Heretical Orthodoxy
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.2 Peter 2:1 NASB
Destructive heresies – The second chapter of Peter’s second letter reads like a prosecutor’s opening argument. These people, says Peter, do nothing right. They are liars, tricksters, intent on destroying others, filled with sensuality, lawlessness and contempt. They are like “unreasoning animals,” ready at any moment to follow their bestial instincts. God has reserved them for judgment and they will pay dearly.
It’s enough to scare you to death. Who are these people? Are they wolves in sheep’s clothing circulating in our midst? Are we to be so frightened that we cower at the prospect that we too have been led astray? Do we know those who promise freedom but enslave, who speak arrogantly words that have no substance, who were once rescued by the Messiah but are now entangled in past sins? Dogs who return to their vomit? Who are these people?
Peter identifies these people with the Greek terms haíresis apṓleias (translated as “destructive heresies”). He then piles on phrase after phrase of their sins, but it all begins here, with haíresis apṓleias. What does this mean? We can start with the less controversial term, apṓleias. “Rare in secular Greek, this means a. ‘destruction,’ ‘ruin,’ b. ‘perishing,’ c. ‘loss.’ It is common in the LXX in sense b. (cf. Job 26:6). In the NT the curse of Acts 8:20 has an OT ring. Eternal destruction is signified in Mt. 7:13; Rom. 9:22; Phil. 1:28; 2 Th. 2:3; Jn. 17:12; 2 Pet. 2:1; Rev. 17:8, 11.”[1] This seems clear enough. Whatever these haíresis are, they lead to ruin.
But what are these haíresis? The word itself does not carry the negative overtones usually associated with unorthodox ideas. It simply means “choice,” and is used to describe alternative schools in philosophical teaching and opposing schools in rabbinic interpretation. But note the remark in TDNT:
Yet there is from the outset a suspicion of the haíresis within Christianity itself, not through the development of orthodoxy, but through the basic incompatibility of ekklēsía and haíresis (cf. Gal. 5:20; 1 Cor. 11:18–19). In 1 Cor. 1: 10ff. haíresis has a sifting purpose. In 2 Pet. 2:1 it affects the church’s very basis; a haíresis creates a new society alongside the ekklēsía and thus makes the ekklēsía itself a haíresis and not the comprehensive people of God. This is unacceptable.[2]
By the time of the early Church fathers, haíresis is a term of threat, especially used for “philosophical schools, Jewish sects, and especially Gnostic societies.”[3]
Whatever Peter has in mind has by this time become the castigation of philosophy, Jews and Gnostics. For Justin Martyr, Origen and Ignatius, haíresis is anything other than Church orthodoxy. Is that what Peter had in mind?
Peter’s paradigm example of the practitioners of haíresis is found in the phrase “even denying the Master who bought them.” In other words, these people were once within the ekklēsía, or at least accepted by the congregants, but have since denied the status and role of the Messiah. They no longer believe in His redemptive act. In the first century, this would be the equivalent of Gentiles returning to pagan practices or Jews who were in no need of a Messianic deliverer. Either one denies Yeshua. In the first century, this brought forth Peter’s ire.
But we don’t live in the first century. The Gnostics are gone. The Jews and Christians have separated. Pagans are everywhere. Do these false teachers still walk among us? If we apply Peter’s characterization before he begins piling up the prosecutor’s list we have to face some serious questions. Does Christian orthodoxy acknowledge the status and role of the Messiah that Peter claims is the basis of true faith? The answer, unfortunately, seems to be “No.” The Christ of the Church is not the Jewish Messiah. The Bible of the Church does not recognize God’s unconditional election of Israel. The practice of the Church does not align with the synagogue of Peter’s day. In fact, Christian orthodoxy seems to be haíresis when compared to first century Messianic views. And unless we are willing to claim that all the apostolic writers were really “Christians,” despite textual evidence to the contrary, we are left with the very uncomfortable conclusion that Christianity itself is haíresis.
By the way, just so we don’t get inflated ideas about Judaism, I would point out that contemporary Judaism also fails Peter’s assessment. It too is haíresis. Converting to Judaism might be closer to the truth than Christian orthodoxy, but it is still a long step away from Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah.
If we are willing to stand with Peter, then today we are in no man’s land, neither Christian nor Jew. By choice we are haíresis. Just as the word suggests.
Topical Index: haíresis, heresy, opinion, choice, 2 Peter 2:1
[1] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 67). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
