Greek Participles - Particularly Substantival Participles - Especially Generic Substantival Participles - Some Study

Introduction

We start our consideration of the Greek participle, by going back to Classical Greek.  For this analysis, I'm relying on van Emde Boas' Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, (pp. 606-35). I have supplemented with Mastronarde's Introduction to Attic Greek (pp. 225-33), which provides additional detail, with a focus on the study of Attic Greek, as well as with Hansen's Greek: an Intensive Course (pp. 208-30), which provides a lot of the same material for the study of ancient Greek. I also consulted Morwood's Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek (pp. 136-43), which I did not find particularly helpful when compared with the others.

These days, however, the study of Greek by English-speakers is heavily weighted toward the study of what is often referred to as "New Testament Greek."  

Huffman's The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek (pp. 75-80) provides a concise and helpful explanation of participles.  Wenham's The Elements of New Testament Greek (pp. 147-55) provides a concise description, more geared toward classroom use and, I suspect, more aimed at those just beginning their study of Greek.  Machen's classic, New Testament Greek for Beginners (pp. 87-108) has three lessons on participles, diving into more detail but providing clear explanations. Notwithstanding its name, Machen's treatment is - to my mind at least - slightly more advanced than Wenham's. 

Matthewson's Intermediate Greek Grammar (pp. 205-26) has a helpful chapter on participles, as does Köstenberger's Going Deeper with New Testament Greek (pp. 321-60). Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 612-55) similarly devotes a chapter to the subject.  Interestingly, both Huffman and Matthewson quote Wallace as to the view that "Mastery of the syntax of participles is mastery of Greek syntax." (Wallace, p. 613; Matthewson, p. 205; Huffman, p. 79) 

For the purposes of my particular study, Blass's treatment was interesting in that relevant material was found both under the study of Tense (section 339, pp. 174-5) and Mood (sections 411-25, pp. 212-20).

Participles Generally 

van Emde Boas explains (section 52.1, p. 606, bold in original, internal citation omitted):

Participles are verbal adjectives:

- they are like adjectives in that they are marked for case, number and gender, and follow the rules of agreement; 

- they are like verbs in that they are marked for tense-aspect and voice, and may be construed with an object, complement, etc.; modified by adverbs; etc.

Huffman notes that, unlike finite verbs, participles do not have mood or person (p. 75).  Matthewson spells it out more fully: "The participle is a nonfinite verb form, that is, like the infinitive, it is not limited by person, nor does it possess mood." (p. 205)

van Emde Boas goes on to explain (section 52.2, pp. 606-7, bold in original) that participles can have three uses: "Supplementary" (i.e., "as an obligatory constituent with verbs"), "Circumstantial" (e.g., "to express a circumstance, cause, condition, motivation, purpose, etc."), and "Attributive/substantival," as well as in "various periphrastic constructions."  Hansen puts it this way (p. 204, bold in original): "There are three major uses of the participle in Greek, the attributive, the circumstantial, and the supplementary."  At page 213, however, Hansen acknowledges (italics in original), "As with all adjectives, the attributive participle can be used substantively." Huffman divides the uses into adjectival, adverbial circumstantial, adverbial non-circumstantial, and independent verbal (pp. 75-78).  Wenham says: "There are two uses: the adjectival participle and the adverbial participle." (p. 151)  However, Wenham goes on to say: "The adjectival participle is generally preceded by an article (with which it agrees). This so-called articular participle is occasionally used in English in expressions like 'the living', 'the missing'. In the New Testament it is very common." (p. 151, italics in original) Matthew notes: "though the presence of the article guarantees that a participle is adjectival, the absence of the article does not guarantee that it is adverbial" (p. 206). Wenham cautions: "any number of qualifying words may be inserted between the article and the participle" (p. 151).  Matthewson insists (p. 206, italics in original): "it is important to distinguish the form of a participle (a participle is a participle is a participle!) from the variety of ways it can function (as a substantive; attributive or adverbial modifier; predicate; etc.)."  Ultimately, Matthewson classifies participles first into the categories of adjectival or verbal, and then into their sub-categories (for adjectival: attributive modifiers, predicate adjectives, and substantives; for verbal: adverbial modifiers, supplementary to verbs, and as predicates), and separately treats genitive absolutes and periphrastic constructions (p. 206). Köstenberger provides a handy chart showing up to three levels of classification of participles, in which he divides the major category of adjectival participles into "Attributive" and "Substantival" (p. 326). Wallace notes that the adjectival side of the participle "is seen in both substantival (independent) and adjectival (dependent) uses." (pp. 613-4)

Attributive/Substantival

For the purposes of my analysis, the specific sub-topic I'm most interested in is "attributive/substantival" category of usage. Machen divides these as two uses "234. The Attributive Participle" (p. 90) and "235. Substantive Use of the Participle" (p. 91). Machen provides a note about translation (p. 92, italics in original): "The Greek ὁ does not mean the man or the one or he. It means the, and it is just as simple an article as the article in the phrase the cat or the dog or the house. But in English we do not use the article with the substantive participle. Therefore we have to reproduce the idea of the Greek ὁ λέγων by a phrase of which the individual parts have absolutely nothing to do with the individual parts of the Greek phrase. It is only the total meaning of the English phrase which is the same as the total meaning of the Greek phrase." Wenham (p. 151, parenthesis in original) says: "The examples below mean literally 'the believing (ones)', 'the sowing (man)', 'the having-been-sown-by-the-wayside (man).'." In those examples, the words "ones" and "man" are provided for the reason that Machen more eloquently explains. Köstenberger explains (p. 321): "Participles usually take more than one word to translate. With a noun, for example, often a one-to-one correspondence between Greek and English can be made (ἄγγελος = angel). With a participle, however, up to six words might be needed (ὁ τεχθεὶς = "the one who has been born")."

van Emde Boas provides some examples as well as the following explanation of the attributive/substantival use: "the participle is used, normally with the article, in noun phrases, as modifier (attributive use) or head (substantival use)." (p. 607) Under the topic of "Placement of Participles," (52.3, p. 607), van Emde Boas explains that "attributive participles naturally occur in attributive position" (bold in original). Mastronarde similarly divides the uses of the participle and notes that "The substantival use of the attributive participle is extremely common in Greek" (p. 226). Huffman divides the adjectival use into "Attributive (Dependent Adjectival) Participle" (with four sub-categories), "Predicate (Dependent Adjectival) Participle" (with four subcategories), "Substantival (Independent Adjectival) Participle," and "(Pendant) Nominative Absolute Participle." (pp. 75-76)  In my view, Huffman's final category could be rolled up with his third category for our purposes, though admittedly there is a nuanced difference between them.  For the interested reader, p. 80 of Huffman provides a very handy "Participle Usage Identification Guide" with what amounts to a flow chart to identify usage.  

Tense/Aspect of Participles 

van Emde Boas also includes several sections (52.3 to 52.6) on the "Tense/Aspect and 'Mood' of Participles" (pp. 607-10).  For my purposes, I'm most interested in present tense participles and their interaction with perfect tense verbs that are what I usually think of as "main verbs," but what van Emde Boas refers to as "matrix verbs."  van Emde Boas explains (52.4, p. 607, bold in original, internal citations omitted) "Each of the tense-aspect stems has its own participle: the difference between the stems is aspectual (except for the future stem). In the case of the participle, these aspectual differences lead to a relative-tense interpretation in a large majority of cases: The present participle typically expresses an action simultaneous with that of the matrix verb ... The perfect participle typically refers to a state (or lasting effects), simultaneous with the matrix verb, resulting from a previously completed action ... ."  Huffman makes similar observations but seems to suggest that the relative time determination is for adverbial participles (as distinct, presumably, from adjectival and substantival participles): "With adverbial participles, the relationship of its action to the main verb's action must be determined, particularly its time." (p. 75) Machen simply says, "The tense of the participle is relative to the time of the leading verb." (p. 90) Köstenberger (p. 324, fn. 5) explains what he calls the traditional view with this quotation: "'In general, time is absolute in the indicative, relative in the participles, and nonexistent in the other moods" (Wallace,  498; emphasis original)."

Köstenberger (pp. 324-5) notes two further views on time in participles, one associated with Porter and the other with Picirilli, ultimately siding with Picirilli.  Porter's view, per Köstenberger, is that the order of the participle indicates the relative time (antecedent placement implying antecedent time).  Picirilli's view, per Köstenberger, is that "participles never communicate time (even relative time) but that the time of the participles can only be determined by context." (p. 325)  Köstenberger cites some statistical analysis showing that 80% of aorist adverbial participles and 90% of present adverbial participles "are contemporaneous with the action of the main verb." (p. 325) Wallace argues (p. 613): "The context has more influence on participles than on any other area of Greek grammar. ... One's exegetical skills get tested more with participles than with any other part of speech."  Blass suggests: "Participles originally had no temporal function, but denoted only the Aktionsart; their relation to the finite verb was derived from the context." (p. 174)

By contrast to the way van Emde Boas explains things, Mastronarde suggests (p. 225, italics in original, internal citations omitted): "In most constructions, the participle (like the infinitive) conveys by its tense a distinction in verbal aspect rather than time. ... The present participle conveys the aspect of the present stem: that is, continuous or repeated action. In practice, it most often refers to an action contemporaneous with the action of the main verb of the sentence and is usually translated in English by a present participle (X'ing, being X'ed). But in the proper context, the present participle may refer to an action antecedent or subsequent to that of the main verb .... The present participle may also have conative force." Wallace borrows a keen observation regarding an important nuanced difference between the infinitive and the participle: "although participles and infinitives are often translated the same (especially when the infinitive is translated as a gerund), the is a distinct difference. 'Whereas the infinitive is abstract, specking of the act or fact of doing, the participle is concrete, speaking of the person who or thing which does.'[FN18: Williams, Grammar Notes, 50. Cf. also Robertson, Grammar, 1101-02.]"

After acknowledging that participles indicate relative time, Mathewson explains (p. 205, footnote omitted): "As with finite verbs, the key feature of participles is not time but verbal aspect, or how the author chooses to represent an action: aorist participles convey perfective aspect; present participles convey imperfective aspect; perfect participles convey stative aspect." (pp. 205-6)  After briefly discussing the rare future participle, Mathewson openly disagrees with Wallace by saying: "No matter what the function of the participle (see below), it still always communicates verbal aspect.[fn3: Contra Wallace (615-16) who thinks the aspect is sometimes reduced." (p. 206) Wallace specifically notes that many nouns in Hellenistic Greek "in a former life were participles" and that the "constant pressure from the adjectival side finally caved in any remnants of verbal aspect" for such former participles (now nouns) and suggested that "when a participle is a substantival, its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in force." (p. 625, italics in original) 

Hansen provides a third, though arguably similar, perspective (p. 203, formatting changed, italics in original): "The tense of a Greek participle for the most part shows aspect but often in context it is clear that there is a definite temporal relationship between the participle and the main verb. 1. The present participle shows progressive/repeated aspect; its action is most often simultaneous with that of the main verb, and it can usually be translated by the English present participle, e.g., "educating, educating for oneself, being educated."

Wallace, however, provides an important observation regarding a category of substantival participles: "many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances. The πας ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν,  ποιῶν, etc.) formula is always or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea. Most of these instances involve the present participle. But if they are already gnomic, we would be hard-pressed to make something more out of them-such as a progressive idea." (pp. 615-16, italics in original, footnotes omitted)  Wallace goes on to point out the absurdity of suggesting that "everyone who divorces his wife" should be taken in some kind of repetitive ongoing way.  In footnote, Wallace suggests that a progressive sense may still be present in a gnomic statement, suggesting that the verb to pisteuwn (believe) may be a good candidate. Wallace makes a concerted argument for this point at pp. 620-1, especially in footnote 22 on the latter page.  The former page provides the amusing, but persuasive, point that calling John "the one baptizing" does not mean that John is "the one who continually baptizes", particularly in Mark 6:14, where he is referred to this way after his decapitation.  

In the next section (52.5, pp. 608-9, bold in original, internal citations omitted), van Emde Boas points out that there are numerous exceptions to the general rule: "Although the relative-tense interpretation of the stems of the participle outlined above is usually valid, there are numerous exceptions. In such cases, a different interpretation of a certain tense-aspect stem takes precedence over (or is present in addition to) the conventional relative-tense interpretation. .. A present participle may be used to refer to an ongoing, habitual or repeated action preceding the action of the matrix verb; the present participle in such cases is sometimes called an "imperfect participle". An explicit indication is usually present ... . Present participles of the telic verbs may also have a conative interpretation, or an interpretation as a resultative present ... ."  Köstenberger (p. 323) quotes Wallace (p. 639), who notes: "Result participles are invariably present participles that follow the main verb ...." 

After discussion of the supplementary and circumstantial uses (which do not concern our present study), van Emde Boas provides greater depth regarding "The Participle in Noun Phrases" at pp. 631-4, before concluding the chapter with discussion of the periphrastic uses.  van Emde Boas makes a distinction between "Attributive Use (as Modifier) and Substantival Use (as Head)" and specifically states: "The participle can be used with an article in noun phrases, either as a modifier (attributive use) or as head (substantival use). ... Note 2: some substantivally used participles developed into nouns" providing the example of archon (chief), which developed from archw (rule) (52.46, p. 631). van Emde Boas, section 52.47 (p. 632), notes: "Occasionally, attributive/substantival participles occur without an article" providing a couple of examples. 

Generic Use

Important to our present study, at section 52.48, "Generic Use," van Emde Boas explains (p. 623, bold in original, internal citations omitted): "When the article is used with a participle (especially with present participles), it often has generic value, with the sense 'whoever ...'. The negative in this case is μή" and provides some examples. Morwood (p. 137 and p. 138) indicates that "The negative in both these causal cases is οὐ" while "If μή is used with the participle, it is likely to have this conditional force...." Mastronarde (p. 229) in a section on "Negation of Participles" provides a helpful discussion of the distinction between negation with οὐ as opposed to negation with μή, and states that "The negative μή is used when the participle refers to an action that is conditional or generic...." Hansen provides a similar explanation of the οὐ / μή distinction but then goes on to observe (p. 216): "Without the negative or an adverb or conjunction to help distinguish the circumstantial participles, only context allows one to chose from among all the possibilities," and offers an example in which the possibilities are "Being harmed," "When we are harmed," "Since we are harmed," "If we are harmed," and "Although we are harmed."  Blass mentions that "When the participle has a generic meaning, πᾶς may be inserted, and even then the article is usually used ...." (pp. 212-3)

"Tense/Aspect of Attribute and Substantival Participles" is the next section (52.49), here van Emde Boas explains (p. 633, bold in original, internal citations and bullet formatting omitted): "The aspectual distinctions between different tense stems are fully relevant for attributive and substantival participles. Such distinctions typically typically result in an interpretation of relative sense; for instance ... γεγενημένα in (129) refers to a state simultaneous with εἴη; Not infrequently, however, other connotations of aspect are equally or more relevant." At this point, van Emde Boas offers example 137, in which example when speaking about births and deaths generically, a present participle is used, whereas when discussing concrete births and deaths, aorist participles are used.

Section 52.50 relates to "Participles in Apposition," which relates an interesting (though essentially irrelevant to the present discussion) use of participles, particularly those of εἰμί (e.g., ὤν).  This is more interesting in connection with my length treatment of Revelation 16:5. 

There are other sections of van Emde Boas' work that are potentially informative to our discussion, such as "The Article as Substantivizer" where, at section 28.23, van Emde Boas indicates (p. 335, bold in original, internal citations omitted) "When a word (group) other than a noun is modified by the definite article, it is 'substantivized' (i.e., 'turned into a noun'), and serves as head of a noun phrase."  At section 28.25, van Emde Boas further explains (p. 335, bold in original, internal citations omitted): "The following types of word or phrase are frequently substantivized in this way: ... Participles (in any tense and voice; the article is often generic)."

Bibliography

Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Section 339 "The Present and Aorist Participles", (pp. 174-5); and "The Participle," Sections 411-25, pp. 212-20)

van Emde Boas, Evert; Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, first published 2019 (version 5, April 2024).  Chapter 52, "The Participle" (pp. 606-35).

Hansen, Hardy, and Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Fordham University Press, 1992. Unit 8, Sections 65-71 (pp. 208-30)

Huffman, Douglas S. The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012. (pp. 75-80)

Köstenberger, Andreas J., Benjamin L. Merkle, and Robert L. Plummer. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020. Chapter 10 "Participles" (pp. 321-60).  

Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners. New York: Macmillan, (originally published 1923). (Ithaca Classics 2024.) Lesson XVIII, "Present Participles. Use of Participles" (pp. 87-95), Lesson XIX, "Aorist Participles Active and Middle. Use of Participles (Continued). The Negatives οὐ and μή" (pp. 96-102), and Lesson XX, "Aorist Passive Participle. Genitive Absolute" (pp. 103-8).

Mastronarde, Donald J. Introduction to Attic Greek. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Unit 27, "Uses of the Participle I" (pp. 225-33)

Mathewson, David L., and Elodie Ballantine Emig. Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, (originally published 2016, paperback edition 2019).  Chapter 10 "Participles" (pp. 205-26).

Morwood, James. Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press (originally published 2001, paperback edition 2002) (pp. 136-43)

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Chapter "Participles" (pp. 612-55).

Wenham, John W. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Lesson 36 "Participles" (pp. 147-55)

Appendix: Item of interest

At page 209, Matthewson provides the following example (bold in original, one typo of ἀπό for ἀπὸ corrected, formatting altered):

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Rev 1:4)

Grace to you and peace from the one who is and who was and who is coming.

The participles are the objects of a preposition. Notice the grammatical incongruity with the nominative used after the preposition ἀπὸ (we would expect the genitive). This incongruity is likely intentional on the part of the author and is meant to get the readers to sit up and take notice. This is probably because the author wants to draw attention to the nature of this expression as a title and its OT antecedent (Exod. 3:14).

Matthewson footnotes what I believe to be his own work on Revelation. In any event, This explanation is similar to what I've discussed in the broader context of discussing the improvement needed to the KJV at Revelation 16:5.

Seven Sages and Revelation 16:5

The Precepts of the Seven Sages (or "Sentences of the Seven Sages" or "Injunctions of the Seven Sages") is a collection of concise wisdom.  There are nearly 150 statements in list, and seems to cover various moral and ethical rules in the form of maxims or gnomic commands.  They are thought to originate around the 5th century before Christ (although the TLG suggests as early as the 6th or 7th century BC).  

Of particular interest to me are two of the rules: 

• Ὅσια κρῖνε. 
• Κρῖνε δίκαια.

These are of interest because of Revelation 16:5, which states:

• Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας, 

You may notice that Revelation 16:5 mentions a form of the verb "judge" (κρίνω) in linked connection with both ὅσιος (traditionally translated "holy") and δίκαιος (traditionally translated "righteous").  The seven sages rules include commands to judge ὅσια and δίκαια.  

This serves to demonstrate, in a very minor way, the semantic propriety of the reading that is found in nearly all of the Greek manuscripts of Revelation, over against any naysayers, particularly those who are simply using the traditional English translations of the terms, without regard to the nuances of the Greek.

The text of the precepts with a very amateur and provisional translation is as follows (also see the links provided above for other translations)(this section may be in need of serious correction, which I will make if/when I identify the needed corrections):
 

Greek	English
ΣΩΣΙΑΔΟΥ	Sosiades
ΤΩΝ ΕΠΤΑ ΣΟΦΩΝ ΥΠΟΘΗΚΑΙ.	The Precepts of the Seven Sages
—Ἕπου θεῷ.	Follow God.
—Νόμῳ πείθου.	Obey the law.
—Θεοὺς σέβου.	Honor the gods.
—Γονεῖς αἰδοῦ.	Respect your parents.
—Ἡττῶ ὑπὲρ δικαίου.	Yield for justice.
—Γνῶθι μαθών.	Learn, then understand.
—Ἀκούσας νόει.	Understand after listening.
—Σαυτὸν ἴσθι.	Know yourself.
—Γαμεῖν μέλλων καιρὸν γνῶθι.	When about to marry, know the proper time.
—Φρόνει θνητά.	Think mortal thoughts.
—Ξένος ὢν ἴσθι.	When you are a stranger, act as one.
—Ἑστίαν τίμα.	Honor the hearth.
—Ἄρχε σαυτοῦ.	Govern yourself.
—Φίλοις βοήθει.	Help your friends.
—Θυμοῦ κράτει.	Master your temper.
—Φρόνησιν ἄσκει.	Cultivate wisdom.
—Πρόνοιαν τίμα.	Value foresight.
—Ὅρκῳ μὴ χρῶ.	Do not use oaths.
—Φιλίαν ἀγάπα.	Love friendship.
—Παιδείας ἀντέχου.	Hold fast to education.
—Δόξαν δίωκε.	Pursue glory.
—Σοφίαν ζήλου.	Strive for wisdom.
—Καλὸν εὖ λέγε.	Speak well of the good.
—Ψέγε μηδένα.	Blame no one.
—Ἐπαίνει ἀρετήν.	Praise virtue.
—Πρᾶττε δίκαια.	Practice justice.
—Φίλοις εὐνόει.	Be kind to your friends.
—Ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνου.	Defend yourself against enemies.
—Εὐγένειαν ἄσκει.	Cultivate nobility.
—Κακίας ἀπέχου.	Shun wickedness.
—Κοινὸς γίνου.	Be common to all.
—Ἴδια φύλασσε.	Guard what is yours.
—Ἀλλοτρίων ἀπέχου.	Avoid what belongs to others.
—Εὔφημος ἴσθι.	Be of good speech.
—Ἄκουε πάντα.	Listen to everything.
—Φίλῳ χαρίζου.	Be gracious to your friend.
—Μηδὲν ἄγαν.	Nothing in excess.
—Χρόνου φείδου.	Spare time.
—Ὅρα τὸ μέλλον.	Consider the future.
—Ὕβριν μίσει.	Hate hubris.
—Ἱκέτας αἰδοῦ.	Show respect to supplicants.
—Πᾶσιν ἅρμοζε.	Adapt to all.
—Υἱοὺς παίδευε.	Educate your sons.
—Ἔχων χαρίζου.	Be generous when you have.
—Δόλον φοβοῦ.	Fear deceit.
—Εὐλόγει πάντας.	Speak well of everyone.
—Φιλόσοφος γίνου.	Become a philosopher.
—Ὅσια κρῖνε.	Judge what is holy.
—Γνοὺς πρᾶττε.	Act after knowing.
—Φόνου ἀπέχου.	Avoid murder.
—Εὔχου δυνατά.	Pray for possible things.
—Σοφοῖς χρῶ.	Associate with the wise.
—Ἦθος δοκίμαζε.	Examine character.
—Λαβὼν ἀπόδος.	Repay what you receive.
—Ὑφορῶ μηδένα.	Look down on no one.
—Τέχνῃ χρῶ.	Use skill.
—Ὃ μέλλεις, δός.	Give what you intend to.
—Εὐεργεσίας τίμα.	Honor acts of kindness.
—Φθόνει μηδενί.	Envy no one.
—Φυλακῇ πρόσεχε.	Be mindful of guarding.
—Ἐλπίδα αἴνει.	Praise hope.
—Διαβολὴν μίσει.	Hate slander.
—Δικαίως κτῶ.	Acquire justly.
—Ἀγαθοὺς τίμα.	Honor the good.
—Κριτὴν γνῶθι.	Recognize a judge.
—Γάμους κράτει.	Control marriage.
—Τύχην νόμιζε.	Respect fortune.
—Ἐγγύην φεῦγε.	Avoid guarantees.
—Πᾶσι διαλέγου.	Converse with everyone.
—Ὁμοίοις χρῶ.	Use like-minded people.
—Δαπανῶν ἄρχου.	Manage your expenses.
—Κτώμενος ἥδου.	Rejoice in acquiring.
—Αἰσχύνην σέβου.	Respect modesty.
—Χάριν ἐκτέλει.	Fulfill gratitude.
—Εὐτυχίαν εὔχου.	Pray for success.
—Τύχην στέργε.	Embrace fortune.
—Ἀκούων ὅρα.	Be watchful while hearing.
—Ἐργάζου κτητά.	Work for what is attainable.
—Ἔριν μίσει.	Hate strife.
—Ὄνειδος ἔχθαιρε.	Detest disgrace.
—Γλῶσσαν ἴσχε.	Restrain your tongue.
—Ὕβριν ἀμύνου.	Defend against arrogance.
—Κρῖνε δίκαια.	Judge fairly.
—Χρῶ χρήμασιν.	Use your resources wisely.
—Ἀδωροδόκητος δοκίμαζε.	Test without bribes.
—Αἰτιῶ παρόντα.	Hold accountable the present.
—Λέγε εἰδώς.	Speak with knowledge.
—Βίας μὴ ἔχου.	Do not practice violence.
—Ἀλύπως βίου.	Live without pain.
—Ὁμίλει πρᾴως.	Associate gently.
—Πέρας ἐπιτέλει μὴ ἀποδειλιῶν.	Complete your tasks without hesitation.
—Φιλοφρόνει πᾶσιν.	Be kind to all.
—Υἱοῖς μὴ καταρῶ.	Do not curse your sons.
—Γλώττης ἄρχε.	Control your tongue.
—Σαυτὸν εὖ ποίει.	Take care of yourself.
—Εὐπροσήγορος γίνου.	Be approachable.
—Ἀποκρίνου ἐν καιρῷ.	Respond at the right time.
—Πόνει μετὰ δικαίου.	Labor with justice.
—Πρᾶττε ἀμετανοήτως.	Act without regret.
—Ἁμαρτάνων μετανόει.	Repent if you err.
—Ὀφθαλμοῦ κράτει.	Control your eyes.
—Βουλεύου χρόνῳ.	Deliberate with time.
—Ἐπιτέλει συντόμως.	Accomplish quickly.
—Φιλίαν φύλασσε.	Preserve friendship.
—Εὐγνώμων γίνου.	Be grateful.
—Ὁμόνοιαν δίωκε.	Strive for unity.
—Ἄῤῥητον μὴ λέγε.	Do not say the unspeakable.
—Τὸ κρατοῦν φοβοῦ.	Fear authority.
—Τὸ συμφέρον θηρῶ.	Seek what is beneficial.
—Καιρὸν προσδέχου.	Await the right time.
—Ἔχθρας διάλυε.	Dissolve hostilities.
—Γῆρας προσδέχου.	Welcome old age.
—Ἐπὶ ῥώμῃ μὴ καυχῶ.	Do not boast in strength.
—Εὐφημίαν ἄσκει.	Cultivate good reputation.
—Ἀπέχθειαν φεῦγε.	Avoid hatred.
—Πλούτει δικαίως.	Prosper justly.
—Δόξαν μὴ λεῖπε.	Do not forsake glory.
—Κακίαν μίσει.	Hate evil.
—Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε.	Do not tire in learning.
—Κινδύνευε φρονίμως.	Risk wisely.
—Ἡδόμενος μὴ λεῖπε.	Do not cease enjoying.
—Χρησμοὺς θαύμαζε.	Marvel at prophecies.
—Οὓς τρέφεις, ἀγάπα.	Love those you nurture.
—Ἀπόντι μὴ μάχου.	Do not fight with the absent.
—Πρεσβύτερον αἰδοῦ.	Respect the elder.
—Νεώτερον δίδασκε.	Teach the younger.
—Πλούτῳ ἀπίστει.	Do not trust in wealth.
—Σαυτὸν αἰδοῦ.	Respect yourself.
—Μὴ ἄρχε ὑβρίζειν.	Do not begin with arrogance.
—Προγόνους στεφάνου.	Crown your ancestors.
—Θνῆσκε ὑπὲρ πατρίδος.	Die for your country.
—Τῷ βίῳ μὴ μάχου.	Do not oppose life.
—Ἐπὶ νεκρῷ μὴ γέλα.	Do not mock the dead.
—Ἀτυχοῦντι συνάχθου.	Join with the unfortunate.
—Χαρίζου ἀβλαβῶς.	Be gracious without harm.
—Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ.	Do not grieve over everything.
—Ἐξ εὐγενῶν γέννα.	Marry from noble stock.
—Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενί.	Promise nothing at all.
—Φθιμένους μὴ ἀδίκει.	Do not wrong the deceased.
—Εὖ πάσχε ὡς θνητός.	Endure well as a mortal.
—Τύχῃ μὴ πίστευε.	Do not trust in fortune.
—Παῖς ὢν κόσμιος ἴσθι, ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής, μέσος δίκαιος, πρεσβύτερος εὔλογος.	As a child, be orderly; as a youth, temperate; as an adult, just; as an elder, wise.
—Τελεύτα ἀλύπως.	End life without pain.
—Πλήθει ἄρεσκε.	Please the majority.
—Μὴ λάλει πρὸς ἡδονήν.	Do not speak for pleasure.
—Ὁμολογίαις ἔμμενε.	Keep your agreements.
—Θυσίας πρόσφερε κατὰ δύναμιν.	Offer sacrifices according to your ability.
—Σαυτῷ μὴ μάχου.	Do not fight with yourself.
—Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ.	Do not grieve over everything.
—Τῷ βίῳ μὴ ἄχθου.	Do not burden yourself with life.
—Μὴ φιλαίτιος ἴσθι.	Do not be contentious.
—Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενὶ τὸ παράπαν.	Promise nothing at all.
—Χρόνου φείδου.	Spare time.
—Ἐνδαπανώμενος καὶ ἐφ’ ἃ μὴ δεῖ, ὀλίγος ἔσῃ ἐφ’ ἃ δεῖ.	If you waste on unnecessary things, you will lack for necessary ones.

The Master who Bought Them in 2 Peter 2:1

The Apostle Peter, writing 2 Peter 2:1, used the interesting phrase, "the Master who bought them," to refer to false teachers.  Translated in the KJV by, "the Lord that bought them," this verse has occasionally been brought out as a proof text against the Biblical doctrine of Limited atonement.

The Greek word, ἀγοράζω (agorazo), finds its entry in Strong's Concordance as G59.  The word refers to buying in the sense of a commercial transaction.  It's plainly derived from ἀγορά (agora), which means market.

Most of the New Testament uses are simply the plain commercial sense of buying something, such as food.  There are also some uses in which the buying is part of a parable.  In these cases, the usual sense of the Greek word is the literal meaning, though perhaps more is intended by the parable itself.  Likewise, nearly all the Old Testament Septuagint uses are in the sense of  plain commercial transaction, such as Joseph's buying (and selling) of corn/food. 

1. Two Illuminating Background Uses

One of the most interesting uses of agorazo is found in Isaiah 55:1 where there is an example of "buying" without money:

• Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

This is an unusual or exceptional use of the term, because normally buying is conveying possession of something from the seller to the buyer in exchange for the purchase price.  However, in this case, there is no price, and yet it is still oddly described as buying.

The other interesting use of agorazo is found in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians:

• 1 Corinthians 7:30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, G59 as though they possessed not;

What's particularly interesting about Paul's usage is that through pairs of opposites, Paul is giving us a little further insight into the meaning of the word.  Specifically, Paul writes:

καὶ οἱ κλαίοντες (and who are weeping)

    ὡς μὴ κλαίοντες (as not weeping)

καὶ οἱ χαίροντες (and who are rejoicing)

    ὡς μὴ χαίροντες (as not rejoicing)

καὶ οἱ ἀγοράζοντες (and who are buying)

    ὡς μὴ κατέχοντες (as not possessing)

From Isaiah 55:1 and 1 Corinthians 7:30, it can be seen that the central feature of the verb agorazo is the transfer of possession.  In Isaiah 55, even without a price, it is still "buying."  How so? Because there is still a transfer of possession.  In 1 Corinthians 7:30 the negation of possession (of the thing being bought) is a negation of the buying.  Thus, while both the transfer of payment to the seller and transfer of possession of the purchased thing are components of the commercial transaction, it is the absence of transfer of possession that prevents something from being considered "bought."

In modern-day English, we can sometimes be a bit flexible in our usage, such that we speak of "buying," when we merely mean "paying."  I was unable to find any uses in this more flexible English sense in New Testament or Septuagint Greek (nor did such a meaning show up in the example of the Lexicons).

Thus, it is best to understand agorazo as being a word that is more specific than "obtain" in that it also expresses the way in which the thing "agorazo'ed" was obtained.

2. Redemption in Revelation Uses

In Revelation, there are three uses (in two passages) that appear to be soteriological and are translated with "redemption" language in the KJV. 

• Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed G59 us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
• Revelation 14:3-4 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed G59 from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed G59 from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

In this context, the buying is of people (the purchased item) by Jesus (the purchaser) by his blood (the price).  There is no seller in the discussion.  The purchasing is exclusivistic: "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" and "from the earth" and "from among men."  There is every indication that these people are presently possessed by the purchaser.

3. Buying in Paul

Paul uses agorazo twice more (in addition to the illuminating usage above).  In both cases, the purchased items are people.

• 1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought G59 with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
• 1 Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought G59 with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

It's worthwhile considering each in context.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

In this case, Paul's argument is that fornication is a sin against one's own body, and that this body is the temple of the Holy Ghost.  It's no longer our own.  Why? Because we have been bought by God.  The argument made by Paul here depends on the possession having transferred.  Indeed Paul is explicit: your body and your spirit are "God's" (τοῦ Θεοῦ).

1 Corinthians 6:20 is the last verse of the chapter.  The next usage comes shortly after in the next chapter, on a slightly different issue:

1 Corinthians 7:20-24

Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 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. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

In this passage that is so controversial these days, Paul reminds people that the ownership that matters for believers is being the Lord's (κυρίου) or Christ's (Χριστοῦ).  This is linked by Paul to the time of calling.  Thus, the possession of these people is already conveyed to Christ our Lord.  The price is not explained here, though a price is mentioned.

4. Agorazo in 2 Peter 2:1

This bring us to what is arguably the most surprising and unusual usage of the word in the New Testament.

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 G59 them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

4A. Bought (Aorist Active Participle) in the Past

The main take-away from the above discussion is that whatever "bought" them here refers to, it is a transfer of possession.  In this case, the transfer of possession is described as a completed past action.  The specific form, ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta), is an aorist active participle, similar to the past participle "bought" in English.  Given that agorazo is a result verb, we could convey this connotation of the verb by translating it as "obtained for a price."

The people obtained here are the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι (pseudodidaskaloi), "false teachers."  But who obtained these people?  

4B. Obtained by the Lord or Someone Else?

4B-1. Despotes Semantic Range

The KJV capitalizes "Lord," but of course the original Greek did not make any capitalization distinctions, and δεσπότης (despotes) is not the usual word translated as "Lord" in the New Testament.  

Peter uses despostes to refer to masters (i.e. slave owners) 

• 1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters (τοῖς δεσπόταις) with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

This same sense is also used by Paul:

• 1 Timothy 6:1-2 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
• Titus 2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

Similarly, the Septuagint uses the word this way in Proverbs 17:2, 22:7, and 30:10. 

However, while it is less frequent than κύριος (kyrios), despotes is sometimes use of the Lord. This is sometimes in a more or less explicit Master/Slave metaphor:

• Luke 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 
• Acts 4:24-25 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
• 2Ti 2:21&24 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. ... And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,  
• Jude 1-4 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
• Revelation 6:10-11 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

There is also similar usage in Septuagint Joshua 5:14.  The term is sometimes used of the Lord without any other contextual clue of the Master/Servant relation between the Lord and the person, such as Septuagint Genesis 15:2&8 or Isaiah 1:24 (there are other examples as well).

An interesting use is Septuagint Proverbs 36:25 (partly corresponding to Masoretic Proverbs 29:25) in which the seventy provide a parallel between kyrios and despotes, which suggests a semantic similarity between the words: 

• φοβηθέντες καὶ αἰσχυνθέντες ἀνθρώπους ὑπεσκελίσθησαν (Fearing and being ashamed, they were tripped up by men,)
• ὁ δὲ πεποιθὼς ἐπὶ κύριον εὐφρανθήσεται (but the one having trusted in the Lord will be made joyful)
• ἀσέβεια ἀνδρὶ δίδωσιν σφάλμα (ungodliness gives a man stumbling,)
• ὃς δὲ πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τῷ δεσπότῃ σωθήσεται (but he who has trusted in the Master will be saved)

Thus, it would be a mistake to say that this word despotes cannot refer to God, simply because it is not kyrios.

4B-1. Despotes Applicability to the "Bought" Metaphor

In the first century, human beings were bought into (and out of) slavery.  While we may be disturbed by this practice, as noted above the Holy Spirit and the Septuagint translators were comfortable with portraying God as our Master and us as his Servants.

Within this metaphor, it makes sense for the Despostes to be the purchaser of his servants.  Indeed, the text explicitly says τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην (ton agorasanta autous despoten) "the (bought them) master".  So, there is not doubt that the master (despostes) is the one who obtained them.

4B-2. Despotes in Jude

There is a lot of similarity between Jude and 2 Peter 2.  In fact, the similarity has led to an enormous amount of speculation about which was written first and whether one draws from another, or whether both draw from some previously circulating tract against false teachers.

In this case, Jude 1-4 states:

Jude 1-4 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The first question is whether Jude 4 and 2 Peter 2:1 are talking about the same people (i.e. are Peter's "false teachers" the same as Jude's "ungodly" men?) or two different groups.  The second question is whether these two verses are talking about denying the same master or a different master (i.e. is Peter referring to the same despostes as Jude?).  The third question is whether they are denying in the same sense (i.e. there can be different senses and ways of denying a master).

The easiest aspect of this to resolve is that Jude is referring to Jesus Christ as the despostes.  This is clear from Jude calling himself "servant" of his physical brother Jesus, as well as from the Granville-Sharpe construction units "Despostes God" with "Kyrios Jesus Christ," as referring to the same person.

The similarities between 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4 are these:

2 Peter 2:1 Ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ λαῷ ὡς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσονται ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι οἵτινες παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν

Jude 4 παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα ἀσεβεῖς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν, καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι

In other words, the two same Greek words are "denying the master."  In itself that's a slender straw on which to hang the idea that these are talking about the same group. Moreover, there are other reasons to distinguish the groups:

1. 2 Peter speaks of future false teachers, and the ungodly men of Jude have already crept in unawares.
2. Jude's men are murmurers and complainers who have men's persons in admiration because of advantage, which seem to describe underlings.  By contrast, Peter's false teachers seem to have a leadership position.

Of course, we cannot rule out that Jude and Peter are writing about the same group at different stages of the process.  Moreover, there are similarities.

1. Most significant to our discussion they both deny a despostes.
2. They both are on the sly ("privily shall bring in ..." and "crept in unawares")
3. They both speak "great swelling" words.
4. They are both lascivious.

If we understand Jude to be speaking of the same group and in the same way as Peter, the answer is that the people were bought by the Lord Jesus Christ.  However, even if Jude and Peter are talking about different groups, that does not automatically tell us that Master in question is not Jesus in 2 Peter 2:1.

4B-3. Despotes / Douli in 2 Peter 2

We have seen that Master (despotes) is often connected with a Master/Servant metaphor (or even a literal master/servant relationship), and Master/Servant relationship is the most natural explanation for ἀγοράσαντα (agoransanta) "bought" in the context.

Whose servants are the false teachers?  It is easy to interpret them as servants of Christ, at least outwardly, as they are false teachers who are secretly introducing error "among you" as the false prophets did "among the people."  Moreover, as mentioned above, sometimes Christ is called Master and the Master/Servant metaphor is applied to him.  So, one option is that these men are servants of Christ.  

On the other hand, the text is explicit:

2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

These false teachers are the servants (δοῦλοι douloi) of corruption (φθορᾶς phthoras).  Peter had earlier in this same chapter connected these false teachers to this corruption:

2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed (φθοράν phthoran), speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption (φθορᾷ phthora); 

Moreover, this state of corruption is what believers are promised that they will escape:

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption (φθορᾶς phthoras) that is in the world through lust.

Notice that this corruption is something from which we who trust in Christ escape (ἀποφυγόντες  apophugontes "having escaped"). 

Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, which Peter elsewhere in this letter alludes to (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16 and Romans 2:4) speaks of the same concept of the bondage of corruption:

Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption (τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς tis douleias tis phthoras) into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Moreover, the gospel tells us that no one can serve two masters:

• Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
• Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

So, it seems inconsistent to say that these men are the servants of Christ or that he is their Lord who bought them.

5. Alternative Explanations

Given the above, what are the remaining explanations:

5A. The Master who bought them is Sin/Corruption/Satan

If this is the case, the biggest challenge is that the price element of buying has no clear correspondence, although the text does mention "the wages of unrighteousness" (2 Peter 2:15).  The usual way that people are said to be taken by sin is by a snare or the like, which the wages would seem to work as in this instance.  Nevertheless, the master/slave relationship is there in Scripture, and is not only found in 2 Peter (as mentioned above) but also in Romans, which Peter was familiar with:

Romans 6:15-19

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Granted there is no "price" that sin pays.  Nevertheless, if the key aspect of buying is the transfer of possession, then that is certainly present.

Under this explanation, "denying the master that bought them," fits well with the preceding and following context in which these false teachers are pretending to be part of us.

• "there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies" (vs. 1)
• "many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (vs. 2)
• "Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;" (vs. 13)
• "they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error." (vs. 18)

You may recall that Peter denied being a disciple of Christ.  In an opposite way, these people affirm being disciples of Christ, while they are actually servants of corruption.  This is one relative strength of this position, because these people are repeatedly described as deceptive and what 

5B. Peter refers to Christ as their Master, although He is not

The biggest challenge to this view is that while Peter attaches "pseudo" to their status as teachers, he does not similarly add an explicit disqualification to their being bought by Christ.  In other words, the question is whether Peter can reasonably describe these false teachers in terms of their profession (as distinct from the reality), and expect the reader to understand this from the context of them being "among you" and being false teachers, with reference to their "feigned words" (vs. 3) and "their own deceivings" (vs. 13) who are "beguiling unstable souls" (vs. 14).  These same folks also "speak great swelling [words] of vanity" (vs. 18) and deliver the opposite of what they promise (vs. 19).

There are at least two sub-divisions of this option:

5B-1. Peter refers to them Ironically/Charitably According to their Profession

In other words, Peter means that they say that the Lord bought them, yet they deny him.  After all, if they are denying being the servants of sin, the denial is straightforward.  However, if they deny as Peter did, how can they be among us, etc.?

The solution here may be that the denial is not so much verbal as ethical.  Peter's triple denial is an example of a verbal denial.  The denial of touching Jesus by the woman with an issue of blood was a verbal denial.  John the Baptist's denial of being the Christ was a truthful verbal denial. Likewise the denial of Jesus as the Christ described in 1 John 2:22 is a verbal denial.

Nevertheless, ethical denial is also possible. For example:

1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

This kind of denial, particularly that of 2 Timothy 3:5 is particular applicable here.  Recall that passage:

2 Timothy 3:1-9

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

Notice that these men identified by Paul have some similarities with those described by Peter, including the characteristic of being covetous and of deceiving people, and leading them into fornication, and the comparison of them to the opponents of Moses.  Especially notice how Paul speaks of a future situation as does Peter.

These have a "form of godliness," but Paul does not have to say "pseudo-godliness" for to understand that their form of godliness is not true godliness.

Likewise, although the "way of truth" is evil spoken of because of the false teachers, Peter does not have to explicitly state that the way of these false teachers is not actually the way of truth, but is instead a distortion of it.

In each of these cases Peter and Paul are speaking as to the profession of the people, not as to whether their profession is true.

5B-2. Peter speaks of them only as to their previous moral reformation

At the end of the chapter, Peter provides a warning regarding these false teachers:

2 Peter 2:18-22

For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 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. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Notice that the biographic arc of these people is that they had been in the pollutions of the world, they had escaped them, and then become entangled again. Peter says that for such people, they are worse for having been temporarily reformed.  

Considering that Peter says that their last state is worse than their initial state, this seems to rule out any kind of a "Free Grace Theology" style conversion followed by a relapse.  It also seems to rule out a temporary backsliding of an elect person for the same reason.

They had an ephemeral knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but they were not saved by Him.  In this way, there may even be some parallel to the discussion of Jude, which describes the people of Israel thus:

Jude 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

There was a kind of ephemeral salvation from Egypt, followed by destruction in the wilderness, of the entire generation from 20 years old and up, except for Joshua and Caleb.  

While the Septuagint may not speak of Christ as having "purchased" the people from Egypt using this identical Greek word, he is described as having brought them out of Egypt, and there is a kind of redemption associated with that.  

Moreover, the KJV has:

• Exodus 15:16 Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.
• Psalm 74:2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.

This purchase of the people of Israel, particularly in light of Jude's reference to the salvation from Egypt and Peter's reference to the people who were entangled by Balaam in the wilderness, provides a model from a kind of purchase or salvation that is not unto eternal life.

6. Additional "Purchased" Thoughts

An additional buying word that is connected with Christ and his people is the word περιποιέω ("peripoieo").  This can mean something like to "get for oneself" or to "reserve for oneself" or the like.

• Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased (περιεποιήσατο periepoiesato to "to make to remain for oneself") with his own blood.
• Ephesians 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession (τῆς περιποιήσεως is peripoieseos), unto the praise of his glory.

This concept of being purchased is nearly balanced in its relevance to the preceding discussion.  On the one hand, the church is uniquely said to be purchased with Christ's blood.  Thus, anyone who is a member of the church can be characterized as being purchased with his blood in the sense of being obtained for Christ himself or reserved for Christ himself.  That strong sense is what is in mind in Ephesians.  On the other hand, there are those in the church that do not belong there, because they are not "of us" as described in 1 John.  Thus, the visible church is a mixed multitude, and people who are in the church may be described using the language appropriate to the church, when speaking as to the outward appearance or their profession

Perhaps, then, the false teachers can be described as "bought" or "purchased" in that they are part of  the visible church. 

7. The "Kai" Connection

The phrase "denying the Master that bought them" is introduced with the copulative kai.  This word is translated as "even" in many translations, and that sense makes sense.  Thus, whatever explanation we give for "denying the Master that bought them," it should be linked with what comes before namely "who privily shall bring in damnable heresies."

This works well if they are concealing their allegiance to corruption, although it also works well if they are denying the Lord as master by serving corruption.

 

Appendix 

Plain NT uses:  

• Matthew 14:15  And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy G59 themselves victuals.
• Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought G59 in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
• Matthew 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought G59 with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
• Mark 6:36 Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy G59 themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat.
• Mark 6:37 He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy G59 two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?
• Mark 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought G59 in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
• Mark 15:46 And he bought G59 fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.
• Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought G59 sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
• Luke 9:13 But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy G59 meat for all this people.
• Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, G59 they sold, they planted, they builded;
• Luke 19:45 And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; G59
• Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy G59 one.
• John 4:8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy G59 meat.)
• John 6:5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy G59 bread, that these may eat?
• Jhn 13:29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy G59 those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

Plain NT uses within parables:

• Matthew 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth G59 that field.
• Matthew 13:46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought G59 it.
• Matthew 25:9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy G59 for yourselves.
• Matthew 25:10 And while they went to buy, G59 the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
• Luke 14:18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought G59 a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
• Luke 14:19 And another said, I have bought G59 five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

Septuagint uses surrounding Joseph and the market for corn/food during his time under the Pharoah:

• Genesis 41:57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
• Genesis 42:5 And the sons of Israel came to buy corn among those that came: for the famine was in the land of Canaan.
• Genesis 42:7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food.
• Genesis 43:4 If thou wilt send our brother with us, we will go down and buy thee food:
• Genesis 43:22 And other money have we brought down in our hands to buy food: we cannot tell who put our money in our sacks.
• Genesis 44:25 And our father said, Go again, and buy us a little food.
• Genesis 47:14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.

Various references to other commercial purchases in the Septuagint:

• Deuteronomy 2:6 Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.
• 1 Chronicles 21:24 And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.
• 2 Chronicles 1:16 And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price.
• 2 Chronicles 34:11 Even to the artificers and builders gave they it, to buy hewn stone, and timber for couplings, and to floor the houses which the kings of Judah had destroyed.
• Nehemiah 10:31 And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day: and that we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.
• Isaiah 24:2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.
• Jeremiah 37:12 Then Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, to separate himself thence in the midst of the people. (Septuagint has "to buy from there [land] in the midst of the people.")

Revelation uses in (at least in the literal sense) an ordinary sense:

• Revelation 3:18 I counsel thee to buy G59 of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
• Revelation 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth G59 their merchandise any more:
• Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy G59 or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Three Days and Three Nights - Hebrew Idiom for Three Consecutive Calendar Days

Jonah's use of "three days and three nights" repeated by Jesus in prophesying his own death, burial, and resurrection has led to some confusion. As you may recall, in Jonah, it is written:

Jonah 1:15-17
So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows. Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Similarly, Jesus states:

Matthew 12:38-41
Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Some people have taken this expression as expressing emphasis on both daylight and and dark periods, instead of understanding the expression as simply meaning three consecutive calendar days. Interestingly enough, the same expression is found in one other place, where it is fairly clear that three calendar days is meant:

1 Samuel 30:1 & 11-14
And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire; ... And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him bread, and he did eat; and they made him drink water; and they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights. And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick. We made an invasion upon the south of the Cherethites, and upon the coast which belongeth to Judah, and upon the south of Caleb; and we burned Ziklag with fire.

The point of "three days and three nights" is just that the Egyptian had been continuously without food and water for three calendar days. The point is not the day and light portions, but the continuity. We see that from the fact that David returned "on the third day" (vs. 1) and from the fact that the Egyptian had only fallen sick "three days agone."

The way that "on the third day" worked for the Hebrew way of counting days can be seen from Jesus' own use:

Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Similarly, in Leviticus:

Leviticus 19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.

Even in 1 Samuel, we see the same way of counting:

1 Samuel 20:5 And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.

Regarding the use of days and nights, the point is not to emphasize the period of darkness, as though the Egyptian had been 72 hours without food, but simply to emphasize the continuity of his involuntary fast. We see the same principle employed in other situations where continuity is the point:

• "forty days and forty nights" of the rain in the great flood (Genesis 7:4 and 12).
• "forty days and forty nights" of Moses' fasts on the mount (Exodus 24:18 and 34:28, Deuteronomy 9:9, 11, 18, and 24, Deuteronomy 10:10).
• "forty days and forty nights" of Elijah's fast on his journey to Horeb (1 Kings 19:8)
• "seven days and seven nights" of Jobs' friends' silence (Job 2:13)
• "forty days and forty nights" of Jesus' fast in the wilderness (Matthew 4:2)

We also see the same thing in the use of the expression "day and night," which is used to mean "continuously." A few examples:

Leviticus 8:35 Therefore shall ye abide at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation day and night seven days, and keep the charge of the Lord, that ye die not: for so I am commanded.

Deuteronomy 28:66 And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:

Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

1 Kings 8:59 And let these my words, wherewith I have made supplication before the Lord, be nigh unto the Lord our God day and night, that he maintain the cause of his servant, and the cause of his people Israel at all times, as the matter shall require:

1 Chronicles 9:33 And these are the singers, chief of the fathers of the Levites, who remaining in the chambers were free: for they were employed in that work day and night.

2 Chronicles 6:20 That thine eyes may be open upon this house day and night, upon the place whereof thou hast said that thou wouldest put thy name there; to hearken unto the prayer which thy servant prayeth toward this place.

Psalm 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Psalm 32:4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.

Psalm 42:3 My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God?

Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

Acts 9:24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

Acts 26:7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Finally, recall that Jesus prophesied explicitly that he would rise "the third day":

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Matthew 17:23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

Matthew 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Matthew 27:64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Mark 10:34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

Luke 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

Luke 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

Luke 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

Moreover, Jesus himself confirmed that this was true:

Luke 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Moreover, Paul tells us the same thing:

1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So, it is clear that the reference to "Three days and three nights" refers simply to three successive or consecutive calendar days, as opposed to meaning three periods of light and darkness. Otherwise, Jesus would rise on the fourth day after having been buried for 72 hours.

Finally, of course, we know that Jesus was killed on Friday, which is also called "Preparation":

Mark 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

Luke 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Moreover, we know that Jesus rose in the morning on the first day of the week:

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

John 20:1The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

John 20:19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

So, again, we can see that the three consecutive days were Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

In short, while the expression "three days and three nights" is a little unfamiliar as an idiom to our English-listening ears, with all the Biblical data, it becomes clear what was meant, and that what was meant was fully consistent with the rest of Scripture.