Enhance and deepen your study of God's Word by asking Bible questions and sharing your answers.

1 Peter 4:6

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1 Peter 4:6

    Origen

    Ostensibly, this verse tells us that the good news was preached to the dead, namely those who had died in the Flood (1 Peter 3:19). There are, I know, different views on this, with some accepting that Jesus did preach to the spirits of the dead, and others saying that he preached to fallen angels, but that in either case this was purely vindicatory preaching. To sustain this argument, however, it is necessary to sever the apparent link between 1 Peter 3 at 1 Peter 4:6, as the latter refers to preaching so that the hearers would 'live in the spirit' with God, i.e. it was not vindicatory preaching.

    The problem with this is that the passage from 1 Peter 3:19 to 1 Peter 4:6 reads as one, with strong links both in terms of the language employed ('flesh', 'spirit', 'alive' 'dead') and more directly in terms of the linking words ('therefore'), which causally connect the thought processes.

    My question to you, therefore, was: to whom was this preaching directed and why?


    Robert

  • #2
    Originally posted by Robertus View Post
    Ostensibly, this verse tells us that the good news was preached to the dead, namely those who had died in the Flood (1 Peter 3:19).
    That is not correct for two reasons. First this texts does not say "dead" but "spirits." Thus you have assumed that the spirits are the dead. There is no evidence in that text the spirits are human beings.

    Second, you are completely unaware of the cultural and religious context of the period. The book of 1 Enoch provides the background for 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 14-15. This does not mean that 1 Enoch is Scripture nor is it an endorsement of the book. During the Second Temple period this story was well known and accepted and there is abundant evidence to prove it. And since both Peter and Jude pick up on that story (a story they knew there readers knew and understood) there must be some truth to at least some part of it, the parts they address. These are fallen angels. The parallels are both context and language are undeniable. Any ancient listener\reader mind would instantly go to the story concerning fallen angels.

    The NBC recognizes this fact:
    ...others see the spirits in prison as the fallen angels of Gn. 6:1-8 referred to in 2 Pet. 2:4-10 and Jude 6 as well as in the apocryphal 1 Enoch. Peter’s aim in this context is to demonstrate that God’s purpose is being worked out even in times of suffering. So it would seem best to understand the preaching as a declaration of Christ’s triumph, in order to assert (22) that all angels, authorities and powers [are] in submission to him.
    That brings us to verse 22. The why?

    "who [i.e. Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

    That is another link to the fallen angels.

    Originally posted by Robertus View Post
    To sustain this argument, however, it is necessary to sever the apparent link between 1 Peter 3 at 1 Peter 4:6, as the latter refers to preaching so that the hearers would 'live in the spirit' with God, i.e. it was not vindicatory preaching.
    Again you have assumed what you must first prove and also ignore the counter evidence which points to fall angels. You have not linked the two and below I show why. Also your argument it seems hangs upon the verbs, but the fact it they are not the same verbs.

    Originally posted by Robertus View Post
    The problem with this is that the passage from 1 Peter 3:19 to 1 Peter 4:6 reads as one, with strong links both in terms of the language employed ('flesh', 'spirit', 'alive' 'dead') and more directly in terms of the linking words ('therefore'), which causally connect the thought processes.
    The problem is they don't. You have presented no connect but merely claimed there is.

    1 Peter 3:19 does not use the word "dead." The Greek word is not there.
    1 Peter 3:19 does not use the word "alive." The Greek word is not there.
    1 Peter 3:19 does not use the word "flesh." The Greek word is not there.

    You claim they read as one. Here are the key phrases in Greek.

    ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν (1 Peter 3:19)
    καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη (1 Peter 4:6)

    Where? The verbs are different, the objects of the verbs are different, 3:19 has the word "prison" and 4:6 does not.

    You have linked the words "spirits" and "the dead." That is the whole of your case. From there you are simply interpreting texts to fit that link without regard to the text itselfmeans or to what the word refer.

    I am sure you think I am wrong on this point but lets us examine the first sentence of your post.

    You state: this verse tells us that the good news was preached to the dead, namely those who had died in the Flood (1 Peter 3:19).

    Look how you have manipulated 1 Peter 3:19 by changing it and adding elements not found in it. You have literally read into that verse everything you want to see rather taking the verse for what it actually states. Again, to repeat myself:

    The texts says "spirit" not the "dead."

    The text says nothing about the good news (i.e. the Gospel).

    You claim that Christ is preaching to the dead who died in the flood but the text does not says.

    All the text says is "he proclaimed to the spirits in prison." That is it. As I said above, you are simply interpreting texts to fit that link without regard to the text itself and you have done so, in this case, by adding elements which are not there.
    Last edited by Origen; 05-28-2017, 11:01 AM.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Origen

      So who are the dead who were preached to in 1 Peter 4:6 and why was this done?


      Robert
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Robertus View Post
        So who are the dead who were preached to in 1 Peter 4:6 and why was this done?
        The burden of poof is upon you not me. It is incumbent upon you to prove they refer to the same thing. It is not my burden to prove that Christ did not preach the Gospel to to the dead. If there is no evidence that Jesus did preach the Gospel to the dead, there can be no good justification for believing he did. This is a debate. You presented the affirmative while I have presented the negative. You made some claims and responded to them to them with counter arguments and evidence. Thus I do not have to prove which view is correct to order show your view is wrong. Your view stand or fall on the merits of the argumentation, evidence, and facts.
        Last edited by Origen; 05-30-2017, 06:34 AM.
        Comment>

        • #5
          All

          I've probably taken up more of Origen's time with this than I should, but I would really value your input. I'm genuinely open to persuasion, and I still have a few unanswered questions, namely:


          1. why did Jesus preach to spirits in 1 Peter 3:19 if they had no chance of redemption?

          2. who are the dead who were preached to in 1 Peter 4:6, who undertook this preaching and why?



          Many thanks


          Robert
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Origen View Post
            If there is no evidence that Jesus did preach the Goepel to the dead, there can be no good justification for believing he did.
            You are blatantly ignoring the text of 1 Pet 4:6?

            Your analysis of 1 Pet 3:19 seems to take for granted that 1 Pet 4:6 does not exist! How are you proving Robert's position wrong, when your case is built on many assumptions that collectively ignore the existence of 1 Pet 4:6?

            You do not have an airtight case that 1 Pet 3:19 refers only to fallen angels. If you think you do, then go try taking an LSAT (under normal timed conditions) and get back to me with your score. All that your case shows is that there is reason to believe that 1 Pet 3:19, alone--and ignoring 1 Pet 4:6, refers to fallen angels. You have not shown that it definitely refers to fallen angels, and even if you had, that would not negate the plain reading of 1 Pet 4:6!


            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by andrew32 View Post
              You are blatantly ignoring the text of 1 Pet 4:6?
              As I pointed out to you in the other thread (posts 22), I am not ignoring anything. I was going through each verse methodically one by one. However in post 32 of that same thread Robert suggested that we focus on that passage which is fine. In the OP of this thread Robert linked 1 Peter 4:19 with 3:19. He stated:

              The problem with this is that the passage from 1 Peter 3:19 to 1 Peter 4:6 reads as one, with strong links both in terms of the language employed ('flesh', 'spirit', 'alive' 'dead') and more directly in terms of the linking words ('therefore'), which causally connect the thought processes.
              I showed that is not the case. I did not merely say he was wrong but showed why he was wrong. I pointed out:

              You have presented no connect but merely claimed there is.

              1 Peter 3:19 does not use the word "dead." The Greek word is not there.
              1 Peter 3:19 does not use the word "alive." The Greek word is not there.
              1 Peter 3:19 does not use the word "flesh." The Greek word is not there.

              You claim they read as one. Here are the key phrases in Greek.

              ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν (1 Peter 3:19)
              καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη (1 Peter 4:6)

              Where? The verbs are different, the objects of the verbs are different, 3:19 has the word "prison" and 4:6 does not.

              You have linked the words "spirits" and "the dead." That is the whole of your case. From there you are simply interpreting texts to fit that link without regard to the text itself means or to what the word refer.
              Robert's asks in the OP:

              My question to you, therefore, was: to whom was this preaching directed and why?
              In order to address that I HAVE to address 1 Peter 3:19 FIRST.

              Originally posted by andrew32 View Post
              Your analysis of 1 Pet 3:19 seems to take for granted that 1 Pet 4:6 does not exist!
              First things first. The logical order is to show that 1 Peter 3:19 is not addressing the same thing.

              Originally posted by andrew32 View Post
              How are you proving Robert's position wrong, when your case is built on many assumptions that collectively ignore the existence of 1 Pet 4:6?
              What assumptions? I have made zero assumptions. I have back up my claims with scholarly lexicons, Greek grammar, and Greek\NT scholars. Please show me where you or Robert have offered ANYTHING close to that. Your claims are based upon your faulty understanding of the English text. Robert has offered only one source (i.e. NBC) and I have shown it agree with me. So what is your evidence? Oh thats right, nothing.

              Originally posted by andrew32 View Post
              You do not have an airtight case that 1 Pet 3:19 refers only to fallen angels.
              So you say. All you have given so far is nothing. You do not know the languages, the context, the background. And you certainly cannot offer any scholarly support. If you could you would have.

              For someone who brags about his alleged LSAT score your use of logic is weak at best. My claim would be there are no good reasons to accept universalism (i.e. as a doctrine taught in the Bible) but there are good reasons to reject it. Even if I were to grant that view is at least possible, that by no means it is probable. Therefore my argument "If there is no evidence that Jesus did preach the Gospel to the dead, there can be no good justification for believing he did" is valid.

              Originally posted by andrew32 View Post
              You If you think you do, then go try taking an LSAT (under normal timed conditions) and get back to me with your score.
              LOL That's your argument? That's all you got? Go away little doggy you are all bark and no bite.

              Originally posted by andrew32 View Post
              All that your case shows is that there is reason to believe that 1 Pet 3:19, alone--and ignoring 1 Pet 4:6, refers to fallen angels.
              If that is all you see then you ought to take the LSAT again. Anytime you want to go back and try to refute my evidence, then by all means do so, but we both know you won't.

              Originally posted by andrew32 View Post
              You have not shown that it definitely refers to fallen angels, and even if you had, that would not negate the plain reading of 1 Pet 4:6!
              What an asinine comment. Where have you refuted anything I have said? I have given evidence, where is yours? Point it out. Come on show everyone which post it was. Oh that's right, it is true because you think it is truth. Sorry but that will not do here. If that is all you have, and clearly it is, then you have nothing.

              If you have a problem with my pace (i.e. how quickly get to certain items), or the order in which I address each item, I don't care.
              Last edited by Origen; 05-30-2017, 12:18 PM.
              Comment>

              • #8
                You win. Bravo.

                I don't know how else to respond. God Bless...
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Robertus View Post
                  All

                  I've probably taken up more of Origen's time with this than I should, but I would really value your input. I'm genuinely open to persuasion, and I still have a few unanswered questions, namely:


                  1. why did Jesus preach to spirits in 1 Peter 3:19 if they had no chance of redemption?

                  2. who are the dead who were preached to in 1 Peter 4:6, who undertook this preaching and why?



                  Many thanks


                  Robert
                  Personally, either of these two passages, especially when taken together immediately brought me to Ephesians chapter 2:
                  • And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body[a] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.[b]4 But[c] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.


                  In 1 Peter 3:19 I also draw a parallel to baptism, which is the believer's response to God made possible by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

                  Peter takes the reader to the days of Noah, and now links both strands of thought, seeing the glorification of Jesus not only as the divine sequel to his sacrificial death, but also as the compelling reason for humankind to respond to Him in faith.

                  Taking into consideration Ephesians chapter 2 quoted above, suffering in the body (prison) should be followed because it is an example of Jesus whom unites the believer with his attitude and enables the sufferer to live for the will of God.

                  Again, the body or "flesh" being the prison seemingly is the common lot in 1 Peter 4:6. Man is a slave to sin or imprisoned in the flesh which contrasts sharply the life in the spirit as the distinctive characteristic of God. In 1 Peter 4:6 the question from silence is answered, "if you speak of the return of Christ, and possessing eternal life here and now, why do your people die like the rest of us?" Are we not suffering exactly the same judgement? We say that death is the wages of sin.... . Peter's answer is that those who are now dead have been judged according to men in regard to the body by suffering physical death but, because the Gospel was preached to them (while alive, and they responded to it), they are now living according to God in regard to the Spirit.

                  Again, and again, this brings me back to Ephesians 2 with emphasis on verse 5 where the timing of regeneration occurs (a baptismal link). When we were dead in sin and trespasses God (Spirit) made us alive. By grace we have been saved and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places... . 1 Peter ends in 3:21-22 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."

                  God bless,
                  William
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    William

                    Thank you. That's a thought provoking insight. My main problem with it is the 'even' in 1 Pet 4.6.

                    What I was just going to write before you pipped me to the post was the following, which covers the spiritually 'dead' point towards the end. Please let me know what you think.


                    All

                    It might help if I reproduced the text, so this is below, with some words I’ve underlined and others I've placed in bold for the reasons explained later on.


                    1 Peter 3

                    18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh on the one hand, but on the other was made alive in the spirit; 19in which He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20to those who disobeyed when God waited patiently in the days of Noah’s while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from your flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to Him.


                    1 Peter 4

                    Therefore, since Christ suffered in his flesh, arm yourself also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his flesh is done with sin. 2As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do – living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. 5But they will have to render an account to the One who is ready to judge the living and dead. 6For this is why the gospel was even preached to the dead, so that on the one hand they might be judged like men in the flesh, but on the other might live like God in the spirit.

                    The first thing to note are the obvious thematic links throughout, particularly between 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Peter 4:6, shown in the words that I’ve underlined.

                    Next, there are the causal connections in bold, which link all of the thought processes together. The first ‘therefore’ tells us that the conclusions of 1 Peter 4:1 follow on from what has been said before. The words that follow in 1 Peter 4:1 are also illuminating, as they refer back to Christ’s suffering in the body, which was only mentioned previously in this passage at 1 Peter 3:18.

                    The verses of 1 Peter 4:2 to 4 amplify of the kind of sins, which Christians should have been ‘done with’. And once again, this thought progression flows directly on from 1 Peter 4:1, as evidenced by the words, ‘as a result’.

                    Finally, there is 1 Peter 4:6. There some telling words here. The first is ‘for this is why’. This clearly indicates that this conclusion is linked to and is explaining something earlier in the passage. That must be 1 Peter 3:19, as this is the only reference to anyone talking to someone who was not ‘in the ‘flesh’. It’s also the only candidate in the Bible I know of that could be advanced as a potential example of the gospel being preached to the dead.

                    The word ‘even’ is also revealing here. Peter was clearly saying something that would be unexpected to his listeners. So it could not mean people who were just dead now, but were alive at the time they heard the gospel. There’s nothing unusual about that. By the same token, it could not mean that they were ‘dead’ in the spiritual sense, as the gospel’s targeted at the people who need salvation. We try to avoid ‘preaching to the converted’, after all. So again the word 'even' doesn't appear to make sense.


                    Robert


                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Robertus View Post
                      The word ‘even’ is also revealing here. Peter was clearly saying something that would be unexpected to his listeners. So it could not mean people who were just dead now, but were alive at the time they heard the gospel. There’s nothing unusual about that. By the same token, it could not mean that they were ‘dead’ in the spiritual sense, as the gospel’s targeted at the people who need salvation. We try to avoid ‘preaching to the converted’, after all. So again the word 'even' doesn't appear to make sense.
                      But all men are dead in the spiritual sense until being made alive through regeneration. They are exactly the people that need the gospel message. And this is probably why I kept paralleling or being drawn to Ephesians 2.

                      Quick questions, do you believe men were saved by the "gospel" message before Christ's coming? I am referring to OT saints that had a forward looking faith at His coming since Genesis 3:15? Second question, and this is despite them being physically dead, would you agree that if they had a forward looking faith of Christ's coming while alive that they were saved?

                      Fact is men of old were dead in sin and trespasses the same we are now. Both, in the OLD and NEW testaments men are saved by Grace through Faith. Isn't Peter alluding to the men of old who were saved?

                      Pardon me, but I see no reference in these scriptures of Christ preaching (as in descent) to Hades and resurrecting those embraced in Abraham's bosom if that is what you're alluding to? Needlessly said, I also see nothing that alludes to fallen angels ect.

                      Where do believing disembodied spirits go to be after death since the resurrection (this isn't an eschatological quiz)?

                      God bless,
                      William
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        William

                        I believe that good men of old, Noah included, were saved by their faith, as Hebrews 11 tells us. I believe that the righteous go to heaven after death and the wicked go to hell, as Luke 16 indicates.
                        I'm afraid I didn't quite understand your point about Abraham's Bosom and the resurrection. Please amplify a little.

                        Going back to 1 Peter 4:6, though, the 'this is why' opener clearly means that it's explaining something earlier in the text. I can't see any candidates other than the reference to Christ 'proclaiming' to the spirits pent in prison in 1 Peter 3:19. The other problem with saying that 1 Peter 4:6 means spiritually dead, is that all of the other references to 'dead' in this passage, including the one in the immediately preceding verse, are to people who are literally dead.

                        I think this is why the NIV goes for the view that it means people who are 'dead now'. In doing so, however, it has to insert the word 'now', which is not in the Greek text. It also doesn't explain why Peter would use the word 'even', as if this was something surprising. His readers no doubt knew of people to whom Jesus had preached in person, but who were now dead. Why would that be surprising in any way?


                        God bless


                        Robert
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Robertus View Post
                          William

                          I believe that good men of old, Noah included, were saved by their faith, as Hebrews 11 tells us. I believe that the righteous go to heaven after death and the wicked go to hell, as Luke 16 indicates.
                          I'm afraid I didn't quite understand your point about Abraham's Bosom and the resurrection. Please amplify a little.

                          Going back to 1 Peter 4:6, though, the 'this is why' opener clearly means that it's explaining something earlier in the text. I can't see any candidates other than the reference to Christ 'proclaiming' to the spirits pent in prison in 1 Peter 3:19. The other problem with saying that 1 Peter 4:6 means spiritually dead, is that all of the other references to 'dead' in this passage, including the one in the immediately preceding verse, are to people who are literally dead.

                          I think this is why the NIV goes for the view that it means people who are 'dead now'. In doing so, however, it has to insert the word 'now', which is not in the Greek text. It also doesn't explain why Peter would use the word 'even', as if this was something surprising. His readers no doubt knew of people to whom Jesus had preached in person, but who were now dead. Why would that be surprising in any way?


                          God bless


                          Robert
                          I fall back on post #9, and hold to it. Can't much convey anything more than that.

                          God bless,
                          William
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            William

                            That's fine. I think I understand your interpretation. Jesus's spirit preached via Noah to those who disobeyed God when the ark was being built. The word 'even' in 1 Peter 4:6 is there, because people would not have realised that the gospel had been preached to people that long ago. The reason this happened, however, was so that they could be judged 'like men in the flesh', i..e. men who are living.


                            All

                            Does anyone have any other views, as Luke 16:16 appears to say that the gospel was not preached before the time of John? Origen felt very strongly that 1 Peter 3:19 was about fallen angels, but I wasn't clear why you would 'proclaim' to a being that was beyond redemption, and Origen didn't say who the 'dead' were in 1 Peter 4:6.


                            Robert.
                            Comment>

                            • #15

                              Originally posted by Robertus View Post
                              I've probably taken up more of Origen's time with this than I should, but I would really value your input. I'm genuinely open to persuasion, and I still have a few unanswered questions, namely:

                              1. why did Jesus preach to spirits in 1 Peter 3:19 if they had no chance of redemption?

                              2. who are the dead who were preached to in 1 Peter 4:6, who undertook this preaching and why?
                              I will address question 1 first. The verb used in 3:19 is κηρύσσω and is not the same verb found in 4:6.

                              The verb κηρύσσω simply means to "proclaim, to announce."

                              1. to make an official announcement, announce, make known

                              2. to make public declarations, proclaim aloud (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian, 3rd Edition, p. 543)
                              33.206 κηρύσσω: to announce in a formal or official manner by means of a herald or one who functions as a herald - 'to announce, to proclaim.' (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd Edition, p. 412)
                              That which is "proclaimed" or "announced" can be anything and does not necessarily point to the Gospel. Context is the key. For example:

                              ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν καὶ λέγειν, Μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.
                              Jesus began to proclaim\announce saying Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Mat. 4:17)

                              καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ
                              And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed\announced in all the world (Mat 24:14)

                              ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
                              John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming\announcing a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4)
                              In these cases, and many others examples, context gives us the answer. The content of that which is being proclaimed is qualified. In other words the text tell us. However in the verb is not qualified in 3:19. The text simply says he proclaimed\announced to the spirits in prison but it does not say it was the Gospel. Peter does refer to the message\proclamation of the gospel four times in this letter but he never uses this verb. In fact this is the only time the verb κηρύσσω is used in either 1 or 2 Peter.

                              That brings us to verse 22. The why?

                              "who [i.e. Christ] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."

                              Verse 22 is the climax of the passage. The first half of this verse addressing Christ’s exaltation is easy enough. The second half links Christ’s exaltation to the fact these "angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him." There is no reason why Christ would have to subjugate loyal angels. That does not make sense. Yet this verse says Christ subjugated angels and others to Himself. Clearly this is a reference to disloyal and disobedient angels.

                              What about the other two words "authorities" and "powers"? They too can refer to supernatural beings.

                              The word δύναμις can refer to "an entity or being, whether human or transcendent" (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Ed. p. 263).

                              Cosmic powers are also angelic powers. In Ps 102:21 LXX πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις αὐτοῦ are summoned to offer praise. These heavenly hosts are the angels in Ps 148:2 (cf. Adam and Eve 28; Billerbeck III, 581ff.). Through the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus the δυνάμεις have lost their power (1 Pet 3:22; cf. Eph 1:18ff.). Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 358
                              The NT also speaks of “powers,” apparently with ref. to transcendent beings, alongside angels (ἄγγελος G34), “authorities” (ἐξουσία G2026), etc. [Vol. 1, p. 779] (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; 1 Pet 3:22). New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, p. 779.
                              What about the other word ἐξουσία? Yes, that one too. In the above citation the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis refers to it. So what we have here are three words that refer to supernatural beings, powers.

                              Are there any other verses that support this claim? Yes.

                              "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."

                              There is the word "authorities." Same Greek word found in 1 Peter 3:22. Note these are "cosmic powers, spiritual forces of evil." Another example is Col. 2:15.

                              "He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him."

                              There is the word "authorities" again. Same Greek word found in 1 Peter 3:22.

                              Thus verse 19 is tied to verse 22 by context. There is simply no reason to bring up Christ's subjugation of these supernatural beings unless they can be tied to something in the text and that is clearly verse 19. So what does Christ proclaim to these spirits? Victory! He is the exalted Christ who has subjugated them the spiritual powers of evil. Paul says it himself: He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him (Col. 2:15).

                              Next I will address 1 Peter 4:6 and I will give it the detailed attention that I have given this verse and every other verse I have addressed on this topic.
                              Last edited by Origen; 05-30-2017, 04:36 PM.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap