Has anyone looked at 1 Peter 2:24 in context?

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Thanks, PastorMike.

If its ok with you - I'll choose not to apply the bits that were written to wives to myself

When I look at 1 Peter 2 and 3 the message seems to be aimed at different groups of people:

2: 11 Starts "Dear friends ..."
2: 18 "Slaves ..."
3: 1 "Wives ..."
3: 7 "Husbands ..."

then to finish it off:

3: 8 "Finally, all of you ..."

Verse 2: 24, the verse this thread is about, is in the section addressed to slaves. It doesn't apply to wives or husbands as they have their own section, and it doesn't apply to all of us as all of us have our own section at 3: 8.

In the light of this, can we claim this verse as universal? If so, on what basis?


Mike

Why do you think this is sectioned? On the basis of this exegesis who is verse 1 addressed to? Where is the explicit demarkation? With this type of evaluation the Beatitudes are not for us; and being born again is only for Nicademus.

 

[MikeBigg]

Why do you think this is sectioned? On the basis of this exegesis who is verse 1 addressed to? Where is the explicit demarkation? With this type of evaluation the Beatitudes are not for us; and being born again is only for Nicademus.

When I read the passage it was obvious it was in sections. The sections hadn't started at verse 1. Do you not see the sections? Are you suggesting there is not a section addressed to wives and another to husbands?

I haven't looked at the beatitudes to see what the language is like, but from memory it is like 'blessed are the peacemakers ...' which is not to an individual, but to all, so it does apply to us.

I already commented on Nicodemus in this thread. If you look at the language in John 3 it is inclusive. Although the conversation was with one man, the language was referring to more than one, so that includes us. For example, it says 'no one can enter the ...'. If that was to Nicodemus alone it would say 'you cannot enter the ...'. I believe that occurs twice in Jn 3.

Where Jesus uses the word 'you' , as in 'you must be born again' the word 'you' in Greek is plaural, suggesting it is to more than one and so includes us.

English doesn't have a plaural you, so that distinction is lost. In Scottish slang they use 'yous' to plauralise and I guess 'y'all' in the Southern States does the same thing. So a translation of that verse could be better as 'y'all must be born again'. So very inclusive and does include us.

However, if I'm right in the sectioning, the bit to wives does not apply to husbands and the bit to husbands does not apply to wives, so why would the bit to slaves apply to free men?

Regards,

Mike

 

[HolySpiritWOF2]

What have you added the word "about"? Is that in the original?

Surely, if it were about slaves, the verse would read something like:

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God should submit themselves to their masters"

not

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters"

It is clear to me because of the word "your" it is directed towards slaves, not about them.

I have checked - "about" is not present in the greek, nor implied because of the above.

Regards,

Mike

look at the first sentence of 1 peter - it says who the letter was written to - that means the ENTIRE letter was written to the elect - that is them then - and us now - they/we are all the elect - so the valuable information contained is for ALL of them/us to read -

the letter contains specific points ABOUT certain subjects - slaves - husbands - wives - children - various topics are being discussed - one of them being the WORK of JESUS concerning sin and healing -

do you see anywhere else in the WORD that the WORK of JESUS concerning sin and healing is ONLY for slaves? - you are reading something into the flow of the letter that is contrary to GOD'S WORD -

take your point to an even further extreme and the letter will be only for those specific people in pontus/galatia/cappadocia/asia/bithynia who are now long dead -

 

[MikeBigg]

look at the first sentence of 1 peter - it says who the letter was written to - that means the ENTIRE letter was written to the elect - that is them then - and us now - they/we are all the elect - so the valuable information contained is for ALL of them/us to read -

Yes to the elect, then a few bits to specific subsets of the elect.

the letter contains specific points ABOUT certain subjects - slaves - husbands - wives - children - various topics are being discussed - one of them being the WORK of JESUS concerning sin and healing -

It is not ABOUT the subsets, it is TO the subsets. I explained this in the text of mine that you quoted.

do you see anywhere else in the WORD that the WORK of JESUS concerning sin and healing is ONLY for slaves? - you are reading something into the flow of the letter that is contrary to GOD'S WORD -

No I don't see anywhere else that healing is only for slaves, nor do I think that is the case. And I haven't said that, have I? What I'm asking is: can THIS verse be used to back up the belief that healing is for all.

As for you point that reading the passage in this way is contrary to God's word, actually, not reading it this way is contrary to God's word. These sections and the subsets they refer to are clearly there and are therefore inspired by God.

Furthermore, healing is for slaves (note I did not put "just for"), so this verse is still in line with God's word and His desire that all be healed,because all includes slaves.

take your point to an even further extreme and the letter will be only for those specific people in pontus/galatia/cappadocia/asia/bithynia who are now long dead -

Why is it no one has yet commented on whether the section to wives is only for wives and not for husbands, or unmarried women?

What about the section addressed to husbands. That does not apply to women or unmarried men.

Why, then, is the section to slaves not just to slaves? It doesn't make sense.

Regards,

Mike

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Where Jesus uses the word 'you' , as in 'you must be born again' the word 'you' in Greek is plaural, suggesting it is to more than one and so includes us.

Simply because 'you' is plural? Why us? Why the world? Nic was a Pharisee, so why not just the Pharisees? Why not Nic and the disciples who may have been present that night? You make a leap to include yourself by your logic.

On the other hand does not scripture tell us:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given...profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete...
​

How much scripture? For who?

So even if there is an analogy to a slave (for were we not slaves to sin?) the instructions or reproofs are still for all men.

Otherwise please tell me what I can cut from my Bible because it is not for me.

 

[MikeBigg]

Simply because 'you' is plural? Why us? Why the world? Nic was a Pharisee, so why not just the Pharisees? Why not Nic and the disciples who may have been present that night? You make a leap to include yourself by your logic.

On the other hand does not scripture tell us:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given...profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete...
​

How much scripture? For who?

So even if there is an analogy to a slave (for were we not slaves to sin?) the instructions or reproofs are still for all men.

Otherwise please tell me what I can cut from my Bible because it is not for me.

Thanks Bob.

We are starting to go in circles on this. To be honest, I don't know why the conversation with Nicodemus applies to us. It was suggested earlier in the thread that it applied only to him, but the language doesn't support that. Do you know how it can apply to us?

You didn't address the bit about the sections for wives and husbands. Clearly the message for wives is not for you or me, and clearly the message for husbands is not for my next door neighbour's 12 year old daughter.

Why is it different for the slaves section?

Would you feel differently about it if the section for slaves didn't contain a contentious verse?


Kind regards,

Mike

 

[WordofHisPower]

What I'm asking is can THIS verse be used to back up the belief that healing is for all.

Why is it no one has yet commented on whether the section to wives is only for wives and not for husbands, or unmarried women?

What about the section addressed to husbands. That does not apply to women or unmarried men.

Why, then, is the section to slaves not just to slaves? It doesn't make sense.

Regards,

Mike

Your "sub-section" methodology is the problem. The instructions to wives were for wives. The instructions to slaves were for slaves. But they're instructions, not sections or subsections.

If you insist on sub-sectioning, look at 1 Peter 2:21.

"For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in His footsteps."

Notice the word "us"?

From the point "us" is mentioned, by your methodology, the "subsection" turns back to "us".

If you disagree, then you'd have to admit in verses 21-25, Peter is talking to the slaves about us. Slaves are a subsection of us.

If you're unable to accept what we're saying then maybe you should ask God what He says.

 

[Optimax]

Thanks Optimax

Are you saying that the section v21 - v24 is not written to slaves?

Mike

Because verses 21 thru 24 deal with what Jesus did "on the cross", it is not only written to slaves but to all mankind.

Consider that all mankind was slaves and could do nothing about it until Jesus rose from the dead and the new birth was made available to mankind.

Thus making it possible for all enslaved to the devil to be set free by the Blood of Jesus!

 

[MikeBigg]

Your "sub-section" methodology is the problem. The instructions to wives were for wives. The instructions to slaves were for slaves. But they're instructions, not sections or subsections.

OK - take out the sub-sectioning, then what is written to slaves were for slaves. How can this then apply to all?

If you insist on sub-sectioning, look at 1 Peter 2:21.

Do you not see the start of the different paragraphs? It is a shame the people who numbered the verses and decided where chapters start and finish put a chapter break after v25. Chapter 3: 1 - 7 should really have been included with no break as it follows on so closely.

"For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in His footsteps."

Notice the word "us"?

From the point "us" is mentioned, by your methodology, the "subsection" turns back to "us".

If you disagree, then you'd have to admit in verses 21-25, Peter is talking to the slaves about us. Slaves are a subsection of us.

You have an interesting point, I'll mull it over to see what I think about it. Thank you.

If you're unable to accept what we're saying then maybe you should ask God what He says.

You make it sound like I'm not - of course I'm doing that.

Regards,

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

Because verses 21 thru 24 deal with what Jesus did "on the cross", it is not only written to slaves but to all mankind.

Consider that all mankind was slaves ...

But that was not the case.

This was written to real, actual slaves.

I also don't get the leap that just because it relates to what Jesus did on the cross everyone is included in this passage.

Sure they are elsewhere, but I'm not convinced they were in this passage.

Regards,

Mike

 

[Optimax]

But that was not the case.

This was written to real, actual slaves.

I also don't get the leap that just because it relates to what Jesus did on the cross everyone is included in this passage.

Sure they are elsewhere, but I'm not convinced they were in this passage.

Regards,

Mike

Well, if ya are convinced.

Then you are convinced.

 

[MikeBigg]

... look at 1 Peter 2:21.

"For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in His footsteps."

Notice the word "us"?

Hmm. The NIV has:

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

The ESV has:

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

I'm not sure which version you're are using, but if you look on this page (which has a dozen or so versions of that verse):

1 Peter 2:21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

the word "you" is used, not the word "us" in nearly all the translations.

And in the interlinear the word is "you":

1 Peter 2:21 Biblos Interlinear Bible

So, sadly, I feel I cannot accept your argument.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

Well, if ya are convinced.

Then you are convinced.

I'm not convinced one way or the other, but so far no one has come up with a reason why v24 applies to all of us that holds water.

I'm not sure it matters as we still have Is 53 and Matt 8, but as it stands, I don't think I could put my hand on my heart and say that 1 peter 2:24 is for anyone other than slaves.

Thanks for your contributions, though. They have made me think about the subject.

Regards,

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

Your "sub-section" methodology is the problem.

This is standard exegetical technique - when studying, examine the structure of the passage.

Paul's writings are the worst - how many times does he say "Therefore ...". In order to understand what he is about to say you have to know what he's just said. Chances are the previous passage will start with a "therefore", too and before you know it you're 2 or 3 chapters back from where you started studying!

Regards,

Mike

 

[WordofHisPower]

I'm not sure which version you're are using, but if you look on this page (which has a dozen or so versions of that verse):

1 Peter 2:21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

the word "you" is used, not the word "us" in nearly all the translations.

And in the interlinear the word is "you":

1 Peter 2:21 Biblos Interlinear Bible

So, sadly, I feel I cannot accept your argument.

Kind regards,

Mike

Here's the Greek for 1 Peter 2:21.

"Into this you-were-called (eklethete- Strong's #2564) that Christ suffered over us (hemon- Strong's #2257) to-us (hemin- Strong's #2254), leaving an example that you-should-be-following (epakolouthesete- Strong's #1872) the footprints of Him."

#2257 - hemon/hymon = us, we, our.

#2254 - hemin/hymin = to us, we, our

#4771 - su = you, thou

Check out the Biblos site. They use the Greek words hemin/hymin, hemon/hymon in the Greek text line, yet give you Strong's # 4771 "su" = "you"? What's up with that?

That just turned me off Biblos Interlinear. That's a blatant mistranslation of the Greek. Good thing you posted the link so I could check it out for myself.

Check out any Greek text and the word hemon/hymon/hemin/hymin are used. No one uses "su".

Interlinear Scripture Analyzer from Scripture4all.org is accurate. I suggest you download their free ISA program and use it rather than Biblos.

Download - Interlinear Scripture Analyzer

It's sad that so many translations use the word "you", when the Greek text says "us".

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Thanks Bob.

We are starting to go in circles on this. To be honest, I don't know why the conversation with Nicodemus applies to us. It was suggested earlier in the thread that it applied only to him, but the language doesn't support that. Do you know how it can apply to us?

Well, I'm simply making a point. I fully believe that Jesus' words to Nicodemus are for us today -- just as I believe that the whole of scripture is for us today.

But to rightly say that 'you' is plural but then go back to slaves/wives/husbands and apply a more strict application is, well, sloppy. The plural 'you' does not have to have world-wide scope, it could be a small group that isn't mentioned directly in this story because it is about the dialogue between Jesus and Nic, a dialogue that has wide application based upon all other scripture regarding the subject.

You didn't address the bit about the sections for wives and husbands. Clearly the message for wives is not for you or me, and clearly the message for husbands is not for my next door neighbour's 12 year old daughter.

I didn't address wives/husbands because that wasn't my direct point, although the addressing of the slaves is still apropos.

So, me being a man, does this mean that I can take my scissors and cut out all verses relating to wives and women in general? I'm not a pastor, can I cut out the dictates to qualify for pastorship?

Let me take it to a silly extreme: can the unbeliever cut out all the bible since he doesn't believe?

Why is it different for the slaves section?

We were slaves to sin. The reference to slaves is simply that: a reference to make a point. It is not a section that only applies to slaves. It is to show the juxtaposition between what Jesus did and the concepts of servatude.

Do you have a job? Do you not serve a master? Do you pay taxes? Do you have no "master" above you who can direct your path, to which if you did not follow his dictate you would face some sort of repercussion?

Ok. Wives.

Revelation 19:7
7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.”
​

Who is the bride?

So, on a daily level of a human marriage we have a husband and a wife, man and woman. Peter tells us that a wife is to be submissive to her husband. Other scripture concurs that the man is the covering for the woman and God is the head of Christ. Christ is the covering for the church, His bride.

Unpeel the onion. So are we to be submissive to Christ as a wife is submissive to her husband? Of course. The wife is not to braid her hair and put gold jewelry in it (this was a common thing done by a prostitute as a sign of her promiscuousness); does this have meaning to men in general and our acting as "prostitutes" to the world (one foot in and one foot out)? We are to be submissive, as a Bride, to our Groom, Christ Jesus even as the example of a wife's submissiveness to her husband show on a human level.

So just as an onion has layers, so does scripture. A mention to wives certainly is a teaching toward wives; but it doesn't end there. For all scripture is given for all of our edification.

Would you feel differently about it if the section for slaves didn't contain a contentious verse?

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[MikeBigg]

I'll look at the other info later as there is quite a bit to muse on and consider.

Not sure what you mean by this.

What I meant is that 1 Peter 2: 24 is a verse that is contentious. For a number of reasons:

1) Not everyone believes healing is in the atonement and so will want to interpret this verse differently - ie there is a school of thought that it does not actually refer to healing at all, even though the word "healing" is used. The notes in my ESV study Bible state that the verse is not about healing, but about forgiveness of sins (lets not get into that debate. Not in this thread anyway).

2) It is an important verse for WoF. Mentioned here in he statement of faith, mentioned in just about every article I can find online tht supports healing in the atonement and is used in McCrossan's book. (Incidently, no one seems to try to put it in context, they just quote the verse on its own).

Because it is an important verse one might be tempted to treat it differently than a verse that didn't have so much baggage.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[Optimax]

It is evident that Mike is not here to ask questions.

Mike is here to "Prove" WOF wrong.

 

[MikeBigg]

So, me being a man, does this mean that I can take my scissors and cut out all verses relating to wives and women in general? I'm not a pastor, can I cut out the dictates to qualify for pastorship?

Hmm. I think the stuff that relates to wives may have some indirect usefulness for men, but not direct usefulness. It may be useful to know what one's wife is being encouraged to do, but it would be wrong to behave in the way that one's wife should. Indeed, impossible to submit to your husband if you don't have such a thing.

I think the qualifications for pastorship is relevant to more than just pastors. Maybe that was a bad example.

We were slaves to sin. The reference to slaves is simply that: a reference to make a point. It is not a section that only applies to slaves. It is to show the juxtaposition between what Jesus did and the concepts of servatude.

Ok, but this was address to actual slaves who had actual owners. Reading around it is estimated that something like 40% of the early church were slaves. I have no idea whethr that number is accurate, but it was not a small, insignificant part of the church of the time. So there were real reasons to right it to literal slaves. Not a reference to us being slaves to sin.

If it were refering to us being slaves to sin, how can it also talk of good masters and bad masters - all the masters would be bad.

Do you have a job? Do you not serve a master? Do you pay taxes? Do you have no "master" above you who can direct your path, to which if you did not follow his dictate you would face some sort of repercussion?

I do have a job. I am not owned by the company or my boss. I am a free man with responsibilities. Something entirely different to being a slave.

If my boss asked me to do something illegal or immoral or beat me for being late I can take appropriate action. A slave cannot. A slave is owned like property.

Can we draw some guidance from this passage about how to act towards our bosses? Sure. To a point.

Are we further forward?

I think so. I think I have moved towards you on all scripture being useful. I don't think that means that all scripture is directly applicable to me.

I mention the wives thing, because the instructions in this passage to wives don't apply directly to me (a non-wife) so why would the instructions to slaves apply directly to me (a non-slave)? Its in the same passage, so that question is not only relevant, but crucial. In my view.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

It is evident that Mike is not here to ask questions.

Mike is here to "Prove" WOF wrong.

This is simply not the case, Optimax.

I explained why I'm here in a post earlier in the thread.

WoF - if it has anything about it at all, and I think it does, should be able to stand up to reasonable scrutiny.

If I were to take a shot at WoF, I wouldn't start here - there are much easier targets than this.

Regards,

Mike