Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | jlhetrick | 191735 | ||
Rabban- Regarding your statement: "These ‘spirits in prison’ were the angels who sinned in the time of Noah (Genesis 6.1-2)" Would you please provide biblical support. I find nothing in Scripture that suggests that these "spirits" were angels. I'm not aware of any biblical reference showing that the gospel is preached to angels but understand it only as a truth relevant only to the salvation of humans. The context seems to rule out angels as the following verse (1Peter 3:20) clearly relates to the loss of all "human" life with the exception of the eight. Verse 18 is clearly talking about mankind as is verse 20. I couldn't figure a way to misunderstand verse 19 as referring to something else, angels. As I understand it, Scripture does not teach the possibility of fallen angels being saved from their fallen state. If that were the case, we would pray for fallen angels to include Satan himself. If that were the case, the Scripture would teach of salvation being accomplished for and offered too angels as well as mankind. In verse 19 Christ is making a "proclamation" to the "spirits". A proclamation of what? Salvation is the context. There is no Scriptural support that I am aware of that supports that He offers salvation to angels. I am always willing to have my understanding corrected by Scripture. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
2 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191738 | ||
Hi again. When approaching a disputed passage the first important thing is to examine the Greek text carefully (a little unfair I know if you do not know Greek). And when I do so I discover the following: 1). The ‘in which’ in verse 19 is a construction that nowhere else in the New Testament refers to a preceding adverbial dative. If this principle is followed ‘in which’ cannot refer directly to ‘in the spirit.’ It probably therefore means 'in the course of which'. 2). ‘He went’ in verse 19 is the same verb as in verse 22. All other things being equal this would suggest that the two must be interpreted in the same way as a literal journey of Christ (as verse 22 clearly is) occurring around the same time, e.g. ‘He went to the spirits in prison’ and ‘He went into Heaven’. 3). The ‘through water’ in verse 20 finds its best parallel in ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ in verse 22. 4). The verb ekeruxen can mean either ‘preached’ or ‘made proclamation’. Both usages are found both in the New Testament and elsewhere. Had Peter wanted to say 'preached the Gospel' he had a verb ready to hand which he uses in 4.6, which would have left no doubt. In fact the idea of triumphant proclamation to the fallen angels of His victory ties in with all heavenly beings being subjected to Him in verse 22. (It is not a question of the Gospel being preached to them. kerusso is neutral. See e.g. Mark 1.45.) 5). The term ‘spirits’, when used on its own without qualification, always elsewhere refers to ‘spiritual beings’ (e.g. Hebrews 1.7, 14; 1 Kings 22.21-23; Job 4.15; Isaiah 31.3 with 2 Kings 6.17; Ezekiel 1.12, 20, 21; 10.17; Zechariah 13.2 where a false spirit of prophesy is in mind). We may add to this the fact that the idea of spiritual beings in prison or the equivalent is found in Isaiah 24.21-22; 2 Peter 2.4; Jude 1.6; Revelation 9.1-11, as well as in external Jewish literature. I am sorry but I do not agree that the context rules out angels. Peter has very much in mind that his hearers are being persecuted by people who believe in other heavenly beings, and wants to assure Christians that any such are already defeated foes. Furthermore heavenly beings are spoken of in context in verse 22. They will be further dealt with in 2 Peter 2. Compare also 1 Peter 5.8. To open and close the argument about what follows His resurrection ('made alive in the spirit') with a reference to the defeat of such heavenly beings seems to me very suitable. I would also point out that Peter does again refer to these heavenly beings who are in prison and that is in 2 Peter 2.4. Prisons very often were pits. Please can you tell me anywhere in Scripture where men are spoken of as 'spirits in prison'? Fallen angels will not be saved. Neither will fallen men once they have died. The men in Noah's day had the privilege of hearing 'the Preacher of Righteousness' (2 Peter 2.5). Why should they alone get a second chance when we are told that they were evil above all men and had opted to liaise with the Devil? The proclamation was rather of His triumphant resurrection, and of God's victory over all the powers of evil. (Who knows what hopes those evil angels had?). I see no reference to the generality of mankind in verse 20. It is simply your presupposition. He is not talking about mankind, but about Noah. So if I have read you right your position is contrary to the tenor of the whole of Scripture, is not based on sound exegesis, and is ignoring the literal meaning of the language. Sorry, but you did ask :-))) Each one who reads our postings must decide for themselves what they believe that Peter teaches. I do not on my part intend to enter into controversy about it. God bless you too. Rabban. |
||||||
3 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | jlhetrick | 191749 | ||
Rabban- I have responded to your other post to me. I will respond to this one briefly but fear the interaction may become argumentative or appear that way to others so I proceed with caution. I might fairly state that when approaching a disputed passage the first important thing is to examine the English and not the Greek text as you assert. Unless, that is, your first language is Greek. We might be well reminded that the English text we read has been translated by scholars more worthy than ourselves (though my own assertion would depend on what translation your using perhaps). You see, when the established doctrines and immediate and wider contexts are considered a lot of the guess work is easily ruled out. At once I was amazed by those who seemed to take the position that one need be a scholar of the original languages in order to truly read and comprehend the Scriptures. It’s familiar to others who posit that one must hold a certain, assigned title before the Holy Spirit will reveal the hidden truths of Scripture to him. Now I’m simply saddened by the notions. My faith is that my God has sufficiently (if not conveniently) kept the promise He made in Isa 55:11. I suppose that He has chosen to do that through allowing men to translate His word into the various earthly languages. My reason for such a position is that His church has for centuries been about the business of doing just that. Otherwise, He would have us about the business of all learning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and reading, learning, and teaching only from the original languages. I surmise that it was He who chose not to make a scholar of every man. Your points are well considered and your right to them appreciated and respected. Sincerely and God bless, Jeff |
||||||
4 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191755 | ||
Hi Jeff, I actually study the original Greek and Hebrew texts although I try to avoid citing them in forums. With so many differing translations, some of which are more reliable than others when dealing with the finer points, while others are more of a paraphrase, it is very often necessary in the case of disputed texts like 1 Peter 3.19 to go back to the exact Greek text. Strictly speaking that is the only one which is inspired. (You failed to take note of the fact that my statement was about 'disputed texts' only). I did not suggest that anyone needed to be a scholar to understand the main doctrines of Scripture. Scripture is broad based and our beliefs should not be determined by a point here or a point there. But when we are dealing with an obscure phrase like 'spirits in prison' about which there is disagreement then certainly reference to the original text is important. We have to be exact. Otherwise we are treating Scripture lightly. It is my experience that the ones who most protest about going back to the Greek text are the first to say 'the Greek text means' when arguing their own case on some disputed position on, say, the second coming, when fitting it into their own schemes. However, we have now both made our positions clear. It would seem therefore best if we leave the matter here. Others can then judge each of our positions as they will. Sincerely in Him Rabban |
||||||
5 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | jlhetrick | 191767 | ||
Rabban- thanks for the response brother. I agree with your points to include believing that the original languages are the only inspired writings we have. I'm afraid though that you may not be reading my posts closely as the focus continues to drift. I'm sorry you feel I "failed to take note of the fact" that your statement was about ;disputed texts' only. My post clearly referred to disputed text specifically; but no matter- it has become an unproductive dialogue I would agree. Thanks for the interaction. God bless, Jeff |
||||||