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

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Hmm. I think the stuff that relates to wives may have some indirect usefulness for men, but not direct usefulness.

You're missing the point....

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.

Are you not part of the Bride of Christ?? You certainly submit to a "husband." Marriage is a picture of a relationship, Mike. There will be no marriage in heaven. It is here as a picture to show us right relationship.

Ok, but this was address to actual slaves who had actual owners.

And again I say that you are being ONLY too literal with this phrase. Perhaps there is a literal reading for that time, but do you not think that God knew the future and that in most of society that slaves would have no meaning? What then? Does scripture not apply to us at all?? God forbid!! ALL of scripture is....for man's edification.

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.

Define good. Define bad.

Matthew 19:17
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

1 John 5:16b; 17b
16b There is sin leading to death.
17b there is sin not leading to death.
​

So what is "good?" Jesus chided the man for calling Him good! God demands perfection, so why should anything be called "good?" No, "good master" and "bad master" is a relative term from the slave's perspective.

In this, we certainly can be slaves to sin and think that we have a good master -- but it remains that nothing is good judged by God's perfection. So playing with words like this to prove a point is fruitless.

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.

Not the point. You are not free in this respect. For the next month use your freedom to tell you boss that you will not do as he says each time he tells you to work. Instead, sit back in your freedom and watch TV game shows. See how free you become.

Now, granted, this is voluntary servitude. We place ourselves under such authority. But let's not twist the subject around on this stuff and miss the concepts in the scripture. There are relationships spoken of; there are analogies used. There are many levels at which any given verse can be understood.

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.

Ahh, but it does apply to you. You may not be a wife to a human husband, but you are part of the Bride to Christ -- and the same relationship submission is expected. Our earthly marriage is a picture of a spiritual relationship.

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.

Again, because you need to extract the meaning out to the level that you are relating to. You may not be a slave in the human sense, but you were a slave to sin. You serve a master -- sure for you it is a choice: God or some other god (mammon, pride, power, etc.).

With the literalness that you are applying, we would have to throw out more than half the scripture because it would not literally apply to us.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

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).

There are two major camps, but both look at this as healing for sure. One is that it is simply spiritual healing; the other is that it is spiritual and physical. The ESV explanation is simply the first one here: for forgiveness of sins is spiritual healing. And sure, we can leave the debate of the second position to another thread.

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).

Physical healing from this verse is not limited to Word/Faith. You say you want to leave the debate aside, but then slap it back on the table with force.

It is easy to show that this verse includes physical healing simply because of what it is quoting from the Old Testament and where else Isaiah is quoted in scripture. Most definitely includes physical healing, although Peter's emphasis is on Jesus' sacrifice and not a proof for physical healing. This is the biggest fallacy about whether Peter's quote includes physical healing: gee, he didn't mention it including physical healing. But you know what: he didn't exclude it either! When it is understood that healing include ALL healing, that prosperity is more than money but includes total wholeness -- when the full message of the Gospel is laid our for mankind we can see that verses like 1 Peter 2:24 is INCLUSIVE of ALL healing, not just limited to forgiveness.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

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.

Simply because to believe it any other way (such as limitation to slaves) simply and totally shreds this verse:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
​

Does God give a different Gospel to you than he gave to me? Is it a different Gospel to the slave of colonial days? Is it a different Gospel to the slaves of Jesus day?

All Scripture is given....

 

[WordofHisPower]

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 don't think I could put my hand on my heart and say that 1 peter 2:24 is for anyone other than slaves.

I'm not sure what more you'd need for proof.

Post #27 proves that verse 21-25 is about "us". Slaves belong to "us".

Post #35 proves that Biblos Interlinear Bible and several translations incorrectly translate "hemon/hemin" as "su".

"Su" is you, thou. "Hemon/hemin" is "us".

You'd have to ignore the Greek texts to favor your erroneous interpretation of 1 Peter 2:21-25 being only for slaves.

 

[pk4yahweh]

Perhaps I am missing the significance... but I just do not see how this sub-sectioning argument holds any water at all.

Peter is quoting the text from Isaiah - addressing slaves as under this healing promise.

To say that he is assigning it ONLY to slaves (since that is the group he is addressing here) is a weak argument at best.

When I tell my oldest daughter that I love her... my youngest will pipe up asking if I love her as well. This is a childish attempt at attention... not to be taken seriously. (Just because I say it to the older doesnt mean I dont mean it for the younger (and vice versa).

The same logic is at play here... Peter is attributing the healing of the atonement to slaves directly (and everyone else indirectly through Isaiah)... just like Matthew points out it is for a direct person (but connected to us all).


This is really a non-factor.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

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

I know it is in the statement of faith and if you look at healing and the atonement it is nearly always used to support it.

I have yet to see it looked at in the context of the passage it is in.

For example, is it written to all Christians, or a subset?
If to a subset, can the subset be extended to include all Christians?
Does it matter?

Mike

THe context of 1 Peter 2 is how we should respond to unfair and unjust accusations and punishment. Jesus is the example. He endured our sins AND sicknesses and did not respond, even though He was innocent.

 

[TasManOfGod]

maybe this will help - 1 Peter is written to everyone - but addresses specific issues -

2: 11 Starts "Dear friends ..." - TO ALL OF YOU
2: 18 ABOUT "Slaves ..." - TO ALL OF YOU
2:24 - ABOUT JESUS - TO ALL OF YOU
3: 1 ABOUT "Wives ..." - TO ALL OF YOU
3: 7 ABOUT "Husbands ..." - TO ALL OF YOU
3: 8 "Finally, all of you ..." - TO ALL OF YOU

GOD BLESS you -

Was that post for all of us?

 

[MikeBigg]

Define good. Define bad.

Matthew 19:17
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

1 John 5:16b; 17b
16b There is sin leading to death.
17b there is sin not leading to death.
​

So what is "good?" Jesus chided the man for calling Him good! God demands perfection, so why should anything be called "good?" No, "good master" and "bad master" is a relative term from the slave's perspective.

I was refering to your point about being slaves to sin - therefore sin would be our master. 1 peter 2 talks about good masters and bad. If this verse were talking about us being slaves to sin there would have to be good sin and bad sin.

I don't think there is such a thing as good sin.

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

You're missing the point....


Are you not part of the Bride of Christ??

Ok, so imagine I'm a woman. In what way would the section to husbands directly apply to me. It may be useful (2tim3:16) but not directly applicable.

And again I say that you are being ONLY too literal with this phrase. Perhaps there is a literal reading for that time, but do you not think that God knew the future and that in most of society that slaves would have no meaning? What then? Does scripture not apply to us at all?? God forbid!! ALL of scripture is....for man's edification.

Its not that long ago that slavery was abolished in the UK and the US. Its not like it was only for the time it was written.

So playing with words like this to prove a point is fruitless.

I've got no point to prove. Just asking questions.

Not the point. You are not free in this respect. For the next month use your freedom to tell you boss that you will not do as he says each time he tells you to work. Instead, sit back in your freedom and watch TV game shows. See how free you become.

I am free to work or not work. You really don't show that you understand the nature of slavery by making that comment.

But let's not twist the subject around on this stuff and miss the concepts in the scripture.

No! Let's not. Let's not bring in the bride of Christ to justify that the sections written to wives also applies directly to men. That wouldn't be twisting words at all.

With the literalness that you are applying, we would have to throw out more than half the scripture because it would not literally apply to us.

I don't agree. And as I said I have come closer to your point on 2 Tim 3:16 and accept that there are general lessons to be learned from all passages, just not necessarily specific ones.

Anyway,

I think I'm done with the debate here. I understand your points, but may not fully accept them.

I may pose the question in the theology section and see what their response is.

Thanks for your input.

Regards,

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

Was that post for all of us?

 

[MikeBigg]

Perhaps I am missing the significance... but I just do not see how this sub-sectioning argument holds any water at all.

Peter is quoting the text from Isaiah - addressing slaves as under this healing promise.

To say that he is assigning it ONLY to slaves (since that is the group he is addressing here) is a weak argument at best.

When I tell my oldest daughter that I love her... my youngest will pipe up asking if I love her as well. This is a childish attempt at attention... not to be taken seriously. (Just because I say it to the older doesnt mean I dont mean it for the younger (and vice versa).

Actually this seems like a weak argument. When your youngest daughter pipes up, you being a good dad will tell her that you love her too.

That doesn't happen in this passage - ie v24 is written only to slaves. That the Bible says that healing is for all occurs elsewhere - Is 53 for example. (That's the equivalent of you tellint the younger daughter that you love her.)

Does your younger daughter understand that you love her based on you expression of love to her sister? Absolutely not. She needs to hear it from you for herself.

This issue is not whether we can all claim healing at the cross. The issue is whether we can claim it from this verse.

Based on the example with your daughters, I conclude that we cannot. It must be supported from other scripture.

The same logic is at play here... Peter is attributing the healing of the atonement to slaves directly (and everyone else indirectly through Isaiah)...

I think this is correct with my expansion of your daughter example.

Thanks,

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

I'm not sure what more you'd need for proof.

Post #27 proves that verse 21-25 is about "us". Slaves belong to "us".

Post #35 proves that Biblos Interlinear Bible and several translations incorrectly translate "hemon/hemin" as "su".

"Su" is you, thou. "Hemon/hemin" is "us".

You'd have to ignore the Greek texts to favor your erroneous interpretation of 1 Peter 2:21-25 being only for slaves.

Proves or shows?

It comes to something when you have to rely on specific interlinears to make a point.

To be honest, I think that wherever the error there occurred, it just served to confuse the issue (and me).

I put a lot of trust in Bible translators. I know that Bible translator have their own theologies that go into specifc versions, but for so many to translate it and "you" and so few as "us" suggests to me that it is not as clear as you are suggesting.

I'm going with the majority of translators and the interlinear that I know.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[WordofHisPower]

Proves or shows?

It comes to something when you have to rely on specific interlinears to make a point.

To be honest, I think that wherever the error there occurred, it just served to confuse the issue (and me).

I put a lot of trust in Bible translators. I know that Bible translator have their own theologies that go into specifc versions, but for so many to translate it and "you" and so few as "us" suggests to me that it is not as clear as you are suggesting.

I'm going with the majority of translators and the interlinear that I know.

Kind regards,

Mike

Then you stand on the word of man rather than Scripture.

If Scripture says "hemon/hemin" and someone translates it as "su", they choose to add to Scripture what isn't there, and take away what was.

You ignore the many translations accurately matching the Greek. Count again, there are many, not few.

Where's the sound exegesis in that?

 

[MikeBigg]

Then you stand on the word of man rather than Scripture.

If Scripture says "hemon/hemin" and someone translates it as "su", they choose to add to Scripture what isn't there, and take away what was.

You ignore the many translations accurately matching the Greek. Count again, there are many, not few.

Where's the sound exegesis in that?

OK - on this page: 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.

I count "you / ye" = 12 "us" = 4 and a mix = 2.

I grant you it is more than a few, but two or three times (depending on whether the mixed are added to "us" or not) is significant, and worth taking note of.

1 Peter 2:21 Biblos Interlinear Bible

confirms the words translated "you" and hymon and hymin. Both are Strongs 4771.

According to this:

Strong's Greek: 4771. σύ (su) -- you (early mod. Eng. thou)

we have:

su: you (early mod. Eng. thou)
Original Word: σύ, σοῦ, σοί, σέ
Part of Speech: Personal Pronoun
Transliteration: su
Phonetic Spelling: (soo)
Short Definition: you
Definition: you.

This: Greek Concordance: ὑμῖν (hymin) -- 610 Occurrences and this: Greek Concordance: ὑμῶν (hymōn) -- 565 Occurrences have lists of about 1000 verses using those words none of them are translated as "us".

It is examining the Greek using recognised tools and finding that the translators who used "you or ye" - ie two or three times as many as used "us" - were probably right.

That is sound exegesis.

With respect,

Mike

 

[pk4yahweh]

Appreciate your thoughts and your desire to find Truth Mike... I do believe that when you pose this same question in the Theology section that you will find a much different response.

This argument regarding the audience of Scripture is not a new one... (it has been done with Jer 29 as well as a host of others). Unfortunately, I believe the only purpose it serves is to open up all of Scripture to this sort of debate...

It also cannot be overlooked that these arguments are only being brought up by those who disagree that healing is in the atonement for everyone.

In the end people will find exactly what they are looking for. I pray you break that mold.

 

[MikeBigg]

Appreciate your thoughts and your desire to find Truth Mike... I do believe that when you pose this same question in the Theology section that you will find a much different response.

This argument regarding the audience of Scripture is not a new one... (it has been done with Jer 29 as well as a host of others). Unfortunately, I believe the only purpose it serves is to open up all of Scripture to this sort of debate...

It also cannot be overlooked that these arguments are only being brought up by those who disagree that healing is in the atonement for everyone.

In the end people will find exactly what they are looking for. I pray you break that mold.

Thanks for that, PK.

I believe that healing is in the atonement for everyone, but still thought to raise the discussion.

Is this sort of debate not useful? Surely if we get to the truth of the Bible and its message for us it is a profitable exercise.

Thanks again,

Mike

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Ok, so imagine I'm a woman. In what way would the section to husbands directly apply to me. It may be useful (2tim3:16) but not directly applicable.

Because children must be submissive to their mother. See my next comment too....

I don't agree. And as I said I have come closer to your point on 2 Tim 3:16 and accept that there are general lessons to be learned from all passages, just not necessarily specific ones.

Sorry if I missed this subtlety earlier, but yes I agree here. Verses that are speaking to a "type" of person (husband, wife, pastor, etc.) have a direct influence on them; but ALL verses have a meaningful influence on all of us. There is something to learn and something to guide our lives by.

You must have made this point earlier, so I apologize if I prolonged the argument.

Thanks for your input.

Your welcome. I pray you find the answers you need.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

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?

Yes, what is up with that. Well, it has to do with translation and textual history -- of which I am no scholar, no student, no expert in any way. I can pass on the little I understand, having recently been given a synopsis into this myself, as a springboard that you can jump off if you wish a fuller understanding....

In a nutshell, for the longest time the church used one textual family for scripture translation.

Around the time of the Enlightenment in Europe there were many who threw translations into confusion trying to ratify faith with science. Science was proving a form of "truth" and some of it contradicted the then current standing of biblical translation. Men like Darwin, for instance.

So along come Warfield, Westcott and Hort. These men changed the manner in which we looked at the Word and how we translated it. They introduced new texts for the "help" of translation, using any documents that could shed light on the meaning of the word -- documents, fragments, whatever -- and scientific methods for proving what the Word was then thought to say.

In a nutshell, out of this comes various translations from various textual backgrounds from different understandings of the Greek and mixed in with scientific methods that were not completely sound to begin with.

So the result is that there are some in the church today who feel that certain translations are untrustworthy (NIV, ESV, NASB, ASV as examples) and that good textual translation can be found in such texts as the KJV or the Geneva Bibles as an example (leaving aside the KJV only crowd, please). The objection raised by such men would indicate that any modern translation has taken into account these "other" texts and these "other" methods and thus corrupt the understanding of the original Greek.

All back to your topic verse, 1 Peter 2:21. The site biblios.com off links to interlinearbible.org for their Interlinear Bible. This interlinear is based on the NASB and the Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek Text edition. Thus they choose "you" (su) instead of "us" (hemon) based off the Greek texts that they were using to support the translation (ie: not a typographical error or a mis-linked Strong's reference -- rather it really is in some texts).

So, whose right? Whose wrong? I'll take a leap and say that this level of study is way above (or at least different) the level that either of us are currently qualified on.

 

[pk4yahweh]

Is this sort of debate not useful? Surely if we get to the truth of the Bible and its message for us it is a profitable exercise.

While I DO believe that discussing the deeper issues of Scripture is vital and important in the Body of Christ... I have found that these types of subjects rarely are.

Debates such as whether certain Scriptures are written ONLY for the Jews in Exile or for all of us today really just end up turning into a matter if one likes the message of what that certain Scripture is saying (and therefore accepts it as for all of us today) or not.

It falls under the same value as debating wether we can trust the canonization process or not. That depends on who you ask.

As has been stated numerous times here... it is the position of most of WoF believers that all Scripture is written for our instruction today. Where a certain phrase or line was indeed directed specifically to a certain group or geographical location does not take away from the fact that it is also written to all of us 2000+ years later.

Although I'm not implying that YOU are doing this... it cannot be ignored that the groups that typically engage in this type of pointless debate are from the non-spirit filled/non-WoF camps... already with their own opinion and simply searching for ways to validate that position.

If the premise one is coming from is that "Scripture is only speaking to certain groups" then the other side of that debate will have little to no impact.

So in that case... yes I would say the debate is fruitless.

 

[WordofHisPower]

Yes, what is up with that. Well, it has to do with translation and textual history -- of which I am no scholar, no student, no expert in any way. I can pass on the little I understand, having recently been given a synopsis into this myself, as a springboard that you can jump off if you wish a fuller understanding....

In a nutshell, for the longest time the church used one textual family for scripture translation.

Around the time of the Enlightenment in Europe there were many who threw translations into confusion trying to ratify faith with science. Science was proving a form of "truth" and some of it contradicted the then current standing of biblical translation. Men like Darwin, for instance.

So along come Warfield, Westcott and Hort. These men changed the manner in which we looked at the Word and how we translated it. They introduced new texts for the "help" of translation, using any documents that could shed light on the meaning of the word -- documents, fragments, whatever -- and scientific methods for proving what the Word was then thought to say.

In a nutshell, out of this comes various translations from various textual backgrounds from different understandings of the Greek and mixed in with scientific methods that were not completely sound to begin with.

So the result is that there are some in the church today who feel that certain translations are untrustworthy (NIV, ESV, NASB, ASV as examples) and that good textual translation can be found in such texts as the KJV or the Geneva Bibles as an example (leaving aside the KJV only crowd, please). The objection raised by such men would indicate that any modern translation has taken into account these "other" texts and these "other" methods and thus corrupt the understanding of the original Greek.

All back to your topic verse, 1 Peter 2:21. The site biblios.com off links to interlinearbible.org for their Interlinear Bible. This interlinear is based on the NASB and the Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek Text edition. Thus they choose "you" (su) instead of "us" (hemon) based off the Greek texts that they were using to support the translation (ie: not a typographical error or a mis-linked Strong's reference -- rather it really is in some texts).

So, whose right? Whose wrong? I'll take a leap and say that this level of study is way above (or at least different) the level that either of us are currently qualified on.

But don't you find it interesting that the Greek line in the Biblos says "hemon"? Hemon is #2257, #2254, us. "Su" is no where to be found in the Greek text for 1 Peter 2:21-25.

I asked a friend who's studying Greek about this "hemon" and "su" issue. Here's the answer given.

"Hemon is the Greek word for us. Su is Greek for you. Why did some translations mistranslate hemon? Probably for good English grammar. They probably decided hopping back and forth between you and us was confusing. So they took the liberty of changing an original word into a different word for easier reading, sacrificing accuracy for ease of reading. This happens more than you might think.

We think translators are translating the Greek word for word, but sometimes they don't like what it says, or how it is said, so they take the liberty of changing it to say what they think it should say. This is called interpreting.

The only way to find out when a translator is translating or interpreting is to check the Greek for yourself, and use a good lexicon like Thayer, Smith, Gingrich, or Strong.

Eisegesis, is reading your ideas into scripture. Paraphrase Bibles are a prime example of eisegesis.

Exegesis is reading scripture to see what comes out of it. Translating should be exegesis, but you see from the issue you explained to me, how you can't trust translators to do that 100%. Even the best translations slip into eisegesis interpretation in some passages. There isn't a perfect translation available. That is why I am studying Greek. There are too many mistranslations for me in even the best translation. "