Felix Bravo’s Weblog

Entries categorized as ‘Hermeneutics’

1 Peter 3:13-22 - Exegesis (2)

April 26, 2008 · No Comments

In the previous article, we have made a suggestion that to be faithful to the text, sarki and pneumati in verse 18 have to be translated “in flesh” and “in spirit,” without articles, since these don’t appear with articles in the Greek text. Machen says, “There is no indefinite article in Greek…[It] has, however, a definite article, and where the Greek article does not appear, the definite article should not be inserted in the translation (Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, 26). The presence of an article before the noun changes the interpretive meaning, and therefore the interpretive translation of a word. Note for example Romans 8:2, where pneumatos, “spirit,” has an article. This is interpreted by translators to mean the third member of the Godhead, and we agree. But note also Romans 8:6, where the phrase “mind of the Spirit” (pneumatos with article) has been translated by them as “spiritually minded.” This simply shows translators do exercise control over their translations. How much more the commentaries?

I believe that both sarki and pneumati are to be classed as instrumental dative of manner. When translated in English, they look like prepositional phrases and in the clauses they function as adverbials modifying verbs. Grammarians call them adverbials because, although they function like adverbs, they are not true adverbs. In 1 Peter 3:18, the verbs these adverbials modify are found within the participles thanatotheis and zoopoietheis.

Having been “put to death in [the] flesh on one hand,” thanatotheis men sarki, Jesus was now “made alive in spirit,” zoopoietheis de pneumati. Both thanathotheis and zoopoietheis are aorist passive participles. Passive because the subject was just acted upon, or that someone other than the subject did the action on him. Aorist because it expresses not a continuing, but a one time action. Thanatotheis and zoopoietheis are two single words picturing to us like some kind of a simple snapshot what Jesus had experienced: He was put to death bodily, and was made alive spiritually. It does not mean that His spirit also died and was made alive again, but that He died in his mortal flesh and was “quickened” or “made alive” in a sphere of existence in which the power of God is displayed without hindrance or human limitation, in a state that death and mortality cannot destroy. To first century audience who understood the meanings of the Koine Greek better than we do, thanatotheis sarki and zoopoietheis pneumati picture to them in more logically convincing terms why Christians should not be afraid to suffer like Jesus. Hart says, “The advantage of suffering for well-doing has been exemplified in the experience of the Christ, who gained thereby the quickening (v. 21) and the later glory (v. 22)” (J. A. Hart, “First Epistle General of Peter,” The Expositors Greek New Testament, 5:67) Jesus’ undeserved suffering, His dying on the cross, which is His means of bringing us to God, now finds an explanation that serves to bring the concept of the blessedness of suffering closer to home.

Read more>>>>

Categories: Hermeneutics

A Second Look at the Doctrine of the Indwelling Spirit - 3

January 29, 2008 · No Comments

Continuing on with our study on the indwelling Spirit, let us consider the figures used to describe the church as God’s habitation in the spirit.

INDWELLING DEFINED. From the word oikos, “house,” we get the verb oikeo, which means “to dwell,” “to inhabit as one’s abode” (Vine, 344). Figuratively, God is said to be “dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto” (Greek phos oikon aprositon, literally “light inhabiting unapproachable”) (1 Timothy 6:16). God dwelling in the light is not the same as you dwelling in your house.

The verb oikeo is also accompanied by its prepositions. Paul says “sin dwells in” him (oikousa en emoi hamartia, “sin dwelling in me,” Romans 7:20); oikeo with preposition en here is used figuratively to mean “to inhabit, to remain, to inhere” (Strong Greek Dictionary, quoted from e-Sword.net).

When Paul says that in his flesh “dwelleth no good,” this is understood to mean the absence of good in his mortal flesh. That also is to be understood figuratively.

By our statement that the church is God’s habitation in spirit, we mean that God spiritually dwells in the church, the prepositional phrase “in spirit” without article being understood to be an adverb of manner.

If we say that the church is God’s habitation through the Spirit, the Spirit becomes the instrument, the agency by which God dwells. It means that God representatively, not personally, dwells in the church.

I am at a loss to explain how something can dwell in a human body literally. If man’s body is matter, and matter possesses that characteristic called “impenetrability,” so anything that penetrates it will surely draw out blood. Now, if you have your sixty-cents worth of opinion, I am willing to listen to it. What do you think?

Abandoning the literal idea of the indwelling will probably solve this bafflement.

Read more……..

Categories: Hermeneutics

How To Establish Scriptural Authority (3)

December 24, 2007 · No Comments

Implication. In our early days in the Bible college, we used to call this “Necessary Inferences.” The use of the qualifying adjective “necessary,” as in “necessary implication” or “necessary inference,” is of course redundant, but on the other hand I guess that is needed in order to guard us from making “unnecessary implications” of anything! By nature, all inferences are necessary, and what is not necessary to conclude from a group of facts is not an implication of it.To say that an act, fact or principle is inferred from a group of facts, data or statements is to say that that act, fact, or principle is demanded or required by the available evidence resulting from our analysis of those evidences. Implication or inference is the result of our sifting and analyzing the evidences by the use of human logic. Implication or inference is not necessarily the Bible’s conclusion, and we have to guard ourselves from being too dogmatic in our conclusions.

For example, based on his conclusions on the teachings of 1 Corinthians 1:17, a minister taught that gospel preaching alone is necessary but baptism is not. But that is not necessarily the implication of Paul’s statement: “For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel.” To say that baptism is no longer necessary contradicts Christ’s statement in Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:18-20. To say so also contradicts Paul’s history because he himself was baptized (Acts 9:18; 22:16), and did baptize some (1 Corinthians 1:14-16).

Let me cite some example how inference or implication works. Matthew 3:16 says that after he was baptized by John, Jesus “went up straightway out of the water.” It never mentions that He went down into the water, but this is basically what we must infer although the text does not say so. To be baptized He had to get into the water. One can’t go up straightway out of the water unless he has got down into it, or has been it…

Expedient Matters. The word “expedient” is found seven times in the King James Version, and three times in the Revised Standard. In the first instance of its use, Caiaphas prophesied that it would be expedient for one man to die that the whole nation may not perish (John 11:50-51). Jesus also says it would be “expedient” for Him to go to heaven, because if He would not, the Holy Spirit would not come (John 16:7). An “expedient” is something that is appropriate for the purpose, or one that serves the purpose. What expedites, what works, what is advantageous, is the idea behind the word “expedient.”

Therefore, by expedient actions we mean that these are actions that expedite the fulfillment or carrying out of any divinely authorized obligation or option. Expedient actions are those that are deemed advantageous in the fulfillment of God’s will in the world. Read more…

Categories: Hermeneutics

How To Establish Scriptural Authority (2)

December 24, 2007 · No Comments

Explicit teachings. There are two ways by which the Bible communicates God’s will to man: explicitly and implicitly. An explicit teaching is a teaching that is directly expressed, or directly stated. Many statements or propositions of the Bible are explicit statements—statements that are directly expressed— and as such they set forth the teachings of God in the clearest and most forthright manner.Mark 16:16 is most forthright in saying that “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” We often wonder why many still fail to understand it. It does not say, “He who believes is saved and shall be baptized.”…
Implicit teachings. An implicit teaching is a teaching that is not stated in a direct manner, but the meaning of the teaching is understood from what is stated directly. An implicit teaching is embodied, is found, is contained, in what is concluded from the direct statements. It is also known as implied teaching. An implicit teaching is derived from the implication of direct statements.
Mark 16:16 again. If he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, anyone who does not do either of these actions shall not be saved; that is implied in the passage. Jesus saves only those who believe and are baptized. Furthermore the passage says, “He who does not believe shall be condemned.” The Baptist comes back and says, “You see? Baptism is not really necessary. Having no faith alone will condemn you.” My answer: It takes two (faith and baptism) to be saved; it takes just one to be condemned. An unbeliever does not need to be baptized; his unbelief alone damns him to hell. Read more….

Categories: Hermeneutics

How To Establish Scriptural Authority (1)

December 20, 2007 · No Comments

When the Lord, through His Bible, demands that a believer take a certain course of action, He also authorizes that man to undertake that action. Not only is the divine command an authorized matter, man’s action to fulfill that command is also an authorized matter.

When an action falls short of fulfilling the divine command, that action is a form of disobedience; it is therefore an unauthorized action. For example. God commanded Saul to destroy all Amalekites, both men and women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass (1 Samuel 15:3). What did Saul do? “But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and of the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly” (1 Samuel 15:9). Saul’s failure to do what God had commanded cost him his crown and his soul.

God’s command is ALWAYS an authorized matter, from eternity to eternity, and man’s fulfillment of that divine command is always an authorized matter also. He had spoken to the patriarchs in old times, in which case what He commanded them was an authorized matter to them (Example: God’s command to Abraham to offer his son, Genesis 22:2). He had spoken to the people of Israel through Moses, their prophet and law-giver, in which case everything God commanded in the old covenant books was an authorized matter to these people (We have many examples of this beginning from the book of Exodus).

In the same way, what He has commanded to us through His Son is an authorized matter for us (from the four Gospels to the book of Revelation). For example, the command of baptism, together with faith, is an authorized matter, for Jesus says, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Based on our Greek studies, to baptize does not mean to sprinkle, or to pour, but to immerse. Thus, to sprinkle infants is wrong on two counts: (1) An infant is not a believer, and has no capacity to express his faith, and (2) he is just sprinkled, not immersed. Read more…

Categories: Hermeneutics