching the truth of God. They are members, if you will, of the church. However, their very teaching somehow denies or betrays the gospel of God's grace. Christ being the Head and sovereign Lord or owner of the church may be said to have acquired them by the fact that outwardly they are part of the church.

Or, they may have been bought in the sense that their association with the church provided an escape from the corruption of the world, as specifically suggested in 2 Pet. 2:20. There we read, "For if they (the false teachers) have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they again are entangled in them and are overcome, the last state being worse for them than the first." There is a real sense in which they have been sanctified, set apart from the world, by Christ through the church of which they profess to be a part.

Other possible interpretations of this verse are presented by Gary Long who agrees with the need to retain the full meaning of agorazo. Long also points out that Peter intentionally alludes to Deuteronomy 32:6 when he refers to the false teachers as "denying the Master who bought them." You can easily see the parallel, for there we read, 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. Deut. 32:6.

If this is a valid allusion, then the final phrase of Deut. 32:6 may shed light on the understanding of bought in our 2 Peter passage. Can he possibly mean bought in the sense of made and established? I think the context demands a serious look at Deuteronomy 32, especially since Peter has just compared these false teachers to the "false prophets that also arose among the people" and apparently alludes to Deut. 32:5 in verse 13 of the same chapter.

This also seems to be consistent with the fact that Peter refers to the one denied as Master (Greek: despotes) not Lord [kurios] as we might expect if spiritual redemption by the blood of Christ were in view. This word emphasizes God as sovereign ruler over the earth and the one who creates and establishes all things, a thought consistent with the allusion to Deut. 32:6. In fact, if Deut. 32:6 is in Peter's mind, then Master here is more likely a reference to God the Father than to Christ. It is an assumption on the part of most commentators that Master refers to Christ. It is also an assumption that bought refers to His death on the cross. The context must be fairly evaluated...

In conclusion...one thing should be perfectly clear...It is not enough to say He paid the price for them. Without the element of acquisition or ownership, any understanding of this verse is false." Excerpted from Jim Ellis' Article "Agorazo in 2 Peter 2:1"

“I prefer, with CALVIN, understanding, "to make perfect as a completed sacrifice": legal and official, not moral, perfection is meant: "to consecrate" (so the same Greek is translated Heb_7:28; compare Margin) by the finished expiation of His death, as our perfect High Priest, and so our "Captain of salvation" (Luk_13:32).”

[¹] “EX'PIATE, v.t. [L. expio; ex and pio, to worship, to atone; pius, pious, mild. The primary sense is probably to appease, to pacify, to allay resentment, which is the usual sense of atone in most languages which I have examined. ...]

1. To atone for; to make satisfaction for; to extinguish the guilt of a crime by subsequent acts of piety or worship, by which the obligation to punish the crime is canceled. To expiate guilt or a crime, is to perform some act which is supposed to purify the person guilty; or some act which is accepted by the offended party as satisfaction for the injury; that is, some act by which his wrath is appeased,and his forgiveness procured.”

(Noah Webster; Dictionary of American English, 1828).

"Upon these expressions hangs the whole weight of the opposite cause, the chief if not only argument for the universality of redemption being taken from words which seem to be of latitude in their signification equal to such an assertion, as the world, the whole world, all, and the like; which terms, when they have once fastened upon, they run with, "Io triumphe," as though the victory were surely theirs. The world, the whole world, all, all men!--who can oppose it? Call them to the context in the several places where the words are; appeal to the rules of interpretation; mind them of their circumstances and the scope of the place, the sense of the same words in other places; with other fore-named helps and assistances which the Lord hath acquainted us with for the discovery of his mind and will in his word,--they presently cry out, the bare word, the letter is theirs: "Away with the gloss and interpretation; give us leave to believe what the word expressly saith;"--little (as I hope) imagining, being deluded with the love of their own darling, that if this assertion be general, and they will not allow us the gift of interpretation agreeable to the proportion of faith, that, at one clap, they confirm the cursed madness of the Anthropomorphites,--assigning a human body, form and shape, unto God, who hath none; and the alike cursed figment of transubstantiation, overthrowing the body of Christ, who hath one; with divers other most pernicious errors. Let them, then, as long as they please, continue such empty clamours, fit to terrify and shake weak and unstable men; for the truth's sake we will not be silent: and I hope we shall very easily make it appear that the general terms that are used in this business will indeed give no colour to any argument for universal redemption, whether absolute or contidionate." (John Owen (Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, 1652; Governer invite to Harvard--who wrote a whole book defending the orthodox view of definite atonement called); The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, [Banner of Truth, 1999 edt.] pp. 190-191).

"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it, but there it is." Sir Winston Churchill

“I am aware, indeed, how, in order to render our cause as hateful to [you] as possible, they have filled your ears and mind with atrocious insinuations; but you will be pleased, of your clemency, to reflect, that neither in word nor deed could there be any innocence, were it sufficient merely to accuse. When any one, with the view of exciting prejudice, observes that this doctrine, of which I am endeavouring to give [you] an account, has been condemned by the suffrages of all the estates, and was long ago stabbed again and again by partial sentences of courts of law, he undoubtedly says nothing more than that it has sometimes been violently oppressed by the power and faction of adversaries, and sometimes fraudulently and insidiously overwhelmed by lies, cavils, and calumny. While a cause is unheard, it is violence to pass sanguinary sentences against it; it is fraud to charge it, contrary to its deserts, with sedition and mischief.

That no one may suppose we are unjust in thus complaining, you yourself...can bear us witness with what lying calumnies it is daily traduced in your presence...And yet, that which you hear is but the smallest portion of what is said; for among the...people are disseminated certain horrible insinuations--insinuations which, if well founded, would justify the whole world in condemning the doctrine with its authors to a thousand fires and gibbets. Who can wonder that the popular hatred is inflamed against it, when credit is given to those most iniquitous accusations? See, why all ranks unite with one accord in condemning our persons and our doctrine!

Carried away by this feeling, those who sit in judgment merely give utterance to the prejudices which they have imbibed at home, and think they have duly performed their part if they do not order punishment to be inflicted on any one until convicted, either on his own confession, or on legal evidence. But of what crime convicted? "Of that condemned doctrine," is the answer. But with what justice condemned? The very essence of the defence was, not to abjure the doctrine itself, but to maintain its truth. On this subject, however, not a whisper is allowed!

Justice, then,...entitles me to demand that you will undertake a thorough investigation of this cause, which has hitherto been tossed about in any kind of way, and handled in the most irregular manner, without any order of law, and with passionate heat rather than judicial gravity...

...Your duty,...is, not to shut either your ears or mind against a cause involving such mighty interests as these: how the glory of God is to be maintained on the earth inviolate, how the truth of God is to preserve its dignity, how the kingdom of Christ is to continue amongst us compact and secure. The cause is worthy of your ear, worthy of your investigation, worthy of your throne.

...Let not a contemptuous idea of our insignificance dissuade you from the investigation of this cause. We, indeed, are perfectly conscious how poor and abject we are: in the presence of God we are miserable sinners, and in the sight of men most despised--we are (if you will) the mere dregs and off--scoutings of the world, or worse, if worse can be named: so that before God there remains nothing of which we can glory save only his mercy, by which, without any merit of our own, we are admitted to the hope of eternal salvation: and before men not even this much remains, since we can glory only in our infirmity, a thing which, in the estimation of men, it is the greatest ignominy even tacitly to confess. But our doctrine must stand sublime above all the glory of the world, and invincible by all its power, because it is not ours, but that of the living God and his Anointed, whom the Father has appointed King, that he may rule from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the ends of the earth; and so rule as to smite the whole earth and its strength of iron and brass, its splendour of gold and silver, with the mere rod of his mouth, and break them in pieces like a potter's vessel; according to the magnificent predictions of the prophets respecting his kingdom (Dan. 2:34; Isaiah 11:4; Psalm 2:9).

Our adversaries, indeed, clamorously maintain that our appeal to the word of God is a mere pretext,--that we are, in fact, its worst corrupters. How far this is not only malicious calumny, but also shameless effrontery, you will be able to decide, of your own knowledge, by reading our Confession. Here, however, it may be necessary to make some observations which may dispose, or at least assist, you to read and study it with attention.

When Paul declared that all prophecy ought to be according to the analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6), he laid down the surest rule for determining the meaning of Scripture. Let our doctrine be tested by this rule and our victory is secure. For what accords better and more aptly with faith than to acknowledge ourselves divested of all virtue that we may be clothed by God, devoid of all goodness that we may be filled by Him, the slaves of sin that he may give us freedom, blind that he may enlighten, lame that he may cure, and feeble that he may sustain us; to strip ourselves of all ground of glorying that he alone may shine forth glorious, and we be glorified in him? When these things, and others to the same effect, are said by us, they interpose, and querulously complain, that in this way we overturn some blind light of nature, fancied preparatives, free will, and works meritorious of eternal salvation, with their own supererogations also; because they cannot bear that the entire praise and glory of all goodness, virtue, justice, and wisdom, should remain with God. But we read not of any having been blamed for drinking too much of the fountain of living water; on the contrary, those are severely reprimanded who "have hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" (Jer. 2:13). Again, what more agreeable to faith than to feel assured that God is a propitious Father when Christ is acknowledged as a brother and propitiator, than confidently to expect all prosperity and gladness from Him, whose ineffable love towards us was such that He "spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all" (Rom. 8:32), than to rest in the sure hope of salvation and eternal life whenever Christ, in whom such treasures are hid, is conceived to have been given by the Father? ...nor are we stript of vain--glory for any other reason than that we may learn to glory in the Lord. Why go farther?

Take but a cursory view,...of all the parts of our cause, and count us of all wicked men the most iniquitous, if you do not discover plainly, that "therefore we both labour and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God" (1 Tim. 4:10); because we believe it to be "life eternal" to know "the only true God, and Jesus Christ," whom he has sent (John 17:3). For this hope some of us are in bonds, some beaten with rods, some made a gazing--stock, some proscribed, some most cruelly tortured, some obliged to flee; we are all pressed with straits, loaded with dire execrations, lacerated by slanders, and treated with the greatest indignity." (John Calvin; Institutes of the Christian Religion [Eerdmans: 1998], Prefatory Address, pp. 1-7).”

-J

S.D.G

Blessing, KJChristianWarrior. ChristianWarrior

Blessing, KJChristianWarrior. ChristianWarrior

"It does because it says one... the election where made to responed... they can't help not to... thats not a responce... nor is it love... if I create a son and say you will love me, no matter what... in fact you won't be able to not love me, because you are programmed to love me... isn't love... but robot actions... and by the way that was a quote should have marked it as such..."

"(yes your right, and they are called Gods elect too, YET rejected Him.)"

"(Again your doctrine is faulty as i see it... you where the one that said it was the jews that rejected Christ... his own... and yet God calls them His election... and yet they rejected Him... now your gonna say what... they rejected Christ and not God, but yet Christ told them very jews... if you reject me you reject God... again... yet the election cannot reject God or their election... something don't wash.)"

"(face value of what the bible says as a whole... you bet. Which is everyman, sins of the world, well lets take a look at them again and see what the text as a whole is saying in these verses... )"

"2 Peter 2:1 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. (Here it clearly shows he even paid the price for the false ones, that rejected him.)"

"(That just what your doing to me... because I say all and everyman etc etc etc means what it says in them verses but sometimes its clear all doesn't mean all... you hold me at fault..."

"MonkeeSage... you just said up there that the jews were the ones that rejected Christ... and the word makes it clear that the jews are part of the election, so therefore the election rejected God... "

"Even there you qoute where the JEWS are from... Isaac... He is the Father of Jacob, the Father of the 12 tribes... and you know this... infact all jews come from the seed of Isaac..."

""even denying the Lord that bought them" Well then how did he buy them if he didn't pay a price monkeesage..."

"AGAIN it seems you have problems with using the word of God... I do not."

{You have said that there is no need to look at context... } Show me where i said them words..."

"Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
(be made for all men. Why pray for them if they can't be saved.)

1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(Who will have all men to be saved, "don't know what else to say about that, it says it all")"

"MonkeeSage means just that, all men. Yor acting like God didn't get the word right to the english speaking masses... as if one can't understand the bible unless he knows greek and herbrew... and your answer was wanting and nothing more then an opinion my dear brother. Second "bringeth salvation" does not mean all will get salvation, just that it comes from God.)"

"myself I need not anyone but the Holy Spirit... that is not to say I don't look at others views... on the bible... but I sure don't need to study man made doctrines to udnerstand the word of God..."

"...there is no way you will ever convince that Calvinism is truth, thats not your job... anyway... I leave it up to the Holy Ghost."