Many Christians who are struggling with Calvinism find 2 Peter 3:9 to be a difficult passage to understand.
2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (ESV)
Does this mean that if God had His way then no one would go to Hell but everyone would repent? Well, no, not exactly. First of all, to interpret this verse that way would theologically require one to believe that God is not sovereign enough to get what He wants.
Secondly, a simple grammatical analysis reveals that this verse is talking about a specific group of people rather than everyone without exception. For example, the beginning of chapter is addressing believers, namely “the beloved.” Also, in verse nine the usage of the pronouns “you” and “any” and “all” are references to the “beloved” mentioned in verse one. Thus, the proper literal interpretation of this verse reveals that God does not want any of His beloved to perish but He wants all of His beloved elect to repent.
Finally, one should take notice that this verse is about a promise that God has made and that God always fulfills His promises, even in a timely fashion. So this verse can only be referring to a specific group of people, namely His beloved elect. God has promised them salvation, and God will keep His promise to all of them.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
If somebody wants to say this verse does speak of all the human race, how would they deal with verse 7 and how God is preserving this world for the day of judgment and the destruction of the ungodly? If it is His will that the whole human race would come to repentance, why would He set aside a day in which He will destroy them?
Jason said:
“Many Christians who are struggling with Calvinism find 2 Peter 3:9 to be a difficult passage to understand.”
Me now:
First off, it needs to be said that one might interpret this passage differently than Jason has and still be a Calvinist. In fact, Calvin’s own interpretation (not to mention many other prominent Reformers, Puritans and later Calvinists) differs from Jason’s. While that does not determine what the bible is actually teaching, it still needs to be noted that Calvinists are not monolithic on this passage.
Let it be noted that there is no such thing as “THE Calvinistic interpretation” of this text.
Also, whoever denies that God wills all to repent, or wills all to be saved, is NOT an historic Calvinist to begin with. ALL Calvinists have affirmed that God wills the salvation of all men in the revealed will of God. It’s hyper-Calvinists that deny this. Anyway, among historic orthodox Calvinists, there are two options with respect to 2 Peter 3:9. Either the “any” or “us” refers to more than just the elect, or it refers to the elect alone.
The problem with free will theology is not that they think that God wills all to repent and be saved, but that God EQUALLY wills all to be saved, and is doing all in his power to achieve that desire, since he EQUALLY loves all. Thus, if the non-Calvinists wish to appeal to this passage to prove that God wills to save more than just the elect, they have not thereby falsified Calvinism. They would have to find in this passage an argument that negates an efficacious special will to save the elect alone, i.e., some argument that flies in the face of unconditional election. In other words, the argument between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is NOT between these options: 1) God only wills to save the elect or 3) God EQUALLY wills to save all. Rather, the argument is between these two positions: 2) God wills to save all, but ESPECIALLY his elect or 3) God EQUALLY wills the salvation of all. Proving that God wills to save more than the elect does not necessarily disprove a special will to save the elect, anymore than proving that God loves all disproves a special love for others. More information would be needed to negate the Calvinist position on the special will of God. For example, proving that A) Jason loves more than his immediate family does not thereby disprove or falsify the possibility that B) he has a special love for his family.
Secondly, it also needs to be noted that it is abundantly clear that all that hear the external gospel call are commanded to repent and believe.
NKJ Acts 17:30 “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
All parties should agree that the “all men” is referring to more than the elect. Moreover, as the Puritan John Howe says:
“…it seems altogether unreasonable, and unintelligible, that he should will to oblige me to that, which he doth not will me to do.”
What Howe is saying is that if one is “obliged” to repent, or is under an obligation to repent, then God must will one to comply.
Or, as he says in the same section of his writings:
“…while God doth not efficaciously will all men’s obedience introductive of their happiness, doth it follow he wills it not really at all? To say he wills it efficaciously, were to contradict experience, and his word; to say he wills it not really, were equally to contradict his word. He doth will it, but not primarily, and as the more principle object of his will, so as to effect it notwithstanding whatsoever unfitness he apprehends in it, viz. that he so overpower all, as to make them obedient and happy. He really wills it, but hath greater reasons than this or that man’s salvation, why he effects it not.”
Howe is saying that it is false to either think 1) God efficaciously wills the obedience of all men or 2) God does not reallly will all to obey him. Rather, he is arguing that 3) “he [God] doth not efficaciously will every thing that he truly wills.” God wills all to repent, and this is evident in that all are obliged to repent, but God has good reasons to not effect obedience in all men. According to Howe, it cannot be that God wills a man to be under obligation but not want compliance. As he says, “When God wills this or that to be my duty, doth he not will this event, viz. my doing it? Otherwise wherein is his will withstood, or not fulfilled, in my not doing it?” The only other alternative is to say that God doesn’t want us to keep his commandments, and that is blasphemy. Let it not be said, therefore, that God commands all men to repent, but he doesn’t will all men to comply.
Given these observations, I will next examine Jason’s arguments above.
Jason asks:
“Does this mean that if God had His way then no one would go to Hell but everyone would repent? Well, no, not exactly.”
Me now:
Jason is here reacting to position #3 outlined above, namely that “3) God equally wills to save all.” Any Calvinist would have to deny this proposition. But does Jason’s interpretation therefore follow? Let’s see.
Jason said:
“First of all, to interpret this verse that way would theologically require one to believe that God is not sovereign enough to get what He wants.”
Me now:
If position #3 is being argued, this may follow, viz., that God is not powerful enough to effect what he wills with all his might. However, if one takes the alternative Calvinist view that Peter is talking about God’s preceptive will that some group “repent” and therefore not perish, the conclusion does not follow, for the text is referencing the revealed will of God and not the decretal. Calvin thinks the text is referencing God’s revealed or preceptive will, so he says “no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God [secret will], according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel [revealed will].” Is this correct?
When one examines the “context” so frequently brought up, one can see that Peter is seeking to exhort his audience to think and live as they ought to in light of the coming judgment. He says:
NIV 2 Peter 3:1 Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.
He is exhorting them to remember God’s words:
NKJ 2 Peter 3:2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,
And to live in light of these words:
NKJ 2 Peter 3:11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
Peter is seeking to move them to obedience in light of descriptions of the future (as he mentions the autonomous scoffers who doubt coming judgment in verses 3-4), and of the past (as he mentions how these scoffers are behaving like those in Noah’s day in verses 5-6). These “ungodly men” will soon be judged like those of the past (verse 7), except with fire instead of water. Those judged are not ignorant, for they are saying, “where is the promise of his coming?” (verse 4). They know of God’s commandments through his prophets and Apostles, and yet disobey and scoff anyway. For that reason (disobedience to God’s revealed will), they will be judged.
I think Calvin is therefore contextually warranted to say that God’s revealed will in the gospel is in view. All of them are commanded to repent, but some scoff and disobey, and then perish because of it. Because God’s preceptive will seems to be in view, one may say that the will of God in view may not be effected in some. This is by no means contrary to Calvinism. With the Puritan John Howe, we may consistently say, “it seems out of question, that the holy God doth constantly and perpetually, in a true sense, will universal obedience, and the consequent felicity of all his creatures capable thereof; i.e. he doth will it with simple complacency, as what were highly grateful to him, simply considered by itself.” The ungodly men do not perish because they fail to obey God’s decretal will, but his preceptive will, i.e., that they repent. Through the gospel, which expresses the revealed will of God, he truly wills their obedience and consequent felicity.
Peter was early on indiscriminately telling his unbelieving audience that God willed to bless them through Jesus:
NKJ Acts 3:26 “To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”
Peter learned this from Jesus’ words himself:
NKJ John 5:34 “Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved.
Calvinists should not have any problem telling everyone in their unbelieving audience that God wants them to be saved by means of faith and repentance in the gospel. We should also warn them that Jesus is coming again to judge those who do not obey the gospel:
NKJ 2 Thessalonians 1:8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
If any man scoffs and remains in unbelief, they will suffer because of it.
This is the idea in view in 2 Peter chapter 3. Peter is addressing a believing audience that is suffering from the hands of unbelievers and false teachers. He is reminding them that their day is no different from Noah’s day. Noah also suffered, being a preacher of righteousness (v. 2:5). They should not be discouraged by God’s delayed judgment upon the wicked, for God was doing the same thing in Noah’s day. God was commanding that ancient generation to repent through the ministry of Noah, and he truly willed their compliance. Being merciful and gracious, he waited, even as he threatened them with a coming flood. Peter is reminding his believing audience that God is doing the same thing in their day. The scoffers and false teachers were foretold, so they should not be suprised. Moreover, God’s longsuffering should be no surprise either, given his nature:
NKJ 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
It is rash to conclude that God is being “slack,” as if he reckons things like us (verse 9). Not at all. They should know that God is being longsuffering as he was long ago. As Calvin aptly says, “the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance…the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness.”
I judge this to be the appropriate view of the context, generally. What then of Jason’s interpretation? What’s wrong with it? We shall see. I will also clarify my take on the passage as I critique Jason’s position.
Jason said:
“Secondly, a simple grammatical analysis reveals that this verse is talking about a specific group of people rather than everyone without exception.”
Me now:
Jason appeals to grammar and makes an either/or dilemma between 1) a specific group of people and 2) everyone without exception. Basically, as we shall see, he thinks the alternatives are either between 1) all of the elect or 2) everyone without exception.
I think this either/or dilemma is both false and overly simplistic. Peter says:
NKJ 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
Other translations say:
ESV 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
As one can see, some translations have “us” and others have “you.” The Textus Receptus reads “to us-ward,” but the critical editors accept “you” as the better reading. Either way, I think Peter is speaking generally. Surely he is including his readers in the reference (and probably himself), but it still makes sense that others (even the existing non-elect) are included as well, especially since he seems to expand the class by saying “any.” Think of it this way. It is a homiletical “we” or “us,” as he thinks of his audience and their persecutoring neighbors as fellow sinners. A regenerate preacher may properly say to others “God wants US to savingly repent.” The saved preacher is thinking of himself as a fellow human sinner who was in need of repentance and God’s patience, like everyone else in his audience. Paul even spoke this way when he said:
NKJ 1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
Even though Paul was a saint when he wrote this, he could still speak generally, and think of himself as a participant in the general sinful class of humanity (existing at that time).
Grammatically, this reading is at least allowable. There is nothing in the “grammar” that would rule it out. Why then do some rule it out? Sometimes it is due to (as I deem it to be) a fallacious appeal to “context,” such as the following letterhead argument. Frequently it is because they are driven by systematic reasons to conclude otherwise. The idea of Christ coming into the world to save more than the elect (or willing the salvation of more than the elect) is a priorily ruled out by the necessity of a purely decretal system that fails to do justice to the revealed will of God.
Anyway, we will next examine the appeal to the letterhead.
Jason said:
“For example, the beginning of chapter is addressing believers, namely “the beloved.”
Me now:
It is true that the beginning of the chapter is addressing believers. However, one needs to be careful to not equivocate between “believers” and “the elect,” for not all the elect are believers. So, it is not addressed to the elect as such, but to particular elect individuals who were in a believing state. In other words, “believers” does not equal “elect.” While all believers were elected to salvation from eternity, not all those elected to salvation from eternity are believers.
Jason said:
“Also, in verse nine the usage of the pronouns “you” and “any” and “all” are references to the “beloved” mentioned in verse one.”
Me now:
Yes, these terms include those referenced in verse one, but that does not thereby prove that no others are included. As I said above, a preacher can reference more than himself and his immediate audience when he says, “God wants us to repent, and all sinners.” Again, proving that the audience is referenced does not argue against a broader class of sinners being in view as well. In fact, I think the “any” and “all” is broader than the “you” or “us.” Peter is stating a general principle to buttress his specific point concerning the “you.”
Suppose for a moment that Peter was speaking of his audience as members of the group of sinful humanity in Galatia, without distinguishing between elect and non-elect. Couldn’t he still say “you” in such a circumstance? I certainly think so. He could use the same term to refernce his audience and their neighbors as a sinful class of particular persons in a given area.
Suppose, on the other hand, that Jason’s statement above is the case. He is saying that the “you,” or the “any,” references the specific “beloved” mentioned in verse one. If Peter is not speaking generally about them as participants in the sinful class of humanity, then how could these specific people be in need of repentance? I thought they had already repented, and were thus not in danger of perishing? It seems that Jasons letterhead argument amounts to this:
1) The letter is expressly written to believers (verse 1:1), who are later referenced in verse 3:1.
2) The “you,” the “any,” and the “all” references these believers.
3) Therefore, God is not willing that any “of them” perish, but that they all come to repentance.
Again, if the “you” and the “any” refers to “those who have obtained like precious faith,” then they have already repented. They are in no danger of “perishing.” How can it then be said that God wants them to savingly repent and not perish?
The following statement will clarify Jason’s argument.
Jason said:
“Thus, the proper literal interpretation of this verse reveals that God does not want any of His beloved to perish but He wants all of His beloved elect to repent.”
Me now:
Notice how Jason is switching between “beloved” and the class of all the elect. But the epistle is not addressed to the elect, but to believers. One cannot jump to the letterhead to get to the entire class of all of the elect, or all the elect without exception. It’s specifically written to believers who, as in the first epistle, were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The appeal to the letterhead to try to get the class of all the elect seems just as bad as someone saying that “all men everywhere” in Acts 17:30 refers to the elect because that account was written to a believer, or believers. Shall we conclude also that the “every knee” that shall bow before Christ (as stated by Phil 2:10) is every ELECT knee because the book of Philippians was written to believers? If not, why not? It seems just as arbitrary as the appeal to the letterhead to explain 2 Peter 3:9. One might even appeal to the “context” to argue that way.
It seems that Jason is arguing thusly:
1) Peter is writing to the elect
2) The “us,” “you,” or “all” in 3:9 refers to those written to
3) Therefore, the “us,” “you,” or “all” are the elect.
Question: Does the term “elect” have the same sense throughout this syllogism? Or is there a subtle equivocation?
It would seem that “elect” in premise #1 must be believers, for Peter says they have received a like faith (1:1), etc. But what is the sense of “elect” in the conclusion? Jason apparently wants it to connote the entire class of all of the elect. There seems to be an equivocation fallacy going on. The following is an example of an equivocation fallacy:
All trees have bark.
All dogs bark.
Therefore, all dogs are trees.
This is an obvious absurdity because there is an equivocation on the term “bark.”
I would like to know what exegetically warrants the leap from believers to the entire class of all the elect. One cannot appeal to the letterhead to get the entire class of the elect, for they are those who are already believing.
Jason said:
“Finally, one should take notice that this verse is about a promise that God has made and that God always fulfills His promises, even in a timely fashion. So this verse can only be referring to a specific group of people, namely His beloved elect. God has promised them salvation, and God will keep His promise to all of them.”
Me now:
One wonders what promise you are talking about. The promise, as I see it, concerns a promise to come again and bring judgment, i.e., to render to each man according to his works. The promise is the “Day of the Lord” (v. 10), and so he exhorts them to “holy conduct and godliness.” It is true that there is a promise to reward the faithful, as verse 13 spells out, but there is also a promise to judge the disobedient. So the “promise,” in the context, is complex, and doesn’t merely concern his will to gather in all of the elect unto eternal life, which seems to be Jason’s singular focus (hence “promised them salvation,” etc.).
Notice again how Jason, in the above quote, switches (or equivocates) between the “beloved” spoken of in the letterhead, and the “beloved elect,” i.e., the entire class of all the elect without exception.
Kyle said:
“If somebody wants to say this verse does speak of all the human race, how would they deal with verse 7 and how God is preserving this world for the day of judgment and the destruction of the ungodly? If it is His will that the whole human race would come to repentance, why would He set aside a day in which He will destroy them?”
Me now:
It sounds like you (Kyle) deny that God wills the repentance/salvation of all mankind in what you say above. That isn’t Calvinism. It’s one thing to say that 1) God especially or efficaciously wills the repentance/salvation of the elect alone, and quite another thing to say that 2) he only wills the repentance/salvation.
Question: Is your position #1 or #2?
Your question is the same as asking, “If God foreordains that you disobey him, how can it be said that he truly wills your obedience?” You’re saying that since God has appointed some sinful men unto judgment, he cannot be said to will, in any sense, their compliance and consequent felicity.
I might ask you, Kyle: How can God truly will that you be thankful in all things when he has foreordained that you not always give him thanks as you ought? Are we to conclude that God doesn’t will your gratitude because he has purposed to give you over to your own unthankful impulses? Of course not. As John Howe pointed out above, God may truly will what he wills not to effect. R. L. Dabney, as he distinguishes between the secret and revealed will of God, says:
“Say that God has no secret decretive will, and He wishes just what He commands and nothing more, and we represent Him as a Being whose desires are perpetually crossed and baffled, yea, trampled on, the most harassed, embarrassed, and impotent Being in the universe. Deny the other part of our distinction [the revealed will], and you represent God as acquiescing in all the iniquities done on earth and in hell.”
You’re probably focused on the first part of that statement, as one steeped in a purely decretal perspective. Instead, take a look at the second part. Dabney is saying that if you say that God does not will contrary to all the evils done, then you represent him “as acquiescing in all the iniquities done on earth and in hell.” That is something no Christian should do.
Just because God has determined to give a man over to his own sinful impulses, like those who murdered the Son of God, it does not follow that he did not will their obedience (thou shalt not murder, etc.). Otherwise, it could not be said that they crossed his will. As John Howe puts it, “wherein is his will withstood, or not fulfilled, in my not doing it?”
God may give fire to warm a man, and yet purpose that he shall be burned if he uses it foolishly. Just because God appoints the foolish users of fire to be burned, it does not follow that he never gave them the fire to warm them, that they might be blessed and comforted thereby.
Your above questions could be turned around on you such that you would have to deny that God has any interest in the well-being of any of the non-elect. Since he apoointed them for destruction, he cannot love them, wish their obedience and salvation, or be gracious to them to lead them to repentance (Romans 2:4). In other words, you would have to deny God’s universal love, universal saving will, and common grace. Are you prepared to take that non-Calvinistic extreme position? Or are you already there?
Thanks for clearing that up for us Ynottony. I am not sure how we would have ever understood Jason’s point in the post without your little comment book.
I do hold to the doctrines of grace, but do have a problem with saying this verse applies to the elect. Here’s why.
#1 Quoting the context of the chapter only and not looking at the entire book. In 1:8-9 we have the contrast with those who are diligent to supply the seven qualities in their faith, listed in verses 5-7, and those who do not, with verse 9 being expanded and expounded on in verses 2:20-22
#2 Immediately following in verse 1:10 we have Peter’s warning to be all the more diligent to make certain about the Lord’s calling and choosing them. This is similiar to Paul’s warning to the Corinthians to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. We see also see other warnings in Hebrews and I John. So in many epistles it is assumed that there are tares/unsaved among the recipients, and and they are addressed in an appropriate manner.
#3 There is one more warning in, II Peter 3:17, to not fall from our steadfastness. The word fall here is the same word used in Galatians 5:4…you have fallen from grace. It means to fall out of. We know it can’t mean you can lose your salvation. It could be a warning similiar to Hebrew 6:4-6, which would make it consistent with II Peter 2:20-22. We know that the saints will persevere in the faith to the end, so if you are no longer steadfast, then you were never saved, which would line up with Peter’s warning in 1:10. Also, the word fall here is in the aorist tense which, although it means point action, it also indicates completed and accomplished action. It could be a temporary fall from steadfastness, but in context with the rest of the epistle it doesn’t appear to have that meaning.
#4. In 3:9 why did the Holy Spirit, through Peter, use the word boulemai instead of thelema. Thelema is the much stronger word for will/desire/pleasure, and means a decretive will, a will which is carried out, worked out, accomplished, or brought to fruition. It is used almost exclusively of the will of God. Boulemai is a passive will or desire that is not necessarily accomplished and is well translated by both the NAS and ESV as wishing. It is the desire for something to happen without the accompanying purpose. Therefore God not wishing (boulemai) for any to perish would be consistent with the meaning of this word, because if he desired (thelema) for none to perish, then none would perish. The use of boulemai would also fit in with the warnings in this book. Conversely, this same wishing is for all to come to repentance. If this was for the elect it seems thelema would be used here, because using boulemai gives the indication of maybe they will, maybe they won’t, just as our wishing for something doesn’t guarantee it will come to pass. If God willed (thelema) for none to perish, and for all to come to repentance, then it would come to pass and we would have a universal salvation; which we don’t because only the elect are saved and to only the elect is the blood applied (I Peter 1:1-2)
Morris
I didn’t read the “little comment book”, but I did read the previous comment; before I briefly comment thereto, I note that on Thursday, via http://www.idsblog.com, I linked to Pastor Kerry Kinchen’s online book which addresses, inter alia, the matter of how to know who’s being addressed in Hebrews. The fact that different portions of a letter which is part of our New Covenant Scripture addresses different groups does not “trump” the immediate context which pertains to particular portions of such letter.
(Rhetorically) If God [boulemai] that AlGore be the Dem. nominee*, is it any less “history waiting to happen” than if He [thelema] so?!
* Newsweek has reported as to the significant possibility of such; remarkably, it’s actually a preferable outcome!