Recently I came across an argument on the web that the word “you” in 2 Peter 3:9 should be limited to the elect, because the context of this passage is more eschatological than soteriological. So when Peter says that God does not want “anyone” to perish, that simply means he does not want any of the elect to perish. And we are supposed to believe that this conclusion is based upon pure exegesis. Right. This attempt to read hyper-Calvinistic dogma into Holy Writ fails for several reasons.So, apparently, Dr. Owen thinks that Richard Bauckham is a hyper-Calvinist, not to mention Robert Reymond and R.C. Sproul, or is his target James White, yet again? Why does one get the feeling that this is also a rather simplistic presentation of this exegetical argument? If one is going to critique it, wouldn't it be better to at least name the person or place from which one is taking it or at least address the best of those who come to this conclusion?
Bauckham is rather clear here that 2 Peter 3:9 is about God's keeping judgment away for the sake of the covenant community. I look forward to Dr. Owen's detailed response to Bauckham and his justification for calling this interpretation "hyper-Calvinist," since Bauckham's theological affirmations are more along the lines of Moltmann. It isn't as if Calvinists are the only ones that arrive at this exegetical conclusion.
1. The Bible is not a systematic theology textbook. You simply cannot chop the text up into “soteriology” passages and “eschatology” passages. No serious exegete would put forth such a suggestion. Students of biblical theology are well aware of the fact that the hope of final salvation is embedded within the eschatological expectations of all of the biblical writers. It is scarcely possible to separate the two.Who is asserting otherwise?
In verse 9, coming to repentance is the opposite of perishing. It goes without saying that the opposite of perishing is salvation. In verse 13, the new heavens and new earth is the place where “righteousness” dwells–an allusion to Isaiah 65-66, which describes the anticipated salvation of Israel and the nations. Righteousness dwells there because the land has been ridden of all those who oppose God. Within the book of Isaiah “righteousness” is the equivalent of God’s saving mercy (cf. 46:13; 51:5-8; 56:1; 62:1-2). Both verse 9 and verse 15 speak of God’s patience, and in verse 15 we are told to consider the Lord’s patience to be “salvation.” The idea that this is not a passage we would want to put in the “soteriology” column is absurd.
However, if this is true, then the salvation in Isaiah is admittedly one that is anticipated, and that is eschatological. In fact, verse 13 is directly referring to the Second Coming.
The idea that this text can be limited to the elect is just silly. The point of verse 9 is not at all difficult to understand. The Church is tempted to doubt God’s word, because the Day of Judgment seems to be delayed. So Peter is reminding the Church of the words of the prophets and apostles (v. 2). Many will scoff at God in the last days, pointing out that the world continues as always (vv. 3-4). They have forgotten the lesson of the Great Flood (vv. 5-7). So Peter reminds his friends that the passage of time has no effect upon the eternal God (v. 8). The reason God has not yet judged the world is he wants to give everyone ample opportunity to repent (v. 9).The reason "the Church" is tempted, according to this text is because:
3Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,4and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
Moving on...
Why does Peter say that God is patient with “you”? The answer is obvious. Many within the Church have fallen away into apostasy and sin after having their sins cleansed away (1:9).It's nice to see that Dr. Owen denies the perseverance of the saints. Where is "apostasy" in that text?
The passage has nothing to do with God’s desire for salvation being limited to the elect; it is addressing the need for wayward Christians to be given an opportunity to turn back from apostasy before it is too late. God does not want any of his sheep to be lost forever (3:17).
Well, if they are truly God's sheep, then aren't they also "elect?" Doesn't the first chapter talk about election?
Not only is God patient toward his straying sheep, but in fact it is not his desire that anyone should perish. He wants all to come to repentance. That is what the text says. That is what the text means. Though it is true that we find in other places that God has predestined only the elect to have life eternal, that is not the issue being addressed here. This passage is speaking of God’s desire, not of his decree. It is speaking of his revealed will, not his secret will.
The problem is, to import that distinction into this text is to import a distinction that the text does not address. The text is not explaining the distinctions within God's will. So, what Dr. Owen has done, like Dr. Murray (and Owen is no Murray) is import a theological distinction into the text that does not obtain from the text. That distinction is more properly found in Ezekiel 33, but where is the connection here? If an exegete is going to freight the text with such a distinction, then it should be derived from the text. Where is the supporting argument? That is precisely why those of us holding to what he wishes to tar a "hyper-Calvinist" exegesis of this passage object to this line of thinking.
In this text: “any” and “all” are both universal class quantifiers. Recall the extensional fallacy: Christians who deny special redemption typically appeal to the “pantos” (“all”) passages of Scripture. But this confuses extension (referent) with intension (sense). A universal quantifier has a standard intension, but a variable extension. And that follows from the nature of a quantifier, which is necessarily general and abstract rather than specific and concrete marker. That’s what makes it possible to plug in concrete content. A universal quantifier is a class quantifier. As such, it can have no fixed range of reference. In each case, that must be supplied by the concrete context and specific referent. In other words, a universal quantifier has a definite intension but indefinite extension. So its extension is relative to the level of generality of the reference-class in view. Thus, there is no presumption in favor of taking “all” or “every” as meaning everyone without exception. “All” or “every” is always relative to all of something.
What is the referent? Answer: “You/us” delimits “any” and “all.” However, unless there are other clues in the text itself, these delimiters could be out of place and the text could be universal. Are there any additional clues? Yes.
In 3:3-7 Peter sets up an “us/them” dichotomy. “Them” refers to unbelievers, specifically false teachers, who have risen up and are preaching against the Second Coming. They are mockers, “following after their own lusts,” and making light of the promise of Christ’s return. Peter speaks of this happening in “the last days,” and, since these kinds of men have risen up throughout history, we know Peter thinks of the present day as the last days. In verse 8, Peter directs his message to his audience, telling them not to let what follows escape their (“your”) attention. “You” is his audience, whom he clearly says in 1:2 have received Christ and in 1:10 are “brethren,” and in 3:1 are “beloved.” You, which is delimiting “all” and “any” refers to the brethren, beloved, those who have received Christ.
Peter is teaching that, contrary to the mockers and false teachers, God is not at all slow concerning His promise. What promise? Answer: the return of the Lord, and He is patient toward you (beloved) not desiring that any (of you) perish, but all (of you) come to repentance. To come (and not perish)to repentance is defined in v.14: that Christians be found by Christ in peace, spotless, and blameless, and on guard against error. Peter is teaching two things: (1) God is holding off the Second Coming until all those who have been chosen for salvation according to His plan come to it (e.g. He is holding off judgment for the sake of the covenant community) and that (2) God is being kind toward those living at the time of His coming, commanding them to be ready and prepared, desiring the repentance of the backslider too. The "backslider" and the "apostate" are intersecting, but not interchangeable categories.
Also, assuming Petrine authorship, it is highly likely that the text is alluding to the Olivet Discourse where Jesus says: Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
If any/all refers to all men without exception, then this text means the world may never end, because new people are being born all the time. If the reference is to God’s people, the world will end when the last of the elect (a large, but finite number) has repented and believed.
