Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Peter 2:24 He personally carried our sins in His body on the cross [willingly offering Himself on it, as on an altar of sacrifice], so that we might die to sin [becoming immune from the penalty and power of sin] and live for righteousness; for by His wounds you [who believe] have been healed. |
Subject: Plain or Intended Meaning? |
Bible Note: Not being a scholar of the language, allow me to explain my point of view, which does not necessarily disagree with your view except in your definition of hatred as "a strong dislike" or "not emotional hatred." It seems a correct understanding of this verse may center on the word translated "hate". Robertson: "Hateth...An old and very strong verb...to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language..." (Word Pictures). Evans: "This may be an example of the Semitic expression of preference," however, "it may also express Luke's rigorous outlook" (Saint Luke). Liefeld: "It is important to understand the ancient Near Eastern expression without blunting its force" (Expositor's Bible Commentary). The word translated "hate" is the same used in Matt 5:43; 24:10; Luke 6:22,27; John 3:20; 7:7; 15:23; Rom 9:13; Rev 2:6,15 (cf. Young, Strong). Vine: "to hate...(a) of malicious and unjustifiable feelings...(c) of relative preference..." (Dictionary) Lenski: "Instead of leaving [the Greek word] in its true sense 'to hate' it is generally reduced, even 'watered down till the point is gone'." (St. Luke's Gospel; his further remarks are quite interesting, which is somewhat a different perspective than what we are discussing but it makes good sense to me). The point is that, according to above references, Luke chose to use a very strong Greek word (as it seems the English translation rightly conveys) to express Jesus' teaching. I concede that Luke's readers may have recognized that the verse spoke of preference but that just proves the point; they knew not to take it literally. There was an intended meaning in the word "hate" other than as stated. Therefore, it seems, Luke did not intend for his readers to understand Jesus "exactly" from what was stated via the normal meaning of the Greek word "hate" but some other meaning is intended. A mere conjecture is offered with reference to Jesus' use of the Aramaic since I do not know what word he used (only because I don't know Aramaic). However, if it was equivalent to the strength of the Greek word, the same can be said: Jesus knew exactly what he was saying but exactly what he meant was something different from what was exactly stated. The fact that his hearers readily knew he took the word to mean something other than what its literal meaning might suggest only supports this view. Please note, Mark, with all due respect, you apprehended the text not on the basis of the word itself but on the basis of (1) a form of teaching understood within the culture; (2) other relevant verses that bring light Luke's understanding of Jesus' statement; (3) in relation to other texts about the command to love, which I am not against doing. However, as far as I can tell, you did not come to understand what Jesus meant by the "plain reading" of the word "hate," which is, as Robertson states, in Greek is a "very strong verb...to hate, detest." One last point. Again, I think we make the Western mistake of dichotomizing persons, a thing it seems unheard of in the Eastern world like "emotional" hatred; if one "hated" or "loved" it was understood as being done with one's whole person. I hope I explained my point clearly. |